Case LXXIII: Absolution in Danger of Death

Father Blasius, a newly ordained priest, who, after his first Mass, spent some time in his native parish, and had as yet not received jurisdiction, was requested by the pastor, the only priest in the parish, to take the Viaticum to a certain Augustina who was dangerously ill and who had made her Confession the evening before. As Father Blasius entered the sick room, Augustina said: Father, I wish to confess once more. Father Blasius was perplexed. Augustina, who, the previous day, had been at the point of death, had rallied and it was probable that she would live a few days longer. The articulus mortis, in which in absence of a priest with jurisdiction any priest may absolve, is not present, and Father Blasius does not know what to do. To omit giving her holy Communion would be noticed and would cause comment, nor could he send for the pastor. Father Blasius resolved to act as follows: He consoled Augustina, and took great pains to dispose her for perfect contrition, and then having in his opinion succeeded, he administered the Viaticum to her. Now he asks whether he has done right.

We must say: No. Since Father Blasius did not hear Augustina’s Confession, he could not know whether she did not have grievous sins upon her conscience; again, the Confession made the day before might have been a sacrilegious one. If this were the case then perfect contrition would not suffice. By a rigid law of the Church (Cone. Trid. Sess. XIII., cap. 7 and can. 11) it is prescribed, that the state of grace, as an indispensable condition for the worthy reception of the holy Eucharist, must be gained not merely by perfect contrition, but by sacramental Confession and absolution, with the sole exception of a case of necessity where no confessor is available. This case of necessity did not prevail here, because even if the pastor could not be had, Father Blasius could in periculo mortis absolve. Father Blasius perhaps refers to Gury, who, in his Compendium II., n. 498, in a note says: To the question: What if, in a place where, as is fitting, the custom exists of hearing the confessions of the sick before carrying the Most Holy Sacrament, a sick person who has confessed previously and is now about to be refreshed by Holy Communion asks to confess again—for example because the preceding confessions were invalid—and that confession, since it will be rather long, cannot be heard without injury to the sick person’s reputation? Alasia answers: If the priest who carries the Sacrament is himself approved for confessions, after hearing some graver sin let him absolve the sick person, whom we suppose disposed, give him the Holy Eucharist, and, after returning the Most Holy Sacrament to the church, come back to hear the complete confession.—Likewise, although not approved, a priest may absolve the sick person when the case is urgent because of danger of death.—But if the case is not urgent and that priest lacks approval, while another approved priest is available, let the latter be summoned to hear the confession; otherwise let the unapproved priest himself briefly help the sick person to elicit an act of perfect contrition and give him Holy Communion. According to this Father Blasius would appear to have proceeded correctly. But apart from the fact that we venture to doubt the correctness of the above opinion, we dispute the similarity of the case. In the cited case reference to a Confession quae sine infamia aegroti audiri nequit, while in our case we are unable to discover any danger of defamation if Father Blasius had absolved her. Father Blasius, hence, should not have been satisfied with the contritio of Augustina. Moreover, it is uncertain whether Augustina’s contrition was really a perfect one, and must not the salvation of the dying be cared for in the best possible way? It occurs to us also that Father Blasius appears to make a vast difference between articulus and periculum mortis. He is wrong in doing this (compare S. Lig. Lib. 6. n. 561; Gury II., n. 551; Ballerini-Palmieri V., n. 590, and others). If in periculum mortis one had to await the actual articulus mortis in order, for instance, to be able to absolve a patient from a reserved case, many would die without absolution. The Church bestows, in danger of death, such far-reaching authority ne quis pereat. This must be well remembered. For this reason the periculum mortis and the articulus mortis are considered of equal weight. Even if there was a possibility that Augustina might yet live for a few days, still this could not be expected with certainty. Very often it happens in the case of very sick persons that an apparent improvement immediately precedes death.

What should Father Blasius have done? First of all he should have asked Augustina privately why she desired to confess again, since she had done so only the day before. To such question several answers are possible. We will take three of them into consideration: (1) She might have referred to the fact that every worthy reception of the holy Sacrament of Penance increases sanctifying grace and enhances eternal glory, and, therefore, wished to confess once more. In this case Father Blasius would have had good reason not to hear the Confession, because the Church gives him jurisdiction only in case of necessity, and a case of necessity was not present here. (2) Augustina might have stated, “I forgot a sin yesterday and it makes me uneasy.” In this case, too, Father Blasius could have refused to hear the Confession, because the Confession was not necessary for the worthy reception of the holy Viaticum. He should have informed the patient that she need not fear that the Confession was unworthy ex conscientia erronea. Who in Confession forgets a grievous sin inculpabiliter, and is otherwise disposed and receives absolution, is justified not by contrition alone but by sacramental absolution. He is absolved from the forgotten sin, though only indirectly. To confess the same, especially before receiving holy Communion, in order to be directly absolved therefrom, is de consilio, but not de praecepto. Augustina might have confessed it after receiving holy Viaticum, when the pastor could be sent for.

3. Augustina may say: “The reason why I want to confess again I can only reveal in Confession itself.” In this case Father Blasius should have heard the Confession. It might transpire in the Confession that Augustina had been ashamed to confess her sins to the pastor, that, for this reason, she had concealed grievous sins and made a sacrilegious Confession, or it might be that her Confession had not been made at all because as the pastor, as complex, had no jurisdiction over her praesente in loco alio sacerdote, and perhaps the whole proceeding had been designed as an expedient. In both cases Father Blasius could and should certainly have absolved the well-disposed Augustina, even though the pastor had been in immediate proximity, so that he easily might have been called. Finally, it might be the case that Augustina had committed a grievous sin since her Confession the day before. This case is the most difficult to solve. There is no doubt that Father Blasius could have absolved Augustina if the pastor was some distance away, an hour’s travel, perhaps; but whether he could absolve her if the pastor was near enough to be called is the question. We should have advised Father Blasius to give absolution, for, in the first place, there was really great danger of defamation for Augustina if the pastor had to be called to absolve her. People might suspect a very grievous matter if so much agitation was observed. The approved priest was in this case physically, but not morally, present. This is equivalent to his not being present at all.

Consequently, the simplex sacerdos could here absolve in periculo mortis. And, secondly, we claim the view that a casual priest could absolve a dying person, therefore in periculo mortis, also praesente alio sacerdote approbato qui v. gr. vel commode acciri possit vel etiam in eadem domo habitet, is not without probability. St. Alphonsus, it is true, regards (Lib. VI. n. 562) the opinion that such absolution is not permissible the communissima, and one should not deviate from the same without rationabilis causa, but the opposite opinion is also held and defended by many and prominent authorities. St. Alphonsus himself (l. c.) enumerates expresse sixteen such authors, and their number is therewith not at all exhausted. We will quote here the answer of the renowned theologian, Cardinal Lugo, to Aloysius Turrianus, who had declared the latter opinion to be improbabilis. He answers as follows: Hence it is evident that Luis Turrianus went too far in censuring this opinion by calling it improbable. ... Certainly it cannot be denied that an opinion maintained by so many and such weighty Doctors is probable, especially since it is founded upon the words of the Council of Trent, which cannot readily be explained by its opponents. Viva regards the former opinion not as communissima, but only as communior, and even St. Alphonsus uses a very moderate expression by saying (l. c.): Puto non recedendum a prima sententia. Father Blasius, according to our view, might have acted on the second opinion, since the same is probable and because there was a rationabilis causa to depart from the more exacting opinion. This rationabilis causa we find in the fact that public notice was to be avoided, and also in the fact that Augustina otherwise would have been obliged to confess the same sins once more, although she was disposed to receive absolution and entitled to it. The Congregation of the Sacred Office issued the following decision on July 29, 1891: Those are not to be disturbed who hold that absolution at the point of death by a priest who is not approved is valid, even when an approved priest could easily have been called or been present; nor are those to be disturbed who hold that absolution at the same point of death from reserved sins, whether simply or with a censure, granted by a priest who does not have jurisdiction over reserved cases, is valid, even if a priest having the aforesaid jurisdiction could easily have been called or been present. Prof. Joseph Weiss.