Case LXXVIII: The Last Sacraments Sacrilegiously Received

Case.—Orlandus, grievously sick, was given the last sacraments in the morning by his parish priest. In the course of the same morning he sends for Raymond, another priest, and confesses with tears that in his confession the same morning he had purposely omitted a mortal sin, and hence had received the last sacraments unworthily.

Question.—What obligations arise therefrom:

1. For the sick Orlandus.

2. For the confessor Raymond?

Solution:

1. Orlandus manifestly is guilty of a threefold sacrilege, and has not fulfilled the Divine and ecclesiastical law of confessing his grievous sins in immediate danger of death and of receiving the holy Viaticum, for here, even more than in the case of the Easter Communion, the obligation is not satisfied by an unworthy reception, as is evident from the nature of the matter and also from the 55th of the propositions rejected by Innocent XI. (Denzinger, No. 1205). Hence, Orlandus is obliged, under grievous sin, to confess his sins validly and to receive worthily the holy Viaticum. As regards the Sacrament of Extreme Unction, the dying man is not strictly obliged per se to receive the same, as St. Thomas and St. Alphonsus (L. VI. n. 733 seq.) cum sententia communi teach, although a case when one per accidens is strictly obliged thereto may not infrequently occur.

Even though Orlandus received Extreme Unction unworthily, the sacrament was valid, and only its effects remain suspended owing to lack of the necessary disposition of the recipient. These effects become actual when the disposition previously lacking is produced, either by an imperfect contrition (attritio) combined with actual reception of the Sacrament of Penance, or by a perfect contrition coupled with intention to confess (per contritionem cum voto sacramenti) as is taught by theologians as so well founded an opinion that it may be regarded practically as certain. (Compare St. Alphonsus L. VI. n. 87 seq.) Therefore, in our case Extreme Unction need not be repeated, and would according to the Ritual be even unlawful: since in one and the same illness Extreme Unction must not be repeated unless the illness is of long duration, or unless the patient had meanwhile recovered, and is again in danger of death.

2. About the obligations, which the confessor Raymond has to fulfil, the following points should be noted: (a) Since he is not the parish priest of Orlandus his obligation to help the sick man out of his difficulty is not based upon motives of justice, but there is the obligation of charity. (b) This help consists before all in assisting the patient to make a good confession. This he may do without knowledge or permission of the parish priest, as it is generally taught that in the case of confessions of the sick, any approved priest, also any Order priest approved by the bishop, may in the diocese approbantis episcopi exercise his jurisdiction at all times and everywhere, without requiring the special permission of the sick man’s pastor or of his bishop: but in such cases the pastor should be made aware that the confession has been heard:“at least by a written notice to be left with the sick person himself” (Clement X., July 21, 1670). This notice to the pastor is in our case manifestly to be omitted, in order not to put opprobrium upon the penitent. (c) Regarding a repeated administration of the Viaticum, it is certain that the sacrilegiously received Communion does not, like Extreme Unction, produce its effects of grace subsequently when the lacking disposition has been supplied (S. Alph. L. VI. n. 87 cum sententia communi) and, therefore, it is necessary, unless special difficulties produce a moral impossibility which excuses. This necessity of again receiving the Viaticum is not to be urged upon one who is not aware of this obligation if there is reason to fear that, to the evident danger of his salvation, he would mala fide refuse to comply, as Lehmkuhl and others rightly observe.

If the dying man cannot be expected to live another day, a difficulty would occur in our case, with regard to the Church prohibition concerning the reception of holy Communion twice on one and the same day. But this difficulty disappears if we apply here the evidently correct principle: majus est praeceptum divinum sumendi viaticum, quam prohibitio ecclesiae bis in die communicandi.

A further difficulty lies in the danger for the secret of confession and the good name of Orlandus if on the same or on the following day he should receive the Viaticum for the second time. If to avoid this danger there is no other way, then, according to St. Alphonsus and others, the priest is allowed in such need to take holy Communion to the sick man secretly. Finally, one might find a new difficulty in the Church prohibition of giving the Viaticum without permission of the pastor. This permission, however, can and must in our case be presumed, since the authorities unanimously teach: “because then the will of the bishop or of the Pope is presumed” (S. Alph. L. VI. n. 236). Moreover, the pastor in administering Viaticum had exercised his authority, which does not extend to the repetition of the same, just as in an analogous case one who received Easter Communion unworthily in his parish church is obliged to repeat the same in a worthy manner, but may do so in any other church “quia jam a pastore sufficienter agnoscitur” (Marc n. 1572).