Case LXXXII: Doubtful Jurisdiction

The chaplain of an institution told a story as follows:

One Saturday soon after Easter I was busy preparing my sermon for the following day when I was rung up on the telephone. The connection was fortunately not interrupted and the conversation began in the ordinary way: " I am H., chaplain at L., who are you? " "I belong to the St. Elizabeth Hospital at A. Will you be good enough to come and hear the confession of an Italian woman who is ill and has not made her Easter Communion? There is no priest able to speak Italian in this neighborhood. A train starts for A. at half-past nine."

I wanted to ask one or two questions but I was rung off, and, though I did my best, I could not get the connection renewed. " That 's the way with telephones," I said to myself, " they have their advantages and disadvantages; now what is to be done? "

This might have been a good opportunity for my vanity to assert itself,—I was the only priest who knew Italian in all the neighborhood; the fame of my linguistic talents had spread even as far as A., etc. But happily there was no time for me to think of such things; I had to make haste. The train was to start at half-past nine, and if I intended to catch it, I ought to be off at once.

There were, moreover, other thoughts and considerations that caused me much worry, and they began to torment me even on my way to the station, which was not far from my house.

In my haste I had had no time to think over the matter; my first impression had been that the woman was dangerously ill, with only a few hours to live. That must have been why I was asked to come at once, and why the time of the train was mentioned. I had hardly realized that A. was not in our diocese, but I paid little attention to that fact, as any priest, whether belonging to the diocese or not, has full jurisdiction in the case of persons in articulo or in periculo mortis.

Now, however, the thought presented itself that she was perhaps not dangerously ill, and then what should I do? Why had the person who spoke to me by telephone added that she had not yet made her Easter Communion? If this addition meant anything at all, it seemed likely that I was being summoned in all haste, not because the patient was seriously ill, but because the time for fulfilling the Easter precept was drawing to a close.

At the station I fell in with some other priests who traveled part of the way with me. I joined in their conversation as well as I could, but they remarked more than once that something unusual must have happened, for I was so dull and distracted. I was heartily glad when they got out and left me to my own melancholy reflections.

I said to myself: What in the world am I to do if, on arriving at A., I find the patient not dangerously ill?—I will telegraph to the Bishop at N. and obtain the necessary jurisdiction. (N. B. There is no telephone between A. and N.) —But will he trust a perfect stranger? It is not altogether correct to telegraph for faculties to hear confessions. Will not the Bishop say: " What business is it of good Father H.? Can he not go to A. another day, after he has written to ask for faculties and received them in the ordinary way? "

In order to answer these quite justifiable arguments I should have had to explain all the circumstances, and I could not do that in a telegram. Even if I applied to the Bishop through the parish priest, or some other priest whom he knew, I still could not avoid the difficulties inseparable from the use of a telegram.

I might perhaps serve as interpreter between the penitent and some priest belonging to A. That, however, is an extraordinary proceeding which no one is bound to adopt. Would the sick woman agree to such a suggestion? Then I remembered having read in books on moral theology that a parish priest can give jurisdiction to another priest to hear confessions in his parish. This opinion is probable, probabilitate juris, and therefore is safe in practise. But at once I had to acknowledge that it was no good to me, for a parish priest can only give faculties to hear confessions to another parish priest, and I was only chaplain in an institution!

Possibly, I argued again, the woman has only committed venial sins, and, according to a probable opinion, any priest, even without faculties, can absolve from venial sins. Such an absolution is practically always valid, and, as in my case, there was a reasonable ground for giving it, it would also be permissible, although under other circumstances, according to the strict prohibition of Innocent XI. (Decree Cum ad aures, 12 Feb., 1679), it would not be regarded as such.

I could not console myself with this idea, however, for how was I to know beforehand whether the patient had committed only venial sins? As I could not know that, it was impossible for me to hear her confession at all and oblige her to accuse herself of sins from which I could not absolve her. Moreover, people are apt to regard many sins as mortal, which are really only venial, and so they sin grievously subjectively, when objectively there is only a materia levis. What was I to do, poor chaplain that I was?

I commended the whole affair to Our Lady, and when I reached A. I walked to the hospital, prepared for anything that might happen. I was shown into the parlor and the Sister Superior came at once to see me. I introduced myself as the priest who had been summoned because I spoke Italian, and I asked her whether the patient were dangerously ill, or whether I was wanted only to give her an opportunity of fulfilling the Easter precept. The Superior said that the patient was seriously ill and had to undergo an operation on Monday, therefore she was to make her confesson to-day and receive Holy Communion the next morning, Sunday being the last day for fulfilling the Easter precept.

I was greatly relieved on hearing this answer. Why had I worried so much about nothing at all?

They brought me a stole and took me to the ward where the Italian woman lay. She was very glad to see some one at last who could talk her native language and she made the most of her opportunity. I pointed out to her that it might be harmful for her to talk much just then and that I had only come to hear her confession, etc. After giving her absolution, I left the ward to go and have a chat with old Father X., a chaplain like myself.

In the corridor, however, I met the house surgeon, and, having introduced myself, I asked him whether the Italian woman, who was to be operated upon on Monday, were dangerously ill. I added incidentally that I had not noticed any signs of serious illness or great weakness, and this fact had led me to ask a question that would otherwise have been impertinent.

" Dangerously ill? " said the doctor. " I can hardly say that she is so bad as that." " But she is suffering from appendicitis and is to undergo an operation on Monday."

"Appendicitis? Well, the nurse thinks she has it, but in my opinion she is suffering only from the effects of a chill. If she can be made to perspire freely she will soon be all right. If she is not better to-morrow evening we shall examine her again on Monday; that is what the sister meant by talking about an operation."

" Would not an operation involve real danger? "

" Yes, of course; but will there be any operation? I do not think so. It is possible that the sister is right, but, as I have told you, I do not agree with her."

The good man little knew what perplexity his answers were causing in my mind. The sister had told me that the woman was very ill and on the point of undergoing a serious operation. Therefore I had heard her confession and given her absolution. The doctor was now telling me quite the opposite and did not think that there was much the matter with her. Could I be at ease regarding the absolution that I had given?

On comparing the two conflicting statements, I came to the conclusion that one possessed as much probability as the other.

I had not yet visited our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament, so I asked my way to the chapel, and after making an act of adoration and praying for light, I leant my head on my hand and thought over the case.

According to the writers on moral theology, I argued, articulus mortis and periculum mortis suffice to make it a duty to confess and receive the last Sacraments, and to give faculties to a priest to hear a confession. For periculum mortis it is enough that the danger of death is probable. What is, however, a probabile periculum mortis? It is a circumstance or condition (bellum, operatio chirurgica, morbus), which in many cases, and therefore probably also in this case, results in death. Some writers (cf. Lehmkuhl, cas. consc, II. n. 453, p. 263) even give a wider interpretation to this probability, but it is undoubtedly necessary for the condition—in this case the serious illness—to be recognized with more or less certainty by means of its outward manifestations. How do matters stand when it is merely probable that a probabile periculum mortis exists? Has any priest jurisdiction under these circumstances? This is the case under consideration.

Supposing I had administered Extreme Unction to this woman, would she certainly have received the grace of the Sacrament? No, not certainly, but only probably; and if the next evening the doctor's opinion proves to be correct, it is certain that she would not have received the grace of the Sacrament. Must I not argue in the same way with regard to absolution?

Supposing I were now asked to anoint her, could I do so simply and unconditionally ceteris supponendis suppositis? I should, of course, say that there was absolutely no danger of a proxima mors, and therefore the administration of the Sacrament had better be postponed until some change took place in the patient's state, or, if there were some urgent reason for administering it at once— such as my having to leave A., and the probability that no other priest could attend for some considerable time—I might anoint her conditionally. Ought I not to have also absolved her conditionally? I can only declare with probability hic et nunc that my penitent has received the grace of the Sacrament.

Supposing she had mortal sins on her conscience, and she died after my absolution without its being made valid, she would probably be lost. Who can know with certainty that she has not sinned grievously subjectively, although she has really committed only trifling offences? I was bound to provide against this possibility, even with an inconvenience proportionate to the evil inflicted or likely to arise, as is stated in the paragraph "De supplendis defectibus in confessione commissis." In other words, if I could do so without great difficulty, I was to some extent bound to make it certain that the penitent was in the state of grace.

I proceeded to go through the whole theory regarding jurisdictio dubia, as far as I could remember the teaching of theologians.

1. A titulus coloratus in conjunction with error communis makes absolution certainly valid. Have I a titulus coloratus? No; for in order to have it I should have to be a parish priest, or at least a priest in charge of souls in this diocese.

2. Can I have a titulus existimatus, or is there at least an error communis with regard to me? No; for this would require the majority of the inhabitants of this town to believe that I had jurisdiction to hear confessions, whereas I am a complete stranger.

3. Does not Holy Communion restore to the state of grace a recipient, who communicates bona fide and cum attritione in spite of being in a state of grievous sin? My penitent intends to communicate to-morrow, for the Superior told me that she had not yet fulfilled the Easter precept; she has bona fides, and probably also attritio.

But although with regard to Extreme Unction it is certain that the recipient, having these dispositions, is restored to the state of grace, with regard to Holy Communion it is only probable; and so again I arrived at the same result.

I considered it a duty to see that the absolution was made valid before my departure if I could devise a means of rendering it so. I kept in view the fact that my penitent, having probably made a proper confession, was not bound to confess her sins again before next Monday, when she was to be examined again by the doctors, and the real state of her health would be ascertained. Long before then I should be back at home, and it would not be possible for me to return to A. How could I now at once make sure that she was in the state of grace without any very great difficulty?

Two plans suggested themselves to me. I might induce her to make an act of perfect contrition, and to promise God to love Him above all things, and for love of Him to abhor all sin and avoid it in the future.

Or, as there was no reason to fear a scandal, I might induce her by nodding her head, striking her breast, or giving some outward sign, to make a general confession to the old chaplain of the hospital, who was certainly able to give her absolution.

The second plan appeared to me easier and safer than the first. At the same time I could instruct my penitent and show her plainly how she ought to make her confession to the chaplain, in case she was dangerously ill and no other priest could be obtained, so that he might be able to give her valid absolution. I knew that if the penitent gives no outward sign of self-accusation, absolution is not certainly, but probably, valid.

One more difficulty presented itself. Was it my duty to tell the woman that if she were quite well on the Monday she ought to confess again the sins of which she had accused herself? I found several reasons for at once setting aside this scruple, among others, that it would hardly be possible to make her understand me, and that I could not suggest such a thing to her sine offensione.

On reaching home my first business was naturally to look in my books of moral theology and find out whether I had done right.

I discovered the principles that I had applied enunciated by Noldin (De sacramentis, ed. 8) and Génicot (Theol. mor. instit., ed. 5).

1. No one is bound to confess through an interpreter (Noldin, n. 270).

2. A pastor is probably to be judged universally approved and therefore can be called by a pastor of another diocese to hear confessions (Génicot, II. n. 325; Noldin, n. 341 and 346).

3. The opinion that an unapproved priest can validly absolve from venial sins is probable (Noldin, n. 344).

4. If Extreme Unction is conferred on a sick person who is thought to be in danger of death but in fact is not, the Sacrament is invalid.—In a positive doubt whether the illness is dangerous, Extreme Unction can be given, but conditionally—si capax es—lest the effect of the Sacrament be frustrated (Noldin, n. 458). But the same must be said of absolution given to a sick person without jurisdiction.

5. It is certain that the Church supplies jurisdiction in common error with a colored title ( Noldin, n. 355, 1 ).

6. It is probable that the Church supplies jurisdiction in common error alone, without a colored title (Noldin, n. 355, 3). Now, however, it is certain, since Canon 209 speaks only of common error.

7. One who approaches a Sacrament of the living guilty of grave sin which he in good faith believes to have been removed by perfect contrition or the Sacrament of Penance very probably obtains pardon through the con trition that God will grant by fittingness (Génicot, II. n. 130, IV).

8. There appears no necessity of admonishing the penitent, who was absolved only doubtfully, afterward to disclose the same sins to a confessor furnished with certain jurisdiction, because the obligation of confessing them has probably already been satisfied (Noldin, n. 358).

9. A defect committed concerning the validity of a Sacrament must be repaired with an inconvenience proportionate to the evil inflicted upon the penitent (Noldin, n. 417; Génicot, n. 376, 1).

I subsequently told a professor of moral theology all my difficulties connected with this case and the manner in which I had tried to solve them. He thought that I had done right, and went so far as to praise my knowledge of moral theology, saying that not every one would have possessed as much. I replied that in times of urgent need our memory is roused to unusual activity, and I had studied in my youth under an excellent professor,— he is now dead,—who understood the art of bringing the principles of moral theology before us in so plain and convincing a manner that they were deeply impressed on our minds. Of course since then I have read up my moral theology more than once, and at the present time I refer chiefly to Génicot and Noldin, though I do not neglect Goepfert, Koch and others.

This was the story told by my friend the chaplain. It would be well if all priests could give evidence of possessing as much theological knowledge as he did.

The Code in Canon 874 indirectly denies the right of pastors to delegate jurisdiction for the hearing of the confessions of their parishioners. It may also be noted here that the Code drops the approbation demanded by the Council of Trent and speaks only of jurisdiction for the hearing of confessions.