Case VI: Absolving Non-Catholics

The grandfather of a young priest is dying. He was born and brought up a Methodist, and desires to die in the same faith. He has lived a good and conscientious life and has kept the Commandments the best he knew how. He has always manifested considerable affection for his grandson, the young priest, but has never given any sign or indication that he believed in the Catholic Church or desired the ministrations of her priest. He is now close to death, but his sentiments remain the same. He is evidently going to die in the faith of his forebears. His grandson, the young priest, is very much concerned for his grandfather’s salvation. He would like very much to absolve him conditionally and even to anoint him if it were lawful. Would it be right or of any benefit to this dying man, under the circumstances, for his grandson, the priest, to absolve him or to anoint him?

Answer.—The case here submitted for consideration is the case of a baptized non-Catholic man, who is in the full possession of his faculties and who is very near death. If the man were unbaptized (and there are so many unbaptized Protestants in the world to-day) the case would have to be treated in a different way than it is treated here. Also if the man were unconscious, even though validly baptized, the treatment of the case would differ from what is here given. This is the case, therefore, of a validly baptized Protestant, in the full possession of his senses, who is in good faith as regards his religion, and who is very near death. May a priest. absolve him sub conditione, and might he even be anointed?

Theologians do not seem to agree as to whether such a man, under the circumstances, may be absolved and anointed or not. First, as regards the absolution. Fr. Gury says that such a man may be absolved even though, through ignorance, he should entertain a horror for Confession and the Sacrament of Penance, provided only that he would receive the Sacrament of Penance if he knew it to be of divine precept, and that he be sorry for his sins and that he ask God’s pardon. To absolve such a man, Fr. Gury says, was the general practise of priests in Germany and Switzerland in his day (Cas. i, 190).

Fr. Berardi, the Italian theologian, says that whatever might be the case in Germany or Switzerland, such a man ought not to be absolved, if the case happened in Italy. “Whatever may be the case concerning Germany and Switzerland, certainly this discipline does not exist among us, as St. Liguori rightly observes at no. 483; hence we ought not to absolve them” (Praxis conf., p. 639).

Fr. Lehmkuhl thinks that in a case like the one here under consideration the priest should endeavor to get the dying man to make an act of perfect contrition as well as acts of faith and hope; then, if he can be induced to acknowledge himself a sinner before God, and to express sorrow for his sins, he may be absolved conditionally and secretly, provided he desire the priest to help him, in any way he may be able, to save his soul. It is useless, says Fr. Lehmkuhl, to ask the man whether he would be willing to make a confession to a priest, if he knew it were the will of God that he should do so, because it is not a question of what the dying man would do, but of what he does actually desire.

“But if one must deal with a non-Catholic (baptized) who has not lost his senses, and whom, because death is imminent and because of the danger of inducing a grave temptation to which he might perhaps succumb, they cannot prudently admonish openly concerning the true Church: before all else an act of perfect contrition together with the other preliminary acts must be elicited; then, so that conditional absolution may be given secretly, it is preferable to bring him to declare himself a sinner before God and me and, having conceived sorrow for his sins, also to declare that it pleases him that, through my assistance, as far as I am able, he himself should be helped to attain eternal life better. For what is sometimes said—that it should be proposed to him whether, if he knew it to be necessary, he would wish to confess and be absolved—is in itself nothing; for the question is not what he would wish, but what he does wish and actually does” (vol. II, n. 515). Schieler-Heuser takes the same view of this case as Fr. Lehmkuhl, Ballerini, and others. He says: “In such a case it is, of course, more difficult to produce anything out of the past life which can, in any way, be construed as a confession and a desire for absolution, unless we are to be content with the man’s bona fides, “which has been outwardly manifested as probably present or as having been present.” For if to this bona fides sorrow has been added—and it is not certain that it has not been added—it seems that there is implicite, the manifested desire to participate in those remedies which are necessary, and, therefore, in the absolution of the priest. If we have here, with Ballerini, Lehmkuhl, and Aertnys, proceeded to the utmost limits, and if the arguments in favor of this extreme liberality in the administration of absolution are not always cogent, let us not be accused of laxity or of any want of reverence for the holy Sacrament of Penance. Such liberality seems to have been fully intended by Him “who came to seek and to save that which was lost,” and who wishes not the death of the sinner; who opened the gates of paradise even to the thief on the cross, and who has placed the keys of heaven in our hands. We safeguard the sanctity of the holy Sacrament by adding the condition, and the Lord instituted His Sacraments for man; “in extremis autem extrema tentanda sunt.” (“Theory and Practise of the Confessional,” p. 652.)

St. Alphonsus does not justify this practise, as may be seen by consulting his treatise on confession, n. 483, where he says: “For heretics, even if in that case they give signs of repentance, ought not to be absolved unless they expressly ask for absolution, because such persons can never prudently be presumed to offer those signs with a view to confession, from which they shrink exceedingly.” However, when we consider that theologians like Lacroix, Reuter, Noldin, Genicot. D’Annibale, Lehmkuhl, etc., hold and teach that it would be lawful and prudent in the above case for the young priest to absolve his grandfather, we do not see how he can have any scruples about doing so, servatis servandis.

But as regards the administration of Extreme Unction to such a person, it seems to be the general opinion of theologians that it is not lawful, as long as the patient is in the possession of his faculties and conscious, because it is not a necessary means of salvation in that case, and can scarcely be given without serious scandal. To quote again from Lehmkuhl:

“Indeed, for those baptized heretics who may be assumed to be in good faith, the remedy of reconciliation may perhaps be available, to be applied, of course, only if they have lost their senses and if the external circumstances are such that these helps can be employed without danger of a greater evil; although even with regard to this remedy it is quite doubtful whether a sufficient intention is contained in the pious acts of those persons.” (Ext. Unct., n. 568.) If, before dying, the grandfather should remain unconscious for some time, his grandson might, therefore, anoint him, doing so secretly, which he easily could do, being his grandson, in order not to give any scandal. The administration of Extreme Unction to dying non-Catholics will more easily cause scandal than the administration of either Baptism or Penance.