Case XLIV: Confession of a Dying Person

Titia, who is thought to be near death, but nevertheless is quite sanae mentis, although of very weak memory, is not able to remember any sin, while trying to make her Confession to Cajus, her confessor. To all questions put to her by her confessor, in his endeavor to discover materia absolutionis, she answers: "I can not recollect any sin, not even from my past life." But she desires very much to be absolved, and to receive the Holy Viaticum and Extreme Unction. As there would evidently be danger in delay, Cajus accedes toher wishes, and absolves her, afterward giving her Holy Communion and anointing her.

Quaeritur.—Did Cajus do right? Or should he have absolved her on the explicit condition, "Si peccata commisisti?"

Solution.—I. Principles.—Material integrity is not always required for a good Confession. Formal integrity is always required; that is, as complete a Confession of mortal sins as is morally possible for the penitent at the moment of Confession. Very often this formal integrity is the only integrity possible, and therefore the only integrity required for a good and sufficient Confession. The Council of Trent, in the 5th chapter of the 14th session, speaks of the integrity required for a good Confession, and meets the objection of the Reformers that Confession as required by the Church is an impossible thing. Following are the words of the Council: “For it is established that nothing else is required of penitents in the Church than that, after each has examined himself more diligently and explored all the folds and recesses of his conscience, he confess those sins by which he remembers having mortally offended his Lord and God. But the remaining sins which do not occur to one who reflects diligently are understood to be included collectively in the same Confession, for which we faithfully say with the prophet: Cleanse me from my hidden sins.

” The reason of this, of course, lies in the fact that Almighty God does not require anything impossible of us. The Confession is formaliter integra, when the penitent is honestly minded to confess all mortal sins, according to their number and their kind and the circumstances that change their nature, and does his best to make as full a Confession as he can, although for some reason, beyond his control, v. g., oblivio inculpabilis, he does not make a materialiter Integra confession. Only, it is required of him that when the obstacle to a materially complete Confession is removed, he must make his Confession materially complete. Pope Alexander VII, on September 24, 1665, condemned the following proposition: “We are not bound to state in a subsequent Confession sins omitted or forgotten in Confession because of imminent danger of death or for another reason.”

Further it must be remarked that no difficulty intrinsic to Confession, inherent in its very nature, as for instance, the shame or confusion experienced in confessing our sins, is ever a sufficient reason for making a materially incomplete Confession. For since our blessed Lord has ordained that we must confess all mortal sins to his lawfully ordained representatives on earth, therefore he has also ordained that we must take upon ourselves whatever hardships are inseparable from such Confession, which hardships may serve as a penance for sin, and are very wholesome and salutary for the penitent. Thus the shame and confusion that a penitent may feel while confessing his sins, or the hardships that we are known personally to the confessor and that there may be a falling off in his esteem for us, would be no excuse for making an incomplete Confession. For were such reasons sufficient to justify an incomplete Confession, then the faithful would easily persuade themselves that they were justified in making an incomplete Confession, and this divine ordinance would fail, to a large degree, of its purpose, or, as Gury expresses it: “The reason is that Confession is by its nature essentially laborious; and therefore, if a grave difficulty—for example, great repugnance or shame—excused from integrity, the faithful would generally be excused from accusing themselves of mortal sins, and consequently the institution of the Sacrament of Penance would for the most part collapse. Moreover, the Church could not reserve atrocious crimes, because that creates no slight inconvenience for penitents” (II. n. 497). Neither would the great number of penitents excuse one from the material integrity required in the Confession, "concursus magnus poenitentium non excusat," v. g., on a great feast day, or the occasion of a plenary indulgence during a jubilee. Pope Innocent XI, on March 2, 1679, condemned the following proposition: “It is lawful sacramentally to absolve persons who have confessed only partially because of a great concourse of penitents, such as may occur, for example, on the day of some great feast or indulgence.” That confessor would be guilty of sacrilegious conduct, indeed, who, on the occasion of a great crowd of penitents, would dispense them from the obligation of making a materialiter Integra Confession, and would grant absolution after the Confession of one or another mortal sin. Any handbook of moral theology may be consulted on this matter.

II. Application of Principles.—In the case, as stated above, Titia is conscious, in a general way, that she is guilty of sin, and in this conviction she accuses herself, giving evidence of a contrite heart, and praying to be absolved. That she confesses no sin in particular arises from the fact that her memory is weak, and perhaps also from want of sufficient religious instruction, but it has not its reason in any false shame or sinful negligence. For it not seldom happens that many are so uninstructed, and of such poor intellectual parts, that, although they know in a general way that they have sinned, and express true sorrow for their sins, they nevertheless are unable to recall any sin in particular. This class of penitents is not to be confounded with another class, namely, those penitents that imagine they have no sins, because they are blinded by self-conceit. We argue, therefore, that in the present case, Titia has made a formaliter integra Confession, in as far as she gives evidence of true contrition for her sins, and by praying to be absolved makes a Confession of her sins in as far as it is possible for her under the present i circumstances. "Ad impossibile nemo tenetur" must be applied in this case. She does the best she can, considering her condition, and that is all that is required of her.

Tappehorn, in his able work on the Sacrament of Penance, says: "If the particular sin can not be remembered or confessed, it will suffice to indicate its species; if this is impossible, it is sufficient to confess that one has sinned mortally, although one can not remember or confess in what particular way." The confessor, therefore, ought to absolve Titia unconditionally. “Any dying person who in some manner, by voice or sign, confesses or asks for absolution can and ought to be absolved, and indeed absolutely. The reason is that all the requisites for the Sacrament and for a formally complete Confession are present.” (Gury, II, n. 505; St. Lig. n. 408.)

The expressed wish to be absolved contains in itself a Confession that one has sinned. If now the confessor, in imparting absolution, adds the condition, "si peccata commisisti," then he sets at naught the penitent's Confession, and in this he is not justified.