Case XXX: An Incomplete, Yet Valid Confession; Extreme Unction Not Repeated After its Invalid Reception

The laborer Stephen, hardly thirty years of age and not married, is a consumptive and has spent the last eighteen months in a hospital. In his religion he is indifferent, faultfinding, supercilious, and sceptical. His morality, especially, is in bad shape, as may be gathered from his talk. In the hospital, however, he has been receiving the Sacraments every month, not of his own accord, yet without remonstrance whenever the sister in charge asked him to prepare himself for Confession. The confessor at the hospital, however, enjoys not his full confidence, but another, befriended, priest has it. To ask for the latter, he fears, would cause comment, and hence he omits this until he feels his last hour approaching. Then he has this other priest summoned during the night, as he positively demands to confess to him and to none other. At this last Confession he accuses himself of having concealed in previous Confessions a grave theft; he is just able to tell how large a sum of money he took, and that in more than fifteen Confessions he has not accused himself of it, but does not make an attempt to repeat the invalid Confessions because he is ignorant of this requirement, and under existing conditions this reparation would be too much for his strength. He has previously received Extreme Unction, though, of course, just as sacrilegiously and invalidly as previous absolutions and Communions. The question is how this sick man should have been treated in his last moments.

Answer.—He should have been treated in no other manner than he was treated by the confessor, to whom he gave his confidence.

In view of the suffering and anxiety of his last hour, he was left in good faith that he need only accuse himself of the theft concealed until then; he was not reminded of the obligation to repeat all his invalid Confessions; the confessor, however, recalled to the patient briefly some of his sins which had become known to this priest outside of Confession, and directed that he should include in this Confession all these sins, and also all faults in former Confessions and Communions, every thought, word and act against the sixth commandment, neglect of holy Mass, transgressions of the commandment of fasts and abstinence, etc., and to repent of them sincerely and heartily. The priest then recited for him the act of Contrition in the form of vigorous ejaculatory prayers, and asked him in conclusion if he really meant that which he had just repeated; if he really was sorry for having so often and so grievously offended God. Then he inspired the patient with confidence in the merits of Jesus Christ, and the mercy of God, gave him absolution, and administered holy Communion, but not Extreme Unction. The priest acted upon the principle that a more complete Confession was under such circumstances too difficult, even impossible, and that on account of these circumstances it was advisable not to disturb the penitent in his good faith that he need not confess anything more; that, indeed, it would be injudicious and dangerous to call the patient’s attention to the requirements of repeating the invalid Confessions or even hic et nunc to demand such difficult, indeed impossible, task. Extreme Unction, although unworthily received, the priest holds, cannot be repeated in the same danger of death brought on by disease, that the Extreme Unction received some days ago will now, since the recipient through improved sentiments removed the obex gratiae, and received absolution, yet produce its effects.

The principle applied in the matter of the confession is expressed in the following quotation from De Lugo (De Sacr. Poen. Disp. 16, Sec. 14, n. 594): “As in the examination of conscience, only the deliberation suited to human capability is required, and as this deliberation should not be such as to arouse reluctance or disgust in regard to this holy Sacrament, it is evident that a less intelligible and positive statement may be accepted from a person who, in consequence either of illness, or of the multitude of his sins, or for some other cause (either because of incapacity, or because of illness, or because of the multitude of sins, or for some other cause) would find it too difficult to prepare an exact statement. A person, for instance, who is to confess the sins of a whole life, a life passed in sin, would find it extremely difficult to make an examination as exact as another may easily make at his monthly Confession; indeed, it would be such a hardship to the former as would ‘be likely to render Confession distasteful and obnoxious. This is the reason why we require a less precise and exact statement from public sinners and persons of that kind, than if a person, for instance, had only lived in sin for a month, or even less.

The principle ruling in the matter of Extreme Unction is stated in the following: It is asked whether this Sacrament (Extreme Unction) can be valid yet without effect, so that when the obstacle recedes it confers its effect. I answer affirmatively with the common opinion of the Doctors. The reason is that it is a Sacrament that cannot be repeated, at least for a certain time, namely during the same illness or state of illness, as we noted above in article 3, number 8; and therefore, if it was received without any substantial defect and with only an obstacle, or a lack of the disposition required on the part of the subject, but afterward the obstacle is removed and a sufficient disposition is supplied, it produces its effect, lest the sick person be wholly deprived of its fruit. See Castropalaus, number 14; the Salamancans, question 3; Mezger, treatise 19, disputation 50, article 2, number 4, etc. (Babenstuber, De Extr. Unct. art. 5, n. 5.) But when is there a sufficiens dispositio? “If the sick person receives the Sacrament in mortal sin in good faith or while deprived of his senses, attrition suffices; but if he received it in bad faith (as in our case), contrition or confession is required in order to dispose himself rightly.” (Aertnys, Theol. Moral. II. n. 354.)

BERNARD DEPPE.