appendix — Gury-Ballerini, Compendium of Moral Theology (8th ed., 1884)
Appendix. On the Conditional Form
- I say I. It is certain that absolution imparted under a condition concerning the present or the past is valid in every case, provided that the other things required for the validity of the Sacrament are present; for the condition in no way changes the sense of the sacramental form, which it does not affect in any respect, but affects only the will of the Confessor, who does not intend to absolve unless the condition placed is fulfilled. But when this is fulfilled, the form becomes absolute; and consequently nothing is found which can prejudice its validity. - Thus St. Lig., no. 431, where he says that all agree concerning this. - Billuart, diss. 6, art. 10, sec. 7, where he asserts that it is the most common opinion. - Collet, De integr. conf., sec. 5. - Antoine, ch. 2, etc. Pontas, under the word Absolution, case 5, is to be numbered among the few adversaries, but he is rightly censured by Collet's annotator, ibid. 2.
1 On the title above. Someone will perhaps wonder and ask why the Author, beyond both his own custom and that of others, treats more laboriously this argument which hitherto appeared to require lighter labor. But an obvious response presents itself: namely, where and when some new error begins to arise and creep forward, it certainly must be met at once, and the monster, before it grows up and increases in strength, must be utterly destroyed in its cradle by a thunderbolt-like stroke, as Horace says.
2 The Author here alleges Writers who, according to the testimony of St. Alphonsus, are commonly regarded as more rigorous, namely, to indicate that this doctrine is so certain and manifest that not even the more rigorous thought they should depart from it. Nevertheless, this kind of argument is sometimes fallacious. For it could be shown by many examples that writers regarded as the most rigorous have not rarely declined into laxities which no one among the most benign ever admitted.
- The adversaries generally distinguish between a condition of fact, for example, if thou art alive, and a condition of law, concerning which the Confessor must judge, for example, if thou art disposed. They permit conditional absolution in the former case because the conditions are not subjected to the judgment of the Confessor, but they reject it altogether in the latter. Hence:
They object 1. The form of the Sacrament of Penance must be judicial; but if the form is conditional, it is not judicial, for a judgment by its nature is absolute, so much so that the sentence of a civil judge who should perhaps say, I adjudge this to thee, if it is thine, is regarded as nothing. Therefore, etc.
Reply 1. I deny the minor. For the form of a judgment is by no means destroyed by adding a condition, even if the condition concerns the dispositions of the penitent. And indeed the Priest judges: 1. concerning the sins disclosed; 2. concerning the penance to be imposed; 3. concerning the probable dispositions of the penitent; 4. concerning the expediency of imparting absolution, although conditionally, on account of the greatest good of the penitent. Therefore, the matter of judgment is not lacking. Reply 2. There is no strict comparison between civil judgment and sacramental judgment; indeed, they differ in many respects, as is evident from what was said above, no. 416. But attend especially to this: the sentence of a civil judge always obtains its effect and is given to execution; whereas in the forum of Penance, whether the sentence is rendered absolutely or conditionally, its effect nevertheless always depends upon hidden conditions known to God alone. Wherefore, the sentence of the Confessor is conditional by its nature, even if it is rendered in the most absolute manner, since it remains entirely unknown to him whether the effect will follow.
- They object 2. In controversies concerning the validity of the Sacraments, the safer side must always be followed.
Reply 1. I deny the supposition, namely, that this question is subject to controversy, since the opinion of the adversaries possesses no probability, either intrinsic or extrinsic.
Reply 2. It is false that the safer side must always be followed in favor of the Sacrament; for since the Sacraments are for men, cases are given in which the Sacrament must be exposed to danger of nullity in order to assist men placed in spiritual necessity.
But two hypotheses can be imagined when necessity and a doubtful disposition of the penitent concur at the same time. The first is that absolution is simply to be denied; the second, that absolution is to be conceded in any manner whatsoever. Behold, a dying man of doubtful disposition stands before you. Come now! Declare what you will do. Will you allow this penitent to depart from the living without absolution? Will you thus escape the mark of cruelty? For if perhaps he is sufficiently disposed, although you doubt, do you not condemn one who ought to be saved? But if you absolve this penitent, how, I ask, will you absolve? With an absolute form, you say. Very well; but tell me, if you please, will you thereby render a firmer judgment concerning the dispositions of the penitent? Will you judge certainly disposed one whom you know to be doubtfully disposed? Proceed now, therefore: exclude as much as you wish both an oral and even a mental condition; will your sacramental sentence thereby be more certain? Therefore, whether you will or not, if you then absolve, you necessarily absolve conditionally and not otherwise. Indeed, a sacramental sentence in Penance is of itself and by its nature necessarily conditional, since it supposes in the penitent requisite conditions which can be lacking.
- I say II. It is likewise certain that conditional absolution is sometimes licit; for if it is valid, it must also be licit when necessity presses. - Thus very commonly do Theologians teach. - St. Lig., ibid. - Lacroix, bk. 6, part 1, no. 78. - Elbel, Sporer, the Salmanticenses, etc.
But the doctrine of some who hold that conditional absolution can be imparted for any slight cause and with no necessity pressing, even if the sufficient disposition of a penitent burdened also with mortal sins is doubted in any manner whatsoever, is to be rejected as plainly lax. For no one fails to see how many sacrileges a practice of this kind would induce. For the Confessor would no longer be a prudent dispenser of the Sacraments, but would cast pearls before swine; and by this facility of absolving he would cause penitents to waste away in their sins. - St. Lig., no. 432, etc.
But no more admissible is the doctrine of those who, with Collet and certain others, hold that absolution under condition is not to be imparted except in extreme necessity or in the extreme danger of life; for a doctrine of this kind is exceedingly harmful to penitents who can return to the Confessor only with difficulty and, if dismissed without absolution, incur the danger of eternal damnation.
In what necessity, therefore, absolution under condition can or must be imparted is to be established according to the common doctrine and practice by the following rules.
- First Rule. Absolution can and must be given under condition whenever, if conceded absolutely, it would expose the Sacrament to danger of nullity, and, if denied absolutely, it would expose the penitent to danger of grave spiritual harm.
Second Rule. Even if a necessity of this kind does not press, absolution can nevertheless be given under condition whenever, if conceded absolutely, it would expose the Sacrament to danger of nullity, and, if denied absolutely, it would deprive the penitent of some notable spiritual good, although not a necessary one.
Hence, with the due conditions observed, when necessity presses or a grave and proportionate cause is present, it is lawful to absolve conditionally in the following cases: 1. in doubt whether the penitent is living or dead; 2. in doubt concerning sufficient matter, for example, when the precept of annual confession presses 3, etc.; 3. in doubt concerning jurisdiction on the part of the Confessor; 4. in doubt whether the penitent was duly absolved; 5. in doubt concerning the use of reason in children, the insane, etc.; 6. in doubt whether the penitent is morally present; 7. in doubt whether a dying person deprived of his senses is capable of the Sacrament 4; 8. in doubt concerning the disposition of the penitent, when not only extreme but even simply grave spiritual necessity presses. - St. Lig., no. 432. - See the cases to be resolved below, no. 639 5.
3 Let no one think from these things that the Author wished to teach in this place that even those who bring not only no necessary matter but not even certainly sufficient matter are bound by the precept of annual confession.
4 This case refers to a twofold doubt, namely: 1. whether one who is found deprived of his senses is a Christian or not; 2. whether he is capable of absolution by reason of disposition.
5 ** The VV. object, as though opposed to the doctrine set forth here - namely, that it is lawful to absolve under condition also (no. 3) in doubt concerning jurisdiction on the part of the Confessor, and (no. 8) in doubt concerning the disposition of the penitent - the doctrine of St. Alphonsus, who (bk. 6, no. 432), as regards the first point, writes: But I would not admit this unless the penitent would have to lack absolution for a long time. But as regards the second: But I am unable to acquiesce in this doctrine as thus generally handed down; for I say that a sinner relapsing into mortal faults, who is not proved disposed by extraordinary signs, cannot be absolved under condition..., unless it is prudently feared that the sinner will not return again to confession and will waste away in his sins.
Reply. Gury does not propose these things absolutely, but, as he premises, when necessity presses or a grave and proportionate cause is present. But what the proportionate cause is he explains in the Resolutions (no. 439), to which he refers the reader. Moreover, in these Resolutions the reader will find those prudent limits which the VV. relate from St. Alphonsus as though to correct Gury's doctrine.
- Against the foregoing they object 1. That practice of absolving conditionally, especially those of doubtful disposition, is full of dangers, an encouragement of iniquities, etc.
Reply. I distinguish. That practice is full of dangers, etc., if it is employed indiscriminately, without discretion, and outside a case of necessity or grave utility, I concede; but if the rules handed down are observed, I deny.
They object 2. A penitent doubtfully absolved will proceed to receive the Eucharist and will communicate sacrilegiously; but this cannot be permitted. Therefore.
Reply 1. The Communion will not be sacrilegious, just as the confession is not sacrilegious; for the penitent is supposed to be acting in good faith. At most the Communion will be null, or will produce no fruits.
Reply 2. That Communion will not be useless; for it will easily excite in the communicant various acts and efforts of the virtues, at least some, toward loving God and fleeing evil. Indeed, according to the common opinion, even if the communicant is in the state of mortal sin, nevertheless, if he approaches Communion with attrition and in good faith, he will be restored to the state of grace. Nor will attrition be difficult for him; for approach to the sacred Table and the reception of the Body of Christ are accustomed most easily to arouse pious movements of sorrow and love in those communicating in good faith.
- They object 3. A penitent doubtfully absolved will no longer confess his sin, and if he was not truly disposed, he will die in sin.
Reply. That sin doubtfully absolved can be remitted: 1. through the reception of the Eucharist, as was just said; 2. indirectly with the others in the next confession, even if the penitent never again subjects his sin to the keys. Nor may you say that perhaps he will no longer approach the Sacrament of Penance; for this case, as rare, must be regarded as something per accidens. But the penitent would have been exposed to a much greater danger to salvation if he had been dismissed without absolution in that grave necessity which we always require for imparting such absolution.
They object 4. It is not lawful to use a probable opinion in the administration of the Sacraments, as is established from Proposition 1 condemned by Innocent XI. Therefore, it is not lawful to give an absolution that will be doubtfully valid.
Reply. I distinguish. Where both the validity of the Sacrament and the good of the person are endangered, I concede; otherwise, where necessity or another grave cause presses, I deny. - St. Lig., nos. 28, 57, and bk. 1, no. 59, and others commonly. In the condemned proposition, nothing is at issue except the essential parts of the Sacrament, namely, the validity of the matter and form insofar as they depend upon the minister. - Thus commonly with Goritia, table V, On Conscience. - But here the matter is supplied by the penitent and is consequently independent of the minister. Otherwise, penitents could for the most part not be absolved, since their dispositions are very often established only probably.
- They object 5. The practice of absolving conditionally must at least be restricted to the rarest cases of extreme necessity, namely, where a dying person is already deprived of his senses or where he is now on the point of dying; for it is his own fault, and a most grave fault, if he appears doubtfully disposed. - Thus the anonymous Author of the Letters against the excellent book of Cardinal Gousset entitled Justification of the Doctrine of St. Liguori.
Reply. Several false suppositions are found in the objection. For: 1. It is false that a penitent doubtfully disposed is certainly indisposed, at least per se; for there is a contradiction in the very terms. 2. It is false that the penitent is always at fault because he does not appear certainly disposed; for he can be sufficiently disposed without the Confessor knowing this certainly, since whenever he is not certainly indisposed, he can be truly disposed. 3. Grave reasons can be present for the salvation of the penitent on account of which absolution ought to be given rather than omitted, as was said above. Otherwise, there would sometimes be the greatest imprudence in the Confessor if he deferred absolution to extreme necessity, in which the penitent will scarcely, or perhaps hardly at all, be capable of the Sacrament. - See Gousset, *Lettres a M. le Cure ***,* Letter 8.
- Resolutions. - 1. A penitent in mortal sin is to be absolved under condition whenever it is prudently doubted whether absolution was imparted or duly given, and certainty concerning this cannot easily be had. - Thus commonly do the Theologians teach.
- All the dying concerning whose indisposition or incapacity there is no certainty are to be absolved under condition, as will be said more fully below where the integrity of confession and the minister are treated. - Thus also almost all.
- Likewise, penitents of doubtful disposition who are in grave danger of death, for example, a woman in difficult childbirth, a sailor or anyone else about to undertake a long voyage, a soldier before battle, a sick person before a very laborious surgical operation, and a fortiori a criminal who is to suffer capital punishment, etc. - Thus commonly with St. Lig., no. 432.
- Persons of weak understanding can be absolved under condition when there is doubt concerning their use of reason or sufficient disposition, serious diligence having first been employed to dispose them as far as possible, especially in the following cases: 1. if they are in danger of death; 2. if the precept of annual confession presses; 3. if they have confessed some mortal sin. The reason is that they are exposed to danger of proximate damnation if death presses, or because of the danger of remaining for a long time in mortal sin. On the other hand, there is no way or hope that, if absolution is delayed, they will shortly return disposed and be absolved more securely, as can perhaps be hoped concerning others. Indeed, they will be able to be absolved conditionally several times in the year, even if they bring only light sins, lest they be deprived so long of sacramental grace, or remain in mortal sin, if perhaps they are in it. - Thus St. Lig., no. 432. - Lacroix, no. 1797, and many others against others.
- Those betrothed who are doubtfully disposed and are shortly to contract marriage can also probably be absolved under condition; because otherwise they will certainly profane that Sacrament, and, dejected in spirit because absolution was denied, they will not return to confess and will waste away in sins.
- Pious penitents also can probably be absolved conditionally at times, when it is doubtful whether they submit sufficient matter to the keys. But it is much better that they furnish certain matter from their past life, and thus not be deprived of the grace of the Sacrament, according to what was said above, no. 424. - St. Lig., no. 442.