Absolving the dying and the unconscious

292. In absolving the dying, of itself the same rules must be observed which are established concerning the absolution of others; wherefore it is not licit to absolve a dying person who with moral certitude is judged indisposed, as if he refuses to fulfill a grave obligation, because it is not licit knowingly to frustrate a sacrament. Yet since in absolving the dying a threefold difficulty especially is usually encountered, on account of defect of entire confession, on account of defect of disposition, and on account of defect of sensible accusation, these matters must be treated in particular.

1. The dying are excused from the precept of integrity on account of either physical or moral impotence: for no one is bound to the impossible.

Hence a. if the dying man, after one or another sin has been said, fails or is deprived of the senses, he is meanwhile to be absolved. b. Likewise, if the sick person cannot institute a longer confession without grave detriment to health or without great difficulty, after the sins which he can accuse without too great difficulty have been heard, he is to be absolved. c. If the sick person on account of weakness of the head cannot institute a more accurate examination of conscience, after those things which he can declare without examination have been heard, he is to be absolved. d. Indeed, if only in general, either by words or by other signs, he can declare that he has sinned, he is to be absolved, and indeed absolutely, unless for another reason a condition must be added; nevertheless, in all these cases the omitted things must afterward be supplied, if this can be done.

293. 2. As regards disposition, this is always supposed in the dying deprived of the senses unless it is certain that it is lacking. Therefore under condition are absolved: a. not only those who lived as Christians, even if before they were deprived of the senses they gave no sign of penance; but b. also those who lived not very Christianly; indeed c. even those who in the very act of sin, e.g., in a duel, in theft, from suicide, etc., were deprived of the senses. For it can happen that they have lucid intervals, in which they know their state and the danger of eternal damnation, and, after an act of sorrow has been elicited, desire to be reconciled with God through absolution. If, therefore, they can morally be sufficiently disposed, in this extreme necessity it is licit to absolve them.

Therefore those cannot be absolved at death in whom an act of penance can be supposed by no reasonable foundation; or, as the Roman Ritual has it, the "impenitent and those who die in manifest mortal sin" are not to be absolved.¹ Of this kind are, first, those who up to that time at which they were deprived of the senses expressly rejected the minister of the Church and its sacraments; then also those who lived so impiously that they knowingly persevered in sin and impenitence up to the extreme moments of life, although they did not reject the sacraments of the Church which had not been offered to them. For with no probability, not even a slight one, can these be presumed disposed, unless God converts them to himself by an extraordinary miracle of grace; but extraordinary miracles of grace are neither to be presumed nor can they be the norm in administering the sacraments.

¹ Roman Ritual, tit. 5, c. 1, n. 8.

294. 3. Finally, as regards sensible accusation, it is licit to absolve not only the dying who manifest before the confessor by words or other signs the desire of confessing, but also dying persons deprived of the senses who signified the desire of confessing through others, for example by asking for a confessor, who testify this to the confessor; indeed also those who manifested the desire of confessing outwardly by no sign: for this is held by the common practice received today in the Church.

a. Absolution is to be given absolutely if the dying person, whether by himself or by another, manifested the desire of confession; and it is to be given conditionally if he gave no sign of confession and sorrow.¹ Moreover, since according to a probable opinion it suffices that the condition be added virtually and implicitly, and anyone who administers the sacraments according to the mind of the Church adds it thus,² it is not necessary that the confessor be very anxious about conditional absolution.

b. The greatest difficulty of this matter is in explaining the validity of absolution which is given to a dying man who shows no external sign of sorrow and confession: for if the acts of the penitent outwardly manifested are said to be either an essential part of the sacrament or a necessary condition of valid absolution, it does not appear by what reason a dying man of this kind can be validly absolved.

For this reason the older authors commonly declare this absolution invalid and illicit.³ Nevertheless, in the course of time the number of authors who called this absolution licit so increased that Lacroix could call their opinion common,⁴ and St. Alphonsus could call the same the more common.⁵

The authors try to explain that such absolution is valid in a twofold way. Some say that it can be piously and not imprudently presumed that the dying man manifests outwardly, by sighs, anxious respirations, and other movements of the body, the desire of confessing inwardly conceived, since he cannot do it otherwise. But others say that a man who lived piously, indeed also one who, even if he did not live piously at all, nevertheless did not depart from the Church, by the very fact that he lived piously, or at least remained in the Church, manifested the desire that he wished at death to be reconciled with God through the sacrament of penance.

But each explanation is pressed by great difficulties. The first, indeed, because it does not appear by what right physical movements, which of themselves signify only distress of the body, can be held as signs of sorrow and confession. But the other, because it cannot be applied at least to those dying persons who are deprived of the senses in the act of sin: for "it would be ridiculous," says de Lugo, "that today someone would wish to accuse himself of a sin to be committed tomorrow, so that tomorrow he may be absolved from it by force of this accusation."⁶ Wherefore some recent authors, with Ballerini leading, think that no external sign of sorrow and confession is required so that a dying person deprived of the senses can be validly and licitly absolved. For the acts of the penitent have only the ratio of necessary disposition; therefore a dying person deprived of the senses can be validly and licitly absolved, who by a certain slight probability can be presumed to have elicited an act of attrition concerning his sins either before or after he was deprived of the senses (n. 233).⁷

Note 1. From physiological experiments it seems to be established that real death, i.e., the very separation of soul and body, does not occur at the same time at which the vital functions of respiration and circulation cease, but that life after the last expiration still continues latently for some time. How long life still endures latently after apparent death depends both on the quality of the disease and on the constitution of the dying person. In sudden death life can be prolonged beyond a day (some think through three days), in ordinary death beyond a half hour (others think through a day). From these things it is gathered that to a man who by common estimation is already judged dead, if he died from a long illness, within a half hour, but if he died from sudden disease or a sudden accident, within two, indeed several, hours, the necessary sacraments ought to be administered under condition; but the non-necessary sacraments can be administered under condition, because he probably is at least still living.⁸ And indeed extreme unction is administered in the briefest way, i.e., with one form and one anointing on the forehead, because there is the greatest danger in delay. Nor is it necessary that in this case, besides the prayers placed in the Ritual, anything afterward be supplied, since there is no further doubt concerning the sacramental validity conferred in this way.

Note 2. As regards the manner of acting with dying persons of this kind, it helps to note these things. Because it is established by experience that the dying apparently deprived of the senses sometimes have the use of reason and hearing, before the sacraments themselves are administered they are to be warned about the sacraments which are administered to them, and acts of contrition and also of the theological virtues are to be recited very briefly at their ear.

¹ Roman Ritual, tit. 3, c. 1, n. 24.

² Cf. Gury, Theol. mor. II, n. 206.

³ Laymann, l. 5, tr. 6, c. 8, n. 4; Suarez, disp. 23, sect. 1, n. 13; Coninck, disp. 7, dub. 10, n. 96; Lugo, disp. 17, sect. 3.

⁴ Lacroix, l. 6, pr. 2, n. 1162.

⁵ St. Alphonsus, n. 482.

⁶ L.c., n. 39.

⁷ Cf. Ballerini-Palmieri V, n. 240 ff.

⁸ Cf. Villada, Casus conscientiae, pr. 3, p. 235 ff.; Ferreres, La morte reale e la morte apparente (Rome: Typograph. Salesiana, 1905); Antonelli, Medicina pastoralis 3 (Rome: Pustet, 1909), II, n. 979 ff.; Ferreres-Geniesse, Der wirkliche Tod und der Scheintod (Coblenz: Central-Auskunftsstelle, 1908).

295. Whether absolution can be granted to heretics in the article of death, whether they are in possession of their senses or deprived of them. Authors have diverse opinions in this question. St. Alphonsus with very many others denies that absolution can be granted to them (n. 483), unless they expressly ask for it, because they manifest no desire of absolution; rather they must be judged to abhor it. Nevertheless there are several authors (such as Gobat, Lacroix, Reuter, Elbel, etc.) who judge that absolution can be granted to them, because in those who are in possession of their senses an implicit desire of absolution can be stirred up by suitable warnings; but in those who are deprived of the senses that implicit desire is supposed with at least slight probability.

a. A dying non-Catholic still in possession of his senses, who on account of peculiar circumstances cannot be warned about conversion to the Catholic Church, after the things to be premised have been premised, can licitly be absolved secretly under condition, provided he is prudently judged to be a material heretic who lives outside the Catholic Church in good faith.

Before absolution, let the confessor take care to elicit with the dying man acts of faith, hope, charity, and perfect contrition; of faith indeed explicit in the absolutely necessary articles, but implicit in the others; that he declare himself a sinner before God and the priest; and finally that he show that he desires to be helped by the priest, as far as this one can, in attaining eternal life, or at least that he wishes to perform all things which by the precept of Christ are necessary for salvation. For the absolution which is given to a heretic of this kind can be invalid either from defect of intention or from defect of sorrowful confession; now, both implicit intention and sorrowful confession made in general are contained in those acts.

b. A dying non-Catholic deprived of the senses, after the acts mentioned above have been premised at his ear, can secretly be absolved under condition if by at least slight probability he can be held disposed. But whether in a heretic, even a material one only, the desire of absolution can or cannot be supposed with slight probability, others judge otherwise. St. Alphonsus indeed denies it.

c. But outside the article of death it is not licit to absolve a heretic (or schismatic), even if only material and existing in good faith, if he intends to persist in heresy, because this could not be done without scandal to others: for heretics would be confirmed in error and Catholics would conceive horror of the matter.¹

d. If in a dying heretic there exists a doubt concerning the validity of baptism, or only a light doubt, he himself, after the necessary acts have first been premised, must secretly be baptized under condition.

¹ Holy Office, 20 July 1898. Cn. 731, 2.

A dying person, who through weakness or other causes is unable to make a full confession, may be absolved absolutely if he mentions what sins he can, or even if he asks for the absolution of his sins, for such a confession is formally integral.

The Ritual prescribes that a dying person who has lost the use of his senses is to be absolved even if he previously only expressed a desire himself or through others to receive absolution. In this case, also, it would seem that the absolution should be absolute.

Dying persons who have lost the use of their senses may be absolved conditionally even if they give no certain signs of a desire to confess or of sorrow for their sins. It may be that in such a state the dying person has the requisite dispositions, and is trying his best to give expression to them, and so the movements of the body or his laboured breathing may be indications of a wish to receive absolution. At any rate, in such a case of necessity we may use even a slenderly probable opinion, and it is now the common practice to absolve conditionally in such cases.

I. A dying person can be absolved who gives a sign of confession to the priest present, for example by a nod of the head, pressure of the hands, the eyes, etc. For all things required for validity, namely intention, manifested contrition, and confession, are present, or at least by law are presumed to be present.¹

II. Likewise a dying person deprived of the senses can be absolved who showed a desire of confession before the priest approached.²

It is disputed whether in this case the dying person is to be absolved absolutely or under condition. Several think that he is to be absolved absolutely, because the Roman Ritual, in the cited place, seems to equate this case with the prior case and makes no mention of a condition. Others teach that absolution must be given under condition, because the accusation required for the validity of the sacrament is not certainly present, and consequently one can also doubt about the disposition (St. Alphonsus, VI, 481).

III. A dying person deprived of the senses, who neither gives a manifest sign of confession to the priest present, nor showed a desire of confession before the arrival of the priest, can be absolved under condition, whenever it is somewhat probable that the things required for validity are present. For in extremities, extreme things are to be tried. Now commonly the intention of receiving the sacrament is not certainly lacking, and perhaps some sign of confession and sorrow is exhibited by the dying person, for example a sigh, although the priest does not notice it. Added to this is that the doctrine is not certainly false which teaches that internal contrition alone, or internal attrition alone, is the necessary condition for the validity of the sacrament. Hence the following can be absolved: 1. a Catholic, whether he lived in a Christian manner or did not live in a Christian manner; 2. a Catholic who is deprived of the senses in the very act of sin, for example drunkenness or suicide; 3. an apostate who before his defection did not reject the priest, because, placed in extreme danger, he perhaps came to his senses; 4. one concerning whom it is doubted whether or not he is Catholic (St. Alphonsus, VI, 482, 483).

Observe that hearing commonly persists longer than the other senses; hence let the priest address the dying person in a loud voice, and suggest to him a general accusation and an act of contrition.

¹ Council of Orange I, chapter 12 (in Labbe, vol. 4, col. 703 sq.); Council of Carthage IV, chapter 76 (in Labbe, cited place, col. 1443; cf. canon Is qui 8, cause 26, question 6); St. Leo the Pope, Epistle 108 (otherwise 83) to Theodore, chapter 5 (in Migne, Patrologia Latina, vol. 54, col. 1013 sq.); Roman Ritual, title III, chapter 1, n. 25.

² Council of Orange I, chapter 12 (in Labbe, vol. 4, col. 703 sq.); Council of Carthage IV, chapter 76 (in Labbe, cited place, col. 1443; cf. canon Is qui 8, cause 26, question 6); St. Leo the Pope, Epistle 108 (otherwise 83) to Theodore, chapter 5 (in Migne, Patrologia Latina, vol. 54, col. 1013 sq.); Roman Ritual, title III, chapter 1, n. 25.

Question 1. Whether one can be absolved who, before he was deprived of the senses, rejected the priest.

Response. Having regard to the reverence due to the sacrament, it is better, as it seems, not to absolve him, unless the privation of the senses lasts rather long, or the dying person gives a sign which with some probability can be held as a declaration of a changed will.

Question 2. How often a dying person can be absolved.

Response 1. "While the sick person is still vigorous in his senses, it will help for absolution to be conferred on him several times after a brief reconciliation.

Response 2. "If the sick person now lacks the senses, it is not expedient that absolution be imparted to him more often within the same day. But in this matter the priest ought to direct himself by the conscience which they know of the sick person; for if he was habituated in evil thoughts, if he is dying from some wound, or is ensnared by some passion of hatred or impure love; if the illness is exceedingly bitter and he does not suffer with a willing spirit, then absolution can be given more often; but otherwise it suffices that a space of three or four hours intervene; more frequently, however, if he is already now about to die" (St. Alphonsus, Praxis Confessarii, n. 276).

Note. "It will not be beside the point to warn the sick person, while he is in possession of his mind, that, if he cannot speak, he should give some determinate sign while he seeks absolution, or while the priest wishes to confer it on him: for example, let him close or open his eyes, raise his hand, incline his head, and the like" (St. Alphonsus, Praxis Confessarii, n. 276).

IV. The apparently dead.¹ The instant of death, or of the separation of the soul from the body, can be determined by no one. As regards signs that death has followed, not even cadaveric rigidity, but only advanced putrefaction, is held as a certain sign of death. There have been and there are physicians who think that not only in a case of asphyxia, but also in other cases, life persists latently for some time after the ordinary signs of life have ceased; and this both in sudden cases and when disease has had its ordinary outcome.² As regards sudden cases, it is reported that several apparently dead persons have returned to the activity of life. As regards ordinary disease, they rely especially on experiments in higher animals. Therefore, having regard to those things which are asserted by some physicians, and which are not to be held as certainly false, it seems one must speak as follows:

1. In a case in which someone has died, apparently, whether from a sudden accident or from a disease which lasted for a brief time, it is strongly to be advised that the necessary sacraments - more safely first Extreme Unction, then Absolution - be administered under condition, and this even two or more hours after someone seems to have died.

2. In a case in which someone seems to have died in the ordinary way, they say that latent life commonly persists for a shorter time, say for a quarter hour or a half hour; hence during that time it is licit to administer the necessary sacraments.

3. Where there is suspicion that a case of asphyxia is present, a still longer time is admitted for administering the sacraments. Such a case can occur after uremia, epilepsy, and other diseases, concerning which Antonelli³ and Capellmann-Bergmann⁴ speak.

¹ Cf. Ferreres-Geniesse, La mort réelle et la mort apparente, et leurs rapports avec l'administration des Sacrements; Revue de Lille, 1905-1906, p. 442 sq., 481 sq.; Nouv. Rev. Théol., 1906, p. 606 sq.; 1907, p. 497 sq.

² Cf. Lacroix, De Poenitentia, VI, n. 1104.

³ Antonelli, Medicina pastoralis, II, n. 612 sq.

⁴ Capellmann-Bergmann, Pastoral-Medizin, p. 358 sq.

5. Conditional absolution. 1.º Claudinus, a confessor, absolves those doubtfully disposed under condition in the following Cases: 1.º the sick gravely endangered as to life, especially the dying, although much more probably indisposed; 2.º soldiers about to go into the army or battle, and sailors and others about to undertake a sea voyage; 3.º habitual betrothed persons now about to be joined in marriage; 4.º strangers, men who scarcely or hardly at all will be able to return to his tribunal, and are immediately about to depart; 5.º penitents who certainly or probably are foreseen not to return, although they can return; indeed also young men who threaten that they will not return unless they are absolved; 6.º boys of seven years, and even of ten years, and half-witted persons, who probably sinned gravely, and furnish only doubtful signs of reason and disposition; 7.º from a bridge he absolves sailors and the others contained in a ship who, by an unexpected shipwreck, were being submerged in the waters of a river; 8.º a soldier who, pierced in a duel, was lying dying and destitute of senses; 9.º a heretic in a hospital, dying, destitute of senses, and struggling with death.

It is asked: What is to be said to the Case?

R. Claudinus acted rightly in the first four Cases, because on the one hand there is no positive evidence of the indisposition of the penitents, and on the other hand, since they are found in danger of salvation and in a case of necessity, he provides for their spiritual good in the best way he can. But he acted badly by absolving the men or young men in the fifth Case from the fact that they threatened that they would not return, although they could easily return. For this seems an undoubted sign of indisposition. But as to those who, threats being excluded, were in reality foreseen not to return if they had been dismissed without absolution, the solution depends on the various circumstances of particular cases. In the sixth Case, he ought first to have disposed them insofar as could be done; but, the doubt persevering, he could absolve the same persons under condition, especially with the precept of annual confession urging. G. 395, 396.

In the seventh Case he could and ought out of charity to absolve those miserable shipwrecked persons under condition. The reason is that those dying persons were morally present, and they could be supposed to wish to confess and to give signs of sorrow, in the Case in which they were seen by the priest. At least among all, one or another could have been truly disposed, and could furnish all the conditions required so that the sacrament of penance, in so great an extremity, could be valid and applied. But the priest ought to have called out to them in a loud voice, and in one word exhorted them to contrition, and suggested it to them. Moreover he ought to have used the form in the plural number: I absolve you from your sins, etc. Elbel 37. But what if the priest immediately after the shipwreck had no longer seen any of those submerged? Nevertheless he could still have imparted conditional absolution to them, provided he prudently judged them still morally present, because in that Case there could still appear hope of validity and of fruit to be received from it. But otherwise it must be said if, because of the force of the river, they had slipped away so far that they could no longer perceive the priest calling out to them. G. 391.

In the eighth Case Claudinus seems praiseworthy, since, insofar as he could, he helped the miserable sinner. For it absolutely could have happened that he was disposed and wished in some way to confess. But he ought first to have called out to him, so that he might exhort him, if perhaps he was heard by him, to contrition disposedly, and also to confessing in whatever way. G. 486. Cf. Commentary on the Absolution and Assistance of the Dying.

In the ninth Case Claudinus also seems praiseworthy. The reason is that, if the contrary is not positively established, it can be presumed that here and now he wishes to die in the Catholic Religion, and consequently to confess and to be absolved. For this can absolutely happen. Certainly at least one such person among a hundred thousand can be found. But in a case of necessity it is licit to use even a slightly probable opinion in favor of a man in danger. It is surely certain that there are merely material heretics, and those who do not have hatred of confession. But it was not established in the Case that the aforesaid dying man was a formal heretic, and some hope could be had, although most slight, of the value of the absolution to be conferred. - La-Croix 1866; Elbel 212, 214; Reuter, Neo-confessar. 203; G. 488-491; Gennari, Consultaz. Mor. Can. Lit., p. 1, Cons. 58; M. E. vol. 6, p. 2, p. 107 seqq.; I. M. 751-754.

1. "Lucianus, the parish priest, with the people assembled to hear Mass on a feast day, prepares himself to celebrate. But, when he was already clothed in the sacred vestments, he is informed that Titius, a parishioner dwelling in a village about one hour distant, is near death. What will he do, pressed by these straits? He hesitates in uncertainty, not knowing what counsel is to be taken; for the people have not heard Mass, nor is there time remaining to wait until the parish priest returns, so that he may celebrate it, for midday is already nearer. But soon, he says to himself, I know what I shall do. Excellent thought! Colombinus, a priest of this place, who celebrates as chaplain in the neighboring parish, has already returned. Behold, I shall send him at once to the dying man; but I, remaining here, shall celebrate. He indeed is not approved for confessions; but in danger of death no approval is required. Colombinus, having been asked, agrees, and goes as quickly as possible. Soon he arrives at the house of the dying man; he already begins to ascend the stairs, when the groans, cries, and wailings of women are carried to his ears, among which a sorrowful voice is heard: Now the poor man is breathing forth his spirit! Then the priest cries out in a loud voice: I absolve thee from thy sins, and immediately, hastening to the room of the one lying ill, he sees him already dead.

It is asked: 1.º Whether the parish priest, another priest being lacking who might go to the dying man, could have omitted Mass, or even ought to have done so? - 2.º Whether the parish priest acted well by sending a priest not approved to the sick man? - 3.º Whether the absolution was valid, which Columbinus imparted in these circumstances of affairs? - 4.º Whether the chaplain could even have celebrated Mass in the place of the parish priest, so that the latter might go to the dying man?

R. To the 1st. Affirmatively. Lucianus could and ought to have omitted Mass. The reason is that in a conflict of two precepts which cannot be fulfilled at the same time, the greater precept must be fulfilled. But the greater precept is that he succor the soul of the dying man; for the urgent precept of charity in these circumstances by natural law is greater than the ecclesiastical precept of hearing Mass. Therefore Lucianus could and ought to have omitted Mass.

To the 2nd. The Case is not without grave difficulty, and grave reasons for each opinion, namely affirmative and negative, can be adduced. For probably Lucianus could not send Columbinus to the sick man. The reason is that Columbinus could not absolve the dying man as delegated by the parish priest, as is clear; but neither from the general approval of the Church for the case of death, because there is not lacking an approved priest, namely the parish priest, who is not absolutely impeded. Yet the opposite opinion does not seem to lack a solid foundation. For a most grave reason urges that the parish priest send the chaplain to the dying man; for he can be said to be morally impeded, since he then ought to celebrate, so that a great people may hear Mass. Nor does this seem alien to the intention of the Church. Therefore, the opposing reasons adduced on both sides, resting upon a grave motive, we are in a Case of doubtful jurisdiction. But it is lawful to use doubtful jurisdiction when a grave cause urges, as it is grave in our Case. Therefore the good parish priest is not to be condemned, who in such great straits of affairs sent the chaplain to the dying man.

To the 3rd. Affirmatively. For 1.º it was valid on the part of the minister, because then he was the only priest present, and therefore he certainly enjoyed jurisdiction. 2.º It was valid by reason of the presence of the priest, which was truly moral. 3.º It was valid on the part of the form: I absolve thee from thy sins. 4.º It was valid also probably on the part of the dying man well disposed, inasmuch as he had called for a priest, and, if he heard him approaching, could have given a sign of penance; but this absolution ought to have been imparted conditionally.

To the 4th. Negatively of itself. The reason is that the chaplain is no longer fasting. Moreover, it is not of itself a sufficient reason for celebrating Mass without observing the fast, that the people may hear it. Yet that would be lawful if otherwise scandal, grave tumult, and offense of the people, etc., were to be feared." Thus Fr. Gury 559-562.

In the Response to the 2nd it must first be noted that, the probability of each opinion standing, with regard to the question whether a simple priest can validly absolve when an approved confessor is present, there is no longer properly a question of a case of doubtful jurisdiction, but of probable jurisdiction. Then that grave difficulty which Fr. Gury affirms seems now no longer to be present after the Response of the Holy Office, July 29, 1891, which is of the following tenor: "1.º Whether the absolution is valid which any priest, even one not approved, has imparted at the article of death, when an approved priest could easily have been called or could have been present? 2.º Whether similarly the absolution is valid, granted at the same article of death to a dying man having reserved sins, whether simply or with a censure, by a priest not having jurisdiction in reserved matters, even if a priest having the aforesaid jurisdiction could easily have been called or could have been present? R. to each: Those are not to be disturbed who hold the affirmative opinion." S. O., July 29, 1891; I. M. 773.

In the Response to the 3rd, there is difficulty. For considering the Case as it stands, it is certainly not easy to understand how in reality Columbinus was sufficiently present to the dying man. For he gave absolution when he had begun to ascend the stairs of the house. Columbinus indeed cried out the absolution loudly. But, if the dying man lay in some inner room of the house, if the house was not sufficiently close to the first stairs, moral presence is understood with difficulty. I. M. 748. Wherefore the absolution, in the Case, ought indeed to have been given under condition also on this account.

2. Naborius, struck by a sudden illness and already brought to extremities, asks for a priest. When Marius the chaplain, destitute of all jurisdiction, was passing by, he is called. The beginning of confession having scarcely been made, behold, Lucas the vicar is present, who, Marius withdrawing, receives the confession of the sick man. But soon, hearing a reserved sin, and not enjoying the faculty of absolving from reserved matters, he is not moderately entangled; when, the rumor of Naborius's illness having spread, Urbanus the parish priest also flies there. When he appears, the vicar gives thanks to God and asks the sick man that he be willing to confess to the pastor, his most loving father. He agrees; but when the sick man had opened a Case to which was annexed an excommunication reserved to the bishop, now the parish priest does not know what must be done. Behold, meanwhile there arrives the vicar general, very familiar with Naborius, to whom the pastor would gladly have yielded his place in his stead, if he had dared to do this, or if the penitent had considered it agreeable; but fearing offense to the sick man, he heard him integrally and absolved him. Afterward, however, Naborius recovered and was restored to perfect health.

It is asked: 1.º Whether a priest not approved can hear confession in the Case of death? Whether in the presence of one approved? - 2.º Whether a simple confessor, in the Case of death, can absolve from reserved matters? Whether from censures, and in what way? - 3.º Whether the various confessors acted rightly in the present Case, or what ought to have been done by them? - 4.º Whether Naborius, having recovered health, ought to have repeated the confession?

R. To the 1st. A priest lacking approval can absolve in a Case of necessity, or at the article or danger of death, from the general faculty granted by the Church, lest anyone perish through defect of power in the priest. But according to many, he cannot absolve when another approved priest is present, because in that Case no necessity urges. Yet, if the confession of a dying man has been begun by a simple priest, it can be completed. Lig. 563. But according to others, a simple priest can even absolve a dying man in the presence of an approved confessor, because, in that Case, jurisdiction is attributed to him by the Church simply and without any restriction. This opinion is probable.

To the 2nd. A simple confessor can absolve from reserved cases in danger of death, because the Church, a benign mother, willed that in death there should be no reservation. But he cannot absolve from censures except indirectly, or in such wise that, if the sick man recovers, he is bound to approach another confessor enjoying the faculty of absolving from censures. See Comp. 579.

To the 3rd. 1.º Marius, the first confessor, acted badly by yielding his place to another; for although he was a simple priest, he ought to have pursued the confession begun, as is clear from what has been said; and therefore in the Case he could validly absolve.

2.º Lucas, the vicar, also acted badly by yielding his place to the parish priest. For he ought not to have been restrained from completing the confession because of a reserved sin, since in death there is no reservation.

3.º But what about Urbanus the parish priest? First, he acted badly by carrying through a confession begun by another; but afterward he acted well by not sending the wretched sick man back to the vicar general. For a confession begun, while the danger of death urges, is a sufficient reason that a confessor destitute of the power of absolving from censures absolve from them also, indirectly, even when a superior has supervened.

To the 4th. Naborius, having recovered health, by no means ought to have repeated the confession, but only to make known to the superior, or to the delegate, according to the common opinion, the sin to which the censure was annexed, so that he might be absolved from it directly; or through the parish priest himself to request the faculty, so that the confession could be completed by him." Thus Fr. Gury 555-558.

With regard to the response to the first and third questions, cf. the preceding Case and I. M. 773.

With regard to the response to the second question, it must be noted that sins indeed can be absolved indirectly, but censures by no means. I. M. 669, 800. But as regards censures, these at the article of death, if they are reserved, are absolved by one not having power either absolutely, without any burden of later appearing, if the sick man recovers, before the superior, or with such a burden, as will soon be explained below. I. M. 799.

With regard to the response to the fourth question, Naborius, having recovered health, was bound then only to present himself to the superior, or to be absolved by another having power from the reserved censure, if it had been reserved with this burden. I. M. 799.

Lest anyone perish on this occasion, there never was nor is THERE ANY RESERVATION at the article (or danger) of death. Trent, sess. 14, c. 7. And therefore in that article every reservation CEASES. Roman Ritual, On the Sacrament of Penance, § 17. Every reservation, and therefore whether sins or censures have been reserved; and consequently they ought to be judged by the same law. Suarez, de Poenit., d. 30, s. 3, n. 4; D'Annibale, p. 1, n. 349. Wherefore all priests, whether approved or not, who in that crisis of affairs can absolve from any sins whatsoever, can also absolve from any censures whatsoever, namely from those laid by law; likewise also from excommunications and from a personal interdict laid by man, since, unless the excommunications have first been absolved, sins cannot licitly be absolved; and, unless the personal interdict has been absolved, ecclesiastical burial also cannot be given. Whether also from suspension? Some affirm, for Trent says from any censures whatsoever; therefore none is excepted. Others, however, deny it, because Trent here provides only for those things which concern souls, lest anyone perish. Lugo, de Poenit., d. 20, n. 203; D'Annibale, p. 1, n. 349.

Moreover, does absolution given by an inferior because of the article or danger of imminent death, if the sick man recovers, bring with it the obligation of approaching the superior, certainly not that someone confess again to him, but that he receive his mandate? Some affirm absolutely from c. Eos qui, 22, de Sent. exc., in 6.º. Others deny it from Trent, since there is no reservation at the article of death, and therefore no burden of reservation, unless the law expressly commands it, as for papal cases reserved in a special manner, or the matter had been notorious, or had been brought to the contentious forum. Cf. Comment. de Censur., ed. 5, n. 76; I. M. 799.

505. • I. Every dying person who in some manner confesses by voice or sign, or asks for absolution, can and must be absolved, and indeed absolutely. The reason is that all things required for the Sacrament and for formally integral confession are present. - St. Lig., no. 480, and others commonly.

II. Every dying person in whom attrition and confession can in some manner be presumed with however slight a probability can and must be absolved, at least conditionally; because in a case of extreme necessity it is lawful even in the administration of the Sacraments to use an opinion which is only slightly founded. - St. Lig., no. 482, and others more commonly against others.

III. A dying person who altogether refuses the Sacrament of Penance, or who can in no way be presumed to have attrition, can in no manner be absolved ¹. The reason is most clearly evident.

¹ No one will deny that he who can in no way be judged disposed ought not and cannot be absolved. But since a disposition can be presumed even in one who is deprived of his senses in the very act of sinning, as the Author, after others, has in the Resolutions, it is scarcely apparent when it will happen that a dying person can in no manner be presumed to have attrition.

506. Resolutions. - 1. All dying persons not yet deprived of their senses, who consent to absolution and obey the commands of the Confessor, are to be absolved: absolutely, if they ask for confession of their own accord or propose to confess with a willing mind; but conditionally, if they are only with difficulty induced to some confession, or if there is prudent doubt concerning their sufficient disposition. - Thus commonly.

2. At least conditionally, all dying persons deprived of their senses who, before the loss of their senses, expressly showed a desire for confession, for example, by ordering a Priest to be summoned, etc., are to be absolved. The reason is that they are judged truly to confess through the testimony of those present; for a confession as though through an interpreter then seems to be made. This is established from the Councils and from the Roman Ritual. - St. Lig., no. 481.

3. Under condition, all dying persons altogether deprived of their senses who lived as Christians are to be absolved, even if at that time they gave no sign either of sorrow or of a desire for confession. The reason is that sorrow and a desire for absolution can be presumed in them. - St. Lig., no. 482; Lacroix, no. 1162; Elbel, no. 208; Collet, ch. 6, etc.

4. Other dying persons deprived of their senses who lived in a less Christian manner are also to be absolved conditionally, because even in them penitence and a desire for confession can still in some manner be presumed ². - Collet, ibid.; Lacroix, ibid.

² These things accord with the doctrine which we read in St. Augustine (De Adulterinis Coniugiis, bk. 1, ch. 26, no. 33): To catechumens placed at the end of this life, if they have been so oppressed by sickness or some accident that, although they still live, they cannot ask that Baptism be given to them... let that which is their already known will in the Christian faith profit them, so that they may be baptized in the manner in which infants, whose will has not yet appeared, are baptized.... Even if his will is uncertain, it is much better to give to one unwilling than to deny to one willing, when it does not appear whether he wills or does not will. These last words sufficiently indicate that there is question also of those concerning whom it is by no means clear whether they are disposed, because they can provide no sign of their will. And that these things have force also concerning the Sacrament of Penance, the same holy Doctor (ibid., ch. 28, no. 35) teaches in these words: I think that not only other catechumens, but also those themselves who, joined to the marriages of living persons, retain adulterous unions,

although we do not admit them to Baptism when sound in body, nevertheless, if they lie in a desperate condition and repent within themselves, and cannot answer for themselves, I think they are to be baptized, so that this sin also may be washed away with the others by the laver of regeneration. For who knows whether perhaps they had resolved to be detained by the allurements of adulterous flesh until Baptism?... But the case of Baptism is the same as that of reconciliation, if perhaps the danger of ending life has overtaken the penitent. For Mother Church ought not to wish even them to depart from this life without a pledge of peace. In this text the words repent within themselves, which are read in certain codices and editions, refer to the penitence which is conjectured, not to that which betrays itself by some sign, as the context itself proclaims.

Moreover, there is a twofold reason by which the foregoing opinion of the holy Doctor, insofar as he teaches that either Baptism or reconciliation is to be given to a man who manifests his present will by no indication, can and customarily is reconciled with the common doctrine concerning the Sacrament of Penance. For while the Doctors commonly agree that absolution, at least under condition, is not to be denied to dying persons of this kind, nevertheless Viva with certain others (in St. Alphonsus, bk. 6, no. 482), according to the opinion which holds that the acts of the penitent are the matter from which of the sacrament and therefore must in some manner be sensible, contends that the dying person can be absolved insofar as any of his movements, sighs, labored breathing, rolling of the eyes, etc., are to be accepted as signs by which he asks for absolution and which in so great a necessity suffice for granting absolution under condition. But others, according to a different opinion attributed to the Scotistic school, reply (in the same St. Alph., loc. cit.) that it does not hinder that the sick person cannot provide a sign of his will; for the acts of the penitent are only the matter about which, that is, the disposition for the sacrament, which need not necessarily be sensible. Concerning each of these opinions we have already said some things above (in the note at no. 417). These things, as is evident, contribute nothing to practice, because in practice the patrons of each opinion contend that absolution is to be given. Nevertheless, if it is asked which side is moved by the more solid reason to define that in these circumstances the dying person can and must be absolved, perhaps one will only with difficulty grant the palm to the first opinion. First, in the former opinion this will rightly seem hard, that if the dying person exhibits absolutely no external movement, as sometimes happens, absolution can in no way be imparted according to its principles, since sensible matter is lacking. Then, although each opinion is equal in this, that it must equally employ conjectures in presuming the disposition of the sick person, nevertheless, the probability required concerning the validity of the sacrament shines forth much greater in the latter opinion than in the former. For the probability of the opinion which holds the acts of the penitent as the matter about which, and therefore does not require an external sign of disposition from the penitent for the essence of the sacrament, far exceeds the probability by which a movement of the finger, a rolling of the eyes, or the labored breathing of the sick person must be accepted, according to the former opinion, as signs of one asking for absolution; this probability is called slight by these very Authors (in St. Alph., loc. cit.), and in reality can be so slight that it easily slips from the hands, indeed even from the eyes.

5. A dying person deprived of his senses in the very act of sin, for example, in a duel, adultery, theft, etc., can probably be absolved under condition, because even he can be sufficiently disposed. This especially has place for one who perhaps was led to the sin by fear, human respect, etc. - St. Lig., no. 483; Elbel, no. 211; and others probably.

399. Principle: Every priest, even not approved, can validly absolve those who are in the article or danger of death from all censures and sins. It is certain.

1° The principle, insofar as it is certain, is proved by this declaration of Trent:¹ "Very piously, lest anyone perish on this very occasion, it has always been preserved in the same Church of God, that there be no reservation in the article of death; and therefore all priests can absolve any penitents from any sins and censures."

¹ Sess. XIV, ch. 7.

The Council was speaking of the article of death; but the Code speaks more precisely: "In danger of death all priests, although not approved for confessions, validly and licitly absolve any penitents from any sins or censures, however reserved and notorious, even if an approved priest is present."² Now such danger is judged to be present when it is prudently feared that death may shortly occur, for example, in grave sickness, a difficult surgical operation, laborious childbirth, on a long and dangerous voyage, etc.

² Code, c. 882.

(a) It is said "all priests"; by these words, as being most ample, any priest is signified, even one not approved, irregular, suspended, excommunicated even as one to be avoided, schismatic, heretic, apostate, provided he is truly marked with the priestly character.

(b) It is said "from any sins and censures," because in danger of death every reservation ceases, lest anyone perish on this occasion. Yet if someone, bound by a censure reserved in the most special manner to the Supreme Pontiff, afterward recovers, he must recur to the Sacred Penitentiary or to the Bishop or another endowed with the faculty; but if he was absolved from a censure ab homine, he must, under penalty of falling back into it, recur to him who imposed the censure.³

³ Code, c. 2252.

400. 2° Formerly it was controverted whether, in the article of death, a priest not approved validly absolved if an approved priest was present or could be present. But now the matter has been decided from the Code, in the canon cited.

557. Which Dying Persons Can Be Absolved? - The chief difficulty is not as to confession, since these are excused from material integrity, but as to contrition, which is an entirely essential disposition, and must be manifested in a sensible way, according to most theologians: now this manifestation seems to be lacking in those who are destitute of the senses.

558. Principle: In the article of death, absolution can be granted, at least under condition, as often as it is even slightly probable that it will profit the dying. It is certain.

For by force of the principle "the sacraments are for men," in a case of extreme necessity it is lawful to expose the sacrament to danger of nullity, provided there is some probability that it will be valid and useful for the recipient. Nor is great probability required, but slight probability suffices, since it is better that the sacrament be null or defective than that souls be damned forever. Yet mere possibility does not suffice, since in practical matters probability, not possibility, is considered.

559. Corollaries. (a) If the dying person asked for the sacrament before witnesses before he was deprived of the senses, he certainly ought to be absolved, although here and now he is destitute of the senses; for, by asking for absolution, he manifested that he was contrite, and that act of contrition can persevere virtually. According to the more common opinion, he ought to be absolved without condition in this case, because the Ritual says simply "he is to be absolved"; yet one who adds the condition "if you are capable" is not to be blamed, since some doubt can remain concerning the validity of the sacrament.

(b) Catholics who manifested a probable sign of contrition before they were destitute of the senses can and ought to be absolved conditionally; for absolution will probably profit them.

Such are Catholics who lived in a Christian manner, although they gave no sign of contrition explicitly; for one who lives in a Christian manner is deservedly presumed to wish to die in a Christian manner and therefore to receive absolution. Moreover, although they are destitute of the senses, it is probable that they elicited an act of contrition before they lost the use of the senses; or it is not improbable that they lost the use of the senses, indeed, but not the use of reason, so that internally they can elicit an act of contrition, which sighs, movements of the eyes or lips, or other things of this kind make sufficiently sensible; otherwise, it is probable that contrition suffices, even if it is not manifested exteriorly. Yet it is expedient that the priest, before he imparts absolution, recite an act of contrition in a loud voice; for there are dying persons who are able to hear, although not to speak: in which case they too are helped in this way to elicit an act of contrition.

560. (c) Catholics destitute of the senses can also be absolved conditionally, who, although they did not live in a Christian manner, had kept the faith; for many of them implicitly wish to die in a Christian manner, and therefore to receive absolution in the article of death. Such are those among whom signs of Catholicity are found, for example, medals, a rosary, a scapular, or who can probably be judged Catholics, as living in a region in which there are many Catholics. Thus very probably.

(d) Indeed, probably those can be absolved who lost the use of reason in the very act of sin, for example, in drunkenness, in theft, in a duel, provided it can be inferred from their life that they were probably contrite. This indeed can occur; for in that very instant in which they were about to lose the use of reason, they could have changed their mind and detested their sin, especially since God does not deny His grace to one placed in extreme necessity. - But because many contradict this, the priest in this case is not bound to give absolution.

(e) But if the dying person, immediately before he lost the use of reason, positively repelled the sacraments, he cannot be absolved even conditionally, unless such a manner of acting can be judged revoked by some sign of contrition: for in this case every probability of conversion is lacking.

561. (f) Schismatics who are in good faith, and believe in the efficacy of absolution, can be absolved conditionally in the article of death, scandal being removed; because it is probable that they desire the sacrament. The same can be said of heretics who likewise are in good faith, and at the same time believe in the power of absolution, such as Ritualists and some Lutherans and Anglicans.¹

¹ This can be inferred from the recent decree of the Holy Office, July 20, 1898 (Acta S. Sedis, XXXI, 253-254); for when it had been asked "whether material schismatics, who are in good faith, can sometimes be absolved," the response was: "Since scandal cannot be avoided, in the negative, except in the article of death; and then scandal having been efficaciously removed." In the same sense can be understood c. 731 of the Code, forbidding the sacraments of the Church to be administered to heretics or schismatics, unless they have first been reconciled to the Church.

(g) As to heretics who reject the sacrament of Penance, the matter is much more uncertain. Many, with St. Alphonsus (n. 483), think that they cannot be absolved unless they have expressly asked for absolution, because they are not judged to desire that which they abhor.

Certain theologians, however, with Lacroix (n. 1866), hold that they can be absolved conditionally if they are in good faith, especially if they were inclined toward the Catholic faith, because, for example, they had Catholic relatives or connections or friends, or were instructed or served by Catholic nuns; for since they are in good faith, in a general and implicit way they desire to do or receive all those things which are necessary for salvation.

Indeed, according to Lehmkuhl (n. 515) and others, a dying Protestant, but one still enjoying the senses, can be absolved conditionally, if he cannot prudently be admonished about entering the Catholic Church, provided he declares himself a sinner, and, having conceived sorrow for sins, consents to be helped by the ministry of the priest in attaining eternal beatitude: for this consent is as it were an implicit desire of receiving absolution. But then let the priest take care that, for the sake of greater security, the dying person elicit acts of faith, hope, and charity, and also an act of perfect contrition, insofar as this can be done.

562. Notes. (a) If a probable doubt exists concerning the value of the baptism of non-Catholics, they must secretly be baptized under condition before they are absolved.

(b) Those who are certainly dead cannot indeed be absolved and anointed, even under condition; but from recent experiments it is established that life remains in the body for some time, even when someone has seemed to give forth the last breath, because life withdraws from the body only successively. Hence certain persons who were apparently dead, after three hours, were brought back to life by rhythmic traction of the tongue. Wherefore those who by such a process give certain signs at least of sensitive life can be absolved and anointed, the things to be posited having been posited; indeed, under the condition "if you are living," those who, although they seem to be dead according to ordinary signs, are prudently thought by experts to survive.¹

¹ Cf. Ferrand, Le moment de la mort, ap. Congrès scient. des Cathol., 1891, Sciences mathém. et nat., p. 197; Études Franciscaines, janvier 1900; Ami du Clergé, t. XXIII, 1901, p. 593.

I. Concerning the Sacrament of Penance to be ministered to the dying. - Concerning ordinary dying persons nothing special occurs that must be said; only those are to be considered who cannot speak and at least apparently are deprived of their senses. These, in this way, are excused from the material integrity of confession; but they can be deficient in contrition or in its sensible manifestation, and in the essence of confession, which nevertheless are the proximate matter of the sacrament or the condition without which there is no absolution.

Concerning these the principle holds: they are to be absolved absolutely if they certainly are disposed, and have manifested that disposition in some way; conditionally, as often as it is somehow, even slightly, probable that absolution will profit them.

For the sacraments are for men, and in extremities extreme things are to be attempted; hence in a case of necessity it is licit to use doubtful matter and to expose the sacrament to the danger of nullity, provided some probability, even slight, is present of a valid absolution useful to the recipient. - Yet mere possibility does not suffice, since in practical matters probability, not mere possibility, is attended to; otherwise all would have to be rebaptized, and all priests reordained, because it is strictly possible that Baptism or Order was conferred invalidly.

In other words: the law of religion is that a sacrament cannot be exposed to the danger of nullity; the law of charity obliges one in a case of necessity to assist one's neighbor. But charity obliges more than religion. Hence in a case of extreme necessity, the law of religion ceases while the law of charity remains. For it is better to expose the sacrament to the danger of nullity, provided that it is in some way probable that it can be valid, than to leave a man exposed to the danger of eternal damnation.

Hence 1) a dying person is to be absolved absolutely: a) if he has in the present certain sufficient signs of contrition; or b) if, at the moment of absolution, wholly deprived of his senses, he now gives no signs, but previously gave certain signs to the priest himself; indeed c) if before witnesses he asked for the sacrament or for a priest and meanwhile lost speech and the use of reason. For in these cases there is contrition virtually remaining, and a sufficient confession made at least by means of an interpreter; and so great a necessity most certainly excuses from the material integrity of confession.

2. A dying person who gives no sign of penance and has not explicitly given one is to be absolved conditionally: a) if he lived as a Christian; or b) if he preserved the faith. For such persons can deservedly be presumed to wish to die as Christians, and besides to have elicited an act of contrition before they lost the use of reason, or even then to elicit it through some lucid interval and perhaps to exhibit a sensible sign through sighs or movements of the eyes or lips or other things of this sort, although the priest does not distinctly perceive it. Hence they can be absolved, yet under condition, because contrition is not certain, but only some probability of contrition. Such are reckoned those who have preserved signs of the Catholic faith, e.g., medals, a rosary, a scapular; and unknown persons are equated with these if they probably are Catholics, because they have lived in a Catholic region. Indeed c) a Catholic dying person who in the very act of sin, e.g., in drunkenness, adultery, or a duel, lost the use of reason, according to some can probably be absolved in this way, provided from his life there is some probability of contrition, insofar as at the moment when he perceived that he was losing the use of reason, he perhaps changed his mind and detested the sin.

3. In no way is he to be absolved who, after a life impiously spent, before he was deprived of the use of reason, positively refused out of contempt, unless such a manner of acting can be judged to have been revoked by some sign of contrition; for then every probability of conversion is lacking. For although, under the influence of an outstanding grace, he certainly could have been converted, this is altogether improbable, as being supported by no solid reason.

4. In the same manner as Catholics, schismatics deprived of their senses, who are in good faith, can be absolved under condition, scandal having been removed, S. Off. 20 July 1898 and 17 May 1916.

5. Likewise heretics who are in good faith, and at the same time admit the sacrament of Penance; not, however, if they reject it, because the intention of receiving it is lacking to them.¹ And although they have the will of saving themselves, nevertheless they do not have the will of receiving the sacrament and confessing, or of saving themselves through such a means. Perhaps they would wish to confess if they knew the sacrament of Penance to be a necessary means of salvation; but now they do not will it.

¹ Certain persons conclude by parity as for schismatics, and argue from the alleged decree of the Holy Office, 17 May 1916. But the decree speaks of schismatics, not of heretics; and the parity is not present, because schismatics admit the sacrament of Penance, but heretics generally do not.

When it is not licit to minister the sacrament to schismatics or heretics, the priest should take care that they elicit acts of faith, hope, charity, and perfect contrition.

It should be noted in the aforesaid cases that it is always expedient for the priest, before he imparts absolution, to address the dying person and excite him to contrition. For experience proves that there are dying persons who are able to hear, although they cannot speak or give certain signs; in which case they too are helped in this way toward contrition.

II. Practical corollaries. - 1) If concerning the value of the Baptism of non-Catholics there is a probable doubt, they must secretly be baptized under condition before they are absolved.

2. In a positive doubt whether someone is a pagan, a heretic, or a Catholic, he can be absolved under condition.

3. Those who are certainly dead cannot be absolved, nor anointed, even under condition; but from recent experiments it is established that life can remain for some time in the body, even when someone seems to have given the last breath, because generally life recedes from the body only successively. Hence certain persons who were apparently dead, e.g., suffocated, or rescued from water or fire, have been restored to life after three hours by rhythmic traction of the tongue. Therefore, the other conditions being posited, those can be absolved and anointed who by such a process give certain signs of life, at least sensitive life; indeed, under condition, those who, although they seem dead according to ordinary signs, are prudently judged to survive. Yet the complete cessation of the motion of the heart, lasting for some time, and invading corruption of the body, or putrefaction already begun, are deservedly held as certain signs of death; cadaveric rigidity is less certain.

In practice, when a certain sign of death is lacking, if here and now the judgment of a physician cannot be had:

a) in a case of wholly sudden death, generally they can be absolved within two or three hours, because then it is probable that life remains for some time because of the resistant vital powers, which are not immediately destroyed; not longer, because it is no longer probable, even if it is possible in an extraordinary case that life remains hidden even for some days. An exception is made if death was violent, e.g., from compression or tearing away of principal members, because then death is evident.

b) In a case of ordinary death from a long-lasting and gradually wasting disease, they cannot be absolved, because it is not probable that life remains.

c) In an intermediate case of death, from a long-lasting disease but with a sudden new influence, which is called a "complication" and greatly accelerates the expected death, they seem able to be absolved for a space of about half an hour after apparent death.

4. The condition to be added is this: if you are capable, but not that one: if you are disposed. For since it is probable that one contrition, namely sincere but not appreciatively supreme, is required for the capacity and validity of receiving absolution, and another, namely appreciatively supreme, for the disposition required that it produce fruit, grace, and therefore that the sacrament can revive: the formula if you are disposed, in a case in which the disposition were absent, would render the sacrament altogether null and would forever impede its reviviscence. On the contrary, the form if you are capable would leave the sacrament valid in a case in which that lesser contrition was present which would suffice as a part of the sacrament, while that greater contrition was not present which is required as a disposition for justification; whence, when the dying person disposes himself by greater contrition, the sacrament would revive and the penitent would obtain the effect of grace. And in this sense Cajetan, in his little work on confession, St. Antoninus, and the old Thomists, such as Capreolus and Paludanus, interpret St. Thomas, Supplement, q. 9, a. 1.

With greater reason the same must be said of Extreme Unction, because it is certain that disposition, namely contrition, is required only for the fruit, not for the essence and validity, but for this latter the intention alone of receiving the sacrament suffices.²

² Concerning the sacraments not to be ministered under the condition if you are disposed, we wrote an article in the periodical Revue Eccl. de Liege, Nov. 1909, which quite generally received the approval of experts. Nevertheless Fr. Castillon moved certain difficulties in Nouv. Revue Theol., May 1910, which we subjected to examination and to which we gave satisfaction in Revue Eccl. de Liege, July 1910. No further response succeeded this.

5. In a case of extreme necessity, the shortest form is to be employed: I absolve you from all censures and sins in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.

6. But how many times can a dying person be absolved? If he is in possession of himself, as often as he makes a brief confession or manifests signs of sorrow anew and wishes to receive absolution. If he is deprived of the senses, as often as there is a probable reason of a more certain disposition or of a new necessity; to do this without a special reason twice or three times in a day, or with a space of three or four hours intervening, as certain persons say, does not seem to be admitted, because there is not a sufficient reason for so easily exposing the sacrament to the danger of nullity.

V. Cases. - In the article of death certain cases can occur which present a special difficulty, and which, unless they have been examined beforehand, could not be solved rightly.

1. It often happens that a priest is called to a dying public sinner. In this case the sacraments are not to be ministered to him publicly, especially Viaticum, unless the scandal is publicly repaired; but if this is impossible, it can be brought secretly. And indeed:

a) regularly for ordinary sinners the public bringing of the Eucharist itself is a sufficient retraction or sign that they repent;

b) for great sinners a declaration is to be made by retraction before witnesses;

c) but for those who live in a proximate occasion, e.g., in publicly known concubinage, the occasion must first be removed; but if this is impossible, or if extreme necessity is urgent, absolution and Extreme Unction can be given secretly after a promise of removing the scandal; and communion is to be brought secretly, after a promise before witnesses of removing the scandal as soon as possible.

In a case of concubinage or civil marriage let it be examined whether marriage is not to be contracted for legitimating offspring or for fulfilling a promise; in which case the confessor should know that the Ordinary can dispense from all impediments of ecclesiastical law, excepting presbyterate and affinity in the direct line, can. 1043, and, if time is lacking to have recourse to the Ordinary, the parish priest or the priest himself can also do this, can. 1044.

2. It can also happen that a woman or girl illegitimately pregnant, with no one knowing this, is in imminent danger of death. Now after the fourth month of pregnancy has begun, there is a founded hope of extracting the living fetus from the uterus of the dead mother. Hence the woman has a grave obligation to disclose the matter directly to some person, so that after her death a Caesarean operation can be performed and the infant baptized. She can accomplish this:

a) by writing letters in which she declares that she wishes the womb to be opened after death and the offspring to be baptized, which letters, signed and closed, she should hand over to a trustworthy person to be opened only after death. For thus, as far as can be done, provision is made both for her own good name and for the salvation of the offspring.

b) If she is unable or unwilling to write, let her manifest the matter by word of mouth to an entirely discreet person who will reveal the fact only after her death.

c) Other things being equal, for a duty of this sort the physician is to be chosen before others, who perhaps already knows the matter under professional secrecy, who can more suitably provide for the good name of the mother and family, and who, when necessity is urgent, can proceed at once to the section and Baptism; parents are less suitable, for perhaps through excessive fear of infamy they will abstain from revelation.

d) The confessor himself should take upon himself the burden of revealing only with difficulty and in the last place, especially if he fears that from this the sacrament may be rendered odious to the girl's relatives.³

³ De Smet notes, de Sacr. in gen. Bapt. et Confir., p. 257, note 3: "It will perhaps be better if the girl permits that, already before death, the physician or midwife be admonished most cautiously and under gravest secrecy, so that, when death supervenes, they may be ready at hand for the operation. It also seems good that, if it can be done, besides a suitable external person, also the father or mother be admonished by the girl herself, lest afterward they contradict the operation to be performed." We doubt, however, that these things will always be opportune.

But the confessor should induce the penitent to this by persuading and commending, not impose it as obligatory if he experiences that the penitent certainly refuses it; for then he would uselessly disturb good faith, which in fact would not profit the infant and would harm the salvation of the mother. If, however, she doubts and asks concerning the obligation, the confessor must confess the obligation.

To a girl who is sick from the pregnancy itself the sacraments can be brought secretly, in order to preserve her good name.

3. The dying person can also be an impious man who by work or writing has attacked the faith. Concerning this case, if there is time, the Ordinary should first be consulted. But such a sick person is to be admonished concerning the obligation of removing scandal and retracting errors; for this end let him declare, by himself or through the confessor, before witnesses, that he retracts all errors condemned by the Church and professes Catholic doctrine whole and entire; or let him sign a formula of retraction; or at least let him consent before witnesses that the confessor publish his retraction. But if the scandal perseveres, it is to be removed insofar as possible, e.g., writings are to be removed from circulation, or a written retraction is to be published for reading.

But he who has given his name to a Masonic sect must besides abjure the sect, and, if possible and if time permits, give up Masonic insignia and writings, and manifest to the Ordinary the names of leaders, if he knows any.

It should be noted, however, that one excommunicated can be absolved from all censures in danger of death by anyone.

4. Although a dying person, Noldin notes, Th. M. III, n. 459, is to be absolved before the administration of Extreme Unction, because Extreme Unction is a sacrament of the living and the complement of the sacrament of Penance, and because the Church so prescribes, nevertheless this is not required by so great a necessity that it would not be licit to anoint a dying person before absolution, where it is deservedly feared that time for both sacraments may fail.

I. Manner of acting with those condemned to death. - Until the recent war we thought, in our Belgium, that the ministry toward those condemned to death no longer pertained to our times; but harsh reality dispelled the error! Therefore, since circumstances could again bring similar cases with themselves, the confessor must know how he ought to conduct himself with those to be punished capitally. Concerning this matter it is pleasing to transcribe especially the excellent admonitions of St. Alphonsus.¹

¹ Praxis Conf., nn. 108-109. - Cf. Reuter, o. c., nn. 242-243; Aertnijs, Th. P., n. 119.

1854. "No work of charity is present which is more acceptable to God and more conducive to the salvation of souls than to help those placed in the extreme danger of life to die holily; for at the time of death, on which the eternal life of each one depends, the powers of hell are stronger, but those of the sick are weaker."¹⁸

Moreover, the sick lying dangerously ill are of a twofold kind: some enjoy the use of reason and the senses; others are destitute of the senses. As regards guilty persons condemned to capital punishment, see in St. Alphonsus¹⁹ (cf. n. 2300 and 2311, 2).

I. As regards the sick USING REASON AND THE SENSES, the Ritual admonishes: "Let the confessor approach the sick man so prepared that he have ready arguments apt for persuading, and especially examples of the Saints, which avail very much; by which he may console, excite, and refresh him in the Lord."

Moreover, to many other things which the Ritual hands down concerning the visitation and care of the sick, and which are to be observed faithfully, it is helpful to add some things excerpted from the writings of St. Alphonsus,²⁰ namely the following:

1. Having entered the room of the sick person, let the confessor speak to the one lying ill in a friendly manner, by inquiring how he is; and having exhorted him to conform himself to the will of God, let him gradually transfer the conversation to instituting confession. Yet in the first visit, unless necessity urges, let him generally be silent concerning it; but after, on the second or third visit, he has begun to speak about it and has assigned the day and hour for instituting it, let him skillfully take care that the sick man make it without procrastination, especially if the disease is of such a nature that delirium could easily supervene. See also n. 2332.

2. If the sick man is a scandalous man, for example living in concubinage or in a merely civil marriage, an author of bad books, notoriously excommunicated, etc., commonly he must not be heard unless first he has promised amendment and due satisfaction; for it is to be feared lest, confession already having been begun, he refuse to obey; from which it could easily happen that the confessor, bound by the sacramental seal, would be forced to administer the last Sacraments to one unworthy. - Nevertheless circumstances can persuade otherwise, for example if death is imminent, and immediate confession already signifies reparation of scandal.

3. As regards confession itself, let him take care that it be made so diligently that nothing of those things which are required for integrity and contrition be omitted, and so moderately that the penitent is neither affected by annoyance nor wearied by too much application of mind. - But if imminent danger of death, or the gravity of the disease itself, or other grave reasons persuade this, let the confessor urge material integrity less, but, with the admonition premised that the penitent complete his confession afterward if he recovers, let him watch much and almost solely over the dispositions of his soul.²¹

4. If those serving the sick man cannot withdraw, let the confessor admonish him to declare at least one sin, and this a light one; when this has been declared, let him incite him in a few words to sorrow concerning all sins which he has committed, and then impart absolution to him. - Finally, if someone could confess no special sin, for example because he is deprived of speech, but gives signs of penance, and shows that he wishes absolution, he is also to be absolved; absolutely, if no prudent doubt concerning his disposition underlies; otherwise, conditionally (cf. n. 1663, q. 5).

5. Let him impose a light penance, indeed sometimes a very light one, such as invocation of the Most Holy Names of Jesus and the Virgin Mary; but let him add, as the Ritual wills, to this penance another more proportioned one for the time in which the sick man will have recovered. But it will be enough, says St. Alphonsus, to enjoin on him that he return in time of health; or, that he satisfy by alms, if he can (cf. n. 1720, 2).

6. If a convenient occasion seems present, "let him exhort the sick man to dispose opportunely concerning his domestic affairs: for this is expedient for the peace of the family, and the more so if it is necessary for the relief of his conscience. - Yet in this the priest should carefully beware lest he himself fall into any note of gain (or into the hatred of relatives)."²²

7. The sick man must be forearmed against temptations.²³ If he is tempted against FAITH, he is to be exhorted to elicit acts of faith without any examination; that, as soon as the temptation rushes in, he have recourse to prayers and turn thought aside to other things; also, if the temptation persists in urging much, let the confessor explain to him in few words the motives of credibility, and take care that the one tempted, by his own prayers and those of others, obtain the grace of resisting and persevering. - If he is tempted against HOPE (and this temptation indeed is very frequent), let the confessor set forth to him the reasons why we must hope; let him pray for him, and rarely, while he is hearing, have conversation about matters which inject terror. - Let him also watch that temptations of vainglory, impatience, excessive aversion from death, excessive love toward relatives and temporal goods, as well as temptations of hatred and vengeance, be kept away from him.

8. Let the confessor suggest to the sick man, but with few words and only at intervals, acts of virtues by which Christians ought to dispose themselves for a holy death, namely acts of faith, hope, charity, contrition, conformity with the divine will, and acceptance of death. Nor should he omit now and then to offer him an image of the Crucified, and other holy images, that he may kiss them.

9. Finally let the priest take care that the sick man gain all the Indulgences which he can; but especially the plenary Indulgence in the article of death, which the Apostolic blessing has annexed to itself. - Hence let him admonish him, contrite, to implore the Most Holy Names of Jesus and Mary, once or more often (by mouth, if he can; but if not, by heart)²⁴ (cf. n. 1741).

10. When the sick man is already in his last moments, care must be taken that persons whose presence could bring some danger to the dying man be removed from his room.²⁵ But let the priest frequently sprinkle him with blessed water, frequently fortify him with the sign of the cross, and frequently offer him sacred things to be kissed. - Let him pour forth many prayers together with those standing by, nor omit to recite the accustomed prayers of the Church.

11. Let him hand him a blessed candle, so that, holding it, he may profess that he dies in the Faith. - But let him disturb him by no touch of the body, nor do anything by which death could be accelerated. - As long as the struggle with death endures, let him repeat the holy acts, and multiply them and pronounce them in a loud voice, so that thus they can be heard by the dying man.²⁶

12. The SIGNS of imminent death, see in St. Alphonsus.²⁷

1855. II. With dying persons DESTITUTE OF SENSE the following things are to be observed:

1. All dying persons destitute of senses who, before the privation of the senses, expressly showed a desire of confession, for example by ordering a priest to be called, are to be absolved, more safely however under condition. The reason is that confession, in the case, becomes known to the confessor sufficiently sensibly through the testimony of another, and is as it were confession by an interpreter. This is established from the Roman Ritual on the Sacrament of Penance.

2. All dying persons wholly destitute of senses who have lived as Christians are to be absolved under condition, even if they have manifested by no sign either sorrow concerning their sins or desire of confession. The reason is that in such persons sorrow and desire of absolution can be presumed through sensible signs, for example through sighs, movements of the body, anxious breathing manifested, although these are not perceived by the confessor.²⁸

3. For the same reason, other dying persons destitute of senses who have lived little as Christians are to be absolved under condition. Indeed, it is sufficiently probable that a dying Catholic who, in the very act of sin, has been deprived of senses, for example in a duel, adultery, theft; likewise free-thinkers, Freemasons, apostates, etc., is to be absolved conditionally. - Nor does it stand in the way that attrition and confession in these persons are very doubtful; because, in the case of extreme necessity, even in the administration of the Sacraments it is licit to use a slight and little-founded probability.²⁹

4. Under condition, similarly, those can be absolved who, although they have never professed the Catholic faith, nevertheless have shown a will inclined toward it; provided that they had already been baptized in their sects (but in doubt concerning the value of this Baptism, after Baptism has been repeated under condition); for there is a certain reason for conjecturing that they wish to depart life in the communion of the Church.³⁰ But if heretics have given no indication of this will, they are not to be absolved even if they give signs of sorrow; because such persons can never prudently be presumed to furnish those signs in order to confession, from which they shrink exceedingly.³¹

You will resolve for practice: 1. A dying Catholic, or one not certainly a heretic (even if perhaps unknown), in every case in which it is not evidently established that he is already dead, or actually altogether indisposed, or refusing the Sacraments, is to be absolved either absolutely or conditionally (according to his condition).

2. Nevertheless an act of contrition is to be suggested to him briefly and in a loud voice, if he has given no signs or doubtful signs of penance. For physicians testify that "hearing generally persists even to the last time, and not rarely, when the other senses have already plainly been extinguished, it still remains."³²

IT IS ASKED. How often must ABSOLUTION be renewed for a dying person?

Resp. 1. If, having already confessed duly, he still flourishes in the senses, absolution must be renewed for him several times; yet in such a way that, before it is imparted anew, a new sign of sorrow and confession, at least some sort of sign, is manifested. For thus the sick man is rendered more secure concerning the state of grace, or certainly sanctifying grace is increased, and the punishments of Purgatory are diminished.

Resp. 2. If the dying man (likewise having confessed) is already destitute of senses, and manifests no sign of sorrow, it is not expedient to impart absolution to him frequently within the same day, i.e., not more often than every three or four hours; for a grave and urgent cause (on account of which alone the Sacrament can be administered under condition) is not present here of itself, so that the words of absolution should be repeated more frequently. We have said of itself; for, upon a dying man accustomed to bad thoughts, or entangled by some passion of hatred or impure love, or very impatient with the troubles of disease, or also now about to die, they can be repeated more often. "It will not be out of place," adds St. Alphonsus, "to admonish the sick man, while he is capable in mind, that if he cannot speak, he give some determined sign when he seeks absolution, or when the priest wishes to confer it upon him, for example that he close or open his eyes, lift his hand, incline his head, and similar things."³³

Resp. 3. Finally, if the dying man has been so destitute of senses that he could never either confess or express contrition, he is to be absolved much more often, at least under condition; because it can happen that he succumbs to hidden temptations, and especially because it can happen that the infinite mercy of God mercifully grants him the grace of compunction, which he previously lacked, in a lucid interval.³⁴

NB. Recall what was said at n. 929, II, 1282 and 1777.

1370. - I. Any dying person who in some way, by voice or sign, confesses, or asks for absolution, can and must be absolved, and indeed absolutely. The reason is that all requisites are present for the Sacrament and for Confession formally integral.

II. Any dying person in whom attrition and Confession can be presumed in some way, however slightly probable, can and must be absolved, but conditionally; because in a case of extreme necessity, even in the administration of the Sacraments, it is lawful to use even a slightly founded opinion. - St. Alphonsus and others more commonly against others.

III. A dying person who altogether refuses the Sacrament of Penance, or who can in no way be presumed attrite or to have wished or to wish Confession, can in no way be absolved. The reason is most plainly clear.

1371. Resolves. - 1° All dying persons not yet deprived of the senses and consenting to absolution, and obeying the commands of the confessor, are to be absolved: absolutely indeed, if they spontaneously ask for Confession, or if with a willing mind they propose to confess; but conditionally, if with difficulty they are scarcely induced to some Confession, or if there is prudent doubt concerning their sufficient disposition. - Thus commonly.

2° All dying persons deprived of the senses, who before the deprivation of the senses expressly showed a desire of Confession, e.g. by ordering a priest to be called, etc., are to be absolved, but more safely conditionally. The reason is that in the case Confession becomes known sufficiently sensibly to the confessor through the testimony of another, even of one person or mediately. This is clear from Councils and from the Roman Ritual.

3° All dying persons wholly destitute of the senses, who lived as Christians, are to be absolved under condition, even if at that time they gave no sign either of sorrow or of desire for Confession. The reason is that in these persons sorrow and the desire of absolution can be presumed through sensible signs, e.g. through sighs, motions of the body, anxious breathing, which were manifested although not perceived by the confessor.

4° For the same reason other dying persons destitute of the senses, who lived little as Christians, are also to be absolved conditionally.

5° For the same reason, sufficiently probably, a Catholic dying person, destitute of the senses in the very act of sin, e.g. in a duel, adultery, theft, etc., can and must be absolved under condition.

6° "Those who, although they have never professed the Catholic faith, have shown a will inclined toward it, can in that crisis," i.e. if they are dying and destitute of the senses, "be absolved under condition, ... if they have already been baptized in their sects" (but in doubt concerning the value of this Baptism, after Baptism has been repeated under condition); "for there is some reason for conjecturing that they wish to finish life in the communion of the Church. But if no indication of his will has been given, they are not to be absolved, even if they give signs of sorrow": because such persons can never prudently be presumed to give those signs in order to Confession, from which they greatly abhor.

Note. - Absolution is usefully conferred several times on a sick person still enjoying his senses after a brief Confession; for thus he is rendered more secure concerning the state of grace, he receives an increase of grace, and purgatorial punishments are diminished for him. - But to one destitute of the senses and giving no sign of sorrow and of desire for absolution, "it is not expedient to impart absolution very often within the same day," i.e. more often than every three or four hours, even if only conditionally; for the grave and urgent cause which is required in order that a Sacrament be administered under condition does not exist per se for this kind of absolution "repeated very often within the same day."

I say: per se; for it could be given more frequently to a dying person habituated in evil thoughts, or entangled in some passion of hatred or impure love, or not bearing a very bitter infirmity with a willing mind, or also now on the very point of dying. - "Moreover, it will not be beside the matter to warn the sick man, while he is in possession of mind, that" when "he will not be able to speak," he should "give some determinate sign," or one agreed upon with him, "when he seeks absolution, or when the priest wishes" to confer it "upon him," e.g. to close or open the eyes, lift the hand, incline the head, and the like. Thus St. Alphonsus in Praxis Conf., where he treats the matter more explicitly than in Theol. Mor. or in Hom. Apost.

652. The dying do not present a special difficulty, unless they are at least apparently deprived of their senses and cannot speak: for then in them the use of reason and due intention can be lacking, and the very matter of the sacrament. For although by reason of their state they are certainly excused from the material integrity of confession, nevertheless they can be deficient in contrition, or in its sensible manifestation, and in the essence of confession, which nevertheless are the proximate matter of the sacrament or the condition without which there is no absolution.

Concerning them the principle holds: they are to be absolved absolutely if they are certainly disposed and have manifested that disposition in some way; conditionally whenever in some way, even slightly, it is probable that absolution will be profitable to them.

For the sacraments are for men, and in extreme cases extreme things are to be attempted; hence in a case of extreme necessity it is licit to use doubtful matter and to expose the sacrament to the danger of nullity, provided that some probability, even slight, is present of valid absolution useful to the recipient. - Yet mere possibility does not suffice, since in practical matters probability is attended to, not mere possibility; otherwise all would have to be rebaptized, and all priests reordained, because it is strictly possible that Baptism or Order was conferred invalidly.

In other words: the law of religion is that a sacrament cannot be exposed to the danger of nullity; the law of charity obliges in a case of necessity to assist one's neighbor. But charity obliges more than religion. Hence in a case of urgent necessity, the law of religion ceases while the law of charity remains. For it is better to expose the sacrament to the danger of nullity, provided it is in some degree probable that the sacrament can be valid, than to leave a man exposed to the danger of eternal damnation.

Therefore: 1) The dying person is to be absolved absolutely: a) if he has in the present certain sufficient signs of contrition, or b) if at the moment of absolution, being wholly deprived of senses, he now gives no signs, but earlier gave certain signs to the priest himself, indeed c) if in the presence of witnesses he asked for the sacrament or for a priest and in the meantime lost speech and the use of reason.

For in these cases there is contrition virtually remaining, and a sufficient confession made at least through an interpreter; and from the material integrity of confession so great a necessity most certainly excuses.

2. A dying person who gives no sign of penance and has not explicitly given one is to be absolved conditionally ("if you are capable"): a) if he has lived as a Christian, or b) has preserved the faith.

For these can rightly be presumed to wish to die as Christians, and moreover to have elicited an act of contrition before they lost the use of reason, or even now to elicit it through some lucid interval and perhaps to exhibit a sensible sign through sighs or movements of the eyes or lips or other signs of this sort, even if the priest does not distinctly perceive it. Hence they can be absolved, but under condition, because there is not certain contrition, but only some probability of contrition, and the probability that it is externally manifested is still smaller.

Those are judged such who have preserved signs of the Catholic faith, for example medals, a rosary, a scapular; and unknown persons are equated with these who probably are Catholics, because they have lived in a Catholic region. Indeed, according to some, a dying Catholic who in the very act of sin, for example in drunkenness, adultery, or a duel, lost the use of reason, nevertheless can probably be absolved under condition, provided that from his life some probability of contrition is had, inasmuch as at the moment at which he felt himself losing the use of reason, perhaps he changed his mind and detested the sin.

3. In no way is that one to be absolved who, after a life spent impiously, before being deprived of the use of reason, positively refused out of contempt; unless, however, that manner of acting can be judged to have been revoked, not indeed by mere conjecture, but by some sign of contrition: otherwise all probability of conversion is lacking.

Although under the influence of signal grace it is most certainly possible that he was converted, nevertheless in the case this is altogether improbable, as being supported by no solid reason.

Let it be noted that in the aforesaid cases it is always expedient that the priest, before imparting absolution, speak to the dying person and excite him to contrition. For experience establishes that there are dying persons who are able to hear, although they cannot speak or give certain signs; in which case they themselves are helped to contrition in this way.

653. Can schismatics or heretics also be absolved at the moment of death? - As long as they are in control of themselves and enjoy the use of reason, "it is forbidden to minister the sacraments of the Church to heretics and schismatics, even those erring in good faith and asking for them, unless first, having rejected their errors, they have been reconciled to the Church" (can. 731, § 2 and Holy Office, May 17, 1916). But if they do not wish this, or the priest has judged it more prudent to leave them in good faith, nevertheless let him take care that they elicit acts of faith, hope, charity, and contrition. - But if they are now deprived of their senses:

1. Schismatics who are in good faith can be absolved under condition, scandal having nevertheless been removed (Holy Office, July 20, 1898 and May 17, 1916).

2. Likewise heretics who are in good faith and at the same time admit the sacrament of Penance; not however if they positively reject it or even negatively do not acknowledge it, because they lack the intention of receiving it. And although they have the will of saving themselves, nevertheless they do not have the will of receiving the sacrament and of confessing, or of saving themselves through such a means. Perhaps they would wish to confess if they knew that the sacrament of Penance is a means necessary for salvation, but now they do not will this (n. 93).

More recently certain authors judge more benignly, also arguing from parity from the praised decree of May 17, 1916. But the decree speaks only of schismatics, in no way of heretics; nor is there parity, because schismatics are presumed to have the will of receiving the sacrament, but not so heretics who do not admit it.

Yet someone placed an exception in the case in which a heretic, before he was deprived of senses, said that he wished to be helped in the way in which a Catholic priest is accustomed to help the dying. Yet this is understood with great difficulty, indeed more difficulty for Penance than for Extreme Unction: for how would such a heretic wish to conceive sorrow and to manifest himself as a sinner and sorrowing in order to absolution, which he does not admit?

654. What is to be done with the apparently dead? - They cannot be absolved (or anointed), even under condition, if they are morally certainly dead. But from recent experiments it is established that life can remain in the body for some time, even when someone seems to have given forth his last breath, because generally life recedes from the body only successively. Hence certain persons from among those who were apparently dead (for example suffocated, rescued from water or fire), after three hours, by rhythmic traction of the tongue, were brought back to life. Therefore, the other conditions being supposed, those can be absolved (and anointed) who by such a process show certain signs of life, at least sensitive life; indeed, under condition, those who, although they seem dead according to ordinary signs, are prudently judged to survive.

In practice, when a certain sign of death is lacking, if here and now the judgment of a physician cannot be had:

a) In a case of wholly sudden death, they generally can be absolved within two or three hours, because then it is in some degree probable that life remains for some time on account of the resistant vital forces which are not destroyed suddenly; not longer, because it is no longer probable, although in an extraordinary case it is strictly possible that life remain hidden even for several days. An exception is made if the death was violent, for example from compression or tearing away of the principal members, because then death is evident.

b) In a case of ordinary death from a long-lasting and gradually consumptive disease, they cannot be absolved, because it is not probable that life remains.

c) In a case of intermediate death, from a long-lasting disease but with a new sudden influence, which is called a "complication" and greatly accelerates the expected death, they seem able to be absolved for a period of about a half-hour after apparent death.

655. Observations. - 1. If there is probable doubt concerning the validity of the Baptism of non-Catholics, they must be baptized secretly under condition before they are absolved.

2. In positive doubt whether someone is a pagan, heretic, or Catholic, he can be absolved under condition.

3. A dying person in control of himself can be absolved whenever he renews contrition and makes a brief confession and wishes to be absolved; one deprived of senses is not again to be absolved unless there is present a probable reason of a more certain disposition or of a new necessity: not outside this case, as some have said, every three or four hours, because there is lacking a sufficient reason for more often exposing the sacrament to the danger of nullity.

4. Concerning the manner of helping the dying, cf. our little work De Variis Poenitentium Categoriis, c. 2, q. 6, VII.

1. This last part of the treatise could be extended indefinitely, if the principles were applied to all the different categories of penitents, as for certain ones we have done in the little works De Variis Poenitentium Categoriis and De Variis Peccatis in sacramentali confessione medendis. This, however, rather pertains to pastoral theology and to the practical method of ruling souls in the tribunal of Penance. Hence for these matters we refer to works of a more pastoral character.

I. QUESTION I. What are the causes excusing from the material integrity of confession? ANSWER. The following. 1. Physical impotence, by force of which are excused, first, those who labour under invincible ignorance; second, the dumb; third, those who during confession suffer a fainting; fourth, those ignorant of the confessor's idiom, if other ministers be lacking; fifth, those who, war, fire, or shipwreck being imminent, are destitute of time for confessing wholly; sixth, as often as there is grave danger in delay, suppose in a shipwreck. In this case, if there be several penitents, let the priest say: I absolve you, and so forth.

II. Moral impotence also excuses from material integrity: first, when a priest cannot without breaking the seal lay open some sin; second, a sick man infected with a contagious disease, whose confession cannot be heard even from afar; third, when from a whole confession a sick man would be gravely oppressed; fourth, when from a whole manifestation of sins a most grave detriment would threaten the confessor or the penitent.

III. QUESTION II. What is to be said of the opinion asserting that a great frequency of penitents by reason of a solemnity excuses from material integrity? ANSWER. These things Fr. George Gobat teaches, tract 6, no. 479: “Fr. Coninck, Book 6, no. 98, denies that the opinion is probable of those who think that, when there is present so great a multitude of persons wishing to confess for some celebrated feast that the priest cannot satisfy all by hearing all wholly, he can say to each that they lay open only the graver of their mortal sins and defer the rest to another time. I think, subject to a better judgment, that that opinion can probably be sustained, in the case in which many came from far off for the sake of obtaining some great indulgence which requires confession and communion.”

IV. This opinion Innocent XI condemned in this 59th thesis: It is lawful sacramentally to absolve those who have confessed only by halves, by reason of a great concourse of penitents, such as, for example, can happen on the day of some great solemnity or indulgence.

V. A man hindered from approaching a superior is not excused from material integrity, so that he can be absolved by an inferior priest from the remaining sins with the burden of afterwards approaching the superior. Nor can he manifest to the superior the reserved sins alone and be absolved from them, and confess the remaining sins to an inferior priest. The opposite opinion authors commonly disapprove.

VI. QUESTION III. Ought the person of an accomplice to be manifested in confession? ANSWER. Never without necessity. Wherefore when the circumstance of an accomplice is to be manifested, a penitent ought, while he can, to seek out a confessor to whom the person of the accomplice is unknown. If he cannot find such a confessor, he ought to manifest the accomplice. This has always been the discipline of the Church, as Morinus, Book 2, chapter 11 and following, lays open. For the accomplice by sinning ceded his own right. So St. Thomas teaches, II-II, q. 73, art. 2. Besides, a penitent, either for his own or for his accomplice's benefit, can manifest the accomplice himself to the confessor.

VII. QUESTION IV. Can a dying man destitute of his senses be absolved, when he asked for confession before the priest's arrival? ANSWER. All commonly affirm it. Even if he did not expressly ask, if nevertheless he beat his breast, or give signs of confession, he is to be absolved.

VIII. QUESTION V. Is a dying man suddenly destitute of his senses, who neither asked nor gave signs of confession, to be absolved, if nevertheless he lived piously and in Christian fashion? ANSWER. Very many and grave theologians affirm it; and John Morinus above the rest illustrated this affirmative opinion, Book 10, chapter 10. Very many others on the contrary deny it. The arguments of each opinion I have given in Vol. IX, dissertation 4, chapter 10.

IX. In few words I now touch upon the matter. The opinion denying seems to me the more probable; since Christ instituted this sacrament after the manner of a sensible and human judgment. When God wills the salvation of someone, he wills by the same will also the means which he himself prescribes. Therefore when he wills the salvation of someone, he grants him time in which he may exhibit such signs that he can by right be absolved. The matter of the sacrament is the acts of the penitent. If these be lacking, the matter is lacking. And just as, water being lacking, Baptism cannot be administered, so, the acts of the penitent being taken away, the sacrament of Penance cannot be performed. The testimony of St. Augustine which is produced for the affirmative opinion speaks of a catechumen, or of a penitent who by voice or by works had asked for absolution.

X. QUESTION VI. What is to be said of the opinion of Fr. Gormaz? ANSWER. I judge probable the opinion of those who defend that Christians destitute of their senses, whose excellent life is established, are to be absolved. But Fr. John Baptist Gormaz goes further, who, disputation 5, section 1, § 1, page 775 and following, teaches this: “It follows sixthly that he also is to be absolved concerning whom it is not established whether he foresaw the peril of life, whether he lived well or ill, if he is found destitute of his senses and near to death. … Wherefore even if perchance someone, while ACTUALLY SINNING, be suddenly deprived of his senses, he is REGULARLY not to be dismissed without absolution, since it most rarely happens that a man near to death should not wish to consult his own salvation at least by attrition, which it is not established that he inwardly lacks, although externally he be deprived of sense: for by the condition an injury to the sacrament is avoided, and so forth. So Bonagratia cited above. See Gobat, tract 7, nos. 577 to 625.”

XI. Are wicked and outrageous Christians therefore regularly to be absolved who, ACTUALLY SINNING, are destitute of their senses in a duel, in fornication, in adultery, in blasphemy, and wearied in the way of iniquity? Does a sinner actually fornicating wish to consult his own salvation at least by attrition? But even the laxer casuists teach that the precept of contrition presses in the article of death. Besides, is not attrition a supernatural gift of God? And will God give this gift to a sinner actually committing adultery? If God permitted him to fall into sin, how can it be presumed that in that same moment God wills regularly to impart to him such a gift?

XII. QUESTION VII. What is to be said of the opinion of Fr. Gobat, by which he eludes the decree of his own Society forbidding the absolution of a dying man destitute of his senses? ANSWER. Fr. Gormaz cites Fr. Gobat; Fr. Gobat cites, tract 7, no. 601, the decree of his own illustrious Society in these words: “Sixthly, the superiors of our Society have most recently and deservedly inhibited their own from teaching hereafter this proposition: A dying man, even if he give or have given no sign of contrition, so that the priest neither knows nor can prudently think that some sensible confession preceded, can be absolved.” Two things Fr. Gobat devised, that he might elude this prudent decree. Behold his words in the place cited, no. 604: “Moreover, concerning that ordination of our Order of which we have spoken in the preceding number, two things are to be noted. First, that it speaks of a case in which it cannot prudently be presumed that he gave a sign. … The other, that the ordination EXPRESSLY only forbids that that opinion BE TAUGHT, not expressly that it BE NOT PRACTISED.” Do you wish for prettier things? What? If even the decrees of his own Society are eluded with witty figments, what obedience can extraneous decrees expect? I pass over in deep silence the corollaries which hence proceed of their own accord. Will they say that the text of Fr. Gobat has been less sincerely produced? I beg all to read in the fount Gobat, and Gormaz, and La Croix, and Viva, and all whom I cite in this work.

XIII. QUESTION VIII. Is there given a valid but formless confession? ANSWER. They call that sacrament valid but formless which has all the parts essential to validity, but on account of the indisposition of the subject does not confer the effect of grace. Very many theologians defend that there is given a valid but formless confession; very many deny it. The question is merely speculative.

XIV. QUESTION IX. In what case is confession to be repeated? ANSWER. In very many cases. 1. If sufficient grief was lacking. 2. If a penitent knowingly keep silence about some sin. 3. If through mortally culpable negligence some mortal sin was omitted. 4. If a man confess for a depraved end. 5. If a man gravely lied in confession. 6. If, being conscious of an excommunication, whether greater or lesser, he conceal it. 7. Those who solicitously seek out half-learned or too kindly confessors, that they may obtain absolution from the sins into which they frequently relapse, most certainly make sacrilegious confessions. If a confessor from a frequency of confessions and communions sees no reformation of morals, nor amendment of outrages, but the same crimes perpetrated thereabouts, let him not doubt, but judge the confessions to be sacrilegious.

In the conferences held in Coetu s. Pauli ad s. Apollinarem at Rome, experienced theologians submit solutions of pastoral cases. The following is a case which P. Maurus M. Kaiser, O. Praed., presented and solved:

Father Titus was at dinner with his assistant, Father Caius, when the sexton rushed in and announced that some man had been dangerously wounded by another, who then turned the weapon against himself and attempted suicide; both were near death. The two priests hastened at once to the side of the dying, the pastor attending the aggressor, and the assistant the victim. When they returned the curate remarked: “I was just in time; the poor fellow, although quite unconscious, still lived, and thus I was enabled to give him absolution.” “That was quite useless,” answered the parish priest. “And, moreover, this murdered youth was overtaken by the judgment of God; he has lived in sin, given great scandal, and staid away from the Sacraments. As regards the murderer I did not give him absolution, although bystanders told me that before my arrival he had indicated, by winking his eyes, that he desired something. But the Sacrament of Penance can not be effective without the acts of the penitent; these are the matter of this Sacrament, just as water is the matter in Baptism. If, therefore, contrite confession is absent, then the absolutio, the forma Sacramenti, can not be applied.” Whereupon Caius doubtfully shakes his head.

Questions.—I. May a dying person, who is unconscious and gives no sign of contrition, be absolved?

II. Which of the two priests acted correctly?

III. What is to be thought of the reason with which the pastor sought to justify his action?

Resp. ad. I. We may distinguish two cases. If it is a dying person who no longer is able to give the priest a sign of contrition, but who has given such signs to those present before the priest’s arrival, then it is, as BILLUART states (De Poenit, Diss. 6 a 10, para. 7): “It is the common and certain opinion, defined in various councils and passages of law, that such a dying person is to be absolved, at least conditionally and, according to the very probable opinion of many, rather absolutely.”

In this case there is, therefore, no difficulty. But if the dying person has neither before nor after the priest’s arrival given a sign of contrition, then the case is more difficult. St. ALPHONSUS (Theol. Mor. 1, 6, 428) mentions two opinions. Some authors, he states, naming Busenbaum, Lugo, Suarez, Roncaglia, Laymann, are of opinion that absolution can not be given, and he adds: The reason is brief but very cogent, because the matter of the sacrament, which must be perceptible to the senses, is then lacking. Nevertheless he himself agrees with the sententia communior which asserts one can and should give absolution conditionate to such dying person, if this person has lived a Christian life. BILLUART likewise defends this opinion, “although several great theologians oppose it.” The reason that St. ALPHONSUS gives for this opinion is that the Sacraments were instituted on man’s account, and that, therefore, in cases of extreme necessity, one may administer them even if the matter is doubtful: “Necessity makes it lawful for a sacrament to be administered conditionally in any doubt; for by the condition injury to the sacrament is sufficiently prevented and at the same time the salvation of one’s neighbor is sufficiently provided for.

But is the reason given for the first opinion, namely: The absolution can not be given “because the matter of the sacrament, which must be perceptible to the senses, is lacking,” not a good one? The Materia Proxima of the Sacrament of Penance are the actus poenitentis—contritio et confessio—and surely if these acts are not perceivable in any way, nor may be presumed in any way at all, then absolution can not be given. This is

This is plain if, according to the opinion of St. THOMAS, we suppose the actus poenitentis as materia ex qua. But even if, with Scotus, we consider this actus only as materia circa quam, or as conditio sine qua non, the proposition is not different. For if the condition is in no wise fulfilled, nor can be presumed in any way as having been fulfilled, then absolution can not be given.

The question, therefore, is whether there is still present in such dying person, in some way or other, the materia sensibilis sacramenti, or at least may be presumed to be present. St. ALPHONSUS gives this splendid answer: “Because in that case a prudent doubt is certainly present that the dying man either knew the danger of his damnation before losing consciousness, or notices it after losing consciousness in some lucid interval, in which he is presumed to will and ask for absolution by signs truly perceptible to the senses, namely by sighs, movements of the body, or at least anxious breathing, although the confessor then does not perceive those signs (that is, as certain signs); for in so great a necessity such signs, presumed at least from a prudent doubt, suffice for giving absolution conditionally.”

This holy teacher is of the opinion, therefore, that it may be supposed that the afflicted, either before becoming unconscious, or in lucid moments that broke unconsciousness, had aroused inward contrition, and in some way or other (by sighs) desired to give exterior signs of his desire for absolution; at least the opposite is not established. This supposition, though weakly supported, suffices for granting absolution conditionatim. As BILLuart explains, this procedure is justified not merely in the case of a dying person who has led a truly Christian life, but with all who have simply, by word or deed, professed their Christian faith; indeed, as St. ALPHONSUS himself adds, even with those who have been stricken in actu peccati, i. e., duelli, adulterii. Hence to such a dying Catholic can only then not be given absolution: “When he can in no way be presumed disposed, and especially when, after a life passed without faith, before he lost his senses he contemptuously rejected the priest approaching him”; or, briefly expressed, “whose indisposition and impenitence are established.”

Resp. ad. II. The answer is obvious from the preceding argument: Caius acted correctly, but he should have granted absolution sub conditione, which does not appear from his statement of the case. It was wrong on part of Titus to refuse absolution altogether. For even if this unfortunate man came to his state in actu peccati, he could still have been absolved sub conditione, all the more so because the dying man perhaps actually through winking his eyes tried to make understood his desire for absolution.

Resp. ad. III, It is true that according to St. THOMAS the actus poenitentis form the materia of the Sacrament of Penance, and for this reason are as necessary for the administration of this Sacrament as water is for Baptism. But as, in extreme cases of need, one may employ a liquid for Baptism of which it may only be presumed cum tenui aliqua probabilitate that it is natural water, thus absolution may be given even if it can only be presumed cum tenui aliqua probabilitate that the dying man shows contrition. It corresponds perfectly with the benignity of our Mother, the Catholic Church, if theologians teach that one may suppose the dying person desires, through sighs, tearful eyes, etc., to express his contrition; it is possible at any rate, and the contrary is not established. Of course, the materia is valde dubia, but it is sufficient in such a case to grant absolution conditionally.

We should like to add the following remarks: For the practical procedure with dying who no longer can give intelligible signs, there exists no difficulty. The priest can safely adhere to the opinions of moralists, who, at the present time at least, unanimously maintain the principles above stated. According to this, every Catholic deprived of his senses, and near death, may be given absolution, at least sub conditione, indeed even if in actu peccati he became unconscious. The exception only is the dying person, de cuius indispositione constat; this would be particularly the case, as moralists hold, if the afflicted in question, just before he was deprived of his senses, refused to have a priest. Should, however, such a person— according to LEHMKUHL (II, n. 575)—in any way, for instance through pressure of the hand, imploring look, or some other sign, even though these be of doubtful nature, manifest a change of mind, then he may be absolved conditionally. One may indeed go even — further: Even if this unhappy person had refused to see a priest and was then deprived of his senses, it is not improbable that an inward change of disposition takes place within him and that he desires to manifest the same; the case is similar to one in which some one becomes unconscious in actu (alterius) peccati v. c. duelli; although it is always more difficult to presume a change of disposition with those who just previously have rejected grace, still it is not an impossibility. BALLERINI states (Compendium Th. M. II, n. 505a): “No one will deny that a person who can in no way be judged disposed ought not and cannot be absolved. But since a disposition can be presumed even in one who loses his senses in the very act of sinning, it scarcely appears when it will happen that a dying man can in no way be presumed contrite.” If then, for instance, a sick man to-day refuses the priest, and the following day the priest finds him unconscious, the priest should not be censured if he should give (perhaps secretly) absolution sub conditione, after reciting the respective acts, though he discovers no actual signs of a change in disposition.

While the practical procedure offers no difficulties, yet, considered theologically, the matter is not so simple. If one adheres to the view of St. THOMAS, now held as communis sententia: that the actus poenitentis are materia proxima of this Sacrament, there must, in order to warrant absolution, manifest itself, besides the interior contrition, also exterior contrition and accusation aliquo modo, so that a materia sensibilis Sacramenti be present; at the very least one must be able to presume aliqua ratione this materia sensibilis to be present. The interior dispositio, so theologians teach, may be presumed, in consideration of the mercy of God, and for the outward manifestatio according to St. ALPHONSUS the anxia respiratio, suspiria, ictus oculorum, etc., may be accepted. We may content ourselves with this, although I am under the impression many will not be convinced. For it may happen that a dying person lies there unconscious, quietly breathing; shall I refuse him absolution for lack of suspiria, etc.? Certainly not. There the opinion of St. ALPHONSUS does not entirely satisfy. I decidedly prefer to agree with other theologians who justify in another way the permission of absolution in such cases. They say a man who has lived a Christian life, or at least has remained a member of the true Church, seems thereby to have satisfactorily manifested exteriorly his intention to die as a member of this Church, intending consequently to receive the last Sacraments. This manifestatio non expresse revocata suffices to enable his receiving absolution conditionally. Even the refusal to see the priest is not always identical with a renunciation of the Church; ergo: in the case where the priest has been refused, the argument of St. ALPHONSUS is more favorable. Those who favor. the other argument must—as LEHMKUHL actually does—in order to be consistent, require such dying person to manifest exteriorly in some way his change of disposition. As, however, for this even doubtful signs suffice, i. e., pressio manuum, oculorum obtutus (LEHMKUHL), there is after all hardly a difference.

The demand that in order to warrant absolution the actus poenitentis must manifest themselves exteriorly, or that at least their manifestatio may be presumed in some way, applies at all events, if, after the sententia communis, we consider the actus poenitentis as materia Sacramenti—the materia indeed must be sensibilis. It appears to me that the matter would be different if, with the Scotists, we view the actus not as materia ex qua, but only as conditio sine qua non, or as necessaria dispositio ad sacramentum, “quae,” as BALLERINI adds (1. c., n. 506 C), “need not necessarily be perceptible to the senses” In order that the absolutio be valid the dispositio must be present, and in order that I may administer absolutio (licite) this dispositio in general must show itself outwardly. But in an extreme case the Sacrament is effective, if only the absolutio is given and the interior contrition and desire to confess are present. After the sententia communis, on the contrary, the Sacrament is not effective, when the actus poenitentis qua materia sensibilis does not show itself outwardly.

In order, therefore, to be able to give absolution to a dying person bereft of consciousness, I must, after the sententia communis, not only presume the interna dispositio, but also its externa manifestatio; after the sententia Scoti the praesumtio internae dispositionis suffices. That the latter is easier is quite evident, and for this reason I agree with BALLERINI (I. c., n. 506 C), who, to the question which opinion would better justify the granting of absolution in our case, replies: perhaps one will hardly award the palm to the first (St. Thomas’s or the common) opinion. BALLERINI refers here to the argument of those who presume the anxia respiratio, etc., as materia sensibilis.

I am aware that the otherwise ever reliable LEHMKUHL takes the other view, and even expressly states (Th. M., II, n. 512) that also according to the opinion of the Scotists, the externa manifestatio be considered pro essentiali conditione sacramenti validi.

If therefore we differ from LEHMKUHL we do not wish to consider our argument as conclusively decisive, but hope that it may perhaps induce a more thorough discussion and solution of the question.

Ignaz Rieder, D.D.

Januarius Bucceroni, S.J., Professor of Moral Theology at the Gregorian University in Rome, gives (in Analecta Eccl.) the solution of the following case. A young German, Titius, Protestant, of such good moral conduct that he may be said to live in heresy without fault of his own, was taken seriously ill while staying with his mother in Rome. The German Catholic priest Cajus, befriended with Titius, at once went to visit Titius, solicitous for his eternal welfare. During their chat Titius declared himself a sinner, and begged the priest to pray that God might forgive him. The priest wished to avail himself of this good opportunity to lead Titius formally into the Catholic Church, and to baptize him. He disclosed his intention first of all, privately, to the mother, who, however, opposed the idea very strongly, adding that no doubt could exist about the validity of the Baptism, and that she thereafter would allow the priest to speak to the sick man only about points of faith common to both religions; as a consequence she did not leave the patient’s side after that. As the patient’s condition grew worse, the priest saw no other alternative and addressed the patient in the following manner: “Do you believe everything that God has revealed through Christ? Do you sincerely repent of your sins? Do you, before God and before me, confess yourself, as you have already done, to be a sinner? Are you willing that, in so far as I can, I assist you to attain salvation?” The patient assenting to every question, Cajus directed him: “Put your trust in God; He will forgive you your sins.” Thereupon he gave him, secretly, absolution sub conditione. Titius died shortly after and was buried according to the Protestant rite.

The questions are:

I. Whether a material heretic, who has the use of reason, and is in danger of death, can be validly absolved without first having joined the Catholic Church?

II. Whether Cajus proceeded correctly? -

Resp. ad. I. It is true St. ALPHONSUS excludes dying heretics from absolution, when he says: “For heretics, even if in that case they give signs of repentance, are not to be absolved unless they expressly ask for absolution, because such persons can never prudently be presumed to give those signs with a view to confession, from which they shrink exceedingly” (1.6, n. 48). But this praesumtio is a praesumtio generalis, which not only must yield to the truth, but to a contrary praesumtio in casu particulari. One is justified to presume the contrary in the case of a merely material heretic, who lives in good faith and is ready to do everything that God requires for attaining salvation.

P. Gury (Casus, Vol. II, n. 488) distinguishes, for this reason, between material and formal heretics, and holds that to a material heretic, unconscious and in danger of death, may be granted absolution sub conditione. GENNARI (Consultat., p. 255) extends this also to formal heretics. But if absolution, under such circumstances, can be given to an unconscious person, it can be given also to a heretic who is yet conscious.

One can only be opposed to the granting of absolution in the belief that it would be invalid on account of the lack of the intentio and the actus poenitentis. But is the necessary intention indeed lacking? If for Baptism the intentio implicita suffices, then the intentio implicita can suffice also for the Sacrament of Penance. This intentio implicita is included in the sincere will to do everything that God has ordained for attaining salvation. As regards the actus poenitentis, for the validity of the Sacrament is sufficient a confessio generica; it will not be difficult to induce a dying heretic to confess himself in general as sinner and to confidently ask God’s forgiveness, but if this is done, then we have the confessio and contritio, requisite for the validity of absolution.

Nor does defectus fidei Catholicae offer a difficulty, for a haereticus materialis, one who is in good faith, may really be possessed of the fides supernaturalis, the faith necessary for justification. Should some one object, further, that the ordinatio actuum poenitentis is lacking, meaning the actus poenitentis (namely confessio, contritio) were not obtained in ordine ad accipiendam absolutionem, the reply is that an ordinatio implicita is present included in the will to do what God requires of us, and this ordinatio suffices.

Moreover, theologians teach, almost universally, that absolution sub conditione may be given to a dying haereticus materialis, bereft of consciousness. But why may it be given to such a one? Certainly not because it is presumed that God will instruct him by interior enlightenment of the necessity of the Sacrament of Penance, and that then this dying man, in ordine ad accipiendam absolutionem, will make the actus. Such supposition does not belong to the common order of things, but to the province of miracles. We can not argue, therefore, on any such presumption. The reason can, therefore, only be because theologians believe that the actus poenitentis may be presumed in the manner mentioned, i. e., in that general form which, absolutely speaking, suffices for the validity of the Sacrament.

Resp. ad. II. That Cajus acted rightly follows from the above. But as he appeared to have doubt also about the validity of the Baptism, he should have administered Baptism privately sub conditione. For this purpose it would have sufficed, for instance, to wet the patient’s forehead with a cloth and pronounce the forma. It was also quite correct for the priest to keep secret the granting of absolution and to allow the Protestant form of burial; he could not have prevented the latter.

We would like to state some principles that will apply in practical procedure,

1. In the case of a dying non-Catholic already unconscious, absolution may be given sub conditione. This will apply, at all events if the person is a haereticus materialis. But as it is impossible for us to say with certainty that a particular case is bona or mala fide, we may therefore give the absolutio conditionatim to all unconscious, dying heretics, excepting only those, de quorum indispositione constat. Theologically the granting of absolution is justified by the fact that one accepts the anxia respiratio, ictus oculorum... as an outward sign of the inner disposition, and of the desiderium (implicitum) accipiendi absolutionem, or that one concludes that through the bona fides externe manifestata, there has shown itself outwardly the desiderium recipiendi necessaria salutis media; this desiderium is synonymous with the desiderium implicitum Sacramenti.

2. In the case of a dying non-Catholic, still conscious, if prudence forbids urging him to join the Church, we should above all incite in him acts of faith, hope and charity, and of perfect contrition; we should induce him to declare himself a sinner before God, and to consent that the priest help him, as far as possible, to attain salvation. Then he may be given absolution sub conditione.

Is there a doubt as to whether the sick man has been baptized validly, then, in every case, the absolutio conditionata must be preceded by baptismus conditionatus as well.

Ign. Rieder, D.D.

Father Blasius, a newly ordained priest, who, after his first Mass, spent some time in his native parish, and had as yet not received jurisdiction, was requested by the pastor, the only priest in the parish, to take the Viaticum to a certain Augustina who was dangerously ill and who had made her Confession the evening before. As Father Blasius entered the sick room, Augustina said: Father, I wish to confess once more. Father Blasius was perplexed. Augustina, who, the previous day, had been at the point of death, had rallied and it was probable that she would live a few days longer. The articulus mortis, in which in absence of a priest with jurisdiction any priest may absolve, is not present, and Father Blasius does not know what to do. To omit giving her holy Communion would be noticed and would cause comment, nor could he send for the pastor. Father Blasius resolved to act as follows: He consoled Augustina, and took great pains to dispose her for perfect contrition, and then having in his opinion succeeded, he administered the Viaticum to her. Now he asks whether he has done right.

We must say: No. Since Father Blasius did not hear Augustina’s Confession, he could not know whether she did not have grievous sins upon her conscience; again, the Confession made the day before might have been a sacrilegious one. If this were the case then perfect contrition would not suffice. By a rigid law of the Church (Cone. Trid. Sess. XIII., cap. 7 and can. 11) it is prescribed, that the state of grace, as an indispensable condition for the worthy reception of the holy Eucharist, must be gained not merely by perfect contrition, but by sacramental Confession and absolution, with the sole exception of a case of necessity where no confessor is available. This case of necessity did not prevail here, because even if the pastor could not be had, Father Blasius could in periculo mortis absolve. Father Blasius perhaps refers to Gury, who, in his Compendium II., n. 498, in a note says: To the question: What if, in a place where, as is fitting, the custom exists of hearing the confessions of the sick before carrying the Most Holy Sacrament, a sick person who has confessed previously and is now about to be refreshed by Holy Communion asks to confess again—for example because the preceding confessions were invalid—and that confession, since it will be rather long, cannot be heard without injury to the sick person’s reputation? Alasia answers: If the priest who carries the Sacrament is himself approved for confessions, after hearing some graver sin let him absolve the sick person, whom we suppose disposed, give him the Holy Eucharist, and, after returning the Most Holy Sacrament to the church, come back to hear the complete confession.—Likewise, although not approved, a priest may absolve the sick person when the case is urgent because of danger of death.—But if the case is not urgent and that priest lacks approval, while another approved priest is available, let the latter be summoned to hear the confession; otherwise let the unapproved priest himself briefly help the sick person to elicit an act of perfect contrition and give him Holy Communion. According to this Father Blasius would appear to have proceeded correctly. But apart from the fact that we venture to doubt the correctness of the above opinion, we dispute the similarity of the case. In the cited case reference to a Confession quae sine infamia aegroti audiri nequit, while in our case we are unable to discover any danger of defamation if Father Blasius had absolved her. Father Blasius, hence, should not have been satisfied with the contritio of Augustina. Moreover, it is uncertain whether Augustina’s contrition was really a perfect one, and must not the salvation of the dying be cared for in the best possible way? It occurs to us also that Father Blasius appears to make a vast difference between articulus and periculum mortis. He is wrong in doing this (compare S. Lig. Lib. 6. n. 561; Gury II., n. 551; Ballerini-Palmieri V., n. 590, and others). If in periculum mortis one had to await the actual articulus mortis in order, for instance, to be able to absolve a patient from a reserved case, many would die without absolution. The Church bestows, in danger of death, such far-reaching authority ne quis pereat. This must be well remembered. For this reason the periculum mortis and the articulus mortis are considered of equal weight. Even if there was a possibility that Augustina might yet live for a few days, still this could not be expected with certainty. Very often it happens in the case of very sick persons that an apparent improvement immediately precedes death.

What should Father Blasius have done? First of all he should have asked Augustina privately why she desired to confess again, since she had done so only the day before. To such question several answers are possible. We will take three of them into consideration: (1) She might have referred to the fact that every worthy reception of the holy Sacrament of Penance increases sanctifying grace and enhances eternal glory, and, therefore, wished to confess once more. In this case Father Blasius would have had good reason not to hear the Confession, because the Church gives him jurisdiction only in case of necessity, and a case of necessity was not present here. (2) Augustina might have stated, “I forgot a sin yesterday and it makes me uneasy.” In this case, too, Father Blasius could have refused to hear the Confession, because the Confession was not necessary for the worthy reception of the holy Viaticum. He should have informed the patient that she need not fear that the Confession was unworthy ex conscientia erronea. Who in Confession forgets a grievous sin inculpabiliter, and is otherwise disposed and receives absolution, is justified not by contrition alone but by sacramental absolution. He is absolved from the forgotten sin, though only indirectly. To confess the same, especially before receiving holy Communion, in order to be directly absolved therefrom, is de consilio, but not de praecepto. Augustina might have confessed it after receiving holy Viaticum, when the pastor could be sent for.

3. Augustina may say: “The reason why I want to confess again I can only reveal in Confession itself.” In this case Father Blasius should have heard the Confession. It might transpire in the Confession that Augustina had been ashamed to confess her sins to the pastor, that, for this reason, she had concealed grievous sins and made a sacrilegious Confession, or it might be that her Confession had not been made at all because as the pastor, as complex, had no jurisdiction over her praesente in loco alio sacerdote, and perhaps the whole proceeding had been designed as an expedient. In both cases Father Blasius could and should certainly have absolved the well-disposed Augustina, even though the pastor had been in immediate proximity, so that he easily might have been called. Finally, it might be the case that Augustina had committed a grievous sin since her Confession the day before. This case is the most difficult to solve. There is no doubt that Father Blasius could have absolved Augustina if the pastor was some distance away, an hour’s travel, perhaps; but whether he could absolve her if the pastor was near enough to be called is the question. We should have advised Father Blasius to give absolution, for, in the first place, there was really great danger of defamation for Augustina if the pastor had to be called to absolve her. People might suspect a very grievous matter if so much agitation was observed. The approved priest was in this case physically, but not morally, present. This is equivalent to his not being present at all.

Consequently, the simplex sacerdos could here absolve in periculo mortis. And, secondly, we claim the view that a casual priest could absolve a dying person, therefore in periculo mortis, also praesente alio sacerdote approbato qui v. gr. vel commode acciri possit vel etiam in eadem domo habitet, is not without probability. St. Alphonsus, it is true, regards (Lib. VI. n. 562) the opinion that such absolution is not permissible the communissima, and one should not deviate from the same without rationabilis causa, but the opposite opinion is also held and defended by many and prominent authorities. St. Alphonsus himself (l. c.) enumerates expresse sixteen such authors, and their number is therewith not at all exhausted. We will quote here the answer of the renowned theologian, Cardinal Lugo, to Aloysius Turrianus, who had declared the latter opinion to be improbabilis. He answers as follows: Hence it is evident that Luis Turrianus went too far in censuring this opinion by calling it improbable. ... Certainly it cannot be denied that an opinion maintained by so many and such weighty Doctors is probable, especially since it is founded upon the words of the Council of Trent, which cannot readily be explained by its opponents. Viva regards the former opinion not as communissima, but only as communior, and even St. Alphonsus uses a very moderate expression by saying (l. c.): Puto non recedendum a prima sententia. Father Blasius, according to our view, might have acted on the second opinion, since the same is probable and because there was a rationabilis causa to depart from the more exacting opinion. This rationabilis causa we find in the fact that public notice was to be avoided, and also in the fact that Augustina otherwise would have been obliged to confess the same sins once more, although she was disposed to receive absolution and entitled to it. The Congregation of the Sacred Office issued the following decision on July 29, 1891: Those are not to be disturbed who hold that absolution at the point of death by a priest who is not approved is valid, even when an approved priest could easily have been called or been present; nor are those to be disturbed who hold that absolution at the same point of death from reserved sins, whether simply or with a censure, granted by a priest who does not have jurisdiction over reserved cases, is valid, even if a priest having the aforesaid jurisdiction could easily have been called or been present. Prof. Joseph Weiss.