Chapter III: Penitents in Extreme Danger (1)

84. The Importance of the Priest’s Ministry at the Bedside of the Sick and the Dying.

As the grace of perseverance and eternal salvation depends upon a good death, as a bad death can never be remedied, and as man’s helplessness is never greater than in that terrible last struggle, in which a thousand things disturb and confuse him, the bitterest pains afflict and the most violent temptations beset him, it is a work most pleasing to God, and most conducive to the salvation of souls, to bring spiritual aid to the sick and dying. The good, zealous priest is an ardent friend of the sick and the dying, following in this the example of our divine Savior (Matt. ix. 35). It was always the glory of Catholic priests that they were to be found at the bedside of the sick and the dying, making no distinction, and undeterred by the worst infectious diseases. And when all flee, the priest remains and is prepared to sacrifice himself in order to save the sick one. Therefore Dr. Stöhr says most truly in his “Pastoral Medicine” (p. 241): “The chronicles of epidemic disease record upon each of their pages the most splendid examples of that joyful self-sacrificing courage with which the whole secular and Regular clergy have stood faithfully at their posts in the hour of the greatest need, in the days when a reign of terror dissolved all ties of society. For the Catholic pastor of souls this form of courage is just as much a principle of professional honor, and, therefore, I venture to say, as much a matter of course, as in an officer bravery before the enemy.” In the moment of greatest need (_in articulo mortis_) any priest, as already stated, can administer the consolations of religion; reserved cases and censures do not exist. And _every_ priest should, therefore, be solicitous to obtain the necessary knowledge in order to be able to administer the holy Sacraments to a dying person in case of necessity. As visiting the sick is, of itself, forbidden to no one, and, as St. Alphonsus remarks,[1020] “_Every_ priest, even he who has no talent for preaching, can engage upon it, rendering by so doing the greatest service, not only to the sick man himself, but also to his relations and friends,” _every_ priest should acquire a facility in comforting the sick according to their special needs and circumstances.

In order, therefore, that the priest may effectually assist the sick and the dying, he should, before he betakes himself to the sick-room, observe the following:—

1. Reflect that he is about to perform a work of the greatest importance, and that the errors which he commits in it are of the worst kind, and cannot, as a rule, be remedied.[1021]

2. Remember that in this most important work the help of God is necessary to him; he should not, therefore, trust in himself, but wholly in God.

3. Endeavor to awaken and preserve the purest and most perfect intention possible, the intention of saving a soul which Jesus Christ has purchased by His blood.

4. Earnestly pray for the success of his work.

5. Study well what he has to do and to say. He should consider the particular manner in which he has to treat the patient to whom he is going; for he is undertaking a more important work than preaching a sermon, and yet he must prepare for every sermon.[1022]

6. Learn the character, the habits, the circumstances, and the situation of the sick person, if he is not already in possession of this knowledge.[1023]

85. The Confessions of the Sick.

_I. Some preliminary remarks._

1. The confessions of the sick and the dying are of the greatest importance, as, in many cases, they open the gates of heaven to them, and prepare them for the worthy reception of the other Sacraments. On this account parish priests, and priests in general who have the care of souls, are strictly bound to hear the confessions of those in danger of death, even in face of great difficulties and of danger to their own lives. The priest may, in such a case, even interrupt Mass (even during the Canon) if no other priest is at hand.[1024] Let him, therefore, before he visits the sick person to hear his confession, earnestly pray for grace; let him enter upon this important duty with zeal and love, but also with great prudence and judgment, confiding in God, and where there is danger, let him face it with apostolic courage. Let him not forget that the eternal salvation of the sick person is in his hands, that he can save his soul; but that this soul may also be lost by his fault if his action is careless, tardy, imprudent, and faulty.

2. In the presence of the sick person, however the latter may be circumstanced, and, however he may have lived, the confessor must manifest for him a great love and a sincere sympathy.

3. If he were not called by the sick person to hear his confession, but by those around him, or if he went unsummoned,[1025] and if there is no danger of death, he should not mention confession at once during the first visit, but address the patient in a friendly manner, ask him sympathetically about his illness, etc., as sick people like to talk about these things. He should then admonish him to resign himself to the will of God, to unite his sufferings to the bitter sufferings of Jesus, and to bear them patiently in satisfaction for sin.[1026] In subsequent visits, he should gradually prepare him for confession; ask him when he made his last confession; remark that it is better to confess before the illness increases, because this will render it more difficult; that the graces of the holy Sacrament of Penance procure for the soul the peace which it desires; that they conduce to patience in suffering. Let the priest awaken in the sick person a hope that God will restore his health, but at the same time, be careful that he recognizes the gravity of his illness, and that he does not place undue confidence in doctors and their skill. In order not to expose the patient to the danger of dying without the Sacraments by misjudging the gravity of the case, the priest should ask the doctor whether the condition of the patient is precarious. The friends may also be privately asked if the sick person wishes to confess to another priest, adding that there would be no objection whatever to his doing so.[1027]

4. If the sick person is a _peccator publicus_, living, for example, in concubinage, or in the so-called “civil marriage,” the confession should not, as a rule, be heard before amendment and due satisfaction have been seriously promised; for if the priest hears the confession, and the person refuses to fulfill the conditions, the priest will, on account of the seal of the confessional, be obliged to allow viaticum and Extreme Unction to be administered to one who is unworthy,—indeed, perhaps be obliged to administer these Sacraments himself.

5. If the sick person begs that the confession may be deferred, and if danger of death, lethargy, or delirium is not imminent, this postponement should be granted, but the patient must at once fix a time for the confession, perhaps on the same or the following day. The priest should not consent to indefinite postponement. If, however, danger threatens, he should not consent to postponement at all, but use all his efforts to induce the patient to confess at once, firmly but kindly, and considerately removing all his objections; especially pointing out to him the great danger to which he exposes himself by this postponement; as God has promised pardon to the penitent sinner, but has not promised to give him the next day.[1028] The confessor must, therefore, investigate the patient’s reasons for wishing to postpone his confession. The real reason is generally either (1) because _his conscience is burdened with sin_, he has not confessed for a long time, or confessed badly, and therefore despairs of unburdening his conscience, the task being above his strength, as he thinks; or (2) because he has an _obdurate heart_, not caring about his salvation, or he so despairs of his salvation that he rejects all attempts from outside as useless and troublesome. The priest may not give up such a patient, nor leave him till the last moment; he must pray much, and cause others to pray for him, endure humiliations cheerfully, and exhaust every means that love, zeal for souls, and wisdom can possibly suggest.

In the first of the two cases, the priest should offer the sick person his help, and promise him to make the confession quite easy for him, telling him that with a little good will, he will certainly make a good confession, and so obtain pardon, grace, and salvation. The inexhaustible mercy of God should be especially and most earnestly impressed upon him; he should be reminded of the sufferings and death of Jesus for sinners; of the parables of the prodigal son, the lost sheep, the joy of the angels over _one_ sinner doing penance, of the great examples of mercy: Peter, Mary Magdalen, the thief on the cross, etc.

In the other case the difficulty is greater, for it is indeed difficult to soften an obdurate heart. Here, fervent, continued prayer is necessary. Those terrible and consoling truths which our faith supplies so abundantly should, at suitable intervals, and with eloquence and _unction_, be laid before him: the misery of the impenitent sinner, the severity of the divine judgment, the eternity of punishment, the happiness of the sinner reconciled to God, the peace of the soul adorned with sanctifying grace, the eternal joys which await him, etc. If all this does not produce upon the sick person the desired effect, he should be left to himself for some time, in order that he may reflect upon what he has heard. In the meantime, pray; then visit him again, and speak to him again, and proceed in this manner till success results, or till an impenitent death closes an impenitent life.[1029]

II. _The confession of the sick person._

1. If the sick person shows himself ready to make his confession, the confessor must help him in every way to fulfill the conditions necessary for the reception of the Sacrament of Penance; thus he should help him to examine his conscience, to elicit contrition, to make a complete confession, and to perform the penance.

And first, as to the completeness of the confession, the penitent’s condition must be taken into consideration. If the confession can be put off without danger, he should be admonished to examine his conscience according to his ability and to prepare for a general confession.[1030] If it cannot be put off, or if the confessor is under the necessity of supposing that the patient is not well able to make such an examination of conscience, he must help him. But he must be careful to avoid worrying him by asking too many questions.[1031]

The following cases deserve special attention:—

(_a_) If the sick person has lost the power of speech, and can thus only indicate a few sins by signs, or in some other way. In this case the priest will be able to elicit the confession of a few sins, and that suffices.

(_b_) If the sick person is so weak that he can only confess a few sins, or having confessed a few, faints, or seems about to faint, or when the patient has not confessed for some considerable time, or invalidly, and the gravity of the illness or the nearness of death does not permit of postponing the absolution.

(_c_) When the confessions of many dangerously sick or dying persons are to be heard, and there is no time for a complete confession.

(_d_) When the priest has arrived at the house of the sick person with the viaticum, and cannot, without endangering the good name of the sick person, hear a complete confession.[1032] In this case, let the priest visit the sick person as soon as possible after administering the Sacraments and supply what was wanting.

(_e_) When a dangerously sick or a wounded person, or _mulieres parturientes_, require the assistance of another even during the confession. In this case, the sick person may confess some sin of which he is not ashamed to accuse himself before others, or the confessor may ask him if he accuses himself of all the sins he has committed, and repents of them, because by them he has offended God, and ask him, in particular, if he has committed this or that (slight) sin, such as people of his class are generally guilty of.[1033] Similarly when the priest does not understand the language of the sick person, and the latter confesses through an interpreter.[1034]

(_f_) When the sick person has a contagious disease, and, in the opinion of experts, there would be danger of infection to the priest if the confession lasted long. Nevertheless, the priest would, in this case, do well to overcome the fear of infection, trusting in God and making use of the necessary precautions, and be ready to sacrifice his life in the service of God and his neighbor.

In all these and similar cases, the patient must duly repent of all grave sins, and have the will to confess the sins which he has omitted if he is able to make a new confession. Indeed, there are cases in which a purely general accusation by word or sign, or a request for absolution, expressed in any way, suffices for obtaining absolution, that is, when no other means of confession is available. Even if a wish expressed to others, or the desire for a priest, can be regarded as confession when the penitent has become unconscious.[1035]

2. The confessor should question the patient so that he need simply answer without being obliged to talk much. If he is not well acquainted with the state of his soul, let him ask the patient if he has always confessed validly (this question may also be put to all sick penitents), or if, in his past life, he always wished to confess well, if he ever voluntarily concealed a grave sin, and has not yet confessed it, if he has anything else upon his conscience which disturbs him. According to his character, and the state in which the confessor finds the penitent, he should, moreover, ask if he still has in his possession anything belonging to another, or if, for some other reason, he still has restitution to make of property, or honor and good name; if he harbors hatred and enmity toward any one; if he has ever lived in a sinful habit, and if he has expiated these sins in a general confession. If restitution has to be made, and he can make it at the time, the duty of so doing at once must be imposed upon him, and he must not be allowed to leave this duty to his heirs; unless the latter be thoroughly trustworthy, the dying person believing this to be sufficient and not easily being induced to another expedient. If the restitution cannot at once take place, he must, at least, have an actual intention of making it as soon as possible, and of taking the necessary steps toward insuring its being made—either by a will, or by an injunction to those belonging to him.[1036]

If the sick person is in a state of invincible ignorance concerning the duty of restitution, and if it is anticipated that he will not be willing to make it, or that great difficulties will arise, the confessor ought not to call his attention to this duty, but leave him in his state of ignorance. For, by such exhortation, the material sin would become a formal one, and the confessor’s duty is rather to guard against injury to the soul of the penitent than to ward off a temporal injury from a neighbor. If, however, the confessor is questioned by the sick person concerning such a duty, he must give an answer, but give it with such caution that neither truth nor justice suffer, and that the salvation of the sick person be not imperiled.[1037] The confessor should then exhort the sick person to forgive from his whole heart every one who has ever offended him, and to beg pardon of those whom he has ever offended, or injured.

3. If the sick person is in a _voluntary immediate occasion of sin_, he must remove this at once, or form a firm purpose of doing so as soon as possible. Without this resolve, even _in articulo mortis_, absolution could not be given, for the necessary dispositions would be wanting. If there is no danger in delay, the confessor must insist, with inexorable severity, upon the removal of this occasion, if it is a public one, and postpone absolution till it is removed.[1038] Such occasions may be dangerous objects, or persons whom the sick man hates, or a person with whom he maintains sinful intercourse. The latter occasion presents greater difficulty, and it is to be disposed of according to the rules laid down for those living in concubinage. If the matter has remained secret, or is only known through confession, and if public scandal is to be feared from immediate removal of the person, the penitent must form the firm purpose either of marrying her, if no obstacles which cannot be removed are in the way, or of dismissing her as soon as possible, and till then, of keeping her at a distance as much as possible.[1039]

If the person were an _occasio necessaria_, that is, if the sick man had no one else to wait upon him, the matter becomes still more difficult. Supposing that the _occasio proxima_ has really lost its character in this situation, the circumstances might call for some forbearance; however, if the matter is notorious, some explanation should be made in order that the scandal caused may be atoned for; that is, the sick man should be obliged to declare, perhaps before witnesses, that he would dismiss the person when he had recovered health; but this declaration would not be necessary if the circumstances which make the dismissal of the concubine impossible are publicly known.

This tolerance is the more justifiable if the immoral relationship had not become generally known, but were only learnt through the confessional, and difficulties stood in the way of contracting the marriage _in extremis_. But here also the sick man must promise that he will marry, or dismiss the person who is the occasion of sin to him, etc. However, in all cases where the concubine cannot be dismissed, the sick man must take care that she does not sleep near him, that she only goes to him when it is necessary, in order to avoid dangerous intimacy and temptation.

4. If the person who is dangerously ill is living in so-called “civil matrimony,” and there is no canonical impediment, a promise to marry made before the parish priest and two witnesses suffices, and the marriage must take place as soon as possible. If there is a canonical impediment, for which a dispensation can be obtained, let the confessor induce the sick man to submit himself to the laws of the Church. On this condition he may be absolved; the confessor should then procure the dispensation if the patient is not already _in extremis_. If he is already very near death, the bishop can dispense, in order that the marriage may proceed, as it may, for many reasons, be desirable. If the impediment cannot be removed by a dispensation, it suffices that the sick person promises to submit to the laws of God and the Church, in case he is restored to health. If he is not aware of the obstacle, he may be left in his _bona fides_. If the matter is publicly known, the scandal given must be repaired.

5. If a dying woman has separated from her husband on her own authority, the confessor must demand that the separation should be revoked as soon as possible; if the person does not wish this, and there is canonical ground for separation, she must be left in peace. If the reasons are futile, she must declare that she will resume married life upon the restoration of health (if occasion requires, she must make this declaration before witnesses, in order to remedy the scandal given). If she had been divorced by the civil court _in bona fide_, she must not be disturbed. Of course, the conduct of the confessor would be modified according as he had learnt the matter through the confessional, or previously, by general report. In the latter case the explanations and promises in question must be duly given before the administration of the Sacraments.[1040]

In respect to sick persons who have lived in habitual sin, or have frequently or generally relapsed into the same grave sin, see §§ 67 and 68.

6. As soon as the confession is completed, the confessor should exhort the sick person in a few forcible words, and awaken in him true sorrow and firm purpose of amendment. The thought of death, vividly suggested by the circumstances, is well calculated to move a man to a holy fear and repentance. In most cases it is advisable to make an act of contrition with the sick person.

7. Then, according to the express admonition of the Roman Ritual, a slight penance should be imposed upon the sick person, which can be performed at once. The confessor should help persons who are very ill, and those who are dying, to perform the penance before, or after, the absolution has been administered.[1041]

8. When the sick person’s spiritual condition has been set in order, attention must be paid to the regulation of his temporal affairs (Is. xxxviii. 1). If it is considered necessary or advisable, he should, therefore, be admonished to put his worldly concerns in good order, if he has not yet done so, that he may afterwards occupy himself with God in undisturbed peace. But he must so regulate everything that he may be well prepared for the account which he will be obliged to render to God.

III. The priest very often finds himself with sick persons who are altogether uneducated and ignorant; or who, though well informed in affairs of the world, are very ignorant in religious matters. Whilst he can openly instruct the former class, he is often obliged to disguise his instruction of the latter that they hardly observe it, so as not to offend them and jeopardize the salvation of their souls. In this case he can give an explanation of the truths of faith which are applicable: (_a_) in the form of a prayer in which God is invoked; (_b_) in the form of a thanksgiving; (_c_) in the form of a sacrifice, or (_d_) in the form of an exhortation. Nevertheless, an explicit act of faith may be added. The confessor should commit to memory different formulae by means of which he can, when necessary, instruct ignorant patients in the truths which they must know, and elicit the acts of the theological virtues with them; he should also learn by heart short prayers and verses of Holy Writ which contain acts of the different virtues necessary to the patient.

9. In order to provide more abundantly for the salvation of the sick person, the zealous priest should not content himself with what is necessary for a valid and fruitful reception of the Sacrament of Penance, but should endeavor, in subsequent visits[1042] (which should be repeated oftener as death approaches): (1) to remove all obstacles to salvation; (2) to counteract the attacks of the evil one; (3) to suggest remedies helpful in the dangerous passage to eternity.

(_a_) Such obstacles to salvation are, preëminently: attachment of life, love of relatives, and care for earthly things. To remove these, it is especially necessary to inform the sick person, prudently, and at a suitable time, of the danger of death, at first by hints, but later on, when death is nearer, openly and plainly.[1043] Then the priest must explain to him how pleasing to God it is, and what great merits he acquires for himself before God, if he submits to His will and makes the sacrifice of his life. He should also be reminded of the miseries of the life which he is leaving behind, and of the joys of heaven to which he is passing; impressing upon him, moreover, that God who takes him away from his own will provide for them.

(_b_) Against the temptations of the devil, which are usually more violent and numerous in the hour of death than in life, the general remedies—invocation of the names of Jesus and Mary, the sign of the cross, and short prayers—are to be used. A crucifix and one or two religious pictures should be placed near the sick bed. In temptations _against faith_, the patient may exclaim, “Oh, my God! I believe all that Thou, the eternal Truth, hast revealed!” or he may thank God for the grace of the true faith, and protest that he will live and die in this faith; or, finally,—and this is an excellent proceeding,—reject these temptations energetically, and direct his attention to other things, making other acts—acts of sorrow, of confidence, of love of God, etc. And should the temptations continue to molest the sick person more violently, the _motiva credibilitatis_ may be explained to him.

If the sick person is tormented by _temptations to despair_, the priest must not speak to him of the justice of God, nor of the punishments of the damned, nor of the gravity of sin, but of the exceedingly great mercy of God, the sufferings of Christ, the divine promises, the intercession of the most holy Virgin and the saints, and thus inspire him with confidence.

If, on account of great pain, the sick person is tempted to _impatience_, remind him of the rewards of patiently borne suffering of Our Savior, who bore with patience the greatest torments; of the example of the saints, especially of the Queen of martyrs; of the duty of doing penance for our sins; of the pains of purgatory, which he may partly expiate by patient endurance of suffering; also of the fact that patience soothes and lessens pain. As a remedy against _temptations to hatred_ and _feelings of hostility_ remind him of the precept of Christ to love all men, and to exclude no one, not even our enemies, from this love; moreover, of the offenses we commit against God, who forgives us over and over again; of God’s promise to forgive us if we forgive others; and, finally, place before his eyes the glorious example of Jesus.[1044]

(_c_) The confessor must assist the sick person by all the other means which our holy faith so abundantly possesses, administer to him in due time the last Sacraments, give him absolution repeatedly,[1045] and (observing the precepts of the Church) frequently holy communion; often suggest fervent ejaculatory prayers; say with him the acts of faith, hope, and charity, and of perfect contrition for all past sins, also of perfect resignation to God’s holy will; make him participate in the indulgences of the Church, give him general absolution, let him kiss the crucifix, sprinkle him with holy water, etc.[1046] And as it is not certain that a priest will be with the sick person in his last struggle and equally uncertain that the patient will not again commit a sin, especially as the evil one continues his temptations till the last moment, the priest should teach him to elicit acts of love and contrition; he should also request a trustworthy person among those around the patient to make frequent acts of perfect love and contrition with him, especially during his agony.[1047]

86. Absolution of the Dying.

The general principles laid down in the preceding sections apply also to this particular case. _If it is certain that anything essential is wanting to the disposition of the moribund, absolution may not be administered_; but if it is in any way, even _tenuiter_, probable, that everything essential is present, absolution not only _can_ but _must_ be given. This, however, is not to be understood as meaning that there may not be cases in which absolution can be given, but where no obligation exists under pain of sin of giving it. Most of the cases which occur can be solved by the rules which follow:—

I. A dying person who, in the presence of the priest, has given a sign of repentance, and has confessed any sin, or even only _in genere_ has acknowledged himself to be a sinner, _must be absolved_, and that, _absolute_, not _conditionate_. In this case the presence of sorrow is sufficiently ascertained, and besides there is some sort of confession. This is the express teaching of the Roman Ritual.[1048] The absolution here bears directe on the sins confessed _generice_ by the signs of repentance and the desire of absolution, and _indirecte_, on the special sins, included in that _manifestatio doloris_. These sins, however, the penitent must confess separately and distinctly when he has been restored to health.[1049]

II. _A dying person who is unconscious_, and who, _by the testimony of those present_, before he became unconscious, _expressed a wish to confess_, and showed signs of repentance, _must_ be absolved. This is the constant practice of the Church, and the unanimous teaching of theologians. For the desire of receiving sacramental absolution, whether this is made known to the priest directly, or indirectly, through witnesses, includes a _confessio in genere_. Although moralists[1050] teach that in this case also absolution may be given _absolute_, and the Roman Ritual directs simply: “_absolvendus est_,” it seems, nevertheless, safer to follow the opinion of those[1051] who require that the absolution be given conditionally, at least when it may be prudently doubted whether any indication of sorrow was really given, especially if the dying person is a _homo rudis_. Absolution must also be given—but conditionally—if there is _aliqua probabilitas doloris et desiderii confessionis_.

III. According to the _sententia communis et probabilis_, absolution _sub conditione_ _MAY_ be and _MUST_ be given to a dying person who _has shown no sign of repentance_, and _of whom no witness has reported such sign to the absent priest_, and in whom the priest, moreover, cannot detect any such sign; provided the dying person is a _Catholic_. That he should have lived a pious life is not necessary; it is also applicable to one who has not lived very piously, and may be extended to all concerning whose indisposition there is no certainty; for it may be presumed that in their dangerous condition they would wish to receive the Sacrament.

The whole difficulty in this and the following cases is—how, without express manifestation of sorrow, and desire of absolution, the essential elements of the Sacrament of Penance can be supposed with some degree of probability to exist. I say, with some degree of probability, for it is not necessary to prove that these essential elements are _certainly and positively_ present; it suffices to show that some probability (slight though it be) exists for the supposition that the essential elements of the Sacrament are realized.

In order that absolution may be administered, there is required: (1) a probable conjecture that the dying person has interior sorrow; (2) some outward manifestation which, with some degree of probability, may be regarded as a manifestation of inward sorrow, and (3) some outward sign, which, with some probability, can be understood as an accusation, if only a general one.

The question now is to what extent can we find these three things in a dying person deprived of the use of his senses, who neither gives perceptible signs himself, nor has previously given them to others?

Many theologians appeal to such signs as anxious breathing, sighing, winking of the eyes, various movements of the mouth, by means of which the dying person “perhaps” wishes to manifest his sorrow and his desire of absolution. For, frequently, those who appear to be unconscious are only deprived of the exterior use of their senses; they perceive and understand everything, think, reflect, are also capable of sorrow, etc., as many declare, who have been in a similar state. As a man is more withdrawn from the outer world, the more active is his inner life. In the case of dying persons who have led _Christian_ lives, who are mindful of their sins, and do not easily deceive themselves as to their situation, who know that the decision of their eternity is near at hand, as they will soon stand before their Judge—it is readily to be understood that they should make attempts to reveal outwardly their interior sorrow, and, therefore (the only conceivable course in a Catholic), their desire for the absolution of the priest.[1052] Even if such signs are of themselves no natural indication of repentance, we may assume that the dying person wishes to make use of them for said purpose (which at the time is to him of supreme importance), as he cannot reveal himself in any other way. This is the teaching of St. Augustine, of St. Antonin, of St. Alphonsus Liguori, of Sporer, Elbel, the Salmanticenses, Tamburini, Lacroix, Aertnys, Müller, Gury, Konings, and others. The specified signs may, therefore, be regarded as manifestations of sorrow and desire of absolution. Now, it is allowed, in _urgente necessitate_, to administer the Sacraments _sub conditione_, however doubtful the matter may be, as, on the one hand, the reverence due to the Sacrament is preserved by the appended condition, and on the other hand the salvation of a soul is also provided for. When, therefore, the priest _can_ administer the Sacraments, he is _bound_ to administer them _sub gravi peccato_.[1053] He must, however, repeat to the dying person in a few words and in a loud voice a general accusation and an earnest act of contrition, as experience shows that the sense of hearing generally remains till death.

Other theologians thought to solve the difficulty more satisfactorily by the doctrine that the _actus pœnitentis_ were not _materia sacramentorum ex qua_, but _materia circa quam_. But this, of itself, does not contribute anything to the solution of the difficulty. For even the theologians who, following the teaching of Scotus, consider the _actus pœnitentis_ as _materia circa quam_, demand an _outward manifestation_ as an _essential condition_ of the validity of the Sacrament.

There may, however, be cases in which an _anxia respiratio_, _gemitus_, etc., is not perceived. Some other probable marks of sorrow and of accusation must then be sought. Lehmkuhl proposes the following:—

_A._ As far as the interior sorrow is concerned, we can and must presume that it exists; we shall, at least, never have a certitude that it is wanting. Persons who seemed to be deprived of their senses, or really were so, and have afterwards recovered their use, have declared that in their anxiety they elicited sorrow for their sins, although they could not give outward expression of it; and there is no reason why this could not also be true even of those unfortunate ones who have laid violent hands on themselves, or who in the act of committing any other sin have lost consciousness. This sorrow must, of course, be awakened after the last mortal sin, and must extend to all mortal sins not yet remitted. We must assume that these conditions exist, or are not certainly wanting, especially as God never refuses sufficient grace to any one, and desires and wills, not the death of the sinner, but his conversion.

_B._ We need not insist that the manifestation of _sorrow_ should necessarily be the expression of _that_ sorrow which is an essential disposition. It seems to be sufficient that the penitent indicates that he either has had the necessary sorrow, or will have it before the absolution, or wishes to have it. But this is _implicite_ contained in the manifestation of a desire for absolution and, in reality, always coexists with it. This manifestation of the desire for absolution also contains, equivalently, the third element, a virtual accusation. We can, therefore, deal with the two requisites at the same time.

_C._ The _accusatio aliqualis_, which is indispensable, is conveyed by the fact that the man gives outward evidence of his wish to be reconciled to God in the last moment by the services of the priest, for he thereby acknowledges to be a sinner, and that in view of the priestly functions which are to be exercised at the moment of his death.

Moreover, by the fact that the man has lived as a Christian, he seems to indicate sufficiently his desire of being reconciled to God in the last hour of his life through the ministry of a priest. He thus, in truth, makes a general, public confession before the whole Church and all priests by whom he can be absolved. All the Sacraments which he has received, all the Christian virtues which he has practiced, could be regarded as witnesses of his desire for absolution in the hour of death. Nor is a similar manifestation of this desire altogether wanting in those whose lives have been considerably below a Christian ideal, or who were deprived of consciousness in the act of sinning; for, by remaining in the Church, they show that they hoped and desired to be reconciled at the hour of death. But it might be objected: is not this desire interrupted and revoked by the mortal sin? If this were the case, our action would, of course, be in vain; for, whilst absolution in such case would be valid for him who does not need it, because he has committed no mortal sin, yet for him who does need it, it would have no validity. However, we may answer: The sorrow, in as far as it is a _necessary disposition_, is revoked and interrupted, but the man’s declaration that he _wishes_ to have contrition _at this time_ and desires absolution, is not repealed. We admit that the case is hopeless, unless interior and true sorrow is present. The validity of the absolution remains, therefore, _very doubtful_. Nevertheless, that is not the point. That sorrow is “perhaps” present, we are justified in assuming, and it is, therefore, allowed to give absolution; it may possibly impart to the man who has only imperfect sorrow sanctifying grace and eternal life. That the sorrow should coexist with the absolution is certainly not necessary.[1054]

IV. In accordance with our previous inference, a dying person, who, up to the moment of his coma, _refused to receive the Sacraments_ and rejected the priest, may not be absolved, as it cannot be presumed that he had the will to receive absolution. _To be able_ to absolve such a one we must discover some sign which we may construe as indicating (according to Lehmkuhl, n. 515) _a change in his sentiments_; for example, pressure of the hand, a look, sighing, etc. If there is any indication of the kind, however doubtful, conditional absolution may be given.

V. A dying person who was _deprived of his senses in actu peccati_, for example, in adultery, a duel, drunkenness, _can_ be absolved _sub conditione_, if he is a Catholic, and that on the same grounds as we have specified above (n. III). For of a Catholic it may be presumed that, in this utmost danger of eternal damnation, and under the influence of divine grace, which never will be refused—he desires to secure his eternal salvation.

A non-Catholic in this situation may not be absolved, even though he has given signs of sorrow, unless he has expressly asked for absolution; for it cannot be reasonably supposed that he has given these signs _in ordine ad confessionem sacram_, as he does not believe in it, and, on this account, the _materia Sacramenti_ would certainly be wanting. It may thus be maintained that _to scarcely any dying Catholic MUST absolution be refused_, and that to all dying Catholics it _MAY_ be given, at least _sub conditione_.

We arrive at a different decision and must pursue another course with regard to a Catholic, who, being born and brought up in the Catholic religion, has apostatized and embraced heresy.

VI. _A heretic_, who is deprived of his senses, but who, while he was in health, manifested an inclination towards the Catholic religion, may, in this decisive moment, be absolved _sub conditione_ from censures and sins if he has already been baptized in his sect; if doubt is entertained as to the validity of his Baptism, he must, previously, be baptized _sub conditione_. It may be presumed of such a one that he wishes to close his life in the community of the true Church of Christ. Indeed, as Lehmkuhl adds, one might also give conditional absolution to a baptized non-Catholic of whom it might be presumed, upon any probable ground, that he is _in bona fide_ and would gladly accept the help of a priest if he knew it was necessary to him.

In such a case it is, of course, more difficult to produce anything out of the past life which can, in any way, be construed as a confession, and a desire for absolution, because he has not _explicite_ thought of absolution, unless we are to be content with the man’s _bona fides_, “_quam probabiliter adesse seu adfuisse, externe sit manifestatum_.” For, if to this _bona fides_, sorrow has been added,—and it is not certain that it has not been added,—it seems that there is, _implicite_, the manifested desire to participate in those remedies which are necessary, and, therefore, in the absolution of the priest.[1055] If we have here, with Ballerini, Lehmkuhl, and Aertnys, proceeded to the utmost limits, and if the arguments in favor of this extreme liberality in the administration of absolution are not always cogent, let us not be accused of laxity or of any want of reverence for the holy Sacrament of Penance. Such liberality seems to have been fully intended by Him, “Who came to seek and to save that which was lost,” and who wishes not the death but the life of the sinner, who opened the gates of paradise even to the thief on the cross, and who has placed the keys of heaven in our hands. We safeguard the sanctity of the holy Sacrament by adding the condition, and the Lord instituted His Sacraments for man; “_in extremis autem extrema tentanda sunt_.”

We may _repeatedly_ administer absolution to the dying when the conditions necessary for its validity are fulfilled. The following rules are of service:—

1. If the dying person gives to the priest who is present undoubted signs of a contrite disposition, it is advisable to administer absolution to him as often as he renews these signs.[1056]

2. If the dying person is unconscious, one may administer conditional absolution to him two or three times, with an interval of about three or four hours. For, in order that a Sacrament may be administered conditionally, a _causa gravis_ is necessary, which could not exist if the absolution were administered at shorter intervals and more frequently. If the state of unconsciousness should continue, and there is actual danger of death, absolution may be frequently repeated; for example, three or four times in a day.[1057] This proceeding is justified by the endeavor to give more certain and efficacious assistance to the dying person.

Such efforts in behalf of the dying person demand great zeal, but, as Elbel rightly says,[1058] they are _very praiseworthy_, and form part of our holy office. Our divine Redeemer deposited His graces in the hands of His priests; faithful to their calling they will, with the greatest zeal, dispense these graces to those who are worthy and in need of them.

“_Fratres charissimi, munus quod in Ecclesia Dei geritis plane eximium est; enimvero tantam vobis Christus ad judicandas animas auctoritatem elargitus est, ut sententiæ a vobis in terris juste prolatæ, ratæ habeantur in cœlis. Ora vestra canales esse mysticos dico, per quos vera de cœlo pax in homines bonæ voluntatis descendit. Verba oris vestri tubæ sunt magni Jesu, quæ muros iniquitatis seu mysticæ Jericho evertunt._”

(_Ex monitis S. Francisci Salesii Ep. et Eccl. Doct. ad Confessarios._)

FOOTNOTES

[1] S. Th. S. Theol. III. Q. 84, art. 7 ad 7.

[2] S. Th. S. Theol. III. Q. 85, art. 3 ad 3.

[3] Cf. Müller, Theol. Mor. Lib. III. Tit. II. § 106.

[4] Theol. Mor. Tom. II. § 1, De Pœnit. n. 251; cf. Palmieri, Tract. de Pœnit. (Rome, 1879), p. 18 et seq.

[5] While theologians are united in admitting a _virtus generalis pœnitentiæ_ having its own material and formal object, they fail to agree on the definition of the formal object. Cf. Suarez, Lugo, and more especially Palmieri, l. c.

[6] Cf. S. Th. III. Q. 85 et seq. _de pœnitentia secundum quod est virtus_, Suarez, De Sacramento Pœnitentiæ Disp. per 2 Sectiones, _de pœnitentia in communi_; Lugo, De Sacramento Pœnitentiæ, P. I. pp. 1-44 (Romæ, 1879); Müller, Theol. Mor. Lib. III. Sect. 106; Lehmkuhl, Theol. Mor. Tom. II. Tract. V. De Sacr. Pœnit. Sect. 1; Aertnys, Theol. Mor. Lib. VI. Tract. V. De Pœnit. Pars I.

[7] Cf. S. Th. Quodl. I. a. 12; S. Alph. Theol. Mor. Lib. VI. n. 600 s.; Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 255; Müller, l. c. Sect. 107, in fine.

[8] Trid. Sess. XIV. cp. 2.

[9] Cf. S. Th. Quodl. I. a. 12; S. Alph. Theol. Mor. Lib. VII. n. 600 s. Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 255; Müller, l. c. Sect. 107, in fine.

[10] See Sect. 4, p. 29.

[11] S. Alph. Lib. VI. nn. 662, 665; Gury-Ball. II. n. 466; Ballerini, Ant. S. J. Opus Theol. Mor. Vol. V.; Tract. X. Sect. V. De Sacram. Pœn. cp. III. n. 1025 ss.; Aertnys, Theol. Mor. Lib. VI. n. 229.

[12] Such is the teaching of nearly all the moralists; cf. S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 667; Gury, I. n. 478; Scavini, De Sacram. Pœnit. n. 35. St. Thomas (Suppl. Q. 6. a. 3) teaches that he who has only venial sins to confess, satisfies the precept of the Church if he presents himself to the priest and declares that his conscience is free from mortal sin; this will be counted as a confession. This opinion of St. Thomas is, however, contradicted by a large number of eminent theologians,—St. Antoninus, Billuart, Laymann, Lugo, Suarez, etc.,—who appeal to the Tridentine decree (Sess. 13. cp. 5), which says in respect to the Lateran decree that it is _determinativum divini præcepti_.

[13] Suarez and Laymann teach the opposite. Cf. Scavini, l. c. n. 35, nota 1.

[14] Cf. Decretum Lateran. Concilii IV. cp. 21.

[15] See Sect. 74, Children’s Confessions.

[16] Lehmkuhl, I. Tract VI. n. 1202, 3.

[17] S. Alph. l. c. n. 669; Gury, l. c. n. 479; Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 1204.

[18] S. Thom. Suppl. Q. 8, art. 5 ad 4, and St. Bonaventure, Compend. Theol. Lib. VI. cp. 25, Confess. necessitas, support this view _saltem tacite_. Cf. Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 1204.

[19] Cf. Scavini, De Sacram. Pœnit. n. 36, who follows Suarez, Laymann, Lugo, Salmanticenses, etc. Cf. Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 1202.

[20] Lacroix, De præcepto Confess. n. 2003; S. Alph. l. c. n. 668; Scavini, l. c. n. 36, Q. 4; Gury, l. c. n. 478, nota 3; Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 1206.

[21] Cf. Bened. XIV. De Syn. diœc. 1. II. cp. 14, 1-5. Hence a parish priest, who would make his parishioners confess to him, is guilty of sin, since such indiscreet zeal, or unworthy jealousy, might give occasion to sacrilegious confessions. Compare what St. Thomas (l. c. art. 4 et 5) wrote even before it was allowed to confess indifferently to any priest having faculties; that a priest would sin, if he were not ready to give leave to any individual to make his confession to another priest. It was distinctly understood before that time that one might confess to any priest who had been authorized by the _proprius sacerdos_ to hear the confession. Cf. Müller, l. c. Sect. 118, n. 6-4; Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 1205.

[22] Pauli Segneri, S.J., Instructio Pœnitent. cp. XV: _Fructus percepti ex frequenti confessione_.

[23] Sess. XIV. cp. 5.

[24] Cf. S. Th. De Malo, Q. 7, art. 12 ad 4, and Summa Theol. III. Q. 87, art. 1. St. Thomas demands for the forgiveness of mortal sin a _perfectior pœnitentia_, that is, that a man actually detest his mortal sins so far as he can; _sed non hoc requiritur ad remissionem venialium peccatorum; non tamen sufficit habitualis displicentia quæ habetur per habitum caritatis, vel pœnitentiæ virtutis, quia, sic caritas non compateretur peccatum veniale, quod patet esse falsum_.... Hence follows, continues the holy Doctor, that there is required a _virtualis displicentia, puta cum aliquis hoc modo fertur secundum affectum in Deum et res divinas, ut, quidquid sibi occurreret, quod eum ab hoc motu retardaret, displiceret ei et doleret, se commississe, etiamsi actu de illo non cogitaret, quod tamen non sufficit ad remissionem peccati mortalis nisi quantum ad peccata oblita post diligentem inquisitionem_. III. Q. 87, art. 1. Scavini, l. c. n. 13. There is an apparent opposition, but it is only apparent, between this teaching of St. Thomas and that of Suarez (Disp. II. Sect. 3. n. 8 sq. in Sum. III. Q. 87, art. 2) and other theologians, who hold that venial sins can be forgiven without formal contrition by an act of supreme love of God. For Suarez distinguishes a twofold perfection in this love, an objective _secundum extensionem ad venialia peccata_, and an intensive _ex conatu potentiæ_. Only the objective love which extends to venial sin is, according to this learned theologian, able to atone for venial sin, because it implies an aversion of the will from sin in consequence of that love. Hence, it will effect the remission of all venial sins _quoad culpam_ if it extends virtually to all, or of some only, in so far as these are affected by the act of love. This aversion of the will from sin is nothing else than a _virtualis displicentia_; in other words, contrition.

[25] Cf. III. Q. 87, art. 4 et 2. On the diverging views of Scotus and Durandus, compare Suarez, De Sacram. Pœnit. Disp. II. Sect. 2, n. 2.

[26] Trid. Sess. XIV. cp. 5.

[27] Disp. IX. Sect. 3, n. 53.

[28] Cf. S. Th. III. Q. 87, art. 1 et 3.

[29] Cf. Trid. Sess. V. Decr. de peccato orig. n. 5; Sess. XIV. de pœn. cp. 3; S. Th. III. Q. 86, art. 2 ad 1.

[30] Sess. XIV. de Extr. Unct. cp. 2, can. 2.

[31] Sess. XIII. can. 5 et cp. 2.

[32] III. Q. 79, art. 4.

[33] Suarez, Comment, ad III. Thomæ, Q. 79, art. 4. Cf. Disputatio 63, Sect. 10, n. 1.

[34] Cf. S. Thom. Q. 87, art. 2 et 3.

[35] Cf. S. Thom. Q. 72, art. 7 ad 2.

[36] Cf. S. Thom. Suppl. Q. 26, art. 1 et 3.

[37] Trid. Sess. XXII. de Sacrif. Missæ, cp. 2.

[38] Cf. S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 311.

[39] Tappehorn, Die lässliche Sünde, p. 55.

[40] Some theologians attribute to these two prayers an effect _ex opere operato_. Suarez, Disp. 12, Sect. 2, n. 6.

[41] Cf. S. Thom. III. Q. 87, art. 3.

[42] Cf. Müller, l. c. Sect. 110, II. n. 4.

[43] Cf. S. Thom. III. Q. 87, a. 2; S. Bonaventure, In IV. Sent. Dist. 20, P. 1, a. 1, Q. 2 ad 3.

[44] Cf. Lugo, De Sacram. Pœnit. Disp. IX. Sect. 2, n. 29 et seq.; Suarez, Disp. XI. Sect. 3; Ripalda, De Ente Supernaturali, Tom. II. Lib. IV. Disp. 97, Sect. 4 (Ed. nova, Parisiis, 1870).

[45] For the arguments of those who oppose this teaching, see Suarez, Disp. XI. Sect. 3, n. 5; Gury, I. n. 457; Scavini, l. c. n. 11 ss.

[46] Cf. Suarez, Disp. 11, Sect. 3, nn. 8-10.

[47] There are three prayers which have quite a special efficacy in this matter: one has come to us from the Holy Ghost through David, the other from Our Lord, and the third from the Church; they are the seven penitential psalms, the Our Father, and the Confiteor. Cf. S. Thom. III. Q. 87, art. 3; I. II. Q. 74, art. 8 ad 6.

[48] On the remission of venial sins, defiling the faithful who die in grace see S. Thom. De Malo, Q. 7, a. 11; Suarez, Disp. 11, Sect. 4; Disp. 47, Sect. 1; Palmieri, Tract. de Pœnitentia, p. 190 ss.; Oswald, Eschatologie, p. 84 ss.; Tappehorn, Die lässliche Sünde, Sect. 11, p. 61 ss.

[49] Cat. Rom. P. II. Cap. V. Q. XII.

[50] Cat. Rom. l. c.

[51] Cf. Trid. Sess. XIV. cp. 2, 3 et 4, can. 4; S. Thom. III. Q. 86, art. 6; Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. l. c. cp. 1. n. 2 ss.