Chapter V: Part I: Penance as a Virtue and as a Sacrament (2)

5. If one desires to derive real spiritual profit from the confession of venial sins, too great minuteness as well as too great vagueness must be avoided; some particular venial sin which causes more uneasiness than the rest might be made a subject of more especial sorrow and more careful accusation, otherwise in many cases the sorrow as well as the accusation and purpose of amendment are likely to be too vague, if not completely absent. It has been pointed out previously that gross ignorance on the part of the penitent is a reason for taking a very general accusation as valid for absolution.

In practice the confessor should attend to the following rules:—

In the case of a penitent who accuses himself of no sin in particular, let the priest inquire whether this be due to the fact that the penitent has really not committed any mortal sin, or to invincible ignorance, or to a rooted habit of sin which has produced in the penitent a darkening of the intellect and a recklessness with regard to his salvation. If the penitent accuses himself of no sin in particular because he is really quite unconscious of grave trespass, the confessor might suggest to him a few lesser sins such as are usually committed by people in the same station of life, and ask if, since the last confession or in his past life, he has ever given way to such sins—if, for instance, he has offended his neighbor, or been violent, angry, disobedient, careless in prayer, etc. If the penitent answers in the affirmative to one or other of these questions, the confessor should excite him to repentance and purpose of amendment, so far as he sees it necessary, and then absolve him. If, however, the penitent answers all questions with a No, and cannot be induced to acknowledge any sin of his past life, further questioning should be avoided, and the penitent urged to make an act of sorrow for all the sins of his whole life, especially those committed against his neighbor, or against obedience, etc. If the penitent accede to this, as often happens, in spite of his former declaration that he is not conscious of any sin even in his past life, the priest should arouse him to sorrow and a firm resolution, and absolve him conditionally if the penitent has not received absolution for a long time.

With such penitents there will be reason to suspect that their disposition comes from want of knowledge of the most necessary truths of salvation. If the priest discover this to be the case—as he may by a few judicious questions—he may not absolve him till after instruction in these necessary truths. Ordinarily it will be well to instruct him at once before leaving the confessional, for fear that he should neglect approaching the Sacraments—a consequence much to be apprehended—or take no pains to get instructed. If, however, the priest finds out that the cause of the ignorance is a rooted habit of sin, or the insensibility following on certain sins which have so fatal an effect in this matter—as, for instance, impurity or drunkenness—he must exercise great patience, putting before the penitent earnestly the awful consequences of his sinful life, instruct him, and in every possible way prepare him with true apostolic zeal to receive worthily the sacrament, either immediately or later, if the absolution be deferred, and to fulfill his resolutions of making an earnest amendment.[71]

7. The Form of the Sacrament.

The form of the Sacrament, “in which its power principally lies,”[72] consists of the words which the priest utters over the penitent: _Ego te absolvo a peccatis tuis in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti, Amen_. To these words the custom of the Church has added others which have become fixed in the ritual and are prescribed, though “they do not belong to the _essence_ of the form and are not necessary for the conferring of the Sacrament.”[73]

There is no doubt that the words _Ego te absolvo_, or _te absolvo_ simply (since the pronoun _Ego_ is contained in the verb _absolvo_), belong to the _essence_ of the form. These words are _de essentia formæ_, because, as St. Thomas says,[74] they signify the _virtus clavium et totum Sacramenti effectum_.

According to most theologians the words _a peccatis tuis_ do not belong to the essence and the validity of the Sacrament; for this view we may quote St. Thomas and the authority of the Roman catechism, which says: “The form is: _Ego te absolvo_.” The words _a peccatis tuis_ are sufficiently indicated by the accusation of the penitent and the act of the priest who gives absolution. Other theologians, however, maintain that these words are essential, arguing that since Christ in instituting the Sacrament used the words, “Whose sins you shall forgive,” the remission of sins ought to be expressly mentioned. Though the first view is the more probable, the words ought not to be omitted in practice, since in the conferring of the Sacraments the safer opinion should be followed.[75]

If the words _absolvo a peccatis tuis_ were used, omitting the word _te_, the form would still be probably valid, since _te_ is sufficiently implied in the word _tuis_; in practice, however, this view ought not to be taken, but the safer opinion followed.[76] The absolution would certainly be invalid if the priest said only _absolvo_, because the object of the absolution is not indicated and the sense is indefinite.[77]

The words _In nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti, Amen_, are certainly not of the essence of the form, since Christ in instituting the Sacrament made no reference to the Blessed Trinity; they are, however, most appropriately added to express that the priest absolves from sin by the authority and power of God.[78]

In cases of necessity absolution may be given by the same priest to many persons at the same time, while he says, _Ego vos absolvo a peccatis vestris_; thus, for instance, soldiers may be absolved at the beginning of a battle. As many Sacraments are conferred as there are persons absolved, if they give any token of sorrow and in some way confess their sinfulness.[79]

The _Rituale Romanum_ prescribes how a priest should give absolution, and, as it is the official book of the Church, he is bound to follow its directions. Any unauthorized change would be a sin because it is a breach of the commands of the Church; indeed the confessor would sin grievously if he wished to introduce any change into the form of absolution.

“When the priest is about to give absolution,” is the direction of the Ritual, “after imposing a penance on the penitent and the latter having accepted it, let him say: _Misereatur tui omnipotens Deus et dimissis peccatis tuis perducat te ad vitam æternam. Amen._ Then he raises his right hand over the penitent and says: _Indulgentiam, absolutionem et remissionem peccatorum tuorum tribuat tibi omnipotens et misericors Dominus. Amen._

“_Dominus noster Jesus Christus te absolvat, et ego auctoritate ipsius te absolvo ab omni vinculo excommunicationis_ (_suspensionis_) _et interdicti in quantum possum et tu indiges. Deinde ego te absolvo a peccatis tuis in nomine Patris ✠ et Filii et Spiritus Sancti. Amen._

“If the penitent is not a cleric, the word _suspensionis_ is omitted.” Then follows the prayer: “_Passio Domini nostri Jesu Christi, merita beatæ Mariæ Virginis et omnium Sanctorum, quidquid boni feceris et mali sustinueris, sint tibi in remissionem peccatorum, augmentum gratiæ et præmium vitæ æternæ. Amen._”

If there are many penitents to be heard and in urgent confessions, the _Misereatur_ and _Indulgentiam_ may be omitted and simply the _Dominus noster_, etc., said. The prayer _Passio Domini_, etc., may also be left out.[80] It is recommended, however, not to omit this last prayer, because by virtue of it (so teaches St. Thomas) the good works of the penitent acquire the character of sacramental satisfaction, and a share in the merits of Christ as well as those of our blessed Lady and of the saints.[81]

“In cases of pressing necessity, in danger of death, the priest may simply say: _Ego te absolvo ab omnibus censuris et peccatis in nomine Patris ✠ et Filii et Spiritus Sancti. Amen._”

Such is the form of absolution according to the prescription of the Roman Ritual. The confessor is at liberty to make use of the above abbreviations under the circumstances mentioned. It would be very wrong to attempt to put in all the prayers, if there were danger of a man dying without receiving absolution; in this case the priest must use the shorter form given by the Ritual.[82]

The priest will be more eager to carry out the directions of the Church if he reflects on the meaning of the prayers which precede and follow the absolution; the former constitute an admirable preparation for that great act of mercy, the latter a most appropriate crowning of the same; all secure a special help for the penitent. Even the blessing which, according to some rituals, the priest is enjoined to give with the words: _Dominus sit in corde tuo et in labiis tuis ut digne et competenter_ (or _rite_) _confitearis peccata tua. In nomine Patris ✠ et Filii et Spiritus Sancti. Amen_, is important. The accusation of so many sins is a heavy burden to the penitent; false shame and the devil will unite to deter him from a sincere accusation; and so the priest prays that the Lord with His grace may so act on the heart of the penitent that with sincerity and contrition he accuses himself of what burdens his conscience. In the _Misereatur_ the priest prays that God may grant in His mercy remission of the sins which the penitent confesses, and give him eternal life (_anticipando_ by sanctifying grace, and perfectly in the next world). The _Indulgentiam_ contains the same petition for “grace, absolution, and remission,” of sins confessed and of all others; it is not meant as a mere repetition, as a sort of compliance with Our Lord’s counsel of insisting on the first petition; but in the repetition of the synonyms the priest is no doubt intended to plead for God’s mercy and power that the penitent may have _complete_ forgiveness of sin. This perfect forgiveness includes also the remission of the temporal penalties, since these, as the _reliquiæ peccatorum_, are so intimately connected with the sin itself that in early Christian times they were briefly included under the category of _peccata_, and the Church, in the so-called general absolution given on the occasion of a plenary indulgence of temporal punishment, still uses the formula _indulgentiam plenariam et remissionem omnium peccatorum tibi concedo_.

Then the priest goes on to reconcile the penitent to the Church by the removal of all censures which close the door to the Sacraments and other means of grace. This absolution from censure should always precede that of the sins as a measure of precaution even when no sins involving censure have been confessed. The Church insists on this, and many moralists teach that the confessor by omitting this _absolutio a censuris_ would commit a venial sin by his disobedience to the command of the Church. Even in cases of the most pressing urgency the priest should use the form: _Ego te absolvo ab omnibus censuris et peccatis in nomine Patris_, etc.[83] St. Alphonsus does not regard this omission as a sin if the priest uses the formula of absolution with the intention of absolving from censure as well as sin, and he argues from the words of the Council of Trent, which says only that this clause is added _laudabiliter_.[84] If, however, a penitent has incurred a censure and the priest first absolves from the sin and afterwards from the censure, such inversion of the order would be matter of grievous sin when the censure is excommunication debarring from the reception of the Sacraments; not, however, in the case of suspension or interdict. This inversion would also be a grievous sin even if the priest intended to absolve from both sins and censures, although in this case the words _absolvo te a peccatis tuis_ can be understood of the absolution from censures on account of the intimate connection between the two.[85] Such an absolution, therefore, would be valid though given in defiance of the Church’s prescription, for the censure does not affect the validity but only the lawfulness of the absolution.[86]

The penitent must be present and the absolution pronounced over him by the confessor if it is to be valid. This is abundantly clear from the divine institution of the Sacrament, from the practice of the Church, and from a decree of the Head of the Church. Hence the absolution cannot be given in writing nor by signs. According to the teaching of the Councils of Florence and Trent the form of this Sacrament, as of all the others (except that of matrimony, where a mere sign of consent is sufficient), is in the words which the priest must pronounce and articulate over the penitent. The Sacraments owe their institution to Christ; for, though matrimony existed as a divine institution before His coming, it was sanctified by Him and raised to the dignity of a means of grace in His Church. The essential rites of the Sacraments were defined by Christ, and we learn them from Scripture or tradition. We know from a uniform tradition that the form of all the Sacraments except matrimony consists essentially in words articulated by the lips; as for the Sacrament of Penance, the evidence is clear as well from the actual use prescribed in all penitentials and from the teaching of the Fathers, as from the decree of Eugenius IV to the Armenians.

It is not, however, necessary that the words of absolution should be heard by the penitent or others; in fact it is recommended to say them in a low voice, so that, in case absolution is for some reason withheld from a penitent, others may not know of it.

The fact that the absolution should be pronounced in words requires as its complement that the penitent should be present, for the words _Ego te absolvo_ are not such as we would address to a person when absent, but thus we speak to one who is nigh. The form must certainly be applied to the matter actually present; moreover, according to the Council of Trent the sinner should present himself before the tribunal as the accused. This is quite clear, too, from the constant tradition of the Church, in which all penitentials contain a form which is pronounced over one who is present, and either explicitly require the immediate presence of the penitent before the confessor or evidently suppose it; nor do we find in the whole of antiquity any clear instance of a sacramental absolution pronounced over an absent person.

A confession, therefore, made to a priest by writing or by messenger is invalid if the absolution is given to the penitent in his absence. Moreover, the absolution is illicit and invalid if given to an absent penitent even though the confession has been made by him in person to the priest. Further, too, the absolution is illicit and invalid which is given to a present penitent who has not confessed in person to the priest—if, for instance, the confession has been by letter; exception is made for the case where the penitent presents himself to the priest and for some good reason accuses himself only in general of sins about which he has informed the confessor by letter, if the latter at the time of the confession retains a knowledge of the sins in particular.[87]

The _præsentia moralis_ of the penitent is sufficient for absolution. This condition is satisfied if the priest and the penitent are sufficiently near to hear one another when they speak in an ordinary tone of voice, though cases may occur where the voice must be exerted a little more than is usual.[88] In general greater proximity is required for valid absolution than is demanded for hearing a preacher or for satisfying the obligation of hearing Mass.[89]

St. Alphonsus declares with respect to this subject that Tamburini is justified in rejecting the view of Leander, who holds that the moral presence is secured if the priest sees the penitent or is sensibly aware of his presence.[90] A man may be seen at a distance at which it would be impossible to hold speech with him in the usual manner or even by raising the voice. If in case of necessity absolution must be given at a distance, it should be given _sub conditione_.

Hence to secure the validity of the absolution it is required (1) that the confessor and the penitent should not be in rooms which are in no way connected; and if (2) they are in the same room, they should not be too far apart, certainly not more than twenty paces; if the distance is notably less, there need be no misgiving about the validity of the absolution; finally (3) the required proximity is secured if the priest knows that the penitent is present.

(_a_) If the penitent has already left the confessional but is still close by the confessor, he may and ought to be absolved, even, according to Lugo, Tamburini, and others, if he be so merged in the crowd that he cannot be seen; the confessor must, however, be certain that he is not or cannot be far off; for the penitent is still morally present and has the desire of receiving absolution. The penitent ought, however, to be recalled if this can be done without causing disturbance or remark.

(_b_) If, through fear of infection or for other reasons, the priest cannot enter a sick-room, he may validly absolve the penitent from the window or the door.[91]

(_c_) If at a distance a priest sees some one falling from a height or into the water, or if he knows that some one is buried under the ruins of a building, etc., he should give absolution conditionally.[92]

Absolution must, under ordinary circumstances, be given absolutely; for weighty reasons it may and ought to be given conditionally (_conditione_).

8. Conditional Absolution.

It is the unanimous teaching of all theologians that in certain cases, for weighty reasons, the Sacraments may be administered conditionally, and, what is more, must be so administered. With regard to Baptism and Extreme Unction this is prescribed by the Roman Ritual, with regard to Confirmation by Benedict XIV, with regard to the Holy Eucharist, where a doubt exists as to the validity of the consecration, by the Rubrics of the Mass, and with regard to Orders by the S. Congregatio Concilii.[93]

The question now under consideration is whether the Sacrament of Penance given conditionally is valid.

Many theologians were of opinion that a conditional absolution was opposed to the judicial character of this Sacrament. They argued that the conditional form was not judicial, and in particular would not admit a _condition with regard to law_ (_conditio juris_), on which the confessor was bound to pronounce judgment (_e.g._ if thou art prepared, disposed, etc.), whereas they permitted a _condition with regard to the fact_ (_conditio facti_) (_e.g._ if thou art alive). This distinction is, however, irrelevant; for even though the question of the penitent’s disposition be left undecided, still the priest judges (1) of the sins which have been confessed, and (2) gives his sentence on the apparent worthiness and preparation of the penitent and the penance to be imposed; and (3) judges on the advisability of conferring conditional absolution or not, according to the effect it will have on the penitent. In any case, the argument from the difference which a conditional sentence would create between a human court and the sacramental tribunal proves nothing, since the two courts differ in many points.[94] It is to be particularly noted that the sentence of an earthly court is always carried out; while the effect of the sentence which the priest pronounces in the divine tribunal always depends on conditions known only to God, so that the priest’s sentence is always conditional even when it is pronounced in an absolute form. A conditional sentence is in no way inconsistent with the nature of a judicial judgment either in general or in the Sacrament of Penance.

Lehmkuhl enlarges on this point:[95] “It is not repugnant in a civil tribunal for a judge to give sentence with a condition like the following, for instance: ‘If payment be not made by a certain date,’ or to grant a hearing to a plaintiff ‘provided that such or such document be found among his papers,’ which document, of course, he will order to be searched for by trustworthy men. Indeed, every sentence of a human tribunal, whether in civil or in criminal causes, is seldom pronounced without the implicit condition ‘if the evidence of the witnesses be true’; for unless it rested upon this supposition and condition, the sentence would be unjust and consequently null, more especially if pronounced by any but the supreme authority.”

Thus the sacramental sentence always presupposes that the penitent is telling the truth and has real sorrow; under such circumstances the confessor may be mistaking even when he thinks he is certain, all the more so as the sacramental sentence is pronounced always ministerially, and, in order to be efficacious, must be in accordance with the sentence of God. This, however, is no impediment to the absolution being for the most part pronounced absolutely both as to form and intention. This the confessor must observe as long as he has no solid ground for thinking that his judgment is not in accordance with God’s; for a condition which rests only on a possibility or on a groundless suspicion is practically not worth considering and ought not to be acted upon; in reality it is quite sufficiently implied in the nature of the case.

If, however, for some good reason it is to be feared that the judgment of the confessor is different from that of God, while the pressing necessity of the case, or the good of the penitent requires that absolution be given even though doubtful, reverence for the Sacrament demands that the condition be added _explicitly_ in word, or at least in the mind, so that it amounts to a protest on the part of the priest that where the condition is in default he withdraws his intention of pronouncing the sacred words of absolution in the person of Christ.

The opponents of conditional absolution urge in favor of their view the proposition that in doubt about the validity of the Sacraments the safer opinion must be followed. With regard to the validity of conditional absolution there is no doubt, since the views of its opponents have no probability either intrinsic or extrinsic. Moreover, it is not true that the safer opinion with regard to the validity of the Sacraments is always to be followed; for, since the Sacraments were instituted for man’s benefit, cases occur in which the Sacraments must be exposed to the danger of nullity, in order to help one who is in extreme spiritual necessity. An instance in point would be the case of a dying man whose dispositions are doubtful. To let him die without absolution would surely expose him to the certain danger of damnation. Supposing he were in good dispositions, whatever misgivings I might have on the subject, should I not be responsible for his damnation? I might have opened the gates of heaven to him and I have not done it! Am I then to absolve him without any condition? But supposing he is not disposed; even if the Sacrament were not nullified, I should be guilty of having exposed it to the danger of invalidity. From such a dilemma the only escape is the use of conditional absolution; by it I can help the dying man if he is in good dispositions, and I insure the Sacrament against nullity when I have the intention of not conferring it unless the man be disposed.[96]

Hence theologians teach that absolution given _sub conditione_ is valid if the condition be fulfilled; the condition, however, must be _de præsenti_ or _de præterito_; absolution given under a _conditio de futuro_ would be invalid, for in a _conditio de futuro_ the minister of the Sacrament has no intention of conferring the Sacrament _hic et nunc_; his intention would rather be to confer the Sacrament when the condition will have been fulfilled; by that time, however, the matter is no longer present which for the validity of the Sacrament must be joined to the form. On the other hand, the Sacrament may be validly given under a condition _de præsenti_ or _de præterito_, because the intention is absolute if the condition is fulfilled; if not fulfilled, the intention of administering the Sacrament is wanting, so that the Sacrament is not exposed to irreverence. In this case the conditional intention passes into an unconditional one, _i.e._ becomes absolute. But the conditional intention is efficacious for validity only if the condition is completed or satisfied at the moment when the matter and form of the Sacrament are brought together. The absolution would also be valid if it were given with the condition: “if you are alive, if you are baptized, if you are present, if you really intend to make restitution”; while an absolution would be invalid if given under conditions such as, “if you are predestined, if it be in the mind of God that you will make restitution this year,” since such knowledge is withheld from men. Finally, an absolution given with the condition, “if you are going to improve,” would also be invalid.[97]

It is also _allowed_ to give absolution _sub conditione_ when there is just reason for so doing; and in case of necessity the priest is bound under mortal sin to give conditional absolution.[98]

The view of some theologians is to be condemned who hold that one may impart conditional absolution for _any insignificant reason_, or without urgent need, or in _any doubt of the requisite dispositions_ even in a penitent burdened with mortal sin. This is a doctrine which bears too openly the stamp of laxity, and it is pernicious to souls. What a number of sacrileges would follow from such a practice! The confessor would be no longer a faithful and prudent minister of the Sacrament, he would be casting pearls before swine, and by his too easy compliance in giving absolution he would imperil the souls of his penitents.[99]

On the other hand, we cannot admit the teaching of those theologians[100] who hold that absolution _sub conditione_ is permitted only in extreme necessity or in great danger.

A sufficient reason for imparting absolution under condition would be in the case where unconditional absolution would expose the Sacrament to danger of nullity on account of a reasonable doubt of the existence of some one or other of the requisites for the validity of the Sacrament, and where at the same time by putting off the absolution the penitent would be exposed to danger of real spiritual harm.

From what has been said we gather that in the following cases absolution may be given _sub conditione_:—

1. If the priest doubt whether he has absolved a penitent who has confessed a mortal sin.

2. In doubt whether the penitent in question is morally present.

3. In doubt whether the penitent is alive or already dead.

4. If the priest doubt (_dubio facti_) whether he has jurisdiction, and the confession must be made; in such a case the confessor must tell the penitent that he has given absolution only _sub conditione_, so that if proof be forthcoming later on that jurisdiction was wanting, the penitent will know that he has not been absolved and must accuse himself again of the mortal sins mentioned in that confession. If the doubt turn on the question of law (_dubium juris_), _i.e._ on a point where theologians do not agree whether absolution can be given in such a case, the absolution may be pronounced without any condition.[101]

5. In doubt whether the matter be sufficient: this may happen (_a_) when an adult is baptized _sub conditione_ and is to be absolved at the same time; and (_b_) when a penitent declares only some imperfections, and there is doubt whether they are really venial sins, and when the same penitent can offer no certain sins of his past life. To such a penitent absolution may, according to a probable view, be given at intervals, so that he may not be deprived for long of the benefits of the Sacrament of Penance; absolution in such cases ought not to be given more than once a month. For the same reason absolution can be given _sub conditione_ when the penitent, unable to present certain matter from his past life, has only sins of less moment to confess and there is doubt as to the existence of sorrow for such sins.[102] Moreover, if the penitent offer no certain matter, the confessor is not _bound_ to inquire for it in order to give absolution, and after making vain inquiry he is not obliged to give absolution _sub conditione_, since the penitent in such case has no sure claim to it.

If, however, any doubt exists as to the presence of necessary matter, or whether a sin confessed along with the imperfections be mortal or not, for which, however, the penitent is certainly contrite, then absolution under condition must be given.

6. In doubt whether the necessary dispositions with regard to mortal sin are present conditional absolution may sometimes, though not always, be given; it must be given when urgent reasons counsel such a step. For instance:—

(_a_) To those who are in danger of death, from whatever cause.

(_b_) When the penitent honestly thinks he is well disposed, and when the confessor fears that if absolution be refused or put off, the penitent may fall into worse ways or be frightened away from the Sacraments, or that he will certainly receive some other Sacrament, as, for instance, Marriage or Confirmation, in an _unworthy_ state.

Finally, conditional absolution may be given to children and others of whom it is doubtful whether they possess sufficient use of reason or the necessary knowledge of the truths of faith. These may receive conditional absolution not only when in danger of death, but also when they have to fulfill the law of the Church, and especially if they have confessed a sin which is doubtfully or probably mortal; they must be so absolved even if they are relapsing sinners, for while in doubtfully disposed penitents who have the full use of reason absolution must be delayed, since hopes may be entertained that they will return better disposed later, in the case of children or feeble minded no such hope can be well entertained. Indeed, according to a probable view such penitents may receive conditional absolution at intervals of two or three months, when they confess only venial sins, that they may not go for any considerable time without the grace of the Sacrament. The confessor is, however, obliged to instruct children and feeble-minded persons and to dispose them for absolution.[103]

We answer some objections urged against the doctrine that in the cases mentioned absolution may be given conditionally.

1. This practice is full of danger and is the cause of many sins.

The practice is full of danger, it is true, if absolution is given indiscriminately without necessity or some special reason; if, however, the rules given above are observed, it is no longer dangerous or harmful.

2. It is further objected that a penitent conditionally absolved will approach the altar and make a sacrilegious communion, a risk not to be incurred lightly.

The confession of such a penitent is not sacrilegious, hence the communion is not; for, by supposition, the penitent is in good faith. At the worst the communion would be without fruit or profit; nor can we say that the communion is quite useless, for its reception is an occasion for eliciting different acts of virtue. Indeed, according to the common teaching on this subject, the communicant who receives in mortal sin and with imperfect contrition, yet in good faith, is placed thereby in a state of grace. To make an act of imperfect contrition should not be a great difficulty, since holy communion usually arouses pious emotions of love and sorrow in those who approach in good faith.

3. It is likewise objected that a conditionally absolved penitent will never confess his sins again, and if he is not rightly disposed will die in his sins.

It may be replied that doubtfully absolved sins are remitted (_a_) by the reception of holy communion, as we have already shown; (_b_) indirectly in the following confession along with the other sins which he confesses, even if he were never again to submit them to the keys. If it be urged here that the penitent might never come to confession again, we should reply that such a case is extremely rare and to be treated as quite improbable. On the contrary, the penitent would be exposed to much graver risk of his salvation if, in a situation of such necessity as we postulate for the giving of conditional absolution, he were to be dismissed without it.

4. Another objection is drawn from the first of the propositions condemned by Innocent XI, whence it appears that no one may presume to follow a probable opinion in dispensing the Sacraments. The conclusion drawn is that no one may give an absolution which is doubtfully valid.

This practice is absolutely forbidden where the validity of the Sacrament and the welfare of the individual are endangered by such administration of the Sacrament; if, however, necessity or solid reasons demand such practice, it is allowed.[104] Moreover, the proposition condemned by Innocent is concerned only with the essential portions of the Sacrament, the validity of matter and form in so far as these depend on the minister of the Sacrament. In our case the matter is presented by the penitent and is outside the control of the minister. Otherwise, indeed, penitents might often enough be dismissed without absolution, for frequently no certainty can be had as to their dispositions, but at most a greater or lesser probability.

5. Finally some would limit the use of conditional absolution to cases of the greatest rarity and of most pressing necessity—when, for instance, a dying man is quite unconscious or already in his agony; for in any other case it is entirely his own fault if he be doubtfully disposed. This is the view of the anonymous author of the Letters against the distinguished work of Cardinal Gousset: _Justification de la doctrine de Saint Liguori_.[105]

This objection is based on several false premises:—

1. It is untrue that one who is doubtfully disposed is certainly indisposed; it is at least _per se_ untrue, for it is a contradiction in terms.

2. It is untrue that the penitent is always responsible for not seeming certainly disposed; for he can be quite prepared without the confessor knowing about it; again, as long as he is not certainly unprepared, he may be actually in the proper dispositions.

3. Many considerations respecting the penitent’s salvation may, as we have seen, urge the confessor to decide on giving rather than refusing absolution. At times the priest would be guilty of the gravest imprudence by putting off the absolution till extreme need should arise, when the penitent might be unable to avail himself of the Sacrament. “Do you wish to put off the reconciliation of the dying man to his God till the moment when he can no longer express his wishes? Will you, in order to make the absolution certain, wait till the penitent is at the last gasp, so that it is doubtful if he is capable of receiving the Sacrament?... I repeat, the Sacraments are made for men, not men for the Sacraments. By pursuing such a course you would act in opposition to Him who out of His mercy gave us the Sacrament; you would depart from the spirit of the Church which, like a tender mother, administers the Sacraments, when you maintain that we can only apply the principle of _sacramenta propter homines_ in cases where the dying sinner cannot even by signs express what is going on in the recesses of his soul.”[106]