XLVII. ABSOLUTION OF A DYING PERSON IN THE STATE OF UNCONSCIOUSNESS

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 absosolution, 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): "Communis et certa sententia in variis Conciliis et locis Juris definita, talem moribundum esse absolvendum, saltem conditionate et iuxta plurium opinionem valde probabilem potius absolute."

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: Ratio brevis sed valde urgens est, quia tunc deest materia sacramenti, quae debet esse sensibilis. 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: "Necessitas efficit, ut licite possit ministrari sacramentum sub conditione in quocunque dubio; per conditionem enim satis praepeditur iniuria sacramenti et codem tempore satis consulitur saluti proximi.

But is the reason given for the first opinion, namely: The absolution can not be given "quia diest materia sacramenti, quae debet esse sensibilis," 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 plain if, according to the opinion of ST. THOMAS, we suppose the actus poenitentis as materia ex qua. But even if, with Scorus, 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: "Quod eo casu bene adest prudens dubium, quod moribundus vel ante destitutionem noverit suae damnationis periculum vel post destitutionem ad illud advertat in aliquo lucido intervallo, in quo praesumitur velle et petere absolutionem signis vere sensibilibus, nempe per suspiria, motus corporis, saltem per anxiam respirationem, quamvis tunc ista signa Confessarius non percipiat (scl. ut signa certa); sufficient enim talia signa in tanta necessitate saltem ex prudenti dubio praesumta ad dandam absolutionem sub conditione."

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: "Quando nulla ratione dispositus praesumi potest et praesertim, quando post vitam absque fide transactam, antequam sensibus destitueretur, sacerdotem ad se accedentem contumeliose reiecit"; or, briefly expressed, “de cujus indispositione et impoenitentia constat."

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 personaccording 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): "Quod absolvi non debeat nec possit, qui nulla ratione dispositus censeri potest, diffitebitur nemo. Verum cum dispositio praesumi possit vel in eo, qui sensibus destituitur in ipso peccandi actu, vix apparet, quandonam futurum sit, ut nullo modo moribundus possit attritus praesumi." 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)