alan of Winco: im . * Partial Fuifillment of the i cnedata bee ments for the Degree of OF THE 1 Anontniocese. OF ae Pavu. The Administration of the Sacraments to Dying Non-Catholics A DISSERTATION Submitted to the Faculty of the School of Canon Law of the Catholic University of America in Partial Fulfillment of the Require- ments for the Degree of DOCTOR OF CANON LAW REV. JAMES IGNATIUS KING, J.C.L., OF THE ARCHDIOCESE OF ST. PAUL. 1924. Nihil Obstat. THOMAS J. SHAHAN, S8.T.D., Censor Deputatus. Washingtonensi, Die XX VII Mail, 1924. Imprimatur. MICHAEL J. CURLEY, D.D., Archiepiscopus Baltimorensis. .Washingtonensi, Die XX VIT Maui, 1924. Copyright, 1924, by James I. King. TABLE OF CONTENTS. PAGE PRT RTACE MRE HOOT Se ah cence ede Fal ilara ene ee ae ON R aretolea ern Te Dr ht La TRLVEN Deh) OG © alts AUP ac Ore i HERR ay (LS CEBU ae EMA ba Rg A NN il I. Toe Terms, THEIR History AND SIGNIFICATION............0000- 1 WPT AISLOL VY POLO ties GERI Sal, acts ana ns mie Wid cian munee nated Giant 1 ea hem berinis: Nt ie COU vast, Von ee ou cian Ut oil )e ama ah ua spterng & 5 PUM LIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS) i250 as aloid’e vase, oar ey etd adore ale ie ae 9 MMM VES Mal ACI tie a Mate ain eee kic Nic de deta ale ae ce ener e 9 2. The general attitude towards doubtful Baptism.............. 11 3. Cases in which there is no possibility of a sign............. 13 Coen Nem oacramienty Ole BaAptisin vlc) wciaig ue nua crane 14 Olt Nem MACrainent, vOl mek Ctlaniceiuie o/b Wie aL tsar uh todo ee 20 Del ueE APTISMs OF) DYING. NON-CATHOLICS | oi) ce a eels weds 26 1. The Baptism of dying infants of non-Catholics.............. 26 Pa mbes CAnOnSt OT tnGr COCR ysl u Usds hibeayn Jer lita any 26 OP ET MStOriCa i OUEVEY coe ccric eae ete ee use aie as Ge sate Malan 27 PCL C WER TeSent boa Wil LAV iia! cee ara Ria wie mista ta) Jet sharin ae 32 fii hey eundamentaler rinciplentian aoet setae tiy we 35 Pee oattisinvataapnorinad! ACUitSad, 01sec Susie sie no stale teas 38 3. The Baptism of dying normal non-Catholic adults........... 42 Pe eETIA TLIC LO OUL VEY UG Meira rail iarame rs MeN AU Lia hae 43 MO Be old eds re ul Be hy SU A Ae a eR SUSAR OE 48 Pere eR ANCE AND! DYING NONACATHOLICS (icin. se ad Cake tcadoe ute 61 1. Possibility of administering the Sacraments................. 61 2. Historical Survey of the Relations of the Church to dying MEVOLICs VAN NSEMISITIATICSN irq idl UM ACs carrie Gal aed Wa Nn Deg 66 BUCCI ET OSCTION PrN MIR th ok Pi Atak ora atts aarti id catty Urls Sie 82 SATO C MT CCLIONS Sil He ER ha eta ere LAA uae RR Aue een 89 V. Dyinc Non-CaTHOLICS AND THE SACRAMENTS OF Hoty VIATI- CUM, Extreme UNCTION, AND CONFIRMATION..............--- 92 SME IS POL ICAL NIEV CV te aa Aire erated ce tea Lik ian ae eva alt i the 93 PBN ITE CCOT LA LA Winks INRA rian alae aloe lows els Be ake eee ee 110 MEET OUND mye wal was nar tC ae nly ced. tare Nate 111 UC ORATLTTIC TAS sath Bel AR PT AH BOGUS EOE aOR: SOUND On ONIRY Ti VI. Dytnc Non-CaTHOLICS AND THE SACRAMENT OF MATRIMONY... 116 ee eeercoPaitedito Ordinaries, uso. coco keke cade ban eet 116 Sempre OTANTCH | tO EP TICSES H yin uted die alleisicials Sate'ecee ale wl da tans 116 Deere OP UIUAT Vic GILCUIMStaliCeS. .i...5 32 «sds dis snd feta a banal dave 117 RTS LEN Pie eos BUR geo als eri aie 4g AON Na Aa 117 1) TEE GIROD Sp EAE elie, Ota OOM a a eA USER PNPM OTE RINEGD | 0) 117 (b) Persons over whom the power can be exercised....... 119 Pemernmextent. of the stactityaus wa inaskes Ur ae ew ee Lm eae 120 (d) Requirements on the part of the subject.............. 121 De PICeINOVAN Ole SUADCal ciiss au dite aivew ay ele Mek alae naka eh ater 122 Ge ME TOC ALCIRET TONGS Mi thiaid Sak has fs Moet Id Sth Ode eT 123 OLA EES a pe RI IRD ea OM aD i PO en Naa GRRE AES LCS OE Leah SRC 132 a a Ew ts + ? 4 PREFACE The investigation of problems connected with the administration of the Sacraments is always of interest to a priest. At the time of approaching death, such ministrations become particularly useful and impor- tant. But at this moment precisely, when Providence and circumstances provide so many factors which speculation is unable to control, their discussion is most difficult. The purpose of the present study, then, has been practical rather than speculative, namely, to explain the canons in the Code which concern the administration of the Sacraments to dying non- Catholics. The term non-Catholic, as used in the subsequent pages, is perhaps employed in a somewhat arbitrary fashion. Our Lord Himself defined its limits in the words, ‘‘He that heareth you, heareth Me, and he that despiseth you, despiseth Me.’’ In short, all those who do not accept the teaching of the Church, either through ignorance or for any other reason, are con- sidered as falling within the scope of the present dissertation. The problems which arise in connection with minis- trations in the dying moments of such persons, as the writer realizes full well, are hardly capable of complete analysis in a treatment which is primarily canonical. Difficulties arise on every side, but the effort of the writer has been to honestly present what are his find- ings and convictions. If they are not altogether satis- factory, a novice can hardly be criticized too severely, where even the greatest theologians dispute. BIBLIOGRAPHY. (The method of citation used is indicated in brackets after the work in question, if any abbreviated form has been employed.) Codex Iuris Canonica Pu X Pontificis Maxime jussu digestus Benedictt Papae XV auctoritate promul- gatus, Romae 1918. | Acta Apostolicae Sedis, (AAS), Romae 1909-. Acta Sanctae Sedis, (ASS), Romae 1865-1908. Aupuonsus, St., Theologia Morals, Torino 1887. Ante-Nicene Fathers, (ANF), The, 10 vols. (American Reprint of Edinburgh Edition), New York 1899. Aveustine, P. Cuas., 4 Commentary on the New Code of Canon Law, vol. IV, V, Third edition revised, St. Louis 19238. Ayrinuac, H, A., Marriage Legislation in the New Code of Canon Law, New York 1918. BELLARMIN, Carp. Ropert, Opera Omnia, Neapoli 1872. Brenepiotr XIV, Opera Omma, Tom. XVI, Prati 1846. Bituot, De Ecclesiae Sacramentis, Ed. V, Romae 1915. Binitvuart, Carotus, Summa Sanctt Thomae, Ed. nova, Parisiis. Buat, ALBERTUS, Commentarium Textus Codicis Juris Canomc, Lib. III, Pars 1, Romae 1920, Lb. ITI, Partes 2-6, Romae 19238. Buccrront, [anuartus, Casus Conscientiae, 2 vols, Ed. V, Romae 1903. Bonaventura, St., Opera Omma, Tom. IV, Quaracchi 1889. Canones et Decreta Concilii Tridentini, XIX reimpres- sto stereotypa, Taurini 1913. CapreLio, Fenix M., De Censuris, Augustae Taurino- Tums 19; CappetLo, Fenix M., Tractatus canonico-moralis de Sacramentis, I, (Augustae Taurinorum 1921), ITI, (Augustae Taurinorum 1923). Catholic Encyclopedia, 15 vol., New York 1907-1912. CavaALLERA, FErpinanpus, Thesaurus Doctrinae Catho- licae, (Thesaurus), Parisiis 1920. Cnevopt, Ioannss, Jus Poenale, Tridenti 1920. Collectanea Sacrae Congregationis de Propaganda Fide, (Coll.), 2 vol., Romae 1907. i. Corpus Juris Canonici, editio Lipsiensis seounda post Aemilu Ludowici Richteri curas ad tbrorum manu scriptorum et editioms Romanae fidem recognouit et adnotatione critica mstruait Aemilius Fried- berg, 2 vol., Lipsiae 1922. Corpus Scriptorum KEcclesiasticorum Latinorum, (CSEL), Cypriani Opera, Vindobonae 1871. D’AwnnrpaLE, Carp. JosePHus, Summula Theologiae Morals, Ed. Il], Romae 1892. Dr Smet, Atoystus, De Sponsalibus et Matrimonio, Ed. III, Brugis 1920. De ta Tatts, Mauritius, Mystertum Fider, Parisiis URPAR Dernzincer-Bannwart, Enchiridion Symbolorum et Defimtionum, (Denz.), Editio decama quarta et quinta quam paravit Tonnes Bapt. Umberg, Fri- burgi Brisgoviae 1922. Dictionnaire Apologetique de la Foi Catholique, Tom. I (Paris 1907), IT (Paris 1911), ITI (Paris 1916). Frrrerss, P. lonnes, Compendium Theologiae Moralis, 2 vol., Hditio undecima, quarta post Codicem, Bar- cinone 1921. FRANZELIN, Carp., Tractatus de Divina Traditrone et Scriptura, Editio tertia, Romae 1882. GASPARRI, Carp. Petrus, Tractatus Canonmcus de Ma- trumonio, 2 vol., Editio tertia, Parisiis 1904. GeNntcot, EKnuarpus, Institutiones Theologiae Morals, Editio decuma (Tertia post Codicem Juris Cano- mcr), 2 vol., Bruzellis 1922. Gury, P. Ioannzes Petrus, Compendium Theologiae Morals, 2 vol., Editio Romana, Romae 1873. Hastines, Dictionary of the Apostolic Church, New York 1909. Hastines, Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, New York 1914. Hereve-Lecierce, Histoire des Conciles, Paris 1910. (Hef.-Leeq. ) Hereve-Taunton, History of the Councils of the Church, Kdinburgh 1895. (Hef.-T’.) Hvurter, H., Theologiae Dogmaticae Compendium, Editio sexta aucta et emendata, Oeniponte 1889. Kireu, Conran, Enchiridion Fontium Historiae Eccle- siasticae Antiquae, Editio secunda et tertra, aucta et emendata, Friburgi Brisgoviae 1914. lll. KatscuTHaer, Iloannes, Theologia Dogmatica Catho- lica Specialis, Ratisbonae 1884. Kwnoiu, Institutiones Theologiae Theoreticae, HWditio VII, Augustae Taurinorum 1883. La Crorx, Cuaupius, Theologia Moralis, Editio novis- suma, Coloniae 1739. Lrercu, Grorcr Leo, A Comparative Study of The Con- stitution ‘‘ Apostolicae Sedis’’ and the ‘‘Codex Juris Canonici,’’ Washington 1922. | LenmxKunt, Aveustinus, Theologia Morals, Editio Tertia, Friburgi Brisgoviae 1886, (also edition 1914). Lueo, Carp. Ioannzs DE, Opera, Venetiis 1751. Manst, Amplissima Collectio Conciliorum, Parisiis 1901-1913. Mince, Patrologia Graeca, (MPG). Mince, Patrologia Latina, (MPL). Morry, Husert Louis, The Concept of Mortal Sin in Early Christianity, Washington 1920. Nouprn, H., Summa, Theologiae Morals, 111, De Sacra- —mentis, Editio decuma tertia, Oeniponte 1920. Orren, Bernard, Manual of the History of Dogmas, St. Louis 1917. PauuLavicIni, P. Srorza, Histoire du Concile de Trente, III, Montrouge 1844. Perrin, Tractatus de Sacramento Baptism, Lovanii LEE Perrone, Ioannss, Praelectiones Theologicae, vol. I, Editio XXXVI, Ratisbonae 1881. Prson, Curistianus, Praelectiones Theologia Dogma- ticae, VI, Editio quarta, Friburgi Brisgoviae 1914, VU, Editio quarta et quinta, Friburgi Brisgoviae 1920. Pourrat, P., Theology of the Sacraments, authorized translation from the third French edition, St. Louis 1910. Prummer, D. M., Manuale Juris Canonici, Editio tertia, aucta et secundum recentissimas decisiones Ro- manas recognta, Friburgi Brisgoviae 1922. Prummer, D. M., Manuale Moralis Theologiae, III, KHditio altera et tertia aucta et secundum novum codicem juris canonici recognita, Friburgi Bris- lv. goviae 1923. Reuter, LepmMKUHL, Umpene, Neo-Confessarius, Editio tertia, Friburgi Brisgoviae 1919. Rituale Romanum, editio typica, Ratisbonae et Romae 1913; Rovet DE JourNnaAL, M. J., Enchiridion Patristicum, (R. de J.), Hditio quarta et quinta, Friburgi Bris- goviae 1922. SaBerri, ALoystus-Barrett, TrmotHEus, Compendium Theologiae Moralis, Editio vicessima septuna, Neo Eboraci 1919. Suarez, R. P. Franciscus, Opera Omnia, Editio nova, a Carolo Berton, tom. vigesimus, Parisiis 1860. TanquEreEy, Ap., Synopsis Theologiae Moralis et Pas- toralis, editio septima, Romae 1920. THomas, St., Summa Theologica, editio altera Romana, Romae 1894. Vacant-Mantienot, Dictionnaire de Theo. Cath., Paris 1920. VermeerscH, A., Theologia Moralis, II, Mechliniae- Romae 1923. VeRMEERSCH, A.-CrEUSEN, J., Epitome Juris Canomet, 3 vols., I, Mechliniae-Romae 1921, II, 1922, III, 1923. VerMEERSCH, A., translated by Page, W. Humphrey, Tolerance, London 1913. Vicourovux, Dictionnaire de la Bible, Paris 1912. Vuamine, Tu. M., Praelectiones Juris Matrimonn, ter- tio edidit, Bussum in Hollandia 1921. Warkins, 0. D., A History of Penance, vol. I, London 1920. vit as rt 4 CHAPTER I. THE TERMS, THEIR HISTORY AND SIGNIFICATION. The history of the terms ‘‘heresy’’ and ‘‘schism’’ is of some little interest to the student of Canon Law. In the present chapter, however, the growth in content and the distinction between them are alone the object of investigation. The significance of the terms infidelis, haereticus, and schismaticus, which are found in the Code, is of considerable importance. 1. History of the Terms. Christianity naturally, at least in the early period, used the terms in vogue at the time to express religious ideas. The two words hairesis and schisma are ob- viously Greek. ‘‘Heresy’’ in profane usage designated ‘a philosophical school of thought,’’ and hence ‘‘a sect.’ ‘‘Schism’’ simply meant ‘‘a tear’’ or ‘‘a rent”’ in a garment.*® It is clear, then, that neither term had any religious signification, nor any note of opprobrium attached. The transition in Christian times was easy and natural. Writers in encyclopedias note a gradual growth in the connotation of the term ‘‘heresy’’ from ‘‘a party, or a school,’’ to a group of persons teaching and believ- ing positive error, which is absolutely condemned.‘ Finally, they find ‘‘heresy’’ as an organization—the Nicolaitians.© The word ‘‘schism”’ is used at first in 1 Cfr. The Catholic Encyclopedia, articles “Heresy,” ‘“Schism.” Vacant-Manignot, Dictionnaire de Theologie Catholique. Vigouroux, Dictionnaire de la Bible. Non-Catholic: Hastings, Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics; Hastings, Dictionary of the Apostolic Church. 2 Cfr. Encyclopedia articles, and also etymological definitions given by Tertullian (De Prae. Haer., VI, MPL, 2, 18), and St. Jerome (/n Galat., VI, MPL,.26, 417, c.27, C. XXIV, q. 3). 3 Cfr. Encyclopedia articles “Schism.” 4 Cfr. Encyclopedia articles “Heresy.” 5 Apocalypse, II, 6: cfr. I Jo., I, 1-3; II, 18; IV, 2-6. 1 2 THE TERMS the Sacred Scriptures in its primitive meaning,® but is considered by the same authorities to designate in the hands of St. Paul ‘‘a party strife within the Church, closely connected with heresy.’’* The Apostolic Fathers condemn error and its leaders in vivid terms.® It is clearly a very serious matter, but its members can be prayed for, and with diffieulty re- pent.® Heresy, in this age, seems to have comprised a main leader with a coterie of followers, without any very definite organization, but outside of the Church. The Fathers of the Apostolic Age sharply distin- guish from these a second class, characterized not by false belief, but disciplinary strife within the fold. It is evidently less serious, as repentance is much easier, and strong epithets are not applied. It is essentiallv a difference of opinion with authority, not necessarily on doctrinal grounds, the adherents of which unlike heretics remain within the Church.” In the Post-Apostolic Period, it would seem that or- ganization of heretical bodies as religious sects has become a reality, as St. Irenaeus says that their mem- 6 Matthew IX, 16; Mark II, 21. ? I Cor., I, 10; XI, 18. Cfr. Vigouroux, I. c., who states the Greek commentators did not find the distinction between heresy and schism in these passages; Vacant-Manignot, op.c., contends that they did. 8 Cfr. Encyclopedia, l.c., Louis Motry, The Concept of Mortal Sin in Early Christianity, p. 17-19. 9 Cfr. Motry, op. c., l.c., who opposes the sterner view taken by Rauschen, Eucharist and Penance, p. 183. Motry cites St. Ignatius Ad Philad., UII, 2, and refers to Dionysius of Corinth and Clement of Alexandria for the third century. St. Polycarp, dd Philad., VI, 1 (R. de J., No. 73), urges the presbyters to be merciful to all, and not severe in judgment, “scientes nos omnes debitores esse peccati.” The views of the Shepherd of Hermas are admittedly obscure, but he seems to call on heretics to repent (Hermas, III, Simil. 8, 6; MPG, 2, 975-978). Cfr. Otten, Manual of the History of Dogmas, p. 93-96. 10 Didache, XV, 2 (R. de J., No. 9), warns the faithful to constitute “episcopos et diaconos,” with the added injunction “Ne igitur contemnatis eos.” Pope Clement, Ep. ad Cor., I, XLIX, 2 (R. de J., No. 26), LIV, 2 (MPG, 1, 298-230), contains a description of schism, LVII, 2 (MPG, 1, 324), uses a synonym. Ep. Barnabas, XIX, 12 (R. de J., No. 37), pas facies schisma. . . . Non accedes ad orationem in conscientia mala.” . THE TERMS 3 bers should not offer oblations," Tertullian refers to the baptisms given by Marcion,” and Clement of Alex- andria argues that heretics have arid sacraments." The beginnings also of a distinction between the crime and the sin of heresy are evident, e.g., in St. Irenaeus," Tertullian, and Hippolytus.1* and distin- guished from heresy,”® which St. Jerome expresses thus: ‘‘Inter haeresim et schisma hoc esse arbitramur, quod haeresis perversum dogma habeat; schisma propter episcopalem dissentionem ab Ecclesia separa- tur.’’”?? It is also clearly stated that heresy is more sinful than schism. The definitions of St. Augustine and St. Jerome are found in the Decretum Gratiani (1140-1150).2° In the Decretals of Gregory IX (1234) and the LInber Sextus of Boniface VIII (1298) the formal and external ele- ments are stressed, as the canonical rather than the theological definition are the main consideration. 23; Ep. AUT Vii MPL aai5or cao) Coax) Vie, 24 In ep. ad Titum, MPL, 26, 598; ad Gal., MPL, 26, 417. c. 27, CIXKIVs 0:3: 25 St. Augustine, Contra Faustum, 20, 3. a ORE ey Augustine, Contra Cres. Don., 2, 3-7, MPL, 43, 471, cfr. Vacant- Manignot, op.c., ‘“Heresie”: De Bapt. contra Don., 5, 16, MPL, 43, 186-187. St. Jerome, Jn Ep. ad Titum, 3, 10; c. 26) 'o, XXIV, 7 St. Optatus, De sch. Don., 7, 3, 8; MPL, 11. 27 In Ep. ad Titum, 26, 598, 28 St. Optatus, De Schism. Don., 1, 3, 28, seat 11, 891. Bu Cir, cs.) 26; 27, 287-30, BivGs XXIV, 4. 3 THE TERMS 5 St. Thomas probably completed the process of exact- ness of distinction and definition of the terms. Schism is a lesser sin than heresy, because ‘‘haeresis se habet per additionem ad schisma: addit enim perversum dogma.’’*? Schism is of a twofold nature, in so far as: ‘‘Heclesiae autem unitas in duobus attenditur; scilicet : in connexione membrorum Ecclesiae ad invicem, seu communicatione; et iterum in ordine omnium membro- rum Keclesiae ad unum caput, . . . et ideo schis- matici dicuntur, qui subesse renuunt summo Pontifici et qui membris Ecclesiae ei subjectis communicare recusant.’’®? These two types of schism are embraced! and distinguished in the definition of a schismatic found in the Code.** The definition of papal infallibility by the Vatican Council (1869) ** did not destroy the distinction be- tween heresy and schism. But since the denial of a dogma of faith involves heresy, schism often includes heresy.*® 2. The Terms in the Code. There are three terms used in the Code, descriptive of the three general classes of non-Catholics—in our sense of the term—infidelis, haereticus, and schismat- ICUS. | 1. Infidelis. The fundamental mark of division is the reception of Baptism. All those who do not possess this primary requisite fall under the general classname in/fidelis. 30 cs.9, 10, X, De Haereticis, V, 7. (Throughout the title, the em- phasis is on the crime of heresy, and avoidance of contagion and penal- ties.) The second title of fifth book of the Liber Sextus of Boniface VIII contains twenty chapters De Haereticis in relation to the external forum, e.g., the duties of inquisitors, the goods of heretics, etc. 31 Summa, II-II, q. xxxix, a.2, sed contra. 32 Summa, II-II, q. xxxix, a.1, respondeo. 33 Canon 1325, no. 2. 34 Sess. IV, cap. 4. 35 Vermeersch-Creusen, Epitome Juris Canonici (cited in the future chapters simply “Vermeersch-Creusen”), III, no. 513. 6 THE TERMS As far as the administration of the Sacraments is con- cerned in the case of the dying, the fact that they are unbaptized is the essential consideration. They are neither members nor subjects of the Church. Many subdivisions could be introduced within this class, but the class and not the species is the primary concern. 2. Haereticus. A heretic is one, who after the reception of Baptism, retaining the name of Christian, pertinaciously denies or doubts any of the truths that must be believed on divine or Catholic faith.®” This canon uses the term pertinax, and so the defini- tion is of a formal heretic. He must be baptized, and internally or externally deny or doubt one or more of the articles of faith, but continue a Christian in name. Denial and doubt can be indifferently mental states, and the subject pertinacious in his adherence, without necessarily giving external expression to it.28 Obvious- ly, this mental state will have to be externalized in some way, that cognizance be taken of it in the external forum. But there are canons in the Code which con- cern the internal forum, in which the term occurs.*°® The term pertinaciter, as used in the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis and the past definitions of heresy, has always, according to the common interpretation of theologians, involved elements of bad faith. The crime of heresy demands further conditions. A crime, in the sense of Canon Law, presupposes an ex- ternal and morally imputable violation of the law, to whieh an at least indeterminate canonical sanction is attached.*° This also postulates a formal mortal sin.* 36 Canon 87. 37 Canon 1325, no. 2. 38 Blat, Commentarium, III, Pars IV, p. 242: contra, Vermeersch- Creusen, II, no. 660, who inserts the word externe in the definition. 39 E.g., cs. 731, no. 2, 2314. 40 Canon 2195, no. 1. 41 Canon 2314, no. 2. THE TERMS fi But the crime involves the incurrence of the censure,** which in turn requires some contumacy.** The Church does not judge the occult in her external forum, so that all heretics and schismatics are, due to the very state in which they were, presumed to fall under the censure of canon 2314. It is clear that they are or have been in a public state of defection from the Church, and have performed acts in accordance with this state. The public forum of the Church can only judge, in the ab- sence of proof to the contrary, that the intention fol- lows the act. Hence, ignorance of the law is not pre- sumed,** and so long as the positive external violation of the law has taken place, regardless of purely inter- nal conditons, dolus is presumed in the external forum, until the contrary is proved.*® Hence, there is a prae- sumptio juris that the crime is there and is morally imputable. The excommunication in canon 2314 is juri- dically incurred ipso facto, until the contrary is proven. There is a difference betwen the sin and the crime of heresy. The latter always involves the former, but the contrary is not, true. Thus, the sin of heresy is committed by entertaining in bad faith a serious doubt regarding an article of faith, although this may be made manifest to others in no way whatsoever. As soon as the party gives expression to this, and the necessary contumacy is had, the canonical crime of heresy, with the consequent censure, is incurred. The present canon, then, embraces both the crime and the sin, the external and the internal state of formal heresy. These distinctions are of great importance in deter- mining the licit practice to be followed. But where there is question of the administration of the Sacra- 42 Canon 2314, no. 1. 43 Canon 2241, no. 1, cfr. 2242. 44 Canon 2202, no. 1. 45 Canon 2200, no. 2. 8 THE TERMS ments, the widest possible use of the term is employed, embracing all heretics, ‘‘etiam bona fides petentibus,’’ guilty of the sin and the crime, or the sin alone, formal or material.4¢ This canon also gives additional ground for the distinction between formal and mate- rial heretics, although the process to be followed before admitting them to the Sacraments is the same. 3. Schismaticus. A schismatic is also a baptized person. The precise point of difference is that he rejects the Supreme Pontiff or refuses to communicate with the members of the Church subject to him.**7 Schism violates the unity of the Church, either in the relation of the mem- bers to the head, or the connection of the members among themselves.** This section of the canon, then, is - an epitome of the teaching of the Angelic Doctor. If the schism involves a denial of the supremacy of juris- diction of the Pope, or his prerogative of infallibility, it is known as heretical schism. This is not, however, . necessarily the case, so that pure schism, which is not also heretical, is possible. As far as the administration of the Sacraments is concerned, the same distinctions as have been made in the case of a heretic can be applied.*® 46 Canon 731, no. Fe 47 Canon 1325, no. a8 (Ctr Blat) sop. ice “TIL Pars IV, p. 243; Vermeersch-Creusen, III, no. 513, 2. 49 Cfr. canons 731, no. 2, 2314, no. 1. CHAPTER IT. PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS. There are three fundamental problems that may confront the priest in his ministrations to dying non- Catholics, and which will underlie the concession or denial of the Sacraments in all cases. The answer that he can secure under the circumstances will to a large extent also determine which of the Sacraments ean be administered. They are: 1. Who is an adult, in years and reason, relative to Baptism? 2. What attitude must be adopted towards doubt- fully baptized non-Catholics in their dying moments? . How is the intention of the non-Catholic to be judged, and what action can be taken where there is destitution of the senses? These three questions are of much practical moment. Their discussion, however, in the abstract, is difficult, owing to the fact that the particular circumstances of each individual case differ. 1. Who Is the Adult? In canon 88, par. 3, a general presumption is stated: expleto autem septenmo, usum rations habere prae- sumitur. But in the case of Baptism, the divine law demands that another test be applied: ‘‘He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned.*’’ ‘he mission of the Church involves teaching: ‘‘Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.’ Now, those Ww 1 Mark XVI, 16. 2 Matthew XXVIII, 19; cfr. Mark XVI, 15. 9 10 PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS possessing the use of reason, regardless of their age, are capable of being taught, more or less fully in ac- cordance with their intellectual capacity. Hence, when there is question of Baptism, they are considered as adults who enjoy the use of reason.? They then are subject to the conditions laid down im canon 752. The general rule is that all, even though dying, must satisfy this canon, in so far as this is possible. But in cases of doubt, and where the circumstances do not per- mit of further investigation, the general presumption ean be a safe basis for action, namely, if the dying subject has not completed the seventh year, he is to be treated as an infant. The ultimate test, however, is not the age, but the presence or absence of the use of reason. This natu- rally flows from the necessity of fulfilling canon 752 in so far as possible. Hence, there is an express excep- tion to the law, which may involve an extension or limi- tation of the age. When there is question of Baptism, canon 745 regulates: | 1. Those who have not yet attained the use of rea- son, and among them are grouped amentes ab mfantia, no matter of what age, come under the name of parvuls or imfantes, according to the norm of canon 88, par. 3. . Adulti autem censentur, qui rationis usu fruun- tur; idque satis est ut suo quisque animi motu baptismum pctat et ad illum admittatur. The canon referred to states that an impubes, before the use of reason, is called infans seu puer vel parvulus and considered as not being sui compos; after the com- pletion of the seventh year, he is presumed to have the use of reason. Whoever is habitually destitute of the use of reason is assimilated to infantes.t The term Db 3 Canon 745, no. 2. 4 Canon 8§, no. 3. PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS 11 used by the canon in question censetur postulates pre- sumption and not absolute certainty, which indicates that even after the seventh year, the use of reason is only presumed. But presumption must yield to fact, and the specific case will have to be judged on this basis. Thus, an extension and contraction of the age are conceded: its presence, even below the age of seven, imposes the obligations, and its absence above this age withdraws the obligations.® The real difficulty arises in determining what is meant by the possession of the use of reason. It is ob- viously much less than is normally required for other actions. An Instruction of the Propaganda, April 17, 1777, gives much practical guidance.® It directly con- eerns amentes and children of four or five years, who either certainly or doubifully perceive the principal mysteries of faith. The ultimate test given is, that they know the difference between good and evil, and be capable of sinning, (culpae se reos reddere valeant). 2. The General Attitude Towards Doubtful Baptism. The growing disregard of the Sacrament of Baptism among the non-Catholics of the United States is an undeniable fact. It is likewise a fact of common obser- vation that the ministers of non-Catholic sects often- times neglect or fail to observe all the conditions re- quired for administering valid Baptism. European theologians have noted this, and some consider all Baptisms by non-Catholics in the United States as probably invalid. If this could be established as an actual custom, past responses of the Holy Office would admit it as a general presumption, capable of being acted on in the absence of proof to the contrary. But American theologians do not admit any such sweeping 5 Capello, De Sacramentis, I, no. 153. 6 Ad II, Coll., no. 522. 12 PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS statement.’ | 7 An investigation must be made in each individual case, even in the circumstances of approaching death, in regard to both the fact and the validity of a possible previous Baptism.’ It is clear that the thoroughness of such an investigation must be largely determined by the circumstances. The testimony of one witness omnz exceptione maior, or the baptized person himself under oath, if he received Baptism as an adult, is sufficient to prove the fact of Baptism.’ With this proven, the priest must then proceed to investigate the validity of this previous Baptism, in which his own pastoral experi- ence will be the best guide. Two dogmas must be respected: first, valid Baptism must not be repeated ;*° and, secondly, anyone can baptize validly who satisfies the conditons.* Hence, the Code states the general law 7 St. Alphonsus (Theologia Moralis, VI, no. 137), gives a general principle that all are to be rebaptized conditionally in case they have been previously baptized a praedicantibus. But this could not be done without investigation, as the Instruction of the Holy Office, November 20, 1878, which is typical, requires investigation in each individual case (ASS, XI, p. 613-615). Some authors postulate an actual custom of invalidly baptizing among non-Catholics of the United States, e.g., Lehmkuhl (Theologia Moralis, II, note to no. 26, Ed. XII, 1914), Ver- meersch Creusen (II, no. 38), seems to admit Lehmkuhl’s view, Genicot (Institutiones Theologiae Moralis, II, p. 187, nota). Capello, De Sacra- mentis, I, no. 174), notes that this view “nonnisi cum debita discretione accipiendum esse arbitramur.” Sabetti-Barrett (American), (Theologia Moralis, p. 583), contains a table of the different sects, which bears out Lehmkuhl’s view for Episcopalians, Methodists, Presbyterians, Congrega- tionalists, Unitarians, Universalists, Baptists, Socinians, and Quakers, but rejects it for Oriental heretics and Old Catholics, Past responses of the Holy See have taken the actual custom of bap- tizing invalidly as a safe presumption of invalidity, e.g., Instr. S. C. de Prop. Fide, June 23, 1830, Col., no. 814, in fine, S. C. S. Off., November 17, 1830, ad 3, Coll., no. 821 (. . . nullum baptismum ex consuetudine actuali tllus sectae . . . ), Instr. S. C. de Prop. Fidei, July 26, 1845, Coll., no. 999 (... . non est imprudens nec insuetum, propter haereti- corum incertam et suspectam praxim . . .), S.C. S. Off., July 5, 1853, ad 3, eee no. 1096 (. . . ex consuetudine actuali eiusdem sectae a paeCLGe 8 The responses of the Holy Office make no distinction between investigation in the case of the healthy and the dying, e. g., Instruction, Holy Office, November 20, 1878 (ASS, XI, p. 613-615). 9 Canon 779. 10 Trent, Sess. VII, De Baptismo, can. 11, 13, 14. 11 Trent, Sess. VII, De Baptismo, can. 4. (The precise object of this dogmatic canon is a heretic baptizing.) PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS 13 that if there is a prudent doubt whether the Baptism was either really or validly conferred or not, it is to be repeated conditionally.* An actual custom on the part of a particular non-Catholic minister, known to the priest from former investigation, will certainly give ground for a prudent doubt, if the dying person was baptized by him. But it seems to be extreme to act on a general notion that all non-Catholics baptize in- validly in the United States. 3. Cases in Which There Is No Possibility of a Sign. 1. The Problem. It is obvious that if the dying person is in control of his senses and can communicate with the minister, suf- ficient investigation can be made to ascertain the na- ture of his intention. Further, even though he lost power of definite communication, signs both from the past and the present, either by the dying person or through others, will afford a basis for action. Such signs and cases will be investigated in subsequent chapters. But suppose there are no signs, as far as the minister is concerned, and due to destitution of the senses, no further information can be obtained from the subject or others. Can the Sacraments be adminis: tered to such a one conditionally? This is the problem. It is also understood throughout the discussion that the subject is on the point of death. 2. Method and Object. It may be stated at the outset that there is and has been considerable diversity of opinions in the solution of this problem. It is particularly difficult in the case of Baptism, which forms the first division in the pres- ent section; perhaps a little less difficult in that of Pen- ance, the second division. The object of this discussion is to present the sub- 12 Canon 732, no. 2. 14 PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS stance of the arguments urged by both opinions, offer a few suggestions, which may, without any claim what- soever on the part of the writer to certitude, provide a new point of view, and consider the main objec- tions. It is hoped thereby that the practical concln- sions drawn may have sufficient support to warrant action. A. THe SacRAMENT OF Baptism. In the hypothesis nothing is known concerning the absence or presence of the intention of being baptized on the part of the subject. 1. The Affimatwe. The opinion of Catherinus, at least as far as the min- ister of the Sacrament is concerned, has passed out of the schools. But the recipient of the Sacraments is the subject of the present discussion. Pope Benedict XIV in his Constitution Postremo mense, February 28, 1747, states that the view of Catherinus, ‘‘ . . . minus habet difficultatis, cam non de conferente agatur, sed de aecipiente Baptismum. Propositio autem ab Alexandro VIII damnata, objici Catherino solita, conferentem respicit, non accipientem.’’*? The same Pope, however, admits in a later work that the proposition of Pope Alexander VIII inflicted a ‘‘grave vulnus”’ on the opinion.'* It is today without any following, although 13 No. 47, Benedicti XIV, Bullarium, II, p. 185. The passage is as follows: “Quidquid sit de opinione Catharini, qui sustinet, conferenti exteriorem sufficere compositionem, etiam si non id animo proponat facere, quod Ecclesia solet, de qua opinione multa alibi diximus in nostro Tractatu de Sacrificio Missae ad part. 4, sect. 2, num. 76 et seqq. haec, inquam, opinio mimus habet difficultatis, cum non de conferente agatur, sed de accipiente Baptismum. Propositio autem ab Alexandro VIII, damnata, objici Catherino solita, conferentem respicit, non acci- pientem: Valet Baptismus collatus a Ministro, qui omnem ritum exter- num, formamque Baptismi observat, intus vero, et in corde suo resolvit, non mtendo facere, quod facit Ecclesia.” Cfr. Pourratt, The Theology of the Sacraments, p. 391, who says that Pope Alexander VIII expressly declared that he was not condemning the view of Catharinus; Hurter, Theo. Dogm. Comp., III, no. 337. 14 De syn. dioc., VII, 4, 8, which was published in 1748, and revised and augmented 1755, refers expressly to the Postremo mense, Lib. VI, cap. 4. But Pallavicini, Historie du Concile de Trente (cited in future PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS 15 it can hardly be said to have received special attention from viewpoint of the recipient expressly. The well- known neutral view of Cardinal Cajetan, although not common, has some force. Possibly Lehmkuhl refers to these theologians, and accepts their opinions as suffi- cient ground in our hypothesis for the conditional ad- ministration of Baptism. Another class of theologians consider that an act of sorrow ex fide concepta habent pro voluntate baptism fortasse suffcienti.° Some who reject this view con- cede that it can be acted on in our hypothesis.’® Still another theologian, admitting some slight prob- ability in the former opinion, permits conditional Bap- tism, because of the salvific will of Christ.’ Thus, it would seem, in our humble judgment, that the affirmative opinion has but shght intrinsic founda- tion from viewpcint of intention, although it has suffi- cient extrinsic probability for the conditional adminis- tration of Baptism in the hypothesis. 2. The Negative. At the opposite extreme are found very eminent theo- references simply Pallavicini), IX, 6, no. 2, 3, expressly relates that the Fathers of this Council purposely avoided condemning the view of Catharinus. 15 Cfr. Lehmkuhl, op. c., II, no. 78 (Ed. 3, 1886); Vermeersch- Creusen, II, no. 35; Genicot, Just. Theo. Mor., II, no. 150; Capello, De Sacramentis, I, no. 155, does not reject the view because of its extrinsic probability, and in our particular hypothesis, as a practical conclusion, says: “Palam est Baptismum esse conferendum sub conditione.” Pesch, Tract. Dogm., V1, no. 439, rejects the view of Suarez for practice, with the restriction noted in our practical conclusions, on the ground that the intention cannot be fixed theoretically. Priimmer, Man. Theo. Mor., III, no. 135, seems to maintain that Bap- tism cannot be given without a positive presumption. A large group of theologians analyze the least possible intention that will satisfy for validity, and from this conclude that the negative opinion is proved. In our humble opinion, which we believe is that of Pesch, 1. c., Lehmkuhl, l.c., Genicot, 1. c., this does not touch the real question, as the possibility of licit administration of conditional Baptism under the circumstances and not its valid reception is the question. From the very nature of the case, nothing can be known concerning the validity or invalidity until the subject manifests his mind. 16 Cfr. Capello, I.c., Lehmkuhl, I. c., Genicot, 1. c. 17 Genicot, 1. c. 16 PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS logians, such as Suarez and Lugo. They demand abso- lutely an intention for the reception of Baptism, and consequently conclude that it cannot be conferred without a sign in the present hypothesis. The argu- ments presented by the adherents of this view are usually as follows: 1. A refutation of the affirmative opinions ; 2. A statement that in cases in which there is no knowledge of the intention of the subject, the Church presumes the contrary ;"§ 18 Suarez, Opera Omnia, vol. 30, D. XIV, sec. 2, no. 4. S. Bona- venturae, Opera Omnia, Tom. IV (Quaracchi, 1889), Sent. Lib. IV, D. IV., P. I, art. 2, q. 1, p. 101 (Conclusio), 3: “Ad illud quod obiicitux, quod Sacramentum est donum Dei; dicendum, quod est donum gratiae gratis datae et gratum facientis ; quamvis autem donum gratiae gratum facientis non detur habenti duplex cor et duplicem voluntatem, datur tamen donum gratiae gratis datae, quod non exigit tantam dispositionem in suscipiente.” 4: “Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod lex evangelica est lex libertatis; dicendum, quod verum est, quod de wre non datur nec dari debet ei qui libera voluntate non accedit; et ius divinum hoc dictat, et Constantinus de hoc legem condidit. De facto tamen, si fiat, factum est ; hoc tamen habet veritatem in re Sacramenti, quod facit esse in lege libertatis.” “3.4. Ad illud quod obiicitur ultimo de comminatione mor- tis; dicendum, quod maior potest esse coactio quam haec; nam haec est solum indiucens, non sufficiens. Sed cum accipitur, velit nolit, et immergi- tur, ibi est sufficiens coactio. Quamvis enim voluntas non possit cogi im volendo, potest tamen simpliciter homini fieri coactio im actu extertort. Unde voluntas inducta voluntas est; et ideo hic imprimitur character, et ibi non. Et est exemplum in eo qui ponit thura timore mortis, et de eo cuius manus trahitur violenter; primus consentit et peccat et dicitur sacrificare, secundus non. Sic qui Sacramentum inductus suscipit, con- sentire; sive inducatur amore bono vel malo, sive timore bono vel malo, suscipit Sacramentum, quia Sacramentum susceptio est bonis malisve communis. Et ideo talis voluntas sufficit ad Sacramentum, ut seniores dicunt. Et sic patet, quibus character baptismalis imprimitur.” Joannis Duns Scoti, Opera Omnia, Tom. XVI (Parisiis, 1894), Lib. IV, Sent, D.IV, gq. 4, Scholium, p. 417: (In regard to adults, who “aut non utitur nunc ratione, sed aliquando est usus’”): “Sed, expeditne talem baptizari? Multa enim licet, quae non expediunt, 1 Corinth. 6. Respondeo, si speretur eum rediturum ad usum rationis, magis expedit tempus expectare, quo uteretur ratione, puta de dormiente, tempus vigiliae expedit expectare, et de furioso tempus lucidi intervalli. Si atitem non speretur, puta de eo, qui incidit in perpetum impedimentum usus rationis, eum expedit baptizare, si tamen est capax Baptismi, quia alias exponeretur periculo damnationis, Qualiter autem sit capax, statim dicetur de utente ratione.” Scholium, p. 420: “Et esto quod sic, num- quid ille, qui tantum negative non consentit, negative etiam non dissentit? quia nec actum, nec habitum oppositum habet. De primo posset dici, quod talis judicatur habitualiter consentiens, quia aliquando habuit con- sensum actualem, non interveniente dissensu; et talis, licet utens ra- tione, recipit Sacramentum, quia non videtur propter aliquam condi- : PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS 17 3. Christ does not want Baptism imposed on any- one against his will;* 4. The acceptance of a gift and a new life demands a volitional human act.*® The first argument does not necessarily prove that the present view (negative) is correct, but it does es- tablish a greater probability. The second argument is tionem minus capax, si utitur ratione, quam si prius usus, non utatur nunc; sed in tali non utente nunc, prius tamen uso, sufficeret habitualis consensus; ergo et hic. De secundo, licet, difficile esset aliquem talem _invenire, praecipue qui prius aliquando cogitasset de Baptismo, quia vel tunc placuisset, imo displicuisset, et secundum ultimum modum judicare- tur talis habitualis consensus vel dissensus esse in posterum, tamen si quis esset omnino non consentiens, nec dissentiens, tam actualiter quam habitualiter, et tamen utens ratione, non esset capax Baptismi, quia ex quo utitur ratione, oportet quod habeat devotionem aliquam ad Sacra- mentum, si debet sibi valere, aliter enim videretur contemnere.” The following passage from the Summa of St. Thomas, which is ex- tremely disputed, seems, in the humble opinion of the writer, to agree with the above citations: (III, q. 64, a.8, ad secundum) “Sed hoc satis posset dici, quantum ad ultimum effectum, qui est justificatio a peccatis ; sed quantum ad effectum, qui est res, et sacramentum, scilicet quantum ad characterem, non videtur quod per devotionem accedentis possit suppleri: quia character numquam imprimitur, nisi per sacramentum; et ideo alii melius dicunt, quod minister sacramenti agit in persona totius Ecclesiae, cujus est minister; im verbis autem, quae profert, exprimitur intentio Ecclesiae; quae sufficit ad perfectionem sacramenti nisi contrarium exterius exprimatur ex parte ministri, vel recipientis sacramentum.” Cajetan concluded that a neutral intention would suffice for validity, which intention Suarez rejected. Possibly a compromise could be made, the lack of an expressed contrary will suffices for licit administration in extreme cases in faciem Ecclesiae, the validity per se being judged by the principles laid down by the Angelic Doctor for the perfection of the Sacrament: “Ad tertium dicendum, quod licet ille qui aliud cogitat, non habeat actualem intentionem, habet tamen intentionem habitualem, quae sufficit ad perfectionem sacramentt. Bes The crux of the question seems to be: What will suffice for the licit administration? The validity will naturally be determined by the actual possession of some intention, and the Sacrament post factum will be judged on a basis of the content of this intention or its actual absence, not the knowledge of it by the minister. 19 Katschtaler, Theo. Dogm., IV, no. 154. Two further practical objections are urged. Canon 1351 reads: “Ad amplexandam fidem catholicam nemo invitus cogatur.”” In the footnotes to this canon refer- ence is made to canons 752 and 754, which regulate the administration of Baptism in extreme cases, where the right of the person, even though in extremis, is guarded by the demand of manifested intention. Doctors and psychologists also state that oftentimes dying persons, who are unable in any manner to communicate with bystanders, continue to be conscious of what is going on around them. Hence, if the dying’ person did not want the ministrations of a priest, it is quite possible that his good faith would be changed into bad faith. Sometimes another objection is raised which really has not practical foundation, in our humble opinion, namely, the danger of religious indifferentism. 18 PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS not very serious when the salvation of a soul is at stake. The third and fourth are not as one supposes the presence of the intention (3) and the other its absence (4). | If the knowledge of the subject’s intention, in addi- tion to its possession, were clearly proven by the de- fenders of this view to be necessary for licit conditional administration in our hypothesis, in the humble opin- ion of the writer, the case would be solved. This seems to be the weakest link in the whole opinion and dis- cussion. 3. A Few Suggestions. The real difficulty is perhaps not the lack of inten- tion, which is unknown, but the lack of knowledge. Hence, the Baptism administered cannot be declared certainly valid or invalid until the facts are known with the recovery of the subject. Lack of knowledge in regard to a condition required for validity in some cases at least permits of condi- tional repetition or administration of Baptism, e.g., a fetus,?° a monstrum,”' a foundling,” ete. If an act of sorrow ‘‘ex fide concepta’’ can be postu- lated, it is hard to see that God’s assistance must neces- sarily stop short at this. Consequently, some theolo- gians ** teach that it passes into a perfect act of contri- tion. If this be the case, then, at least some kind of votum Baptism: is present. 4, Practical Conclusions. In the abstract, it would seem, intrinsically the prob- lem has not found adequate solution. Extinsically, the milder opinion seems to have sufficient support for action. The case, however, as it occurs is hardly ca- 20 Canon 747. 21 Canon 748. 22 Canon 749. 23 E.g., St. Alphonsus, Theo. Mor., VI, no. 8; Lehmkuhl, 1.c. Pesch, Tract. T. Dogm., VI, no. 311. PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS 19 pable of being finally and definitely settled in the ab- stract. If there are no signs, there are surely some circumstances which will aid, e.g., that the dying person is now married to a Catholic wife, or was a member of some Christian sect, or worked with Catholic compan- ions who perhaps discussed religion, and other suchlike acts, which pastoral prudence will weigh. If there are no signs, but contrary acts, e.g., positive refusal and violation of the cautiones, bitter persecution of Catho- lies, ete., it is certainly difficult to see how prudence would permit action. If the case happens in the con- crete as considered in the abstract, it seems probable that the opinions of the theologians allowing condi- tional Baptism can be followed. Even those who sup- port the opposite opinion teach that less intention is required on the part of the recipient than the minister.” The views of Catherinus and Cajetan have never been condemned, nor those of other theologians teaching that conditional Baptism can be administered. But it is admitted that even slight probability can be followed in such extreme cases.” Finally, the question of actual validity or invalidity can only be definitely settled by the facts in the matter, which the subject alone can reveal. 24 E.g., Suarez, Opera omnia, vol. XX, D. XIV, sec. 2, no. 4: “Quin potius minor concursus voluntatis hujus requiritur in suscipiente quam in ministrante Sacramentum, .’ et alii. We have purposely re- frained from citing the disputed historical facts and testimonies, and also the passage of St. Thomas, Summa, III, q. Ixiv, a. 8, ad sec. in fine, which both Cajetan and Suarez use, although they hold opposite views, to support their opinions. It is not out of place, however, to cite Pourrat, op.c., p. 390, on these: “The theologians who deem the interior inten- tion necessary must interpret the text of ancient authors which go counter to their view. The insufficiency of their explanations let us frankly admit.” This “insufficiency” is intensified when it is admitted that the crux of the problem is not the possession of the intention, which is ex hypothesi wholly unknown, but the lack of knowledge on the part of the minister of the presence or absence of it in the subject. 25 E.g., St. Alphonsus, Theo. Mor., VI, no. 481; Lehmkuhl, l.c.; Genicot, op.c., II, no. 423, et alii. 20 PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS B. Tue SacRaAMENT OF PENANCE. 1. The Hypothesis. | As in the ease of Baptism, the present discussion cou- cerns a dying non-Catholic, who has become destitute of his senses, and has not given and is at present unable to give any sign. 2. Preluminary Considerations. The difficulty in regard to the lack of knowledge by the priest concerning the intention of the dying person is not so great as in the case of the unbaptized. The dying person has been baptized, so that he is really a subject of the Church, although in a state of at least material rebellion.** Penance is a Sacrament of the internal forum, which, according to the Council of Trent, requires the confession of sins sicut in conscien- iia.2’ In the case. the person may have been a material heretic or schismatic, under which circumstances he has not committed a formal sin of heresy, for which he is guilty in conscience. If he had been a formal heretic or schismatic, this cannot be proved or pre- sumed in the internal forum, when he is destitute of his senses. Hence, in either case, he cannot be cer- tainly proved unworthy. But in the extreme spiritual necessity of death, canon 882 gives any priest ample power, and per se at least conditional absolution must be given. : There is, however, difficulty concerning the intention of the dying person. if he was a schismatic or a mem- ber of a non-Catholic sect believing in the Sacrament of Penance, there is no reason for excluding a sacra- mental intention. If he was not, then he probably be- hieves in some form of confession of sins to God, or can be presumed to be at least attrite. The Holy Office, August 1, 1855, stated a presumption for contumacious 26 Canon 87. 27 Sess. XIV, De Sac. Poen., cap. 5, de confessione. PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS 21 freemasons, . . . ‘‘quemadmodum etiam in articu- lo mortis possunt per contritionem in Dei gratiam re- dire, ac internam cum membris mystici corporis Christi communicationem adipisci . . .’’* In order that these contumacious persons be absolved from the cen- sure, even after death, they must have given clear signs of repentance. Nothing is said of absolution from sin. It is the presumption, however, which concerns us here. If this act becomes perfect contrition, it contains at least an implicit desire of Penance.*® If it remains attrition, a disposition to ask for the Sacrament of Penance is present.*° 3. The Difficulties. The real difficulty arises from another source. Many theologians teach that some sensible sign is required for the licit administration of the Sacrament, as the acts of the penitent constitute the matter, not merely conditio sine qua non of the Sacrament.** Modern Thomists, however, are willing to concede that these may be virtually contained in an internal act of sor- 28) Coll; no. 1116. 29 Trent, Sess. XIV, cap. 4, de contritione, tamen eum ad Die gratiam in sacramento poenitentiae impetrandam disponit, iN and as regards perfect contrition, “ ipsam nihilominus reconcilia- tionem ipsi contritioni, sine sacramenti voto, quod in illa includitur, non esse abscribendam.” 30 Vide 29. 31 Those who maintain a sensible sign is necessary in all cases, Suarez, op.c., vol. 21, D. XXIII, sec. 1, no. 13; Lugo, De Poenitentiae, D. XVII, sec. 3, whose views are refuted by the editor in a footnote. Those supporting the view in the text. Lacroix, Theo. Mor., V1, pars II, no. 1162; St. Alphonsus, op.c., VI, no. 482, admits conditional abso- lution, except in no. 483 to non-Catholics who became destitute of their senses in the actual act of grave external mortal sin; D’Annibale, Theo. Mor., III, no. 317. This is the common opinion among theologians today, e.g., Billuart, Cursus theo., D. VI, a.10, VII, 2; Vermeesch, Theo. Mor., III, nos. 568, 570, 599; Lehmkuhl, op.c., II, no. 514; Genicot, op.c., II, no. 423; Prummer, M. T. M., III, no. 326, who devotes a paragraph to an explanation of how this opinion is more in conformity with Thomism than Scotism (no. 327); Knoll, Inst. Theo. Theoretice sew Dogm. Polemicae, IV, 512, no. 3, expressly accepts with the restriction of St. Alphonsus; Pesch, op.c., VII, nos. 82-86, 191, discusses the problem, starting from the premises, “Si enim confessio sensibilis requiritur solum ut condicio praevia, sacramentum existere posse videtur sine sensi- ce 22 PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS row.?2. Modern Scotists teach that the sensible sign is, not absolutely necessary.** Suarez *4 and Lugo ** urge a second difficulty: Pen- ance involves the exercise of a judicial act by the min- ister, which is impossible where no sign has been given. But modern theologians, while recognizing these diffi- culties, urge the giving of conditional absolution. 4. Suggestions. Both of the difficulties urged apply with equal force to the cases of dying Catholics. The Church never defined that a sensible sign was necessary for the validity of the Sacrament. Theolo- gians have not proved that the knowledge of this sen- sible sign as distinct from its existence is necessary for the validity of the Sacrament. As a matter of fact, the the question was expressly raised in the Council of Trent, and was purposely left undetermined.*? More- over, the History of the Council shows conclusively that the teaching was very carefully drafted so as to be in conformity with and not condemnatory of the reconcili- ation theory as proposed by Andre Vega: ‘‘However celebrated doctors are to be found among the Francis- cans who try to interpret their master in a sense not different from the ordinary sense. Among others is Andre Vega, the most famous of the Scotists assisting at the Council. Already four years earlier, in the vol- ume cited, which he wrote on the decree on justification bili confessione, dummodo objective aliqua confessio adsit. Ita saltem quidem putare videtur,” and concludes that absolution is valde dubium even where some signs, although indefinite, have been given; Pourrat, op.c., after an historical study of the Sacraments, agrees entirely with the affirmative view. 32 E.g., Priimmer, op.c., III, no. 327. 33 Cfr. Genicot, op.c., II, no. 300; Tanquerey, Syn. Theo. Mor., Pars Dogm., III, no. 164. 34 Suarez., op.c., vol. 21, D. XXIII, sec. 1, no. 13. 35 Lugo, opic., D. XVII; séc, 3: 36 Cir. e. g., Genicot, op.c., lc. 37 Pallavicini, op.c., XII, c.11, no. 9, but distinguish what Palla- vicini advances as his view, and what he says the Council did. PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS 23 promulgated in the sixth session, Vega set forth the opinion of Seotus in such a way that it would seem as if it presented only a verbal difficulty, and was at bot- tom true. According to Vega, Scotus does not deny that these acts are parts of the Sacrament m some fashion, but denies that they are essential parts. He attributes them to the Sacrament only as integral parts, according to the language of the School, and we have seen that the Council in that acted with a great deal of concern for the opinion of Scotus. It declared in the third chapter and in the fourth canon, the acts of the penitent previously cited are not parts of the Sacra- ment, but parts of the virtue of penance, and it ex- plained in this third chapter above that they are called parts of the virtue of penance in so far as by divine institution they are required in the penitent for the integrity of the Sacrament and for the full and perfect remission of the sins.’’*8& This view is quite clear. In the preceding chapter, the same history notes that the Fathers possibly intended to define ‘‘attritio fit consti- tutum sacramentum,’’® but did not as they did not want to end the discussion in the schools, but were content with condemning the Protestant error. Now, it matters little to our argument whether Scotus really held this view or not. The fact is that the Council did not condemn it, and consequently no private theologian ean afford to overlook it completely, or deny its proba- bility. Vega maintains that the acts of the penitent are essential to the Sacrament only to the same degree as they are necessary to the virtue of penance. But no one would deny that they can be completely internal in BRWIIne ALi colo novi: 39 Ibid. XII, c.10, no. 26, according to Pesch, op.c., VII, Palla- vicini’s words are: “. . mais encore qu’elle suffit pour la réception de ce sacrament. ... 24 PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS the case of the virtue, so that the same must be true in the case of the Sacrament. The difficulty from viewpoint of the judicial nature of the Sacrament is somewhat more difficult to answer. The Council of Trent teaches that it must be exercised in a judicial manner by the minister.*° This involves a guilty person, matter on which the judgment is to be passed, and a judge. But is not the matter present in some manner? The presumption is that the dying per- son is at least attrite. In a word, the sinner is con- fessing his sins to God, perhaps expressly, though not sensibly manifesting them. The minister lacks knowl- edge in regard to anything further, but absolves from these sins. He is thus conscious of the sinful condition of the dying person, and on this passes the judgment. 5. Confirmatory Proof. The continuity of practice, a least in the case of dying Catholics, under the conditions postulated, pro- vides in itself strong confirmation. Theologians in general admit that where even the vaguest sign is given, which may be indicative of the intention, there is no difficulty. Again, they raise no difficulties against the validity of the absolution where one gen- eral absolution is given to a large group of persons at the same time, in which the sensible sign is knowable, but in the case of very many actually unperceived by the minister. There is a parallel between all these cases and that which we are considering. St. Augustine writes of somewhat similar cases, ‘‘Non ipsos enim ex hae vita arrha pacis exire velle debet mater Eecclesia.’’** There is no doubt that the 40 Sess. XIV, De Poenitentia, canon 9. Cfr. Pesch, op.c., VII, nos. 79, 69, 15, but also nos. 82-86; Hurter, Theo. Dogm., III, no. 624: “Quamvis autem poenitentiae sacramentum per modum judicii sit insti- tutum, non tamen in omnibus hujus naturam sequitur; quoadusque illud imitetur, ex praxi colligi debet”; Vermeersch, Theo. Mor., III, no. 570, 599. 41 De ault. conjug., 28, 35, CSEL, vol. xli, sect. v, pars iii, p. 382. PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS 25 affirmative opinion is the most common among mora- lists today. This practice and teaching has never been condemned by the Holy See, but rather approved by two recent decisions of the Holy Office. In neither response was any restriction placed in regard to the difficulties dis- cussed in the schools. The first was given, July 22, 1898: ‘‘An aliquando absolvi possint schismatici ma- teriales, qui in bona fide versantur? R. Cum scandu- lum nequeat vitari, Negative, praeterquam in mortis articulo; et tune efficaciter remoto scandalo.’’*” The other response is still more striking, and was given May 26,1916: ‘‘An schismaticis in mortis articulo sensibus destitutis absolutio et extrema unctio conferri potest? R. Sub conditione (cum de intentione allisque in poeni- tentia ad valorem requisitis dubitari debeat) affirma- tive, praesertim si ex adjunctis conjicere liceat, eos implicite saltem errores suos rejicere, remoto tamen seandalo, manifestando scilicet adstantibus (qui id nesciant) Eeclesiam suponere eos in ultimo momento ad unitatem rediisse.’’** 6. Practical Conclusion. The practice is certain in the case of Penance, and there would seem to be an obligation at least in charity of administering this Sacrament. 42 ASS, XXXI, p. 254. 43 Cited by Priimmer, op.c., III, p. 223, in the footnote, from Linzer Theol. Quartalschr., 1916, 693, and Reuter-Lehmkuhl-Umberg, Neo-Con- fessarius, no. 203, from Kélner Pastoralblatt, 50 (1916), 504. CHAPTER ITI. THE BAPTISM OF DYING NON-CATHOLICS. The signification of the term adult in reference to the Sacrament of Baptism has already been investigated in the preceding chapter.t. This discussion forms the natural basis of division in the subject matter of the present chapter, which falls into three sections: 1. The Baptism of dying infants of non-Catholies; 2. The Baptism of dying abnormal adults; 3. The Baptism of dying adult non-Catholies. 1. The Baptism of Dying Infants of non-Catholics. The object of the writer throughout is to explain the canons of the Code. Hence, the relevant canons form the first subdivision. But the Code represents the climax of a long history, which is of much interest, and provides a second subdivision. The third com. prises an attempted interpretation of the canons of the Code itself, followed by a consideration of inci- dental questions or objections, in accordance with the demands of the subject. This order will be maintained throughout the rest of the book, in so far as possible. A. THE Canons oF THE CODE. The dying infants of infidel parents are the object of canon 750, par. 1: Infans infidelium, etiam invitis parentibus, licite baptizatur, cum in eo versatur vitae dis- erimine, ut prudenter praevideatur moriturus, an- tequam usum rationis attingat. The correlative canon 751 provides the general rule 1 Cfr. chapter II, no. 1. 26 BAPTISM 20 for dying infants of heretics and schismatics: Cirea baptismum infantium duorum haeretico- rum aut schismaticorum, aut duorum ecatholicorum qui in apostasiam vel haeresim vel schisma pro- lapsi sint, generatim serventur normae in superi- ore canone constitutae. B. Historica, SuRVEY. 1. Early Express Testimonies Concerning Infants of Non-Catholics. The early Fathers make no distinction in their teach- ing on the Baptism of infants. During the ages of persecution, this would naturally be expected, as their works were often read by pagans and heretics, and in some cases specifically addressed to them. These writ- ings were at least accesible at all times. Consequently, any undue stressing of the baptizing of dying infidel infants would have added fuel to the fire of persecu- tion already rampant. Even in modern times, the Congregation of the Propaganda has cautioned mis- sionaries concerning the use of discretion and secrecy in the matter, and the omission of Baptism in cases where it is otherwise licit, but may bring persecution or hatred of Christians.’ In the fifth century, when Christianity was already favored by the state, evidences can be found which are indicative of the general attitude, which are quite gen- eral in their statements, and which can cover all cases. A loeal council of Carthage (401) commends the legati Maurorum fratres nostri, because they redeem many barbarians whom they have baptized. This redemp- tion is obviously to prevent perversion in the future. In fact, the practice seems to have grown to such pro- portions that Pope Leo I (444-461) found occasion to Prete een Cs Prop, ba Aprili17; .1¢77,,aG- 1, Cols, NOsbee: 3 c.111, D. IV, de consec. 28 BAPTISM rebuke those whose indiscrete zeal led them to baptize hostages who fell back into paganism on return to their own country.* The same Pope ordered the Bap- tism of foundlings and children recaptured from the enemy, after enquiry had been made as regards any previous Baptism.’ Local abuses existed in Spain in the sixth and seventh centuries,® which also appear in a local council of Paris (614).7. Jews were compelled to be baptized, probably due to the interference of the civil power in Spain, where the councils were composed of representatives of both the Church and the state. The eighth ecumenical council, Nice II (787) contains a canon which seems to be specifically directed against such local practices.® In the eighth and ninth centuries there does not seem to be more. explicit testimony. Canons of local synods and the collections of the statutes of St. Boni- face contain regulations worded in general terms, but do not with certainty indicate the practice in the case of dying infants of non-Catholic parents. Thus, St. Boni- face orders the conditonal Baptism, after investigation, of children baptized by heretics, priests are to carry the holy oils and chrism with them on journeys for cases of necessity, and any priest is to baptize a sick child brought to him,® ete. 2. The Decretum and Mediaeval Theologians. Much of the past legislation, already cited, is found in the Decretum Gratiani, e.g., the canon of Carthage, and the questions answered by Pope Leo I, but no new 4 c.111, D.IV, de consec.; for fuller text, Cavallera, Thesaurus, no. 1040. 5 c.1138, D.IV, de consec.; for fuller text, Cavallera, Thesaurus, no. 1041. 6 c.14, Toledo III (589), Hef.-Lecq., III, p. 227; c.60, 61, 63, Toledo IV (633), Hef.-Lecq., III, p. 274-275. Cfr. Council ot ‘Toledo, 652, 680, 693, 694. 7 c. 4, Paris (614), Hef.-Lecq., III, p. 929. Sc. 8,.blet-Leeq:; ITT) np. 7A83,; 9 cs. 4, 18, 32, 31, Hef.-Lecq., III, p. 929-932. BAPTISM 29 development appears.?° In the schools, however, the question of the right of the Church, without much current information as to the fact or practice, becomes the subject of discussion. Durandus denied the validity of Baptism conferred on infants of Jews and infidels against the wishes of their — parents.1! St. Thomas, whilst maintaining the validity of such Baptisms, answers without distinction that they are illicit, and violate the natural right of the parents. Scotus held that a prince could laudibly command it, but must take care that such parents do not kill the children.’* There is no theoretical difficulty concerning the children of heretical parents. 3. Modern Times. The mediaeval theologians had not considered spe- cifically the case of dying infants of non-Catholic par- ents. With increased missionary activities, this ques- tion became extremely practical. In Christian coun- tries, except in regard to Jews, it had not been very practical, as heretics baptized validly in most instances. In the responses gathered in the Collectanea (1622- 1906) permission to baptize the dying infants of all non-Catholics is always conceded.'4 (a). The Dying Infants of Infidel Parents. A response of the Holy Office, January 28, 1637, helped to settle the matter practically. Then, the alter- native is given, either articulum mortis, or the removal of the infant from the power of the parent, ete.1® But some doubt remained concerning the theory and the practice in regard to the infants of Jews. Hence, Pope 10 cs. 111-113, D. IV, de consec. tie cbtr 4s; See V4 Gs 4, ) 4.) Lo. 12 Summa III, p. 68, a. 10; II-II, q. 10, a. 12. 13 Sent. 4, D. IV, q. 9, a. 2. 14 E.g., S.C. S. Officii, January 28, 1637, Coll., no. 90. 15 Instr. S. C. de Prop. F., April 17, 1777, VI, Coll., no. 522, which cites several earlier responses, and calls attention to the need of caution to avoid hatred; S. C. S. Officii, July 22, 1840, Coll., no. 902. 16 E.g., S.C. S. Officii, August 24, 1703, Coll., no. 259. 30 BAPTISM Benedict XIV in his letter Postremo mense, February 28, 1747,17 expounded the theory particularly in refer- ence to the infants of Jewish parents, and settled the practical applications. In case of danger of death, or abandonment by the parents, the baptizing of such infants is laudable. The only difficulty that now remained was in regard to the danger of death required. This does not mean periculum commune et vagans,'® but in the same in- struction the attention of the missionaries is called to the fact that sickness, plague, etc., are far more likely to prove fatal in uncivilized than civilized regions. It also lays down a general principle: ‘‘Doctorum opin- iones ad Ecclesiae decreta sunt exigendae, non ipsa de- ereta ad opinantium libitum inflectenda.’’® In the nineteenth century, the decisions use the term pericu- lum and not articulus mortis.” Moreover, the word- ing seems to be more binding. Finally, periculum is distinguished from articulus mortis, Baptism is de- clared licit in both cases, and the very expression of the Code is also used in the third question: 1. An possint baptizari filii infidelium in periculo, non vero in articulo mortis constituti. 2. An iidem possint saltem baptizari, quando non est spes eos denuo revisendi. 3. Quid si valde prudenter dubitetur, quod ex in- firmitate, qua actu afficiuntur, non vivant, sed moriantur ante aetatem discretionis? R. Ad 1, 2 et 3, Affirmative.” 17 Opera, XVI, vol. 2, p. 170-191, cfr. no. 8, p. 172, no. 9, p. 173-174. 18 Instr. S. C. de Prop. F., April 17, 1777, VII et VIII, Coll., no. 523: quidquid interdum velut per synonymam vocem nomine articuli mortis exprimitur, non autem loquuntur de illo communi et vaganti periculo, in quod nec vocabulum nec notio articuli mortis ullo modo convenit.” 19 Ibid. VI. 20 E.g., S.C. S. Off., July 22; 11840; \Coll., no.’ 902; SiG Siena December 11, 1850, ad 6, Coll., no. 1054. 21 S.C. S. Off., July 18, 1894, Coll., no. 1877. “ BAPTISM 31 (b). The Dying Infants of Heretical Parents. There never was any doubt concerning the right of the Church to baptize the infants of baptized persons. A decision, however, specifically stated that the Church certainly has the right, but the cardo difficulta- tis is that she ‘‘exequi non potest, nec periculum amo- vere . . .’’ In cases in which such parents offer their infants for Baptism, administration of Baptism is leit: Instante vero mortis periculo, aut quolibet vale- tudinis vitio infecti praedicti parvuli, quo pruden- ter decessuri credantur antequam annos discre- tionis attingant, non modo licet, sed sollicite curare debent missionarii . . . tune enim cessat proximum perversionis periculum, atque aeternae saluti infantis necessario remedio citra culpam, imo etiam cum merito ministri, prospicitur.” This is for a case in which the parents are willing to have their infant baptized. The same Instruction ap- plies the general principles where the parents are un- willing: ‘‘in extrema necessitate, in qua quilibet alius baptizari potest.’’** (ce). The Infants of Mixed Marriages. There is no particular danger of death required that such infants may be baptized. The Church regards the existence of one Catholic parent as_ sufficient ground in even normal cases for the elimination of the danger of perversion,” also when the infidel party Boer Ate Cit January: 21, 2767, Coll. no, 465. 23 Ibid., cfr. Litt. Ap. Postremo mense, Benedicti PP. XIV, February 28, 1747, Coll., no. 360, for infants of infidels, under similar circum- stances. 24 Coll., no. 465. 24B E.g., S.C. S. Officii, February 8, Coll., no. 9, and in footnote; S. C. S. Off., October 12, 1600; S. C. S. Off., November 29, 1672, Coll., no. 205 (one party heretic) ; Const. Bened. PP. XIV, February 2, 1744, ad 6, Coll., no. 345 (father a Turk); S. C. S. Off., November 18, 1745, Coll., no. 353 (a rather full response covering the principles and cases which may arise); S. C. S. Off., July 6-8, 1898, ad. 4, Coll., no. 2007. Be BAPTISM is unwilling,”® and the infant will later be baptized again by a non-Catholic minister.” If the Catholic party were an apostate, the infant under normal cir- cumstances may be baptized on her offering it and after her absolution.”” Another interesting case was solved, in which two parties, one a Catholic, the other a Jew, were civily married: the Catholic party is in articulo mortis. The response is that if there is a spes possibiis of the future Catholic instruction, the infant may be baptized; otherwise, only im mortis articulo.?® C. Tuer Present Law. 1. Incit Baptism. An infant of infidel parents can be licitly baptized, even though the, parents are unwilling, cwm in eo ver- satur vitae discrimine, ut prudenter praevideatur mori- turus, antequam usus ratioms attmgat.”? The same holds generatim for the infants of two baptized non- Catholics.*° 2. Possibility of Fulfilling Conditions for Normal admunstration. The clause, etiam invitis parentibus, is employed, so that both the father and the mother, and a fortiore those who take their place, may be certainly opposed, and with the full knowledge of this fact by the minis- ter. But in the hypothesis that the conditions con- tained in canon 750, par. 2, for the administration of Baptism to such infants outside of the danger of death are possible of fulfillment in such danger, is there an obligation of securing them? The canon in question is giving the rule for cases in which the parents are will- 25 Cfr. preceding footnote, especially coll., no. 345. 26 S. C. S. Off., November 29, 1672 (heretic), Coll., no. 205: hon 04 S. Off., September 19, 1765 (schismatic), Coll., no. 460. Thin Ao tek MU tee February 8, 1624, Collt., no. 9. 28 S.C. S. Off., July 6, 1898, Coll., no. 2007. 29 Canon 750, no. 1. 30 Canon 751. BAPTISM | at ing or unwilling etiam invitis parentibus. Past re- sponses of the Holy See have ordered the secret Bap- tism, and see a certain danger to the common good of Catholics, as already stated, in imprudent zeal.** How- ever, as there is question of moral probability in re- gard to the foreseen death before the use of reason, prudence would suggest that where the conditions of the second section can be easily secured, they should be obtained.* 3. The Only Conditions Requred. The simple terms, articulus or periculum mortis, oftentimes used in the past, do not appear. This may be due to the fact that the former term might be given too restricted a signification, and the latter too exten- sive a meaning. Thus, in canonical and theological usage, the term periculum mortis is capable of stretching over many years; articulus mortis, on the other hand, might give rise to unnecessary scruples. In the case of Baptism, the line of demarkation be- tween infans and adultus is fundamentally the use of reason and not the age. Further, danger of perversion arises with the use of reason. Hence, a limit is placed to the discrimen vitae. Two conditions are really im- plied: first, a periculum mortis; and, secondly, a pru- dent judgment that death will come before the use of reason. It naturally follows that the discramen must be per- sonal to the infant, and actually here and now present in the degree required. The wording of the canon demands this,** the old law confirms it,** and the can- 31 E.g., Instr. S. C. de Prop. F., April 17, 1777, ad 1, Coll., no. 522. 32 Canon 750, no. 2, gives the conditions in question: No. 2. Extra mortis periculum, dummodo catholicae eius educa- tioni cautum sit, licite baptizatur : 1. Si parentes vel tutores, aut saltem unus eorum, consentiant ; 2. Si parentes, idest pater, mater, avus, avia, vel tutores desint, aut ius in eum amiserint, vel illud exercere nullo pacto queant. 33 Canon 750, no. 1: “ cum in eo versatur vitae discrimine, ut prudenter praevideatur moriturus, antequam usum rationis attingat.” 34 Lehmkuhl, Theo. Mor., II, no. 84; Cir. S.C. S. Off., July 18, 1894, 24 BAPTISM onists are agreed.** The actual death need not take place until some time before the use of reason, but this must be morally certain at the time of the Bap- tism. The canon does not use the term articulus mortis, nor is it necessarily demanded, e.g., an infant . with some disease, which in the prudent judgment of the one to administer Baptism satisfies the condition, is a fit subject for immediate Baptism, even though the actual death will not take place before the use of reason. However, as has already been explained, if the child, although less than seven, has actually the use of reason, it falls under the canon governing the Baptism of adults when dying. In the particular case, the intensity of the discrimen can be determined in accord with past responses of the Holy See, by local conditions, medical advancement, etc.2® The existence of an indeterminate or common epidemic in a locality, as, for example, a plague, will not give ground for the Baptism of all the children, unless it is affecting the lives of each of the infants actually in the degree required.*” 4. Does the Code Impose an Obligation? At various times, the Holy See has called the atten- tion of missionaries to the possibilities of baptizing dying infants of non-Catholies, ordering that they fol- low the decrees of the Holy See in this matter rather than private opinion.* The Instruction vehemently exhorted the missionaries to leave no stone unturned in securing the Baptism of such infants.** The present canon uses the terms licite bapitzatur. But there is ad 3, Coll., no. 1877; Instr. S. C. Prop. F., April 17, 1777, ad VII et VIII, Coll., no. 522. 35 Vermeesch-Creusen, II, no. 33, 2; Blat, Com. T. J. C., III, p. 40. 36 Instr. S. C. Prop. F., September 8, 1869, ad 46, Coll., no. 1346. 37 Instr. S. C. Prop. F., April 17, 1777, Coll., no. 522; cfr. Ver- meersch-Creusen, II, no. 33. 38 Instr. S. C. Prop. F., April 17, 1777, ad VI, Coll., no. 522. 39 Ibid, ad VI, VII, VIII; cfr. Instr. S. C. S. Off., January 21, 1767, Coll., no. 465. BAPTISM | 35 need of prudence and expediency in view of the avoid- ance of greater public evils, even granted that the con- dition required is certainly present. The fear of per- secution and hatred are greatly lessened in modern times in some pagan countries, for example, in China and Japan, by the inroads made by western ideas, and particularly in the former country by the revolution and the consequent removal to a large extent of the main barriers, custom and tradition. But even in these countries this can hardly be said with equal truth in regard to all regions. In other countries, due to the domination of Christian powers, for example, in India, the fear is almost negligible. Add to these facts the increasing number of missionaries, the favorable attitude of the infidels, and perhaps greater applica- tion can be made of these canons. Do. Infants of Mixed Marriages. Where one of the parents is a Catholic, the condi- tion required for dying infants of two infidels, here- tics, etc., does not apply. The general rule is that they are to be baptized in the same manner as infants of Catholic parents, as long as the Catholic party is living.*® The Church has a right to baptize these in- fants, and in view of the past legislation, already cited, it would appear that the existence of the Catholic party, apart from real apostasy on his part, provides a spes possibilis that perversion will be averted in some way. If the Catholic party is dead, and the in- fant is in the control of the non-Catholic party, ob- viously the ordinary rule in regard to a dying non- Catholic infant must be applied.* D. Tur FunDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE. The Angelic Doctor, without distinction, considered 40 Cfr. canons 756, no. 3, 1061, no. 1, 1, 1071, 2316. ee ten. Ot. July.6,)/1898,. Coll, no, 2007) crs S.4GrS) Off: October 12, 1600, Col., no. 9 (footnote); S. C. S. Off., November 18, 1745, Coll., no. 353. 36 BAPTISM that the Baptism of the infants of infidels, against the wishes of their parents, was a violation of the natural right of the parents: ‘‘Si vero nondum habent usum liberi arbitrii, secundum jus naturale sunt sub cura parentum, quamdiu ipsi sibi providere non possunt et ideo contra justitiam naturalem esset, si tales pueri invitis parentibus baptizarentur.’’*? He also urges that it would be dangerous to baptize such propter naturalem affectum ad parentes. Pope Bene- dict XIV stated that it was necessary to introduce a distinction, teaching that it was laudable to baptize such infants, against the wishes of their parents, when they were dying. | Some modern theologians maintain that the natural right of the parents is to the company of the child, and that the administration of Baptism when the infant is dying does not interfere with this right.** All rights and duties in this world, as all human activity, are merely means to man’s ultimate end. Thus, nature vests the rights of the infant in the parent, but only' in so far as the parents do not exer- cise this power to militate against the infant’s salva- tion. But in the case of an infant who will die before the attainment of the use of reason, the only possible means by which it can attain a supernatural end is Baptism. Hence, if the parents are unwilling to per- mit the Baptism of their infant in such a case, no right of theirs is violated in the administration of Baptism. The second reason—the danger of perversion— urged by St. Thomas, in the humble opinion of the writer, seems to be the fundamental principle in the present canons. Thus, in canon 751, which concerns 42 Summa, III, q. 68, a. 10 (Respondeo). 43 Postremo mense, Opera, XVI, p. 170-191. 44 Pesch, Prac. Theo. Dogm., VI, no. 455-462. BAPTISM 37 baptized persons, there can be no question of viola- tion of rights. In fact, a past response of the Holy See expressly stated that the danger of perversion was the cardo difficultatis.. But the same restrictions are placed as in Canon 750. This is likewise true of the infants of two apostates. It is also obvious from the constant responses of the Roman Congregations already cited. Three things can efficaciously remove the danger of perversion: physical death before the attainment of the use of reason; the future Catholic education of the infant; and, finally, permanent menta) death, i.e., habitual insanity from infancy. In all three eases, the Code permits Baptism. It would not be excessive to state that the Church has in the abstract the right to baptize all infants, which she exercises in the case of all habitually insane from infancy, checked only, by expediency. But this in application is for the individual welfare, which must yield to the public good, whenever it seriously menaces it. Thus, the exercise of the Church’s full rights in the matter would undoubtedly bring disrup- tion of the peace and harmony among races and na- tions, hatred and persecution to the members of the Church. Past responses, already noted, cautioned against imprudence under these heads. Further, St. Thomas, whose reason is incorporated in responses of the Holy See,** urges that where the use of reason is morally certain, perversion is likewise morally certain. Hence, St. Thomas cites the examples of saints chiding Christian emperors for commanding the Baptism of the infants of their infidel subjects.*7 The Angelic Doc- tor also calls this the constant custom of the Church, 45 S. C. S. Off., January 21, 1767, Coll., no. 465. 46 Cfr., e.g., Litt. Ap., Postremo mense, Benedicti PP. XIV, Febru- ary 28, 1747, Opera, XVI, p. 170-191. St. Thomas, Summa, III, q. 68, a. 10. 47 Summa, II-II, q. 10, a.12. Cfr. Instr. S. C. de Prop. F., April 17, 1777, ad VII et VIII, Coll., no. 522. 38 BAPTISM which Pope Benedict XIV admits. But Benedict XIV himself in his constitution Postremo mense stated that a distinction had to be introduced in the view of St. Thomas between dying and healthy infants. 2. Baptism of Abnormal Adults. The danger of culpable and effective perversion is greatly lessened by the general weakened condition of the mental powers of abnormal adults. If the in- sanity is from infancy and habitual, the subject is in the same mental condition as an infans. But the de- gree of abnormality, relative to Baptism, must be judged on the basis of whether the subject is capable of committing a morally imputable grave sin or not. If the person never had this amount of reason, he is habituahiter amens, but this state must have begun before the attainment of the use of reason, and last until death. If, however, at any period of his life, he had, or at present has, or is likely to obtain this use of reason, the canons regarding infantes cannot be ap- plied. Such conditions are facts, and thus must be proved and not presumed. ‘They are not entirely adults, nor imfantes, but midway between these two classes. Hence, the Code contains a special canon con- cerning them, as follows: 1. Amentes et furiosi ne baptizentur, nisi tales a nativitate vel ante adeptum rationis usum fuerint; et tune baptizandi sunt ut infantes. 2. Si autem dilucida intervalla, dum mentis com- potes sunt, baptizentur, si velint. 3. Baptizentur quoque, imminente periculo mortis, si, antequam insanirent, suscipiendi baptismi desiderium ostenderint. 4. Qui lethargo aut phrenesi laborat, vigilans tan- tum et volens baptizetur; at si periculum mortis impendeat, servetur praescriptum par. 3.*% 48 Canon 754. BAPTISM 39 1. Rare Cases. An Instruction of the Propaganda, April 17, 1777, gives much practical guidance in rare cases. It di- rectly concerns amentes and children of four or five years, who either certainly or doubtfully perceive the principal mysteries of faith. The ultimate test, al- ready’ cited, is that they know the difference between good and evil, and be capable of sinning. (a). It can be morally certain that the persons in question have such a faculty, in which case the rule of St. Thomas is applied, namely, they are adults in ref- erence to Baptism. (b). It can be morally certain that they do not enjoy such a faculty, in which ease distinctions have to be introduced: either (i) it is prudently judged to be a perpetual lack of the amount of reason in question, and then the subject is always an infans; or (ii) there is hope of the faculty coming in the future, in which case a further distinction is introduced: either (a) the sub- ject is in danger of death, and can be baptized without scandal, the doubt being solved in favor of the Chris- tian religion and faith, and the spiritual salvation of the one to be baptized, i.e., Baptism is to be adminis- tered; or (b) there is no danger of death, in which case more certain signs of reason are to be awaited. (c). The matter can remain wholly doubtful and uncertain, in which case, if necessity does not urge, the minister can and must wait for more suitable and greater knowledge; but if necessity urges, then in case of doubt, ‘‘inclinandum in favorem religionis et fidei christianae, et spiritualis salutis baptizandi.”’ The same Instruction also declares that it is shame- ful negligence to disregard such persons, but caution must be used in the avoidance of danger to the public good of Catholics.* 49 Ad II, Coll., no. 522. (The substance of this important Instruc- tion is given in the text.) 40 BAPTISM 2. Habitually Insane. No restrictions are placed in the case of the habit- ually insane; they can always be licitly baptized, with or without the discrimen required in the case of in- fants of infidels. 3. Those with Lucid Intervals and Insane arrEr the Use of Reason. Those who had or have lucid intervals, or became insane after the use of reason, are to be baptized if they wish it, while they are of sound mind. The only condition demanded, when they are in danger of death, is that baptismi desiderwwm ostenderint. It is obvious, however, that the third section of the canon is concerned only with those who are actually insane at the moment of death, antequam insanirent. The second section of the same canon covers the case of those who have lucid intervals, but at the time of the ministration of the priest are sus compos. The second section only expressly refers to the intention of Bap- tism, but in harmony with canon 752, and many past responses of the Holy See, the conditions in that canon will have to be satisfied in so far as possible. This will be treated in greater detail under the following section. Extreme caution, however, is necessary, due to the weakened mental condition of the subject, the circumstances, and the danger of lapsing into insanity in bad faith. The case of those who are insane when they are dying is more difficult. Obviously in this hypothesis, present signs will have little rational meaning, hence the third section of the canon, unlike the third section of canon 752, refers not to a past or present sign, but ‘‘si, antequam insanirent, suscipiendi baptismi desi- derium ostenerint.’? But whereas canon 752, par. 3, demands ‘‘vel antea vel in praesenti statu manifesta. vertt aliquo probabili modo intentionem illum suscipi- BAPTISM 41 endi,’’ canon 754, par. 3, is satisfied with a desire. A desire is less in the psychological order than an inten- tion, as the former is the beginning of the act of the will, whereas the latter is its completion. The reason of this distinetion probably can be found in the effects of insanity, which weakens the whole mental equip- ment, especially the will. But the will is the seat of both intention and rational desire. Hence, much less positive formal proof seems to be required in the case of the abnormal for the fulfillment of the canon. If even this minimum of evidence cannot be obtained, the grounds for applying the general presumption in the second chapter regarding intention seem to be ex- tremely slight. Insanity is mental death, but is not preceded by the same mental attitude as physical death, that is, the circumstances preceding the latter, such as the close approach of eternity, and dread of punishment, love of God, ete., are presumed to give rise to an act of at least attrition, but these are all ab- sent in the case of the former. One rarely knows that insanity is coming nor believes the verdict of the best doctors, but death is more certain and awe-inspiring. Some authorities, however, permit conditional Bap- tism even in this case.*® 4. Coma and Delirwum. High fevers are usually accompanied, even in the ease of those who have been normal all their lives, by a period of temporary mental derangement. Coma is equivalent to unconsciousness, and may’ endure until the actual death of the subject in some diseases. De- lirum tremens, and suchlike conditions, would seem likewise to fall under the fourth section of the present canon. The ordinary rule is that such persons can be baptized, only on the suspension of these conditions, 49 Vermeersch-Creusen, II, no, 36; Genicot, Inst. Theo. Mor., II, no. 150. 42, BAPTISM sufficiently at least to permit of advertence and the ex- pression of an intention. Obviously, canon 752 will have to be satisfied to the fullest extent possible under the circumstances. If, however, they are in danger of death, the only condition with which this discussion is concerned, the third section of the present canon will find application. But in regard to the general pre- sumption in chapter two, there is a difference. Psy- chologists and physicians teach that very often in a subject in the state of coma, consciousness may be present internally, which it is impossible to manifest externally. In the case of delirium in high fevers, a minimum of rationality is possibly present so as to satisfy the general presumption. Delirium tremens, however, is caused by such over-indulgence as to ex- elude the probability of the general presumption in the moment of death, unless there is ground for think- ing that sufficient consciousness is present to elicit the acts necessary to satisfy it. However, on the basis of this possibility at the moment of death, and some slight probability of canon 754, par. 3, being satisfied, conditional administration of the Sacraments seems permissible.*° 3d. Baptism of Dying Normal non-Catholic Adults. The canon of the Code reads as follows: 1. Adultus, nisi sciens et volens probeque instruc- tus, ne baptizetur; insuper admonendus ut de peceatis suis doleat. 2. In mortis autem periculo, si nequeat in praeci- puis fidei mysteriis diligentius instrui, satis est, ad baptismum conferendum, ut aliquo modo ostendat se eisdem assentire serioque promit- tat se christianae religionis mandata servatu- rum. 3. Quod si baptismum ne petere quidem queat, sed 50 Cfr. Vermeersch-Creusen, II, no. 36, 5, 37. BAPTISM 43 vel antea vel in praesenti statu manifestaverit aliquo probabili modo intentionem illum susci- piendi, baptizandus est sub conditione; si deinde convaluerit et dubium de valore baptismi collati permaneat, sub conditione baptismus rursus conferatur.”’ A. Historica SURVEY. 1. Introduction. It would seem that until comparatively recent times legislation which expressly deals with dying non- Catholics concerns only those who in some manner formally converted to the Catholic religion, or at most those who have given some sign of their intention. The testimonies touch those who are destitute of their senses, and give some sign, hardly the third class, who gave no sign. But, on the other hand, this is likewise true of the present Code. Theologians have taught and continue to teach today that the general presump- tion as outlined in the second chapter permits of the possible administration of the Sacrament of Baptism to such. 2. Sacred Scripture and the Apostolic Fathers. Our Lord gave a general command to His Church, ‘*Going therefore, teach all nations, baptizing them.’’* The mission is not to baptize all men, but to teach first and then baptize those that believe.** Thus, St. Peter instructed Cornelius,** Philip the Samaritans and the eunuch,” and, in fact, St. Luke’s Gospel is said by 51 Canon 754. 52 Mt, XXVIII, 19. 53 Mt. XXVIII, 19; Mk. XVI, 16; Cfr. John VI; 66 (divine call) ; Roms. X, 17; I Tim. II, IV; St. Augustine, De gratia et libero arbi- trio 14, 29 (R. de J., no. 1940) ; De correptione et gratia 7, 12 (R. de J., no. 1946) ; Contra Julianum 4, 8, 44 (R. de J., no. 1906). 54 Acts X, 33, 34-37. Cfr. instruction before baptizing after the descent of the Holy Ghost, Acts II, 14-35, but they had to do penance first, 38, but were baptized on that day, 41. 55 Acts VIII, 5-6, 12-13. 56 Acts VIII, 36-38. The instruction was very short, but the request is express. 44 | BAPTISM some to be the first written catechism for Theophilus.” In many cases contained in Sacred Scripture, the in- struction was quite short.** A profession of faith and renunciation of evil is expressly mentioned in Sacred Scripture, and certainly implicitly contained in many passages.” St. Justin Martyr requires persuasion and belief,” conviction and assent,” profession of faith and re- nunciation of evil“ for Baptism. The Pastor Hermas tells of those who wish to be baptized, but are un- chaste, and so draw back.” Thus far, no specific testimony can be adduced to cover the case of dying non-Catholics. But the ele- ments demanded for the licit administration of Bap- tism are clear, with a possibility of contracting these in extraordinary cases and necessity. 3. The Post-Apostolic Fathers. Tertullian considered hasty reception of Baptism irreverent,” and in common with St. Clement of Alex- andria ** demanded a penitential period of prepara- tion.” The profession of faith and renunciation of evil are still further emphasized.“ Tertullian distin- 57 Luke I, 3-4: “It seemed good to me also . . . to write to thee in order . . . that thou mayest know the verity of those words in which thou hast been instructed.” Thus, it would seem that the Gospel was intended for the further instruction of Theophilus after Baptism. 58 E.g., v.a. Acts XVI, 18: (Lydia) ; I Cor., Il.4) 4) 6s Ties Acts IX, 18 (Baptism of St. Paul). 59. Acts VIII, 31 (the eunuch); XXIT, 16 (St) Paul) =) xX Viitbee Se pesivest jailer) ; XIX, 5 (no mention of request). I Cor., 1, 12-16, etc. a A pol. 61: R. de J., no. 126. 62 Apol. 65; Re dev .2n67 128: 63 Apol. 61. 64 Bk. II, Vis. III, 8; MPG, 2, 906-908. 65 De Bapt., 20; MPL, 1, 1222-1224. 66 Strom., 6, 15; MPG, 9, 339-353. 67 De Bapt. 20, 1-4; Kirch, no. 198. 67 Sy Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. 3, 12, 8; MPG, 7, 902 Tertullian, De Bapt. 6; MPL, 1, 1206; De Idol. 8; MPL, af 639- 640; De Corona A R. aete no. 367: De Spect. 4; MPL, 1, 635- 636; Hippolytus, Phil. IX, 10; ANF, V, p. 132-133; (the last testimony is "quite detailed, but the work is of doubtful authorship). BAPTISM 49 guished solemn and private Baptism, directing the for- mer to be given only at Easter and Pentecost, but permitting the latter to be administered in necessity even by the laity. St. Clement of Alexandria gave the reason for demanding intention ‘‘for God compels not’’ as it is repugnant and derogatory to Him to do so. But in the view of Tertullian, intention and reverence for the Sacrament are so overemphasized as to lead him to refuse Baptism to infants.” There is a growing tendency, probably due to the influence of Marcion, whereby certain classes are ex- cluded from Baptism, but even he is willing to admit them on their deathbed.” The most interesting testi- mony of this period is in the complaint of Hippolytus that Pope Callistus admitted even ‘‘lascivious and wicked,’’ ‘‘if only any of them be a believer.’’ This writer was a violent adversary of the Pope, so that in- terpreted in an orthodox sense, it probably means that the Pope was willing that no one should be excluded from Baptism, merely because he had been a very grave sinner in the past. 4, The Councils. The council of Elvira (305) excludes no willing un- baptized person, although for some it reserves Bap- tism until they are dying, e.g., famines, those troubled with evil spirits, a meretrix, a catechumen guilty of adultery and abortion.“* This council permits any fidelis to administer Baptism in necessity, but excludes an apostate, which represents a compromise with the schismatics.” The council of Arles (314) is willing to 68 De Bapt. 20; MPL, 1, 1222-1224. 69 De Bapt. 17; Kirch, no. 197. 70 Quis dives salvetur? 10; MPG, 9, 614. 71 De Bapt. 18, 10-14; Kirch, no. 197. 72 Tertullian, Contra Marcion 4, 11; MPL, 2, 380-383. 73 Refut. 9, 7; MPG, 17, 3386. Cfr. Tertullian, De Pudicitia 1, MPL, 2, 980. 74 Cfr., 11, 37, 39, 42, 44, 69, 38, Hef.-Lecq., I, 221. Tah) atc. e 46 ; BAPTISM admit all who credere volunt.” The first ecumenical council of Nice I (325) raises no objection to these canons, although it expressly cites a canon of the council of Arles in at least one instance. It seems, then, that the practice of not denying Baptism to any person who was dying and wishing to receive it, even though they had been public sinners, was already well established. The subsequent local councils and writers discuss the kind of manifestation of consent required, and other incidental questions. In a council of Hippo (393), it is enacted that if relatives testify for the de- sire of those sick and unable to speak any longer, they are to be baptized,”* which was repeated in Carthage IV (397). Although not necessarily representing very extensive practice, it is found in the Decretum Gra- tiant (1140-1150): ‘‘Egrotantes, si pro se respondere non possunt, cum voluntatis eorum testimonium sui dixerint, baptizentur. Similiter et de penitentibus agendum est.’’® This testimony is truly remarkable. (Canons of the council of Orange (441) enact, one be- coming suddenly dumb may be baptized if he indicates his wish by signs, while there is no mention of any sign in the case of those possessed, and to those who have lost their reason ‘‘all the blessings of religion shall be granted.’’*° The council of Laodicea (343- 381) regulates cases in which very little instruction was given as these dying persons on recovery shall be made to learn the Creed by heart, and to understand the gift bestowed on them.* 4. Conclusions Regarding This Early Period. Sufficient testimony has been adduced to indicate 76 ~c. 6, Hef.-Lecq., I, 280. 77 ¢c.13; Hef.-T., I, p. 420; c.128, D. IV, de consec. 78 Hoppi, c. 32, Hef.-T., I, p. 407-8; Mansi, III, 851; Carthage, IV, c. 75, for Penance, orders the giving of the Holy Eucharist on this. 79 c.75, D.IV, de consec. 80 cs. 1, 3, 12, 13, 14, 13, 40; Hef.-T., III, p. 160-162. St. c 47; Het. But more precisely the texts concerning the ‘‘irremissible sin’’ or the so-called ‘‘unforgiveable sin’’ provided food and tissue for the rigorism of the first five centuries. The Apostles themselves recognized heresy as a very grave sin.© The Apostolic Fathers adopted the same view, but distinguished it from schism. Repen- tance is possible in the case of both sins, but is much easier in the case of schism.*’ The Post-Apostolic 12 Canon 882. Cfr. cs. 2261, 2284. 13 Anglican orders were declared invalid, due to lack of intention and form. Apostolicae curae, September 13, 1896. Cfr. Pesch, Prae. Theo. Dogm., VI, nos. 226-227: a validly ordained heretical or schis- matical bishop can confer valid Orders, Ibid., nos. 660, 664. 14 Cfr. chapter I, no. 1. 15 Cfr. notes to this chapter, (2) and (38). 16°4 Gir, chapter [)no.1: ? The Didache contains a general warning: “Ne derelinquas man- data Domini ; custodies vero quae acceptisti, neque addens neque de- mens” (IV, 13; R de J., no. 2). It also urges to create episcopi, and PENANCE 69 Fathers drew a distinction between the fierce and the mild, the leaders and the simple.** Repentance is very difficult for the former, but again much easier for the latter. The difficulty of repentance, however, is based, not on the impossibility of the Church receiving them back, but on their own pride and bad will, and the nature of error, which prevent them from repenting. This sin of heresy is also recognized as having very bad effects on the community in general. Hence, in the restoration of the guilty, the personal perversion needed remedial regeneration, and the spiritual injury and scandal to the community at large called for some process that would deter others and purge out the can- cerous effects of this spiritual disease. In an attempt to prevent these evils, and those of other gross sins, the system of public penance naturally developed. In our humble opinion, it represents medicinal mercy warns: “Ne igitur contemnatis eos” (XV, 1-2; R. de J., no. 10). Pope Clement wrote his Epistle to the Corinthians precisely that the condi- tion of schisma might be brought to an end (J Cor. LVII, 1; R. de J., no. 27). St. Ignatius warns against those who: “. . . habentes per- versam doctrinam; quos non permisistis seminare inter vos” (Ad Eph. IX, 1; R. de J., no. 40), but “familiarum perturbatores regnum Dei non hereditabunt. . . . Talis, inquinatus factus, in ignem inexstinguibilem ibit; similiter et qui audit ipsum” (Ad Eph. XVI, 1, 2; R. de J., no. 41). Again, St. Ignatius warns against Judaizers and “ne incidatis in hamos inanis doctrinae . . .” (Ad Magn. IX, X, XI; R. de J., nos. 45-47). The dual test is “ut sine episcope nihil egistis . . .” (Ad Trall. I, 2: R. de J., no. 48; III, 1; R. de J., no. 49-50; Phil. III, 2; R. de J., no. 56): “Ne erretis, fratres mei: si quis schisma facientem sectatur, regni divini hereditatem non consequitur; si quis ambulat in aliena doctrina, cum passione non communicat” (III, 3; R. de J., no. 56). Cfr. Motry, The Concept of Mortal Sin in Early Christianity, p. 18-19. St. Ignatius, Ad Phil. III, 2 (R. de J., no. 56), contains a gen- eral statement calling on all who are out of communion with the bishop to do penance: “. . . quotquot paenitentia ducti redierint ad unitatem ecclesiae. rik 18 E.g., St. Irenaeus, 4dv. Haer. I, 10, 1 (MPG, 7, 552), Ibid., III, 23, 3 (MPG, 7, 962). St. Justin, Dial. 35 (MPG, 6, 551), states: “et pro vobis (i. e., Jews) et pro aliis omnibus haminibus, qui nos oderunt (i. e., from context includes heretics), precamur, ut nobiscum respiscentes. . . .” Hermas, III, Simil., 8, 6 (MPG, 2, 975-978), calls on them to repent. St. Clement of Alexandria gives an elaborate description of the process of reconciliation of heretics, drawing an analogy between them and the different processes of grafting one limb of a tree on to another. 70 PENANCE rather than mitigated rigorism. There is a silence in regard to the treatment of the dying which finds its best interpretation in the light of subsequent testimo- nies. Reconciliation under ordinary conditions en- tailed considerable inconveniences, so that, in an age when profession of Christianity meant bitter persecu- tion, any publishing of extreme leniency for the dying would have prevented many making their peace with the Church until then. In a later day, this actually happened in the case of Baptism, which was postponed until the moment of death by some. In an attempt to interpret the difficult passages of Sacred Scripture concerning the unforgiveable sin, a vigoristic heresy, Montanism, early made its appear- ance. It taught that the Church has not the power to forgive three sins, among them heresy. Thus, with them the difficulty of repentance on the part of the sinner is changed into an impossibility of remission by the Church. The difference is clear in the case of Ter- tullian. While orthodox, he holds out the hope of re- pentance to all sinners, but later joins the Montanists, and excludes the three classes.’° This heresy was com- batted by the orthodox from the very start, and tends to accentuate the merey of the orthodox teaching, to which Tertullian and his associates take violent ex- ception.” The question of the power of the Church over all sin was thus early asserted. In the meantime, the perse- eutions grew in ferocity and the Christian community in numbers. A new problem arose, especially in Car- thage. Considerable numbers of the Christians yielded to the persecutors, and became apostates either by sacrificing to the pagan gods or obtaining certifi- 19 De paenitentia 4 (R. de J., no. 312), cfr. Ibid., 7, 8 (ANF, ITI, p. 657), orthodox. De pudicitia 5 (R. de J., no. 385), heterodox. 20 Cfr. De pudicitia (Tertullian), 21 (R. de J., no. 387) ; Hippolytus, Phil IX, 12 (Kirch, nos. 228-233). PENANCE 71 cates in testimony that they had done so. St. Cyprian, the Bishop of Carthage, in an attempt to check this, refused reconciliation to them for a time. Again, it is not a question of the power of the keys for him or his yarty, but of expediency and the due observance of all the formalities and public penances.” This is brought out clearly by the fact that in a case in which one of these apostates was over-hastily received by a bishop, he pronounces it valid, but reproves the bishop.” The orthodox position in the Lapsi controversy in refer- ence to the dying in particular is quite clear from the order of the Roman Church to St. Cyprian to reconcile all without delay or hesitation, at least when they are in danger of death. The question at stake is not as in the case of the Montanists, the power of the Church, or the sin of heresy as such, but the expedt- ency of public reconciliation, and a particular type of apostasy. It can be concluded with justice that any elemeney shown towards these apostates was even truer of heretics. In fact, in these early ages the con- stant complaint of the unorthodox, such as Tertullian and Hippolytus, is that the Roman Church, under the guidance of the Pope, is too lenient.** Wherever there is a question of rigorism, appeal is made to the Pope and the Roman Church, e.g., Firmillian and Novatus appealed to the Pope against the rigorism of St. Cyp- rian.® The testimony of Dionysius of Corinth shows 91 Cfr. D’Ales, Dict. Apol., art. “Bapteme des heretiques,” I, p. 411- 412, art. “Penitence,” nos. 49, 50, and p. 1777. Also chapter IV of this dissertation. 22 Ep. 58 (ANF, V, p. 353-354). 93 Cir. Ep. 2, 2, 3 (ANF, V, p. 280-281) ; Epis Ther CANE ENS p 293); Ep. 13, 2 (ANF, V, p. 993-294); Ep. 14 (ANF, V, p. 294-295) ; Ep. 30, 8 (ANF, V, p. 311); Ep. 42 (ANF, V, p. 321); Ep. 51, 5, 6 (ANF, V, p. 328-329) ; Ep. 52, 2 (ANF, V, p. 336); Ep. 53, 1-3 (ANF, V, p. 336-337). Also add the references in note (21) of this chapter. 94 See notes (19) and (20) of this chapter. 25 E.g., Hippolytus, Ref. Bk. IX, 2 (ANF, V, p. 125-126), Noetus went to Rome; Ibid, Bk. IX, 8 (ANF, V, p. 131), Alcibides came to Rome. St. Cyprian, Ep. 42 (ANF, V, p. 321), Novatus goes to Rome; 2 PENANCE that this leniency was not peculiar to Rome.” The struggle between St. Cyprian and Rome also clearly demonstrates that no rigorism would be tolerated by the orthodox. In conclusion, it may be stated that there is no evi- dence to show that the orthodox Church, even in these early periods, exercised anything else than extreme charity and clemency towards dying non-Catholies, Its vigorous opposition to all rigorism is positive evi- dence of this assertion. 3. Periods of the Councus. Montanism, and more particularly Novatianism, were essentially clerical. and sacramentalist move- ments. This rendered both of them all the more se- rious, particularly in view of the fact that they were regarded as schisms and not heresies by their contem- poraries. Moreover, they appealed to the Emperor Constantine, who was more interested in maintaining peace than strict orthodoxy. Hence, these early coun- cils, called at his request, represent attempts at estab- lishing compromises with the schismatics. The mem- bers sent the acts of these councils to the Pope for approval, which they did not receive. The council of Elvira (305) prescribes that heretics on returning te the Church are to be granted Penance, but not until after they have done public penance.’ In the council of Arles (314), held for the same purpose of compro- Ep. 54 (ANF, V, p. 338-347), is a letter to Pope Cornelius against Felicissimus and other heretics, who had appealed; Privatus went to Rome also; St. Cyprian states a general principle in refutation of much interest, “For, as it has been decreed by us—and is equally fair and just— that the case of every one should be heard there where the crime has been committed . . . ” (ANF; V, >. 334). 26 Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 4, 23, contains the following: “Dionysius receives back kindly all who have been converted from any falling away, whether of crime or heretical depravity.” 27 For the calling of these councils by Constantine, cfr. Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., 10, 5, 18-20 (Kirch, nos. 355-356) ; Ibid., 10, 5, 21-24 (Kirch, nos. 357-358). Elvira, c. 22, Hef.-Lecq., I, 225. 2 ————— PENANCE | ta mise, it was decided that those who apostatized from the Church and never either presented themselves for penance or sought it, but seek Communion in an in- firmity, ‘‘placuit iis non dandam communionem, nisi revaluerint et egerint dignos fructus poeniten- tiae. . . .’”® Neither of these councils deny absolu- tion to any dying person, although Arles refuses Com- munion. The power of the Church is unquestioned, but expediency causes them to put off full external reconciliation until the public penance was done. In this period it would seem that there were two forms of absolution, first, a culpa, and later a poena, on the completion of the public penance.” In the council of Aneyra (314), a modification is introduced, which can be explained on this basis, 1.e., apostates must com- plete the public penance on recovery,” and the bishop is given power to reduce or extend it.” The first ecumenical council of Nice I (325) took up and definitely settled the matter. The main difficulty in orthodox circles had been apostasy during persecu- {ions and not heresy, but the council states a general law. The.canon is very clear, and extends to all classes of dying persons: Regarding those who are passing from life, the lex antiqua regularisque shall by no means be de- prived of the last and greatly necessary viaticum (ephodiou). If, after he has been reconciled and has regained communion, he is again numbered among the living, let him have place with those 28 c.22, Mansi, 2, 469. 29 Pesch, Prag. Theo. Dogm., VII, nos. 30-31, and 41-42; but es- pecially nos. 222-227; no. 225: “ in vetere ecclesia tres modi confessionum distinguendi sunt; . . . Ab hoc iudicio utique pecca- tores condemnabantur ad paenitentiam publicam, sed ii tantum pecca- tores, qui aut per testes criminum convicti erant, aut ipsi libere con- fitebantur confessione non sacramentali, sed quae pertinebat ad forum ecclesiasticum.” 30 c.6, Kirch, no. 377. Cfr. cs. 1-5, Kirch, nos. 375-377. 31 c.5, Kirch, no. 376. 74 | PENANCE who have the fellowship of the Prayer only (i.e., the highest class of public penitents). But, gen- erally, in the case of anyone whatsover who is: dying, and who asks to partake of the Eucharist, let the bishop give It to him after due investiga- tion.*? Historians of much weight interpret viaticum so as to include both Communion and absolution,* and even those who do not agree with this view admit that it at least signifies absolution. This viaticum is to be given to all when they are dying, and as the second sentence clearly shows, even before it is certain whether they have regained ecclesiastical communion or not, which is reserved until recovery. When one who had been in danger of death recovered, but not until then, if he had been reconciled, public penance was begun in a miti- gated form. There is a clear distinction between the conditions for the giving of the viaticum and the Holy Kucharist. The former, which certainly includes sac- ramental absolution from the guilt of sin at least, can be given to anyone who is dying, but the Holy Kuch- arist can only be administered when the subject has asked for It, and the bishop has decided that he should be permitted to receive It. Thus, in this canon there is a contrast between one who asked and received the permission of the bishop and ‘‘those who are passing from life.’’ Evidently, the latter give much less posi- tive grounds for reconciliation than the former. Both the council of Elvira and Arles had required some- thing that resembles signs of conversion. The ecu- menical council of Nice, untroubled by schismatics, : 32 c. 13, Hef.-Lecq., I, p. 417; Cir. Watkins, A History of Penance, Sie 33 Cfr. Pesch, op.c., VII, no. 48, 51, who cites many authorities. Hef.-Lecq., I, 417-418, who. also cites many authorities, ancient and modern, in proof of the contention that the term includes both Holy Communion and absolution. a nies PENANCE (i) with these canons before them, expressly states that a petition is necessary in addition to the permission of the bishop for the reception of the Holy Eucharist by the dying man, but allows the viaticum to ‘‘those who are passing from life’’ without any further condition expressed. The content of this testimony, at least when re- stricted to sacramental absolution, is undisputed. Some, however, deny that it was a lex antiqua regu- larisque.* One thing is certain, the Church sought to root out all rigorism towards the dying from the very start. This canon of the council of Nice is in itself ancient enough to confirm the view that such clemency reigned officially from the beginning, when viewed in the light of evidences already adduced. Subsequent testimonies, which will be cited in the following section, expressly state that whereas Holy Communion was re- fused to some dying sinners during persecutions for reasons of expediency, Penance never was at any time. 4. Final Settlement of the Question. In the fifth century, the denial of absolution is branded as Novatian and reprobated. Thus, Pope In- nocent I (405) writes that at no time was Penance ever denied to the dying, although Holy Communion was during times of fierce persecution, lest too great len- iency might do harm. After peace was restored, how- ever, Holy Communion was also given, lest the ortho- dox (‘‘we’’) seem to follow the bitterness and rigorism of the Novatians. Hence, this Pope orders that extre- ma communio be given with Penance to all dying per- sons who ask for it. But in some parts Penance, whether private or public is not certain, must have still been denied, as Pope Celestine I (422-432) con- 34 Watkins, op. c. I, p. 291-292. Cfr. Pesch, Prae. Theo. Dogm., VII, nos. 222-227. 35 Denz., no. 95. 76 PENANCE demns this practice in very strong terms, and orders quovis tempore non est deneganda poemtentia postu- lant.*° It was required that the dying person ask for pen- ance, whether private or public is not certain, and that forms be observed in regard to public penance and reconciliation. In the council of Nice, the reconcilia- tion was left until the mind of the dying person could be determined, and so the first council of Orange (441) orders that reconciliation of the dying be according to the form of the Fathers with Holy Viaticum sine rec- onciliatiorts manus impositione.* Thus, there is a clear distinction drawn between the private and the public penance: ‘‘If, however, they recover, they must again take their place in the order of penitents, and only after the performance of the proper works of penitence, receive the regular communion (legitima commumo), together with reconciling laying on of hands.’ The same council also regulated that the testimony of others or the nod of the dying person can be taken as sufficient sign of the request for penance.* Pope Leo I (452) confirmed this practice of taking the testimony of bystanders and expressly included heretics.*° Thus, by the fifth century the attitude of the Church is quite clearly defined concerning dying baptized non- Catholics. The heretics thus far did not reject Pen- ance, so that there is no question of their consent to re- ceiving it, or of the necessary intention. At least two testimonies do not expressly demand the request for some form of Penance. In both cases, however, an 36 Denz., no. 111. Cfr. Pesch, Prae. Theo. Dogm., VII, no. 57. 37 c. 3 and 4, cfr. Hef.-T., III, p. 160-162, Holy Eucharist refused, says similar to c. 13, Nice I (325) and Carthage IV, c. 76, 78 (398?) ; Mansi, p. 44; cfr. Carthage IV, cs. 76, 77, 78, Hef. Lecq., I, 416. 38 c. 3, Hef.-T., III, p. 160. 39 c. 12, Hef.-T., III, p. 162. 40 Denz., no. 147, Pope Leo I (440-461). PENANCE (iv! express request is mentioned in the same testimony as required for the administration of the Holy Eucharist. It would seem that the undertaking of public penance was voluntary, or at least some sign was required on the part of the dying person before it would be im- posed. The history is somewhat doubtful in nature, so that a certain conclusion cannot be drawn. The canon of Nice is reaffirmed by subsequent councils,** and becomes the guiding principle. In a council of Toledo (680) a strange variation appears; relations of the dying man would take the votum poenitentiae for the dying man, which bound him on recovery. The coun- cil abolishes this because many on recovery refused to do the penance on the plea that they were totally unaware of what was taking place.*? This practice reappears with approbation in the statutes of St. Boni- face.*®? These evidences would seem to lend additional support to our view, that the sign was absolutely re- quired for the public penance, as here a method is adopted of avoiding this difficulty in cases in which communication with the dying man is impossible. It is worthy of note that the difficulty is in regard to public and not private penance. 5. Subsequent References to This Period. The canons of Nice I, Orange I, and the letters of Popes Innocent I and Celestine I are all found in the Decretum Gratiani.** In fact, they are the basis of all 41 E.g., Barcelona (540), c.9; Nantes (658), c.4; Toledo (675), c. 12; Frankfort (794), c. 37; Statutes of St. Boniface, nos. 18, 31, 32. 42 Toledo XII, c. 2, 8, Hef.-Lecq., III, p. 543-544 (the priest is excommunicated for a year who imposes public penance in the absence of clear signs). 43 c. 32, Hef.-Lecq., III, p. 932; cfr. c. 18, Hef.-Lecq., III, p. 931, the last necessary Viaticum must not be refused to any person. 44 c. 4 (a priest is to absolve and Communicate dying persons), 5 (c. 4, Carthage II, if the bishop is absent, a penitent is to be reconciled by a priest in periculo mortis), 6 (an interpretation of c.12 (Nice I), 7 (Orange 8, c.3, if dying persons are reconciled without manus imposi- tione, they are to be in the rank of public penitents, and receive such pub- lic reconciliation after the fulfillment of the public penance), 8 (Car- 78 PENANCE subsequent legislation. Thus, the Council of Trent in its canon, which is incorporated in the Code in almost the same words,* in regard to the faculties of priests, limitless in extent and content, in cases of dying per- sons, states: ‘‘Verumtamen pie admodum, ne hac ipsa occasione aliquis pereat, in eadem Ecclesia Dei custo- ditum semper fuit, ut nulla sit reservatio in articulo mortis, atque ideo omnes sacerdotes quoslibet poeni- tentes a quibusvis peccatis et censuris absolvere pos- sunt. . . .’’*° Pope Benedict XIV, in his constitu- tion, Pia Mater, refers also to ‘‘the more ancient ex- amples of ecclesiastical benignity’’ in the case of the dying, and expressly cites the practice at the time of St. Cyprian.*7 The members of the synod of Pistoia wondered at the extreme leniency shown by the Fathers towards dying persons. Pope Pius VI (1794), in condemning this error, cites by name the canon of Nice I, and the letters of Popes Innocent I and Celes- tine I in refutation. But these testimonies were mainly concerned with those who had in some way thage IV, c. 76, dying persons can be publicly reconciled on the testimony of others, which is to be told them, and the public penance done on recovery), 9 (Nice I, c. 13, dying persons “necessario vitae suae non de- fraudetur viatico, but if they recover they are only to be received sola oratione communicant), 10 (Leo I), 12 (reus est animarum presbiter, qui penitenciam morientibus abnegat), 13 (Celestine I), 14 (Carthage III, c. 32, even one who commits a most public crime can be reconciled by a priest ultima necessitas), C. XXVI, 6. c. 1 (in danger of death the quantity of penance is not to be imposed, but made known), 12 (Melius est errare in misericordia remittendi quam in severitate ulciscendi, a principle taken from St. John Chrysostom), CORK VE Ce, 45 Sess. XIV, De Sacr. Poen., cap. 7. 46 Ex Constit., Pia Mater, Bened. XIV, April 3, 1747, Coll., no. 361: Apostolicae caritatis Nostrae vicera dilatantes, et tam veteribus quam recentioribus ecclesiasticae benignitatis exemplis inhaerentes; si- quidem extat illustre monumentum tertii Ecclesiae saeculi in epistola Sancti Cypriani, quae in novis editionibus impressa est num. XII, qua scilicet ineorum gratiam . . . etin mortis periculo versabantur quo minus, ut optaverat, ad eos reconsiliandos sese conferre posset. ’ 47 Constit., Auctorem fidei, August 28, 1794, error 38; the exact words are: “ si contratian cata te Concilii NICAENI, decretali INNOCENTII I ad Exuperium Tolos., tum et decretali COELESTINI I ad episcopos Vienn. et Narbonen, provinciae, redolens pravitatem, quam in ea decretali sanctus Pontifex exhorret.” t¢ ” PENANCE iemanelen ct, departed from the true faith and practice. 6. Modern Times. The Reformation on the continent of Hurope at- tacked with special vigor the sacramental system of the Church. In England, at the commencement of this movement, the essentials of the Sacraments were preserved, but later, during the reigns of Edward VI and Elizabeth, vitiated intention and Ordinals ren- dered the orders of their ministers invalid. On the continent of Hurope, the Sacrament of Orders was at- tacked and eliminated by most of the Protestant sec- taries from the start. Hence, they can only administer the Sacrament of Baptism validly. Schismatics have retained their belief in the seven Sacraments and valid Orders, but the Sacrament of Penance involves an ex- ercise of jurisdiction also. There is no doubt, as already stated, that they administer Penance validly and licitly to their dying brethren. Difficulties arose in regard to heretics, due mainly to the lack of inten- tion of receiving the Sacrament, and to schismatics, where their own minister could not be had, or they desired to have a Catholic priest. In the case of both classes of non-Catholies, the form of reconciliation and signs required were the object of several questions. (a). Abjuration.—In the seventeenth century, ques- tions were asked and responses given by the Holy See concerning the abjuration required from apostates, where its external expression meant danger to life. The Holy Office, July 25, 1630, answered that in artic- ulo mortis, the confessor must absolve such a one, after making the abjuration in foro conscientiae.* Pope Benedict XIV, in his constitution, Pea Mater, April 5, 1747, also recognized as an ancient tradition that much less was required for the reconciliation of a dying person than one in good health.” Anes oO. July 25, 1630, Coll nossa: 49 Coll., no. 361. SO PENANCE (b). Responses in which a sign of repentance, or a reconciliation mm a very general manner suffices.—In the nineteenth century, the Holy Office, May 9, 1821, calls attention to the fact that any wnfidelis, who gives signs of repentance, can be absolved in articulo mortis by any priest from any kind of sins whatsoever, and that nobody is to be then repelled from the Sacra- ments.©° On July 8, 1874, the Holy Office declared that Protestants, who were also Masons, can be absolved, after exhorting them: ‘‘in genere hortentur ut se sin- cere subiiciant ecclesiae auctoritati, atque mandatis S. Sedis,. . .’’? 1f more cannot be demanded without danger of turning their good faith into bad.” In an earlier response of the Holy Office, August 1, 1855, in the case of contumacious Masons, absolution from the censure was permitted, if any sign of repentance had been given, on the presumption, ‘‘etiam in articulo mortis, possunt per contritionem in Dei gratiam redire, ac wmternam cum membris mystici corporis Christi communicationem adipiscr,’’ without stating anything about the absolution from the sin. Also, in the same response, the Holy See refused to state a general rule regarding those who were members of. Masonic sects, and now in ignorance and good faith, but would hardly remain thus if warned (i.e., in good faith). It did not totally exclude the possibility of omitting the warning, but left it to the prudence of the confessor, who was to be guided by approved authors and Apostolic Con- stitutions.” (c). Responses in which there is, no mention of rec- onciliation.—On July 22, 1898, the Holy Office per- mitted the absolution of material schismaties in good faith and provided scandal was efficaciously removed.”* C. S. Off., May 9, 1821, Coll., no. 757. S. Off., July 8, 1874, Coll., no. 1419. S. Off., August 1, 1855, Coll., no. 1116. S. Off., July 20, 1898, ad 1, Coll., no. 2012. PENANCE 81 No conditions regarding signs, nor reconciliation were attached to the response. It was not specified whether they were destitute of the senses or not. The response states that scandal must be efficaciously removed, so that full reconciliation is hardly considered. In addi- tion, the concession of the Sacrament is refused prae- terquam im articulo mortis, which would not be the case if full reconciliation were meant. The Holy Office, May 26, 1916, answered another question con- cerning schismatics, who are destitute of their senses, which has already been cited.** No sign of reconcilia- tion is mentioned or demanded. It is quite clear that none in the knowledge of the minister has been given: the Sacraments are to be administered conditionally, especially sz ex adjunctis conjicere liceat, eos wmplicite saltem errores suos rejicere, about which there would be no doubt if signs had been given; further, scandal is to be removed, manfestando scilicet adstantibus (qui id nesciant) Ecclesiam supponere eos in ultimo momento ad unitatem redusse, but more than suppo- sition would be had if signs had been given. Neither the question nor the response make any distinctions between those that had been in bad or good faith, but simply state that the Sacraments are to be given con- ditionally to such persons, which in our humble opin- ion represents the lesson of the Church’s history, and is in perfect accord with the common opinion. The element of formal contumaciousness non certe constat in the internal forum, which judges the conscience and not the state, when the dying man is destitute of his senses. In a word, the doubt is in favor of the peni- tent in the internal forum. Since the particle praeser- tim is used, even this implicit reconciliation is not ab- solutely required, and the administration is permitted 54 Cfr. chapter II, im fine. 89 PENANCE without any such evidence from the circumstances. The response takes for granted that the bystanders ought to know on what supposition—not moral cer- tainty or probability—the Church is acting. The phrase in ultamo momento is of importance, as it refers to the time when the person is destitute of his senses, and thus cannot give any sign. This response, then, represents a restatement in somewhat more detailed manner of those of 1821, 1855, 1874, 1898, and what is, in our humble opinion, the spirit of the first five centu- ries, as Should have already appeared, and will be fur- ther developed in the following chapters. THe Present Law. The Code states in a general manner in canon 901 who is the subject of Penance: Qui post baptismum mortalia perpetravit, quae nondum per claves Heclesiae directe remissa sunt, debet omnia quorum post diligentem sui discus- sionem conscientiam habeat, confiteri et cireum- stantias in confessione explicare, quae speciem peccati mutent. As Baptism is a primary requisite to the reception of all other Sacraments, there is no possibility of val- idly receiving the Sacrament of Penance unless one has first been baptized. But theologians admit much mitigation of the other conditions in the face of ap- proaching death. In fact, the Code contains an ex- tremely clement canon, which governs the powers of the priest in the administration of the Sacrament to the dying: In periculo mortis omnes sacerdotes, licet ad confessiones non approbati, valide et licite absol- vunt quoslibet poenitentes a quibusvis peccatis aut censuris, quantumvis reservatis et notorus, PENANCE 83 etiamsi praesens sit sacerdos approbatus, salvo praescripto can. 881, 2252.°° It is obvious from this canon that the Church gives ‘full powers in connection with the Sacrament of Pen- ance to her ministers, in order that the dying person may be helped along the road to salvation in his dying moments. The limitations contained in the final clause do not concern the subject matter of this thesis. In a word, the present canon is an epitome of the past history. The Council of Trent had stated nulla sit reservatio in articulo mortis, which the present canon changes into in periculo mortis. But the his- torical antecedents of Trent lay in the early centuries, as is obvious from the condemnation of the proposi- tion of the Pistoian synod. These early centuries were summed up in the thirteenth canon of the first ecumen- ical council of Nice, which was the Church’s final an- swer to Montanism, and all the early rigorism which eentered around the theory of irremissible sins, of which heresy was one. On the other hand, however, Penance is a Sacrament, and so canon 731, par. 2, must be satisfied in so far as possible. But the danger of death will, as shall appear later, considerably modify these conditions. A. Caszes or Format DEATHBED CONVERSIONS. In cases in which the dying non-Catholic is willing to be converted, and there is plenty of time, naturally in- struction should be given as fully as the circumstances will permit. This will be followed by the usual proce- dure contained in the Roman Ritual.’ 55 Canon 882. 56 Cfr. Supplementum Ritualis Romani provinctis Americae Septen- trionalis Foederatae, p. 1-6. Past responses of the Holy See, however, clearly distinguish absolution from heresy in the external and internal forum. E.g., in the note to the Instruction S. C. de Prop. Fide, May 1, 1779, Coll., no. 533, the faculties 84. PENANCE The canon regulating the avoidance of sacramental administrations to heretics and schismatics makes no exception for the dying.” It will therefore have to be fulfilled in so far as possible. The contrary custom of absolving dying heretics and schismatics, where in- struction can be given, merely on the grounds that they are in good faith, and the nature of the conditional use of the Sacraments has been reprobated by the Holy See in the past. The Mens of the same response is that as often as the dying heretic or schismatic has given some sign on which can be founded a reasonable doubt that he belongs to the Holy Catholic Church, priests will have to follow the norms laid down by ap- proved authors. Hven where danger of death is feared, in the case of an apostate, public rejection of error and granted by this Congregation for parts subject to it could not be used: aS: nec illos qui judicialiter abiuraverint, nisi isti nati sint ubi impune grassantur haereses, et post iudicialem abiurationem illus reversi, in haeresim fuerint relapsi, et hos in foro conscientiae tantum.” Much the same thing is repeated in a letter S. C. S. Off., May 7, 1882, Coll., no. 771, in which the faculty includes “haeresi externa occulta seu non deducta ad forum externum iudiciale.” Again, the earlier response of S. C. de Prop. F., April 8, 1786, is cited as the norm in S. C. S. Off., March 28, 1900, Coll., no. 2079: “Non est necesse ut qui a catholica fide defecerunt, ad eamque, postmodum reverti cupiunt, publicam abiurationem praemittant, sed satis est ut privatim coram paucis adiurent, dummodo tamen promissa servent, ac revera abstineant communicare cum hae- reticis in spiritualibus, aut quidquam facere quod haeresis protestatium sit. Idem senteniendum de iis qui haeresim, in qua usque ad _ initio educati fuere, privatim adiurent.” Etc. Hence, there is no difficulty under this head in danger of death. In the internal forum, canon 882 gives ample power, which will cover all cases. In this forum, the Church certainly does judge the occult, and the sins sicut in conscientia. In the external forum, however, the Church does not judge the occult, so that some sign will always be required, and the satisfaction of canon 731, no. 2, in so far as possible in an external man- ner. It is obvious that sometimes conflicts may arise between the Church’s action through her ministers in the two fora, in which case the internal forum qua tale is not entirely ruled by the principles of the external forum, but depends to a large extent on the subjective condi- tions of the dying person. What is done in the internal forum remains within it and will not in itself be recognized in the external forum. Ex- ternally, however, what is done in the external forum is generally bind- ing for the internal forum, unless contrary to the truth, which is known in the internal forum. 57 Canon 731, no. 2. 58 S.C. S. Off., January 13, 1864, Coll., no. 1246. PENANCE ailing, 8d recantation were demanded if possible, and if this was not possible, these had to be made at least in foro con- scientiae.*> When the person is destitute of the senses, a sign would obviously likewise be necessary for com- ‘plete reconciliation. B. Casres In WuicH FormaAuL Conversion Is IMPossIBLE. Sometimes it is morally impossible to obtain any formal rejection of error, or complete reconciliation with the Catholic Church from the subject. The object of the minister should then be to secure as full a recon- ciliation as possible without destroying the good faith of the dying person. In the first place, prudence would suggest securing the conditions for the valid administration of the Sacraments. The Council of Trent teaches that attrition disposes one to ask for the Sacrament, and perfect contrition contains the votum. With these acts as basis, a general acceptance of the teaching of the Church should be forthcoming in some form. It would seem from the tenor of some of the responses of the Holy See in the past, as interpreted by theologians, points that are likely to turn the good faith of the dying man into bad can be avoided. Some also permit conditional absolution, if the presence of perfect contrition is morally certain, provided more cannot be obtained. One thing is certain, that, granted perfect contrition, they are within the invisible Church: ‘‘etiam in articulo mortis possunt per contri- tionem in Dei gratiam redire, ac internam cum membris mystici corporis Christi communicationem adipisci. 8 But Penance, in so far as it is concerned with the absolution from the guilt of sin, pertains to the in- ternal forum, or mystical body of the Church. Some 62 Cfr. S. C. S. Off., July 8, 1874, Coll., no. 1419; Reuter-Lehmkuhl- Umberg, Neo-Confessarius, no. 211. 63 S.C. S. Off., August 1, 1855, Coll., no. 1116. 86 | PENANCE distinctions, however, must be made. (a). If the dying man lapses into unconsciousness, and is im articulo mortis, with moral certainty in re- gard to these acts, conditional absolution can certainly be given in the internal forum. Even though the dying man was contumacious, and excommunicated as such, st clara dederint resipiscentiae signa, which is certain- ly the case if perfect contrition has been manifested, absolution ean also be given in the external forum. (b). If the dying man does not lapse into uncon- sciousness, a more express intention in regard to the Sacrament and reconciliation should be obtained. Prudence and the particular circumstances of the actual case can alone determine how this can best be done. If the dying man is a schismatic or a Protes- tant, who believes in the Sacrament of Penance, no difficulty need arise in this matter. Canon 731, par. 2, must also be satisfied in so far as possible. Many of the Fathers and Popes have cited the words of Our Lord: ‘‘Cast not your pearls before swine,’’® as the scriptural basis of the refusal of the Sacraments to heretics and schismatics. But in the hypothesis, the dying man is already in internal communication with the members of Christ’s mystical body, so that he is a friend of Christ, and falls in the class: ‘‘And other sheep I have, that are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice, and there shall be one fold and one shepherd.’’® C. Cases or THosk with Wuom Ir Is Imposste.E To COMMUNICATE. Under this heading, the physical impossibility must be interpreted in the sense already explained, relative 64 S.C. S. Off., August 1, 1855, Coll., no. 1116. | 65 Cfr. the present chapter, no. 1. 66 John X, 16. PENANCE 87 to Baptism.’ The hypothesis embraces only those who are in danger of death, with added condition that definite communication is physically impossible, due to some cause either on the part of the subject or the minister, e.g., destitution of the senses, lack of knowl- edge of the dying man’s language, ete. (a). If some sign of sorrow, e.g., a nod, sigh, or sob, is given by the dying man, that can be interpreted as satisfying in some manner canon 731, par. 2, he may be absolved at least conditionally in virtue of canon 882. There is no reason for introducing distinctions, based on what the man had been in his past life. The fact is that he is probably repentant now, and the canon gives the minister full power over all sins and censures. If the man is attrite, it disposes him to ask for the Sacrament, if contrite, he actually has the implicit votum.® Hence, at least conditional absolu- tion can probably be given. Discussions as to whether these acts contain sufficient for the valid reception of the Sacrament will be reasons for the use of the con- ditional form, but not the refusal of absolution. The full facts are ex hypothesi unknown, so that the exact content or extent of such acts must remain a secret of Divine Providence, unless the sick man recovers. (b). If the subject is already destitute of his senses and cannot even give a sign, the testimony of the by- standers can be acted on, as in the preceding case. [* no sign whatever can or has been given, either by the subject himself or through others, a distinction must be introduced. (i). The dying man, until the destitution of his 67 Cir. chapter III, sec. B, IT, 1. 68 Council of Trent, Sess. XIV, cap. 4, De contritione, cfr. entire chapter, which states that the votum: “. . quod in illa contine- ct ‘Tid, 1. c., “Illam vero contritionem imperfectam, quae attritio dicitur, . . . tamen eum ad Dei gratiam in sacramento poenitentiae impetrandam disponit.” 88 PENANCE senses, has not been a contumacious and formal heretic or schismatic; in which case he ean certainly be ab- solved conditionally, as has been already demon- strated, at least with extrinsic probability.” (ii). If he has been a contumacious and formal here- tic or schismatic, authors disagree in their conclusions. Some say that contumacy, from its very nature, ceases in such a case.” Is it certain when the man has passed beyond the realm of human communication that he continues to be contumacious in the forum of con- science? The Holy Office, August 1, 1885, granted that even contumacious Masons: ‘‘etiam in articulo mortis possunt per contritionem in Dei gratiam redire, ac in- ternam cum membris mystici corporis Christi com- municationem adipisci. . . .’”* But the same re- sponse introduced a distinction between the absolution in the external forum, permitting it only when clara signa had been given, and the internal forum. Noth- ing was said concerning absolution in the internal forum in such cases as are here considered. The gen- eral principle of moral theology is that the doubt is in favor of the penitent in the internal forum, and the occult is precisely the object of the judgment. In the external forum, the Church judges the manifest and not the occult. According to canon 882, the fact that the dying man was contumacious will not restrict the power of the priest. Hence, on the presumption that the dying man is at least attrite, and that the Church supposes that he was reconciled in ultimo momento, conditional absolution can be given.”* Many grave au- thors, however, disagree with this opinion, so that the 70 Cfr., chapter II, sec. 3, B, 3. 71 Vermeersch-Creusen, II, no. 226. Cfr. chapter II, sec. 3, B. 72 Coll., no. 1116. 73_Cfr. response of May 19, 1916, cited in full in chapter II, 1. c. Ita, Ferreres, Comp Theo. Mor., Ul, ed. XII; no. 608, 7, citing Card. Gennari, I] Monitore, vol. 6, p. 2, p. 113, et alii, contra plures alios. Qe a PENANCE 89 matter will have to be left to the prudent judgment of the minister himself. The Holy See has not con- demned the milder opinion, but rather seems to im- plicitly include it in the response of 1916. Possibly this is also contained in St. Augustine,’* and St. Thomas.” D. Some OBJECTIONS. 1. A Response of the Holy Office. The Holy Office, January 13, 1864, condemned the custom of giving absolution to all dying non-Catholics, merely on account of the nature of conditional absolu- tion, and the presumed good faith of the party, with- out any sign or previous act which might, even im- plicitly, contain a sign that the person wished to be reconciled with the Church. This silence was main- tained, either through impossibility or fear of disturb- ing the good faith of the party. The answer was: ‘‘TJsum de quo quaeritur, prout exponitur, esse impro- bandum.’’** It is quite clear that there is no conflict between the views expressed in the present thesis and this response. The custom, only as stated in the ques- tion is condemned, which is not at all concerned with those destitute of their senses. Further, no attempt whatsoever is made to determine the mind of the dying 74 De adult. conjug. cap. 28, 35: “Non ipsos enim ex hac vita arrha pacis exire velle debet mater Ecclesia.” The other quotation from St. Augustine, cap. 26, 33, cited in chapter III, 3, A, 5, applies to Baptism, but St. Alphonsus, Theo. Mor., V1, no. 482, and D’Annibale, Theo. Mor., III, no. 317, et alii, extended it to Penance. 75 Cfr. Suppl., q. viii, a. 6, which gives a principle, although from the context used by the Saint possibly only in reference to jurisdiction: gx sed quia necessitas legem non habet, ideo quando necessitatis articulus imminet, per Ecclesiae ordinationem non impeditur, quin absol- vere possit. . . .” Again, possibly also from the context with the same restriction, Suppl., q.xx,a.1: “. . . nisi in necessitatis articulo, ubi nemini sacramenta deneganda.” And Comm. in IV Lib. Sent., D. VI, q.1,q.2: “. . . et ideo si forma servetur nec aliquid exterius dicitur, quod intentionem contrariam exprimat, baptizandus est. Non enim sine causa in sacramentis necessitatis, scilicet baptismo et quibusdam liis, actus baptizantis tam sollicite expressus est ad intentionis expressionem.” 76 Coll., no. 1246. 90) PENANCE person, or to secure a sign that might include even an implicit desire of reconciliation. The Mens makes it quite clear that it is only considering those who ean give some sign. The later responses of 1898 and 1916 make this certain, and mention nothing concerning ap- proved authors. 2. Scandal. It is obvious from the cautions concerning the avoid- ance of scandal in many responses of the Holy See that there is a real danger of scandal. Oftentimes this scandal may arise from a pharisaical attitude or narrow-mindedness in charity toward dying non-Cath- olics. The first type can be despised; the second will be lessened greatly by protestation on the priest’s part and instruction. But scandal must be avoided. Some of the responses of the Holy Office suggest a manner of doing this, e.g., on the absolution of dying Masons, July 8, 1874: ‘‘scandalum vero reparetur eo meliori modo quo fieri possit, etiam post obitum,’’” and the absolution of schismaties, who are destitute of their senses, ‘‘remoto seandalo, manifestando scilicet adstantibus (qui id nesciant) Eeclesiam supponere, eos in ultimo momento ad unitatem rediisse.’’* The obligation of removing scandal need offer no serious obstacle. It is one of charity, and can be removed, if possible, before the Sacraments are given. If, how- ever, there is not time to do this, as probably the sal- vation of a soul is at stake, the Sacraments can be ad- ministered, and the scandal repaired afterwards. Such scandal should be out of the question among well instructed Catholics, who have tasted of the creat merey of the Master. The angels of Heaven, most pure spirits, rejoice in the repentance of one sinner 77 Coll., no. 1419, 78 S.C. S. Off., May 19, 1916, cfr. chapter IT, sec. ND © I By Peg ih CS S. Off., July 20, 1898, Coll., no. 2012. ee PENANCE 91 more than in the ninety-nine just. If there is danger of contempt of the Sacraments by the dying man’s co- religionists, this can be avoided by secret administra- tion, as far as the witnesses are concerned.” In the case of Penance in particular, if one destitute of the senses is given conditional absolution in the internal forum, it is hard to see that there would be an obliga- tion of making this known to the bystanders. Where Extreme Unction is administered, manifestation can- not be avoided. 79 E.g., S. R. C., February 4, 1871, Coll. no. 1365. (Confession is today occult, so that there will be no difficulty in this case from the very nature of the Sacrament.) On the whole matter of scandal, cfr., the Instruction S. C. de Prop. F., January 30, 1807, Coll., no. 691. CHAPTER V. DYING NON-CATHOLICS AND THE SACRA- MENTS OF HOLY VIATICUM, EXTREME UNCTION, AND CONFIRMATION. It is naturally the desire of the priest who assists at the deathbed of a dying person to help him to the best of his ability. But each Sacrament was instituted by Christ for a definite purpose, and adds to the graces already existing in the soul. Holy Viaticum nurtures and strengthens the flame of spiritual life kindled in Baptism, after it has been dimmed by sin, and replen- ished in Penance; Extreme Unction+ completes Pen- ance and fortifies the dying person against the temp- tations of the devil; Confirmation marks him as a soldier of Christ. All three Sacraments, however, are aids to spiritual life already begun by the reception of Baptism. Hence, they cannot be received sacramen- tally until one has been validly baptized. The three Sacraments are likewise ‘‘Sacraments of the living,’’ iLe., they must be ordinarily administered to those only who are already in the state of grace. As the theolo- gians say, they do not primarily give ‘‘the first grace,”’ but only per accidens, when it is impossible to receive the Sacrament of Penance. But surely in the hour of 1 These three Sacraments find a place in the same chapter, because the treatment of each one is somewhat similar. Entia non sunt multi- plicanda sine necessitate. Thus, needless repetition can be avoided. Many of the arguments used in this chapter represent merely a development of ideas touched on in earlier chapters. If the writer has perhaps been guilty of some repetition, this has been done for the sake of clarity and completeness of presentation. The argument in history from the second chapter to the end of the present one forms one whole, which tends to pe out the force of the preliminary consideration in chapter II, sec. ets 92 : ! ; : HOLY VIATICUM, EXTREME UNCTION, CONFIRMATION 93 death, Penance will also have to be used, wherever this is possible. The order prescribed by the Roman Ritual is Penance, Holy Viaticum, and Extreme Unction.* Other circumstances, however, have to be taken into consideration, e.g., the attainmnet of the use of rea- son, the necessary knowledge, and intention, etc. As these are somewhat similar in the cases of Holy Viati- cum and Extreme Unction, the two Sacraments can well find treatment in the same chapter. Further, the historical evidence in the case of Extreme Unction is somewhat scant, possibly due to the fact that it is 1m- plicitly contained in that regarding dying persons and the Sacrament of Penance. More could be adduced for the Sacrament of Holy Viaticum, but again much depends on the interpretation of uncertain terminol- ogy. The question is less practical in regard to the Sacrament of Confirmation, as this is now regularly reserved to the Bishop. In the foreign missions, how- ever, the Holy See has granted and continues to grant special faculties to priests. Hence, occasion may arise to use them in cases of dying non-Catholies. 1. HistoricaL SURVEY. 1. Holy Viaticum in the First Five Centuries. It is very difficult to draw any definite conclusions from the testimonies of the early centuries concerning the administration of Holy Communion to the dying. Historians admit there is a comparative silence on the subject of secret confession, as distinguished from public confession, although they recognize that a dif- ference must be drawn between the conditions and formalities required for the one and not the other.’ The Council of Trent, however, distinctly teaches: 3 Tit. V, cap. 1, De Sacr. Ext. Unct., no. 2 (Romae, 1913). 4 Cfr. chapter IV. Pesch, Prae. Theo. Dogm., VII, nos. 263-269, who cites many authorities, and Tanquerey, Syn. Theo. Mor., I, Pars Dogmatica, nos. 61-67. 94 HOLY VIATICUM, EXTREME UNCTION, CONFIRMATION « . 6.) 6unde cum a sanctissimis, et antiquissimis, patribus, magno, unanimique consensu, secreta con- fessio sacramentalis, gua ab imtio Ecclesia sancta est, et modo etiam utitur, fuerit semper commendata. . .’” The crux of the difficulty, in reference to the dying, is the conceded uncertainty of the meaning of the early terminology, and distinction between partial and com- plete reconciliation. It can be stated with certainty that the Blessed Eu- charist was regarded as a symbol of unity from the very earliest times.° As there is one body of Christ, the Church, all must be in this to receive the Body and Blood of Christ, thus, for example, in the Didache.’ St. Ignatius writes that those in schism do not commn- nicate in Holy Communion,* and St. Justin that it is not lawful for anyone to Communicate if he does not believe ‘‘what we teach.’”? This notion of the Blessed Kucharist is based directly on Sacred Scripture by St. John Chrysostom,*® and St. Augustine. St. Cyprian seems, however, to draw a distinction between public reconciliation and some other form, which is incomplete and does not permit the reception of the Holy Eucharist.’? Thus, he complains that pub- CRT ee XIV, cap. 5, de confessione. Cfr. chapter IV, note (2). 1X0245°5,, Ride dionows: Phil. III, 2,3; IV; V; R. de J., nos. 56-57. Apol. I, 66, R. de J., no. 66. 10 In Jo., hom. 146, 2 and 3, where Ephs., V, 30, is cited, MPG, 59, 260: In Ep. I ad Cor., hom. 24, 2, MPG, 61, 200. 11 Sermo 227 cites I Cor. X, 17, MPL, 38, 1099; In Jo XXVI, 13, MPL, 35, 1012. 12 In Ep. XV,;'1 (CCSEL, 3) 9.514), CANE, Vi29.29i pe the main point of complaint is: “. . . offerre pro illis et eucharistiam (dare) id est sanctum Domini Corpus profanare audeant. . . .” In Ep. XVI, 2 (CSEL, 3, p. 518-519), (ANF, V, p. 290, Ep. IX, 2) St. Cyprian again objects: “| . . et per manus impositionem episcopi et cleri jus communicationis accipiant . . . ad communicationem admit- tuntur, et offertur nomine eorum, et nondum paenitentia acta, nondum exomologesi facta, nondum manu eis ab episcopo et clero imposita eucharistia illis datur, cum scriptum est, . . .” and quotes I Cor. XI, 27. Ibid. 3: “. . . ante extitum persecutionis metum, ante reditum SOW HOLY VIATICUM, EXTREME UNCTION, CONFIRMATION 95 lie penitents are admitted: ‘‘. . . while the peni- tence is not yet performed, confession is not yet made, the hands of the bishop and clergy are not yet laid upon them, the Eucharist is given to them.’’? Again, St. Cyprian states that he withholds public peace for disciplinary reasons, and also because the lapsed could cure it by means of voluntary martyrdom, if they wished.'* Those who had not obtained certificates from the martyrs must wait ‘‘for public peace,’’” which could be granted by a deacon in cases of neces- sity.° He also bitterly complained that the ministers of the Church had received the oblations before this complete and public reconciliation took place.’ At the outset the saint seems to have refused public rec- onciliation and consequently Holy Communion, even to the lapsed who repented and were in a dying condi- tion.® But the authorities of Rome ordered: ‘‘. if any who may have fallen into this temptation begin to be taken with sickness and repent of what they have done, and desire communion, it should be certainly granted them. . . .’’* St. Cyprian accepted this mandate, and later condemned the denial of reconcilia- Weim ante ipsum paene martyrium excessum communicent cum lapsis et offerant et eucharistiam tradunt. . . .” And Ep. XVII, 2 eS age se2) cs)! |.) -.quo,magis in his gravissimis et extremis delictis caute omnia et moderate secundum disciplinam Domini ob- servari oportet.” Cfr. Ep. XV, 2, 3 (CSEL, 3, p. 514-515), (ANF, V, p. 291, Bp. %, 1); Ep. LVII, 2 (CSEL, 3, p. 651-652), (ANF, V,. p. 337), where St. Cyprian orders the Blessed Eucharist to be given as a sign to those publicly reconciled outside of danger of death. 13 Ep. X,1 (ANF, V, p. 291), (CSEL, 3, p. 517, Ep. XV, 1). 14 Ep. XIII, 2 (ANF, V, p. 293-294), (CSEL, 3, p. 525-526, Ep. ALXOS): 15 Ep. XIII, 2 cfr. note (14); Ep. XII, 1 (ANF, V, p. 293), (CSEL, V, p. 523-524, Ep. XVIII, 1). 16 Ep. XII, 1 (ANF, V, p. 293), (CSEL, 3, p. 523-525, Ep. XVIII, 1). 17 Cfr. note (12) to this chapter. 18 Ep. Il, 2 (ANF, V, p. 280-281), (CSEL, 3, p. 486-487, Ep. VIII, 2). 19’ Ep. II, 3 (ANF, V, p. 281), (CSEL, 3, p. 487-488, Ep. VIII, 3). Cfr. Ep. XIII, 2 (ANF, V, p. 293-294), (CSEL, 3, p. 525-526, Ep. XIX, 2); Ep. XIV (ANF, V, p. 294-295), (CSEL, 3, p. 527-529, Ep. XX). 96 HOLY VIATICUM, EXTREME UNCTION, CONFIRMATION tion to any dying person as that of Novatians, who were also themselves included in this merey: ‘‘ And yet to these persons themselves repentance is granted, and the hope of lamenting and atoning is left . . . no one is to be restrained from the fruit of satisfaction and the hope of peace, . . . since God exhorts ‘‘ both that sinners are brought back to repentance, and that pardon and mercy are not denied to penitents.’”*° Abso- lutely none are to be refused.** Even those that are fleeing from persecution, who ‘‘shall fall by chance among thieves, or shall die in fever and in weakness.”’ If such a one ‘‘dies without peace and communion .’ it will be before God . . .‘‘inactive negli- gence and cruel hardness. .. .’”* In conclusion, St. Cyprian carefully distinguished the obstinate from the less guilty,” recognized a state of secret or occult rec- onciliation, which his priests in Carthage improperly considered as sufficient for the reception of Holy Com- munion. The saint does not object to this secret recon- ciliation, but vigorously denies that it is sufficient for the restoration of public communion, which is an essen- tial requisite for the reception of Holy Communion, and begins after the public absolution by the bishop. At first, he does not seem to have permitted public rec- onciliation even to the dying without the proper for- malities, but later, through the interception of Rome, admitted all on the point of death. The councils of Elvira (3806), Arles (314), and Nice I 20 Ep. LI, 26, 29 (ANF, V, p. 334), (CSEL, 3, 632-638, Ep. LV, 12, 15,17, 19, 26, 29); Cir. Ep. LI, 12 \( ANF, V, p..330}; ands yee (ANF, V, p. 331-332). 21 Ep. LI, 26, 29 (ANF, V, p. 334-335), (CSEL, 3, p. 644-647, Ep. LV, 26, 29). 22 Ep. LIII, 3, 5 (ANF, V, p. 337-338), (CSEL, 3, 652-654, Ep. VE 306): 23 Cfr. Ep. LIV, 1, 15 (ANF, V, p. 338-339, 344-345), (CSEL, 3, P._ 666-667, 684-685, Ep. LIX, 1, 15). Ep. LI, 29 (ANF, V, p. 335), (CSEL, 3, p. 647, Ep. LV). Ep. LII, 2 (ANF, V, p. 336), (CSEEag: p. 648-649, Ep. LVI). HOLY VIATICUM, EXTREME UNCTION, CONFIRMATION Hi (325), will scarcely yield any more definite historical data. The council of Elvira stated that only a bishop could receive a public penitent into the Church, Le., probably formally and publicly, but in case of neces- sity, a priest or deacon could give such a one Com- munion as a sign of this reconciliation.** This is like- wise referred to as an ancient custom. Some have at- tempted to explain this canon by saying that it was never put into practice,” others on the ground that absolution was not given. However, if we distinguish secret absolution (a culpa) from public (a poena), there is no difficulty, and presume that some occult form of reconciliation has been given antecedently, or is given before the administration of Communion by the priest. The council of Arles orders that Com- munion is not to be given to apostates, even on their deathbeds, unless they recover, and do fruits’ worthy of penance.”* Nothing is said concerning secret abso- lution or reconciliation, and hence it is not excluded. The ecumenical council of Nice I (325), as has been stated in a previous chapter,” orders the Viaticum to be given to all dying persons. Some maintain that this word means absolution alone, others absolution and Communion. Whatever may be the truth in the matter, it certainly permits some concession that did not involve full public reconciliation, which the same canon orders is not to be given until some public pen- ance, although considerably modified, has been under- gone. The final sentence of the same canon also ex- pressly states that the Holy Eucharist is not to be ad- 24 c. 32, Hef.-Lecq., I, p. 238. 25 Cfr. Pesch, Prae. Theo. Dogm., VII, no. 48, who cites various authorities. Cfr. also Ibid., op. c., no. 263-269. 26 c. 22, Mansi, 2, 469. 97 The entire argument in the historical sections should now be drawn together. The simple statement is found in chapter II, sec. 3, B, preliminary consideration 1. It reappears in chapter IV, in which note (2) is of particular interest, and the entire second section. In the pres- ent section it is finally developed. 98 HOLY VIATICUM, EXTREME UNCTION, CONFIRMATION ministered to dying persons, unless they ask for It, and the bishop decides that they should be given It.” Hence, it would seem that formal conversion was necessary for public reconciliation in the complete sense even for the dying and the reception of Holy Communion. This opinion is likewise in conformity with the testimonies of the Fathers, and the attitude of St. Cyprian, that the Blessed Eucharist is a special bond of public unity with the body of the Church. In the fifth century this becomes especially evident. A. Tue Hoty Viaticum. 2. The Fifth Century to Modern Times. While the bishop was the ordinary minister of pub- lic reconciliation, it was recognized that an exception had to be made ror dying persons, even in the times of St. Cyprian. This becomes clearer in the ecumenical council of Nice I. In the second council of Carthage, it was regulated that a priest could reconcile a peni- tent (1.e., public) in case of necessity when the bishop was hindered.”® Pope Innocent I (405) wrote that at no time was penance ever refused to the dying, al- though Holy Communion was not conceded. Now he orders extrema communio to be given to all who ask for It.*° In France, the abuse of denying the Sacra- ment to those condemned to death existed from about this time as a civil penalty, according to some.” At all events, Pope Celestine I (422-432) condemned the refusal of penance (it is not certain whether this is private or public) to any dying person who asked for 28 c. 13, Hef.-Lecq., I, p. 417. Cfr. Pesch, op. c., no. 51. The final words of the canon are: “Generaliter autem omni cuilibet in exitu posito et poscenti sibi communionis gratiam tribui, episcopus probabiliter ex oblatione dare debebit,” which seems to refer to a formal public Communion in connection with the public formal reconciliation. 29 c. 4, Mansi, III, 691. 30 Denz., no. 95. 31 Cfr. Pesch, Prae. Theo. Dogm., VII, no. 57. HOLY VIATICUM, EXTREME UNCTION, CONFIRMATION 99 it, but without any mention of Holy Communion.” Pope Felix (487) ordered that ordained clerics who had received rebaptism, regarded as an _ heretical practice, were to be excluded, and only in articulo mor- tis admitted to lay Communion; the lower clergy and laity were to undergo a long process of public pen- ance, but if they died earlier, the Viaticum (in our sense of the term) is not to be refused to them.* If, however, they recover, and have been admitted to Com- munion merely because of sickness, they must complete the penance in the highest degree of penitents, in ac- cordance with the canon of Nice I. These enactments were probably drawn up to meet the special crime of rebaptism and suppress the practice. This was re- garded as heretical, and the legislation in question may be taken as hardly any stricter than the general practice in regard to dying heretics. A council of Agde (506) orders that extrema communio (which is obviously used in our sense of the term Viaticum **) is not to be refused to anyone who is near death. B. Eatreme Unction.—The first clear testimony out- side of the Sacred Scriptures, concerning the adminis- tration of Extreme Unction is contained in a letter of Pope Innocent I (416), which gives the Roman prac- tice. The oil used is to be blessed by the bishop, but the Sacrament can be administered by any priest in eases of necessity. It must not be given to anyone to whom the other Sacraments have been refused: ‘‘Nam paenitentibus istud infundi non potest, quia genus est Sacramenti. Nam quibus reliqua sacramenta negan- tur, quomodo unum genus putatur posse concedi?’’* 32 Denz., no. 111. 33 Hef.-Lecq., II, p. 934-935. 34 Agde (506); c. 63, D. I, Cfr. Innocent I, who uses the same term extrema communio in a passage in which there is no doubt as to the meaning, Denz., no. 95. 35 Denz., no. 99. Cfr. Pesch, op. c., VII, no. 514, who rejects the interpretation of the passage so as to mean Confirmation instead of 100 HOLY VIATICUM, EXTREME UNCTION, CONFIRMATION It is clear from these words that this Sacrament can only be given to the penitent after public reconcilia- tion, as a later testimony, under Pope Leo IV (850), explains: ‘‘Hoc tamen sciendum, quia, si is, qui in- firmatur, publicae poenitentiae mancipatus est, non potest huius mysterii consequi medicinam, nisi prius reconciliatione percepta communionem corporis et san- guinis Christi meruerit. Cui enim reliqua sacramenta interdicta sunt, hoc uno nulla ratione uti conceditur.’’*® This is in perfect harmony with the rule found in the Roman Ritual today, that the ordinary procedure is Penance, Holy Viaticum, and then Extreme Unction. If Holy Viaticum cannot be administered, then the order will be Penance and Extreme Unction. This follows from the fact that Extreme Unction is a Sacra- ment of the living. It is illogical to teach that condi- tional Extreme Unction should be administered without conditional absolution, if the latter is possible, and the subject is probably not in the state of grace. It is in- teresting to note also, that Extreme Unction pertains to the external forum, as the second testimony clearly demonstrates.*” Any other interpretation would lead to the absurd conclusion, that all the Sacraments in these times were refused to penitents and dying Catholics, although public penitents. The statutes of St. Boniface speak in the same gen- Extreme Uunction (fortasse). The latter interpretation does not seem probable, as the parties in question are adults, since they are undergoing public penance, which was only imposed on adults. If so, there is no reason for supposing that they had not already been confirmed. 36 Denz., no. 315 (c. 8, Counc. Ticinense, 850) ; Mansi, 14, 932. 37 ~Cfr. Tanquerey, Syn. Theo. Dogm., III, no. 779: “Extrema Uunc- tio remittit etiam poenam temporalem peccato debitam, non quidem totam, sed juxta gradum dispositionis in subjecto existente,” which is the com- mon teaching. But the remission of the poena as distinct from the culpa involved the external forum and at least the promise of public penance. Cfr. also Pope Leo I (440-461), in the letter Magna indign., Denz., no. 145: “. . . Sufficit enim illa confessio, quae primum Deo offertur, tum etiam sacerdoti, qui quo delictis poenitentium precator accredit. Tunc enim demum plures ad poenitentiam, poterunt provocari, si populi auribus non publicetur conscientia confitentis.” HOLY VIATICUM, EXTREME UNCTION, CONFIRMATION 101 eral terms of giving Penance, the Holy Viaticum, and annointing dying persons, without any special refer- ence to their past lives.** C. Conclusions.—F rom the time of Pope Innocent I, public reconciliation, Holy Viaticum, and Extreme Unction, seem to have been regulated by the same rule, and where one was given the others were also. As has already been stated,* definite signs, or at least a voluntary undertaking seems to have been required for the infliction of public penance, and consequent public reconciliation. As regards the internal forum, nothing can be stated with certainty, even in cases concerning persons who had been Catholics all their lives. In eases of destitution of the senses, the problem is like- wise the same. It is certain that the Church vigorously repudiated all attempts at rigorism. Possibly the dis- tinctions between absolution a culpa and a poena, and the external and internal forum, may permit piercing through this curtain of historical uncertainty. The conjectures are at least worthy of consideration, when one remembers that the problem cannot be restricted to dying non-Catholies alone, but all classes who do not give some signs, either through another or in their state of destitution. The main questions in regard to Extreme Unction, until comparatively recent times, centered around the institution and not the administration of this Sacra- ment, with which the present thesis is not concerned. St. Thomas’s practical teaching that the Sacraments must not be denied in articulo mortis, which has already been cited, is merely the conclusion of history, in the 38 c. 18, 31 (clearly distinguishes between the cases of the normal and the dying, who are to be reconciled without delay and given the Holy Eucharist), 32 (a sick man can be given immediate reconciliation on the testimony of others, with the Holy Eucharist; if he recovers these witnesses must tell him what has been done), Hef.-Lecq., III, p. 931-932. 39 Cfr. chapter IV. 102 HOLY VIATICUM, EXTREME UNCTION, CONFIRMATION humble opinion of the writer. 8. Modern tumes. It is not until the eighteenth century, that responses contain matter specifically concerned with dying non- Catholics and these Sacraments. The Holy Office, May 10, 1703, prescribed that the Viaticum should not be administered to a dying adult neophyte, unless he at least distinguished the spiritual food from the corporal, knowing and believing in the Real Presence. Kxtreme Unction could not be con- ferred on such a dying neophyte, unless he had at least some intention of receiving it in beneficium animae pro mortis tempore ordinatam.* This is cited in a re- sponse to a similar question by the Congregation of the Propaganda I"idei, September 26, 1821.7 Ina response of the Holy Office, May 9, 1821, concerning recidivi and consuetudinaru in general, the missionary is told to consult approved authors. ? < SUED HOLY VIATICUM, EXTREME UNCTION, CONFIRMATION 115 death.” Pope Benedict XIV regulated that this Sacra- ment should not be conferred until the subject had some knowledge of its nature. The Congregation of the Council pointed out that the subject did not have to be so old as for First Communion. In the Hastern Church, and in some particular regions of the West, Confirmation is administered to infants. The Code contains these modifications as a general law so that Confirmation can be conferred on a dying infans be- fore the age of seven. In the case of adults, past responses required some knowledge of the nature of the Sacrament, even in the case of the dying. But it is not required for the valid reception of the Sacrament, as the Code states that anyone be confirmed licitly and fruitfully, he must be in the state of grace and if he enjoys the use of reason, sufficiently instructed.” No obligation of administering the Sacrament under such circumstances is imposed: although this Sacra- ment is not necessary by necessity of means for salva- tion, it is lawful for no one, data occasione, to neglect it; finally, parochi should take care that the faithful approach it at an opportune time.” Hence, if the dying person is a baptized neophyte, or has been formally converted on his deathbed, it is seemingly unreasonable to refuse Confirmation, if it can be conferred and scandal avoided. Prudence will be the determining factor, if one has the necessary faculties. If there is danger of greater evils, is can be omitted. ; 77 Canon 788. 78 Canon 786. 79 Canon 787. CHAPTER VI. DYING NON-CATHOLICS AND THE SACRA- MENT OF MATRIMONY. No difficulty will be present in cases where the dying man formally converts to the Catholic faith. He is then regarded as a Catholic, and no impediment exists from viewpoint of mixed religion or disparity of worship. Hence, in this chapter only cases of doubt- ful conversion or those in which the dying man is un- converted are considered. Throughout the discussion the dying party is always the non-Catholic, and the only impediment considered is that arising from the difference of religion of this party. 1. Powers Granted to Ordinaries. ‘‘In danger of death, Ordinaries may, for the relief of conscience and, if the case demands it, for the legitimation of children, grant dispensation, both from the form of marriage, and from each and all of the ecclesiastical impediments, whether public or occult, even if there are several, excepting the impediment of — priestly Orders and affinity in the direct life arising from consummatd marriage, to their subjects, wher- ever they may be, and to all persons actually in their territory, care being taken to avoid scandal, and if dis- pensation is granted from the impediment of disparity of cult or mixed religion, the usual guarantees being exacted.’ 2. Powers Granted to Priests. ‘‘Under the circumstances described in canon 1043, but only in those cases in which even the Ordinary of 1 Canon 1043. Cfr. Ayrinhac, Marriage Legislation in the New Code of Canon Law, p. 86-87. 116 eee ES ry MATRIMONY 11% the place could not be reached, the same power of dis- pensing is enjoyed by the pastor and by the priest who assists at a marriage in accordance with the provision of can. 1098, par. 2, and by the confessor; but this last one in the internal forum only and in the act of sacra- mental confession.’” | 3. Extraordinary Circumstances. ‘