|
Objection 1: It would seem that a penitent, at the point of death,
cannot be absolved by any priest. For absolution requires
jurisdiction, as stated above (Article 5). Now a priest does not
acquire jurisdiction over a man who repents at the point of death.
Therefore he cannot absolve him.
Objection 2: Further, he that receives the sacrament of Baptism,
when in danger of death, from another than his own priest, does not
need to be baptized again by the latter. If, therefore, any priest
can absolve, from any sin, a man who is in danger of death, the
penitent, if he survive the danger, need not go to his own priest;
which is false, since otherwise the priest would not "know the
countenance of his cattle."
Objection 3: Further, when there is danger of death, Baptism can
be conferred not only by a strange priest, but also by one who is not a
priest. But one who is not a priest can never absolve in the tribunal
of Penance. Therefore neither can a priest absolve a man who is not
his subject, when he is in danger of death.
On the contrary, Spiritual necessity is greater than bodily
necessity. But it is lawful in a case of extreme necessity, for a man
to make use of another's property, even against the owner's will, in
order to supply a bodily need. Therefore in danger of death, a man
may be absolved by another than his own priest, in order to supply his
spiritual need.
Further, the authorities quoted in the text prove the same (Sent.
iv, D, 20, Cap. Non Habet).
I answer that, If we consider the power of the keys, every priest
has power over all men equally and over all sins: and it is due to the
fact that by the ordination of the Church, he has a limited
jurisdiction or none at all, that he cannot absolve all men from all
sins. But since "necessity knows no law" [Cap. Consilium, De
observ. jejun.; De reg. jur. (v, Decretal)] in cases of
necessity the ordination of the Church does not hinder him from being
able to absolve, since he has the keys sacramentally: and the penitent
will receive as much benefit from the absolution of this other priest as
if he had been absolved by his own. Moreover a man can then be
absolved by any priest not only from his sins, but also from
excommunication, by whomsoever pronounced, because such absolution is
also a matter of that jurisdiction which by the ordination of the
Church is con. fined within certain limits.
Reply to Objection 1: One person may act on the jurisdiction of
another according to the latter's will, since matters of jurisdiction
can be deputed. Since, therefore, the Church recognizes absolution
granted by any priest at the hour of death, from this very fact a
priest has the use of jurisdiction though he lack the power of
jurisdiction.
Reply to Objection 2: He needs to go to his own priest, not that
he may be absolved again from the sins, from which he was absolved when
in danger of death, but that his own priest may know that he is
absolved. In like manner, he who has been absolved from
excommunication needs to go to the judge, who in other circumstances
could have absolved him, not in order to seek absolution, but in order
to offer satisfaction.
Reply to Objection 3: Baptism derives its efficacy from the
sanctification of the matter itself, so that a man receives the
sacrament whosoever baptizes him: whereas the sacramental power of
Penance consists in a sanctification pronounced by the minister, so
that if a man confess to a layman, although he fulfills his own part of
the sacramental confession, he does not receive sacramental
absolution. Wherefore his confession avails him somewhat, as to the
lessening of his punishment, owing to the merit derived from his
confession and to his repentance. but he does not receive that
diminution of his punishment which results from the power of the keys;
and consequently he must confess again to a priest; and one who has
confessed thus, is more punished hereafter than if he had confessed to
a priest.
|
|