Would this (fictional) confession be valid / licit?

[RPRPsych]

Not sure if this is the right place for this question, but it’s been nagging away at me, so here goes:

I was reading a novel about three brothers who all discern a vocation to the priesthood. One of them falls away, and two of them are ordained, but the second is laicized because he falls in love and wants to marry. His “rescript” only authorizes him to perform the “Last Rites” (the author’s words, not my own) in an emergency.

Near the end of the book, his elder brother (who is still a priest) is hit by a car and is dying. Since there is no one else around, he asks his brother to hear his last confession. The brother objects, saying that he isn’t a “real” priest anymore, but the dying man insists, and he ends up hearing his confession and absolving him, allowing him to die peacefully.

Now, I know that this is fiction (and done as a dramatic device; in the final chapter, the second brother “comes home” and returns to the priesthood), but would such a proceeding be either valid or licit? I can’t find a straight answer in the usual places, so help from my fellow CAF-ers would be much appreciated!

 

[Gorgias]

His “rescript” only authorizes him to perform the “Last Rites” (the author’s words, not my own) in an emergency.

Near the end of the book, his elder brother (who is still a priest) is hit by a car and is dying. Since there is no one else around, he asks his brother to hear his last confession. The brother objects, saying that he isn’t a “real” priest anymore, but the dying man insists, and he ends up hearing his confession and absolving him, allowing him to die peacefully.

would such a proceeding be either valid or licit?

Yes, if the author is trying to say (by saying ‘last rites’) that the 2nd brother could administer the anointing of the sick. As part of that sacrament, there is the opportunity for confession. In addition, if memory serves, men who have been laicized still have the ability to hear a confession in such an emergency.

(Of course, the scenario strains credibility. Where’d the 2nd brother get the oils? Was his elder brother carrying them?)

 

[RPRPsych]

Yes, if the author is trying to say (by saying ‘last rites’) that the 2nd brother could administer the anointing of the sick. As part of that sacrament, there is the opportunity for confession. In addition, if memory serves, men who have been laicized still have the ability to hear a confession in such an emergency.

(Of course, the scenario strains credibility. Where’d the 2nd brother get the oils? Was his elder brother carrying them?)

Exactly where I had the problem. The dying brother (who is portrayed as conservative and even an SSPX sympathizer, believe it or not) specifically asks his “laicized” brother for a confession, not for the Anointing of the Sick, and there is no mention of oils in the scene. That’s why I had serious doubts about the validity of the proceeding in the first place.

 

[Gorgias]

jimmyakin.com/2006/05/what_expriests_.html

 

[RPRPsych]

jimmyakin.com/2006/05/what_expriests_.html

Thanks a lot, that was exactly what I was looking for!

It looks like the author has done his homework; he even quotes the “pomp and display” section about the wedding in an earlier chapter. (I’ve read a couple of other books by him, and he generally gets his facts right.)

 

[aemcpa]

As the article mentions, the canons are differently numbered in the 1983 Code. The relevant canons in the 1983 Code are 290-293, and 976.

 

[Joe_5859]

Just for the sake of being complete, here is the canon:

Can. 976 Even though a priest lacks the faculty to hear confessions, he absolves validly and licitly any penitents whatsoever in danger of death from any censures and sins, even if an approved priest is present.

 

[RPRPsych]

Just for the sake of being complete, here is the canon:

Can. 976 Even though a priest lacks the faculty to hear confessions, he absolves validly and licitly any penitents whatsoever in danger of death from any censures and sins, even if an approved priest is present.

Thanks a lot, friends! I think that settles any doubts I may have had.

 

[Joe_5859]

Thanks a lot, friends! I think that settles any doubts I may have had.

Yeah, a basic rule of thumb in Canon Law for many things is that, in danger of death, all bets are off. The Church does not want to hinder people from access to grace in their final moments – which can often come unexpectedly. So things like Baptism administered by anyone or general absolution or Confession to a laicized priest become valid and licit even though they’re not done under normal circumstances.

 

[aemcpa]

Yeah, a basic rule of thumb in Canon Law for many things is that, in danger of death, all bets are off.

The last canon states that “The salvation of souls is the supreme law of the Church.”

Fun fact: “All bets are off” is a phrase derived from craps. If you have certain bets on the table, you can turn them on or off by telling the dealer. If you have a feeling that a 7 is coming on the next roll, you can tell the dealer, “All my bets are off”. If the 7 comes, you don’t lose the bets that you would have otherwise lost. (Of course, if a 9 comes and your bet on the 9 is off, then it doesn’t win, but we’re talking about risk of loss here.)

 

[7armyrugrats]

Can I ask the name of the book and the author? I need a list of reading materials with my husband deploying. It does me good to live through fantasy when he’s gone. Time goes by faster.

 

[RPRPsych]

Can I ask the name of the book and the author? I need a list of reading materials with my husband deploying. It does me good to live through fantasy when he’s gone. Time goes by faster.

It’s called Three Brothers, and it’s by a guy named Steven H. Propp.

You can find it here: books.google.co.in/books/about/Three_Brothers.html?id=jgZ2JgAACAAJ

It’s a little “liberal”, but very informative. The author is generally interested in religious themes, and has written about Evangelical Protestantism (And With All Your Mind) and the “New Age” movement (After The New Age) as well. I discovered him by accident while Googling for “Douay-Rheims Bible” (believe it or not!), and I’ve enjoyed all three of those books.

And my prayers for you and your husband. Take care.

 

[Joe_5859]

The last canon states that “The salvation of souls is the supreme law of the Church.”

Fun fact: “All bets are off” is a phrase derived from craps. If you have certain bets on the table, you can turn them on or off by telling the dealer. If you have a feeling that a 7 is coming on the next roll, you can tell the dealer, “All my bets are off”. If the 7 comes, you don’t lose the bets that you would have otherwise lost. (Of course, if a 9 comes and your bet on the 9 is off, then it doesn’t win, but we’re talking about risk of loss here.)

Interesting. I did not know that.

 

[RPRPsych]

It’s called Three Brothers, and it’s by a guy named Steven H. Propp.

You can find it here: books.google.co.in/books/about/Three_Brothers.html?id=jgZ2JgAACAAJ

It’s a little “liberal”, but very informative. The author is generally interested in religious themes, and has written about Evangelical Protestantism (And With All Your Mind) and the “New Age” movement (After The New Age) as well. I discovered him by accident while Googling for “Douay-Rheims Bible” (believe it or not!), and I’ve enjoyed all three of those books.

And my prayers for you and your husband.

 

[porthos11]

Exactly where I had the problem. The dying brother (who is portrayed as conservative and even an SSPX sympathizer, believe it or not) specifically asks his “laicized” brother for a confession, not for the Anointing of the Sick, and there is no mention of oils in the scene. That’s why I had serious doubts about the validity of the proceeding in the first place.

In this emergency scenario where there is danger of death, the laicized priest can *validly *and *licitly *administer absolution. Further, in such a scenario, absolution is priority.

 

[7armyrugrats]

It’s called Three Brothers, and it’s by a guy named Steven H. Propp.

You can find it here: books.google.co.in/books/about/Three_Brothers.html?id=jgZ2JgAACAAJ

It’s a little “liberal”, but very informative. The author is generally interested in religious themes, and has written about Evangelical Protestantism (And With All Your Mind) and the “New Age” movement (After The New Age) as well. I discovered him by accident while Googling for “Douay-Rheims Bible” (believe it or not!), and I’ve enjoyed all three of those books.

And my prayers for you and your husband. Take care.

Thank you.

 

[Gorgias]

In this emergency scenario where there is danger of death

and, just to close the loop…

in canon law, the phrase “in danger of death” (in periculo mortis) does not mean the kind of thing we’ve been talking about here (‘emergency scenarios’, ‘the dying breaths of an accident victim’, etc). these types of cases speak to the “moment of death”, but “in danger of death” covers much more territory!

a member of the military who’s about to be deployed to a war zone is “in danger of death”, as is a person who’s about to undergo serious surgery. I think I recall being told that it’s any situation in which you have a 51% or greater chance of dying as a result! so, before we start thinking about Hollywood depictions of heart-wrenching deathbed scenes, we should note that ‘periculo mortis’ covers these as well as a lot more, including situations that we wouldn’t normally think of…!