ARTICLE OF DEATH
The *Article of Death* is the point or moment of death, considered morally—that is, with a certain elasticity—so as to include all the time that elapses from the moment when death is deemed certain and inevitable. It is generally distinguished from the danger of death, which exists from the moment when death is deemed, based on the particular circumstances of the case, gravely probable. The *Article of Death* therefore presupposes moral certainty of death; the danger of death, serious probability.
A famous decree of the Council of Trent (Session XIV, Chapter VII) granted to all priests the faculty to absolve the faithful in the *Article of Death* from any sin or reserved censure: “...Ne aliquis pereat in Ecclesia custoditum semper fuit ut nulla sit reservatio in articulo mortis; atque ideo omnes sacerdotes quoslibet poenitentes a quibusvis peccatis et censuris absolvere possint.” In interpreting this concession, authors divided into two major groups, the cause of division being precisely the different way of interpreting the expression *Article of Death*. While some (Soto, Cano, Covarrubias, Ledesma, etc.) maintained that the *Article of Death* referred only to the moment when death is imminent and morally certain, others (among whom Navarro, Suárez, Sánchez, Lugo, etc.), while admitting that *Article of Death* and danger of death were two distinct concepts, nevertheless affirmed that in ecclesiastical practice they were equivalent, at least in sacramental matters, and cited several ecclesiastical documents in which the equation of the two concepts appeared clear. In the chapter *Non dubium* of the Decretals of Gregory IX (Book V, Title 39, Chapter 5), for example, that which in the canon *Si quis suadente* of the Decree of Gratian (Chapter 29, Causa XVII, Question 4) is considered as *periculum mortis* is called *articulus mortis*. And the citations could be multiplied. They added that this broader interpretation better corresponded to the mind of the Church, which intended to facilitate access to the source of grace; something that in the majority of cases would have been impossible by interpreting the expression *Article of Death* rigorously. This second opinion finally prevailed; and in the years immediately preceding codification, authors generally expressed themselves in the sense that in the *Codex Iuris Canonici*, and especially in sacramental matters, the two expressions *Article of Death* and danger of death could be used interchangeably.
This doctrinal equation was adopted by the *Codex Iuris Canonici*, which adopted the expression *periculum mortis* whenever in the ancient discipline the *articulus mortis* was treated (cf. for confession, can. 882 and Conc. Trid., sess. XIV, de poenitent., c. 7; for Baptism, can. 752, § 2 and S. Congr. S. Officii 18 Sept. 1850; for Matrimony, can. 1043 and S. Congr. S. Officii 23 Apr. 1890, etc.). In the *Codex Iuris Canonici* the expression *articulus mortis* is never mentioned.
There remain, however, in the current discipline, two cases in which the *Article of Death* is interpreted rigorously: a) for the apostolic blessing with plenary indulgence in *articulo mortis*; b) for the religious profession of the novice in *articulo mortis*. The apostolic blessing with plenary indulgence may be imparted, according to Church practice, after the administration of the sacraments of Penance, Eucharist, and Extreme Unction. Although from the words of the Roman Ritual it may be deduced that for the blessing one need not wait for the moment of the *Article of Death* but it suffices to be in danger of death, the indulgences and graces attached to it are only gained in the true *Article of Death* understood in the strictest sense.
Religious profession in *articulo mortis* before the end of the novitiate was granted, as a special privilege, to the nuns of St. Dominic by Pius V with the constitution *Summi Sacerdotis* (23 Aug. 1570). Pius X, with the decree *Spirituali consolatione* of 10 Sept. 1912, extended the concession to all religious, and on 23 Dec. 1922 the Sacred Congregation of Religious declared that the concession remained in force despite the silence of the Code. The novice acquires through this profession all the indulgences, graces, and suffrages to which professed members of the respective religious institute are entitled, and at the same time obtains a plenary absolution of sins in the manner of a jubilee. No juridical consequence, however, derives from this fact. It is necessary that the profession take place precisely in *articulo mortis*, that is, not before the moment when the death of the novice is deemed certain and inevitable. This is at least the current practice of the Sacred Congregation of Religious (cf. however F. M. Cappello, *Summa I. C.*, II, 4th ed., Rome 1945, p. 68).
In the first years after the decree of 1922, a certain practical equation of *Article of Death* and danger of death also prevailed in this case: the *Constitutiones* of the Dominicans, Redemptorists, etc., require only that the novice be in danger of death. At the same time, however, other *Constitutiones* speak exclusively of the *Article of Death*, as, for example, those of the Claretians, Missionaries of the Sacred Heart, Society of the Divine Word, etc.
Since the aforementioned decree of 1922 states: “Ilecat exinde novitios seu probandos qui medici iudicio graviter aegrotent ut in mortis articulo constituti aestimentur,” and since this declaration is subsequent to the Code, it must be presumed that with the expression *Article of Death* it was intended to exclude the danger of death. In any case, the Sacred Congregation of Religious, in the most recent approvals of Constitutions, no longer insists on the distinction between danger of death and the *Article of Death*.