110. On the Subject of the Sacraments

1. Philemon, a parish priest, is accustomed to give absolution, viaticum, and extreme unction to sick persons who are delirious, half-witted, insane, indeed also to drunkards in agony. — Does he act rightly?

R. Philemon could minister extreme unction to the aforesaid persons, excepting, however, those perpetually insane, as incapable. He could also minister viaticum to delirious and half-witted persons, provided the danger of irreverence is excluded; by no means, however, to drunkards in agony, because of the scandal which would follow from it. Finally, he could give absolution, but under condition, to all those to whom he ministered extreme unction. For although for absolution some confession and act of contrition or sorrow is required, nevertheless it is not certain that these are altogether lacking in them. I. M. 384, 565, 752, 753, 754; G. 182, 308.

2. Florian, a parish priest, called to Titius who is dying, after hearing his confession, offers him the sacred Eucharist, which he willingly receives. But when there was question of extreme unction, Titius refused to receive it, asserting that there was no danger of death. But when the parish priest noticed that he was now being deprived of his senses, he began to anoint him with sacred oil and continued, although the dying man, his eyes suddenly opened, seeing what was being done around him, showed his displeasure by agitation of his head.

Question. Did Florian validly and licitly minister extreme unction to Titius?

R. In the affirmative. For first, he validly ministered extreme unction; for Titius implicitly had the intention of receiving extreme unction by the very fact that he refused to receive it then, when it was being proposed to him by Florian, for this reason alone, that he thought there was still no danger of death. Besides, since Titius spontaneously confessed his sins and willingly received the sacred Eucharist, he certainly has the general will of dying in a Christian manner, and therefore also of receiving extreme unction when there is need. But this general will is altogether predominant in relation to the particular will to the contrary, which arose from error. But if Florian validly ministered extreme unction, he also licitly ministered it, because of the urgent necessity in which Titius was found. Elbel, 69, 70; G. 183.

3. Titius, a foreigner, while staying in a public inn, is seized by an unexpected illness and is placed in the proximate danger of life. The parish priest is called, and while he is about to impart absolution to him, already deprived of his senses, he is informed by a friend of the sick man, who unexpectedly is present, that he is Hebrew by religion. This man at the same time testifies that Titius nevertheless thought well of the Christian religion; indeed, that he had more than once heard him exclaiming: “I would willingly receive baptism, if I did not fear my father’s indignation.” Having heard these things, the parish priest confers baptism on him.

A little afterward the sick man returns to his senses, and, made certain concerning the conferral of baptism, ratifies it. Then, having arranged matters with his father, before the parish priest he proclaims himself a Catholic. But now the parish priest doubts whether Titius is to be baptized again.

Question. What is to be said to the Case?

R. The baptism of Titius seems invalid because of defect of intention, and therefore he is to be baptized again under condition. For that will of Titius to receive baptism, if he did not fear his father’s indignation, is rather a certain wish than a true will and intention of receiving baptism. Indeed, since Titius, as is drawn from the Case, truly feared his father, and for that reason delayed receiving baptism, he in fact simply did not have the will of receiving baptism. Nor indeed from the Case can any indication be drawn either of the fear of his father’s indignation having ceased, or of a strengthened and changed will concerning receiving baptism. But that Titius, having been made certain concerning the conferral of baptism, ratified it, could not make it valid; for subsequent ratification of a thing already done cannot supply the previous intention of a thing to be done, neither as to the very substance of the human act which was lacking, nor as to effects, if these in some way essentially depend on that act. Now, because the justification of adults, in the present order of divine providence, depends on their own will, with divine grace helping, so also the validity of the sacraments which work justifying grace depends on their own will and intention.

4. Riculfus, an infidel, by no means instructed in the faith and very rude, received baptism from grave fear. Afterward, however, spontaneously wishing to embrace the Christian religion, he approaches a missionary and manifests to him the baptism received under the aforesaid conditions. But the missionary hesitates, uncertain whether Riculfus ought to receive baptism again.

Question. Can Riculfus be baptized again?

R. From the fact that Riculfus, compelled by grave fear, received baptism, it does not follow from this that he was invalidly baptized, provided that he truly wished to receive baptism, because fear does not take away the voluntary. Benedict XIV, Constitution Postremo mense, § 49. As regards this intention, Riculfus is to be examined, since he is very rude; and “if the matter is in doubt, and it cannot be understood whether intention was lacking, or whether a sufficient intention was present or not, then the adult is to be retained and baptized under condition.” Benedict XIV, loc. cit., § 51. But as regards faith, faith properly so called is indeed not necessary for the validity of baptism; nevertheless for its liceity it is necessary to know and believe those things which are necessary by necessity of means and precept. Wherefore, if Riculfus is to be rebaptized again under condition, he must first be duly instructed in the matters of faith. Cf. Collectan. S. C. de P. F., nos. 551, 552, 555.