Case LXXIII: Repetition of Extreme Unction During the Same Illness

A Catholic, for a long time estranged from his religion, who has hated the priests and used blasphemous language, suffered a stroke of apoplexy. He remained unconscious for an entire day. In this extremity it was thought best to give him absolution and Extreme Unction. Later the patient returned to consciousness, without being able to speak. He violently protested against the exhortations of the priest and of the good sister in attendance, once or twice he even attempted to spit upon the crucifix held before him. Meantime many prayers were being offered for him in the hospital where he had been taken. Suddenly he gave unmistakable signs of conversion; he kissed the crucifix with devotion, and listened willingly to the priest’s words; he repeatedly tried to make the sign of the Cross, and endeavored to utter the Holy Name, as well as other invocations, The chaplain rejoiced at this sudden change of mind and administered Extreme Unction once more. For this, however, he was later severely censured by a confrater, who pointed out that Extreme Unction must not be repeated in the same illness. Who was right?

The chaplain referred, in proof of his correctness, to the lack, on the part of the recipient, of the intention requisite for the validity of a Sacrament. As this intention on part of the subject was, in fact, not present at the first administration, the repetition of Extreme Unction after the patient’s conversion was perfectly justified. The action of this unfortunate man before his conversion proved his aversion for any religious act, and consequently the absence of the intention requisite for the validity of the Sacrament.

The reasons which the confrater cited against this view are not valid, as their closer examination will show.

1. Extreme Unction may only be administered once in the same illness. In this connection it may be said that in our case it was really only given once, as the first administration proved to be invalid.

2. But this unfortunate patient was already sacro oleo unctus, and all prayers prescribed by the Church had been said over him. The invalidity of this objection is obvious. Some one may be aqua ablutus, or chrismate unctus, and yet the particular Baptism, or Confirmation, may be invalid, and he is neither baptized nor confirmed, if in administering the Sacrament an essential defect occurred. Lack of intention, on part of the administrator or recipient, is such a defect in the essence of the Sacrament.

3. But Extreme Unction is often administered to an unconscious person who has led an unchristian life, has not received the Sacraments for a long time, nor manifested a desire now, and yet no solicitude is had for the validity of the Sacrament in such cases. From this it may be inferred only that in many cases the administration of this Sacrament is invalid. Following the principle in extremis extrema sunt tentanda the Church goes as far as possible in granting Extreme Unction, which for so many poor souls may be their only salvation. For the recipient of the Sacrament the intentio habitualis is requisite, in the case of unconscious persons the Church contents herself with the intentio interpretativa; i. e., the Church explains: if this patient hic et nunc could express his intention, he would desire the Sacrament, or: if he were conscious he would request Extreme Unction. If it is proved that this presumption was an erroneous one, the administration must be regarded as invalid. In our case we have in the patient’s behavior sufficient proof that the presumption this unconscious patient would, if in his senses, wish to receive the Sacraments, was erroneous. His demeanor denoted sufficiently that he was averse to receiving the Sacraments. On the part of this subject, therefore, all intention was lacking; it was administered to him against his will, against his intention.

4. But let us suppose the case—which often enough happens in deathbed conversions—that a person estranged from religion has received Extreme Unction in the state of unconsciousness; subsequently he comes to and gives evidence of a religious disposition, then in continued danger of death Extreme Unction is not again administered; and why not? Because in such a case the intentio interpretativa, upon the presumption of which the Sacrament was given him, was lawful and the contrary not in evidence. If, however, the contrary is proved, as in our case, if it is ascertained that the good will presumed and the intentio interpretativa was not present, then the matter is quite different, and another administration of Extreme Unction, even in the same illness, is certainly in order if the refractory patient afterward shows his willingness.

5. But does not theology teach of a sacramentum informe, that it may become sacramentum formatum and that the sacramental grace may be imparted later to a hic et nunc ill-disposed recipient, as soon as the indispositio is lifted and the obex gratiae removed? A Sacramentum informe can, it is true, become in such manner a sacramentum formatum, the validity of the same supposed. Sacraments invalidly administered can not be made valid. To administer a Sacrament to a subject who has no intention, does not mean merely to give it to an unworthy person, but it is giving it to a person incapable of receiving it.

As the case stands we can not perceive how the chaplain was liable to censure; the reasons advanced by his confrater against the second administration of Extreme Unction are not valid. John Ackerl, D.D.