Case XLVIII: Extreme Unction in a Case of Necessity

A priest was administering Extreme Unction to a dying person, who seemed to be on the point of breathing his last just before being anointed, for which reason the priest hastily anointed him on the brow, saying: Per istam sanctam unctionem indulgeat tibi Deus, quidquid deliquisti. The sick man did not, however, die just then. Ought the priest to anoint the man's eyes, ears, etc., and use the formula of words proper to each application of the holy oil? or may he allow the one application to the brow to suffice?

Answer.—In the first place the wording of the formula needs correction. The priest ought to have said Dominus instead of Deus, and to have added Amen; although the valor sacramenti was not imperiled by the alteration. As to the validity of one single application of the holy oil, we may quote a rescript issued by the Holy Office on April 25, 1906: "When this supreme Congregation was asked that a single brief formula be determined for the administration of the Sacrament of Extreme Unction in a case of imminent death, the Most Eminent Fathers decreed: In a case of true necessity the following formula suffices: Per istam sanctam unctionem indulgeat tibi Dominus, quidquid deliquisti. Amen." On the following day, April 26, this decree received the Pope's sanction. Formally the decision refers only to the forma sacramentalis, but indirectly it affects also the materia (proxima) sacramentalis, as the materia et forma sacramentalis make one inseparable sign. If, then, one single sacramental form, in the words prescribed, suffices, it follows plainly that one single sacramental materia proxima (anointing on the brow) also suffices. As, moreover, the decree simply says " sufficere," it is not permissible to question the validity of the one anointing, and the anointing must be performed absolute, not sub conditione, for Extreme Unction can be administered conditionally only when there is a doubt as to the validity of the Sacrament. If the one anointing on the brow, given absolute, has already constituted a valid administration of the Sacrament, the anointing of the eyes, ears, etc. cannot be performed even conditionally, and the priest can only supply the omitted prayers and ceremonies.

This is the opinion of almost all the important modern authorities. Lehmkuhl says (Theol. mor., Ed. 11, Vol. II. n. 718): "A single anointing is certainly valid, for example on the forehead, if the general formula is used with it. This is now established beyond doubt by the decree of the Holy Office dated April 25 (26), 1906, which formally indeed decides concerning the abbreviated formula, but implicitly also concerning the single anointing." The same writer uses similar language in his Casus conscientiae (Ed. 3, Vol. II. n. 671 ): "There were some who doubted the validity of an anointing however abbreviated unless the individual senses were anointed one by one under their respective formulas.... But every reason for doubt was removed by the decree of the Holy Office dated April 25, 1906." In n. 673 there is another quite consistent remark on the question of conditionally completing the anointing of the various sense organs: "The validity of a conferral of this kind can no longer be doubted ... nor is there any further occasion to repeat or supply anything if the dying person should sometimes survive longer." Lehmkuhl expresses the same opinion with equal assurance in his Compendium theol. mor., n. 938, ed. 5. The same view is taken in Müller-Schmuckenschlager's Moraltheologie, ed. 7, III, Supplement, p. 24: "According to many, this formula, when used in necessity, is not to be repeated, not even conditionally. For there is no probable doubt concerning its validity, and outside the supposition of doubt the sacramental rite ought not and cannot be employed again. (See Collationes Brugenses, February 1907.) If, therefore, the dying person continues breathing, let the omitted prayers be supplied in their proper order, according to the prescription of the Roman Ritual, title V, chapter 1, number 10.

A similar statement occurs in Schüch-Polz's Pastoraltheologie, Ed. 15: "A priest is under no obligation to employ the full form and matter under the condition 'si non es unctus,' even -if the sick person should live some considerable time. A conditional repetition of the Sacrament is unnecessary, because all has been done that St. James prescribes in his epistle, and that the Council of Trent requires in consequence. The prayers omitted may be finished in the sickroom, first those which precede the anointing, and then those which follow it. When contagious diseases are prevalent, the prayers before anointing may be said by the priest in the church, before he goes to the sick man, and those after it likewise in the church on his return. If there is danger in delay, all the prayers may be said in the church after his return (de Herdt, p. 6, n. 207)."

Finally we may refer to Göpfert (Moraltheologie, Ed. 6, III, n. 197) and to Noldin (De Sacram., Ed. 8, n. 452), where the same opinion is expressed.

Although there is no obligation to finish anointing the eyes, ears, etc. (sub conditione), yet there is no proof that it would be wrong to do so; in fact, other authors maintain that it should be done. The editors of the Acta S. Sedis (Vol. 39, fasc. 7) remark with regard to the decree of the Holy Office published in that volume: "If the immediate danger passes over, and especially should it be uncertain whether the sick man can receive the other Sacraments, all the anointings should be repeated sub conditione, with the proper form of words in each case, and all the prayers previously omitted should be said (according to the Rituale)." We should point out that this is nothing but the private opinion of the editors, not an official statement on the part of the Holy Office. We are aware that the opinion "licet repetere" is held by eminent professors in Belgium, and that in recent editions of the diocesan Ritualia this conditional repetitio per longiorem formam is given. In fact, where the Bishops state their adoption of this opinion in some official publication the parochial clergy are practically bound to adhere to this practice, as it has official sanction; they must, namely, use the forma abbreviata sub conditione and later anoint the various organs of the senses, also sub conditione.

So much as to the history of this controversy. The New Code, in Canon 947, while allowing in case of necessity one anointing on the forehead with the shorter form, demands that the other anointings be supplied right after, if the person still lives.