Case XVII: Extreme Unction

A priest is called to a sick person, living a considerable distance from the church. The road is very heavy and the night very cold and stormy. When he finally arrives at the sick man’s house he finds the sick man unconscious. He gives him conditional absolution, and then proceeds to anoint him, as he cannot receive Viaticum. But upon opening the oil stocks he discovers that instead of the oleum infirmorum, he has brought with him the other two oils! What shall he do? It will require several hours to send to the church for the oil of the sick. The man may be dead before that. The priest quickly dispatches a messenger for the oleum infirmorum, and in the mean time gives the sick man Extreme Unction with the oil of catechumens. When the messenger returned with the oil of the sick, the priest repeated the Sacrament sub conditione, and the man expired without regaining consciousness. Was the Sacrament valid with the oleum catechumenorum, or was the second administration sub conditione necessary or even lawful?

Answer.—The Council of Trent defines the matter of the Sacrament of Extreme Unction to be: “Oleum ab episcopo benedictum.” The exact words of the council are: “From the apostolic tradition received through the transmission of hands, the Church understood the matter to be oil blessed by a bishop” (Sess. 14).

The oil, blessed by the bishop, is understood to be oil of olives; for the word used simply and without qualification has this meaning and this has been the uniform teaching and practise of the Church throughout the centuries. “Because the liquid of the olive is principally called oil,” says St. Thomas, “while other liquids receive the name of oil only by resemblance to it, therefore that which is taken as the matter of this sacrament must also be olive oil” (Suppl. q. 29). Pope Eugenius IV, decre. pro Armenis, says: “The fifth sacrament is Extreme Unction, whose matter is olive oil blessed by a bishop.”

“The Orientals retain that olive oil, and that blessed, is to be employed for Extreme Unction, unless perhaps you except the Armenians, who seem sometimes to have used butter in place of oil” (Denzinger, I, 185). Oil of olives therefore is required for the valid administration of the Sacrament of Extreme Unction. It is further required for the validity of the Sacrament that this oil of olives be blessed by the bishop. The words of the Council of Trent are clear: “The Church understood the matter to be oil blessed by a bishop” (Sess. 14). The proposition or statement that Extreme Unction might be validly administered with oil that had not been previously blessed by the bishop, was condemned by Paul V (Jan. 13, 1655), as a “propositio temeraria et errori proxima,” and this condemnation was reaffirmed by Gregory XVI, in 1842, who declared that even in extremest necessity a priest could not validly anoint the sick with the oil blessed by himself, unless authorized to bless it by the Supreme Pontiff. As far back as the Council of Carthage, A. D. 390, it was forbidden to a presbyter to bless the oil of the sick (ap. Gratian, c. xxvi, q. vi, c.l.).

The Council of Hispalis (Seville), A. D. 619, also reserves the consecration of the sick man’s oil to the bishop. In the Greek rite the oil is blessed by simple priests; and there can be no doubt that this benediction suffices. Even in the Latin rite, the benediction of the oil by a simple priest is sufficient, provided the priest be expressly or tacitly commissioned by the Pope to bless it. “The matter appears most thoroughly established, such that no one may call it into question” are the words of Benedict XIV (de synod. dioec. 1. 8,c. 4). The Roman rule and the Western rule that now follows it, require that the oil be consecrated by the bishop, and this is required not merely by precept but for the validity of the Sacrament (St. Lig. n. 709).

The oil, therefore, required for the Sacrament of Extreme Unction must necessarily be (1) oil of olives; (2) blessed by a bishop.

Now there arises the question, and it is on this that the present case hinges, must the olive oil, blessed by the bishop, be blessed especially for this Sacrament in order to be valid, or will oil, blessed by the bishop for any purpose and with any form of consecration, suffice?

Upon this question the theologians do not agree. Some maintain that a special blessing is required for the oil of the sick, that it must be blessed for this special purpose, namely for the annealing of the sick. Others maintain that any blessing or consecration by a bishop is all that is necessary to make the oil valid although perhaps illicit for Extreme Unction.

Suarez maintains that oil blessed in any way by the bishop is sufficient for the validity of the Sacrament, because it is still true to say that it is “oleum ab episcopo benedictum” (Disp. 40, g I, n. 9). These theologians maintain that oleum ab episcopo benedictum is what the Council of Trent declares to be the materia valida of Extreme Unction, and if the council meant by oleum ab episcopo benedictum the special oil of the sick, i. e., oleum infirmorum, the council would have so specified.

St. Alphonsus calls this opinion probable, and in fact, both by reason of the external authority of the theologians that favor it, as well as the internal evidence on which it rests, it may be said to be solidly probable.

According to this opinion, in a case of necessity, the oleum catechumenorum or the S. Chrisma might be used validly for the administration of Extreme Unction instead of the oleum infirmorum, because both of them are olive oil blessed by the bishop.

But by far the greater number of theologians are against this opinion, and maintain that the oleum infirmorum is the only valid matter for the Sacrament of Extreme Unction. The oil used for the Sacrament of Extreme Unction, they say, must be blessed by the bishop for this special purpose. No other oil, even though blessed by the bishop, will suffice. According to them, it is useless to give even conditional Extreme Unction with the oil of catechumens, for that is not blessed for the special purpose of annealing the sick. To vindicate their position, these theologians appeal to the general practise of the Church and to the decisions of the Roman Congregations, which declare that there is a strict duty to repeat the Sacrament of Extreme Unction, if by chance or accident it has been administered with any other than the oleum infirmorum. This opinion, also, in the view of St. Alphonsus, is probable.

In view therefore of this diversity of opinion among the theologians regarding the necessity of using only the oil of the sick in the administration of the Sacrament of Extreme Unction, we are obliged to agree that any other oil, even though blessed by the bishop, as for instance, oleum catechumenorum or S. Chrisma, is materia dubia for Extreme Unction and may never be used except in a case of grave necessity. For in the administration of the Sacraments it is not allowed to follow probable opinions. Pope Innocent XI condemned the proposition: “It is not unlawful, in conferring the Sacraments, to follow a probable opinion concerning the validity of the sacrament while abandoning the safer opinion.” Hence, in case of necessity, but not otherwise, Extreme Unction might be administered conditionally with Chrism or oil of catechumens. If, however, the oleum infirmorum can afterward be had, the Sacrament should be again conferred. St. Alphonsus does not make mention of a condition in repeating the Extreme Unction, neither does St. Charles, in ordering a repetition in case of mistake as to the oil, even though the oil used had been the Chrism or oil of catechumens. Lacroix, however, says that the Sacrament should be repeated in this case sub conditione (1. VI, pars ii), and all recent theologians are of the same opinion (cf. Lehmkuhl II, 570).

In the case before us, there was a grave obligation for the priest to repeat the Extreme Unction with the oleum infirmorum, sub conditione. The priest did right in giving Extreme Unction with the oil of catechumens, because it was a case of necessity.

The sick man had indeed been absolved conditionally, but such an absolution must remain dubia, since no external sign of a confession had been made and absolution without some kind of a confession of sin, the theologians say, is dubia. But as regards Extreme Unction, no confession of sin is necessary, only let there be imperfect contrition for sin in the heart if it be impossible to make a confession, then Extreme Unction gives primam gratiam, or sanctifying grace, and this not per accidens, as the Holy Eucharist, but per se et ratione institutionis.

The priest did right, therefore, in giving Extreme Unction with materia dubia in casu necessitatis, deficiente materia certa, but afterward the Sacrament must be repeated cum oleo infirmorum, to make it certain.

All the more so was the priest bound sub gravi, to repeat the Extreme Unction, since the absolution given the sick man was absolutio dubia, he not having retained consciousness and not being absolved sacramentally beyond all reasonable doubt.

If there were any danger of shocking any of the faithful present, by a repetition of Extreme Unction, the priest might obviate it by requesting to be left alone with the sick man for a few moments.