Case XVIII: What Risk Must a Priest Take to Give the Last Sacraments?

Are all priests bound, even at the risk of their lives, to hear the confessions of the dying, and to administer to them the Holy Viaticum and Extreme Unction?

What is the nature and extent of this obligation?

Answer. We must distinguish between priests who are charged with the cure of souls, and priests who are not so charged. Among the priests who are charged with the cure of souls are to be numbered all bishops, pastors and curates, in regard to those who are immediately subject to their jurisdiction. The bishop who has a diocese, whether he be the ordinary, coadjutor or assistant bishop, is responsible for the salvation of all the souls committed to his care. The pastor of a parish and his assistants are responsible for the salvation of the souls of the parish. A bishop who has no diocese and a priest who has no parish, who have no souls committed to their care for whose salvation they are responsible, are known as sacerdotes simplices; they are not bound in the same degree as pastors of souls, to risk their lives for the salvation of others. Among pastors of souls "must be numbered also, the superiors of religious houses in regard to those under them; the chaplains of convents, hospitals and asylums, in regard to the inmates of such institutions.

Now it can be held as a general principle, that all priests who are charged with the cure of souls, are bound, under pain of mortal sin, to succor all those committed to their care and to administer to them the last Sacraments whenever such souls are in grave need, in gravi necessitate, of the last Sacraments. Priests who are not charged with the cure of souls are not bound to give the last Sacraments to the dying, except the dying be in extreme need, in extrema necessitate, of the Sacraments; that is, unless the priest comes to their assistance, the dying man or woman will surely lose salvation.

The parish priest, therefore, and his assistants are bound, even at the risk of their lives:

1. To hear the confessions of the dying, unless they are sure that the dying man is in the state of grace. Even though the pastor or curate be sure that he himself will die as a result of hearing the dying man's confession, nevertheless he must hear the confession.

2. According to some of the great theologians, for instance, Suarez, Sylvius, etc., a parish priest, or any priest charged with the cure of souls, is bound to risk his life to administer the Holy Viaticum to his subjects, even though they have made their confession and are in the state of grace. Only in case of sure death to the parish priest, or very serious damage to the community at large, would these theologians excuse a priest from administering Holy Viaticum to the dying. (Suarez, III, disp. 44, §3. Sylvius, supp. q. 32, Art. 3.)

Suarez says:

"In this Sacrament there is a certain moral necessity, either because the help given through such a Sacrament is judged morally necessary for persevering in the justice recovered through penance and for overcoming the temptations occurring at that time, or also because it can sometimes confer the first grace which imperfect penance did not previously confer. To these is also added the essential fruit of Viaticum, which is of great importance and is to be preferred to many temporal disadvantages. From all these things taken together and prudently considered, a certain necessity arises which, although it is not extreme, nevertheless seems very grave."

St. Alfonsus calls this view of Suarez, valde gravem. Other theologians, however, deny the weight of the reasons brought forward by Suarez, and maintain that there is no grave obligation to administer Viaticum in articulo mortis at the risk of one's life. St. Alfonsus calls their opinion very probable. In response to the prayers of St. Charles Borromaeo, Archbishop of Milan, Gregory XIII., 1576, declared that the parish priests of Milan and their curates, and others having the cure of souls in that diocese, were not obliged sub gravi to administer to those infected with the plague any other Sacraments than those necessary for salvation, namely, Baptism and Penance.

Fagnani says that this declaration of the Congregation of the Council to St. Charles was never published; but later on, when a decision of St. Antoninus, Archbishop of Florence, 1459, was found, requiring pastors to administer the Sacraments, the question was again submitted to the Holy See. The Holy See, after consulting the Congregation of the Council, decided that no general rule should be made in the matter, but that a letter should be sent to St. Charles, stating that during the plague pastors were obliged, in conscience, to remain at their posts and to administer Baptism and Penance to the parishioners. The Holy See approved of this letter to St. Charles Borromaeo, December 8, 1576.

Pope Benedict XIV. says that it can not be surely established that these letters to St. Charles were ever countersigned in Rome or ever forwarded to St. Charles, since there is no record of them to be found in Rome or Milan, and that therefore no valid argument can be deduced from them.

3. There is no grave obligation for a parish priest to administer Extreme Unction to the dying, if by so doing he should seriously risk his life. The reason is, because Extreme Unction is not necessary for salvation and it is generally given only after the Sacraments of Penance and Viaticum have been administered; that is to say, only after the dying man's salvation has been made morally certain. Fr. Konings, however, well remarks that if the dying man had not been to confession for a long time, and was absolved only conditionally because he is unconscious, there would be a grave obligation in that case to give Extreme Unction, because it might be necessary for salvation, since Extreme Unction, per se, secundaria, gives sanctifying grace to those who have only attrition for their sins, and who can not now make a confession.

We come now to the second question: What obligation have priests, who have no cure of souls, to risk their lives in the administration of the Holy Viaticum and Extreme Unction? They are under no grave obligation to do so. Some have even gone so far as to say that such priests could never be held sub gravi to administer even the Sacrament of Penance, since the dying man can, strictly speaking, help himself, if he be in mortal sin, by making an act of perfect contrition. But it is truer to say that whenever it is likely that the dying man is in mortal sin, and there is no likelihood that, if left to himself, he will make an act of perfect contrition, then the simplex sacerdos, who is not charged with the cure of souls, is bound sub mortali to risk his life to hear the dying man's confession, since the latter is then truly constitutus in extrema necessitate spirituali and we must succor him even at the sacrifice of our life. The same must be said in regard to the administration of Extreme Unction, in cases where the dying are pretty surely in mortal sin and are unable to make any kind of a confession.

As regards the nature of this obligation, in the case of those having the cure of souls, it is an obligation of justice, which they contract ipso facto when they assume the office of parish priest, and obtain their living thereby. The obligation resting on a simplex sacerdos to hear the confession of or anoint the dying, is an obligation of charity, for by charity we are bound to succor our neighbor in great need, especially if the need be in the spiritual order. Both these obligations are of a grave character, binding under pain of mortal sin.

We have treated this question from a standpoint of what is rigorously, sub mortali, required by strict justice or charity. We should blush to think that there were any Catholic priests who would measure their efforts for the salvation of souls by the requirements of strict justice and not by the claims of love that we owe the little ones of Christ.