Case XX: Using the Oil of the Sick in Baptism

Being about twenty-five miles from his church, my curate was called upon to administer the Sacrament of Baptism. He did so, using for the unctions the oleum infirmorum, the only oils he had with him. I need scarcely state the oil was oleum ab episcopo benedictum. Was he justified? Or, is it necessary now to repeat the unctions, et absolute, using the oils blessed for Baptism? I have read the case in the “Casuist” on Extreme Unction, studied the case carefully and came to the same conclusion as is given. But this seems to me an altogether different case, in which the oleum catechumenorum and the sacrum chrisma are absolutely necessary.

Answer.—The oils prescribed by the ritual to be used in the solemn administration of Baptism are the oleum salutis or oleum catechumenorum, and the sacrum chrisma. The oil of catechumens is also called oleum sanctum. It is oil of olives blessed with exorcisms by the bishop on Holy Thursday, and the catechumen or postulant for Baptism is to be anointed with it before he is baptized. Baruffaldi calls it: “Oil exorcised in order to make the person anointed with it a true athlete of Christ, so that he may be able to endure patiently in conflict and adversity.” (Comment. Rom. Rit. tit. x, n. 4.)

The holy chrism, wherewith the newly baptized is anointed immediately after being baptized, consists of oil of olives mixed with balsam, likewise blessed by the bishop on Holy Thursday. This chrism is the same that the bishop uses in the administration of the Sacrament of Confirmation. In the early ages of the Church, the bishop was usually the minister of Baptism, and he anointed the neophytes on the forehead with chrism immediately after baptizing them, so that the chrism used by the bishop was in reality for the Sacrament of Confirmation. The unction on the top of the head by the priest was introduced to supply for the unction on the forehead by the bishop when the bishop was absent and when, consequently, Confirmation could not be immediately conferred as usual. Later on, even when the bishop was present and confirmed immediately after Baptism, if a priest baptized he also anointed with chrism, but not on the forehead, but on the top of the neophyte’s head.

Since, therefore, the oil of catechumens is blessed with special exorcism, and to serve for the anointing of those who are about to be baptized, and since the chrism used in Baptism must be the same as used for the Sacrament of Confirmation, it is evident that they may not be replaced by the oleum infirmorum without sin. Baruffaldi says that if by inadvertence one oil is substituted for another, it would be a venial sin; but if the substitution were the result of carelessness or negligence, it would be a mortal sin. “Does a priest sin if, when administering Baptism, he takes and uses one oil in place of another, for example, the oil of chrism in place of the oil of catechumens? To this I answer that, apart from inadvertence, which causes only a venial sin, he would sin gravely if he did this negligently.” And he maintains that the unctions are to be repeated, although they are not of the essence of baptism. “Because those oils are applied for distinct effects, and in the false administration the words would not agree with the effect of the oil, and thus the signification would be frustrated; for if changing a word in the administration is a sin and the Sacrament must be repeated, much more must this be done when the matter is changed. In this case, however, theologians are divided among various opinions. Someone will say: Oil is not the matter of Baptism, either proximate or remote, but something sacramental. I answer: the anointing with oil must be repeated, not the washing with water.” (Tit. x, 19-20.)

Baruffaldi admits at the same time that there are many theologians against him in this view of the matter.

It is evident that it is not so serious a matter to substitute one oil for another in administering Baptism, since there is no question of the validity of the Sacrament. But this is not so in Confirmation and Extreme Unction. Even in Baptism, says O’Kane (Rubrics, 260), the mistake is a serious one and ought to be corrected at the moment if the error is detected and can be at once repaired. If, however, the mistake is discovered only some time afterwards, O’Kane thinks that Baruffaldi’s opinion is too severe, and he inclines to the opinion of Falise, who does not insist on a repetition of the unctions in Baptism, because: 1. One oil is probably a valid substitute for another even when it is question of a Sacrament; with much more reason, therefore, may one be substituted for another where there is no question of a Sacrament, but only of a rite; 2 the omission of the rite does little or no injury; 3. the repetition of the rite would often be an occasion of murmur and scandal. If, by mistake, one oil has been substituted for another in Baptism, Falise agrees with Baruffaldi that the mistake ought to be corrected a moins toutefois que les circonstances n’indiquent la marche contraire. (Falise, Du Baptéme, ch. II. n. 8).

If a repetition of the unctions would cause scandal or adverse comment, they are not to be repeated.

In the case given here, it would scarcely be prudent to repeat the unctions given with the oleum infirmorum. Such repetition would arouse comment and adverse criticism very likely and lessen the people’s confidence in the curate. It would be better to let the matter remain as it is. Ante factum, however, it would have been better to have omitted the unctions altogether and to have advised the parents of the child to this effect, and then later on to have supplied them, data opportunitate, with the proper oils. Fr. Genicot, S.J., gives a case in his Casus Conscientiae (I. cap. 4, n. 1) similar to the one we are considering. A priest journeys about three miles to administer Baptism in a private chapel. Upon arriving at the chapel he discovers that he has forgotten the baptismal oils. He administers Baptism just the same, omitting the unctions, however. Later on he fails to supply the unctions. Genicot does not blame this priest, provided he carried out all the other ceremonies of Baptism. It would be asking too much, he says, to require this priest either to defer the baptism, or to make a journey of six miles (home and back again) to get the oils. And this seems to agree with an answer of the S. C. de P. F., Jan. 21, 1789, which says that a sufficient reason for omitting the solemnities of Baptism would be “any reasonable and grave cause which prevents the administration of those same solemnities.” But the unctions should have been supplied later on, the same author says, “When a suitable time and opportunity are available, in a church or oratory, as is added in the cited response.”

Of course, if the curate in our case did not think that there would be offered later on an opportunity of supplying the unctions with the proper oils, it was better to use doubtful matter to administer a rite than not to administer the rite at all. If, however, the unctions could have been supplied later on, the curate should have waited until he could procure the proper oils.