Chapter II: On The Minister Of Extreme Unction

1878. Principles. I. Only and every priest can VALIDLY administer the Sacrament of Extreme Unction. - That only a priest is the minister of this Sacrament is clear both from the words of St. James already cited: Is any one of you sick? Let him bring in the priests of the Church, etc.; and from the definition of the Church in Trent, sess. 14, on Extreme Unction, can. 4. But that any priest, even one excommunicated, can validly administer this Sacrament, is clear from the fact that Extreme Unction was not instituted by way of judgment, as Penance was, and therefore for its conferral the power of Order suffices.

You will ask whether this Sacrament can be validly administered to the same sick person by SEVERAL priests? - Resp. Affirmatively, if the individual priests anoint a different sense, and in anointing pronounce the form suitable to this sense (for if one anointed, and another uttered the words of the form, the Sacrament would not be conferred, as is clear). - And in reality, that Extreme Unction was in antiquity administered in this way in the Latin Church is gathered from several ancient Rituals;¹ but today, on account of the contrary practice of the Church, the same would be gravely illicit.

1879. II. Only the pastor of souls, or a priest delegated by him, administers Extreme Unction LICITLY. This is drawn from Trent; and the reason is that it belongs to the pastor alone to feed his sheep and to lead them to the pastures of blessed eternity (If a Bishop becomes sick, the right of fortifying him with the last Sacraments belongs to the Canons, i.e. to the more dignified one among them).² Hence he sins gravely who administers this Sacrament without permission of the pastor or Bishop, since in a grave matter he injures the right of another.³

Nevertheless, interpretative, or reasonably presumed, permission probably suffices; and this certainly is had when the administration of the Sacrament urges, and the sick person cannot be anointed by the pastor or vice-pastor, either because they are absent, or because they do not wish to anoint him, and otherwise the Bishop cannot be approached. In such a case of necessity, any priest, even a Regular, provided he is not excommunicated or suspended, can licitly confer this Sacrament, because the Pope is censured to give permission. Thus commonly Suarez, the Salmanticenses, and others, against a few. But outside the case of necessity, permission is not easily to be presumed.⁴

And here it is to be noted that Religious (or Regulars) who presume, outside the case of necessity, to administer the Sacrament of Extreme Unction (or of the Eucharist by way of Viaticum) to clerics or laymen, without parochial permission, incur an excommunication reserved to the Pope: from the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis (cf. n. 1341).

1880. Questions. Q. 1. Whether and how great is the OBLIGATION of conferring this Sacrament?

Resp. 1. A pastor, unless a just cause excuses him (such as danger of life), is held by reason of his office, and indeed under grave sin, to confer it on his subjects asking for it. Indeed, in any case whatever, not even excepting danger of life, he is held to this if the sick person for a long time has no longer confessed and probably is judged to be in the state of mortal sin, and because of the privation of the senses cannot be absolved except under condition.⁵ - 2. Another priest, when the pastor is absent, is held to the same from charity; indeed under light obligation, in the common case; but under grave obligation, if the sick person greatly needed this Sacrament, e.g. if otherwise he would be about to die without any Sacrament.⁶

Q. 2. In what way, or BY WHAT RITE, must Extreme Unction be administered?

Resp. It must be administered with surplice and violet stole, with a minister and a light, and with the prayers prescribed in the Ritual. - Wherefore the following things COME TO BE NOTED:

1. The surplice and stole are required under grave sin, on account of reverence for the Sacrament. Exception, according to the probable opinion, is the case in which these were lacking, and the sick person would be about to die without the protection of this Sacrament. For Christ the Lord is not presumed, on account of the lack of sacred vestments, to wish the sick person to be deprived of so great a good.⁷

2. Outside the case of necessity, more probably, it is venial to anoint without a minister. But it is never licit to use the ministry of a woman; hence, when a man is absent, let the priest himself respond to the prayers.⁸

3. Probably it is not mortal to administer this Sacrament without a light; but one light suffices, according to the Ritual. To omit the sign of the cross in the anointings is only venial; indeed, it would be no sin if it were omitted on account of imminent death, so as to act more quickly.⁹

4. To omit the prescribed prayers, except in a case of necessity, is, of itself, a mortal sin. But the litanies and other prayers to be recited by the assistants are, more probably, only of counsel.¹⁰

5. The holy oil cannot be solemnly carried as Viaticum; but neither is it to be carried secretly and, as it were, stealthily, unless necessity excuses. The Cross is carried without a shaft, as in the funerals of little children. In the room of the sick person, all things ought to be, as is fitting, clean and well disposed.

Note. It is not licit for the pastor to keep the sacred oil constantly at home, "except in the case of great distance from the church: in which case the rubric is wholly to be observed as regards honorable and decent, and safe custody." Thus the S. R. C., December 16, 1826.¹¹ We said constantly, for St. Alphonsus adds:¹² "The pastor can rightly keep the holy oil in his own house at night, while he foresees probable danger, as if, when called to confer Unction, it would not be available."