Article V. On The Minister Of Extreme Unction

583. Principle. This sacrament is validly administered by a priest alone; licitly, however, by the pastor of souls alone, or by his substitute or delegate.

1. That a priest alone is the minister of valid Extreme Unction is evident:

a) From the words of St. James, who says: "Let him bring in the priests of the Church." Now, by the name of priest here are understood priests, and not lay elders; for in the New Testament the priests of the Church are always understood to be priests.⁵⁸

b) From the definitions of the Councils of Florence and Trent:⁵⁹ "If anyone says that the priests of the Church, whom blessed James exhorts to be brought in to anoint the sick man, are not priests ordained by a bishop, but elders in age in any community, and that for this reason the proper minister of Extreme Unction is not a priest alone, let him be anathema."

c) From the very nature of this sacrament, which is, as it were, the complement of Penance. Therefore the minister of Penance and of Extreme Unction ought to be the same.

Therefore a priest alone can validly administer this sacrament, and in no case can a deacon or layman do so.⁶⁰ But since the administration of this sacrament is an exercise of order and not of jurisdiction, any priest (although he be excommunicated, suspended, or interdicted) validly confers Extreme Unction, just as he also validly consecrates the Eucharist.

That one priest suffices for administering Extreme Unction is the constant teaching of the Church.⁶¹ Nor do the words of St. James, "let him bring in the priests," stand in the way; for in Sacred Scripture the plural is often employed for the singular.⁶² In ancient times, however, several priests were employed even in the Latin Church in administering Extreme Unction.⁶³ In the Greek Church, even in our times, this sacrament is customarily conferred by seven, or at least by three, priests.⁶⁴ If several priests administer this sacrament in such a way that some make the anointings and others pronounce the form, the sacrament appears to be invalid, because it is required that the same minister apply the matter and pronounce the form; but if one makes one anointing with its form and another makes another with its form,⁶⁵ or if several simultaneously make the anointings and pronounce the forms, then the sacrament is valid.

2. The pastor of souls alone, or his delegate, can ordinarily administer this sacrament licitly. Thus from positive ecclesiastical law.⁶⁶ Anyone who exercises ordinary jurisdiction over subjects is regarded as a pastor of souls. Hence superiors in a clerical religious institute are considered pastors of souls capable of legitimately administering Extreme Unction to all their subjects (namely, the professed, novices, members of the household, and those continually sharing the common table).⁶⁷ For the rest, the general rule is: Any priest who licitly administers Viaticum also licitly administers Extreme Unction. In a case of necessity, for example, when the parish priest is absent or impeded or unjustly refuses to administer this sacrament, or with the at least reasonably presumed permission of the parish priest or local Ordinary, any priest validly and licitly administers Extreme Unction, since the parochial right ought to yield to the salvation of souls.⁶⁸

The obligation of administering Extreme Unction gravely binds all pastors of souls whenever faithful subjects rightly disposed reasonably request this sacrament. The reason is that pastors are bound in justice by virtue of their office to provide their sheep with those things which are necessary, and indeed not only those necessary by a necessity of means, but also those necessary by a necessity of precept. Hence, for example, a parish priest who refused, either personally or through another priest, to administer Extreme Unction to his subject who greatly needed this sacrament would sin gravely. Cf. what was said above under n. 72 ff. concerning the obligation of giving the sacraments. Other priests are bound in charity to administer this sacrament to a dying person who did not receive the other sacraments shortly before.

⁵⁸ Cf. Acts 14:12; 15:2; 1 Tim. 5:17; 1 Pet. 5:4. Cf. also Billuart, De extr. unct., a. 5.

⁵⁹ Sess. 14, can. 4, De extr. unct. (Denz., n. 929).

⁶⁰ See the difficulties arising from certain texts of Innocent I and the Venerable Bede resolved in Billuart, loc. cit.

⁶¹ Cf. c. 14, X 5, 40, and Benedict XIV, Constitution Etsi pastoralis, May 26, 1742.

⁶² Cf. Matt. 27:44, "the thieves," for one of the thieves.

⁶³ Cf. Summa contra gentiles, l. 4, c. 73; the Sacramentary of St. Gregory in Martene, De antiq. Eccl. rit., l. 1, c. 7, a. 3.

⁶⁴ Papp-Szilagyi, Enchir. iur. eccl. orient., p. 2, § 81.

⁶⁵ Cf. Suppl., q. 20, a. 2 ad 3.

⁶⁶ c. 1, l. 5, tit. 7, in Clem.; Code of Canon Law, c. 938, § 1.

⁶⁷ Code of Canon Law, c. 514, § 1. Cf. what was said above under n. 219 concerning the administration of Viaticum, and our Man. iur. can., q. 243.

⁶⁸ Code of Canon Law, c. 938, § 2.

584. The rubrics prescribed in the Ritual are to be observed in the administration of this sacrament. Under what guilt, however, the individual rubrics oblige is not so certainly established. Thus, for example, outside a case of necessity, to omit every sacred vestment is considered a grave sin; likewise, it is grave to omit the prayers to be recited by the priest before and after the anointings; but to omit a light or an assisting server is thought to be a light fault; the penitential psalms and the litanies are recited not from a strict precept, but by way of counsel,⁶⁹ as was already said above under n. 574.

⁶⁹ Cf. St. Alphonsus, Theol. mor., l. 6, n. 726 ff.