Chapter — Slater, Morals of To-Day
Chapter II: The Short Form of Extreme Unction
IN the last issue of the I. E. Record* an interesting question concerning the administration of Extreme Unction was proposed by "Religiosus." In April, 1906, the Holy Office determined a short form for the administration of the sacrament in case of imminent danger of death. What is to be done in a case where this short form has been used, and the sick person does not die immediately? I had expressed the view that in such a case the ordinary ritual form should at once be gone through by the priest. "Religiosus" rejects this opinion, and favours that which he says is held by Father Noldin. He then asks for the editorial solution of the question which, with very courteous expressions to myself, is given on the same side.
The question is important and very practical, and I propose to discuss it at greater length than I have already done elsewhere.
We must, first of all, be clear as to what was done and what was not done by the decree of the Holy Office of April 25, 1906. On that occasion the Holy Office did what it was asked to do. It had been asked to determine one short form to be used in the administration of Extreme Unction in a case where death was imminent. The question had been discussed by theologians for centuries. Opinions were various and numerous. They are briefly summed up for us by O'Kane in his well-known Notes on the Rubrics of the
* See I. E. Record, November, 1915, p. 525.
Roman Ritual. In discussing what belongs to the essential form of the sacrament of Extreme Unction this author says:
" It is agreed that the word sanctam is not essential; and it is probable that the words et suam piissimam misericordiam are not essential. Hence the form expressed thus would be valid: Per istam unctionem indulgeat tibi Dominus quidquid deliquisti per visum, auditum, etc. It is commonly admitted that the word deliquisti, or some other of the same import, is essential. But it is not equally certain that the expression of the senses is essential. We have seen that when, in case of necessity, a single form is used, it should contain an expression of each sense after the word deliquisti, but many are of opinion that it suffices for the validity to express them in general quidquid deliquisti per sensus. Some go still further, and contend that it is not necessary to express the senses at all, and that the words Indulgeat tibi Deus alone are essential; for the act of anointing, they say, precludes the necessity of using the words per istam unctionem, while the word indulgeat sufficiently implies quidquid deliquisti.”* The Holy Office was asked, not to settle the theoretical question as to what words in the ordinary form of Extreme Unction were essential and what were not essential. It was asked to approve one short form which might be used in case of necessity. The Holy Office granted the
* Notes on the Rubrics, n. 900.
request by decreeing that the form—Per istam sanctam unctionem indulgeat tibi Dominus quidquid deliquisti. Amen.—would be sufficient in a case of real necessity. On April 26, 1906, Pope Pius X. approved this decree.
There was no question about settling any theoretical opinions as to whether one anointing was valid or not, nor was there any question of settling the doubt as to whether the anointing of the five senses was essential to the validity of the sacrament. The petitioner asked for the solution of a practical difficulty. He knew from the rubrics of the Roman Ritual what was to be done in ordinary cases of imminent danger of death. The rubric says:
"Si quis autem laborat in extremis, et periculum immineat ne decedat antequam finiantur Unctiones, cito ungatur incipiendo ab eo loco Per istam sanctam Unctionem, etc., ut infra: deinde si adhuc supervivat dicantur orationes prætermissæ suo loco positæ." But cases sometimes happen where death seems so near that there is not time to give the separate anointings with their appropriate forms. Hitherto there was no authoritative guidance as to what was to be done in such a case as that. The matter was left to the discussions of theologians. The theologians commonly taught that the minister of the sacrament should apply a single unction with a single form expressing all the senses. They allowed, and expressly taught, that it was not certain that such a single anointing was valid. They taught that it was highly probable that it was valid, and they knew that Benedict XIV. had given them solid grounds for thinking so. But still, as there is question of the validity of a sacrament which may not lawfully be exposed to risk, they taught with St. Alphonsus that whenever in cases of real necessity Extreme Unction had been given with one general form, the separate anointings of the senses should afterwards be supplied with their appropriate forms. As we have seen already, the theologians were not agreed as to what the general form used in a case of real necessity should express. Some said that it should express all the five senses separately; others thought that it would suffice if a word expressing the senses generally were employed; others saw no necessity for either special or general mention of the senses. On this point alone was the Holy Office asked for guidance. Some good priest or bishop was anxious to do all he could in a case of extreme necessity when death was imminent. In such a case of necessity he was justified, as he knew well, in administering the sacraments with a probability of their validity. He was justified then in using one general form for Extreme Unction, with the obligation of supplying the ritual form afterwards, according to the prescriptions of the ritual and the unanimous teaching of theologians. His only doubt was as to what the general form should express. Theologians differed on the point, and so he asked the Holy Office to give its decision. The request was granted, and the Holy Office decided that it was not necessary to express the senses separately, nor even to mention them under some general term, but that in a case of real necessity it was sufficient for the minister to say: Per istam sanctam unctionem indulgeat tibi Dominus quidquid deliquisti. Amen.
The Holy Office does not say that this one short form is sufficient for validity. It simply declares that those words are sufficient for the purpose intended, and that no more need be used in order to secure, as far as is possible under the circumstances, the benefits of a probably valid administration of the sacrament. That is all that the decree expressly determines, and I do not see what more can be extracted out of it. To use the expression of Dr. O'Donnell, I am anxious to give the decree its full force, but I do not see what more force it can have. This point is of capital importance in the discussion, and I will try to make it clearer by taking an illustration from the sacrament of Penance. Priests are sometimes called to attend cases where there is imminent danger of death, accompanied by a state of apparent unconsciousness. In such cases they give absolution conditionally, and they know that in the circumstances absolution is probably valid. If the danger of death is imminent a priest will make use of the shortest form of absolution which is compatible with the validity of the sacrament. Theologians are not quite at one as to what words a short form of absolution should necessarily contain. Some think that Absolvo a peccatis tuis is sufficient, while others deny it. Some hold that Ego te absolvo is sufficient, while others say it is not. The common opinion holds that the invocation of the Blessed Trinity does not belong to the necessary essence of the form. We can imagine a priest asking the Holy Office to determine a short form of absolution to be used in case of necessity, and we can imagine the Holy Office acceding to his request. If the Holy Office determined that in cases of real necessity it is sufficient for the priest to say Absolvo te a peccatis tuis, the priest, of course, would be perfectly safe in using only those words. In cases of real necessity he would do his duty by the sick person if he gave absolution with that form without manifest confession. But the supposed decree of the Holy Office would not make the absolution certainly valid. We must say the same, as it seems to me, about the decree of the Holy Office concerning the short general form for the administration of Extreme Unction in cases of true necessity. Even if the ordinary rules of interpretation permitted us to say that by determining the short form, the Holy Office had decided what was sufficient for the validity of the sacrament, we should not be justified in asserting that what was doubtful before the decree is now absolutely certain. Such decrees as that with which we are dealing are not infallible and irreformable utterances of the Holy See. They are practical and safe rules for the cases to which they refer, but, as Santi says, quoting another eminent Roman canonist:
"Responsa hujusmodi non esse infallibilia et irreformabilia. Nam infallibilitas uni Romano Pontifici promissa est; responsa autem hæc non sunt actus Papales, et licet Summus Pontifex eadem probet, tamen semper retinent naturam decisionis Sacræ Congregationis et uti talia Summus Pontifex probat et vulgari jubet.”*
* Prælectiones juris canonici, lib. 1. tit. 31, n. 70.
So that, even if the decree under consideration had determined a short form sufficient for validity, as " Religiosus " implies, that would not settle the question and make the opinion which it favoured certain. There would still be room for the opinion which St. Alphonsus says is probable —that the anointing of the five senses with the separate forms is necessary for the validity of Extreme Unction, and as there is here question of the validity of the sacrament, this safer opinion must be followed in practice. The following argument seems to me not to be destitute of weight.
The Sacred Congregation determined a short form which it declared to be sufficient in case of real necessity, that is, in a case where there is not time to give all the anointings, with their separate forms. If in a particular case the sick person does not die immediately, but continues to live, so that there is a probability of being able to receive the sacrament according to the form of the ritual, the case does not come under the decree. The decree contemplates a case where nothing else can be done. In this case, however, something more can be done. It is quite possible that what would be valid in a case where nothing more could be done, would be invalid in another case where more could be done. This also may be illustrated from the sacrament of Penance. A sick person who sends a message to a priest asking him to come and hear his confession, and before the priest arrives becomes unconscious, is to be absolved absolutely in that state, according to many authors. They gather this from the Roman ritual, and draw the conclusion that such absolution is certainly valid. And yet, under other circumstances, confession made through an interpreter or messenger to an absent priest would certainly be invalid, as theologians conclude from the absolute prohibition of Clement VIII.
Those are the chief reasons why I still think that the decree of the Holy Office, April 25, 1906, does not greatly modify pre-existing opinions on the subject. It seems to me still that if Extreme Unction has been administered with one general form, the ordinary ritual form must be added, because, according to the common teaching of theologians, voiced by St. Alphonsus, administration under one general form is only probably valid. This also seems to me to be prescribed by the new editions of the Roman Ritual, which print the short form approved in 1906, but also retain the rubric quoted above, which prescribes that when only part of the rite has been followed in case of necessity and imminent danger of death, the rest should be afterwards supplied if the sick person continue to live. Such anointing of the five senses would be, according to the present legislation of the Church, as it seems to me, not unlawful, as Dr. O'Donnell says.
I may refer to the article reprinted in my Questions of Moral Theology on the "Repetition of Extreme Unction," to show that I have devoted some attention to the history of Extreme Unction. I know of nothing in the history of the subject which calls for any modification of my views, and so I do not propose to make any change in what I wrote in my "Manual" on the subject.
If we consult the theologians who have written on the point in question after the publication of the decree of 1906, I find I am in very good company. It is true that Father Noldin holds that the decree settles the question as to the validity of one anointing with a single general form, but as to repeating or supplying anything afterwards, he does not say what "Religiosus" makes him say. "Religiosus" quotes him as saying:
" If the patient rally, nothing is to be repeated." The words used by Father Noldin are:
" Si sacramentum in periculo mortis unica unctione collatum fuerit, postea cessante periculo nihil repetendum vel supplendum est." Of course when the danger has ceased, when the sick person is no longer in danger of death, nothing should be repeated or supplied. But, according to the new edition of the Ritual, if the sick person continue to live, though still dangerously ill, the prayers at least should be supplied, and, in my opinion also, the separate anointings, whenever one general form has been used previously.
The editor of the Acta Sanctae Sedis commented on the decree when it was issued, maintaining the opinion which I have defended. He says:
"Sed cessante periculo præsertim si ægrotus alia sacramenta secure suscipere non potuit, sub conditione repetendæ sunt singulæ unctiones in singulis sensibus, sub suis particularibus formis atque addendæ sunt simul omnes orationes omissæ. Quæ norma apprime congruit præscriptionibus Ritualis Romani, et quatenus melior fiat dispositio suscipientis sacramentum, ad majus gratiæ augmentum obtinendum concurrit."* head with the prescribed short form, but the obligation remains of supplying the other anointings if the danger ceases."
Father Vermeersch writes:
" Quodsi peracta summaria ista unctione, tempus superfuerit, consuetæ singulorum sensuum unctiones sub longiore forma peragere non negleget [sacerdos].”†
Tanquerey says:
"Ad integritatem vero Sacramenti eas [unctiones in singulis sensibus] perficiendas esse censemus (sub conditione) quamvis alii aliter sentiant.”‡
Father Ferreres writes: "Sed si tempus post peractam hanc unicam unctionem supersit, videntur fieri posse sensuum unctiones cum forma singulis propria ad pleniorem sacramenti significationem exprimendam." §
These quotations show that I am not singular in my opinion, and the arguments show, I think, that the opinion is well based.
"In case of necessity one anointing is sufficient on one sense or better on the fore-
† Periodica, 1911, p. 242.
‡ Brevior Synopsis, n. 1260.
§ Vol. ii. n. 683.
To a question whether the other anointings were to be supplied conditionally or not, the Holy Office answered that they were not to be supplied conditionally.*