Chapter III: On the Subject of Extreme Unction

— "Extreme Unction cannot be given except to a faithful person who, after having obtained the use of reason, by reason of infirmity or old age is in danger of death" (c. 940, §1).

Therefore there is required a baptized subject, possessed of the use of reason, in danger of death not because of an extrinsic cause of battle or capital sentence, but because of a cause intrinsic to the body from illness or old age. Moreover a wound and childbirth are assimilated to illness.

The Greek word of the epistle of St. James, asthenei, designates a serious illness, by which someone is broken in strength. From the decree of Eugene IV for the Armenians, it can be given "to him concerning whose death there is fear." The Council of Trent, sess. XIV, c. 3, says only that it is especially to be conferred on those who are placed at the end of life. From the Ritual, it is to be given to those who "labor so gravely that danger of death seems imminent, and to those who fail by reason of old age and seem about to die day by day." Therefore they admit that a probable indication, or positive doubt concerning death to follow from this infirmity, suffices. And nothing compels us, as it were, to obtain the license of a physician.

If the danger itself is doubtful, as if it is doubted whether the sick person has attained the use of reason or whether he is dead, this sacrament is to be administered under condition.

— Corollaries. Therefore, from Fr. Kern, a) it is not even validly conferred in an illness which neither greatly afflicts a man nor is actually dangerous;

b) it is validly and licitly conferred in an illness which, although it lightly afflicts the sick person, is nevertheless joined with danger of imminent death; in a grave illness and one dangerous by its nature, although objectively there is no risk of life; in an illness which by its nature is dangerous and which at the same time gravely afflicts the sick person, although subjectively it does not yet seem to bring with it risk of life.

If the sick person is gravely afflicted by an illness whose nature is not yet established, he will be able to be anointed at least conditionally.

In an illness which brings a certain danger of death, but only remote danger, so that death is not indicated as to follow before several months, Extreme Unction is validly conferred. Liceity will depend on the adjuncts: on the opportunity which the sick person will have, or will not have, of receiving the sacrament, on the state of the illness, hope of fruit, etc.

On account of opinions not so long ago put forth concerning apparent death, the sacrament can be conferred conditionally, at least when an expert man is absent who can render us more certain concerning perfect death, within a half-hour from the moment at which, according to common judgment, death has followed; indeed within an hour, if someone has been affected by sudden death. Indeed R. P. Ferreres thinks that absolution and Extreme Unction can be conferred at least for a half-hour after an expert physician, after every inspection has been made, has declared the person dead.

At least illicit would be an administration made to a sick person consenting to a safe use of the knife, or operation, by which every danger from the illness which he now has will be removed.

Those who are about to suffer the hands of a surgeon generally are already actually subject to an internal danger of death, so that even before the use of the knife they can be anointed. Yet if someone bodily healthy is about to undergo a dangerous use of the knife, for example for correcting a deformity, he cannot be anointed before the very use of the knife has induced a danger from an internal reason.

— To those who, impenitent in manifest mortal sin, contumaciously persevere, Extreme Unction is not to be conferred; but if this is doubtful, let it be conferred under condition (c. 942).

Observe that the contumacy of one who is destitute of the senses is no longer established. In what way there is introduced here a condition which is not necessary for validity was explained above, n. 184. What if he who with doubtful disposition was anointed under condition afterward arrives at a better disposition? Let the sacrament be given again under the condition "if you have not yet been anointed," rather than under the condition "if you are capable." For, as will be said immediately, repeated administration is rather to be judged valid; and since repeated administration is forbidden, the condition "if you are capable," which does not exclude repetition, would not impede illicit administration.

— The sacrament is to be conferred absolutely on sick persons who, when they were in possession of their mind, asked for it at least implicitly, or likely would have asked for it, even if afterward they have lost sense or the use of reason (c. 943).

— "It is lawful for no one to neglect this sacrament; and with every care and diligence it must be seen to that the sick receive it while they are fully in possession of themselves" (c. 944).

Yet a grave obligation of receiving this sacrament is not judged to be present of itself. Thus the probable opinion. Yet it would be grave to contemn this sacrament, or to neglect it with scandal of contempt of this kind.

Moreover the abuse of delaying the sacrament until instant death, or until health is certainly despaired of, meanwhile deprives the sick person a) of the spiritual helps of this sacrament; b) of the effect of recovering health.

Counsel. - One who has weighed the marvelous effects of this sacrament, how would he not desire for himself, even several times in life, that spiritual renewal which the holy oil works? Therefore we judge it most to be commended that it not be reserved for desperate sick persons alone, nor be for many a dreaded omen of certain death, but that it become the common sacrament of all who are afflicted by an illness dangerous by its nature. Our Most Holy Lord Pius XI calls it "a deadly error," by which it happens that, with detriment to the soul, the sick are not anointed with holy oil before, death being imminent, they have almost or altogether lost the senses. One who, when a probable indication of danger is present, "takes care that it be administered, not only follows the doctrine of Mother Church, but piously and salutarily fulfills her desires." Brief Explorata res, February 2, 1923, concerning the sodality of Our Lady of a good death (Tinchebray).

— So that he may receive this sacrament with fruit, the sick person who is conscious of mortal sin must either confess before he is anointed, or be contrite if he can. Therefore judged contrition suffices; indeed a later attempt of contrition suffices, if opportunity for confession is not had, provided attrition is had.

— "In the same infirmity this sacrament cannot be repeated, unless the sick person, after receiving the anointing, has recovered, and has fallen into another risk of life" (c. 940).

Therefore the sacrament is licitly repeated in a twofold case: a) in a different illness; b) in the same illness but in a new danger of death, as if the sick person has imperfectly recovered and then again is brought into risk.

Formerly it was conferred on several successive days, so that the forbidden repetition is to be referred to more recent discipline, unless nevertheless those successive anointings can be held as one integral administration. Therefore repetition of this sacrament in the same danger, although gravely prohibited, nevertheless does not seem invalid.

— I. The subject of Extreme Unction is a baptized man, possessed of the use of reason, who, because of a cause intrinsic to the body, from illness, to which a wound or childbirth is assimilated, or from old age, is in danger of death.

In doubt concerning the danger, concerning life, concerning the use of reason, let it be administered conditionally. To him who perseveres in manifest impenitence, which a man destitute of the senses is not, Extreme Unction is not to be conferred. If this is doubtful, let it be conferred under condition. The sacrament is conferred absolutely on sick persons who, while possessed of sense, would have asked for it.

It must be seen to that the sick receive it while they are fully in possession of themselves.

A grave obligation of receiving it is not proved.

It cannot be repeated in the same infirmity. Yet if the sick person has sufficiently recovered and has fallen into a new risk of life, it can be administered anew.