Part I. On the Person Receiving

I. In order that someone be capable of receiving Extreme Unction, it is required: 1. that he be baptized; 2. that he be or have been in possession of reason; 3. that his health be gravely afflicted, and indeed at least to that degree from which death not rarely follows within a time not very long; but such a degree also suffices, at least for validity. It is said:

1. That he be baptized (cf. n. 38).

2. That he be or have been in possession of reason; hence canon 940, § 1 indeed states that Extreme Unction cannot be given except after the use of reason has been attained, but does not add that actual or habitual use of reason is required.¹ The reason seems to be that the gravely sick person who neither has nor has had the use of reason is, and was, and will be, at least in himself, incapable of actual strengthening, to which the sacramental grace of Extreme Unction gives a right (St. Alphonsus, VI, 718). I said "and will be incapable," as a perpetually insane person. I said "and will be, at least in himself, incapable," as a gravely sick infant, who in himself will either recover or die before the use of reason, while accidentally it will happen that he is going to prolong the grave illness until he will attain the use of reason, and thus will be capable of spiritual strengthening. Therefore little children and the perpetually insane cannot be anointed. But adults who have lucid intervals, or who at least were not perpetually insane, are capable; likewise those who are delirious;² likewise children as soon as they have reached the use of reason (St. Alphonsus, VI, 720).

In doubt whether the sick person has attained the use of reason - understand: whether he either enjoys the use of reason or at some time enjoyed its use - the sacrament should be ministered conditionally (canon 941), for example: "if you are capable."

Question. Is one who has never sinned personally capable of Extreme Unction?

Response. It seems that it must be affirmed, because he is capable of the primary effect of the sacrament, that is, strengthening of soul. That it is not required that someone have sinned after Baptism follows from the fact that the Holy Office³ and the Sacred Congregation of Propaganda Fide⁴ responded that a pagan who becomes gravely sick immediately after receiving Baptism is to be anointed.

It is disputed whether the Blessed Virgin Mary was capable of Extreme Unction. It seems that it must be denied, because Extreme Unction strengthens by way of spiritual medication. Hence the Council of Florence, as we have already noted, teaches: "The effect of this Sacrament is the healing of the mind." But the Blessed Virgin Mary was incapable of strengthening of this kind.

3. That health be gravely afflicted, and indeed at least to that degree from which death not rarely follows within a time not very long; but such a degree also suffices, at least for validity. I said:

a) That health be gravely afflicted, whether from disease taken in the stricter sense, or from a similar cause, for example from a wound, from difficult childbirth, from poison swallowed, or from old age. That this is required is proved first by the words cited above of St. James, who advises the sick person to summon the priests, who will save him and comfort his depressed spirit; these things you would scarcely apply to one suffering from a slight illness. Then Benedict XIV in the Bull Ex quo primum, § 46, teaches that Extreme Unction is to be ministered "only to faithful persons gravely sick." Then the Council of Trent teaches that this sacrament was instituted by Christ so that He might "fortify the end of life as by a certain strongest protection" (p. 437). Finally, the whole rite of Extreme Unction does this one thing, that it commends to the divine mercy the sick person constituted in danger of death⁵ (St. Thomas, Supplement, q. 32, a. 2; St. Alphonsus, VI, 713, dub. 2).

b) That health be afflicted at least to that degree from which death not rarely follows within a time not very long, or at least to that degree that death not very remote must be feared. This is deduced from the fact that several ecclesiastical documents expressly state that Extreme Unction is not to be conferred except on those who are in danger of death or whose death is feared. Thus, for example, canon 940, § 1: "Extreme Unction cannot be given except to a faithful person who, after attaining the use of reason, is in danger of death by reason of infirmity or old age." Likewise the decree of Eugene IV in the Instruction to the Armenians: "This sacrament must not be given except to a sick person whose death is feared." But these things in their obvious sense signify the state described by us (St. Thomas, loc. cit.; St. Alphonsus, loc. cit.).

c) Such a degree also suffices, at least for validity. This is drawn from the fact that the Sacred Congregation of Propaganda Fide responded⁶ "Affirmatively" to the question: "Sometimes Missionaries encounter someone suffering from hectic fever, that is, a kind of consumption, or from another illness, who, experience being the guide, is going to live for several more months, but will die within the year: it is asked whether in such a case the Missionary can minister Viaticum and Extreme Unction to him, because when the time of receiving them is actually at hand, the Missionary will not be able to be present in the same place, either because of great distance or because of another impediment." I said at least for validity, because from the response cited it does not follow that, in itself or in ordinary circumstances, the sacrament is licitly conferred in a case in which death is judged to be fairly distant; therefore further observe: as soon as the state just described is present, the sacrament is indeed conferred validly; but with respect to liceity, take the following:

a) If death is judged to be fairly far away, as in the case just set forth and resolved by the Sacred Congregation of Propaganda Fide, one may doubt whether the sacrament is already in itself licitly conferred.

b) If death is indeed judged to be more at hand, but not yet imminent, the sacrament is licitly conferred, although its conferral can be deferred.

c) If death seems imminent, Extreme Unction must be conferred;⁷ nor is it permitted to wait until the sick person begins to lack the full use of reason. "The reason," says St. Alphonsus, "is that thus he is deprived of the richer fruit which he would have received if he had received the sacrament while he was in possession of reason, since then he would have disposed himself more for it. Likewise because he is deprived of spiritual strength for resisting the devil and for bearing the inconveniences of illness. Likewise because, if the sick person perhaps were in mortal sin and had received the sacrament while in possession of reason, by the help of attrition he perhaps would have obtained grace, of which otherwise he is deprived. Finally, because by virtue of this sacrament he perhaps would have obtained health of body, if it had been conferred at a suitable time; for although this sacrament by a certain supernatural power also works bodily health if it is expedient for the salvation of the soul, as Trent says, nevertheless it does not work by way of miracle, but in a certain ordinary way, namely by helping natural causes, as the Doctors commonly say. All these things at least when taken together seem to bring grave harm to the sick person" (VI, 714). Hence canon 944: "With every zeal and diligence care must be taken that the sick receive it while they are fully in possession of themselves." And the Roman Catechism says: "They sin most gravely who are accustomed to observe that time for anointing the sick person when, all hope of recovery now having been lost, he begins to lack life and senses."⁸

¹ Cf. Roman Ritual, title V, cap. 1, n. 8.

² Cf. Roman Ritual, loc. cit., n. 11.

³ May 10, 1703 (Collectio, n. 256, ad 8).

⁴ September 26, 1821 (Collectio, n. 768).

⁵ Kern, op. cit., p. 294.

⁶ February 20, 1801 (Collectio, n. 651).

⁷ Cf. Council of Trent, session 14, De extrema unctione, Prooemium and cap. 3; Roman Ritual, title V, cap. 1, n. 5.

⁸ Part 2, cap. 6, n. 9.

Corollary I. Extreme Unction cannot be conferred on those whose death is imminent from a merely external cause, for example "on those about to enter battle, or about to undertake navigation, or a journey, or other dangers, or on criminals soon to be punished with the final penalty."¹ Nor can it be ministered when the danger of death is not yet present but will arise shortly, for example from the dangerous surgical operation itself about to be undergone, or from the difficult childbirth itself about to follow; otherwise, if someone is already actually in danger.

Corollary II. A woman in childbirth who "labors in childbirth with only common pains will indeed not be able to be anointed, even if she gives birth for the first time, or at another time had been in danger of death; because then she is not yet laboring under a dangerous infirmity" ... "But otherwise, if the woman has already begun to be distressed by very grave torments, so that she is already actually in proximate danger of death; because then she is truly already dangerously sick" (St. Alphonsus, VI, 713, dub. 3). The old cannot be anointed because of advanced age alone; otherwise if there is added such weakness of the vegetative functions that health must be called gravely afflicted. Hence canon 940, § 1 speaks of old age by reason of which someone is in danger of death. And the Roman Ritual states: "Extreme Unction is to be ministered to those who fail because of old age and seem day by day about to die, even without another infirmity."²

Those about to undergo a dangerous operation, but not yet constituted in danger of death, cannot be anointed before the operation; nor can the same be anointed as soon as they have been deprived of the senses by chloroform, unless the state of the sick person induced by the chloroform is regarded as gravely dangerous. If the disease is lethal, and physicians can avert the danger of death by the operation to follow, the sick person can be anointed if he does not wish to undergo the operation; if he wishes to suffer it, the matter seems doubtful.

But if it is rightly feared that someone, for example a person condemned to death, is going to die from fear, he is certainly validly anointed if fear has so afflicted his health that, even if the fear vanished, nevertheless grave danger would persist. Otherwise he seems able to be anointed only doubtfully validly, because it is doubted whether fear can really be called a disease.

Corollary III. A merely estimated danger of death does not suffice; for the things by which we proved that danger of death is required, in their obvious sense, signify a truly existing danger and not merely an estimated one. I add these things: suppose that someone lying on the ground, according to bystanders, is in danger of death and is anointed by a priest. A physician arrives and declares that he is well, but completely drunk. Who would say that he had been validly anointed?

Corollary IV. When it is doubted whether the sick person is really in danger of death, or whether he is dead, this sacrament should be ministered conditionally (canon 941). As to the extent to which one apparently dead can be conditionally absolved and anointed, this has been set forth in the treatise on Penance, n. 477.

¹ Roman Ritual, title V, c. 1, n. 9.

² Title V, cap. 1, n. 5.

II. Once the requisites for the capacity of receiving Extreme Unction have been posited, it must be given, and indeed absolutely, not only to those who here and now ask for it, but also "to sick persons who, when they were in possession of their mind, asked for it at least implicitly or would probably have asked for it, even if afterwards they lost the senses or the use of reason" (canon 943).¹ But "this sacrament is not to be conferred on those who, impenitent, contumaciously persevere in manifest mortal sin; but if this is doubtful, it is to be conferred conditionally" (canon 942). It is said:

1. They asked for it at least implicitly; these words certainly comprehend those who had, and did not retract, an implicit will or intention in the stricter sense, for example the will of dying as a Christian (p. 33). With respect to implicit intention in the most general sense - for example the will of employing the means of salvation - the matter seems doubtful and not settled by the Code (p. 33).

2. Or would probably have asked for it; for one who, in possession of himself, would probably ask for Extreme Unction is presumed to have had, and not retracted, an explicit will or intention of receiving Extreme Unction, or at least an implicit intention in the stricter sense.

3. This sacrament is not to be conferred on those who contumaciously persevere in manifest mortal sin.

What if someone rejected the priest up to the deprivation of the senses?

Response 1. If he did not certainly reject him from an evil will, but perhaps because he was not sufficiently conscious of the danger, with also an indifferent spirit being added, Extreme Unction can be conferred.

Response 2. If he certainly rejected the priest from an evil will, considering the reverence due to the sacrament, it is better, as it seems, not to anoint him, unless the deprivation of the senses endures longer, or the dying person gives a sign which with some probability can be regarded as a declaration of a changed will.

4. But if this, that is, contumacy, is doubtful, it is to be conferred conditionally, namely, considering the more obvious sense, under the condition: "If you are now not contumaciously persevering in mortal sin." Nevertheless, it can seem to someone that this is the sense of the canon: "If you are doubtful about the contumacy, the sacrament is to be conferred conditionally," the determination of the condition being left undecided; this being posited, the canon does not prevent the condition "if you are capable," etc., from being added. Besides, it is certainly lawful to minister the sacrament "according to the mind of the Church."

¹ Roman Ritual, title V, cap. 1, n. 11.