Part III. On the Repeated Reception of Extreme Unction

The Council of Trent¹ declares: "But if the sick recover after receiving this Unction, they will be able to be helped again by the aid of this Sacrament when they fall into another like danger of life." And canon 940, § 2 says: "In the same infirmity this sacrament cannot be repeated, unless the sick person after receiving the Unction has recovered and has fallen into another danger of life." So also the Roman Ritual.² With these things premised, I say:

I. Extreme Unction can be repeated in another infirmity; in other words, it can be repeated: 1. as often as someone after an infirmity has been driven out, or after health has been recovered, is again dangerously sick; 2. as often as in the same infirmity the danger of death has vanished and afterwards arises again (St. Thomas, Supplement, q. 33, a. 2; St. Alphonsus, VI, 715). This follows from the Council of Trent and canon 940, § 2 cited above. The reason is that Extreme Unction was instituted precisely for the danger of death; hence it can at least then be repeated when the danger is repeated.

Question. Can Extreme Unction be repeated if a grave danger is increased, or if, while a danger endures, another disparate danger is added?

Response. It seems that it must be altogether denied; for the Council of Trent above and canon 940, § 2 require that the sick person, after he has recovered, become gravely sick again. Some indeed permit Extreme Unction to be repeated if the sick person, after the same grave danger has endured for a long time, is in much graver danger. They allege as reason that in this hypothesis the danger, according to common estimation, is morally considered another danger. But even this opinion cannot be reconciled with the words of the Council of Trent and the cited canon.

Objection. Canon 940, § 2 declares: "In the same infirmity this sacrament cannot be repeated." But in the hypothesis posited a new infirmity or new danger is added.

Response. From the cited words of the Council of Trent, and likewise from the words of the canon which follow the opposed words, it follows that by "the same infirmity" is understood the same lethal condition of the sick person; this condition is aggravated by a new infirmity or new danger. Meanwhile the sacrament continues to confer helps against the new illness.

Corollary. As often as Extreme Unction according to what has been said is licitly repeated, so often also it must be repeated. This seems to be commonly admitted if someone after recovering health becomes dangerously sick again; not so if in the same illness the danger of death vanished and afterwards arises again. But since the obligation is founded, as it were, in the danger of life, likewise the obligation of repeating seems to be present as often as the danger is repeated.

II. Extreme Unction cannot licitly be repeated in the same infirmity; whether it can validly be repeated is doubtful. Kern³ and others affirm, especially because for several centuries in a great part of the Church there prevailed the use of repeating the sacrament seven times⁴ in the same danger. Others deny or doubt; and to the argument of their adversaries they respond that it seems doubtful whether the said repetition of which Kern speaks was regarded as a repetition of the sacrament. That is, according to some,⁵ all the anointings taken together were regarded as one sacrament; according to others,⁶ the repeated anointings, that is, those which followed the first ministration, were like sacramentals strengthened by liturgical prayers.

Question. Does a most grave cause excuse from the prohibition, for example if someone after receiving Extreme Unction has certainly or probably sinned gravely, and, not yet having confessed, is deprived of the senses?

Response. I think that in the proposed case the sacrament can be repeated conditionally, namely because in this way provision is made for the salvation of the dying person much more securely than through absolution.

III. In doubt whether the danger was absent, a sick person who again becomes gravely sick can be anointed again, and indeed conditionally if grave doubt persists; absolutely if it is sufficiently established that the danger was absent. Nevertheless, commonly it will not be sufficiently established unless the sick person has been better for a notable time, for example for several weeks (cf. St. Alphonsus, VI, 715).

Practical Note.

¹ Session 14, De extrema unctione, cap. 3.

² Title V, cap. 1, n. 8.

³ Op. cit., p. 338 sq.

⁴ That is, here the anointings were repeated for seven continuous days; there seven priests, one after another, performed the complete sacramental rite.

⁵ Schmid, in Zeitschrift fur katholische Theologie, t. XXV, p. 258 sq.

⁶ De Smet, in Collationes Brugenses, 1910, p. 192 sq.

It is useful to note two practical things:

I. Especially through Extreme Unction provision is made for the salvation of the dying person, above all of one deprived of the senses. That is: 1. attrition suffices for Extreme Unction; for Penance confession is also required; 2. habitual attrition suffices for Extreme Unction; the same cannot be said quite so absolutely about Penance (n. 41); 3. Extreme Unction received without attrition can revive; Penance received in that way is received invalidly, so that there can be no question of reviviscence.

II. Care must be taken that Extreme Unction be given in good time, both so that the sick person may sooner receive the spiritual fruits of the sacrament, and so that, if it is expedient for the soul, he may also recover bodily health.