Extreme Unction (Anointing of the Sick)

THE Council of Trent defined that Extreme Unction is a true sacrament of the New Law insinuated by St Mark and promulgated and recommended to the faithful by St James when he wrote: “Is any man sick among you? Let him bring in the priests of the Church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord: and the prayer of faith shall save the sick man; and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he be in sins they shall be forgiven him.”¹

This sacrament, as the Council of Trent also teaches, is the complement or completion of Penance. As we have seen, Penance was specially instituted for the remission of postbaptismal sin, and its reception is necessary for all Christians who have fallen into grave sin after Baptism. Penance, then, ordinarily precedes Extreme Unction, which is properly a sacrament of the living; its primary effect is to infuse sanctifying grace into the soul for the salvation of the sick man. If any sins still remain on the soul, provided that there be at least attrition for them, they will be remitted together with the remains of sin. By the remains of sin are understood the temporal punishment due to them, spiritual weakness and inclination to evil, lethargy in the doing of good. The sacrament removes these wholly or in part, according to the dispositions of the recipient, and, moreover, if it be for the good of the sick person and in keeping with the providence of God, it restores him to bodily health. This last effect is not produced by miracle, but by means of natural causes; the sacrament consoles and soothes the sick person, dispels his mental anxieties, and the resultant state, with the blessing of God, sometimes brings about a recovery. In order to produce this effect with more certainty the administration of the sacrament should not be too long deferred.

¹ Jas. v 14, 15.

The remote matter of Extreme Unction is olive oil blessed by a bishop for the purpose, or by a priest who has received power to bless it from the Holy See (Can. 945). Ecclesiastical law requires that priests obtain the oil of the sick from their own ordinary, not from any other Bishop.

The proximate matter is the anointing with oil of the principal organs of the senses, and where the organs are double both are anointed, the right one first. In England, according to the Ritual, the eyes, ears, nostrils, mouth, hands, and feet, are anointed; but when the recipient is a woman in a public infirmary or hospital, the priest has special leave to omit the anointing of the feet if he thinks that it would excite scandal or comment. According to Canon 947, sec. 3, the anointing of the feet may be omitted for any reasonable cause.

If some sense-organ is wanting, the part of the body nearest to where it should be is anointed. Each anointing has its own special form, that for the eyes being: “ By this holy anointing and through his most sweet mercy may the Lord forgive whatever sins thou hast committed through thy sight. Amen.” The form for the other senses is similar. If the near approach of death will not allow of all the senses being anointed with their appropriate forms, the forehead may be anointed with the following general form: “ By this holy anointing may the Lord forgive whatever sins thou hast committed. Amen.”¹ As, however, Extreme Unction is only probably valid when administered with such a single anointing under one general form, if there is time it should be repeated immediately in the form prescribed by the Ritual.

¹ S.O., April 25, 1906; can. 947, sec. I.

Vol. II, Bk. VII, Chapter II. The Minister of Extreme Unction

ONLY a bishop or a priest can validly administer this sacrament, and the only lawful minister is the bishop or priest who has the cure of souls in the place where the sick man dwells, or another priest with his express or at least reasonably presumed leave.

In the Latin Church one priest performs all the unctions, but the sacrament is valid if different priests perform the several unctions, as is done in the Greek Church. The organs should not merely be touched with the holy oil, but anointed, and the Ritual prescribes that this should be done by making the sign of the Cross on the organ with the thumb after dipping it in the oil. Care should be taken not to finish the form before both organs have been anointed when they are double, and the several anointings should be done continuously, as it is probable that all together constitute the sacrament by which grace is not given until the last anointing is finished.

n. 3.

The priest who has the cure of souls in the place is bound to administer this sacrament to the sick in justice in person or through another priest; in case of necessity any priest is bound to administer it out of charity (Can. 939).

Vol. II, Bk. VII, Chapter III. The Recipient of Extreme Unction

IN order to be able to receive Extreme Unction validly a man must be baptized, must have attained the use of reason, and must be in probable danger of death from sickness. Extreme Unction, then, may be administered to those adults who are in danger of death from disease, from the pains of childbirth, from a wound, from poison, and from old age, even though they be no longer in their right senses. It cannot be validly given to soldiers before going into battle, to criminals who are going to be executed, to imbeciles who have never had the use of reason, to children who have not yet come to the use of reason, nor to unbaptized persons.¹

¹ Ritual.

This sacrament may only be given once in the same sickness and in the same danger, but if the sickness be prolonged and after partial recovery the sick person again becomes dangerously ill, Extreme Unction may be repeated. According to some good authors, it may be repeated after a month’s interval, for as a general rule the danger may be considered a new one after such a period of time.

No good Catholic would wish to depart this life without the help of this and the other sacraments; still there is no obligation under grave sin to receive Extreme Unction. But although the faithful who, without despising it, neglect to receive this sacrament do not thereby commit grave sin, yet a priest who has the cure of souls would sin grievously if he neglected to give those under his charge the opportunity of receiving this sacrament in their last sickness. As soon as there is probable danger of death the last sacraments may be given in the following order: Penance, Viaticum, Extreme Unction, and finally the papal blessing for the moment of death.

Canon 941 prescribes that when it is doubtful whether a sick person has attained the use of reason, whether he is really in danger of death, or whether he is dead, this sacrament should be administered conditionally.

Wouters, Manual of Moral Theology

Ludovicus Wouters, C.SS.R. — 26 passages

Vol. II, Bk. III, Treatise VI. On Extreme Unction

Vol. II, Pt. II, Q. IV, Art. 3. Repentance; Penanc…, The Minister · Vol. II, Pt. II, Q. IV, Art. 3. Repentance; Penanc…, The Sacrament of Extreme Unction · Vol. II, Pt. II, Q. IV, Art. 3. Repentance; Penanc…, Duties of the Recipient and the Minister of Extreme Unction

(St. Thomas, Supplement, q. 29-32; St. Alphonsus, Theologia Moralis, lib. VI, n. 706-733; Homo Apostolicus, tr. 17, n. 1-13.)¹

We shall speak first of Extreme Unction considered in itself, then of its ministration, and finally of the reception of Extreme Unction.

¹ Cf. Billuart, De Extrema Unctione, sole dissertation; Schmitz, De effectibus sacramenti Extremae Unctionis; Kern, De sacramento Extremae Unctionis tractatus dogmaticus; Heimbucher, Die heilige Oelung.

Vol. II, Bk. III, Tr. VI, Dissertation I. On Extreme Unction Considered in Itself

n. 563.

Extreme Unction can be defined: the sacrament by which a sick person, through an anointing with blessed oil and the prayer of the priest, is relieved according to the soul, and, if it is expedient for the soul, also, at least sometimes, according to the body (cf. St. Thomas, In IV Sent., dist. 23, q. 1, a. 1, 2, 3, 4; q. 2, 1 and 2; St. Alphonsus, VI, 706). It is also called simply anointing, or the anointing of the sick, the sacrament of those departing, etc.

With this definition given, we shall treat first of the existence, then of the essence, then of the effects, and finally of the necessity of Extreme Unction.

Vol. II, Bk. III, Tr. VI, Diss. I, Part I. On the Existence of Extreme Unction

n. 564.

I. Extreme Unction is a true sacrament; this proposition is of faith from the Council of Trent: "If anyone says that Extreme Unction is not truly and properly a sacrament instituted by Christ our Lord, and promulgated by blessed James the Apostle; ... let him be anathema."¹

Note. It is disputed at what time Extreme Unction was instituted. Some have thought that the anointing performed by the Apostles, of which Mark speaks,² was Extreme Unction. But this opinion must be rejected, because the minister of that sacrament is a priest; the Apostles, however, were constituted priests afterwards, namely at the Lord's Supper. Most hold that this sacrament, which is the complement of Penance, was instituted after Christ's resurrection together with Penance.

¹ Session 14, canon 1.

² "And they anointed with oil many sick persons and healed them" (Mark 6:13).

n. 565.

II. Extreme Unction, even in the case in which several anointings and prayers are used, is only one sacrament; otherwise the dogma concerning the sevenfold number of the sacraments would not stand. This, however, is explained in different ways by different authors. According to some, the diverse anointings and prayers taken together signify and produce one complete effect; but the effect is produced either by parts, as Scotus teaches,¹ or after the last anointing has been performed, as St. Thomas holds (Supplement, q. 30, a. 1, ad 3; cf. St. Alphonsus, VI, 707, qu. 2). According to others, the first anointing together with the partial form signifies and effects the entire effect, while the other anointings are regarded only as sacramentals (n. 570).

¹ According to Mastrius, Scotus supposes that the individual actions have their own partial effects. For Scotus says, In IV Sent., dist. 23, at the end, ad 2, that this sacrament is indeed one by unity of integrity, but not by unity of indivisibility, just as its effect is not one indivisibly, because it is not the remission of one venial sin, but one by the unity of the full remission of all venial sins (Gaude, in St. Alphonsus, VI, 707).

Vol. II, Bk. III, Tr. VI, Diss. I, Pt. II, Section I. On the Remote Matter

n. 566.

I. For validity, so that it be indubitable here, there is required: 1. olive oil; 2. blessed either by a Bishop or by a presbyter who has obtained delegated faculty to bless it; and this 3. with the special blessing of the oil of the sick. From the preceding, olive oil and a blessing performed by a Bishop or by a delegated presbyter are certainly required; the special blessing is probably required.

Olive oil is certainly required. This is clear: 1. from the words of St. James: "anointing him with oil."¹ But oil spoken of simply is olive oil. 2. From the Council of Florence.² 3. From the consensus and practice of the Eastern and Western Church (St. Alphonsus, VI, 709; cf. canons 937 and 945).
A blessing performed either by a Bishop or by a presbyter who has obtained delegated faculty to bless the oil is certainly required; in other words, a blessing performed by a simple priest who has not been delegated is not sufficient. This is clear from the response of the Holy Office, which, with Gregory XVI approving, responded to the question whether in a case of necessity a parish priest could use oil blessed by himself for the validity of the sacrament of Extreme Unction: "Negatively, according to the form of the decree of Thursday before the Most Holy Father, January 13, 1611."³ The same Holy Office, on May 15, 1878, declared: "Oil blessed by a presbyter who has not been furnished with a special faculty by the Holy See is matter wholly unfit for the Sacrament of Extreme Unction, and cannot validly be used even in extreme necessity." This is clear besides from the matters by which it will immediately be proved that, in itself, a blessing made by a Bishop is required, and therefore that a simple priest in himself lacks this faculty and needs delegation (cf. canon 945). Hence, for the sake of completeness, further observe:

a) In itself, a blessing made by a Bishop is required. This is clear 1. from the Council of Trent;⁴ 2. from the Council of Florence;⁵ 3. from the decree of the Holy Office, approved by Paul V.⁶

b) The Supreme Pontiff can confer upon a simple priest the power of consecrating the oil. This is clear from the Decree of Clement VIII, Sanctissimus Dominus;⁷ from the Constitution of Benedict XIV, Etsi pastoralis;⁸ from the declaration of the Holy Office cited above;⁹ from canon 945; and from the fact that priests of the Eastern Church and the Italo-Greeks enjoy and use this faculty.¹⁰

c) It is doubtful whether even a Bishop, in himself, that is, without delegation of the Supreme Pontiff, can confer upon a simple priest the faculty of consecrating the oil.

It is altogether doubtful whether for validity the special blessing is required, or whether the blessing by which the chrism of Confirmation or the oil of catechumens is consecrated is sufficient (cf. canon 945). Hence in a case of necessity the sick person can, or even must, be anointed, conditionally of course, with the chrism of Confirmation or with the oil of catechumens. If afterwards the oil of the sick can be had, the sacrament should be repeated conditionally (St. Alphonsus, VI, 709, dub. 2).

¹ James 5:14.

² Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 700.

³ September 14, 1842 (Collectio de Propaganda Fide, n. 956).

⁴ Session 14, De sacramento extremae unctionis, cap. 1.

⁵ Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 700.

⁶ January 13, 1611 (Collectio de Propaganda Fide, n. 956, note).

⁷ August 31, 1595.

⁸ May 26, 1742, § 4.

⁹ May 15, 1878.

¹⁰ Cf. Kern, op. cit., p. 124 sq.

n. 567.

II. For liceity there is required: 1. that matter certainly valid be used; 2. that the oil have been blessed on the Lord's Supper, on the most recent Thursday before Easter (canon 734, § 1).¹ "Therefore let the parish priest," says the Roman Ritual,² "have the sacred Oil of the sick, which each year, on Thursday in the Lord's Supper, blessed by the Bishop, is to be renewed, the old having been burned; nor should the old be used unless necessity urges" (cf. the cited canon). If the blessed oil seems insufficient, "other unblessed olive oil should be added, even repeatedly, but in a smaller quantity" (canon 734, § 1).³ Thus the admixture can be made several times, even if finally the quantity of unblessed oil is greater, provided that in each admixture it is smaller.⁴ Nevertheless, on Thursday in the Lord's Supper it is not permitted to bless part of the Holy Oils in order at once to mix that part with unblessed oils.⁵ Besides, note:

a) Old oils are not to be used unless necessity urges (canon 734, § 1).

b) The parish priest must request the holy oils from his Ordinary; and he should carefully keep the oil of the sick in a clean and decently adorned place, in a silver or tin vessel, and should not retain it at home unless because of necessity or another reasonable cause, with the license of the Ordinary having been obtained (canon 946, joined with 735). A reasonable cause is, for example, a greater distance of the parish house from the church.⁶

¹ On Thursday in the Lord's Supper, threefold oil is blessed by the Bishop, namely: 1. the oil of the sick; 2. the oil of catechumens; 3. chrism, which consists of olive oil and balsam. The oil of the sick is marked on the vessel with the letters O. I. or with the letter I alone; the oil of catechumens with the letters O. C. or the letter O alone; chrism with the letters Ch. or the letter C alone.

² Title V, cap. 1, n. 3.

³ Roman Ritual, loc. cit.

⁴ Pius VI, April 1, 1794; Sacred Congregation of the Council, September 25, 1862.

⁵ Sacred Congregation of Rites, December 7, 1744, n. 2883; January 28, 1910 (A.A.S. 1910, p. 118).

⁶ Sacred Congregation of Rites, Decreta authentica, n. 2650, to the third factual case; 3276, ad 5; 3739, ad 2; 3779, ad 7.

Vol. II, Bk. III, Tr. VI, Diss. I, Pt. II, Section II. On the Proximate Matter

n. 568.

I. For validity, so that it be indubitable here, these suffice: 1. anointings of the different senses together with partial forms; 2. in a case of necessity, a single anointing in one sense with the prescribed shorter form, which will be cited immediately. It is said:

Anointings of the different senses together with the particular forms suffice. Moreover, they suffice even if the anointing of a paired part, for example of one eye, etc., is omitted.
In a case of necessity, a single anointing in one sense with the prescribed shorter form suffices. This is clear: 1. from canon 947, § 1; 2. from the Roman Ritual;¹ 3. from a decree of the Holy Office approved by Pius X.²

The decree states: "When this Supreme Congregation was asked that one short formula be determined in the administration of the sacrament of Extreme Unction in a case of imminent death, the Most Eminent and Reverend Father General Inquisitors, after the matter had been most maturely weighed and after the vote of the Reverend Consultors had been had, decreed: In a case of true necessity the form is sufficient: 'Through this holy anointing may the Lord forgive you whatever you have committed. Amen.'" The decree indeed explicitly speaks only of the abbreviated form, but implicitly signifies that the single anointing corresponding to it is sufficient. Besides, note:

a) Likewise outside necessity a single anointing in one sense with the prescribed shorter form seems sufficient: both because, with respect to validity, a distinction is not readily to be admitted; and because St. James³ speaks only of anointing the sick person, without mention of the parts of the body. Finally, this is supported by the very great variety which, with respect to the number and place of anointings, has prevailed in the Greek and Latin Church.⁴

b) Whether a single anointing in one sense together with the particular form suffices for validity is not beyond doubt. If it suffices, the later anointings seem to be regarded as sacramentals, which plainly express the effect of Extreme Unction. If it does not suffice, it must be said that the effect is produced in the last necessary anointing according to these words of St. Thomas: "When there are many actions ordered to the same effect, the last is formal with respect to all the preceding and acts in virtue of them; and therefore in the last action grace is infused, which gives the sacrament its effect" (Supplement, q. 30, a. 1, ad 3).

¹ Title V, cap. 1, n. 21.

² April 24, 1906.

³ James 5:14.

⁴ Kern, op. cit., p. 131 sq.

n. 569.

II. For liceity outside the case of necessity there is required: 1. that the members to be designated be anointed, and this 2. in the prescribed order; 3. by the minister's own hand, that is, with the right thumb, no instrument being used; and 4. in the manner of a cross (canon 947, joined with the Roman Ritual).

Members to be anointed. The organs of the five senses must be anointed, namely the eyes, ears, nostrils, mouth, and hands (canon 947, § 1, joined with the Roman Ritual, title V, c. 1, n. 15). The anointing of the kidneys is always to be omitted (canon 947, § 2).¹ The anointing of the feet can be omitted for any reasonable cause (canon 947, § 3). If someone is mutilated in some member, the part nearest that place is anointed, with the same form of words.² If someone lacks a sense itself, for example hearing, or has always lacked it, nevertheless the organ is anointed. With respect to paired organs, the anointing should be made separately on each organ, but under one form, beginning from the right; except the lips, which are anointed with a single anointing.

The anointing of the organs of the five senses is prescribed under grave obligation. Likewise the anointing of each of the paired organs seems to oblige under grave obligation, so that only a grave cause excuses, for example the difficulty of turning the sick person and reaching the paired organs (St. Alphonsus, VI, 710).

The prescribed order obliges, so that every inversion is a sin; indeed an inversion of at least several anointings seems to be grave (St. Alphonsus, VI, 710). Now, considering the prescribed order, the following are anointed:

a) The eyes, over both closed eyelids.

b) The ears, at the lower parts of the auricles.

c) The nostrils, over each nostril, and indeed from the side, lest sneezing be excited.

d) The mouth, over each closed lip; with a single anointing by which both lips are anointed; but if this cannot conveniently be done, it is sufficient to anoint one lip.

e) The hands, in the middle of the palms; but the hands of a priest are anointed on the outside.

f) The feet, on the upper part or on the soles according to the prevailing custom.³

The anointings should be made by the minister's own hand, that is, with the right thumb;⁴ not with another finger nor with a brush or similar instrument: a contrary custom, if it prevails anywhere, cannot be observed.⁵ Nevertheless, in a case of grave necessity, for example if contagion is to be feared from contact, as if some sick person is suffering from leprosy, plague, or smallpox, it is permitted to use a brush or small rod⁶ (St. Alphonsus, VI, 710).
In the manner of a cross, as the Roman Ritual has it.⁷
Finally, it is very much recommended that for each anointing the thumb be dipped in the oil, all the more because some doubt whether one drop suffices for all the anointings (St. Alphonsus, VI, 709, dub. 4).

¹ In place of the kidneys, in some dioceses the anointing of the breast was permitted. Now, with the anointing of the kidneys forbidden, the anointing of the breast also is to be omitted.

² Roman Ritual, title V, cap. 1, n. 19.

³ Sacred Congregation of Rites, August 27, 1836, n. 2743.

⁴ Roman Ritual, title V, c. 2, n. 8.

⁵ Sacred Congregation of Rites, May 9, 1857, n. 3051.

⁶ Sacred Congregation of Rites, May 9, 1857, ad II, n. 3051.

⁷ Roman Ritual, title V, c. 2, n. 8.

n. 570.

III. For liceity in a case of necessity a single anointing in one sense, or more rightly on the forehead, with the prescribed shorter form suffices, with the obligation remaining of supplying the individual anointings when the danger has ceased (canon 947, § 1). It is said:

In a case of necessity. But a case of necessity is present: 1. when there is some danger that the sick person may die before the individual anointings have been performed; 2. when several persons must be anointed and it is feared that, if each is anointed in the ordinary manner, someone may die without Extreme Unction; 3. when, if the individual anointings are performed, danger of contagion can arise or increase; nevertheless, if the danger arises from contact, it should be forestalled by use of a brush or small rod; 4. when a longer ministration exposes the sacrament to danger of irreverence, as can happen, for example, in anointing an insane person.
When the danger has ceased, the individual anointings must be supplied. That is, they must be supplied if the danger on account of which the single anointing was used has ceased. Hence they must be supplied if the sick person has survived; if the danger has ceased that one of several persons to be anointed may die without Extreme Unction; if the danger of contagion has ceased, for example because a brush has been brought by which the individual anointings can be performed.

c) The individual anointings must be supplied; and indeed absolutely, not conditionally, and, as seems most probable, always. I said absolutely, for thus the Holy Office expressly states.¹ I said always, because both canon 947, § 1, and the Holy Office² and the Roman Ritual³ state without any restriction that the anointings are to be supplied, provided, however, that the danger of death continues. But the reason why they are prescribed to be supplied is that the sick person not be deprived of the sacramentals which seem to be contained in the anointings to be supplied and which plainly express the effect of Extreme Unction (n. 570).

Note 1. Not all agree in defining the nature of the anointings to be supplied. Some have thought that the sacrament is iterated in the supplied anointing. This, however, is not satisfactory, both because in that opinion the anointings would have to be supplied conditionally, since it is doubtful whether Extreme Unction can validly be repeated in the same danger, a doubt which is not considered removed either by the decrees cited above or by the Code; and because the iteration of the sacrament in the same danger is severely prohibited by the Code itself.

Others judge that the supplies are parts which with the preceding anointing constitute one whole, whether they are considered as partial sacraments or as the perfection or extension of the sacramental sign itself. But neither does this opinion seem correct, both because it supposes that the preceding anointing lacks the perfection of the sacrament, which is admitted with difficulty, and because, once this opinion is admitted, the anointings cannot be supplied if the moral union between them and the earlier anointing has ceased.

Others teach that the supplies are integral parts of the sacrament. But then also moral union between them and the essential part seems to be required; and if that is lacking, the supplies would have to be omitted.

These things being posited, it remains to be said, as it seems, that sacramentals, or ceremonies very efficacious by reason of the accompanying prayers of the Church, are contained in the supplied anointings.⁴

Note 2. What has been said about the anointings to be supplied after a single anointing is also to be applied to anointings neglected in the ordinary ministration, for example through forgetfulness; these therefore must likewise be supplied. If, however, it is feared that, because of the space of time, the required union is lacking, the sacrament is in itself to be repeated conditionally.

¹ March 9, 1917.

² January 31, 1907.

³ Title V, cap. 1, n. 21.

⁴ Cf. Nederlandsche Katholieke Stemmen, 1917, p. 241; 1928, p. 92.

Vol. II, Bk. III, Tr. VI, Diss. I, Pt. II, Section III. On the Form and on the Union of Matter and Form

n. 571.

I. The ordinary form in the Latin Church is the prayer prescribed by the Roman Ritual for the individual anointings, namely: "Through this holy Unction, and His most tender mercy, may the Lord forgive you whatever you have committed through sight, or through hearing, etc. Amen."¹ That the words "and His most tender mercy" are not required for validity is gathered from the form to be used in a case of necessity, in which the aforesaid words are omitted. Nevertheless, outside a case of true necessity, the omission is held to be gravely illicit (St. Alphonsus, VI, 711, dub. 2).

Among the Orientals this or a similar form is used: "Holy Father, physician of souls and bodies, who sent Your only-begotten Son, Our Lord Jesus Christ, healing every disease and freeing us from death, heal also Your servant N. from the bodily infirmity detaining him, and give him life through the grace of Your Christ, by the intercessions of N. N. and of all the Saints. Amen."

¹ Title V, cap. 1, n. 20. From the new editions of the Roman Ritual, the word "Amen" is to be said by the priest.

n. 572.

II. "In a case of necessity a single anointing in one sense, or more rightly on the forehead, suffices with this shorter form: 'Through this holy Unction may the Lord forgive you whatever you have committed. Amen.'" Thus the Roman Ritual,¹ canon 947, § 1, and the Decree of the Holy Office.² As it is useful to note in passing, everyone is under obligation to hold the aforesaid shorter form by memory.

Note. As is gathered from the words of St. James,³ it is required for the essence of the form that it be deprecatory formally, or according to sense (St. Thomas, Supplement, q. 29, a. 8; St. Alphonsus, VI, 711, dub. 1). But nothing seems to prevent a form that is grammatically indicative from being formally deprecatory, namely from the intention of praying to God, an intention, I say, sufficiently manifested by the very nature of the action.

¹ Loc. cit., n. 21.

² April 24, 1906.

³ James 5:14 sq.

n. 573.

III. With respect to the union of matter and form, it is sufficient to have noted: For validity, the union which we described in the treatise on the Sacraments in general suffices (n. 22). With respect to liceity, these words of the Roman Ritual are to be observed: "While the priest anoints the eyes, ears, and other members of the body which are paired, let him take care that, in anointing one of them, he does not complete the form of the Sacrament before he has anointed both members of this kind."¹

¹ Title V, cap. 1, n. 18.

Vol. II, Bk. III, Tr. VI, Diss. I, Pt. II, Sect. III, Scholion. On the Special Character of Extreme Unction

n. 574.

Extreme Unction is primarily a sacrament of the living, secondarily a sacrament of the dead (St. Alphonsus, VI, 731). I said:

I. Extreme Unction is primarily a sacrament of the living, that is, in itself and primarily it is ordered to second grace, or to the increase of grace. For 1. St. James and the Council of Trent set forth first grace as an effect of Extreme Unction only conditionally; by this it is suggested that the said sacrament is not primarily ordered to that effect; this being posited, it remains that we say that it is primarily ordered to second grace, that is, to the increase of grace. 2. If Extreme Unction were primarily ordered to conferring grace, and not to the increase of grace, the sacrament of Penance would not be, for all those who have fallen after Baptism, a necessary means of salvation to be employed in fact or in desire. It would be sufficient for the sick to have recourse to Extreme Unction. The Roman Catechism teaches the same: "For this sacrament was not instituted in the first place for the remission of graver crimes, but Baptism alone and Penance by their own power effect this."¹

II. Extreme Unction is secondarily a sacrament of the dead, that is, also in itself, but only secondarily, it is ordered to first grace. I said in itself; for St. James² and Trent,³ whose words are cited in the note, because they expressly state that sins are remitted through Extreme Unction, seem to suggest that the said sacrament by its nature is ordered also to that effect. There is added the fact that the form of the sacrament also expresses the remission of sins, indeed expresses that alone. I said only secondarily; this follows from the things by which we proved that Extreme Unction is primarily ordered to second grace. Therefore this sacrament differs from the other sacraments of the living, which confer first grace only accidentally.

Corollary I. But if you ask further what, with respect to the remission of mortal sins, those words "in itself, but secondarily" imply when Extreme Unction is being discussed, and what those words "accidentally" imply when the other sacraments of the living are being treated, it must be said thus: If someone constituted in mortal sin receives a sacrament of the living, Christ in Extreme Unction intends to infuse sanctifying grace in order to remit sin; while in the other sacraments of the living He intends to infuse sanctifying grace for another end proper to each sacrament.

Corollary II. As to the mode by which Extreme Unction remits sins, it must be said that mortal sins are remitted directly; concerning venial sins, it is disputed whether they are remitted directly or indirectly (p. 210).

¹ Part 2, c. 6, q. 14.

² "If," he says, "he be in sins, they shall be forgiven him" (James 5:15).

³ "It wipes away offenses, if there are any to be expiated, and the remains of sin" (Session 14, cap. 2).

Vol. II, Bk. III, Tr. VI, Diss. I, Part III. On the Effects of Extreme Unction

n. 575.

The primary effect, to which all the other effects are reduced, is disputed. According to the Scotists, Extreme Unction is ordered to the final remission of venial sins in the dying person who is now incapable of helping himself; from this remission of venial sins follows the relief of sorrow and sluggishness, which are effects of sin. They argue from the form of the sacrament, which seems directly destructive of sin. According to St. Thomas (Supplement, q. 30, a. 1) and St. Alphonsus (VI, 721, 731), it is ordered primarily to helping and strengthening the soul of the sick person, or to healing his spiritual infirmity, which is left in us from original and actual sin and which must especially be healed in the last struggle. But sins are remitted secondarily, namely insofar as they obstruct spiritual strengthening. This opinion is supported by the words of St. James, who seems to mention the remission of sins as a secondary effect: "And the prayer of faith shall save the sick man, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he be in sins, they shall be forgiven him."¹ In particular, the following are enumerated:

I. Sanctifying grace, in itself and primarily second grace, or the increase of grace; likewise in itself but secondarily first grace, as follows from the things said above (n. 574).

II. Sacramental grace, which consists in this, that the sanctifying grace which Extreme Unction increases is ordered to this: that the sick person not be cast down by illness, but on the contrary be strengthened in illness, and, having been strengthened, vigorously fight against the last temptations and readily bear the final pains; and it brings with itself a right to actual graces to be received in order to those effects. Now, that the sacramental grace of this sacrament is what we have described is supported first by these words of St. James: "And the Lord shall raise him up," that is, shall stir him up and strengthen him.² Then the Council of Florence says: "The effect of this sacrament is the healing of the mind and, insofar as it is expedient, also of the body."³ And the Council of Trent says: "Our most merciful Redeemer, who wished that at every time there be provided for His servants salutary remedies against all the weapons of all enemies, just as in the other sacraments He prepared the greatest helps by which Christians could preserve themselves whole, while they lived, from every graver harm of the spirit, so by the Sacrament of Extreme Unction He fortified the end of life as by a certain strongest protection. For although our adversary seeks and seizes occasions throughout the whole of life so that he may in any way be able to devour our souls, nevertheless there is no time at which he more vehemently strains every nerve of his cunning to destroy us utterly and, if he can, to disturb us even from confidence in the divine mercy, than when he perceives that the end of life is impending for us."⁴ Tradition is added, whose testimonies Kern brings forward (St. Thomas, Supplement, q. 30, a. 1, ad 2; St. Alphonsus, VI, 731).⁵

III. The remission of mortal sins; this is clearly gathered from the words of St. James and Trent cited above (St. Thomas, Supplement, q. 30, a. 1; St. Alphonsus, VI, 731). It is required, however, that the sick person be attrite, at least habitually. But this also suffices, since that cannot be demanded which already of itself remits mortal sins, namely contrition.

IV. The remission of venial sins. For St. James and the Council of Trent do not distinguish between mortal and venial sins. Besides, there is no reason to exclude venial sins; indeed, since lesser offenses are more easily remitted, there is rather reason to include them. Nevertheless they are not remitted unless the sick person is at least habitually attrite for them.

V. The remains of sins, as the Council of Trent cited above expressly states (St. Thomas, Supplement, q. 30, a. 1, ad 2; St. Alphonsus, VI, 731). "But the remains of sin here are not called dispositions left from acts, which are certain begun habits, but a certain spiritual weakness existing in the mind itself; when it has been removed, even if the same habits or dispositions remain, the mind cannot be inclined to sin in the same way" (St. Thomas, loc. cit.; St. Alphonsus, loc. cit.).

VI. The remission of punishments, which by some is also referred to the remains of sins of which we have just spoken, more or less fully according to the disposition of the recipient. Thus it is taught not improbably: for since the end of this sacrament is also the consummation of the Christian life, as the Council of Trent speaks,⁶ or the final disposition of the soul so that it may enter glory, it also remits temporal punishment; but, because Extreme Unction works by way of medicine, whose effect depends on the disposition of the subject, a greater or lesser remission of punishment is given according as the disposition of the subject is better or less good.

VII. Health of the body. This is clear both from the words of the Council of Florence cited above and from the Council of Trent, according to which the anointed person "sometimes obtains health of body, where it is expedient for the salvation of the soul."⁷ Besides, note:

Extreme Unction does not confer health of body if it is not expedient for the salvation of the soul. "The operative reason," says St. Thomas, "never induces a secondary effect except insofar as it is expedient for the principal effect; therefore from this sacrament bodily healing does not always follow, but when it is expedient for spiritual healing" (Supplement, q. 30, a. 2). But it is disputed whether this sacrament confers health whenever it is expedient for the soul, or only sometimes, that is, according to the order of divine wisdom and providence, as is said. Some deny that it always produces that effect whenever it profits the soul. They deduce that this happens only sometimes from the words of the Council of Trent cited above. Others teach the contrary, and think that the sense of the words of the Council of Trent is this: "sometimes, namely, where it is expedient for the salvation of the soul."
Extreme Unction confers health not by way of miracle, but insofar as spiritual strengthening overflows into the body, and brings with it a right that the means of recovering health be directed by the special Providence of God. "The unction," as the Council of Trent teaches, "raises up and confirms the soul of the sick person, exciting in him great confidence in the divine mercy; by this confidence the sick person, being relieved, bears the inconveniences and labors of illness more lightly, resists more easily the temptations of the devil lying in wait for his heel, and sometimes obtains health of body, where it is expedient for the salvation of the soul."⁸ And St. Thomas teaches that in Extreme Unction grace is conferred "not only so that it may remove guilt, but also the remains of guilt and the infirmity of the body" (Supplement, q. 29, a. 5), so that healing according to the holy Doctor must be called an effect of the grace conferred. Hence they are deprived of the aforesaid effect who defer reception of the sacrament so long that health cannot be expected without a miracle (St. Alphonsus, VI, 714).

¹ James 5:15.

² James 5:15.

³ Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 700.

⁴ Session XIV, De extrema unctione, Prooemium.

⁵ Op. cit., p. 238.

⁶ Session XIV, doctrine on the Sacrament of Extreme Unction.

⁷ Session XIV, De extrema unctione, cap. 2.

⁸ Loc. cit.

Vol. II, Bk. III, Tr. VI, Diss. I, Part IV. On the Necessity of Extreme Unction

n. 576.

I. Necessity of means must be denied, both because of canon 944, which denies it, and because of the reasons for which we denied the necessity of means of Confirmation (n. 116).

n. 577.

II. Necessity of precept. 1. There is an obligation of receiving Extreme Unction. This is deduced first from canon 944: "It is lawful for no one ... to neglect it." Then he who neglects a special means, instituted by Christ, by which the sick person is fortified and strengthened in those most serious moments of life on which eternity proximately depends, seems to sin against charity toward himself.¹

The obligation is quite probably only light. I understand the obligation in itself, because one who neglects Extreme Unction can accidentally sin gravely, for example by reason of scandal or contempt.² But in itself a grave obligation is quite probably lacking. The reason is that such an obligation is not established either from the nature of this sacrament, "which is not necessary for salvation, but only useful" (St. Alphonsus, VI, 733), or from a positive precept, because it is not clear that the words of St. James, "let him bring in the priests," are to be understood of a precept and not only of counsel; nor from the precept of charity toward oneself, "for charity does not oblige under grave precept to that which is better" (St. Alphonsus, loc. cit.). Finally, the Code does not settle this controversy, neither insofar as it concerns divine law, which it does not intend to interpret,³ nor insofar as the ecclesiastical Legislator imposes a grave precept in canon 944. If he had intended that, he would certainly have used clearer and weightier words.

Objection. The Council of Trent declares: "Now, as regards the prescription of those who ought both to receive and to minister this sacrament," etc.

Response. The Council does not intend to urge the obligation of reception, but rather to signify to whom the reception and to whom the ministration of the sacrament belongs.

¹ Cf. Council of Trent, session 14, De sacramento extremae unctionis, at the beginning and cap. 2.

² Cf. Council of Trent, loc. cit., cap. 3.

³ Cf. Preface.

Vol. II, Bk. III, Tr. VI, Dissertation II. On the Ministration of Extreme Unction

n. 578.

I. The ministering person. 1. Every priest, and only a priest, validly administers Extreme Unction (canon 938, § 1). This is of faith from the Council of Trent.¹ It can, moreover, as is clear from the Tradition and practice of the Church, be ministered both by one and by several priests.² But if several minister the sacrament, each should take care that he himself pronounce the respective form for the matter applied by himself. In the Latin Church it must be ministered by one alone.

But if the minister fails while ministering, and another is immediately present, the latter should continue where the other stopped. If a longer delay, for example a quarter of an hour, has intervened, the other should repeat conditionally the anointings performed by the first, namely because of doubt whether the union which perhaps is required between the particular anointings is present; then he should complete the others (St. Alphonsus, VI, 724).

Note. A priest cannot validly confer Extreme Unction on himself, as is deduced from the constant tradition and usage of the Church (n. 21).

The Ordinary and the parish priest of the place in which the sick person is staying licitly minister this sacrament; for that reason they are called the ordinary ministers of Extreme Unction. Besides, in a case of necessity, and likewise with the permission, either given or reasonably presumed, of the same parish priest or local Ordinary, any other priest can minister this sacrament (canon 938, § 2). In addition, the prescriptions of canons 397, 3°, and 514, §§ 1-3, remain firm; see these in the treatise on the Holy Eucharist, n. 164.

¹ Session 14, De sacramento extremae unctionis, canon 4.

² In the Greek Church Extreme Unction is conferred by seven, or at least by three, priests (Papp-Szilagyi, Enchiridion iuris ecclesiastici orientalis, p. 2, § 81). Cf. Sacred Congregation of Propaganda Fide, March 23, 1844 (Collectio, n. 818).

n. 579.

II. Obligation of ministering. 1. The ordinary minister is bound: 1. from justice and under grave obligation to minister Extreme Unction to subjects who ask for it, and indeed in good time; 2. under grave obligation to use prudent diligence so that subjects who are negligent about salvation may be warned in good time (St. Alphonsus, VI, 714, 729; cf. canon 939). As to the extent to which the ordinary minister is bound even with danger to life, see the treatise on the Sacraments in general, n. 34. Besides, these words apply to him before others: "With every zeal and diligence care must be taken that the sick receive it while they are fully in possession of themselves" (canon 944).

Any priest in a case of necessity is bound from charity to procure Extreme Unction for a sick person (canon 939). A case of necessity as taken here is already present if the ordinary minister is lacking and there is danger in delay. But the obligation in itself is light; accidentally it is grave if either the reason of grave scandal is added, or the sick person is probably in the state of mortal sin and will not be saved securely enough by confession, for example because he is deprived of the senses. That is, for receiving Extreme Unction fruitfully, attrition suffices, while for confession accusation is also required (St. Alphonsus, VI, 729).
Those who from charity or piety are bound to provide for the salvation of the sick person are likewise, in themselves, bound under light obligation to take care that the sick person receive Extreme Unction; under grave obligation in the case in which other priests are bound under grave obligation to minister it, as was explained under 2.

n. 580.

III. Things to be observed in ministering. 1. The Oil of Extreme Unction should be carried to the sick in the simple manner prescribed by the Roman Ritual,¹ not solemnly with surplice and lights,² unless the Holy Eucharist is carried at the same time. But if the latter is not carried at the same time, the minister, for example the sacristan, or the priest himself, should carry the surplice with him.

In the ministration itself, the following are prescribed under grave obligation: 1. sacred vestments, namely surplice and stole; to omit either is quite probably only venial; 2. the prayers assigned by the Ritual for the priest. Urgent necessity excuses from the foregoing.
It is prescribed under light obligation that a minister be used, and that he be male. If a male is lacking, a woman seems able to answer.
A lighted candle seems to be only of counsel, unless the priest needs it, since it is said to be lit "so that it may provide light to the one anointing." Likewise it seems to be counsel rather than a true precept that those standing by recite the Penitential Psalms and the Litanies. Finally, it is not established that it is prescribed under sin that, contrary to ancient custom, Extreme Unction be ministered after Viaticum (St. Alphonsus, VI, 716, 726-728).

¹ Title V, cap. 1, n. 13, and cap. 2, n. 2.

² Sacred Congregation of Rites, January 23, 1606, n. 106.

Vol. II, Bk. III, Tr. VI, Diss. III, Part I. On the Person Receiving

n. 581.

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:

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

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.

n. 582.

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.

n. 583.

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:

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).
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.
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.

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.

Vol. II, Bk. III, Tr. VI, Diss. III, Pt. I, Scholion. On the Anointing of Baptized Non-Catholics

n. 584.

We speak of baptized non-Catholics who are in good faith, or at least not certainly in bad faith. Now:

I. Outside the danger of death, baptized non-Catholics cannot licitly be anointed, according to what was said in the treatise on Penance (n. 478).

II. In danger of death. We distinguish between non-Catholics who admit Extreme Unction and those who reject it.

Those who admit Extreme Unction, as for example schismatics, can be anointed as follows:

a) If they are already deprived of the senses, scandal having been removed, they can be anointed according to what was set forth in the treatise on Penance (n. 478).

b) If they are not deprived of the senses, in themselves they cannot be anointed; accidentally they seem able to be anointed according as we spoke about the granting of absolution (n. 478).

Those who reject Extreme Unction should not be anointed; nevertheless I would not condemn one who conditionally anoints them, according to what was said in the treatise on Penance (n. 478).

Corollary I. In doubt whether the person to be anointed is baptized, or validly baptized, first he must be baptized or rebaptized conditionally.

Corollary II. Prudence, considering the common good, can readily prohibit a non-Catholic from being anointed. Besides, as we already noted in the treatise on Penance, one who assists a dying non-Catholic should strive to bring him to acts of contrition and charity, so that he may be saved more securely.

Corollary III. Having set forth those things which regard the subject of Extreme Unction, it is useful to state briefly to which dying persons deprived of the senses Extreme Unction can be conferred. Now it can be conferred: 1. on Catholics, even if they have not fulfilled religious duties or have been deprived of the senses in the act of sin; 2. on those whom, after an examination has been made if the occasion allows, you suspect with some probability to be Catholics; 3. on apostates; 4. on heretics who admit Extreme Unction, or have shown an inclination toward the Catholic Church; likewise, others add, on those who do not admit Extreme Unction and have not shown the said inclination, unless, however, prudence prohibits them from being anointed.

From those enumerated, only those are excepted who here and now certainly persevere contumaciously in mortal sin.

Vol. II, Bk. III, Tr. VI, Diss. III, Part II. On the Manner of Receiving Extreme Unction

n. 585.

With respect to both the valid and licit reception of Extreme Unction, we refer to those things which we noted in the treatise on the Sacraments in general. It is useful, however, to complete in a few words those things which regard licit reception. Now:

I. For licit reception the state of grace is required. For the reverence due to the sacrament requires a state which corresponds to the end to which it is primarily ordered. But Extreme Unction is primarily ordered to increasing grace. Therefore the state of grace must already be present. If, however, someone attrite and in good faith receives the sacrament, he recovers grace (n. 6).

II. The state of grace can be recovered, by one who is in mortal sin, by reason of Extreme Unction either through confession or through perfect contrition; but by reason of Communion, if this is placed before Extreme Unction, it must be recovered through confession (n. 43). But Communion - although at most only under light obligation - is to be placed before Extreme Unction, according to these words of the Roman Ritual: "From the general custom of the Church it is to be observed that, if time and the condition of the sick person permit, the Sacraments of Penance and Eucharist be given to the sick before Extreme Unction"¹ (St. Alphonsus, VI, 716).

Note 1. If the one to be anointed is excommunicated, he should be freed from excommunication before he is absolved from sins and given holy Communion and Extreme Unction.

Note 2. If the sick person suffers from frenzy or insanity, care must be taken that he do nothing against the reverence of the sacrament, for example, if necessary, by binding or firmly holding the sick person (St. Alphonsus, VI, 732).

¹ Title V, cap. 1, n. 2.

Vol. II, Bk. III, Tr. VI, Diss. III, Part III. On the Repeated Reception of Extreme Unction

n. 586.

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.

n. 587.

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.

McHugh–Callan, Moral Theology

John A. McHugh, O.P., and Charles J. Callan, O.P. — 3 passages (filed under the subtopics)

Vol. II, Pt. II, Q. IV, Art. 3. Repentance; Penanc…, The Minister

n. 2750.

Requirements in the Minister for Valid Absolution

Requirements in the Minister for Valid Absolution.—(a) The divine law requires the power of Orders, for only priests were appointed by Christ as the ministers of Penance, (b) The natural law requires the power of jurisdiction, since the Sacrament of Penance is exercised in the form of a judicial process, which supposes authority to judge. (c) The law of the Church requires the approval of the Bishop, or his decision that the priest is a fit person to hear confessions. Approbation is always given along with jurisdiction.

Vol. II, Pt. II, Q. IV, Art. 3. Repentance; Penanc…, The Sacrament of Extreme Unction

n. 2774.

The Sacrament of Extreme Unction

The Sacrament of Extreme Unction.—As Confirmation perfects Baptism by bringing to maturity the new life of grace, so Extreme Unction perfects Penance by strengthening against the spiritual debility that remains after sin itself has been wiped away. Confirmation makes ready for the battle of life, Extreme Unction assists during the struggle of death. The fifth Sacrament is defined: “A Sacrament of the New Law in which through the anointing with oil and the prayer of the priest adult persons who are in danger of death receive health of soul, and also at times health of body.”

(a) The remote matter or element of the Sacrament is oil (James, v, 14, 15). For validity it is required that this be olive oil, blessed by a bishop or by a priest having special papal delegation, with the special blessing for the oil of the sick (O. I.); for lawfulness, sub gravi that it be oil blessed the previous Holy Thursday (Canon 734), sub levi at least that it be blessed by the bishop of the diocese, or, in case of vacancy, by the neighboring bishop. In necessity the old oils may be lawfully used, while chrism and the oil of the catechumens may be used as doubtful matter. Unblessed oils and oils blessed by an unauthorized priest do not suffice for validity.

(b) The proximate matter is the anointing of the sick man with blessed oil. In urgent necessity it suffices to anoint one sense, or rather the forehead; in other cases the various senses should be anointed in the order given in the Ritual. Each anointing of a double sense should begin with the right organ (e.g., the right eye) and should be given with the right thumb in the form of a cross. If one organ is missing (e.g., a hand amputated), the anointing should be made, if possible, near to its place (e.g., on the wrist); if there is danger of contagion, the anointing may be made by means of an instrument, such as a brush or small stick. The anointing of the reins should always be omitted and the anointing of the feet may be omitted for any good reason, such as inconvenience to the dying person.

(c) The form of the Sacrament is the prayer used by the priest. In the Latin Church the ordinary form is contained in the words: “Per istam sanctam unctionem, etc. By this holy anointing and His most tender mercy may the Lord forgive thee whatever sin thou hast committed by sight (by hearing, by smell, by taste and speech, by touch, by thy steps). Amen.” The extraordinary rite for use when there is not time to give all the anointings is bestowed on the forehead in the words: “Per istam sanctam unctionem et suam piissimam misericordiam indulgeat tibi Dominus quidquid deliquisti. Amen.” The essential words of the form are: “Per istam unctionem indulgeat tibi Dominus quidquid deliquisti,” because they express the intercession and the effect of the rite. It would probably be a grave sin to omit the reference to the senses in the ordinary form, as that seems to be a notable part of the form; but it would be a light sin, apart from contempt or scandal, to omit an unimportant word such as “Amen.” If there is doubt about the recipient’s capacity (i.e., whether he has reached the use of reason, whether he is in danger of death, whether he is already dead, whether he is impenitent and unwilling to receive the Sacrament), the form should be conditional. The condition should be “si es capax,” not “si es dispositus,” even in the last-mentioned case. For the Sacrament is given validly even to one who is not well disposed (i.e., who lacks repentance) and there is thus the possibility, when validity is not made dependent on the condition of good disposition, that sacramental fruitfulness will follow later when impenitence, the obstacle to the Sacrament’s activity, shall have been removed.

(d) The recipient of the Sacrament is a Catholic who after attaining the use of reason has come into the danger of death through sickness or old age. No one is capable of receiving this Sacrament unless he is baptized, for Baptism is the gateway of the Sacraments (2671); unless he has reached the use of reason, for the Sacrament is a remedy against personal sin and supposes that the recipient can or formerly could distinguish between right and wrong; unless he is in danger of death through the infirmity of disease or of decrepitude, for St. James teaches that the anointing is for those who are enfeebled by illness dangerous unto death. Hence Extreme Unction cannot be administered validly to the unbaptized, to young children who have not come to the use of reason, to the perpetually insane, to those who are sick but not in danger of death, to those who are in danger of death but not sick (e.g., a strong man going to the gallows or to battle). But the Sacrament may be administered to children who have not yet made their first confession, if they are capable of sin, and to the insane who once had the use of reason. The danger of death need not be immediate, and hence Extreme Unction may be given when the disease is mortal but the patient will last for several months or even a year, as in tuberculosis. Illness includes not only chronic sickness, but also fatal disorders caused by wounds, accidents, poison. The rule about the old is that those who have reached sixty years and show some signs of approaching death, such as great feebleness or fainting spells, even though they have no special malady, may be anointed; for their old age itself is a disease.

(e) The minister of Extreme Unction is the priest, since St. James directs that the presbyters (i.e., the priests) of the Church be called to anoint the sick. Extreme Unction, unlike Penance, is not exercised in the form of a judicial process, and hence the power of Orders suffices for its valid administration, and any priest, even one who lacks jurisdiction, gives it validly. But for lawful administration church law prescribes that the minister regularly be the ecclesiastical superior or spiritual director (i.e., the pastor for his parish, the head of a clerical religious institute for his house, the parish-priest or chaplain for a lay religious body, the confessor for nuns), and that the minister extraordinarily (i.e., in necessity) be any other priest who has permission, or reasonably presumed permission.

(f) The effects of Extreme Unction are per se an increase of sanctifying grace, since this is a Sacrament of the Living; per accidens (i.e., when the recipient is not in the state of grace, but is in good faith and has attrition) the forgiveness of sins and first grace. Extreme Unction produces first grace more surely than does absolution, if the penitent is unconscious, since it does not call for any external manifestation of contrition; hence the importance of anointing those who are dying but unconscious. The special benefit of Extreme Unction is immediate preparation of the soul for entrance to heaven, though restoration of the health of the body is sometimes vouchsafed when this is for the spiritual good of the sick person. Venial sins and the remains of past sins (i.e., the debility left by them) are removed and the soul is strengthened with confidence as to things past and future and with peace and resignation as to present suffering. Since the Sacrament is given for the period of danger of death, it cannot be repeated during the same danger; but should the patient recover and relapse into a distinct danger through the same or another sickness, there arises a new need and the Sacrament may then be repeated.

Vol. II, Pt. II, Q. IV, Art. 3. Repentance; Penanc…, Duties of the Recipient and the Minister of Extreme Unction

n. 2775.

Special Duties

Special Duties.—In addition to the duties that are common in all the Sacraments, the following duties should be noted in reference to Extreme Unction.

(a) The Recipient.—Per se, Extreme Unction is not necessary as a means to salvation, for sanctifying grace may be had or recovered without it; but per accidens it would be necessary as a means, if a dying person were in mortal sin and could not recover grace except through it. He who omits Extreme Unction unwillingly or for a good reason (e.g., because he is well prepared for death and cannot get a priest without very grave inconvenience) does not sin. He who omits the Sacrament voluntarily and without good reason, is guilty of grave sin if he acts from contempt, or gives scandal, or exposes himself to eternal damnation; but if there is no contempt, scandal or danger to salvation, sin is indeed committed by the neglect at such a crisis of so important a spiritual aid, but only venial sin, since there is no grave precept to receive this Sacrament. The recipient of Extreme Unction should be in the state of grace; and hence, if he has mortal sin on his conscience, he must beforehand make an act of contrition or receive absolution with attrition, or, if neither is possible, he must make an act of attrition. The custom of the Church calls for confession before Extreme Unction, and divine law commands confession if one is in mortal sin and in danger of death.

(b) The Minister.—The pastor is gravely bound in justice to give or have given the Sacrament of Extreme Unction to all his subjects who reasonably request it; other priests not charged with the spiritual care of the dying person are held in charity to anoint him, if he has not received the last rites and cannot otherwise be anointed. It is clear that sick calls should be attended to promptly, and it would be a serious matter to delay so long as to put the sick person in danger of dying without Extreme Unction or of receiving it when he had become unconscious and could not dispose himself properly. If the person has been pronounced dead before the priest’s arrival, he should nevertheless be absolved and anointed conditionally if the last breath was not long before; because physicians teach that death takes possession gradually, life lingering in the body for some time after its external signs have ceased, for about a half hour when the end has come after long illness, for one or two hours when death is sudden or accidental. The ceremonies are obligatory under pain of sin, and it is considered a serious matter to neglect the more notable parts, that is, without reason to omit all or nearly all the prayers, or to give the Sacrament without any sacred vestment.

(c) The Pastor.—The oil of the sick should be kept in a neat and properly decorated place, and should be contained in a vessel of silver or white metal. Only in exceptional cases is it lawful to keep it in the rectory (Canon 946). The Catechism of the Council of Trent (page 307) declares that Extreme Unction should form a subject of frequent instruction. It is important to exhort the people not to delay in sending for the priest till the sick person has become insensible, nor to omit to send for him in case of sudden death, since, as already said, life remains for some time in the body after apparent death.

(d) The People.—All those who are responsible for the good of the dying person, such as members of the family, physicians, nurses, relatives, friends, or neighbors, should beware of deceiving him about his condition and his need of preparation for death; on the contrary, they should see to it as far as they can, that he receives the last Sacraments in good time and while he has the full use of his senses, when the spiritual benefit and the comfort of mind will be of greater assistance and the bodily cure more likely.

Bucceroni, Moral Enchiridion

Gennaro Bucceroni, S.J. — 11 passages

Bucceroni, Moral Enchiridion, On Extreme Unction

N. 675. - On the Anointing of the Feet and of the Loins

"Which part of the feet, the upper or lower, is to be anointed in the Sacrament of Extreme Unction? Resp. Nothing is to be innovated." S. R. C. 27 Aug. 1836. Cf. Gardell. n. 4780.

"The good pleasure of His Holiness is desired, that in Extreme Unction to be given to women, the anointing of the feet be omitted. It was responded at another time: the common custom of the Church is to be observed." Qualifiers of the Holy Office, 1674, Father Navarette, Missionary in China. Cf. On Baptism, N. 253.

"But as regards the anointing of the loins, which Your Amplitude testifies was never employed in that Diocese in administering the Sacrament of Extreme Unction, and which therefore you request be permitted to be omitted in the Roman Ritual, it seemed to the Sacred Congregation that no suppression or change whatever in the Ritual, whether in this or in any other matter whatever, ought to be introduced, but it willed that it be printed integrally and faithfully as it was edited by Paul V and revised and corrected by Benedict XIV. But if the anointing of the loins has been unused there until now, the Sacred Congregation declared that it indeed would patiently bear it, if the singular circumstances of that Diocese impede that this anointing be immediately and universally reduced to practice; at the same time, however, it expressed its most ardent wish that, through the care of Your Amplitude and by the teaching of Parish Priests, the faithful be gradually and imperceptibly disposed to receiving also that special anointing in the final struggle, according to the prescriptions of the Roman Ritual." S. R. C. 14 Aug. 1858, Utrecht.

N. 677. - On Oil Not Blessed by a Bishop

"Whether the Sacrament of Extreme Unction can be validly ministered with oil not consecrated by Episcopal blessing? Resp. Negatively. The S. C. I. condemned the contrary doctrine as rash and proximate to error." 13 Jan. 1655; 14 Sept. 1842.

N. 681. - On the Administration of Extreme Unction by Means of an Instrument

"Whether in that Diocese of Port Louis, in which the use has prevailed of employing a style or little silver rod in the administration of Extreme Unction, that use itself can safely be continued? Resp. Negatively, the cause of necessity being removed." S. R. C. 9 May 1857.

N. 684. - On Extreme Unction to Be Ministered to Oneself

"The very words of divine utterance having been inspected, it is easily clear that the Sacrament of Extreme Unction, even in a case of necessity, namely when another Presbyter is absent, cannot be ministered by a sick Missionary to himself." S. C. de P. F. 23 March 1844.

On the Ceremonies of Extreme Unction

The Oil of Extreme Unction is not to be carried solemnly to the sick with surplice and lanterns. S. R. C. 28 Jan. 1606.

"Priests exercising care of souls, for their own convenience, retain with themselves in their houses the Holy Oil of the sick. Whether, account being had of custom, they can lawfully retain this practice? Resp. Negatively, and let the Roman Ritual be observed; except, however, the case of great distance from the church; in which case the Rubric is altogether to be observed, even at home, as regards honest, decent, and safe custody." S. R. C. 16 Dec. 1826.

N. 690. - On Extreme Unction to Be Conferred Immediately After Baptism

"When some adult Pagan sufficiently instructed and duly disposed is baptized, because he has fallen into grave illness, ought, indeed can, the sacrament of Extreme Unction be conferred upon him immediately after Baptism? Resp. Affirmatively, with the form of the Decree of the Holy Office of the year 1803 observed." S. C. de P. F. 26 Sept. 1821.

On One Gravely Sick, Not Nearly Dying, in Places of Missions

"Sometimes when Missionaries visit the Christians committed to them, there occurs a sick person laboring from hectic fever or a similar disease, who according to experience will still live several months, but will die within a year. It is asked whether in such a case the Missionary can administer to him Viaticum and Extreme Unction, because when the more true case of receiving them will be present, a Missionary will not be able to be had present because of great distance and other circumstances impeding it? Resp. Affirmatively." S. C. de P. F. 20 Feb. 1801.

Vol. III, On the Eucharist, VII. Various Adjuncts of Mass · Vol. III, On Extreme Unction, On the Nature, Matter and Form, Minister and Subject of Extreme Unction · Vol. IV, On Censures, IV. On Interdict · Vol. IV, On the Constitution *Apostolicae Sedis*

N. 693. - On the Dispositions Prerequisite for Extreme Unction

"Whether Extreme Unction is to be conferred on dying adults whom we sometimes believe capable of Baptism, but not of the other Sacraments? Resp. The sacrament of Extreme Unction is not to be conferred on a dying neophyte whom the Missionary believed capable of Baptism, unless at least the same person has some intention of receiving Sacred Unction ordered for the benefit of the soul for the time of death." Holy Office, 1803; 10 Apr. 1861. Cf. On Confirmation, N. 271.

Bucceroni, Institutions of Moral Theology

Gennaro Bucceroni, S.J. — 15 passages

Vol. III, On the Eucharist, VII. Various Adjuncts of Mass

n. 658.

Is it ever lawful to interrupt Mass? - It is never lawful to interrupt Mass essentially, or in such a way that the sacrifice begun remains truncated, unless a most grave or extreme necessity urges, as in the case of an imminent fire or of an enemy rushing in to kill; for then the priest, omitting the consecration of the chalice, could consume the host already consecrated, or carry it away with him while fleeing. But if he has completed both consecrations, let him immediately consume both species, if he can; or if he cannot, let him carry them with him, to be consumed very quickly in a nearby place. - Nor is it lawful to interrupt Mass accidentally, unless for a just cause before the oblation, for example, because of a sermon after the Gospel, because proclamations of banns are to be made. S. R. C., March 23, 1881, n. 3529.

Nor is it lawful to interrupt Mass except for a grave cause before the Canon, for example: 1. To receive a procession, in honor of an arriving Prince, or a crowd of pilgrims on a feast day, if otherwise they cannot hear Mass. And if the oblation has not been made, the priest can begin anew, so that they may hear the whole sacred rite. 2. If the priest remembers some impediment, e.g., that he is not fasting, or not in the state of grace, or is irregular, provided the Mass can be left without scandal or disgrace. - 3. If the church is polluted or one to be avoided arrives. - But it is not lawful to interrupt Mass once the Canon has begun, unless for a graver cause; and after the consecration has been completed, unless for a most grave cause, e.g., if a dying person must be baptized or absolved. But it is not lawful to administer other sacraments between the consecration and communion, because they are not of such great necessity. Nevertheless Holy Viaticum could be administered to a dying person who was nearby, so that the priest would not have to remove the sacred vestments. But for this it is also required that the celebrant not lose sight of the altar. S. R. C., Dec. 19, 1829, ad 1, n. 2672. Cf. S. R. C., Dec. 7, 1844, n. 2885; Feb. 7, 1874, n. 3322; May 11, 1878, ad 8, n. 3446. "Most theologians... permit a priest to interrupt Mass in order to administer extreme unction to a sick person near death to whom no other sacrament could be conferred." Benedict XIV, de Syn., l. 8, c. 6, n. 5; L. 728. - If Mass has been interrupted, if the celebrant returns shortly, it is to be resumed by him from the place where it was interrupted; but if after an hour, and the consecration had not yet been made, it must again be begun from the beginning. And if another priest completes the Mass begun by another after at least one consecration has been performed, he cannot then celebrate another Mass. S. R. C., Dec. 16, 1823, n. 2630. - L. 352, 353, 355; St. Thomas, 3 p., q. 83, a. 6, ad 1; Rubr. Miss., De defect.

Vol. III, On Extreme Unction, On the Nature, Matter and Form, Minister and Subject of Extreme Unction

What is extreme unction? - Extreme Unction is so called because, of all the sacred unctions which the Lord our Savior entrusted to his Church, it is the last to be administered. Roman Catechism 3. Extreme unction is a sacrament of the New Law, instituted by Christ the Lord and promulgated by Blessed James the Apostle, by which, through anointing with oil and the prayer of the priest, there is conferred upon sick adults in danger of life the salvation of the soul, and sometimes also health of the body. James 5:14, 15; Trent, sess. 7, c. 1; sess. 14, de E. U., C. 1, c. 1, 2; Florence, Decree for the Armenians; L. 706; Decree of the Holy Office Lamentabili, July 3, 1907, prop. 48; St. Thomas, Suppl., q. 29, a. 1, 3; 4, d. 23, q. 1, a. 1; E. M.

n. 862.

What are the effects of extreme unction? - To confer grace. - To remit venial sins, and also mortal sins if they are present and there is at least attrition for them, if one can neither be contrite nor confess. This sacrament is the complement of penance, for it was chiefly instituted to wipe away the remnants of sins. "But because, when sin is found in the soul, the remnants cannot be taken away unless the sin is first taken away, therefore consequently this sacrament takes away sin." L. 731. Hence it is primarily a sacrament of the living, secondarily of the dead. Therefore Confession or contrition ought, of itself, to precede if the sick person is in mortal sin. - To wipe away the remnants of sin and to relieve and strengthen the soul of the sick person. - The remnants of sin are not only the punishments due to sins, but also anxiety and fear of soul, weakness and torpor toward good.

Therefore the effect of this sacrament is the strengthening of the sick person against the temptations of the devil, the relief and raising of the soul by hope in the divine goodness and mercy. - Sometimes to restore health of body, where this is expedient for the salvation of the soul, by aiding natural causes. Therefore they err who do not receive this sacrament except when the sickness has prevailed so much that they cannot be healed without a miracle. - James, l.c.; Trent, sess. 14, de E. U., C. 2, c. 2; Florence, Decree for the Armenians; Roman Catechism, n. 5-7, 9, 12, 14-16; L. 714, 716, 731; Billuart, art. 7; St. Thomas, Suppl., q. 29, a. 1 ad 2, ad 3, a. 2; q. 30; q. 32.

n. 863.

Does extreme unction confer grace in the individual anointings, or only when all are completed? - It is disputed, and each opinion is probable to St. Alphonsus. The reason is that each anointing is completed by its own matter and form; but from all of them one anointing at last coalesces. L. 707, H. A., tr. 17, n. 3. But St. Thomas, Suppl., q. 30, a. 1 ad 3, says: "grace is conferred in the last anointing." - Yet "it is certain that this sacrament is one; for although the anointings are several, nevertheless all pertain to one signification of interior healing." L. 706. - St. Thomas, Suppl., q. 29, a. 2; Benedict XIV, de Syn., l. 8, c. 3; Roman Catechism, n. 4.

What is the matter of extreme unction? - The remote matter of this sacrament is necessarily olive oil, which must be blessed by a Bishop not only for liceity but also for validity, even when extreme necessity presses. Trent, sess. 14, C. 1; Florence, Decree for the Armenians; S. I. C., Jan. 13, 1665; Sept. 14, 1842; Jan. 10, 1850; May 15, 1878. By a Bishop, namely by the diocesan, or, when the See is vacant, by another neighboring Bishop; on Holy Thursday the oil of the sick, just like the oil of catechumens and chrism, must be renewed each year, though not for the validity of the sacrament, from the precept of Clement VIII and from the Roman Ritual, de Extr. Unct. And this more probably is grave. Nevertheless, if new oil cannot be had, it is licit to use the old. L. 708. It was granted to Latin America by Leo XIII, Constitution Trans oceanum, "that sacred oils even old ones can be used, yet not beyond four years, provided they are not corrupted, and after all diligence has been carried out new or more recent sacred oils cannot be had." But if perhaps within the year the blessed oil seems to be failing, and no other blessed oil can be had, it can be repaired by pouring in a small amount of unblessed oil in lesser quantity. Roman Ritual. And this several times, although in the end the added quantity has been greater than that which was blessed by the Bishop and which was there from the beginning. Blessed; whether it must be blessed in order to extreme unction is disputed. Some probably deny, because the Church requires nothing else except that it be blessed by a Bishop. Others probably affirm, because by a special blessing it must be deputed to the sacrament of extreme unction. Yet in practice the safer opinion is to be held, except in a case of necessity, in which, after another oil of catechumens or chrism has been used, which is used in the sacrament of confirmation and in the ceremonies of baptism, if afterward the oil of the sick can be had, the sacrament is to be repeated. Blessed. A simple priest by concession of the Supreme Pontiff can bless oil of this kind, as is clear from the use of the Greek Church. Benedict XIV, de Syn., l. 8, c. 1, n. 4.

The oil is to be preserved in a clean and decently adorned place, in a silver or tin vessel, Roman Ritual, de Sacr. extr. unct., namely in the church or sacristy, or even at home, if the pastor's house is very distant from the church. S. R. C., Dec. 16, 1826, n. 2650.

The proximate matter is the anointing of five principal parts of the body, namely the eyes, ears, nostrils, mouth, hands, or, if someone lacks one of them, the part nearest to it, although he has lacked it from birth. But whether all these anointings are necessary by necessity of the sacrament, or whether one alone suffices, with a universal form comprehending all the senses, is disputed, and each opinion is probable; and in practice, outside the case of necessity, one must stand by the opinion affirming the necessity of all. Yet the resolution of the Holy Office about one form, although in a case of necessity, seems to favor one anointing. Cf. 869. Nor indeed is the order among the various anointings of parts necessary for the sacrament; nor, in paired senses, is the anointing of each necessary, but only by precept is it to be observed outside a case of necessity. Besides, unless the usage of the place provides otherwise, the feet and loins are to be anointed, but the loins only of men, provided they can conveniently be moved. In some places the anointing of the loins is omitted in male religious. Where however it is not in use, let it be introduced, if this can be done. S. R. C., Aug. 14, 1858. And it can never be omitted unless in particular cases, with precautions applied, decency cannot otherwise be sufficiently provided for. Holy Office, May 15, 1878. The Greeks anoint the forehead, chin, both cheeks, breast, hands, and feet. - Trent, sess. 14, C. 1, c. 3; Florence, Decree for the Armenians; Roman Ritual, de Sacr. Extr. Unct.; Roman Catechism, n. 5, 10; Benedict XIV, de Syn., l. 8, c. 1, n. 4, c. 3; L. 707, 710, 732; St. Thomas, Suppl., q. 29, a. 4, 6; q. 32, a. 5-7; E. M.

n. 865.

What is the form of extreme unction? - The form is: "Through this holy anointing, and his most loving mercy, may the Lord forgive you whatever you have committed through sight, or hearing, etc. Amen." Roman Ritual, de Sacr. Extr. Unct.; Florence, Decree for the Armenians. Certainly essential are: Through this anointing, by which the sacramental action is signified; May the Lord forgive you, by which the sacramental effect is expressed generally; more truly also, when it is conferred in the ordinary way, outside a case of necessity, cf. 869, Whatever through sight, etc., you have committed, by which the special effect of this sacrament is contained; and in a case of true necessity, when one anointing and one form have been used, whatever you have committed.

On the contrary, more truly the following are not essential: Through his mercy; for they are tacitly comprehended in the words, May God forgive you; nor certainly are these essential: Holy, Most loving, Amen, which signify neither the sacramental action nor the sacramental effect. To omit essentials is grave; accidentals light or grave according as the omission is light or notable.

Therefore it is grave to omit through his mercy; but light to omit holy, or most loving, or amen. The form of Extreme Unction is essentially deprecatory. Roman Ritual, l.c. Therefore, if it is pronounced in the indicative or imperative mode, according to the more common opinion, it is invalid. - Florence, Decree for the Armenians; Trent, sess. 14, de E. U., C. 1; Benedict XIV, de Syn., l. 8, c. 2; L. 710, 711; St. Thomas, Suppl., q. 29, a. 7, 8, 9. "Although some change certain words, when for May God forgive you they put May he remit or May he spare; sometimes also, May he heal whatever you have committed; nevertheless, because no change of meaning is made, it is clear that the same form is religiously observed by all." Roman Catechism, n. 6. Cf. here 869.

n. 866.

Who is the minister of extreme unction? - The minister of Extreme Unction is a priest. Any priest validly confers it; licitly only the pastor of the place in which someone is sick, who confers it also on clerics, but not on Regulars and those who enjoy the privileges of Regulars. For their own prelate confers it on Regulars. St. Pius V, Constitution Immarcescibilem, 1567. The Bishop himself chooses by whom he would prefer to be anointed, whether the Sacristan, i.e., the greater Dignitary of his Chapter, or the Curate. Ceremonial of Bishops, C. 38, § 4; S. C. C., June 7, 1760; March 24, 1873, A. S. S., vol. 8, p. 202 ff. - But any priest can more probably licitly also minister this sacrament from the reasonably presumed consent of the pastor. For it does not seem that one must proceed with such rigor where there is question of mere delegation for liceity, and in no way for the validity of the sacrament.

They validly confer it whether one priest or several; and these either simultaneously perform the various anointings, one anointing one part, another another, and pronouncing the form corresponding to that anointing; or successively, if namely one begins the anointings and another continues them. But outside the case of necessity this is grave, namely either of the sick person about to die soon, or because, once the anointings have begun and have not yet been completed, the minister fails. But if this happens, another minister must complete the anointings not yet performed, but must not repeat those performed, not even under condition, unless a notable delay intervenes, namely a quarter of an hour; therefore after a quarter hour they must be repeated under condition. - But in the Greek Church seven or at least three priests anoint the sick person. Benedict XIV, de Syn., l. 8, c. 4, n. 8. - James, Catholic Epistle, 5:14; Trent, sess. 14, C. 1, 3, c. 4; Florence, Decree for the Armenians; L. 722, 723, 724; St. Thomas, Suppl., q. 29, a. 2 ad 3; q. 31; Roman Catechism, n. 13; Benedict XIV, de Syn., l. 8, c. 4; E. M.

n. 867.

How are the anointings to be performed? - As regards validity, the part must be truly anointed; but to anoint is to smear with oil. Therefore if the oil is only dripped, there is no anointing; but whether one drop of oil suffices is disputed. Moreover, it suffices in the individual anointings to dip the tip of the finger in the oil and anoint. L. 709. - All the senses are to be anointed, and indeed continuously.

The reason is that it is probable that from all of them one anointing coalesces, and that grace is conferred when all have been completed; but if a longer delay is interposed between one and another anointing, the moral union is no longer preserved and the sacrament becomes doubtful. - As regards liceity, the anointing must be made with the thumb, and it is light matter to use another finger; nor may a little rod or brush be used, even if usage has this, except from a cause of necessity, if, e.g., the sick person is laboring under a contagious disease. S. R. C., May 9, 1857, Portus Aloysii, ad 2; Benedict XIV, de Syn., l. 13, c. 19; L. 710. Likewise, except for a cause of necessity, neither in baptism is it lawful to use a little rod or brush. S. R. C., Aug. 31, 1872, n. 3276. The anointings must be made in the figure of a cross, and again this is light matter, L. 728; and in the prescribed order, which some judge grave, others of itself light, since there is question only of a certain accidental manner, L. 710; and in paired senses, which is grave, and one must begin from the right; nor is the form to be completed before paired members of this kind have been anointed, which seems light. Roman Ritual, de Sacr. extr. unct.; L. 711; St. Thomas, Suppl., q. 29, a. 2; q. 32, a. 5; E. M.

Note: The anointing begins from the eyes. That they may be anointed conveniently, they must be closed, and the anointing made upon both eyelids. If they cannot be closed, let the anointing be made on the eyebrows, near the corners of the eyes, as the very ancient Catalan Ritual has it. - The ears come next, which are anointed on the lobe or lowest part of the ear; not on the helix or in its hollow, and this so that they can more easily be wiped. - The nostrils; let the nostrils be anointed outside, which are the lateral wings of the nose, to avoid sneezing, which would easily arise if it were done otherwise. - The mouth, with the lips pressed together: here there must be one anointing, and therefore the lips are to be joined so that it can be done more easily; but, if this could not be obtained, it will suffice that the lower or upper lip be anointed; nevertheless there are those who still anoint each. - The hands; the anointing is made in the middle of the palm of each hand, or on another nearer part if it cannot be done otherwise, nevertheless on the inner side; for only priests and Bishops must be anointed on the outer part of the hand. - The feet; the anointing is made at the metatarsus, commonly the instep; according to St. Charles it is made on the soles, because namely we use them for walking. Moreover it will suffice if that part of the feet is anointed which conveniently can be; nor does it matter if both cannot be anointed because of sickness, or difficulty, or because one has been cut off; for this anointing is only an integral part. And indeed the feet fall under the sense of touch. The anointing of the loins may be omitted while the essence of the sacrament nevertheless remains. For the loins fall under all the other five senses, which according to St. Thomas, Suppl., q. 32, a. 6, are, as principles of acting, so principles of sinning.

Each piece of cotton or similar thing prepared for wiping the anointed parts serves for each paired member anointed. The priest rubs well with bread crumb the thumb with which he anointed, and washes it with water in some vessel prepared for this, then wipes it with a towel; but he brings the water-washing together with the crumbs and the tufts of cotton used for wiping to the sacrarium. Yet some are accustomed to hand over all these things to be burned in the house itself of the sick person, and to carry to the sacrarium only the cotton or tow that was anointed. - Trent, sess. 14, c. 3; Benedict XIV, de Syn., l. 8, c. 3; L. 711, 730; E. M.

n. 869.

Is it ever lawful to minister extreme unction with one form and one anointing? - If danger of imminent death is present, it is lawful to perform all the anointings under one formula: "Through this holy anointing and his most loving mercy may God forgive you whatever you have committed through sight," while he anoints the eyes, "hearing," while he anoints the ears, etc., putting the word committed before, lest if it is placed after and the sick person dies in the meantime, the anointings performed would be utterly invalid. Indeed, when death is soon imminent, one anointing on the forehead, or breast, or shoulders will suffice, with these words: whatever you have committed THROUGH THE SENSES; or better, by expressing the senses thus: Through this holy anointing, etc., may God forgive you whatever you have committed through the senses: sight, hearing, taste, smell, and touch. And "in a case of true necessity the form suffices: Through this holy anointing may the Lord forgive you whatever you have committed. Amen." Holy Office, Apr. 25, 1906. And consequently one anointing also suffices. - L. 710; Benedict XIV, de Syn., l. 8, c. 3; A. S. S., vol. 33, fasc. 7.

n. 870.

What of the various ceremonies and prescribed prayers? - It is grave, without urgent necessity, to omit the prayers prescribed by the Roman Ritual; and if they have been omitted because of danger of instant death, afterward, if time is available, they will have to be said. The prayers which precede the anointings; the Psalms and Litanies are not to be said by the minister, but by the bystanders, because from even the Ambrosian Ritual they are to be said only by counsel and not by precept. S. R. C., June 20, 1902. - It is likewise grave, apart from necessity, to minister this sacrament without surplice and stole. - But it is light matter to minister it without a light, without a minister, or with a woman serving. According to several, however, it is not even light matter to minister without a light, or to employ no minister. - If a cleric or layman cannot easily be found, the priest alone should perform all the ceremonies, and he himself should respond to the prayers. - Roman Ritual, h.t.; L. 724-728; E. M.

Pastors cannot for their own convenience retain the holy oil of the sick in their own houses, except however in the case of great distance from the church, in which case the rubric concerning honorable, decent, and safe custody must altogether be observed even at home. S. R. C., Aug. 31, 1872, ad 5, n. 3276; Nov. 15, 1890, Comp. ad 2, n. 3739; June 23, 1892, ad 7, Laud. n. 3779.

n. 871.

Who is the subject of extreme unction? - The subject of Extreme Unction is a baptized man who has reached the use of reason and is sick in probable danger of death, from disease, difficult childbirth, a received wound, poison, or old age, although he has not yet communicated, although he is mute, deaf, or blind from birth; although he is insane, if he has lucid intervals; although he is delirious or deprived of the senses, if beforehand he asked for the sacrament or would have asked for it if he had thought of this, and all irreverence toward the sacrament is absent. - Therefore it is invalidly given to healthy persons about to enter battle, to those condemned to capital punishment, to children not yet having attained the use of reason, or to those like children, namely idiots and the insane from birth, and to the sick outside the aforesaid danger. - But it is to be given only once in the same infirmity and danger; if the infirmity is long-lasting and the danger has at least probably passed, when a new danger is imminent it can be given again; and it must be given if the new danger is certain. - Trent, sess. 14, Doctrine on the Sacrament of Extreme Unction, C. 3; Decree for the Armenians; Roman Ritual, de Sacr. E. U.; Benedict XIV, Constitution Ex quo primum, de Syn., l. 8, c. 5-8; Suarez, d. 4, s. 2; L. 713-721, 732; St. Thomas, 4, d. 23, q. 2, a. 4, q. 2; Suppl., q. 32, q. 33; Roman Catechism, n. 9, 11; E. M.

n. 872.

Is there a grave obligation of receiving extreme unction? - No precept is present concerning this matter. Therefore, with contempt, scandal, and danger of combat with the devil removed, one who does not receive it does not sin gravely. L. 733; St. Thomas, III, q. 65, a. 4. But the proper pastor is nevertheless bound from office to minister it, and consequently sins gravely, unless some grave cause excuses him, by not conferring it on those asking, or by deferring it until the sick person, with health despaired of, is deprived of the senses. For thus the sick person lacks the richer fruit which he would have perceived, is deprived of spiritual strength for resisting the devil and for enduring the inconveniences of sickness; if he were in mortal sin, by conceiving attrition he would have obtained grace; and if it had been given at a suitable time, he could also have obtained bodily health. - It is given by custom after Viaticum, but it can be given before it. S. R. C., March 8, 1879, n. 3486. - Roman Ritual, de Sacr. E. U.; Roman Catechism 9; La-Croix 2120; L. 714, 716, 728, 729.

Vol. IV, On Censures, IV. On Interdict

n. 1141.

Extreme Unction is lawful "if the sick person can receive no other sacrament; for then extreme unction can be ministered to him from the presumed will of the Church, because it is not to be believed that the Church wishes to deny her faithful, and especially the dying, the aid of the sacraments, especially when the eternal salvation of the sick person, the sacrament not having been received, is not lightly endangered; this danger is for the greatest part tempered by the sacrament of extreme unction received." Schmalzgrueber, n. 355. "But religious," says St. Alphonsus, 334, "it is common, in the time of interdict, can receive Communion and extreme unction."

Vol. IV, On the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis

n. 1197.

XIV. Religious presuming, outside the case of necessity, to minister to clerics or lay persons the sacrament of extreme unction or the Eucharist as Viaticum without the license of the parish priest.

Religious: novices of any order or congregation are not judged such here. Nor are religious of those congregations comprehended in which only simple vows are emitted. The reason is that in penal matters the law is to be interpreted strictly. For the same reason neither are religious of those orders comprehended in which solemn vows are indeed emitted, yet they themselves have emitted only simple vows. But under this name are comprehended all solemnly professed religious, although they themselves are parish priests. For these are held strictly by common law as true religious, but by no means others, although they emitted simple vows in a Religion in which solemn vows are emitted. This was positively declared by special privilege concerning Scholastics of the Society of Jesus. Bizzarri, Collectanea, p. 745, ed. 1885; Suarez, disp. 22, sec. 2, second excommunication; Lugo, Resp. Mor., book 4, disp. 44, nn. 2, 3.

Presuming: therefore excommunication ceases if you falsely thought that a case of necessity was present, or that the license of the parish priest was not lacking; for if you thought thus, you did not presume. To clerics and lay persons. Yet Religious can from Trent, sess. 24, chap. 11, de Ref., minister the last sacraments to clerics and lay persons who "actually serve and reside within their enclosures and houses, and live under their obedience." Nor indeed is excommunication incurred if they ministered to regulars. Outside the case of necessity, namely as often as danger of death is present and the parish priest cannot or will not minister the sacraments to the sick person. Or the Eucharist as Viaticum: therefore there is no censure if not as Viaticum, but to one who has already received Viaticum, they have ministered it again from devotion; this also is not prohibited, unless one must go along public ways.

Without the license of the parish priest, at least presumed. Of the parish priest, namely one who has care of souls, or who takes his place, by whatever name he is called, and of whom the sick person is a subject by domicile or quasi-domicile. Therefore pilgrims and vagi are excluded. Clementine 1, de Privil.; Bonacina, disp. 2, q. 9, part 5.

Bucceroni, Moral Enchiridion (4th ed., 1905)

Gennaro Bucceroni, S.J. — 29 passages

Bucceroni, Moral Enchiridion (4th ed., 1905), On Extreme Unction

The Council of Trent on Extreme Unction, Session 14

“Doctrine on the Sacrament of Extreme Unction.—It has seemed good to the holy Synod to add to the preceding doctrine on Penance the following matters concerning the Sacrament of Extreme Unction, which was regarded by the Fathers as the consummation not only of Penance but also of the whole Christian life, which ought to be a perpetual penance. First, therefore, concerning its institution, it declares and teaches that our most merciful Redeemer, who willed that provision be made at all times for His servants with salutary remedies against all the weapons of all their enemies, just as He prepared the greatest aids in the other sacraments, by which Christians might preserve themselves unharmed from every graver evil of the spirit while they lived, so also fortified the end of life by the Sacrament of Extreme Unction as by a most firm safeguard. For although our adversary seeks and seizes occasions throughout our whole life in order that he may devour our souls in any way possible, there is nevertheless no time when he exerts more vehemently all the powers of his cunning to destroy us utterly, and, if he can, to cast us down even from confidence in divine mercy, than when he perceives the end of life to be impending over us.

“Chapter 1. On the Institution of the Sacrament of Extreme Unction.—This sacred anointing of the sick was instituted as a true and proper Sacrament of the New Testament by Christ our Lord; it was indeed intimated in Mark, but was commended and promulgated to the faithful by James the Apostle and brother of the Lord: ‘Is anyone among you sick?’ he says. ‘Let him bring in the priests of the Church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; and the prayer of faith shall save the sick man, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he be in sins, they shall be forgiven him.’ In these words, as the Church learned from Apostolic tradition received from hand to hand, he teaches the matter, form, proper minister, and effect of this salutary sacrament. For the Church understood that the matter is oil blessed by the bishop, since the anointing most aptly represents the grace of the Holy Spirit by which the soul of the sick person is invisibly anointed; and then that the form is those words: ‘Through this anointing,’ etc.

“Chapter 2. On the Effect of This Sacrament.—The reality and effect of this sacrament is explained in these words: ‘And the prayer of faith shall save the sick man, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he be in sins, they shall be forgiven him.’ For this reality is the grace of the Holy Spirit, whose anointing wipes away offenses, if any still remain to be expiated, and the remnants of sin; and it relieves and strengthens the soul of the sick person, exciting in him a great confidence in divine mercy, by which the sick person, being assisted, both bears the inconveniences and sufferings of illness more lightly and resists more easily the temptations of the devil who lies in wait for his heel; and sometimes obtains bodily health, when this will be expedient for the salvation of his soul.

“Chapter 3. On the Minister of This Sacrament and the Time at Which It Ought to Be Given.—Now, as regards the prescription concerning those who ought both to receive and to administer this sacrament, this too was handed down not obscurely “in the aforesaid words. For there it is also shown that the proper ministers of this sacrament are the priests of the Church; by that name in this passage are to be understood not those older in age or the leading persons among the people, but either bishops or priests rightly ordained by them through the imposition of the hands of the presbyterate. It is also declared that this anointing is to be applied to the sick, but especially to those who lie in such danger that they seem to be placed at the end of life; whence it is also called the sacrament of those departing. But if the sick should recover after receiving this anointing, they can again be assisted by the aid of this sacrament when they fall into another similar danger of life. Therefore, those are in no way to be heard who, contrary to so open and clear a statement of the Apostle James, teach that this anointing is either a human invention or a rite received from the Fathers, having neither a command of God nor a promise of grace; and those who assert that it has now ceased, as though it were to be referred only to the grace of healings in the primitive Church; and those who say that the rite and usage which the holy Roman Church observes in the administration of this sacrament is repugnant to the statement of the Apostle James and is therefore to be changed into another; and finally, those who affirm that this Extreme Unction can be contemned by the faithful without sin. For all these things most manifestly conflict with the clear words of so great an Apostle. Nor indeed does the Roman Church, the mother and teacher of all the others, observe anything in administering this anointing, as regards those things which constitute the substance of this sacrament, other than what blessed James prescribed. Nor indeed could contempt for so great a sacrament exist without an enormous crime and an injury to the Holy Spirit Himself.

“Canon 1. If anyone shall say that Extreme Unction is not truly and properly a sacrament instituted by Christ our Lord and promulgated by blessed James the Apostle, but is only a rite received from the Fathers or a human invention: let him be anathema.

“Canon 2. If anyone shall say that the sacred anointing of the sick neither confers grace, nor remits sins, nor relieves the sick, but has now ceased, as though in former times it were only the grace of healings: let him be anathema.

“Canon 3. If anyone shall say that the rite and usage of Extreme Unction which the holy Roman Church observes is repugnant to the statement of blessed James the Apostle and is therefore to be changed, and can be contemned by Christians without sin: let him be anathema.

“Canon 4. If anyone shall say that the priests of the Church whom blessed James exhorts to be brought in to anoint the sick person are not priests ordained by a bishop, but the older persons in age in any community, and that therefore a priest alone is not the proper minister of Extreme Unction: let him be anathema.”

On Oil Not Blessed by a Bishop

“Can the Sacrament of Extreme Unction be validly administered with oil not consecrated by an episcopal blessing?”—Response. Negative. The Sacred Congregation of the Inquisition condemned the contrary doctrine as rash and proximate to error, 15 January 1655.

“In a case of necessity, can a parish priest, for the validity of the Sacrament of Extreme Unction, use oil blessed by himself?—Response. Negative, according to the decree of Thursday, in the presence of His Holiness, on 13 January 1611.” Holy Office, 14 September 1842.

“Oil blessed by a priest is matter altogether unsuitable for confecting the “Sacrament of Extreme Unction, and it cannot be validly used even in extreme necessity.” Holy Office, 15 May 1878.

On the Anointing of the Loins and Feet

“The anointing of the loins in Extreme Unction can never be omitted unless, in particular cases and with precautions employed, modesty cannot otherwise be sufficiently safeguarded.” Holy Office, 28 August 1889.

“Very feeble elderly persons and sick persons suffering from hectic fever or a similar illness, who are presumed likely to die before they can have the missionary present, can be anointed as though in their final illness, as the Sacred Congregation answered by rescript in the year 1801. Very often, however, in an assembly of the faithful, after Viaticum has been received and Mass has ended, elderly and sick persons of this kind, as well as certain others suffering more dangerously, are customarily anointed here. But when the garments of men are loosened and lifted in order to perform the anointing of the loins, many at once, especially women, blush and flee quickly because of the customs of the people. If, therefore, it shall seem good to the Sacred Congregation, may it deign, I beseech it, to obtain from Our Most Holy Lord that the anointing of the loins be omitted not only when the sick person cannot conveniently be moved, as the Roman Ritual prescribes, but also when Extreme Unction is administered in an assembly of the faithful.—Response. Affirmative, after consultation with His Holiness. His Holiness approved.” Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 21 September 1843.

“But as regards the anointing of the loins, which Your Excellency testifies has never been employed in this diocese in administering the Sacrament of Extreme Unction, and which you therefore request that the Roman Ritual permit to be omitted, it has seemed to the Sacred Congregation that no suppression or alteration whatsoever, whether in this or any other matter, ought to be introduced into the Ritual; rather, it willed that the latter be printed entire and faithfully, just as it was published by Paul V and revised and corrected by Benedict XIV. But if the anointing of the loins has hitherto been unaccustomed there, the Sacred Congregation declared that it would indeed bear patiently with it if the particular circumstances of that diocese prevent this anointing from being put into practice immediately and universally. At the same time, however, it expressed its most ardent desire that, through the care of Your Excellency and the teaching of the parish priests, the faithful be disposed gradually and imperceptibly to receive this special anointing also in the final agony, according to the prescriptions of the Roman Ritual.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 14 August 1858, Utrecht.

“Besides the upper part of the feet, is the lower part also to be anointed in the Sacrament of Extreme Unction?—Response. Nothing is to be changed.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 27 August 1836, Rennes, response to 1.

“The good pleasure of His Holiness is sought that, in Extreme Unction administered to women, the anointing of the feet be omitted.—It was answered on another occasion: The common custom of the Church is to be observed.” Qualifiers of the Holy Office, 1674; Father Navarrete, missionary in China. Cf. no. 433.

On the Minister and Subject of Extreme Unction

“Indeed, since Your Charity wished to consult concerning this matter as concerning the others, my son Celestine the deacon also added in his letter that Your Charity had set forth what is written in the epistle of the blessed Apostle James: ‘Is anyone among you sick? Let him bring in the priests, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; and the prayer of faith shall save the sick man, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he be in sins, they shall be forgiven him.’ There is no doubt that this ought to be received or understood of the sick faithful, who can be anointed with the holy oil of chrism, “which, having been confected by a bishop, not only priests but all Christians may use for anointing in their own necessity or that of their own. But we see that this was superfluously added, so that doubt might be raised concerning a bishop, when it was said of priests, because bishops, being hindered by other occupations, cannot go to all the sick. But if a bishop either is able or judges someone worthy to be visited by him, he can without hesitation both bless and touch him with chrism, since it belongs to him to confect the chrism itself. For this cannot be poured upon penitents, because it is a kind of sacrament. For how is it thought that one kind can be granted to those to whom the other sacraments are denied?” Innocent I, from Letter 25 to Decentius, Bishop of Gubbio, chapter 8.

“We venerate the anointing of the sick with consecrated oil.” Profession of Faith prescribed to the Waldensians by Innocent III.

“Another sacrament is Extreme Unction, which according to the doctrine of blessed James is applied to the sick.” Profession of Faith of Michael Palaeologus.

“Upon inspection of the very words of the divine utterance, it is easily apparent that the Sacrament of Extreme Unction, even in a case of necessity—namely, in the absence of another priest—cannot be administered by a sick missionary to himself.” Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 23 March 1844.

n. 867.

On the Administration of Extreme Unction by Means of an Instrument

“In this Diocese of Port Louis, where the usage of employing a silver stylus or little rod in the administration of Extreme Unction has prevailed, can this usage safely be continued?—Response. Negative, except in a case of necessity.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 9 May 1857, Port Louis, response to 2.

On the Ceremonies of Extreme Unction

“Priests exercising the care of souls, for their own convenience, keep the holy oil of the sick with them in their homes. In view of the custom, can they lawfully retain this practice?—Response. Negative, and let the Roman Ritual be observed, except, however, in a case of great distance from the church; in that case the Rubric concerning honorable, becoming, and safe custody is to be observed altogether, even in the home.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 16 December 1826, Ghent, response to 3; 31 August 1872, Toledo, response to 5; 23 June 1892, Laon, response to 7.

The oil of Extreme Unction is not to be carried solemnly to the sick with a surplice and lanterns. Sacred Congregation of Rites, 28 January 1606, Bari.

“1. Is it lawful for priests to send sacred oils consecrated by a bishop through the Express, or through a certain mercantile company composed for the most part of non-Catholics and pagans, which receives various things for export?—2. Is it lawful to send those sacred oils to priests through laymen, in order to provide for the convenience of the priests themselves?—Response. To the first: It is not lawful.—To the second: If clerics are lacking, affirmative, provided that the fidelity of the laymen deputed for this is established.” Holy Office, 1 May 1901 and 14 January 1903; M. E., vol. 15, p. 245.

“Can the Sacrament of Extreme Unction be administered with a stole alone?—Response. Negative.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 16 December 1826, Ghent, response to 2.

137. On the Matter and Form of Extreme Unction · 138. On the Minister and Subject of Extreme Unction

The Penitential Psalms and Litanies in the Administration of Extreme Unction

The recitation of the Penitential Psalms and the Litanies, prescribed in the Ambrosian Ritual for the administration of Extreme Unction, is not preceptive but counseled. Sacred Congregation of Rites, 20 June 1902; M. E., vol. 14, p. 351 ff.

n. 870.

On Extreme Unction to Be Conferred Immediately after Baptism

“When an adult pagan, sufficiently instructed and rightly disposed, is baptized because he has fallen into a grave illness, must—indeed, can—the Sacrament of Extreme Unction be conferred upon him immediately after Baptism?—Response. Affirmative, with the form of the decree of the Holy Office of the year 1703 being observed.” Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 26 September 1821.

n. 871.

On One Gravely Ill, but Not Proximately Dying, in Mission Territories

“Sometimes, when missionaries visit the Christians committed to them, they encounter a sick person suffering from hectic fever or a similar illness who, according to experience, will live for several more months, but will die within a year. It is asked whether, in such a case, the missionary can administer Viaticum and Extreme Unction to him, because when the truer occasion for receiving them is present, the missionary will not be able to be present because of the great distance and other circumstances preventing it.—Response. Affirmative.” Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 20 February 1801.

n. 871.

On the Dispositions Prerequisite for Extreme Unction

“Is Extreme Unction to be conferred upon dying adults whom we sometimes believe capable of Baptism, but not of the other sacraments?—Response. The Sacrament of Extreme Unction is not to be conferred upon a dying neophyte whom the missionary has judged capable of Baptism, unless he at least has some intention of receiving the sacred anointing ordained for the benefit of the soul at the time of death.” Holy Office, 1703 and 10 April 1861. Cf. no. 271; Canon 1158.

Bucceroni, Cases of Conscience

Gennaro Bucceroni, S.J. — 11 passages

137. On the Matter and Form of Extreme Unction

Iacobus, a sick man, after the anointing of the hands and before the anointing of the feet and loins, seemed to all those standing by already to have breathed forth his spirit. Hence Ioannes the priest abstained from completing the two aforesaid anointings. But after a quarter of an hour he noticed that the sick man was still living. Hence with great anxiety he asks: what must he do?

R. Since all the essential anointings had already been duly performed, nothing seems to have to be repeated, not even under condition; nor does anything seem to have to be added. D'Annibale 420; I. M. 864, 868.

Augustinus, a parish priest, administering extreme unction in a case of urgent necessity, since he did not have the Ritual before his hands, used this form, which then occurred to his memory: I anoint thee with holy oil, that through His mercy God may pardon thee, etc. - Is it valid?

R. St. Alphonsus, l. 6, n. 711, dub. 3, says: "Bonacina, etc., deny it. But Suarez, Laymann, Filliucci, Henriquez, Reginaldus, and the others more commonly apud the Salmanticenses, affirm more probably, although they say that the matter is uncertain. The reason is that by these words the substance of the form is already expressed." - I. M. 865.

138. On the Minister and Subject of Extreme Unction

Petrus, a parish priest, was called to a dying man so that he might minister to him Viaticum and Extreme Unction. Since death was pressing, he thought that he would act better and more usefully if he first ministered Extreme Unction and then Viaticum, both lest that sick man lack the peculiar grace of that sacrament of Extreme Unction, and because already in the morning he had received Holy Communion from devotion, whence Viaticum seemed to him less necessary. The matter having been done, Petrus anxiously asked whether he acted rightly by ministering Viaticum after Extreme Unction.

It is asked: What is to be said to the question of Petrus?

R. Petrus acted rightly. For 1.º in the Roman Ritual it is thus had: "From the general custom of the Church, if time and the condition of the sick man permit, before Extreme Unction the sacraments of Penance and Eucharist are to be furnished to the sick." But in the aforesaid Case of Petrus, death was pressing. Therefore the condition of the sick man prudently advised that Extreme Unction could be ministered first, lest the sick man lack the peculiar grace of that sacrament, which is useful especially at the time of proximate death. 2.º Since that sick man had received Communion in the morning from devotion, he indeed could, but was not bound to, receive Viaticum; and therefore, death pressing, Extreme Unction could be ministered to him first, lest he lack that sacrament; and then, if time should suffice, Viaticum also could be ministered. But if time were lacking, no inconvenience would have redounded from this to that sick man. 3.º St. Alphonsus, l. 6, n. 716, says openly: "To receive Extreme Unction before Viaticum will either be no sin, or scarcely venial, as Suarez, d. 44, s. 1, n. 2, and Croix, n. 2120, say; nor does Benedict XIV disapprove it, de Syn., l. 8, c. 8, n. 2, because the custom of placing Viaticum before it has not been received at least under grave obligation." Therefore, a reasonable cause standing for the inversion made by Petrus, that inversion is free from every aforesaid fault. - I. M. 562, 872.

"In the kingdom of Buganda, lest a new persecution be stirred up against Christians, the faithful cannot publicly profess religion, and live as almost unknown among infidels. Hence there is the greatest difficulty for missionaries in visiting the sick; for from the presence of a missionary danger would arise for the sick man, and for those among whom he dwells; indeed even for all Christians, who are not tolerated, once their office has been known by the king. Therefore it is asked whether, to avoid this danger, missionaries can and ought not to visit the sick, or whether, despising any danger whatsoever, whether of private persons or of the Christian community, they can or ought to visit the sick constituted in grave danger of dying, so that they may refresh them with the sacraments of the Church.

R. According to the mind; and the mind is that the faithful are to be admonished by the missionaries that, considering the difficulty of having the assistance of a missionary at the article of death, they strive with every zeal to avoid sins, and in danger of death furnish mutual assistance to themselves; and besides, that the missionaries instruct well the catechists, who in the exposed cases may in some manner fulfill the places of missionaries." S. O., Apr. 3, 1889.

n. 3.

Geminus, a parish priest, confers Extreme Unction even on dying infants before the use of reason. For, he says, why ought they to be deprived of grace, which they will certainly have ex opere operato? But he does not confer Extreme Unction on adults unless death is certain and proximately imminent. Otherwise, he says, the sacrament is exposed to the danger of nullity. - Does he act rightly?

n. 3.

R. Negatively. For first, "those who lack the use of reason are not apt to receive this sacrament, and children who admit no sins, the remains of which there is need to heal by the remedy of this sacrament." Roman Catechism, n. 9. The reason of Geminus proves too much, for then it ought also to be ministered to the healthy and to those not dangerously sick. Besides, as the same Catechism says in the same place, "they sin most gravely who are accustomed to observe that time for anointing the sick man when, all hope of health already lost, he begins to lack life and senses." But it is to be ministered to those "who seem to be sick so dangerously that it is to be feared lest the last day of life be upon them." Catechism 16. And if the last period of life is awaited, the sacrament of Extreme Unction is now perhaps frustrated of the effect of bodily health, which it does not work by way of miracle, which then would be necessary, but by a certain power, supernatural indeed, but in a certain manner ordinary, which aids natural causes. Wherefore the reason of Geminus rather proves the contrary. - I. M. 862, 871.

Gury-Ballerini, Compendium of Moral Theology (8th ed., 1884)

Jean-Pierre Gury, S.J.; notes by Antonio Ballerini, S.J. — 86 passages (filed under the subtopics)

Vol. II, Treatise on Extreme Unction, Chapter I. On the Nature and Effects of Extreme Unction

n. 672.

- I. Extreme Unction is defined as a Sacrament of the new law instituted by Christ for conferring salvation of soul, or even of body, upon a sick person in danger of death, through the anointing with blessed Oil and the prayer of the Priest.

n. 672.

Extreme Unction is a true Sacrament of the new law. This is established, first, because it is a sensible sign, conferring grace, and instituted by the Lord Jesus Christ. For the nature of a sign is sufficiently evident through the anointing and the prayer of the Priest. That it confers grace is established from its effects. But its divine institution is demonstrated by apostolic tradition. It was promulgated especially by St. James in the Catholic Epistle, 5:14-15, where it is said: Is any man sick among you? Let him bring in the Priests of the Church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil...; and the prayer of faith shall save the sick man, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he be in sins, they shall be forgiven him.

n. 672.

This is established, second, from the definition of the Council of Trent, session 14, On Extreme Unction, where it is thus said: If anyone says that Extreme Unction is not truly and properly a Sacrament instituted by Christ our Lord and promulgated by the blessed Apostle James, but only a rite received from the Fathers or a human invention, let him be anathema.

- II. The effects of the Sacrament of Extreme Unction are: first, sanctifying grace together with the actual graces proper to the Sacrament, which wonderfully assist in reviving the sick person and strengthening him against the temptations of the devil.

Second, remission of all sins not yet remitted, even mortal sins. This is established from the text of St. James cited above: And if he be in sins, they shall be forgiven him. Hence the Sacrament of Extreme Unction is indeed primarily a Sacrament of the living, but secondarily a Sacrament of the dead, namely, in the hypothesis of the state of sin. It certainly remits venial sins primarily and per se; but more probably it remits mortal sins also in the same manner. - St. Ligorius, no. 731.

Third, the cleansing away of the remnants of sin, which are not only the punishments due to sins but also anxieties of mind, weaknesses, languor toward the good, torpor, fear, and other similar things which are contracted from sins.

But these effects are greater in proportion as the sick person is better disposed in soul. Fourth, restoration of bodily health at times, if it is expedient for the salvation of the soul. This is established from the cited text of St. James and from the Council of Trent, session 14, On Extreme Unction, chapter 2. Hence it is evident how shamefully those err who do not receive this Sacrament unless the disease has become so strong that they can no longer be healed without a miracle. - St. Ligorius, no. 731.

Vol. II, Treatise on Extreme Unction, Ch. II, Article I. On the Matter of This Sacrament

n. 674.

Principles. - I. The remote matter is Oil blessed by the Bishop. This is established from the Council of Trent, session 14, On Extreme Unction, chapter 1, where it is thus said: The Church understood the matter (of this Sacrament) to be Oil blessed by the Bishop; for the anointing most aptly represents the grace of the Holy Spirit, by which the soul of the sick person is invisibly anointed.

n. 674.

II. The Oil of Extreme Unction, or of the sick, is to be blessed by the diocesan Bishop, or, when the See is vacant, by another neighboring Bishop, on the Supper of the Lord, just as Chrism is, and is to be renewed every year, though not for the validity of the Sacrament. Thus from the precept of Clement VIII in St. Ligorius, no. 708; and the Salmanticenses, chapter 2, no. 10. This is also established from the perpetual practice of the Church and from the Roman Ritual, On Extreme Unction, where it is said: The holy Oil is to be renewed every year on the Supper of the Lord, the old having been burned.

n. 675.

- III. The proximate matter is the anointing of certain parts of the body, which are at least the five senses. For the anointing is to be made: first, on the eyes, or on the eyelids; second, on the ears; third, on the nostrils; fourth, on the mouth, or on the lower lip; fifth, on the hands, on the outside for Priests and on the inside for laymen; sixth, on the feet, or on the tops of the feet; seventh, on the loins; but this last is omitted for women, and also in men if it cannot easily be done, namely, if the sick person cannot be moved. Indeed, today, says Scavini, it is omitted in every case and for everyone.

Questions. - QUESTION 1. Does the precept of renewing the oil bind under grave sin?

Reply. Yes, as it seems, because the matter appears sufficiently grave. Nevertheless, if new oil cannot be obtained, it is licit to use the old. - St. Ligorius, no. 708.

But if perhaps the blessed Oil is going to run short within the year, and no other can be obtained, other unblessed oil, in a smaller quantity, nevertheless, can be poured into the blessed Oil. - Roman Ritual. And this can be done repeatedly, although little by little a quantity even much greater than that consecrated by the Bishop at the beginning is added, provided, nevertheless, that in each admixture it is smaller than the other part into which it is poured. - St. Ligorius, ibid.

QUESTION 2. Must the oil necessarily be from olives?

Reply. Yes. The reason is: first, because by the name oil, properly speaking and according to common usage, olive oil is understood. Second, this is established elsewhere from the Decree of Eugene IV for the Armenians, in which it is read concerning Extreme Unction: Its matter is olive oil. Third, it is also evident from the whole of tradition and the unanimous consent of the Doctors. - See St. Ligorius, no. 708.

- QUESTION 3. Must this oil necessarily be blessed by the Bishop?

Reply. Yes. This is established from various Declarations of Paul V and, most recently, of Gregory XVI on September 4, 1842.

QUESTION 4. Must the oil be blessed in relation to Extreme Unction?

Reply. It is disputed. There is a twofold probable opinion, as St. Ligorius says, no. 709. Some deny it, because the Church requires nothing other than that the oil be blessed by the Bishop. Hence (they say) the Oil of the sick and Chrism can validly be employed for making the anointings. Others, however, affirm it, because just as Chrism is deputed by its proper blessing for Confirmation, so also the Oil of the sick for the Sacrament of Extreme Unction. In practice the safer course must altogether be followed, except in a case of necessity, in which this Sacrament is to be administered conditionally with another blessed Oil, and afterward, if the Oil of the sick can be obtained, it is to be repeated. - St. Ligorius, ibid.

I said with another blessed oil, for a threefold holy Oil is distinguished, which is blessed by the Bishop in the same ceremony on Thursday of the Supper of the Lord, namely, the Oil of the sick, the Oil of catechumens, and holy Chrism, or Oil with balsam mixed into it. First, the Oil of the sick serves only for anointing the sick in danger of death and for the consecration of bells in the external Anointing, for Chrism is employed for the internal one. Second, the Oil of catechumens is deputed for anointing catechumens on the breast and between the shoulder blades before Baptism, for consecrating the hands of newly ordained priests, and likewise for certain other consecrations, for example, of kings, etc. Third, Chrism is employed in the Sacrament of Confirmation, in the ceremonies of Baptism after the Sacrament has already been conferred, and for other consecrations, for example, of a chalice, paten, ciborium, altar, bell (on the inside), etc. - See the Roman Pontifical, especially where it treats of the ceremonies of Thursday of the Supper of the Lord.

n. 678.

- QUESTION 5. Is the anointing of the five senses of the necessity of the Sacrament?

n. 678.

Reply. It appears more probable that it must be affirmed, with the more common opinion of the Theologians, to which the practice of the Church agrees; and this practice is always to be observed, except in a case of necessity. Nevertheless, the negative opinion is called speculatively probable by St. Ligorius, no. 710.

- QUESTION 6. Is a double anointing on paired parts required by the necessity of the Sacrament, for example, on both eyes, both ears, etc.?

Reply. No, because the whole sense is present in one part. Nevertheless, outside a case of necessity the double anointing is to be observed by force of precept. - St. Ligorius, ibid.

QUESTION 7. How must the anointings be made?

Reply. The anointings must be made with the right thumb of the Priest, who must utter the form at the same time and anoints the sick person in the manner of a cross. Thus from the Roman Ritual. But these things pertain to liceity, not to validity. On paired members, however, one begins with the right, for example, with the right eye, etc. - Roman Ritual.

- QUESTION 8. Must an order among the anointings of the various senses be observed by the necessity of the Sacrament?

Reply. No. The reason is that an inversion of this kind in no way impedes the signification of the Sacrament. Nevertheless, they commonly say that such an inversion is gravely illicit because it is contrary to the usage of the Church in a notable matter. - St. Ligorius, no. 710, at the end, etc.

QUESTION 9. Can Extreme Unction be conferred upon those who are mute, deaf, or blind from birth?

Reply. Yes; for they can be anointed near the organs which they lack; for although they did not sin externally through them, nevertheless, through the interior powers of the soul to which they correspond they could have sinned ¹.

¹ It does not appear necessary to have recourse to this reason. For the Sacraments by their own power effect the infusion of sanctifying grace; and this grace, if a suitable disposition is not lacking in the subject, expels all sins whatsoever, whether they were perpetrated by the external senses or by the internal powers alone.

- QUESTION 10. How is a sick person deprived of a hand or foot, etc., to be anointed?

Reply. The anointing is to be made on the part nearest to the mutilated member; for thus the Roman Ritual speaks: If anyone is mutilated in some member, let the part nearest to that place be anointed with the same form of words.

QUESTION 11. Does one drop of oil alone suffice for making the anointings?

Reply. More probably, yes. The reason is that he who anoints with one drop of oil truly anoints; for oil is diffused more than other liquids. - Thus St. Ligorius as more probable, Lacroix, no. 2094, and others more commonly. - But some deny it, because to anoint is to diffuse oil over various parts, which is not done by a single drop of oil. But it is replied that the oil is diffused over various parts when the five senses are anointed, even if the same drop is employed. In practice it is safer, and certainly suffices for the validity of the Sacrament, to dip the extremity of the finger into the oil for each of the particular anointings which are made under the repeated form.

QUESTION 12. In time of plague or of some contagious disease, is it licit to perform the sacred anointings by means of a brush?

Reply. Yes, at least more probably, from Benedict XIV, who brings forward many authors for this opinion. (On the Synod, book 13, chapter 19.)

Vol. II, Treatise on Extreme Unction, Ch. II, Article II. On the Form of Extreme Unction

n. 682.

- The form of Extreme Unction is this: Through this holy anointing and His most tender mercy, may the Lord forgive you whatever you have sinned through sight (the eye having been anointed, and so concerning the others). This is established from the Council of Trent, session 14, chapter On Extreme Unction, and from the Roman Ritual. The form is to be repeated integrally for each part to be anointed, expressing the member which is then anointed, namely, through sight when anointing the eyes, through hearing in the anointing of the ears, etc.

n. 683.

Questions. - QUESTION 1. For the validity of the Sacrament, is the expression of each sense required, namely, THROUGH SIGHT, THROUGH HEARING, etc.?

n. 683.

Reply. It is disputed. Some deny it because it is not found in the form of the Greeks, which nevertheless is admitted by the Church as valid. Others affirm it because through one anointing and the form corresponding to it there are remitted not the remnants of sins of every kind, but only of those which were committed through that sense. Since, therefore, the matter is doubtful, the expression of the sense must be employed under grave sin. - Billuart.

n. 683.

QUESTION 2. Which words are essential to the form?

…and 46 more passages — all of them are listed on the topic page.

Koch–Preuss

Antony Koch; adapted and edited by Arthur Preuss — 13 passages

Vol. II, Pt. II, Ch. II, Section 6: Extreme Unction

SUBJECT OF THE SACRAMENT. —The Sacrament of Extreme Unction (extrema unctio) was instituted for the corporal as well as spiritual well-being of the sick. One of its special effects is to confer upon the dying the grace of a happy death. While it is essential for the validity of this Sacrament that the recipient be seriously ill or, as the technical phrase runs, in periculo mortis,¹ it is altogether immaterial whether this condition be due to disease or to old age.² Hence the sacra infirmorum unctio may not be administered to persons who are ex- 188 posed to the danger of death but are not seriously ill, e. g., soldiers going into battle, condemned criminals preparing for execution, etc. The Sacrament may, however, be given to those in danger of dying from an operation or after confinement, but not to those who have not yet attained the use of reason or have not committed a personal sin, that is to say, infants and permanently insane adults (perpetuo amentes).³ If an insane person enjoyed the use of reason at any moment of his previous life, or has occasional lucid intervals, he may and should be given Extreme Unction,⁴ because a habitual and interpretative intention suffices for the valid reception of this Sacrament, and there is a well-founded presumption that many insane persons temporarily regain the use of reason at the approach of death, though they are unable to manifest their sanity by definite signs.

¹ Jas. V, 14-15. —Cfr. the Deereturn pro Armenis of Eugene IV: "This Sacrament ought not be given except to a sick person whose death is feared." (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 595). — The Council of Trent says (Sess. XIV, De Extr. Unct.t c. 3): "It is also declared that this anointing is to be applied to the sick, but especially to those who lie so dangerously ill that they seem to be placed at the departure from life, whence it is also called the Sacrament of the departing." —Cfr. Cat. Rom., P. II, c. 6, qu. 9: "Since only those who suffer from illness need healing, therefore this Sacrament ought to be given to those also who seem so dangerously ill that it must be feared that their last day of life is at hand."

² Rit. Rom., tit. 5, c. 1, n. 5: "This Sacrament ought to be given to sick persons who, after attaining the use of reason, labor so gravely that danger of death seems imminent, and to those who are failing from old age and seem likely to die from day to day, even without another illness." —"Senectus est morbus," was a received axiom among the Scholastics.

³ Cat. Rom., P. II, c. 6, qu. 9.— Rit. Rom., tit. 5, c. 1, qu. 9; cfr. Codex Iuris Canonici, can. 940, 941, 943. —Cfr. H. Noldin, S. J., Summa Theologiae Moralis, 11th ed., Innsbruck 1914, Vol. III, pp. 543 sqq. —J. P. Gury, Compendium Theol. Mor., Vol. II, n. 519, says: "The subjects of this Sacrament are all and only sinful human beings in danger of their lives. Hence children before the use of reason and the perpetually insane are not capable of this Sacrament, because they have committed no actual sins; Extreme Unction can be conferred upon those mute, deaf, and blind from birth, for they can be anointed near the organs they lack, since even if they did not sin outwardly through those organs, they could nevertheless sin through the interior powers of the soul to which those organs correspond."

⁴ Cat. Rom., P. II, c. 6, qu. 9: "The insane and the delirious also are not fit to receive this Sacrament unless they sometimes had the use of reason and at that time especially gave an indication of a pious disposition and asked to be anointed with sacred oil. For one who from birth was never possessed of mind and reason is not to be anointed; but it is otherwise if the sick person, while his mind was still sound, wished to partake of this Sacrament and afterward fell into insanity and frenzy."

Extreme Unction may be administered to a sick man who is really or apparently unconscious, provided there is reason to think that he would ask for, or at least not refuse, the Sacrament if he had full control of his faculties.⁵

⁵ Rit. Rom., tit. 5, c. 1, n. 6: “But it is nevertheless to be given to sick persons who, while of sound mind and in possession of their senses, asked for it, or would probably have asked for it, or gave signs of contrition, even if afterward they lost speech, became insane, are delirious, or are unconscious.” —Ibid., n. 7: "But if the sick person, while suffering frenzy or insanity, might probably do something contrary to reverence for the Sacrament, let him not be anointed unless the danger is removed." —Cfr. Gury, Comp. Theol. Mor., II, n. 520: "This Sacrament ought to be given to the delirious if they asked for it beforehand, would have asked for it if they had thought of it, or showed a sign of sorrow for sins."

Even impenitent sinners and those who have lost consciousness while in the act of sinning (e. g., habitual drunkards) should not be deprived of Extreme Unction, unless they consciously and positively refuse to receive the Sacrament, because a possible subsequent attrition would make it operative.⁶

⁶ Rit. Rom., tit. 5, c. 1, n. 8: "But it is to be entirely denied to the impenitent, to those dying in manifest mortal sin, to the excommunicated, and to the not yet baptized."

In conformity with the axiom, "In dubio pars tutior est eligenda," ⁷ the Sacrament of Extreme Unction may be validly and licitly administered if the danger of death is merely probable or even doubtful.

⁷ Cfr. St. Alphonsus, Theol. Mor., 1. VI, n. 714. —J. P. Gury, Comp. Theol. Mor., Vol. II, n. 520: "Can this Sacrament lawfully be conferred upon a sick person in doubtful or probable danger of death? The answer is affirmative according to the common and true opinion, because for administering this Sacrament validly and lawfully it suffices that the sick person suffer from an illness so grave that he is prudently judged to be in proximate danger of death."

The name Extreme Unction or Last Anointing, which is of popular origin, is not a very fortunate one because of the implication that the Sacrament forebodes death. But as this name correctly describes the primary purpose of the rite, i. e., to prepare and fortify the soul for its last journey, it was adopted by the Church after it had obtained currency among the people. The Council of Trent employs the older term, "sacra infirmorum unctio" and the modern " extrema unctio" indiscriminately.

As Father Kern has pointed out, the custom, which has grown wide-spread since the twelfth century, of demanding and administering Extreme Unction only when all hope of recovery has vanished and death is imminent, "is opposed to the usage of the ancient Church and owes its existence to such causes as popular superstition, false theological teaching, and avarice, which have nothing in common with the operation of the Holy Ghost. This deplorable practice endangers to a very large extent the attainment of the object for which Extreme Unction was instituted by Christ. The principal effect of this Sacrament is the supernatural strengthening of the sick in order to enable them to bear the sufferings and temptations by which they are harassed, for the honor of God, so that, to apply St. Paul's dictum, 'that which is at present momentary and light of our tribulation, worketh for us above measure exceedingly an eternal weight of glory.'⁸ This supernatural strengthening of soul and body is intended also to induce the sick man, with the extraordinary assistance of divine mercy, to which he is commended in the name of Christ, to make acts of confidence, resignation, patience, contrition, and charity, and thereby to obtain forgiveness of his sins and the complete remission of the temporal punishments due to them. Thus he will be ready, when God calls him hence, to enter straightway into eternal bliss, without passing through the fiery furnace of purification. It was for this reason that the early Christians appropriately called Extreme Unction 'sanantis divinae gratiae dulcedo' Its true purpose is to restore the soul to complete health and to prepare it for immediate entrance into glory. This is intimated by the Fathers, clearly expressed in the liturgical prayers of the ancient Church, taught as a revealed truth by the leading Scholastics —including Bl. Albert the Great, St. Thomas, St. Bonaventure, Duns Scotus, Richard a Mediavilla, Peter de Palude, Innocent V, Aureolus, and Capreolus —and acknowledged by the Council of Trent. It often happens that the full recovery of the soul involves such a strong alleviation of bodily suffering that the power of disease is broken and physical recovery follows. In that case the fruition of eternal beatitude is postponed, but it will be all the more glorious if he to whom the privilege has been granted cooperates with the graces bestowed by this wonderful Sacrament." ⁹

⁹ J. Kern, S.J., in the Zeitschrift fur kath. Theologie, Innsbruck 1906, pp. 617 sqq.

⁸ 2 Cor. IV, 17.

2. Duty of Receiving the Sacrament

Though Extreme Unction is not strictly necessary for salvation, every Catholic who is dangerously ill, is in duty bound to receive this Sacrament, and should receive it as soon as there is probable danger of death, and not wait till he has become unconscious or entered into agony.¹⁰ Hence when it is possible to receive this Sacrament, a Catholic in danger of death is bound under pain of mortal sin to ask for it, if failure to do so would give grave scandal or involve contempt of the Sacrament,¹¹ or if Extreme Unction were the only Sacrament the patient was still able to receive. According to the commonly accepted teaching of St. Thomas, however, refusal to do so is not per se a mortal sin.

¹⁰ Cfr. St. Alphonsus, Theol. Mor., 1. VI, n. 733; Gury, Cotnp. Theol. Mor., II, n. 522.

¹¹ Conc. Trident., Sess. XIV, De Extr. Unct., c. 3: "Contempt for so great a Sacrament cannot be without enormous wickedness and injury to the Holy Spirit Himself."

The state of grace is required for the worthy reception of Extreme Unction, and hence the administration of this Sacrament is generally preceded by Confession and Communion. Extreme Unction, in fact, is the consummation of Penance.¹² When Penance and Holy Communion can no longer be administered, it is sufficient that the patient give a sign of contrition, or, if he be unconscious, that he may be reasonably presumed to desire the Sacraments of the dying.

¹² Conc. Trident., Sess. XIV, De Extr. Unct., c. 3; Cat. Rom., P. II, c. 6, qu. 12; Pohle-Preuss, The Sacraments, Vol. IV, p. 1, 2nd ed., St. Louis 1918.

The positive disposition required for the worthy reception of Extreme Unction consists in acts of faith and hope, and confidence in God's mercy.¹³ The Roman Catechism admonishes pastors to preach often on Ex- treme Unction in order to remind the faithful of their last end and to aid them in repressing evil desires and leading a good Christian life.¹⁴

¹³ Cat. Rom., P. II, c. 6, qu. 9: "Fides et religiosa animi voluntas." —Cfr. Gury, Comp. Theol. Mor., II, n. 523: "What disposition is required for the reception of this Sacrament? Confession of sins, if the sick person is in mortal sin, for this Sacrament is the complement of Penance and therefore confession ought to precede it. But if the sick person cannot confess his sins, it is necessary that contrition at least precede, for the Sacrament of Extreme Unction is primarily a Sacrament of the living and was instituted especially to remove the remnants of sins. Yet in such a case attrition itself seems able to suffice, for it is at the same time also a Sacrament of the dead and can remit mortal sins with attrition."

¹⁴ Cat. Rom., P. II. c. 6, qu. 1, 14. —Conc. Trident., Sess. XIV, De Extr. Unct., Prooem. 14a Codex Iuris Can., c. 938 sq.

DUTY OF ADMINISTERING EXTREME UNCTION. —Every pastor engaged in the cure of souls is bound in justice and under pain of mortal sin (ex iustitia et sub gravi) to administer Extreme Unction, either himself or through another priest, whenever he is asked to do so and able to comply with the request. There are, however, excuses exempting him from this obligation, e. g., serious danger to his own life arising from contagious disease or other causes, but even this excuse would not be valid unless he were sure that the patient to whom he is called is properly prepared for death. Needless to say, a good shepherd will risk his life for his sheep, especially if there are no other priests available. Priests who are not pastors are bound to administer this Sacrament under pain of mortal sin only ex caritate in case of extreme necessity.14a A special duty incumbent upon pastors is to administer Extreme Unction in time, i. e., before the patient has lost consciousness and all reasonable hope for his recovery has vanished. This obligation is shared by relatives, physicians, and nurses, who should see to it that the priest is called before it is too late. To leave a Catholic die without the Sacrament of Extreme Unction is often a mortal sin.¹⁵ The duty of calling the priest and administering Extreme Unction arises also when the patient, after having at least partially recovered his health, again falls dangerously ill. ¹⁶ Extreme Unction should be administered whenever there is actual danger of death. Here, if anywhere, the principle applies: "In extremis extrema sunt tentanda." However, care must be taken not to administer the Sacrament prematurely, because it can be received but once (semel tantum) in the course of the same illness, i. e., the same danger of death.

¹⁵ Cat. Rom., P. II, c. 6, qu. 9: "Those sin most gravely who are accustomed to wait for that time to anoint the sick person when, all hope of recovery now lost, he begins to lose life and his senses; for it is evident that it contributes very greatly to receiving more abundant grace from the Sacrament if the sick person is anointed with sacred oil while his mind and reason are still vigorous and he can bring faith and a religious disposition of soul."

¹⁶ Cfr. John XI, 3; Conc. Trident., Sess. XIV, De Extr. Unct., c. 3.— Cat. Rom., P. II, c. 6, qu. 9, 11.— Rit. Rom., tit. 5, c. 1, n. 14: "In the same illness this Sacrament ought not be repeated unless the illness is prolonged, as when, after the sick person has recovered, he again falls into danger of death." —Cfr. J. Kern, S.J., De Sacr. Extr. Unctionis, pp. 331 sqq.

n. ¶12.

The anointments must be given according to the Ritual. In urgent necessity one anointment (on the forehead), with the abbreviated formula, is sufficient, though if the patient live long enough, the omitted anointments must be supplied.¹⁷ The anointment of the loins is now always omitted.¹⁸ The anointment of the feet may be omitted for any reasonable cause.¹⁹

¹⁷ Codex Iuris Can., can. 947, § 1.

¹⁸ Codex Iuris Can., can. 947, § 2.

¹⁹ Codex Iuris Can., can. 947, § 3.

n. ¶13.

Holy Communion, which should be given to the sick frequently, should be administered as viaticum (per modum viatici) when it seems reasonably certain that the patient will not be able to receive it again.²⁰

²⁰ Rit. Rom., tit. 4, c. 4, n. 16-17.

n. ¶14.

READINGS. —Th. Slater, S.J., A Compendium of Moral Theology, Vol. II, pp. 233 sqq. —Sabetti-Barrett, S.J., Compendium Theologiae Moralis, pp. 766 sqq.—F. P. Kenrick, Theologia Moralis, Vol. II, pp. 261 sqq. —J. Kern, S.J., De Sacramento Extremae Unctionis, Ratisbon 1907. —Pohle-Preuss, The Sacraments, Vol. IV, pp. 1 sqq. —P. J. Hanley, Treatise on the Sacrament of Extreme Unction, New York 1907. —H. Noldin, S.J., Summa Theologiae Moralis, Vol. III, 11th ed., Innsbruck 1914, pp. 521 sqq.—M. J. O'Donnell, "Extreme Unction in the New Code," in the Irish Ecclesiastical Record, No. 604 (April 1918), pp. 286-297. —Stan. Woywod, O.F.M., in the Ecclesiastical Review, Vol. LIX, No. 2 (Aug. 1918), pp. 155 sqq.

Vermeersch, Theologia Moralis

Arthur Vermeersch, S.J. — 1 passage

Vol. III, Bk. III, Tr. II, Appendices, To n. 649. - Appendix XIV. Historical-Liturgical Matters Concerning Extreme Unction

Vol. II, Part Third: On the Sacrame…, Treatise VI: On Extreme Unction · Vol. II, Part Third: On the Sacrame…, Tr. VI, Chapter I: On The Nature Of Extreme Unction · Vol. II, Part Third: On the Sacrame…, Tr. VI, Ch. I, Article I: On The Notion And Effect Of Extreme Unction · Vol. II, Part Third: On the Sacrame…, Tr. VI, Ch. I, Art. II, § 1. On The Matter Of Extreme Unction · Vol. II, Part Third: On the Sacrame…, Tr. VI, Ch. I, Art. II, § 2. On The Form Of Extreme Unction · Vol. II, Part Third: On the Sacrame…, Tr. VI, Chapter II: On The Minister Of Extreme Unction · Vol. II, Part Third: On the Sacrame…, Tr. VI, Chapter III: On The Subject Of Extreme Unction

I. Evolution. In the first centuries, from the Apostle James himself (Epist. cath., V, 14 s.), of whose words Trent gave us the authentic interpretation, we have these things, and these alone: If a believer is sick, let the presbyters of the Church be called, who are to pray over him and anoint him with oil in the name of the Lord. And if he is in sins, they shall be remitted to him; by which words sacramental grace is indicated. Then an insinuation concerning Extreme Unction occurs in Origen (In Lev., Homil. II, 4, P. G., XII, 418-422) and St. John Chrysostom, De sacerdotio, II, 6, P. G., XLVIII, 644. In the first years of the fourth century the Euchologium of Bishop Serapion of Thmuis brings us the text of prayers over the oil of the sick, or over bread and water; and a more ancient document is had in the so-called Testamentum Domini (I, 24).

If the priest consecrates oil for the healing of those who suffer, placing before the altar that vessel (containing oil), let him say thus in a low voice: "Lord God, who hast granted to us the Paraclete Spirit, the Lord, the saving name, the immovable (Spirit), who is hidden from the foolish but is revealed to the wise; Christ, who dost sanctify us, who by thy mercy hast made wise thy servants, whom thou hast chosen by that wisdom of thine; who hast sent to us sinners the knowledge of thy Spirit; who art the healer of every disease and passion; who hast given the charisma of healing to those who through thee have been made worthy of that gift, send upon this oil, which is the type of thy richness, the complement of thy beneficent compassion, that it may free those who labor, heal the sick, and sanctify those who return, when they come to thy faith: since thou art mighty and glorious unto the ages of ages." The people: "Amen" (Testamentum Domini, ed. Rahmani, Moguntiae, 1899, p. 49. On the consecration of the oil of the sick).

The first explicit testimony, however, is offered to us by Innocent I, in his celebrated epistle to Bishop Decentius (416), in which he hands down the Roman custom in these words: "Certainly, since on this matter, as on the others, thy charity wished to consult, my son Celestine the deacon also added in his letter that this was placed by thy charity, which is written in the epistle of the blessed Apostle James: If anyone among you is sick, let him call the presbyters, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer of faith shall save the sick man, and the Lord shall raise him up, and if he has committed sin, it shall be remitted to him. This without doubt ought to be received or understood concerning the sick faithful, who can be anointed with the holy oil of chrism, which, confected by the bishop, it is permitted not only to priests, but also to all Christians to use, for anointing in their own necessity or in that of their own. For the rest, we see that this was superfluously added, that there should be doubt concerning the bishop, since there is no doubt that it is permitted to presbyters. For therefore it was said to presbyters, because bishops, impeded by other occupations, cannot go to all the sick. For the rest, if a bishop either can, or judges someone worthy to be visited by himself, he can without hesitation both bless and touch with chrism, since it belongs to him to confect chrism. For this cannot be poured upon penitents, because it is a kind of sacrament. For to those to whom the remaining sacraments are denied, how is one kind thought able to be conceded?" In this text, observe that the confection of the oil is reserved to bishops; that its ministration pertains to bishops and to presbyters, yet in such a way that the faithful seem somehow to be able to supply for them; but that Extreme Unction cannot be ministered to penitents before their reconciliation, since they are excluded from the sacraments.

While that use of holy oil by the faithful themselves is insinuated, not for that reason is that use declared sacramental, just as confession made to laymen was not a part of the sacrament of penance. On this question cf. Boudinhon, Revue du clergé français, 1911, t. 68, p. 722 ff.

The Mozarabic Ritual, which R. D. P. Ferotin judges to have been composed before the barbarian invasions, treats of Extreme Unction. In the Gelasian Sacramentary (sixth or seventh century) the formula for blessing the oil of the sick is repeated (Thursday in the Supper of the Lord), with four prayers over the sick man (ed. Wilson, London 1915, p. 30 and 281). Similar things are set forth in the Gregorian Sacramentary (ed. Wilson, p. 44 and 206 ff.). Finally, thirty-three Orders of the ninth and tenth centuries (made public by Martène, De antiquis Eccl. ritibus, l. I, c. 7, art. 4) set before us the ceremonies then in use, of which a great part, as is very likely, reflects more ancient usages, while other parts are still in use. For in these is found: a) the blessing of the place where the sick man lies; b) confession and, if there is need, reconciliation of the penitent; c) unction and joined viaticum; d) the final blessing.

a) The present blessing of the room consists merely of the salutation "Peace be to this house," sprinkling with lustral water, and three prayers. Formerly it was often done with a more solemn apparatus. Water and incense were brought from the church. During the sprinkling the Miserere was sung. From many prayers there is already had the prayer Introeat and "Lord God, who through the apostle," which is now recited after the unctions.

b) The sick man, if he wishes, today confesses after the Asperges and the blessing of the room. And the Confiteor is always recited with absolution. Ancient Orders of the ninth or tenth century report to us a dialogue between the sick man and the priest. Thus has Order I (Martène, p. 302): "Why have you called us, brother? - That you may deign to give me unction. - First prepare yourself for pure confession; afterward you will receive holy unction." There follows a prayer said by the minister and confession. To confession, in the Middle Ages, was often joined the recitation of the seven penitential psalms, the recitation of which during the unctions is still commended by the Roman Ritual to those present. There were proper antiphons; the litanies of all the saints were said, sometimes with special petitions for the sick man. The ceremony had its end with long prayers for him.

c) Unctions. There was a great diversity of unctions, as also of the formulas which were recited at the same time. Order XVI (Martène, pp. 342, 325) mentions unctions on the head, on the eyes, on the nostrils, on the lips, on the throat, on the breast, on the shoulders, on the hands, on the feet, on the place "where the pain is more imminent," and "at all the joints of the members." All the formulas begin in the same way: "I anoint thee," "I inunct thee." Order II mentions fifteen unctions and adds: "But by this number of fifteen we make crosses of holy oil over the sick man" (Martène, p. 303).

In his work on Extreme Unction, P. Kern distinguishes five classes of formulas: prayers, optative forms, indicative forms, imperative forms, and mixed forms. The present form, which is optative, occurs from the ninth century, but only in the sixteenth century does it become of general use.

d) Final blessing: Order IV (Martène, p. 106) reports about fifteen prayers which the priest recites after he has anointed and communicated the sick man. Several begin from the words: "May God bless thee..." And already several Orders mention the use noted in the Roman Ritual of handing a cross to the sick man at the beginning of the ceremony, and of leaving him the cross, if he has none.

Often, in the Middle Ages, Mass for the sick man was said immediately after the unction. In the sixteenth century the Roman Ritual was stably constituted.

II. Principal names of Extreme Unction. In the Latin Church, in the fifth century, in the cited place of Innocent I is found "holy oil of chrism"; in the eighth and ninth centuries, "Unction of the sick," "sacred oil." "Extreme Unction" first occurs in a doubtful text of the first part of the seventh century, in the fifth statute which is ascribed to St. Sonnatius of Reims (600-631) (P. L., LXXX, 445). The name is propagated especially from the twelfth century because of the authority of the School. The Greeks principally call this sacrament the Oil of prayer, Euchélaion (Εὐχέλαιον), which name is already read in the sixth century.

E. DE M., S.I.

Prümmer, Manuale Theologiae Moralis

Dominic M. Prümmer, O.P. — 1 passage

Vol. III, Pt. II, Treatise VIII. On The Sacrament Of Extreme Unction

n. 568.

568. Preliminary matters. Just as Confirmation is a certain complement of Baptism, so Extreme Unction is, as it were, the consummation of Penance. In Confirmation a baptized man is strengthened for strenuously defending the faith; in Extreme Unction, however, a man now about to depart from this world is strengthened for victoriously carrying through the final combat. St. Bonaventure beautifully and concisely institutes a comparison between Confirmation and Extreme Unction, saying:¹ "From the variation of the end in Confirmation and Extreme Unction there arises diversity ... in efficacy, because the former sacrament disposes one to struggle better, the latter to fly away more swiftly; in matter, because the former is in oil mixed with balsam, the latter, however, in pure oil; in form, because the former is in the indicative, the latter, however, in the deprecative; in place, because the former is on the forehead, the latter, however, on several parts; in time, because the former is in health, the latter, however, in sickness; in the recipient, because the former is not only for adults but also for children, the latter, however, only for adults; in the giver, because the former is from bishops, the latter, however, from any priests."

Besides the authors cited above in the first treatise, cf. Ignatius Schmitz, De effectibus sacramenti extremae unctionis, Freiburg im Breisgau, 1893; J. Kern, De sacramento extremae unctionis, Ratisbon, 1907; M. Heimbucher, Die heilige Ölung, Ratisbon, 1888.

We shall treat: 1. the notion and existence of Extreme Unction; 2. its matter and form; 3. its effects; 4. its subject; 5. its minister.

¹ Breviloquium, 6, 11.

Merkelbach, Pastoral Questions

Benedict H. Merkelbach, O.P. — 9 passages

Ch. II, Question VI: Concerning the Sick and the Dying

n. ¶2441.

III. Concerning Extreme Unction. - Extreme Unction is not to be given to all Christians who are in danger of death, but to adults dangerously sick; for, besides Baptism, there is required for its validity that one be a) a sinner and therefore an adult, or have the use of reason; b) dangerously sick; c) intending to receive the sacrament. Therefore the following cannot receive the sacrament:

n. ¶2442.

The insane, unless previously they had the use of reason and then formed the intention of receiving Extreme Unction.

n. ¶2443.

The healthy, even if they are in extrinsic danger of death, as those condemned to death; those about to navigate or fight dangerously, unless after they have received a lethal wound; women who regularly give birth with some danger of death, unless death is to be feared on account of a special infirmity, or their strength has already been greatly weakened from childbirth; and those about to undergo a dangerous incision, unless from an illness already contracted they are in danger of death. - On the contrary, those can be anointed for whom, from illness, there is not only imminent but also probable intrinsic danger of death, as all who have contracted an infirmity that will probably bring death, those infected by poison, the gravely wounded, those who after surgical incision are greatly weakened, indeed also decrepit old persons even if they labor under no special disease, for old age itself is for them an incurable disease, can. 940, § 1.

n. ¶2444.

Those who do not intend to receive the sacrament; but an actual or virtual intention is not required, but a habitual intention, not retracted, even implicit, suffices, such as the intention of Catholics not to die without the sacraments, or of dying as a Catholic; not, however, the simple intention of saving oneself. Hence:

n. ¶2445.

a) Of itself and regularly Extreme Unction is to be given to all the sick to whom absolution is granted, even if they are deprived of the senses. The reason is that it is a more secure means of salvation than absolution itself, for it is certain that Extreme Unction remits mortal sins, Jas. V, 15, and it is also certain that it is valid if absolution certainly valid cannot be had. For when sufficient external signs of contrition are lacking and therefore absolution is very doubtful, Extreme Unction is received validly, because contrition, which is a part of the sacrament of Penance, is not a part of Extreme Unction required for its validity, but only a disposition for its fruitfulness.

n. ¶2446.

b) Accidentally, however, it can happen that Extreme Unction must be denied, when it cannot be given without the scandal of those standing by to some impious man already deprived of the senses, to whom absolution was granted secretly; likewise to him who now appears dead. Scandal can often be prevented by secretly administering one anointing, or even by admonishing those standing by; but if this cannot be done, the sacrament is to be denied, because the spiritual evil of many prevails over the conjectural good of one.

n. ¶2447.

c) In doubt whether the sick person has attained the use of reason, whether he is actually placed in danger of death, or whether he is dead, the sacrament is to be ministered under condition, can. 941.

n. ¶2448.

d) Extreme Unction is to be ministered absolutely to all, even sinners, who in life had an intention, not retracted, of dying as Catholics, can. 943; under condition, if you are capable, if it concerns unknown persons, or those who do not certainly live, as was already said, or sinners so impious that it can be doubted whether they have the intention of dying as Catholics; but not to those who, impenitent, contumaciously persevere in manifest mortal sin, can. 942.

n. ¶2449.

e) In a case of necessity, Extreme Unction is to be ministered by one anointing only on the forehead, with the form: Through this holy anointing may the Lord pardon you whatever you have sinned. Amen. But if death has not followed, the other anointings are to be added as indicated in the ritual, and indeed absolutely, not under condition. The anointing on the loins is now to be omitted; the anointing of the feet can be omitted for any reasonable cause, can. 947.

Marc, Institutiones Morales

Clement Marc, C.SS.R. — 15 passages

Vol. II, Part Third: On the Sacrame…, Treatise VI: On Extreme Unction

n. ¶1870.

EXTREME UNCTION, just as it is the last Sacrament, so, according to D. Thomas, is the crown of spiritual life; for, fortified by this Sacrament, a man is disposed proximately to entrance into the heavenly fatherland.

The Treatise on Extreme Unction very fittingly follows the Treatise on Penance; for, according to the Council of Trent (sess. 14, on E. U.), Extreme Unction is the consummative Sacrament of Penance: insofar, namely, as it consummates and perfects penance, deleting the remnants of sins, and imposes an end to the Christian life, which ought to be perpetual penance. "Extreme Unction," says St. Thomas,¹⁰ "is compared to Penance as Confirmation to Baptism; namely in such a way that Penance is of greater necessity, but Extreme Unction is of greater perfection."

The things to be said concerning this Sacrament will be set forth in three chapters. In the first, the discourse will be concerning the nature of Extreme Unction; in the second, concerning its minister; and in the third, concerning its subject.

Vol. II, Part Third: On the Sacrame…, Tr. VI, Chapter I: On The Nature Of Extreme Unction

Vol. II, Treatise on Extreme Unction, Chapter I. On the Nature and Effects of Extreme Unction · Vol. II, Treatise on Extreme Unction, Ch. II, Article I. On the Matter of This Sacrament · Vol. II, Treatise on Extreme Unction, Ch. II, Article II. On the Form of Extreme Unction · Vol. II, Treatise on Extreme Unction, Chapter III. On the Minister of Extreme Unction · Vol. II, Treatise on Extreme Unction, Chapter IV. On the Subject of Extreme Unction · Vol. II, Treatise on Extreme Unction, Appendix. On the Visitation and Care of the Sick

One must treat: 1. Of the notion and effect of this Sacrament. 2. Of the matter and form by which it is constituted.

Vol. II, Part Third: On the Sacrame…, Tr. VI, Ch. I, Article I: On The Notion And Effect Of Extreme Unction

n. ¶1871.

DEFINITION. Extreme Unction is "a Sacrament instituted by Christ and promulgated by Blessed James, for conferring the health of the soul, or even of the body, on the sick who are in danger of life, through the anointing of blessed oil and the prayer of the priest."¹¹

Principles. - I. Extreme Unction is truly and properly a SACRAMENT of the New Law. - It is of faith; and it is clear: 1. from the words of James (5, 14 and 15): "Is any one of you sick? Let him bring in the priests of the Church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; and the prayer of faith shall save the sick man, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he be in sins, they shall be forgiven him." - 2. From Trent, sess. 14, on Extreme Unction, can. 1: "If anyone shall say that Extreme Unction is not truly and properly a Sacrament instituted by Christ our Lord and promulgated by the blessed Apostle James, but only a rite accepted from the Fathers, or a human figment: let him be anathema."

This Sacrament was instituted by Christ the Lord after the resurrection, as the more common opinion holds with Suarez; and it was promulgated by St. James, as is clear from the text alleged above.¹²

n. ¶1872.

II. Besides sanctifying grace, which, like the other Sacraments, it produces, Extreme Unction has ITS OWN PROPER EFFECTS, which are the following:

1. The PRIMARY effect is to strengthen the soul in its last agony. "This Sacrament," says the Council of Trent (sess. 14, on E. U., cap. 2), "alleviates and confirms the soul of the sick person, by exciting in him great confidence in the divine mercy; by which the sick man, supported, both bears more lightly the inconveniences and labors of disease, and more easily resists the temptations of the devil lying in wait for his heel."

2. The SECONDARY effect is threefold: 1. To delete the remnants of sin, such as obscurity of mind, hardness of heart, love of sensible things, diffidences, anxieties, and similar things which are contracted from sins. - 2. To take away part of the punishments which remain to be expiated for sins. (These two effects are produced greater or lesser according to the degree of disposition of the sick person.) - 3. To confer health of body, if it is expedient for the health of the soul, as Trent has it (loc. cit.); and to this end the prayers placed in the Ritual are also directed. But the Sacrament does not work this effect by way of miracle, lest faith be emptied out; but by a certain supernatural power, which aids natural causes, as far as the body is capable of their action.¹³

n. ¶1873.

Questions. Q. 1. Whether and in what way sins ARE REMITTED through Extreme Unction?

Resp. 1. Although the principal effect of this Sacrament is not to remit sins, neither mortal nor venial, as the Thomists more commonly and more probably teach against the Scotists, and as the Apostle James himself seems to suggest, saying conditionally "and, if he be in sins"; nevertheless, remission of sins must be specially attributed to it; for the Apostle continues, saying: "they shall be forgiven him," and Trent teaches similarly: "delicts, if any are still to be expiated, it wipes away."

Resp. 2. But concerning the mode in which mortal sins are remitted, Theologians do not agree. - Some with Gonet, Sporer, etc., to whom St. Thomas seems to give support,¹⁴ say that they are remitted per accidens, since it is a question of a Sacrament of the living; but others more probably and more commonly, with Suarez, Tournely, etc., teach that they are remitted per se, not indeed directly, but consequently; for it is clear that Extreme Unction was instituted to take away the remnants of sins; but because these cannot be taken away from a soul in which sin is found, unless the sin itself is first taken away, therefore this Sacrament, consequently, takes away sin.¹⁵

Q. 2. Whether through EACH ANOINTING partial grace is conferred?

Resp. 1. Suarez and others affirm it; because any anointing with its own form already signifies grace independently of the other anointings. - 2. But St. Thomas with the more common opinion denies it; because no anointing of itself constitutes the Sacrament, nor even a partial Sacrament; hence, grace is not conferred unless when the Sacrament is completed by the last anointing. - Each opinion is probable.¹⁶

Q. 3. Whether this Sacrament can be VALID and UNFORMED, so that, with the obstacle receding, grace is conferred?

Resp. "The Doctors commonly affirm. Hence the Salmanticenses with others infer that, if a sick person in good faith, or destitute of senses, received the Sacrament in mortal sin, it suffices that afterwards he have attrition, for grace to be received. Otherwise, if in bad faith. - But this runs, if the obstacle is removed while the same disease and danger persevere, at least as regards the effect of special helps, as Suarez and others say."¹⁷

From these things you will gather that through Extreme Unction souls often are saved, both because the Sacrament supplies strength and helps without which the sick person would yield victory to the devil; and because it is received more easily with a lesser disposition, and with a more lasting efficacy; and finally because it is the most salutary admonition of all concerning the proximity of death.¹⁸

Vol. II, Part Third: On the Sacrame…, Tr. VI, Ch. I, Art. II, § 1. On The Matter Of Extreme Unction

n. ¶1874.

A twofold matter is distinguished, namely remote and proximate.

I. The REMOTE matter is oil expressed from olives, and blessed by a special blessing by a Bishop.¹

But the choice of this matter was most fitting: "for, as OIL greatly profits for mitigating pains of the body, so the power of the Sacrament diminishes the sadness and pain of the soul. OIL besides restores health, brings cheerfulness, and supplies, as it were, food to light; and then it is most greatly accommodated to restoring the strength of a wearied body. All these things declare what, in the sick person, is effected by divine power through the administration of this Sacrament." - Thus the Roman Catechism.²

We said, 1. IT IS OIL; for it is clear from the words of the Apostle, anointing him with oil; and this oil, by necessity or validity of the Sacrament, must be the juice of the olive; because in common use this juice alone is designated by the name of oil. Hence Eugene IV, in the Decree to the Armenians, expressly names oil of olive. "This oil moreover, at least from the precept of the Church, ought to be simple, that is, without any admixture of another liquid," as Benedict XIV teaches.³

2. BLESSED BY A BISHOP: wherefore Trent (sess. 14, cap. 1) has these words: "For the Church understood that the matter is oil blessed by a Bishop." But whether this blessing is not only of precept, but also of the necessity of the Sacrament, is disputed; but Authors most commonly affirm it with St. Thomas, and today the matter is plainly certain. For to the doubt: whether, with the oil of the sick lacking, it is licit to administer, under condition, the Sacrament of Extreme Unction with oil blessed by a simple priest, at least in a case of extreme necessity, for instance when the dying person, destitute of senses, previously gave no sign of sorrow and does not give it: the response was always Negative. Thus the Holy Office on January 13, 1611, before Paul V, and September 14, 1842, before Gregory XVI.⁴ Nevertheless, the blessing of oil can be committed by the Supreme Pontiff to a simple priest, as is clear from the Decree of Clement VIII,⁵ who (indirectly) declared that the Sacrament of Extreme Unction conferred on Latins by Greek priests, with oil blessed by the same priests, is valid.⁶

3. Blessed BY A SPECIAL BLESSING, i.e. in order to Extreme Unction: for that this is required by necessity of the Sacrament the Salmanticenses with Bellarmine affirm probably, against Suarez and others; because, just as by the blessing of chrism the matter is deputed for the Sacrament of Confirmation, so by the blessing of the oil of the sick the matter is deputed to the Sacrament of Extreme Unction.⁷ Hence, in a case of necessity, the Oil of catechumens or Sacred Chrism can indeed be employed UNDER CONDITION. But when the oil of the sick itself has been found, the anointings must be repeated under condition; and the same must be done if by error the priest had employed those oils.

It is doubted: Whether one single drop of oil suffices for administering the Sacrament? - St. Alphonsus responded: "Only speculatively probable is the opinion saying that it suffices to administer this Sacrament with one drop of oil, without spreading it over parts; not, however, practically, because this would not be a true anointing."⁸ Nevertheless, for the value of the Sacrament, it certainly suffices to dip the extreme part of the finger in oil for the individual anointings which are made under the repeated form.

Note. This oil (as also the oil of catechumens and Sacred Chrism), from the precept of Clement VIII⁹ (which according to the more probable opinion obliges under grave sin), must be renewed yearly; and, the renewal having been made, the oil of the preceding year must be burned (namely in the lamp which burns before the Most Holy Sacrament); nor is it licit to use it any longer, except in the case in which the new cannot be had. - But if the new does not suffice, another, not blessed, can be mixed with it, but in lesser quantity, as the Ritual says. Indeed, it is licit to renew the admixture several times, provided that the oil to be mixed in is always in lesser quantity, and true necessity requires this.¹⁰ - See the rest in the Ritual.

n. ¶1875.

II. The PROXIMATE matter is the anointing of certain parts of the body, and at least of the five senses, made by a priest. - From the Roman Ritual, principally five parts of the body ought to be anointed, namely: 1. the eyes (or eyelids) or eyebrows; - 2. the ears (at the lowest part of the ear, so that it can be wiped more easily); - 3. the nostrils, i.e. both nostrils (outside), or the extremity of the summit of the nose, with one anointing; - 4. the mouth, with the lips compressed so that one anointing can be made (if this could not be obtained, it will be enough that the lower or upper lip be anointed); - 5. the hands (outside for priests, inside for others); - 6. the feet (either on the soles, or above the feet, according as custom bears or diocesan Statutes prescribe, or as it can be done more conveniently).¹¹ Although, however (from the common opinion), this anointing of the feet is not of the necessity of the Sacrament, nevertheless it cannot be omitted at the priest's pleasure.¹² - 7. The reins; whose anointing is not of the necessity of the Sacrament, as is clear from the Roman Ritual, where it is read: "But the anointing of the reins in women, for the sake of modesty, is always omitted; and also in men, when the sick person cannot conveniently be moved. But, whether in women or in men, another part of the body ought not to be anointed for the reins." At Rome it is customary to anoint the reins of men from each side, or at least from one side, upon the bone which they call the ischion (hip): for thus the sick person scarcely needs to be moved. Elsewhere, the anointing of the reins is omitted in all indiscriminately; nevertheless the S. R. C. (August 1, 1858) desires that it be introduced where it is not in use.¹³ Meanwhile, the custom of the diocese is to be observed by the priest.

n. ¶1876.

Questions. Q. 1. In what way ought the anointings to be made?

Resp. 1. From the ROMAN RITUAL, each anointing ought to be made with the thumb dipped in the holy oil, in the manner of a cross, adapting the cross and the words in the anointing of each part, always beginning from the right. "But the minister, if he is in Sacred Orders, or the priest himself, after each anointing, should wipe the places anointed with a new little ball of cotton or of something similar, and should place it in a clean vessel, and afterwards carry it to the church, burn it, and cast the ashes into the Sacrarium."

Resp. 2. It is certain that it is not of the necessity of the Sacrament that the anointings be made through the immediate contact of the hand; wherefore in a case of necessity, i.e. when plague is raging, a little rod anointed with oil can be employed, which afterwards is to be burned.¹⁴ - Nor is it of the necessity of the Sacrament that a double anointing be made in double parts; since the tinder of sins is now sufficiently indicated through the anointing of one part: hence, when necessity urges, or if the sick person cannot be turned to another side, it suffices to anoint one eye, one ear, etc. Nor finally is it essential to observe the order of the RITUAL among the anointings of the parts; since the inversion of order does not impede the signification of the Sacrament. - But, outside the case of necessity, these three things are to be observed under grave sin, as is commonly taught.¹⁵

Q. 2. Whether the anointing OF THE FIVE SENSES is of the necessity of the Sacrament?

Resp. It is controverted. - The first opinion (speculatively probable), with Merbesius, Tournely, etc., denies it; for from St. James a simple anointing is prescribed, and in Trent mention is made of only one anointing by these words: "this sacred anointing"; whence it seems to suffice that a man be anointed in only one part, so that he may be called anointed. But the more common and safer opinion (to be held under grave sin in practice) affirms that the simple anointings of the five senses are of the necessity of the Sacrament. Thus St. Bonaventure, St. Thomas, Suarez, Bellarmine, etc., who gather this chiefly from the use of the Church.¹⁶

Q. 3. Whether and in what way are the BLIND, DEAF, MUTILATED to be anointed?

Resp. "If someone is mutilated in some member, the part nearest to that place is to be anointed, with the same form of words." Thus the Roman Ritual. In the same way, those blind from birth, deaf, and mute are to be anointed, namely near the organs of the senses of which they are deprived; for although they have not sinned exteriorly through them, nevertheless they could have sinned through the interior powers to which those correspond, e.g. through desires of seeing, hearing, etc. Thus D. Thomas and the Salmanticenses with the common opinion.¹⁷

Vol. II, Part Third: On the Sacrame…, Tr. VI, Ch. I, Art. II, § 2. On The Form Of Extreme Unction

n. ¶1877.

The FORM of Extreme Unction is this: Through this holy anointing, and His most loving mercy, may the Lord forgive thee whatever THROUGH SIGHT (if the eyes are anointed, and so concerning the others) thou hast committed. Amen. - It is clear from the Council of Trent and from the Roman Ritual. The indicative form would be invalid, as is taught more truly; for from the words of St. James, And let them pray over him, it ought to be deprecatory.¹⁸

Moreover, to one asking why the form of this Sacrament is deprecatory, the Roman Catechism responds:¹⁹ "This was constituted by the best right; for since this Sacrament is therefore applied so that, besides the spiritual grace which it bestows, it may also restore health to the sick; nevertheless, because it does not always follow that the sick recover from diseases, for that cause the form is completed by prayer, so that from the kindness of God we may obtain that which the power of the Sacrament is not wont to effect by a constant and perpetual order."

As regards the form, LET THE FOLLOWING BE NOTED:

1. To the essence of the Sacrament pertain the words: Through this anointing may the Lord forgive thee whatever thou hast committed. - There are indeed some who deny that the word thou hast committed is of the essence; but undeservedly: for this word expresses the remission of sins, which is the principal effect of this Sacrament.

2. The word holy does not pertain to the essence, as all confess; nor these other words: through His most loving mercy, because one who prays God that He forgive already implores His mercy, as the Authors more commonly and more probably teach. Nevertheless, to omit these last words would be a grave sin against the use of the Church, in a grave matter; but neither can the word holy be omitted without fault.

3. The form is not to be ended before the other part of the same sense has been anointed. If the priest fails between the anointings, the anointings already made are not to be repeated, unless a fourth part of an hour has now elapsed; in which case they would have to be repeated under condition.²⁰

4. Once the form has been ended, in the individual anointings, the sick person with those standing by can respond Amen. And it will be excellent if, while the five senses of the body are being anointed, he expressly grieves concerning the faults committed through them.²¹

IT IS ASKED. In what way, WHEN NECESSITY URGES, must the Sacrament be conferred?

Resp. 1. "If someone labors in extremis, and danger is imminent lest he depart before the anointings are finished, let him be anointed quickly, beginning from that place: Through this holy anointing, etc. Then, if he still survives, let the prayers omitted, placed in their own place, be said." Thus the ROMAN RITUAL.

2. If the danger of death is so imminent that all the anointings do not seem able to be carried out in the due manner, let the priest make one anointing, under condition if it is valid, on some sense (yet more advisedly on the forehead, since the nerves of all the senses descend from the head), using this form: Through this holy anointing... may the Lord forgive thee whatever thou hast committed through the senses: sight, hearing, taste, smell, and touch; therefore placing first the word thou hast committed, because if it were pronounced at the end, and meanwhile the sick person should die, there is no Sacrament. - If the sick person survives, the anointings, as Lacroix rightly affirms, are to be repeated on the individual senses, and the other omitted prayers are to be added.

3. But if it is doubted whether the sick person still lives, let the priest continue the anointing under condition, saying: If thou livest, through this, etc. "But if the sick person, while he is anointed, departs, let the priest proceed no further, and let him omit the aforesaid prayers." Thus the RITUAL.

Vol. II, Part Third: On the Sacrame…, Tr. VI, Chapter II: On The Minister Of Extreme Unction

n. ¶1878.

Principles. I. Only and every priest can VALIDLY administer the Sacrament of Extreme Unction. - That only a priest is the minister of this Sacrament is clear both from the words of St. James already cited: Is any one of you sick? Let him bring in the priests of the Church, etc.; and from the definition of the Church in Trent, sess. 14, on Extreme Unction, can. 4. But that any priest, even one excommunicated, can validly administer this Sacrament, is clear from the fact that Extreme Unction was not instituted by way of judgment, as Penance was, and therefore for its conferral the power of Order suffices.

You will ask whether this Sacrament can be validly administered to the same sick person by SEVERAL priests? - Resp. Affirmatively, if the individual priests anoint a different sense, and in anointing pronounce the form suitable to this sense (for if one anointed, and another uttered the words of the form, the Sacrament would not be conferred, as is clear). - And in reality, that Extreme Unction was in antiquity administered in this way in the Latin Church is gathered from several ancient Rituals;¹ but today, on account of the contrary practice of the Church, the same would be gravely illicit.

n. ¶1879.

II. Only the pastor of souls, or a priest delegated by him, administers Extreme Unction LICITLY. This is drawn from Trent; and the reason is that it belongs to the pastor alone to feed his sheep and to lead them to the pastures of blessed eternity (If a Bishop becomes sick, the right of fortifying him with the last Sacraments belongs to the Canons, i.e. to the more dignified one among them).² Hence he sins gravely who administers this Sacrament without permission of the pastor or Bishop, since in a grave matter he injures the right of another.³

Nevertheless, interpretative, or reasonably presumed, permission probably suffices; and this certainly is had when the administration of the Sacrament urges, and the sick person cannot be anointed by the pastor or vice-pastor, either because they are absent, or because they do not wish to anoint him, and otherwise the Bishop cannot be approached. In such a case of necessity, any priest, even a Regular, provided he is not excommunicated or suspended, can licitly confer this Sacrament, because the Pope is censured to give permission. Thus commonly Suarez, the Salmanticenses, and others, against a few. But outside the case of necessity, permission is not easily to be presumed.⁴

And here it is to be noted that Religious (or Regulars) who presume, outside the case of necessity, to administer the Sacrament of Extreme Unction (or of the Eucharist by way of Viaticum) to clerics or laymen, without parochial permission, incur an excommunication reserved to the Pope: from the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis (cf. n. 1341).

n. ¶1880.

Questions. Q. 1. Whether and how great is the OBLIGATION of conferring this Sacrament?

Resp. 1. A pastor, unless a just cause excuses him (such as danger of life), is held by reason of his office, and indeed under grave sin, to confer it on his subjects asking for it. Indeed, in any case whatever, not even excepting danger of life, he is held to this if the sick person for a long time has no longer confessed and probably is judged to be in the state of mortal sin, and because of the privation of the senses cannot be absolved except under condition.⁵ - 2. Another priest, when the pastor is absent, is held to the same from charity; indeed under light obligation, in the common case; but under grave obligation, if the sick person greatly needed this Sacrament, e.g. if otherwise he would be about to die without any Sacrament.⁶

Q. 2. In what way, or BY WHAT RITE, must Extreme Unction be administered?

Resp. It must be administered with surplice and violet stole, with a minister and a light, and with the prayers prescribed in the Ritual. - Wherefore the following things COME TO BE NOTED:

1. The surplice and stole are required under grave sin, on account of reverence for the Sacrament. Exception, according to the probable opinion, is the case in which these were lacking, and the sick person would be about to die without the protection of this Sacrament. For Christ the Lord is not presumed, on account of the lack of sacred vestments, to wish the sick person to be deprived of so great a good.⁷

2. Outside the case of necessity, more probably, it is venial to anoint without a minister. But it is never licit to use the ministry of a woman; hence, when a man is absent, let the priest himself respond to the prayers.⁸

3. Probably it is not mortal to administer this Sacrament without a light; but one light suffices, according to the Ritual. To omit the sign of the cross in the anointings is only venial; indeed, it would be no sin if it were omitted on account of imminent death, so as to act more quickly.⁹

4. To omit the prescribed prayers, except in a case of necessity, is, of itself, a mortal sin. But the litanies and other prayers to be recited by the assistants are, more probably, only of counsel.¹⁰

5. The holy oil cannot be solemnly carried as Viaticum; but neither is it to be carried secretly and, as it were, stealthily, unless necessity excuses. The Cross is carried without a shaft, as in the funerals of little children. In the room of the sick person, all things ought to be, as is fitting, clean and well disposed.

Note. It is not licit for the pastor to keep the sacred oil constantly at home, "except in the case of great distance from the church: in which case the rubric is wholly to be observed as regards honorable and decent, and safe custody." Thus the S. R. C., December 16, 1826.¹¹ We said constantly, for St. Alphonsus adds:¹² "The pastor can rightly keep the holy oil in his own house at night, while he foresees probable danger, as if, when called to confer Unction, it would not be available."

Vol. II, Part Third: On the Sacrame…, Tr. VI, Chapter III: On The Subject Of Extreme Unction

n. ¶1881.

Principles. I. The SUBJECT of Extreme Unction is only a baptized man, who has attained the use of reason and is in danger of life from disease. - It is clear: 1. from the words of St. James: Is any one of you sick?, etc.; 2. from Trent (sess. 14, cap. 3), where it is declared: "This anointing is to be applied to the sick, but especially to those who lie so dangerously ill that they seem to be placed at the exit of life."

Hence, for the VALID reception of this Sacrament the following things are required:

It is required, 1. that the one to be anointed BE BAPTIZED; for Baptism is the gate of the Sacraments. But this Sacrament can be conferred on an adult immediately after Baptism. "The reason is both because, more truly, through Baptism the remnants of mortal faults committed before Baptism are not wiped away, such as torpor toward good and proneness toward evil; and because the primary effect of this Sacrament is not so much the remission of faults as the strengthening of the sick person against the temptations of the devil, as Suarez and others commonly say."¹³

It is required, 2. that the one to be anointed HAS ATTAINED THE USE OF REASON. For otherwise the form would become vain: May the Lord forgive thee, etc. Hence it follows: 1) Children who have not yet attained the use of reason cannot be anointed. On the contrary, whatever Soto with others may say, children endowed with reason are to be anointed, although they cannot receive the Sacrament of the Eucharist and have not yet reached the age of seven, as Benedict XIV teaches.¹⁴ In doubt concerning the use of reason, let them not be deprived of so salutary a remedy, but let them be anointed under condition: If thou art capable.¹⁵ - 2) The perpetually insane cannot be anointed; otherwise, if they have had lucid intervals; or even if it is probable that they had them, in which case they ought to be anointed under condition. But the RITUAL admonishes: "If the sick person, while he labors under frenzy or insanity, likely could do anything against the reverence of the Sacrament, let him not be anointed, unless the danger is removed altogether," for instance, if he is held or even bound. - 3) The sick who are destitute of the senses ought to be anointed, and indeed without condition, if they have given a sign of a pious soul, or have lived as Christians, so that it can be presumed that they would have asked for the Sacrament if they had been masters of reason: or, as the Ritual speaks, if they likely would have asked. And the reason is that, in one receiving this Sacrament, an interpretative intention suffices (cf. n. 1434, 3).

It is required, 3. that the sick person BE SICK UNTO DEATH, "so that there is fear concerning his death," as the Council of Florence says in the Decree to the Armenians. - Hence, neither validly nor licitly can the healthy be anointed, even if they are in open danger of death, such as those in danger at sea, in battle, etc.; those to be punished by public death; women laboring only with common pains in childbirth, even if they give birth for the first time, or at other times have been in danger of life; otherwise, if most grave torments supervene, through which illness with danger of death is verified. But those can be anointed who are infected with lethal poison; likewise those laboring under some evil on account of which they are about to undergo a difficult operation of surgery; likewise decrepit old persons "who fail from old age (as the Ritual speaks) and seem to die day by day, even without another infirmity": for old age itself is a disease.¹⁶

To the following question: "Sometimes, when Missionaries are visiting Christians committed to themselves, there occurs a sick person laboring with hectic fever or a similar disease, who according to experience will live still several months, but within a year will die. - It is asked whether, in such a case, the Missionary can administer Viaticum and Extreme Unction to him, because when the truer case for receiving them will be present, a Missionary will not be able to be had present, on account of the great distance and other circumstances impeding this?" The S. C. DE PROPAG. FIDE responded on February 20, 1801: Affirmatively.¹⁷

n. ¶1882.

II. For the LICIT and FRUITFUL reception of Extreme Unction, certain dispositions of the subject are required besides. For it is primarily, and of itself, a Sacrament of the living (cf. n. 1395).

Hence, besides the intention, at least presumed, of receiving the Sacrament, which is also necessary for validity, there IS REQUIRED: 1. Confession of sins, if the sick person is in the state of mortal sin. - 2. Contrition, at least estimated, in the case in which he cannot confess; for he must be at least putatively in grace; but if he has only attrition, the Sacrament will not lack its effect (cf. n. 1395 and 1397, qu. 2). - 3. The Most Holy Eucharist, from the general custom of the Church (but at most under venial sin), must be premised, unless vomiting or another reasonable cause excuses.¹⁸ - The other dispositions, such as lively faith, firm hope, perfect conformity with the divine will, etc., effect that a richer fruit is perceived from the Sacrament (cf. n. 1437).

The RITUAL admonishes: "But to the impenitent, and those who die in manifest mortal sin, and the excommunicated... (the Sacrament) is to be denied." - Nevertheless, it is given both to the drunken now about to die, and to those wounded in a brawl now destitute of senses, and to any others whatever concerning whom it is doubted whether they are in the state of mortal sin or are sufficiently disposed. - Benedict XIV also says:¹⁹ "Concerning any faithful person, concerning whom the contrary is not established, it must be presumed that he would have asked for this Sacrament, if he could have."²⁰

n. ¶1883.

Questions. Q. 1. In what degree of infirmity CAN or OUGHT Extreme Unction be conferred?

Resp. 1. It CAN be conferred validly and licitly as soon as the sick person is prudently or probably judged to be in danger of death, although not yet proximate. It is proved from Trent (sess. 14, cap. 3, on Extreme Unction), where it is had: "This anointing is to be applied to the sick, but especially to those who lie so dangerously ill that they seem to be placed at the exit of life." That particle especially sufficiently indicates that Extreme Unction can be ministered also to the sick who do not yet seem to be at the exit of life. The matter is proved more strongly from the Bull Ex quo of Benedict XIV,²¹ in which it is read: "Let the Sacrament of Extreme Unction not be administered to those well in health, but only to those who labor under a grave disease." Wherefore, whenever Viaticum can be furnished to a sick person who is not fasting, Extreme Unction can also be given to him; indeed, it is expedient that it then be given. - But if it were given in a GRAVE disease, though danger of death at least remote were not judged to be present, it would indeed be given validly, but illicitly; if in a LIGHT disease, it would be administered neither licitly nor validly.²²

2. It OUGHT to be given when danger of death urges; for thus the RITUAL speaks: "This Sacrament ought to be furnished to the sick who labor so gravely that danger of death seems to be imminent." - Nor is the last time of life to be awaited, as the Roman Catechism says:²³ "They sin most gravely (priests) who are accustomed to observe that time for anointing the sick person when already, all hope of health having been lost, he begins to lack life and senses." The reason is, says St. Alphonsus, because the sick person is deprived of the richer fruit which he would have received if, master of himself, he had received the Sacrament; likewise because he is deprived of spiritual strength for resisting the devil and for bearing the inconveniences of disease; he is perhaps deprived also of health of body, if he had been anointed at the suitable time, according to what was said at n. 1872; indeed also of the eternal salvation itself of the soul, in the case in which, existing in mortal sin, he would have attained grace with the help of attrition. - All these things, at least heaped together, seem to bring grave damage to the sick person.²⁴

Q. 2. Whether and when can this Sacrament be REPEATED?

Resp. It must be repeated: - 1. In a different and dangerous infirmity; for it is ordered to healing; "but healing medicine ought to be repeated as often as infirmity is repeated," as D. Thomas says.²⁵ - 2. In a different danger of a long infirmity; for the RITUAL says: "In the same infirmity it ought not to be repeated, unless it is long-lasting, as when the sick person has grown better and again falls into danger of death."

Hence, IN A LONG-LASTING DISEASE, such as phthisis and dropsy, if the sick person after anointing certainly has remained in the same state of infirmity, or only for a brief time, for instance for 4 or 5 days, has had himself better, it ought not to be repeated. - But if such a change has intervened in his state that with probability it must be judged that he had exited from the danger of death, because for a notable time, for instance for a month, he had had himself better than before, in such a case, with Benedict XIV as witness,²⁶ one must stand for repetition of the Sacrament, "because," he says, "this repetition is more conformed to the ancient custom of the Church, and through it a new spiritual help comes to the sick person."

Q. 3. Whether the reception of this Sacrament is NECESSARY for salvation?

Resp. 1. It is not necessary by necessity of means, since salvation can be obtained without this Sacrament. Thus all. - But whether it is necessary by necessity of precept is controverted. St. Alphonsus judges the affirmative opinion as very probable, and altogether to be advised in practice: but this, not now by reason of a precept, concerning whose grave obligation it is not established; but by reason of charity which the sick person owes to himself, and which urges especially in the extreme article of life. For although other protections, with which he can fortify himself, are not lacking to him, nevertheless he would act mercilessly toward himself if willingly he deprived himself of this most powerful protection. For he who is in danger of death, on the one hand, is able to excite himself to good acts only with great difficulty, and on the other hand is subject to strong attacks of enemies, since "in this point of time (as Trent speaks), the snares of the devil are more vehement." Hence (thus the Blessed Doctor concludes) he seems to expose himself to great danger of succumbing to temptations, who neglects to fortify himself with this Sacrament instituted by Christ the Lord as a most firm protection in so great a conflict.

2. Although of itself it is not established that there is a grave obligation of receiving Extreme Unction, nevertheless all agree that the sick person PER ACCIDENS is held, and indeed UNDER GRAVE SIN, to the reception of the Sacrament, whether by reason of special necessity, namely if, existing in mortal sin, he could not receive another Sacrament, or by reason of scandal to be avoided, or finally by reason of contempt. - For it is certain that formal contempt induces grave fault. Moreover, contempt is censured formal when the sick person refuses this Sacrament because he values it little; but not when he refuses from some repugnance or ignorance. It is confirmed from the Bull of Martin V: This Sacrament can neither be neglected without fault, nor contemned without mortal sin. "Hence, the Pontiff seems sufficiently to have expressed that contempt of this Sacrament indeed carries grave fault, but negligence no more than light fault."²⁷

Note. Concerning ASSISTANCE TOWARD THE DYING, see the Opuscule of St. Alphonsus at the end of the Praxis Confessarii, or in Hom. Apost., last Treatise, Appendix II. - Concerning the Indulgence to be imparted to the dying²⁸ (cf. n. 1854, 9).

Konings, Theologia Moralis

Anthony Konings, C.SS.R. — 13 passages

Vol. II, Treatise on Extreme Unction, Chapter I. On the Nature and Effects of Extreme Unction

n. ¶1500.

1500. - I. Extreme Unction is defined as a Sacrament of the new law instituted by Christ for conferring the salvation of the soul, or even of the body, upon a sick person whose life is in danger, through the anointing of blessed Oil and the prayer of the priest.

II. The effects of the Sacrament of Extreme Unction are:

1° Sanctifying grace, with actual graces proper to the Sacrament, which wonderfully help to recreate the sick person and to strengthen him against the temptations of the devil.

2° Remission of all sins not yet remitted, even mortal sins. It is established from Scripture: And if he be in sins, they shall be forgiven him.¹ Hence the Sacrament of Extreme Unction is indeed primarily a Sacrament of the living, but secondarily it is a Sacrament of the dead, namely in the hypothesis of the state of sin. It certainly remits venial sins per se; more probably it also remits mortal sins in the same way, although secondarily.²

3° The wiping away of the remnants of sin, which are not only the penalties due to sins, but also anxieties of soul, infirmities, languor toward good, torpor, fear, and other similar things which are contracted from sins. But these effects are greater, the better the sick person is disposed in soul.

4° Restoration of the health of the body sometimes, if it is expedient for the salvation of the soul. It is established from Scripture: The prayer of faith shall save the sick man,³ and from Trent.⁴ Hence it appears how shamefully they err who do not receive this Sacrament unless when the disease has so prevailed that now they cannot be healed without a miracle.¹

Notes near n. 1500, final warning concerning delayed reception (printed p. 197; right-column note sequence).

1 L. VI. 731.

Vol. II, Treatise on Extreme Unction, Ch. II, Article I. On the Matter of This Sacrament

n. ¶1501.

1501. Principles. - I. The remote matter is Oil blessed by a Bishop. It is established from the Council of Trent.²

II. The Oil of Extreme Unction, or of the sick, is to be blessed by the diocesan Bishop, or, the See being vacant, by another neighboring Bishop, on the Supper of the Lord, just as Chrism is, and is to be renewed every year, not however for the validity of the Sacrament. Thus from the precept of Clement VIII.³ It is established also from the perpetual practice of the Church, and from the Roman Ritual concerning Extreme Unction.

III. The proximate matter is the anointing of certain parts of the body, which are, at least from the precept of the Church, the five senses. For anointing of the reins is not of the necessity of the Sacrament, but, if circumstances permit, where it is not in custom, it is to be introduced.⁴ The same is commonly asserted concerning the anointing of the feet;⁵ nevertheless the priest cannot omit this anointing at will, and it ought to be made either on the soles or above the feet, according as either custom bears, or diocesan statutes prescribe, or it can be done more conveniently. Therefore anointing is to be made: 1° on the eyes, or on the eyebrows or eyelids; 2° on the ears, i.e. on the lower part of the ear; 3° on the nostrils, i.e. upon the extremity of the summit of the nose, and with only one anointing, because, although strictly speaking a double organ is spoken of, nevertheless with one anointing made on the summit both are anointed at the same time: this can be deduced from rituals which, when they speak of a double organ, do not make mention of the nostrils; 4° on the mouth, the lips being pressed together; but if the sick person did not hear, or could not press the lips together without inconvenience, lest breathing be shut off, it will suffice to anoint either lip; 5° on the hands, above for priests, within, or on the palms, for others.

Notes near n. 1501, matter of Extreme Unction (printed p. 197; right-column note sequence continued).

2 Sess. 14. de Extr. Unct. c. 1. | 3 L. VI. 708. | 4 Collect. p. 322. n. 677. | 5 L. VI. 710 and Rit. Rom.

n. ¶1502.

1502. Questions. - Quaer. 1° Whether the precept of renewing the Oil obliges under grave?

Resp. Affirmatively, more probably, because the matter appears sufficiently grave. Nevertheless, if new Oil cannot be had, it is lawful to use the old.

But if perhaps within the year the blessed Oil is going to fail, and no other can be had, another Oil not blessed can be poured into the blessed Oil which remains, in lesser quantity however. - Roman Ritual. And this can be done several times, although gradually even a much greater quantity is added than was consecrated by the Bishop at the beginning, provided nevertheless that in each mixture it is less than the other part into which it is poured.

Quaer. 2° Whether the Oil must necessarily be of olives?

Resp. Affirmatively. The reason is 1° because by the name of oil, from common usage, Oil of olives is properly understood. 2° It is established besides from the Decree of Eugene IV for the Armenians, in which concerning Extreme Unction it is read: its matter is Oil of olives. 3° It is clear also from the whole tradition and the unanimous consensus of Doctors.

Quaer. 3° Whether this Oil must necessarily be blessed by a Bishop?

Resp. Affirmatively, yet in such a way that from Pontifical delegation it can also be blessed by a simple priest. It is established from various Declarations of Paul V, and most recently of Gregory XVI, on September 14, 1842, and from Benedict XIV.

Quaer. 4° Whether the Oil must be blessed in order to Extreme Unction?

Resp. It is disputed. There is a twofold probable opinion, says St. Alphonsus. Some deny, because the Church requires nothing else except that the Oil be blessed by a Bishop. Hence, they say, the Oil of catechumens and Chrism can validly be employed for making anointings. But others affirm, because, just as Chrism is deputed by its own blessing for Confirmation, so also the Oil of the sick for the Sacrament of Extreme Unction. In practice the safer opinion must altogether be followed, except in a case of necessity, in which this Sacrament is to be administered under condition with another blessed Oil, and afterward, if the Oil of the sick can be had, it is to be repeated.

I said: with another blessed Oil; for a threefold holy Oil is distinguished, which in the same ceremony on Thursday in the Supper of the Lord is blessed by the Bishop, namely the Oil of the sick, the Oil of catechumens, and holy Chrism, or Oil mixed with balsam. 1° The Oil of the sick serves only for anointing the sick in danger of death, and for the consecration of bells for the external anointing; for for the internal [anointing] Chrism is employed. 2° The Oil of catechumens is deputed for anointing catechumens before Baptism on the breast and between the shoulders, for consecrating the hands of newly ordained priests, and also for some other consecrations, for example of kings, etc. 3° But Chrism is employed in the Sacrament of Confirmation, in the ceremonies of Baptism after the Sacrament has already been conferred, and for other consecrations, for example of chalice, paten, ciborium, altar, bell internally, etc. - See the Roman Pontifical, especially where it treats of the ceremonies of Thursday in the Supper of the Lord.

Quaer. 5° Whether the anointing of the five senses is of the necessity of the Sacrament?

Resp. The safer affirmative must be held with the more common opinion of Theologians, to which the practice of the Church is consonant; and this practice, excluding a case of necessity, in which under condition one anointing can be employed, more advisedly on the head, under the form described n. 1504. q. 3°, must always be observed. Yet the negative opinion is said by St. Alphonsus to be speculatively probable.

Quaer. 6° Whether a double anointing on double parts is required by the necessity of the Sacrament, for example on each eye, each ear, etc.?

Resp. Negatively, because the whole sense is had in one part. Outside a case of necessity, nevertheless, the double anointing is to be observed under grave.

Quaer. 7° How ought the anointings be made?

Resp. The anointings ought to be made with the right thumb of the priest, who anoints the sick person in the manner of a Cross. Thus from the Roman Ritual. But these things pertain to liceity, not however to validity. But in double members the beginning is from the right, for example from the right eye, etc. - Roman Ritual.

Quaer. 8° Whether by necessity of the Sacrament the order among the anointings of the various senses is to be observed?

Resp. Negatively. The reason is that an inversion of this kind in no way impedes the signification of the Sacrament. Nevertheless they commonly say that such an inversion is gravely illicit, because it is against the use of the Church in a notable matter.

Quaer. 9° Whether Extreme Unction can be conferred on those mute, deaf, and blind from birth?

Resp. Affirmatively; for they can be anointed near the organs of the senses which they lack: for, even if exteriorly they have not sinned through those, nevertheless through the interior powers of the soul, to which those correspond, they could have sinned. Moreover there is question not only of those sins which perhaps were committed through those organs and the corresponding powers.

Quaer. 10° How is a sick person who is deprived of a hand or foot to be anointed?

Resp. The anointing is to be made on the part nearer to the mutilated member. It is established from the Roman Ritual.

Quaer. 11° Whether one drop alone of oil suffices for making the anointings?

Resp. Affirmatively, probably. The reason is that he who anoints with one drop of oil truly anoints; for Oil is diffused more than other liquids. - Thus St. Alphonsus speculatively, and others more commonly. - But some deny; because to anoint is to diffuse Oil through various parts, which is not done by a single drop of Oil. But it is answered that Oil is diffused through various parts when the five senses are anointed, even if the same drop is employed. In practice nevertheless the second opinion, as not improbable, at least extrinsically, is to be followed; but certainly for the value of the Sacrament it suffices to dip the extreme part of the finger in the Oil for the individual special anointings, which are made under the repeated form.

Quaer. 12° Whether in time of plague, or of some contagious disease, it is lawful to perform the sacred anointings by means of a little brush?

Resp. Affirmatively. Collect. p. 322. n. 679.

Vol. II, Treatise on Extreme Unction, Ch. II, Article II. On the Form of Extreme Unction

n. ¶1503.

1503. - The form of Extreme Unction is this: Through this holy anointing and His most loving mercy, may the Lord pardon you whatever you have sinned through sight (by anointing the eye, and so concerning the others). It is established from Trent, and from the Roman Ritual. The form is to be repeated integrally for the individual parts to be anointed, expressing the member which then is anointed, namely through sight in anointing the eyes, through hearing in the anointing of the ears, etc. But simultaneity between matter and form must be the same as in Baptism. See n. 1211. IV. c). - If the priest fails between the anointings, those which have already been made are not to be repeated by another, unless that other were to begin after a quarter of an hour, in which case they will have to be repeated under condition.

n. ¶1504.

1504. Questions. - Quaer. 1° Whether for the validity of the Sacrament there is required the expression of each sense, namely, THROUGH SIGHT, THROUGH HEARING, etc.?

Resp. It is disputed. Some deny, because it is not found in the form of the Greeks, which nevertheless is admitted by the Church as valid. Others affirm, because by one anointing and the form corresponding to it there are not remitted the remnants of any sins whatsoever, but only of those which were committed through that sense. Therefore since the matter is doubtful, the expression of the sense is to be employed under grave. - Billuart.

Quaer. 2° What words are essential to the form?

Resp. They are the following: Through this anointing, may the Lord pardon you whatever you have sinned (with the word expressing the sense, i.e. through sight, etc., at least practically).

Quaer. 3° Whether one form suffices for all the senses, if the individual senses are distinctly expressed and anointed?

Resp. It is disputed. Some affirm, because this form is virtually multiple and equivalent to several particular forms, and thus specially signifies the effect of each special form. But others deny, because since the partial matters, namely the anointings, are distinct, special forms also ought to correspond to the individual ones.

When necessity presses, the more correct form is this: Through this holy anointing, etc., may the Lord pardon you whatever you have sinned through the senses, sight, hearing, taste, smell, and touch, putting before it the word: you have sinned; because, if you have sinned is uttered at the end, and meanwhile the sick person dies, there is no Sacrament. - But if time remains, the anointings must be repeated under condition with the form proper to each, and the other prayers omitted must be added, as they are prescribed in the Ritual. - "But if, while he is being anointed, the sick person dies, let the presbyter proceed no further and let him omit the aforesaid prayers." - Roman Ritual.

Vol. II, Treatise on Extreme Unction, Chapter III. On the Minister of Extreme Unction

n. ¶1505.

1505. - I. Only a priest is the Minister of this Sacrament. It is established 1° from the words of St. James already cited: Is anyone sick among you? Let him bring in the priests of the Church, etc.; 2° from the definition of the Church. Trent.

II. Every priest can validly minister that Sacrament, because the power of validly conferring it belongs to the priest by reason of Order itself. He cannot however licitly minister it, except the Pastor alone.

n. ¶1506.

1506. Questions. - Quaer. 1° Whether any priest can minister this Sacrament from the probably presumed consent of the Pastor?

Resp. Affirmatively, more probably, because it does not seem that one must proceed with so great rigor where there is question of delegation for mere liceity, nor is there any question at all about the value of the Sacrament itself. Nevertheless such delegation is not easily to be presumed.

Yet if the priest to whom the administration of this Sacrament belongs is absent, or does not wish to give it, or is bound by excommunication or suspension, any priest in a case of necessity can administer this Sacrament, indeed from charity he ought to, under grave or light according to the necessity of the sick person or the scandal which would follow from administration denied.

Note. - Although to no presbyter among us is the faculty of ministering this Sacrament accustomed to be denied, nevertheless in its use for the benefit of those who belong to another Congregation, the account of pastoral prudence and also of mutual concord among brother priests must be had, and the statutes of the Ordinary must be observed.

Quaer. 2° Whether it is mortal to omit the prayers prescribed in the Ritual, or to minister without sacred vestments?

Resp. to the 1st. Affirmatively, because the matter is very grave. Except a case of necessity; likewise the Litanies and Penitential Psalms, which are only of counsel.

Resp. to the 2nd. Likewise affirmatively, outside necessity; but in necessity probably negatively. - Thus more commonly.

Quaer. 3° Whether or what kind of obligation there is of ministering Extreme Unction?

Resp. The Pastor, unless some grave cause excuses him, is held by reason of office under mortal to minister it to subjects dangerously sick and asking for it. (Cf. n. 1225.) - Indeed also with danger of life he would be held to minister it in the case in which the sick person had not confessed for a long time, and more probably was in mortal sin, nor, because of the privation of the senses, could absolution have been given to him otherwise than under condition. See n. 1508. q. 7°.

Quaer. 4° Whether or what kind of sin it is to minister Extreme Unction without light?

Resp. It is not to be excused from venial, unless necessity presses, both because of the custom of the Church and because of the reverence due to the Sacrament. - Nevertheless it does not exceed venial, because no grave injury seems to be done to the Sacrament. If a supply of wax is not present, oil or tallow can be employed; but if not even this can be had, let it be administered without light.

Quaer. 5° When the sick person receives both Viaticum and Extreme Unction, which Sacrament ought first to be administered?

Resp. Extreme Unction ought to be administered after the Eucharist, but at most only under venial, from which also a reasonable cause excuses. Thus the Rubric of the Roman Ritual expressly establishes. - In that case the Confiteor must be recited twice.

Quaer. 6° What kind of sin is it to omit the Sign of the Cross in the anointings?

Resp. It is only venial according to the common opinion, because grave matter is not apprehended there; but in necessity there is no sin.

Quaer. 7° Whether or what kind of sin it is to confer this Sacrament without a minister serving, and whether in necessity a woman can be employed?

Resp. to the 1st. It is not mortal to employ no minister, and in necessity, which among us is always or almost always present, there is no sin. - Thus most commonly. Indeed according to several there is probably no sin even outside the case of necessity. But the opposite is said as more probable by St. Alphonsus.

Resp. to the 2nd. A woman is never to be employed for the office of ministering; and, if a cleric or layman cannot easily be found, let the priest alone perform all the ceremonies, and himself respond to the prayers.

Quaer. 8° Whether the article of death can be waited for in order to confer this Sacrament?

Resp. Negatively. Indeed Theologians commonly teach that Pastors sin gravely who defer it until the sick person is deprived of the use of senses and reason, because thus the sick person lacks that richer fruit which he would have perceived if, in possession of reason, he had received the Sacrament; besides, because he is deprived of spiritual strength for resisting the demon, and for bearing the inconveniences of disease; and also because the sick person, if he were in mortal sin and had received the Sacrament while still in possession of reason, would have obtained grace by the aid of attrition, of which otherwise he is deprived; finally, because by virtue of this Sacrament he could have obtained the health of the body, if it had been conferred on him at a suitable time. Hence the Roman Catechism: "They sin most gravely who are accustomed to observe that time for anointing the sick person when, now all hope of health having been lost, he begins to lack life and senses."

Note. - 1° The Oil of the sick must be preserved in the church, as the Roman Ritual prescribes, "except however the case of great distance from the church: in which case let the Rubric concerning honorable, decent, and safe keeping be altogether observed, even at home." Thus the Sacred Congregation of Rites in Ghent, December 16, 1826.

2° "A new little ball of cotton is to be employed in the anointing of the organ of each sense, and afterward it is to be burned, and the ashes are to be thrown into the Sacrarium: which can scarcely be observed accurately by Missionaries."

Vol. II, Treatise on Extreme Unction, Chapter IV. On the Subject of Extreme Unction

n. ¶1507.

1507. - The subject of this Sacrament is all, and only, sinners, i.e. those who are capable of sin or at some time were capable, and these sick persons whose life is in danger. It is established 1° from the words of St. James: Is anyone sick among you? Let him bring in the priests of the Church, etc.; but the Greek word is sick signifies a dangerous disease; 2° from the definition of the Church. For thus in the Decree of Union: This Sacrament ought not to be given except to a sick person, concerning whose death there is fear. Trent agrees. - But that they ought to be sinners is clear from the Form itself.

Hence children before the use of reason are not capable of this Sacrament, nor those perpetually insane, because they have committed no actual sins, nor could they commit them. In doubt concerning capacity, let it be conferred under condition.

n. ¶1508.

1508. Questions. - Quaer. 1° Whether Extreme Unction ought to be conferred on the delirious sick?

Resp. Affirmatively, if previously they asked for the Sacrament, or probably would have asked for it if they had thought about this, or showed a sign of sorrow for sins. Indeed also to the sick destitute of the senses, as is established from the Roman Ritual. Cf. n. 1240. R. 4°. - But to one laboring under frenzy or insanity, who probably could do something against the reverence of the Sacrament, it is not to be ministered unless the danger is altogether removed, for example by binding him.

Quaer. 2° Whether this Sacrament can licitly be conferred on a sick person in doubtful or probable danger of death?

Resp. Affirmatively, with the common and true opinion, because for ministering this Sacrament validly and licitly it suffices that the sick person labor under a disease so grave that he is prudently judged to be in danger of death. It is confirmed from the Roman Ritual, where it is thus established: this Sacrament ought to be given to the sick who labor so gravely that the danger of death seems to threaten. I said: 1° that he is prudently judged to be in danger of death. For in mere doubt, i.e. unless there is truly probability of danger present, it will not be administered, since then it cannot be said that danger of life is present. - I said: 2° for ministering this Sacrament validly AND licitly. For St. Alphonsus judges that this Sacrament is always validly conferred if the infirmity is grave. This opinion, especially among us, can be brought into practice in this sense: that the priest ought to be much less anxious in judgment concerning the danger, if he is far distant from the sick person and cannot easily return. (29) p. 421.

Quaer. 3° Whether Extreme Unction can be conferred: a) on a woman laboring in childbirth; b) on those about to undergo a difficult surgical operation; those failing from old age; those infected by poison; c) on those to be punished capitally; those about to join battle; those placed in danger of shipwreck?

Resp. to a) Distinguish. Negatively, if there is question of a woman laboring under ordinary pains in childbirth, even if she gives birth for the first time, or at other times was in danger of life; affirmatively, if she labors under extraordinary and lethal pains. For in the latter case, not in the former, danger exists from disease.

Resp. to b) Affirmatively, because danger exists from disease. (51) p. 430.

Resp. to c) Negatively, for the contrary reason.

Quaer. 4° Whether Extreme Unction can be conferred on children?

Resp. Affirmatively, provided they "are in possession of reason, and are judged capable of deceit and fault." Thus Benedict XIV. Indeed in doubt concerning the use of reason, according to the opinion more probable to St. Alphonsus, they are to be anointed under condition. Cf. n. 1507.

Quaer. 5° Whether, or when, this Sacrament can be repeated?

Resp. 1° Certainly it can be repeated as often as a sick person anointed in a dangerous disease has recovered, and again falls into a dangerous disease. It is established from Trent.

Resp. 2° It can also be repeated in the same infirmity, if it has been long-lasting and the sick person notably recovered, so that he seemed to have been rescued from the danger of death, and again has fallen into the same danger. The reason is that then there is truly a new danger of death. It is established from the Roman Ritual, where it is said: "in the same infirmity this Sacrament ought not be repeated, unless it is long-lasting, as if, when the sick person has recovered, he again falls into danger of death."

Quaer. 6° Whether it can be repeated in the same long-lasting disease, if it is doubted whether the state of the disease has really been changed?

Resp. Affirmatively, more probably, if the doubt is truly positive, namely when it is truly probable that the sick person has come out of the danger of death; for this repetition in these cases is more conformable to the ancient custom of the Church. But a doubt of this kind will be present if the sick person seems to have escaped danger of death for a notable time, say for a month.

Quaer. 7° Whether there is a grave obligation of receiving this Sacrament?

Resp. There is a twofold probable opinion.

The first affirms. 1° It is clear, they say, from the words of the Apostle James himself: Is anyone sick among you? Let him bring in the priests of the Church, etc. But the word let him bring in contains a precept. Therefore, etc. 2° There is added the practice of the Church, which with the greatest solicitude has always taken care that it be received by all the sick. It seems to be established also from the custom and sense of the faithful. 3° Moreover it is grave, and against the charity which each one owes to himself, to omit a means so efficacious, and a most firm protection, as Trent says, against the efforts of the demon in the last struggle. - Thus Roncaglia with others.

The second denies. The reason is that neither from Tradition nor from the Decrees of Councils is there evidence of a precept of receiving this Sacrament. But what St. James says, let him bring in the priests, etc., is received and explained as counsel. Therefore a grave obligation of receiving Extreme Unction cannot be imposed. - Thus Billuart, after St. Thomas, Sporer, and St. Alphonsus, who calls this opinion common. Yet the first pleases St. Alphonsus more, and he calls it very probable in the case in which the sick person, exhortations having been employed, should continue to be unwilling to be anointed.

But he certainly would sin gravely: 1° who from contempt refused this Sacrament; or 2° could not overcome grave temptations without it; or 3° would give grave scandal by not receiving it.

Moreover Extreme Unction would be necessary for salvation to one placed in mortal sin, lacking contrition, and unable to give a sign of Confession. "But Suarez and Palaus say well that this case can scarcely occur," i.e. then indeed the necessity of Extreme Unction for salvation would be present, but not the obligation of asking for it, as being impossible to fulfill.

Quaer. 8° What disposition is required for the reception of this Sacrament?

Resp. 1° Confession of sins, if the sick person is in mortal sin, practically.

Resp. 2° But if the sick person cannot confess his sins, let contrition, at least estimated, precede: for this Sacrament of Extreme Unction is primarily a Sacrament of the living, and was instituted chiefly for taking away the remnants of sins. - But in such a case attrition itself suffices and is required; for it is at the same time a Sacrament of the dead, and can remit mortal sins with attrition. - The Salmanticenses, Benedict XIV, and others.

Hence it is clear that this Sacrament, as the Roman Ritual says, is to be denied to "the impenitent, ... and those who die in manifest mortal sin."

It is said: to the impenitent and those who die in MANIFEST mortal sin. But under these words there ought not to be comprehended the dying who, in the act of mortal sin, are destitute of the senses; for it is not altogether certain that they die in manifest sin. Therefore, absolution being given under condition, this Sacrament can be conferred on these conditionally. (30) p. 421.

Note. - He also can be anointed who is baptized in grave infirmity. (31) p. 422.

Vol. II, Treatise on Extreme Unction, Appendix. On the Visitation and Care of the Sick

n. ¶1509.

1509. Questions. - Quaer. 1° Whether the sick are to be visited, when, how often, and who especially?

Resp. to the 1st. Affirmatively. The reason is 1° because the sick need priestly care more than the healthy; 2° because the time of infirmity is most opportune for procuring the salvation of souls; 3° because the priest receives the stipend of sustenance not only for care in the life of parishioners, but also for care in their death.

Hence the Pastor: a) "Let him exhort" publicly and more often "his parishioners," and likewise, if it can be done, the physician, "that they admonish him when it happens that someone in his parish is sick, especially if the disease is more grave." b) "But if the Pastor, legitimately impeded, cannot sometimes be free for the visitation of the sick, as when they are several, he will take care that this be performed by other priests, if he has any in his parish, or at least by lay men pious and endowed with Christian charity." c) When the disease grows worse, let him admonish even the domestics of the sick person to summon him. d) Especially in large parishes, let him have a catalogue of the sick, so that he may know the state and condition of each, and may more easily retain memory of them and assist them opportunely.

Resp. to the 2nd. The Pastor, "as soon as he has known," says the Roman Ritual, "that any of the faithful committed to his care is sick, will not wait until he is called to him," and a fortiori he will not by his own manner of acting or that of his people be the cause why the faithful are deterred from summoning him at the opportune time; "but he will go to him of his own accord," at least if the disease is more grave. Yet especially they are to be visited when the disease grows worse and in the article of death.

Resp. to the 3rd. "Not only once," says the Ritual again, "but more often, insofar as there shall be need"; more often, namely, when the disease is more grave, or longer-lasting, or more sharp; likewise more often when the sick person is less well disposed, or more dejected in soul or anxious, or is attacked by graver temptations. - If nevertheless the sick person is insane, phrenetic, or deprived of the use of reason, visits can be rarer.

Resp. to the 4th. Especially to be visited are: 1° the poor, who, destitute of human helps, require the charity and work of a benign and provident pastor; to these he will succor from his own, as he ought, and if means do not suffice, by the alms of others; 2° sinners, and those spiritually sick and tempted, especially if they spurn the ministry of the priest, that they may be directed into the way of salvation; 3° those more gravely sick; 4° all, other things being equal, are to be visited equally, without acceptance of persons. - It is clear per se that the obligation does not cease, although either the journey is longer, or the way difficult, or the weather stormy, or the disease contagious.

Quaer. 2° What things are to be noted concerning the visitation of the sick?

Resp. 1° "Visiting the sick," says the Roman Ritual, "let him bear himself with that honesty and gravity which befits the priests of the Lord," especially with women, chiefly those who have not yet reached canonical age; namely, let him not enter the room of the sick woman unless she has been forewarned; without necessity let him not be alone with one alone, and, while he consoles her or testifies compassion to her, let him abstain from every discourse, or even word, which he would not wish to be heard by others. Yet honesty and gravity, especially in the first visitation, ought to be joined to charity, courtesy, and Christian affability, so that the priest may win the soul of the sick person and have easier access to him.

Resp. 2° "But first of all let him undertake the spiritual care of the sick, and place all diligence in this, that he direct them into the way of salvation, and defend and protect them by the help of salutary aids from diabolical snares." Wherefore he ought diligently and prudently to inquire under what disease the soul labors; to what temptations especially or depraved opinions the sick person is subject; what is his nature, defects, and passions, that he may prudently apply suitable remedies. Hence the priest, when he is first called to the sick person, will prudently investigate all those things which concern the same, for example his disease, state, morals, life, etc.; likewise whether he ordered him to be called, or at least knows that he has been called.

Resp. 3° Visits ordinarily should not be too prolonged.

Resp. 4° Let it be the priest's care that dangerous objects be removed from the room of the sick person, and that persons who in some way can furnish an occasion of sin not approach him at all; likewise that he not mention persons loved impurely, held in hatred, or by whom he was injured; nor let him speak about lawsuits, children, goods, and other similar things, unless necessity presses; and if the sick person speaks about these things, let the priest turn the conversation to other things.

Resp. 5° Let the priest take care that images of the Crucified, of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and of the Saint whom the sick person especially venerates be placed before his eyes; likewise that there be present a small vessel of blessed water, with which he may be sprinkled frequently.

Resp. 6° Let him console the sick person both by words and examples, and by saying that he is going to pray for him in Mass and other prayers, and will take care that others likewise do so for him; likewise let him arouse, strengthen, and exhort him.

n. ¶1510.

1510. - Quaer. 3° What things are to be noted concerning exhortations?

Resp. 1° Let them be suggested opportunely and discreetly, lest they bring annoyance to the sick person, but relief; 2° let the priest approach so prepared that he has ready arguments apt for persuading, and especially examples of the Saints, which have very great force; 3° let not always the same things be said, but various things according to the various quality and state of the sick person, namely to the learned few and grave things, to the rude common things, to the devout and little ones sweet things, to sinners consolatory, arousing, manifest things; likewise some things before Confession, others after the last Sacraments, others in agony; 4° let the speech be familiar, candid, and not affected, brief and often interrupted, so that the sick person may be able to meditate on what has been said; 5° let the sound be not loud, nor clamorous, nor hard, and, if threats and rebukes are required, let them be softened with mild words; 6° the speech can often be directed to the bystanders concerning the miseries of life, the vanity of the world, etc.

Quaer. 4° To what things ought the priest exhort the sick person?

Resp. 1° a) "That he place all his hope in God, repent of his sins, implore the divine mercy, and patiently bear the pains of infirmity as a paternal visitation of God, and believe that it has happened for his salvation, that he may institute his life and morals better"; b) to eliciting often acts of faith, hope, charity, contrition, patience, and other virtues; c) to praying and meditating frequently, as his condition will bear, and to invoking the patronage of the Blessed Virgin Mary and other Saints, at least by ejaculatory prayers and pious sighs; to which end he will propose some brief prayers and pious exercises of the mind toward God; likewise the meditation of the Passion of Our Lord, the martyrdoms and examples of the Saints, and the blessedness of heavenly glory. - To Religious and the learned he will also suggest verses from the Psalms, but to the uneducated the Lord's Prayer, the Angelic Salutation, the Symbol of Faith, and especially the invocation of the Most Holy Names of Jesus, Mary, Joseph, etc. d) to exercising good works of which he is capable, to giving alms, to taking care that prayers and Masses be made for him, while nevertheless taking good care concerning the advantage of his own profit, and not taking the burden upon himself unless the sick person of his own accord has asked; in which case he ought not refuse the stipends; e) that for bodily health he not employ anything which is turned into detriment of the soul; f) concerning Confession, see the question next following.

Resp. 2° If the disease is more grave or dangerous, he will exhort him that, while he is sound of mind, he rightly set in order his whole affair; if he has anything belonging to another, let him restore it; let him pay debts, or take care that they be paid, or at least furnish security; let him establish peace; let him be reconciled to enemies; let him make a just testament, lest any discord arise among heirs, and for the refreshment of his soul let him dispose according to his means what shall please him in the Lord; but in suggesting these things, let every mark of avarice be avoided.

Resp. 3° Where danger threatens, which the sick themselves for the most part are ignorant of, it is incumbent upon the priest, if another does not do it, to reveal the truth to the sick person and indicate the dangerous state; and "he will admonish the sick person that he in no way allow himself to be deceived by the craft of demons, nor by the promises of physicians, nor by the blandishments of relatives or friends; that he not on that account procure opportunely those things which pertain to the salvation of the soul; and that with fitting devotion and speed he religiously receive the Most Holy Sacraments while the mind is sound and the senses intact, without that deceitful and pernicious procrastination, which has led very many to eternal punishments, and day by day, the devil deceiving, leads them." This can be done by addressing the sick person in this or a similar way: my friend, although your health is not despaired of, nevertheless it is in danger; and therefore it is best that, as quickly as you can, you receive the last Sacraments; for Christ will restore you to your former health if this is expedient for your eternal salvation; but if nevertheless you must die, you greatly need graces, and through the Sacraments copious graces will be poured into you, by which you will soon come to the heavenly fatherland.

Resp. 4° After the last Sacraments have been received, he will continue to exhort the sick person to all those things which have been said above, especially to patience, perseverance, resignation, prayers, acts of faith, etc.; likewise to repeated Confession, if there is need, and Holy Communion.

Resp. 5° He will exhort those recovering that before all things they come to church; give thanks to God; rightly confess their sins, if perhaps Confession from a cause of necessity was imperfect or not materially integral; devoutly receive Sacred Communion; and thereafter hold a better discipline of life.

n. ¶1511.

1511. - Quaer. 5° What things are to be noted concerning the Confession of the sick?

Resp. 1° a) Although from natural law there is incumbent upon physicians a grave obligation of timely admonishing the sick in dangerous diseases concerning Confession (see n. 1078. 14° and 1080. q. 1°), not on that account however is the Pastor freed from his care, since he himself, and not the physician, stands for the souls entrusted to him. Therefore, knowing that the infirmity is mortal - even by procuring for himself knowledge of this matter secretly from the physician, if it cannot be done otherwise - he ought to induce the sick person to Confession, although proximate danger is not yet present; yet not ordinarily in the first visit, unless necessity presses, and always with that prudence and charity which is fitting; namely in the beginning not speaking about Confession, but kindly asking how he is, what is the cause of the disease, how great are his pains; then exhorting him to resign himself to the will of God, and patiently to bear the pains in satisfaction for sins; and thus gradually, with the prudence which is fitting, inquiring about the time from which he has confessed; and at the same time little by little bringing it about that the sick person recognize the danger of his infirmity; and finally, by saying that it belongs to the wise to provide for future things, he will take occasion to exhort him to Confession while the mind is strong, proposing at the same time that this will profit the health of the body, if it is expedient for the soul. If the sick person seeks delay, and there is not imminent danger of death, lethargy, or delirium, he can indulge him to a brief determined time, say evening, or the following day; but if danger is imminent, he cannot admit delay; but he ought to admonish him with St. Augustine that God did not promise to wait for sinners, but only to spare them if they do penance. He did not promise tomorrow; perhaps He will give it, perhaps He will not give it. But if the sick person cannot be brought to Confession even thus, let the priest not desert him; and let him take care that he be brought to it by the counsels of friends and domestics; but if he is not yet willing, then the matter is not altogether to be despaired of, but, as long as he lives, frequent, varied, and efficacious exhortations of priests and other pious men are to be repeated, and the losses of eternal salvation and the punishments of everlasting death are to be proposed, and the immense mercy of God, provoking him to penance and most ready to forgive, is to be shown. The sick person is also to be commended to the prayers of the faithful, and especially of Religious Communities and of other devout persons. Fervent prayers to God are also to be employed by the priest and the others standing by, who, if this can be obtained, should pray on bent knees in his presence, so that they may be seen and heard by him. If death is at hand and he is not moved, let the priest take on the person of the sick man, praying to God in his name for the remission of sins, eliciting acts of contrition, faith, etc., so that, provided he gives a sign of contrition, he may be absolved at the last instant. Cf. n. 1373. 4°.

Resp. 2° When the sick person consents to Confession, always, if it can be done, he is to be left free to confess to another, and also to be asked whether he wishes to confess to another. But the confessor is held to hear him, even if he wishes to confess the sins of his whole life, and to take care that the last Confession be well made, with vehement contrition, firm purpose, and that integrity which then can be had. He ought to exhort the sick person to confess truthfully and integrally, saying that now he can amend all defects committed, and also by questioning concerning previous Confessions, concerning sins perhaps voluntarily concealed, etc. Besides, the sick person is to be helped in narrating sins, in eliciting acts of contrition, faith, etc. Finally a small penance is to be imposed, which the sick person should immediately fulfill while the confessor is present, imposing only a just penance to be performed at a suitable time if he recovers.

Resp. 3° When the priest visits the sick person after Confession has been made, even if he did not hear his Confession, he prudently asks him again whether nothing remains which troubles his conscience; whether the good disposition of conscience endures, but always skillfully, and never while others are hearing, lest because of shame he not dare to say the truth.

Resp. 4° At the time of agony, while the sick person is still vigorous in his senses, it will help to confer absolution upon him several times after a brief reconciliation, so that thus he may be rendered more secure concerning the state of grace, if perhaps the past Confessions were invalid; or at least he may receive an increase of grace, and also the punishments of purgatory may be diminished for him; and, if perhaps from temptation he falls into sin, he may at once be absolved. See n. 1371. Note.

Quaer. 6° By what rite is the visitation made?

Resp. See Exc. ex Rit. R. Ed. 1872, p. 126 (p. 118. Ed. 1874). But note: 1° that this rite is not of precept, as is clear from the Ritual itself; 2° that it is very usefully employed, especially with those dangerously bedridden who have already received the last Sacraments; 3° that the priest, as Baruffaldus rightly notes, can moderately greet the sick person and those standing by before he says: Peace to this house, etc.

n. ¶1512.

1512. - Quaer. 7° Whether and how great is the obligation of visiting the sick person even after the Sacraments have been received, of helping the dying or those in agony, and in what way these are to be helped?

Resp. to the 1st. Affirmatively, as is clear from the words of the Ritual: "When the disease grows worse, the pastor will visit the sick person" - even one destitute of the senses, since even this one can be helped by prayers, sacramentals, absolution, etc. - "more frequently, and will not cease diligently to help him unto salvation, and he will admonish that, when danger is at hand, he be called immediately, so that he may be present to the dying person in time."

Resp. to the 2nd. Per se it is grave. The reason is that the sick person, if ever, then certainly needs the help of his pastor, since the devil lies in wait for his heel. Add that not rarely it happens that the sick person needs the confessor again because of a new sin, or because of Confession sacrilegiously performed. - But primarily and from justice this obligation is incumbent upon the Pastor; but upon other priests subsidiarily, i.e. in necessity and from charity alone.

I said: PER SE it is grave, i.e. if it can conveniently be fulfilled. But although the words if it can conveniently be fulfilled are not to be interpreted broadly, as is clear per se, nevertheless they suggest the excuse which can be given from this obligation of helping the dying, especially those in agony, particularly in these provinces, both in cities on account of the scarcity of priests, and in the country on account of the often great distance. - Nevertheless the priest will take care that, if he himself cannot help those in agony, they be helped by some pious layman, if one can be had.

Resp. to the 3rd. See Exc. ex Rit. Rom. p. 149 sq. (p. 141. Ed. 1874) and cf. St. Alphonsus, Prax. Conf. n. 276. 277; and besides, note the following: The Litanies can be recited even though death is not so imminent; but the following prayers, Go forth, etc., are to be said only when in the agony of its departure the soul is anxious, or while the time of expiring is at hand; concerning which last time of life it is certainly difficult to judge, since the most skilled physicians are often mistaken in this. Wherefore the priest ought not be precipitate, but should proceed very cautiously to the recitation of the aforesaid prayers, the more so because in the prayer Go forth, it is announced to the soul that it should leave the body; and this can strike into those who are less strong such trembling that, if they are not in the article of death, by that very fact they may be placed in it, and death itself may be hastened. Therefore if, the litanies having been recited, the sick person is judged more probably not to be constituted in the very agony, the priest can advisedly either repeat the same litanies, or say the litanies of the Blessed Virgin Mary, or other pious prayers; or it is better, if the sick person is in possession of mind, to be occupied in acts of virtues and salutary admonitions.

Note. - Concerning the manner to be held with one condemned to capital punishment, consult St. Alphonsus, Praxis Conf. n. 108. 109.

Merkelbach, Summa Theologiae Moralis

Benedict Henry Merkelbach, O.P. — 11 passages

Vol. III, Special Moral Theology: On…, Treatise: On Extreme Unction

n. 685.

Introduction.

685. Extreme Unction is the fifth sacrament. - Just as in bodily life, besides the remedy which heals from lethal sickness, another is required which perfectly restores health and totally gives back strength; so in spiritual life, besides Penance, which frees from the disease of lethal sin, another sacramental remedy is required which perfectly heals and takes away all the remnants of sin. This is the sacrament of Extreme Unction, which accordingly is as it were the complement of Penance, and stands to it almost as Confirmation stands to Baptism; indeed "it is the last and in a certain way consummative sacrament of the whole spiritual healing, by which man is prepared as it were for receiving glory; whence it is also called extreme unction." Thus St. Thomas, c. Gent. IV, 73.

n. 685.

The name, therefore, is taken from the fact that it is the last anointing in life, which after all others must be administered to the sick who are in danger of life. It is also called holy oil (heilig Oliesel), oil of the sick, sacrament of those departing; in Greek euchelaion, that is, prayer with oil, hagion elaion, or holy oil.

n. 686.

686. Extreme Unction is defined: A sacrament of the New Law, in which, through the anointing of blessed oil and the prayer of the priest, relief of soul and body is conferred upon adult sick persons in danger of life; or, that which is given to the sick for the salvation of soul and body.

n. 686.

In this definition are indicated 1) the matter: anointing with blessed oil; 2) the form: prayer; 3) the minister: a priest; 4) the subject: an adult sick person in danger of life; 5) the effect: relief conferring unto the salvation of soul and body.

687. Division of the treatise. - The treatise is divided into four questions:

On the sacrament of Extreme Unction itself: a) on its institution; b) on its constitutive parts, or on matter and form.

On the effects of Extreme Unction.

On the minister of Extreme Unction.

On the subject of Extreme Unction.

There is added an appendix on the apostolic blessing to be imparted to the dying.

Vol. II, Tr. XVI, Chapter I. On the Nature and Effects of Extreme Unction · Vol. II, Tr. XVI, Chapter II. On the Matter of Extreme Unction · Vol. II, Tr. XVI, Chapter III. On the Form of Extreme Unction · Vol. II, Tr. XVI, Chapter IV. On the Minister of Extreme Unction · Vol. II, Tr. XVI, Chapter V. On the Subject of Extreme Unction

On Extreme Unction there can usefully be consulted: St. Thomas, in Suppl., q. 29-33, with the commentators, among whom is Billuart; among dogmatic theologians: Billot, Hugon, Tanquerey, Van Noort-Verhaar; Heimbucher, Die H. Oelung; Schmitz, De Effectibus extremae unctionis; Kern, De Sacramento Extremae Unctionis; Chardon, Histoire des Sacrements; Bord, L'Extreme-Onction; Ruch and Godefroy, in Dict. de Theol.; de Guibert, in Dict. Apol.; Theologia Mechliniensis, De Extrema Unctione, under the care of Gougnard; A. Janssens, Het H. Oliesel; Cappello, Tractatus canonico-moralis de Sacramentis, II, p. 11; and the moral manuals known to all.

Sabetti-Barrett, Compendium of Moral Theology

Aloysius Sabetti, S.J., and Timothy Barrett, S.J. — 29 passages (filed under the subtopics)

Vol. II, Tr. XVI, Chapter I. On the Nature and Effects of Extreme Unction

n. 820.

I. Extreme Unction is a sacrament of the New Law instituted by Christ the Lord for conferring the salvation of the soul, or even of the body, where it is expedient for the salvation of the soul, upon the sick person in danger of life, through the unction of blessed oil and the prayer of the priest.

II. Extreme Unction is a true sacrament of the New Law, as is established from the definition of the Council of Trent, sess. 14, can. 1, on Extreme Unction, where it is thus said: "If anyone shall have said that Extreme Unction is not truly and properly a sacrament instituted by Christ our Lord and promulgated by blessed James the Apostle, but only a rite received from the Fathers, or a human fiction, let him be anathema." - Cf. De Augustinis, Thesis 1, p. 354.

III. The effects of the sacrament of Extreme Unction are: 1°. sanctifying grace with the actual graces proper to the sacrament, which wondrously help toward recreating the sick person and strengthening him against the temptations of the devil; 2°. remission of all sins, both venial and also mortal, and indeed not by accident, but of itself, namely by force of its secondary institution, if the sick person has inculpably remained in the state of sin, provided he has elicited true attrition; 3°. the wiping away of the remains of sin, which are not only the penalties owed to sins but also anxieties of soul, weaknesses, languor toward good, dullness, fear, and other similar things which are contracted from sins; 4°. restoration sometimes of the health of the body, if it is expedient for the salvation of the soul; and consequently they err basely who do not receive this sacrament except when the disease has so prevailed that now they cannot be healed without a miracle. Therefore it can be said that this sacrament is, as it were, the complement of penance, and is referred to it in almost the same way as Confirmation is referred to Baptism. - Cf. Lehmkuhl, nn. 565 and 568.

The sacrament of Extreme Unction must be conferred through sacred unctions, with oil of olives duly blessed being employed, and through the words prescribed in the ritual books approved by the Church (Can. 937).

Vol. II, Tr. XVI, Chapter II. On the Matter of Extreme Unction

n. 821.

I say 1°. The remote matter of Extreme Unction is oil blessed by a Bishop; but it must be blessed, although not for validity, by the diocesan Bishop or, the see being vacant, by another neighboring Bishop, on the Lord's Supper, just as Chrism is, and it must be renewed each year. The first is established from the Council of Trent, sess. 14, on Extreme Unction, ch. 1, where it is thus said: "The Church has understood the matter [of this sacrament] to be oil blessed by a Bishop; for unction most aptly represents the grace of the Holy Spirit, by which the soul of the sick person is invisibly anointed." But the other is established both from the positive precept of Clement VII and from the perpetual practice of the Church and from the Roman Ritual, where it is said: Sacred oil is to be renewed each year on the Lord's Supper, the old having been burned.

I say 2°. The proximate matter is the unction of the sick person; outside the case of necessity the individual senses must be anointed; "but in a case of necessity a single unction suffices in one sense, or more rightly on the forehead, with the prescribed shorter form, with the obligation preserved of supplying the individual unctions when the danger ceases" (Can. 947, § 1). The reason of the first is drawn from Sacred Scripture: anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord. St. James v, 14; from the Council of Trent, sess. 14, on Extreme Unction, ch. 9, as in the preceding paragraph. The reason of the second is drawn from the Constitution Exsultate Deo of Eugene IV and from the Roman Ritual, tit. V, ch. 1: "But the five parts of the body chiefly must be anointed, which nature has given to man as the instruments of the senses, etc." The reason of the third is because then the man is truly anointed according to the Apostle and the sacrament is received.

By this canon the question concerning the sufficiency of one unction with the prescribed shorter formula has been decided. - Cf. Response of the S. C. of the Holy Office, 25 April 1906; 9 March 1917. For when the doubt had been proposed: "Whether, when the Sacrament of Extreme Unction has been administered in a case of necessity with one Unction employed on the forehead, through the words: Through this holy Unction may the Lord pardon you whatever you have committed. Amen, when the danger ceases, the individual Unctions, according to the tenor of the Decree of the day 31 January 1907, are to be supplied, to be employed under condition or not? Resp. Negatively to the first part: Affirmatively to the second. 9 March 1917."

The reason of the fourth is drawn from the response just brought forward and from the present canon 947, § 1; whence it is established that in every conferral of Extreme Unction there is an obligation of performing the individual unctions: all without the shorter method in ordinary cases, as is established from the second; all in extraordinary cases after the shorter method has been employed and the danger removed. Therefore the individual unctions must be supplied; now then, these Unctions are the very proximate matter of the sacrament ordinarily employed; they are truly sacramental actions; they are not something sacramental, for not even a word is had in the response of the Holy Office about the use of a sacramental, nor about a changed nature of the action which is the very matter of the sacrament. Therefore this supplying of the individual unctions, once the danger is removed, is a truly sacramental action more expressly signifying the grace of the sacrament; and this supplying is to be held either as a simple continuation, completion of the prior unction with which it forms one moral thing, which is according to the nature of this sacrament; or it is to be held as a new sacrament. Nor does it matter that the sacrament of Extreme Unction cannot be repeated in the same danger, for the law concerning not repeating Extreme Unction comprehends the ordinary case, but not, as it seems, the case in which, on account of urgent danger, the individual unctions could not be given. Thus, saving better judgment.

n. 822.

Questions

Question 1. Whether the unction of the five senses is of the necessity of the sacrament?

Resp. Negatively, as is clear from Can. 947, § 1. Although this is true, outside the case of instant death such unction is necessary by necessity of precept, and indeed grave necessity; truly the Church names seven unctions. The Roman Ritual, according to the prescriptions of the Council of Florence, orders that the unctions be made on the eyes, ears, nostrils, mouth, hands, and feet.

n. 822, Q. 2.

Question 2. Whether the unction on the feet and loins is also, practically speaking, necessarily to be made?

Resp. § 2. The unction of the loins is always to be omitted.

§ 3. The unction of the feet can be omitted for any reasonable cause (Can. 947).

n. 822, Q. 3.

Question 3. Where and how must the other unctions be made?

Resp. § 1. The unctions are to be accurately performed with the words, order, and manner prescribed in the ritual books ...

§ 4. Outside the case of grave necessity, the unctions are to be made by the very hand of the minister and with no instrument employed (Can. 947).

They must be made: 1°. on the eyes or on the eyelids, the eyes being closed; 2°. on the ears, namely on the lower part and not inwardly; 3°. on the nostrils; 4°. on the mouth, the lips being pressed together, or, if this cannot be done because of the necessity of breathing, on the lower lip; 5°. on the hands, above for priests, below for laymen. - But these unctions must be made in the manner of a cross with the right thumb of the priest, who must pronounce the form at the same time. - Note nevertheless: 1°. that a doubled unction in paired organs is not required by necessity of the sacrament, because in one part the whole sense is had; 2°. that the aforesaid order among the different senses is not essential but only rubrical; but a fortiori it is not essential to begin from the right organ rather than from the left; 3°. that in a case of necessity, for example, in time of plague, the different unctions can be made by means of a brush, because in this sacrament no imposition of hands is required as in Confirmation, although, with physicians testifying, no danger is incurred if they are made with the finger; 4°. that one single drop of oil of itself suffices for making all the unctions, because oil is easily diffused; but in practice the extreme part of the thumb must be dipped before the individual unctions; 5°. that those who are deprived of some sense are to be anointed either on the organ itself, if it is present, or on the nearer part, because thus the practice of the Church bears and it is established by the Roman Ritual. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 710. - O'Kane, nn. 894 and 928 and following. - Cappellman, Pastoral Medicine, p. 165.¹

¹ Cf. Addenda, p. 1142, n. 109.

n. 822, Q. 4.

Question 4. Whether the precept of renewing the oil obliges under grave obligation?

Resp. Affirmatively, as it seems, because the matter appears sufficiently grave; but if new blessed oil cannot be had, it is lawful to use the old. Note besides that if within the year the blessed oil is going to fail, and no other can be had, another oil not blessed can be poured into the remaining oil, yet in lesser quantity. And this can be done rather often if necessity so requires on account of the abundance of the sick, although little by little a quantity is added far greater even than that which was consecrated by the Bishop at the beginning, provided nevertheless that in each mixture it is less than the other part into which it is poured. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 708.

n. 822, Q. 5.

Question 5. Whether oil from olives is required by necessity of the sacrament?

Resp. Affirmatively, both because properly under the name of oil, by ecclesiastical use and sense, only oil of olives is understood, and because thus it is expressly had in the Decree of Eugene IV for the Armenians, where it is read: "The matter of which [Extreme Unction] is oil of olive." It is clear also from the whole tradition and the unanimous consent of Doctors. Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 708.

n. 822, Q. 6.

Question 6. Whether this oil must necessarily have been blessed by a Bishop?

Resp. The oil of olives to be employed in the sacrament of extreme unction must have been blessed for this by a Bishop, or by a presbyter who has obtained the faculty of blessing it from the Apostolic See (Can. 945).

But if you ask whether it must be blessed in order to Extreme Unction, it is answered that there is not one opinion of theologians, and that the one which denies seems probable; because in the cited Declarations and other documents it is said only that episcopal blessing is required. But in practice the safer view must altogether be held, except in a case of necessity, in which this sacrament is to be administered under condition with another blessed oil, and afterward, if oil of the sick can be had, it is to be repeated. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 709. - De Augustinis, Thesis 2, p. 369. - O'Kane, nn. 852 and following.

I said with another blessed oil; for a threefold holy oil is distinguished, which in the same ceremony on Thursday in the Lord's Supper is blessed by the Bishop, namely the oil of the sick, the oil of catechumens, and holy Chrism. The oil of the sick serves only for anointing the sick in danger of death and for the consecration of bells for the external unction; for Chrism is employed for the internal. The oil of catechumens is deputed for catechumens to be anointed on the breast and between the shoulders before Baptism, for consecrating the hands of new priests, and also for some other consecrations, for example, for the consecration of kings, etc. But Chrism, or oil mixed with balsam and blessed by the Bishop, is employed in the sacrament of Confirmation, in the ceremonies of Baptism after the ablution has been made, and for various consecrations, for example, of chalice, paten, altar, bell inwardly, etc. - Cf. the Roman Pontifical, where it treats of the ceremonies of Thursday in the Lord's Supper.

n. 822, Q. 7.

Question 7. Whether in a case of necessity it is lawful to employ oil blessed not by a Bishop but by a priest not having delegation of the Pope?

Resp. Negatively, as is established from the response of the Holy Office, 15 May 1899. "Oil blessed by a presbyter is matter altogether inept for confecting the Sacrament of Extreme Unction: and not even in extreme necessity can it be validly employed."

Vol. II, Tr. XVI, Chapter III. On the Form of Extreme Unction

n. 823.

I say. The form of Extreme Unction is contained in these words: "Through this holy unction and his most gracious mercy, may the Lord pardon you whatever you have committed through sight (while the eyes are anointed, and so concerning the others). Amen." It is established from the Council of Trent, sess. 14, ch. 1, on Extreme Unction, and from the Roman Ritual. - Note nevertheless that this form must be repeated integrally at the individual unctions; but when the organs are paired, it must be said only once.

n. 824.

Questions

Question 1. Whether for the validity of the sacrament the expression of each sense is required, through sight, through hearing, etc.?

Resp. Negatively, such expression, whether made generally or specifically, is not required: it is lacking in the Greek form, and in the form truly sufficient for the case of necessity approved according to the Holy Office. - Cf. Pesch, loc. cit.

n. 824, Q. 2.

Question 2. What is the sufficient form in the administration of the sacrament in a case of necessity?

Resp. "Through this holy unction may the Lord pardon you whatever you have committed. Amen." Thus the Holy Office, 25 April 1906. The words altogether essential are: "Through this unction may the Lord pardon you whatever you have committed."

n. 824, Q. 3.

Question 3. Whether for validity one form suffices for all the senses, if the individual senses are distinctly expressed and anointed?

Resp. Affirmatively, for integral matter and form are had. Indeed it must be answered affirmatively if the brief form is employed once while the individual senses are anointed.

Vol. II, Tr. XVI, Chapter IV. On the Minister of Extreme Unction

n. 825.

I say 1°. § 1. Every and only priest validly administers this sacrament (Can. 938).

It is established from the Council of Trent, sess. 14, on Extreme Unction, can. 4: "If anyone shall have said that the presbyters of the Church, whom blessed James exhorts to be brought in for anointing the sick person, are not priests ordained by a Bishop, but elders by age in any community, and for this reason that the proper minister of Extreme Unction is not the priest alone, let him be anathema."

I say 2°. § 2. With the prescription of can. 397, n. 3, 514, §§ 1-3, preserved, the ordinary minister is the pastor of the place in which the sick person dwells; but in a case of necessity, or with at least reasonably presumed permission of the same pastor or of the Ordinary of the place, any other priest can minister this sacrament (Can. 938).

n. 826.

Questions

Question 1. Whether any priest can minister this sacrament from the probably presumed consent of the Pastor?

Resp. Affirmatively, as is clear from Canon 938, § 2.

n. 826, Q. 2.

Question 2. Whether, or what kind, is the obligation of ministering Extreme Unction?

Resp. The ordinary minister is held from justice to administer this sacrament personally himself or through another; and in a case of necessity any priest is held from charity (Can. 939), to those dangerously sick.

I said to those dangerously sick, because the last article of death is not to be awaited. Thus canon 944 says: ... with all zeal and diligence care must be taken that the sick, while they are fully masters of themselves, receive it. Indeed theologians commonly teach that Pastors sin gravely who defer it until the sick person is deprived of the use of the senses and reason, because thus the sick person lacks the richer fruit which he would have perceived if he had received this sacrament while master of reason; besides, because he is deprived of spiritual strengths for resisting the demon and for bearing the inconveniences of disease; finally, because by virtue of this sacrament he could have obtained health of body if it had been conferred upon him at a fitting time. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 729.

n. 826, Q. 3.

Question 3. Whether, and what kind of sin it is: 1°. to omit the prayers prescribed in the Ritual; 2°. to minister without sacred vestments; 3°. without light; 4°. to omit the sign of the cross in making the unctions; 5°. to employ no assisting minister?

Resp. To the first and second, that it is mortal, provided there is not question of a case of necessity; and the reason is because the matter is grave. - To the third and fourth, that it is only venial, and, when some cause intervenes, that there is no sin. - To the fifth, that probably there is no sin even outside a case of necessity. Yet certainly a woman is never to be employed for the office of minister; and if a cleric or layman cannot easily be found, let the priest alone perform all the ceremonies and himself respond to the prayers. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, nn. 824 and following.

Vol. II, Tr. XVI, Chapter V. On the Subject of Extreme Unction

n. 827.

I say. § 1. Extreme unction cannot be furnished except to a faithful person who, after having attained the use of reason, is situated in danger of death on account of infirmity or old age (Can. 940).

It is established 1°. from the words of St. James: "Is anyone sick among you? Let him bring in the presbyters of the Church," etc.; but the word is sick in Greek signifies a dangerous disease; 2°. from the definition of the Church, for thus in the Decree of union: "This sacrament ought not to be given except to a sick person concerning whose death there is fear"; 3°. from the Council of Trent, sess. 14, ch. 3. - Hence infants are not capable of this sacrament, nor the perpetually insane, because they have committed no actual sins.

But children, if they are masters of reason and are judged capable of deceit and fault, can and must be anointed, even if they have not yet received first communion and have not even once approached to perform confession.

"Altogether detestable is the abuse of not ministering Extreme Unction to children after the use of reason," says Pius X in the Decree Quam singulari. - Cf. Can. just cited 940, § 1.¹

¹ Cf. Addenda, p. 1142, n. 111, n. 112.

n. 828.

Questions

Question 1. Whether Extreme Unction can be given to adult neoconverts immediately after Baptism absolutely and rightly received, if nevertheless true danger of death is present?

Resp. Affirmatively, and the reason is because the chief end of this sacrament is to strengthen the sick against the temptations of the devil, and to wipe away the remains of sins. But an adult recently baptized, otherwise than an infant, can suffer temptations and perhaps is subject to many remains of sins. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 721. - Lehmkuhl, n. 576.

For thus the S. C. de Propaganda Fide says: The sacrament of Extreme Unction can be conferred upon adult pagans already baptized, sufficiently instructed and fully disposed, who are oppressed by grave infirmity (26 September 1821). To this should be added the response of the Holy Office: The Sacrament of Extreme Unction is not to be conferred upon a dying neophyte whom the missionary believed capable of Baptism, unless at least the same has some intention of receiving Sacred Unction ordered for the benefit of the soul for the time of death. 10 May 1703.

n. 828, Q. 2.

Question 2. Whether this sacrament can be conferred validly and licitly upon a sick person in doubtful or probable danger of death?

Resp. Affirmatively, with the common and true opinion; thus in the Roman Ritual, edition of the year 1913: "This sacrament must be furnished to the sick who labor so gravely that danger of death seems to be imminent." Note besides that the word imminent does not signify that death is now-now going to follow, but only that the sick person labors under a lethal disease. Therefore a sick person can be validly and licitly anointed who lies seized by hectic fever (consumption), although he is foreseen to live still for several months or even for an entire year. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 714. - Konings, n. 1508, question 2, with note (29). Canon 941 is to be noted:

When it is doubted whether the sick person has attained the use of reason, whether he is actually situated in danger of death, or whether he is dead, this sacrament is to be ministered under condition (Can. 941). Let the illustrious Kern, De Extrema Unctione, pp. 296 and following, be compared.

n. 828, Q. 3.

Question 3. Whether this sacrament can be conferred upon those who are about to enter battle or a dangerous navigation, or upon the guilty who are immediately to be affected with the ultimate punishment?

Resp. Negatively, because these are not properly sick. Yet the case of a soldier already gravely wounded and still wishing to fight would have to be excepted, or of a guilty person who, after the sentence of death has been heard, would be seized by fever. - Women also who suffer extraordinary and dangerous labors in childbirth can be anointed. Likewise those who are altogether failing from old age, even if they were held by no other disease. - Cf. O'Kane, nn. 868 and 859.

n. 828, Q. 4.

Question 4. Whether, or when, this sacrament can be repeated?

Resp. § 2. In the same infirmity this sacrament cannot be repeated unless the sick person, after receiving unction, has recovered and fallen into another danger of life (Can. 940).

It can also be repeated in the same infirmity if it has been long-lasting, and the sick person has notably recovered, so that he seemed to have been rescued from the danger of death, and again has fallen into the same. The reason is because then there is truly a new danger of death. Let the Roman Ritual, edition of the year 1913, be consulted. "In the same infirmity this sacrament ought not to be repeated, unless it is long-lasting, as if, when the sick person has recovered, he again falls into danger of death." Indeed in the same long-lasting disease, if it is doubted whether the state of the disease has truly been changed, if namely a probable reason is present for judging that the sick person has gone out of the danger of death, this sacrament can more probably be repeated. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 715. - O'Kane, nn. 878 and following.

n. 828, Q. 5.

Question 5. Whether there is a grave obligation of receiving this sacrament?

Resp. Negatively, probably; for neither from tradition nor from the Decrees of Councils is there established a precept of receiving this sacrament. But what St. James says, let him bring in the presbyters ..., can be received and explained as counsel. Nevertheless, as is asserted in the Code: although this sacrament of itself is not of necessity of means for salvation, nevertheless it is lawful for no one to neglect it (Can. 944). Truly by accident it can be the sole means, if someone in extremis is situated in the state of mortal sin, and cannot confess nor receive communion, and meanwhile is deprived of the senses. Besides, it is not lawful to neglect it; hence the negligent person sins. Certainly of itself he would not sin gravely "who therefore did not seek this sacrament because it was not a precept, or, as the Wurzburgers say, v. 10, p. 286: because from elsewhere he feels difficulty and repugnance. Therefore for grave contempt it is required that one esteem the sacrament and its fruit as little ... But if someone rejects this sacrament which he can easily receive, such contempt is deservedly presumed in him." - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 733. - Lehmkuhl, n. 578.

n. 828, Q. 6.

Question 6. What must the priest do if he approaches the sick person and finds him just now dead, as is commonly said?

Resp. The priest can and, as it seems to us, must absolve him and endow him with Extreme Unction, under condition. For as long as probable hope is present that life still remains and it is not certain that death has truly entered, so long the sacraments which such a person perhaps needs can and must at least conditionally be conferred; but these are Penance and Extreme Unction. Now then, from the opinion of very many most learned physicians, it is probable that men in almost all cases, after the instant of death, as is commonly said, or after the last respiration, live internally for some time, for a shorter or longer time, according to the nature of the cause which induced death. In cases of death from diseases of slow progress it is probable that internal life endures for some moments, about six, or, according to some experts, one half hour; but in cases of sudden death internal life endures longer, perhaps not improbably, up to putrefaction. And therefore if the priest arrives morally at the same time at which death, whether from ordinary disease or from some sudden accident, is commonly thought to have entered, the priest can and, as it seems to us, must confer the aforesaid two sacraments conditionally. And we judge that the same must be held if in cases of sickness the priest has arrived before half an hour, and in cases of sudden accident before an hour, from the entrance of apparent death. But if nevertheless, in a case of sudden death, he has arrived one or another hour after the last respiration, but before corruption, he can administer the sacraments; but whether he must, I leave to wiser men to decide. It is to be noted: 1°. that those who are deprived of the senses and have not previously sought the sacraments are more securely assisted by Extreme Unction than by Penance; 2°. that the reverence owed to the sacraments is saved by the condition being added; 3°. that scandal of the faithful is forestalled by opportune instruction. - Cf. Gury-Ferreres, nn. 693bis-693ter; Casus, nn. 1192 and following. Alberti, Theol. Pastoralis, part 1, n. 18, VI. - Antonelli, Medicina Pastoralis, vol. 2, p. 260 and following. - Villada, Casus, vol. 3, p. 244. - Capellmann, Medicina Pastoralis, p. 178. - Lehmkuhl, Linzer Quartalschrift, vol. 57, p. 600. - Amer. Eccl. Review, vol. 33, p. 168 and following; 273 and following.

n. 828, Q. 7.

Question 7. Whether this sacrament can be given to those who are deprived of the senses in the act of sin?

Resp. A twofold opinion is given: the negative rests upon the words of the Ritual itself: This sacrament is not to be conferred upon those who, impenitent, contumaciously persevere in manifest mortal sin, tit. V, ch. 1, n. 10. The other opinion affirms that it can be given to them under condition according to the principle: "Concerning any faithful person about whom the contrary is not established, it must be presumed that he would have sought this sacrament if he had been able." - Benedict XIV, de Syn. Dioec., l. 8, ch. 6, n. 5. - Lehmkuhl, v. 2, n. 274. - Piat, Nouv. Rev. Theol. v. 31, p. 481. Indeed such dying persons in the very state of destitution of the senses can often be changed, by the help of grace, and elicit an act of sorrow; and truly more securely provision will be made for them through unction than through conditional absolution. - Cf. Dict. de Theol. Cath. v. 5, col. 2019.

n. 828, Q. 8.

Question 8. Whether this sacrament can be given to those who refused to receive it and then have been deprived of the senses?

Resp. The matter is involved: in some cases refusal does not come from an evil will of rejecting the sacrament, but rather from some fear or judgment that they are not so sick. In these circumstances it does not seem to be denied to them. Indeed is there not hope in almost every case, at least of those who remained Catholics, of some changed will by force of grace in unconsciousness, by which, if they had been able, they would have sought it? Therefore I certainly would not condemn a priest who, under condition and with precautions employed lest scandal arise, would anoint these. - Piat, Nouv. Rev. Theol. v. 31, p. 482. - Genicot, n. 423. - Ball.-Palm. n. 32.

n. 828, Q. 9.

Question 9. To which adults is this sacrament to be denied?

Resp. This sacrament is not to be conferred upon those who, impenitent, contumaciously persevere in manifest mortal sin; but if this has been doubtful, let it be conferred under condition (Can. 942).

n. 828, Q. 10.

Question 10. How is the sacrament to be furnished to the sick who, when they were masters of their mind, sought it at least implicitly, or probably would have sought it, even if afterward they have lost the senses or the use of reason?

Resp. Let it be furnished absolutely: thus can. 943.

n. 828, Q. 11.

Question 11. How must the oil of the sick be kept?

Resp. Let the pastor diligently keep the oil of the sick in a neat and decently adorned place, in a silver or tin vessel; nor let him retain it at home except according to the norm of can. 735 (Can. 946).

Note 1°. - Concerning visitation of the sick, the following statute of the Baltimore Fathers must be kept before one's eyes: "According to the prescriptions and mind of the Roman Ritual, let the Pastor of souls be diligent in visiting the sick and agonizing even after they have received the last sacraments; and let him exhort, console, and help them; and, after a new act of confession and contrition has been elicited from them, if they can, let him again and again give new absolution." - Cf. Second Plenary Council of Baltimore, n. 116.

Note 2°. - Priests indeed are always held to carry prudence before them, but never so gravely as in visiting the sick, both with relation to the sick themselves and with relation to their blood relatives or friends and neighbors who perhaps have gathered at the home of the sick person. Cf. Konings, nn. 1509 and following.¹

¹ Cf. Addenda, p. 1142, n. 111, n. 112.

Concina, Compendium

Daniele Concina, O.P. — 68 passages

Diss. I, Chapter I — Condemned and lax propositions are recounted which regard the remaining three sacraments of extreme unction, order, and matrimony

SECTION I — Theses proscribed by Alexander VII and Innocent XI

Alexander VII condemned the following.

n. I.

I. It is not against justice not to confer ecclesiastical benefices gratis: because a collator conferring those ecclesiastical benefices, money intervening, does not exact it for the collation of the benefice, but as it were for a temporal emolument which he was not bound to confer upon you. This is the 22nd.

n. II.

II. That opinion is probable which says that a kiss had for the sake of the carnal and sensible delight which arises from the kiss is only venial, the danger of further consent and of pollution being excluded. This is the 40th.

Innocent XI proscribed the following.

n. III.

III. The work of marriage exercised for pleasure alone is utterly free from all fault and venial defect. This is the 9th.

n. IV.

IV. To give a temporal thing for a spiritual is not simony, when the temporal is not given as a price, but only as a motive for conferring or effecting the spiritual; or even when the temporal is only a gratuitous compensation for the spiritual, or contrariwise. This is the 45th.

n. V.

V. And this also has place, even if the temporal be the principal motive of giving the spiritual; nay, even if it be the end of the spiritual thing itself, so that it be esteemed of more worth than the spiritual thing. This is the 46th.

n. VI.

VI. When the Council of Trent said that those communicating in others' sins sin mortally, who promote to churches any others than those whom they have themselves judged worthier and more useful to the Church, the Council either first seems by this to wish to signify by "worthier" nothing else than the worthiness of those to be elected, the comparative being taken for the positive; or secondly, by a less proper locution it sets down "worthier," that it may exclude the unworthy, but not the worthy; or lastly it speaks thirdly, when there is a competition. This is the 47th.

n. VII.

VII. Copulation with a married woman, her husband consenting, is not adultery; and so it suffices in confession to say that one has fornicated. This is the 50th.

Slater, Cases II, Extreme Unction, Case 1. Repetition of Extreme Unction · Slater, Cases II, Extreme Unction, Case 2. Short Form for Extreme Unction

SECTION II — Lax propositions of certain casuists

I had determined to transcribe no lax opinions concerning matrimony, because they are so foul and horrid that they can scarcely be read without scandal. But because the heretics reproach us that many shameful things are defended by Catholic casuists — and chiefly the impious Peter Bayle exaggerates several of the things which Thomas Sánchez teaches in this kind — therefore I shall transcribe a few, that I may stop the mouths of the calumniating heretics, and that they may understand that the paradoxes of the laxity of certain casuists are by no means approved by the graver theologians.

n. I.

I. Fr. Claude La Croix, Book 3, part 2, no. 1000: “Gobat, no. 10, thinks that in Germany it is lawful in monasteries to sell wine and bread through servants: for this is not properly to keep a tavern or to trade, but to sell one's own to passers-by.”

n. II.

II. The Fathers of Salamanca, tract 19, chapter 1, point 4, no. 55: “It must therefore be said that it is necessary to the contract of buying and selling that the delivery of money, or of another temporal thing, be made from a will of giving it as a price, or of commensurating it with the spiritual thing and esteeming it at so much, so that it be through an onerous contract. This depraved will nevertheless being excluded, if a temporal thing be given with the mind of obtaining a spiritual thing, not as an onerous price but gratis, or out of gratitude or benevolence, even with the imposition of some antidoral obligation, no simony is committed — whether the gift be conferred before the collation of the spiritual thing, or after it, or at the same time with it.”

n. III.

III. The same Salmanticenses in the same place, no. 56: “If someone should resign a benefice into the hands of a prelate, or in favour of another, but with this mind, hope, and intention that the other out of gratitude and antidoral obligation should correspond with presents, gifts, and services — otherwise not being about to resign without such hope; but neither intending to oblige him by another obligation besides the antidoral, nor by another onerous agreement, or convention intervening, by which he intends rigorously to oblige him — it will not be simony.”

n. IV.

IV. The same Salmanticenses in the same place: “The same is of him who resigns a benefice into the hand of a prelate, or in favour of another, with this hope and intention that another fatter one be conferred upon him by the bishop, otherwise not being about to resign; if he does not intend to leave the superior bound by another obligation besides the antidoral. The same is in like cases. Valentia, § 3; Soto, article 2; Rodríguez, chapter 58; Palaus, point 4; Suárez; Ugolinus; Sánchez; Diana; Lessius; Layman in the place cited; who also add that this is true even if he express the said hope in words or in writing to the superior: because what it is lawful to desire, it is lawful also to express in words; and because it is lawful to ask from another that which he is held to by natural obligation.”

n. V.

V. The same Salmanticenses in the same place, chapter 2, point 7, no. 49: “Hence also it is made honourable that monasteries of noble nuns exact a fatter dowry and a greater sum for entrance and sustenance: because the more celebrated the monasteries are, the greater expenses they have, and a greater sum is assigned as dowry for entrance.”

n. VI.

VI. The same Salmanticenses in the same place, no. 50: “For the rest, if besides the dowry of sustenance the nuns should receive or ask more, either because the entrant is less noble, or deformed, or of some other infamy, they can scarcely be excused from simony, says Sánchez, Book 3, chapter 3, doubt 11, no. 7; which we judge true, unless perchance (N.B.) some detriment thence befall the monastery, either in honour or in other temporal things: because this can lawfully be compensated by an increase of the dowry; just as in matrimony we said above that an equality of nobility, or of another thing, between spouses is compensated by an increment of the assigned dowry.”

n. VII.

VII. The same Salmanticenses in the same place: “Hence there is freed from simony that which frequently happens among our nuns, namely that in order that a twenty-first be received — which among us is called la veinte y una — a greater dowry is exacted; or that two or three sisters be received in the same monastery, in which case a greater sum is required, unless they be adorned with other surpassing qualities; and that widows be admitted, it is exacted also that the dowry be increased. For in the former case it is intended to render entrance difficult: because from the most holy virgin our mother St. Teresa our nuns have it that only twenty be made, and so forth. … In the other two cases for the same reason a greater dowry is exacted, that such entrance may be more difficult, and so forth.”

n. VIII.

VIII. The same Salmanticenses in the same place, no. 51: “If a monastery, even a most wealthy one, should exact by agreement money from those to be received for their sustenance, it commits simony neither by divine nor by positive right.”

n. IX.

IX. Fr. Nicholas Mazzotta, tract 3, disputation 5, chapter 3, page 253: “But if you give something to an intercessor, whether mediate or immediate, not indeed for the intercession, but for the labour, for ceasing gain, for emerging loss, for the expenditure of time, and so forth, in going and returning, it is not simony, because these are something temporal altogether extrinsic.” So La Croix, no. 91, and others commonly.

n. X.

X. The Fathers of Salamanca, tract 19, chapter 4, point 5, no. 22: “He who buys a benefice does not do an injustice, but suffers it: for he ought to have received gratis that which, a price being given, he receives; he sins only against religion, the transgression of which does not oblige to restitution. Nor does he who confers the benefice sin against justice, or by divine right make the collation invalid.”

n. XI.

XI. Fr. Thomas Tamburini, Book 8, chapter 4, § 4, no. 5: “I assert secondly that all benefices — whether greater, as a cardinalate and a bishopric, or lesser, as a canonry and a chaplaincy; whether having the care of souls, as an abbacy and a parish, or not having it, as the aforesaid canonry and chaplaincy, and the other benefices which are named simple — abstracting from those which are given in competition (of which presently at no. 14) — I assert, I say, that it is enough for avoiding mortal sin if they be conferred upon the worthy and fit, although the worthier or the most worthy be passed over.”

n. XII.

XII. Fr. Filliucci, tract 41, in the Appendix, chapter 4, no. 18: “I say fifthly that the opinion which reckons it enough to elect the worthy to benefices which are not given in competition is probable from Trent, session 7, chapter 5 On Reformation, saying: Let them be conferred upon the worthy; and from the universal estimation in the creation of beneficiaries, cardinals, bishops, abbots, and so forth, who, if they be held among the worthy, the elector is praised and the election is not blamed: but it would not commonly be praised, if it were evil and a mortal sin.”

n. XIII.

XIII. Fr. Tamburini in the place cited, no. 8: “Since immediately before the Council seems to be content with the worthy, either first it seems by this to wish to signify by "worthier" nothing else than the worthiness of those to be elected, the comparative being taken for the positive; or secondly by a less proper locution it sets down "worthier," that it may exclude the unworthy … or lastly it speaks thirdly, when there is a competition.”

n. XIV.

XIV. Fr. Thomas Sánchez, Book 2, disputation 15, no. 5: “It is probable that a dispensation of the Pontiff in a ratified marriage granted without a just cause is valid. … And the reason is because it is probable that the indissolubility of such a marriage is of human right.”

n. XV.

XV. The Salmanticenses, tract 9, chapter 1, point 6, no. 85: “Betrothals make kisses and embraces lawful between the betrothed.”

n. XVI.

XVI. Fr. Thomas Sánchez, Book 3, disputation 18, no. 19: “Some limit this opinion, unless they should go to those places in fraud of the decree of Trent, that there they might be able freely to be joined in matrimony without a parish priest and witnesses: for then, they say, it is invalid. … For the rest this limitation displeases me, and I believe that, even if they should go thither with the end that they might be able freely to contract without a parish priest and witnesses, the marriage is ratified. First: for he who uses his own right cannot be said to commit fraud, so that for that reason the effect be hindered.”

n. XVII.

XVII. The same Sánchez in the place cited, disputation 38, no. 3: “I conclude thirdly. It is a venial fault to omit those words (I join you together, and so forth). … It is proved: because the matter is not grave, since those words are not the form of the sacrament, nor pertain to a solemnity of great moment, nor include a mystery of great signification. Moreover because, although Trent uses preceptive words, yet under that precept there is contained not only that the parish priest bring forth those words, but other things of great moment, namely that the banns be sent before, and that the marriage be celebrated before the parish priest and witnesses, that he have a register, and so forth.”

n. XVIII.

XVIII. Fr. Viva, question 4, article 4, no. 6: “The blessing of nuptials does not seem to be a grave matter, nor greatly conducing to the progress of matrimony. For the nuptial blessing is not a sacrament, but a certain sacramental, nor of so great moment as the sacramentals which are sent before Baptism. But although it is not free from venial fault simply to omit it without any cause against the use and custom of the Church, nevertheless it is probable that there is no fault, from a just cause — namely by reason of a forbidden season, in Advent or Lent — to consummate the marriage before the blessing of the Church, since it seems to be a counsel, not a precept, to send it before.”

n. XIX.

XIX. The Fathers of Salamanca, tract 9, chapter 19, point 5, no. 41: “Whence almost all the Doctors of our opinion infer, and Sánchez, Book 8, disputation 25, from no. 12, and Palaus in the place just cited testify that it is inferred from it, that if such a dispensation be remitted to the bishop, and he, before he despatch it, should question the contracting parties whether an incestuous copulation has been had between them, they can themselves deny it, even if he question with an oath exacted: and because such a questioning is superfluous, and juridically in such a matter he does not question, they are not bound to answer according to it; and they can assert that there was no copulation between them, and, lest they contravene the truth, retain in mind, lest we tell it to you. Nay, even if in the rescript of the Pontiff there come that clause, Unless copulation has been had between them — because it is understood of public, not of secret copulation.”

n. XX.

XX. Fr. Patrick Sporer, part 4, chapter 1, section 1, no. 428: “It is one thing to consent and take complacency in a copulation thought of as present, and an actual venereal delight from such copulation thought of and actual in the sensitive appetite and in the venereal parts consequent thereupon; which to the betrothed de futuro, and to widows regarding the past, is mortally unlawful, and is lawful to spouses alone. It is another thing to consent and take complacency in a copulation thought of as future, and in the venereal delight to follow at some time from such future copulation; which to the betrothed is not unlawful. For since from the betrothal itself contracted, and as it were by an inchoate right, such copulation and delight is to be at some time in the future, they ought not to be saddened by it or to turn away from it; but they can lawfully consent to it, take complacency in it, or rejoice over it, since it is nothing else than to rejoice over the hope of a future good, which hope is present and lawful. So with very many Sánchez, Diana, and so forth.”

n. XXI.

XXI. Fr. Thomas Sánchez, Book 1, disputation 2, no. 5: “According to the common opinion embraces and kisses between the betrothed de futuro are lawful, on the ground that betrothals are a certain beginning of matrimony, and consequently grant a right of using the pleasure of matrimonial copulation. Therefore through betrothals a right in the body is acquired, otherwise no use of it would be granted; and consequently he who violates this right by fornication will be guilty of an injustice committed through fornication, necessarily to be opened in confession.” And this opinion is very probable.

n. XXII.

XXII. The Salmanticenses, tract 9, chapter 15, point 6, no. 91: “Whether between the betrothed de futuro kisses, embraces, touches, amatory words, and so forth are lawful, outside the danger of pollution? It is answered that if such acts be done for the capturing of pleasure, they will be venial sins. … But if for a sign of love, there will be no sin, provided the betrothals between them be absolute and not conditioned. … The reason is because, just as betrothals are a certain inchoation of matrimony, so also those acts are lawful in that state which are in some manner an inchoation and beginning of copulation. Sánchez, Book 9, disputation 46; Aversa; Diana; Bonacina; Azor.”

n. XXIII.

XXIII. Tamburini, Book 7, chapter 5, no. 61, page 193 in my copy: “To the betrothed de futuro it is very probably lawful without sin to have certain signs of love, such as kisses, touches, modest looks, and amatory conversations — even on account of the delight residing in them, but without danger of pollution, or of consent to it, or to copulation; but by no means immodest ones. So Thomas Sánchez. … I find one excuse for betrothed persons exercising these unchaste actions with a foreseen but not intended danger of pollution, and without danger of consent to it. For if he were in an occasion in which he would be held UNMANNERLY if he abstained from them, he could usurp them: because there is already present a reasonable excuse.”

n. XXIV.

XXIV. Fr. George Gobat, tract 10, no. 641: “It is certain among all Doctors that kisses, touches, and embraces not immodest are lawfully done between the betrothed, when they are done according to the custom of the country as a sign of benevolence, for conciliating and fostering mutual love in order to matrimony. So speaks Perez. And indeed for the aforesaid end these acts are lawful, although there be present a danger of pollution, provided there be no danger of consent to venereal delight.”

n. XXV.

XXV. Fr. Thomas Sánchez, Book 9, disputation 46, no. 48: “Kisses and embraces and other touches not immodest are excused from mortal fault between the betrothed de futuro by reason of the contract of betrothals entered upon between them. The reason is, because just as matrimony itself makes copulation honourable, so betrothals, which are a certain beginning of matrimony, ought to make honourable touches of this kind, which are a certain inchoation of copulation: chiefly because thus love is the more fostered in order to matrimony (no. 49). And this conclusion is true … although the betrothed intend that delight which arises from those embraces and kisses. Because betrothals, which are the beginning of matrimony, excuse from mortal sin this delight, which is an inchoation of copulation; and it would otherwise altogether be a mortal fault.”

n. XXVI.

XXVI. Fr. Gobat, tract 10, no. 672: “Sánchez in the place cited, no. 49, uses the name of sensitive delight, but by this he certainly understands venereal delight, as is plain. I confess nevertheless that it not rarely happens that a confessor is compelled in practice to suppose the opinion of Sánchez, unless he wish to dismiss such betrothed persons without absolution, as being those to whom he will with difficulty persuade that those embraces, kisses, and so forth are mortal, or, acknowledging them to be mortal, that they should form a purpose of amending themselves.”

n. XXVII.

XXVII. The Salmanticenses, tract 9, chapter 5, point 4, no. 41: “Which is true, adds Sánchez, no. 7, with Aversa and Navarrus, even before the marriage contracted, if he should see invincible ignorance and should not believe that he will acquiesce in his admonition, but with a wounded conscience would contract; or that she who would contract in good faith would with great difficulty and with scandal withdraw from such a marriage. Prudently therefore let the confessor then keep silence — nay, he is bound to keep silence, says Sánchez, no. 7, even if the ignorance be of divine right, for the same reason.”

n. XXVIII.

XXVIII. Fr. Claude La Croix with Gobat goes further, Book 6, part 3, no. 541: “Although it be foreseen that the admonition will profit, yet if it be conjoined with a most grave inconvenience of the other party — for example of the proximate one — the confessor is not bound to admonish, but can permit them in good faith. So Gobat, chapter 2, no. 57; and again no. 3, Sporer.”

n. XXIX.

XXIX. Fr. George Gobat, tract 7, no. 315: “What is a confessor to do if he sees a penitent from invincible ignorance obnoxious, for example, to softness, whose gravity being taught he will scarcely abstain from on account of a depraved habit? By these words that question was proposed and applied to this peculiar vice, when it could be to several. But I answered from writings, in that title, chapter 57, no. 61; and, rightly considering the circumstances of that penitent, if it be altogether judged that the admonition will profit nothing at all, but that, the grave crime being known by him to be committed, he will nevertheless perpetrate it more rarely than he did when ignorant of its baseness — THE MANIFESTATION OF THE TRUTH IS TO BE DISSEMBLED BEFORE GOD.”

n. XXX.

XXX. The same Gobat in the same place, no. 317: “And indeed more than once I have learned that certain men who are inculpably ignorant of the malice of this outrage sin mortally. Therefore, practically speaking, the question is not so much of him who will plainly never omit that sin on account of its known baseness, as of him alone who will scarcely omit it, or, as they say, will scarcely abstain from it, who now and then, even if most rarely, will abstain: whence — alas for the grief! — confessors groan that they know several of this most foul and at the same time most fetid bran. Concerning this also I reckon that opinion of St. Augustine on Morals is to be understood. For an admonition does not so much profit which would only hinder six, eight, or ten formally mortal sins, but will cause two hundred, three hundred, likewise mortal.”

n. XXXI.

XXXI. Fr. Claude La Croix, Book 6, part 3, no. 299: “He who probably thinks a marriage to be valid lawfully asks the debt: both because there is possession for it, and also because someone can here use a probable opinion. … Aversa adds that this holds even if the opinion for invalidity were MORE PROBABLE; and this is conformable to what is said in Book 1, no. 268, concerning the lawful use of a probable opinion.”

…and 28 more passages — all of them are listed on the topic page.

Slater, Cases II

Thomas Slater, S.J. — 20 passages

Slater, Cases II, Extreme Unction, Case 1. Repetition of Extreme Unction

Caius, a missionary, during Eastertide visits a certain village five or six miles distant from the church where some Catholics live. There he comes upon a previously unknown Catholic family whose members never come to church, either because of the distance or because of negligence. The mother of the family, perhaps forty years of age, evidently suffers from consumption, although she is not confined to bed; indeed, she attends to her ordinary occupations. When she says that she cannot come to church because of her domestic duties, Caius warns her to be ready at home on the following morning to receive the Easter sacraments. When she agrees, early on the following day he successively administers Penance, Communion, and Extreme Unction. After eight months he is called to the same woman, now dying, and when he finds her deprived of her senses and at the very point of death, without delay he anoints her again on the forehead under a general form; a little afterwards the woman expires. Hence it is asked:

Who is the subject of Extreme Unction?

Can Extreme Unction be repeated in the same illness?

What is to be said of Caius’s manner of acting in all these things?

Solution

Who is the subject of Extreme Unction?

To receive Extreme Unction validly one must be baptized, have attained the use of reason, and must be in probable danger of death from sickness.¹

1 Manual of Moral Theology, vol. ii, 238.

May Extreme Unction be repeated during the same sickness?

The Ritual lays down that this sacrament ought not to be repeated in the same sickness, unless it is prolonged, as when the sick man has got better and he is again brought into the danger of death. Many approved authors hold that in practice it may be repeated after a month’s interval.²

2 Ibid., 238.

What about the actions of Caius?

Caius found a mother of a family who never came to church, partly on account of distance, partly on account of negligence. She was now far advanced in consumption, but still attending to her household duties. He told her to prepare herself to make her Easter next morning, and then came again to the house and administered Penance, the Eucharist, and Extreme Unction. There is little difficulty about the administration of Penance. It is forbidden to take Holy Communion out of the Church except to the sick. The woman in question was apparently sufficiently ill for Easter Communion to be brought to her. Extreme Unction should not be given except to the sick who are in danger of death. If Caius judged that the woman was probably in danger, he did right to administer Extreme Unction, otherwise he did wrong.

Eight months afterward Caius was called to the same woman and found her dying in a state of unconsciousness. He anointed her on the forehead with the general form, and then she died. Caius should first of all have given her conditional absolution, for Penance should always precede Extreme Unction, as this sacrament is the complement of Penance. He did right after such an interval to repeat Extreme Unction, for although the sickness was the same, still without doubt there had been a change in the sick person’s state.¹

1 Génicot, vol. ii, n. 423.

Slater, Cases II, Extreme Unction, Case 2. Short Form for Extreme Unction

The Sacred Office, asked to determine a short form for administering Extreme Unction in necessity, on April 26, 1906, decreed: “In a case of true necessity the following form suffices: By this holy anointing, may the Lord forgive you whatever you have sinned. Amen.” After this decree, some teach that in cases in which this form is employed, the anointing must afterwards be repeated conditionally according to the ritual form if time permits; others teach that this can be done but that no obligation to do the same is present; others maintain that it ought not to be done. Titius, however, a priest who, since he serves a public hospital, not rarely employs the short form, perplexed, inquires what he must do. Hence it is asked:

Before the said decree was issued, what did theologians teach about the essential form of Extreme Unction?

What did the same decree determine, and with what certainty?

What is to be said of the case?

Solution

Before the decree of the Holy Office, 26 April, 1906, what did theologians teach about the essential form of Extreme Unction?

The ritual form of Extreme Unction is: “ Per istam sanctam unctionem et suam piissimam misericordiam indulgeat tibi Dominus quidquid per visum, etc., deliquisti. Amen.” Theologians taught that in this form the words et suam piissimam misericordiam, sanctum Amen, did not belong to its essence. They did not agree as to whether the mention of the senses in special or at least general terms belonged to its essence. They differed also as to whether a single anointing was sufficient or not for the validity of the sacrament. Hence they taught that in a case of necessity Extreme Unction might be given conditionally with one form such as: Indulgeat tibi Deus quidquid per sensus deliquisti. Others required all the senses to be expressed in the single form. If the sick man survived, St. Alphonsus teaches that the anointing of each sense and the prayers were to be supplied.¹

1 St. Alphonsus, Theol. Moral., lib. vi, n. 710.

What did the decree determine and with what certainty?

The Holy Office was asked to determine a single short form for the administration of Extreme Unction to be used in case of death being imminent. It decided that the following form would be sufficient: “ In casu verse necessitatis sufficere formam: Per istam sanctam unctionem indulgeat tibi Dominus quidquid deliquisti. Amen.” This decree was confirmed next day by Pius X. Hence it determines authentically but not infallibly that in case of necessity it is not necessary to mention the different senses nor even one, and that one anointing under this general form is sufficient for the validity of the sacrament.

Vol. I, Case XLIII: Sudden Sick Calls · Vol. II, Case XVII: Extreme Unction

The case. This decree tells us what is sufficient for the validity of Extreme Unction in casu verae necessitatis, when there is not time to perform the full rite according to the Ritual. If the sick person thus anointed survives, and there is time to go through the Ritual form and prayers, then the case is one not contemplated in the decree. We think, then, that the first opinion mentioned is to be followed in practice, and that if time allows and the state of the sick person permits it, the sacrament should be given according to the form prescribed by the Ritual after this short form has been used. This is the opinion of the Redactor of the Acta Sanctae Sedis when the decree was issued. He says: “ But when the danger has ceased, especially if the sick person was unable to receive the other sacraments safely, the individual anointings upon the individual senses are to be repeated conditionally, under their own particular forms, and all the omitted prayers are to be added at once. This formula accords perfectly with the prescriptions of the Roman Ritual, and as far as the disposition of the recipient of the sacrament may be improved, contributes to obtaining a greater increase of grace.” (A. S. S., XXXIX, 275.)

The Casuist

Various; ed. S. Woywod, O.F.M., and J. A. McHugh, O.P. — 31 passages

Vol. I, Case XLIII: Sudden Sick Calls

Titus is hurriedly called to the bedside of a dying man, who desires very earnestly to see him. Taking the Blessed Sacrament and the holy oils, he hastens to the house of the sick man, only to learn that just as he crossed the threshold of the house the dying man had passed away. Having the Blessed Sacrament with him, Titus did not tarry longer, but returned immediately to the church.

On another occasion, being summoned to a sick person, Titus, on entering the sick chamber, finds the patient just breathing his last. He quickly pronounces the words of absolution over him. But before he can administer Extreme Unction the pulse and heart have ceased to beat, and Titus, concluding that the man was dead, returned home without administering Extreme Unction.

Reflecting on these cases, Titus makes up his mind that in the future, whenever he receives a sudden sick call, he will pronounce the words of absolution over the sick person when within twenty paces of the house, in order to be able to proceed to the administration of Extreme Unction immediately on entering the sick chamber.

Answer.—It is hardly necessary to say that a person who is certainly dead can not receive any Sacrament, neither sacramental absolution, nor Extreme Unction. To absolve or anoint a person who, beyond doubt, is dead would be a sacrilege. It would be a grievous desecration of the Sacramental rite and a mortal sin. But if there be any reasonable grounds for doubting whether the person be really dead or not, then the priest not only may, but must administer, conditionally, of course, Sacramental Absolution and Extreme Unction. That a person is, in every case, really dead when he ceases to breathe is by no means certain according to expert medical testimony.^* In the case of normal death, where the person has been sick for sometime and gradually sinking, only a few moments, at most, will intervene between the cessation of respiration and actual death. But in cases of sudden and violent death, as, for instance, drowning, asphyxiation, etc., the last visible sign of life may have disappeared long before death occurs.

^* Cf. the chapter "The Moment of Death," in Sanford's Pastoral Medicine.

Dr. Gourand, a well-known Parisian physician, with large hospital experience, writing in the "Bulletin de la société médicale de S. Luc, S. Come, S. Damian," 1895, says, àpropos of the question of administering the last Sacraments, that it is physiologically wrong to conclude that actual death has occurred because respiration has ceased. It used to be thought, he says, that when the breathing had ceased the heart action also had ceased, and, therefore, that death had occurred. It is comparatively easy to verify the cessation of breathing, but difficult to determine just when the heart has finally ceased to act. "It is incontestable," he continues, "that a person who, after a long agony, ceases to breathe is, in most cases, dead. But, physiologically, he is not dead because respiration has ceased, but because the cessation of breathing follows, as a consequence, upon the cessation of the action of the heart." In regard to cases where respiration has ceased before the action of the heart has been stilled, he says: "Between the last breath and the final cessation of the heart's action there is often an interval, whose length is determined by the greater or lesser vitality of the cardiac ganglion."

Dr. Capellmann (Pastoral Medicine, Agony) says: "After the last respiration the person is considered dead, although perhaps sometimes minutes elapse before the vital spark becomes completely extinct, the muscles of the heart and of the arteries make, often after the last respiration, some, though feeble, movements. If the agony and the gradual fading away have been observed, we may be convinced of death some minutes after the last respiration. However, there are some forms of death wherein doubts may be entertained whether death has really taken place." In other cases, as for example, cases of drowning, asphyxiation, great loss of blood, etc., hours may elapse between apparent and real death, or between apparent death and resuscitation.

Father Tanquerey, de Poenit, p. 247, says: “It is established by recent experiments that life remains in the body for some time even when a person seems to have breathed his last, because life withdraws from the body only successively. Hence some who were apparently dead have at times been restored to life after three hours by the rhythmic drawing of the tongue. Therefore, with the requisite conditions observed, those who by such a procedure exhibit some signs of life, at least sensory life, may be absolved and anointed; indeed, under the condition ‘if you are alive,’ so may those who, although they appear to be dead according to the ordinary signs, are prudently judged by experts to survive.”

In the light of all this, therefore, we can not endorse unconditionally Titus' method of administering the last Sacraments.

As regards the first case, although the sick person was dying for some time and gradually faded away, and although the attendants had noticed the cessation of respiration, nevertheless Titus could not affirm with certainty that life did not linger still in the heart and nerve centers, for at least the few moments that were required to reach the sick-chamber from the main entrance of the house. On entering the sick-room, therefore, Titus should have immediately pronounced the words of absolution, with the condition "si tu es capax." As regards the administration of Extreme Unction in this case, so much time would be required before the Sacrament could be given that there would scarcely be any reasonable grounds for not concluding that death had occurred before the Sacrament could be administered.

Were this a case of sudden or violent death, like drowning or asphyxiation, etc., Titus should have administered Extreme Unction also, because there was a reasonable probability that life might not be altogether extinct.

In case a physician were present and would not affirm with certainty that death had already occurred, Titus would be justified and even bound to administer Extreme Unction. And if considerable time were required to discover probable signs of life or death, Titus should proceed immediately to administer Extreme Unction, using the shortest valid form, without waiting for any further examination of the patient, because every moment of delay may prove fatal.

n. ¶12.

In the second case, Titus did well to give conditional absolution. Had he had the holy oils ready, he could have given Extreme Unction immediately after pronouncing the words of absolution, because there was sufficient reason for doubting whether life really became extinct with the last respiration. At least there was a probability that a spark of life might still remain in the body, and therefore sufficient warrant for giving conditional Extreme Unction, although there would be no sufficient warrant under the circumstances for administering the Holy Viaticum.

n. ¶13.

The resolution that Titus took in consequence of these cases, of always imparting conditional absolution when within twenty paces of the house of the sick person, can not be approved of; rather, it must be condemned. In order to be absolved, the penitent must be morally present to the confessor; and although St. Alphonsus says that if the penitent be no farther than twenty paces distant from the confessor he is morally present and may be absolved, the holy doctor means that both the confessor and the penitent must be in the same room or hall, and must perceive one another by sight or hearing. Even a greater distance than twenty paces would not render the absolution certainly invalid, although it would jeopardize it. But if the priest be separated from the penitent by a house or a street, or if the penitent occupy a room in the house altogether unknown to the priest, there can be no question of moral presence. In fact, even under circumstances where the absolution "in distantiam" would be most likely valid, the confessor would not be justified in administering it always and on all occasions in that way, but only in cases where, unless he administered it in that way, he would not be able perhaps to administer it at all. It is not to be taken for granted that every time the priest receives a sudden urgent sick call it will be necessary to give conditional absolution before reaching the bedside of the dying person. On the contrary, it is to be taken for granted, as a rule, that the priest will be summoned in ample time to administer the last Sacraments to the dying with dignity and decorum. The faithful are to be reminded repeatedly, when necessary, that they should summon the priest in good time. And the priest, on being called to the sick, should not delay in hastening to them. Exceptional accidental cases must be left to the providence of God.

Vol. II, Case XVII: Extreme Unction

A priest is called to a sick person, living a considerable distance from the church. The road is very heavy and the night very cold and stormy. When he finally arrives at the sick man’s house he finds the sick man unconscious. He gives him conditional absolution, and then proceeds to anoint him, as he cannot receive Viaticum. But upon opening the oil stocks he discovers that instead of the oleum infirmorum, he has brought with him the other two oils! What shall he do? It will require several hours to send to the church for the oil of the sick. The man may be dead before that. The priest quickly dispatches a messenger for the oleum infirmorum, and in the mean time gives the sick man Extreme Unction with the oil of catechumens. When the messenger returned with the oil of the sick, the priest repeated the Sacrament sub conditione, and the man expired without regaining consciousness. Was the Sacrament valid with the oleum catechumenorum, or was the second administration sub conditione necessary or even lawful?

Answer.—The Council of Trent defines the matter of the Sacrament of Extreme Unction to be: “Oleum ab episcopo benedictum.” The exact words of the council are: “From the apostolic tradition received through the transmission of hands, the Church understood the matter to be oil blessed by a bishop” (Sess. 14).

The oil, blessed by the bishop, is understood to be oil of olives; for the word used simply and without qualification has this meaning and this has been the uniform teaching and practise of the Church throughout the centuries. “Because the liquid of the olive is principally called oil,” says St. Thomas, “while other liquids receive the name of oil only by resemblance to it, therefore that which is taken as the matter of this sacrament must also be olive oil” (Suppl. q. 29). Pope Eugenius IV, decre. pro Armenis, says: “The fifth sacrament is Extreme Unction, whose matter is olive oil blessed by a bishop.”

“The Orientals retain that olive oil, and that blessed, is to be employed for Extreme Unction, unless perhaps you except the Armenians, who seem sometimes to have used butter in place of oil” (Denzinger, I, 185). Oil of olives therefore is required for the valid administration of the Sacrament of Extreme Unction. It is further required for the validity of the Sacrament that this oil of olives be blessed by the bishop. The words of the Council of Trent are clear: “The Church understood the matter to be oil blessed by a bishop” (Sess. 14). The proposition or statement that Extreme Unction might be validly administered with oil that had not been previously blessed by the bishop, was condemned by Paul V (Jan. 13, 1655), as a “propositio temeraria et errori proxima,” and this condemnation was reaffirmed by Gregory XVI, in 1842, who declared that even in extremest necessity a priest could not validly anoint the sick with the oil blessed by himself, unless authorized to bless it by the Supreme Pontiff. As far back as the Council of Carthage, A. D. 390, it was forbidden to a presbyter to bless the oil of the sick (ap. Gratian, c. xxvi, q. vi, c.l.).

The Council of Hispalis (Seville), A. D. 619, also reserves the consecration of the sick man’s oil to the bishop. In the Greek rite the oil is blessed by simple priests; and there can be no doubt that this benediction suffices. Even in the Latin rite, the benediction of the oil by a simple priest is sufficient, provided the priest be expressly or tacitly commissioned by the Pope to bless it. “The matter appears most thoroughly established, such that no one may call it into question” are the words of Benedict XIV (de synod. dioec. 1. 8,c. 4). The Roman rule and the Western rule that now follows it, require that the oil be consecrated by the bishop, and this is required not merely by precept but for the validity of the Sacrament (St. Lig. n. 709).

The oil, therefore, required for the Sacrament of Extreme Unction must necessarily be (1) oil of olives; (2) blessed by a bishop.

Now there arises the question, and it is on this that the present case hinges, must the olive oil, blessed by the bishop, be blessed especially for this Sacrament in order to be valid, or will oil, blessed by the bishop for any purpose and with any form of consecration, suffice?

Upon this question the theologians do not agree. Some maintain that a special blessing is required for the oil of the sick, that it must be blessed for this special purpose, namely for the annealing of the sick. Others maintain that any blessing or consecration by a bishop is all that is necessary to make the oil valid although perhaps illicit for Extreme Unction.

Suarez maintains that oil blessed in any way by the bishop is sufficient for the validity of the Sacrament, because it is still true to say that it is “oleum ab episcopo benedictum” (Disp. 40, g I, n. 9). These theologians maintain that oleum ab episcopo benedictum is what the Council of Trent declares to be the materia valida of Extreme Unction, and if the council meant by oleum ab episcopo benedictum the special oil of the sick, i. e., oleum infirmorum, the council would have so specified.

St. Alphonsus calls this opinion probable, and in fact, both by reason of the external authority of the theologians that favor it, as well as the internal evidence on which it rests, it may be said to be solidly probable.