ge ahateastsastoiesents
magi esses: estates:
enersts,
eee fteore
rpoestiisiestanstnaeeece east
Be 7‘ Facets
or riers . - ~ :
Sriinareesteceret :
: : Spoporese pes
n breve
Feses
ict
Geren ie
aieees : Sete sey cists : : ; : j ; :
ere jon n - 5 “ ye re ~ ee
serteass Pretrtetiseoret : t : : ; Strasse : ritetnwaaritieyeoet
: : 3 Selated we
rss :
at
iF
a4
; : ry sbersssh ct -
: - ropenerecet eye ets oly
ar : _ yen el ierersteteee!
perereteysits sarees} - rita: f ee
seacors erat re rorere 4
ayes Sbicssiee Sains fachcerara Sates tigertie
Sdethdec ti hese era iad anteasts
Sore,
re :
i sities :
eats : estrone eet ererai= ; ; 1: - sGarcrerete
stesrers : siren : Lrttestrarastenie sta
; eiestateasie : eter ayuee
re a 1 ere
: ai eleres : r
spekieeal pipers a
ay cettas
Z siraancen)
ap tire
- Poa
sta ee <
hes oe Ahab - x} - peta sy eee. =f
pesstetsior are : : oa a at
4 zs
ts
apes
faces sent te
tyr
Preis ¥
bso eres! prcaeee : ete
eet oebpe eistesto yore Ercthinnsod gansnss
Sopeieeel
Rivferascts : : eabebsethsishe se sates
abeagnsins; : re re
ye > ¥ pisshpbebenericts r
rials rte ea
Seg ee cot
GRRARY OF PRINCE TS
Be 2290-45 2926
Kilker, Adrian Jerome, 1901
Extreme unction
Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2022 with funding from
Princeton Theological Seminary Library
https://archive.org/details/extremeunctionOOkilk
S D
NOV23 1926 |
A a
4 —
ae As
SLocie,, sew
EXTREME UNCTION
A DISSERTATION
Submitted to the Faculty of Canon Law of the
Catholic University of America m partial
fulfillment of the requirements for
the Degree of Doctor of
Canon Law
By the
REV. ADRIAN JEROME KILKER, J.C. L.
Of the Archdiocese of Philadelphia
WASHINGTON, D. ©.
1926
Nihil Obstat:
THOMAS J. SHAHAN, 8. T. D.,
Censor Deputatus.
Washingtonii, D. C., die XVII Maii, 1926.
Imprimatur:
*D. Carp. DouGHERTY,
Archiepiscopus Philadelphiensis.
Philadelphiae, die XXVII Maii, 1926.
COPYRIGHT, 1926
ADRIAN J. KILKER
CHAPTER I.
CHAPTER
CHAPTER
CHAPTER
CHAPTER
CHAPTER
CHAPTER
CHAPTER
CHAPTER
CHAPTER
CHAPTER
CHAPTER
it:
Trt.
IV.
V.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
A Dogmatico-Historical Introduction...............
ee Tae NAING ais’ Gee side «e's «2:0 ele erera's s; 0's o s.alausre§
LU Dhet Sacramentalityan «acces co cap «eres cose nip re vant
AVA Senses LAE oe a lalcte.s eicteth oe a el cio) te jel oie wore Rete sme gehts
TWP Des SSONCO i «iris ese ic © oie se crys cjelsieia. of saewiene eared
1. The Matter of Extreme Unction..........
2 Pune Pormiot Extremes Unctons. 2.47. 2.6. 5
ame Deter FoI eCth. “cnt erates pis estelere coe s e's Sispace a Shea e's
Lee PHGRRCMISSION OL * SINS... crawls cle atete a
2. The Remission of Temporal Punishment...
a. fbhe **Confortatto Animae’ 7... 0. cccee vee
Amhestitution of’ Bodily, Health.22- <2... .
Diet OG) Principals IrOchie . ters’ Wales Sicie ss \she'e'e »
Vlewe Oe tAEO DELUIOS si .t0itc ate Gials sderese) hate wikis cute eyelets 01a
i. The Unity of Extreme Unction. . 02.0... 6%
ee LUAVIVISCODCOMN stale sracis eleva ete tes oleic sieterg « ciete.s
SELECT CL DLL Vipapete tale che cleCels o sue ola te tehetore| o acciietieln
The Elements of Extreme Unction (Canon 937)
The Minister of Extreme Unction (Canon 938)
I. The Valid Minister (Canon 938, 1)
If. The Licit Minister (Canon 938, 2)
The Obligation of the Minister (Canon 939)
coeoev ev eevee
Requisites in the Subject for Administration and
Merve petIiots (CanGne G4 iu at aes «ses ciated eek ass
I. Requisites for Administration (Canon 940, 1)..
II. Requisites for Repetition (Canon 940, 2)
Conditional Administration (Canon 941)
Denial to Impenitents (Canon 942)
eee ete eo eo eee wo Howe wR eRe
Administration to the Unconscious (Canon 945)....
Obligation upon the Subject (Canon 944)
eesoer ev eevee
The Blessing of the Oil (Canon 945)
C10 OLS OLS: 6 '@ (0: 0. B86) 616,
The Reservation of the Oil (Canon 946)
oreo eee eee eee
The Rite of Administration (Canon 947)...........
I. The Mode of Administration (Canon 947, 1)..
Petes OrdiniarvevMOde scars caniu re Sie cass tales
2. Mode of Anointing in Case of Necessity...
II. The Unction of the Reins (Canon 947, 2)
Tif, The Unction of the Feet (Canon 947, 3)..:....
IV. The Use of an Instrument (Canon 947, 4)
oe eee ee
Foe Be Ce) 81088) 66.8 OO Ole © 6108 6 61618. © 6 ¢ oe" Ds O10 oe). 6 ee @ 6 O 6 6 Oe. 6 0 2 CO 6 6. 9-8: 'O
@
7 “y a
ee wer rh:
é
a
FOREWORD
The bestowal of Extreme Uncetion is one of the paramount
features of a priest’s career. The time of its administration 1s
fraught with significance. Given, as it always is, when the
patient is in danger of death from sickness, it is a momentous
event, a crisis in the life of the recipient.
It is well then that a priest should be thoroughly cognizant
of the laws of the Church which regulate the administration of
this ereat gift of a munificent God. Only thru a thorough
realization of their terms can he hope to discharge an intelli-
gent ministry.
The promulgation of the Code has given us very succinctly
the norm of action for the exercise of this phase of sacerdotal
duty. Within eleven canons are summed up the directions which
should rule the activities of priests in administering the oil of
the unction to sick souls. No radical changes of legislation have
been made from the old law, but there are some alterations of
primary importance. Yet no book, at least in English, has un-
dertaken the consideration ex professo of this sacrament from
a juridical standpoint. For this reason alone, a work on the
subject does not seem untimely.
Deep and weighty problems lie beneath the simple ter-
minolozy of the canons. The intertwining of theological sub-
jects makes an escape from this impossible. Canonical problems
extend their ramifications into dogma, history and liturgy. They
are indeed manifold and perplexing, but their mastery con-
notes a deeper understanding of the law. Hence they have a
great interest for the jurist.
As a consequence the various theological, historical and
liturgical problems have been investigated. No exhaustive treat-
ment of them has been attempted, but in every case they have
been noted and a summary survey presented.
The writer cannot let the opportunity pass without express-
ing his thanks to the Faculty of Canon Law of the Catholic
University for their many practical suggestions to him in the
preparation of this work.
CHAPTER IL.
A DOGMATICO- HISTORICAL
INTRODUCTION
CHAPTER I.
There are few laws of the Church that have not a founda-
tion in dogma. No matter how purely disciplinary they seem,
they can generally be found to have their support from some
dogmatic substratum.
Sacramental legislation is essentially of this kind. There,
if anywhere, the commentator must understand the fundamen-
tal tenets involved, lest by injudicious daring he trespass beyond
the limits that revelation, has defined.
For this purpose he must be conversant with the practices
of preceding centuries. In matters sacramental, history goes
far toward a proper conception of dogma. It is a useful cor-
rective that saves the judgment from a priori conclusions that
are often fatally erroneous. Dogma is applied practically thru
laws; and these too have a history of their own. Born of the
exigencies of time and place, they give us an insight into the
viewpoint of their day. They have changed often, yet dogma
remains the same. Thus the dogmatic foundation allows great
scope in the choice of material for the superstructure of law
to be erected upon it. But if the wrong material is used, if the
legal edifice projects beyond the boundaries of the foundation,
the structure thus built will topple and tumble and crash of
its own inherent weakness.
Accordingly in treating with Extreme Unction, it is not
only advisable, but positively imperative, to take a short excur-
sion into the realms of dogma and of history. Such a sally, by
refreshing our minds with thoughts theological, will furnish
the correct setting of stage, will produce the proper perspective
for a consideration of the canonical legislation on the subject.
Thereby the terminology of the canons will assume a deeper,
fuller meaning. Thereby interpretation of them will be clari-
fied, facilitated.
Who, for instance, understands thoroughly the force of
the word ‘‘infirmitatem’’ in Canon 940, except he who realizes
the power of dofevet in the text of St. James? The suffi-
[3]
4 Extreme Unction
ciency of a single unction, the prohibition of iteration, and
numerous other points, are almost unexplainable without the
light of their dogmatic and historical background.
Hence the reader is led, in preparation for the canonical
treatment of the subject, in a somewhat hasty fashion thru the
territories of dogma and history—to dally for a moment here
and there at points of paramount interest, but on the whole,
to gain only fleeting glimpses of provinces traversed before.
I. Toe NAME
This sacrament received in the course of the centuries
many titles. The Greeks and the Latins, though one in dog-
matic belief, were widely dissentient when it came to naming
this channel of grace. Even within each rite it was given &
host of names, by reason of its various effects, or of the multiple
ritualistic differences of administration, or of its remote and
proximate matter. Thus in the Latin Church it was desig-
nated as: ‘‘sanctum oleum infirmorum,’’ ‘‘unctio sacrati olei,’’
‘sacra olei unctio,’’ ‘‘sacra unctio Dei,’’ ‘‘unctio infirmorum,’’
‘(unctionis officium,’’ ete. In Milan at the time of St. Ambrose
it was known as ‘‘the imposition of hands upon the infirm.’”
Innocent I in his epistle to Decentius? called it ‘‘chrisma.’’ The
second Council of Aachen? spoke of it as ‘‘oleum sanctifica-
tum;’’ while the Council of Trent* termed it the ‘‘sacramentum
exeuntium.”’
Equally as numerous is the array of names given by the
Greeks to this sacrament. The most common name is edyé\atovs®
(i. e. oil of prayers). Goar in his Euchologion® recounts other
names, such as éA\alovu xpiois, xptoua, xpioua dt édalov,
nxabrépwots di édalou,
Benedict XIV in his encyclieal ‘‘Ez quo’’ (March 1, 1756)?
witnesses to the fact that the Greeks occasionally called this
1 Magistretti, Manuale Ambrosianum, pp. 74 sqq., 94 sqq.
Denziger-Bannwart, Enchiridion, n. 99; M. P. L., 20, 559B; Mansi, II,
1030-31; C.L.C. Fontes, n. 19.
8 Cap. II, ‘‘De Vita Inf. Ord.,’’ can. dS—Harduin IV, 1397A.
4 Sess. XIV, De Ext. Unct., cap. 3.
5
6
ho
Goar, Euchologion, p. 346, n. 42; p. 349, n. 1.
Goar, op. cit., p. 349; ef. Ralli, Tepl ray puornpiwv THs peravoias
xal TOU evxEdaLov, p. 110.
C. I. C. Fontes, n. 438, paragr. 40.
"
A Dogmatic-Historical Introduction 5
sacrament of the sick ‘‘Heptapapadum,”’’ i. e., the office of seven
priests. Thus in 1277 at the Synod of Constantinople the patri-
arch, John Veeco, in his acceptance of the confession of faith
of the Council of Lyons, wrote to John XX: ‘‘Extremam Unc-
tionem etiam ipsam recipimus similiter cum aliis sacramentis,
quae a nobis celebrata, ‘Heptapapadum’ nominatur.’’®
The present name of ‘‘Extreme Unction’’ has been in gen-
eral use since the twelfth century. As far back as the ninth
there are evidences of its employment. The virgin Maura, who
lived at that time, asked Prudentius, the Bishop of Troyes, to
administer to her the sacrament of ‘‘Extreme Unction.’’® The
term became hallowed by the constant use of the Scholastics.
Peter Lombard, for instance, titles the twenty-third distinec-
tion of the fourth Book of Sentences ‘‘De Sacramento Extremae
Unctionis.’’2° In like manner a rubric of the Decretals of Greg-
ory IX reads: ‘‘ Alex. I1I—Solus Sacerdos potest sacramentum
unctioms extremae infirmo conferre.’’1! Its official enshrine-
ment in the declarations and canons of the Council of Trent?
ensured its permanency as the name of this sacrament.
The reason for the name, ‘‘Extreme Unction,’’ has ever
been an unsettled question. Estius!® ascribes it to the fact that
it is the last in point of time of all the unctions of the several
sacramental rites. The first is that given to catechumens before
Baptism. The second follows close on the heels of the actual
baptismal ablution. The bishop performs the third at Confir-
mation. Priestly hands are hallowed with a fourth unction
in ordination. A fifth, though not sacramental, unction is given
to secular princes.'4 The sixth—and the last, because no other
follows it—is that of our sacrament. Other theologians, like
Kern, say that the sacrament has its name, not because it is
the last unction, but because it is administered only to those
‘sn extremis.’’ It is the ‘‘sacramentum exeuntium,’’ as Trent
8 Harduin, VII, 758B.
9 M. P. L., 115, 1374C.
10 M. P. L., 192, 899.
11 c, 14, X, de verb. signif., V, 40.
12 Sess. XIV, De Ext. Unct., c. 3.
13 In Quattuor Lib. Sent. Comm., ad dist. xxiii libri quarti, n. 1—tom. IV,
p. 285; cf. also Catalano, Rit. Rom., tom. I, p. 300.
14 Pontificale Romanum, Pars I, ‘‘ De Benedictione et Coronatione Regss.’’
6 Extreme Unction
aptly calls it. This certainly seems to be the viewpoint of most
of the faithful—with the result that they defer too often the
sacred unction until the patient is beyond the pale of recovery.'®
Chardon complains bitterly of the unfortunate suggestiveness
of the name: ‘‘Ce sacrament n’a pas toujours porté le nom
d’Extréme Onction. Ce nom lui est venu de l’abus qui s’est
introduit, et qui n’est que trop commun depuis quelque temps,
d’attendre a l’extrémité pour le recevoir.’’!®
Il. THe SACRAMENTALITY
The first question of dogmatic import in regard to Extreme
Unction is that of its sacramentality. To Catholics ordinarily
the mere statement of the Church is sufficient; but to the can-
onist, who is to look at the sacramental canons from every focus,
a rather searching treatment of the proofs is most desirable.
The very Scriptural texts on which the proof rests determine
to an appreciable degree the wording of the canonical legisla-
tion. Consequently there is no irrelevancy in a consideration
of the question, for it will save burdening the canons’ exegesis
with many cumbersome explanations.
It is a matter of Catholic belief, of course, that Extreme
Unetion is a sacrament. The Council of Trent! decided that
authoritatively by fulminating an anathema against those deny-
ing this truth. In the century preceding, Eugene IV, in his
instructions to the Armenians,? had mentioned it among the
seven sacraments. These were not the first official documents
on the subject. As far back as 1208 the belief of the Walden-
sians on this matter was questioned by the Pope.? The pro-
fession of faith subscribed to by Michael Paleologus in the
Couneil of Lyons* enumerated it among the sacraments. Sus-
picion of contemning Extreme Unction rested on the Wicliffites
15 Kern, Tract. de Ext. Unct., p. 3.
16 Migne, Theol. Cursus Compl., vol. XX, col. 747.
1 Sess. XIV, de Ext. Unct., c. 1.
2 Const. ‘‘Hxultate Deo,’’ 22 Nov. 1439, paragr. 14—C. I. C. Fontes, n.
52; Denziger-Bannwart, Enchirsdion, n. 700.
3 Innocent III, ep. ‘‘Hjus exemplo,’’ Dec. 18, 1208—C. I. C. Fontes,
n. 30.
4 Anno 1274—C. I. C. Fontes, n. 35; Denziger-Bannwart, Enchiridion,
n. 465.
A Dogmatic-Historical Introduction 7
and Hussites to such an extent that Martin V ordered a special
investigation into their dogmatic beliefs on the subject.®
The batteries of Trent were levelled chiefly against the
so-called reformers. Luther® with much pretense of erudition
had denied the sacramentality of the sacred Unction. With
impious impudence Calvin declared it to be ‘‘histrionic hypo-
erisy,’’’ asserting that it has been passé since the cessation of
charismatic healing. Previous to these reformers there was no
definite heresy regarding Extreme Unction. The Albigensians
may be said to have rejected it in their principles, and the Wal-
densians actually did denounce it as the ‘‘ultima superbia’’—
but no direct dogmatic denial is recorded before Luther’s day.®
A) Proof from Scripture
The bulwark of the Catholic argument is one very con-
clusive Scriptural text—James, V, 14. Protestant theologians
pretend to be astounded that the Catholic Church can exegete
from the words of St. James the sacrament of Extreme Unction.
On the other hand Catholics are equally amazed at the vagaries
they in turn are guilty of, in a frantic effort to escape the real
meaning of the text. They are unanimous only in the rejection
of the Catholic interpretation. There is no accord as to what
meaning should be substituted—‘‘quot capita tot sententiae.’’
They attack the text at every point. They dispute about the
author of this rite, about its duration, about its ministers, about
the subject, about the matter, about the ‘‘prayer of faith,’’
about the end and effects. Small wonder that Catholics are
stupefied that such unanimity in the rejection of revealed truth
ean be coupled with such diversity in asserting error.
The Council of Trent lays specific stress on the Jacobean
text. Hear its own words: ‘‘Now, this sacred unction of the
sick was instituted by Christ our Lord, as truly and properly a
sacrament of the new law, insinuated indeed in Mark, but rec-
ommended and promulgated to the faithful by James the
5 Const. ‘‘ Inter Cunctas,’’ 22 Feb. 1418—C. I. C. Fontes, n. 43; Denziger-
Bannwart, Enchiridion, n. 669.
6 De Captwitate Babylonica, cap. ‘‘de Ext. Unct.’’
Pyinst, LV, xix, <18,
8 Cf. De Sainte-Beuve, De Ext. Unct., disp. I, art. II, in Migne, Curs.
Theol. Comp., vol. xxiv, 10, sqq.; Bellarmine, De Sao. Ext. Unct.,
Liber unicus, ce. I.
8 Extreme Unction
Apostle and brother of the Lord. ‘Is any man,’ he saith, ‘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.’ In which words, as the Church has learned
from apostolic tradition, received from hand to hand, he
teaches the matter, the form, the proper minister, and the
effect of this salutary sacrament.’’® Thus the Council infallibly
instructs us of the sacramental nature of the Jacobean prayer-
unction and gives us incidentally the correct exegesis of the
Jacobean text.
An analysis of this text of St. James will convince one of
the potency of this proposition. In verse 13 of the fifth chapter
of his Epistle St. James wrote: ‘‘Is any of you sad? Let him
pray. Is he cheerful of mind? Let him sing.’’ Prayer is
thus prescribed as a general remedy against every afiliction.
But to persons in a special state of affliction, the apostle proposes
the use of a special prayer. Thus he continues: ’Ac@evet tis év
tutlws mpooxarhecacbw tors mpeg Burépous THs exxAnolas, xal
rposevtdabacay éx’ avrov ddelWavres EXGlW EV TH OVOUETL
xuptov, Kat » ebx} THs TioTews gwoer TOV XaMVOYTH, xTL
évepet avrov dxvplos: xay duaptlas 7 TETOLNWS, asebaneran avrTa,
The opposition of the words dodevet and xdauvorra
to the word used in verse 13—xaxorabei—brings into promi-
nence the notion that not any one sick is meant here, but only
those who are truly ‘‘aegroti.’’ The hesitancy of Protestant
exegetes!® to extend the meaning of this word to all sick lends
much presumption to the truth of the Catholic interpretation.
The correct meaning of this word is of paramount importance
in determining the true subject of this sacrament, and thus
explaining the force of the term ‘‘infirmitatem’’ in Canon 940.
An inspection of its full significance now will save retracing
our steps when treating the canon just mentioned.
Cornelius a Lapide comments: ‘‘Quod ait ‘infirmatur,’ in-
tellige graviter et periculose ad mortem; hic enim dodevet,
9 Sess. XIV, De Eztr. Unct., cap. I—Translation by Waterworth, Canons
and Decrees of the Council of Trent, p. 105.
10 Cf. eg., See Epistle of St. James (International Critical Commen-
tary),
A Dogmatic-Historical Introduction 9
i. e., viribus et robore plane destituitur, quem proinde mox
voeat TOY xdmvovTa, i. e., periculose laborantem.’’!4 Suarez
also notes: ‘‘Verbum xdpvovra deficientem et pene morien-
tem significat.’2 By a comparison with other verses in Serip-
ture, it will be found that the restriction of the meaning of
aobeverto those alone who are seriously sick is undoubtedly
warrantable. St. Paul, in writing to the Philippians (II, 26)
mentions the report that reached them about the sickness of Epa-
phroditus, his co-worker and ‘‘fellow-soldier’’ 6lé7u nxovoare
Ori noberncer), The seriousness of the sickness was emphasized
by the saint in the following verse : ‘‘ Nam et infirmatus est usque
ad mortem’’—xal yap hobevecey rupumAnovoy Ouvarw, In the
Gospel of St. John there are several clear examples. In chapter 4,
verse 46, there is found the account of the ruler “cujus fflius
infirmabatur Capharnaum’’—od 6 vlds jobéver év Karepvaovy,
The gravity of the case is evidenced by the plea of the ruler to
Christ: ‘Lord, come down, before that my son die’’ (v. 49).
In the eleventh chapter of St. John the word aadevew is
used three times to describe the condition of Lazarus. That
Lazarus was ‘‘sick unto death’? is certainly clear from the Gospel
story. Again the term is found in the Gospel of St. Matthew,
when he recounts the words of Christ to the twelve sent forth
by Jesus with the power of miracles: Acfevouvras, Gepamevere,
herpols xabapifere, vexpous eeElpere, Satpovia éxBaddere, &e.
(X, 8). Finally in the Acts of the Apostles (IX, 37) the Greek text
acbevioacay amobavety (Ut infirmata moreretur’’) makes it
manifest that it is a question of the more serious bodily infirmi-
ties.18 This meaning of dcGevei is made all the more certain by
its connection with xépvovrain the following verse: ‘Et oratio
fidei salvabit infirmum.’’ K dprw is equivalent to ‘‘deficio, lacesso
et graviore infirmitate laboro.’’ It ceases then to be surprising
that theologians define dofevety to mean ‘‘nericuloso morbo
laborare,’’ and xéuyeu to signify ‘‘morti propinquum esse.”’
Examples of this identical meaning of dofevety can also
be found in classical Greek. Thus Demosthenes, in his
11 Commentar. in Ep. 8. Jac., ad cap. V, 14.
12 Disp. 42, sect. 2, n. 3.
18 Of. Berti, De Theol. Discipl., tom. VIII, 1. 35, de Extr. Unct.; e9:
10 Extreme Unction
first Oration against Philip, speaks of the relief the Athenians
felt when they heard of the sickness of Philip because they
expected him to die: Té@vynxe Pidurmoss Ov wa Al, ddd’ dodeveis,
Similarly in the first paragraph of the first chapter of the
Anabasis: érel 6€ jobérer Aapetos xalvmwreve redevTiy Tov Biou,
€BovAeTo TW TAtdE AuUGoTéepwW TapeEtvat,
These arguments are certainly at first blush quite convinc-
ing. Yet it is not to be denied nor concealed that they become
startlingly less convincing when one looks in a lexicon, there to
learn that neither doGeveiy nor xapve Signify solely or primarily
or even commonly ‘‘aegrotum esse,’’ much less ‘‘periculose
aegrotum esse.’’ Nor is the argument valid that they are used
exclusively in the Scriptures in such a sense so that their sig-
nification in Holy Writ has become hallowed. The word xayvecv
appears in the Scriptures but five times, and nowhere outside
of James V, 14 does it signify ‘‘aegrotum esse.’’!4 *%AgGevety is
more often used in the Bible, but not infrequently does it mean
a deficiency in natural or supernatural forces necessary for a
particular end. An example of this is to be had in the book of
Judges (XVI, 7-11). There Samson deceived Delilah repeatedly,
telling her that if she resorted to several expedients, xal aobevnow
xal écouat ws ets THY avVOpwrwy, Add to this the fact that the force
aobevety of in these comparisons is learned more from the context
than from the inherent significance of the word—and it will be
seen that too much stress cannot be laid on the grammatical
import of the terms.
The true force of dcOevety can be gathered best from
a study of its setting in the text of St. James. In verse 13
there is mentioned a general remedy against all afflictions, viz.,
prayer (zpocevxécOw). In the very next verse aspecial kind of
prayer is prescribed for a particular kind of affliction. The meaning
of aobevet can be gauged from zpocxadecdabw rods mpeo Burépous
Ths éxxdnolas, The sick man is advised to eall the priests of
the Church. He is therefore considered to be weighed down by
his sickness to such an extent that he cannot approach the priests
himseli—a thing per se required by courtesy\!® Then St.
14 Ropes (Epistle of St. James—Internat’l Critical Commentary—p. 308)
notes that the use of mapuvery in the sense of this verse is
common in secular Greek.
15 Bord, L’Hatréme Onction, p. 56.
A Dogmatic-Historical Introduction 11
James talks of a certain ritualistic function—a prayer-unction—
which must be done by the ‘‘presbyteri’’ and by no others; thus
connoting some very unusual status of the acevo. e., his seri-
ous sickness. Moreover the presence of no slight indisposition
in the sick man was in the mind of the apostle when he wrote of
the wonderful effects of this ‘‘prayer-unction.’’ The man is to be
‘“‘saved,’’ to be ‘‘raised up,’’ and if necessary, his sins are to be
remitted. There is an unmistakable innuendo of the incom-
petency of the natural powers to obtain this result—for it is the
Lord Who ‘‘saves’’ and ‘‘raises up’’ the sick person. Whenever
divine aid of such a nature is regarded as necessary for an in-
valid, his affliction must surely be grave.
One objection may be raised to this explanation. Primarily,
it is true, the ‘‘prayer-unction’’ was instituted for the seriously
sick; but may not its application be extended to those who are
burdened with grief and other afflictions of the soul? The
answer is decidedly, ‘‘No.’’ Such an extension is in no way
permissible. In verse 13 St. James expressly provides a remedy
for the other afflictions of man, viz., personal prayer—‘‘Trista-
tur aliquis vestrum? Oret.’’
TIpocxarerdcbw rovs mperBurépous THs éexxAnolas,
In classical Greek the word mpeoBirepo. surely means
‘‘provecti aetate.’’ In the New Testament, if used without
further determination or qualification, it generally has the force
of ‘‘praepositi Ecclesiae.’’ Thus in the Acts of the Apostles
(XIV, 22), the pastoral Epistles (I Tim., V, 17 & 19; Tit. I, 5)
and in Peter’s first epistle (V, 1) they are surely the officers of
the Church, ‘‘episcopi et sacerdotes secundi ordinis.’’ There
are many places in the epistles that ‘‘presbyteri’’ is translated
to mean ‘‘the ancients.’’ The verse of St. Peter’s Epistle just
quoted will explain to some extent the question whether ‘*the
‘ancients’? were the presiding priests or simply the laymen in
charge of a community. ‘‘The ancients, therefore,’’ writes the
Prince of the Apostles, ‘‘that are among you, I beseech, who
am myself also an ancient,’’ &. Here it is hard to construe
‘‘presbyteri’’? in any other sense than ‘‘praepositi Heclesiae.”’
This amounts to practical certainty when we read further.
‘(Weed the flock of God,’’ he tells them, . . . ‘‘taking care of it,
12 Extreme Unction
not by constraint but willingly according to God, not for filthy
lucre’s sake, but voluntarily: neither as lording it over the
clergy, but being made a pattern of the flock from the heart.
And when the Prince of pastors shall appear, you shall receive
a never-fading crown of glory.’’ Surely priestly, and even
episcopal duties, such as these could not be commanded of the
laymen of the community, no matter how venerable they might
be. Similar interpretations may be deduced from the context
in other places of the New Testament where ‘‘presbyteri’’ is
rendered as ‘‘the ancients.’’!®
It cannot be contended however that there is no place in
the New Testament where ‘‘presbyter’’ cannot be rationally in-
terpreted except as ‘‘priest.’’ St. John calls himself 6 mpeGtrepos
at the beginning of his second and third Epistles. This is
rendered in the Vulgate as ‘‘Senior’’ and in the English tran-
slation as ‘‘The ‘ancient.’’ Whether St. John is speaking of
himself as an apostle, or as a very old man, or as the last of
the apostles, cannot be settled with certainty. A second instance
is found in 1 Tim., V, 1 sqq.:‘‘An ancient man (mpecBurépw)
rebuke not, but entreat him as a father; young men, as breth-
ren; old women, as mothers; young women, as sisters, in all
chastity. Honor widows that are widows indeed.’’ Here the
absolute possibility of construing mpeoBirepos in any other
sense than ‘‘provectus aetate’’ is quite evident. The result must
be consequently that the words robs mpecBurépovs do not
finally close the question that priests only are meant in the
text of St. James.
When used, however, with the determining clause 77s
éxxdnotiasthe argument gains immense strength. It is hard to
see how the complete phrase could signify any other personages
than those who perform the sacred ministry, those who are
called ‘‘priests’’? in the Church. In this very sense St. Luke
used this term in the Acts of the Apostles: ‘‘A Mileto autem
mittens Ephesum, vocavit rods rpeaBurépous ris éxxdnotas.’’™*
16 Cf. A. A., XI, 30; XV, 4, 6, 22, 23; XVI, 4; XXI, 18; &e.
17 Act. App., XX, 17. Strangely enough, the Vulgate renders this
‘*Majores natu ecclesiae’’; but it is rightly interpreted by
St. Irenaeus (Adv. Haereticos, lib. ITI, cap. 14, n. 2—M. P. L., 7,
914) to mean bishops and priests. Modern exegetes accept this
meaning. Cf. e.g., Knabenbauer, Comm. in Act. App., ad cap. XX,
v. 17—Cursus Script. Sac.
A Dogmatic-Historical Introduction 13
Kal rpocevidcOwoar ér' abrdv ddelWarres (abrdv) ddalw & 7G
dvouart (rod) Kupiou,
This contains clear mention of the necessary elements of
the sacrament: oil, the remote matter; unction, the proximate
matter; prayer in the name of the Lord, the form. The phrase
mpocevédobwar ér’ ablréy is an additional proof that the subject
is considered ‘‘decumbens.’’ It is to be noted that the aorist
participle g\elWarres signifies a simultaneous action with that
expressed in zpocevédcOwoav.1® Thus the praying and the anoint-
ing are to be done at the same time, as is required for the
valid confection of any sacrament that the matter and form
be present at one and the same time. The apostle does not
prescribe the form of unction nor the prayer to be employed.
This is due to the fact that he was instructing the faithful, and
not the priests!®—and also, and perhaps more truly, because a
set form of prayer and a particular mode of unction are not
essential. Priests, however, must do the anointing in the name
of the Lord, that is, by His order and command, as His legates
and ministers.2° It cannot mean a mere invocation of the Lord’s
name, because this is already implied in the mandate ‘‘orent
super eum’’—and the assumption of tautology is unwarrant-
able. We are led then to no other conclusion than that the
Apostle is inculeulating here the divine institution of this rite.
Its perpetuity is secured because it is not given to charismatics,
but is placed as one of the functions of the priestly office. Since
the priesthood is perpetual, so is this power.
Kal 7 ex) Tis TigTews owoet TOV XauvorTA, mal evyepet avrov
6 Kipws: xév dpaptias H memoinxws ayelnoerar aura
(James V, 15).
This verse asserts the existence of the only other necessary
element to make Extreme Unction a sacrament, viz., its effects.
First of all, the health or safety of the sick man is generally
18 Bord, L’Extréme Onction, p. 45.
19 Bord, Le.
20 Ven. Bede, Exp. sup. Jac. Epist. (M. P. L., 93, 43), is of the opinion
that the phrase, éy T@ OvduaTe xupiov, should be taken with
é\alq not with ddelpavres The majority of theologians and
exegetes do not agree with him. They hold that it applies to the
action, the proximate matter, rather than to the material or remote
matter. Cf. Bord, op. cit., pp. 45-46.
14 Eztreme Unction
ascribed to the rite, i. e. to the work performed. But since
this rite is simply an instrumental cause—as all sacramental
rites are—the health or safety is more accurately attributed to
the Lord—‘‘et alleviabit eum Dominus.’’ Finally the sequel
of such an effect in a sin-burdened subject is mentioned—‘‘et st
in peccatis sit, remittentur, ev.”’
A close inspection of the text reveals much. ‘‘Oratio fides
salvabit infirmum.’’ This prayer is not pronounced by the
penitent but by the priests. They are commanded to do the
praying—‘‘orent super eum.’’ It is the prayer of faith be-
cause a) objective faith teaches us the Divine institution and
efficacy of the rite and because b) subjective faith moves the
priest to perform this rite in the sincere belief that it is more
efficacious than a simple deprecation.
‘“Salvabit’’—is equivalent to ‘‘servabit, liberabit a malis
quae eum premunt.’”*1 Yet what are these evils which the
seriously sick usually suffer? In general they are physical pains
and weakness, which produce sorrow of soul, affliction of mind,
ineptitude to salutary impulses of grace, fear of death, dread
of judgment, horror of the punishments of the other life, re-
morse of conscience, diffidence, impatience, temptations to de-
spair, ete. Not everybody, it is true, is afflicted in the same
degree. Yet the text uses the word ‘‘salvabit,’’ connoting that
Extreme Unction destroys, or at least impairs, that which physi-
cal evils cause in man. It directs its batteries first against
spiritual evils, which are always evils simpliciter to men; but
its effects overflow against physical evils when such an exuber-
ance is expedient for the welfare of the soul.
The text next reveals the mode employed by the Lord in
the ‘‘saving’’ of the sick man. ‘‘Et alleviabit eam Dominus’’—
He will ‘‘raise him up’’—éyepet airdy—i. e., sustentadit,
eriget, animabit, confortabit.*? The infirm will receive powers
that will make him superior to the evils that oppress him; he
will be able to rise above the depressions of nature, the diffi-
dence, the cowardice that possesses him. He will become cap-
able of all salutary acts conformable to his status, so that he
may be disposed for the perfect healing of the soul, and, if
21 Kern, Tract. de Ext. Unct., p. 68.
22 Kern, Tract. de Ext. Unct., p. 69.
A Dogmatic-Historical Introduction 15
expedient, also for the healing of the body. Such an alleviation
is effected by actual graces. When, however, the illness is long,
there is granted habitual aid, sanctifying grace conferring a
right to such actual graces that the sick man needs.
Many Protestant theologians have endeavored to restrict
the meaning of the words ‘‘saved’’ and ‘‘raised up’”’ to bodily
effects. Puller?? defends this view with especial vehemence. Yet
this would involve an arbitrary and violent construction of the
text and does not supply a reasonable explanation of the uni-
versal and perpetual character of the apostle’s prescription. ‘‘A
fow verses further on,’’ says Toner,”? ‘‘the predominating spiri-
tual and eschatological connotation of ‘saving’ in St. James’
mind emerges clearly in the expression, ‘shall save his soul
from death.’’’ Neither can we reasonably suppose that the
apostle endeavored to inculcate that every anointed Christian
would be the recipient of bodily alleviation and cure; yet he
orders the unction for all, insinuating that the ‘‘saving’’ and
‘‘raising up’’ are at least the normal, if not the infallible, effects
of the prayer-unction. ‘‘Are we to suppose, therefore,’’ asks
Toner2> ‘‘that St. James thus solemnly recommends universal
recourse to a rite which, after all, will be efficacious for the
purpose intended only by way of a comparatively rare excep-
tion?’’ As a consequence it is not hard to see that these elab-
orate and even clever attempts to explain away the meaning of
the Jacobean text are doomed to failure.
“Ht si in peccatis sit’’—xdpv ayaprias } TmeToinxws
In an effort to defend their opinion that the principal
effect of Extreme Unction is the remission of venial sin, many
Catholic theologians say that this last effect is not conditionally
promised. For example, Estius writes: ‘‘Scire enim oportet
conjunctionem illam ‘si’ saepe sic usurpari, ut non tam condi-
tionem incertae ac dubiae rei significet, quam concessionem rei
certae et indubitatae, quaemadmodum Mal. I dicitur: ‘Si pater
23 Puller, The Anointing of the Sick in Scripture and Traditson, (London,
1904), p. 289 sqq.
24 Catholic Encye., art. ‘‘Exztreme Unction.’’ Toner has reference to
verse 20: ‘‘Scire debet quoniam qui converti fecerit peccatorem ab
errore viae suae, salvabit animam ejus a morte et cooperiet multi-
tudinem peccatorum.’’
25 L. ¢,
16 Extreme Unction
ego sum, ubi est honor meus? et s? Dominus ego sum, ubi est
timor meus?’ i. e., cum constet me Patrem esse et Dominum
westrum, cur non ut Patrem honoratis et ut Dominum timetis?
Sic Paulus ait II Thes. I: ‘Si tamen justus est apud Deum
retribuere ;’ etc. Et ipse Jacobus alibi in hac epistola (c. 1):
‘Si quis vestrum indiget sapientia;’ etc.? Quis enim vestrum
non indiget sapientia?’’2®
Though supported by many, this interpretation is false.
An examination of the Greek texts cited by Hstius reveals the
employment of the particle ie with the indicative—a gram-
matical form always signifying a thing certain. But James
V, 15 contains the particle xa It is a true conditional
promise, unqualified by any limitation to venial sins. Indeed
mortal sins are first thought of in such a connection, for a man
with only venial sins is hardly spoken of as a ‘‘man in sin.”’
A point not to be overlooked is that the Apostle does not
attribute this remission of sins either to the prayer of faith or
to the Lord. As a result, it is a licit conclusion that this re-
mission follows from the alleviation, that it is a secondary effect.
This is a further warrant for the inference that alleviation
includes the infusion of sanctifying grace.
This elaborate analysis of the Jacobean text establishes
beyond doubt the sacramentality of Extreme Unction. We have
a sensible sign, efficacious of grace, permanently established by
Christ. We have shown that the sacred unction with prayer
signifies an internal supernatural unction, alleviation and exhil-
aration—and effects this, even thru the infusion of first grace
when necessary. The permanency of institution by Christ is
seen by its place among the priestly functions, by its annexa-
tion to the priestly character, whose existence is guaranteed by
its author, Christ.??
This analysis is not without a canonical bearing. It elu-
cidates paragraph 1 of Canon 938; it enlightens us as the true
meaning of various terms in 940 and 943; it explains the
insistence of the legislator in Canon 941 in regard to conferring
28 Comm. in quart. Lib. Sent., dist. xxiii, s. 4, p. 287E.
27 Cf. 8S. C. S. Off., ‘‘ Lamentabilt,’’? July 3, 1907, Errores Modernistarum,
n. 48—A. 8. 8., XL, 476.
A Dogmatic-Historical Introduction 17
the sacrament at least conditionally although it is not de ne-
cessitate medit.
It would hardly be wise to pass over without a word the
reference in the Council of Trent to the Gospel of St. Mark.
The words of the decree ‘apud Marcum quidem insinuatum’’
refer to the thirteenth verse of the sixth chapter of his gospel:
‘Bt exeuntes praedicabant ut poenitentiam agerent: et dae-
monia multa ejiciebant et ungebant oleo multos aegros et sana-
bant.’? Many theologians, both before and after the Council of
Trent have held that the institution of Extreme Unction is found
in these words. Among these are found such names as Victor
of Antioch,28 Theophylactus,2? Amulo, bishop of London (841),°°
Huymo, bishop of Halberstadt,?! Euthymus,** Maldonatus,*?
De Sainte-Beuve, Berti®5 and Schell.3® The main line of
argument of these theologians is substantially this: it cannot be
admitted that the Lord wished the Apostles to cure all sick per-
sons indiscriminately. Such a charisma came to the Apostles
after the coming of the Paraclete—and consequently its exer-
cise was a rare event. It must be concluded then that, as the
end of the Messiah’s mission, so the purpose of the unction of
the sick was primarily spiritual, viz. the conversion to true
penance. To the anointed sick a pledge was given of participa-
tion in the goods and graces which the Messiah offered to man-
kind—a pledge confirmed by the corporal cure of many. Ac-
cordingly the words of the Evangelist refer primarily to a
spiritual healing; whence the deduction that the unction of the
sick was the sacramentum ‘‘exeuntium.’’
This argumentation is by no means satisfying. First of
all, the purpose of the Apostles’ mission is clearly announced
28 Comment. ad Marc. VI, 18—Cramer, Catena Graec. Patrum, I, p. 324.
29 Enarratio in Evangelium Maret, c. VI, vv. 12, 13—M. P. G., 123, 550C.
30 Epistola ad Theobaldum, ep. Lingoniensis—M. P. L., 116, 82D.
31 Homilia CV in Verba Evangelii, Feria V Pentecostes—M. P. L., 118,
573C.
32 Comm. in Mare. c. VI, vv. 12, 13—M. P. G., 129, 807B.
83 Comment. in Marc. VI, v. 18, vol. I, p. 517.
84 Tract. de Sacr. Unct. Infirm., disp. II, a. 1—Migne, Cursus Theol.
Comp., xxiv, 19 sqq.
85 De Theol. Discip., Tom VIII, 1. 35, ‘‘De Ext. Unct.’’ ¢. 2.
86 Katholische Dogmatik, 3 Bd. II Teil, p. 616 s.
18 Extreme Unction
in Matt. X, 1 #7 and Luke IX, 1-2.86 There it is seen that the
Lord gave them the power to cure only as a criterion of the
truth they were teaching. There is no indication of the re-
mission of sins or of any sacramental rite. The Gospel writers,
when speaking of the mission of the Apostles, do not tell what
rule the Lord prescribed for the use of the power in their
hands. How the command was executed can be seen by Luke
IX, 6: ‘‘Egressi autem circuibant per castella, evangelizantes
et curantes ubique.’’ St. Mark adds that many demons were
exorcised and many sick healed by unction.*® The words of
St. Luke (@eparetovres mavraxov) and of St. Mark (jrecgov...
xal ébepamevov) must be understood of corporal cures. It then
becomes manifest that no conclusive exegesis of the sacramen-
tality of Extreme Unction can be found in the Marcian text.
The Council of Trent cautiously inserted that the sacrament was
‘“insinuated’’ therein, i. e., prefigured or hinted at, but it took
care not to advance it as a Spiritual text supporting the eredi-
bility of the doctrine.
Other powerful reasons can be adduced against the prob-
ability of the institution of this sacrament in the account of St.
Mark: 1) The effect of the Apostolic Unction was complete
corporal sanation primarily, and probably in a miraculous man-
ner; that of Extreme Unction is complete spiritual cure pri-
marily, and possible corporal cure secondarily: 2) The subject
of Extreme Unction is a baptized sick person; there is no
mention made of the necessity of Baptism in the subject when
the Apostles exercised their gifts of healing: 3) The minister
of Extreme Unction is a priest; the Apostles, at the time they
received their power, were not yet priests: 4) Extreme Unce-
tion is the complement of Penance; yet Penance had not yet
been instituted.4? These additional reasons serve to establish
37 ‘*Et convocatis duodecim discipulis suis dedit illis potestatem spirituum
immundorum ut eicerent eos et curarent omnem languorem et omnem
infirmitatem.’’
38 ‘*Convocatis autem duodecim apostolis, dedit illis virtutem et pote-
statem super omnia daemonia, et ut languores curarent. Et misit illos
praedicare regnum Dei et sanare infirmos.’’
89 VI, 13.
40 Cf. Alb. a Bulsano, Inst. Theol. Dog., vol. III, p. 197; Kern, Tract. de
Ext. Unct., p. 78-9; Bellarmine, De Eat. Unct., lib. unicus, ¢. 1-2;
See disp. 39, sect. 1, n. 4, Benedict XIV, De Syn. Dioc., 1. 8, ¢. 1.
peer
A Dogmatic-Historical Introduction 19
more firmly the utter untenability of the assertion that the
Gospel of St. Mark demonstrates the sacramentality of Extreme
Unction.
B) Proof from Tradition.
The argument from Tradition, though of paramount im-
portance, cannot here be entered into with the same detailed
analysis as that of the Scriptural proof. A worthy presenta-
tion of it would assume huge proportions and would require
the use of too much space. Besides, much of it will be found
scattered thruout the commentaries on the several canons.
It is sufficient to remark that there is a comparative paucity
of extant testimonies from the early centuries—and that as a
result Catholics have recourse to a general argument from pre-
scription. The Eastern Church, although separated since 869,
has never ceased to regard the Jacobean rite as a sacrament.
Moreover, the Monophysites and the Nestorians, who broke
away from Rome in the fifth century, retained in their rituals
the unction of the sick. This is positive evidence that these
churches have been in possession of a common and undivided
tradition as far back at least as the beginning of the fourth
century. On the other hand, no evidence is forthcoming from
that or any earlier time that would tend to enervate the legit-
imate presumption that the tradition is apostolic.*!
The reason of the searcity of testimonies is hard to find.
Binterim *? ascribes it to the fact that it came under the ‘‘d-
sciplina arcan.’’ He has evidently forgotten that this very reg-
ulation did not prevent the ecclesiastics of those ages from
making frequent references to other sacraments which fell under
the scope of the same discipline. It is refreshing, too, to real-
ize that Launoi is rash in his contention that recourse to this
sacrament was much rarer in earlier centuries.*%
41 Cf. Liber Sacramentorum Gregorii Magni—‘‘Oratio ad infirmum
ungendum’?’—M. P. L., 78, 233C; The Euchologion of Serapio;
Wobbermin, ‘‘ Altchristliche Stucke aus de Kirche Agyptens’’ in
Zietschrift fur Kirchengeschichte, t. xx, p. 291 sqq., 451 sqq. Cf.
words of Jeremias, schismatic Greek patriarch—apud Schelstrate,
Acta Orient. Eccl., I, 202; Denziger, R+t Ortent., II, 483.
42 Die Vorzuglichsten Denkwiirdigkeiten der Christkathol. Kirche, vol. VI,
pt. III, p. 241. This view is also held by Billot, ‘‘De Ecclesiae
Sacramentis,’’? (De Extrema Unctione), thesis xxiv, parag. 2, p. 230.
43 Op. Omnia, t. 1, p. 455 sqq., also p. 561.
20 Extreme Unction
There are better explanations available. In the first place,
several early commentaries on St. James’ Epistle (by Clement
of Alexandria, Didymus, St. Augustine and Cyril of Alexan-
dria) have been almost totally lost, leaving as the earliest ac-
curately preserved treatment that of St. Bede’s (735). Fur-
thermore it is to be remembered that Extreme Unction is the
supplementary sacrament of Penance, and that in the early
days it was administered before Viaticum. The Fathers had
no systematic sacramental theology. They treated of various
dogmas as the interests of public instruction required. When
they spoke of Penance, they had reference usually to public
confessions, and not to private confessions made in danger of
death. About the administration of Penance privately the
Fathers rarely spoke. Since Extreme Unction followed such
secret confessions, it can be understood that the silence of the
Fathers on the administration of Penance privately goes far in
explaining their silence on Extreme Unction.
In conclusion it may be remarked that Catholics must
be on their guard against endeavoring to prove too much from
patristic writings. Protestant controversialists insist that the
Fathers speak in terms of Trent; they demand that we prove
that Extreme Unction was recognized as a sacrament in the
strict sense long before the definition of sacrament in the strict
sense was drawn up. We are not bound to accede to their
unreasonable exactions. We have done enough when we have
shown that St. James permanently prescribed this anointing
in terms that imply its sacramental efficacy; that the Church
was content for many centuries with the plain words of the
Epistle—and simply went on fulfilling the Apostolic prescrip-
tion: and that, finally, when need of an exact definition did
arise, the Church defined infallibly and forever ‘‘the true mean-
ing and the proper efficacy of the Jacobean prayer-unction.’’*4
Ill. THe Enp
The clear conception of the end of a thing is conducive
to a more perfect knowledge of its ultimate nature, its efficacy
and its attributes. As a consequence theologians, after demon-
44 J. P. Toner—Cath. Encycl., art. ‘‘Extreme Unction.’’
A Dogmatic-Historical Introduction 21
strating the sacramentality of Extreme Unction, address them-
selves to the question of its end and purpose. They all agree
that this divine aid enriches the soul with all helps necessary
to put it in the state of grace. Since the Council of Trent,
however, theologians have been busied with the necessity of
insisting on the existence of Purgatory, which the Reformers
denied. Jansenistic rigorism tainted the works of others; with
the result that they have seemingly refused or neglected to
attribute to this sacrament all of its rightful powers.
But later theologians, especially those of the present day,
like Kern,! have recalled that the benign Redeemer wishes not
only that His faithful should escape the fires of hell, but also
that they should eseape purgatory’s painful punishment by an
immediate entrance into glory. This is accomplished only by
a complete sanation of the soul, by freeing it from all reatus
of sin or of punishment, and by reenforcing it against all
spiritual weakness from past sins or present bodily afflictions.
Mortal man, weakened by disease and pain, would hardly be
eapable of doing this alone. He needs some aid, an external
help to fill the place of his dwindling powers. This help, we
know, is found in the sacrament of Extreme Unction. The
proximate end of Extreme Unction—the end for which all ef-
fects concur—is then the perfect sanation of the soul. This
end is always intended by the Lord, and therefore is always
obtained if the sacred rite is impeded by no obstacle.
Among the particular effects of this sacrament is the resto-
_ ration of health, if it be expedient to the salvation of the soul.
Not rarely is the perfect sanation of the soul more benefited by
a corporal alleviation than by a prolonged continuance of pain
even to death. In this case the sacrament exercises its ‘‘vis
sanativa.’’ Often, too, the disease is of such a nature that thru
medical skill the patient will naturally recover. The means
of salvation are certainly not destined to kill any one. Accord-
ingly in such eases the ultimate end of the sacrament viewed
secundum se, viz., immediate entrance into glory, is deferred—
only to be more happily attained if the subject uses well the
spiritual goods he has received.
1 Tract. de Ext. Unct., pp. 81-85.
22 Extreme Unction
The end of Extreme Unction then can be said to be the
complete sanation of the soul together with its immediate en-
trance into glory, unless the restitution of bodily health is more
expedient. In defense of this, theologians mobilize a host of
irrefragable arguments. They adduce reasons of congruity,—
to show how becoming it was to the benignity and goodness of
Christ to attach to the sacrament of the ‘‘exeuntium’’ the power
and efficacy to wipe away all barriers to an immediate entrance
into heaven. They array a series of quotations from patristic
writings? and ancient liturgies* to support their claim. They
draw up a battle-line of scintillating Scholastics, geniuses with-
out peer in the realms of theological intellectuality. Blessed
Albertus Magnus,® the Seraphic Bonaventure,® Angelic Thomas,’
the subtle Scotus, Peter of Tarantasia (afterwards Innocent
V),° the dogged Durandus’® are the leaders of this army. Be-
sides these shining lights, there are adduced the reserves, such
as Richard Middleton,!! Aureolus—the prince of Scotists,!?
Peter de Palude—an esteemed Thomist,'* Gersonius,'* Dionysius
of Carthage,!® and Capreolus—prince of Thomists.7®
The realms of the Hast have been invaded for testimony to
2 Kern, Tract. de Eat. Unct., p. 82.
3 E.g., S. Chrysostom., De Sacerdotio, lib. III, n. 6—M. P. G., 48, 644;
§. Hilarius, Tract. in Ps. CXXI, n. 12—M. P. G., 9, 665D, 666A;
Procopius, Comm. in Levit., c. II, v. 1—M. P. G., 87, 702; Hie
ronymus, In cap. XLV Ezechielis, v. 24—M. P. L., 25, 456C; 8. Greg.
Nyssa, In Cant. Cantic. Hom. ITI—M. P. G., 44, 826; 8. Augustinus,
Quaest. Evang.,—M. P. L., 35, 1340.
4 Martene, De Antiq. Ecc. Rit., 1. 1, c. 7, a. 4—Ordines II, IX, XII;
ef. also Missa pro Infirmis (Absolutio cum Imposttione Manuum)—
Martene, 1. c., Ordo XII.
5 Comm. in lib. quartum Sent., ad dist. xxiii, dis. I, a. 2.
6 Brevilog., pars. VI, ¢. 11.
7 Suppl., q. 29, a. 1; ILI, g. 65, a. 1: Summa Philos., 1. IV, c. 73.
8 Reportata Paristana, Comm. in ltd. quartum Sent., ad dist. xxiii qu.
unic.
9 Comm. in lib. quartum Sent., q. IT, a. 2.
10 Comm. in tb. quartum Sent., ad dist. xxiii, dis. IT, q. 2, n. IT.
11 Comm. in tb. quartum Sent., ad dist. xxiii, a. 1, q. 3.
12 Comm. tn tb. quartum Sent., ad dist. xxiii, a. 2.
13 Comm. in lib. quartum Sent., ad dist. xxiii, q. 4.
14 Regulae Morales, r. 155.
15 Summa fidesr orthodorae, 1, IV, a. 146 (Opera Omnia, vol. XVIII,
p.A97A).
16 Comm. in IV lib. Sent., q. 1, a. 3, ad. 5.
A Dogmatic-Historical Introduction De
this claim. Oriental church documents and theologians 1” are
investigated with searching scrutiny and reveal with a mar-
velous unanimity the reasonableness and genuineness of the
contention of present day theologians in regard to the end of
Extreme Unction. The Council of Trent presents another bul-
wark of defense. For ‘‘it hath also seemed good to the holy
Synod to subjoin to the preceding doctrine on Penance the
following on the sacrament of Extreme Unction, which by the
Fathers was regarded as being the completion, not only of Pen-
ance, but also of the whole Christian life, which ought to be a
perpetual penance.’’8 Now if Extreme Unction is the com-
plement of Penance, it accomplishes what Penance leaves un-
done, it perfects what Penance leaves incomplete in the full
remission of sins. It must remove all our disabilities and restore
to our anemic souls the ruddy glow of grace that shone in them
immediately after Baptism. In Penance the stain of sin ig
washed from us and we are garbed in the robe of sanctifying
grace. But the justice of God exacts that some temporal pun-
ishment be undergone in satisfaction for the affront to His
Majesty. Extreme Unction however is a revelation of the in-
effable mercy of Him Who willeth not the death of a sinner.
In his sacrament God’s justice is swallowed up in His mercy.
The mercy of Him Who died for us cannot brook the delay
which His justice demands, and accordingly He has invented
this wonderful way of circumventing—as it were—His very
Self.
With this alignment of evidence and authority, the propo-
sition seems proven. It seems, however, that it is a little
too much to assert the utter inability of Extreme Unction to
liberate from a disease which would otherwise result in death, if
such liberation were for the soul’s salvation.
Kern** gives a quite logical explanation of the matter. Ac-
cording to him, the alleviation of the soul exercises an influence
on the body, whence a corporal alleviation follows, which can
be so great that health is restored. Since, however, Extreme
Unction has a principal effect, viz., the comforting of the soul,
it can reasonably be concluded that corporal alleviation thru
Extreme Unction takes place when and in so far as it is ex-
pedient for the perfect healing of the soul. This alleviation and
32 Of. Estius, Comm. in Lib. Quartum Sent., dist. 23, paragr. 5, tom. 1
page 289B.
33 Comm. in Lib. Quartum Sent., dist. 23, q. 1, a. 2, conel. 5.
34 Disp. 41, s. 4, n. 4.
35 Tournely, Praelect. Theol. De Septem Sac., ‘‘De Extr. Unct.,’’ qu.
ultima, a. 1, quaestiune. 7.
86 Tract. de Extr. Unct., pp. 205-15.
38 Extreme Unction
the consequent cure never occurs when the sickness is not a
punishment for sin.
5. The Principal Effect of Extreme Unction.
Since the days of Scholasticism it has been hotly debated
which of the above mentioned effects is the principal one.
i\Thomists, treading the trail of their Angelic Master,37 say that
‘the confortatio anvmae is the principal effect. Allied with them
are Gregory of Valencia,®® Suarez,?® Becanus,#? Tanner,#
Abelly,*# Alphonsus de Liguori,*? Lehmkuhl,*4 Simar*® and
Schmitz.*® The Scotists, on the other hand, cling tenaciously
to the doctrines of the Doctor Subtilis, viz., that the principal
ieffect of Extreme Unction is the final remission of venial sins.
iDe Sainte-Beuve,*7 Sambovius,*® Tournely,?? St. Bonaventure,°°
Frassen °! and Mastrius *? accede to this view of the Master.
Still other theologians, like Estius,5? Berti54 and Herman," say
that all the above-mentioned effects are equally principal and
primary. Oriental theologians™ surprisingly give corporal cure
as the chief effect of this sacrament. The conflict of opinions
has been so involved that many theologians have refused to at-
tempt a decision and have contented themselves with merely
recounting the opinions of the disputants.57
37 Suppl., q. xxx, a. 1.
38 GEREN Theol., t. IV, disp. 8.
39 Disp. 41, s. 1, n. 11, sqq.
40 Theol. Scholast., P. 5, t. 2, cap. 27 (de Eztr. Unct.), q. 6.
41 Theol. Scholast., t. IV, disp. VII, q. 1, dub. 2.
42 Medulla Theol., P. 2, tract. 1, cap. 6, (de Eztr. Unct.), sect. 3.
Ao The oy ia tol.
S45 TH Meel ysis.
45 Lehrbuch de Dogmatik, (3 Aufl), S. 790.
46 De Eff. E. U., pp. 64-9.
47 De Sac. Ext. Unct., disput. V, a. 1—apud Migne, Cursus Theol. Compl.
vol. 24, col. 98 sqq.
48 Tract. de Sacr. Ext. Unct., disp. 5, a. 1.
49 Praelectiones Theol., ‘‘De Ext. Unet.,’’ q. 4.
50 Comm. in Wb. Quartum Sent., dist. 23, a. 2, q. 2; Breviloquium, P. VI,
cap. Xi.
61 De Sac. Ext. Unct., dis. 4,q4.4,n.4. |
52 Th. M. disp. 22, q. 4, a. 1, n. 52.
53 Comm. in Lib. Quartum Sent., ad dist. 23, paragr. 4, tom. 4, p. 288A.
54 De Theol. Discipl., t. VITE 8-35, 230;
55 Tractatus Theologici in IV Librum Sent., tr. 8, q. 4.
56 Makarij, ‘ ‘Pravoslavno-dogmaticeskoje bogoslovije,’’ n. 232; Stefan,
‘*Tainstva i obrjady pravoslavnoj cerkvi,’’ p. 18.
57 Benedict XIV, De Synod. Dioc., 1. 8, c 7, n. 3; Clericatus, Decisiones
Sacramentales, ‘‘De Ext. Unct.,’’ dec. 82, n. 1,
A Dogmatic-Historical Introduction 39
The cause of such a diversity of teaching seems to he in
the fact that theologians looked at the sacrament in connection
with certain adjuncts present in the subject. It is easily seen
that, due to peculiar conditions of various patients, one man
would be benefited especially by one effect while another would
be aided principally by another and different effect. For n-
stance, an unconscious sick man has mortal sins for which he is
at least habitually attrite. For such a one the remission of sins
is undoubtedly the most necessary and beneficial effect. Again,
if God knows that a sick man, when restored to health, would
eollect for himself a wealth of merit, then surely corporal
sanation would be for him most expedient. For some, the
remission of venial sins; for others, the remission of the temporal
punishment; for still others, the comforting of the soul would
best avail. Thus an imperfect understanding of what was really
meant by the principal effect can and actually has led to inter-
minable disputing and confusion.
Much progress can be made toward a solution by remember-
ing that the principal effect is that which by the help of sanctify-
ing grace is per se induced and thru which all other fruits of
the sacrament are bestowed. In the light of this fundamental
definition, the untenability of some of the opinions becomes
evident. For example, the principal effect of Extreme Unction
cannot be corporal cure, because health follows from a re-
dundancy of spiritual grace. This is more apparent when it
is realized that the principal effect of one and the same sacra-
ment cannot be specifically different in one subject than in an-
other. Each sacrament acts ad modum causarum naturalvum,
and each sacrament is instituted principally for one effect, al-
though other effects may be obtained thru it. However, the
degree of dispositions of the subject go far in the determination
of how well the principal effect is produced. This difference of
dispositions likewise explains why one secondary effect is coupled
more intimately with the principal effect in one subject rather
than in another. But unless the primary effect is the same
in every subject, the concept of sacrament is destroyed.
Consequently it is clear that the final remission of venial
sins is not the principal effect nor the primary end of the sacra-
ment. In the first place, only those actually dying, not those in
40 Extreme Unction
danger of death, would be fit subjects for this sacrament ; because
the subject must be beyond the capability of sinning. Yet
such a postponement of the administration of this sacrament
has been proscribed by many ecclesiastical decrees.°8 Moreover,
this opinion would hold the reception of Extreme Unction as
inefficacious in those whose venial sins had been deleted by
Penance or Viaticum, since one incapable of the principal effect
of a sacrament is ‘‘incapax sacramenti.’’ A third reason for
condemnation might be advanced from the fact that those about
to receive would be bound to procure in themselves the dispo-
sition necessary to produce the primary effect, in other words,
they would be bound sub gravi to elicit sorrow for slight sins.
The absurdity of such a demand is patent. No divine nor
ecclesiastical law can be produced demanding that all com-
placence in venial sin be removed for the valid reception of any
sacrament.
With equal clarity it can be seen that the principal effect
of Extreme Unction is not the remission of mortal sins. To
assert this is to assert that Extreme Unction is primarily a
sacrament of the dead. Moreover St. James spoke of the re-
mission of sins in a conditional sense—evidencing the validity
of administration to those who had no sins.
Again, the principal effect of Unction is not the remission
of temporal punishment. Otherwise saints, those who have no
purgatorial expiation to make, are absolutely incapable of
validly receiving the sacrament.
To defend the equality of all effects is quite as preposterous,
for it entails the production thru one sacramental action of
several specifically different effects. Extreme Unction would
then be specificated by at least four different objects.
It remains to say that the principal effect of this sacrament
must be the comforting of the soul of the sick man, by which
it is strengthened against the perils of spiritual debility conse-
quent upon a disease. This becomes clearer from a considera-
tion of the subject of the sacrament. A man approaching
death may be in need of many things. If he is an object of
68 Cf. e. g., Benedict XV, litt. apost. ‘‘ Sodalitatem,’’ May 31, 1921 (A. A.
S., XIII, 342); Pius XI—litt. ap. ‘‘Explorata res est’’—Feb. 2,
1923; (ASA, 85 V,.1038).
A Dogmatic-Historical Introduction Al
divine ire, he needs above all else the remission of his mortal
sins. He usually needs the remission of his venial sins, lest
he appear before his Judge in a nuptial garment not wholly
spotless. He may need condonation of temporal punishment,
for otherwise, he must be shut from the vision of God, while
purgatory’s fires purge the dross from his soul. He may need
something to conquer the horror of human nature at the ap-
proaching dissolution, to elude the wily traps of the enemy
so unmercifully annoying him, to stifle the temptations to inordi-
nate grief, cowardice and desperation, and to face the supreme
hour with trust and resignation in the divine will. All who are
nearing death need these aids—yet not all the faithful about
to die can be helped by Extreme Unction. This Sacrament can
be given only to those in danger of death from sickness. Hence
its institution must have been made for the purpose of overcom-
ing the evils which are conjoined with grave bodily sickness
and for conferring the benefits which all those in grave illness
require.°?
Experience reveals one marked difference between those in
danger of death from sickness and those in danger of death
ab extrinseco. The bodily sick manifest a spiritual debility from
their affliction, a complete prostration of the mental forces as
a result of the collapse of the inferior powers. From this weak-
ness there arises an especial difficulty in cooperating with
eraces conferred thru other supernatural means, a marked re-
missness in rejecting temptation, a multiple danger of losing
salvation. Extreme Unction, then, must be a medicine, a celestial
antidote, against that spiritual weakness that comes with bodily
infirmity. It must furnish from its very nature an extraordinary
spiritual fortitude, a vigor of mind and an exhilaration of soul
which will be eminently suitable to expeditious cooperation with
grace, As a consequence, every man who has at least a passive
potency of receiving comfort against that spiritual weakness
which is conjoined with grave sickness, is capable of a valid
reception of this sacrament, even if he have no need at all of
the other fruits or effects. Truly it seems most reasonable to
say that the principal effect of the Sacrament of Extreme Une-
tion is ‘‘confortatio animae infirmi.’’
59 Of. Suarez, disp. 42, sect. 2, n. 6.
42 Extreme Unction
The specific signification of the sacrament corroborates this
contention. Sacraments effect what they signify. The Unction
of the sick, then, must effect enlightment of the intellect, and
consequently consolation, exhilaration, alleviation, strength and
courage; in a word, all that is included in the meaning of ‘‘con-
fortatio animae.’’ An examination of patristic quotations is
all that is required to show the force of this argument.®
VI. THe PRopPERTIEs.
This discussion of Extreme Unction has passed logically
from a discussion of the basic point, viz., its sacramentality, to
a consideration of its end, its essence and its effects. An investi-
gation of its properties, i. e., the questions of its unity, its re-
viviscence and its iterability, should next engross our attention.
These problems are so intimately interwoven with canonical
legislation that no treatment of them from a juridical point of
view can be thorough without a discussion of the dogmatic as-
pects. To these three problems could be added the question of
the necessity of Extreme Unction, but this can be fully and more
properly diseussed in the commentary on Canon 944.
1. The Unity of Extreme Unction.
Extreme Unction is, of course, one sacrament. For many
centuries, however, it has been mooted as to the precise nature
of this unity. Does it possess a unity of indivisibility, i. e.,
does its sacramental efficacy follow only from the completed rite
—or does it possess the unity of integrity, i. e., are the single
unctions partial sacraments, as it were, whose sum total consti-
tutes one whole sacrament? Intimately and inseparably con-
nected with this question is also the problem of when the sacra-
ment produces its effects.
In the discussion of these two problems there is no re-
course to Scripture or to Tradition or to dogmatic definitions.
60 Cf. Eusebius Caesareensis, Demon. Evangel., 1. I V,c. 156—M. P. G., 22,
294A; 8. Maximus Taurinensis, Exposittones de Capit. Evangel. III
—M. P. L., 57, 811B; Procopius Gazaeus, In Levit. xziz, 31—
M. P. G., 87, 702; St. Fulgentius, Ep. 14, n. 42—M. P. L., 65, 430
B-C; St. Gregory of Nyssa, In Cant. Cant., Hom. IX—M. P. G., 44,
963A; St. Augustine, Quaest. Evang., l. II, n. 19—M. P. L., 35,
1340; Euthymius, In textum S. Marci, cap. VI, vers. 12—M. P. ere
129, 807; St. Isadore of Spain, Quaest. in V. T., in Levit., 0. 5—
Me Pidsaho aco.
A Dogmatic-Historical Introduction 43
It is necessary to depend for the solution to a great extent upon
theological reasoning.
There were two great divisions of thought on the matter
among the ancient theologians. Albertus Magnus, the leader
on one side, wrote: ‘‘Plures sunt ibi unctiones quae omnes
uniuntur in uno effectu quem complent; et ideo omnes sunt
unum sacramentum. Et quod dicitur quod quaelibet est sacra-
mentum, dicendum quod omnes sunt unum sacramentum, quia
quaelibet est signum et causa reliquiarum, non secundum partem,
sed secundum totum omnes simul.’’! St. Thomas,’ Suarez’ and
many others concur in this view, and the Sixth Council of
Beneventano‘ included it in its synodal enactments.
On the other hand the Scotist school held the opposite
opinion. The Doctor Subtilis himself wrote: ‘‘Est sacramen-
tum unum quia habet tam unam materiam quam unam formam
totalem, quae sunt unum signum totale unius effectus totalis, se.
plenariae innocentiae restitutae per remissionem totalem omnium
peceatorum venialium. Licet enim plures sint formae partiales
et multi partiales effectus, ut remissiones peccatorum venialium
commissorum in parte tali vel tali, ut ore vel manu, tamen una
est totalis materia et totalis forma, quae sunt signum totale
1 Comm. ad Lib. IV Sent., a. 17 ad 2 (apud Opera Omnia, vol. XXX,
. 24).
3 Bipot: a 30, a. 1 ad 3: ‘Quando sunt multae actiones ordinatae ad
unum effectum, ultima est formalis respectu omnium praecedentium,
et agit in virtute earum; et ideo in ultima unctione gratia infunditur,
quae effectum sacramento praebet.’’
Yet, strangely enough, the Angelic Doctor seems to be inconsistent,
for in the question preceding he writes: ‘‘Quamvis in Eucharistia,
si post consecrationem panis moritur sacerdos, alius sacerdos possit
procedere ad consecrationem vini, incipiens ubi ille dimisit, vel etiam
incipere a capite supra aliam materiam, tamen in extrema unctione
non potest a capite incipere, sed debet semper procedere, quia unctio
in eadem parte facta tantum valet, ac si consecraretur bis eadem
hostia, quod nullo modo faciendum est’’ (Suppl., q. 29, a. 2 ad 3).
Why would the repetition of the unction be ineffective, if it is not
impeded by a sacramental effect already present?
3 Disp. 41, s. 2, n. 12: ‘Vera sententia est, effectum hujus sacramenti
dari in eo instanti, in quo consummatur essentialiter hoc sacramen-
tum, consummatur autem, cum primum quinque actiones cum quinque
formulis perficiuntur.’’
4 Tit. 8, c. 3, anno 1374 (apud Catalano, Rst. Rom., t. I, p. 319): ‘‘Licet
multae fiant ibi inunctiones, ultima tamen est ibi formalis respectu
omnium praceedentium, et agit in virtute earum, et ideo in ultima
inunctione gratia infunditur, quae effectum praebet sacramenti. Et
a unum gacramentum dicitur unitate perfectionis, quae est per
em.
44 Extreme Unction
totalis remissionis et plenariae justificationis ab omni peccato
veniali.’’> Mastrio writes even more clearly: ‘‘Fundamentum
praecipuum est, quia quaelibet unctio cum sua forma propria
effectui proprio respondente, et ad singulas unctiones comple-
tur sensu substantiali formae; ergo quaevis unctio cum sua
propria forma est proprium sacramentum gratiam conferens
. . . Ergo si quaevis unctio cum sua propria forma habet
proprium significatum partiale ab aliis distinetum, habebit
etiam suum effeectum proprium partialem ab aliis. condistinc-
rvs Mit be
With one or the other of these opinions by far the majority
of theologians agree. There is no doubt that some of them
supposed that the five unctions with their respective forms
were essential for the validity of the sacrament. Yet if this
supposition were true, the question could never be solved. For
if Christ constituted the essence of this sacrament in five unce-
tions, it would be impossible to determine with our lack of
Scriptural or traditional arguments just what kind of unity
He wished to attribute to this sacrament. In consequence of
Canon 947 such a view in regard to the necessity of the five-
fold form and the five-fold unction is no longer tenable.
Dominico Soto’ held that a third element played a part in
the determination of the time of the effects of the sacrament,
viz., the intention of the minister. According to his theory,
the Unction has its effect at the time of the completion of the
last unction, whether such an unction pertain to the sacrament
essentially or only integrally. The essence of the Sacrament
consists, by divine law, in the unction of the five senses. The
Church has added to these the unction of the feet and (in his
day) the unction of the reins. These two latter anointings
become integral parts of the Sacrament, and the intention of
the minister must accordingly be directed to all seven unctions.
The consequence will be that the conferring of grace will be
delayed until the seventh anointing is complete.
This theory is generally rejected—and deservedly, too; for
a minister cannot bring it to pass by his intention that grace
5 Report. Paris., 1, IV, dist. 23, q. unic.
6 Th. M., disp. 22, q. 4, a. 2, n. 64.
7 Comm. in quart. lib. Sent., t. I, ad dist. XXill, q. 2, a. 3.
A Dogmatic-Historical Introduction 45
will not be conferred after the whole essential rite has been
completed, but that, instead, it will be induced at some future
moment selected by him either arbitrarily or from a supposed
command of the Chureh. If such an intention prevailed, nothing
at all would be effected, for an intention in regard to the
sacraments may not be ‘‘de futuro’’ (except in Matrimony).
Other opinions, termed by Kern® as ‘‘singular,’’ teach
that the whole effect takes place after the first unction; or that
it follows ordinarily the fifth unction, except in such cases
where the subject died during the anointment, and then after
the last unction performed; or that, in case of necessity only,
one unction with a general form can validly confer the grace
and fruits of the sacrament, while in all other cases the five
unctions were absolutely necessary, ete.
Father Kern® proposes another solution of the question.
The essence of the sacrament demands neither the unction of
the five senses nor the five-fold repetition of the form. It is
necessary and sufficient that the sick man be anointed and that
the effect which the rite has been divinely intended to produce
be sought by the prayer of the priest. There is not an iota of
evidence to prove that Christ instituted five partial sacraments
which singly cause different grades of grace. The sacrament of
the ‘‘exeuntium’”’ is as much one sacrament as that of the ‘‘in-
trantium,’’ Baptism, where a triple ablution is prescribed.
Moreover the practice of the Greek Church, by which a priest
performs all the unctions under a single form, weighs strongly
against the probability of the institution by Christ of a five-
fold form with a five-fold unction.’°
With this premise established, Father Kern makes use of
the third element that Soto brought into the solution of the case.
Now it is one thing to anoint the sick man, let us say, upon the
breast, and quite a different thing to anoint the breast of the
sick man. The former implies that the unction is the primary
consideration and the place of unction something secondary ;
8 Tract. De Ext. Unct., p. 327.
_ 9 Op. cit., pp. 328-9.
10 Neither this custom nor Canon 947 clinches the question finally. There
is still the possibility that the Church used its prerogative of chang-
ing the matter and form of the sacraments. In fact, this very solution
is proposed by Dr. Walter McDonald in the Irish Theological Quar-
terly, vol. II, (1907), p. 333.
46 Extreme Unction
while the latter connotes the importance of the specific part
of the body anointed. Consequently, if a priest intends that the
unction prescribed by St. James is to be performed by a single
unction (joined, of course, with a general form), then the effect
of the sacrament is produced after such an unction just as
certainly as in those Churches,!4 where only one form and one
unction were required. However, if it is the intention of the
minister to perform the Jacobean rite by anointing the organs
designated by his ritual book, and using the particular forms
prescribed therein, then by his intention such a priest groups
all these sacramental and sacerdotal actions ‘‘sub aspectu unius’’
—and grace follows from the completed rite.
Applying this theory to the mode of unction defined by
the Western Church, we get the following conclusions. Each
form refers, not to the remission of sins as such, but only to
the forgiveness of sins committed by one particular sense.
Therefore such an anointment per se is not the rite promul-
gated by St. James. Moreover, the sins of one sense cannot be
forgiven while those of another sense are retained. All serious
sins must be erased at once. Consequently, the Jacobean pre-
scription is not fulfilled until those unctions and forms are
performed which would refer to the remission of all gin. If
the minister did not intend to anoint the feet, then the sacra-
ment is conferred after the fifth unction, on the grounds that,
broadly speaking, the senses are the source of every sin. But
if the priest does not include in any one of these anointments
a reference to the sins committed “‘ner gressum,’’ because of
the fact that he intends to perform subsequently a particular
unction upon the feet, it is only after this additional unction
that the rite is complete, and the effect is produced. If the
minister does not advert to these distinctions, but merely in-
tends to do as the Church does, Father Kern thinks it probable
that the sacrament is conferred after the fifth unction, because
the anointments of the five senses include sufficiently within
their remissory scope all the sins committed by the subject.
Rites other than the western procedure must be viewed
11 As e. g., in the Coptic rite—Denziger, Rit. Orient., t. I, p. 186 and
similarly in the ancient Mozarabic rite—apud Monumenta Eccl.
Liturgica (ed. Cabrol et Leclerq), vol. v, p. 71.
A Dogmatic-Historical Introduction 47
in a similar way. Unless the minister intended to confer the
sacrament in the first (or in any other) unction, the effect of
the sacrament does not take place until the very last unction
is performed. If the minister elicits no specific intention in
the matter, the discipline of the Church settles the question
when the essential unctions, necessary to signify the remission
of all sins contemplated by the Jacobean rite, have been per-
formed.
It is easy to see by this theory how the sacrament can be
confected in ease of necessity with a single unction. It leads
to this consequence, however, (as shall be seen in treating Canon
947): all the ceremonies which are ‘‘supplied’’ after the short
form has been used are not of a sacramental nature. They
are simply ‘‘sacramentalia,’’ with no effect ‘‘ex opere operato.’’
Father Kern’s theory has not met with universal, whole-
hearted acceptance. Quinn}? thinks it open to the same objec-
tion as Soto’s opinion. ‘‘It is hard to see,’’ he writes, ‘‘how
the intention of the minister (if sacramental at all) can suspend
the effect which the unction signifies.’’ Yet in strictness Father
Kern does not claim this. What he asserts is that the unction
of a particular organ with a form which does not refer to for-
giveness of all sins cannot be per se the rite prescribed by St.
James. It is the wording of the form which circumscribes the
effect of the rite, not the intention of the minister. When the
various unctions together with the several forms cumulatively
refer to the forgiveness of all sins, then and only then is the
Jacobean prescription fulfilled. What Father Kern claims that
the minister’s intention does effect is this, viz., that even
if the forgiveness of all the sins would be amply referred to by
any series of unctions, as, for example, those of the five senses,
nevertheless, if the priest specifically excepts the sins commit-
ted by any other particular part of the body, then the unction
of such a particular part is essential to complete the rite of
St. James.
Dr. McDonald!’ is not at all pleased with this theory of
Kern’s. He holds the Scotist view, claiming the Sacrament
to be composed of five partial sacraments. The breaking up of
12 Some Aspects of the Dogma of Extreme Unctwn, p. 76.
18 Trish Theological Quarterly, vol. II (1907), p. 333.
48 Extreme Unction
the Jacobean rite into these partial unctions was done by the
authority of the Church, who can change to some extent the
matter and form of the sacraments. Hither the exercise of this
power must be allowed here, or, he says, ‘‘you must fall back
on the intention of the minister, empowering him to alter the
signification of the words he utters, and thereby make certain
rites sacramental or merely ceremonial according as he intends
the form to cover and remit all sins or only those of a certain
class .. . I cannot help regarding it as much more probable
that it was by Church authority the character of Order was
divided . . . and according to the same analogy each of the
Seven unctions should be regarded as a distinct sacrament, all
combining to form a generic whole, which once constituted in
its fulness, cannot any more than the sacrament of Order be
repeated while its lasts.’’
In answer to Kern’s argument that the form of a parti-
cular unction is deficient because its refers to the sins com-
mitted by a single organ and no species of sin can be remitted
separately, Dr. McDonald argues that, since the form of each
of the unctions signifies some remission of sin, each unction
must be “‘capable of infusing grace, which is the test of true
sacramental efficacy.’’ The naming of special sins in these forms
is done simply because of the actual graces infused for help
against temptations to these particular sins, and for the re-
mission of the temporal punishment due to such transgressions.
The promulgation of Canon 947 made Noldin alter his opin-
ion in regard to this question. Prior to the Code, he insisted
that the last unction brought with it the sacramental grace.}4
In his latest, edition of the Moral Theology, he reveals his re-
versal of viewpoint. Now he thinks that the essential graces
of the sacrament are given in the first anointment. The sub-
Sequent unections supplement and perfect this effect by the infu-
sion of actual graces and by the increase of sanctifying grace,
if the dispositions of the patient become better thru the stimula-
tion of the unction or unctions already received.15
This view is very popular with present-day theologians.
14 Th. M., De Sac., n. 446 (editio septima—1908),
15 Th. M., De Sac., n. 431 (editio quarta decima—1921).
A Dogmatic-Historical Introduction 49
Lehmkuhl,!® Tanquerey-Quevastre,!* Vermeersch-Creusen!® sub-
scribe to it heartily. Its practical application lies in the value
of repeating or ‘‘supplying”’ the unctions in a case where the
short form is used. Logically this question falls under the
treatment of Canon 947, and will be dealt with at that time.
The time when the special effects occur presents some
difficulties. A) Mortal sins are immediately remitted with the
infusion of sanetifying grace whether this happen after the first
unction or after the last. This also accomplishes the pardon of
venial sins and condones temporal punishment, according to
the disposition of the penitent. B) If the use of reason has
not been snatched away by unconsciousness or insanity, super-
natural aids are also imparted immediately, which bestow com-
fort and alleviation and induce a feasibility of co-operation
with the impulses of grace. C) These comforting and sustain-
ing graces perdure thru sickness until death or recovery.
D) Since corporal health arises from the redundaney of spiri-
tual comfort—and since much depends on the nature and the
seriousness of the disease—the effect is obtained differently in
different subjects. That some alleviation very often instantly
appears, is a fact of experience.
2, Revwiscence.
The problem of reviviscence confronts us when a sacra-
ment has been validly received, but remains ‘‘informe’’ because
of the lack of due dispositions in the recipient. When rightly
administered, Extreme Unction confers a title to sanctifying
grace and to all other aids expedient for the sick man. But
it happens sadly enough that sometimes the recipient places an
obstacle to one or more of the special graces that the sacrament
confers, or even to the infusion of first grace itself. It then
becomes of paramount importance to look into the powers of
reviviscence of this potent sacrament.
The ‘‘obex’’ or ‘‘fictio’’ which impedes the effects of the
sacraments is either formal or material. The former is pres-
ent when a man, conscious of his improper dispositions, know-
16 Th, M., IT, 718.
17 Brev. Syn. Th. u,, n. 1260B.
18 Epitome, II, 231.
19 Cf. Infra, chapter xii, p. 386 sqq.
50 Extreme Unction
ingly receives the sacrament. The latter occurs when the ‘‘obex”’
is inculpable—a case easily imaginable, as, for example, when
the subject has been suddenly struck down to unconsciousness.
Theologians propound it as the more probable opinion that,
“‘remoto obice,’? Extreme Unction does revive, whether the
“‘fiction’’ be material or formal.2° The moral dispositions of
a subject affect the validity of no sacrament except Penance.
Moreover, the valid administration of a sacrament surely accom-
plishes something in the recipient. Surely, too, that ‘‘some-
thing’’ can be nothing else than the title to sanctifying grace
and the right to the other fruits, on the condition that the defec-
tive disposition be removed. Were this not true, there would
be no difference between the valid and the invalid reception of
a sacrament.
On the other hand, there is no valid reason for denying the
reviviscence of Extreme Unction. It is admitted in the Sacra-
ments of Baptism, of Confirmation, and of Orders. It is the
more probable opinion in regard to Matrimony because of the
permanence of the sacrament. Certainly one who has been
validly anointed needs the effects of the sacrament thru revivi-
scence. He cannot be, as a general rule, licitly reanointed—and
yet it seems alien to the divine benignity to derive him of
such benefits because of his former temerity, or perhaps only
misfortune or ignorance. Such a subject is far more in need
of Extreme Unction’s effects than one who has prepared him-
self well for its worthy reception. Since Extreme Unction can-
not be repeated in the same illness unless it is a prolonged one,
such deprivation of the effects otherwise obtainable thru revivi-
scence would be disastrous.
Some theologians have gone to fanciful excesses in grant-
ing this reviving efficacy to Extreme Unction. De Lugo?? at-
tributed to it the power of remitting venial sins after death.
Suarez*? thought it probable that the efficacy of the anointing
extended beyond the restoration of health. Didacus Nugnus,
O. P.,*4 asserted it to be certain that, even after health had
20 Cf. Hurter, Th. D. Comp., III, n. 306; Tanquerey, Th. D., III, n. 321.
21 Cf. Rit. Rom., tit. V, cap. I) n. 8; ef. infra, chap. V, p. 192 sqq.
22 De Sacramentis in Genere, disp. IX, sect. 6, vers. finem (n. III).
23 Disp. 41, s. 1, n. 24.
24 Expositio in III p. D. Thomae, suppl., q. 30, a. I,
A Dogmatic-Historical Introduction 51
been regained, if the ober were not until then removed, sanctify-
ing grace—and also the other spiritual effects—would follow.
Surely this seems stretching the powers of reviviscence too far. A
healthy man is ineapable of receiving grace ‘‘qua alleviatio;’’
and since this is the sacrament’s principal effect, he is incap-
able of every other effect.
What is required for reviviscence in the several cases may
be summed up as follows:
a) If the fiction is material and no new grave sin is com-
mitted since the reception of Extreme Unction, it suffices that
the sick man do what should per se have been before unction.
There is no defect present other than ‘‘defectus dispositionis ab
wnitio,’’
b) If the fiction is material and a grave sin has been
committed since the anointing, attrition with sacramental abso-
lution or perfect contrition is required.
¢) If the fiction is formal, the sacrament of Penance or
perfect contrition is necessary. If the obex is removed by Pen-
ance, then the infusion of grace occurs ‘‘ex duplici fonte,’’ i. e.,
directly from the sacrament of Penance and by reviviscence in
the sacrament of Extreme Unction.?®
3. The Iterabality.
Theologians all agree on the permissibility of repeating Ex-
treme Unction in the following circumstances:
1. When the infirm man has been restored to health and
falls again into a mortal disease, no matter how short the period
of time between the sicknesses ;
2. In the same sickness, if the danger of death passes
after the Unction has once been given and the sick man relapses
into a new danger of death. The reason alleged is that, just as
a person whose sickness is not at least probably fatal has no
right to the sacrament, so a man whose danger of death has
receded completely does not retain any title to the benefits that
the sacred unction confers. For verification of this recession
and recurrence of a dangerous state, many theologians demand
the lapse of some period of time—a not unreasonable exaction,
25 Cf. Kern. Tract. de Ext. Unct., p. 377-8; Tanquerey, Th. D., III, nu.
323; Aertnys, Th. M. II, n. 354.
52 Extreme Unction
if too much strictness is not insisted upon in the measurement
of that time. St. Bonaventure wisely observed: ‘‘Absurdum
valde videtur sacramenta regulari secundum motum astro-
Tits
Some theologians, as shall be seen in the discussion of
Canon 940, 2, teach that if a man is anointed in imminent
danger of death which subsequently passes away, whereby the
man is somewhat relieved although not beyond the remote dan-
eer of death, another anointing may be made if the crisis again
appears.?4
By far the great majority of theologians deny the validity
of Extreme Unction when repeated in the same danger of death.
Among contemporary writers, however, Kern*® holds as prob-
able the opinion maintaining the validity of repeated unction
in the same danger of death. He is not alone in his contention,
but is rather one of the more recent adherents to an authorita-
tive band of positive sacramental theologians. The most emi-
nent members of this group are Menardus,?? Launoi,?° Mar-
tene,2! Juenin,?? Drouven,*? Bouget,?4 Catalano, Pellicia,*®
Binterim,?7 Telch?® and Vermeersch.*?* Other theologians*?
were convinced by the practices of the ancient Greeks that
repetition of the Unction in the same danger of death was un-
doubtedly valid. Some, like Billuart,*! Gerbert** and Schanz,*
did not dare to brand as invalid the ancient custom. Finally,
26 Comm. in IV lib. Sent., ad dist. xxiii, a. 2, q. 4 ad 2.
27 Cf. infra, chapter V, p. 192.
28 Tract. de Ext. Unct., pp. 338-63.
29 In Notis ad Lib. Sacr. 8S. Greg. —M. P. L., 78, 523C.
30 Op. Omnia, t. I, p. 548 sqq.
31 De Antiq. Eccl. Rit., 1. I, cap. 7, art. 2, n. 15.
32 Comm. Hist. et Dog. de Saer., d. 7, q. 9, ¢. I.
33 De Re Sacramentaria, |. vii, q. 5, ¢. 2.
34 Instit. Cathol. in modum Catecheseos, ec. VII, paragr. 3.
35 Rit. Rom., t. I, pp. 303-4.
36 De Christ. Ecc. Politia, t. II, 1. 6, s. 2, ¢. 3, paragr. 2, p. 479.
37 Denkwiirdigkeiten, 6 B, 3 T., 3 K., paragr. 9.
38 Eptt. Th. M., ‘‘Sententiae Probabiles’’—de E. U.—p. 415-6.
39 Th. M., III, 666.
40 Wirceburgenses, De Ext. Unct., ec. 2, a. 3, §“Dico’’ 3:
Dog., De E. U., qu. ult., a. 2, “‘ quaeres?? 2. 8
41 Summa S. Thomae, De Ext. Unct., disp. unic, a. 7, ‘Petes’? tertio.-
42 Principia Th. Sac., c. VI, paragr. 78.
43 Die Lehre von der Sakramenten, p. 661.
A Dogmatic-Historical Introduction 53
since the days of Benedict XIV,** moralists*® have counselled
against over-strictness in the refusal to repeat the sacrament
in lingering illnesses.
Convincing texts from old rituals, such as the Gregorian
Sacramentary,*® the Ordo of Rheims,** the Codex of the Mon-
astery of St. Remigius,*® the Codex Tilianus*? and many
others,°° show that it was the custom from the early ages down
to twelfth century to confer Extreme Unction on seven suc-
cessive days. Instances of the actual fulfillment of this ritual-
istic prescription are also extant.°!
Kern adduces authorities to show that the Greek ceremony
of Extreme Unction, wherein seven priests anoint by going thru
the entire formula, is but a development of the pristine practice
of anointing on seven different days.°* Surely the ceremony
given in the Euchologion ** does not seem arranged for a single
visitation to the sick.. For example, in the beginning of the
ceremony a very solemn blessing of the oil is performed by the
first priest who is to anoint—and that very same oil is used im
the unctions by all the priests. Yet the second and the third
and the fourth and the fifth and the sixth and the seventh
priests bless it again individually, as though it were profane,
before they proceed in turn to anoint the sick man. It does
not seem that such could be the original practice. It is more
logical to view this as a development of the custom in the early
church to anoint for seven successive days. According to Malt-
zew,°4 the Coptic liturgy witnesses to this practice even today.
Denziger,°> however, speaks of a single unction made by a
44 De Syn. Dioc., 1. 8, ¢c. 8, n. 4, in fine.
45 St. Alph., Th. M., VI, 715; AErtnys, Th, M., IT, 368 ad TIL; Lehmkuhl,
Th. M., Il, 725; Scavini, Th M., III, 442; Gury, Th. M., II, 691.
46 M. P. L., 78, 537.
47 Martene, op. cit., 1. 1, ¢. 7, a. 4, Ordo 8.
48 M. P. L., 78, 537B.
49 M. P. L., 78, 528C—cf. ibid., 20, 22.
50 KE. g., Pont. of Salisburgo (Salzburg), apud Martene, l.c., Ordo XII:
Codex Victorinus, Ordo XIX; Codex Turonensis, Ordo IV; ete.
51 E. g., Vita S. Remberti, Acta SS., Feb. 4, p. 571.
52 Tract. de Ext. Unct., pp. 345-50.
53 A Latin translation of the Greek ceremony is given in Martene, ‘‘ De
Antiq. Ecc. Rit.,7’ V. 1, c. 7, 3.4, Ordo XXX:
54 Die Sacramente, p. CCCXXAXIT.
55 Rit. Orient., t. II, p. 501 ss.—cef. t. I, p. 187 ss.
54 Extreme Unction
priest, and the unctions on the following days made by the
sick man himself.
The declaration of the Council of Trent seems at first face
to militate very strongly against this proposition. The words
of the Council are: ‘‘Quod si infirmi, post susceptam hane
unctionem, convaluerint, iterum hujus sacramento subsidio
juvari poterunt, cum in aliud simile vitae discrimen incide-
rint.’’°° Yet Kern %7 shows ably enough the possibility of con-
struing the Tridentine text in a positive sense, rather than in
an exclusive sense, i. e., the Council intended to assert the
walidity of Extreme Unction repeated in the specific circum-
stances it mentions rather than propose a taxative enumeration
of the cases of its valid repetition.
Neither is the present practice an argument against Kern’s
contention. It can be said to be of a disciplinary rather than
of a dogmatic nature. Churchmen were only too human in the
‘Middle Ages—and simony and sacrilege had to be expugned by
determined legislation. This was the course chosen by the
Church to end forever the avarice of pastors who demanded
exorbitant stipends for the administration of the sacrament.®8
It is the theological reasons of Kern—the ‘‘argumenta ex
ratione theologica’’—which meet most opposition. Putting his
terms in the language of the school, he notes that the external
rite (sacramentum tantum) causes to be produced in the soul a
reality (res et sacramentum); and with this reality as their
proximate cause, sanctifying grace and the other gifts of the
sacrament result (res tantum). Hence it is to the ‘‘effect and
sacrament’’ (which seems to be the best translation of ‘‘res et
sacramentum’’), rather than to the mere sacrament that the
sacramental effect is due. Now in Extreme Unction the ‘‘effect
and sacrament’’ consists in a right or title to the spiritual com-
fort and other aids given by this sacrament. As Kern him-
self puts it: ‘‘In Extrema Unctione res et sacramentum con-
sistit in titulo sive jure remoto ad confortationem Spiritualem
et alia auxilia cum illa conjuncta; quod jus in subjecto oritur
ex efficaci repositione in manu misericordiae divinae.’®9 The
56 Sess. XIV, de Ext. Unct., c. 3.
67 Tract. de Ext. Unct., pp. 359-60.
58 Cf. infra, chap. v, p. 151 sqq.
59 Kern, Tract. de Ext. Unct., pp. 350-2.
A Dogmatic-Historical Introduction 50
question then becomes: Can the right to spiritual comfort and
the other aids be increased or intensified? There is no reason
why it cannot, because, unlike in the case of Order, Baptism
and Confirmation, the ‘‘jus ad confortatronem spiritualem’’ is
the very ‘‘res et sacramentum’’ of Extreme Unction. The only
possible thing to hinder this increase of right would be an in-
trinsic ineapability of the spiritual comfort itself allowing of
increase. The question now resolves itself further. Can spiri-
tual comfort (confortatio), when once conferred, be in-
creased? It is quite evident that such a thing is possible, since
it consists especially in acts of faith, hope, love, spiritual joy,
ete. Moreover, since no sacrament takes away the potency of
falling into future sins, it is also plain that if any appreciable
period of time intervenes between the man’s anointment and
his death, he will likely have committed several venial sins.
Hence a repetition would be effective for this very reason.
Kern’s reasoning was attacked with very great violence by
Dr. Walter McDonald, the dean of Dunboyne Establishment at
Maynooth. Writing in the Irish Theological Quarterly ®
shortly after the appearance of Kern’s work, he defends the
common belief with great mastery. He denies in the first place
that ‘‘the effect and sacrament’’ of Extreme Unction, as well
as that of Penance, is a right. He says that it is rather a basis
of right, which may be intensified or not. The character of
Baptism, Confirmation or Order is a basis of right to certain
sacramental graces. It is intrinsically capable of increase (why
not?), somewhat in the same fashion as sanctifying grace itself.
Yet no second repetition of these sacraments actually intensify
this basis of right. The question arises then how a mere repeti-
tion of Extreme Unction—while the ‘‘effect and sacrament”’ is
already in the soul—produees any intensification of sacramental
efiicacy. Pursuing this same thought, Quinn® also argues:
‘Mather Kern tells us that helps given by the sacrament are
eapable of increase. But how can they be increased by the
repetition of a rite which merely signifies something that has
already been effected? The rite should be ineffective, because
its normal effect has already been produced and remains. Even
60 Vol. II (1907), p. 339-42.
61 Some Aspects of the Dogma of Extreme Unction, pp. 131.
56 Extreme Unction |
if it were effective, its effect (res et sacramentum) would estab-
lish no stronger claim on God for sacramental graces. For, as
a mere repetition the rite would cover no new ground. The
reality produced by it in the soul could be the moral cause of
only the selfsame graces or helps, already due to the sacrament
conferred.’’
It is no escape from this conclusion to draw a parity with
the Penance or the Eucharist, which may be repeated very
often. The ‘‘effect and sacrament’’ of Penance (at least, ac-
cording to the best opinion) is transient, while that of Extreme
Unetion has a quasi-permanency, lasting, as all admit, thruout
the whole duration of the danger of death. Whenever the
‘‘effect and sacrament’’ have been produced by a prior admin-
istration and are continuing in the soul thruout a period of
time, there is neither room nor need of the selfsame ‘‘res et
sacramentum’’ as long as the former one continues. In the
ease of the Eucharist, the ‘‘effect and sacrament’’ lasts only as
long as the species remain incorrupt in the stomach. During
that time a new reception has no sacramental efficacy.®? ‘‘ Why
is this,’’ Dr. McDonald asks, ‘‘if not because the effect and
‘sacrament is already there—produced by the first reception ?’’®
Drouven,® in defending the validity of repetition, offers as
one of the reasons: ‘‘Nee quidquam obstat quominus et pecca-
torum remissio, et restitutio corporalis sanitatis, qui duo ejus
effectus sunt, saepe a Deo iteratis unctionibus et mysticis pre-
cibus postulentur.’’ The flaw in this is that he assumes that
the remission of sins, &e., are asked for by the external rite
(sacramentum tantum), whereas it is only thru the mediation
of the ‘‘effect and sacrament’’ (res et sacramentum) that this
petitioning is done. And in the case of Extreme Unction—
since the effect and sacrament continue—the impetration of
these effects from God is continuous, so that there is no need
of subsequent administrations of the sacrament for this pur-
pose. Indeed the effect and sacrament are more truly petition-
62 We are not dealing here with the question of the production of acci-
dental grace by the consumption of the second species. This case
regards the reception a second time in the same fashion as the first
reception, whether that was done under both species or only under
a single species.
63 Irish Theological Quarterly, vol. II, (1907), p. 341.
64 De Re Sacramentaria, |. 7, q. 5, cap. 2.
A Dogmatic-Historical Introduction ay
ing God for the helps and graces of the sacrament than the
valid external rites (sacramentum tantum) can be said to do
0.%
The consequence is that the arguments in favor of repeti-
tion from theological reason are not very impressive. But what
of the positive arguments? How can we explain the existence
of a practice which was so widespread that it could hardly have
existed without the knowledge of Rome, nor even without offi-
cial approbation? Dr. McDonald has recourse to the Scotist
theory of partial sacraments. The full grace of the sacrament
is not received until the last unction of the rite is done. The
essential graces are conferred in the first unction, and these
are increased and perfected by the subsequent anointings. This
increase and perfection are accomplished by the infusion of actual
graces into the soul, having generally a particular relation with
the transgressions of the sense or organ anointed. The theory
is intelligible in regard to the anointments made on various
distinet parts of the body. But how is it possible to extend this
theory to the case where the very rite 1s repeated thru the per-
formance of the identical unctions on the selfsame parts of the
body seven times? For instance, what does the subject recelve
from a second and third unction of the eyes that he has not
received in the first anointment? How can two unctions of the
same organ increase and perfect a particular effect when the
repetition of the entire rite does not increase the general and
essential effect of the sacrament ?°
It seems more logical to have recourse to the explanation
given by Quinn® and by Bishop MacDonald®® that these prac-
tices were nothing else than abuses. Yet besides the respon-
65 Cf. Quinn, Some Aspects of the Dogma of Extreme Unction, p. 131.
66 Kern (Tract. de Ext. Unct., p. 343-4) says that it is impossible to
separate the sacrament into so many partial administrations because
the interval between them is too long; and the intention of the
minister would have to be ‘‘de futuro.’’ The force of this is weak-
ened by the promulgation of Canon 947. It shall be seen (cf. infra,
chap. xii, p. ) that many claim that the unctions can be supplied
at any time throughout the same danger of death when the sacrament
has been conferred by the short form. In other words, while the
‘‘effect and sacrament’’ remains in the soul, it is permissible to
perfect the sacrament by the performance of these additional unc-
tions, whereby actual graces are conferred.
67 Some Aspects of the Dogma of Extreme Unction, p. 131.
68 Amer. Eccl. Review, vol. XLII (1910), pp. 23-6.
58 Extreme Unction
sibility which this sweeping condemnation imposes, these authors
‘have to proffer an explanation of the Greek practice of bless-
ing the oil so often. They must explain too, the value of the
action of the second and third and other priests in the perform-
ance of the same anointings as the first priest. In the Greek
ceremony, when would the essential effect occur? Would it be
after the first unction of the first priest? This ean easily be
claimed, and with just as much reason it ean be claimed that
actual graces are infused by the subsequent unctions of the first
priest, so that thereby the sacrament is perfected and made
integral.®® But what of the unctions of the second priest? He
anoints the very parts of the body which the first priest has
done. Is the ‘‘effect and sacrament’’ intensified in such a way
that more actual graces result, especially in favor of that sense
or source of sin anointed twice? Yet how can the sacrament
be perfected by a re-unction of the same parts of the body ?
The purpose in distributing the unctions among the various
sources of sin is to express more fully the effects of the sacra-
ment. But there is no fuller expression of the effect thru a
repetition of the unction of the same parts twice or oftener. ©
The only outlet is a contention that the unction by the first
priest in the Greek ceremony is a sacrament and all the other
unctions merely ceremonial, as Arcudius claims,?° or that the
actions of the seven priests unite into one sacramental action.
Both of these contentions are open to attack in several vital
spots. Goar’? rebuked Arcudius for his opinion in this regard,
and offered in its stead the alternative that the one sacrament
was confected seven times with sacramental fruits. It is indeed
hard to see what difference there is between the confection of
seven different sacraments (different numero) or one sacra-
ment confected seven times with sacramental fruit. If it is
held that the seven priests are but one moral minister,
the question again revives: when is the essential effect of
the sacrament conferred? Is it after the unctions have
been completed by the seventh priest—or after the first unction
of the first priest? If the former, how can the effect of the
69 Quinn actually does espouse this theory in the question of the unity of
Extreme Unction. (Cf. opus cét., pp. 80-1),
70 De Concord. Eccl. Occid. et Orient., 1. Vy 07.0,
71 Euchologion, p. 354, n. 37.
A Dogmatic-Historical Introduction os
sacrament be suspended after its full significance has been
expressed fully by the first priest? It would be quite a differ-
ent problem, perhaps, if the subsequent anointments were made
on parts of the body distinct from those anointed by the first
priest. But where the six other priests anoint the selfsame
organs, once more it must be asked, what further signification
of the effects of the sacrament, what fuller expression of the
outward sign of the sacrament is made? On the other hand,
if the essential grace is conferred after the first unction, and
this is increased and perfected by the later ones, we fall into
the selfsame difficulty as to how a second unction of the eyes
produces a second and increased partial effect, when an increase
of the general and essential effect is impossible.
The argument from positive theology in support of validity
of repetition in the same danger seems to rest on solidly prob-
able grounds. It can be more easily avoided and ignored than
refuted. On the other hand the argument from theological
reason is not so cogent. However, we must not forget how fall-
ible theologians were in their argumentations about the ‘‘supply-
ing’’ of the unctions after the decree of the Holy Office in
1906.72, Not one of them seemed to ‘hit the exact truth. The
statement of Pallavicini is very appropriate in this connection:
‘‘Ma specialmente ne soggetto che allora si maneggiava, de’
sacramenti; vedevasi depender il tutto dall’ arbitraria institu-
zione di Dio, senza che vi rimanesse quasi aleun opera all’
umano discorso per trarne conclusioni infallibili.’’* At any
rate, adherence to the view which holds validity of repetition
has some advantages. In the first place it gives a logical ex-
planation of the Greeks in their seven-fold unction. Secondly,
it saves us from the temerity of asserting, at least implicitly,
a sweeping condemnation of a one-time widespread practice—
a course which the wise theologian hesitates to take.
72 Cf. infra, chap. xii, p. 385.
73 Istoria del Concilto dt Trento, t. II, 1. XII, cap. 12, n. 18.
eae bln SF TOSS WV ERECT cetewet | t28 Spratct
ay ¢ : ey 4/> “Fe 7 mit r : ;
x » <. ie a {7s ‘ yr : oii si Ct rt ay
a Paes vate gilt ta :
* > ‘ 2 ¥
, é Te a 4 fi é a bd r
. I 4 , A “in -* 4 ie aks
. : 4 s
LP, ~s3,°@ 5
j s 4 me gt rg . :
Rene e is OSs were y A
y
‘st oe ee Joes | 13 A Ope ry
| ’
\
; ’ ; ‘ é
) ; doh ied ta We heey:
ts : bane 4 BLUSSTS VIS 8
. 7 ‘ i > n Z }. I t . +4 :
t A f bd id 0) @ 225 vA
: 4 - . wz
. 7 ‘ ‘ts of Z Per, i i. # =?
aa t af.” BS . pF at. h 3
om ‘
: : ok) Sel DEES Cee ii ere «eee
hs \ .
; tds oe , ¢ * CF oa ,
ie : OE Pe AEE HER hh ae |. oy
he ii
is r | ’
; i LA rest?t ke. pe basaehs
giay * +4 ~
ols ’ , af 4 of ae a a ; hig Be ,
; rye ry . ‘
f ; SH Ts Ley 7 OTP es
3 (tht: oeran it thet ee ob tcl Aad dl ee eee
7 Ae SeilViay zee 4 , JRO fF aryl > ree
ras A ; ol ‘ bh . SUN d 4) waist
ERO BOO Ah Saale priate, Abs sO sea, Bis
L1G
aee | seis dtuece. £4 aS. ; , ; 2 , Qin
Y 7 ener ee F- Fe bie (it co7r tin? 13 eta FES 45 f. tex Tite
; 7 « \ Paine sh &
o- iy 4 a, od © - i ‘ie ‘ f : p —
A 4; \¥ wks i 442 ie ft dar 4 ost? (toot
y , as -
’ is i+ oS 7 ( ‘
' 1b) Sed TA aE SERS AN) :
m1 Thes HATE ake 7%
P. a4 » rs 4, 44s r ao A 7 >
Redo) ade ki pelos seieb dane
M % y ’ ie i
_ ie 4 + 4,
] Git Ai
wun. At ee te") ai Ws ,, ey 4 rhe vi shy-tas ‘esa? ‘ats
ty
~
My
:
y
~~
~
J
F
CHAPTER II.
THE ELEMENTS
OF EXTREME UNCTION
CANON 937.
‘“Extremae unctionis sacramentum conferri debet
per sacras unctiones, adhibito oleo olivarum rite bene-
dicto, et per verba in ritualibus libris ab Ecclesia probatis
praescripta.
[ 61]
CHAPTER II.
The titles of the first part of Book III of the Code treat
of the sacraments in the order of enumeration made by the
Council of Trent.1 Consequently the fifth title of this part is
inscribed ‘‘De Extrema Unctione.’’ It is divided into three
chapters and eleven canons. The first chapter deals with the
minister of this sacrament, and contains two canons. The sec-
ond chapter disposes of the subject of Extreme Uncetion in five
canons. Chapter Three treats of the rites and ceremonies of
the sacrament, and comprises three canons. Canon 937 stands
alone, an introduction to the ten which follow.
Though couched in general terms befitting an introduction,
it embodies the doctrines of Trent and the Popes. There is
explicit mention of its sacramental nature, of its remote and
proximate matter and of the form. It omits all mention of the
minister and of the subject, for they are external to the sacra-
ment and also because they are treated specifically in the later
canons.
‘‘Betremae Unctionis sacramentum.’’
Unlike in the case of matrimony,? the Code does not for-
mulate a distinct canon stating the sacramentality of Extreme
Unction. It takes this for granted by employing the phrase
“the sacrament of Extreme Unction.’’ Yet denials of this
fundamental truth by heretics have led the Church to proclaim
over and over again the true doctrine in this matter.2 Even
as late as 1907 Pius X condemned the modernistie view 4 “* Jaco-
bus in sua epistola non intendit promulgare aliquod sacramen-
tum Christi, sed commendare pium aliquem morem, et si in hoc
more forte cernit medium aliquod gratiae, id non accipit eo
rigore, quo acceperunt theologi, qui rationem et numerem sacra-
mentorum statuerunt.’’
1 Sess. VII, De Sac. in genere, can. 1.
2 can. 1012.
3 Cf. supra, chap. I, sect. II, p. 6 sqq.
48.C. S. Off., ‘‘Lamentabili,’’ 3 Jul. 1907 Errores Modernistarum, n. 48,
A.S.S., XL, 476.
[ 63 ]
64 Extreme Unction
The Code continues:
““Conferri debet per sacras unctiones.’’
The announcement of the proximate matter of the sacra-
ment is contained in these words. The plural ‘‘unctiones’’ is
used, not because more than one unction is essential, but because
in the ordinary mode of administration several anointings are
required by Ritual.
.Suarez® tells of an opinion which held that this sacrament
consisted in the ‘‘oleum ab episcopo benedictum;’’ and that the
unctions were but the application of a sacrament already con-
fected. Those who proposed this were probably influenced by
a comparison of this sacrament with the Eucharist, which has
a permanent ‘‘esse.’’ Yet this opinion can have no basis in
fact. Its proponents failed to recognize that thru the consecra-
tion of the Eucharist the very Author of grace is not only
signified but actually becomes present, while in the blessing of
the oil, grace is neither given nor signified. Moreover the essen-
tial form of the sacrament would be the prayer used in the
blessing of the oil, not that used when anointing the body. The
essential form of the Eucharist is not the prayer ‘‘Corpus Do-
mini’’ &¢. said in the administration of Holy Communion. With
no less certainty ‘‘Per istam sanctam unctionem’’ &e. would not
be the form of Extreme Unction. This is certainly contrary to
the doctrines of the Church on this point.®
Moreover, if Extreme Unction consists in blessed oil, then
blessed water, and not the ablution, is the sacrament of Bap-
tism. Yet from the very words of Christ, ‘‘baptizantes eos,’’
we learn that the proximate matter of baptism consists in an
action. Similarly we can deduce what the proximate matter
of Extreme Unction is from the words of the Apostle, ‘‘ungen-
tes eum.’’
In the third place, if such were the case, the proper min-
ister of Extreme Unction would be the bishop—and not the
priest, unless he had an Apostolic faculty.7 A priest, when an-
5 Disp. 40, sect. 2, n. 1.
6 Cf. Conc. Trid., Sess. XIV, De Ext. Unct., cap. 1, in fine; Eugene IV,
const. *“Eaultate Deo’’ (in Cone. Florentin.) 22 Noy. 1439, paragr.
14, C. I. C. Fontes, n. 52.
7 Can. 945.
The Elements of Extreme Unction 65
ointing, would simply be a dispenser of the mystery, in the
same fashion as a deacon ean distribute the Hucharist.
Finally the valid reception of the sacrament would not
depend upon its application by a priest any more than that of
the Eucharist does. Even a layman would be able to apply it
validly, and in case of extreme necessity would probably be
allowed to do this licitly.
It can be seen how absolutely foundless such a doctrine is.
And more—it is in positive discord with the teachings of the
Council of Trent: ‘‘Intellexit enim Ecclesia materiam esse oleum
ab Episcopo benedictum; nam unctio aptissime Spiritus Sancti
gratiam qua invisibiliter aegrotantis anima inungitur, reprae-
sentat.’’® Here oil blessed by a bishop is said to be the matter
of the sacrament, not the sacrament itself. From this it fol-
lows that the form of the sacrament is not the prayer used in
the blessing of the oil, for this has already been said. It con-
sists of the words spoken at the very moment that the matter is
applied to the subject. The prayer of blessing simply consti-
tutes the oil valid matter of the sacrament.
The number and places of the unctions is the first con-
sideration proposed by this canon. The Scriptural text furn-
ishes no definite enlightenment, for St. James simply wrote ‘‘un-
gentes eum oleo.’’ Hence the Scholastics had to deal with the
question as to whether the whole body must be anointed. St.
Bonaventure® gives the reasons for and against this problem,
and decides that only seven parts of the body are to be anointed,
viz., the five senses, the feet and the reins, because these repre-
sent fully the sources of sins, whose deletion is the purpose of
Extreme Unction. Similarly the Angelic Doctor solves the
question: ‘‘The sacrament is shown to us under the form of a
healing. Now bodily healing has to be effected, by applying
the remedy, not to the whole body, but to the parts where the
root of the disease is seated. Consequently the sacramental unc-
tion also ought to be applied to those parts only in which the
spiritual sickness is rooted.’’”°
8 Sess. XIV, De Ext. Unct., cap. 1.
9 Comm. in quart. lib. Sent., dist. 23, a. 2, q. 3.
10 The Summa Theologica of St. Thom. Aquin., Suppl., q. 32, a. 5 (Trans-
lated by the Fathers of the Eng. Dom. Province).
66 Extreme Unction
It is certain today that the unction of the whole body is
not required. Such an extensive application of oil is no more
necessary in this sacrament than the ablution of the entire body
in Baptism. Nor has such ever been the practice of the Church.
All the rituals are content with defining certain prominent
parts of the body to be anointed. Yet there is no unanimity in
this regard among the various Rituals, either of the Hast or
of the West. The places of unction prescribed by them, as well
as the number of anointings to be made, have differed immensely
thru the course of time.
Theodulf, the bishop of Orleans in the ninth century, tes-
tifies in his Caprtulare:
‘¢ Apostoli, ungentes oleo infirmos, non amplius quam tres cruces
cum oleo super eos faciebant. Unde Graeci, qui ipsam Traditionem
apostolorum imitantur, similiter tyes tantum cruces cum oleo faciunt,
fundentes cum ampulla oleum infirmorum in crucis modum super
caput et vestimenta et totum corpus infirmi, incipientes crucem @
capite usque ad pedes, in transverso a manu dextra usque ad brachia
et pectus usque ad sinistram manum, seme] dicentes ad ipsas tres
eruces: ‘Ungo te in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti ut
oratio fidei salvet te et alleviet te Dominus et si in peccatis sis,
remittantur tibi.’ ’711
Yet if this ritual was universal at all, its universality was
short-lived, for Goar produces in his ‘‘ Euchologion!*’’ a Greek
ritual of the ninth century which ordered unctions on the fore-
head, the ears and the hands.
In interesting contrast to these, there is the ritual pres-
eribed by Symeon, the Orthodox archbishop of Thessalonica in
the fifteenth century:
‘¢Ungit oleo ad modum crucis ipsius frontem ob contentas in eo
cogitationes; faciem quoque inungit propter sensuum organa, post-
remo manus a pravis cogitationibus et operibus eum expians, sanc-
toque oleo et signo crucis muniens et perfecte sanctificans.’’13
Two centuries later Arcudius gives a still different rite,
making apparent how very little fixity there has been in the,
SEM SE Lee On, aks
12 p. 348.
13 Liber de Sacramentis, ‘‘De Sacro Ritu 8. Olei.’’—M. P. G., 155, 515 &
527.
The Elements of Extreme Unction 67
Oriental procedure:
‘‘Graecorum sacerdotes ungunt aegri frontem, mentum, ambas
genas, ita ut fieri videatur unctio in capite ad modum erucis; deinde
pectus, tum manus idque ex utraque parte, postremo pedes.’’14
Yet a contemporary, Metrophanes Critopulus,’> speaks of 4
rite wherein unctions were made only on the forehead, breast,
hands and feet.
Today some of the Uniats anoint in the same fashion as
the Roman Church. Others retain the order of unctions men-
tioned by Arcudius. The schismatics also differ among them-
selves in regard to the parts of the body anointed, but none
of them accept the Roman custom.1®
The same, if not more, diversity of ritualistic observance
marks the Latin Church in regard to the number and places
of unctions.
The Gregorian Sacramentary, which has come from the
hands of Gregory the Great, prescribes unetions ‘‘on the neck
and throat and between the shoulders; and on the breast or in
the place of pain.’’!7 A note is added to the effect that many
priests anoint the sick ‘‘insuper in quinque sensus corporis, 1. é.,
in superciliis oculorum et in naribus deintus et in narium sum-
mitate sive exterius et in labiis exterius, et in manibus exterius,
i. e., deforis.’”1®
It is clear that unction of the senses is considered alto-
gether supererogatory. An old Pontifical of the Library of the
Parisian Dominicans ‘‘ad portam Sanjacobaeam’”” orders,
even for cases of necessity, unctions upon the crown of the
head, the forehead, the ears, the eyes, the nose, the lips, the
14 De Concord. Eccl. Occident. et Orient. in Septem Sacram. Admininst.,
caer es
15 Confessio, ¢. 13.
16 Cf, Kern, Tract. de Ext. Unct., p. 134, footnote.
17M. P. L., 78, 235.
18 L. c. N. B. Although the anointing of the five senses is mentioned in
this note, nevertheless the enumeration of the organs, according to
the text of Migne, includes the nose twice and omits the ears alto-
gether. ‘‘Naribus’’ is evidently a misprint for ‘‘auribus’’; and is
translated ‘‘ears’’ by Quinn (Some Aspects of the Dogma of Ex-
treme Unction, p. 65). This is further confirmed by the sentence
which follows the above text in the Sacramentary: ‘‘Hoc enim
faciunt ut si in quinque sensus mentis et corporis aliqua macula
inhaesit hac medicina Dei sanetur.’’
19 Launoi, Op. Omnia, t. I, p. 575.
68 Extreme Unction
breast, the shoulder-blades, the hands and the feet. In direct
antithesis to this rite which demanded so many unctions, the
ancient mozarabiec ritual prescribed but one single anointment,
and that ‘‘in capite.’’”°
The old Code of Ratoldi?! gives unctions for the ears, nose,
lips, breast, shoulder-blades, hands and feet. The omission of
the eyes is noteworthy.
An ancient Ordo of the Church of Tours decreed four une-
tions: ‘‘in collo, in gutture, et inter scapulas, et in pectore seu
loco ubi dolor imminet.’’?*
A ritual of Rheims, just as old, ordered anointings
vertice capitis, in superciliis oculorum, in auribus deintus, in
narium summitate, in labiis exterius, in planta pedum.’’*? Here
the unction of the hands is omitted, a rare thing when the
anointments of the other senses are prescribed.
“S57
Few of the ancient Ordines were content with the unction
of the senses only. Thus the Codex Arremarensis** adds to the
unctions of the senses the anointing of the feet, throat, neck,
shoulder-blades, and navel or place of pain. Similarly, the
Codex Tilianus*® prescribed the oil to be applied ‘‘in ecollo et
gutture et pectore et inter scapulas, seu in loco ubi dolor plus
imminet et in quinque sensibus corporis’? &e. The unctions
‘‘In dextro tempore et sinistro, non in fronte nec in vertice...
item in superciliis et subliciis juxta angulos oculorum. ... Item
aures intus et foris in summitate crucis signa recipiunt.... Item
nares in summitate et subtus inungantur crucis modo... . Item
labia, dicendo, &c.... et exterius super mentum et guttur facien-
dum... item super humeros duos, hoc est, scapulas, non in pectore,
neque inter scapulas. . . . Item super manus; et si presbyter est, non
infra: sin aliter et infra. ... Et super pedes et sub plantis cruces
fiunt.’’
20 ‘Ordo ad vistitandum vel perungendum infirmum’’—apud Monumenta
Ecclesiae Liturgica (ed. Cabrol et Leclerq), vol. V: ‘‘Le liber
Ordinum en usage dans lVeglise Wisigothique et Mozarabe d’Espagne
du 5—II siécle, p. 71.
21 Launoi, Op. Omnia, t. 1, p. 574.
22 Martene, De Antiq. Eccl. Rit.,.1. 1, ¢. 7, a. 4, Ordo IV.
23 Martene, l.c., Ordo VIII (tenth century).
24 De Sainte-Beuve, De Sac. Ext. Unct., disp. III, a. Il, apud Migne,
Curs. Theol. Comp., vol. xxiv, 89.
we Ls th dey Fj oes
The Elements of Extreme Unction 69
decreed by the Codex Remigio-Remensis *° are very numerous
and interesting. The oil was to be applied
A still greater number of unctions was prescribed by the Codex
Siculus, the ancient ordo of Salzburg. Not only the five senses
were designated, but also the head, neck, throat, breast, heart,
shoulder-blades, feet, the place of pain and all joints.*” A huge
number of anointings was also commanded by the ‘‘Liber Sacra-
mentorum’’ of St. Gatian of Tours.?8 Crosses of oil were to be
made ‘‘in collo, in gutture, et inter scapulas, et in pectore, et
in quinque sensibus corporis, in genibus quoque, et in eruribus,
suris, pedibus ac plantis, et pene in omnibus membris, seu in
illo loco ubi dolor plus imminet.’’
In the Church of Noyon?® nine unctions were made, viz.,
upon the five senses, the neck, the throat, the shoulders and the
breast. To these nine the Codex Ecclesiae Floriacensis * added
another unction, ‘‘ad cerebrum.’’ All ten plus an additional
unction of the place of pain are given by the Codex Cl. V.
Domini Desmarais.**
In Soissons the five senses were anointed together with the
breast, shoulder-blades and feet; and the unction of the ears
preceded that of the eyes.32
The very same places of unction were noted in the Missale
Romaricense®? but the order in which the unctions were to be
made was slightly different. To these unctions the Pontifical of
Sens34 adds that of the throat, while the Ritual of Beauvais*®
adds both the neck and the throat.
The Pontifical of Amiens®* omits the unction of the lips, but
adds to those of the other four senses the anointments of the
throat, breast and feet. The Ritual of the Church of St. Mary
of Rheims3? prescribed crosses of oil for the crown of the head,
26 Launoi, Op. Omnia, t. I, p. 575.
27 Martene, De Antig. Eccl. Rit., 1. 1, ¢. 7, a. 4, Ordo XII.
28 Martene, l.c., Ordo III.
29 Martene, l.c., Ordo X.
80 Martene, l.c., Ordo XXI.
81 Martene, l.c., Ordo XXIII.
82 Martene, l.c., Ordo XIII.
83 Martene, l.c., Ordo XIV.
84 Martene, l.c., Ordo XV.
35 Martene, ].c., Ordo XVII.
36 Martene, l.c., Ordo XXIV.
87 Martene, l.c., Ordo VIII.
70 Extreme Unction
the eyes, ears, nose, lips and feet, thus omitting the hands;
whereas the Church of St. Mary Magdalen near Le Mans?8 or-
dered, besides the unction of the five senses, an unction of the
feet and of the navel. In Cambrai the lips were not mentioned,
but there were many unctions none the less. Here the crown of
the head, the forehead, both temples, the face, the eyes, the ears,
the nose, the throat, the neck, between the shoulder-blades, be-
tween the breasts, the hands, the feet and the navel or place of
pain, were assigned for unction.®®
The Pontifical of Emesa in Syria? ordered the unction of
the five senses, then added the announcement: ‘‘Juxta consue-
tudinem quorundum ungitur in pectore ... similiter et in
umbilico,’’ and finally directs the unction of the feet. Priests
in Chalons-sur-Marne were instructed by their Ritual‘! to anoint
the eyes, the ears, the nose, the shoulder-blades (‘‘super sca-
pulas, non in pectore neque inter scapulas’’) the hands and the
feet. Yet those who followed the Ritual of the Monastery of
Movisacensis** anointed, in addition to the five senses and the
neck and the throat, the very places which the Ritual of Cha-
lons forbade, viz., the breast and ‘‘inter scapulas.’’
The Ritual of Verdun** surprisingly omits the unction of
the nose, and prescribes anointments for the neck, the throat,
the place of pain and the head. A similar occurrence is found in the famous
Codex Renuigio-Remensis.*®
Mixed forms occur in several of the rituals. Thus the
Sacramentary of Gregory®’ has an indicative and an optative
element in the composition of its form. The Ritual of Soissons®®
prescribes a form partly indicative, partly imperative. A thir-
teenth century rite, used in the Church of St. Lawrence at
Milan,®® reveals a form partly indicative, partly imperative and
partly optative. The Pontifical of Prudentius of Troyes®® has
a form whose character is partly indicative, partly optative and
partly deprecatory.
These are but a few of the different forms which actually
have been used in the course of the centuries. They are enough,
however, to prove that the forms have differed as much as the
places of unction.
The present canon does not declare the validity or invalid-
ity of any of them. It simply binds every priest to the use of
his own ritual, be it Roman, Ambrosian, diocesan or monastic.
On the point Benedict XIV wrote: ‘‘Injungendum est parochis
ut formam adhibeant in Rituali praescriptam, quae certe sine
gravi flagitio, non potest privata auctoritate immutari.’”?
Whether a Greek priest, guilty of using a valid form other
than that prescribed by his rite, would violate this canon is
84 anno 1596, Launoi, op. cit., p. 519.
85 Launoi, op. cit., p. 483-4.
86 Launoi, op. cit., p. 489-90.
from, PF; ., 78, 235.
88 anno 1530, Launoi, op. cit., p. d15.
89 Magistretti, Manuale Ambrosianum, t. I, p. 147 38.
90 Martene, De Antig. Rit. Eccl., lib. 1, ¢. 7, a. 4.
91 De Syn. Dioc., 1. 8, c. 2.
76 Extreme Unction
hard to say. It might possibly be argued that this canon treats
of a matter which of its nature affects Orientals.°* The differ-
ent terminology used in this canon and in Canon 2 is also
worthy of note. Canon 2 speaks of ‘‘libri liturgici ab Ecclesia
Latina probati;’’ whereas this canon uses the phrase *‘in rl-
tualibus libris ab Ecclesia probatis.’’? It is evident that the lat-
ter phrase is wider in scope, at least prima facie, than the
former.
92 Canon 1.
CHAPTER III.
THE MINISTER
OF EXTREME UNCTION
CANON 938.
1. Hoc sacramentum valide administrat omnis et
solus sacerdos.
2. Salvo praescripto can. 397, n. 3, 514, 1-3, minister
ordinarius est parochus loci, in quo degit infirmus; in
casu autem necessitatis, vel de licentia saltem rationabi-
liter praesumpta ejusdem parochi vel Ordinarii loci, alius
quilibet sacerdos hoc sacramentum ministrare potest.
ean
a * >
,"
¥ |
i { ‘,
; q
: *
A \ a
-
3 = :
= s
-s i
4 lor ord A. 27 9r ,
3 7% duo mn ch Ao J
> 9%
¥ ¢ ; 1 | , y¥ 7 2
; 4 U ’ s = & a
© j 1 q , J ee
. ) yd Le
= ]
. as
24. Paw i fA4A7
? sf 4 aetrens = ay rarz x
1 i : 2 sa PR Se Re! Me ti oS 8 hs 54: vee 30k a Tey
‘ zobisen
4 > ¢ we d i. ye ‘
> j - 3 - a / RED ofqriaes $d ae ove
re dl a
lovtitey Titeb ovp 1 doo annooise Tee ieee
’ S x }
: ¢ 4 st '‘ ce 7 < at le EAs i Sa + reps ay te 4
; PH. Mi Be i ML 9h) 28 mist deégagegi ae
% an z LOG} fi “eer ty tes WIV [SOG choked et reg ehrad
i?
rots 1208
Ry SLE TAL Aor. 206 OG? oi}
j i
)
ae
j
i]
5
i at
% (
;
4
* 4
il! {
»* . |
i. - /
;
J : % Heh
‘ }
] 4A
: " . 4 i pd
. hia ey
' ; &
, ‘ ‘
Ns Ja'vVe
i) iy *id if ¢
- ‘ i ~ ie : es
a4 , A u sh | Sa \ .
é “%\ 5 é a «
eee
CHAPTER ITI.
I. Tae Vauip MINISTER
Hoc sacramentum valide administrat omnis et solus sacerdos.
This paragraph enshrines a dogma of our faith. The Coun-
ceil of Trent has anathematized those who teach any other doc-
trine. In Sess. XIV, De Ext. Unct., can. 4, the Sacred Synod
declared: ‘‘Si quis dixerit presbyteros Ecclesiae, quos B. Jaco-
bus adducendos esse ad infirmum ungendum hortatur, non esse
sacerdotes ab episcopo ordinatos, sed aetate seniores in quavis
communitate ; ob idque proprium Extremae Unctionis ministrum
non esse solum sacerdotem, A. 8.’’
Even as early as the year 416 there was some doubt as to
the capability of priests to administer this sacrament. Pope
Innocent I dispelled this doubt in his letter to Decentius, the
Bishop of Eugubinus.! ‘‘Ceterum illud,’’ he wrote, ‘‘super-
fluum videmus adjectum ut de episcopo ambigatur ; quod presby-
teris licere non dubium est. Nam ideireo de presbyteris dic-
tum est, quia episcopi oceupationibus aliis impediti, ad omnes
languidos ire non possunt.’’ Origen had even before that an-
cient date borne witness to the very same interpretation of St.
James’ ‘‘presbyteri;’”* and the identical exegesis was rendered
also by St. Chrysostom.’
In the early centuries the controversy waged about whether
the rite of unction was solely an episcopal function or not. Such
questions probably arose from the fact that in those ages Bishops
very often did confer the last rites of the Church. Many his-
torical documents tell of actual anointings by Bishops. E. g.,
Charlemagne was anointed by a bishop; St. Adalard was like-
wise honored (as St. Gerard wrote in the Life of that saint) ;
the Empress Mathilda received Extreme Unction from Arch-
bishop Willelmus; Ferdinand the King of Spain (Castile) was
1 Ep., ‘‘ Si instituta ecclesiastica,’’ cap. 8—C. I. C. Fontes, No. 19.
2 Homilia II in Leviticum, M. P. G., 12, 418B.
3 De Sacerdotio, lib, III, sect. 6—M. P. G., 48, 644.
[19]
80 Extreme Unction
attended by a Bishop, etc. Moreover the ancient rituals de-
clared that if a Bishop were present, the rite of unction was
his privilege.©5 Durandus® discusses the impropriety of being
later anointed by a priest, when one has been anointed by a
Bishop.
Several particular Councils vindicated to priests the power
to anoint. E. g., the Council of Chalons-sur-Saone (813) pre-
scribed: ‘‘Secundum beati Jacobi apostoli documentum, cui
etiam documenta patrum consentiunt, infirmi oleo, quod ab
episcopis benedicitur, a presbyteris ungi debent.’’? Other
councils, as those of Aachen, (836),° Magonza (847),° and Pa-
via (850),!° legislated in a similar vein.”
In later years the pendulum swung dangerously near the
heretical end of the are of theological thought, when Thomas
Netter, a Carmelite of Walden,!* denied the necessity of the
presence of Orders in the minister for the valid confection of
this sacrament. Jaunoi!® trespassed beyond the hedge-rows of
Catholic dogma in his contention that deacons, in case of nec-
essity could, with the Bishop’s permission, administer this sacra-
ment. He defended his opinion on the ground that, since a
deacon could administer Viaticum and, as was widely thought
in the Middle Ages, receive confessions, he could also administer
Extreme Unction. However the constant and insistent declara-
tions of the Church, demanding the sacerdotality of the minis-
ter, and the remarkable clarity of the text of St. James ** ef-
fected the prevention of any notable discussion on this important
matter.
Church legislation and instruction in this regard abounds.
The Corpus Juris Canonici contained not only the letter of
Innocent I,1° but also a decision of Alexander III’® which
4 Of. Catalano, Rit. Rom., t. I, p. 323.
5 Martene, De Antiq. Ecc. Rit., 1. I, «. 7, a. 4 (Ordo XII).
6 Rationale Dw. Officiorum, 1. I, ¢. 8, n. 25.
7 Can. 48—Harduin IV, 1040.
8 Cap. II, can. 5—Harduin IV, 1397.
9 Harduin V, 13.
10 Harduin V, 27.
11 Cf. Hurter, Th. D. Comp., III, p. 479.
12 Doct. Antiq. Fidei, t. II, c. 163, n. 3.
13 Op. Omnia, t. I, p. 569, observ. II.
14 Cf. supra, chap. I, sect. II, p. 8 sqq.
18 ©. 3, D, XCV.
16 ©, 14, X, de verb. siguf., V, 40.
The Minister of Extreme Unctron 81
teaches, at least implicitly, the necessity of ministry by a priest.
Eugene IV, in his Constitution ‘‘Hzultate Deo,’’* stated:
‘‘Minister hujus sacramentum est sacerdos.’’ Soon after came
the declaration of the Council of Trent, only to be followed by
an order of Benedict XIV!8 forbidding pastors to send the holy
oils to the sick for self-unction.
Despite such an imposing array of decisions and defini-
tions, D. A. Boudinhon, as late as 1905, was bold enough to
declare in the ‘‘Revue Catholique des Eglises’’ 1° that lay people
could not only anoint one another but also their very selves, on
the alleged ground that such was. the custom of the patristic
ages. He seems to have overlooked entirely the definition of
Trent, declaring ‘‘proprium Ext. Unct. ministrum esse solum
sacerdotem.’’ The force of ‘‘proprium’’ here has been held
by positive and scholastic theologians*® to be equivalent to
‘‘solum;’’ and consequently that it is de fide that priests alone
ean administer this sacrament. Their conclusion is reénforced
by a comparison of the language of the Council of Trent on
the minister of Confirmation. The Council”! did not call the
bishop the minister ‘‘proprius’’ of Confirmation, but the min-
ister ‘‘ordinarius.’’ Thus allowance was made for the delega-
tion to a priest of the power to administer that sacrament. No
such deduction is possible from the language of the Council
with regard to the minister of Extreme Unction.
Neither has the argument much weight which holds that,
since Extreme Unction has matter already consecrated, it can
like the Eucharist be validly administered by anybody. In the
first place, administration of the Eucharist is not its confection,
whereas administration of Extreme Unction includes its confec-
tion. Indeed, many theologians have held that the very fact
17 Nov. 22, 1439, paragr. 14—C. I. C. Fontes, No. 52.
18 Const. ‘‘Ex quo,’’ March 1, 1756, paragr. 47—C. I. C. Fontes, No. 438.
19 July, 1905, vol. II, p. 401, sqq.; cf. also ‘‘Canontste Contemp.,’’ vol.
XXX (1907), p. 643 sqq.
20 E.g., cf. Suarez, disp. 43, s. 1, n. 2; Nugnus, in Suppl. S. Thom., q. 31,
a, 2; Gonet, Clyp. Theol. Thomist., t. VI, de Ext. Unct., dis. 3, a. 2,
paragr. 14, p. 716; Mastrius, Th. M., disp. 22, qu. 6, a. I; Frassen,
De Sac. E. U., disp. 3, q. 3, con. 2; Sylv. Maurus, t. III, q. 260;
Drouven, De Re Sacr., 1. 7, q. 4, ¢. 2; Sasse, De Sacr., t. II, p. 264;
Gihr, Die hl. Sakramente, t. II, p. 294; Pohle-Preuss, The Sacra-
ments, vol. IV, p. 38; Heimbucher, Die hl. Olung, p. 240; Tanquerey,
Th. D., III, p. 545.
21 Sess. VII, De Confirmatione, can. 3.
82 Extreme Unction
that the matter has been consecrated is a reason for the need of
a consecrated minister.22
There are three patristic texts which on first face seem to
afford a basis for Boudinhon’s contention. The first is from
the much-quoted letter of Innocent I: ‘‘Non est dubium quod
de fidelibus aegrotantibus accipi vel intelligi debere, qui sancto
oleo chrismatis perungi possunt; quo ab episcopo confecto, non
solum sacerdotibus sed omnibus uti Christianis licet in sua aut
suorum necessitate inungendo.’’23
Divorced from its context, this quotation seems rather con-
vineing; but a review of the entire epistle will furnish the
correct impression that the doubt decided by Innocent was not
whether or not the ministration of this sacrament might be ex-
tended to the laity, but rather whether it was an exclusively
episcopal function or not. Decentius questioned even the validity
of priestly unction, and hence there was no query at all about
the capability of laymen in the matter. The word ‘‘uti’’ is
used in a passive sense, i. e., ‘‘uti licet,’? sed ministerio sacer-
dotum.** Some authors* maintain that an official and a private
use of the oil has been distinguished by the Pope—and that,
consequently, the unction, when private, was merely a sacra-
mental, while the official unction was a sacrament whose admin-
istration was reserved to bishops and priests. The Pope in no
way—as is deducible from the mention of ‘‘priests’’ in the
passage—considered the unction by laymen as identical with
that of the Jacobean rite, but at most he regarded it as a devo-
tional use of the oil, probably for charismatic purposes. To
understand this text in a causative way, i. e., that the laity
should have the oil at hand so as to insure anointment by
priests is not impossible, nor altogether irrational. It does seem
however to have a foreed, unnatural meaning; for we have an
abundance of evidence declaring the charismatic and devotional
use of the holy oils by the laity in the early centuries.2* Schell
22 Cf. St. Bonaventure, Comm. in. lib. quarti Sent., dist. xxiii, a. II, qu. I.
23 Ep. ‘‘Si instituta ecclestastica,’? 19 Mar. 416, cap. 8, M. P. L., 20, 559;
also C. I. C. Fontes, No. 19,
24 Cf. Hurter, Th. D. Comp., III, p. 478, footnote 1.
25 Cf. ecb i The Sacraments, IV, p. 14; Bord, L’Eatréme Onction,
p. 102.
26 Cf. 8. Thom. Aquin., Suppl., q. 31, a. 1 ad 2.
The Mimster of Extreme Unction 83
suggests another explanation:*’ The Pope’s decision is prob-
ably to be understood as applying to a sort of unction by desire
in case if necessity (an analogue of lay confession), manifest-
ing the patient’s good will to do what is in his power.?8
St. Eligius, bishop of Noyon (640-59), in his treatise ‘‘De
Rectitudine Catholicae Conversationis,’’ wrote: ‘‘Qui aegrotat
in sola Dei misericordia confidat, et Eucharistiam corporis et
sanguinis Christi cum fide et devotione accipiat, oleumque bene-
dictum fideliter ab Ecclesia petat, unde corpus swum in nomine
Christi wngat et secundum Apostolum oratio fidei salvabit in-
firmum et alleviabit eum Dominus,’’ ete.?9
This text loses all corroboration of Boudinhon’s contention
when it realized not only that many manuscripts read ‘‘unga-
tur’’ instead of ‘‘ungat,’’ but also that the custom of the Greek
language often allowed the use of the active form in a passive
sense. St. Eligius was speaking of the anointment ‘‘in nomine
Christi’’ and ‘‘secundum Apostolum.’’ Hence he referred to
the unetion performed as the Apostle prescribed, i. e., by
priests. Moreover, it was not infrequent for the Greeks to speak
of the subject in the active voice (6 roay, 6 ronoas 76 ebxێdaLor)
or in the middle voice (6 érakerWapevos), All these conspire to
show that St. Eligius was speaking of the reception rather than
of the administration of this sacrament.®°
The third text is a very ancient one whose author was prob-
ably St. Caesar of Arles. It reads thus:* ‘‘Quoties aliqua in-
firmitas supervenerit, corpus et sanguinem Christi ille qui aegro-
tat accipiat; et inde corpusculum suum ungat ut illud, quod
scriptum est, impletur in eo: ‘Infirmatur aliquis, inducat pres-
byteros et orent super eum, ungentes eum oleo’ ... Videte
fratres, quia qui in infirmitate ad Eeclesiam cucurrerit, et cor-
poris sanitatem recipere et peccatorum indulgentiam merebitur
obtinere.’’
The very arguments that have been advanced against the
other texts are of the same avail here. It is clear that a passive
27 Kath. Dogmatik, III (II Teil), 623.
28 Cf. Pohle-Preuss, The Sacraments, IV, p. 41-42.
29 n. 5—M. P. L., 40, 1178.
30 Cf. Kern, Tract. de Ext. Unct., pp. 16-17.
81 Serm. CCLXV, in app. Serm. S. August—M. P. L., 39, 2238; cfr.
Revue Benedictine, vol. XIII (1898), p. 209; Revue d’histoire et de
litterature religieuses, vol. X (1905), p. 606.
84 Extreme Unction
sense must be given to ‘‘ungat’’ in this quotation. How could
an unction by one’s own self fulfill in anyway the precept,
‘‘Infirmatur aliquis ... inducat presbyteros ... et orent super
eum, ungentes ewm oleo?”’
It is inescapable therefore that the sacerdotality of the
minister in Extreme Unction is absolutely essential for the valid
confection of this sacrament. ‘‘Hoc sacramentum valide admin-
istrat .. . solus sacerdos.’’
The Canon reads however—‘‘omnis et solus sacerdos.’’ The
seope of ‘‘omnis’’ is in no way circumscribed or qualified. Hence
it follows that excommunicated, suspended, interdicted and de-
graded priests are included. The valid administration of the
sacrament is a function of Orders—and the power of Orders
is not destroyed by any fulminations of the Church.
A priest, however, cannot anoint himself, as Clericatus
holds.32 His stand is based mainly on three arguments: 1)
Since it is not repugnant in a case of necessity for a physician to
cure himself of a bodily illness, neither is it repugnant for the
priest, as spiritual physician, to apply this spiritual medicine
to his own soul when it is sick. 2) Qui potest plus, potest etiam
et minus. It is permitted to a priest to administer to himself,
outside of Mass, the Holy Eucharist, when there is no other
priest or deacon present, even for devotion’s sake. Consequently
it is lawful for a priest to administer to himself Extreme Unce-
tion, especially in case of extreme necessity. 3) In Matrimony
the ministers and the subjects are the same persons. Hence,
since there is no repugnance in the fact that the ministers are
identical with the subjects, in case of Extreme Unction he who
administers can be he who receives.
These arguments are groundless. In the first place, eccle-
siastical history adduces few, if any, examples of a priest admin-
istering the sacrament to himself. This is a clear indication
that there is in the Church a firm persuasion, derived from
Tradition, that a priest. cannot impart to himself the aids of
Unction any more than he can give himself sacramental abso-
lution. Furthermore, since Extreme Unction is the comple-
ment of Penance, and since a priest cannot administer Penance
32 Decisiones Sacramentales, ‘‘De Ext. Unct.,’’ dee. 75.
The Minister of Extreme Unction 85
to himself, the presumption is against his capability of anoint-
ing himself.
Again, it is not true to assert that the administration of
Communion is a greater thing than to anoint, for in the admin-
istration of Communion there is no confection of a sacrament.
There is simply the application of a sacrament already confected,
an application permitted even to lay people in the times of the
persecutions. With regard to Matrimony, it can be replied
that the spouses do not administer the sacrament to themselves,
but rather to one another.
There is a certain incongruity in the case of one anointing
himself. There does not seem to be the fulfillment of the cir-
eumstances that the Jacobean text considers. One can hardly
summon himself, pray over himself, and do the various other
things connoted or presupposed by the Jacobean text.23 More-
over, Baptism, though of maximum importance, eannot be ad-
ministered to one’s self; and finally the sacrament of orders
is not in bonum privatum, but rather propter utilitatem fidelrum
—it is a grace gratis data not for one’s own sanctification, but
for co-operation in the justification of others.
There has been a specific decree of the Congregation for
the Propagation of the Faith on this very point. On March
23, 1844, it declared ‘‘inspectis ipsis divini eloquii verbis, vel
facile patet, sacramentum Extremae Unctionis etiam in casu
necessitatis, absente nimirum alio presbytero, non posse mis-
sionarium aegrotantem sibi metipsi ministrare.’’*4
‘‘Omnis sacerdos.”’
An inspection of the rituals of the Greek and Western
Churches will reveal a difference in regard to the number of
the priests required for the administration of this sacrament.
Likewise the text of St. James speaks of ‘‘priests’’ while this
canon uses the singular number. How are these. seeming essen-
tial discrepancies to be explained?
The solution of the problem lies in the interpretation of
the words ‘‘inducat presbyteros ecclesiae.’’? Many explanations
have been attempted. Berti®® argues that the expression 13
83 Cf, Diana, Op. Coord., t. II, tr. IV, res. 39.
84 Ferraris, Prompta Biblioth., Suppl., v. ‘“Hat. Uncttio,’’ n. 4.
85 De Theol. Discip., t. VIII, ‘‘De Ext. Unct.,’’ 1. 35, ¢. 8.
86 Extreme Unction
figurative (enallage) and hence in reality only one priest is
meant. The objection to such a solution is not only that it is
difficult to show from the context but also that it would involve
the condemnation of the Oriental mode of administration. Peter
Dens*® and Tanquerey®? improve somewhat on the explanation
of Berti by holding that the plural is used here so as to include
the singular number—an idiom not too rare in Scripture. E. g.,
Luke xvii, 14: ‘‘Ite, ostendite vos sacerdotibus,’’ whereas by
Leviticus, xiv, 2, we know that presentation of one’s self to one
priest was sufficient.?° Similarly, these theologians assert, St.
James did not wish to exclude the administration of the unc-
tion by a single priest, if more priests were not obtainable.
A better explanation can be given by examining the original
text. When St. James wrote “‘rpocxadecdcbw rods mpeoBurépovs
Ths éxxdnotas,’’ he was speaking to men of his own time.
Side by side with larger cities, where a bishop was encir-
cled by many priests to aid him in his duties, there lay small
towns, where the bishop alone, or even a presbyter, discharged
personally all the sacerdotal functions. James wrote his epistle
to the Catholic world, not to any particular city, or nation or
people. Hence when he advised the sick to call in ‘‘the priests
of the church,’’ he meant the priests of the sick man’s own
parish church, whether it be the bishop alone or the presbyter
alone or the bishop with his priests. Suppose, e. g., that St.
James had said, ‘‘Inducat medicos loci.’’ It would be imme-
diately clear that the apostle was recommending the use of the
medical art, and therefore was insinuating that according to
the locality one or several physicians were to be summoned.
Thus, too, the apostolic mandate of summoning spiritual physi-
clans can be regarded.
There is no solid basis to the contention that the text de-
mands that several priests be summoned in every case. It does
not read rpocxaderacbw évious tpeaBurépous but robs per Burépous
Ths exxAnotas, Accordingly the sacrament would be rightly ad-
ministered by a bishop, by a priest or by several priests. The
number of priests ‘‘non spectat ad valorem’’—and one priest
36 Theol. Mech., De Ext. Unct., n. 7, p. 45.
ST Thali, LI 7o2a.
88 Cf. also Matt. 11, 20; xxvii, 44 & 48; Marc., xv, 36; Joan. xix, 29, for
similar examples.
The Mwmster of Extreme Unction 87
is eminently sufficient. Hence it is within the power of the
Church to define ‘‘pro dwersitate temporuwm et locorum’’ the
number of priests to be employed in this sacramental function.
In fact the Church actually exercised this right when she de-
fined the Western practice of using but one priest in the admin-
istration of Extreme Unction.*?
This view is confirmed by a clear and consistent Tradition.
From the days of the great Fathers there has been in the
Church a firm persuasion that one priest could validly and
licitly administer this sacrament. For instance, Callinicius, in
relating the life of St. Hypatius (366-446) ,4° after a descrip-
tion of the charity of the saint toward the sick, continues: ‘‘Si
vero necessitas suaderet, infirmum oleo inungi debere monebat
abbatem, qui presbyter erat (jv Nap mpecBurépos) et cura-
bat ab ipso perfici unctionem.’’ Cassiodorus** and Isaac of
Antioch*? also speak of the minister in the singular number.
Similarly a large number of the rituals of antiquity make pro-
vision for but one minister, certifying by actual practice the
belief of that time.*? In the year 1175, Alexander III made an
official pronouncement, afterwards incorporated into the decre-
tals of Gregory IX :*4 ‘‘Sacerdos, uno praesenti clerico, et etiam
solus, potest infirmum ungere.’’ Later Benedict XIV declared oe
‘(Nee refert utrum eadem Extrema Unctio per unum vel plures
presbyteros fiat, ubi hujusmodi viget consuetudo; dummodo
39 Cfr. Kern, Tract. De Ext. Unct., p. 256; Toner, in the Cath. Encyc.,
art., ‘‘ Ext. Unction’’; Pohle-Preuss, The Sacraments, vol. IV, p. 42.
40 Acta SS., 17 June, t. IV, p. 251.
41 Complex. in Epp. App., ‘‘ Ep. S. Jacobi ad Dispersos,’’ n. IL; ‘*Si quis
alterius pracgravatur injuria vel corporis imbecillitate quassatur,
presbyterum dicit adhibendum, qui oratione fideli et olei sancti pe-
runctione concessa salvet eum.’’ (M. P. L., 70, 1380.)
42 ‘‘Sacerdotem visitatorem non probatum habent stultae ideoque signa-
tionem contemnunt ... At potius, 0 mulier, donum quidem tribue
recluso, sed signationem a sacerdote tuo accipe, Servi Christi...
afferre solent aegrotos et infirmos ad sanctum altare, non autem
ipsi oleum conficere audent .. . sed ubi sacerdos regens est plebem,
observant ordines justitiae’’ (Bickell, S. Isaaci Antiochent Opera
Omnia, p. I, page 187).
43 Cf. Martene, De Antig. Ecc. Rit. 1. 1, cap. VII, a. 4 (Ordines XII,
XXVIII, XXIX); Sacramentarium Gregorianum (ed. by Menard)—
M. P. L., 78, 225D; ‘‘Ordo ad visitandum vel Perungendum In-
firmum’’ (Mozarabic rite)—Monumenta Ecclesiae Liturgiae (ed. by
Cabrol et Leclerq), vol. V, p. 71.
44 C. 14, X, de verb. signif., V, 40.
45 Const. ‘‘Htsi pastoralis,’’? 26 Maii, 1742, paragr. V, n. III—C. I. C.
Fontes, n. 328.
88 Extreme Unction
eredant et asserant illud sacramentum, servata debita forma et
materia, ab uno presbytero valide et licite confici.’’
On the other hand, there is nothing to prevent the valid
and licit administration of this sacrament by several priests.
Since St. James used the plural, it is manifestly commendable
that all the priests of the sick man’s church perform the sacra-
mental rite. Hence where there is no positive law on the subject
promulgated by the Church for special exigencies, several
priests may validly and licitly perform the unction.
This is the unswerving conviction of tradition. Old sacra-
mentaries of the Latin Church reveal the plurality of ministers
for this sacrament.*® Martene’s collection’? furnishes striking
corroboration of this fact. Some Greek theologians*® have so
insisted on a plurality of ministers as to declare that an admin-
istration by less than three priests was positively invalid.
The antiquity of the rite can be deduced from the prac-
tice of the Orientals who separated from the Church in the
fifth and sixth centuries. Denziger write: ‘‘Orientales sep-
tem sacerdotes regulariter huic officio impendere solent vel, si
pon adsint, quinque vel tres, vel si opus sit, etiam unum.’’*?
The ritual of the Greeks united with Rome has not been
without the sanction of ecclesiastical authority. The provin-
cial council of the Ruthenians, held in 1720 at Zamos, enacte¢
this decree: ‘‘Quamquam in graeca Ecclesia receptum fuerit,
prout aliquando etiam in Latina, ut septem sacerdotes, lisque
deficientibus tres saltem advocarentur ad ministrandum hoe
sacramentum, iique omnes et materiam subministrarent et for-
mam proferrent, sciant tamen pastores, plures ea de causa
adhiberi solitos sacerdotes, tum ob reverentiam ejusdem ac
gratiae copiam, quam confert, tum ut plurium sacerdotum preces
effectum sacramenti coadjuvent. Qua de causa S. Synodus
statuendum censet, ut si septem aut tres sacerdotes haberi com-
mode non possint, unus, qui totius Ecclesiae personam gerit,
46 Cf. Catalano, Rit. Rom., t. I, p. 325; Sacramentarwwm Gregorianum,
lc.; Acta S. Chrotildis, cap. iii, n. 19—Acta SS., June 3, vol. I,
Pp: 2915 Ug S. Hunegundi, cap. iii, n. 20—Acta. SS., Aug. 25, vol.
47 Mee ae Ordines XII, XIX.
48 Cf. Symeon of Thess., ‘‘De Sacro Ritu Sancti Olet,’’ c, 288—M. P. G.,
155, 518B.
49 Rit. Orient., t. I, p. 188.
The Minister of Extreme Unction 89
ex cujus virtute hoc sacramentum perficit, illud conferat ac
infirmo ministret.’°° A few years later this legislation was
ratified by Benedict XIII in his constitution ‘‘Apostolatus of-
ficium.’”**! The quotation given on the preceding page from the
constitution ‘‘Etsi pastoralis’’ of Benedict XIV asserts this in
similar fashion. Hence it becomes obvious that the difference
in number of priests administering this sacrament is merely
disciplinary, and can be regulated by legislation of the Church.
Today one priest is used in the Latin Church. The Roman
Ritual leaves place for but a single minister.°? The Greeks
demand seven priests, if so many are obtainable. Otherwise
they are content with five, three or one. The reason why seven
are generally employed is said by some to be on account of
Extreme Unction’s destructive powers against the seven capital
sins, by others because of the mystic meaning of the number
seven in Scripture, by still others because it corresponds to
the number of organs anointed in the Greek ceremony. Many
other fanciful reasons have been adduced by Greek devotional
writers. For instance, Mesoloras tell us:°? ‘O dpiOuos exra
avénvabev fro terds - - Exta tuepar, erra éBdopades, ETTAPWTOS
Nuxvia, ErTa uvoThpia, ete. Symeon of Thessalonica®* gives as
the reason the analogy between the effect of Extreme Unction
and the command of God, in the prophecy of Isaias, that seven
priests should stand before the walls of Jericho and blow a trum-
pet seven times. When this was done, the walls of that city fell
to the ground. In Extreme Unction seven priests anoint seven
times, the walls of sin fall down, and make possible the entrance
of the anointed into the holy city.
The reason why the Latin Church restricts the office of
Unction to only one priest is no mystical one. Benedict Lvs
sorrowfully ascribes it to the sacrilegious avarice of priests of
the Middle Ages. They demanded a high stipend for their
work, with the result that many poor died without the sacra-
ment. Yet others are not so harsh against the memory of these
50 Tit. III, paragr. 6, De Ext. Unct.—Coll. Lac., t. H, p. 38.
81 July 19, 1724—Coll. Lac. t. II, p. 2 sqq.
52 Tit. V, cap. 2.
53 PEyxeplovoy p. 220.
54 De Sacro Ritu Sancti Olet, c. 288—M. P. G., 155, 515, 518.
55 De Syn. Dioc. 1. viii, ¢. 4, n. 6
90 Extreme Unction
priests. Kern’® attributes it to a rather widespread custom
in the Western Church. In testimony of this he points to
Martene, who found in thirty old Ordines only three which
require the sacramental co-operation of several priests. The
origin of such a custom can be assigned to many causes: the
lack of priests in rural districts; cases of necessity which fre-
quently occurred and usually demanded an exception; the fre-
quent interference of other business, thus preventing the attend-
ance of some of the priests at the ceremony; the desire of
uniformity in ministering to the sick; and perhaps even the
cooling of fervor. The consequence was the gradual vanish-
ment of the practice of having several ministers when admin-
istering the last rites.
Just a few words need be said about the rite when admin-
istered by several priests. There are many possible ways. All
may anoint each member at the same time and say the form in
unison; all may anoint the same member at one time, while
only one says the form; all may say the form while only one
anoints; all may simultaneously anoint, each anointing a sepa-
rate member and saying the proper form for that particular
member. Without a doubt all these methods of unction are
valid, for the essentials have been placed by the priests as by
one moral person.
There are however two questionable modes of unction.
First, the sacramental rite may be so divided that, while some
anoint silently, the others recite the form without anointing.
Menard’? and Martene®® hold that this manner of anointing
the sick has been prescribed in some ancient rituals. To con-
fer the sacrament in this way has been denounced by Benedict
XIV°® very vehemently. Many theologians® consequently think
that this procedure is invalid. Nevertheless a more benign view
would admit a distinction in this ease. It is too cruel to hold
that for centuries several rites, perhaps even the Roman Church,
did not validly confer Extreme Unction. Since the several
56 Tract. de Ext. Unct., p. 254.
DUNN DP i iiestooo Sad:
68 De Ant. Ecc. Rit., 1. I, cap. 7, a. 4, Ord. III, IV, V; also ef. Leeda
paragr. 4; Catalano, Rit. Rom., t, I Kis 0 333.
59 Const. “! Etsi pastoralis,’’ May 26, 1742—Coll. Lac. 4.10, Lie
C. I. C. Fontes, No. 328.
60 P, Dens, Theol. Mech., ‘De Ext. Unet.,’’ p. 44.
The Mimster of Extreme Unction on
priests are morally one person constituting in the name of
Christ and the Church the sacramental minister of the Unction,
it is hard to prove beyond the possibility of doubt that the
sacrament is thus invalidly confected—provided, of course, the
form be not given a false meaning. Whence it can be concluded
that in the absolutely extraordinary case, where only two priests
are present, one without hands, the other without speech, it is
not prohibited that they should administer Extreme Unction, at
least sub conditione, by having one priest say the form while
the other anoints with oil.
The second mode of unction called into question is that
used in some places by the Greeks of today. In conferring the
EKuchelaion each priest separately and successively goes thru
the various unctions, with their corresponding forms. Such a
formula is, of course, certainly valid, but the question arises:
What does the second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh
priests’ actions avail? Is the sacrament conferred seven times
or only once? Since this involves the question of iterability in
the same danger of death, the reader is referred to the dis-
cussion on that point which has been considered in the first
Chapter (cf. page 51 sqq.). This will also be treated later under
Canon 940, § 2.
In the Roman Church today it is generally held that one
priest alone must be employed in the performance of the actual
sacramental rite in the administration of Extreme Unction, ex-
cept in ease of necessity. Such a contingency would arise if
the patient were so near to death that the unctions could not
be completed by one priest before the sick man’s demise. In
such a case it would indeed be allowable to proceed under Canon
947, paragraph 1, and to use a single unction with a general
form, but such a procedure is not obligatory, if several priests
are present who can perform by simultaneous actions the sacra-
mental rite completely.°? Another case of necessity would occur
if a priest swooned, was stricken with paralysis or died after
61 Cf, Kern, Tract. de Ext. Unct., p. 264.
62 Diana, Op. Coord., t. II, tr. IV, res. 22; Suarez, disp. 43, s. 2, n. 5;
S. Alph., Th. M., VI, 724; D’Annibale, Summ. Th. M., III, 417;
Elbel-Bierbaum, Th. M., Pars VIII, conf. X, n. 217; Kenrick,
Th. M., IMI, ‘‘De Eat. Unct.,’’ cap. unic., n. 8; Noldin, De Sac.,
438 b; Tanquerey, Th. D., III, 792.
92 Extreme Unction
commencing the unctions and before their completion. A sec-
ond priest may then finish the rite, provided that there be a
moral unity between the breaking off and the continuance of
the unctions. Hence if a space of fifteen minutes or more has
elapsed, the safer way is to repeat the entire sacrament.®8
II. Tue Licir MINISTER
2. “Salvo praescripto can. 397, n. 3, 514, 1-3, minster ordt-
narius est parochus loci in quo degit infirmus; im casu
autem necessitatis, vel de licentia saltem rationabiliter
praesumpta ejusdem parochi vel Ordinarii loci, alius
quilibet sacerdos hoc sacramentum mimstrare potest.’’
Logically enough the Code proceeds within the confines of
the same Canon from a consideration of the valid minister of
this sacrament to that of its lawful minister. This paragraph
definitely determines whose right and whose obligation it is to
administer the sacrament of the dying. It is a corroboration
and repetition of n. 3 of Canon 462, where the ministration of
Extreme Unction is enumerated among the functions reserved
to the pastor.
This legislative insistence on the pastor’s right im this re-
gard is well-warranted. As far back as the Council of Vienne,
official legislation was necessary to stop the encroachments of
religious on pastoral rights.“ This did not successfully end
their trespasses—and again the rights of the pastor were held
up as sacred by Leo X.®° One hundred years later Innocent X%
vindicated a third time to pastors their rights in this matter.
In the constitution ‘‘ Apostolicae Sedis’’®’ of Pius IX, an excom-
munication, reserved simpliciter to the Pope, was directed
against religious who anointed without due permission.
As a consequence it is clearly a parochial function. The
pastor is the ordinary minister of the sacrament. To him its
63 Tamburini, Moral. Explic., t. II, 1. VI, De Ext. Unct., cap. I, paragr.
TII, n. 4; 8. Alph., le.; Voit, Th. M., n. 906-07; Analecta Eccl.,
vol. VIII, p. 428 sq.; Noldin, lc.; Augustine, 4 Commentary, IV,
407-8; Gury-Ferreres, Casuws Consc., II, 786.
64 C. 1, de privilegtis et excessibus privilegiatorum, V, 7, in Clem.
65 Const. ‘Dum Intra,’’ 19 Dec. 1516, paragr. 7; C. I. C. Fontes, n. 72.
66 gage Pepe Sicut,’’? 14 Maii 1648, paragr. 4, I, ad 17; C. I. C. Fontes,
n. i
67 12 Oct. 1869, paragr. II, n. 14—Collectanea, n. 1348.
The Minster of Extreme Unction 93
administration belongs v9 officii.®8 Since he has this power ordi-
narily, he may delegate it either in toto or ex parte, either in
general or in particular.®
The pastor meant in this canon is the pastor of the terri-
tory where the man lies ill, not the pastor proprius of the sick
man. The wording of the Canon is very explicit on this score:
‘‘Parochus loci in quo degit infirmus.’’ His claim extends over
all the sick within the limits of his parish whether they be his
own subjects (by Canon 94) or ‘‘peregrini’”’ or ‘‘vagi’’ (by
Canon 91).
Several exceptions are made by law. Im the first instance,
the administration of the last sacraments to the bishop of the
diocese is reserved by Canon 397, n. 3, to the dignitaries and
the canons of the cathedral chapter according to their order
of precedence. The precedence of dignitaries and canons is
determined by Canon 408. There it is decreed that, unless
particular statutes or legitimate customs provide otherwise, the
dignitaries shall have precedence over the canons, the senior
canons over the junior, titular canons over the honorary, the
honorary canons over the beneficiaries. Dignitaries or capitu-
laries endowed with episcopacy take precedence over all other
dignitaries or canons who are only priests. Dignitaries take
rank from the nobility of their dignity or according to the
common law of precedence.”
Canon 514 also exempts certain classes from the pastor’s
jurisdiction. ‘‘In every clerical institute,’’ the Canon reads,
‘‘the superiors have the right and duty to administer either
personally or thru another Viaticum and Extreme Unction to
sick professed members and novices, and to others who dwell
day and night in the religious house by reason of service or
education or hospitality or sickness.’
Hence every clerical institute, whether exempt or non-
exempt, whether papal or diocesan, has the privilege of attend-
68 ‘‘Sacerdoti igitur hujus sacramenti administratio commissa est. Neque
tamen ex sanctae ecclesiae decreto cuivis sacerdoti, sed proprio pa-
store qui jurisdictionem habeat, sive alteri, cui ille ejus muneris
fungendi potestatem fecerit, hoc sacramentum administrare licet.’’
(Cat. Conc. Trident., De Ext. Unct., nu. 13.)
69 Cf. Can. 199, par. 1.
70 Can. 106, nn. 3 & 5.
71 Cf. Augustine, 4 Commentary, III, p. 141.
94 Extreme Unction
ing to the spiritual needs of its own sick. By clerical insti-
tutes are understood those orders and congregations, the ma-
jority of whose members are, or by their constitutions are
destined to be, in sacerdotal rank.’
The first class of sick exempted by this paragraph of Canon
514 are the professed and the novices. Naturally enough, if
any exemption were to be made, these should be the principal
beneficiaries.
The ‘‘aliive’’ enumerated under this same canon are divided
into several groups, according to the reason or capacity as a
resident of the monastery. They must actually dwell, i. e.,
have board and lodging, in the religious house or at least within
the premises. The term ‘‘domus religiosa’’ is taken in the
sense of the entire premises of the religious house (intra septa
monasterw).“2 Accordingly a number of buildings may com-
pose a domus religiosa, if the religious actually dwell in them.
Nor is it required that they be joined to the monastery per
modum unius. No matter how distinct they are from the
building itself, provided they form part and parcel of the
place, they are said to be included in the term ‘‘domus reli-
giosa.’’ Hence hospitals, hostelries, schools, ete., actually within
the precincts of the monastery are included in the exemption.
Finally it makes no difference whether the house is subject in
other ways to the pastor. This exemption in regard to admin-
istering Extreme Unction still holds.”4
The first group of non-religious exempt from the jurisdic-
tion of the pastor are servants who work for the religious and
dwell within the precincts of the monastery. It is not essen-
tial that they live within the monastery building itself, but
simply that they dwell within the confines of the monastery
(intra septa monasterit). Whether they work for pay or from
charity makes no difference in regard to this privilege. Postu-
lants are also included within this group. They are said to
be in the monastery ‘‘causa famulatus.’’
The second exempt group are boarding students, those who
receive not only education but also board and lodging at the
72 Cf. can. 488, 4.
738 Augustine, 4 Commentary, III, p. 142.
74 Blat, Comm. Tecat., 1. II, p. 562, n. 573, paragr. 1, 2.
75 Fanfani, De Jure Religiosorum, n. 415.
The Minster of Extreme Unction 95
religious house. It excludes ‘‘day-students,’’? but not those
who live at school except during the vacation period.7®
The third group are guests, not alone those who, live in the
religious house habitually,” but even those visiting ‘‘ad tem-
pus,’’ transients, as pilgrims, travellers, wayfarers, ete.78 Fur-
thermore, people who come to visit their religious friends with
the intention of staying one full day and night come within the
scope of the privilege.79
The last class is that of sick persons who are cared for by
religious in their own monasteries. This would hold a fortiori
if the religious had a hospital on the premises. Augustine®
notes that workingmen, ete., who would not otherwise come
under this exemption, if nursed in the religious house, are forth-
with included.
‘Diu noctuque”’ signifies the actual commoration for one
entire day, or at least the actual entrance and reception into the
monastery with the intention of remaining that length of time.®!
Genicot is not nearly so liberal. He demands of ‘‘guests’’ a
stay of ‘‘aliquot dies.’’®? The former opinion seems more prob-
able. Otherwise the pastor would be compelled to exercise his
functions in a territory that is really, after a fashion, not his
own. Furthermore ‘‘guests’’ who may satisfy in a private ora-
tory the Sunday precept of hearing Mass are those who have
been received by the ‘‘privilegiatus’’ for one day.88 The argu-
ment seems to be ‘‘a parz’’ in regard to the meaning of ‘‘cuests’’
intended by this canon.
The obligation to attend any and all of the above-men-
tioned groups of sick persons falls primarily on the superior of
the institute. He is not bound to consult or to inform the parish
priest in the matter, because on him alone devolves the obliga-
tion of attending these sick. The discharge of this obligation
7 Augustine, 4 Commentary, III, p. 143; Genicot-Salsmans, Inst. Th. M.,
IT, 338.
77 Cf. 8. ©. EE. et RR., July 21, 1848—Bizzarri, Coll., p. 564 sqq.
78 Augustine, op. cit., p. 144; Blat, Comm. Teat., lib. II, n. 573.
79 Cf, Fanfani, l.c.; Vermeersch-Creusen, Epit., I, 581, 4.
80 Op. cit., p. 144.
81 Cf. Vermeersch-Creusen, Epit., I, 581, 4; Augustine, 4 Commentary,
III, p. 142; Fanfani, De Jure Religiosorwm, n. 415.
82 Inst. Th. M., II, 338.
83 De Locis Sacris, n. 90.
96 Extreme Unction
however does not require a personal fulfillment. Another priest -
may be delegated to perform it, as the Canon allows.
The second paragraph of Canon 514 vindicates to the con-
fessor (and his ‘‘vices gerens’’) the right and the duty of
administering the last sacraments to nuns with solemn vows.®4
This is due to the fact that these nuns live in papal cloister—
and the number of persons who may penetrate the sacred pre-
cinets is strictly limited.8> The confessor’s right extends also
to all classes of non-religious persons mentioned under the first
paragraph of Canon 514, provided of course that they reside
within the precincts of the convent. Consequently female ser-
vants, alumnae, guests and the sick are to be anointed by the
confessor, and} not by the parish priest.®®
The confessor here meant is the ordinary confessor, ap-
pointed in conformance with Canon 520, paragraph 1. The
extraordinary confessor is consequently excluded. If there are
several ordinary confessors, any one of them is competent.*
The ‘‘vices gerens’’ is the confessor temporarily substituting
during the absence (for any cause whatsoever) of the ordinary
confessor. If neither the confessor nor his substitute is at hand,
any other priest may enter the cloister to anoint.*®
A still further exemption from the pastor’s jurisdiction is
made of seminarians. According to Canon 1368 the seminary
is altogether exempt from parochial jurisdiction; and the rector
receives the rights of a pastor with regard to everything but the
administration of matrimony. Consequently it is the right and
duty of the rector or his delegate to administer Extreme Une-
tion to all in the seminary. ‘‘All’’ includes the several classes
mentioned in canon 514.%°
In every other case the pastor is the minister ordinary.
The exceptions above noted are taxative—and any attempt to ex-
tend them has met with a rebuff from the Apostolic See. The Sa-
ered Congregation of Rites forbade regulars to anoint tertiaries
84 Only nuns with solemn vows are ‘‘moniales’’—cf. Can. 488, 7.
85 Canon 600; 8. C. de Rel., 6 Feb., 1924, III, 2, f—A.A.S. XVI, 99; cf. -
Schaaf, The Cloister, p. 116 sqq.
86S. C, EE. et RR., May 1788—Bizarri, Coll., p. 348; S. C. de Rel., sbid.
87 Blat, Comm. Tect., lib. II, n. 573.
88 §. C. de Rel., sbid.
89 Cf. Fanfani, De Jure Parochorum, nn. 293, B, and 289.
ioe
The Minster of Extreme Unction 97
of their own order.®® On March 17, 1663, the same Congregation
vindicated to the pastor the right to anoint collegiate canons
residing within his parish.®t In 1756 a decision declared that
it was the function of the pastor, and not of the archpriest, to
bring Viaticum and Extreme Unction to Dignitaries, canons
and abbots ‘‘beneficiati’? who had a residence within the par-
ish.°? Moreover the Congregation of the Propaganda justified
the action of Dutch pastors in placing obstacles in the path of
Capuchin missionaries in Holland who were administering with-
out permission sacraments whose ministration was reserved to
the pastor.°?> Even Cardinals and titular bishops are not exempt
from the jurisdiction of the pastor in this regard.** It is
evident from the above how loath the legislative authority is
to invade parochial rights on this matter.
In virtue of paragraph 3 of Canon 514, the pastor receives
the right of conferring this sacrament in all lay institutes within
his parish which the Ordinary has not subjected to any special
chaplain. Consequently all religious of these institutes, to-
gether with their servants, guests and sick persons must be
attended by the pastor in whose parish the house is erected.
There are no exemptions made from this canon. It affects, e. g.,
the Christian Brothers, the Brothers Hospitallers of St. John of
God, ete., for these are lay institutes. It probably includes the
Brothers of Mary, for, although some of these are priests, yet
by far the majority are lay brothers, and it is consequently a
lay institute.
Difficulty might arise as to who is competent to anoint in
an institute of this kind when two parishes overlap because of
linguistic divisions. According to Augustine,”’ the solution de-
pends, primarily, upon the will of the founder or foundress,
and, secondarily, upon the custom of the place. If neither of
these affords a solution, the Ordinary should be called upon to
decide.
It is within the power of the bishop to subject such lay
90 §. R. C., Spoletana Terrae de Visso, 20 Jun. 1609, ad 1—D. A., n. 271.
91 §. CO. R., Montis Regalis, 17 Mar. 1663, ad 4—D. A., n. 1255.
92 8.0. R., 8S. Severi Praeéminent., 18 Dec. 1756, ad 7—D. A., n. 2441.
93 §.C. P. F., (C. G.), 13 Jun. 1633—Collectanea, n. 73.
94 Fanfani, De Jure Parochorum, un. 293, B.
95 A Commentary, III, p. 145.
98 Extreme Unction
institutes to the jurisdiction of a special chaplain.°®° He may
also exempt from parochial jurisdiction ‘‘domus pvae,’’ of any
nature whatsoever. Hence hospitals, asylums, orphanages, hos-
telries, or any other institution destined for pious or charit-
able purposes may for a just and serious reason be confided to
a special chaplain.®? It is to be noted however that the appoint-
ment of a chaplain does not per se exempt these places from
the pastor’s jurisdiction. It is necessary that the bishop make
specific provision for such exemption.®® When this is done,
the spiritual duties devolve upon the chaplain. The pastor
should be notified of this quasi-exemption in order to avoid
possible friction. Once the chaplain is appointed, the pastor
may not licitly interfere.°® It would be quite as unlawful for
him to confer Extreme Unction in such a place without per-
mission as it would be for the chaplain to confer it in the
parish.
In the ease of sisters with simple vows, the pastor of the
parish is the competent minister, even if they have their own
confessor. Such sisters are lay religious and have not solemn
vows or papal cloister. ifence they have not the privileges of
‘‘moniales.’’ If however they are subject to a special chaplain,
he alone is competent.
With regard to Viaticum, Vermeersch!” holds that its rep-
etition is not reserved to the pastor in the same danger of death.
This cannot be argued of Extreme Unction, for Extreme Unce-
tion may not licitly be repeated in the same danger of death.
Hence each and every administration is reserved to the pastor.
Finally, attention may be called to the fact that quasi-
pastors, and, if they are endowed with full powers, parochial
vicars enjoy the same rights as parocht.1°* Accordingly what
has been said in regard to the pastor’s right of administering
96 Can. 464, 2.
97 Cocchi, Comm. in Cod., Lib. II, Pars I, Sect. II, n. 344; Augustine,
op. cit., II, p. 544; Blat, Comm. Tezt., hb. II, n. 511.
98 Cf. Fanfani, De Jure Parochorum, n. 477.
99 Blat, op. cit., n. 573, paragr. 3; cf. 8S. C. C., Ravennaten. 27 Jun. 1789,
dub. I—Ferraris, Bibliotheca, v. ‘‘Ext. Unctio,’’ t. III (Romae,
1886).
100 Summa Novi Codicis, n. 336; Genicot-Salsmans, Inst. Th. M., II, 181;
Fanfani, op. cit., n. 189.
101 Can. 940, 2.
102 Can, 451, 2.
The Minster of Extreme Unction 99
Extreme Unction to all the sick in his parish applies with equal
force to those who are equiparated to pastors in law.
““Tn casu autem necessitatis.’’
In case of necessity any priest may lawfully administer Ex-
treme Unction. The necessary faculty for the licit confection
of this sacrament in such circumstances is obtained from the
Code itself. The necessity can be physical or moral.’ The
former is present when the pastor cannot possibly reach the
sick person. The latter arises when he cannot be called or can-
not administer it without most serious inconvenience. A moral
necessity would be verified also in the case where the pastor
has incurred excommunication or suspension. Tantamount to a
moral necessity is the situation wherein the pastor unreasonably
refuses to anoint personally and to give permission to an-
other.1°* In this case, a priest may with a safe conscience pro-
ceed, not only because he may presume reasonably on the per-
mission of the Ordinary, but also because a priest has from this
very canon the actual permission of the Pope. Such a priest
is made by law the extraordinary minister of the sacrament.’
“Vel de licentia saltem rationabiliter praesumpta ejusdem
parocht vel Ordinarvi loci, alius quilibet sacerdos hoc
sacramentum ministrare potest.’’
Since the pastor is the ordinary minister of the sacrament,
he may delegate any other priest to perform this function.1°
The vicar oeconomus, or temporary administrator of a parish,
enjoys full parochial rights, and can, therefore, delegate in like
manner.2°8 The Ordinary of the place where the man lies sick
ean also grant permission, ‘‘etiam contradicente parocho.’’!°
Because of the fact that he can delegate, the Ordinary himself
108 Blat, Comm. Tezt., lib. III, p. I, un. 281, paragr. 2.
104 Blat, l.c.
105 Diana, Op. Coord., tom. II, tr. IV, res. 25; Laymann, Th. M., lib. V,
tr. 8, c. 6, n. 2; Benedict XIV, De Syn. Dioc., 1. 8, c. 4,n. 7; S. Alph.,
Th. M., VI, 723; Elbel-Bierbaum, Th. M., Pars VIII, Conf., IX,
tom. II, n. 360; Babenstuber, Ethica Supernat., Tract. de Ext. Unct.,
aeLV son: 0;
106 Blat, l.c.
107 Can. 199, 1.
108 Can. 473; cf. 8. C. C., 12 Sept., 1874—A. 8. 8., VIII, 1298; Augustine,
A Commentary, IV, p. 399.
109 Blat, Comm. Teat., lib. III, p. I, n. 281.
100 Extreme Unction
has the right to administer personally this sacrament within
his own territory. Delegation of a power presupposes pos-
session of that same power by the delegator.
Curates do not need their pastor’s permission, for they
supply the pastor’s place in the entire parochial ministry. How-
ever, the pastor can reserve this function to himself, with the
result that any administration on the part of the curate against
his will would be unlawful. If the faculties or diocesan stat-
utes give curates the right of administration, they can bestow
the sacrament licitly, even against the reasonable will of the
pastor. In such a ease they have the ‘‘licentia Ordinarii.’’ 44
Delegation or permission can be made to any priest. How-
ever, excommunicated or suspended or personally interdicted
priests are ordinarily not desirable subjects for delegation.1*
Nevertheless, if the sacrament were sought for a just reason
from an excommunicatus toleratus, not yet denounced by a con-
demnatory or a declaratory sentence—or from a suspended or
personally interdicted priest—license might licitly be given him,
according to Canon 2261, paragraph 2. Indeed it may also be
given to a vitandus if no other ministers are present and a per-
sonal administration by the pastor or Ordinary is impossible. The
subject of Extreme Unction must, of course, be in danger of
death—and in such a ease a vitandus becomes a lawful minister.18
License can be given expressly—in writing, orally or by
signs—or tacitly, i. e., when permission can be reasonably gath-
ered from the circumstances. It may also be legitimately pre-
sumed where, e. g., it is foreseen that it would be readily granted
or that the pastor would be pleased if he were spared the
inconvenience of personal administration. This presumption is
allowable even when there is no canonical reason present for
the granting of the permission, but a more intimate knowledge of
the pastor personally is undoubtedly required to justify such a
presumption.
Under all these cases a priest becomes the lawful, extra-
ordinary minister of the sacrament.4* A priest who admin-
110 Cf. can. 476, 6 and 462, 3.
111 Augustine, l.c.
112 Cf. can. 2261, 1; 2284, 2275, 2.
113 Can, 2261, 3.
114 Blat, Comm. Tezt., 1. III, p. I, n. 281, page 341.
The Minister of Extreme Unction 101
isters Extreme Unction in any other case commits a grievous
sin, because he invades the right of the pastor ‘‘in re gravt.’’
Before the Code regulars who dared this incurred excommunica-
tion simply reserved to the Holy See.41® Since this censure is
not included in the present legislation, it is now obsolete.’®
115 Const. ‘‘ Apostolicae Sedis,’’? 12 Oct. 1869—Coll. 8.0.P.F., n. 1348.
116 Cf. Can. 6, un. 5.
CHAPTER IV.
THE OBLIGATION OF THE
MINISTER
CANON 939.
‘‘Minister ordinarius ex justitia tenetur hoc sacra.
mentum per se ipse vel per alium administrare, et in casu
necessitatis ex caritate quilibet sacerdos.
[103 ]
CHAPTER IV.
Mimster ordinarius ex justitia tenetur.
Laymen have the right to receive from the clergy, in as
far as ecclesiastical regulation permits, spiritual benefits and
especially the means necessary to salvation.1 All who belong to
the Church have a title to the wondrous well-springs of sancti-
fication she possesses; and on the legitimately constituted dis-
pensers of these treasures the obligation of imparting them is
imposed.
This canon divides the clergy’s obligation according to the
minister, and binds the ordinary minister from justice and the
extraordinary minister from charity.
The ordinary minister of Extreme Unction is the pastor
of the place where the subject lies sick.2 He is bound to admin-
ister the sacraments to all who seek them reasonably. He has a
contract with his people, in virtue of which he receives the
sustenance, or at least the honor, of a pastor with the obliga-
tion of performing ‘‘ea quae pastoris sunt.’’ Among the du-
ties of a pastor the administration of the sacraments in pre-
éminent.?
It need hardly be noted that the obligation on the Digni-
taries and Canons of the Cathedral Chapter (from Canon 397)
and on the various priests mentioned in Canon 514, arises hke-
wise from justice—for they are really ordinary ministers of
the sacrament in regard to certain particular subjects.
Hence all priests who are charged with the care of souls
are bound under pain of sin to succor all committed to their
charge and to administer to them the last sacraments, if they
are in grave need of them.* Ordinarily, then, they are bound
sub mortali to administer Extreme Unction to those who seek
it unless a just cause excuses. If such a priest does not, he
1 Can. 682.
2 Can, 938, 2.
3 Can. 467.
4 Fanfani, De Jure Parochorum, n. 229.
[105 ]
106 Extreme Unction
has refused to furnish what he is bound ex justitia to do.” The
consequence is certainly mortal sin. The gravity of the sin,
of course, is measured by the spiritual loss arising from it;
and in the sacrament of Extreme Unction the loss sustained
thru a failure to receive it is almost incalculable.®
The question arises: Under what incommodum is the pastor
bound to administer Extreme Unction? Theologians commonly
hold that pastors are bound ‘‘cum periculo sanitatis aut vitae’’
to administer the sacraments absolutely necessary for eternal
salvation. Hence since the only absolutely necessary sacra-
ments are Baptism and, for those in mortal sin, Penance, it
can hardly be said that the pastor is obliged to such a serious
risk to confer Extreme Unction. Extreme Unction is ordina-
rily bestowed after Penance and Viaticum, i. e., after the man’s
salvation has been morally assured.”
In the time of the plague at Milan, Gregory XIII decided
that the parish priests of Milan and their curates were obliged
sub gravi only in regard to the administration of Baptism and
Penance in the ease of plague-stricken patients. Fagnani® says
that this declaration was never published. Some time later a
decision of St. Antoninus, archbishop of Florence (1459), was
discovered, which ordered pastors to administer all the sacra-
ments even during times of plague. The question was again
referred to the Holy See by St. Charles Borromeo. This time
the Congregation of the Council decided that no general rule
should be made, but that the saintly archbishop was to be
advised that pastors were obliged in conscience to remain at
their posts, ready to administer Baptism and Penance.? Bene-
dict XIV?° notes that the countersignature of this document at
Rome and its reception at Milan have not been recorded. Con-
sequently an argument from this document, such as that em-
ployed by Noldin™ and Genicot,!* is quite questionable. The
5 Vermeersch-Creusen, Epit., II, 224; St. Alph., Th. M., VI, 729 &c.
6 Noldin, De Sac., n. 34.
T Ret. Rom., tit. V, cap. 1, n. 2.
8 Jus Canon., seu Comm. Absolut. in Quinque Lib. Decret., lib. III, in
cap. ‘‘Clericos,’’ tit. IV, n. 45, ‘‘ De Clericis non restdentsbus.’’
98. C. C., 12 Oct. 1576, probante Greg. XIII, 8. C. C., 6 Dec. 1576—
ef. Noldin, De Sac., n. 34; also cf. ‘‘The Casuist,’’ vol. IV, 81.
10 De Syn. Dioc., 1. 13, c. 19, nn. 6-7.
11 Noldin, De Sac., n. 34.
12 Genicot-Salsmans, Inst. Th. M., II, 119.
The Obligation of the Minister 107
learned Pope holds the very opposite opinion. He maintains
that it is obligatory upon the pastor, even with danger of death,
to administer Extreme Unction to his subjects.° He bases
his principal argument upon the Apostolic confirmation given
to the decrees of the Fifth Provincial Council of Milan. In the
acts of this Council are found two chapters of synodal legis-
lation concerning the cautions to be taken by priests while they
are ministering Extreme Unction and after they have ministered
it.4 From the context it can be reasonably deduced that the
legislator presupposes an obligation on the pastor in this in-
stance. Consequently, even though the official approbation of
the Council’s proceedings by the Holy See do not give them any
binding force beyond the territory of its jurisdiction, never-
theless they may be taken as an indication of the Holy See’s
attitude on the subject.
However, it is by far the more common view that the pastor
is not bound to administer Extreme Unction ‘‘eum periculo
vitae’’ when Penance has been provided.!® Even theologians,
like Suarez!® and Sylvius,!7 who insist that it is seriously in-
cumbent on the pastor to administer Viaticum, excuse him from
the duty of bestowing Extreme Unction at the peril of his
life. Although it is dear to the heart of the Good Shepherd for
a pastor to dare all that his flock may obtain the salutary graces
of this sacrament of the ‘‘exeuntium,’’ nevertheless he is bound
in justice to risk his life for his sheep only when their spiritual
lives are seriously endangered. This is surely not the case when
the sick person has already been confessed and absolved.
It is to be noted, however, that when the danger of death
can be removed or reduced to a negligible quantity by the use
of disinfectants and the like, a pastor is bound to employ these
and to confer the sacrament.!8 The advantages are so enor-
mous that special inconveniences must be suffered in these un-
aa,0p,. cit., l.c., nn. 8-11.
14 Apud Acta Eccl. Mediol., pars I, tom. I, pp. 246-8.
15 Barbosa, De Pot. Parocht, cap. xxii, n. 17; St. Alph., Th. M., VI, 729;
Vermeersch-Creusen, Eptt., II, 224; Concina, Th. Chr., Lib. I, De E.
U., diss. I, cap. 3, q. 4; Ferreres, Comp. Th. M., II, 280; Lehmkuhl,
Th. M., Il, 51; Noldin, De Sac., n. 441; &e.
16 Disp. 44, sec. 3, nn. 17-20.
17 In Suppl. ad III p. D. Thom., q. 32, a. 3, conclus. 3.
18 Barbosa, De Off. et Pot. Parochs, cap. xxii, n. 17; Suarez, d. 44, sect. 3,
n. 20. ,
108 Extreme Unction
usual circumstances. The employment of preventive measures
is not too much to expect of the one who has an obligation to
care for the spiritual needs of his parish. He must cope with
the contingencies of extraordinary situations in a reasonable
fashion. When too much is not demanded to overcome the
dangers on these occasions, he is required to put himself to
inconveniences which are proportionate to the benefits which
the souls under his charge will receive as a result of his trouble.
The immense advantages that accrue to the sick person thru the
potent graces of Extreme Unction certainly demand that no
slight pains be taken by those in charge of souls to remove
the causes which excuse them from bestowing the sacrament.
There is also the common opinion that if Extreme Unction
is the only hope of salvation, e. g., if the dying man has not
been to confession for a long time and ean be absolved only
conditionally now because unconscious, there is then a grave
obligation on the pastor to give Extreme Unction even at the
peril of his life® The Synod of Namur (1639) passed the
following enactment: ‘‘Qui autem peste affectus non est con-
fessus, nee potest confiteri, pastor teneatur illi extremam unc-
tionem, etiam cum periculo vitae, dare.2°’’ The reason is, of
course, that Extreme Unction gives sanetifying grace to those
who have only attrition for their sins and cannot make a econ-
fession. Since the acts of the penitent are at least the quasi-
matter in the sacrament of Penance, the value of an absolution
imparted conditionally to an unconscious man without previous
confession is very dubious indeed. Extreme Unction is left as
the sole sure means of assisting the dying man.
In order that a priest be strictly bound to endanger his
life in the behalf of a soul under his care, it is quite necessary
that all the conditions demanding such heroism be verified ada-
mussim. In the first place it must be required that the subject
be truly in grave peril of his eternal salvation. Secondly, the
means which the priest has at his command must be certainly
sufficient to relieve the patient from his necessity. Moreover the
19 Fanfani, De Jure Paroch., n. 229; Noldin, De Sac., n. 34; Genicot-
Salsmans, Inst. Th. M., II, 119 & 421; Sebastiani, Summ. Th. M.,
n. ends Konings, Th. M., n. 1505, q. 3; Vermeersch, Th. M., III,
n. , &.
20 Tit. xiv, c. x; ef. Kenrick, Th. M., III, de Ext. Unct., cap. unic., n. 14.
The Obligation of the Minister 109
hope of rescuing the sick man must be morally assured; and
finally no graver evils must result from the fulfillment of this
obligation. If any of these conditions is lacking, the severity of
the obligation is relaxed.
Accordingly, if the priest is morally certain that the sick
man is in the state of grace, either because he has not sinned
since his last confession or because of his ability to make an
act of perfect contrition, he is excused from risking his life to
administer Extreme Unction. If he knows nothing or is in
doubt about the state of conscience of the sick man, Suarez
holds that a priest is obligated to hazard certain danger of
death in order to anoint the sick man. ‘‘Adverto non satis
esse,’’ he writes,?4 “‘quod parochus negative se habeat, ignorans
statum infirmi, ut (ex generali regula) praesumat illum esse in
bono statu, quem non scit esse in malo; hujusmodi enim prae-
sumptio postulatur ad ea quae sunt favorabilia alteri; non vero
hieet illa uti ad negandum illi debitum ministerium, et expo-
nendum eum periculo saltem dubio aeternae damnationis . .
Requiritur ergo ut positive constet moraliter de bono statu
bonaque dispositione poenitentis.’’ Later authors are not so
exacting as Suarez. They demand simple probability, not moral
certainty, of the state of grace in the sick man. ‘‘Non tene-
retur Parochus,’’ Cappello ** declares, ‘‘aliusve certo periculo
vitae se exponere, si probabiliter putaret, ex gr., moribun-
dum... non reperiri in statu culpae mortalis vel sibimet con-
Sulere posse per contritionem perfectam.’’ Fanfani?* similarly
speaks of the pastor’s obligation as absolute only when the
Subject is certainly in mortal sin. Vermeersch** is equally as
liberal in his application of the general principle, and he notes
further that the strict obligation can never be laid upon a
priest in regard to anointing a sick man who has become un-
conscious. The uncertainty of the sick man’s dispositions, he
avers, excuses the priest from walking into a certain danger of
death. There is certainly enough authority for a pastor to
follow the milder opinion. He can refuse to enter a certain
danger of death for the purpose of anointing under every cir-
21 D. 44, s. 3, n. 15.
22 De Sacramentis, I, 67.
23 De Jure Paroch., n. 229.
24 Th. M., III, nn. 190, 658.
110 Extreme Unction
cumstance where the absolute need of his attendance upon the
sick man is not evident. The deduction of Vermeersch, assert-
ing the uncertainty of the sick man’s dispositions in every case
where the sick man is unconscious, seems too sweeping. A fair
indication of the internal dispositions can be obtained at least
sometimes, and especially in such cases as contemplated by
Canon 943.
Moreover, the success of the auxilium proffered by the
pastor must be morally certain. Hence, if the priest sees that
he will probably be hindered from administering the sacrament,
he is not bound to undergo a certain imperilling of his life.
Similarly, if he feels that he may not reach the sick person on
time, yet such attempt on his part will result fatally for him
(as in times of persecutions), he is released from the strict
obligation of attendance.?°
Finally, if it is foreseen that graver evils will result from
the fulfillment of his office in this regard, the priest is not
bound to submit himself to such an inevitable jeopardy of life.
Private good must cede to the common good. Hence if the
pastor knows that, by his death, the salvation of the community
will no longer be sufficiently provided for because of lack of
priests, he is excused from hazarding himself at such a price.”®
This problem may arise often in missionary lands, where the
harvest is great and the laborers few. In times of persecution
a similar question may arise. In 1899 the Holy Office was
asked about the duties of missionaries in the kingdom of Bu-
ganda, a land where the faithful were compelled to conceal their
faith. Attendance by the missionaries upon the sick meant
imminent danger for the sick man, his family, and indeed the
whole Christian community. Hence the question was put:
‘“‘atrum ad hoe periculum praecavendum missionarii possint
ac debeant infirmos non visitare, an, spreto quolibet periculo
sive privatorum sive communitatis Christianae, aegrotos in
gravi moriendi periculo constitutos visitare possint aut debeant
ut illos sacramentis Keclesiae reficiant?’’ The query was not
directly answered, but there is undoubtedly an insinuation that
the missionaries are not bound, at least, to render spiritual
25 Of. Fanfani, De Jure Parochorum, n. 229; Cappello, De Sac., I, 67.
26 Suarez, D. 44, sec. 3, n. 15; Vermeersch, Th. M., III, 190; Fanfani, l.c.
The Obligation of the Minister 111
assistance to the sick. The words of the reply were: ‘‘R. Ad
mentem: mens autem est a missionariis fideles monendos ut,
attenta difficultate habendi missionarii adsistentiam in mortis
articulo, omni studio satagant peccata vitare, et in mortis peri-
culo mutuam sibi adsistentiam praebeant; ac insuper missionarii
bene instruant catechistas, qui in expositis casibus missionaril
vices aliqua ratione fungantur.’’??
Just as the certain and complete fulfillment of every con-
dition is necessary to impose a strict obligation on the pastor
when the danger is serious and certain, so a solidly probable
realization of these identical conditions is needed to create a
rigid responsibility of anointing a sick man when it entails
probable danger of death to the priest. ‘‘Hadem regula,”’
writes Cappello 78 ‘‘ .... valet quoque, congrua congruis refe-
rendo, ubi agitur de gravi necessitate, ob quam sacramenta mini-
stranda sunt cum periculo gravi et probabili sanitatis aut vitae.’’
In order, then, that the pastor must risk a probable danger of
death, it is necessary that the subject be probably in grave
peril of losing eternal salvation and that success of the venture
be probably assured. ‘‘Si solummodo probabilis sit successus vel
necessitas, obligatio pro pastore manet quidem cum probabili
vitae periculo.’’?9
The obligations of the pastor when Extreme Unction is the
sole means of salvation can be briefly summed up. If it is
morally certain that the patient will not attain salvation except
thru the ministration of the priest and if there is moral cer-
tainty of the successful outcome of the priest’s attempt to
confer the sacrament, a priest in charge of souls is bound in
justice to brave certain danger of death, and even death itself,
to confer the sacrament upon the dying man. However, if the
common good will subsequently suffer thru the loss of the priest,
the advantage that will accrue to the particular individual must
be regarded in relation to the greater good that will be gained
by the community. Hence in such a ease a priest is released
from this severe obligation. Indeed he may often be bound
not to attend a sick person, as, for example, when he is sure
27 §. C. 8. Off., 3 Apr. 1899; ef. Bucceroni, Casus Consc., II, n. 138, p, 218.
28 De Sacr., I, 67.
29 Vermeersch, Th. M., ITI, 190.
112 Extreme Unction
that his demise will seriously imperil the eternal salvation of
many others in the community. In this case it is a question of
the lesser evil.
When the subject is in grave necessity, i. e., when he is in
probable need of the sacrament and there is probability of its
successful bestowal, the pastor is required ex justitia to expose
his life to a probable danger of death. In this he differs from
those who have not the charge of souls, as will be seen shortly,
for they are bound gravely to attend a sick man only when
he is in extreme necessity.®*°
The question of the priest’s obligation in the cases con-
templated by Canon 941 is also worthy of consideration. The
general principles announced hitherto must be put into play
in the determination of these solutions also. The pastor by
virtue of his office is bound to give the sacraments to those
reasonably seeking them. His flock have a right to the recep-
tion of these gifts absolutely if they are absolutely capable,
and conditionally if they are doubtfully capable of benefitting
by them. They are entitled to everything which will morally
assure them of salvation and which at the same time is within
the bounds of reason.
Consequently a pastor is bound to anoint conditionally a
child who has only doubtfully attained the use of reason. Such
a child cannot make a confession and, since the conditional abso-
lution is of very questionable efficacy, the eternal safety of the
child is not properly secured except by an administration of
Extreme Unction. By virtue of his office the pastor then has
the duty of conferring the sacrament. This obligation is cer-
tainly grave,?! and only a very serious inconvenience excuses
from it. Blat®? says the measure of the obligation is to be
gauged according to the terminology of our Canon. It stands
to reason, however, that a priest is not bound to enter the same
degree of peril to give this sacrament to a child who needs it
only probably as he would be obliged in the case where an
adult would swrely need it for salavtion.
80 St. Alph., Th. M., II, 30; Collet, Decal., cap. 1; Gury, Th. M., I, wu
215; Ferreres, Comp. Th. M., II, 281.
31 Lehmkuhl, Th. M., II, 723; Gury-Ferreres, Casus, II, n. 799; Lebherz,
in The Casuist, vol. II, p. 176; Cf. St. Alph., Th. M., VI, 719.
32 Comm. Tezt., lib. ITI, p. I, n. 285.
The Obligation of the Minster 113
A distinction must be drawn here which will be of use
very soon. ) uh
an e ne a ee. ae ) ; NA
- ate bat Pe ey a oe oa) f ba, a: Wy, ae sg oie:
. +o. ‘ a ) 5 f iy:
bh pl Cte ae M A ea Aut i
ay p J P| fe ir : Sr 4
f ‘ ; _ a ) < * _ é Vb oe he 2 ne Pent ee A, et a dey Tom <
Ce : ‘ : Pe Ate Pe! eh hee ‘i
Be | > ial ea ss iN ry suet
; f } ’ dh f ’
ae LU [oe
Pe Pl PLS Notes
a
a aad
#
©
9 =
: 7% * f
: e al
j &
a ; +
: < eres : igi %
. ; ex
; es F wie pe
’ ee a €;
; ae ee eed ee 1%
f i Fey ow ye Lag
‘ ot Macs’
én oe
iJ | ods. o VNR RE Fi ¥
ei)
’ ar 4 . ox a 4 ie :
{ ‘ : a
{ ' j aT ‘pL
4 ms u!
§ ¥ es 5 -
é
— ; a? ripe? %
; ifs ‘
d Muar pea Ae on
:
)
p ‘ whey Ts :
LL NE, Piha al a Sp
st i
‘i 5 1 ai? Lue i Ue PA,
‘ F : ae x
4 vy af, 7, 465 - a a vf coe dey
F (Ry eT Re eae Ee
' ‘
2 rao §
} 7 P ¥ a a cut am fe i")
hag
\ aly it & Ce G
‘ty or 1 "he Ae, i g ye hk i. uh =]
~ og »* : ‘
vik : PE aveas i ae er ee he es, ete
* : fh > 7 ;
| | ee. be ans thy. en ge at ae 4
vay!
5 ee Vy? iT >
. ‘ : ay *
F U - Vir. t ey a ahs 2 m]
ytd ee Mas ees ath Dena.
+
'
i
,
es
?
Vi, i
4
.
ie «4 all
°
ay I
ss - ~
CHAPTER V.
REQUISITES IN THE SUBJECT FOR
ADMINISTRATION AND
REPETITION
CANON 940.
1. Extrema Unctio praeberi non potest nisi fideli,
qui post adeptum usum rationis ob infirmitatem vel se-
nium in periculo mortis versetur.
9, In eadem infirmitate hoc sacramentum iterari non
potest, nisi infirmus post susceptam unctionem convalue-
rit et in aliud vitae discrimen inciderit.
[121 |
Se ty
“se LAS bet Sy wR 4S Pe © ae, Ve ri
i. A ew : ‘ iW hadT Ai A ‘ J” a] ¢ 4 ‘ in a be t.
ee ha ethos 4 yah hate ure tat a 3 * wry
’ ¥ ;
t® oe teed ms 4 + 4
. - i ' i ai > ©
7 4 ' ¥ , .
>
¥ ‘ ay
“ A vi 7
SHEP") ; ; irons sug he reas bite
ee a iy a p 1. a i
pS, FAR REE Sy RAND TN ot tena ‘ui Bie we hs care.
4 4 es
a:
bets ne ib
8 ’ ’ 7. fees i .
‘bes Pak” oe Mm 2 fate cy a) aM Lt : on of
oe LIE OA La Sy reba a sce tu ty
_ f a ‘ n y on a 4 3G5
| ' yn ay: Pang!
Cis, CO 2 ea ae ade
CE TO. aa aaa ae WD PAA LS PROT, GR
i; viak rat est Haeieonhss pais:
rt
CHAPTER V.
I. REQUISITES FOR ADMINISTRATION.
Extrema Unctio praeberi non potest nisi fidelt, gut post adep-
tum usum rationis 0b infirmitatem vel senium in perrculo
mortis versetur.
The first paragraph of this canon announces in a remark-
ably succinct fashion the conditions essential for the valid re-
eeption of Extreme Unction. Its negative form excludes all in
whom each condition is not found. The subject must present
three qualifications:
1. He must be a “‘fidelis.’’
2. He must have acquired the use of reason
3. He must be in danger of death from sickness or old age.
All three must be verified before administration can be validly
made. Each is worthy of distinct consideration.
iL
“‘Eatreme Unctio praeberi non potest mst fidelr’’
In the first place, the recipient of Extreme Unction must
be one of the faithful. The Code uses the term employed in
the days of the catechumenate to distinguish those who had
been baptized from ecatechumens. Nowadays it has come to
mean those who have attached themselves to the Church, who
have accepted her doctrines and who have been initiated into
her rites. Hence those who are members of the true Church
are meant, at least principally and primarily, by the term
‘*fidelis’’ in this canon.
The problem of just how much can be done for dying
Protestants has been agitating the theological world in recent
years. The result seems to be a gradual increase in leniency
and generosity in extending the conditional administration of
the sacraments, whenever possible, to almost every dying man.
Thus if a man is a baptized non-Catholic, some tell us that he
is to get conditional absolution and Extreme Unction. If he
is not baptized he is to receive conditional baptism and condi-
[ 123 ]
124 Extreme Unction
tional Extreme Unction. If dubiously baptized, he is to have
conditional baptism, conditional absolution and conditional Ex-
treme Unction. Consequently when the Code declares that the
first requisite of the recipient of Extreme Unction is that he
be a ‘‘fidelis,’’ the question of anointing non-Catholics can
hardly be side-tracked.
Many hold that heretics and others not in the Church are
in no way entitled to the sacraments of the Church and that
it is unlawful for priests to administer such to them. They
have splendid intrinsic reasons for their contention.
The Jacobean text should first be noted. The apostle used
the words, ‘‘infirmatur quis in vobis,’’ and all exegetes say
that ‘‘vos’’ signifies the Catholic portion of the dispersed twelve
tribes to whom the epistle was addressed.1 Innocent I, in his
famous letter to Decentius, gives this very interpretation of St.
James’ text: ‘‘Sane quoniam de hoe sunt, ete. Quod non est
dubium de fidelibus aegrotantibus accipi vel intelligi debere,
qui sancto oleo chrismatis perungi possunt.’’ 2
Moreover the term ‘‘fidelis’? was used by the Fathers to
denote only those who had completed the catechumenate and
had been initiated into the Christian mysteries by the reception
of Baptism. Tertullian? complained that some heretics were
losing sight of the distinction that must be made between the
‘faithful’? and eatechumens. This was a very important dis-
crimination in the early Church. The ‘‘faithful’’ were entitled
to assist at the holy Sacrifice, to join with the priest in the
‘‘oratio fidelium,’’ to receive the Body and Blood of Christ
and the other sacraments. The catechumens had to leave the
Holy Sacrifice after the sermon at the command of the deacon.
The terms ‘‘faithful’’ and ‘‘Christian’’ were by no means co-
extensive, as a text from St. Augustine clearly shows. ‘‘Ask
a man,’’ he writes,* ‘‘ ‘Are you a Christian?’ If he be a pagan
or a Jew, he will reply: ‘I am not a Christian.’ But if he say:
‘I am a Christian,’ ask him again: ‘Are you a catechumen or
one of the faithful?’ ”’
1 Launoi, Op. Omnia, t. I, p. 560; Bord, L’Extréme Onction, p. 57.
2 Ep. ‘i instituta ecclesiastica,’? 19 Mar. 416, cap. 8—M. P. L., 20,
559; C. I. C. Fontes, n. 19.
3 De Praescr., cap. XLI—M. P. L., 2, 56.
4 Tract. in Joan, XLIV, 2—M. p. Te 35, 1714.
Requisites in the Subject for Admimstration 125
and Repetition
The juridical argument is very convincing. On five differ-
ent occasions the Holy See has declared that Penance (of which,
be it remembered, Extreme Unction is the complement) was
not to be given to schismaties or heretics. On February 4, 1664,
the Congregation of the Propaganda® demanded an explicit belief
in the supremacy of the Pope from Greek schismatics wishing
to be absolved. In two decrees, dated August 28, 1669, and
May 15, 1709, the Holy Office® forbade the administration to
Nestorians. On September 22, 1763, the same Congregation’
allowed the approach of Greek schismaties to Catholic churches,
provided they were given no sacraments, that they did not com-
municate ‘‘in sacris’’ and that they had not been invited thereto.
Practically the same answer was given in 1806 for soldiers
who were doubtful Catholies.®
The new Code seems to support this view rence
Canon 731, 2, apparently teems with finality: ‘‘Vetitum est
Sacramenta Ecclesiae ministrare haereticis et schismaticis, etiam
bona fide errantibus eaque petentibus, nisi prius, erroribus
rejectis, Ecclesiae reconciliati fuerint.’? The fact that this
Canon, although not found in the Schema of 1918, was later
inserted in the Code is not without significance.
The change of wording in the Rituale is also noteworthy.
Older editions of the rubrics used the word ‘‘non-baptizatis.’”®
The present edition ‘‘ad normam Codicis’’ uses ‘‘fideli.’’ Cer-
tainly there is furnished by this revision an added foundation
for the opinion which forbids to non-Catholics a participation
in our sacraments.
The force of the word ‘‘fidelis’’ is of paramount importance
in the question at issue. Even today the word means ordinarily
more than a heretic; and in fact, is often employed in contra-
diction to a non-Catholic. Launoi!® defines it thus: ‘‘ Fidelis
autem est qui Baptismum suscepit et se in Christi familiam
ageregavit.’’ Similarly Blat™ interprets it to signify “‘baptizatus
5 (C. G.) Constantinop., Collectanea, n. 156 ad 2.
6 §.C. 8S. Off., Mesopotamiae—Collectanea, n. 185 ad 1; tbid., n. 276.
7 Collectanea, n. 450. ,
8 Collectanea, n. 688.
9 Rit. Rom., tit. V, cap. 1, n. 8—edit. 1913.
10 Op. Omnia, 7a Rage 560.
11 Comm. Text., lib. III, p. I, n. 284.
126 Extreme Unction
habens fidem.’’ They have evident good reason for this, be-
cause nowhere in the Code ean ‘‘fidelis’’ be construed to include
those outside the fold of faith. For example, in Canons 1161,
1162 /3, and 1169 ‘‘fideles’’ certainly does not comprehend
within its scope either heretics or schismaties.1* In Canon 1188
the right is given to all the faithful to enter public oratories
at the time of divine services. Yet heretics, who are excommun-
icated by Canon 2314/1, have no such right, according to Canon
2259 /1. Consequently they are not ‘‘fideles.’’
Furthermore, in Canon 906, which commands that ‘‘ommnis
utriusque sexus fidelis’’ shall approach the tribunal of Penance
at least once a year, there can be no doubt that only Catholics
are meant. In Canon 925, which enumerates the capabilities
of the recipients of indulgences, uses ‘‘baptizatus, non-excom-
municatus’’ &e. According to Vermeersch-Creusen,!* non-
Catholics who have escaped the censure on account of good
faith can gain indulgences. Yet this extension to non-Catholies
seems to rest solely upon the fact that the Code does not use
the term ‘‘fidelis.’’
Perhaps the clearest example of the meaning of ‘‘fidelis’’
is Canon 1152. By that canon exorcisms can be performed ‘‘non
solum in fideles et catechumenos, sed etiam in acatholicos vel
excommunicatos.’’ Here the specific mention of non-Catholies
as lawful subjects would indicate very strongly that where such
mention is not made, those outside the Church are not suitable
recipients.
From a juridical standpoint there seems to be no. other
solution. The wording of the law is too explicit. Yet it cannot
be denied that the more merciful opinion, permitting conditional
administration of the necessary sacraments to dying non-Cath-
olics, has at least extrinsic probability ; to establish this a rather
copious examination of the various pronouncements of the
Roman Congregations and the writings of theologians must be
made.
12 Cf. also canons 119; 465, 6; 467, 1 & 2; 483, 2; 684: 687: 707: &c.
13 Epit., II, 214. ’ 2 %3 ’ ’ » @) ’ ’ ’
Requisites in the Subject for Administration 127
and Repetition
The most important, of course, are
A) The decisions of the Roman Congregations.
Long before Quebec became the flourishing centre of Cath-
olicity that it is today, the missionaries there spreading the
gospel of Christ asked of the Holy Office: ‘‘Utrum conferendum
sit Viaticum aut Extrema Unctio moribundis adultis, quos ali-
quando Baptismi capaces credimus, non autem Communionis
aliorumque Sacramentorum?’’ The answer returned by the
Congregation was this: ‘‘Non esse administrandum Viaticum
neophyto moribundo nisi, &. ... Non esse pariter conferendum
Sacramentum Extremae Unctionis neophyto moribundo quem
missionarius eapacem Baptismi credidit, nisi saltem idem habeat
aliquam intentionem recipiendi Sacram Unctionem in beneficium
animae pro mortis tempore ordinatam.’’!* In the following cen-
tury the Propaganda" affirmed this decree; and the very words
were repeated in a later answer of the Inquisition '* to a similar
question from the Orient.
When questioned about the practice existing in Jerusalem
of absolving dying heretics and schismatics conditionally with-
out insisting on a sign of reconciliation to the Church, the Holy
See replied:
‘‘Usum de quo quaeritur, prout exponitur, esse improbandum;
et ad mentem: La mente e de accennare a Mons. Patriarca de
Gerusalemme che, qualora il moribondo eretico o scismatico avesse
dato un qualche signo su cui fondare un ragionevole dubbio che
quegli aderisca alla santa Chiesa cattolica, in tal caso i preti di
quella delegazione dovranno seguire le norme dettate da accreditati
autori.’ 717
To the question ‘‘An aliquando absolvi possint schismatici
materiales, qui in bona fide versantur?’’ the same Congregation
replied: ‘‘Cum scandalum nequeat vitari, Negative: praeter-
quam in mortis articulo, et tune efficaciter, remoto scandalo.’’”1®
14 §, C.-S. Off., 10 Maii, 1703—Collectanea, n. 256, ad 8.
15 §.C. P. F., (C. P. pro Sin.), 26 Sept., 1821—Collectanea, n. 768.
16 §, C. 8. Off., Tchely Mertdio-Orientalis, 10 Apr. 1861—Collectanea, n.
1213.
17 §. C. 8. Off., 13 Jan. 1864—Collectanea, n. 1246.
18 §. C. 8. Off., 20 Jul. 1898—Collectanea, n. 2012; A.S.8.. XXXI, 254.
128 Extreme Unction
On May 26, 1916, the Holy Office gave a most important
decision, which was never published officially. The question
was asked about the lawfulness of conferring absolution and
Extreme Unction upon schismaties deprived of their senses and
in danger of death. The answer rendered was:
‘¢Sub conditione, affirmative, praesertim si ex adjunctis conjicere
liceat eos implicite saltem errores suos rejicere, remoto tamen
seandalo, manifestando scilicet astantibus Ecclesiam supponere eos in
ultimo momento ad unitatem rediisse.’ 719
This enumeration of decisions constitutes a very serious
alignment of authority in defense of the proposition. The Que-
bee decision demanding an intention of receiving the Unction
does not militate against this view. Some intention is always
required in adults; but the fact that it need not be very explicit
is insinuated in the employment of the term ‘‘aliquam inten-
tionem.’’ Hence a general intention of doing all that is nec-
essary for salvation would include implicitly a desire to receive
the Unction.?° And in every Protestant it can actually be taken
for granted that his principal and primary intention is that of
doing all that Christ commanded for salvation. Even the
slightest conjecture about the presence of such an intention is
sufficient to act upon, for theologians of great weight hold this
to be permissible. Gury, for instance, says: ‘‘In casu extremae
necessitatis etiam in Sacramentorum administratione licet uti
opinione etiam parum fundata.’’! Furthermore it is to be
remembered that theologians admit the permissibility of con-
struing even the vaguest sign as indicative of the intention.
Neither is to be lost sight of that when a general absolution is
given to an army on the battlefield, the validity of the absolution
is sustained on the ground that the sign is knowable, but in
many cases actually unperceived by the minister.22 The infer-
ence is that the minister is justified in administering Extreme
19 Cited by Prummer, Manuale Th. M., III, p. 223, from Lintzer Theol.
Quartalschr., 1916, 693; and by Reuter, Neo-Confessarius, n. 203,
from Kolner Pastoralblatt, 50, (1916), 504 sq.
20 Cf. Lehmkuhl, Th. M., II, 66: ‘‘Voluntas christiano more moriendi
includit in se voluntatem recipiendorum in articulo mortis sacramen-
torum Eecl.’’
21 Comp. Th. M., II, n. 505 ad II.
22 Cf. King, The Administration of the Sacraments to Dying Non-Cath-
olics, p. 24.
Requisites in the Subject for Administration 129
and Repetition
Unetion on such grounds, because of the very tenuous prob-
ability that the sign has been given, though unperceived by
himself.
In regard to the decisions of 1864 and 1898 it is to be
noted that they have to do only with Penance. Yet since Ex-
treme Unction is the complement of Penance, an a pari argu-
ment can be made. Of course it cannot be denied that scandal
is more easily given in administering Extreme Unction to a
heretic than Penance. Absolution can be made secretly even
in the presence of bystanders, while unction in such a ease is
far more difficult. But scandal is something extrinsic, and
does not avail against the intrinsic parity existing between
Penance and its complement. No sacrament, not even Penance,
can be imparted if scandal will follow. Hence, granted the
removal of scandal, there is not valid reason why the admin-
istration of Extreme Unction cannot be extended to every case
where the imparting of Penance is permissible.**7 Thus Gury,
in settling a case in his Casus Conscientiae, wrote: ‘‘Si vero
eum aliqua probabilitate nune ad se redierit aliquis haereticus
moribundus et videatur aliquod doloris signum edere, etsi
dubium, tamen tentanda sunt omnia. Sed etiam in hoe casu
parochus 1) condicionate tantum sacramenta administrare po-
test; 2) unctionem etiam clam tantum, ne alius sit scandalo.’’ *4
The proximity of the 1916 decision to the issuance of the
Code presents a curious question, if canon 731, 2 is to be applied
to all cases. One year before the encyclical of Benedict XV,
‘‘Providentissima,’’ at a time when the schemata of the Code
had been broadeast to all parts of the world for the final inspec-
tion of the bishops, the Sacred Congregation issued an instruc-
tion giving a norm of action in regard to the administration of
the sacraments which they knew could be of value at most for
but a few years—if the Canon is to be absolutely interpreted.
It is true, as Augustine”® says of a similar argument in another
case, that this has very little juridical value; but on the other
23 This does not exclude the possibility that the imparting of Extreme
Unction may be forbidden by positive and specific legislation, whereas
Penance may not be. This phase will be later considered.
4 Gury, Casus Conscientiae, (edit. 1902), n. 625-626.
5 A Commentary, IV, p. 353, footnote.
to to
130 Extreme Unction
hand it must be insisted that the Congregation of the Inquisi-
tion would hardly be guilty of such action as this. Roman
Congregations do not move so hastily.
Reuter-Lehmkuhl-Umberg attempt to explain the question
away in this fashion:
‘“Petes, quid agendum sacerdoti si intelligat haereticum esse
ad extrema deductum? Resp. Inprimis prae oculis habendus est can.
731, 2: ‘Vetitum est sacramenta Ecclesiae,’ &. Quo canone vetatur
Sacramentorum collatio haereticis et schismaticis a) mala fide erran-
tibus, erroribus non rejectis; b) etiam bona fide errantibus, si simul,
sul compotes, sacramenta petunt, erroribus non rejectis. Et sic
Ecclesia hoc canone enuntiat, quid quasi officialiter concedat hac in
re, quid non concedat. Ut vero sciamus, quid Ecclesia, pia mater,
non-officialiter permittat, consulenda est decisio S. Officii d. 26 Maii,
1916, eo vid. tempore facta, quo canon ille sine dubio jam erat
elucubratus. ’’26
B) The writings of theologians and canonists
To the decisions of the Congregations can be added a host
of eminent theologians and canonists, who, feeling that the
sanctity of the sacrament is sufficiently safeguarded by a condi-
tional administration, are mercifully impelled to extend its ad-
ministration to every possible case. They believe with Tam-
burini: ‘‘Negotia in quibus nihil amittendum timetur, sed potius
lucrum speratur, audacter sunt tentanda.’’2?
In his Commentary upon Canon 731, 2, Vermeersch-Creu-
sen writes:
‘*Regula haec nulli exceptioni locum dat cum agitur de personis
benevalentibus. Necessitas tamen consulendi, in periculo mortis,
saluti animae, permittit ut moribundis acatholicis sacramenta necessi-
tatis stricte vel late dictae (paenitentia et extrema unctio) admini-
strentur, saltem condicionate, si sensibus destituti sunt, vel si, sensibus
praesentes, in bona fide prudenter linquendi videantur. Ac sensibus
destitutus, certius quam absolutione sacramentali, juvabitur extrema
unctione, quae non exigit actus subjecti tanquam quasi-materiam
sacramenti. Cavendum tamen est a scandalo vel miratione populi,
si extrema unctio non possit satis secreto ministrari.’’28
Vermeersch might have some trouble proving that Canon
731, 2 applies only to the administration of the sacraments to
26 Neo-Confessarius, n. 203.
27 Moral. Explicatio, 1. VI, cap. TI, paragr. 3, n. 3.
28 Fpit., II, 16.
Requisites in the Subject for Administration 131
and Repetition
subjects who are well. . Extreme Unction, it must be remem-
bered, can be given only to the sick in danger of death. It must
then be held that Canon 731, 2 does not apply to Extreme
Unction at all. Yet the canon simply uses ‘‘sacramenta’’ with-
out any modifying phrase that might insinuate the exception
of Extreme Unction. Recalling the rule, ‘‘Legislator quod
voluit expressit,’’ it is rather hard to see the strength of Ver-
meersch’s reasoning.
Now if Extreme Unction is included among the sacraments
spoken of in Canon 731, 2, and if the recipient of Extreme
Unction must be a ‘‘fidelis’’ in the common acceptation of the
term, it seems that the Church has exempted by positive legis-
jation the sacrament of Extreme Unction from the alignment of
aids that may be offered to non-Catholics when they are dying.
Perhaps this is why Pruemmer 7° allows the administration of
Penance to a dying Protestant, yet does not permit the bestowal
of Extreme Unction.
With varying degrees of liberality other authors allow ad-
ministration to Protestants in danger of death. A writer in
the Cusuist, does not extend the lawfulness of administration
to cases where the man is still conscious.2° The reasons he
proffers are that it is not a necessary means of salvation and
that it can scarcely be given without grave scandal. Kern*?
limits the bestowal of the sacrament further. He holds that it is
lawful to anoint such heretics only who in good faith adhere to
a sect which confesses the sacramental dignity of Extreme Unce-
tion. This would reduce the lawful subjects to the Oriental
Orthodox Greeks, the Nestorians and the Monophysites. Other
Protestants, the author thinks, have not sufficient intention.
Murray,** a Redemptorist, writmg in the Homuiletic and
Pastoral Review, admits the allowability of anointing all dying
heretics, who are in good faith and who ean be considered to
have even the most tenuous probability of receiving the sacra-
ment. Both this writer and Vermeersch make note of a reply
29 Manuale J. C., 1. III, p. I, de Sac., proem.; this was also the view of
Kenrick, Th. M., III, p. 223 & p. 265.
30 Vol. ITI, p. 43.
31 Tract. de Ext. Unct., p. 317.
32 Vol. XXVI, (1926), p. 412 sqq.
132 Extreme Unction
of the Holy Office, dated March 17-20, 1916, which demands of
the heretic formal reconciliation with the Church. Vermeersch
explains the decree as follows:
‘‘Neque obstat particulare et tantum in ephemeride dioecesana
vulgatum responsum §. Officii, 17-20 Maii 1916, quo negatum est
schismaticis materialibus in mortis articulo constitutis, bona fide
absolutionem sive Extremam Unctionem petentibus, sacramenta ista
conferri posse, sed requiri ut ‘meliori quo fieri possit modo, errores
reiciant et professionem fidei faciant.” Responsum enim istud dat
reguiam generalem do solis schismaticis quibuscum facilius peccari
potest quodam indifferentismo, et qui, ob ipsam petitionem, videntur
satis commode adduci posse ad errorum abjurationem; nec casum
contemplatur quo periculose, pro animae aeterna salute, bona fides
turbaretur. ’ ’33
Similarly Pruemmer * lays little weight on this decision of the
Holy See.
Hanley is also very liberal. ‘‘It is given,’’ he writes,*?
‘‘to all baptized persons who are in good faith, if the priest
prudently judges that it may be done.’’ ULehmkuhl allows an
administration only to unconscious heretics:
‘‘Tmmo in iis haereticis baptizatis quod in bona fide versari
sumi potest, fortasse remedium reconciliationis erit, applicabile utique
tantum si sensibus destituti fuerint, atque si externae sint conditiones
ejusmodi, ut sine majoris mali periculo haec adjumenta valeant;
quamquam etiam quoad hoe remedium satis dubium est, num in piis
illorum hominum actibus, qui praecesserint, sufficiens intentio con-
tineatur. Kern id admittit quoad eos haereticos tantum, quorum
sectae profitentur extremae unctionis sacramentum. [is igitur, si in
bona fide existunt, sacramentum dari posse, certum est; ceteris, etsi
in bona fide sint, dari non posse, ita certum non est.’ ’36
If we except the argument from positive and specific legis-
lation, there is no reason why Extreme Unction cannot be given
when Penance can. And indeed the explanation given by Reuter
ean be used in.order to escape the force of this argument from
33 Th. M., III, 195. The Hom. and Past. Review (1.c.) gives the text of
this decision in English: ‘‘May a material schismatic in danger of
death and in good faith who asks for absolution and Extreme
Unction be given these sacraments? Response: Not before he re-
jects his errors as best he can, and makes a profession of faith.’’
34 Brevis Conspectus Mutat. Th. M., p
35 Treatise on the Sacrament of Extreme Unction, p. 31.
86 Th. M., II, 716.
Requisites in the Subject for Administration 133
and Repetition
specific legislation. Consequently the arguments of many au-
thors in regard to the administration of Penance to dying
heretics can also be extended to Extreme Unction. The align-
ment of authority is very impressive.
Thus D’Annibale:
‘‘Quod si nullum prorsus signum ediderit, morbo in instanti
correptus, ut puta irruente apoplexi? Ergo ut opinor, si probabile
sit non abhorrere, puta si rudis et b. f. homo sit, vel animum a
eatholica religione non alienum ostendit, et huic dari potest, si quid
opinor: ‘multo satius est nolenti dare, quam volenti negare, ubi
velit an nolit sic non apparet.’ ’’37
Kendrick is somewhat stricter than D’Annibale, for he allows
absolution only to those who evidence a friendly mind toward
the Church:
‘‘Qui catholicam fidem nunquam professi sunt, sed voluntatem
in eam proclivem ostenderunt, possunt eo in discrimine sub condi-
cione absolvi censuris et peccatis, si in suis sectis fuerint jam bap-
tizati; quod si ejus voluntatis nullum datum sit indicium, non sunt
absolvendi, etiamsi dent signa doloris.’’38
Telch® commemorates among the probable opinions the view
which permits secret conditional absolution to heretics pre-
sumably attrite and in good faith.
Sabetti-Barrett?® allows schismatic dying in good faith to
absolved, and admits the probability of the opinion permitting
Penance to be given to material heretics who have passed into
unconsciousness. Noldin*! and Genicot*? admit the liceity of
absolving secretly and conditionally a heretic, still conscious but
37 Summ. Th. M., III, 317. The quotation used by D’Annibale as the
reason for his opinion is taken from St. Augustine (cf. tnfra, hoo
capite, footnote 47). An examination of this quotation reveals that
St. Augustine was speaking of a case somewhat different than the
one contemplated by D’Annibale. St. Augustine considered the situ-
ation where a catechumen was unable to manifest by words his
desire for Baptism. And it can be seen that very great probability
of the man’s desire to be baptized can be gleaned from the very
fact of his entrance into the catechumenate. In the case treated
by D’Annibale, no such presumption of the presence of intention is
deducible from the circumstances,
38 Th. M., III, De Paenitent., n. 212.
39 Epit. Th. M., p. 413, n. 50.
40 Comp. Th. M., p. 713.
41 Dé Sac., n. 295.
42 Inst. Th. M., II, 298.
134 Extreme Unction
dying, who cannot be conveniently advised about conversion to
the Catholic faith—provided, of course, that he can prudently
be considered only a material heretic living in good faith out-
side the Church. Those destitute of their senses can likewise
be absolved. In the former case Noldin tells the confessor to
see that the man be moved to make acts of faith explicitly in
the mysteries absolutely necessary and implicitly in the other
articles of dogmatic truth. To these should be joined acts of
trust and hope in the Divine benignity, and acts of charity and
contrition whereby the subject admits that he is a sinner and
asserts his willingness to do what Christ would command for
salvation.43
Tanquerey** thinks that it is not forbidden to absolve dying
heretics who cannot be instructed in regard to the necessity of
embracing the Catholic faith. Arregui#® agrees with this
heartily and goes still further. He admits the lawfulness of
absolving conditionally a formal and public heretic destitute of
his senses, even though he did not retract his heresy when he
was able to do so. Schieler-Heuser*® believes that ‘‘one might
give absolution to a baptized non-Catholic of whom it might
be presumed upon any probable grounds that he is bona fide
and would gladly accept the help of a priest if he knew it was
necessary for him.’’
Thus it is seen that many authoritative minds have held the
licitness of giving Penance to dying heretics. And if Penance,
why not the complement of Penance? It is true that when a
heretic is in possession of his senses it is far more difficult to
anoint him than to absolve him ‘‘clam et condicionate.’’? Yet
it would not be unreasonable or outlandish to suppose that the
priest could anoint the forehead or one of the senses with a
438 The advice given by LaCroix (Th. M., 1. 6, p. II, n. 1866) and
adopted by Reuter (Neo-Confessarius, n. 203) is quite impractical
and very conducive to scandal in these days. They suggest that the
priest change his garb and approach the sick man incognito. They
hint that he may alter his dress to such an extent that the sick man
may be left under the impression that he is a Protestant minister.
44 Brev. Syn. Th. M., n. 1194.
49 Summ. Th. M., n. 589. The probability of this teaching is admitted
also by Ferreres (Th. M., II, 608) and Gennari (Il Monitore Ecclesi-
astico, VI, p. 2, pag. 113); ef. also Murphy, Delinquencies and Pen-
alties, pp. 5-8.
46 The Theory and Practice of the Confessional, p. 652.
Requisites in the Subject for Administration 135
and Repetition
single unction, while the bystanders would be left under the
impression that it was a touch of sympathetic kindness.
At any rate a priest who gives Extreme Unetion to dying
heretics has enough of extrinsic probability on his side to save
him from any scruples of conscience or criticism of his superiors.
Again, a priest who does not anoint in these cases cannot be
impugned for a lack of love towards souls. He has in support
of his refusal arguments whose intrinsic worth are much greater
than those which prompt the contrary mode of procedure. Such
a priest may be firmly impressed by the arguments which make
it absolutely wrong to administer the sacraments to these dying
persons.
The words of St. Augustine may be a help to the individual
priest on this matter, enabling him to fashion his mode of rea-
soning in concordance with one of the brightest lights in the
intellectual history of the world:
‘‘Catechumenis ergo in hujus vitae ultimo constitutis, si morbo
seu casu aliquo sic oppressi sint, ut quamvis adhuc vivant, petero
sibi tamen Baptismum vel ad interrogata respondere non possint;
prosit eis quod eorum in fide christiana jam nota voluntas est, ut eo
modo baptizentur, quo modo baptizantur infantes, quorum voluntas
nulla adhuc patuit. Non tamen propterea damnare eos debemus qui
timidius agunt, quam nobis videretur agi oportere. ... Sed non
solum incredibile est, nec in fine vitae hujus baptizari catechumenum
velle: verum etiam si voluntas ejus incerta est, multo satius est nolenti
dare quam volenti negare, ubi velit an nolit sic non apparet, ut tamen
credibilius sit eum, si posset, velle se potius dicturum ea Sacramenta
percipere, sine quibus jam credidit non se oportere de corpore
exire,’ 747
2.
Qui post adeptum usum rationis
The second requirement for the valid reception of Extreme
Unction is that the subject have attained the use of reason. This
is clear from the Jacobean text: ‘‘Inducat presbyteros.’’ A man
who never had the use of reason would be incapable of such an
action. ‘‘Faire venir les prétes de l’église,’’ writes Bord,**
‘Coux et non d’autres hommes, est l’action d’un adulte.’’
47 ‘De Conjug. Adult.,’’ lib. 1, ¢. 26, n. 33—M. P. L., 40, 469.
48 T,’Extréme Onctton, p. 57.
136 Extreme Unction
Theologians have advanced many intrinsic reasons why
children under the age of reason cannot receive Extreme Unc-
tion yet can be participants of the sacramental graces of Con-
firmation. Yet practically all of them can be attacked in very
vital points.
For example, Suarez *® asserts that the sacrament was insti-
tuted because of the grief and the violent temptations of the
hour of death, with the purpose of overcoming the weakness
that springs from sin and of remitting such sin, if necessary.
Of these an infant is wholly incapable, for it can neither be
tempted nor resist temptation. Accordingly an infant is an
invalid subject for Extreme Unction.
However, it must be remembered that incapability of en-
joying the consolation afforded by the sacrament is just as true
in the case of those destitute of their senses as it is of infants.
Yet the sacrament is never denied to the unconscious simply
because of that reason.
The argument advanced by Albertus Magnus® is quite
as unsatisfactory. He claims that it would stultify the sacra-
ment to pronounce the form ‘‘quidquid deliquisti’’ over those -
who had nothing to delete. At most this would prove nothing
else but the impropriety of the Western form for children.
Suppose the Eastern form were employed—or one of the an-
cient forms which said nothing of the forgiveness of sins? Fur-
thermore the use of such a form should be just as futile in the
case of those who have no sins to wipe out, such as adults just
baptized, ete.
St. Thomas advances a double argument against the cap-
ability of children to receive Extreme Unction. In the first
argument, he says that children are excluded because this sacra-
ment, like the Eucharist, demands actual devotion in the reci-
pient.°’ The basis of this demand for actual devotion is found
in the article preceding: ‘‘Quod ad effectum hujus sacramenti
percipiendum plurimum valet devotio suscipientis, et personale
meritum conferentium et generale totius Ecclesiae: quod patet
ex hoe quod per modum deprecationis forma hujus sacramenti
SS 68, 64, 0b.
50 Comm. in lib. IV Sent., dist. 23, n. 10,
51 Suppl., q. 32, a. 4.
Requisites in the Subject for Administration 137
and Repetition
confertur. Et ideo illis qui non possunt recognoscere et cum
devotione suscipere hoc sacramentum, dari non debet.’? The
vulnerability of this reasoning becomes apparent when it is
remembered that the Church does not exclude from participa-
tion in the sacrament those who are destitute of their senses
and consequently incapable of actual devotion. Moreover the
use of reason is by no means necessary for the valid reception
of the Eucharist. In the early Church even infants were ad-
mitted to the Divine Banquet. Hence the parity made with the
sacrament of the Eucharist is void.
The second argument of the Angelic Doctor is quite as
fallacious as his first. The principal effect of Extreme Unction
is, he says, the comforting and strengthening of the sick man
against the debilities of fallen nature in so far as these debili-
ties have been increased by personal sins.°? Since an infant
has committed no actual sins, he is not laboring under that
weakness of nature against which the sacrament is directed.
Consequently he is not capable of the actual or habitual
strengthening afforded by the sacrament; in other words, he
cannot receive the principal effect of the sacrament. Qut est
incapax principalis effectus, incapax est sacramenti. Therefore
children are invalid subjects for Extreme Unction.
Suarez ably answers this argument of St. Thomas:
‘ This age was also pre-
scribed by Frederick Nausea in his famous Catechism .°¢ _The
Synod of Bayeux,®? held at the beginning of the fourteenth
58 Cap. 8, n. 2—Harduin VI, pars 2, 1941.
59 Apud Martene, De Antig. Ecc. Rit., lib. 1, ¢. 7, a. 1, n. 3; Catalano,
Kit. Rom., t. I, p. 310, ad paragr. V, n. IIT.
60 Harduin, VII, 107.
61 Harduin, VII, 303.
62 Martene, l.c. ; Catalano, lc.
63 Martene, 1.c. ; Catalano, lc.
64 Lib. I, c. 8, n. 25.
65 Martene, lc.
66 Lib. 3, cap. 107—quoted by Martene, l.c.; Catalano, l.c. and Benedict
XIV, De Syn. Dioc., 1. 3, 606, 11,2,
67 Cap, 74—Harduin VII, 1237.
Requisites in the Subject for Admimstration 141
and Repetition
century, reduced the age to fourteen, thus agreeing with the
legislation of Odo.
Local rituals of the sixteenth century evidence the defer-
ment of the Unction until the subject was fourteen years old.
A rubric to this effect ean be found in the Manuals of Chartres
(1489 & 1544 & 1604), Rheims (1504 & 1530), Périgueux (1509),
Clermont (1518 & 1525), St. Flour (1525), Chalons sur Marne
(1529 & 1569), Nivernum (1533), Beauvais (1544), Meaux
(1546), Verdun (1554), Limoges (1555), Arras (1563), Vienne
(1577) and Maguelone (1583).*8
Yet such a practice of delaying the unction until puberty
was not universal. The Statutes of Cahors, Rodez and Tulle
demanded only the age of reason.®® Similar synodal decrees
were made for Paris” in 1557 and for the province of Cam-
brai™ in 1586. Valens Guellius, the bishop of Orleans, declared
in the diocesan Statutes the ineligibility of those who had not
yet communicated to participate in the reception of Extreme
Unction.’2 With far more reasonableness the Pastoral of Mech-
lin?? admitted to reception all those capable of committing
mortal sin. Cardinal de Rohan, in the Ritual of Strasburg,
prescribed: ‘‘Non denegetur etiam pueris si septimum atti-
gerint annum, nec iis in quibus malitia supplet aetatem, etiams1
septenarii non sunt.’’74
Although the tendency of the age was to postpone the
administration of Unction, nevertheless two authors claimed
that it used to be imparted even to those who had not the use
of reason, viz., Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa’ and Juan Maldo-
68 Launoi, Op. Omnia, t. I, pp. 562-3.
69 Martene-Durand, Anecdoctor., tom. IV, cap. 17—cf. Benedict XIV,
De Syn. Dioc., |. 8, c. 6, n. 2.
70 Cf. Martene, De Antiqg. Ecc. Rit., 1. I, ¢. 7, a. 1, n. 3.
71 Harduin IX, 2164.
72 Cf. Martene, l.c.; Benedict XIV, l.c. This view was also embraced by
Dominic Soto (Comm. in IV Sent., dist., 23, q. 2, a. 2). Cf. also
Conc. Mexicanum (anno 1589), lib. I, tit. VI, paragr. 6—Harduin X,
1610.
73 Van Espen, Jus Eccl. Univ., P. II, sec. I, tit. 8, c. 2, n. 9.
74 Rituale Argentinense, ‘‘Tit. de Ext. Unct.,’’ paragr. 2, p. 174—
quoted by Benedict XIV, l.c.
75 Hpistola Tertia ad Bohemos.
142 Extreme Unction
nado.’® Cornelius a Lapide’? denounces this statement as
groundless.
Since the Council of Trent, most theologians have held it is
eminently sufficient for validity if the child has attained the
age of reason.‘® Later Councils have similarly been very liberal,
and insist that the child is capable of Extreme Unction, even
though he has not received the Eucharist—provided that he
be capable of sin.?9 The deferring of Extreme Unction to any
later age was denounced in no uncertain terms by Pius X:
‘‘Detestabilis omnino est abusus non ministrandi Extremam
Unctionem pueris post usum rationis.®°’’
The new Code demands only the use of reason. The sub-
ject must be at least ‘‘culpae capax,®!’’ even though he has never
actually transgressed the law. He is, if he have reason, subject
to temptations, and is in need of the comfort and solace that
such a sacrament brings. Boys who have developed enough
to be capable of the least venial sin are to be anointed. No
appointed age can be given, for in each ease special investiga-
tion is to be made into the development of the moral sense in
the subject. Vicar Lebherz, writing in the Casuzst®? holds that
children may receive Extreme Unction even before the sixth
year. Benedict XIV® said it was to be given to boys ‘‘qui
censentur capaces Sacramenti Poenitentiae, quamvis nondum
tanta polleant judicii maturitate ut videantur apti ad rite par-
ticipandam Eucharistiam, de cujus ineffabili excellentia et sanc-
titate non ita facile edoceri queunt.’’
If it is certain that the child has not yet reached the use of
reason, the sacrament cannot be administered. With children
76 Disp. §c., Circa Sept. Sacramenta, t. II, de Extr. Unct., col. 389.
77 Comm. in Ep. S. Jacobi, ad V, 14.
78 Cf. e.g., Suarez, d. 42, s. 2, n. 8; 8. Alph., Th. M., VI, 720.
79 Cf. Conc. V Mediolanen. apud Acta Ecc. Mediolanen., t. I, p. I, p. 230;
Proy. Councils of Cassel (1853—Coll. Lac., III, 838); Quebee (1854
—ibid., p. 645); Rheims (1849—ibid., IV, 122); Bordeaux (1850—
ibid., IV, 574); Kansas City, Mo. (1912—c. 13, n. 126); Rochester
(1914—tit. X, ¢. 6, n. 341); Oklahoma (1913—n. 136); &c.
80 S. C. de Sac., ‘Quam Singulari,’’? 8 Aug. 1910—A. A. 8., II, 583.
81 Matharan et Castillon, Asserta Moralia, paragr. 521, p. 237; Aureli,
De Extr. Unct., n. 15, p. 90.
82 Vol. II, p. 173-6.
83 De Syn. Dioc., 1. 8, ¢. 6, n. 2.
84 Cat. Conc. Trid., De Extr. Unct., n. 9.
Requisites in the Subject for Administration 143
and Repetition
are classed those afflicted with permanent insanity. In such
people there has been no evolution of the spiritual or moral
life—and accordingly they experience none of the spiritual pros-
tration which occurs in the hour of death to those who have
knowledge of good and of evil. They are consequently incap-
able of the principal effect of the sacrament.®
It is by no means necessary that a man be ‘‘sui compos’’
at the time of the conferring of the sacrament. Those who have
been rendered unconscious by the ravages of the disease®® or
those who have lapsed into insanity after the attainment of the
use of reason®’ are capable of receiving this anointing. They
have the potency of habitual confortatio at least, and this is quite
sufficient to make a man a valid subject of the Unction.
Any one who has ever had a lucid interval during his
life can validly be anointed. This was declared as anciently
as the Council of Orange®® and was clearly expounded by
Navarrhus:
‘‘Cuilibet tamen hujusmodi infirmo est ministrandum, etiamsi
sit amens et phreneticus, si absque irreverentia sacramenti, id fieri
possit, et potuerit ante peccare, et antequam insaniret, expresse aut
tacite petierit illud, aut si meminisset, petiturus fuisset, nec in
peccato mortali notorio insaniret.’’89
85 It might be objected that the insane, though incapable of some effects,
have at least the capacity to receive corporal sanation, and therefore
are capable of receiving the sacrament. However ‘‘qui incapax est
principalis effectus, incapax est sacramenti.’’ Sacraments were insti-
tuted for supernatural ends, and not for natural purposes. If an
effect does occur in the order of nature, it must be considered as an
appendage, never as the principal effect. Cf. Trombellio, Tract. de
Sac. Ext. Unct., Vol. III, diss. X, n. X; Coninck, De Sac. et Censur.,
disp. 19, dub. VII.
86 Cf. can. 943.
87 Cf, Trombellio, Tract. de Sac. Ext. Unct., Vol. III, diss. X, paragr. VI,
p. 26; Mastrio, Th. M., disp. XXII, qu. 5, a. 1, nn. 70-71; Diana,
Op. Coord., tom. II, tr. IV, res. 50; Barbosa, De Off. et Pot. Par.,
¢. 22, n. 13; Tamburini, Moral. Ezplic., ‘‘de Ext. Unct.,’’ ¢. 2,
paragr. 3, n. 4; Benedict XIV, De Syn. Dioc., 1. 8, c. 6, n. 4; Suarez,
d. 42, 8. 1, nn. 5-6,
88 Harduin I, 1785—can. 13.
89 Manuale, c. 22, n. 13. Cf. infra, chap. vii, p. 240, where the lawfulness
of anointing a man who fell into insanity in the act of sin is treated.
Cf. 8. Thom., Comm. in IV Sent., d. 23, q. 2, a. 2, quaestiunc. 3.
144 Extreme Unction
Similarly those who are delirious, or unconscious, or in convul-
sions, or otherwise deprived of their senses may be validly and
licitly anointed.2° Lehmkuhl sums this up briefly:
‘‘Deneganda non est 1) amentibus et delirantibus qui unquam
antea rationis usum habuerint; 2) pueris modo rationis usum atti-
gerint, quamquam antea neque confessi sunt neque S. Eucharistia
donati.’ 791
As stated before, the subject must be at least capable of
sin. Whether it is necessary that he actually have committed
sin is very much disputed. St. Thomas*? holds that the prin-
cipal effect presupposes the existence of a spiritual infirmity
resulting from actual sin committed before or after baptism.
Suarez,?? on the contrary, maintains that it is quite sufficient to
have the capability of actual sin and to possess the spiritual in-
firmity resulting from original sin. He is supported in his con-
tention by Dionysius the Carthusian,** and St. Bonaventure.®
Suarez goes even further and holds that one by nature liable
to contract original sin, yet by a special privilege exempt from
it, can still receive the primary effect of the sacrament; and
consequently is a valid subject of the Unction.®°* His opinion is
subscribed to by St. Antoninus,®? by Canisius 98 and by Hen-
riquez,” at least in regard to the case of the Blessed Virgin.
They base their contention upon the argument that she had the
antecedent potency of sinning, even though this potency had
never been deduced into act, because of her singular privileges.
The opposite opinion is taught by Victoria,!°° Vasqueth 1
and Tanner *°*—because, as Tanner remarks, the privilege be-
stowed on Mary was not capriciously done, but arose from a
certain congruity and special excellence connected with the
90 Tanquerey, Th. D., III, 782.
21 Th. M., IU, 723.
92 Suppl. q. 32, a. 4 ad 2.
93 D. 42, s. 1, n. 5.
94 Summa Fidei, lib. 5, ¢. 149 in fine.
95 Comm. in IV Sent., d. 23, p. 2, a. 1, q. 2.
96.D. 42, sect, 1; n 5.
97 In III p. d. Thom., tit. XIV, ce. 8 et 13.
98 Lib. de Beata Virg., ec. 9.
99. De Sac., lib. TIL, ¢. 11, n. 7.
100 Swmma Sac., De Ext. Unct., n. 222.
101 In III p. d. Thom., disp. 119, e. 8.
102 tom. IV, disp. 7, a. 1, dub. 3.
Requisites in the Subject for Administration 145
and Repetition
prerogative of the Divine Maternity. Accordingly, they say,
she was in no way capable of the spiritual comfort produced by
the sacrament.
A practical case will occur when a priest is confronted with
the case of a child who has reached the age of reason and whom
he knows from confession never to have sinned. In this situa-
tion St. Alphonsus 1° and Diana? decide that the sacrament
should be bestowed. Two reasons would prompt this course of
action: (1) the very great likelihood that the commission of
actual sin is not essential for valid reception; and (2) the seal
of confession, which comes into consideration at least remotely
and indirectly in such circumstances.
It is certainly permitted to anoint an adult immediately
after the bestowal of Baptism. This is abundantly clear from
the decisions of the Roman Congregations1®> and from the
teaching of theologians.1°* Laymann calls attention to the fact
that the form in such eases has a conditional sense ‘‘si quid
peccasti.’’
3. “Ob infirmitatem vel senium in periculo mortis versetur.”’
It has been shown in the first chapter that the Scriptural
text speaks of those only who are seriously sick. The force of
the Greek words acbevet and xdpvovra, especially when con-
sidered in their setting in that text, refer explicitly to a sub-
ject in a dangerous state of illness.
In the course of centuries abuses and malpractices in this
regard have crept into the Greek and the Latin rites. Both
(and also the Greek schismatic or Orthodox Church) profess the
sacramental dignity of the Unction; both concur in the ques-
tion of its matter and form, its effects and its minister. But
103 Th. M., VI, 717.
104 Opera Coord., t. II, tr. IV, res. 42.
105 §, C. S. Off., 10 Maii, 1703, ad 8—Collectanea, n. 256; 10 Apr. 1861,
ad. 1—Collectanea, n. 1213; 8. C. P. F., 26 Sept. 1821—Collectanea,
n. 768.
106 Diana, Op. Coord., t. II, tr. IV, res. 47; Laymann, Th. M., lib."V, tr. 8,
ce. III in fine; 8S. Alph., Th. M., VI, 721; Kenrick, Th. M., ITI, De
Ext. Unct., cap. unic., n. 18; Lehmkunl, Th. M., II, 722; Sabetti-
Barrett, Th. M., p. 805; Genicot, Casus Conse., cas. 884.
146 Extreme Unction
in regard to the subject of the sacrament, theological history
resounds with the vituperations of the West against the East
and re-echoes with the arraignment of the Orient by the Occident.
Latin writers clamor that the Greeks confer, in direct con-
tradiction to the Apostolic mandate, the Euchelaion on those
but slightly ill or even perfectly well. Thus Arcudius wrote:
‘*Ego praesentem morem Graecorum qui poenitentes, quamvis bene
valentes, in omnibus iis corporis partibus adhibita quoque forma
éacramenti non aliter atque infirmos inungunt, nulla ratione probare
possum; et si sordidi quaestus gratia id faciunt ... eo magis de-
testandus est. Cum enim subjectum non sit aptum ad recipiendum
sacramentum—quando neque graviter quis infirmatur, et ad mortem,
ut requirit Apostolus et exponunt sacri doctores—frustra temereque
Ulud Graeci administrant.’’107
And again:
‘‘Adeo ut modo non pudeat passim Graecorum presbyteros hoe
oleum instar sacramenti ex imperitia benevalentibus administrare, ’ 7108
Similar denunciations of the practice are found in the writings
of Theophilus Raynaudus 1% and Tournely.1!°
Other writers, such as Hieremias,!!! Allatius 112 and
Fortescue,1"* testify to the existence of this custom. It was by
no means local; as Arcudius puts it, ‘‘viget non in aliquo angulo
Graeciae sed ubique passim, quam eandem retinet hae nostra
aetate tota Russia universaque Moscovia.’’1!4
Goar admits this usage but contends vigorously that it is
regarded as a sacramental. ‘‘Contingit tamen, fateor, aliquando
ex officio peracto, ex astantibus plerique, vel benedictionis spi-
ritualis obtinendae, vel levis alicujus doloris eos afflictantis
leniendi gratia, Unctionis medela se curari exoptent; quod
praestant sacerdotes eadem ratione ac super aegros recitata.’’115
This admission is followed by arguments in proof of his con-
107 De Concord. Eccl. Occid., 1. V, ¢. 4.
108 De Concord. Eccl. Occid., 1. V, cap. ult.
109 Heteroclita Spiritualia, t. XVI, p. 164.
110 Praelectiones Theol. de Sept. Sac., ‘‘De Ext. Unet.,’* qo°3;
111 Censura adv. Augustanam Lutheranorwm Confessionem, 1]. 1, PAD aig
112 De Consens. Eccl. Occid. et Orient., 1. III, cap. 16. ets:
113 The Orthodox Eastern Church, p. 425.
114 L. ¢., cap. 4,
115 Fuchologium, p. 349-50, Pignatelli (Consult. Canon., t. VIII, consult.
84, n. 29) thinks this is a sacramental.
Requisites in the Subject for Administration 147
and Repetition
tention. There is no intention of confecting the sacrament; the
ceremonial which accompanies the bestowal of the Euchelaion is
absent ; and the form or prayer used in the Greek rite is so com-
prehensive that it can be used on this occasion without doing
violence to the meaning. The arguments of Goar are sup-
ported by the fact that the Greeks used the oil of the sick for
many other purposes than to confer Extreme Unction.!!®
Yet Kern'!? is not impressed by this reasoning, although
he admits the great authority of Goar. Drouven*!® protests that
we are too harsh in our judgment of the Greeks. Perhaps he
is right, for today the oriental theologians confess that the ad-
ministration of Unction to healthy people was certainly an
abuse.119
In the schismatie Church this practice of anointing those
not sick exists even today. It enjoys wide diffusion in the
patriarchate of Constantinople, and indeed in the whole Hellenic
kingdom.?*° In the Russian Church, on the contrary, there is
found a firm persuasion that the Euchelaion must be reserved
for those alone who are seriously sick.!21
It was also not uncommon in days past that the reception
of Extreme Unction be enjoined upon a penitent as sacramental
satisfaction for his sins. Evidently this was due to a mistaken
idea of the sense in which Extreme Unction is the complement
of Penance. Thus Areudius!** tells of a reply of John Natha-
niel, the great Oeconomus of Crete, to Vivian, bishop of Anagni,
wherein it is stated that such was made the source of a great
revenue for priests thru the charging of a fee for such unc-
116 Mabillonius, Praef. ad Saec. Primum, Act. SS. Ord. 8. Benedict,
paragr. 9, n. 101.
117 Tract. de Ext..Unct., p. 279.
seneven he Sacr., 1. VII, q. 5, ¢..1, paragr.. 1.
119 Cf, Arcangelsky, Mihail, ‘‘Izsledovanije ob istoriceskom razvitii cinos-
oversenija Jeleosvjascenija ot ustanovlenija sego tainstva do izdanija
nynesnjago jego ‘‘Posledovanija,’’ s podrobnym izjasnenijem sego
poslednjago,’’ p. 133 sqq.
120 Cf. Ralli, Tleopt ray wvotnpiwy, p. 115; Mesaloras, ‘Eyxecpldcov,
p. 218; Catechism of Constantinople and
Athens—‘‘ Echos de 1]’Orient,’’ avril-mai, 1899.
121 [gnatius, ‘‘O tainstvah jedinoj, svjatoj, sobornoj i apostolskoj cerkvi.
Opyt arheologiceskij,’’ p. 265; Maltzew, Die Sakramente, p. 451
Makarij, ‘‘Pravoslavno-dogmaticeskoje bogoslovije,’’ t. V p. 470.
122 De Concord. Eccl. Orient., 1. V, ¢. 4.
148 Extreme Unction
tions. This abominable business Innocent IV!" and Benedict
XIV!*4 endeavored to extirpate by determined legislation.
Even in the Latin Church, which is generally accused of
delaying the administration too long, there are found isolated
examples of the bestowal of this sacrament to subjects in good
health. For example, Hugh of Flaviade, in the Chronicles of
Verdun,?** tells of one Odilia who received a divine forewarn-
ing that she was to die the following day. Immediately she
went to the monastery of St. Vito, where she was anointed by
the abbot, Richard. There is also the story of the monk who
after Matins on St. Martin’s day was supernally advised of his
approaching dissolution. He revealed his vision to the abbot,
and by his permission was anointed with holy oil. ‘‘Et Domi-
nicis munitus mysteriis, sanus et incolumis, cum eaeteris in
conventu versatus, sequento die obiit.’’!*6
Similar examples are found in the Life of St. Gildasius,!*7
where the anointment of a lay-brother, while well, is mentioned:
and in the Life of St. Hedwig, who was anointed before she
became sick.18
These isolated examples, Benedict XIV!" contends, are not
contrary to the practice and teaching of the Church. They are
extraordinary doings, the dealings of God with His saints. As
the author of St. Hedwig’s life says: ‘‘Hoe tamen, quod heic
diximus, admirandum potius est quam imitandum, cui Spiritui
Domini per revelationem tribuit efficaciam, et in quo, ut pie
ereditur, sancta devotio dispensavit.’’ Thiers!®® asserts that
such people, when divinely forewarned of death, are valid recip-
lents because they have already been stricken internally by a
mortal disease.
123 Ep. ‘‘Sub catholicae,’’ 6 Maii, 1254—paragraph 3, n. 6—C. I. CG.
Fontes, n. 34.
124 Const. ‘‘Htst patoralis,’’ 26 Maii, 1742, paragr. V, n. 1—C. I. C.
Fontes, n. 328; ep. encyl. ‘‘EHx quo,’’ 1 Mar., 1756, paragr. 48—
C. I. C. Fontes, n. 438.
125 p. 167—quoted by Martene, De Antig. Ecc. Rit., 1. I, c. 7, a. 1, n. 1 and
by Benedict XIV, De Syn. Dioc., 1. 8, c. 5, n. 2.
126 Mabillonius, Acta SS. Ord. Benedicti, saec. VI, p. 2.
127 Mabillonius, l.c., saec. 1, p. 151.
128 Cap. 8—Acta SS., Oct. 17, vol. 8, p. 219.
129 Le.
130 De Superstitione circa Sac. Ext. Unct., 1. 8, c. 6, p. 377: cf. Benedict
Z1V; De Syni Dice, 128, ehh, 8 ay ee ape
Requisites in the Subject for Adminstration 149
and Repetition
While Goar and other Greek writers endeavor to explain
the Greek practice of anointing those not seriously ill as an
abuse or aS a sacramental, in the Latin Church two theo-
logians, De Sainte-Beuve 1*1 and Juenin 182 stoutly defend the
validity of anointing those but slightly ill. They have three
principal arguments for their view.
In the first place, they say, Scripture orders the unction of
the sick, but it does not exclude the healthy. Much less does
it proseribe an unction for those but slightly ill. These latter
people can be said in truth to be sick. Moreover, Eugene IV,
in his decree to the Armenians,!** used the phrase “‘dari non
debet nisi infirmo, de cujus morte timetur.’’ He did not say
‘(dari non potest.’? Moreover ‘‘de cujus mortis timetur’’ can be
extended to include such sicknesses which may be only very
slightly dangerous and thus cause a cursory fear of the ulti-
mate outcome. Again the Council of Trent*** directed that
the sacrament was to be given to the sick, especially to those
who were so seriously ill as to be near the end of their earthly
journey. The insertion of ‘‘praesertim’’ evidences the Coun-
cil’s unwillingness to exclude those not so sick as to be in
danger of death.1%°
Secondly, theologians all maintain that necessary elements
for the valid administration of a sacrament are matter, form
and intention. Yet these are present even when the subject is
well, or but slightly ill.
Finally, although the Greeks were compelled to render a
strict account of all their doings which varied from the Latin
Rite, in the Ecumenical Council of Florence, yet no objection
was raised to the Greek practice of anointing those not seriously
ill. The Council did take note of the practice of ordering
131 De Eat. Unct., disp. 7, a. 1-2; apud Migne, Curs. Theol. Comp., vol.
XXIV, 116-122.
132 Comm. Hist. et Dog. de Sac., diss. 7, q. 7, ¢ 3.
133 Const. ‘‘Ezultate Deo’’ (in Cone. Florentin.), 22 Nov. 14389, paragr. 14
—C. I. C. Fontes, n. 52.
134 Sess. XIV, De Ext. Unct., cap. 3.
135 Coninck (De Sac. et Censur., d. 19, dub. 8 in fine) is impressed by the
phraseology of the Council, but uses it to prove only the validity of
the sacrament in a putative danger of death. He seems consequently
to be of the opinion that ‘‘debere’’ signifies only a necessity of
precept.
150 Extreme Unction
unction as sacramental satisfaction, and it condemned the prac-
tice. This is a fair indication that the custom of anointing
those not in danger of death did not escape the vigilance of the
Council; and a lack of condemnation signifies approval.
Benedict XIV'%® calls this reasoning frivolous. In regard
to the first argument, the real force of the Apostolic text has
already been discussed. The strength of ‘‘dari non debet’’
could be per se preceptive, it must be admitted. Yet it can
similarly be taken to signify an absolute necessity, as Bar-
bosa!*? notes, and in dogmatic decrees it means a necessity not
only of precept but of sacrament, as Suarez observes.188 Pope
Eugene and the Council of Trent intended to proclaim the
whole dogma in regard to Extreme Unction, as the latter pro-
tested in the end of the third chapter on Extreme Unction.
When, therefore, they said it was to be given to the sick, they
meant the sick tazative.
In answer to the second argument, it is only necessary to
remark that it is quite as essential to have a subjectum capax
as to have the other necessary constituents of the sacrament.
If this were not so, Order could be validly received by women.
As Suarez '*? puts it, the subject is the ‘‘materia in qua’’ or
“circa quam’’ of the sacrament—which ‘‘ad totum sacramen-
tum comparatur et ab ulo sacramentum in suo esse pendet,
ideoque merito inter ejus causas computatur.’’ Hence unless
they assume what they intend to prove, viz., that people slightly
ill are valid subjects, their argument has no foree whatsoever.
And if they do assume this, they fall into a ‘‘petitio principii.’’
The final argument from the action of the Council of
Florence would be valid if its proponents would show that
the Council looked upon the Greek ceremony as a sacrament.
It is Just as logical to conclude that the Fathers of the Council
regarded it as a sacramental.
While the Eastern theologians debated about the customs
of the Greeks, Oriental writers denounced in no uncertain terms
the practice of the Latins of postponing the administration of
136 De Syn. Déioc., 1. 8, c. 5, n. 5.
137 Barbosa, De Usu Frequent., dist. 77, n. 1.
183 42, 8.08, De 2
189 D. 42, in principio.
Requisites in the Subject for Administration al
and Repetition
this sacrament until all hope of recovery had passed away.!?°
In very many cases this vehemence was deserved, for it is
beyond doubt that such a lamentable practice gripped the Latin
Chureh for several centuries.
Three principal causes must be mentioned to account for
the existence of this abuse in the Latin Church. They are
1) the impious avarice of many priests of the Middle Ages;
2) the insane superstitions of the people; and 3) the errors of
theologians.
1. It must be admitted that the sacrilegious greed of some
priests of the Middle Ages forced many to forego the
advantages of this glorious sacrament. Extreme Unction was
not given ‘‘sine pretio,’’ and was available therefore only to
the rich. For this reason the Waldensians were led to spurn
the sacrament. Reynerius, a Dominican of the thirteenth cen-
tury, states:
‘‘Sacramentum Unctionis reprobant quia tantum divitibus datur,
et propter plures sacerdotes ibi necessarios. . . . Sacramentum
Extremae Unctionis dicunt esse ultimam superbiam. Contra Jacobi
ultimo: ‘Infirmatur quis in vobis.’ Occasio quia hoe sacramentum
nulli datur sine pretio. Et hoc facit pluralitas sacerdotum.. .
Item praedicant quidam nulli sacramentum hoe debere dari, nisi qui
possit habere saltem duas vaccas. Unde pauperes graviter scanda-
lizantur. Item dicunt quod duodecim lumina sunt necessaria in
unctione, cum tamen sufficiat unicum ubi corpus Christi ministratur,
quia est dignissimum sacramentum; ita et hic.’’141
The enormity of the stipend demanded was decried very
bitterly by Anonymus Passaviensis!#* and by Wiliam Major,
the Bishop of Angers in the last part of the thirteenth century.
140 Symeon Thessalonicen., De Sacro Ritu Sancts Olet,—M. P. L., 155,
518-9; Ignatij, O tainstvah jedinoj, svjatoj, sobornoj i apostolskoj
eerkyi,’’ p. 279; Beljaev, ‘‘Jeleosvjascenije’’ v ‘‘Pravoslavnoj
Bogoslovskoj enciklopediji,’’ t. V, p. 406; Makarij, ‘‘ Pravoslavno-
dogmaticeskoje bogoslovije,’’ t. V, n. 231, etc., among schismatie
writers. See Mesaloras, Eyxerptdiov p. 219, for disapproval by
a Greek writer.
141 Lib. de Waldensibus, edited in 1254, quoted by De Sainte-Beuve, De
Ext. Unct., disp. 1, a. 2, apud Migne, Curs. Theol. Comp., t. XXIV,
Colne L.
142 De Occasionibus Errorum Haereticorum, edited in 1260. Cf. Preger,
Beitrage zur Geschichte der Waldenser im Mittelalter, p. 66.
152 Extreme Unction
In his synod of 1294, the latter legislated:
‘‘Nosque accepimus referentibus fide dignis, quod dictum sacra-
mentum, sine quo, ut dicunt sancti, periculosum est ex hac vita
migrare, ex quadam negligentia omittitur, #mmo ut vervus loquamur,
ex sacerdotum rapacitate et avarttia, qui in collatione hujus sacra-
menti novas et insolitas exactiones inducunt aliunde, petendo lintea-
mina, quibus jacens inungitur aegrotans.’ 7143
Synodal legislation of these centuries reveals a determined
attempt on the part of the hierarchy to extirpate this abomin-
able abuse. Thus for instance, Richard Poore, the bishop of
Sarum, inserted in his Constitutions the following enactment:
‘ and Noldin.226 A papal document of
220 Summ. Th. M., I, 38.
221 Cf. Launoi, Op. Omnia, t. 1, p. 557.
222 Cf. De Sainte-Beuve, De Ext. Unct., disp. VII, a. 2—apud Migne, Curs.
Theol. Comp., vol. XXIV, col. 119-120.
223 Th. M., VI, 714.
224 Th. M., III, 442.
225 Th. M., II, 422.
326 De Sac., 443.
Requisites in the Subject for Administration 167
and Repetition
extremely recent issue confirms this distinction :
‘‘In hoe autem potissimum, cum sodalium, tum praecipue zela-
torum studiosam voluntatem desideramus advocatam, ut exitialem
quoquo pacto profligent errorem, ex quo fit ut cum animae detrimento
sancto oleo ante liniantur infirmi quam, morte imminente, sensus
paene vel omnino amiserunt. Neque enim, ut sacramentum valade
liciteque detur, necesse est ut mors proxime secutura timeatur, sed
satis est ut prudens seu probabile adstt de periculo judiciwm; quodsi
in ea rerum condicione conferri debet, in hac conferri utique potest,
et illud curet ministrandum, is Ecclesiae Matris non modo doc-
trinam sequitur, sed optata pie ac salubriter perficit.’’227
Thus all that is required for valid and licit administration is
a probable danger of death. The probability must rest on truly
solid grounds, else the sacrament cannot be given, at least
absolutely. ‘‘Tale judicium,’’ writes Genicot,”*® ‘‘elicitum sive
a medico sive ab alio experientia edocto, requiritur et sufficit ut
extrema unctio conferri possit; ac sane optandum et conandum
est ut, nisi specialis ratio differendi obstet, majus et certius
periculum non expectetur.”’
Probability of death must be understood reasonably, in
accordance with the mind of the Church. Hence, as Genicot ??°
notes, a man can be in probable danger of death, even though
the likelihood of his recovery is more probable. A ‘‘dubium
positivum de morte secutura’’ will furnish sufficient prob-
ability for action.?*°
Sometimes there is a doubt about the solidity of the prob-
ability. In such an instance the older authors **! forbade ad-
ministration. The next canon however permits a conditional
administration in this case. Hence, we must distinguish: (1)
when there is a positive doubt ‘‘de morte secutura,’’ the sacra-
ment may be bestowed absolutely ; (2) when there is a positive
227 Pius XI, Litt. Ap., ‘‘Explorata res est,’’ Feb. 2, 1923—A. A. S., XV,
105. Cf. also Benedict XV, Litt. Ap., ‘‘Sodalitatem,’’ May 31,
1921—A. A. §., XIII, 342: ‘‘Qui in discrimine ultimo versantur,
sacri viatici et extremae Unctionis susceptionem ne eo usque re-
morentur cum sensum amissuri jam sunt, sed, contra, quemadmodum
Ecclesia docet et praecipit, iis roborentur Sacramentis vixdum, in-
gravescente morbo, prudens fiat de periculo mortis judicium.’’
228 Inst. Th. M., II, 422.
229 Lc.
230 Vermeersch-Creusen, Hpit., II, 225.
231 St. Alph., Th. M., VI, 714; Scavini, Th. M., III, 442, etc.
168 Extreme Unction
doubt ‘‘num infirmitas sit periculosa,’’ the sacrament must be
given conditionally.
It must be noted, too, that although administration is al-
lowable to a patient when there is a probable and prudent doubt
that his life is threatened by the disease, yet if de facto there is
no danger present in him, the sacrament is not valid. Kern does
not agree with this at all. ‘‘Si objectivum periculum exigere-
tur,’’ he argues,?8* ‘‘non raro accidit ut aegrotus a medicis de-
positus, cujus mors in, horas expectatur, invalide inungeretur vi
morbi jam fracta, quamvis ad extra id nondum appareat. Unde
si Dominus objectivum vitae discrimen fecisset conditionem
essentialem, ipse sacramentum cerebro pevriculo nullitatis et op-
timos quosque sacerdotes anxiis scrupulis simulque infirmos perl-
culo exposuisset, ne supernaturale auxilium eis denegaretur tem-
pore quo maxime apti existerent ad plenum ejus fructum acce--
dente perfecta cooperatione propria percipienda.’’ WVermeersch
is inclined to agree with Kern: ‘‘Valide et licite confertur. . .
in morbo gravi et natura sua periculoso, quamvis nullum ob-
jective sit vitae discrimen ; in morbo qui natura sua est periculo-
sus et qui simul affligit graviter infirmum, quamvis nondum
videatur (subjective) diserimen vitae secum ferre.’’ 233
Noldin *** and Sebastiani 23> take issue with Kern and Ver-
meersch and hold that Extreme Unction in a purely putative
danger of death is absolutely invalid. By Christ’s institution,
the subject of this sacrament is a sick man in danger of death
truly and actually. This is explicitly required by the present
canon: ‘‘in periculo mortis ob infirmitatem vel senium versetur.?’
The law does not say ‘‘versari videtur,’’ but speaks in an ob-
Jective sense. This is confirmed by the insertion of ‘‘reipsa’’
into the phraseology of the next canon: ‘‘Quando dubitatur
num... infirmus... in periculo mortis reipsa versetur, hos sa-
cramentum ministretur sub condicione.’’ This implies that the
objectivity of the danger is the determining factor whether the
conditional unetion will be valid or not.
232 Tract. de Ext. Unct., p. 298,
233 Th. M., ITI, 661.
234 De Sac., 443.
235 Summ. Th. M., n. 510; ef. Barry, Irish Eccl. Record, Fifth Series, Vol.
XXVI (1925), p. 65.
Requisites in the Subject for Administration 169
and Repetition
Neldin’s view is more probable, for there seems to be lack-
ing on the part of the subject an essential condition for valid
reception. In no other sacrament does subjective certitude on
the part of the minister validate the administration to a man
otherwise objectively incapable of reception.
Suppose a man in a drunken stupor was mistakenly pro-
nounced by a physician to be in danger of death. Suppose, too,
that a priest, relying on the judgment of such a one, admin-
istered Extreme Unction. Who will say that this administration
is valid? How is such a subject in need of a spiritual exhilara-
tion which presupposes a depression of soul from sickness? *%°
Yet if subjective certainty on the part of the minister supplies
for the lack of an essential condition in the subject, this admin-
istration must have been validly received.
How then are we to explain the various pronouncements,
private and official, which permit administration of the sacra-
ment when there is a prudent fear that death is threatening the
patient? For example, Pius XI used this mode of expression:
‘‘Neque enim, ut sacramentum valide liciteque detur, necesse est
ut mors proxime secutura timeatur, sed satis est ut prudens seu
probabile adsit de periculo judicium.’’ What can be said in
answer to such phraseology ?
A sharp distinction must be drawn between a valid and
licit administration and a valid reception. The permissibility
of administration does not automatically effect a validity of
reception. The lack of an essential condition in the subject suc-
cessfully obstructs such a valid and licit administration. In
the confessional a priest may validly and licitly absolve a man
whom he feels is well-disposed; but if de facto such a man has
defective dispositions, the absolution is null. Hence it will be
noticed that these official pronouncements and private writings
speak of the legitimacy of the procedure on the part of the
minister, but leave undiscussed the validity of the reception by
the subject.
Since this is true, since it is required that a person be in
objective danger of death for valid reception, it can be seen
how erroneous the opinion of St. Alphonsus is when he asserts
236 Cf. W. McDonald, Irish Theol. Quarterly, Vol. II (1907), p. 54.
170 Extreme Unction
the validity of Extreme Unction administered in a grave sick-
ness even where it is known that there is no danger of death.?*?
The saint held that the danger of death was a condition re-
quired only for the licit administration and reception of the
sacrament. Pius XI declared that, ‘‘ut valide liciteque detur,’’
a prudent or probable judgment of the danger of death suf-
ficed. If it suffices, there is also an implication that it is also
required.
With these principles in mind, the various contingencies
that may arise in the matter of anointing must be discussed:
1. If the disease is a slight one, even though there is a fear
that it will subsequently become dangerous, Extreme Unction
cannot be administered. Such a subject has not the depression
of soul which the primary effect of the sacrament is ordained to
remove. It is absolutely necessary that the subject be hic et
mune capable of receiving this spiritual exhilaration; and thus
any anticipated administrations are inadmissible.
2. If a man is but lightly affected by a disease itself, but
is nevertheless placed thereby in peril of sudden death, he is a
valid and licit subject of the sacrament. Though severe bodily
pains and depressions are to a great extent absent, nevertheless
there are present all the needs for sacramental alleviation. The
condition of the patient, not his symptoms, is to be considered.
Cases of this kind happen frequently when persons are afflicted
with cardiae conditions. It is in this way, also, that the unctiou
of old people is justified.*%8
3. If a man is seriously affected by a disease, which is of its
nature dangerous, but which has not as yet placed the life of
the patient in danger, (because in the judgment of a skilled
physician it is pursuing its normal course), Kern 78° thinks that
the Unction ean be validly and licitly bestowed. Vermeersch 7*°
heartily agrees with him in this belief.
Similarly, Suarez seems to incline to this view:
‘* Addo in usu servandum esse, ut non solum morbus ex se gravis
sit, sed etiam ut status talis sit qui infirmum in gravi periculo mortis
237 Homo Apostolicus, tr. XVII, n. 7.
238 Gobat, Moraliwm, Tr. VIII, n. 875; Gury-Ferreres, Casus Conc., II, 440.
239 Tract. de Ext. Unct., p. 298.
240: Th. M:, ILI, 661.
Requisites in the Subject for Adminstration 171
and Repetition
constituat. Ita docent omnes DD. &. ... Quia vero hic status non
potest habere tantam certitudinem, multumque ex arbitrio pendet,
ideo non videtur haec condicio ita substantialis, ut si forte aliquan-
tulum praemature ungatur infirmus, sacramentum propterea sit nullum
existimandum; quin potius quoties morbus ex se fuerit periculosus et
gravis, existimo sacramentum esse validum, etiamsi ad statum morbi
vel non satis, vel etiam nihil, attendatur.’’241
Yet with the principles heretofore stated clearly in mind,
it is hard to admit the permissibility of an unction in any case
where there is not a prudent and probable danger of death.
In this instance this danger will develop perhaps, but hic et nunc
it is not present. The Code, however, seems to speak of the
actual danger present at the time of reception: ‘“‘Non potest
praeberi nisi fideli qui. . . ob infirmitatem in periculo mortis
versetur.’’ Genicot takes issue with Kern and Vermeersch when
he writes:
‘¢Recipere possunt valide et licite extremam unctionem ii tantum
in quibus habentur simul sequentes condiciones: 1) Ut sint bap-
tizati... ; 2) Ut actualia peccata committere potuerint .... 3)
ut sint infirmi; 4) ut de eorum morte tymeatur.’’242
Noldin,243 too, requires for validity ‘‘ut [infirmus] ex morbo
de vita periclitetur.’’
In practice even Kern 744 advises the minister to await the
development of a certain danger of death, unless he foresees that
by such a time the reason of the man will be so seriously im-
paired that he will not be able to co-operate in any desirable de-
gree with the sacramental graces. Since the opinion of Kern
and Vermeersch is only probable, a pastor who anoints accord-
ing to their view, should do so only conditionally ; and should
repeat the unction conditionally when certain danger of death
does develop.
4. If a sick man is gravely afflicted by a disease whose
nature and gravity is not yet apparent, he can be validly and
licitly anointed, according to Kern. ‘‘Tantum enim abest,’’ he
241 D, 42, s. 2, n. 5.
242 Genicot-Salsmans, Inst. Th. M., II, 422.
243 De Sac. n. 443.
244 Tract. de Ext. Unct., pp. 298-99.
Wp: Extreme Unction
writes, ‘‘ut illa incertitudo de natura morbi, quae ex supposito
cum vehementia hominem incessit, minuat depressionem animae,
ut angores soleat augere. Pariter fundat timorem, ne periculum
mortis immineat.’’ 245
In this opinion he is not joined wholly by Vermeersch. The
latter holds the permissibility of a conditional administration
at least—and by his use of the term ‘‘saltem’’ betrays a hesitancy
to condemn even an absolute administration in this case. ‘‘Sin
infirmus graviter affligitur per morbum cujus natura nondum
constat, poterit saltem condicionate ungi.’’ *46
Canon 941 seems to cover the case. It orders a conditional
bestowal of the sacrament whenever the danger of death is
doubtful. If there is a doubt that the subject is in danger of
death ‘‘reipsa’’—and this seems to be the case here— an abso-
lute administration is altogether out of place. In such a sick-
ness as this, the minister has two doubts: one as to the danger-
ousness of the disease ex se, and another as to the actual pres-
ence of danger in the patient. It is hard to see the rectitude of
Kern’s contention in this instanee.
o. If the disease brings with it a remote yet certain danger
of death, the sacrament can be validly given. The subject in such
a case is actually in danger of death. Whether it is advisable
in individual instances to administer the sacrament to those who
have still a long time to live depends much on local cireum-
stances. Thus the Propaganda,*4* on February 20, 1801, per-
mitted missionaries to anoint consumptives who had several
months to live, but who would die within a year, because of the
likelihood that the missionary might not be able to return to
them. Such extraordinary circumstances make licit the ad-
ministration of the sacrament.
245 L.c.
246 Th. M., III, 661.
247 §. C. P. F., (C. P. pro Sin.)—Collectanea, n. 651: ‘‘Talora i mis-
sionari visitando i loro distretti s’incontrano in qualche malato eti-
co o d’altro morbo, che a certa sperienza durera molti mesi, ma
dentro l’anno persisce: si cerca se in tale caso il missionario possa
somministrargli il viatico e Estrema Unzione per la ragione che,
quando sarebbe veramente nel grado suo di ricerla, allora il mis-
sionario non si potra trovare presente nel luogo per la grande di-
stanza, e per altre circonstanze impeditive. R. Affirmative. ’’
Requisites in the Subject for Administration 173
and Repetition
In, other cases, such as the usual instances of consumption,
cancer, etc., whose outcome will certainly be fatal yet whose dan-
ger is but remote, very many factors will have to be considered
by the priest in regard to the time most opportune to anoint.
The present state of the disease will first claim attention. How
far it has progressed and is afflicting the subject must be con-
sidered. The hope of restoring health in virtue of the sanative
powers of the sacrament and the question whether greater good
will result from an administration now or later will be weighed
by the prudent priest. The danger of scandal must not be over-
looked. It may arise easily enough from the anointing of a
Subject who is still able to walk about, and even perform his
everyday duties. Pastoral prudence will dictate what is to be
done in individual eases.?48
There remain for particular consideration the imparting of
this sacrament in two particular eases, viz., to women in partu-
rition and to people before surgical operations.
With regard to women in parturition, the following contin-
gencies may arise:
1, It may be foreseen that a woman, now in pregnancy,
will have a difficult parturition which will endanger her
life. Can such a woman be anointed?
2. A woman, actually in parturition, may be in dan-
ger of death from the usual pains and sorrows of that time.
Can such a one be given the sacrament of Extreme Unc-
tion ?
3. A woman in parturition may be in danger of death
from extraordinary and abnormal pains and sufferings ac-
companying the puerperium. Is she a valid subject for this
sacrament ?
I. In regard to the first case, there is hardly any dispute. As
has been noted often hitherto, the administration of Extreme
Unetion cannot be anticipated. As the woman stands now,
carrying the child in her womb, she is not in danger of death.
248 Cf. Kern, Tract. de Ext. Unct., p. 299.
174 Extreme Unction
It will be only when she attempts to give birth to the child that
the danger will arise. Hence administration is inadmissible
because of the lack of an essential condition in the subject.
Petrus Dens writes: ‘‘Ob eandem rationem [i. e., quod
periculum non provenit ex inficmitate] dari non potest puerperis
antc partum, quamvis hie timeatur futurus periculus.’’ a? ANG
is true that pregnancy was intended to be only a physiological,
and not a pathological, condition. But whether it ordinarily is
only physiological is quite another question. However, even
though it be pathological, a woman is not in danger of death
therefrom, and for this reason at least she is not capable of
Extreme Unction.
Genicot mentions in his Casus Conscientiae the case of a
priest called to anoint a pregnant woman who had been told by
her physician that her every parturition would be dangerous.
This is his solution:
‘‘Immerito [sacerdos inunxit eam], si partus et periculum tan-
tum praevidentur. Extrema enim Unctio, saltem regulariter, in
praesentibus tantum periculis posito danda est. Saepe etiam medici,
talia pericula in singulis partubus praecinentes, id tantum inten-
dunt: ob anatomicam mulieris conformationem aliasve internas
causas, facile eas insurgere posse circumstantias quae verum peri-
culum creent. Hoc igitur immerito semper tanquam praesens habere-
tur.’ 7250
II. The second case is somewhat more difficult to settle.
When a woman in child-birth is suffermg only from the common
pains and dolors of that solemn time when a man is brought into
the world, she may not, in the opinion of many theologians, be
either validly or licitly anointed. They declare that such a dan-
ger of death is not a danger from sickness. The woman is in a
normal, not an abnormal state, and consequently she cannot be
said to be ‘‘sick’’ in the sense in which St. James used the term.
St. Charles Borromeo inserted an enactment of this sort in the
legislation of the Fourth Council of Milan: ‘‘Parochus Extremuae
Uncetionis sacramentum ...ne ministret ...mulieribus in partu
249 De Sac. Ext. Unct., N. 8, p. 52.
250 Casus Conc., casus 885, II; cf. also Benedict XIV, De Syn. Dioo., 1. 8,
ce. 5,n. 1; Noldin, De Sac., 443 b; Sebastiani, Swmm. Th. M., n. 510;
Arregui, Summ. Th. M., n. 666.
Requisites in the Subject for Administration 175
and Repetition
laborantibus.’’ 7°! Similarly Coneina,*°? Bonacina,”?** Naldus,?°4
St. Alphonsus,?°> Baruffaldo,?°* Seavini,?°* Aertnys,?°® Kon-
ings,25® Gury-Ferreres,*®° Tanquerey °°! and Augustine 7** hold
that women in danger of death from the common puerperal pains
are not valid subjects of this sacrament.
Other authors hold that if a woman is actually dying in
parturition, even though she is suffering only the normal pains,
she may receive Extreme Unction. Thus, de Lugo,?® Perin,?®
Petrus Dens,?® Falise,?°* Kenrick,?** Genicot 26° and Berardi °°
are among those who admit the legality of this procedure. These
men contend that a true sickness has arisen from the difficulty
of parturition, and that the danger of death arises principally
from this sickness and not from the parturition. Parturition,
then, is not a sickness, but it induces a sickness which, in turn,
brings with it a danger of death.?“° Thus the Manual of the
Church of Cambrai*”! directed the administration of Extreme
Unction to women ‘‘in partu deficientibus.”’
All these theologians take for granted that parturition is a
thing physiological and not pathological. Yet when we look
into the medical world, we discover a host of authorities pro-
testing against this view of pregnancy and parturition. De
Lee, professor of Obstetrics at Northwestern University, sums
251 Pars II Constitutionum, cap. ‘‘Quae pertinent ad Extremam Une-
tionem,’’ apud Acta Ecclesiae Mediol., t. I, p. 147.
252 Theologia Christiana, t. X, lib. I, de Sac. Eat. Unct., c. 4, n. 6.
253 De Sacramentis, disp. 7, q. unic., punct. 4-5, n. 6.
254 Summa, verb. ‘‘ Extrema Unctio,’’ n. 5.
255 Th. M., VI, 713, dub. 3.
256 Ad Rit. Rom. Comm., t. I, tit. 27, n. 77.
257 Th. M., III, 440.
258 Th. M., II, 336.
259 Th. M., n. 1508, q. 3.
260 Casus Consc., t. II, n. 805.
Ze th. 1, itis 153. (a).
262 A Commentary, IV, p. 402.
263 De Sac. in Gen., c. 21, n. 5.
264 Tract. de Ext. Unct., art. II, quaeres 3.
265 De Sac. Ext. Unct., N. 8, p. 52.
266 Let. Pract. Comp., sec. V, ¢. 5, n. 2.
267 Th. M., Ill, de Eat. Unct., n. 19.
268 Casus Consc., casus 885, IT.
269 Prax. Conf., n. 5000.
270 Cf. Diana, Op. Coord., t. II, tr. IV, res. 49.
271 Cf. Catalano, Rit. Rom., t. I, p. 313.
176 Extreme Unctwion
these up very succinctly:
‘‘Mariceau epigrammatically called pregnancy a disease of nine
months duration. Sir James Y. Simpson said that parturition is
always physiologic in its object, but not in some of the phenomena
and peculiarities which attend upon it in civilized life. Engleman,
after comparing the labors of primitive and civilized peoples, says
that a simple natural labor is no longer possible, and, further, ‘the
parturient suffers under the continuance of the old prejudice that
labor is a physiologic act.’ Kehrer said that there was a sharp line
between physiologic and pathologic pregnancy. J. O. Polak in 1910
said that parturition is rapidly becoming a pathologic phenomenon.
F. S. Newell says that we must realize that ‘something has gone
wrong with this normal physiologic process’ or that present methods
are not efficacious. E. P. Davis calls the statement that labor is a
physiologic process a half-truth. Schwarz, of St. Louis, says, ‘tradi-
tion and ignorance are alike combined in spreading the fable that
child-bearing is a physiologic process.’ Moran, of Washington, asks
for a ‘nation-wide propaganda to teach the laity that the long-
cherished fallacy that pregnancy and labor are physiologic condi-
tions should be abandoned.’ ’’272
It can be seen very easily that this array of authority is at
least sufficient to constitute the legitimacy of anointing in every
case when a woman in child-birth is placed, even from the ordi-
nary pains and common sorrows, in a prudent and probable dan-
ger of death. If her condition is pathological—and there is
great likelihood that it is—the unction should be given without
scruple. If there is a doubt, conditional administration should
be made.
Vermeersch 7"% evidently is of this opinion for he says very
simply ‘‘Morbo autem assimilatur ... partus.’’
III. The third case to be considered, namely, that of a
woman in danger of death from extraordinary circumstances
of parturition can be dismissed very simply. Such a one has
surely a pathologic condition, for the extraordinary dolors con-
stitute a true sickness and induce a danger of death ‘‘ex morbo.’’
Thus Capellman writes: ‘‘Parturientibus igitur extrema unc-
tio tum solum conferri licite potest, si in proximo vitae periculo,
272 The Principles and Practice of Obstetrics, introduction, p. xv. Cf. also
Ballantyne, ‘‘The Nature of Pregnancy’’—Brit. Med. Jour., Feb.
1914, p. 354; Davis, in Jour. Amer. Med. Ass’n, July 6, 1912;
Engleman, Amer. System of Obstetrics, vol. I, pp. 24 and 64; J. F.
Moran, in Jour. Amer. Med. Ass’n, Jan. 9, 1915, p. 126; Simpson,
Collected Essays, vol. II, p. 123.
273 Th. M., III, 660.
Requisites in the Subject for Administration 177
and Repetition
in articulo mortis articulo mortis versantur, v. g., si vehementi
sanguinis profluvio, interna laceratione, spasmis eclampticis,
ect., status vitae periculosus adducatur.’’ °74
Such extraordinary circumstances may result from the
difficulty of parturition,?”° from the fact that the woman ‘‘labo-
rat extraordinaris et lethalibus doloribus’’ *“° or from the fact
that it is necessary to extricate the fetus.2*" It is clear in every
ease that the extraordinary circumstances are causing the dan-
ger, and thus making the patients valid and licit recipients of
the anointments.
With regard to the extraction of the fetus, it is to be noted
that unction is permitted only when the fetus is actually en-
dangering the life of the mother at the time of the bestowal
of the sacrament. In such a contingency the mother should be
anointed before the operation. If, however, it is simply fore-
seen that the mother’s life will be imperilled by a parturition,
and the operation is done to extract the fetus after viability in
order to forestall this dangerous condition, Extreme Uncetion is
not allowable before the operation; for the fetus has not yet
endangered the woman’s life. As will be seen in the discussion
of anointings before operations, the administration of Extreme
Unction cannot be made to one in danger of death only from
the surgeun’s knife.
The question of anointing before surgical operations has
four different phases:
1. When a man, in danger of death from sickness, con-
sents to undergo an operation whose outcome is uncertain.
2. When a man, in danger of death from sickness, con-
sents to undergo an operation which will, with moral cer-
tainty, accomplish his recovery.
3. When a man, somewhat sick but not in danger of
death as yet, consents to undergo an operation which is of
itself serious and will put him in danger of death.
274 Med. Pastor., p. 127; Cf. also St. Alphonsus, Th. M., VI, 713, dub.
3; Genicot-Salsmans, Inst. Th. M., II, 422; Scavini, Th. M., ITI, 440;
Gobat, Moralium, Tr. VIII, n. 845; Baruffaldo, Ad Rit. Rom. Comm.,
til, titacs, 0.°79> Tanquerey, 2h. D., 117, 783° (a).
275 Genicot-Salsmans, l.c.; Bucceroni, Inst. Th. M., P. II, vol. III, n. 871.
276 Th. M., n. 1508, q. 3.
277 Elbel-Bierbaum, Th. M., Conf. X, n. 230; LaCroix, Th. M., VI, 2108.
178 Extreme Unction
4. When a man is not sick at all, yet who undergoes
a severe and serious operation.
I. The first case is very easily solved. The patient is in
danger of death from an intrinsic cause, viz., his sickness, and
is a valid and lawful recipient of Extreme Unction for that rea-
son alone. The fact that he may probably be relieved by the
operation does not constitute a sufficient reason for denying him
this sacrament. The means toward recovery that he is adopting
does not remove the element of danger from his disease.
II. The second case considers a man in actual danger of
death from sickness, yet consenting to use a means which will
restore (in the opinion of trustworthy and skilled physicians )
his health with moral certainty. An instance of this kind would
be that of a man suffocating from an obstruction of the wind-
pipe, the removal of which would relieve the condition and
immediately restore health.
In the first place, it must be noted that if he does not
consent to undergo such an operation, he is certainly a valid
subject of the sacrament. Moreover, nobody is obliged to sub-
mit himself to such extraordinary procedure in order to regain
health.278 Hence if such a patient refuses to resort to the knife
of the surgeon, he is not to be denied Extreme Unction.
If, however, the subject consents to undergo the operation,
theologians dispute about his capability to receive the holy oils.
Kern thinks such an administration absolutely invalid:
‘¢Simulae autem consentit consilio medicorum, mea quidem sen-
tentia se constituit inhabilem, qui sacri mysterii particeps fiat. Eo
ipso enim, quod voluntate acceptat medium, cum quo certa resti-
tutio sanitatis conjungitur, morbo suo rationem periculi adimit,
omnem fundatum timorem mortis excutit et incapax fit illius con-
fortationis, quae est sacramenti effectus principalis.’’279
Vermeersch-Creusen thinks such procedure at least illicit:
‘‘Tilicita saltem fuerit ministratio facta infirmo consentienti
,
in securum sealpelli usum, quo omne periculum ex morbo quem nunc
habet removebitur. ’’280
278 Genicot-Salsmans, Inst. Th. M., I, 364.
279 Tract. de Extr. Unct., p. 299.
280 Fypit., II, 225.
Requisites in the Subject for Administration eg
and Repetition
The author of the article on ‘‘Extreme Unction’’ in the
Catholic Encyclopedia mentions this question and states that
the arguments of Kern are ‘‘by no means convineing.’’ Quinn 28!
takes direct issue with Kern’s contention. ‘‘We must confess,’’
he writes, ‘‘our inability to see how the danger of death which
is present ex hypothesi is fundamentally changed when one
makes up his mind to undergo an operation which will (almost
certainly, it is assumed) cure him. If we suppose the opera-
tion to be dangerous, Fr. Kern would have no difficulty in al-
lowing the sacrament to be administered. It would seem more
correct to hold that the proximity of danger which is about to
come from an outside source does not affect the situation ; if the
sick person is a proper subject at all, it is because of his actual
sickness. ”’
Truly it is hard to see how a man can be refused unction be-
cause of a return to health through extrinsic means, if he can-
not be anointed when the presence of an extrinsic danger im-
perils his ife. The question of anointing considers the intrin-
sic conditions of the patient. They determine his receptibility
of this sacrament. Hence, when he seeks a return to health thru
an extrinsic way, it shauld have no influence upon his status as
a valid recipient. De facto he is in danger of death from his
sickness; he experiences that depression of soul and spiritual
torpor as other people in the same condition. He is capable,
therefore, of that spiritual alleviation and comfort which other
sick people need in such a state. Consequently, he is capable
of the primary effect of the unction; and there are no good
grounds for refusing it.
This is confirmed by other theologians who make no dis-
tinction in their instructions as to administration of the sacra-
ment prior to operations. All are found to allow a bestowal
of the oil in every case where the subject labors under a seri-
ous disease and is put thereby in danger of death.
Practically, at least a conditional administration should
be made in these circumstances. If, however, by any mis-
chance the patient begins to die subsequent to the operation
(as might occur when, contrary to expectation, a serious peril
281 Some Aspects of the Dogma of Extreme Unction, p. 120.
180 Extreme Unction
arises from the effect of the operation), a second conditional
administration should be made. This is evidently the safer
procedure, for it safeguards the welfare of the sick man as
well as the sanctity of the sacrament.
Ill. The third and fourth cases can be answered together.
The former considers the case of a man somewhat sick, even
seriously, but not as yet in danger of death, who is about to
undergo a serious surgical operation. This oceurs when, e. g.,
a man is afflicted with a growth which has not yet developed
sufficiently to place him in danger of death, yet, if left undis-
turbed, will eventually attain such a proportion. To forestall
this would be the purpose of the operation. Another case is
that of chronic appendicitis. Per se the condition is not dan-
gerous, but if not removed, its sequelae are very perilous. Com-
plications can result from the presence of fecal matter or of a
foreign body (such as a grape seed) in the appendix. Even-
tually this would cause an ulceration which would terminate in a
rupture. Peritonitis often follows this breaking of the appen-
dix, and the life of the patient is then imminently imperilled.
To prevent all these sequelae, medical men advise an opportune
operation—and this falls under the case that is being consid-
ered.
The fourth case occurs when a healthy man submits to a
blood transfusion which may endanger his life—at least, prob-
ably. Attempts by surgery to correct deformities of the body
are likewise good examples, for such operations (e. g., the
attempt to reset a dislocated hip) are, at times, extremely dan-
gerous to the patient.
From the principles we have applied hitherto, it can be
seen that in neither case are the essential conditions in the
subject verified. To receive Extreme Unction validly, a man
must be seriously sick, and in danger of death from the sick-
ness. Yet the surgeon’s scalpel is as much extrinsic as the
hangman’s rope or the electrocutioner’s switch. Until the knife
has actually cut the man, there is no internal danger. Hence the
Unetion of such a man prior to the operation is in no way
justifiable.
This is one of the instances when a man cannot receive
Extreme Unction while in possession of his senses (unless, of
Requisites in the Subject for Administration 181
and Repetition
course, a local anesthetic has been employed). The canon
demanding such an opportune administration presupposes in
the subject the existence of all other conditions requisite for
valid reception. Otherwise the time must be awaited until all
such conditions are verified, however unfortunate the admin-
istration to an unconscious man may be. Better is it to have
the sacrament when unconscious than not at all—and an admin-
istration of such a kind before operation would be positively
null. At the moment of the unction the subject is not in dan-
ger of death ab mtrinseco and may not even be grievously
sick. Hence he has not the depression of soul against which
the principal effect is aimed. Being incapable of receiving the
principal effect, he is incapable of receiving the sacrament.
No author allows the administration of Extreme Unction
to a man, about to undergo a surgical operation who will be
put into danger of death from the operation alone, no matter
whether the operation itself constitutes the whole danger of
death or whether an intrinsic condition, not of itself danger-
ous, but coupled with the operation will embody the peril.
Hear a few. Thus Capellman:
‘* Ante mortiferam aliquam operationem tum solum licet sacram
unctionem administrare, si morbus ille, qui operationem exigit, ipse
per se vitae periculum secum fert, v. g., in sectione caesarea, quum
partus alia ratione fieri nullatenus possit. Quodsi infirmitas per se
non est mortifera, Sanctam Unctionem administrare non licet ante
operationem quamvis mortiferam, quae ad curandum morbum insti-
tuenda est. Exempli causa, si propter malignum tumorem, qui in
posterum quidem, sed non statim vitae periculosus sit, gravis et
mortifera operatio facienda esset, illud vitae periculum, quod in
ipsa operatione oriretur, non directe ex morbo proveniret, sed opera-
tione demum productum vel proprium effectum esset, quare tum 8,
Unctionem conferre non liceret,’’282
Hanley:
‘‘Some authorities claim that a person who is slightly indis-
posed can be validly anointed, provided he will die during the
operation. This is not, I believe, in accordance with the principles
of theology.’ ’283
282 Med. Past., p. 127.
283 Treatise on Sac. Ext. Unct., p. 34.
182 Extreme Unction
Genicot-Salsmans:
‘‘Sequitur perperam conferri iis qui periculosam operationem
chirurgicam subituri sunt, nisi jam antea ex infirmitate pericliten-
tur,’ 7284
Similar quotations can be made from Arregui,?** Seavini,"*°
Lehmkuhl.287 D’Annibale,285 Berardi,?8° Reuter,?9° Noldin**? and
’ ? ?
Sebastiani.222 Finally Vermeersch-Creusen notes:
‘Qui manus chirurgi passuri plerumque, jam actu, interno
mortis periculo sunt obnoxii, ita ut jam ante scalpelli usum ungi
possunt, Si tamen quis corpore sanus periculosum scalpelli usum
subiturus sit, v. g., ad deformitatem corrigendam, non possit ungi
antequam ipse usus scalpelli periculum internae rationis induxe-
rit.’ ’293
Hence a priest is to prepare a man in these cases by Pen-
ance, if necessary, and by Viaticum, which may be given in
extrinsic dangers of death. The oils, however, should not be
applied until such notice that the patient is in danger of death
from the actual cutting.2®* This, indeed, may be very incon-
venient—and in many hospitals the authorities may not acqui-
esce to the incursions of the priest into the operating room.
Such visits will not be so very frequent aS may be imagined,
however. Rarely will emergencies of so great urgency arise.
At any rate, it is worse than useless to apply, either out of mis-
taken zeal for souls or for a mistaken leaning towards one’s
own comfort, the holy oils to the sick man before such an in-
trinsic danger is induced. The administration is nullified, the
sacrament profaned and its effects frustrated.
It follows a fortiori from this that a man cannot be given
Extreme Unction merely because he is about to receive an
284 Inst. Th. M., II, 422.
285 Summ. Th. M., nu. 666.
286 Th. M., III, 440.
287 The M., LL, (22.
288 Summ. Th. M., III, 417, footnote 18.
289 Prax. Conf., n. 5000; De Parocho, n. 294.
290 Reuter-Lehmkuhl-Umberg, Neo-Conf., n. 225.
291 De Sac., 443 b.
292 Summ. Th. M., n. 510.
293 Hpit., I, 225.
294 Cf. Konings, Th. M., n. 1508, quaeres 3 ad b, cum notula 51.
>» >
ee ee et ee eee oe ee oe a ee.
Requisites in the Subject for Administration 183
and Repetition
anesthetic before his operation. If in individual instances
there is a danger to the patient from the reception of ether,
the priest must wait until the ether has actually been admin-
istered. Not only does this apply to patients who are well, but
to those who are afflicted with a physical condition which might
be aggravated by the administration of the anaesthetic. Hence
aman with a heavy cold or with a ecardiae condition who is not
per se in danger of death therefrom, can only be anointed after
the application of the anesthetic.
It is to be remembered that physicians will not administer,
as a rule, ether or chloroform if there will be any danger to
the patient. Consequently the mere inhalation of ether, given
by order of a skilled physician, will not of itself justify the
administration of Unction, even after the anesthetic has been
applied. In this regard Hanley says simply: ‘‘A person cannot
be validly anointed merely because he is under the influence of
ether.*°° Lehmkuhl discusses the action of a certain priest
(Fridericus who anointed every patient immediately after the
administration of the anesthetic prior to the operation, ‘‘cum
aliquoties accidsset ut ejusmodi homines e narcosi non evigila-
rent.’’ In his decision he writes:
‘“Narcosis chloriformica inducta, nisi alia afflicta valetudo ac-
cedat, morale periculum mortis non censetur constituere. Quare nisi
medicus judicaverit subesse periculum in casu singulari, Fridericus
debuit non jam dare unctionem, utpote quae invalida vel dubie valida
esset ac proin postea, cum de periculo constaret iteranda. Quam
primum vero per ipsam operationem periculum inductum est, sane
tempus est ministrandae unctionis, ne forte in operatione homo
decedat sacramento non munitus; de qua re ante narcosin aegrotus
moendus est.’ ’296
Hence in these cases the sick man should be told before
the operation that Extreme Unction cannot be given to him
then, but that it will be conferred if any danger does arise.
He should be also spurred to make a firm intention of co-operat-
ing with its sacramental graces, an action which reveals to the
priest explicitly that the subject has the correct intentions in
this matter.
295 Treatise on the Sacrament of Extreme Unction, p. 49.
296 Casus Consc., II, cas. 195, p. 384.
184 Extreme Uncttion
Ob senium.
Cicero has said succinetly: ‘‘Senectus ipsa morbus est.’’
And thus it has been regarded down all the ages of the Chris-
tian era in connection with the administration of Extreme Une-
tion. It is, of course, intrinsic in its origin; and when it has
advanced so much as to induce a danger of death, it verifies the
conditions required for valid bestowal.?%”
The Sixth Council of Beneventano, held in 1875, pre-
scribed: ‘‘Senibus autem datur qui moriuntur etiam sine aliqua
infirmitate, quia defectus naturae reputatur in eis pro actuali
infirmitate.’’ 298 In similar fashion Benedict XIV wrote: ‘‘Con-
ceditur senibus, qui prae decrepita aetate, licet nulla alia spe-
ciali afficiantur aegritudine, in dies morituri creduntur; ipsa
enim gravis et annosa senectus infirmitas est quae interiora
vitae organa labefactat, et mox ducit ad interitum.’’ 7°? Trom-
bellio gives as the reason why unction of old men is allowed:
‘‘Nam his imminet periculum improvisae mortis et subitae suf-
focationis.’’ °°
Old age commences with the sixtieth year. This is the
opinion of Augustine®! and is confirmed by Canon 1254, 2,
which exempts from the obligation of fasting all who have
attained that age. Yet years alone do not make old age a
‘‘siekness.’’ All authors demand that there be a marked de-
cline in the physical forces of an old person before he becomes
a fit subject of the sacrament. Thus the Roman Ritual, before
its latest revision, denoted an advance to such a degree of
weakness that the old men seem ‘‘in diem morituri,’’ 9°? before
Unction was to be given. Augustine®®? insists on the presence
of some signs of the approaching dissolution, such as fainting
or sinking-spells.
There is, however, no need to wait until death is actually
imminent. The sacrament is validly and licitly given when
297 Cf. Dens. Tract de Ext. Unct., N. 8, p. 52.
298 Tit. 8, cap. 1; ef. Catalano, Rit. Rom., t. I, p. 311.
299 De Syn. Dioc., lib. 8, ¢. 5, n. 2.
300 De Ext. Unct., disp. X, ce. I, q. 2, n. ITI.
301 4 Commentary, IV, 402.
802 Tit. V, ¢. 1, n. 5 (edit. 1913). Cf. St. Charles—IV Prov. Conc. Medio-
lanen., cap. ‘‘Quae pertinent ad Extremam Unctionem,’’ apud Acta
PE Eccl. Mediolanen., t. I, pars I, p. 147.
a
Requisites in the Subject for Administration 185
and Repetition
a man is in a prudently probable danger of death arising from
the weaknesses which now afflict him. As Lehmkuhl says, ‘‘suf-
ficit et requiritur probabile periculum ne brevi vita finiatur:
nullatenus requiritur ut mors jam immineat, aut ut instantis
mortis periculum adsit ... Sufficit . . . morbi ex natura sua
diuturni status in quo juste timeri ne brevi vita finiatur. Se-
nectutis talis condicio ut vires in dies videantur.’’ 3°
II. REQUISITES FOR REPETITION,
2. “In eadem infirmitate hoc sacramentum iterari non potest,
mist infirmus, post susceptam unctionem convaluerit et in
aliud discrimen inciderit.’’
The question of the valid repetition of Extreme Unction in
the same danger of death has already been treated in the first
chapter.°°° Here only the legality of the procedure need be
considered.
Until the year 1000 little is known about the repetition of
the sacrament.?°® In 1093, Godfried, the abbot of Vindocensis,
sought the opinion of his learned contemporary, St. Yves, bishop
of Chartres, in regard to the custom of reanointing then in
vogue in Benedictine monasteries. He felt that to reanoint un-
der any circumstances, even in distinct sicknesses, was alto-
gether inadmissible. ‘‘In hoc,’’ he wrote,®°? ‘‘non mediocriter
errant, quod Unctionem Infirmorum, cum a Sancta Catholica
et Apostolica Sede sacramentum vocetur, et cum nullum sacra-
mentum iterari debeat, iterandum putant.’’ The reply of St.
Yves evidences a hearty concurrence in the reasoning of his
friend: ‘‘Unctionem infirmorum non aestimo esse repetendam,
quia sicut ipse asseruisti . . . genus est sacramenti, qui autem
sacramenta Christi et Ecclesiae repetit, injuriam ipsis sacra-
mentis ingerit.’’ 38
About the same time the abbot, Theobald, of the Monastery
of St. Columba in the city of Sens questioned Peter the Vener-
able (also known as Peter of Montbossier), the abbot of Cluny,
804 Th. M., II, 722.
305 Cf. supra, chap. I, sec. VI, n. 3, p.
806 Cf. Launoi, Op. Omnia, t. I, p. 5
307 M. P. L., 157, 87-88.
308 M. P. L., 157, 88.
186 Extreme Unction
‘eur unctio infirmorum sola, hoe apud Cluniacum solummodo,
reiteretur.’’? Peter’s reply is magnificent vindication of the
Benedictine practice. After overturning the arguments of the
adversaries of the practice, he gives in very convincing fashion
the reasons in its favor. Thus in part he writes:
‘‘Nam si aeger post semel redditam sanitatem nunquam in
morbum incideret; si nunquam post primam unctionem in peccata
corrueret, fateor quod nunquam deinceps unctionem jam dictam
iterari fas esset. Quod si rursum infirmatus fuerit, si rursum pecca-
verit, quae ratio, ut rursum ei allevietur, ut ei peccata dimittantur,
denuo eum inungi prohibebit? Nonne et apostolus hoc se indicat
velle, ut quoties quis infirmatus fuerit, toties inungatur? Nam quid
aliud sonant verba illa illius: ‘Infirmatur quis in vobis? Inducat
presbyteros Ecclesiae?’ Non enim ait: ‘Infirmatur quis in vobis,
inducat presbyteros semel,’ sed nulla mentione unius, binae vel ternae
unctionis facta jubet nullo praefixo numero induci ad aegrum presby-
teros eccelesiae, fidei orationem fieri, ad alleviationem et peccatorum
remissionem eum oleo sacro inungi. Non igitur mihi videtur dicen-
dum esse, quod apostolus non dixit addendum esse, quod ipse non
séripsit, sentiendum quod ipse, ut verba ejus indicant, non sensit.’’809
Peter’s letter had the happy effect of destroying the belief
which allowed Unction to be given only once in a person’s life-
time. The statements made by Ciacconius*!® and Ughellius,***
biographers of Pius II, to the effect that there were vehement
disputes in Rome whether the sick Pontiff was capable of Unce-
tion as he approached death, since he had already been anointed
when he was stricken with a plague a few years previous, are
regarded as fabulous and untrue by Benedict XIV *1* and Cata-
lano.243 Other biographies of the Pope make no mention of
such dispute, although they contain minute accounts of the
309 Hpp., 1. 5, ep. 7—M. P. L., 189, 392-93. It must be noted that such a
custom was not confined to Cluny. Peter Cantor of Paris and
Cardinal Robert de Coreceon testify to the existence of a similar
practice among the Cistercians of Clairvaux (Cf. Launoi, Op. Omnia,
t. I, p. 549 sqq.). Similarly, the monks of Hirksau allowed repeti-
tion of the anointing provided that at least three years had elapsed
since the previous Unction (Cf. Catalano, Rit. Rom., t. I, p. 316.)
310 Vita S. Pui, tom. II, p. 1005.
311 Italia Sacra, tom. II, p. 553.
812 De Syn. Dioc., 1. 8, « 8, n. 3.
813 Rit. Rom., t. I, p. 316.
314 Cf. Biographies written by Campano, apud Muratori, Rev. Ital. Script.,
III, ii, 967-92; and Commentaries of Cardinal Papiensis—quoted
by Catalano, l.c.
Requisites in the Subject for Administration 187
and Repetition
days immediately preceding his death.*'* Moreover by the
middle of the fifteenth century, when Pius reigned, theologians
and synods had generally allowed a re-administration of the
unction. |
From the year 1130 to the year 1350 it was generally held
that the sacrament might be repeated under certain circum-
stances. The old opinion had not altogether been eradicated,
as Alanus Porretanus notes: ‘‘Sunt qui dicunt de hoe sacra-
mento quod iterari non possit, siceut nec Baptismus; sed quia
sacramentum paenitentiae est, et paenitentia iterari potest, pro-
babile est hoc sacramentum iterari posse.’’ 31°
The great writers, however—Peter Lombard,*!® William of
Auxerre,?17 Thomas Aquinas,®!8 Hugh of St. Victor #19 and St.
Bonaventure 32°—all maintained the reiterability of Extreme
Unction in different and distinct danger of death, even though
occurring in one and the same sickness. Albertus Magnus**?
demanded an interval of a year between unctions in protracted
illnesses, regardless of whether the man lapsed more than once
into a dangerous state. Though scoffed at, after a fashion, by
St. Bonaventure,®?* who remarked the absurdity of regulating
the sacraments by the stars, he nevertheless obtained consid-
erable adherence to his opinion, not alone among his contem-
poraries, but also and especially in later writers.°**
Loeal legislation asserted the liceity of repetition. Richard
Poore stated in nis Constitutions: ‘‘Moneant sacerdotes frequen-
ter populum licite iterari posse: scilicet in qualibet gravi infir-
mitate de qua metus imminet mortis.’’®** The Synod of Bay-
eux,®2> celebrated in 1300, insisted likewise that the reiterability
of the sacrament be inculcated in the minds of the people.
315 Maaima Theologiae, n. xciii—cf. Launoi, Op. cit., p. 550.
316 Lib. IV Sent., dist. xxiii— M. P. L., 192, 899.
317 Summa Aurea, lib. 4, tr. 7, ¢. 2.
318 Suppl. q. 33, a. 1-et 2.
319 De Sacramentis, p. XV, ¢. 3.
320 Comm. in IV lib. Sent., d. xxiii, a. 2, q. 4.
321 Comm. in lib. quart. Sent., d. xxiii, a. 21.
322 Lic.
323 Cf. Hugo of Salisburg, inter Opera B. Alberts, t. 34, p. 232.
324 Harduin VII, 107.
825 Harduin, VII, 1237.
188 Extreme Unction
William, the bishop of Paris, in his book on the Sacra-
ments,32° taught the lawfulness of repeated Unction not only
in different sicknesses but also in each danger of death in the
same sickness.
Between 1350 and the Council of Trent the permissibility
of repetition was held by all. The great influence of Albert
and Thomas made itself plain in two widely divergent schools
of thought in the matter of procedure in repeating the sacra-
ment. Those who followed Thomas held that it was to be re-
peated in every danger of death in lingering diseases. Albert’s
followers contended that in these cases once a year was the
extent of the frequency of repetition. Some extremists**’ taught
that the sacrament could not be given within a year from its
previous bestowal, even in a different sickness.
Synodal legislation reveals traces of this division of thought.
Thus the allowability of reanointing was declared by the Sixth
Provineial Council of Beneventano with these words:
‘‘Et quia de iteratione fuerunt dubitationes, ideo dicimus
secundum communem opinionem, quod quaedam sunt infirmitates non
diuturnae: unde si eis datur hoc sacramentum tune cum homo ad
statum illum pervenerit, quo est in periculo mortis, non recedit a
statu illo, nisi infirmitate curata, et ita iterum non debet inungi.
Sed si recidivum patiatur, erit alia infirmitas, et ita iterum poterit
inungi. Quaedam vere sunt aegritudines diurnae, ut ethica et hydro-
pisis, etc., in talibus non debet fieri inunctio nisi quando videntur
inducere mortis periculum. Si homo illud evadat, eadem infirmitate
durante, et iterum ad simile periculum per infirmitatem reducatur,
potest iterum inungi, quia quasi erit alius status infirmitatis.’’328
In concordance with this enactment are the decrees of the
Synods of Langres (1404), Chartres (1526) and Sens (1524),??9
as well as the diocesan statutes of Daniel, bishop of Nantes,
Robert, bishop of Cambrai (1550), Maximilian, bishop of Cam-
brai (1567), Stephen Poncherius, bishop of Paris (1550) and
326 De Septem Sacramentis, ec. 23—Cf. Trombellio, De Sac. Ext. Unct.,
vol. ITI, diss; XI, ns ix; p91.
827 Peter Cantor (Summa, c. 132—quoted by Catalano, Rit. Rom., t. I, p.
310) forbade repetition during that time; as also an ancient song:
‘‘Nonnisi semel in mense tantum communicet aeger. Hie idem solo
Hon bis aot: in anno’’ (Martene, De Antig. Rit. Eccl., 1. I, ¢. 7,
oe Ee shag
828 Tit. 8, c. 1—Cf. Trombellio, De Ext. Unct., vol. III, diss. XIII, n. 8.
829 Natalis Alexander, Th. D. et M., lib. II, ec. 5, reg. 19.
Requisites in the Subject for Admimstration 189
and Repetition
later archbishop of Sens (1574), and Louis, bishop of Char-
tres (1576).°2° Similarly the manuals of many individual
churches contained a rubric permitting renewal of the sacra-
ment in a diverse danger of death.*#!
The Synod of Ypres, held in the beginning of the sixteenth
century, explicitly condemned the opinion holding the inadmissi-
bility of repeated Unction for a year after a bestowal of the
sacrament:
‘‘Proinde consuetudinem, secundum quam non consuevit hoc
sacramentum intra annum secundo suscipi, etiamsi altera gravis ob-
veniat infirmitas, tanquam noxiam abrogemus.’’332
On the other hand the power of Albertus’ teaching made
itself apparent in the rubrics of many diocesan rituals which
were edited shortly before the convening of the Council of
Trent or even while it was in session. Examples of such are
the Manualia of the Church of Chartres (1489), Périgueux
(1509), Rheims (1504 and 1530), Clermont (1518), Autun
(1523), Chalons-sur-Marne (1529), Mende (1530), Beauvais
(1544), Meaux (1546), Verdun (1554), Limoges (1555) and
frras Gl563.).5°?
The question was settled by the Council of Trent: ‘‘Quod
si infirmus post susceptam hane unctionem convaluerint, iterum
hujus sacramenti, subsidio juvari poterunt, cum in aliud simile
vitae discrimen inciderint.’’ 34
Since that time there has been no question of the per-
missibility of reanointing. The Catechism of the Council*®
specifically allows a second unction in the same sickness, but in
a distinct danger of death from that in which the former
anointing was made. The Roman Ritual, before its latest re-
vision, contained the rubric: ‘‘In eadem infirmitate hoe sacra-
mentum iterari non debet, nisi diuturna sit, ut si, cum infirmus
330 Cf. Launoi, Op. Omnia, t. I, p. 552.
331 Cf. Launoi, J.c—Manuals of the Churches of Cambrai (1552), Vienne
(1577) Rheims (1585), Auxerre (1586), Lyons (1592), Malines
(1598).
332 Van Espen, Jus Eccl. Uniw., P. II, sect. I, tit. 7, n. 37.
333 Cf. Launoi, Op. Omnia, t. I, p. 553.
834 Sess. XIV, de Ext. Unct., c. 3.
835 De Ext. Unct., n. 11.
190 Extreme Unction
convaluerit, iterum in periculum mortis incidat.’’ *°° Other Rit-
uals, edited since the Council of Trent, also direct a second
anointing in the same sickness after the partial recovery and
subsequent relapse of the patient.3°?
Some synods have made very strict demands in regard to
the verification of change of status in the disease. Thus unless
certainty that a new danger of death was actually present they
would not allow the repetition of the sacrament. The Manual
of Rheims, for instance, decreed :
‘
-
, *s
5
~~ POS
Jane
an
ag ‘
e
A Oe ag Oe - —__? & we © > el
CHAPTER VI.
Our sacraments are holy treasures, bequeathed by a merciful
God to be dealt to sinners in order that they may become
like to Him. They are not rewards of holiness, but are given to
make men holy. Yet their intrinsic sanctity is so paramount,
that they may not be scattered indiscriminately to all comers.
The wedding garment must be donned before admission can
be had to the viands of the king.
Gifts as hallowed as these will not permit profanement by
a distribution which may be frustrated by the lack of necessary
qualifications in the recipient.
On the other hand it would be too cruel to admit an admin-
istration only to those who could furnish certain and unim-
peachable evidence of their right to receive this sacred legacy.
The benefits derived therefrom are too enormous to any one
who has the least title to them. At the close of life, a depriva-
tion of them would entail unspeakable consequences. The dying
man needs every assistance against the perils of that period.
In her provident wisdom the Church has found a way to
safeguard the sanctity of her treasures and the rights of her
children at such a time. She decrees that in the face of a
doubtful right to the sacrament arising from the dubious pres-
ence of a necessary qualification a conditional administration
of the sacraments necessary to salvation is to be made.
Accordingly in this canon such an administration is per-
mitted when the doubt revolves about the presence of a nec-
essary corporal disposition in the subject. In the Canon 940
administration was forbidden except to a faithful, who after
the attainment of reason has fallen into a danger of death from
sickness or senility. This canon provides for situations where
any of these conditions is lacking. Thus if there is a doubt
that the subject has attained the use of reason, or whether he
is actually in danger of death (from sickness or senility), or
whether he is still living, the sacrament is imparted condition-
ally. Each of these conditions is required for the validity
[ 205 ]
206 Extreme Unction
of the administration. The lack of any one of them makes the
subject totally unfit for reception; and administration to one
who is certainly lacking in one of these qualities is not only
mull but sacrilegious. Shrinking from even the possibility of a
frustrated administration in this regard, yet eager to attempt
all for the salvation of the subject, the Church instructs her
ministers that in such instances both the sanctity of the sacra-
ments and the salvation of. their subjects must be equally pro-
tected by a conditional application. ‘‘In extremis extrema ten-
tanda swnt.’’
A) “Num infirmus usum rationis attigerit.’’
The use of reason is attained when the person is capable
of distinguishing between right and wrong, of realizing a sense
of moral responsibility, although imperfectly, for the actions
which he performs. Such a development appears at no definite
age. Some children of four and five years of age have a finer
appreciation of moral values than others at ten or twelve. Ac-
cordingly no respect is to be paid to the age in this question.!
Simply and solely the moral development in the mind of the
child must be noted. Pius X? declared it to be a detestable
abuse not to confer Extreme Unction on children who had
reached the use of reason.
The very little that is required of the child in order to
furnish a positive doubt that he has passed out of the realm of
irresponsibility can be better appreciated when compared with
what is necessary for an unconditional administration of the
Sacrament. Extreme Unction can be given absolutely when the
child is capable of committing the least venial sin, i. e., at the
very beginning of his use of reason.? Consequently all that is
required to permit a conditional administration is a positive
doubt that the child realizes at least in a confused way that
there is a difference between right and wrong. Any well-
founded suspicion on the part of the priest that the child has
crossed the border-line into reason’s realm is enough to allow
this conditional administration.
1 Cf. Blat, Comm. Teat., vol. IIE, p. I, n. 285.
28. C. de Sac., ‘‘Quam Singulari,’’ 8 Aug. 1910, n. VITI—A. A. §.,
IT, 583.
8 Cf, supra, chap. IV, p. 141.
Conditional Administration 207
Prior to the Code it was much disputed as to the ‘‘modus
agendi’’ in such a ease, although the more common opinion held
that a conditional administration was to be made. St. Alphon-
sus* recounts three different opinions. The first advanced ac-
cording to the Saint® by Soto, Aureoli and Zambranus, denied
the administration altogether because it exposed the sacrament
to the peril of frustration. The second, championed by Sporer®
and LaCroix’ permitted an unction absolutely. St. Alphonsus
asserts the more probable opinion to be that which directs a
eonditional administration, and he aligns himself with the pro-
ponents of this view.’ The canon has confirmed this opinion
by raising it from probability to the positive norm of action in
such cases.
Accordingly all children are to be anointed if they have
at any time revealed any signs of moral consciousness. For
children seven years of age and over such use of reason can be
presumed, and administration should be made without scruple,
unless it is positively certain that they have not yet any moral
sensibilities.® For children under that age an investigation of
some kind should be made into their mental status. Pastors
are bound to such an investigation, for otherwise they do not
provide for the welfare of the child sufficiently and securely.
As soon as it is evident that the child has or had even a vestige
of reason, the priest should proceed to the unction without
delay. Lehmkuhl’® thinks that even though penance has been
conditionally imparted, it is a most grave sin to refuse to
administer Extreme Unction to a child whose doubtful use of
reason makes his salvation uneertain. Lebherz' holds that
children even four and five years old may receive Extreme
Unction. Genicot 12 imposes a corresponding obligation on the
pastor to impart the sacrament.
SeLjts MM. V1, 19.
5 Le.
6 n. 94,
fer ho Ms lib..6, pars 2,.n: 2111,
8 Lugo, Renzi, Dicastillo and Diana. Cf. 8. Alph., Th. M., VI, 719;
Diana, Op. Coord., t. II, tr. 4, res. 43.
9 Cf. Can. 88, 3—Tanquerey, Th. D., III, n. 781; ‘Certo ungi possunt qui
septennium attigerunt.’’
ST. UM. l, 723,
11 The Casuist, II, p. 176.
12 Casus Consc., cas. 888, p. 575; cf. Berardi, Prax. Conf. II, 5000.
208 Extreme Unction
What has been said of the evolution of moral life in
children, can be said also of insane people. If at any time
during their lives they placed an action which gave an intima-
tion that it was the act of a being who realized in at least a
confused way any moral responsibility, they are to be anointed
sub conditione.2 Indeed there will rarely be a case where a
man is so totally insane that it can be said that at no time
in his life was he at least-doubtfully capable of moral imputabil-
ity. Hence, in practically every ease of an insane subject, the
sacrament is to be conferred at least conditionally.’
The condition to be used in the administration to children
should be ‘‘Si unquam usum rationis habueris,’’ or more simply,
‘si capax es.’? In the conditional administration to imsane
people, Clericatus® states that the condition should be “‘Si
aliquam culpam in vitae tuae decursu commisisti.’’ Such a
condition is not strictly correct. As has been seen in the treat-
ment of Canon 940, the actual commission of sin is not required,
but simply the capability to commit sin. The condition should
then read ‘‘S8i aliquam culpam in vitae tuae decursu commit-
tere potuisti,’’? or, as in the ease of infants, ‘‘St capamx es.’’
The briefer clause includes within its comprehension all the
elements which are necessary for valid receptibility.
B) ‘‘Num in periculo mortis reispa versetur.’’
The second corporal disposition enumerated by the canon
which may be a matter of doubt is the presence of a real danger
of death in the sick man. It has been seen in the treatment of
the preceding canon that Extreme Unction can be given only
to him whose sickness has advanced to such a state as to imperil
his life. The progress of the disease to this period is generally
noted by a physician, a nurse or some other skilled person.
There are times, however, when such professional advice is lack-
ing, and the priest is left without any efficient means of diagnos-
ing the gravity of the case.
13 St. Alphonsus, Th. M., VI, 732; La Croix, Th. M., lib. VI, pars 2,
n. 2111; Aerinys, Th. M., 11, nu. 366.
14 Trombellio, De Eat. Unct., III, diss." X, p. III, n. xi, p. 28; Gobat,
Moral., tract. VIII, n. 828-30; Tamburini, Th. M., ‘‘de Ext. Unct.,’’
ce. 2, paragr. 3, sub. n. 3, ‘Si dubitetur;’’ Clericatus Dects. Sac.,
‘‘de Ext. Unct.,’’ dec. 80, n. 440.
15 Lic.
Conditional Administration 209
Such instanees are not infrequent. They may occur, e. g.,
when a priest finds in a state of unconsciousness a person who
is addicted to fainting spells. It is present also when a disease
refuses to reveal its seriousness or non-seriousness, even to a
physician.1® Prior to operations a doubt may oceur whether
the patient, suffering from an internal disease, is placed by such
disease in danger of death. Lastly, in lingering diseases, such
as consumption and cancer, there may be often real doubt as to
whether the life of the patient is as yet threatened.
In all such instances Extreme Unction is to be given con-
ditionally. The doubt, it is to be noted, should rest on good
reasons. Reasons grave enough to constitute probable danger of
death are not necessary, for then the sacrament may be given
unconditionally ; but some caution must be used against a hasty
conclusion regarding the serious state of the man.
Genicot in his ‘‘Casus Conscientiae’’ 17 severely rebukes a
priest who interrupted Mass to anoint a man presumably
stricken down with apoplexy but who only a few minutes later
was found simply to be intoxicated. Such hasty administrations
expose the sacrament to the derision and ridicule of the bystand-
ers. It is advisable consequently to await a physician’s decision,
if at all feasible. If this cannot be done, Extreme Unetion
should be given conditionally in every case where the priest
fears that the patient’s affliction may be endangering his life.
A few judicious words of explanation will effectually remove
scandal and will preserve the reverence due to the sacrament.
In such cases of conditional unction—when the doubt re-
volves about the presence of the danger of death in the subject—
it is to be noted that a second conditional administration should
always be made when the presence of this danger becomes a
certainty. For instance, a man anointed before an operation
because of a probable danger resulting from his disease should
be again anointed (of course sub conditione) after the operation,
if he has become certainly in danger of death thru the use of
the surgeon’s scalpel 18 or the increased violence of the disease
he originally had.
16 Cf, Vermeersch, Th. M., III, 661.
17 Cas. 886, p. 575.
18 Cf, supra, chap. V, p. 177 sqq.
210 Extreme Unction
C) “Num mortuus sit.’’
It is not an unusual experience in a priest’s career to find
that he has arrived ‘‘just a few moments too late’’ to administer
the last sacraments to one of the souls in his care. The last
breath has been drawn, the heart no longer gives forth a pulse,
and the physician with stethoscope in hand announces that the
man is ‘‘dead.’’ It is a source of true grief to the priest as he
stands there, armed with tremendous powers to save souls, yet
unable to apply them because the man is no longer a “‘homo
viator.’’
Certainly the immensity of the benefits accruing to the
recipient of the last sacraments require that only the most abso-
lute certainty of death shall totally preclude every attempt to
‘administer them. With this in view, scientific men have applied
their efforts, especially in the present century, to an investigation
of the exact degree of certitude that can be accredited to the
popular notion that a man is dead when circulation ceases and
respiration ends.
Back in the eighteenth century a Spanish Benedictine, Fr.
‘Feijoo, challenged the truth of these conclusions of the common
opinion in two works, a letter entitled ‘‘Contra el Abuso de
Acelerar mas que conviene los Entierros’’ (edit. Rivadeneyra)
and a book called ‘‘Sefales de la Muerte Actual.’’ He attacks
the infallibility of the signs ordinarily believed to be beyond
question. ‘‘No one knows,’’ he writes, ‘‘what is the soul’s last
influence on the body, nor in what precise condition the body
must be in order to preserve its union: with the soul. Hence it
is impossible to know just when a man dies. Let us take a body
that has so wasted away as to seem utterly lifeless; let it be
without respiration, without color, without feeling, without mo-
tion. We can be certain of only one thing about this body.
There is in it no perceptible soul-influence. But what is to make
us sure that in some one or other of the internal organs the soul
does not perform some function or other? You tell me that life
comes to an end when the blood ceases to flow and the heart
ceases to beat. I ask you how you know this. You ean be sure
of no such thing unless by divine or angelic revelation. All we
Conditional Administration At P11
ean be certain of is the absence of any vital action that may
be perceived by the senses.’’ 1°
In the last part of the nineteenth century, Dr. Teard
claimed that dissolution actually took place when the heart
stopped beating; but he denied the possibility of ascertaining
with certainty whether the heart-beat had really ceased unless
the eye confirmed the judgment of the ear either by baring the
heart to view or by the insertion of a long delicate needle thru
the body into the heart.?°
At the beginning of the present century Father Ferreres,
S. J., invited the Catholic Medical Society (Academia de los
Santos Cosme y Damian) of Barcelona, to make a study of the
difference between real and apparent death and to determine
the symptoms which reveal without peradventure of doubt the
fact that a man is truly dead. In 1904 he published in the
periodical, Razon y Fé, the answer of the Society and his own
personal conclusions.2! Since that time practically all theolo-
gians have treated the question in some fashion, while all pas-
toral theologies give generous space to this important proposi-
$1900.77
All authorities are inclined to agree with Feijoo that the
patient usually is not dead immediately upon the cessation of
circulation and respiration. O’Malley claims that even in cases
of decapitation it is very probable that the patient does not die
at once.22 Somatic death is a gradual thing; all organs do not
die at once definitively, i. e., lose their proper operations. First
the senses of taste and smell leave the dying man; and then the
sense of vision weakens—as is evidenced by the patient’s com-
plaints about the fading light. The sense of touch is often lack-
ing, especially in the extremities, which beeome cold before the
rest of the body. Hearing perdures practically to the end, even
19 Sefiales de la Muerte Actual, 252, sect. IV.
20 La Mort Réelle et la Mort Apparente, pp. 89-90.
21 Racon y Fé, vol. VIII, pp. 100-07, 236-38, 371-75, vol. IX, pp. 99-115.
This appeared in English in the American Ecclesiastical Review, vol.
XXXIII, pp. 168-73, 273-85, 347-61, 484-95, 587-95, vol. XXXIV,
pp. 70-78; and in book-form in 1906 (B. Herder, St. Louis).
22 Cf., e. g., Antonelli, Med. Past., vol. I, pp. 563-613; Sanford, Pastoral
Medicine, Appendix— ‘‘The Moment of Death’’—by Walter M.
Drum, 8. J., pp. 223-35; O’Malley, ‘‘ Ethics of Med. Homicide,’’
cap. iv, pp. 83-91; &c.
3 O'Malley, ‘‘Ethics of Med. Homicide,’’ p. 83.
to
212 Extreme Unction
though the sick man seem without movement and apparently
dead2! Even the lack of activity in the greater vital organs,
the brain, the heart and the lungs, are no longer considered
infallible signs of the separation of the soul from the body.
Drs. Coutenot, Laborde and Blane, together with the mem-
bers of the Barcelona Academy, unite in their opinions that the
soul may adhere to the body without exerting the great vital
functions.2> Since that time, more recent experiments show that
cardiac activity may continue even after it becomes impercep-
tible by a stethoscope, and even after respiration has ceased.
Dr. Robinson of the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research
in New York found that the heart may beat for half an hour
after all vascular and circulatory sounds have ceased to be
heard2¢ Icard discovered exactly the same in his professional
experience. He tells of a case where the physician, tried unsuc-
cessfully for an hour to listen to heart-beats, and then upon
opening the thoracic cavity the heart was found to be still
beating and the subject still living.2* If such scientific methods
fail to note the presence of life, it can easily be seen how posi-
tively obsolete the old-fashioned candle-test and mirror-test are
in connection with this question.
Other uncertain signs of death are 1) the absence, even for
a long time, of sensibility of the skin and of intelligence ; 2) the
gathering of a viscous covering over the cornea of the eye; 3) the
unusual amplitude of the pupil of the eye; 4) the relaxation
of the sphincters; 5) the failure of the blood flowing from the
canals of circulation to coagulate; 6) the loss of tissue-elasti-
city, due largely to solidification of subcutaneous fat, so that
the position assumed by the surface tissue at the moment of
24 Antonelli, Med. Past., Il, p. 565. A practical caution can be deduced
from the fact that the patient can hear until almost the last moment.
The priest and attendants should be careful to say nothing which
will hasten the death of the sick man by depressing his spirits with
remarks about the hopelessness of the case, &c. On the other hand,
they should make many pious ejaculations into the ear of the patient,
speaking slowly and distinctly—but not shouting.
5 Countenot, in ‘‘Htudes Franciscaines,’’? Jan. 1901, p. 44; Laborde,
Bulletin de Académie de Médicine, seance du 4 janvier, 1900, p.
64; Blane, El Criterio Catolico en las Ciencias Medicas, 1903, p. 171.
‘‘4 Study with the Electrocardigraph of the Mode of Death of the
eae Heart,’’ in the Journal of Experimental Medicine, 1912, xvi,
Dp. :
La Mort Réelle et la Mort Apparente, pp. 89-90.
i)
Or
to
o>)
tw
=]
¥
a
Conditional Adminstration 213
solidification tends to become fixed.2® None of these is a suffi-
cient indication to the physician to enable him to pronounce with
any finality the death of the patient.
There are, however, several signs of death that are regarded
by physicians to be clear evidence of the dissolution of the soul
and the body. The first of these is the absolute absence of mo-
tions of the heart. We have already cited Drs. Coutenot,
LaBorde and Blane against this contention. Furthermore Dr.
Crile, of Cleveland, whom O’Malley terms ‘‘one of best medical
authorities on this matter of somatic death,’’ says that the
human respiratory centre may survive anemia from thirty to
fifty minutes, and in the meantime cardiac resuscitation may be
attempted.2® Dr. Wayne Babcock, of Philadelphia, reported
to the American Therapeutic Society some very interesting cases
of his own, which were recorded in the ‘‘Proceedings’’ of that
Society for the year 1912. All this conspires, of course, against
the certainty of this sign of death, with the consequence that
there is still at least a tenuous probability of the presence of
life, even in those whose heart-beats have surely ceased.
A second sign is the ‘‘frigus cadavericum,’’ the constantly
gerowing coldness that overtakes the body after the departure
of the soul. Yet it must be remembered that some diseases
increase the heat of the body at the time of agony and even after
death. The age of the person and the nature of the disease
also determine to a great extent the amount of heat in the
body. Those afflicted with chronic illnesses, as hemorrhages,
or those asphyxiated by drowning evidence much less heat of
body than those stricken down by an acute disease hke apoplexy.
As a result the presence or non-presence of heat is far from
infallible in determining the existence of somatic death in the
subject.°°
Another sign is the rigidity of the body (rigor cadavericus),
whereby the muscles become so stiff and taut that they can no
longer be extended or distended. If this is certainly present, it
must be econeeded that death has really occurred. There is
a great liability, however, that physicians may mistake a catalep-
28 Antonelli, Med. Past., II, pp. 571-72; Adami, The Principles of Path-
ology, p. 915.
29 Cf. O’Malley, Ethics of Med. Homicide, p. 84.
30 Antonelli, Med. Past., II, p. 580.
214 Extreme Unction
tic or tetanic stiffness for the rigor mortis.2! However, as
Ieard notes,®? expert examination of the corpse can deduce posi-
tive indications of dissolution from the rigidity. Accordingly
the presence of this sign determines death with certitude only
for the skilled examiner.
A third indication of death is cadaveric lividity. Due to
the gravitation of the blood to dependent capillaries, the lower
parts of the body show within a few hours after death a livid
reddening, or, where the blood is more venous, a bluish purple
eolor. If there has been a cyanosis with a great distention of
the superficial capillaries before death (as occasionally occurs
in the vessels of the neck and face when death is due to as-
phyxia), a similar and even more intense lividity may be pres-
ent over surfaces not dependent. In places where there is
pressure, as over the shoulder-blades, the mere weight of the
body effectually prevents the coloring of the capillaries, and
consequently these regions remain pale.*? Lividity is not by
any means an infallible sign of death. It is quite possible even
for physicians to confuse it with purpura hemorrhagica, a dis-
ease in which blood is extravasated within the tissues.
Various other signs of death have been advanced but none
have proved very satisfactory, with the exception of those which
will be immediately noted. The Paris Academy offered a prize
to the one who would find any certain sign of death other than
rigidity and putrefaction. One hundred and two papers were
submitted; but all of them failed to prove that the lesser func-
tions were no longer carried on when the greater vital actions
ceased.
81 A very recent incident of this appeared in the Philadelphia Public
Ledger, Jan. 3, 1923. It reads as follows: ‘‘ Public Ledger Foreign
Service: Madrid, Jan. 2, 1923 (By Cable)—The most sensational
event that ever occurred in the town of Zamora was the discovery
on New Year’s Day at a graveside that a supposed corpse was alive.
Virtually all the town attended the funeral of Dona Laura Rodriquez,
widow of a commander in the army and well known in Madrid so-
ciety. At the last moment before the coffin was lowered into the
grave, it was uncovered to permit her eight children to have a last
look at their mother. When a physician approached the coffin he was
dumbfounded to notice signs of life in its occupant. Other doctors
were hurriedly sent for and they verified that her heart was still
beating. The ‘corpse’ was in a state of catalepsy.’’
82 La Mort Réelle et la Mort Apparente, p. 25.
83 Adami, The Principles of Pathology, p. 915.
Conditional Administration OID
The sign regarded by all as certain is putrefaction or de.
composition. This sets in when rigidity ceases, and consists in
a general mortification of the body. It generally commences
over the abdomen as a greenish discoloration. Its onset is in-
deed variable, and is delayed considerably by a great cold and
hastened materially by heat and warmth. The organs which are
normally moist and which contain abundant bacteria exhibit
signs of putrefaction first. The intestinal canal is most mark-
edly affected. Many factors, however, may enter into the putre-
factive process. For instance, cases of acute infection and of
bacteremia are especially susceptible to early decomposition. This
is ascribable not only to the action of the specific pathogenic or-
gvanisms but also to the fact that the protective substances of the
organism have been exhausted in the course of the infection
with the consequence that the growth of putrefactive bacteria is
in no way inhibited. Snake poisoning, in which there is a rapid
decomposition of the antibodies, induces a speedy decomposi-
tion. On the other hand arsenical and certain other intoxica-
tions may very appreciably delay the onset of putrefaction.**
Only one caution must be noted. Decomposition of the whole
body in advanced state should be demanded. A decomposition
that has just commenced may be the result of a gangrene that
precedes death, and not that which follows it.
Two other tests were used during the recent World War
upon many soldiers brought into dressing stations apparently
dead from shell-shock, from head or spinal wounds or from
asphyxiation. The first test was to inject a little alkaline solu-
tion of fluorescine beneath the skin. If there is any circulation
at all, the dye will be carried to the eye and will color the
conjunctiva green. The second test was to puncture the spleen
or liver with a needle and draw therefrom a tiny bit of pulp.
When the blood was withdrawn this pulp was applied to blue
litmus paper. The reaction of living pulp is alkaline, blue; of
dead pulp, red or acid.*® Although, it is true, these tests may
produce some degree of certainty, it is needless to say that they
34 Adami, The Principles of Pathology, p. 915.
85 Sasse, Presse Medicale, xxiv, 66—O’Malley, Ethics of Med. Homicide,
pp. 90-1.
216 Extreme Unction
can be applied only in very unusual circumstances, due to: lack
of necessary equipment.
For the priest ordinarily the only sign which he can regard
as indicating certain death is putrefaction. What he must be
most eareful of is not to mistake ‘‘apparent’’ death for real
somatic death. The more frequent cases of apparent death are
those resulting from asphyxia, swooning, lethargy, catalepsy,
epileptic coma, electric -shock, paralysis and narcotic poison-
ings. Asphyxia consists in an apparent lack of respiration and
blood circulation. It occurs when the air supply to the lungs
has been cut off by drowning, strangulation or the inhaling of
poisonous gas.3° Such a condition can perdure several hours.
Swooning or fainting fits manifest a more or less perfect sus-
pension of respiration and circulation, and not rarely induce
a diminution of the heat of the body. Catalepsy is a nervous
disease which occurs intermittently without fever. Sensibility
becomes altogether lacking, the muscles become inert and rigid,
consciousness often departs and the body keeps in the same
position as if petrified. Its duration may extend over many
hours and even days. Lethargy consists in a profound stupor,
with the eyes almost closed, the members taut and all sensibility
lacking. It may last thruout several days. Epileptic coma is
a state of unconsciousness which follows grave convulsions in
epilepties. It is characterized by a tranquil respiration and is
rarely remembered by the patient upon his return to normalcy.
Electric shock occurs when a man is struck by lightning or
comes into contact with an electric current. These men do not
always die immediately, for artificial respiration has revived
many. Usually a paralysis of the centre of respiration is in-
duced, which will have a fatal termination unless immediately
overcome. Hence the result of this shock can be said to be a
form of asphyxia. Paralysis consists in the loss of the power of
voluntary motion, with or without sensation. It often results
in the abolition, either complete or partial, of some of the fune-
tions of the body. Narcotic stupors are profound sleeps caused
by nareotie drugs such as laudanum, morphine, cocaine, hash-
eesh, ete. The physical effects of heavy indulgence in these are,
chiefly, a diminution of pulse, a deep pallor, dilation of pupils,
36 Capellman, Med. Past., p. 179 sqq.
Conditional Adminstration 217
coldness of the extremities and almost imperceptible or spas-
modie respiration. It may affect the body in this fashion for
several days.
Various authors go to great lengths to cite examples of
apparent death resulting from each of the causes enumerated.*?
Occasionally, also, the daily press carries the news of incidents
of this kind,38 thus adding example to example in proof of the
contention that no sign of death is unfailing except putrefac-
tion. The Barcelona Academy was convinced of this, for among
the resolutions it adopted, the following is found with no dis-
senting voice: ‘‘Resolved: Facts have demonstrated that a man
ean be revived after remaining hours in a state in which all
siens of life have disappeared, such as consciousness, speech,
37 Antonelli, Med. Past., II, pp. 595-602; Ferreres, Real and Apparent
Death, pp. 72-101; Sanford, Pastoral Medicine, 233-5; O’Malley,
Ethics of Med. Homicide, pp. 84-7.
88 E.g. The following article appeared in the daily press recently:
‘‘Madisonville, Ky., March 9—Roscoe Qualls, nine-year-old son of
Lonnie Qualls, yesterday had literally come back from the valley of
death. For hours his parents and other relatives believed him dead.
Their grief was piteous. The certain arrangements to be made for
burial were discussed. The boy heard every word of the arrange-
ments being made, but he could not move a muscle of his body,
wink an eye or twitch a lip, nor do anything to show that he still
lived.
‘‘Roscoe Qualls, while skating on a pond at his father’s farm, fell,
striking his head. Paralysis soon set in and it was found that he
had concussion of the brain and had lost power of speech. Liquid
food kept him alive, but finally this failed to improve him, and
while the physician was absent, his parents believed death had come.
Roscoe says his greatest dread while he lay helpless listening to the
discussion of his own death was that he would be buried alive. He
realized that he could not lift a finger to show that he still lived.
When all hope seemed lost to the boy, an examination was made,
and he was found to be still breathing. Doctors ministered to him
and soon afterwards the lad was sitting up.’’
Another case appeared in the Washington Post on March 10, 1926,
and evidences how apt physicians may be to error in accident cases:
‘¢An ambulance ride was enough to revive Thomas Barnes ....
last evening after he had been declared ‘dead.’ Barnes was riding
a motorcycle, which collided at Florida Avenue near Seventh Street,
N. W., with a street car .... Barnes was thrown to the street,
unconscious, with blood streaming from cuts on his face. Traffic
Policeman Tompkins called Casualty Hospital, and Dr. Krouse, of the
hospital staff, responded with an ambulance. Dr. Krouse, upon his
arrival, pronounced Barnes dead, and the colored man’s body was
lifted into the ambulance. Employes of the hospital were about to
lift the body from the ambulance and place it in the hospital morgue,
when Barnes sat up. His cuts were treated and he went home.’’
218 Extreme Unction
sensibility, muscular movement, respirations and beatings of the
heart. This state may logically be called apparent death.’’ *°
Between the moment ordinarily held to be that of death
and the moment at which death actually occurs there is then a
period of latent life. ‘‘Death never comes at a leap,’’ writes
Dr. Icard,*® ‘‘life is extinguished slowly, gradually, even then
when death is sudden, as we sometimes eall it. That imterme-
diate state between life and death exists always; it 1s a normal
physiological state, thru which we all pass departing from life.’’
The length of this period of latent life is of paramount im-
portance. It is generally conceded that it is of far greater
duration in eases of sudden deaths than demises following long
illnesses. The vitality of the man stricken down in his health
furnishes much more resistance to the grip of death than the
cells of one who has been ravaged by disease. To determine
exactly the interval between the appearance of death and death
itself is very difficult to do. Authors vary as to the extent of
time because of this very reason.
Dr. Bassols in the discussions of the Barcelona Academy of
January 22, 1903, stated that in his opinion the period of latent
life in sudden deaths lasted until the instant when the rigor
cadavericus appears.*! Ferreres extends it up to the time when
mortification commences.** In prolonged sicknesses there is
more harmony of opinion. Practically all later writers have put
one-half hour as a reasonable hmit for the latent period after
long sicknesses.** There are some who are even more generous
than this, such as O’Malley, who allows one hour at least in
every case of apparent death.*4
The practical advantage of all this for the priest lies in the
fact that he ean with safe conscience absolve and anoint condi-
tionally at any time during this period of latent life. In eases
of sudden deaths, where the period of time is long, the sacra-
89 Concl. 3, El Criter. Catol., Augusti 1903, pag. 227.
40 La Presse Medicale, quoted by Ferreres, Real and Apparent Death, p. 61.
41 Gury-Ferreres, Casus Consc., II, 1208.
42 Real and Apparent Death, p. 81 sqq. It is to be noted that the ‘“putredo
mortis’’ must be somewhat advanced in order to distinguish it
from the putrefaction resulting before death from gangrene.
#3 Ferreres, Real and Apparent Death, p. 87 sqq.; Noldin, De Sac., 294;
Genicot-Salsmans, Inst. Th. M., II, 422.
44 Hthics of Med. Homicide, p. 87.
Conditional Administration 219
ments may be administered as long as there is a tenuous prob-
ability that the man is latently alive. Noldin** thinks that the
sacraments should be administered within two hours after the
declaration of death. Genicot*® is no more generous in sudden
deaths than in eases of slow, drawn-out diseases. Drum** allows
a conditional administration until the presence of an advanced
stage of decomposition is evident. O’Malley*® thinks three hours
a not unreasonable extension of time after the ‘pronouncement
of death.”’
Recent Synodal legislation also allows and instructs Une-
tion to be administered during the period of latent life. Thus
the Synod of Madrid (1909) permits an unetion in cases of
-gudden death after several hours and even after an entire day
has passed since death became ‘‘apparent.’’ *°
It will be easily seen that sufficient authority can be educed
from the various opinions to allow a very wide latitude of
action. In practice a priest is amply justified in anointing a
man supposedly dead (from a sudden and unexpected cause)
up until the time when advanced decomposition has set in.°°
This period may last for many hours and even thru several
entire days, depending of course, upon the rapidity with which
the putrefaction occurs. In the cases of those who have been
vexed with lingering diseases, the unction may be given con-
ditionally within at least a half an hour. As noted before,
O’Malley is more liberal than this. “‘For a whole hour after
apparent death,’’ he writes, “‘the probability that the soul has
not departed is so strong that, in my opinion, a priest who does
not give the necessary sacraments is virtually as guilty as if he
neglected to administer them to a person evidently alive. Crile,
one of the best medical authorities on the matter of somatie
death, holds that the human respiratory system may survive
45 Lc.
46 Luc.
47 Sanford, Pastoral Medicine, p. 235.
48 Ethics of Med. Homicide, p. 87.
49 Lib. 2, tit. 3, const. 6, p. 194. Cf. also Syn. Auriensis, const. 78, page 48
(Orense, 1908); Syn. Cordub. in America, n. 180; Malacitan, lib. 3,
tit. 7, c. 2 n. 9 (Malaga, 1909); Ancudien., part 2, c. 6, pag. 74
(S. Carlos de Ancud, 1907); Manilanen., n. 73 (Manila, 1911);
Cebuen., n. 87 (Manila, 1911); Calbayogan., tit. 2, const. 2, p. 76
(Manila, 1911), &c.
50 Gury-Ferreres, Casus Consc., II, 1218.
220 Extreme Unction
anemia for from thirty to fifty minutes. How long after the
hour a priest may administer the sacraments is not known, but
a second hour, or even a third, are not unreasonable periods of
time during which the sacraments may be administered condi-
tionally.’’°! Ferreres *? allows an extension of time if death in
the lingering disease is brought on prematurely by an accident,
or by sudden and unforeseen complications. Hence if cessation
of breath and motion, coupled with apparent insensibility, occurs
at the time when the patient is in high fever or during an acute
colic, the change must be ascribed, not to the disease, but to a
morbid condition of the system. This results in a state not
unlike asphyxia or syncope; and puts this mode of dying mid-
way between sudden deaths and lingering dissolutions. Hence
conditional administration of the sacraments can take place two
and even three hours after apparent death. In fact, it will
be very often uncertain that such an accident or complication
did not occur; with the result that practically always, even
according to Ferreres’ notion, it will be permissible to anoint
for two or three hours after pronouncement of death in linger-
ing illnesses. It must be noted, too, that when Ferreres speaks
of ‘‘one-half hour after apparent death,’’ he means one-half
hour after a competent physician with the help of the most
accurate medical instruments declares the man dead. Very
often a physician will not be present at this time, and if he 1S,
he may not have employed such careful means to determine the
presence of death. Accordingly for a very appreciable time
after the man is popularly thought to have yielded up his soul,
the conditional administration of the necessary sacraments is
allowed.
Priests will find a practical application of these opinions
not only in the many accidental deaths which oceur daily, but
in the executions of criminals by hanging, electrocution or
shooting. In every instance the priest should endeavor to ad-
minister as quickly as possible the sacraments of Penance and
Extreme Unction to the unfortunate man.
It is quite probable that Extreme Unction will be of more
51 Ethics of Med. Homicide, pp. 87-88.
52 Gury-Ferreres, Casus Consc., II, n. 1221; Real and Apparent Death, pp.
102 sqq.
Conditional Administration 221
avail to the patient than absolution in these instances. Penance
requires the acts of the penitent as at least quasi-matter ; and
their presence is at most a very dubious thing in such men,
apparently dead. On the other hand, Extreme Unction demands
only an habitual intention on the part of the recipient, and
has, besides its own proper efficacy, all the efficacy of Penance—
secondarily, it is true, but none the less per se.58
When administering the sacraments in these contingencies,
the priest must take precautions not to vive scandal to the by-
standers. Often he will be able to make the single unction
(and Extreme Unction should always be given in apparent death
by the short form) without attracting attention. By grasping
the patient’s hand, he may anoint the palm, unnoticed.” If
this cannot be done, an admonition or explanation of the pro-
cedure to the bystanders will effectually remove all wonder-
ment.°°
It is to be noted that it follows as a logical consequence that
the body should be handled very carefully during the period
of latent life. It should not be washed or dressed; the eyes
and mouth should not be closed; the hands should not be
joined nor the face covered—at least until the appearance of
the ‘‘rigor cadavericus.”’ Otherwise there is serious danger
of causing the real death of the patient by asphyxiation.”®
Another deduction can be made in regard to the observance
of the rubrie of the Ritual which instructs the priest to leave
off and proceed no further if the man dies during the rite.’ Of
course the Ritual means the true demise of the subject. Under
the recent investigations it would be very difficult to see how a
priest can know with any degree of certainty that the man is
truly dead. Consequently, if the man seems to die after the
rite of the unctions has commenced, the priest may go ahead
53 Villada, Casus, vol. 3, sect. 7, n. 76; Pesch, Prael. Dogm., VITAE:
Tanquerey, Th. D., III, 784.
54 Gury-Ferreres, Casus Consce., II, 1216. Gury-Ferreres notes that it can
be done on the forehead in such a way that others will not note it.
To anoint the hand seems easier still, and, as shall be seen in the
treatment of Can. 947, the unction is just as valid.
55 O'Malley, Ethics of Med. Homicide, p. 88; Antonelli, Med. Past., I,
1029.
56 Antonelli, op. cit., vol. II, n. 1030.
57 Rit. Rom., tit. V, cap. 1, n. 13: ‘‘Si vero dum inungitur infirmus decedat,
Presbyter ultra non procedat, et praedictas Orationes omittat.’’
222 Extreme Unction
and finish the other unctions conditionally.58 Even the strictest
theologians hold the perdurance of life for a few minutes after
the appearance of death, and as a consequence the continuance
of the rite is justified by another rubrie of the same chapter
(n. 14): ‘‘Quod si dubitet an vivat adhue, unctionem prose-
quatur, sub conditione pronuntiando formam, dicens: ‘Si vivis,
per istam,’ &¢.’’ Doubt—very positive doubt—will always be
present during the very few moments required to complete the
anointings ; and consequently a priest shall never be justified in
cutting the rite short for the reason that the patient has passed
away.
The condition to be attached to the form in all cases like
this is ‘‘Si vivis.’? It should be expressed as the rubrics
command, although its verbal omission will not affect the
validity of the mental condition. The Ritual seems to fol-
low the suggestion of St. Charles in regard to this express
mention of the condition. In his Instructions ‘‘De Extrema
Unctione’’ the great Saint wrote: ‘‘Ministrabit autem dum aeger
integris sensibus est. Quodsi aliqua morbi vi infirmus oppressus,
dubitatur vivusne sit an mortuus, tune diligenter de hoe sacerdos
videbit, consulto etiam medico, si tanta temporis brevitate potest ;
si non potest, et in dubio est, ea conditione utetur: ‘Si es vwus,
per istam,’ &e.’®9
58 Ferreres, Comp. Th. M., II, 856; Homiletic and Pastoral Review, XXVI
(1926), pp. 851-2; Genicot, Casus Consc., cas. 887, p. 575.
58 Acta Eccl. Mediol., pars IV, tom. I, p. 603.
CHAPTER VII
DENIAL TO IMPENITENTS
CANON 942.
Hoc sacramentum non est conferendum illis qui im-
poenitentes in manifesto peccato mortali contumaciter
perseverant; quod si hoc dubium fuerit, conferatur sub
conditione.
| 223 }
CHAPTER VII.
The subject of Extreme Unction must have not only phys-
ical but also spiritual requirements. In this double demand—
ex parte corporis et ex parte animae—Uniction shares its dis-
tinction with Matrimony and with Orders.
The two preceding canons revealed the physical conditions
necessary for valid reception, viz., serious illness and a danger
of death ensuing therefrom. They likewise disclosed two
requisites of the soul, quite as indispensable in the recipient,
namely, the presence of the baptismal character and the attain-
ment of the use of reason. The present canon continues the
consideration of the spiritual fitness of the subject with a view
at least to the lawfulness of conferring the sacrament.
The canon forbids bestowal of Extreme Unction to an im-
penitent person who is eontumaciously persevering in manifest
mortal sin. Authorities are divided in their opinions as to
whether this law was intended to deal primarily and principally
with the dispositions or with the intention of such a recipient.
Thus Alb. Semitt, writing in the Lintzer-Quartalschrift,’ con-
tends that the point at issue is the presence of the intention in
the subject. Dispositions of soul, such as found in the contuma-
ciously impenitent, are so evil in their nature that an intention
of receiving the sacrament cannot coexist with them, prescinding
of course from the physical possibility (which because of its
horror is not taken into account here) that a man out of per-
verseness of heart might have the deliberate intention of re-
ceiving the sacrament sacrilegiously. Though prima facie deal-
1 Vol. LXXI (1918), 8. 419, footnote: ‘¢Dieser Kanon handelt vom
Zweifel an der intention, nicht vom Zweifel an der Disposition (wie
irrtuemlicherweise behauptet wurde, so dass in manchen Kreisen ein
Abweichen des neuen Rechtes von der bisherigen Praxis angenommen
wurde). Erst der tolgende Kanon handelt von zweifelhafter Dispo-
sition. Es ist das nich das gleiche; zweifelhafte Intention macht die
Gueltigkeit zweifelhaft; bei zweifelhafter Disposition aber ist das
Sakrament gueltig, nur ist der fruchbringende Empfang Frage ge-
stellt. In diesem Falle darf es gar nicht bedingungsweise gespendet
werden, damit es nach Sicherstellung der Disposition wieder aufleben
kann,’’
[ 225 ]
226 Extreme Unction
ing with disposition, yet this canon radically and essentially is
concerned with the intention of the recipient; and denial of the
sacrament is consequently ascribable to the lack of the essential
element of intention and not of the non-essential requisite of
disposition.
This view is accepted wholeheartedly by Noldin,? Koudelka,?
and Woywod.? It is implicitly adopted by at least some of the
theologians > who teach that in case of doubt the condition ap:
pended should never be ‘‘Si dispositus es’’—lest reviviscence be
entirely precluded. Kern,® though writing before the Code,
asserted the lack of intention to be the reason of the denial of
this sacrament in the case contemplated in this canon.
Another group of theologians contend that this law con-
siders primarily and principally the dispositions of the sick
man. Unction is forbidden to such a person because there is
little likelihood that he will come into a better disposition; and
an administration to him in such a condition of soul would be
inexcusably irreverent. The refusal of the sacrament is thus
a punishment, ‘‘a well-deserved—yea, necessary—punishment.
The punishment is well-deserved, since such an impenitent, ob-
stinate sinner despises the sacraments and the Church’s means
of grace or otherwise he would amend his ways. The punish-
ment is necessary, because under such conditions the sacrament
would be frustrated and dishonored. The sacraments cannot
give grace nor increase it in the case of one who will not
absolutely renounce sin. In such eases the words of our Savior
are pertinent: ‘Nolite dare sanctum canibus’ (Matt. vii, 6).’”7
2 De Sac., 445.
3 Pastors, Their Rights and Duties, p. 153.
4 A Practical Commentary, I, n. 865: ‘*‘Some commentators explain
those words of the Code as a lack of will and intention to receive
the Sacrament, and, when interpreted in that sense the Code agrees
with the common teaching of theologians that, if there is a doubt
about the intention to receive the Sacrament, it can, at most, be
administered conditionally. This acceptation of the words of Canon
942 seems reasonable. No adult who has or has had the use of
reason, can receive any gift of God unless he is willing to receive it.
Obstinate perseverance in open mortal sin excludes all will and
intention to receive a Sacrament.’’
Cf. e. g., Telch, Epit. Th. M., p. 300; Genicot-Salsmans, Inst. Th. M.
II, 423, footnote. ;
6 a de Ext. Unct., p. 320.
7 Pruemmer, in The Homiletic and Pa L
ieee ; Pastoral Review, XXVI (1926), pp.
nA
Denial to Impenitents 227
Those who maintain this latter view of the question, besides
Pruemmer, are Blat,’ Tanquerey,® Vermeersch” and O ’Donnell."!
Mothon?2 also seems to espouse this opinion when he speaks of
the ‘‘state of soul of the sick man’’ (1’état d’ame du malade)
in his treatment of this canon. For them it is not a question
of validity of administration, but rather of the liceity of the
action.
This latter seems the better view. In the first place, it is
not alien to the policy of the Church to forbid the anointment
of a subject whose dispositions are so evil as to be incompatible
with the intrinsic sanctity of the sacrament. This is evident
from a decision of the Holy Office 13 in 1892, whereby: Catholics
who had ordered their bodies to be cremated were to be denied
the sacrament, unless upon advisement they retracted their
perverse wills. The denial of the sacrament is due to the re-
fusal on the part of these men to do what they are bound
under pain of mortal sin to do. They might have every inten-
tion of receiving the sacrament, they might even have asked that
it be bestowed, and they may evidence contrition for all sins
except the one mentioned in the decree. Nevertheless, the sac-
rament must be withheld, despite the fact that it can be re-
ceived validly by such subjects.
This is likewise revealed by an inspection of the rubric of
the Ritwale before its latest revision. According to its preserip-
tions Extreme Unetion was not to be conferred upon impeni-
tents and those dying in manifest mortal sin.4 It is indeed
difficult to see why an intention of receiving Extreme Unction
could not co-exist with the state of soul of one dying in manifest
mortal sin. This clearly shows that the Holy See believes that,
at least under certain circumstances, the reverence due the
sacrament is not to be sacrificed to the possible benefit that may
acerue to an improperly disposed subject.
And if at times the Holy See prohibits the administration
8 Comm. Tect., lib. III, p. I, nu. 286.
ORL RUD, all, (OF
10 Th. M., III, 662 & 184.
11 I. E. Record, vol. XII, Fifth Series (1918), p. 287.
12 Institutions Canoniques, II, p. 233, art. 2030; cf. Bargilliat, Drotts et
Devoirs des Curés, 245 (c¢).
18 §. C. 8. Off., 27 Jul. 1892, ad I—Coll. 8. C. P. F., n. 1808.
Rath. y Ol 23 De:
228 Extreme Unction
of this sacrament to those who lack certain dispositions of soul,
it is quite probable that this canon is an example of such a
policy. For contumacy, which the canon speaks of, is certainly
a state of the soul. Primarily and directly it refers to the
lack of disposition; only remotely and indirectly does it have
any relation with the intention of the sick man. True, the
disposition influences, in many cases, the intention to receive,
or not to receive, this sacrament. And it also seems to be
possible that a man can have the will and intention to receive
the sacrament and also not have a detestation of and aversion
to mortal sin. Yet in every case of contumacious perse-
verance in manifest mortal sin the sacrament is to be withheld.
As a consequence the refusal must be ascribed to the presence
of the unworthy dispositions of the sick man.
As yet, there has been no official solution of the question.
Many authors accordingly content themselves with a simple
mention of the canon and do not wish to enter into the matter
until further decision.1® In practice there will be no difficulty ;
for whether the man’s ineapacity arises from the lack of an
essential element, or from the lack of even the minimum soul-
disposition necessary for licit bestowal, the result is the same
—such a man is not to receive the sacrament.
What are these conditions of soul which are so frightful
that conferring of the sacrament is altogether forbidden?
Though ever shrinking from sacrilege, the Church is not un-
mindful of the weaknesses of her children—and when they are
in extreme necessity, she will go far before forbidding the
treasures of grace to them. She realizes full well the import
of the phrase ‘‘Quantum humana fragilitas nosse sinit.’’ She
knows the maze of contending motives and prineiples within
men—and she realizes, too, that in many cases only God ean
tell what is in us and what is of us. So in her merey, the
Church denies this sacrament to those only whom she is strictly
bound to exclude. And the unworthiness of even these men
must be strictly verified before administration can be totally
15 Cf. Woywod, ‘‘The Sacrament of Extreme Unction,’’ in the Homiletic
and Pastoral Review, XXII, p. 768, where he practically admits this.
16 Cf. Ferreres, Comp. Th, M., II, 848, Quaer. 8; Sabetti-Barrett, Th. M.,
p. 808; Augustine, 4 Commentary, IV, p. 404; Matha.an-Castillon,
Asserta Moralia, n, 521; Arregui, Summ, Th. M., n. 665, &e.
7
Denial to Impenitents 229
refused. If there is the slightest doubt, conditional administra-
tion not only may, but must be made—‘‘conferatur sub eondi-
tione.”’
As before stated, this canon forbids the bestowal of Unction
upon an impenitent man who is persevering contumaciously m
manifest mortal sin. Primarily the law obligates the minister,
but ratione subjecti. Holy things are to be treated in holy
fashion, and not wasted indiscriminately upon subjects either
totally unworthy or positively unwilling to receive them.
In order to justify the absolute denial of the sacrament,
the minister must be morally certain that the patient is im-
penitently and contumaciously persevering in manifest mortal
sin. Five things then are required: the subject must be 1) ob-
stinate and econtumacious in 2) his impenitence with regard
to a 3) manifest 4) mortal sin; while the minister must 5)
have certainty with regard to the existence of this soul-condi-
tion of the subject.
It is necessary that a man be not only impenitent in the
eyes of the minister, but that he contumaciously persevere in
such impenitence. Certainty of his continued and prolonged
refusal is required. Impenitence signifies the lack of sorrow
necessary for the remission of sins either per se or with the
help of the sacraments. Blat ‘1 states simply that ‘‘impaeni-
tentes’’ are ‘“‘poenitentiam cordis qua indigent non habentes.’’
Baruffaldo 18 declares that they are those ‘‘qui, cum publice
peccaverint, nullum paenitentiae signum dederunt, adeo ut a
peccato suo non recessisse nemini notum sit.’? O’Kane™ agrees
with this definition of Baruffaldo. And practically this should
be accepted as the more merciful opinion. Hence nothing short
of a total dearth of signs of repentance for a notable length of
time is sufficient to constitute the contumacious impenitence of
the patient.
The impenitence must have to do with a sin that is mani-
festly mortal. The rubric of the Ritual,°° before its latest re-
17 Comm. in Tect., 1. III, p. I. n. 286.
18 Ad Rom. Rit. Comm., t. I, tit. 27, n. 72; ef. Gobat., Moral., tr. VII,
602-3.
19 The Rubrics, n. 864.
20 Tit. V, c. 1, n. 8 (edit. 1913): ‘‘Impoenitentibus vero, et qui in
manifesto peccato mortali moriuntur , , . penitus denegetur,’’
230 Extreme Unction
vision, distinguished the ‘‘impenitent’’ from ‘‘those dying in
mortal sin,’’ but withheld the sacrament from both groups.
The present canon (and similarly the rubric of the new Ritual
—Tit. V, e. 1, n. 10) differs from the former rubric in an im-
portant respect. Now there is required a prolonged, a contu-
macious impenitence in a manifest mortal sin. The old rubrie
seemed to forbid the administration also to those who were
“‘actu’’ in mortal sin, thus depriving of the sacraments persons
rendered unconscious in the act of sin.?)_ Now it is not altogether
unlikely that a man in mortal sin actu should have an intention
of afterward repenting and receiving the sacraments. Such a
man the present canon does not seem to exclude, because it
demands a contumacious impenitence which presupposes absolute
unworthiness of the sacrament, for it precludes the possibility
of the intention of subsequent repentance.
The sin of the subject must be mortal—and manifestly so.
There must be no room for doubt that the man is laboring
under ignorance or a false conscience. Hence the gravity of
the sin must be subjective on the part of the patient. If the
minister knows of certain theological quirks which the patient
possesses on certain matters, inclining the patient to view sins
objectively serious as only venial, he may not deny at least a
conditional administration of the sacrament. Such action would
be positively unjustifiable.
Finally, at least moral certainty as to the evil state of
the subject’s soul is required of the minister. Probability in
such a matter is under no circumstances enough to deprive a
soul wholly of its right to this source of grace. The slightest
doubt not only warrants, but makes of obligation, a conditional
administration.
When all these requirements are verified, the priest may not
proceed to anoint. According to one opinion, recounted above,
such an unction would not only be illicit, but positively invalid;
while all theologians agree that it would be certainly sacrilegious.
21 Thus commentators of the old rubric looked at the matter. KE. g.
Baruffaldo (4d Rom. Rit. Comm., t. I, tit. 27, n. 72) defined
manifest sinners as those ‘‘qui in actu mortaliter peccaminoso morte
correpti sunt, aut actualiter peccando, sensibus destituti sunt.’’
O’Kane (The Rubrics, n. 864) gives as an example a murderer
wounded mortally in the act of killing his victim.’’
Denial to Impenitents 231
To whom, then, must be denied even a conditional adminis-
tration of this sacrament? In the case of a patient still con-
scious the priest will have an opportunity to explore the dispo-
sitions and to arrive at a prudent judgment as to his procedure
in the matter. Surely the sacrament cannot be given to those
who obstinately refuse to do what they are bound under pain of
mortal sin to perform. ‘‘Moraliter enim certum est,’’ says Kern,”
eos habitualiter permanere in sua obstinatione ideoque positive
esse indignos.”’
Thus Catholics, though not Masons nor even influenced by
Masonic principles (and hence not excommunicated), who order
the cremation of their bodies and persist in their will even after
an admonition, cannot be granted the sacraments of the dying.**
Whether, however, they should be admonished, or simply left
in good faith, is left to the prudence of the priest, who should
act in accordance with the direction of the approved authors,
with an especial regard toward the avoidance of scandal.
In like manner, Catholics who have become notorious mem-
bers of the Odd Fellows must show signs of reconciliation, if
possible, before any sacraments can be bestowed. If they are
prevented by weakness or other cause, and if they exhibit marks
of penance and devotion, they may receive the sacraments and
have ecclesiastical burial.?4
Other examples of a man refusing to do what he is obliged
sub gravi to perform would be the unwillingness of a man to
leave his concubine, the refusal of a woman to renounce a life
of harlotry, &c. In this class, too, can be placed, manifest
sinners who reject the sacraments repeatedly, though aware of
their value, by the deliberate will of dying without them. As
long as consciousness perdures, these people cannot be anointed
without their consent.?°
Not to be confused with such a perverse will is the refusal
of one to receive the sacrament, not from the intention of dying
without it, but simply because of a belief that he is not in
danger of death or of a fear that reception betokens the certainty
22 Tract. de Ext. Unct., p. 321.
23 9) C. S. Off., 27 Jul. 1892 ad 1—Coll. 8. C. P. F., n. 1808.
24 §. 0. P. F., 10 Maii, 1898—A. S. S., XXXI, 320; Cf, Amer, Eccl,
Review, XX, p. 506.
25 Tanquerey, Th. D., Ill, 784,
232 Extreme Unction
of death.2® In such eases it should be investigated what inten-
tion would prevail if the truth were known. This can generally
be deduced from the willingness or refusal of the patient to co-
operate in the other aids of religion. It will be discovered
that the intention of receiving the sacrament regularly predom-
inates.°7
The question may arise of the procedure to be taken in the
ease where a man, known to be in mortal sin, declares that
he is contrite yet refuses to go to confession before receiving
Extreme Unction. Can the refusal of a man to confess himself
be regarded as a sign of contumacious perseverance in sin?
There is, of course, a divine precept, whereby all in mortal
sin are bound to receive the sacrament of Penance if in dan-
ger of death.28 Yet it is easily seen, especially in lingering
illnesses and where death is not extremely close, that such
confession can be made subsequently to the unction and not
necessarily prior thereto.”9
But what of the rubric of the Ritual, found even in the
new edition: ‘‘In quo illud in primis ex generali Eeclesiae con-
suetudine observandum est ut, si tempus et infirmi condicio
permittat, ante Extremam Unctionem, Poenitentiae et Eucharis-
tiae Sacramentae infirmis praebeantur?’’ °° Similarly, the Cate-
ehism of the Couneil of Trent instructs us: ‘‘Servanda est
Catholicae Ecclesiae perpetua consuetudo, ut ante extremam
26. Cf. Berardi, Prax. Conf., II, n. 5003; Cf. Amer. Eecl. Review, LX,
pp. 572-3.
27 Cf. Noldin, De Sac., 41.
28 Genicot-Salmans, Inst. Th. M., If, 231.
29 Indeed, some authors hold that if there is only time to receive one
or the other sacrament, it is permissible to choose Extreme Unction,
despite the divine command to confess one’s sins (cf. Telch, Epitome
Th. M., p. 301; Noldin, De Sac., n. 444—for the opposite opinion,
see Suarez, d. 44, s. 1, nn. 9-10). In such a case, Extreme Unction
effects all that Penance accomplishes plus many mighty results
peculiar to itself. The case in practice hardly seems likely. If it
is a question of receiving one sacrament or the other before lapsing
into unconsciousness, it seems wiser to select Penance first, for Ex-
treme Unction can be given absolutely to those in unconsciousness,
according to the prescriptions of the next canon.
80 zit. V., cap. 1, n. 2,
Denial to Impenitents 233
unetionem, poenitentiae et eucharistiae sacramentum adminis-
tretar;;’**?
Furthermore, some theologians like Gury ** and Billuart oy
prescribe confession previous to Unction for those in mortal
sin because the latter is the complement of the former.
In the face of all these reasons can and must a man physi-
eally able to confess his sins be compelled, under threat of
refusal of Extreme Unction, to receive the sacrament of Penance
first, even though he asserts he has contrition for his sins?
Clericatus °4 insists that it is certainly not permissible to anoint
without prior confession, ‘‘praesertim si in dla infirmitate
ipsemet infirmus non fuerit confessus peccata sua; .... nam
si effectus sacramenti est, inter alios, augere gratiam, quomodo
augebitur ista gratia in eo qui nullam gratiam habet, imo obicem
habet ad illam recipiendam?’’
Extreme Unction, it is true, is primarily a sacrament of
the living, and consequently requires the state of grace. But
the state of grace can be gained as well by perfect contrition
cum voto Poenitentiae as by the sacrament of Penance with
simple attrition. In this lies the falsity of Clericatus’ reasoning,
for he evidently presupposes that the state of grace can only be
attained thru the reception of Penance. Sacraments of the
living per se do not require previous confession by those who
are in mortal sin. Per accidens confession may be required by
specific legislation.
The Council of Trent®® demanded that confession be maae
prior to Communion alone. Now, it is to be noted that the
Ritual requires not only the reception of Penance, but also
31 De Ext. Unct., n. 12. Cf. the law promulgated by the Synod of
Chartres held in 1526: ‘‘Cum hoc sacramentum fit ultimum sacra-
mentorum, inhibemus illud dari infirmo, nisi post Confessionem pecca-
torum suorum et post Corporis Christi Communionem, si possibile est
infirmum communicare.’’ (apud Nat. Alex., Th. D. et M., lib. IT,
‘‘De Extr. Unct.,’’ cap. Il, reg. 21).
St. Charles Borromeo similarly prescribed confession prior to the
administration of Extreme Unction. (Instructiones de Eat. Unct.,
capite inscripto, ‘‘Quae praeparatio ad Extremae Uncttonis sacra-
mentum adhibenda’’—apud Acta Eccl. Mediol., pars IV, tom. I, p.
604).
32 Comp. Th. M., II, 693.
33 Summa S. Thomae, ‘‘De Ext. Unct.,’’ disp. unic, a. 7 in fine,
84 Decis. Sac., De Ext. Unot., dec. 80, nn. 1, 2, 3,
85 Sess, XIII, De Euch., can. 11.
234. Extreme Unction
that of the Eucharist. Hence it might be argued—and not
unreasonably—that Penance is required before Extreme Unction
by strict precept, not by reason of the Unction but rather by
reason of the Eucharist. |
But even preseinding from the force of this argument,
theologians do not demand that Penance be received necessarily
before Extreme Unction may be administered. O’Kane says
simply: ‘‘In strictness, no doubt, it suffices that he (the sub-
ject) elicit an act of contrition before Extreme Unction.’’® In
like manner St. Alphonsus writes: ‘‘Licet autem, per se loquendo,
confessio non necessario praemittatur, cum per contritionem se
disponere possit’’ &¢.37 Vermeersch-Creusen °° declares: ‘*Ut
sacramentum hoe cum fructu recipiat, debet infirmus qui conscius
sit peccati mortalis vel confiteri ante quam ungatur vel perfecte
conteri si possit. Existimata igitur contritio sufficit, immo
serius conatus contritionis, si copia confessionis non datur,
dummodo habeatur attritio.”’
Suarez ® treats the question at some length—and, although
admitting the possibility of an oblgation from some other
source, concludes that per se it is not necessary to confess before
being anointed. He cites an example of one who fell into mortal
sin after he had received Penance and Viaticum but before the
reception of Extreme Unction. Although recommending a con-
fession whether the sin be occult or public, he, nevertheless,
asserts the sinlessness of receiving unction without previous
confession—provided always, of course, that the subject has
contrition cum voto Poenitentiae and that there is no danger
of his dying without a later opportunity to confess.
Kixamples may be cited when a man would refuse to go
to confession before the bestowal of Extreme Unction. By some
caprice or even from good reason he may dislike the pastor
(who has, be it remembered, the sole right to give Extreme
Unetion). As a consequence, the man insists that another priest
be summoned from some distance, in order that he may make
his confession to him. While the confessor is on his way to
the sick man, the pastor may deem it advisable to administer
36 The Rubrics, n. 850.
387 Th. M., VI, 716. Cf. also Lehmkuhl, Casus Consc., II, 664.
38 Howt., II, 226.
89 D, 44, s, 1, nn. 9-10; cf, also Diana, Op, Coord., t. II, tr, 4, res, 23,
Denial to Impenitents 235
Extreme Unction. The lawfulness of this administration seems
hardly questionable. Another case would be had when the
priest who administers Uncetion is a relative to whom the patient
would feel much embarrassment in confessing. Then, too, it
would be reasonable to accept the sacrament by preparing one’s
soul with contrition, coupled with the intention of receiving
‘Penance later.
There are some theologians who assert that such an inversion
of the sacraments is not a mortal sin, thus probably implying
that it cannot be done without some blame. E. g., Barbosa ?°
says: ‘‘Credo non esse peccatum mortale conferre Sacramentum
Extremae Unctionis infirmo antequam susceperit Sacramentum
Poenitentiae et Eucharistiae, quia infirmus potest per contriti-
onem se disponere ad suscipiendum hoe sacramentum, tum
quia aliquando fieri potest, ut quis recipere possit Extremam
Unctionem, non vero Poenitentiam, vel Eucharistiam, ut quando
aliquis patitur vomitum, aut ita repente morbor praevenitur, ut
non dederit signa Sacramenti Poenitentiae.’’
Yet if there is present a reasonable cause, as in the examples
cited above, it is hard to see how such an inversion is any
sin at all. Venial obligations do not bind under serious in-
convenience; any just cause suffices to release the binding force
of the law.
It should be noted that it cannot be argued from the letter
of Innocent I to Decentius:*! that previous confession is neec-
essary. ‘‘Nam poenitentibus istud infundi non potest, quia
genus est sacramenti. Nam quibus reliqua sacramenta negantur,
quomodo unum genus putatur posse coneedi?’’ Innocent was
speaking of public penitents, who, while doing penance for
their sins, were forbidden participation in the sacraments until
their period of penance was completed.
The conclusion is that per se a penitent does not have to
preface the reception of Extreme Unction with sacramental con-
fession. It is sufficient that he be contrite for his sins and that
there be no danger that he will die before fulfilling the divine
precept of confessing in danger of death. As Lehmkuhl puts it:
eum. cf rot. tar.,,p. ll, ic; XXITT on, 57,
Srey, .10 tier, 416-——O..J..C.. Fontes, n, 19,
236 Extreme Unction
Ante Extremam Unctionem aut confessio aut perfecta contritio
per se fiat a quolibet qui gravis peccati reus sit.’”*
Hence a priest cannot demand prior confession under pen-
alty of withholding the sacraments—nor is he obliged to do this
by the rubrie. ‘‘Si enim,’’ Suarez #8 writes, ‘‘poenitens ad id non
tenetur, unde obligabitur sacerdos, si videat signa contritionis
et propositum confessionis, absque morali periculo moriendi sine
illa, et praesertim si aliqua rationabilis causa oceurrat differendi
confessionem, ne videlicet detur hie et nune aliqua occasio mani-
festandi peecatum vel quid simile? Prudentiae igitur sacerdotis
hoc relinquendum est, ut et confessionem praemitti procuret, si
commode potest, et non nimium molestus sit, sed credat imfirmo
suam contritionem ostendenti.’’
Since, therefore, the refusal to confess prior to the recep-
tion of Extreme Unction cannot be construed as a sign of im-
penitence, in such cases where signs of contrition are exhibited,
a priest wrongly deprives a man of this sacrament by declining
to administer it in such a ease.
The question may arise, however, with regard to a man
bound by an excommunication or personal interdict. Is prior
confession demanded of him? Such persons are prohibited by
law from a reception of the sacraments.** In such an extreme
time as the danger of death, however, the absolution from these
censures can be given in both fora by any priest, if the con-
tumacy has been broken.*® Accordingly, even in this case, the
priest cannot insist upon confession as a means to absolution
from the censure; nor can he take a refusal to confess as a
certain sign of impenitence. He can impart absolution in the
external forum, and pave the way by this to an administration
of Extreme Unction.*®
From this discussion, it ean be seen that obstinate impeni-
tence in manifest grievous sin is not an easy thing of which
to convict aman. Yet it alone will justify a complete denial of
Extreme Unction. Every condition must be rigidly fulfilled;
420TH. iM jell, 712.
cS RP © ee ea a1 Pee? fe BA
44 Can. 2260, 1; 2275, 2.
45 Can. 2252.
46 Cf. Can. 2251.
Denial to Impemtents 237
and the slightest probability warrants a conditional administra-
tion.
When all the requisites for denial are surely present, how-
ever, it is a grave sin to confer the sacrament. ‘‘Constat fore
peceatum grave,’’ Suarez states, ‘‘dare sacramentum homini
habenti obicem et nullo modo, i. e., nee expresse nec implicite nec
interpretative petenti sacramentum et salutis suae remedium,
saltem per signa attritionis aut bonae vitae.’ ’*!
When men are conscious, little trouble will be experienced
practically in determining the dispositions of their souls. Gen-
erally, it will be easily discernible whether they are shrinking
from the sacraments because of a natural fear of death or from
hardness of heart.
In the ease of a man destitute of his senses, a priest is
liable to be troubled with many scruples about the state of
soul of the patient. If the man is discovered unconscious and
the priest has no knowledge whatsoever of his condition of soul,
there should be at least a conditional administration of the
sacrament. In such an instance nothing certain is known—
and consequently the conditions required by the canon for
absolute denial of the sacrament are not fulfilled.
Two other cases may give some trouble to a priest zealous
for souls, yet equally desirous of protecting the sanctity of the
sacraments. The first is that of the man stricken down to
unconsciousness in the very act of grievous sin. The second is
that of the man who obstinately refuses the sacraments up to
the very moment of unconsciousness.
In regard to the former ease, it may be said that theologians
sinee the time of La Croix and Alphonsus have allowed the
conditional administration of Extreme Unction to such a subject.
A few dissenting voices have been heard, especially those of the
commentators on the rubrics. These men, it must be confessed,
were faced with a rubric far different in phraseology than. the
one found in the latest edition of the Ritual. Baruffaldo,** was
so impressed by the express wording of the rubric that. he
discarded in its favor the opinions of very weighty theologians.
‘Hoe non obstante,’’ he writes, ‘‘textus noster clare loquitur,
47 PD. 42, s. 1, n. 8.
48 Ad Rit. Rom. Comm., t. I, tit. xxvii, n. 76.
238 Extreme Unction
prohibens talem administrationem, qui textus cum per consensum
Keelesiae Universalis sanecitus sit est magis attendendus quam
opinio doctorum licet classicorum.’? O’Kane,*® too, though ad-
mitting the external probability of the opposite opinion, states
that the wording of the rubric would seem to deny a man in
this situation the aids of the unetion. Berardi,®® likewise,
queries: If these cases are not meant by the rubrie of the
Ritual, ‘‘de quibusnam Rituale loqueretur ?’’
Since the revision of the Ritual’s rubrics, such an argument
from the text of the Ritual is altogether inadmissible. The pres-
ent rubric uses the identical terminology of the Code, thus de-
stroying all the value of the reasoning from such a souree. The
former rubric divided into distinet classes impenitents and
those dying in manifest mortal sin. The Code speaks of only
one class, viz., those who are contumaciously impenitent in
manifest mortal sin.
Moreover, theologians of the past and the present admit
a conditional administration in these eases. A host of authorities
can be adduced. Hear Lehmkuhl, for instance:
‘*Ti quos sumi licet catholice voluisse mori excludi non debent
ab Extrema Unctione: 1) si sensibus destituti reperiuntur, ets: parum
christiane vixerint; 2) neque si in ipso actu peecati, signo poeni-
tentiae non manifestato, sensibus destituuntur: quibus quamquam
S. Eucharistia danda non est, tamen cum condicionata absolutione
Extrema Unctio omnino concedenda est. Nam si forte internum
actum miser peccator habuit, longe tutius, immo certo ejus salus
procurabitur per unctionem, per absolutionem valde dubie. Atque
etiam quando sine justa dispositione, dummodo valide, Extremam
Unctionem homo sensibus destitutus suscepit, postea per actum attri-
tionis fortasse sacramenti effectum atque aeternam salutem conse-
quetur,’’51
And Tamburini:
‘‘Hue pertinent peccatores ... si post peccatum commissum,
v. g., post duellum, tempus superfuit, quo vulneratus poenitere po-
tuit, praesumendum esse, saltem per attritionem poenituisse, nisi con-
trarium clare constet, quod certe clare constare difficile est. Quare si
sit a sensibus alienatus, unde non possit nec conteri nec sacramentalem
49 The Rubrics, n. 864.
50 Prag. Conf., II, n. 5004. Other theologians who would deny the sacra-
ment in these cases are Concina (Theol. Christ., vol. X, ‘‘De Ect.
Unet.,’’ dis. I, ec. IV, n. 5), and Seavini (Th. M., III, 440 ad 4).
51 Th. M., II, 724.
Demal to Impentents 239
absolutionem cum attritione suscipere, erit regulariter per Extremam
Unctionem reficiendus, quia regulariter praesumitur attritus, et non
potest de statu actuali peccati constare.’’52
To these names can be added the great authority of ha
Croix,®? St. Alphonsus,>4 Clericatus,®®> Diana,°* Konings,°*
Ballerini-Palmieri,®® Rohling,®® Aertnys,®° Kern,®' Vermeersch-
Creusen®? and Genicot-Salsmans.®* Consequently without the
slightest seruple the priest should proceed to anoint those who
have been rendered unconscious in the very act of sin. Hence
1) those shot in adultery, burglary, &c.; 2) those wounded m
a duel, a brawl, a riot; 3) those found unconscious after an
attempt to commit suicide °*—and all other similar eases—will
permit of a conditional ministration of the sacrament to the
subject. Such people may at least have made an act of attrition
in the fraction of time which they had of consciousness before
their wound robbed them of their senses.
Teich ® makes an exception to the above rule. He denies
the permissibility of anointing those dying in complete drunk-
enness which is gravely sinful. Those perfectly drunk commit
mortal sin by drinking until they have lost the use of their
reason—and having lost it, they are incapable, for the time
being at least, of any act of sorrow.
St. Alphonsus °° and La Croix ®™ say that a conditional
administration can be made when it is not certain that such a
man is in mortal sin. And, in truth, it is difficult to say with
finality that any case of perfect drunkenness is seriously sinful,
as Konings °° indicates. ‘‘Id vero,’’ he writes, “‘tune tantum
52 Th. M., lib. VI, c. 2, paragr. 4, n. 2.
538 Th. M., lib. VI, p. 11, n. 2110.
fierhoM., VIA732.
55 Decis. Sacramentales, dee. 80, ‘‘De Extr. Unct.,’’ nn. 5-6.
56 Op. Coord., tom. I; tr. IV, res. 60.
57 Th. M., n. 1508, q. 8.
58 Op. Th. M., vol. V, tr. X, sec. VI, n. 32.
59 Medulla, p. 380.
SU ee 2 11, 36792.
61 Tract. de Ext. Uncet., p. 322.
62 Hpit., II, 226.
63 Inst. Th. M., II, 423.
64 Cf. Amer. Eccl. Review, LVII, p. 433; LVIII, p. 80.
65 Hpit. Th. M., pp. 294-5.
66 Th. M., VI, 732.
Sethe At. ibe V 1p. 11, n. 2110.
68 Th. M., page 421, note 30.
240 Extreme Unction
constare videtur quando evidens est ipsum sese ex proposito
perfecte inebriasse: id vero, in casw solitariae inebriationis via
evidens esse poterit: poterit vero, si agitur de illis ebriosis, qui
usque ad finem vitae in consuetudine hujus viti notorve per-
severarunt.’? Usually it can be said that it is far from clear
whether a man has deliberately made himself totally intoxicated.
There is generally the probability that he misjudged his powers
in regard to the quantity of liquor he could consume without —
losing totally his use of reason.
Some theologians are even more lenient. They go as far
as to allow anointing even when the drunkenness was certainly
gravely sinful. Thus Lehmkuhl® directs an administration—
conditional, of course—‘‘licet culpabiliter se inebriasset |[sub-
jectum],’’ adding that it must be given ‘‘a fortiori’? when it is
not clear whether the intoxication is culpable or not. Rohling ‘°
conecords in this very merciful view. This practice may be fol-
lowed, for it can be truly said that it is never known whether
the drunken stupor has subsided sufficiently to allow some little
use of the reason, thus making the possibility of at least some
kind of attrition quite tenable.
Arguing a pari it can be said that Extreme Unetion can
be administered to those who fall into insanity while in the act
of sin or (as shall be seen presently) while refusing the sacra-
ments. With some truth it can be presumed that they have
elicited an internal act of attrition. Insanity differs from un-
consciousness, it is true. It takes away the use of reason, while
the latter takes away only the use of the senses. However, it
can be presumed that the insanity did not overtake the man
in such a speedy fashion that he did not have at least a moment
in which to repent.
It might, indeed, be asked how a priesti can conscientiously
give a sacrament of the living to a man whose attrition (and
even his intention) is very little more than a possibility. The
answer lies in the old axiom: ‘‘In extremis extrema tentanda
sunt.’? The sanetity of the sacrament is safeguarded by the
conditional administration; and the eternal welfare of the sub-
ject similarly protected. There is no new sin on the part of
69 Casus Consc., II, n. 665.
70 Medulla, p. 380.
Denial to Impemtents 241
the subject in thus receiving it, because his unconscious state
makes him incapable of sin as long as it lasts. On the other
hand, the huge advantage gained by the patient is worth the
inconvenience caused by administration to those who are so
very dubiously disposed for its reception.”
The second case that must be considered is that of a man
who has up until the very moment of unconsciousness refused
the sacraments explicitly or equivalently, i. e., by a positive
refusal to do something demanded of him under pain of mortal
sin. Thus a man may refuse to give up a wife married to
him only civilly, while his first wife is still living, or a woman
in harlotry may refuse to promise a relinquishment of her trade
upon recovery, &e. In such eases, while the patient is still
conscious, the priest can surely do nothing in the way of ad-
ministering sacraments.
When the use of the senses is gone, however, the question
is somewhat different. Testimonies of medical men and of ex-
perience have proven the capability of the reason to function,
even though externally there seems to be no rational activity.
In such a ease it is not improbable that a change of dispositions
might take place. Theologians are very much divided on this
question. Many would deny all administration until some
doubtful signs, at least, of penitence have been shown.
The ancient statutes of the Church of Troyes, together
with the Ritual, forbade Extreme Unction to those who were
excommunicated or of a notoriously bad life, giving as the
reason: ‘‘Si semel malus, semper praesumitur malus, nisr
probetur contrarium.’’™ Kern, too, will not allow this bestowal
of the sacrament :—
‘¢Sane excesserunt theologi qui docebant, Extremam Unctionem
ob reverentiam sacramenti denegandam esse omnibus qui actu non
fruuntur usu rationis. Sed pejus excedunt qui, nulla habita ratione
sanctitatis sacramenti, attentant illud conferre omnibus qui mentis
non sunt compotes. . . . Quod spectat adagia commemorata, sacra-
menta certe sunt pro hominibus, sed danda tantum iis quos non
esse indignos prudenter existimatur. In extrema necessitate omnia
sunt tentanda, quae sanctitas mysteriorum et praecepta Ecclesiae per-
71 Cf. Suarez, d. 42, s. 1, n. 10; Tamburini, Th. M., TD Vig ae he)
paragr. 4, n. 4.
72 Launoi, Op. Omnia, t. I, p. 509.
242 Extreme Unction
mittunt. Si moriturus, qualem descripsimus (i. e., Catholicus qui
Ecclesiam non deseruit at fidem abjecit et hostilem contra religionem
animum gessit, vel saltem qui omnibus exercitiis religionis abjectis,
curam salutis penitus neglexit), ante exitum eliciat actum attritionis
tantum, manifesto non salvabitur, etiamsi sit inunctus. Sacramentum
enim invalidum ob defectum intentionis in subjecto per nullum ejus
actum subsequentem evadit validum. Igitur conetur sacerdos tales
infirmos juvare unico medio quod superest; implorando pro illis
infinitam misericordiam Dei, qui eos, si vult, etiam sine ritu sacra-
mentali ab interitu vindit¢are valet.’ ’73
When confronted with the objection that such a one may
have by chance made a merely internal act of attrition before
he had been completely bereft of consciousness, and would, thru
the administration of Extreme Unction be assured of his salva-
tion, Kern replies :—
‘“Peribit propria culpa, sacerdos autem suae obligationi satis-
fecit, quia mera possibilitas sufficientis dispositionis non fundat
prudens judicium, de facto adesse, quae ex parte subjecti requiruntur.
Si illa mera possibilitas existentiae necessariae dispositionis suf-
ficeret, omnes Judaei morituri et sui non amplius conscii recte bap-
tizarentur; forte enim, antequam mente penitus exciderunt, internum
actum attritionis et desiderii Baptismi habuerunt.’’74 |
In like manner Tanquerey,” Baruffaldo,“® Lehmkuhl,”
Noldin,’® Berardi” and a writer in the American Ecclesiastical
Review °° would forbid such an administration. Telech ®! adds
his authority to these, with the remark that occult miracles of
grace cannot be a norm for the administration of the sacraments.
Despite this array of authority, there can be found as many,
if not more, theologians who advocate the more merciful side.
Too often unconsciousness is considered to be present, when a
man is unable to manifest any sign by physical motion. The
soul can be active, despite the inability to express such activity
externally. Very frequently, too, though persons are apparently
3 Tract. de Eat. Unct., pp. 319-20.
4 Tract. de Ext. Unct.; p. 320.
5 Th. D., III, 784 (e).
6 Ad. Kom. Rit. Comm., tom. I, tit. 27, n. 76.
COTA Mell e724!
8 De Sac., 444.
79 Praxis Conf. II n. 5004.
80 Vol. LX, pp. 572-73.
81 Hpit. Th. M., pp. 294-5,
Denial to Impemtents 243
destitute of their senses, it is simply extreme weakness which
has prostrated them, and their rational life is still vigorous.
Frequently, in these people the sense of hearing remains. Kx-
perience itself taught Diana the truth of this and made him
reverse his opinion on the permissibility of conferring unction
on dying persons apparently unconscious. He had been seri-
ously sick and had been bereft of all sensibility except hearing.
Nevertheless he remained possessed of the use of reason and
had the ability to make a true and firm judgment. Learning
from the talk of the doctors and from his extreme weakness
that he was near the end, he found himself able to commend
his soul to the merey of God. He attempted to externalize his
pious emotions, by signs, by breathing, &e., but the bystanders
considered them only signs of suffering nature.
‘Ab illo tempore,’’ Diana wrote,** “‘in animum induxi,
quod si quovis modo aliquem Catholicum sic oppressum reci-
perem nec signum aliquod mihi intelligibile poenitentiae dare
posset; nihilominus sub eonditione absolverem, eo quod forte
aliquod signum poenitentiae edat, etsi mihi ineognitum; cum
(ut dixi) hoe fit charitatis, et conditio omnem defectum auferat,
qui administratione sacramenti contingere posset.”’
If absolution can be given, it is to be noted that Extreme
Unction can also be imparted. Thus Tanquerey declares:
‘‘Quando aegrotus usu rationis gaudet, non potest licite ungl
sine suo consensu; sed quando est sensibus destitutus, potest ung
an omnibus easibus in quibus absolvi potest ; immo tutius est in
hoc casu unctionem dare quam absolutionem, quia ad hane suf-
ficit attritio interna, cum ad Paenitentiam requiritur valde pro-
babiliter attritio signis sensibilibus manifestata.’’ 8°
Conditional anointing in these cases appeals to Ballerini-
Palmieri,8* Clericatus,*° Genicot,86 Rohling,’? Murphy ** and
Piat.82 Vermeersch-Creusen °° denies the possibility of ascer-
82 Op. Coord., tom. I, tract. IV, res. 65.
83 Th. D., Ill, 784 Cf. also Bouvier, De Ext. Unet., ¢. 7, a. 3, 73
O’Kane, The Rubrics, n. 864, etc.
84 Op. Th. M., vol. V, tr. X, sec. VI, n. 32.
85 Decis. Sac., ‘‘De Ext. Unct.,’’ decis. 80, nn. 5 & 6.
86 Inst. Th. M., II, 423.
87 Medulla, p. 380.
88 Delinquencies and Penalties, pp. 21-22.
89 Nouvelle Revue Theologique, XXXI, p. 482.
99 Epit., II, 226.
244 Extreme Unction
taining with certainty the fact of contumacy in a person desti-
tute of his senses. Sabetti-Barrett,®! though evidently inclined
to the opposite opinion, would not condemn a priest who
anointed a man that had spurned the sacraments ex contemptu
up to the very moment of unconsciousness.
Surely, then, there is sufficient external probability that
even when a person perseveres in the state of sin and refuses the
sacraments up until the moment of unconsciousness, he may be
conditionally anointed. In practice, too, this should be done—
although it is hard to say that there is an obligation on the
priest to administer it. True, many authorities think it alto-
gether unlawful, but surely, a man should not be deprived of
the sacrament who may have made an act of imperfect con-
trition and whose salvation rests upon the reception or non-
reception of the sacrament.°? When Kern says that he perishes
thru his own fault, he does not breathe the mercy of the Master.
If the miserable sinner finds it hard while conscious to give up
the ways of sin, and yet, at the very; last moment, though phys-
ically prostrated, he summons enough courage to become attrite,
it cannot be held that his failure to do so before merits for him
eternal damnation. Everybody who perishes, perishes thru his
own fault. Yet God gave the sacraments to save the attrite.
Why should they not be imparted at a moment when, if ever
they could do good, it will be just then?
Telch’s argument that occult miracles of grace are not the
norms of conferring the sacraments has not much face value. It
ean easily be retorted that such final co-operation with grace
smacks little of the miraculous. Sinners, finding themselves
really going to die, often begin to fear hell and become attrite,
yet they may not be able sensibly to express themselves. But
even granting this, it can be said that even if only a miracle of
grace could save the man, nevertheless, there is no profanation
done to the sacrament because of the conditional administration.
91 Th. M., p.-808.
92 Cf. The Casuist, V, 232: ‘‘Where the worthy reception is in doubt
the sacrament should be administered absolutely. This should be
done unless it is positively certain that a person wills to die in
his unbelief and unrepentance, and unreconciled with his God, which
we may never assume with certainty of a person bereft of his senses,
‘cum homines etiam pessimi et perditissimi in mortis confinia deducti
serio salvart cupiant,’ ’’
Denial to Impenitents 245
It must be remembered that in anointing in cases where a
man is stricken down in the act of sin or when he has refused
‘to have the sacraments up until the time of unconsciousness,
great caution and prudence will be at all times necessary to pro-
tect the faithful from scandal and from a loss of respect for the
sacraments. In fact, this very reason is given as one of the
arguments which opponents of this practice assert for the denial
of the sacrament in such eases.%?
In the latter case where the sacraments have been spurned,
Genicot °4 advises that it will be wiser to abstain from unction
until signs of penance appear, especially if many are aware of
the circumstances of the case. However, if the priest, by a
word or two of explanation, can effectually remove the scandal,
he should make the admonition and proceed with a clear con-
science.
In no ease can Unction be given if scandal will result. The
short form may be utilized if necessary to conceal the pro-
ceedings from the bystanders. A deft anointing of the sick
man’s hand ean very easily be accomplished without attracting
any attention; and this is permissible by Canon 947.
The condition to be attached to the administration of the
sacrament in these cases wherein it is doubtful whether or not
the subject is contumaciously persevering in manifest mortal
sin will depend to a great extent upon the convictions of the
priest. In the first place, however, the condition ‘‘si dispositus
es’’ should never be appended. Such a condition would make
the validity depend upon the dispositions of the subject at the
time of reception. Consequently, if de facto he is not well-dis-
posed, he is not anointed. ‘‘Disposttus’’ includes within its
scope more elements than the law contemplates. A man actu
in mortal sin is certainly not disposed; yet he is not excluded
by the terminology of this canon. Only the contumaciously
impenitent are to be denied the sacrament; yet there is a great
chasm between those rightly disposed for reception and those
who are obstinately impenitent. The inadequacy of the condi-
93 Of. Telch. Epit. Th. M., pp. 294-5 and Berardi, Prax. Conf., II, n. 5004,
‘94 Inst. Th. M., Il, 423,
246 Extreme Unction
tion ‘‘si dispositus es’? becomes apparent. Thus Kern writes:
‘‘Hine illa regula pro praxi magni momenti, nunquam Extre-
mam Unctionem esse ministrandam sub conditione: ‘si dispositus
es.’ Si enim ista conditio adicitur et subjectum reipsa est fictum
etsi materialiter tantum, nullum fit sacramentum, proinde quan-
tumvis aegrotus postea, forte in momento tandem mortis, defectum
corrigat, nullum amplius fructum salutaris mysterii nanciscitur.
Caeterum haec regula non est propria Extremae Unctionis, sed valet
etiam de aliis sacramentis quae possunt reviviscere.’’95
Neither can a condition be attached which might allow a
future reviviscence, as, for example, ‘‘Si es nune dispositus vel
eris dispositus.’’ Future conditions are inadmissible except in
the matrimonial contract.
Those who hold that this anon regards primarily the inten-
tion of the recipient teach that the administration must be made
absolutely quoad dispositionem. If any condition is to be ap-
pended, it must be concerned with an essential for validity, 1. e.,
the intention. At first blush it may seem a great irreverence to
make an absolute administration (quoad dispositionem) to those
evidently in mortal sin. Yet it must also be remembered that
persons bereft of their senses cannot commit an actual sacrilege ;
while the probability—or as a writer in the Casuist °° says, even
the mere possibility—of a reviviscence is sufficient to warrant an
unconditional administration without seruple. Noldin % notes
that it is lawful to administer a sacrament to a man whose dis-
positions are very dubious, not only when such a sacrament is
the only means (medium unicum) of salvation, but also when
its reception is highly advantageous to the subject. Accordingly,
then, these theologians suggest the use of ‘‘st capax es,’’ for
thereby the elements for validity are generally understood.
Those who teach that this canon is concerned with the dis-
positions of the patient are not agreed as to the exact formula
to be employed in the condition. Pruemmer 88 and Mothon
suggest ‘‘st capax es’’—probably understanding thereby ‘‘Si
95 Tract. de Ext. Unct., pp. 375-6; cf. also Lehmkuhl, Th. M., II, 724 and
cae Consc., IT, 665; Telch, Epit. Th. M., p. 300; Noldin, De Sac.,
96 vol. V, p. 231.
97 De Sac., 445.
98 ‘*The Recipient of Extreme Unction’’ in the Homiletic and Pastoral
Review, XXVI (1926), p. 742.
92 Institutions Canomques, II, p. 233, art. 2030,
Denal to Impenitents 247
capax es—ad normam juris.’’ Blat 1° recommends ‘‘Si non es
impoenitens in mortali.’? A more correct formula would be ‘‘S2
non es contumaciter impoenitens in mortali’’—for by it only
those whom the canon wishes to be excluded would be denied the
sacrament. In practice it may often be rather difficult to keep
the various elements of this condition in mind. Since the con-
dition need not be expressed, it may be advisable for a priest
simply to intend the bestowal of the sacrament ‘“ad mentem
Ecclesiae’’ or ‘‘ad normam juris.”’
Suppose that a person thus anointed when unconscious in
the cases discussed above should regain consciousness and evi-
dence a change of dispositions. Such a man may have been
validly anointed—and yet there is room for much doubt. Repe-
tition of the unction in the same danger of death is very prob-
ably valid, yet certainly illicit. A second administration under
the condition ‘‘Si capax es’? would still allow the possibility of
a second valid unction in the same danger of death—against the
prescriptions of Canon 940, 2. In order to keep within the law,
it will be necessary to apply the oil in such a case under the con-
dition ‘‘Si nondum es unctus.’’ 1°?
It can easily be seen that if Extreme Unction may be im-
parted in extreme cases such as the ones dealt with hitherto, it
ean surely be permitted in the not infrequent instances of per-
sons who have lived in little accord with Christian principles, yet
without showing themselves hostile to religion. These men may
be presumed to desire to die in a Catholic fashion; and rarely
can they be suspected of contumacious impenitence. Similarly,
there can be little doubt about their intention of receiving the
sacrament, and thus their valid capacity is unquestioned. To
such men Extreme Unction should be given unconditionally, so
that every opportunity can be afforded for reviviscence.1°”
All the cases hitherto considered in this canon supposed
that the dispositions of the sick man were known at least to the
immediate family and attendants of the patient. The question
may be asked about the procedure to be followed when the priest
100 Comm. Tect., lib. III, p. I, n. 286.
101 Vermeersch-Creusen, Epit., II, 226.
102 Cf. Kern, Tract. de Ext. Unct., pp. 321-3; Casuist, vol. V, p. 228 sq.;
Noldin, De Sac., 445; Lehmkuhl, Th. M., Il, 724; cf. also 8. C. 8,
Off. 9 Maii, 1821—Collectanea, n, 757; infra. chap, vill, p.
248 Extreme Unction
‘alone knows of the absolute unworthiness of the sick man, and
grave scandal will arise if the sacrament is refused. An inci-
dent of this sort would occur if the priest were asked to confer
Extreme Unction upon one who he knew through a consultation
with the physician was about to undergo an illicit operation oe-
eultly. A similar case would result if the priest on a visit pri-
vately to the sick man, without the knowledge of the family
(as could be done easily enough in a hospital), finds the patient
unwilling to make restitution in a serious matter. Later he is
summoned while the family is present. The sick man asks for
the Unction. What is the priest to do?
He has hardly any alternative. Here is an occult sinner
seeking a sacrament publicly. He cannot be denied it, even at
the expense of the sanctity of the sacrament. Should the priest
desert the sick man in this case, he would bring defamation upon
the patient, accusations against himself and fears to the faith-
ful that they might be repulsed from the sacraments. All these
considerations compel the priest to proceed in the anointment
of this unworthy subject.
A finai instance is that of the unworthiness of the sick man
known only from the seal of confession. A priest is summoned
to attend a sick man. The attendants escort the priest to the sick
room and retire so that the patient’s confession can be heard.
The sick man refuses to do something which requires a denial
of absolution by the priest. The confession over, the attendants
come in—and await the anointing. The sick man himself says
nothing. Again there is no escape for the priest. What he
knows swb sigillo is not his knowledge. The sick man is seeking
the sacrament, even by his very silence. The identical considera-
tions, danger of scandal, loss of reputation to the sick man,
fears of the faithful, etc., apply also in this case as well as in
the above circumstances. Consequently, the priest should bestow
the Unetion without hesitation.
Even if the sacrament were sought occultly by such a man,
a priest should administer it. Unworthiness known only from
the seal of confession is not enough to refuse the sacraments to
an occult sinner, even when occultly seeking them.
103 Cf. Noldin, De Sac., 36-7; Genicot-Salsmans, Th. M., II, 122-3.
104 Cf. Genicot-Salsmans, Th, M., If, 122 & 392; Cappello, De Sac., I, 70, iv.
etc
CHAPTER VIII.
3 ADMINISTRATION TO THE UNCONSCIOUS
CANON 943.
Infirmis autem, qui, cum suae mentis compotes es-
sent, illud saltem implicite petierunt, aut verisimiliter
| petiissent, etiamsi deinde sensus vel usum rationis ami-
-serint, nihilominus absolute praebeatur.
| 249 ]
.
s
CHAPTER VIIL.
All the sacraments, with the very probable exception of the
Eucharist, demand from those who have attained the age of rea-
son an habitual intention, at least, of receiving them. The ab-
sence of such an intention completely frustrates the administra-
tion of the sacrament and nullifies its effects. It is an essential
element to its valid confection.
Neither an actual nor even a virtual intention is required in
the recipient. An habitual intention is eminently sufficient.’
Such an intention consists in an act of the will once made and
never since retracted, yet not adverted to at the time of recep-
tion and in no way flowing into or determining the act of the
recipient.?
Nor is it required for Extreme Unction that this habitual
intention be explicit, that is, an express act of the will to receive
this particular sacrament. It is quite enough if it be implicit,
or in other words, contained in some action with which the will
of not receiving it cannot accord.
Intention is, of course, an internal thing; and its presence
is known only by some external revelation or manifestation. This
need not be by direct statement of the subject; other actions ac-
complish this equally as well. Thus a Catholic who, by frequent
reception of the sacraments and by compliance with the Church’s
laws, exemplifies his faith has certainly the intention of receiv-
ing the last sacraments and of dying as a Catholic should. In
this instance the intention of the man is habitual and is inter-
nally explicit, although its external manifestation can be called
only implicit. On the other hand a man may habitually have
the intention and even openly declare his willingness, of per-
forming everything required for salvation, yet at the same time
1 Some authors contest this in regard to Penance and Matrimony; but
other authors of great weight teach the absolute sufficiency of an
habitual intention—cf. Genicot-Salsmans, Th. M., II, 125; Noldin,
De Sac., 41. However, such a dispute is beside the question here, as
it does not regard Extreme Unction.
2 Genicot-Salsmans, l.c.; Noldin, lc.
[ 251 ]
252 Extreme Unction
know little or nothing about Extreme Unetion and from ignor-
ance may even reject it. Such a man has the implicit intention
of receiving the Unetion and has explicitly manifested his inter-
nal intention. Finally, one may have internally an implicit m-
tention of doing all required for salvation without, however,
making a specific act of the will in regard to Extreme Unction.
Suppose that this man has revealed his implicit intention only
equivalently, and not explicitly, e. g., by living up to the best
hghts of his conscience. Thereby he shows that he has an
umplicit habitual intention of receiving the unction. It is wrong
to call such an intention interpretative, if by that we mean an
intention which would be present if certain other conditions
existed or other facts were known. An intention of such kind
does not really exist at all nor did it ever exist. Here the inten-
tion of receiving Extreme Unction is actually resident implicitly
in the general intention of doing all that is necessary or ex-
tremely useful or beneficial in the time of death. It is thus
seen that, although there is a close connection between an in-
tention and its manifestation, nevertheless they are two quite dif-
ferent things. This will be of great benefit in understanding
the phraseology of this canon.
It is not enough, consequently, to have no intention at all, to
hold one’s self passive to an administration. Neither is a his-
trionic reception valid. There is required some positive act of
the will in regard to reception, either in a particular or in a gen-
eral sense.?
The words of this canon refer strictly, not to the presence
of the intention, but to its externalization in the form of a peti-
tion or request for the sacrament. When this is made, the min-
ister is certain about the existence of intention.
In the older rituals it was very often. required that the sick
man specifically ask for the Unction before it could be conferred.
This was demanded, not only that a sufficient intention of re-
ceiving the sacrament might be revealed, but to comply in the
most literal sense with the Jacobean prescription: ‘‘Inducat
8 Ct. Noldin, De Sac., 41: De Lugo, De Sac. in Gen., disp. 9, s. fog Bem fe Vie
ue also ieee S. Off, 10 Maii, 1703—Quebec. eid VILL, Collectanea,
‘Peoeat 10 Apr. 1861— —Tchely Meridio-Orientalis—ad é Collectanea,
D.
Administration to the Unconscious 253
presbyteros Eeclesiae.’’ Thus the Codex Ratholdus contained
the following ceremony :
‘ :
The Synod of Paris in 1557 also legislated in this merciful
vein: ‘‘Si qui vero ex morbi gravitate in amentiam inciderint,
consideranda est eorum vita praecedens; qui si laudabiliter,
vitam duxerint ante actam et Christiane, ab hujus perceptione
arceri non debent.’’ °°
St. Charles Borromeo 27 is equally as generous, but he also
stresses the necessity of avoiding all possible irreverence. The
Roman Ritual before its latest revision made a similar provision
against irreverence: ‘‘Sed si infirmus, dum phrenesi aut amen-
tia laborat, verisimiliter posset quidquam facere contra reveren-
tiam Sacramenti, non inungatur nisi periculum tollatur om-
nino.’’?*8 This rubric is not found in the latest edition of the
Rituale.
However, the intrinsic sanctity of the sacraments demands
that every precaution be taken against any possible irreverence
or indecency on the part of the subject. Suarez? notes that
the reverence due to the sacrament is to be preferred to the bene-
fit accruing to the individual. Consequently it is of paramount
importance for the minister to see that the sanctity of the sac-
raments do not suffer. What means are to be taken to accom-
plish this is left to the prudent judgment of the attendant priest.
24 Launoi, Op. Omnia, t. I, p. 562.
25 Launoi, Op. Omma, t. I, p. 563.
26 Natal. Alex., Th. D. et M., lib. IT, tr. de Ext. Unet., c. 5, reg. 16.
27 “*Instructiones de Sac. Ext. Unct.,’’? apud Acta Eccl. Mediol., t. I, pars
IV, p. 604: ‘‘Infirmis autem qui, sana mente dum erant, illud peti-
erunt, aut verisimile est quod petiissent, etiamsi postea in amentiam
inciderint, vel ratione sermoneve uti desierint, ministrabitur item.
Si vero dum infirmus amentia phrenesive laborat, verisimile sit, ut
indecore aut spurce, impureve aliquid agat, quo irreverentia Sacra-
mento huie fiat, non ungetur, nisi alicujus complexu ita teneatur
ut firmus stabilisque haereat.’’
28 Tit. V, c. 1, n. 7 (edit. 1913).
29 D. 42, s. 1, n. 9, ‘
Administration to the Unconscious °61
As a last resort, an insane or delirious patient may be strapped
or held down with force while the sacrament is being conferred.*°
If the patient is very violent and can be forced into submissive-
ness for only a very brief period, the priest will do well to
resort to the short method of conferring the sacrament.
Diana?! and Barbosa®? think that lay people should be
excluded when a man is thus quieted by force, in order that no
scandal may be given. Yet in practice, especially in our land
where the priest has no clerics to assist him, it will be very
difficult to procure any but laymen to subdue the insane man.
Moreover, there is little danger of scandal, for all realize that
such a patient is altogether irresponsible for his doings.
If a man is known to suffer spasms of violence periodically,
a priest would do wrong to wait purposely until such a time to
confer the Unction. Reverence for the things of God would be
sadly lacking in his heart. It will be often just as well to wait
until the patient subsides, unless it is clear that the spell may
so weaken him as to lessen appreciably the power of the sacra-
ment in regard to corporal sanation.
‘‘Nihilominus absolute praebeatur.’’
In all the cases above mentioned the sacrament is to be
civen absolutely. There is to be no conditional qualification
making the validity of the sacrament dependent upon the pres-
ent moral status of the man’s soul. The activities for revivi-
scence are not to be stinted in any way.
By these words the Code declares that in these instances
the necessary intention is not lacking and that such men are
not unworthy of the sacramental fruits.**
Even if they are not de facto worthy at the moment of
reception, yet the probability that they will come into a state
of worthiness is sufficient to compensate for the peril of frustra-
tion of the Sacrament through an unconditional administra-
tion.34
30 Cf. Diana, Op. Coord., t. II, tr. IV, res. 50; Mastrio, Th. M., D. 19, q. 5,
a. 1, n. 71; Lehmkuhl, Th. M., II, 723; St. Alph., Th. M., VI, 732;
O’Kane, The Rubrics, n. 863.
31 Lac.
32 De Off. et Pot. Par., cap. 22, n. 13.
33 Blat, Comm. Tect., lib. III, p. I, n. 287.
84 Cf. Kern, Tract. de Ext. Unct., p. 375-76; Noldin, De Sac., 440,
: {
;
7
17
A i]
+
- f
» ’ q
) 4
t
t
i]
ale
4i
%
P s
|
.
\
‘
, j
% ey : ie | y ted i arr’ ©; ‘ bY § c
oF he : , ¢ : ts ‘ pe} ey an a f Ps | iu ¥
CHAPTER IX.
OBLIGATION UPON THE SUBJECT
CANON 944.
Quamvis hoc sacramentum per se non sit de neces-
sitate medii ad salutem, nemini tamen licet illud negli-
gere; et omni studio et diligentia curandum ut infirmi,
dum sui plene compotes sunt, illud recipiant.
a
\ ho
’
*
v
4
a] ‘
7
< 7.
‘
‘
.
Pest
4
|
4 ‘
ye ‘
ivme
Ag 7 ees
yh - ~2
7 - “4% f - oe
-
av.
4
Se
(
Aad,
4
{
‘
i
eb
;
A
'
‘
}
y
7
an
’
et ot
CHAPTER IX.
In canon 939 the obligations on the part of the minister in
regard to the administration of Extreme Unction were eonsid-
ered. The present canon treats of the obligations in regard to its
reception, not only on the part of the subject but on the part
of those who are bound to look after his welfare. Prior to a
consideration of this question, however, it will be quite necessary
to make a preliminary investigation into the necessity of this sac-
rament in the economy of our salvation.
“Quamvis hoc sacramentum per se non sit de necessitate media
ad salutem.”’
A thing is said to be necessary necessitate medi when even
its inculpable omission would preclude possibility of salvation.
It can possess this prerogative in two ways. It ean be so or-
dained by its very nature that no substitution can be made for
it (ase. g., faith in an adult for Baptism or Penance )—and then
it is said to be intrinsecally necessary necessitate medu. On the
other hand a thing is said to be extrinsically necessary, neces-
sitate medi, when it is required for our salvation by positive
ordinance of God but in such fashion that salvation is not alto-
gether thwarted by the substitution of other means (for ex-
ample, Baptism by water, or attrition with Penance). The for-
mer necessity is absolute, the latter relative or hypothetical.
It is easily seen that Extreme Unction is not absolutely
necessary necessitate medi. If baptism by water is not so neces-
sary, nor the reception of the sacrament of Penance for those
in mortal sin, neither can this be predicated of the complement
of Penance, Extreme Unction.
A thing is said to be per se necessary to salvation when it
is required as the ordinary means to reach that blessed goal.
It is necessary per accidens when, due to some obstacle which
prevents the use of ordinary means, it becomes the only expe-
dient by which eternal happiness can be gained.
The first problem then is whether Extreme Unction is per
[ 265 ]
266 Extreme Unction
se necessary necessitate medii relatiwa. It was evidently held to
be such in some places. Thus the Synodalia of the Church of
Rheims! and of the Church of Troyes? contained this enact-
ment:
‘‘Saepe moneant sacerdotes populum quod priusquam quartum
decimum annum compleverint, maxime Sacramentum extremae
Unctionis petant, et recipiant reverentur, si timeatur verisimiliter de
morte infirmorum, quia necessarium est ad salutem istud Sacramen-
tum, si possit haberi.’’
Kern ® concords in this view, maintaining that it is at least
probable that Extreme Unetion is relatively necessary for sal-
vation, necessitate medii. His arguments are well worth not-
ing. In the first place, the Council of Trent * declared that it
was Christ’s wish to furnish to His faithful the aids necessary
to stave off the assaults of the enemy on every occasion of their
earthly journey. These aids are found in an especial manner
in the sacraments. Six sacraments supply every assistance re-
quired to battle the temptations during the ordinary course of
life. When the end approaches, however, bringing with it
added assaults of the devil in a last frantic effort to tear the
soul from God, a special help is given to fortify the sick man
in such an hour so that his salvation may be assured. This
special help is the sacrament of Extreme Unction, which con-
sequently becomes the one ordinary means of salvation for dying
sick people. Hence the reception of this sacrament is per se
necessary ad salutem.
Kern draws a second argument from the teaching of the
Council of Trent on this point. A man in danger of death is
subjected to temptations fiercer in intensity than at any other
time in life. Satan explores the totality of his fiendish in-
gvenuity in an endeavor to snare the soul near the end of its
journey. Against such frightful tortures of soul the sick man
lies in urgent need of an especial aid. Knowing this full well,
Christ instituted Extreme Unction with this very aid as its
1 Natalis Alexander, Th. D. et M., lib. II, c. 5, reg. 20; cf. De Sainte-
Beuve, De Extr. Unct., disp. 7, a. 3, prop. 5 apud Migne, Cursus
Theol. Comp., vol. XXIV, col. 125.
2 apud De Sainte-Beuve, l.c.
8 Tract. de EKxtr. Unct., pp. 364-72.
4 Sess. XIV, De Ext. Unct., proem,
Obligation Upon the Subject 267
primary effect. Certainly, then, it was intended as the ordinary
means of bridging the gulf between the valley of death and the
eates of heaven. If so intended, it 1s per se necessary, neces-
sitate medi, for salvation.
Moreover, Kern attacks the statement of Suarez that a man
ean protect himself sufficiently in this hour by prayer and by
sacrifices.» He demands proof of this; and urges in retort that
very questionable dispositions must surely be present in one who
in such an hour refuses the aid explicitly designed by a loving
God to conquer the perils of that very occasion. Instead of
complying with the means proposed by St. James in verse 14
of the fifth chapter, he is employing the expedients recommended
by the saint in the verse immediately preceding, which are in-
tended for the other trials of life. When. serious sickness occurs,
the apostle speaks of a new and entirely distinct help—and there
is no implied meaning of the text that the Lord would *‘save ’? and
‘‘raise up’’ the sick man if this especial means was not employed
by the patient. If, as the Council of Trent said, the tempta-
tions and trials of that hour are extremely vehement, and if this
sacrament was instituted expressly against them, how can the
validity of Suarez’s statement be admitted that neglect of Ex-
treme Unction does not expose a man to serious sin? He re-
quires extraordinary power, extraordinary strength in that hour.
Of what avail are the usual means of buffeting temptation in an
unusual situation like this? As Gregory the Great exclaimed:
‘‘Quid ergo facient tabulae, si tremunt columnae? Aut quomodo
virgulta immobilia stabunt, si hujus pavoris turbine etiam cedri
quatiuntur ?’’ ®
Finally Kern notes that there can be no argument against
him drawn from the words of St. Thomas:* ‘‘Quamvis effectus
principalis alicujus sacramenti possit haberi sine actuali per-
eeptione hujus sacramenti vel sine sacramento vel per aliud sa-
eramentum ex consequenti nunquam tamen haberi potest sine
oO
Suarez, d. 44, s. 1, n. 4: ‘‘Potest aliis modis subvenire sibi per
orationem et sacrificia, quia licet hoc sacramentum multum ad hoe
conferat, non est tamen necessarium medium, nec ob illus carentiam
exponit se homo morali ac proximo periculo peccandi mortaliter in
alio genere, seu consentiendi alicui tentationi daemonis,’’
Moral., 1. XXIV, c. 11—M. P. L., 76, 306.
Suppl., q. 80, a. 1, ad 1.
“1
268 Extreme Unction
proposito illius sacramenti.’’ Surely, says Kern, there would
not even be a ‘‘propositum sacramenti’’ present in a man
who, given the opportunity, would neglect or refuse to recelve
the sacrament.
Few theologians go as far as Kern in their assertions. Al-
bertus Magnus demands at least the ‘‘votwm sacramenti.’’ “‘Quia
non est sacramentum necessitatis,’’ he writes,® ‘‘sufficienter peri-
eulo infirmorum provisum est in hoe quod ministri sunt parati;
et si contingat ipsum, dwmmodo sit desiderium sumendi, sufficit
ecoram Deo ad salutem, licet non ita forte cito plenae liberationis
effectum consequatur infirmus.”’
By far the majority of theologians ® insist that Extreme
Unction is not the wnicwm medium of salvation for the sick, and
is therefore not per se necessary, necessitate medu. They allow
its eminent utility and its extensive effects, but they emphatically
deny its indispensability. As Elbel-Bierbaum puts it, ‘‘Hoe sa-
cramentum non tam est necessarium quam utile.’’ °
This opinion was corroborated, to some extent at least, by a
decision of the Inquisition™ in 1656. Missionaries were allowed
to omit some sacramentals in the Baptismal rite and the entire
sacrament of Extreme Unction in the case of Chinese women.
The distinction between the sacramentals of Baptism and the
entire sacrament of Extreme Unction is worthy of note. Even
8 Comm. in quart. lib. Sent., dist. 23, a. 3, ad 4.
9 Cf. Babenstuber, Ethica Supernat., tr. VIII, pars VI, disp. VII, a. 1,
n. 4: Salmanticenses, Cursus Theol., tr. VII, cap. 4, punct. 2, n. 10;
Tamburini, Th. M., Lib. VI, De Eat. Unct., cap. 2, paragr. 5, n. 7;
Suarez, d. 44, s. 1, n. 4; Elbel-Bierbaum, Th. M., vol. III, Conf. X,
n. 220; Estius, Comm. in lib. quart. Sent., dist. 23, paragr. 15; Pesch,
Prael. Dog., VII, 557.
10¢THOM.? TiLae ataay Lh, Conia maou.
11 §. C. S. Off.,'23 Mar. 1656, ad. 2—Coll..S. C. P..F., n. 126 (vol
page 38); ‘‘Secundo quaeritur: Utrum omnia sacramentalia in
Baptismate foeminarum adultarum adhibenda sint. Quaeritur
iterum: utrum sufficiat foeminis, petentibus tantum, Extremae Unc-
tionis Sacramentum eonferre. Quaeritur iterum: num etiam petenti-
bus negandum cum incommoda et pericula christianitatis totius
prudenter futura praevidentur. Ratio dubitandi est, incredibilis apud
Sinas foeminarum modestia, zelus et laudabilis earum ab omni
virorum, non solum congressu, sed et aspectu fuga; qua in re, nisi
magna adhibeatur a missionariis cautela, scandalum ingens Sinis
datur, totaque christianitas evidentissimo periculo posset exponi.
Sacra Congregatio, juxta ea quae superius proposita sunt censuit:
ix gravi necessitate proportionata posse omitti quaedam_ sacra-
mentalia in Baptismate foeminarum, ac etiam posse omitti ipsum
Sacramentum Extremae Unctionis,’’
Obligation Upon the Subject 269
though urgent reasons required extraordinary measures, yet
if Extreme Unction were necessary for salvation, the permission
to disregard the bestowal of the sacrament entirely would be
given only after all other expedients had been exhausted.
The new Code agrees with the opinion denying the neces-
sity of Unction, and for practical purposes settles the question.
The canon states categorically that this sacrament is not re-
quired per se for salvation. Extreme Unetion presupposes the
state of grace—a state sufficient of itself to obtain eternal life.
“Gratia autem Dei vita aeterna.’’ ?
There are however, some contingencies in which Extreme
Unetion is the only, and consequently the necessary, means of
salvation. Such an occasion occurs when a sick man, attrite for
a mortal sin, is unable to confess it.¥®
Heaven lies open to him only by the sacrament of the Unc-
tion. Through that portal he must enter, or must die. Such
a status of soul is altogether accidental, however, for the primary
end of Extreme Unetion is not the forgiveness of sins. Hence
it must be concluded that in such cases this sacrament is only
per accidens necessary for eternal life.
This is corroborated by the discipline of the Decretals. In
times of interdict Extreme Unction could be prohibited,"* thus
indieating that it was considered a sacrament of the living, and
therefore not per se necessary. Otherwise the Church could not
forbid it. When Penance could not be given, however, moralists
and canonists taught that Extreme Unction could then be law-
fully administered, implying that Unction became per accidens
necessary for salvation.
“‘Nemini tamen licet illud negligere.”’
Besides the ‘‘necessitas mediz’’ there is also the ‘‘necessitas
praecepti,’’ in virtue of which a thing is prescribed in such a
fashion that a deliberate omission of it would result in sin. Evi-
dently this necessity is not as strict as the former. Indeed non-
‘
12 Ad Rom., VI, 23.
13 Cf. Scavini, Th. M., vol. III, n. 480; Blat, Comm. fart eoen TARR Bee a Me
n, 288.
14 ¢, 11, X, de Paenitentiis, V, 38: ‘¢Ticet autem per generale interdictum
denegetur omnibus tam unctio quam ecclesiastica sepultura. ’’
15 Of. e. g., Reiffenstuel, Jus Canon. Uniw., V, tit. 39, n. 203; Pesch, Prael.
Dog., VII, 557.
270 Extreme Unction
fulfillment of the precept is excused by any cause which ordi-
narily exempts from mortal sin, such as ignorance, moral im-
possibility, &e.18 Accordingly, the next question to be consid-
ered is whether Extreme Unction is of necessity by precept,
either divine or ecclesiastical.
The result of the first problem, viz., whether the reception
of Extreme Unetion has been divinely commanded, hinges to
a great extent upon the force of the Jacobean text: ‘‘Inducat
presbyteros Eeclesiae.’’ Do these words implicitly contain a
command, ‘or should they be regarded as merely admonitory or
exhortatory ? ,
Some theologians construe the words of St. James as the
promulgation of a strict precept. Cornelius a Lapide ™ says that
‘‘indueat’’ contains ‘‘non tantum consilium sed et praeceptum.’’
Juenin,!® Tournely }° and Concina *° render the very same exege-
sis of the seriptural text. Weinhart, in the article on ‘‘ Extreme
Unetion’’ in the Encyclopedic de la Theologie Catholique, ex-
pressed the same view:
La réception de ce sacrament n’est pas absolument nécessaire
necessitate medii, on a méme prétendu qu’il n’y a pas commandement
& ce sujet, de sorte que ce ne serait, pas l’absence, mais le mépris
de 1’Extréme Onction qui serait coupable. Mais les paroles de 8.
Jacques suffisent por établir le précepte, et par consequent, la
nécessité du sacrement.’’21
Coneiliar levislation revealed the same frame of theological
thought. The second Couneil of Chalons-sur-Saone?? seems to
imply a divine precept: ‘‘Secundum beati Apostoli Jacobi docu-
mentum, cui etiam documenta patrum consonant, infirmi oleo
quod ab episecopis benedicitur, a presbyteris ungi debent.’’? In
similar fashion the Couneil of Cologne 73 legislated: ‘“‘ Est autem
Unetio impendenda, cum expositione Unctionis et mandati Apo-
16 Cf. Tanquerey, Th. D., ITI, 420; Cappello, De Sac., I, 126.
17 Comm. in Ep. 8. Jac., V, 14.
18 De Sac. in Gen. et in Specie, dis. 7, gq. 9, c 2.
19 Praelect. Dog., tom. II, gq. ult, a. 2.
20 Theol. Christiana, vol. X, 1. 1, de Ext. Unct., c. IV, n. 7-8.
21 Tom...16, p. 363.
22 Anno 813—can. 48, apud Harduin IV, 1040,
23 Anno 1536,—part. VII, cap. L, apud Harduin, IX, 2011.
Obligation Upon the Subject 271
stolici, quod sie habet: ‘Infirmatur aliquis in vobis? Inducat
presbyteros Eeclesiae; &e.’’
Thus too spoke the second Council of Baltimore:
‘‘Quum igitur Christus Dominus per Apostolum loquens prae-
cepto urgeat quumque tam salutares effectus ex hoc Sacramento pro-
fluant, curent omni, quo par est, studio animarum Pastores, ut ex
populo sibi commisso wnusquisque, qu ad id tenetur, salutari hoe
praesidio munitus de vita decedat.’’24
The provincial Council of Colocza also made mention of this
as an obligation :
‘¢Aoant proinde pastores animarum, ut fidelium aegre discum-
bentium rationem habeant, quos, si expedierit, suscipiendi hujus
sacramenti obligationis paterne admoneant.’’25
The Council of Trent would naturally furnish the most for-
midable argument in this connection:
‘‘Quare nulla ratione audiendi sunt, qui contra tam apertam
et dilucidam apostoli Jacobi sententiam docent, hance unctionem vel
figmentum esse humanum, vel ritum a patribus acceptum, nec man-
datum Dei, nec promissionem gratiae habentem.’’26
On the other hand there are many weighty theologians who
hold that there is not a divine precept of reception.** They base
their argument on the interpretation of the words of St. James
and upon the statement of Innocent III in the Decretals,** that
its administration could be forbidden to all in time of interdict.
This latter argument, though advanced with great stress by
Suarez, Pesch, Pierrot and others, seems to prove nothing. In
the early days of the Church the Viaticum was sometimes for-
bidden to penitents even in danger of death, though at
such a time there is a divine precept to receive it.*? If the
24 Anno 1866, tit. V, cap. 7, n. 306—Coll. Lac., t. ITI, col. 480.
25 Anno 1863: Tit. TIL, cap. X—Coll. Lac., t. V, col. 659.
26 Sess. XIV, De Eat. Unct., cap. 3.
27 St. Thomas, Comm. im lib. quart. Sent., dist. 23, q. 1, a. 1, sol. 3 ad
if Suarez, GFA is Mas ast Alphonsus, Th. M., VI, 788; De
Sainte- Beuve, disp. VIL, De "Ext. Unet., art. 3—apud Migne, Curs.
Theol. Comp., XXIV, col. 124; Pesch, Prael. Dog., VII, 557; Berardi,
Prag. Conf. L,n. 5008; Pierrot, Theologie Morale, col. 1073-4; &e.
28 ec. 11, X, de Paenitentiis, v, 38.
29 Ep. 6 Innocentii I, ad Exuperium, n . 6—M. P. L., 20, 501 A.
272 Extreme Unction
Church can consider that the bonum publicum is so bettered and
benefited at such a time as to interpret the divine precept which
was made for private good of the individual, certainly the argu-
ment can be extended a pari to the ease of Extreme Unction.
The better argument is the former, viz., that the Jacobean
text contains a counsel rather than a precept. The tense em-
ployed in verse 14 of the fifth chapter is exactly the same as
that employed in verse 13, which reads: ‘‘Tristatur aliquis
vestrum? oret. Aequo animo est? Psallat.’’ Without inter-
ruption the sacred text continues: ‘‘Infirmatur quis in vobis?
Indueat presbyteros Ecclesiae.’’ It is evident, then, that if it is
maintained that the text imposes an obligation upon the sick
to summon the priests, it must be held with equal insistence that
the ‘‘joyful in mind’’ must sing songs. Thus Bord writes:
‘‘Mais l’écrivain inspiré n’intime certainement pas aux fidéles,
qui sont dans l’allégresse, l|’ordre strict d’entonner des chants
pieux. Il est 4 croire que semblablement il ne veut pas imposer
a ceux que la maladie afflige l’obligation rigoureuse de recevoir
les onections purificatrices des presbytres.’’ °°
The argument from the wording of the Couneil of Trent,
which at first sight seems so formidable, loses much of its vigor
when compared with the phraseology of Canon IV of the section
‘*de Extrema Unctione’’ (Sess. XIV): ‘‘Si quis dixerit, presby-
teros Eeeclesiae, quod beatus Jacobus adducendos esse ad in-
firmum inungendum hortatur, non esse sacerdotes, &., anathema
sit.’’ Moreover ‘‘mandatum’’ of the other passage is inter-
preted, not as indueing a strict obligation, but rather as a
recommendation (‘‘commendatum’’).?+
As a consequence the more common, and likewise the more
probable opinion is that there is no divine precept ordering the
reception of Extreme Unction in danger of death.
Is this sacrament prescribed, then, by ecclesiastical pre-
cept? There is certainly no express ecclesiastical precept now
in force except that contained in this canon of the Code. But
has not the constant, consistent, continual and universal custom
among the faithful of receiving this sacrament come to receive
the force of a law? Such an argument appealed very strongly
30 L’Katréme Onction, p. 59.
81 Cf. Petrus Dens, Theol. Mech., ‘‘De Ext. Unct.,’’ N. 10, p. 55.
Obligation Upon the Subject 273
to Concina.22 The solicitude of the Church that the faithful
should always be furnished this sacrament, together with the
persuasion of the faithful that they are bound to receive it,
was enough to convince Roneaglia** and Juenin®* of the exis-
tence of a precept.
On the other hand these arguments do not influence many
theologians of great weight. These men cannot persuade them-
selves that the custom of the faithful or the solicitude of the
Church is enough to create a striet law in this matter.*> More-
over, the cautious terminology always used in official documents
upon this matter indicates the lack of certainty on the subject.
Innocent I, writing his famous letter to Decentius, used this
terminology: ‘‘Omnibus Christianis uti licet.’’3® The Council
of Trent 27 anathematized those who declared that the sacrament
could be contemned without sin—but said nothing about those
peg) cae a.
— SHIM Bin 5
~
32 Theol. Christ., tom. X, lib. I de E. U., diss. I, ¢. IV, un. 8: ‘Quid?
Feclesia catholica sacramenta habet otiosa, indifferentia, in cassum
instituta? Utique non adest praeceptum expressum et peculiare ab
Ecclesia latum, jubens hane sacramenti susceptionem; sed consue-
tudo perpetua, constans et universalis fidelium suscipiendi hoe sacra-
mentum vim legis obtinet. Quorum tot Ecclesiae studia in afferendo
adversus Novatores hoc sacramento, si nulla urgeret necessitas, nul-
lumque praeceptum ejusdem usus?’’
83 Univ. Theol. Mor., ‘‘De Ext. Unet.,’’ p. 122, q. 7.
34 De Sac. in Gen. et in Spec., dis. 7, q. 9, cap. 2.
85 Cf. e. g., Suarez (disp. 44, s. 1, n. 2): ‘‘Nee tale praeceptum sufficienti
aliqua traditione aut consuetudine introductum est, cujus argu-
mentum est, quod theologi non agnoscunt.’’
De Sainte-Beuve (De Ext. Unct., d. 7, a. 3 apud Migne, Curs.
Theol. Comp., vol. XXIV, col. 125): ‘ Cornelius a Lapide,”®
Tournely,°? Roneaglia,”* Antoine,»» Drouven,® Petrus Dens,®*
Perin,® Concina,™ St. Alphonsus,** Seavini,®°’ De Augustinis,°
Kern®? and Ferreres.®8 On the opposite side the principal pro-
ponents of the teaching that the obligation is but venial, are as
follows: Cabbasutius,°® St. Thomas Aquinas,“ Henriquez,”
Conineck,” Diana,” Salmanticenses,“* Estius, Billuart,”®°
52 Libri IV Sententiarum, lib. quart., dist. 23, c. 3—M. P. L., 192, 900.
53 Comm. in lib. quart. Sent., disp. 7, qu. 2.
54 Comm. in lib. quart. Sent., dist. XXIII, dub. IV, in fine; cf. dist.
Kiba, LU ia.f2, q- 1.
55 De Sac. in Gen. et in Spec., dis. 7, q. 9, ©. 2.
56 Comm. in Ep. 8. Jacobi, V, 14.
567 Prael. Dog., De Ext. Unct., quaest. ult., a. 2.
58 Univ. Theol. Mor., De Ext. Unct., q. 7.
59 Th. M., t. V, Tract. de Eat. Unet., qu. ‘f
60 De Re Sacramentaria, lib. VII, Qu. 5, cap. 2.
61 Theol. Mech., ‘‘De Eat. Uncet.,’’ pp. 59-6.
62 De Eat. Unct., art. 2, q. 9.
63 Theol. Christ. tom. X, dis. I, De E. U., ¢. 4, n. 7-8.
64 Th. M., VI, 733.
65 Th. M., t. III, n. 430.
66 De Re Sacramentaria, II, pp. 408-9.
67 Tract. de Ext. Unct., p. 369.
68 Comp. Th. M., II, 847.
69 Jur. Can. Theor. et Pramw., 1. 3, ¢. 15, n. 8.
70 Comm. in lib. quart. Sent., dist. 23, q. 1, a. 1, quaestiune. 3 ad 1;
Suppl. q. 29, a. 3, ad 1.
Mee Sac: lib. 13; .¢. 10, n..3.
72 De Sac. et Censuris, disp. de E. U., dub. 10.
73 Opera Coordinata, tom. 2, tr. IV, res. 25.
4 Cursus Theol., Tr. VII, cap. IV, punct. 2.
75 Comm. in quart. lib. Sent., d. 23, paragr. 15.
76 Tract. De Ext. Unct., diss. unica, art. 7.
278 Extreme Unction
Sporer,77 Babenstuber,”® Tamburini,’? Laymann,®° De Sainte-
Beuve,®! Suarez,®2 Pesch,8* Noldin,** Vermeersch-Creusen,*®
Kenrick,8* Genicot-Salsmans,’?7 Tanquerey,®® Augustine,’ D’An-
nibale,®® Sabetti-Barrett,9! Lehmkuhl,®? Konings,°? Aartnys,*4
Berardi,®» Sebastiani,°® Matharan-Castillon®’ and _ Ballerini-
Palmieri.®8
From a glance at the mighty names aligned upon either side
of the question, it can be seen that adherence to either side is
entirely justifiable. Practically, however, the reception of Ex-
treme Unction cannot be urged as a serious obligation. Two
venial sins can rightly be laid at the feet of those who neglect
it, one of disobedience against the precept of this canon and
the other of a lack of charity toward one’s self.
While this great divergence of opinion exists about the
simple negligence of the sacrament, there is no such division of
thought in regard to the gravity of the obligation when there
is danger of contempt or scandal connected with the negligence.
The Council of Trent has decided the gravity of such a sin:
‘‘Neque vero tanti sacramenti contemptus absque ingenti scelere,
et ipsius Spiritus Sancti injuria esse posset.’”® Prior to that
77 De Sac. in Genere, n. 24.
78 Ethica Supernat., tr. 8, disp. 7, art. 1, n. 4.
79 Th. M., Lib. VI, de Ext. Unct., cap. II, paragr. 5, n. 7.
80 Th. M., Tr. de Ext. Unct., cap. 7, n. 1.
81 De Ext. Unct., disp. 7, a. 3 apud Migne, Curs. Theol. Mor., vol. XXIV,
col. 124-5.
82 DPD, 44, 8.1, n. 2.
83 Prael. Dog., VII, 5957.
84 De Sac., 446.
85 Hpit., II, 228.
86. 7h M.S Devhet. Unc, capramc.. nm 22:
87 Inst. Th. M., II, 424.
BS Ths DAL 780-1;
89 A Commentary, IV, p. 405.
90 Summ. Th. M., III, 419.
91 Th. M., p. 806.
92 Th. M., II, 726.
93 Th. M., n. 1508.
94 Th. M., II, 369.
95 Prax. Conf., II, n. 5008.
96 Swmm. Th. M., n. 512.
97 Asserta Moralia, n. 521.
98 Op. Theol. Mor., tom. V, tr. X, sect. VI, n. 59.
99 Sess, XIV, De Ext. Unct., cap. 3.
Obligation Upon the Subject 24g
time it was officially insinuated that such was the ease, when
the Wicliffites and Hussites were to be asked: ‘‘Utrum eredat
quod Christianus contemnens susceptionem Extremae Unctionis
...peceet mortaliter.’1°° Loeal Councils forbade ecclesiastical
burial to those who held Extreme Unction in contempt."
It is quite necessary that real contempt be distinguished
from negligence or laziness. Pesch 1°" says that it consists in
a refusal of the sacrament because it is considered something
vile or useless. It is distinguished from negligence by the
reason which motivates its non-reception. Even if the negli-
gence proceeds from human respect or from fear, it cannot be
said to be contemptuous.’ Similarly, repugnance to reception,
which is ascribable to an erroneous belief that it is an unerring
harbinger of death or that recovery will entail the loss of
marriage rights, ete., is not contempt of the sacrament hee yA WES
fear that it will hasten death, it must be noted, is objectively a
mortal sin against faith. On the other hand, to shrink from
the sacrament because of the false impression that the use of
marriage and other things will be forbidden upon recovery
eannot be said to be seriously wrong. Such an error is not
violently pernicious, nor irreverent, nor contrary to true faith
in the sacrament.
There will also be a grave obligation on the part of the
subject to receive Extreme Unction when negligence or refusal
would cause great scandal to others. Such an instance would
be the case of a bishop or a pastor who does not receive this
sacrament, although there 1s ample opportunity to do so.1°°
Seandal would likewise be given if such a refusal would lead
bystanders to think that the subject had become a heretic,'®* or
100 Martinus V (in cone. Constantien.) const. ‘‘Inter Cuwnctas,’’ 22 Feb.
1418, § 14, art. 19, de quo errorum Wicleff et Husz suspecti inter-
rogandi—C. I. C. Fontes, n. 43.
101 Cf. Council of Cologne (sub Adolpho)—apud Hardyin IX, 2110; and
the synods of Langres, Troyes and Paris—apud Natalis Alexander,
The DeetiM, labsi2, Cucdpotes 20:
102 Prael. Dog., VII, 5957.
103 Suarez, d. 44, s. 1, n. 6; Genicot-Salsmans, Inst. Th. M., Il, 424.
104 Elbel-Bierbaum, Th. M., III, pars VIII, Conf. X; ns 227; Billot, De
Eccl. Sac., thesis xxv, p. 239; Gury-Ferreres, Casus Consc., II, 810.
105 Elbel-Bierbaum, l.c.; Gury-Ferreres, l.c.
106 Genicot, Casus Conse., cas. 891; Elbel-Bierbaum, Dies kee 1 LT bate
VIII, Conf. X, n. 221.
107 St, Alph., Th. M., VI, 733,
280 Extreme Unction
that the sacrament was of little account or altogether worth-
less,108
It may be asked why actions such as these are grievously
scandalous. Rarely will they induce others not to receive Ex-
treme Uncetion; but even granting that they did, it would
revolve about a matter only of venial obligation. How ean the
seandal be said to be mortal which results in the transgression of
a light obligation by those scandalized? The answer is given
by Suarez:
‘‘Ex eo solo capite non esset proprium et rigorosum scandalum.
Posset tamen eam rationem habere, si eo exemplo inducerentur fideles
vel ad parvipendendum hoc sacramentum, vel ad negligenda genera-
liter remedia suae salutis, vel ad judicandum temere et cum publica
detractione de salute spirituali talis personae, vel alia similia, quae
respectu communitatis non sunt sine gravi periculo multorum pecca-
torum mortalium, vel certe non sine gravi detrimento spirituali ejus-
dem communitatis, quod interdum potest sufficere ut scandalum sit
grave peccatum.,’’109
“Et omni studio et diligentia curandum ut infirmi, dum sua
plene compotes sunt, illud recipiant.
Solicitous as she has always been, the Church not only
recommends, but commands, that the sacraments be given to
the sick at a time sufficiently seasonable to allow the effects of
the sacrament to be exercised to their fullest extent. Naturally
enough, therefore, she has inserted in her code of law an in-
junction that diligence and zeal be used in conferring Extreme
Unction at the time most beneficial to the recipient. Such a
time will be, of course, when the subject is in full possession
of his senses, because his will can then co-operate to the greatest
extent with the actions of grace resulting from the reception of
the sacrament. The capabilities of corporal cure, resident in
the sacrament, can also have their fullest freedom, so that, if
God wills it, the cure can be effected with ease by the overflow
of the grace of the sacrament from the soul upon the body.
108 Petrus Dens, Th. Mech., ‘‘De Extr. Unct.,’’ p. 56; AErtnys, Th. M.,
II, 369.
109 D. 44, 8.1, n. 5.
Obligation Upon the Subject 281
Since the time of the Council of Trent, the Church has
insisted in general legislation and thru particular councils that
eare and diligence be taken to insure an opportune administra-
tion of Extreme Unction. The Catechism of the Council !!°
states that it is a very serious sin to defer the anointing until
all hope of recovery is gone and the sick person is sinking into
insensibility. The very first rubric in the Ritual (Tit. ‘‘De
Extrema Unctione’’) orders the employment of diligence in
administering this sacrament to the sick and urges that the
anointing be done while the patient is in the possession of his
senses.
In the first Council of Milan, St. Charles Borromeo decreed
that the Unction be given to the sick man ‘‘dum integris est
sensibus.’’!41. He repeated this legislation in the fifth Council
of Milan 1!2 and included it in his ‘‘Instructiones’’ upon the
Sacrament of Extreme Unction.4? Similar enactments were
made by the Councils of Bourges,''* Bordeaux,’ and Rheims,""®
‘Benedict XIV "7 asked bishops to commend such a timely ad-
ministration in their synodal legislation.
There have been two very recent papal pronouncements on
this point. On May 31, 1921, Pope Benedict XV wrote in an
apostolic letter entitled ‘* Sodalitatem :’’
‘‘Qui in discrimine ultimo versantur, sacri viatici et Extremae
Unctionis susceptionem ne eo usque remorentur cum sensum amis-
suri jam sunt, sed contra, quemadmodum Ecclesia docet et prae-
cipit, iis roborentur sacramentis vixdum, ingravescente morbo, pru-
dens fiat de periculo mortis judicium.’’118
110 De Ext. Unct., n. 9 & 14.
111 Acta Eccl. Mediol., pars I, tom. I, p. 18.
112 Op. cit., p. 250.
113 Op. cit., pars IV, tom. I, p. 603.
114 anno 1584—apud Harduin X, 1489: ‘‘Administretur tempestive a
sacerdote Extrema Unctio, ita ut Christianus mente adhuc integra
Sacramenti efficaciam agnoscere possit.’’
115 anno 1583—apud Harduin X, 1347: ‘‘Non eo usque differendum est
dum aeger omnibus paene sensibus destitutus sit.’’
116 anno 1583—apud Harduin X, 1288: ‘‘Parochus .... caveat ne vel
mors Unctionem praeveniat, vel morbo invalescente semimortuus non
sentiat.’’
117 De Syn. Dioc., |. 8, c. 7, n. 4.
118 A. A. §., XIII, 342.
282 Extreme Unction
More recent still is the brief of Pius XI, ‘‘Explorata res est,’’
dated February 2, 1923:
‘In hoe autem potissimum, cum sodalium, tum praecipue zela-
torum studiosam voluntatem desideramus advocatam, ut exitialem quo-
quo pacto profligent errorem, ex quo fit ut cum animae detrimento
sancto oleo ante liniantur infirmi, quam morte imminente, sensus
paene vel omnino amiserunt. Neque enim, ut sacramentum valide
liciteque detur, necesse est ut mors proxime secutura timeatur, sed
satis est ut prudens seu probabile adsit de periculo judicium; quodsi
in ea rerum condicione corferri debet, in hac conferri utique potest,
et qui illud curet ministrandum, is Ecclesiae Matris non modo doc-
trinam sequitur, sed optata pie ac salubriter perficit, ’ 7119
This canon does not lay an obligation in this regard on any
particular person by explicit mention. The general term
‘“‘eurandum’’ includes all who are bound in justice and charity.
Hence the pastor, the relatives, the physician, the nurse, and
any others connected with the patient by a special title fall
within the scope of this obligation.
A. The duty of the pastor.
It has already been seen that the pastor is bound to the ac-
tual administration of Extreme Unction by Canon 939. The
present prescription binds him to more than a mere administra-
tion. With all zeal and diligence (‘‘omni studio et diligentia’’ )
he is to see that the sick shall receive this sacrament during con-
sciousness.
The phrase ‘‘ommi studio et diligentia’’ is far-reaching in
its meaning. He is to leave nothing undone that will promote
the timely administration of the sacraments to the sick.
For this purpose he will lay a remote as well as a proxi-
mate foundation. He will pave the way by urging his people
from the pulpit and on other occasions to summon him as soon
as possible, without any regard to the time of day or the amount
of inconvenience it may cause him.!2° In his sermons he will
try to uproot from the popular consciousness the idea that the
reception of the Unction presages the fatal outcome of the ill-
ness. He will lay especial stress on the powers of corporal sana-
119 A. A. S., XV, 105.
120 Ait. Kom., Tit. I, De Administr. Sac. in Genere, cap. unic., n. 5,
Obligation Upon the Subject 283
tion vested in the sacrament, and appeal to their self-interest
to allow these capabilities an opportunity to aches
He will use every expedient to find who are sick in his par-
ish. To this end he will induce the physicians of the locality
to notify him if his parishioners are among the patients who are
ovavely ill.*? He will beg his parishioners to tell him of those
who are afflicted with a fatal disease. He will stand on no cere-
mony in connection with the reception of this information, but
will immediately use it by calling without delay upon the sick
person.!* He will keep a careful watch over the condition of
the patient, and at the first true sion of danger of death, he
will administer Extreme Unction.’**
Very frequently it will become the pastor’s duty to reveal
to the sick man his perilous condition. Too often the patient is
deceived by the blandishments of his kindred, the promises of
his physicians and the astuteness of the devil. When the priest
perceives such to be the case, he has no alternative than to break
the news. The rubric of the Ritual just quoted requires this.
Baruffaldo, in his Commentary on this rubric, notes: ‘Ut
plurimum qui eraviter et cum periculo mortis laborant, pert-
eulum proprium ignorant, seque dicunt bene sentire: quod ma-
121 Cf, IIT Synod of Rochester (1914), n. 340: ‘‘Cum saepe contingat,
apud fideles nostrorum temporum, quod Extremam Unctionem con-
siderant quasi nuntium mortis instanter impendentis et nullo modo
velut medium illius praecavendae, studeant parochi, in suis ad
populum sermonibus, hujusmodi terrorem mitigare, et ad maturam
hujus sacramenti receptionem fideles adhortari, eos docendo non
solum de ejusdem spirituali utilitate sed etiam, licet secundo loco,
de auxilio, quod praestat, ad sanitatem corporis recuperandam.”’
(Acta Syn. Roffensis Tertiae, p. 78.)
Also Synod of Kansas City, Mo., (1912), n. 124: ‘‘Studeant igitur
animarum curatores repellere insulsissimam opinionem, ne supersti-
tionem dicamus, inter non paucos vigentem, quod receptio illius
sacramenti sit mortis impendentis indicium.’’ (Decreta Syn. Dioe.
Kansanop. Il, p. 52.)
In the nineteenth century this had been prescribed by the Pro-
vincial Council of Aix, held in 1850: e. 6—‘‘Curent etiam crebris
admonitionibus imperitum vulgus ab illa inani et impia opinione
abducere, qua plerique de virtute hujusce sacramenti inepta sentiunt,
perinde ac si mortem aegris acceleret.’’? (Coll. Lac., t. TV Teor.
992-3.) ;
122 Cf. Micheletti, De Pastore Animarum, 0. 410.
123 Rit. Rom., Tit. V, ¢. 4, n. 1. Cf. Council of Rheims (1583), apud
Harduin X, 1288; Council of Bois-le-duc, apud Van Espen, Jus
Hecles. Univ., Pars Il, sec. I, tit. VIII, ‘cap. prow los alse
II, Plenary Council of Baltimore, n. 306,
124 Rit. Rom., Tit. V, ¢. 4, a. 10,
284 Extreme Unction
xima fallacia est. Hine originem habet illa tarditas in recipien-
dis Sacramentis, adeo ut sint haee postea ministranda festinan-
ter, imo praecipitanter, et quandoque dum infirmus non tota
mente sanus et integer est. Quapropter parocho incumbit (si
nullus adsit qui hoe officum praestare velit) veritatem infirmo
revelare, et statum periculosum aperire, ut sedulo cogitet ea,
quae pro salute animae necessaria sunt. Scio equidem odiosum
esse hoe officium, sed praestat ut tale sit.’’?*°
It is needless to say that this information must be given the
patient in a very prudent and diplomatic fashion. The pastor
should not pattern himself after Isaias boldly telling Ezechias,
the king: ‘‘Haec dicit Dominus Deus, ‘Praecipe domui tuae,
morieris enim tu et non vives.’’’1°° gradually and gently it
should be impressed upon the mind of the patient that he is in
such a state of sickness as to warrant the administration of the
last sacraments. Pastoral prudence will determine very often
how this should be said. Petrus Dens goes to some lengths in
laying down a very commendable mode of procedure:
‘‘Tta vero procedant necesse est, ut infirmus inde non gravetur,
sed e contra solatium et fiduciam concipiat: quapropter ad eum
aceedentes quandoque a longe incipere debent, inquirendo de statu
et causa morbi; deinde paulatim progrediendum est dicendo morbos
aeque ac sanitatem ex Dei providentia nobis obvenire; imo qui hodie
sani sumus eras infirmos esse posse; sanos igitur aeque ac aegrotos
semper ad mortem paratos esse debere; felices esse qui per morbum
praemonentur, ideoque morbos merito misericordias Domini vocari;
nihil porro plus conducere ad morbos patienter tolerandos, imo supe-
randos, quam recursum ad Deum et ad Ecclesiae Sacramenta; Ex-
tremam quidem Unctionem id speciale habere quod sanitatem re-
stituat si infirmo utile fuerit, ideoque consultum esse ut eam suscipere
non differat.’’127
The pastor’s duty is far from finished, if he admonishes the
sick man of his danger, only to find him reluctant to receive the
sacrament. The Ritual itself gives the mode of procedure:
‘‘Tune non omnino desperanda res est, sed quamdiu ille vivit,
repetendae sunt frequentes variae et efficaces Sacerdotum et alio-
125 Ad. Rit. Rom. Comm., tom. I, tit. xxx, n. 31.
126 IV Regum, XX, 1; Cf. Benedict XIV, Institutiones, xxii, n. 9 sqq.,
for arguments of Galen and Augenius as to what should be done.
127 Theol. Mech., ‘‘De Ext. Unct.,’’ p. 56-7,
Obligation Upon the Subject 285
rum piorum hominum exhortationes; proponendaque aeternae
salutis damna, et sempiternae mortis supplicia ; ostendendaque
immensa Dei misericordia, eum ad poenitentiam provocantis,
ad ignoscendum paratissimi.’’ '*
Lehmkuhl !2° thinks that it is seriously incumbent upon the
pastor to endeavor to induce a reluctant patient to receive the
sacrament. Apostolic zeal is not easily rebuffed; and serious
obligations are not relieved by a mere refusal to allow them
to be discharged. Repugnance or reluctance often springs from
error; and in reality there is frequently no intention of rejecting
the sacraments finally and absolutely. A steady bombardment
of gentle exhortation should be trained against these barriers
of superstition and prejudice, not only by the priest but by
others of pious character. Little by little the patient has to be
disengaged of the inane notion that Extreme Unction is an aug-
ury of death. For this purpose the possibility of corporal cure
from the sacrament should be greatly emphasized.18° The Coun-
cil of Pavia, held in 850, urged the pastor to invite the neigh-
boring priests to come to his assistance in his difficulty.43! Re-
course to prayer, both public and private, is also advised by the
Ritual,18? but the reputation of the sick man must be sedulously
guarded if the prayer 1s publicly made when his refusal 1s
occult. Hence the petition must be couched in extremely gen-
eral terms in such a case, ase. g., prayers for an urgent special
intention, &e.
If the man is given scandal by his refusal, special efforts
should be spent in an endeavor to win him to conversion.'33 In
128 Rit. Rom., Tit. V, c. 4, n. 11.
129 Th. M., II, 727—Casus Consc., LL) 611:
130 Cf, Council of Langres, anno 1404: ‘ Evidently
in Spain priests were trying to usurp this episcopal prerogative,
for the First Council of Toledo,* held in the year 400, legislates
against such an abuse. A few years later, Innocent I, in his
letter in Decentius® wrote that the sick should be anointed
‘“saneto oleo ab Episcopo confecto.’’? The Council of Braga ® in
1 Cf. supra, chap. I, sect. IV, p. 24; and also chap. IT, p. 72.
2 can. 3—apud Harduin I, 952; Mansi II, 693; ¢. 1, C. XXVI, q. 6.
3c, 2, C. XXVI, q. 6—also apud Harduin I, 964, Mansi II, 885.
4 Cap. XX (apud Mansi II, 1002)—‘‘Quamvis pene ubique custodiatur
ut absque Episcopo Chrisma nemo conficiat; tamen quia in aliquibus
locis, vel Provinciis, Prebyteri dicuntur Chrisma conficere, placuit
ex hae die nullum alium, nisi episcopum Chrisma facere et per
dioecesim destinare.’’—N. B. Altho this may apply to the chrism
used in Baptism, nevertheless the oil of the sick was commonly
called chrisma in those early days, Cf. supra, chap. I, sect. I, p. 4;
UAC 0. 40, Gratin 10,
5 Ep. ‘* Si instituta ecclesiastica,’’? 19 Mar. 416, cap. 8—C. I. C. Fontes,
hed 42h
6 can. 19 (apud Harduin III, 352): ‘Item placuit ut si quis presbyter,
post hoe interdictum, ausus fuerit chrisma benedicere, aut ecclesiam
aut altare consecrare, a suo officio deponatur: nam et antiqui hoc
canones vetuerunt.’’
[ 299 ]
300 Extreme Unction
Portugal (561) ordered priests who dared to confect the chrism
to be deposed. Similarly, the Council of Seville 7 in Spain (619)
reserved the consecration of the sick man’s oil to the Bishop.
St. Bede remarks, in his Commentary on the sixth chapter
of the Gospel of St. Mark,® that the custom of anointing the sick
with consecrated oil has descended from the Apostles themselves
and is of divine institution. In, the ninth century the Councils
of Chalons-sur-Saone ® (813) and Aachen 7° (836) mention only
the bishop as minister of the benediction of the oils, while the
Synod of Worms'! (868) employs the very words of the letter of
Innocent I in this regard. Shortly afterwards, Jonas, the Bishop
of Orleans, sternly rebuked those who sought the aids of divina-
‘tion when sick, and urged them to comply with the Apostolic tra-
dition ‘‘ut . . . quilibet aegroti ungantur oleo pontificals bene-
dictione consecrato.**
Though quite unnecessary, the great authority of the Schol-
astics can be invoked in this matter. All of them held that the
power of blessing this oil belongs properly to the bishop alone—
and this in spite of the fact that the opposite opinion had been
already expressed by Bonizone im the eleventh; century.'? Hear
the Master of the Sentences: ‘‘Unctio illa fieri non potest nisi
de oleo ab episcopo consecrato ; ideoque illa sanctificatio ad vir-
tutem sacramenti pertinere videtur.’’** With him agreed the
great doctors of the School, Blessed Albertus Magnus,*® Thomas
of A qnin, Apt. Bonaventure,!7 Dominic Soto,’® Dionysius the
Carthusian,!® and Durandus.”°
—
7 Cap. 7—Harduin III, 559-60.
8 Ad vers. 13,—M. P. L. 92, 188B.
9 Can. 48—apud Harduin IV, 1040.
10 Cap. 2, tit. 8—apud Harduin IV, 1395.
11 cap. 72—apud Harduin V, 746.
12 De Instit. Laicali, lib. 3, cap. 14—M. P. L., 106, 260.
13 M. P. L., 150, 864B—‘‘ Hoe [i. e. oleum infirmorum] omni tempore inter
missarum solemnia a presbyteris in eo loco, ubi sic legitur: ‘Per
quem haec omnia bona creas,’ solebat consecrari. Nun¢ vero a
solis episcopis in eodem loco missae in Coena Domini consecratur.’’
14 Lib. IV Sent., dist. XXIII, apud M. P. L., 192, 900.
15 Comm. in lib. IV Sent., dist. 23, a. 3, ad qu. 2.
16 Suppl., q. 29, a. 6.
17 Comm. in IV Sent., dist. 23, a. 1. qu. 3, ad 7.
18 Comm. in IV Sent., dist. 23, a. 1, a. 3.
19 Comm. in IV Sent., dist. 23, q. 2.
20 Comm. in IV Sent., dist. 23, q. 2, ad 2.
The Blessing of the Oil 301
Innocent IIT prescribed that the Waldensians should make
a statement of reverence towards the Unction of the sick ‘‘cum
oleo consecrato;’’ 24 while Eugene IV, in the Couneil of Florence,
proclaimed to the Armenians that the matter of Extreme Unc-
tion was ‘‘oleum olivae per episcopum benedictum.”’ **
It is small wonder then that the Council of Trent should de-
elare ‘“‘intellexit Ecclesia materiam esse oleum ab episcopo bene-
dictum ;’’23 and that seventy years later Paul V should cate-
eorize as ‘‘reckless and proximately erroneous’’ the proposition
that Extreme Unction might be validly administered ‘‘oleo bene-
dictione episcopali non consecrato.’’*4 And truly, in view of
such an imposing array of evidence affirming the necessity of
an episcopal blessing, it becomes apparent how ‘‘reckless and
proximately erroncous’’ it is to assert the possibility of confect-
ing the sacrament with oil blessed by other than a bishop. In-
deed the testimony seemed so formidable to Coninck,?> Estius,?®
and Suarez 27 that they denied even to the Pope the power to
appoint a simple priest to bless the oil.
Yet when we look into the ceremonies of the Greek rite, we
discover that from the earliest times priests have been blessing
the Oleum Infirmorwm. Thus the Penitential of St. Theodore,
the archbishop of Canterbury, contained the following state-
ment: ‘‘Secundum Graecos presbytero licet . . . facere oleum
exoreizatum et infirmis chrisma, si necesse est. Secundum Ro-
manos non licet nisi episcopo soli.’’8 The antiquity of this
Greek custom is also emphasized by John Nathaniel writing to
the Archbishop of Anagni*® and by Leo Allatius.®° It can also be
read in the Greek ‘‘Euchologion’’ under the title ‘‘Officium
Sancti Olei.?? Not alone among the Greeks, but also among the
Armenians this practice has long obtained. Pope John XXII
21 Ep. ‘‘Ejus exemplo,’’ 18 Dec. 1208, Professio fidei Waldensibus,
praeser.: ‘‘Unctionem infirmorum cum oleo consecrato veneramur.’’
C. I. C. Fontes n. 30.
2 Const. ‘‘Exultate Deo,’’ Nov. 22, 1439, paragr. 14, C. I. C. Fontes, 52.
3 Sess. XIV, De Ext. Unct., cap. 1.
4 Denziger-Bannwart, Enchirid., n. 1628: also Coll, n. 956.
5 De Sac. et Censuris, t. II, disp. 19, de Ext. Unct., dub 2, n. 6.
6 Comm. in IV Sent., dist. 23, paragr. 9.
7 D. 40, sec. 1, n. 8.
Bee. P2499," 929.
29 Arcudius, De Concordia Eccl. Occtd., &e., LDV Gus.
30 Eccl. Occid. et Orient. Consens., 1. III, cap. 16.
302 Extreme Unction
noted it in a letter to Ossinius, the King of Armenia: ‘‘Tpsi etiam
Sacerdotes Oleum, quod Infirmorum dicitur, consecrant pro Sa-
cramento Extremae Unctionis, cum tamen apud nos ad Episco-
pos solos spectet.’’ 3! Nor has such a custom flourished because
of an official oversight of Rome, or in spite of a disapproval of
the Pope; for time after time various Pontiffs have gloriously
vindicated to them the legitimacy of their actions.
Thirty years after the Council of Trent had instructed
Catholies that the matter of Extreme Unetion was ‘‘oleum ab
Episcopo benedictum,’’ Clement VIII%? confirmed to Italo-
Greek priests the power to bless this oil. Yet Paul V, his almost
immediate successor, condemned as rash and proximate to error
the proposition that Extreme Unetion could be validly admin-
istered ‘‘Oleo episcopali benedictione non conseecrato.’’?°%> In
the next century Benedict XIV renewed the decree of Clement
VIII for the localities in which the eustom was still in vogue,*4
and in an encyclical letter to the Uniat Greeks a few years later
bemoaned the woeful ignorance displayed by Western theolo-
gians in regard to the customs of the Eastern rites.°> At the
time of the French Revolution, the Holy See was asked to per-
mit priests in France to bless the Oleum Infirmorum. Pius VI
denied this request because of want of precedent and lack of
31 Benedict XIV, De Syn. Dioc., 1. 8, c. 1, n. 4.
32 Instr. ‘‘ Sanctissimus,’’ Aug. 31, 1595, paragr. 3—C. I. C. Fontes, n.
179: ‘*Non sunt cogendi Presbyteri Graeci Olea Sancta praeter
Chrisma ab Episcopis Latinis Dioecesanis accipere, eum hujusmodi
Olea ab eis, in ipsa Oleorum et Sacramentorum exhibitione, ex veteri
Ritu conficiantur, seu benedicantur.’’
33 Denziger-Bannwart, Enchiridion, n. 1628.
84 Const. ‘‘Htst pastoralis,’’ 26 Maii, 1742, paragr. IV, n. 1—O. I. C.
Fontes 328.
85 Ep. eneycl. ‘‘Ha quo,’’ 1 Mar. 1756 parag. 7—apud Coll. Lae. t. II,
col. 538-9; also apud Bened. XIV Bullarium, tom. 4, vol. XI, p. 295:
‘‘Injusta quippe et fallax Ecelesiaeque paci atque unitati contraria
est eorum judicandi ratio, qui Latinorum tantummodo ritualium
notitiam habentes nec aliud seientes praeter ea, quae tradiderunt
nonnulli ex nostris scriptoribus nostrarum quidem rerum periti sed
Graecarum consuetudinum rudes ejusque rationis ignari, quam semper
cum ipsis secuta est apostolica Romana Sedes, non dubitarunt dam-
nare, in sacris Graecorum ritibus ea omnia quae cum Latino ritu
conformia et consentanea non reperiebant.’’
The Blessing of the Oil 303
necessity, without however asserting the incompetency of priests
to receive such power.*®
In 1842 Gregory XVI declared that a pastor could not, even
in ease of necessity, administer Extreme Unction with oil blessed
by himself.37 Gregory’s decree was reaffirmed by a decision of
the Holy Office in 1878, to the effect that the practice of bless-
ing the oil by one only in priestly orders could not be approved
or tolerated.28 Yet in 1894 Leo XIII sanctioned the ancient
practice of the Greeks for various bodies of the Eastern Uniats.*°
Finally the new Code announces, generally *° in regard to all
conseerations and specifically in regard to the Oil of the sick,
that it is quite sufficient for the minister of the blessing to have
priestly orders and an apostolic indult.
We have here truly an anomalous situation. Apparently at
least, the Roman Pontiffs have been continually contradicting
one another—and that, too, in a matter of gravest importance!
What explanation can be given, for, even prescinding from the
protection of the Paraclete, it seems unthinkable that each suc-
cessive Pontifical decree should have been promulgated with the
intention, implicit or explicit, of contradicting its predecessor ?
Several explanations have been suggested. A possible solu-
tion, proposed by Quinn,‘! may be sketched in this way. With-
out attempting to solve the question whether the episcopacy and
36 Const. ‘‘Sollicitudo omnium ecclesiarum,’’ 28 Maii, 1793, responsum 13:
‘Cum deprehensum fuerit, insuetum esse in Ecclesia Latina hujus-
modi potestate simplices presbyteros ab Apostolica Sede insigniri, a
qua quidem regula eo minus recedi non debere judicatum est, quod
impossibile non sit, triplex oleum a catholico episcopo benedictum, si
non ex proximis, ex remotis saltem dioecesibus habere’’ (Bull. Taur.
Edit., X, 2623— also apud Muhlbauer, Decr. Auth. S. C. &., t. U,
p. 426).
Magistretti (Pontificale in Uswm Eccl. Mediolanen., p. 95) de-
elares that until the eleventh century priests blessed the oil in Milan.
Pius VI apparently was not aware of any such custom; nor Bene-
dict XIV, either, for in his ‘‘De Synodo Dioecesana’’—l. 8, ¢. ],
n. 4—he states the contention of many theologians ‘‘nunquam in
Ecclesia Latina fuisse aegrotantes oleo inunctos ab Episcopo antea
non consecrato.’’
37 §. C. S. Off., 14 Sept., 1842—Coll., n. 956; Denziger-Bannwart, Hn-
chirid., n. 1629.
38 §. C. S. Off., May 15, 1878—Coll. 8. C. P. F., n. 1494.
39 Litt. ap. ‘‘Orientalium,’’ Nov. 30, 1894—A. 8. 8., XXVIT, p. 257 sqq.
40 Can. 1147, 1.
41 Some Aspects of the Dogma of Extreme Unction, pp. 58-9. Quinn does
not subscribe to this theory, but simply gives it as a possible
one.
304 Extreme Unction
the presbyterate were the same grade of Orders in the times of
St. Paul, as Theodulf of Orleans‘ asserts, it 1s beyond perad-
venture of doubt that later they were very distinct degrees of
that sacrament. Those who have not the plenitude of Orders in
these latter days may or may not have the power to bless the
oil, depending, of course, on the proximity with which the order
that they hold approaches the fulness of power. Now the priests
of the West cannot bless the oil, whereas the priests of the Hast
ean, Accordingly, the power which the Oriental presbyterate
possesses approaches closer to the plenitude of the episcopacy
than the power of the presbyterate of the Occident. Since the.
former bless the oil by virtue of Orders and not of jurisdiction,
it follows that the priesthood of the Greeks is of a higher degree
than that of the Latins.
Such an explanation is entirely unsatisfactory. It is a very
difficult thing to prove that the priesthood of the Orient is and
always has been of a higher grade than in the Latin rite. But
granting such a thing for the moment, this theory offers no solu-
tion for the case where a Western priest is empowered to bless
the oil. In him an authorization of the Holy See would pro-
duce a power of Orders, which prior to authorization, he did not
jossess. Yet how can this act of the Holy See be construed in
any other light than a delegation of jurisdiction? And again,
how can the power of Orders be given by reseript, which might
limit the duration of the power or restrict it to a certain num-
ber of cases.
Another solution 4? can be outlined in this fashion. Priest-
hood of itself confers the power required to bless the oil of the
sick. In every case wherein a priest is the minister, whether
in the Oecident by indult or in the Orient without it, he blesses
in virtue of his priestly orders. But in regard to the West the
Church has enacted legislation which forbids priests to exercise
this power under pain of invalidity. To bless the oil in the West
then, the authorization of the Holy See must be viewed
as a dispensation from this invalidating law rather than a con-
cession of new power. Jurisdiction is required neither in the
42 Capitulare—M. P. L., 105, 220C.
43 Advanced by Cajetan, (in III part., q. 72, a. 2) and Perin (De Eatr.
Unct., art. 1, quaer. 4
The Blessing of the Ou 305
East nor in the West; there is solely a question of the valid use
of the power of Orders.
This contention is also highly improbable. It would seem to
presuppose that the Church has changed the matter of the sacra-
ment. Time after time she has asserted that the matter of Ex-
treme Unction is oil consecrated by an episcopal benediction. It
would be necessary then to fall back on the theory which holds
that the Church has the prerogative of introducing changes in
the elements of the various sacraments by allowing in regard to
Extreme Unction oil blessed with a priestly benediction to suffice
for oil consecrated by a bishop. Although sacramental theology
can show fairly well that the Church has probably changed the
matter and form of some sacraments, yet the extension of this
explanation to Extreme Unction should only be admitted upon
the production of incontestable evidence to that effect. This is
not the case here. Moreover, this view would imply that the ex-
ercise of priestly orders has been restricted in the Latin Church.
The Council of Trent insinuates the very opposite when it says:
“Tntellexit Ecclesia materiam esse oleum ab episcopo benedic-
tum.’’ 44 Neither did Benedict XIV look on it in this fashion.
On the contrary he asserted very positively that either tacit or
explicit delegation from the Pope was absolutely necessary to
qualify Eastern priests for the valid performance of this bless-
ing. ‘‘Neutiquam autem,’’ wrote he 45 ‘tid tolerandum fuisset,
si oleum, simplicis Sacerdotis benedictione sacratum, ne per po-
testatem quidem a Romano Pontifice sive expressa sive tacite
eidem sacerdoti factam, esset materia idonea ad conficiendum
Sacramentum Extremae Unctionis.’’
A real power is conceded therefore, and not a permission to
exercise a power already possessed. This is the way the Greeks
themselves look at the matter, as is evidenced by the decrees of
two of their councils, viz., Zamos and Mt. Libanus. The former,
held in 1720, legislated thus:
e ‘¢Extremae Unctionis materia est oleum, cujus benedicendi
potestatem multis abhine saeculis in orientali ecclesia sacerdotibus
concessam praesens Synodus nequaquam adimendam existimavit.’’46
44 Sess. XIV, De Extr. Unct., cap. Uy
45 De Syn. Dioc., 1. 8, ¢. 1, 2. 4.
46 Tit, ILI, paragr. 6—Coll. Lac., t. Tis piecd,
306 Extreme Unction
The latter council enacted the following law:
‘3 In the first place, says he, the oldest and
best tradition holds that the presbyteratus is much more than a
basis of dignity; it is a true physical power. Secondly, the tra-
dition is deeply rooted that the sacramental effect is due rather
to the power of Orders than to the superadded delegation or dig-
nity. Furthermore, this dignity is more akin to the power of
jurisdiction than to the power of orders, for the very reason
that Lehmkuhl uses to support his own argument to the con-
trary: ‘‘quia non intrinsecus per ordinationem, sed extrinsecus
per delegationem confertur.’’ And if this is so, how can the
effect of this dignity, which is akin to the power of jurisdiction,
accomplish an identical effect to that of an episcopal character?
Quite a different theory is advanced by Father Kern.** All
the Pontiffs, he claims, without exception have regarded an epis-
copal blessing of the oil necessary for the validity of the sacra-
ment. But who may give an episcopal blessing? A bishop,
surely, for he ‘‘per suum ordinem’”’ possess such power. But
cannot the bishop delegate his power of blessing the oil to a
competent subject (subjectum capaax) who is not of the episco-
pate; and thus cause the blessing of such a one to become in
virtue of the delegated authority also truly episcopal. In the
opinion of Father Kern, yes—a bishop can make such a delega-
tion of power to one of his priests, for a priest, and he alone, is
in virtue of his sacerdotal order a ‘‘subjectum capax’’ of re-
ceiving this grant of power. In other words there is resident
in the presbyteratus an obediential potentiality of conferring
this episcopal blessing; which potentiality, be it remembered,
ean be evoked into act only thru the delegation made to the
priest by the bishop. In this way the blessing of a priest be-
comes truly episcopal, not vi swi ordinis, but per potestatem dele-
gatam. Per se bishops have the right to delegate priests to
bless this oil. The decree of Mt. Libanus,”’ just quoted, evi-
dences this. Moreover this decree was confirmed by the Holy
See a few years after it had been enacted, giving it thereby
53 Vol. II, (1907), p. 337-8.
54 Tract. de Ext. Unct., pp. 127-8.
55 P, II, cap. 8, n. 2—Coll. Lac., t. II, p.. 150.
308 Extreme Unction
added authority.5° Consequently, neither by divine nor by eccles-
iastical law is the faculty of delegation reserved by the Holy
See in regard to the Eastern rites. In the Latin Church, how-
ever, the Supreme Pontiff reserves to himself by explicit legis-
lation——both in this canon and in canon 210—the privilege of
conferring this delegation.
There are certain objections which prevent an unreserved
adoption of this view. Here the question might be asked: Is
this delegation a part of the power of order or of the power of
jurisdiction? If it is not a part of the power of order, why can-
not it be withdrawn even from a bishop? Yet all claim that
such cannot be done; that even heretical bishops can bless the
oil validly. And if it is a part of the power of order, how can
it be said to be delegated? The difficulty arises from the fact
that priests may be delegated to bless the oil, while bishops can-
not be deprived of that power because of their episcopal char-
acter. It is curious indeed if delegation—jurisdiction—can sup-
ply for the lack of episcopal character in a minister, especially
to such an extent that in hac re the minister can be said to be
acting virtualiter as a bishop. ‘‘It would almost be enough, ”’
writes Dr. MeDonald,®” ‘‘to decide one to adopt the Scotists’
view, that the power of Order itself is nothing more than a dele-
gation, did we not know that both powers seem to act very
differently in the administration of Penance.’’
Kern’s theory has something in its favor from Canon 210.
There the possibility of delegating a power of orders is recog-
nized, even though the Holy See reserves this right to itself.
This canon differs in this from the law of the Decretals,°® which
apparently allowed no outlet or exception. Other theories try
to explain the matter by taking for granted that there can be
no delegation of higher power of orders and consequently they
are compelled to resort to very peculiar expedients. From the
Code itself we know now that at least a delegation, not only of
56 Benedict XIII, const. ‘‘Apostolatus Officium,’’ July 19, 1724—Coll.
Paes tt. 11, peed.
57 Trish Theological Quarterly, vol. IIT, (1907), p. 338.
58 ¢. 9, X, de consecrat. eccl., III, 40: ‘‘Licet episcopus committere valeat
quae jurisdictionis existunt, quae ordinis tamen episcopalis sunt, non
potest mferioris gradus clericis demandare,’’ .
The Blessing of the Oil 309
jurisdiction, but also of orders 1s possible and in some cases per-
missible.®?
Still another theory is sponsored by Dr. Quin Se Ald
priests, according to this explanation, have sufficient power of
orders to bless the oil in the same fashion as they have the re-
quisite power of Orders to administer Penance. In Penance they
need jurisdiction to act validly ; to bless the Olewm Infirmorum
jurisdiction, or something akin to it, is likewise required. Bish-
ops and priests, when blessing the oil, use the selfsame power
of Orders; but the former differ from the latter in so far as
they have the requisite power of jurisdiction permanently, while
the priests have it only when and as long as it is granted to
them.
This theory is not without its flaws. It must be remembered
that heretical bishops consecrate the oil validly. Yet if the
power 1s jurisdictional, why cannot the bishops be dispossessed of
it just as freely as priests? We are forced to seek with Dr.
Quinn a refuge in the contention that ‘‘episcopal orders carry
with them at least some jurisdiction—of which bishops, as of di-
vine institution cannot be deprived.’’*' It would be very hard to
prove the incompetency of the Holy See to deprive a bishop of
this power, if it is really a power of jurisdiction. However, Dr.
Quinn seems to think that the use of the term ‘‘facultatem’’ in
this canon seems to favor the notion of jurisdiction.
It must be noted, too, that this theory demands jurisdiction
for priests from the Holy See per se, and not from bishops,
as Father Kern would have it. This would be in keeping with
the statement of Benedict XIV that tacit or explicit delegation
of the Pope was required by the Eastern priests for this bless-
————
59 Cf. Cocchi, Comm. in Cod. Hb, Lipo lL sal 135; Blat, Comm. Text.,
lib. Il, n. 159; Chelodi, Jus de Personis, n. 127; Wernz-Vidal,
De Personis, II, 383, and others on this point. They declare that
the Holy See can delegate the power of orders only in regard to
functions attached to a specific gerade of Order jure ecclesiastico.
Consequently there could be no alternative than to accept the con-
clusion that the blessing of the oil of the sick is attached to the
episcopate by ecclesiastical law. At any rate this would be no worse
than the labored hypotheses to which the proponents of other theories
are driven.
60 Some Aspects of The Dogma of Extreme Unction, pp. 59-63.
61 Op. cit., p. 68.
310 Extreme Unction
ing.®? In the light of this the decree (already quoted) of the
Council of Mt. Libanus, would have to be taken—seemingly with
much violence to the ordinary meaning of the words—not as an
actual delegation of this power on the part of the legislators but
simply as an admission by them of its presence because of papal
delegation. It could be retorted, too, that even if Benedict XIV
asserted that priests of the East need express or tacit papal dele-
gation, it would not follow that bishops per se could not delegate
such a power. At most it could be held that such a power had
been taken away from the Eastern bishops in the same fashion
as from the Western episcopacy, and reserved throughout the
entire church to the Holy See. However, as Benedict XIV was
writing at the time in a capacity far from that of the head of
Christendom, there is no obligation—although, indeed, it may
be safely done—of accepting his reading of history as absolutely
true.
From amidst this maze of theological tangles, the juridical
facts stand out, unobscured and undisputed. No matter how
it is to be explained, it is none the less plain that a Latin
priest can bless the Oil of the sick only with an Apostolic
faculty. This ceremony is a consecration, and these are re-
served to Bishops or to priests possessing a papal permission.®*
Cardinals who are not bishops, though permitted to make many
consecrations, are not allowed to consecrate the Olewm Infirmo-
rum. Specific exemption of this is made in Canon 239, § 1, 20°.
On the other hand, benediction by any bishop suffices, whether
he be titular or residential.“* Even an heretical bishop would
bless validly if he employed the correct form with the right
intention, for, as has been noted before, it is a prerogative of
which those having an episcopal character cannot be despoiled.
Ad hoc benedictum.
After a review of the qualities required in the blessing
ex parte ministri, we are led to a consideration of the require-
ments of the blessing itself. Are there any further determina-
62 De Syn. Dioc., 1. 8, c. 1, n. 4; cf. supra, p.
63 Canon 1147, 1.
64 Blat, Comm. Text., lib. ILI, p. I, n. 13; Paschang, The Sacramentals,
pp. 52 and 59.
The Blessing of the Oil 311
tions of the blessing other than that it must be episcopal—or
does any blessing whatsoever performed by a bishop suffice ?
It is quite evident that Christ prescribed no exact formula
of blessing. The huge differences in the prayers used from the
most ancient times establishes this beyond doubt. The Collec-
tion of Serapio,® the sacramentary of Gelasius,®°® the Testa-
mentum D. N. J. C.,°7 the present formula in the Greek Eucho-
logion ®8 and the formula which was used in the Coptic rite,®?
pive a fair conception of the divergence of prayer. All these
were surely valid forms, for the rites which employed them
were approved by the Holy See. It is likewise true that any
blessing found in the various rituals today which have been
approved by the Holy See is valid.
It should be noted that all the blessings given above have
one common note. Sanctification of the oil is asked of Divine
Goodness, so that it may become salutary and profitable to the
sick in soul and in body. One might indeed be tempted to con-
elude that Christ commanded this note as essential to the
blessing of this particular oil. In regard to validity, the pres-
ence of this one note would then seem to be all that is required.
Ordinarily it would follow that bishops would be held to no
particular form in regard to validity, but simply to the insertion
of the essential element common to all the extant forms of bless-
ing. Undoubtedly this is so in the Eastern rites today, and
before the Code was also true in the West.’? Suarez noted very
well, however:
‘¢ortasse tamen fieri potest ab Ecclesia, ut talis benedictio irrita
sit, nec apud Deum habeat rationem consecrationis, sed execrationis
65 Wobbermin, ‘‘ Texte wnd Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchrist-
lichen Literatur, herausg. v. Gebhardt u. Harnack, t. 17, fase. 3, 3 b.
66 M. P. L., 74, 1100.
67 Rahmani, p. 49.
68 N. B. The prayer of blessing has been the same both in ancient and
recent times, and both in the schismatical and the Uniat Churches.
Its Latin translation is given by Martene, De Antiq. Eccl. Rit., lib.
I, c. vii, art. 4, Ordo XXX; ‘‘Domine, qui in misericordia et misera-
tionibus tuis animarum corporumque contritiones curas: ipse, Do-
mine, oleum hoc sanctifica; ut in medelam omnis passionis carnalis
et spiritualis inquinamenti et omnis denique mali depulsionem ex
illo unctis fiat: ut in eo glorificetur sanctissimum nomen tuum,
Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti nunc et semper et in saecula
saeculorum, Amen.’’
69 Denziger, Ritus Orientaliwm, t. II, p..487.
70 Cf, Suarez, 40, s, I, n, 9; Kern, Tract. de Ext. Unct., pp. 130-1,
312 Extreme Unction
potius; et hoc modo fieri etiam poterit benedictio ab Ecclesia instituta
necessaria sit, quia ex ea pendet, ut Christi institutio impleatur.’’7
‘This has actually come to pass in regard to Latin bishops.
Canon 1148, 2, contains a new enactment in regard to consecra-
tions and blessings: ‘‘Consecrationes et benedictiones sive con-
titutivae sive invocativae invalidae sunt, si adhibita non fuerit
formula ab Ecclesia praescripta.’’ Hence in the Occident today
the only valid formula of benediction is that found in the
Pontificale.”
In regard to the blessing performed by priests, it need only
be said that both in the East and the West, both before and
after the Code, it has been required that they use the formula
prescribed by ritual. They act in virtue of delegated authority
only, and such an authorization is surely made under the con-
dition that they observe the rite of consecration adamussim.”
In the West there is, of course, the added reason for invalidity
arising from the prescriptions of the Canon.
Before an investigation of what is necessary for the licitness
of blessing the oil, the value of the words ‘‘ad hoc’’ in this
canon must be considered. What is their force in regard to the
validity or liceity of the blessing? In other words can the Sace-
rament of Extreme Unction be confected validly by the em-
ployment of other oils blessed by a Bishop, viz., the Olewm Cate-
chumenorum and the Sacred Chrism or is the Oil of the Sick
strictly essential for this purpose?
This question differs from the one just treated. There the
point revolved about whether the oil was blessed at all; here it
is a question of the applicability of oil already blessed, accord-
ing to the formula given for the benediction of chrism or oil of
the Catechumens. Granted the validity of its blessing, can
the application of such oil or chrism be extended beyond the
eases for which the blessing intends it? Can oil blessed for use
in Baptism or Confirmation be validly applied in Extreme Une-
tion ?
7 Lac.
72 ‘* De Officio in Feria V Coenae Domin.’’
73 Cf. Kern, Tract. de Ext. Unct., p. 181; The Cath. Encyc., art. ‘‘ Extreme
Unction.’’
The Blessing of the Oul 313
Grave and weighty theological minds can be aligned on
either side of the question, thus enhancing both opinions with
probability. Those who allow the validity do so on the conten-
tion that such oil is truly ‘‘oleum ab episcopo benedictum,”’
which the Council of Trent declared is the matter of this Sac-
rament. If the Sacred Synod wished to determine the matter to
an oil specially blessed for the sick, it would have so specified,
by saying, e. g., that the ‘‘materia’’ was ‘‘oleum Infirmorum ab
episcopo benedictum.’’** It is true that the blessings of chrism
and the oil of the Catechumens do not contain the common ele-
ment of impetration begging Divine merey and goodness to bless
this oil for the easements of the soul and body of the sick. But
the presence of such an element in all the formulae does not
conclusively prove that Christ commanded this as essential to a
valid blessing for unction. The very nature of the business of
blessing the oil of the sick could bring it about that all such
blessings have this common element. It is surely most appro-
priate to the formula—and as a consequence its insertion can
be ascribed to the fine perception of the ‘‘eternal fitness of
things’’ on the part of those who composed the various ritualis-
tic blessings. Consequently, Suarez writes: ‘‘ Existimo, seclusa
tamen Ecclesiae prohibitione, nullum peccatum esse uti chris-
mate proprio ad hoe sacramentum perficiendum, et praesertim
si aliud oleum simplex et sanctificatum deesset.’’ 7°
Some of the older authors declared the absolute invalidity
of chrism, while seemingly admitting the validity of the Oleum
Catechumenorum. Chrism, they claimed, lost the ‘‘esse olei’’
when balsam was added to the oil.77 Suarez, however, though
denying the possibility of the reverse, thinks that the chrism is
equally as valid as the Oil of the Catchumens, because it was
used, he alleges, in former days for unction.’* Laymann ”
teaches that in practice it is not at all allowable to use chrism
even if the oil of the sick is not at hand and there is danger in
74 Cf. The Caswist, vol. II, p. 88.
75 Cf. Kern, Tract. de Ext. Unct., p. 131.
PaO 28. cl, sis L 1.
77 Soto, Comm. in IV Sent., dist. 23, q. 1, a. 3; Paludanus, Comm. in IV
Sent.adist,<23, .qz0l, "a. 1.
Clee ye. en 10,
Toes a, MM. tract. VIII, °*De Hat. Unct.,-* ¢.. 2,00}
314 Extreme Unction
postponing the unction. If a priest, however, has anointed
thru mistake with chrism, ‘‘probabiliter dici posse videtur nihil
esse repetendum, sed rem Domino commendandum; tum quia
plerumque non posset fieri iterata unetio sine secandalo, tum
quia valde probabile est sacramentum Extremae Unctionis valide
conferri in materia sacri chrismatis; seu quia olim consuetum
erat talem materiam adhibere, ut Suarez existimat, seu quia mix-
tio balsami tam exigua esse solet, ut oleum nec physice nee
omnino moraliter suam naturam exuisse censeatur quod vero
hae vel illa benedictione oleum consecratum sit, non videtur
pertinere ad sacramenti substantiam.”’ 80 With this latter state-
ment Diana agrees.8! He allows nevertheless an unction with
chrism in case of necessity if the oil of the sick is not handy
‘nam utilitas, quam hoe sacramentum affert infirmo praefer-
enda est.’’? The latter reason is given by Tamburini.** On the
other hand LaCroix ®8 is displeased at the prohibition of con-
ditional repetition made by Laymann. ‘‘Dicendum est’’ he
writes, ‘‘. . . contra Laymann, sacramentum repeti sub condi-
tione, quia dubium est, an cum chrismate fuerit validum.’’
Diametrically opposed to the opinion maintaining the valid
confection of the sacrament with the oil of the Catechumens and
chrism is the teaching of Babenstuber,** and Barbosa.®? They
maintain the absolute invalidity of the use of any oil but that of
the sick. Their contention is based on the ground that each
oil by its own peculiar blessing is made apt for use only for
the purpose specified in such blessing. Hence they cannot be
validly interchanged even in the greatest emergency.
St. Alphonsus 8° admitted the probability of both opinions,
but taught that the former could not be put into practice except
when the oil of the sick was not to be had. This is in accord-
ance with the condemnation by Innocent XI of the proposition :
‘‘Non est illicitum in sacramentis conferendis sequi opmionem
probabilem de valore sacramenti, relicta tutiore, nisi id vetat lex,
80 Laymann, l.c.
81 Op. Coord., tom II, tract. IV, De Ext. Unct., res. 2 et 7.
82 Moral. Explic., lib. VI, De Ext. Unct., c. 1, paragr. 1, n. 5.
83 Th. M., lib. VI, p. II, n. 2090.
84 Ethica Supernat., Tract. 8, p. 2, disp. 7, a. 2, n. 3.
85 De Off. et Pot. Par., p. II, c. 22, n. 24.
86 Th. M., VI, 709.
The Blessing of the Oil 315
conventio aut periculum gravis damni incurrendi. Hine sen-
tentia probabili tantum utendum non est in collatione baptismi,
ordinis sacerdotalis aut episcopalis.’’®* Sinee that time prac-
tically all theologians acknowledge the permissibility of anoint-
ing with the oil of the Catechumens in case of necessity.22 A
recent note in the controversy is heard from Fr. Umberg.*®
Arguing from Canon 1148, 2, he states that not only is a com-
petent minister required, but also the corresponding formula for
the blessing. ‘‘Quodsi chrisma adhibetur,’’ he writes, ‘‘idem
est ac si adhibetur oleum sine legitima forma benedictum.’’
Most authors, on the other hand, think that this controversy is
untouched by the Code.®°® Blat *! joins with Umberg in stat-
ing that no substitution can now be made. Woywod does not
agree with him: ‘‘The fact that others think that this ques-
tion is not decided by canon 1148, 2 is proven by their recogni-
tion of the probability of this opinion even in editions of their
books published since the promulgation of the Code. The Code
does not state ... whether any of the holy oils blessed by a
bishop may be valid ‘materia’ in Extreme Unction. The ques-
tion remains open and, therefore, if the priest has only the oleum
catechumenorum or the sanctum chrisma at hand, he may anoint
the sick conditionally in an urgent case, but if there is time, he
must repeat, likewise conditionally, with the oleum infirmo-
mum, °
87 §. C. S. Off., 2 Mar. 1679—Denziger, Hnchiridion, n. 1151.
88 Cf. Dicastillo, De Sac., tom. I, tr. 7, disp. I, lib. 8, n. 38; Scavini,
THOM, to 11; ns/432,.a;3 Kenrick, Th. M.,\ Il, .** DevHat. Unets*’
cap. unic., n. 3: Dens. Tract. de Eat. Unct., N. rag (A eed Ue Konings,
TM en, ” 1502, quaer. 4; Pesch, Prael. Dog.. vol. VII, n. 525; Geni-
cot- Salsmans, Inst. Th. M., Il, 416—Casus Conse., p. 568, cas.
876; AErtnys, They. Lion, 357; Tanquerey, Th. De Til, vit, 765;
Gury-Ferreres, Comp. Th. M., II, nn. 833 et 254—Casus Consc.,
II, n. 785; Sebastiani, Summ. Th. M., n. 508; Gury, Th. M., II, n.
877: Noldin, De Sac., 432; Lehmkuhl, ie M., i Pg by. Telch, Epi-
tome Th. M., Appendix TI tent Proo.,?’ n. 64, p. 415: Sabetti-
Barrett Th. M., Dp oUL- De Augustinis, De Re Sacramentaria, LE
thesis IT, “De Ext. Unct.,?? scholion I, pp. 376-7; O’Kane, The
Rubrics, n. 853; The Casuist, II, p. 85; Rohling, Medulla, p. 378;
Vermeersch- -Creusen, Hpit., II, 230; Ballerini-Palmieri, Op. Th. M.,
WOR tra aeete LVL, Tek.
89 Neo-Confessarws, by Reuter-Lehmkuhl-Umberg, n. 226.
90 Cf. Noldin, De Sac., 432; Woywod, A Practical Commentary, I, n. 868.
91 Comm, Tezt., lib. III, p. I, n. 290.
92 Lic,
316 Extreme Unction
Cases of necessity may arise easily enough. By mistake,
a priest could bring to the sick room the oil of Baptism or
the Chrism of Confirmation. The person is dying very rapidly
and will very likely have passed away, by the time the priest
could retrace his steps to the rectory and back again to the sick
house. If the sick call were in the rural districts, a very con-
siderable amount of time would be required for this.
Another emergency would occur when a priest, called to
baptize a child, would suddenly find the mother dying also. If
there is danger in delay, the Oil of the Catechumens or the
Christan may be employed for the unction. It need hardly be
said that such an unction is to be made under the condition, at
least mentally expressed, ‘‘Si materia est valida.’
If the oil of the sick is obtained while the person is still
alive, a second unction is to be made. This, too, should be
conditional, ‘‘Si nondum es hoe Sacramento refectus.’°*” “Bt
Alphonsus ®° does not mention the conditional nature of the
second administration, although most probably he implied it,
for he refers to LaCroix °° who directs a conditional administra-
tion. St. Charles similarly omitted mention of the fact that
the second administration ought to be sub conditione.?*
Practically all of the later theologians have expheitly or-
dered a condition to be inserted in this repetition ‘‘ad ecaute-
lam.’’88 Lehmkuhl,®® however, thinks that if a man has been
absolved and received Communion, and the priest notices during
the unctions that he is using the wrong oil, it is more advisable
to risk a return to the rectory for the correct oils, even though
there is danger that the man may die in the meantime. The
completion of the other unctions is simply piling doubt upon
93 Cf, Scavini, Th. M., ITI, n. 432.
94 Seavini, Le. N. B. As noted before, the condition should not be ‘‘Si
capax es,’’ for it is quite probable that a person may validly be
anointed twice or more in the same danger of death—yet such a
repetition is altogether illicit.
95 Th. M., VI, 709.
96 Th. M., |. 6, p. 2, n. 2090.
97 Acta Eccl. Mediol., Pars IV, ‘‘Instruct. De Eat. Unct.,’’ t. I, p. 603.
98 Cf, Seavini, le. Kenrick, l.c., Dens, Lc., Pesch., l.c., Konings, Lc.,
Genicot-Salsmans, lc., Tanquerey, l.c., AErtnys, l.c., Gury-Ferreres,
L.c., Sebastiani, l.c., Gury, l.c., Noldin, l.c., Telch, Le., Sabetti-Barrett,
l.c., DeAugustinis, l.c., O’Kane, l.c., The Casuist, Le,
299 Casus Conse., II, 668.
The Blessing of the Ow 317
doubt, whereas, since a single unction suffices for validity, time
may be saved by interrupting the unctions and hurrying for
the proper oils. Elbel-Bierbaum ‘°° teaches that if the pastor
learns after a time that he has been using the Olewm Catechu-
menorum by mistake, he need not go back and repeat the unc-
tions with the Oleum Infirmorum when the subject has received
the other sacraments. However, if Extreme Unction was the only
sacrament which the subject could have with certainty received,
e. g., if he were unconscious, then im every case of this kind
the sacrament is to be repeated.
The reasons he alleges for the first case are three: 1) The
unetion with chrism (or oil of the Catechumens) was probably
valid; 2) the sacrament is not absolutely necessary ; 3) the
impossibility of reanointing without exciting the wonderment
of the people—a phenomenon which never lacks an element of
scandal. The third reason would surely not be hard to verify if
many sick were at that time in the parish. It would soon be
breezed far and wide that the pastor had made some great
mistake, because all the sick in his parish were reanointed. On
the other hand, a judicious handling of the situation would
prevent such a condition of affairs. Those nearest death could
be anointed first—and if necessary, by a single unction, so that
the bystanders could not notice it. One by one the others could
be attended so that gradually, through diplomacy, all the sick
of the parish would receive what was in justice due to them
from the pastor.
It may be remarked that if a choice can be made between
the oil of the Catechumens and the chrism, it is safer, and,
therefore, wiser, to choose the former. Never was it questioned
that the oil of the Catechumens had the ‘‘esse olet,’’ but, as has
been seen, some theologians contested the availibility of chrism
as valid matter for this sacrament. Schmalzgrueber’®’ implies
the preferability of the Olewm Catechumenorum, when he states
100 Th. M., III, P. VIII, Conf. IX, n. 203-4.
101 ‘‘Multo minus iterandum aliquid erit in casu quo sacerdos per errorem
oleo catechumenorum ungeret infirmum; licet enim diversa sit hujus
et olei infirmorum benedictio, in substantia non differunt.’’? Jus
Ecclesiasticum Universum, lib. I, tit. xvi, n. 5.
318 Extreme Unction
that the obligation of repeating the sacrament thus confected
is much less than when it has been administered with chrism.
The liceity of the blessing of this oil depends upon the
observance of further requirements. The blessing may not be
performed at any time of the year at the pleasure of the bishop.
By canon 734, 1, this consecration is restricted to Holy Thursday
of each year. The rite to be observed is found in the Pontificale
under the title ‘‘De officio in Feria V Coenae Domini.’’ “Hae
die’’ reads the first rubric of that title, ‘‘singulis annis bene-
dicitur Oleum Catechumenorum et Infirmorum, et conficitur
Chrisma.’’ The blessing is done at the Mass on that day, im-
mediately before the words of the canon, ‘‘ Per quem haec omnia,
Domine, semper bona creas.’’ When he arrives at this prayer,
the bishop purifies his hands and proceeds to the table pre-
pared for him. At the command of the Archdeacon, a sub-
deacon and two acolytes bring the oil from the sacristy and
present it to the Archdeacon. The Archdeacon, in turn, pre-
sents it to the bishop, who immediately exorcises it. Then the
blessing is given straightway with the words: ‘‘Emitte,
quaesumus, Domine, Spiritum Sanctum tuum Paralictum de
coelis in hane pinguedinem olivae, quam de viridi ligno pro-
ducere dignatus es, ad refectionem mentis et corporis; ut tua
sancta benedictione sit omni hoe unguento coelestis medicinae
peruncto, tutamen mentis et corporis, ad evacuandos omnes
dolores, omnes infirmitates, omnemque aegritudinem mentis et
corporis, unde unxisti Sacerdotes, Reges, Prophetas et Martyres ;
sit Chrisma tuum perfectum, Domine, nobis a te benedictum,
permanens in visceribus nostris: In nomine Domini Jesu
Christi.’’ The oil is brought back to the sacristy and the Mass
proceeds.
In the Roman Breviary under date of January 20th, it is
stated that the customs of blessing the oil on Holy Thursday
was due to a decree of Pope Fabian.1°? Catalano ! is inelined
to believe that this decree, included by Gratian in the Corpus
102 ‘*Tdem statuit ut quotannis feria quinta in Coena Domini, vetere com-
busto, chrisma renovaretur.’’
103 Rit. Rom., t. I, p. 309.
The Blessing of the Oil 319
Juris,'°* is supposititious. The Council of Toledo, celebrated
in the year 400, stated that it was licit for bishops to confect
chrism at any time during the year.’°% Hence, Cavallieri 1°
declares that the custom cannot be said with certainty to be
older than the seventh century, when mention of it is made
in the Gregorian Sacramentary. St. Isadore’°? mentions the
performance of this ceremony on Maundy Thursday, while St.
Thomas!’8 and Durandus!” vie with each other in asserting
mystical reasons for the appropriateness of the day. The
custom, even at that time, was co-extensive with the Latin Rite.
After this blessing has thus taken place, it becomes in-
cumbent on the pastors of the diocese to seek a supply of the
freshly blessed oil and use it thruout the year. Oils blessed in
previous years become illicit for use, except in ease of neces-
sity.14° Consequently the newly blessed oil must be sought as
soon as possible.
Canon 735, makes it obligatory upon the pastor to seek it
from his own Ordinary. Such legislation is extremely old, dat-
ing back as far as the fourth Council of Carthage in 398.11! The
Fifth and Sixth Provincial Councils of Beneventum, one thou-
sand years later (1331 and 1374), hurled an excommunication
104 c, 18, d. III, de cons. : ‘‘Litteris vestris inter cetera insertum inveni-
mus, quosdam religionis vestrae episcopos a vestro nostroque ordine
discrepare, et non per singulos annos in coena Domini crisma con-
ficere. Errant vero qui talia excogitant, et mente vesana potius,
quam recta sentientes haec facere audent. Sicut enim ipsius diei
solemnitas per singulos annos est celebranda, ita ipsius sancti cris-
matis confectio per singulos annos est agenda, et de anno in annum
renovanda, et fidelibus tradendum, quia novum sacramentum est et
per singulos annos, in jam dicta die innovandum, et vetus in sanctis
ecclesiis cremandum. Ista a sanctis apostolis et successoribus eorum
accepimus, vobisque tenenda mandamus. ’’
105 can. xx—C. 124, D. ITI, de cons.: ‘‘Omni tempore Episcopus licere
chrisma conficere et per suas dioecesas destinare.’’
106 Opera Liturgica, tom. IV, cap. 26, ‘‘De Sacris Oletis,’’ decretum I in
Ord. 168, page 199.
107 De Ecclesiasticis Officiis, Lib. I, Cap. 29, ‘‘de Coena Dom.’’—M. P. L.,
83, 764.
POE TIT Ps,'q. 72, a. 12 ad 3.
109 Rationale Divin. Officiorum, lib. 6, cap. 74.
110 Can. 734, 1. It is not required that the oil be recent but that the con-
secration be recent. Cf. S. R. C., 22 Mar. 1862, ad IV, Coll. 1225;
D. A., ad V, n. 3114.
111 Canon 36—C. 123, D. IV, de cons.
_
320 Extreme Unction
latae sententiae against priests who sought the oils from a
bishop other than their own.t”
The pastor is to procure the oils from his own Ordinary
whether the latter be a bishop or not. The Ordinary 1s bound
to supply the sacred oils for the territory he governs.143 The
obtaining of the oils from him is an acknowledgment of the
Ordinary’s jurisdiction and is an indication of the organization
of the diocese.414 If the see is vacant (and there is no Ordinary),
Genicot teaches that the oils can be gotten from a neighboring
bishop.**®
Pastors may not be dilatory in their application for the
newly blessed oils. Promptness was prescribed by the Council of
Vasense (442) 16 and before it, by the Fourth Council of Carth-
age!7 The reason for this preseription was due to the fact
that the oil of the catechumens and the chrism were necessary
for the services of Baster night, which were then similar to
the Holy Saturday services of today. The Sixth Provineial
Council of Benevento (1374) required the pastors to seek the
three oils on the very day of consecration, Holy Thursday.t®
Benedict XIV 1° urged the obligation on the pastors of pro-
curing the Holy Oils of the Sick as diligently as that of pro-
curing the other two oils. In 1826, the Congregation of Rites
112 This decree is found in Tit. 3, cap. 3 of the Sixth Council, paragr.
‘« Sed ante,’’? and from eap. 49 of the Fifth Council; apud Catalano,
Rite Rona bapa.
113 Blat. Comm. Text., Lib. III, p. 1, n. 14, Fanfani, De Jure Paroch., n.
230.
114 Cf. Augustine, 4 Commentary, IV, p. 30.
115 Inst. Th. M. II, 416; Cf. answer of Pius VI to priests of France—
footnote 86 of this chapter.
116 Can. 3—‘‘Per singula territoria presbyteri vel Ministri ab Episcopis,
non prout libitum fuit, a vicinioribus sed a suis propriis per annos
singulos chrisma petant, appropinquante solemnitate Paschae.’’
Summa Conciliorum, II,
117 Can. 36—C, 123, D. IV, de cons. See also C. 122, D. ITI, de cons. If
a pastor neglects to get the oil and dares to administer the sacra-
ments with old oil, he does such a thing validly but so illicitly that
‘““nro temeritatis ausu ipse in se suae damnationis protulisse sen-
tentiam manifestatur.’’
118 tit. 3, c. 3—‘‘Praecipientes ut singulis annis in die Jovis sancta Coenae
Domini presbyteri parochiales .. . Chrisma uovum, et Oleum novum
Catechumenorum ... et Oleum novum Infirmorum ... a nobis in
nostra dioecesi, seu suffraganeis nostris in eorum Dioecesibus, vel
Archiprebyteris nostris suscipiant, sicut est consuetum;’’ Cf. Cata-
lano, Rit. Rom., t. I, p. 76.
119 Institutiones, Ixxx, n. 3.
The Blessing of the Ou 521
condemned expressly the custom prevailing in some places of de-
ferring the distribution of oils until after Low Sunday.’*° The
annotator on this decision states that the ‘‘quamprimum’’ of the
rubric !21 is to be interpreted in light of the obligation to use
new oils on Holy Saturday.!** Hence, according to him, noth-
ing but grave necessity would justify any delay. It must be
remembered that this decree had to do with obtaining only
the oils necessary for the blessing of the font. Yet the annotator
urges the obligation of procuring the oil of the sick with the
same stress as that of the other oils.
The obligation of procuring the oils promptly is binding
under grave sin, according to the more probable opinion.’*? The
additional obligation of applying to one’s own Ordinary for
the renovation of the oils is similarly grave.1*4 Consequently
only proportionate inconvenience will excuse from the observ-
ance of these obligations. Delay in procuring the oils can
be condoned by reason of great distance, difficult roads, heavy
storms, &¢.125 The latter obligation can be omitted in turbulent
times, or when a strike would interrupt communication between
a pastor and his own bishop.'*® Pastors regular, however, are
not exempt from this obligation, but must apply to the diocesan
bishop for their supply of oils.’*7
Since there is an obligation on the pastor to approach his
Ordinary for the holy oils, there is a corresponding obligation
on the Ordinary to furnish sufficient oil for the needs of the
priests in his territory. The Oil is to be kept in the Cathedral
Church and to be dispensed therefrom by the Dignitaries.‘*° No
fee should be charged for the oil, and the bishop may not allow
120 16 Dec. 1826, in una Gandav., ad IV,—D. A., n. 2650.
iivRit..kom., Tit. IL, c. 1, n..48.
122 apud D. A., vol. IV, p. 284.
123 Cf, Alphonsus, Th. M., VI, 708; Konings, Th. M., n. 1502, quaer, 1;
Sabetti-Barrett, Th. M. p. 800; Noldin, De Sac. 433, Vermeersch-
Creusen, Epit., II, 230; &c.
124 Cf, Canon 735; Noldin, De Sac., 433; Genicot-Salsmans, Inst. Th. M.,
II, 416.
125 Cf. O’Kane, The Rubrics, n, 251.
126 Cf. Augustine, 4 Commentary, IV, p. 30.
127 Clement XIII, const. ‘‘Inter Multiplices, Dec. 11, 1758, paragr. 5-6—
C. I. C. Fontes, n. 449.
128 §. R. C., Aug. 19, 1619—D. A., n. 379.
B22 Extreme Unction
any gratuitous offerings to be accepted.??® The bishop must
provide the oils for the exempt places of his dioceses (terris et
locis immunibus), such as the monasteries of the orders of both
sexes.13° Clement VIII in a Constitution dated March 24, 1599,
ordered bishops to give the oil to regulars ‘‘prompte et libera-
liter,’’? 131 In the month preceding the issuance of this con-
stitution the Congregation for Bishops and Regulars had de-
elared that ‘“‘regularibus sanctum oleum ab Episcopis denegart
non potest.’”82, Three later decisions decide that ‘‘immo epi-
scopi tenentur iisdem illud dare.’’'*?
It is not necessary that the pastor should make petition for
the oils in person. The Fourth Council of Carthage '%* and
the Council of Vasense (442) 135 demanded application thru a
deacon or subdeacon. The Council of Auxerre,?*® held in 578,
allowed the Archdeacon or the Archsubdeacon to appear for
the priest, if he were ill. The Sixth Provincial Council of
Beneventum 137 prescribed that the pastors should receive the
oils ‘‘per se ipsos aut clericos, saltem adultos.’’ This decree
was corrected later in the Thirteenth Provincial Council, held
at the same place, by demanding that ‘“quotannis mittatur
gacerdos aliquis, aut saltem aliquis in sacris constitutus qui
nova accipiat.’’? 188 St. Charles, likewise, restricted to men in
sacred orders the bearing of the oil from the Cathedral to the
pastor.189 The rubric of the Roman Ritual’*® now reads:
‘‘Parochus, quantum fieri potest, curet, ne per laicos, sed per se,
vel alium sacerdotem, vel saltem per alium Ecclesiae ministrum
haee Olea deferantur.’’ The insertion of the clause ‘‘in qwan-
129 S.C. EE. et RR., 6 Sept., 1604—apud Cavallieri, Opera Liturgica, vol.
IV, cap. 26, decr. 9. |
130 Cong. EE. et RR., 1 Jan. 1610—apud Cavallieri, ibid., decr. 6, page
200.
131 Const. ‘‘Exponi Nobis’’—Bull, Taur. Edit, vol. X, p. 484—n. 201.
132 §. C. BE. et RR., Feb. 2, 1599—apud Cavallieri, ibid., decr. 7, page 200.
133 §. C. EE., 20 Nov. 1601; 4 Jun. 1602; Nov. 10, 1659—apud Cavallieri,
ibid, decr. 8, p. 200.
134 Can, 36—C. 123, D. III, de cons.
135 cap. 3—Summa Conciliorum, II, 146.
136 can. 6—Harduin III, 444.
137 held in 1374—+it. 3, cap. 3—Catalano, Rit. Rom., t. I, p. 76.
138 Tit. XI, n. 1—Catalano, l.c.
139 II Prov. Cone. Mediolan., Tit. I, decr. IX—apud Acta Hecl. Mediolan.,
tom. I, p. 68.
MOUTite Licap. La mooe.
The Blessing of the Oul 323
tum fiert potest’’ saves the prohibition from being absolutely
iron-bound. Laies are not excluded entirely, and consequently
may touch the vessels of oil for a sufficient reason. Hence,
Catalano claims!*! that they may be employed when a pastor
cannot conveniently approach the Cathedral during Holy Week.
Services usually keep pastors extremely busy during the latter
part of that week; and to deprive the people of the grand
ritual of those days would wreak a real spiritual hardship upon
pious souls.142 Another reason might well be the advanced age
or the feebleness of the pastor, thereby making a trip to the
Cathedral a great hardship. In short, any just and reasonable
cause permits the pastor to engage a layman to go to the
Cathedral for the oils on Holy Thursday.'**
The question was settled specifically for the United States
in 1901 in an answer given to the Bishop of Leavenworth.'** The
Propaganda took care to insert, however, that the layman em-
ployed should be trustworthy—with the consequence that the
pastor should make use of much discretion »in selecting the per-
son to whom he is to entrust this sacred mission.
Baruffaldo 145 thinks that laymen are guilty of grievous sin
who touch the vessel of oils without necessity. O’Kane!*® rightly
holds this is too severe; and declares that the offense is serious
only when committed with contempt. It must be remembered
that this prohibition is binding only when the vessels actually
contain the holy oil, for, since they are not consecrated, but
simply blessed, they may be handled by anyone when empty.
Some idea of the deep reverence due them when filled can be
gained from the prescriptions of the ancient synods which com-
manded them to be borne ‘“‘stcut reliquiae sanctorum deportart
solent,’ 7347
141 Rit. Rom. t. I, p. 76.
142 ‘‘In necessitatis casu, si nempe sacerdoti non suppetat tempus eccle-
siam adeundi, ut ipse oleum assumat, deficiente oleo ministro sacro,
potest laicus minister illud deferre, occulte tamen et reverenter.’’
(Pourbaix-Coppin, S. Liturg. Comp., N. 687, ad 3).
143 DeHerdt, Lit. Prax., III, 157; Cf. also the annotator of the Decreta
Authentica, Vol. IV, annotation to decree 2650, p. 285.
144 §, C. P. F., 1 May, 1901-—-apud Amer. Eccl. Review, vol. XXV, p. 87.
145 Ad Rit. Rom. Comm., t. I, tit. X, n. 25.
146 The Rubrics, n. 269.
147 Cone. Vormatiense (anno 868), can. 60—apud Harduin V, 745; Cone.
Autissiodorensis (anno 578), can. 6—Harduin III, 444,
324 Extreme Unction
The oils may not be trusted to the national mail nor to a
reliable express company for transportation. A writer in the
Ecclesiastical Review!*® was inclined to believe that this was
lawful, asserting that the carrying services of our express com-
panies and the efficiency of the mail transportation is as perfect
here as in any country. A parcel sent thru either medium is
guarded, especially if registered, as safely as if it were in the
personal possession of any person, cleric or lay. Shortly after
this was written, however, the Bishop of Leavenworth queried
of the Holy See: ‘‘Licetne sacra Olea ab Episcopo consecrata
per societatem mercatoriam ‘The Express’ ad_ sacerdotes
transmittere?’’ The Propaganda answered to this: ‘‘Non
licere.’’ 149
Two years later a bishop of one of the vast dioceses of
Brazil reported the difficulties of some of the pastors in reaching
the episcopal city to get the oil, and begged that the urgency
be relieved by the permission to use the national mail as the
means of transmission of the holy oils to these distant parishes.
Again the Holy See refused, and published with its refusal the
decree given by the Propaganda to the Bishop of Leavenworth.’°
The consequence of these decisions is the utter unlawfulness of
employing either express or mail service in the distribution of
the oils thruout the diocese.
The old oils, or at least part of them, must be kept until
the new oils arrive. This is evident, for otherwise, the dying
could not be provided for in the meantime.
As long as the necessity prevents the replenishing of the
supply, the old oils may be lawfully used. This is clear from
148 vol. XXII, pp. 311-2.
149 This decision was forwarded to the editor of the Ecclesiastical Review
by the Bishop of Leavenworth, and was published in that journal
soon afterwards—vol. XXV, pp. 61-2.
150 §. C. 8. Off., 14 Jan. 1903—A. 8. 8., XXXVI, 14.
151 O’Kane, The Rubrics, n. 857; Gavant, Manuale Episcoporum, V, E. U.,
n. 10. It is very advisable to have two ampullae for each oil, so
that one may be kept while the other has been sent to the Cathedral
for replenishing—cf. St. Charles Borromeo in the Fourth Provincial
Council of Milan, Pars Secunda Constitutionuwm, cap. inscripto ‘‘Quae
ad sacramentalia vel ad Sacramenta pertinent,’’ apud. Acta Keel.
Mediolanensis, t. I, pars 1, p. 140.
The Blessing of the Oul 325
decisions of the Roman Congregations,?°* and from Canon 734, 1.
Oceasionally in the past the Holy See has granted various
localities the permission to use old oil, because of missionary
conditions there existing? By the Constitution ‘‘ Trans
Oceanum,’’ +5* for example, all Latin America and the Philip-
pine Islands were allowed to use the old oils for four years, if,
aiter due diligence, they could not obtain newly-blessed or
more recently blessed oil. Now, however, no such indult is
necessary, if the necessity is truly present.?°°
After the arrival of the new oil, it becomes altogether
unlawful to use the old oil. It is the common opinion of theo-
logians that such a procedure is mortally sinful.?°®
The old oil is to be burned, as the Pontifical prescribes.1°!
If there is any oil in bottles or vases, it should be poured into the
lamp which hangs before the Blessed Sacrament. What is con-
tained in the cotton in the oil-stocks for ordinary use should be
burned together with the cotton.°* Before the cotton is placed
in the fire, however, it may be squeezed over the sanctuary
lamp so that the loose oil will be deposited therein. After the
cotton is burned, the ashes are to be thrown into the sacra-
Beno’
The custom of burning the oil is extremely ancient. There
is mention of it in the pseudo-Fabian letter.1® A similar pre-
scription is found in the Pontifical of Emesa in Syria, edited
in 1214, and in the Pontifical of Arles, which also dates back
152 §. C. EE. et RR., March 20, 1590—apud Cavallieri, Opera Liturgtca,
tom. IV, Cap. 26, De Sacris Oleis, n. VII, p. 199; 8. R. C., Jan. 19,
1608—D. A., n. 244.
153 Cf. §. C. P. F., 13 Aug. 1669 (C. P. pro Sin.)—Coll. 183; 18 Feb.
1783 (C. G.) Sophiae—Coll. 561; 27 Sept. 1835 Gregory XVI
granted Bishops and Vicars Apostolic in China and adjacent lands
the faculty in perpetuum of using old oils—Coll. 840.
154 Cf, Ferreres, Comp. Th. M., II, 255.
155 Augustine, 4 Commentary, IV, p. 30.
156 Barbosa, De Off. et Pot. Parochi, p. II, cap. 22, n. 25; Baruftaldo, Ad
Rit. Rom. Comm., t. 1, tit. 27, n. 3; De Herdt, Lit. Pragw. III, 155;
Genicot-Salsmans, Inst. Th. M., II, 416; cf. C. 122, D. III, de cons.
157 Pars. III, ‘‘De Off. in Fer. V Coena Dom.,’’ in fine.
158 Pontificale, loc. ctt.
159 Cavallieri, Opera Liturgica, t. IV, cap. 26, De Sacris Oleis, n. VIIT;
O’Kane, The Rubrics, n. 254; De Herdt, Lit. Praw., III, 150.
160 ec, 18, D. III, de cons.
326 Extreme Unction
to the thirteenth century.1®! In the Fourth Provincial Council
of Milan,!®? this regulation was likewise decreed. In 1579, the
Provincial Council of Salernitano!®? commanded this disposi-
tion of the old oil.
This practice was not universal, however. Other Pontificals
instructed the old oil to be mixed with the new oil. Thus the
Pontifical of Beauvais, edited about 800, plainly states: ‘‘Tune
Chrisma novum misceatur cum veteri, si quid residuum sit:
similiter et Oleum, et ita dividat presbyteris.’’ 1°* Similar rubrics
are contained in the ancient Pontificals of Constantinople and
Silvanectense.!® The Sixth Provincial Council of Benevento
(1874)16* prescribed that the old oil should be poured into the
Sacrarium by way of the baptismal font, and that the ampullae
be diligently cleansed before refilling with newly-consecrated
oil. In 1601 the Congregation of Rites!®" issued a decree com-
manding that the old oil be disposed of by burning. Since
that time until the present day, the practice of burning the
old oils upon reception of the fresh supply has been observed
thruout the Latin Church.
A final question in regard to the oil arises when the supply
begins to run low—and there is danger that it will be exhausted
before more oil can be procured. The solution is found in
Canon 734, 2, which permits the addition of unblessed olive oil
to the diminished supply, but always in a smaller quantity than
the amount of blessed oil.
This is not the first legislation on the subject. As early
as the thirteenth century Innocent III stated: ‘‘Non negamus
quin oleum non consecratum consecrato possit oleo admisceri.’’!®
Tt will be noticed that the Pope made no mention of the amount
161 Martene, De Antiqua Eccles. Disciplina tn Divin. Celebrandis Offictis,
cap. XXiil.
162 Constit., Pars II, Capite inscripto ‘‘Quae ad sacramentalta vel ad sacra-
menta communiter pertinent’’—apud Acta Eccl. Mediolan., t. I, p.
140.
163 Tit. 32, ec. 7—apud Catalano, Rit. Rom., t. I, p. 307.
164 Martene, De Antiqua Eccles. Disciplina im Divin. Celebrandis Offictis,
cap. xxii.
165 Martene, l.c., paragr. iv, n. 1.
166 Tit. net cap. IIT, paragr. ‘‘Sed ante;’’ Cf. Catalano, Rit. Rom., t. I,
p.
167 §. C. e, 7 Sept., 1601—apud Cavallieri, Opera Liturgica, tom. IV,
cap. 26, de Sacris Oleis, Decretum I, p. 199.
168 ¢, 3, X, de cons. Hecl., III, 40.
The Blessing of the Oul 32
that might be added. Later legislation made careful note of
the fact that the added oil should be less in quantity than the
oil to which it is added. Thus, St. Charles, in the Fourth Pro-
vineial Council of Milan?®® ordered the mixture to be made
‘“quttatim,’’ drop by drop, in order to insure the addition al-
ways of a smaller quantity.
The Congregation of the Council’? in 1682, allowed this
addition to be made repeatedly, even if the amount of the re-
peated additions totalled more than the original quantity of
blessed oil, provided, of course, that every individual increase
of the oil was less than the bulk of blessed oil. This enactment
of the Council was re-stated by Pius VI in a constitution,’”
dated May 28, 1793. The Ritual, before its latest revision, al-
lowed the replenishing of the supply of blessed oil with these
words: ‘‘Id tamen si forte infra annum aliquo modo ita deficiat,
ut sufficere non posse videatur, neque aliud benedictum haberi
queat, modico oleo non benedicto, in minore quantitate superin-
fuso reparari potest.’’ 17? The rubric of the latest edition simply
repeats the words of the Canon.*”
As a rule, the bishop should consecrate a sufficient amount
at the ceremony on Holy Thursday to supply the diocese for the
entire year.174 It is not allowable to bless a small quantity on
that day and immediately afterwards increase the amount by
successive additions of unblessed oil. This custom has been
condemned twice by the Congregation of Rites. Lawfully,
the oil cannot be added unless there is a danger that the supply
on hand will give out before the next consecration. There must
always exist a bona fide necessity.’
169 Constitutionum Pars II, cap. ‘‘ Quae ad sacramentalia vel sacramenta
communiter spectant’’—apud Acta Eccl. Mediol., pars Ty teh ep 4 Led:
170 Sept. 23, 1682—D. A. by Falise, v. ‘¢Oleum,’’ in nota, n. 6; also cf.
Quarti, De Benedict., tit. 1, s. 2, dub. 5, n. 13 et 14.
171 Const. ‘‘Sollicitudo Omnium Ecclesiarwm,’’ responsum 13—‘‘ Posse oleo
benedicto adjungi non benedictum pluribus vicibus, ita ut oleum ad-
junctum non consideratum separatim, et in unaquaque admixtione,
sit in minori quantitate quam oleum benedictum, quamvis omnibus
consideratis omnibus additionibus simul, fiat quantitas major non
benedicti; quemadmodum resolutum fuit a S. C. Concilii, 23 Sept.,
anni 1682’’ (Bull. Taur. Edit., X, 2623).
172 Tit. V, cap. 1, n. 3—edit. 1913.
173 Tit. V, cap. 1, n. 3—edit. 1925.
174 Woywod, A Practical Commentary, I, 628.
175 Dec. 7, 1844, Patavin.,—D. A., n. 2883; 28 Jan. 1910—A. A. S., IT, 118.
176 Cf. O’Kane, The Rubrics, n. 258.
328 Extreme Unction
Extreme care must be taken to see that the amount of oil
added is less in quantity than the amount already at hand.
It is wiser, therefore, to make many additions, rather than
undergo the risk of pouring in an amount almost equal to the
quantity of consecrated oil. Augustine is slightly confused
mathematically when he states: ‘‘The mixture should not ex-
ceed the proportion of 3: 2, i. e., only one-third of common olive
oil may be added.’’!77_ Strictly speaking, however, the mixture
of the oil will not lose its blessing until a greater, or at least,
an equal amount of unblessed oil has been added at one time.
The second or third or subsequent additions need not be less
than the amount of blessed oil present before the first addition
was made. All that is necessary is that the added amount be
less in quantity than the amount to which it is added. For
example, if originally there remained five ounces of oil, three
ounces may be added without imperilling the loss of the conse-
eration. To these eight ounces of oil may be added six ounces
more, for even though this is more than the original five ounces
of consecrated oil, nevertheless, it is not as large as the sum
total of the oil to which it has been added.17§
Among the older theologians, Zambranus !*? and Quintad-
venas 18° held that the oil added to the consecrated oil, whether
at once or at various times, should never exceed the amount of
original blessed oil. Thus, if sixteen ounces of oil were
blessed, the total of additions could never exceed—or even equal
—one pound. The argument advanced by Quintadvenas is in-
deed ingenious:
‘¢Subjectum hujus benedictionis est illud oleum quod a principio
fuit ab Episcopo benedictum; ergo necesse est, ut benedictio con-
servetur, quod maneat idemmet, quia benedictio non potest esse sine
subjecto, nec ad aliud absolute diversum transire; sed quando olei
quantitas, etiam in diversis vicibus addita, pervenit ad tantam ex
177 4 Commentary, IV, p. 30. O’Kane notes that in the Collections on
Irish Church History, page 122, there is an ordinance drawn up in
the middle of the sixteenth century prescribing that the amount of
oil added each time shall not exceed one-third—apud The Rubrics,
Die Bots
178 Cf. De Sainte-Beuve, De Ext. Unct., disp. 3, a. 1, apud Migne, Curs.
Theol. Comp., Vol. XXIV, col. 88.
179 De Cas. Temp. Mortis, cap. 6, dub. 5, num. 5—quoted by Diana, Op.
Coord., t. II, tr. IV, res. IV.
180 Th, M., t. Lined, singul. 1, num. 4 et sqq.—quoted by Diana, lc.
The Blessing of the Oil 329
additis factam, ut si major illa cui facta est additio et initio
fuit consecrata; jam non manet absolute idem individuum physicum
olei et a principio consecratum, cum vix maneat aliqua pars exigua
illius, ob quam duntaxat dici possit non simpliciter, sed secundum
quid, idem: ergo in eo non potest manere benedictio, quae con-
servari non valet, nisi servata identitas subjecti physici.
‘‘Confirmatur primo: quia si oleo consecrato addatur semel seu
una vice major pars non consecrati, nullum manet consecratum quia
non manet idem individuum physicum; sed idem est, cum diversis
vicibus additur major pars non benedicti, ergo nec benedictio manet.
‘¢‘Confirmatur secundo: nam ideo quando minima pars olei non
benedicti miscetur olei benedicti, totum manet benedictum, quia in
commixtionibus major quantitas debet in se minorem convertere
vel saltem ad sui identitatem trahere et ei communicare suas
qualitates: sed hoc fieri non potest cum pars addita est notabiliter
major; ergo nec haec poterit participare benedictionem illius. Quod
vero major pars olei non benedicti addatur unica vel pluribus vicibus
benedicto, non tollit, quod fit major pars.’’
In refutation of this, Diana 181 quotes an explanation offered
as probable by John Uvigers, a professor at Louvain. The
theory he offers may be summed up as follows: The mixture of
unblessed oil with the blessed oil does not ipso facto consecrate
the unblessed portion of the mixture. It simply makes it possible
that the blessed oil thru such an intermixture be more widely
diffused. Although there might be much of the substance still
unblessed, nevertheless, every time the thumb would be dipped
therein it would touch at least some part of blessed oil.
This is not very satisfactory, but indeed, it is very hard
to get a satisfactory explanation of the procedure. How can
the mere addition of the same substance in a smaller quantity
eause the transfer of a spiritual quality possessed by the original
substance to the whole amount? To offer the apothegm: ‘Major
pars trahit ad se minorem’’ does not give an explanation. The
knowledge desired is why the greater part transfers its super-
natural accidents to the lesser part.
St.-Beuve explained the matter in this fashion. It is the
right of the Church to prescribe the rite whereby the oil shall
be consecrated. Accordingly, she may, and she has, decreed that
the addition of unblessed oil to blessed oil in a minor quantity
is really a rite of consecration. ‘‘Ecclesia, penes quam est deter-
181 Op. Coord., t. II, tr. IV, res. IV.
330 Extreme Unction
minare ritum consecrationis olei, determinavit admixtionem
tanquam alterum e ritibus consecrationis.’’1°* He rejects the
teaching of others who claim that the added oil is blessed thru
mathematical contact. Consecration is a spiritual quality; and,
therefore, not communicated thru mathematical contact.
However, this opinion can hardly be true. The addition
can be made by anybody, bishop, priest, deacon, cleric, or lay-
man. Yet, if this action were a ceremony, a rite of consecration,
he who performs it would-be the minister. Since only bishops
(and priests with apostolic indult) can perform such a blessing
validly, it would be necessary to restrict to the bishop this act
of adding unblessed oil to blessed oil. Yet there is no evi-
dence of any such restriction in the law, and de facto such a
thing is rarely done by bishops; indeed, not infrequently is it
done by minor clerics.
Catalano 183 gives as the reason why the oil thus added is
considered blessed, the will of the Church to extend the prayers
of the bishop not only to the oil present before him on Holy
Thursday, but also to all the oil which will thereafter be mixed
with it. He does not, however, prove that the Church has the
power to do this.
182 De Ext. Unct., disp. 3, a. 1, quaeres 4—apud Migne, Cursus Theol.
Comp., Vol. XXIV, col. 88.
183 Rit. Kom., t. I, p. 309.
CHAPTER XI.
THE RESERVATION OF THE OIL
CANON 946.
Oleum Infirmorum parochus loco nitido et decenter
ornato in vase argenteo vel stanneo diligenter custodiat,
nec domi retineat nisi ad normam can. 735.
[ 331 ]
CHAPTER XI.
Holy things are to be treated in a holy fashion. Sancta
sancte tractanda. Consequently, the Church has prescribed con-
tinually a careful custodianship and a respectable repository for
the oils used in her sacraments. Immediately after the oil has
been consecrated, the bishop commands the priests to guard the
chrism and the oil ‘‘attente et fideliter’’ under penalty of
deprivation of honor.
The Church has a veritable horror of the possibility that
the oils may, under any pretext, be diverted to a use other than
their proper function in the sacred rites which she has pre-
scribed. Past times saw their application in instances far dif-
ferent than were ever intended. Nefarious practices, such as
these, gave origin to stern legislation, threatening dire penalties
on those who were tempted to forget the deep reverence due to
the oils. Innocent III ordered that careless custodians be sus-
pended from office for three months; and if, thru their negli-
gence, any sacrilege had resulted, punishments still graver were
to be inflicted.2 The particular Councils of Magonza?® and
Arles, both celebrated in 1318, deprived the priest of honor,
just as the Pontificale of today. Yet, the seventeenth century
had not seen the extirpation of every abuse, for the Thirteenth
Council of Beneventano (1656) was compelled to legislate very
specifically: ‘‘Neque sacra Olea sacerdos laicis ullo modo con-
cedat ne illis abutantur; alioquin laici ipso facto facti sint
excommunicati; clerici vero beneficiati suspensione, benefic-
orum privatione ac etiam exilio a civitate et dioecest mulctentur ;
non-beneficiati carceris annalis, ac deinde eandem exili poenam
incurrant,’’®
1 Pontificale Rom., tit. ‘‘Benedictio Olet Cat.’’—‘‘ Pontifex jubet presby-
teros attente, ut juxta Canonum traditionem, chrisma et olea fideliter
custodiant et nulli sub praetextu medicinae vel maleficii tradere
praesumant, alioquin honore priventur.’’
20. 1, X, de custod. Euchar., Chrism., et aliorwm Saor., III, 44.
3 can. 27—apud Catalano, Rit. Rom., tom. I, p. 74.
4 can. 18—apud Catalano, l.c.
5 tit. 49, ‘‘De Officio Parocht,’’ n. 35, apud Catalano, Rit. Kom., t. I, p. 76.
[ 333]
334 Extreme Unction
The Code is quite detailed in its regulations in regard to
the keeping of the sacred oils. It seems especially solicitous
about the oil of the sick, for a special canon is inserted to re-
affirm the regulation made about the three oils in general in
Canon 735. The prescriptions of both canons dove-tail with
each other and must be considered together.
The vessel which holds the oil must be made of silver, or
at least of lead or tin. ‘‘Stannum’’ was a metal composed of
a mixture of lead and silver in Ciceronic times; but in later
Latin it acquired the signification of ‘‘tin.’’
This prescription of the Code in regard to the vessel is not
new. The Ritual, both before and after its latest revision, coin-
cided with the law of the Code.* It was required even before
the promulgation of the Roman Ritual, as is evidenced by- the
enactment of the Councils of Salernitano’? and Beneventum,®
ordering that the oils ‘‘asserventur in vase argenteo, vel saltem
stanneo apte fabrefacto.’’ Baruffaldo® notes that gold vessels
are not excluded, if the Church is rich enough to afford their
purchase. Some authors quoted by him declare the inadvisability
of using very pure gold, because it is too soft for practical use.
Copper may not be used, for it corrodes and thereby corrupts
the oil.1° Fragile substances, as glass, brick, earthen-ware,
marble and tile, are equally unsuitable.14 Wood is excluded
because of its absorptive powers,!* and brass because of its
aptitude to rust and tarnish.1? Pewter, a mixture of lead, tin
and copper, may lawfully be employed.*
The vessel itself should be securely closed by means of a
detachable cap made of the same metal as the vessel itself.’°
Baruffaldo 1° advises that the cap should be of such a size as
to fit only the vessel of the Olewm Infirmorum. Some inscrip-
tion, such as OI or EXTR. UNCT., should be engraved in large
Ce Tits Vi cap.a eres
7 anno 1579, tit. 32—apud Catalano, op. cit., p. 307.
8 anno 1374, tit. III, cap. 1—apud Catalano, l.c.
9 Ad Rit. Rom. Comm., t. I, tit. X, n. 16.
10 De Herdt, Lit. Praw., III, 157; Baruffaldo, Ad Rit. Rom. Comm., 1.c. n. 7.
11 De Herdt, l.c., Baruffaldo, l.c.
12 Baruffaldo, l.c., n. 18.
13 Baruffaldo, l.c., De Herdt, Le.
14 Amer. Eccl. Review, vol. XXXI, p. 373.
15 Amer. Ecc. Review, l.c.; Maringola, Institut. Liturg., vol. 1, p. 343.
16 Ad Rit. Bam. Comm., tom. I, tit. 27, n. 46.
The Reservation of the Oul 335
characters on the side of the vessel—and it is well to have a
corresponding inscription upon the cap.’”
As a general rule, each church has a large vessel for each
oil. For daily use smaller vessels may be used; and may be
separate from one another or conjoined. This is explicitly
allowed by the Ritual in regard to the oils required in Baptism aa
and commentators extend this to the oil of the sick.1? O’Kane
notes that in missionary countries the three vessels are usually
joined together, making a cylinder about three inches in length.
Each compartment is distinct and is marked with its proper
letter.22 In the United States the chrism is marked SC or
S. CHR., the Oil of the Catechumens as SO or OC, and the
Oleum Infirmorum as OI.
Some absorbent substance should be placed in the smaller
vessels in order to prevent the oil from spilling. Cotton is
admirable for this purpose and is usually used. Instead of
cotton, lint may be employed, and likewise shreds of silk or a
small sponge. All of these absorb the oil very readily, and quite
as readily yield it at the slightest pressure of the thumb.*?
The vessel of oil should be encased in a burse of leather,”?
which is lined with purple silk. Burses for the smaller vessels
should have attached double silken strings, purple in color, so
that they may be suspended from the neck of the priest.2? The
base of the burse, Baruffaldo advises,** should be broad and
stiff, so that it can stand upright, thus holding the vessel of
oil in its correct position.
When not in use the oil should repose in an armariwm or
17 Baruffaldo, l.c., n. 45; Amer. Eccl. Review, l.c. ; O’Kane, The Rubrics,
n. 262.
Peet ileal, Theol.
19 O’Kane, The Rubrics, n. 262.
20 Op. cit., n. 261.
21 Baruffaldo, Ad Rom. Rit. Comm., tit. X, n. 22.
22 Rit. Rom., tit. V, cap. 2, n. 2; Amer. Eccl. Review, vol. XXXI, p. 373.
23 Heuser, The Parish Priest, p. 94; Baruffaldo, op. cit., tit. 27, n. 47-48.
24 Lec.
336 Extreme Unction
ambry. St. Charles called it a “ciborium,’’> while the Council
of Ravenna (1312) termed it ‘‘sacristia.’’*® It should be made
of strong wood, square in form, and as large as is needed.??
Purple silk should line the inside walls.** A little door, tightly
closing, should guard the entrance to the ambry, which must
be kept under lock and key.*® Finally, there should be an
inscription upon the outside of the door denoting the contents
(e. g., ‘“‘OLEUM INFIRMORUM”’’).
The obligation of keeping the oil under lock and key is
very ancient. In 1122 the Synod of Oxoniensis ordered this
safeguard for the oils.2? A century later, Innocent III pre-
scribed this in regard to the chrism and the Eucharist.*’ The
Council of Magonza, celebrated in 1310, ordered the keeping
of the oil ‘‘sub fideli custodia, clavibus adhibitis.’’** St. Charles,
in the Fourth Provincial Council of Milan,** assigned the keep-
ing of the key to the rector personally, ordering him to relin-
quish it to no one but another priest who needed the oul for
a sick-call. The new Code gives the same command, as is eVl-
denced by the express terminology of canon 735. The pastor is
to keep the oils ‘‘sub clavi diligenter.’’ DeHerdt ** notes the
advisability of having two keys, but he directs that both of them
be held by the rector.
The armarium is to be kept in the church as a general rule.
Its most suitable place is upon the side wall of the church on the
gospel side of the high altar (or altar where the Blessed Sacra-
25 III Prov. Conc. Mediol., cap. ‘‘Quae ad Sacramentalia et Sacramenta
pertinent’’—apud Acta Lccl. Medtolanen., pars 1, tom. I, page 97.
N. B. St. Charles certainly did not mean the tabernacle by this
word. This is clear from the legislation he enacted in the IV Prov.
Council of Milan (capite inscripto ‘‘Quae ad SS. Euchar. Sacra-
mentum pertinent’’—apud Acta Eccles. Medtolan., pars IV, tom. I,
p. 143). There his enactment ordered that the tabernacle wherein
the Blessed Sacrament was preserved ‘‘vauum etiam sit a reliquiis,
vasculo Olei Infirmorum, atque inani alio vase.’’
26 rub. vii—Harduin VII, 1364.
27 Maringola, Institut. Liturg., t. I, p. 343; Baruffaldo, dd Rt. Rom.
Comm., t. I, tit. 27, n. 42.
28 Baruffaldo, l.c.
29 Baruffaldo, l.c.
30 can. 24; cf. Catalano, Rit. Rom., t. 1, p. 74.
31 ¢. 1, X, de custodia Euchar., Chris. et al. sacr., III, 44.
32 Mansi, XXV, 329.
83 Constit. pars secunda, cap. ‘‘Quae ad sacramentalia et sacramenta
pertinent’’—apud Acta Eccl. Mediolan, p. I, tom. I, page 140.
34 Ist. Prax., TEI, 157.
The Reservation of the Ou 337
ment is kept), so that it will be a participant in the rays of
light that shine from the tabernacle lamp.* It should be hung
at such a height that the ordinary man can open the door
without stooping or without using a step or a ladder.°® Accord-
ing to the Caeremoniale Episcoporum*’ the oil of the sick should
have a special ambry of its own. The reason for this is that
the oil of the sick should be kept in the church proper, while
the other two oils may be placed in the baptistry (which is
sometimes a separate building) or in the baptismal font. Thus
the Synod of Ferrara declared: ‘‘Fenestellam propriam, atque
ad hoe unice praeparatam, habere debet Sanctum Oleum In-
firmorum, quam nonnulli vocant Armarium. Propria ista debet
esse haec fenestella in parte Ecclesiae ad cornu Evangelii seu in
quo adsit Tabernaculum cum Sanctissima Eucharistia.’’33 A
further reason for placing the oils near the altar where the
Blessed Sacrament is kept is the convenience it affords when
it is necessary to bring both at once on sick-calls.
The holy oils may certainly not be kept within the taber-
nacle.8? They may be placed, however, in a drawer beside the
tabernacle or even in the very framework of it.4° It is not
strictly commanded by the Code that the ambry should be
hung on the gospel side of the altar of the Blessed Sacrament.
The words ‘‘in ecclesia’? do not confine the locality of the
ambry to any particular part of the church. The Sacred Con-
eregation of Rites permitted their repose in any becoming place,
‘“sive in cornu Epistolae, sive in cornu Evangelii.+ Hven the
sacristy is not excluded as a location of the ambry. At first
blush it may seem to be prohibited. Canon 1172 certainly
excludes the sacristy as part of the church; and the law of the
Decretals#2 mentions both the oil and the Blessed Sacrament in
the same enactment and requires that both should be kept in the
35 O’Kane, The Rubrics, n. 859; Baruffaldo, Ad Rit. Rom. Comm., t. I, tit.
27, n. 40.
36 Baruffaldo, op. cit., 1. ¢., nD. 42.
Bre iib. +1,700. 0,792.
88 apud D. A., vol. IV, p. 283—Comm. ad decr. 2650, qu. 3.
39 §. C. EE. et RR., 3 Maii, 1693, apud Cavallieri, Opera Liturgica, t. IV,
¢, 6, decr.. 13, n. I,
40 O’Kane, The Rubrics, nu. 856.
41 §. R. C., Ariminen., 16 Jun. 1663—D. A., 2. 1260.
42 ¢, 1, X, de Custod. Euchar., Chrism. et al. Sacr., III, 44.
338 Extreme Unction
church. Since the Blessed Sacrament’s place is in the taber-
nacle of the altar, it would seem to follow that the oils should
likewise be kept in the church proper. But Canon 1172, however,
deals with ‘‘odiosa,’’? and as a result demands a very strict
interpretation. Furthermore, the insertion of the phrase ‘‘in
ipsa ecclesia’’ makes impossible the more generous interpretation
of ‘‘eeclesia’’ so as to inelude the sacristy. ‘‘In favorabilibus’’
the sacristy is considered part of the church. All authors allow
the permissibility of fulfilling the Sunday precept by hearmg
Mass from the sacristy. Furthermore, in virtue of Canon 1269,
3, the Blessed Sacrament itself can be removed (for a serious
reason approved by the Ordinary) from the tabernacle at night
and put in a safer place. This ‘‘safer place’’ may surely be
the sacristy. Moreover, this very canon that we are treating,
permits the transfer of the oils under certain conditions even
to the rectory. As a consequence, the argument from analogy
seems sufficient to allow the erection of the ambry in the sae-
ristyse
“‘Nec domi retineat msi ad normam can. 735.7’
The latter part of the canon forbids the keeping of the
oils in the rectory without permission of the Ordinary obtained
for a just and sufficient reason. There have been several de-
erees of the Congregation of Rites on this question. In 1826
it condemned an existing custom of having the oils in the house
for reasons of convenience, except in the parishes where the
rectory was situated at a great distance from the Church.4* In
1872 the same congregation declared that the fact that the
rectory was separate from the church was not sufficient cause
to keep the oils at home; and ordered an observance of the
decree of 1826.4°.. This decree was in turn confirmed in a reply
given to the Bishop of Compostella who had asked whether the
custom existing in the rural parishes of his dioceses of keeping
the oils in the rectory might likewise be extended to city par-
43 Cf. Blat, Comm. Tect., lib. III, pars I, n. 14.
44 8. R. C., Gandav., 16 Dec. 1826, ad tertiam facti speciem—D. A., n. 2650.
45 §. R. C., Toletana, Aug. 31, 1872 ad V—D. A., n. 3276; A. S. S.,
XII, 308.
The Reservation of the Oul 339
ishes.46 A second confirmation of the decree of 1872 was made
two years later, when the Holy See declared that the meon-
venience of summoning sleeping servants to open the church’s
doors for night calls was not enough to allow a transfer of the
oils from the church to the parish house.4?7 In every case the
Congregation has refused to relax the strictness of the law, ad-
mitting an exception only in the single ease of great distance
from the church.
The Chureh always remembers that her sacraments are
holy things and must be treated with the utmost reverence.
Though this be so, she remembers, too, that they are “‘propter
homines’’ always. Hence, whenever there is danger that the
interests of her children may be imperilled by unnecessary de-
lay in the administration of such an important sacrament, she
has allowed the feasibility of serving her children to mellow
the firmness of her prescriptions. Thus Canon 735 allows the
oil to be kept in the house, not alone when it is a great distance
from the church, but when any necessity or just cause exists in
a particular place. The pastor, however, is not the judge of
the seriousness of the reason, but must submit it to the Ordinary
for his approval and consent. Blat** and Ferreres * imply
that when necessity is present, the Ordinary’s permission is
not required, whereas if a grave cause for the transfer of the
oils exists, it should be passed upon by the bishop. Other
authors, like Vermeersch-Creusen®® and Woywod,”? mention no
such distinction. Accordingly, if the necessity is foreseen to
be short-lived, Blat’s opinion may be safely acted upon. H, on
the other hand, it is known that the necessity will be of long
duration, or if it is uncertain whether it is a case of real
necessity, it is wiser and safer to obtain the Ordinary’s per-
mission.
A necessity can arise from many causes. A destruction
of the church by fire or storm would surely be a necessity.
46 §, R. C., Compostellana, 15 Nov. 1890, ad TI—D. A., n. 3739; A. 8. S.,
XXIII, 636.
47 §, R. C., Laudenen., 23 Jun. 1892, ad VII —D. A., n. WAY RIGS: ots) a8
XXV, 114-15.
48 Comm. Tect., lib. III, p. I, n. 14.
49 Comp. Th. M., IT, 836.
50 Fit., II, 19.
51 A: Practical Commentary, I, nu. 630.
340 Extreme Unction
Danger of irreverence to the oils when left in the church or
sacristy would also constitute a ‘‘necessity.’’ Rome preferred
to permit the keeping of the oils in the priest’s house rather
than to leave them in a sacristy accessible to non-Catholies.*
A just cause would be present when the rectory is situated
at a considerable distance (not necessarily a great distance)
from the church.®? Just how far this distance must be depends
largely on local circumstances. If the time necessarily consumed
to reach the church is ordinarily enough to put the priest to
serious inconvenience or imperil the opportune reception of the
sacrament on the part of the sick, the distance is sufficient to
obtain permission to preserve the oils in the rectory. Other
good reasons would be the frequency of emergency calls, as in
times of plague or in parishes wherein accident hospitals are
situated.°* Besides the existence of the just cause, there must
also be had the permission of the Ordinary, as the canon re-
quires. Blat °° notes that it is quite enough if the permission
be tacit ‘‘seu ex factis ejus deducta cirea illam causam.”’
What, then, can be said of the custom existing almost every-
where in the United States of keeping the oil in the rectory?
It is certainly general, and by no means confined to any par-
ticular dioceses, provinces or regions.°® In view of the line of
decisions given by the Congregation of Rites, it would be rash
to assert that this custom would be approved, except, of course,
where special reasons exist. Moreover, in the opinion of a
writer in the American Ecclesiastical Review,’ this custom
is altogether unlawful. However, as Augustine notes,°® it is
not formally reprobated by the text of the canon. Perhaps,
too, the contention of Blat, that a tacit permission of the bishop
suffices, may avail to some extent to excuse our priests.
It is wisely noted by O’Kane °° that the same reason for
keeping the oil of the sick in the priest’s house will not suffice
528. C. P. F., (C. G.—Helvetiae) 7 Mar. 1805—Coll., n. 685.
53 Cf. Vermeersch-Creusen, Fpit., II, 19; O’Kane, The Rubrics, n. 267.
54 Ferreres, Comp. Th. M., II, 836; Hanley, Treatise on Sacr. of Eztr.
Unct., p. 10.
55 Comm. Tect., lib. III, pars I, n. 14.
56 Augustine, 4 Commentary, IV, page 31.
57 vol. XVIII, p. 430.
58 Lc.
59 The Rubrics, n. 267.
De ~ . Tenedeet ee sel pees hd
The Reservation of the Oul 341
for that of keeping the chrism with it, much less the oil of
the catechumens.®® In rare instances only will a priest be called
upon to use them outside the baptistery. Sudden baptisms,
performed privately, require chrism if handy, according to
the prescriptions of Canon 759, 1; but the Oleum Infirmorum
is rarely used except when the child is brought to the church.
The exceptional case where, by permission of the Ordinary,
solemn baptism may be administered outside the baptistery (Can.
776, § 1, 2°), is too infrequent to justify the retention in any
other place than the baptistery of the oils used in the cere-
mony.
When the oils are removed to the house, the rubric and
the canon must be observed in regard to the ‘‘loeus decens.’’**
For this purpose it is advisable to procure an ambry similar to
those erected in the churches. If this is not done, the compart-
ment used must be clean and suitable for the purpose.®? ‘‘Ser-
vandum itaque est religiose,’? warns Van der Stappen,* ‘‘non
eum aliis suppellectilibus et domesticis utensilibus ; sed in propria
et speciali capsula, ac semper sub sera.’’ Hanley °* is of the
opinion that a drawer in the priest’s desk will suffice. It stands
to reason that a drawer thus employed should not be elut-
tered with profane articles, although it would hardly be wrong
to preserve therein other sacred things, such as relics, &e.
The possibility of emergency calls will occasionally raise
the question of the permissibility of removing the oils from
their repository to a more convenient place. If the interest
of souls is at stake, surely a relaxation of the law can be
temporarily presumed. This is deducible from a decision of
the Holy See in 1893 which tolerated the custom of transferring
the oil of the sick from its ambry in the church to a suitable
place near arenas where bull-fights were being held. At the
60 There can be hardly any reason whatsoever for bringing the oil of the
catechumens or the holy chrism along with the oil of the sick on
sick-calls. Such a custom is altogether without excuse. Cf, O’Kane,
op. cit., n. 911; article by ‘‘Peregrinus Gasolinus,’’ in The Acolyte,
Walwiicitis Spor os
61 §. R. C., Gandav., 16 Dec. 1826, ad tertiam facti speciem—D. A., n. 2650.
62 Heuser, The Parish Priest, p. 94.
63 Sac. Lit., t. IV, Q. 216.
64 Treatise on the Sacrament of Extreme Unction, p. 10.
65 §. Poenitent., 19 Sept., 1893—A. S. S., XXVI, p. 447.
342 Extreme Unction
same time it was noted that such a custom must not be tolerated
if it is known that it promotes the sport, or seemingly approves
it in any way. A fortiori no such transfer of the oils may be
made by agreement (ex condicto).
Another case of temporary emergency arises when a pastor
expects a sick-call during the night. Older authors fell into
much discussion about this case. Barbosa ®® holds a compara-
tively stern opinion: ‘‘Non bene agere parochum timentem de
nocte se voeandum pro infirmo periculoso, si vespere ferat oleum
ad suum cubiculum, ut vocatus expeditius vadat; vel si de
nocte reversus ab unctione infirmi, oleum retineat domi usque
mane; nullum tamen credit mortale peccatum contrahere citra
scandalum vel periculum alicujus irreverentiae.’’ Alphonsus %7
and Seavini ®8 coneur in this view, if there is no danger that
the pastor will arrive too late thru the inconvenience of pro-
euring the oils from the church. Gobat*®? is somewhat more
liberal. He admits the lawfulness of keeping the oils immedi-
ately at hand for the sick call, but he does not excuse from
all fault if the oils are not returned to the church immediately
after their use, unless inclement weather prevails. Later authors
make no division of the night into the period prior to the
call and that subsequent to the call. Genicot-Salsmans says
simply that it is permissible to bring the oils to the house ‘‘in
casu transeunte quo citius noctu accurri possit ad infirmum
qui brevi inungendus videtur.’’”? Blat™ speaks in similar
fashion; and this opinion may be safely followed.
In these altogether individual instances the permission of
the Ordinary for this temporary removal of the oil is by no
means required. The law contemplates the retention of the oil
‘‘ner modum habitus,’’ and does not refer to cases of this kind.
‘‘Jure nihilominus,’’ De Amicis writes,’* ‘‘asservatio in domo
prohibita quae est habitualis intelligitur, haud illa quam ali-
66 De Offic. et Potest. Parochi, pars 2, cap. 22, n. 44.
CTO Ther Mas Vis ioU.
68 Th. M., III, 533.
69 Moral., Tract. VIII, n. 931-2.
70 Inst; Th. M., ILe421.
71 Comm. Teat., lib. 3, pars I, n. 14.
72 Caeremoniale Parochoruwm, n. 198, 2.
The Reservation of the Oil 343
quando excusare necessitas potest; sacramenta enim propter
homines Christus Dominus instituit.’’
A final word should be said of the practice of many priests
in the United States of carrying with them continually the Oil
of the Sick. There is no doubt that such a practice would be
permissible in places where the priest is habitwally in danger
of being called upon to administer the sacrament in cases when
delay is fatal. Circumstances such as these arise in times of
plague, in emergency hospitals or at mining camps. Mission-
aries who have stations far away from their permanent post
are often compelled to carry the oils with the rest of their
paraphernalia when they visit these missions. These conditions
are exceptional indeed, although they are not unheard of in
our land. Where they exist, priests may, without scruple, carry
on their persons continually the oil of the unction. Rules and
rubrics were made for normal times, and do not bind under
extraordinary circumstances. ;
But what can be said of priests who do this in large cities
and flourishing dioceses, where missionary privileges can hardly
be called into justification? The question was answered in the
Ecclesiastical Review, and is quoted here at length:
‘¢The law prescribes both the reservation of the Holy Oils in
an abode separate from his own and the solemn manner of administer-
ing the same. ‘Habeat igitur parochus loco nitido, &c. Oleum
infirmorum,’ etc., and then adds by ways of indicating the exception
to this reservation and solemn treatment: ‘Quodsi longius iter
peragendum, aut etiam equitandum sit, vel alias adsit periculum
effusionis, vas olei sacculo aut bursa inclusum ad collum appendat ut
commodius et securius perferat.? The words ‘ut commodius et
securius perferat’ imply that the Church yields something for the
sake of convenience as well as necessity. Her decisions are quite
in harmony with this spirit of tolerance, although she never permits
us to lose sight of the fact that reverence and the observance of
ordinary rules of decorum must not be overridden by mere custom
or the negligence which human infirmity sometimes styles ‘conveni-
ence,’ and which is not the same as the ‘commodius’ of the rubrics.
[Here the decision of the Congregation of the Rites, Gandaven.,
16 Dec. 1826—D. A., n. 2650—is quoted in full.] In judging,
therefore, whether a priest may keep the Holy Oils in his coat-
pocket habitually in order that he may be ready at all times to
administer the sacrament promptly, it is not so much his convemence
344 Extreme Unction
that he has to consult as rather the convenience of the people for
whose benefit he holds his charge.
‘‘In view of the not infrequent calls made upon priests in
America to assist the dying in railroad accidents and other emergen-
cies, when there is no likelihood that the local priest would be on
hand, the question of distance and opportunity must be taken more
leniently than in well-settled Catholic communities in Catholic coun-
tries, where such demands are rarely made upon a priest. Rubricists
like Van der Stappen recognize even for Belgium and other Catholic
countries certain exceptions. ‘Excipitur,’ says the latter author,
‘casus infirmi periclitantis dum parochus probabile praevidet quod
in morte vocatus ad conferendam Sanctam Unctionem praesto non
foret, ut promptus accurrat ad illam morituro ministrandum.’ This
precaution may be applied, we think, in a wider sense by priests on
a journey when they are out of reach of the ordinary ministrations
of the Church. And in large cities much allowance must be made
for a priest who feels he is acting in the interest of souls when he
keeps. his oil-stocks within constant reach, showing his reverence in
other ways. For the rest, bishops and other superiors may well
regulate such usages for their localities, as they are the judges of
what necessity and the salvation of souls demand within the limits
of their jurisdiction.’’73
Since the above has been written the danger of accidents
has increased alarmingly. Automobiles daily take a toll of
victims; and the feverishness of our commercial and social life
demand fast-flying trains at the expense of safety. Certainly
the arguments of the writer avail a fortiori in the present day.
Yet if this reason is not sufficiently convincing to some for
an habitual earrying of the oil upon their person, it should,
nevertheless, be enough to justify it in some particular and
temporary instances. It will be permissible, for instance, for a
priest to bring the oil of the sick with him on every visit to a
hospital not well supplied with priestly attention. Railroad
and automobile journeys are other examples of the possibility
of meeting emergency calls for the administration of this last
sacrament. How far local conditions permit the habitual carry-
ing of the holy oil depends largely on the judgment and discre-
tion of the priest, who will always keep in mind the law of
his Ritual and of the Code, which strictly prohibits such prac-
tices under normal conditions.
73 Vol. XLVIII, (1913), p. 459.
CHAPTER XI.
THE RITE OF ADMINISTRATION
CANON 947
1. Unctiones verbis, ordine et modo in libris ritua-
libus praescripte, accurate peragantur; in casu autem
necessitatis sufficit unica unctic in uno sensu seu rectius
in frente cum praescripta forma breviore, salva obliga-
tione singulas unctiones supplendi, cessante periculo.
2. Unctio renum semper omittatur.
3. Unctio pedum ex qualibet rationabili causa omitti
potest.
4. Extra casum gravis necessitatis, unctiones ipsa
ministri manu nulloque adhibito instrumento fiant.
Aga att =~ Ps 7 vita ‘ =
. 7
> t Te Leon ty af “y 7 7 m il on ane 4% Mi aa
PPh ih TORTI ce ON cL la
. ~ Bile A ’ ' iu © yc.
1h) hel th... oC al, i LL | nba b
WA Ce ag 12 Ee eh 2 eae eee
BA
.
iy ire
CHAPTER XII.
I. THe Move or ADMINISTRATION.
I. The Ordinary Mode.
1. Unctiones verbis ordine et modo in libris ritualibus prae-
seripto accurate peragantur :
The Code has left to the last canon of the title the con-
sideration of the actual confection of the sacrament, i. e., the
application of the proximate matter to a subject simultaneously
with the pronouncement of the form. The history and discus-
sion of other ritualistic modes of administration have been dis-
posed of in Canon 937, so that we may address ourselves immedi-
ately to the confection of the sacrament as performed in the
Latin Church according to the Roman Ritual.
“‘Unctiones.”’
In his decree to the Armenians, Eugene IV not only men-
tioned the places of unction, but also the reasons why they
were anointed. ‘‘In his locis ungendus est [infirmus] : 1 ocults
propter visum, mm auribus propter auditum, in naribus propter
odoratum, in ore propter gustam vel loquutionem, im mambus
propter tactum, in pedibus propter gressum, in renibus propter
delectationem ibidem vigentem.’! St. Thomas* had advanced
these same reasons in his writings, adding with Dionysius the
Carthusian:3 ‘‘Omnis autem nostra cognitio a sensu ortum
habet; et quia ubi est in nobis prima origo peccati, ibi debet
medicina‘ adhiberi, ideo inunguntur loca quinque sensuum.’’
The learned Cathusian further remarks: ‘‘Et propter appetitum
a quibusdam renes unguntur, et propter vim motivam pedes,
tanquam instrumenta ejus praecipua.”’
1 Const. ‘‘Exultate Deo,’’ (In Cone. Florentin.), 22 Nov., 1439—paragr.
; 14, C. I. C. Fontes, n. 52.
2 Suppl. q. 32, a. 5 & 6.
3 Comm. in IV Lib. Sent., dist. 23, q. 3, paragr. ‘‘Insuper.’’
4 al. unctto.
[ 347 ]
348 EHatreme Unction
Prior to the Code the Ritual prescribed seven anointments,
but the revision of the Ritual ‘‘ad normam Codicis’’ omits the
unction of the loins, in accordance with the second paragraph
of this canon. It is understood, of course, that one priest only
is to administer the sacrament, except in the unusual circum-
stances mentioned in the treatment of Canon 938, 1.°
The canon makes three requirements in regard to the per-
formance of the unctions. .They must be done with the words,
in the order and after the manner prescribed by the Ritual.
Each requirement will receive a separate consideration.
A) Verbis.
The form prescribed by the Ritual for the various unctions
reads thus: ‘‘Per istam sanctam unctionem et suam piissimam
misericordiam indulgeat tibi Dominus quidquid per (here the
name of the sense anointed is inserted) deliquisti.’? The identical
words are used for each anointing excepting the change of the
name of the sense. There is serious obligation to use this form,
even in a case where an equally valid form might be substituted.
Such a change would violate the prescription of the Council of
Florence ® and the rubries of the Roman Ritual. Thus Benedict
XIV 7 notes: ‘‘Injungendum est parochis ut formam adhibeant
in Rituali praescriptam, quae ecerte sine gravi flagitio, non
potest privata auctoritate immutari.’’
Just how much of this prescribed form is essential has
been mooted much by theologians. To leave any of it out is, of
course, illicit, but no theologian holds the absolute essentiality
of all the words. There is much difference of opinion, however,
as to what is absolutely essential, and also as to what words,
though not absolutely essential, can be omitted without grave sin.
Perhaps the most liberal of all is the opinion of Juenin,
5 Cf. supra, chap. iii, p. 91 sq
8 Const. ‘‘ Hxultate Deo,”? ite cones Florentin.), 22 Nov., 1439—paragr.
14—C, I. C. Fontes, n. 52.
7 De Syn. Dioc., 1. 8, c. 2, n. 2.
The Rite of Admuistration 349
who holds that the only essential words are ‘‘Indulgeat tibi
Deus.’”®
Perin ® and Sambovius ?° feel that ‘‘quidquid deliquisti’’ is
amply implied in the word ‘‘indulgeat,’’ but that the action of
the minister should be expressed. Hence for them the essence
of the form consists in the words ‘‘Per istam unctionem indul-
eeat tibi Deus’’ (Dominus). To this opinion De Sainte-Beuve *
and more recently, Pesch,/* adhere. Kenrick,!* D’Annibale,'*
Salmanticenses }° and Bucceroni ?° indicate that the opinion that
the phrase ‘‘quidquid delrquistr’’ is necessary seems more prob-
able. The majority of theologians, however, insist explicitly or .
implicitly that this clause is absolutely essential to the form."
In the phrase ‘‘Per istam sanctam unctionem,’’ the word
‘‘sanctam’’ is generally conceded to be non-essential. It is
8 De Sacramentts in Genere et in Specie, diss. VII, ‘‘De Ext. Unct.,’’
qu. 4, concl. 2, quaeres 2. N. B., Juenin uses the word ‘‘ Deus’’
for ‘*Dominus.’’ Such minor changes are found often in the older
authors, as ‘‘hanc’’ for ‘“Séstam,’? “fremitiat’’ or *‘parcat’’ for
‘‘indulgeat.’’ They do not change the sense, and, therefore, do
not affect our question of what words are essential. The Catechism
of the Council of Trent (De Eat. Unct., n. 6), though recognizing
the identity of signification, nevertheless urged uniformity even of
wording.
9 De Ext. Unct., art. 1, quaeres 8.
10 Tract. de Ext. Unct., disp. IV, a. 3.
1M Pe Lx. Unet.,,disp. LV, art. 3
vol. XXIV, col. 98.
12 Prael. Dogm., VII, n. 532.
13 Th. M., III, ‘‘De Ext. Unct.,’’ cap. unic., n. 4.
14 Summ. Th. M., ITI, 415.
15 Cursus Th. M., tom. I, cap. 2, punct. 4, n. 30.
16 Inst. Mor., pars. IJ, vol. ITI, n. 865.
17 Cf. LaCroix, Th. M., 1. 6, pars 2, n. 2097; Homo Ap., (S. Alph. Lig.
auctore) tr. 17, cap. 1, n. 5—also cf, Th. M., VI, 711; Diana,
Opera Coord., tom. II, tract. IV, ‘‘De Ext. Unct.’’ res. 15; Nugno,
Addit. ad III part., tom. IT, q. 29, a. 9, concl. 4; Suarez, d. 40, sec.
3; Coninck, De Sac. et Censuris, disp. 19, ‘‘De Ext. Unct.,’’ dub. IV;
Gobat, Moraliwm, tr. 8, n. 800; Tamburini, Th. M., tom. IT, lib. 6,
“*De. Ext. Unct.,’’ cap. I, paragr. 3, n. 2; Laymann, Th. M., Lib. V,
tr. VIII, cap. III, in fine; Elbel-Bierbaum, Th. M., III, P.
VIII, Conf. IX, n. 195; Illsung, tr. 6, d. 7, n. 4; Sporer-Kazen-
berger, Suppl. Theol. Sacr., c. 2, n. 72; Babenstuber, Ethica Super-
naturalis, tr. 8, P. 6, disp. 7, a. 2, n. 11; Mastrio, Th. M., disp. XXII,
‘“De Ext. Unct.,’’ q. 2, a. 2, n. 27-8; also more recent theologians as
AErtnys, Th. M., IT, 359; Noldin, De Sac. 436; Tanquerey, Th. D.,
III, n. 774; Genicot-Salsmans, Inst. Th. M., II, 418; Arregui, Th.
M., n. 662; Ballerini-Palmieri, Opus Th. M., vol. V, Tr. X, Sect. VI,
‘“‘De Ext. Unct.,’’ n. 21; Vermeersch, Th, M., III, 654; Ferreres,
Comp. Th, M., II, 838; etc.
apud Migne, Cursus Theol. Comp.,
350 Extreme Unction
found in the short form used in cases of necessity ;'% but it is
omitted in the form specified by the Council of Florence %® and
by the Council of Trent.2° Ballerini-Palmieri*’ thinks that
‘Cistam’? is not required for validity, and Suarez’ is very
dubious about its necessity. To them the specific unction spoken
of is sufficiently determined by the action of the priest at the
time the form is being pronounced. However, practically all
other theologians demand the use of this demonstrative, and
even Ballerini advises against its omission in practice.
A fortiori the entire phrase ‘‘per istam unectionem’’ is gen-
erally held to be absolutely necessary for validity. There are
some dissenting voices. Juenin, as noted above, Arcudius* and
Drouven 24 deny any such necessity for this phrase in the form.
Juenin asserts that there is no need to express the proximate
matter in this sacrament any more than in Penance or in Orders,
where there is no mention of the action of the minister. Arcu-
dius claims its non-essentiality on the ground that it is not
expressed in the Greek form, where it would be found if at all
essential. Drouven enumerates both of these reasons as the
basis of his opinion.
The common teaching, however, is confirmed to some extent
by the insertion of the phrase in the formula given by the
Holy Office in 1906 for cases of necessity.*° It cannot be argued
with finality that this insertion settles the question, for the very
evident reason that this brief form contains two words, ‘‘sanc-
tam’’ and ‘‘Amen,’’ which no author claims to be essential.
The phrase ‘‘per suam piissimam misericordiam’’ has been
the cause of much dispute. It is generally taught that “‘plis-
18 Rom. Rit., tit. V, cap. I, n. 21 (edit. <‘Ad normam Codicis,’’ 1925).
19 Const. ‘‘Exzultate Deo’’ (in Cone. Florentin.) 22 Nov. 1439, paragr.
14, Denziger-Bannwart, in the Enchiridion (n. 700), includes ‘‘sanc-
tam’’ in the form announced to the Armenians by the constitution
of Eugene IV. He is evidently mistaken, for it is not found in the
works he quotes as sources, viz., Mansi (XXXI, 1058); Harduin (1X,
440B); Baronius, Annales Ecclesiastict (anno 1439—vol. 28, p. 290),
&c. Neither is it found in the ‘‘Bullarum, §c., KR. P. Taur. Edit.,’’
tom. V, p. 50, nor in the excerpts taken therefrom for the ‘‘ Fontes’’
(n. 52).
20 Sess. XIV, De Ext. Unct., cap. 1.
21 Opus Th. M., vol. V, Tr. X, sect. 6, n. 21.
22 D. 40, s. 3, n. 13.
23 De Concordia Ecclesiae Occident., lib. 5, cap. 2.
24 De Re Sacramentaria, lib. 7, qu. 3, in fine.
25 A. 8. 8., XXXIX, 273; Cf. Rit. Rom., tit. V, cap. 1, n. 21 (ed. 1925).
The Rite of Administration 351
simam’’ pertains in no way to the essence of the form. Nugno *@
and Bellarmine *’ claim that the rest of the phrase, ‘‘per suam
misericordiam,’’ is needed for validity, because thru these words
the principal cause of the sacrament is explained. Coninck *8
is inclined to favor this opinion; Roneaglia?? and Kenrick®°
admit its probability, while Suarez *! hesitates to come to a
decision. However, by far the more common and more probable
opinion maintains that the whole phrase is altogether unneces-
sary. The imploring of God’s mercy is implied sufficiently in
the deprecative form of ‘‘Indulgeat.’’ Since the issuance of
the approved form for cases of necessity, this more probable
opinion has practically become a certainty. While it cannot be
held conclusively that every word inserted by the Holy See in
the short form is necessary, yet it is deducible that discarded
words are not required for validity. As a consequence it can be
safely taught that the whole phrase ‘‘per suam piissimam miseri-
cordiam’’ does not pertain to the validity of the form.
‘‘TIndulgeat tibi Dominus’’ is certainly essential. The sub-
stitution of ‘‘pareat,’’ ‘‘remittat,’’ or even ‘‘sanet’’ for ‘‘in-
dulgeat’’ does not interfere with the validity (as the Catechism
of the Council of Trent notes, De Extr. Unct., n. 6). ‘*Tibi’’
is required to determine the subject in whose favor the ‘‘oratio
fidei’’ is being said. ‘‘Dominus’’ and ‘‘Deus’’ are interchange-
able in as far as the essence of the form is concerned, but
either one must be said, else the form is nullified.*
The word ‘‘Amen’’ at the end of the form is considered un-
essential by every one. In the present rite it is to be said by
the priest, but anciently it was in some rites a response made
by the attendant or the sick man.*#
26 In Addit. ad III p. D. Thom., tom. 2, q. 29, a. 9, concl. 4.
27 De Sacramentis, ‘De Ext. Unct.,’’ lib. 1, ¢. 8, apud Opera Omnia,
vol. III.
28 De Sac. et Censur., disp. 19, De Ext. Unct., dub. 4.
29 Univers. Theol. Mor., ‘‘De Ext. Unct.,’’ q. 3.
30 Th. M., III, De Ext. Unct., cap. unic., n. 4.
31 Disp. 40, sect. 3, n. 14.
32 Ofr. note 9 of this chapter. It is undoubetdly sinful to substitute
‘ and Berengo®* thought that omission of ‘‘sanctam’’
was grave; but their opinion has little probability today. To
omit ‘‘istam’’ is considered a serious sin, even by those who
doubt its necessity for validity, as Suarez°’ and Ballerini-Pal-
mieri.°®
Theologians are divided on the eravity of the omission of
the phrase ‘‘per suam plissimam misericordiam.’’ Mehmkuhl,”?
Buceeroni,® Gobat,®! Diana,’ La Croix,®8 Berardi,®* Ver-
meersch,® Kenrick °° and others proclaim the gravity of this
omission. They do so, not on the ground that such a phrase
is essential, but rather because it is a notable violation of an
51 9. 0. 8S. Off. 2 Mar. 1679—Denziger-Bannwart, Ench., 0. 1151.
52 Th. M., lib. V, tr. VIII, cap. TII, in fine.
53 Cf. Genicot-Salsmans, Inst. Th. M., II, 418; Sebastiani, Summ. Tham,
n. 509; Vermeersch, Th. M., III, 656, ad ILI; Bucceroni, Inst. Mor.,
pars IT, vol. II, n. 865; Ballerini-Palmieri, Opus Th. M., vol. 9,
Tract. X, de Sac., sect. 6, De Ext. Unct., n. 21; Berardi, Pram. Conf.,
II, n. 4997; &e.
54 D. 40, s. 3, n. 13.
55 Moral., Tr. VIII, n. 800.
56 Enchiridion Parochorum, 0. 1138.
57 D. 40, s. 3, n. 13.
58 Opus Th. M., vol. V, tr. X, de Sac., sect. VI, de Ext. Unct., n. 21.
59 Th. M., II, 719.
60 L.c.
61 Moral., n. 800.
62 Op. Coord. tom. II, tr. 4, De Ext. Unct., res. 16 and 17.
63 Th. M., lib. VI, Pars. 2, De Ext. Unct., n. 2097.
64 Prax. Conf., II, n. 4997.
65 Th. M., III, 654.
66 Th, M., Ill, De Ext. Unct., cap. unic., n. 4.
354 Extreme Unction
ecclesiastical precept. Others, however, like Genicot-Salsmans,™
Arregui,®® Sebastiani ® and Ballerini-Palmieri,” hold this deor-
dination in the form as slight. Of course, this is no sin at all
when left out when the sacrament is given in case of necessity,
for the short form does not contain this phrase.
A similar controversy has arisen about the gravity of omit-
ting the mention of the sense which is being anointed. Those
who contend that the sin thus committed is grave are Konings,”
Sebastiani,“2 D’Annibale,“3 Vermeersch,’* Ballerini-Palmieri,”
La Croix,*® &. On the other hand some authors hold that
the deliberate omission is, at least probably, nothing more than
venial. Among these are Gobat,’? Genicot-Salsmans ‘8 and Ar-
recui.’?
Vermeersch ® ealls attention to a point that may have es-
eaped many: ‘‘Qui sensum specialem non designaverit, nihil
quidem omittit quod sacramento sit essentiale, sed sacramentum
quasi totum simul administrare videtur. Quare qui plures sensus,
nullum nominando, sed repetendo formam unxerit, videtur quasi
pluries sacramentum iterare. Et si specialis sit efficacia ad
extinguenda peccata quae per singulos sensus commissa sunt,
infirmum illa peculiari utilitate privat.’? But this observation
comes to naught when it is remembered that the Greeks anoint
several times yet make no mention of the sense that is being _
anointed in their form. It can hardly be claimed that eacn
unection constitutes a distinet sacrament in that rite. Further-
more, the determination of the words to a specific sense can be
done by the very act of anointing such an organ. Those who
hold the theory of Kern *! have no trouble in overcoming this
67 Inst. Th. M., II, 418.
68 Summ. Th. M., n. 662.
69 Summ. Th. M., n. 509.
70 Opus Th. M., vol. V, Tract. X, Sect. VI, n. 21.
t1 Th. Me, a. (15035.
72 Summ. Th. M., n. 509.
73 Summ. Th. M., III, n. 415—probabilius.
74 Th. M., III, 654.
7 Opus Th. M., l.e.
18 OTROM,,* MD N Ag Datasheet Use tis Ree be
77 Moral., n. 800.
78 Inst. Th. M., II, 418.
79 Summ. Th. M., n. 662.
80 Th. M., ITI, 654.
81 Tract, de Ext. Unct., P. 323-30.
The Rite of Administration 359
difficulty, for, according to Kern’s solution, it is the priest’s in-
tention which determines whether the effect is to be produced
by a single unction or by several anointings.
To omit the phrase ‘‘quidquid deliquisti’’ is surely a mortal
sin. It is held by most theologians to be essential, for otherwise,
the signification of ‘‘indulgeat’’ 1s not sufficiently determined.
As Seavini notes,®2 ‘‘indulgere’’ can have several other mean-
ings, such as ‘‘obsequi,’’ ‘‘consentire,’’ ‘facile concedere,’’
‘“nlus aequo remittere.’’? Hence its deliberate omission seriously
imperils the validity of the sacrament and entails the guilt of
mortal sin for the perpetrator.
Older authors considered the contingency of the inadvertent
substitution of ‘‘dereliquisti’’ for ‘‘deliquisti.’’ Gobat,®* after
treating the matter at some length, decides that the sacrament
is to be repeated. By no stretch of symbolism or hyperbole
ean ‘‘derelinquere’’ be made synonymous with ‘‘deliquisti.’’ The
opinion of Gobat is accepted by others who have considered
this case, such as Elbel-Bierbaum,** Clericatus,®> Kazenberger °°
and LaCroix.8? As a consequence, when such a thing occurs,
whether consciously or inadvertently, the sacrament should be
absolutely repeated. Of course, the deliberate substitution of
this word for the prescribed verb is undoubtedly a mortal sin.
It is quite necessary that the form which corresponds to
each sense be applied to that particular sense and no other.
Hence, when anointing the eyes, it would vitiate the unction
to implore the remission of sins committed thru the sense of
hearing. Elbel-Bierbaum considers a case where the priest for-
got to anoint the hands, and when anointing the feet used the
form ‘‘quidquid per tactum,’’ &c.88 If the priest has not left
the man, Elbel-Bierbaum demands that the unction of the hands
be supplied, ‘‘quia juxta omnes dum fieri facile potest, sacra-
menta debent rite et integre administrari.’’ If, however, he has
left the sick man, this author thinks he need not return if it
82 Th. M., III, 528; cf. Billuart, Summa 8. Thom., ‘‘ De Eat. Unct.,’’ diss.
unic., a. III.
83 Moral., tr. 8, n. 811.
84 Th. M., III, Pars VIII, conf, [X, n. 210.
85 Decisiones Sacramentales, ‘‘ De Ect. Unct.,’’ dec. 68, n. 19:
86 Suppl. Theol. Sacr., ¢. 2, n. 72.
87 Th. M., lib. VI, pars Il, De Ext. Unct., n. 2097.
88 Th, M., III, Pars VIII, Conf. 1X, n. 205.
356 Extreme Unction
is difficult or liable to provoke scandal, except when the man has
received no other sacrament. If the patient, however, 1s easy
of access, the defect should be remedied. Since the promulgation
of the new Code, it would seem that his return is hardly obliga-
tory. Only one unction is required for validity, and further-
more, the sense of touch is anointed by the unction of the feet
as well as by that of the hands.
B) Ordine.
The second preseription of the canon demands the several
unetions of the sacrament be performed in the order given by
the Ritual.8® Accordingly the eyes are anointed first,°® and
very fittingly too, for, as St. Ambrose says, they are the
watchguards of the senses and the windows of the soul. Some
ancient Rituals commenced the unctions with the anointment of
the ears.°? In the Roman Ritual, however, the ears come in
the second place, the nose next, then the lips, the hands and
finally the feet.
If the sense-organs are double, both are to be anointed,
commencing with the organ on the right side of the sick man.”
The nose, as shall be seen later, may receive either a single unc-
tion on the tip, or an unction on each nostril. The mouth or
lips are to be anointed once. |
That any change in the order of these unctions does not
affect the validity of the Sacrament is conceded by all. Hence,
if the unctions cannot be commenced upon the eyes without
grave inconvenience, it is certainly allowable to start the rite
by applying tle oil to another sense.
To change the prescribed order of unctions without such
necessity is thought by some to be a serious sin, by others to
be only venial. Kenrick,®4 St. Alphonsus ® and Sebastiani °°
89° Tit. V.,, cap, 2,°n. 8-12.
90 Rit. Rom., l.c., n. 8.
91 Cf. Examer., |. 6, cap. 9—M. P. L., 14, 266.
92 Cf. Ritual of Church of Soissons apud Martene, De Antig. Eccl. Kit.,
l. 1, « 7, a. 4, Ordo XIII; the Pontifical of Constantinople, apud
Martene, l.c. Ordo XVII.
93 Cf. De Herdt, Lit. Praw., ITI, 200.
94 Th. M., Ill, De Ext. Unct., cap. unic., n. 5.
95 Th. M., VI, 708.
96 Summ. Th. M., n. 513.
The Rite of Adminstration 357
hold an inversion of the order of anoimtments to be seriously
sinful. It is, they contend, a notable change, in the traditional
usage of the Church. AErtnys *’ agrees with this opinion, but
allows lightness of matter, as, e. g., when the order of the
unction between only two senses is inverted. The great ma-
jority of theologians do not coincide with this view.°® Such a
change is only accidental, they claim, and consequently only
slightly wrong, unless indeed, as Ballerini-Palmieri* wisely
notes, such a thing is done out of contempt or with the inten-
tion of starting a new rite.
The complete omission of the unction of a sense is certainly
a mortal sin; and there is hardly any dispute about the gravity
of the omission of the anointment of one of the organs where
the sense is double, and where both organs can be conveniently
reached.1°° However, since the validity is affected in no way
by the omission of the unction of one of the twin organs, a
sufficient cause will permit the priest to be content with the
unction of either one of the organs. Such a cause appears
when the man cannot be easily turned, or when bandages cannot
be removed from the organ without great inconvenience, &¢.1°?
The prescription ordering the organ on the right of the
sick man to be anointed first in these double-unctions is not
eravely binding. It surely does not create any grave deordina-
tion of procedure.t”
C) Modo.
The third and last requirement made by this canon is that
the unctions be made in manner and fashion prescribed by the
Ritual. This entails an examination into the procedure of ad-
ministering the sacrament proper, and the unction of each par-
ticular sense deserves a word of individual attention. Hence
97 Th. M., II, 357.
98 Cf, Suarez, disp. 40, s. 2, n. 9; Lehmkuhl, Th. M., II, 720; Noldin,
De Sac., 435; Genicot-Salsmans, Inst. Th. M., Il, 417; Vermeersch
Th. M., III, 653; Ferreres, Comp. Th. M., TI, n. 835, quaer. 8; &c.
99 Opus Th. M., vol. V, tr. X, sect. 6, n. 19.
100 Cf. Vermeersch, Th. M., III, 653; AErtnys, Th. M. Il, 357, quaeres 2;
Lehmkuhl, Th. M., II, 720. However, see Sebastiani, Summ. Th. M.,
n. 513.
101 Genicot-Salsmans, Inst. Th. M., II, 417.
102 Cf. Genicot-Salsmans, Inst. Th. M., II, 417; Noldin, De Sac., n, 435;
Sebastiani, Summ. Th. M., n. 518.
358 Extreme Unction
the treatment of this question will follow the order of the
rubrics of the Ritual.
‘¢Deinde, intincto pollice in Oleo sancto, in modum crucis ungit
infirmum in partibus hic subscriptis &c.’’ (Rit. Rom., tit. V., cap. 2,
as)
The vessel of oil should be held firmly by the priest in his
left hand during the performance of the unctions, unless there
be an acolyte present to hold it. Baruffaldo 1° advises the use
of a purificator wrapped about the hand to absorb any oil that
may be spilled. O’Kane?* notes, however, that there will be
little need of such a precaution if the oil is soaked in cotton.
The priest should dip his right thumb into the vessel, fore-
ing the cotton to yield the oil upon the fleshy part and not upon
the nail.!°° Then raising his thumb to the sick man he makes the
unetions with oil gathered thereon. The nail should not be so
long that the oil may get beneath it,'°® nor so sharp that it will
serateh the patient.
The rubric demands that the unction be made in the form
of a eross. ‘‘Crucis signum adhibetur,’’ writes Baruffaldo,!°7
‘‘in eunctis Sacramentis ministrantibus, quia cum ortum suum
habeant a Christi sanguine in Cruce effuso, non melius exprimi
potest eorum fons et origo.’’
The practice of making the unction in the form of a cross
is very old. It is found in the ancient Liber Sacramentorum
of St. Remigius of Rheims.1°> It existed also in the monasteries
of Cluny, as the third book of Burchard tells us.!°° Similarly
very many rituals in the collections of Martene !¥° and Lounoi 14
103 Ad Rit. Rom. Comm., tom. I, tit. 28, n. 65.
104 The Rubrics, n. 925.
105 Cf. O’Kane, l.c., Baruffaldo, U.c. nn. 66-7; De Amicis, Caeremoniale
Parochorum, n. 203, 10.
106 Baruffaldo, op. cit., l.c., n. 67.
107 L.c., n. 69.
108 apud Launoi, Op. Omnia, tom. I, p. 489.
109 apud Launoi, l.c., p. 493.
110 Ordines I, III, IV, IX, X, XII, XV, XVI, XVIII, XIX, XXI, XXII
XXVIT, XXIX, apud De Antiq. Eccl. Rit., lib. I, cap. vii, art. IV.
111 Pontifical of Cambrai—apud Op. Omunia, t. I, p. 496; Manuscript from
the Dominican Library of Paris—l. c., p. 498; Pontifical of Laon —
l.c., p. 501; the Manuals of the Churches of Vienne (1500)—Le.
p. pe Chalons-sur-Marne (1529)—1l In
practice, either opinion may be followed, for an unction in either
place is equally valid.1°° However, if the eyes cannot be closed,
or if the eyelids are too tender to anoint, the unctions can be
made on the eyebrows or below the eyes. Bucceroni?*? and
Seavini #28 recommend that in these cases the old rubrie of the
Ritual of Cambrai be followed by anointing on the eyebrow
‘‘Juxta angulos oculorum.’’ Van der Stappen,!*? directs the
unetion to be made beneath the eyes.
‘‘Minister vero, si est in Sacris, vel ipsemet Sacerdos, post
quamlibet unctionem, tergat loca inuncta novo globulo bombacii,
vel rei similis, eumque in vase mundo reponat, et ad ecclesiam postea
deferat, comburat, cineresque projiciat in sacrarium.’’ (Rit. Rom.,
Tb V PLO eer Deas}
When Extreme Unction is given in lands where the prescrip-
tions of the Ritual are carried out adamussim, one or even sev-
eral ministers accompany the priest on his mission to the sick
room.18° In this country, however, and, as O’Kane notes,}*! in
Ireland, custom has established that the priest goes on sick ealls
120 Cfr. O’Kane, The Rubrics, n. 927; Catalano, Rit. Rom., tom. I, p. 333;
Van der Stappen, Sac. Lit., t. IV, q. 219; De Amicis, Caeremoniale
Parochorum, n, 203, 14; Pighi-Ferrais, Liturgia Sacerdotalis, n. 555;
Heuser, Parish Priest on Duty, n. 97; Scavini, Th. M., III, 529; &e.
121 Lit. Prax. Ill, 201.
122 Lit. Pract. Comp., sect. V, cap. V, n. 9.
123 apud Martene, De Antiq. Eccl. Rit., 1. I, e. 7, a. 4, Ordo XVII.
124 apud Martene, /.c., Ordo I.
125 Launoi, Op. Omnia, t. I, p. 489.
126 Cfr. Wapelhorst, Comp. Sac. Lit., n. 290, 6; De Amicis, Caeremoniale
Parochorum, n. 203, 14.
127 Inst. Mor., p. II, vol. 3, n. 868.
128 Th. M., III, n. 529.
129 Sac. Lit., t. IV, gq. 219.
180 Of) fit.) V, ¢.-2;-n. 2;
131 The Rubrics, n. 928,
The Rite of Administration 361
unaccompanied by any acolytes, or other ministers. If neverthe-
less there is a man in major orders assisting him in his ministra-
tions, such a one should wipe off the unctions after the priest
has anointed. This rubric is stricter than the practice of older
days. A rubrie of the Ritual of Chalons-sur-Marne'*” reads:
‘Hit debet esse aliqua persona ad detergendum dictas cruces
cum stuppis, et in qualibet Cruce accipiat stuppas novas, can-
delis accensis.’’ And later in the same Ritual: ‘‘Lavat sacer-
dos, unctione peracta, manus suas cum sale et aqua. Similiter
alle vel illa, qui, vel quae extersit cruces de stuppis, quae debent
eustodiri et reservari inter duas scutellas ligneas, et reponi in
quodam armariolo in Ecclesia, et de eisdem facere cineres pro
die Cinerum, vel recondi in terra sancta.’’ It is evident that
even a woman might have been employed for this purpose, al-
though today practically all authors say that under no cireum-
stances is a woman to act even in a minor capacity in the admin-
istration of this sacrament.**
A fresh pellet of cotton or similar substance should be used
for each form. Hence where the sense is double, the same cotton
is to be used for wiping off both anointments.1°* Thus the
Council of Salernitano prescribed: ‘‘Kadem vero stuppa seu
bombice singula loca non ungantur, sed in qualibet membrorum
specie mutetur.’’ 1%
The unction should be wiped off as soon as the form is com-
pleted. In the double senses, therefore, both unctions should be
made before the cotton is applied.}*°
If there is any danger of one of these organs coming in
contact with the bed clothes or with the pillow—and this is
especially true in the case of the ear,—then it is a laudable
practice to wipe off the first unction before the second anoint-
ing is made.*7 The Ritual of Toulon incorporates this recom-
mendation in its rubrics.?°°
132 apud Martene, De Antig. Eccl. Rit., 1. I, c. 7, a. 4, Ord. XXVII.
133 Cf. e. g. Ballerini-Palmieri, Opus Th. M., vol. V, tr. X, sect. VI, n. 34.
et hilo hOnM,,. Lit Vy cap: 2,)ni cl.
185 Tit. 32, cap. 6, (anno 1579)—Catalano, Rit. Rom., t. I, p. 333.
186 O’Kane, The Rubrics, n. 928; De Herdt, Lit. Prax., III, 200.
137 Cf. O’Kane, The Rubrics, n. 928; Falise, Liturg. Pract. Comp., pars.
Tiesec. -¥, Cap: 053s 9.0p-.669.
138 Dictionnaire des Ceremonies, Art. ‘‘Ext. Unct.,’’ n. 25.
362 EHatreme Unction
Cotton need not necessarily be used for wiping off the une-
tions. The rubric allows the substitution of any ‘‘res similis.’’
Older rituals ofter prescribed flax or linen. The preparation
of ‘‘linum aut stuppam’’ was ordered by the Ritual of Liege,
edited in 1553,18° and the Ritual of Chalons-sur-Marne™?® and
was permitted by the Council of Salernitano in the legislation
just noted.
When there is no minister present in Sacred Orders the
priest shall wipe off the oil himself. After use, each pellet
should be laid upon another plate or put into a little pocket or
bag. Such a pocket is often found in the burse itself, but it
should be well closed, so that the cotton will not touch the oil-
stock.141. Baruffaldo 14% for this very reason insists upon the
use of a separate bag or burse to carry home the cotton. Into
this special burse (or into the pocket of the same burse) should
also be placed the bread crumbs with which the priest washes
his hands at the end of the anointings.
The cotton is to be burned and the ashes thrown into the
sacrarium. The Ritual of Chalons-sur-Marne permitted the
ashes to be used on Ash Wednesday !*° but such 1s certainly not
allowable now. According to the rubric the cotton should be
burned at the Church. De Herdt 1** notes that in many places
there is a custom sufficiently common to permit the burning
of the cotton and bread at the sick man’s house. Heuser }*°
acknowledges the lawfulness of this; but differs from De Herdt
in regard to the disposition of the ashes. The former insists
on the fulfillment of the rubrical prescription, whereas De Herdt
thinks no further attention need to be paid to the matter after
the cotton has been thrown into the fire. Wapelhorst 14° allows
DeHerdt’s disposal of the cotton if it is inconvenient to bring
it to the church. Pighi-Ferrias ‘** is more generous that De
139 apud Martene, De Antiqg. Eccl. Rit., 1. I, c. 7, a. 4, Ordo XXVIII.
140 apud Martene, l.c., Ordo XXVII.
141 O’Kane, The Rubrics, n. 928.
142 Ad Rit. Rom. Comm., t. I, tit. 28, n. 76.
143 Martene, De Antiq. Eccl. Rit., 1. I, c. 7, a. 4, Ordo X XVII.
144 Lit. Prag., III, 204.
145 The Parish Priest on Duty, p. 100.
146 Comp. Sac. Lit., n. 290, paragr. 7.
147 Liturgia Sacerdotalis, n. 556; ‘‘ Bombacium et quidquid ad abstersionem
adhibitum fuerit, relinqui potest familiaribus infirmi, ut in ignem
projiciant,’’
The Rite of Administration 363
Herdt, for he permits the priest to leave to the family of the
sick man the duty of throwing the bread and cotton into the fire.
Berengo !48 also allows this. Consequently it may be done with- |
out hesitation, if the priest is certain that the family will fulfill
their charge.
Ad aures.
The Pontifical of Prudentius, Bishops of Troyes, and the
Pontifical of Cambrai 24° order that the ears be anointed ‘‘dein-
tus.’? An old Codex of the Church of Noyon °° contains a rub-
rie which specifies the unction ‘‘ad aures, infra et supra.’’ Still
different was the direction of the Codex Victorinus 1°! to make
the crosses of oil ‘‘in aures intus et foris.’’ However, the uni-
versal practice today is to anoint the ears on the lobes or
lower extremities. 2 Baruffaldo'* gives as the reason the
facility with which the oil can be wiped from the lobes in com-
parison with the hollow of the ear.
The distribution of the words here have no special regula-
tions. They may be distributed m any way provided the two
unctions be performed during their pronouncement. It is inter-
esting to note that the Ritual of the Church of Soissons, edited
in 1530, had a distinet form for each ealiuee
Ad nares.
The Pontifical of St. Prudentius of Troyes,’ the Pontifical
of Cambrai ?°* and the Manual of the Church of Verdun a
direct the unction to be made on the tip of the nose. The Ritual
of St. Remigus of Rheims says the anointing should be done Bie)
Prmitete et subtus. 22° ot. Charles in his ‘‘Instructiones’’
148 Enchiridion Parochorum, P. I, n. 114.
149 Martene, De Antigq. Eccl. Rit., 1. L,.¢. 7, a2, Ordines Srl Sax Vi
150 Martene, l.c., Ordo X.
151 Martene, l.c., Ordo XIX.
152 Cf. O’Kane, The Rubrics, n. 930; Heuser, The Parish Priest, p. 98;
Baruffaldo, Ad Rit. Kom. Comm., t. I, tit. 28, n. 78; Van de Stappen,
Rion Lsl te LV; Gs 219, cc:
153 Lc.
154 apud Launoi, Op. Omnia, tom. I, p. 513.
155 Martene, De Antiq. Eccl. Riteel. 1) tavy.ae4 Ordo LL
156 Martene, l.c., Ordo XVI; also apud Launoi, Op. Omnia, tom. I, p. 497.
157 apud Launoi, l.c., p. 524.
158 apud Launoi, l.c., p. 489.
364 Extreme Unction
placed two crosses in the formula to be used for the nose, thus
implying that a double unction was to be made.!°?
Even today authors differ whether one or two unctions are to
be made. Baruffaldo,!®° Falise,!°! Lehmkuhl,!® Bucceroni'® and
Sebastiani 164 wish a double unction. O’Kane?® calls this the
more common opinion; and in the Ritual of Toulon it is ex-
pressly prescribed.’
On the other hand De Herdt !*7 and De Amicis 1° permit
only one unction to be made.’ This single unction is placed at
the juncture of both nostrils in the tip of the nose.
On the other hand the double unction, of course, would be
made by anointing each nostril on the side, or, as Baruffaldo 17°
expresses it, ‘‘ad narices quae sunt nasi alae laterales.”’
As a consequence of this dispute many authors simply men-
tion that a single or a double unction is permissible. The local
eustom should be followed; and if there is no unity of custom,
either manner of procedure is entirely licit.
Ad os, compressis labvis.
The differences in the forms of the ancient rituals are very
interesting. The sense of taste received no mention in some.
Thus the Pontificale Anglicanum!”? prescribed this form: ‘* Ungo
labia ista consecrati olei medicamento, ut quicquid otiosa vel
eriminosa peceati locutione, divina clementia miserante expietur
hac unctione. Per Dom.’’ &. The identical words are found
159 apud Acta Eccl. Mediol., pars. IV., ‘‘Instruct. Extr. Unct.,’’ paragr.
‘©Qrdo Ministrandi’’—tom. I, p. 606.
160 Ad Rit. Rom. Comm., tom. I, tit. 28, n. 79.
161 Lit. Pract. Comp., sec. 5, cap. 5, n. 9, page 669.
162 Th. M., II, 720 and footnote.
163 Institut. Theol. Mor., pars II, vol. 3, n. 868.
164 Th. M., n. 513,
165 The Rubrics, n. 932.
166 apud Dictionnaire des Ceremonies, Art. Shot NGh.. tee oak
167 Lit. Prax., III, 201.
168 Caer. Paroch., n. 203, n. 14.
169 Cf. Bissus E., n. 244, paragr. 18.
170 L.c., N. B. It is curious to note that the very reason that Baruffaldo
gives (lc.) for,a double unction, namely, to prevent the provoca-
tion of a sneeze, is the one of the reasons DeHerdt gives for a
single unction.
171 Cf. Wapelhorst, Comp. Sac. Lit., n. 290, 6; Pighi-Ferrais, Lit. Sacer-
dotalis, n. 555; Heuser, The Parish Priest, p. 98; Van der Stappen,
Sac. -TAt., th TV; 219.
172 Martene, De Antig. Eccl. Rit., 1. I, ¢. 7, a. 4, Ordo I.
nl
The Rite. of Adminstration 365
in the form of the Pontifical of Prudentius of Troyes,’* while
five other rituals in Martene’s collection '“* contain no prayer
for forgiveness of the sins of taste. On the other hand, in the
Ritual of the Church of St. Mary Magdalen near Le Mans the
form commemorates the sense of taste.!7> Two other forms are
worthy of notice: that of the Church of Liege,!7® and that of
the Ordo Romanus X.177
The unction of the mouth is to be made with the mouth
closed and should extend over both lips. If this is impossible,
an unction on either lip will suffice. When the mouth is wide
open in unconscious patients, the priest should not attempt to
close it, for such a thing is likely to interfere with the breathing
and harm the patient.17? If there is any danger of infection,
as in eases of hydrophobia or mouth eancer, the unction can be
made very carefully on any part of either lip, or an instrument
may be used. Only one unction is to be made, even if but one
lip is anointed. Van der Stappen'®® in this case recommends
the upper lip or a place near the lips.
Ad manus:
The unction of the mouth is followed immediately by the
unction of the hands. In this anointment a distinct difference
of place is made between priests and others. ‘‘Manus vero,”’
reads the rubric !8! ‘‘quae reliquis infirmis interius ungi debent,
Presbyteris exterius ungantur.”’
No Rituals in Martene’s collection which date back beyond
the twelfth century prescribe this distinction. Thus the Ritual
of Prudentius of Troyes simply instructs the unction of the
173 Martene, l.c., Ordo II.
174 Ordines XIX, XX, XXI, XXIII, XXV.
175 Martene, l.c. Ordo XXVI.
176 Martene, l.c. Ordo XXVIIT; ‘‘Per istam unctionem et suam piissimam
miscricordiam indulgeat tibi Dominus quidquid deliquisti per gustum
et illicitum sermonem. Amen.’’
177 apud Mabillonius, Muset Italict, tom. II, n. 33: ‘Per istam sanctam
unctionem et suam piissimam misericordiam parcat tibi Dominus quic-
quid linguae vel oris vitio deliquisti.’’
178 Cf. Vermeersch-Creusen, Epit., Il, 231; Van der Stappen (Sac. Lit.,
t. IV, q. 219), prefers the lower lip in this case.
179 Baruffaldo, Ad Rit. Rom. Comm., tom. I, tit. 28, n.. 80.) Cfr.v also
O’Kane, The Rubrics, n. 934; DeHerdt, Lit. Praz., III, 204 & 80-1.
180 L.c.
181 Rit. Rom., tit. V, cap. 1, n. 17.
366 Extreme Unction
hands to be made ‘‘exterius.’82 A similar rubric is found in
the Ritual of Cambrai.!®* Since the twelfth century very many
rituals have made this distinction in the anointing of hands.
Some of these directed a double unction of each hand—upon the
palm and the back—for laics, while directing that priests should
be anointed with a single unction only—on the back of the
hands. Thus the Ritual of Chalons-sur-Marne (1529)'5* has
the following rubric: ‘‘Item super manus et infra; si vero sit
sacerdos, ungatur tantum-extra.’’ Similar rubrics are found in
the Codex Floriacensis,® the Codex Domini Desmarais 18° and
the Ritual of Amiens.187
A larger number of Rituals, however, corresponded in their
prescription to the present Roman Ritual. Thus those who
were not priests. received a single unction on the palm of each
hand, while men in priestly orders were anointed on the back
of the hand.18§
Durandus in the ‘‘Rationale Divinorum Officioruwm’’!?
speaks of the distinction made in favor of sacerdotal hands; and
St. Charles twice stresses the mode of procedure in this unction
in his Instructions, ‘‘De Extrema Unctione.’’!”
An opinion no longer tenable was advanced by Paluda-
nus!®! and Rubeus.!9? It is positively wrong, they taught, to
anoint priests on the back of the hands. The sacerdotal char-
acter bespeaks no impeccability as to sins of touch, and since
the centre of touch is rather in the palms of the hands than in
the back, priests as well as laymen should be anointed on the
palm. There is no incongruity arising from the former unc-
182 Martene, De Antiq. Eccl. Rit., lib. I, cap. 7, art. 4, Ordo IT.
183 Martene, l.c., Ordo XVI.
184 Martene, l.c., Ordo XXVII.
185 Martene, l.c., Ordo XXI.
186 Martene, l.c., Ordo XXIII.
187 edited 1541—apud Launoi, Op. Omnia, tom. I, p. 578.
188 Cf. Rituale Ecclesiae Aeduensis—apud Launoi, l.c., p. 576; The Rituals
of Rotomagi, edited in 1544, 1586 and 1611—apud Launoi, Le.;
Chartres, 1489 and 1544—apud Launoi, l.c., p. 577; Meaux, 1596—
Launoi, l.c., p. 577; Orleans (1581)—Launoi, U.c.; Vannes (1596)—
ee, le, p. 577; Rheims (1504, 1530 & 1585)—Launoi, l.c.,
p. 078.
189 Lib. lL. ¢. 8, n. 25.
190 Acta Eccl. Mediol., pars IV, tom. I, pp. 602-3 & 606.
191 Comm. in L1b. IV Sent., dist. 23, q. 3, a. 3, concl. 5.
192 Comm. in IV Sent., dist. 23.
The Rite of Administration 367
tion in ordination because there is no question of a sacerdotal
anointing in this sacrament. Iti is simply the application of the
oils to the physical sources of sin, i. e., the senses.
Of course, such a view is no longer valid. The explicit
regulation in the Church’s liturgy has made it obligatory to
draw a distinction between the unction of the hands of priests
and those of other sick people. Deacons and lower clerics do
not receive the unction as priests, but bishops do.'””
The reason for the difference of procedure has not been
officially declared, and liturgists are not in unison in regard to
its explanation. St. Charles Borromeo,'”* Barbosa,’®” the Rit-
ual of Bressanone,!®* Van der Stappen !7 and Vermeerseh-Creu-
sen 198 ascribe it to the unseemliness of anointing the exact part
of the hands that has already been anointed in ordination by a
bishop. Baruffaldo 1% offers quite a different reason. Priestly
dignity, he says, distinguishes the priest from other men. Con-
sequently, a different unetion would serve to conjure up in the
priest the consciousness of his superior dignity, and thus move
him to a greater sorrow for his sins. The hands are the most
becoming place to make this change of procedure in anointing.
Hands, hallowed by the constant contact of the body of Christ,
should never have been sullied. An unetion made upon them
in a different place than upon the rest of men would eall the
subject’s attention especially to the sins of his hands, which
for him should be a cause of deeper sorrow and repentance.°”
De Herdt 2° gives both reasons for the distinction. Those who
hold the former reason may have trouble explaining away the
new regulation which directs that the single unction in cases
193 Cf. O’Kane, The Rubrics, n. 934.
194 **Instructiones de Ext. Unct.,’’? apud Acta Eccl. Mediol. pars. IV, tom.
Tap. 002-3.
195 De OF. et Pot. Parochi, pars II, cap. 22, n. 32.
196 paragr. 8, apud Baruffaldo, Ad Rit. Rom., tom. I, tit. 27, n. 110.
197 Sac. Lit., t. IV, q. 219.
198 Hpit., II, 231.
199 L.c., n. 118.
200 Baruffaldo (l.c.) notes the rather impractical advice given by Molina,
in his ‘‘Instructiones pro Sacerdotibus.’’? This worthy author was
wont to say that the hands of priests were so venerable that they
should be at all times gloved, lest they touch anything defiled.
201 Lit. Praw., III, 201.
368 Extreme Unction
of emergency be put upon the forehead, which has been anointed
by chrism by the Bishop in Confirmation.
Ad Pedes:
The final unction in the present discipline is that of the
feet. The history of the unction affords us no definite idea of
the part of the feet that should be anointed. As in the other
unctions, the Rituals of the several Churches reveal wide vari-
ances of practical procedure in anointing the feet.
The Ritual of the Church of Chartres 2°? contains this very
peculiar rubric: ‘‘Ungatur infirmus . .. sub plantis pedum in-
ferius, si sit certus de morte; et si dubitetur de morte, fiat supra
pedes.’? A double unction was directed to be made upon the
soles and upon the insteps by Pontifical of Sens*°3 and the Codex
Domini Desmarais2°4 A single unction ‘‘super pedes’’ was
preseribed by the Rituals of Amiens”? and Chalons-sur-
Marne, 2°° while St. Charles,?°? ordered the unction to be done
‘‘in plantis.’’
As a result there is a difference of opinion among liturgists
as to the proper place of anointment. Castaldus,*°* Baruffal-
do,2 Billuart 24° and Dens 7! favor the instep as the more
proper place. Thus reverence prompts Dens”! to give as the
reason of his preference ‘‘ne sanctum oleum pedibus caleari
videatur.’? On the contrary Catalano? and St. Alphonsus
Liguori?! think that the soles of the feet are the proper places '
to be anointed, because it seems more conformable to the form,
‘Cquidquid per gressum deliquisti.’’
202 edited 1489, 1544 & 1604—apud Launoi, Op. Omnia, tom. I, p. 577.
203 Martene, De Antig. Eccl. Rit., lib. I, cap. 7, a. 4, Ordo XV.
204 Martene, l.c., Ordo XXIII.
205 Martene, l.c., Ordo XXIV. -
206 Martene, l.c., Ordo XXVII.
207 ‘‘Instructiones de Extr. Unct.,’? apud Acta Eccl. Mediol., pars. IV,
tom. I, page 606.
208 Lib.’ 2, 8.14, cc. 10, n..7,
209 Ad Rit. Rom. Comm., tit. 28, n. 84.
210 Summa S. Thom., De Ext. Unct., a. 2, Observanda 6.
211 Tract. De Ext. Unct., N. 3, p. 23.
212 £.¢.
213 Rit. Rom., tom. I, p. 355.
OE ee yt Se.” Be a ay Ae
The Rite of Administration 369
After years of dispute the question was put for a decision
to the Holy See. On August 27, 1836, the Sacred Congregation
of Rites 215 decided that nothing new was to be introduced. As
a consequence each one should follow the custom of his particu-
lar locality2#* If there is no custom established, a priest is free
to follow either opinion. In his decision as to the place to
anoint, it may be well for him to note that touching of the soles
often causes a tickling sensation in the patient, which at times
may be very distressing. An anointment on the instep will
prevent any such inconvenience.
Authors agree that if any difficulty is found in anointing
the part of the foot demanded by the local custom, it is per-
fectly permissible to anoint any other convenient part.?'?
‘¢Si quis autem sit aliquo membro mutilatus, pars illa proxima
inungatur, eadem verborum forma.’’ (Rit. Rom., tit. V, cap. 1, n. 19.)
Occasionally a priest will be called to anoint a man who is
lacking one or more of the sense organs that should be anointed.
The mode of procedure in such a contingency has been settled
by the Roman Ritual. Its prescription is in accordance with the
common teaching of the Doctors of the School.”4* All of them
held, that even if the member had been permanently mutilated
since birth, an unction was beneficial, because, as St. Thomas
described,2!® ‘‘quamvis non habeant membra, habent tamen po-
tentias animae quae illis membriy debentur, saltem in radice, et
interius peccare possunt per ea quae ad illas partes pertinent,
quamvis non exterius.’’
Henee, when a member is obtruneated or lacking in any way,
the nearest part to it is to be anointed. De Herdt thinks that
this is also to be done when the member is bandaged or covered
215 Rhedonen., ad 1—D. A., n. 2743; ‘‘ Anne, ultra pedum pars superior,
inferior quoque ungenda sit in Sacramento Extremae Unctionis? R.
Nihil innovetur.’’
216 Cf, Vermeersch-Creusen, Epit., 11, 231.
217 Cf. O’Kane, The Rubrics, n, 936.
218 Cf. St. Thomas, Comm. In IV Lib. Sent., ad dist. 23 libri quarti, q. 2,
a. 3, quaestiune. 3; St. Bonaventure, Comm. in Lib. IV Sent., dist. 23
libri quarti, a. 2, quaest. 3, conel., paragr. 4, n. 4; Diana, Op. Coord.,
tom. II, tr. III, res. 48; Naldus, Summa, verb. ‘‘Mutus,’’ n. 3 &
verb; ‘‘ Eat. Unct.,?* n. 8.
219 Lc.
370 Extreme Unction
so that it cannot be touched.22° This would be of especial value
in hospitals, and in accidents where a man’s hands or feet may
be pinned under fallen walls, &c.
A quite different predicament would occur if the man were
found to have redundant members, as for example, three hands
or three feet. In this case Baruffaldo 7? decides that those
organs are to be anointed which are collocated in the natural
Estius,?4° Natalis Alexander,247 Juenin,*4* De
Sainte-Beuve 249 and Tournely.2°° Their researches into the
various Ordines of administration, ancient and contemporary,
proved a useful corrective and saved them from asserting the
sweeping conclusions of the Scholastics.
Later theologians recognized the probability of both opin-
ions, with the consequence that the liceity of a single unction
was admitted when the prescribed mode of anointing could not
be carried out. Thus the Pastoral of Mechlin, approved by the
Academy of Louvain, and issued in 1589, announced: ‘‘In mor-
bis contagiosis, et peste grassante, ut periculum vitetur, sufficit
inungi sensus organum magis ad unctionem expositum ac detec-
tum, dicendo: ‘‘ Per istam sanctam unctionem, et piissimam suam
misericordiam indulgeat tibi Deus quicquid per visum, auditum,
ordoratum, gustum et tactum.’’’*°? The Apostolic Nuncio to
Belgium and Germany, Octavius Frangipano, extended this
shortly afterwards to the diocese of Cologne 252 and the Man-
uals of the Churches of Cambrai and Arras approved the very
same procedure.?*? Tournely?* cites the Ritual of Paris which
contained the following rubric: ‘‘Si non possit super infirmum
fieri, nisi unica unctio, ungatur oculus vel aliud sensuum or-
ganum, et ceteris precibus praetermissis, dicatur: ‘Per istam
sacri Olei Unctionem, et suam pilsimam misericordiam, indul-
geat tibi Deus quidquid peceasti per sensus.’ ”’ Launoi 2°°
points out a similar rubric in the Ritual of Chalons-sur-Marne,
edited in 1605.
245 Summ. Theol. de Sac. in Specie, ¢. 27, q. 7.
246 Comm. in lib. quartum Sent., dist. 23, paragr., 14, tom. 4, page 295-6.
247 Th. D. et M., tom. I, lib. 2, ¢. 5, reg. 6.
248 De Sac. in Genere et in Specie, diss. 7, q. 3, cap. 2, conel. 2 & 3.
249 Tract. de Ext. Unct., disp. 3, a. 2; apud Migne, Curs. Theol. Comp.,
vol. XXIV, col. 98.
250 Prael. Theol., tom. II, ‘‘De Ext. Unct.,’’ q. 2, a 2 in fine.
251 apud Natalis Alexander, Th. D. et M., tom. I, lib. 2, ¢. 5, reg. 6.
252 Cf. Bened. XIV, De Syn. Dioc., 1. 8, ©. 3, un. 4.
253 apud Natalis Alexander, l.c,
254 Prael. Theol., t. II, De Ext. Unct., q. 2, a. 1.
255 Op. Omnia, tom. I, p. 576.
374 Extreme Unction
It is to be noted that the third Council of Mechlin, held in
1607, decreed that ‘‘infecti morbo contagioso instar aliorum ae-
grotorum inungantur saltem in altero organo singulorum sen-
suum.’’ When the legislation went to the Holy See for con-
firmation, the Roman Correctors struck out this preseription,?
thereby giving an inkling of the unwillingness of the Holy See
to condemn an opinion which eventually it confirmed by in-
serting it in its Code of Canon Law.
Moved by a solicitude that the patient at the point of death
should receive the sacrament with as much certitude as possible,
theologians devised various expedients to be used in shortening
the time required for anointing. Thus St. Alphonsus*>? urged
the priest to hurry through the unction of the five senses under
one general form. Some suggested the anointment of the five
senses on the head (anointing the cheeks for the sense of touch),
and the use of a general form. In regard to the form, St. Al-
phonsus *°§ cautioned an explicit mention of the senses, rather
than a general formula such as ‘‘quidquid per sensus deliquisti.”’
Likewise he recommended: the placing of the word ‘‘deliquistr”’
before the mention of the five senses, since it was probable that
the mention of them was not essential, while that of ‘‘deliquisti’’
was. But with all their solicitude, the theologians never failed
to recognize the probability of the opinion which maintained the
sufficiency of a single unction; and in ease of absolute necessity
they permitted it to be put in practice.
The validity of the single unction when made in a ease of
necessity, was generally considered to be doubtful, and conse-
quently, if time permitted, the sacrament was to be conditionally
repeated in the ordinary fashion. The expression of the con-
dition in this instance was given as ‘‘Si nondum es hoe Sacra-
mento refectus.’’25° No theologian dared to declare the condi-
tional repetition unnecessary, for the opposite opinion holding
only the validity of the five-fold unction was ‘‘antiquior, com-
munior, et tutior, ideoque omnino sequenda.’’2®
6 Cf. Dens, Theol. Mech., ‘‘Tract. De Ext. Unct.,’’ N. 4, p. 28.
Tar hie eV STA),
258 Th. M., VI, 710.
9 Cf. Scavini, Th. M., ITI, n. 434; Heuser, The Parish Priest, p. 101; &c.
0 D’Annibale, Summ. Th. M., n. 414.
The Rite of Adminstration o10
While theologians were propounding their arguments and
conclusions, the Holy See stood silently by, waiting for the op-
portune time to make a decision on the question. When asked
in 1754 whether a single anointing would suffice, the Congrega-
tion of the Holy Office avoided the question.°** It was not until
April 25, 1906, that it declared in case of necessity a single
form sufficed.2°2 This decree contained nothing explicit about
the sufficiency of a single unction, although this 1s easily de-
ducible from the single form. The new Code removes all ra-
tional and irrational doubt by an express declaration to this ef-
fect.76
In casu autem necessttatis.
In every case of necessity, no matter whence it arises, the
shorter form of Extreme Unction can be employed. Necessity
is surely present when a man’s expiration is feared before the
longer rite might be completed. Similarly, when it is doubtful
whether a man is alive or not, as contemplated by Canon 941,
it is safe to employ this briefer mode of administration.
Various other cases of necessity are propounded by authors.
Vermeersch-Creusen 2° declares that necessity can arise from
the peril of contagion. Accordingly when serious danger threat-
ens the health of the priest if he should dally too long in the
sick room, he may leave after a single unetion has been per-
formed. In times of pestilence such danger is constantly pres-
ent, and Extreme Unction may be imparted to all in this quicker
fashion.2°° Another instanca would occur in the case where the
sacrament has to be administered to a large number of sick
people and it is feared that some may not receive the sacrament
261 S. C. S. Off., Algeriae, 11 Jul. 1754—apud Coll. 8. C. P. F., n. 596,
footnote.
262 §. C. S. Off., apud Coll. 8. C. P. F., n. 2233; A. 8. S., XXXIX, 273.
263 Ctr. Ephemer. Liturg., vol. XX, p. 451; Razon y Fé, vol. XVI, p. 236;
II Monitore, vol. XIX, p. 231, &c.
264 EF pit., II, 231.
265 Cf. Alphonsus, Th. M., VI, 710; Clericatus, Decisiones Sacramentales,
‘‘De Ext. Unct.,’’ dec. 66, n. 9; Benedict XIV, De Syn. Dioc., |. 13,
e. 19, n.+d9.
316 Extreme Uncition
in good time, or perhaps not at all, if the longer formula is per-
solved 266 in each case. In time of epidemics, or on the battle-
field such instances must not be infrequent. Wapelhorst °°
cites an extraordinary railroad accident as an example of this
necessity.
Other cases can be easily imagined. Thus, if a priest had
but a limited time assigned to him by hospital authorities where-
in he must perform all his ministrations, it may often be neces-
sary to be content with but a single unction, especially when
many! patients have to be visited and attended. A similar case
of necessity would occur, if during an operation a man would
suddenly fall into danger of death and the work of the sur-
geons would be seriously, if not fatally, delayed, were they to
suspend progress until the entire rite was performed. Thus, too,
the brief formula may be employed when the patient is in danger
of death from an internal cause so imminently that an operation
is immediately urgent.
Necessity will be at hand too, when scandal would arise
from the employment of a lengthy formula. In maternity cases
it is sometimes wise for a priest who must attend a woman in
the throes of parturition to retire from the scene as soon as
possible. Likewise the conditional anointment of a man who up
until the last moment of consciousness refused the sacraments 7°
may often have to be done very judiciously, and even secretly,
with a single unction, in order to avoid any scandal to the by-
standers. Those who feel justified in anointing non-Catholies
conditionally in virtue of the probable opimion announced in the
Commentary on Canon 940, may often have to resort to a secret
unction. Lastly, the presence of a physical obstacle preventing
access to the ordinary places of unction will suffice for the law-
ful employment of the brief form.*®®
lor)
o
Cf. Modo Practico, cap. ix—O’Kane, The Rubrics, n. 900.
Comp. Sac. Liturg., n. 292.
Cf. supra, chap. vii, p. 241 sqq.
69 Vermeersch-Creusen, Eptt., II, 231.
>
I
Wo wih ORS
on
Go
The Rite of Administration 377
Sufficit unica unctio.
For the first time in the legislation of the Church the sufii-
ciency of a single unction has been explicitly declared. As noted
before, the decree of the Holy Office in 1906 allowing a single
form furnished a very rational basis for this deduction, as did
also two decisions of the Holy Office since that time in regard to
supplying the unctions.?7° But the precise declaration was not
forthcoming until the promulgation of this Canon in the Code.
A single unction is sufficient, the Canon declares. Conse-
quently, a single unction is valid; and in case of necessity 1s
also licit. The force of ‘‘unica’’ is noteworthy. It dispels any
doubt that might arise as to the number of unctions necessary if
the organs of the sense anointed were double. Now it is clear
that an unction on either of the two organs is all that is re-
quired.
‘‘In wno sensu seu rectius in fronte.”’
No particular sense is specified to receive this single unction.
It may be made on any of them with equal validity and lieeity.
However the Code suggests that it be done upon the forehead,
‘‘quia in capite sita est cogitationis sedes ac centrum nervorum
sensuum.’’ 271
‘‘Rectius’’ has the force of ‘‘consultius,’’ i. e., ““more prop-
erly,’’ or ‘‘more becomingly.’’ It is nothing more than a coun-
sel, arising from the fitness of anointing the seat of all the
senses. Surely, however, the wish of the Church should be ac-
ceded to unless some obstacle prevents it. Such an obstacle can
be present physically, for example, when the man ’s head is en-
tirely bandaged, when he is lying beneath an engine with only
feet protruding, &c. In such contingencies the unction can be
made on any organ that ean be reached. The canon specifies
only the unction of a particular sense ; and since the sense of
touch is diffused throughout the entire body, any place anointed
270 §, C. 8. Off., 31 Jan. 1907; 9 Mar. 1917; Cf. A. A. S., ETE:
271 Blat, Comm. Tezt., lib. 3, pars. I, n. 292.
378 Extreme Unction
can be said to be an unction of the sense of touch. Thus Tan-
querey says that the unction can be made “‘in pectore aut scapu-
diss se
Moral obstacles may also prevent an unction on the head.
Thus in the two instances given as cases of moral necessity, viz.,
the unction of one who refused the sacraments up until the
moment of unconsciousness and the administration of this sac-
rament to a dying non-Catholic, it was noted that it would
often be necessary to avoid-scandal by imparting the sacrament
secretly. Secrecy may be more insured by an unction on
the hand rather than on the forehead. Thus, if a priest were
cautiously to open his oil stocks in his pocket, dip his thumb
therein, and afterwards touch one of the hands of the sick man,
it would be enough. What would seem to the bystanders only a
mark: of friendliness on the part of the priest might be for the
sick man the means of his salvation.
Finally, a word should be said about a place of unction
in the case of a man beheaded. Since, as O’Malley 27° notes, it
is always probable that such a man does not die at once, con-
ditional administration of the sacrament can, and, at times, even
must, be made in accordance with the prescription of Canon
941. But where is the cross of oil to be placed in such a ease?
It is very uncertain whether the soul is resident in the trunk or
in the head. The only solution is to anoint both parts of the
body once. The unction upon the head should be made upon
the forehead, if feasible, whereas the unction of the trunk can
be made upon the hand or any other convenient place. In the
case where either the head or the trunk is not obtainable, it is
clear that the priest should anoint the part of the body at
hand.
““Cum praescripta forma breviort.”’
The form prescribed is found in the latest edition of the
Roman Ritual.?74 It is identical with that given in the decree
22 eT et 4 GO:
273 Ethics of Med. Homicide, p. 83.
oA ay CAD Lei eek,
275 A. 8.:8., XXXIX, 273; Coll, 8S. 0. Ps E., mn. 2223.
The Rite of Adminstration 379
of the Holy Office in 1906,?7° and reads thus: ‘‘Per istam sanc-
tam unectionem indulgeat tibi Dominus quidquid deliquisti.
‘Amen.”’
If the single unction is employed, this form must accompany
it by virtue at least of the ecclesiastical precept. Hence any
mention of the senses, or other variations, though not invalidat-
ing, are prohibited.
‘Salva obligatione singulas unctiones supplendi, cessante pert-
culo.”’
Since the judgment of man in regard to the proximity of
death is very fallacious, it is very often the case that the patient
lives long enough after the single anointment that’ he would
have survived even the administration of the longer rite of
unction. Hence if the patient is still alive in such cases as these,
the canon orders the omitted unctions to be supplied.
Prior to the decision of the Holy Office in 1906, this had
been demanded by practically all theologians. They looked on
this second) ceremony as a surer confection of a sacrament that
was but doubtfully administered before. Hence this second
administration was always done conditionally, because of the
probable validity of the prior rite.
The decree of the Holy Office in 1906 caused the theological
kettle to boil over. The force of the term ‘‘sufficit’’ in the de-
cree was the matter of much discussion for a period of ten years
at least. Very many theologians held that the sacrament was
pronounced valid when conferred with this short form (and
single unction), with the consequence that no further anoint-
ings were to be done, even if the patient survived for a time.
Proponents of this teaching were Noldin,?*° Lehmkuhl,*” Gen-
nari,278 Micheletti,2"? and writers in the Ephemerides Liturgr-
cae,289 Revue Theologique Francais,**! L’Ami du Clergé **? and
276 De Sac., 452, edit. VII (1908).
277 Th. M., II, 719, edit. XII (1914).
278 Jl Monitore Eccl., XIX, 231-2.
279 Summa Th. Past., p. 110.
280 anno 1906, p. 451.
281 anno 1906, p. 408.
282 anno 1908, p. 13; anno 1911, p. 736; anno 1912, p. 640.
380 Extreme Unction
The Irish Ecclesiastical Record.2*3 Practically all of these men
declared positively unlawful any further unction of the senses
passed over in the short form.
On the other hand some theologians allowed, though did
not insist upon, the performance of the rite in the longer fash-
ion after the single unction had been used. Thus Vermeersch
wrote in the Periodica in 1911:78* ‘‘Quodsi peracta summaria
ista unctione tempus superfuerit, consuetae singulorum sensuum
unctiones sub longiore forma peragere non negleget [sacer-
dos].”’
Similarly, Ferreres*®> held: ‘‘Sed si tempus post peractam
hane unicam unctionem supersit, videntur fieri posse sensuum
unctiones cum forma singulis propria ad pleniorem sacramenti
significationem exprimendam.’’ Tanquerey **° agreed with these
opinions: ‘‘Ad integritatem vero sacramenti eas [1i. e., unc-
tiones in singulis sensibus] perficiendas esse sub conditione,
quam alii aliter sentiant.’’
Modified and cautious statements like these did not betray
the settled conviction of Slater 287 and the Redactor of the Acta
Sanctae Sedis 288 on this matter. These men contended that
there was no definite settlement of the question made by the
Holy See. What the decree decided was the sufficiency of the
words required for the form, leaving as much in doubt as ever
the validity of confection with a single unction. Hence the en-
tire rite was to be repeated conditionally upon a man who sur-
vived for a sufficient length of time after receiving the sacrament
thru a single unction.
Father Slater’s arguments are interesting. In the first
place, he draws an analogy from the sacrament of Penance.
283 Cf. Query and argument by ‘‘Religiosus’’ and the reply of M. J.
O’Donnell, Vol. VI, fifth series (1915), pp. 525-8; also article by
M. J. O’Donnell, Vol. VII, fifth series (1916), pp. 28-43.
284 vol. III, p. 242 (58).
285 Comp. Th. M., II, 683, edit. quart. (1909).
286 Brev. Syn. Th. M., nu. 1260, edit. 1911.
287 Th. M., vol. II, p. 235, edit. 1908; also I. E. Record, vol. VI, fifth
series, Dec. 1915, pp. 567-74.
288 Comment. on the decree of the Holy Office, Apr. 25, 1906, in Acta
S. S., XXXIX, 275-6.
—— soe
The Rite of Admimstration 381
There is much dispute, he notes,"°? about the exact words es-
sential for the form of absolution. Some think ‘‘ Ego te absol-
vo’’ is sufficient while others claim that ‘‘absolvo a peccatis
tuis’’ is required. Suppose then a bishop should ask the Holy
See for a determination of what form should be used in case
of necessity. In answer to this, let us presume that the Holy
Office declares that ‘‘Ego te absolvo a peccatis tuis’’ 1s quite
sufficient (sufficit). Surely if a priest used this formula of
absolution to a man in extreme danger who has not made a mani-
fest confession, all that the priest knows is that the form was
valid. He is still in ignorance in regard to the validity or in-
validity of the reception of the sacrament—for this depends
upon the placing of the matter as well as the form. Conse-
quently the same thing must be argued in regard to the de-
cision of the Holy Office about Extreme Unction. All the decree
asserts is the sufficiency of the words of the form, without even
insinuating the sufficiency of a single unction.
This argument is certainly not without weight. It can be
reasonably claimed that several unctions—and indeed the unc-
tions of the five senses—might easily be made while this single
form was being said, thus uniting, as the old theologians advised,
all the anointments under a single formula.
The other arguments advanced by Slater are not so happy.
He claimed that, even if the decree of the Holy Office implied
the use of a single unction, the question was not finally settled,
for such decisions are neither infallible nor irrevocable. It is
hardly edifying, to say the least, to find his contention based on
the supposed falsity of a decision which represents the highest
authority outside infallibility to which a Catholic can appeal.
If not infallible, these decisions are certainly authoritative.
Furthermore he advances an argument from authority, as-
serting that Noldin, Ferreres, Vermeersch, Tanquerey and the
Redactor of the Acta Sanctae Sedis (all as quoted above) agree
with him. However, with the exception of the Redactor an ex-
act identity of opinion cannot be claimed. Vermeersch, by using
‘‘non negleget,’’ took little pains to emphasize his instructions,
and his failure to adduce any reason makes his statement appear
289 apud I. E. Record, l.c., p. 570.
382 Extreme Unction
all the more half-hearted. Ferreres and Tanquerey are in uni-
son with Slater in regard to the practical thing to be done, but
certainly not for the same reason. Slater looked upon the sacra-
ment conferred with a single unction as only probably valid and
he demanded the conditional repetition by the longer form,
when possible, in order that the ‘‘tutior pars’’ would have been
eared for even in sucha case. Ferreres said the subsequent unc-
tions were to be made ‘‘ad pleniorem sacramentt significationem
ceprimendam.’’ Moreover, the halting expression that he em-
ploys, ‘‘videntur fieri posse,’ can hardly be taken as an indi-
eation of stable conviction on one side or the other. Tanquerey
taught that the unctions were to be made ‘‘ad integritatem sac-
ramenti.’?’ Evidently he maintained the validity of the single
unction; but viewed the additional anointings as completing the
sacrament. It is strange that he ordered this ‘‘completion’’ to
be made ‘‘sub conditione.’’ If the first sacrament were incom-
plete, the ‘‘completion’’ should be made absolutely.
The most peculiar procedure of all is Slater’s attempt to
show that Noldin does not oppose him. Noldin ?9° wrote: ‘‘Si
sacramentum in periculo mortis unica unctione collatum fuerit,
postea cessante periculo, nihil repetendum vel supplendum
est.’’ Slater 29! remarks on this passage: ‘‘Of course when the
danger has ceased, when the sick person is no longer in danger of
death, nothing should be repeated or supplied.’’ Apparently he
interprets Noldin’s phrase ‘‘cessante periculo’’ to imply the
passing of all danger. Yet within the very next paragraph he
adopts a very different rendering of the identical phrase used by
the Redactor of the Acta Sanctae Sedis in his comment on the
decree. ‘‘Sed, cessante periculo,’’ wrote the Redactor,? “‘ ...
sub conditione repetendae singulae unctiones in singulis sensi-
bus, sub suis particularibus formis’’ &. No reason is assigned
for these contrary interpretations of this very same phrase, with
the result that one argument counterbalances the other, and ef-
fects nothing.
Argumentation such as this between theologians lasted until
1917. One camp continued to hold the position that the first
290 De Sac., 452, edit. VII (1908).
291 J. E. Record, vol. VI, fifth series, Dec. 1915, p. 573.
292 A. §. 8., XXXIX, 275-6.
The Rite of Administration 383
unection was but probably valid and that, consequently, a second
and conditional administration was to be done as soon as pos-
sible. The other phalanx of authority refused to recede from its
contention that the validity of the first unction was so certain
that even a conditional repetition was positively wrong. Both
sides failed to take into consideration the possibility that, even
if the single unction were valid, the separate anointings should
be supplied when they have not already been employed.
This omission is easily explainable. No other sacrament de-
mands such a repetition of omitted rite. If one of the triple
ablutions prescribed for solemn baptism is omitted, for example,
it is seriously wrong to supply it later with a separate form.
Secondly, liberal views, holding the subsequent application of
omitted unctions to be altogether illicit, were widespread even
in the Eternal City, where the vigilance of the Vatican promptly
prohibits erroneous opinions on such important issues.
At any rate, in 1917 both camps of theological thought were
thoroughly surprised by a decision of the Holy See. The unc-
tions, the decree announced, which were to be supplied accord-
to a former decree, dated January 31, 1907, were to be done
absolutely and not conditionally.?%*
Theologians had known nothing of the decree of 1907, else
the differences as to the mode of procedure after the application
of a single unction would not have arisen. The decree itself
was never published, and probably known to very few outside
the members of the Congregation of the Holy Office. Cardinal
Gennari, the Prefect of the Congregation of the Council, and
in almost daily contact with the Cardinals of the Inquisition,
held a diametrically opposite opinion.**4 Moreover, the edition
of the Ritual in 1913, although, as the decree of approbation
puts it, ‘‘novissime recognitum, auctum et diligenter revisum a
208 A. A. S., IX, 178: 8. C. 8. Off., 9 Mar.’ 1I917—‘“An administrato
Sacramento Extremae Unctionis in casu necessitatis unica Unctione
in fronte adhibita, per verba ‘Per istam sanctam unctionem indul-
geat tibi Dominus quidquid deliquisti. Amen,’ cessante periculo,
unctiones, ad tenorem Decreti 31 Jan. 1907, supplendae, sub con-
ditione adhibendae sint vel non?
R., Negative ad lam partem; affirmative ad 2am.’’
294 Il Monitore Eccles., xix, p. 232: ‘‘Dunque se 1l’ammalato dura in
vita dopo ]’unzione abbreviata, non devono ungersi gli alteri membri;
ma debono solo supplersi le preghiere non recitate.’’
384 Extreme Unction
Sacra Rituum Congregatione,’’ contains nothing more than the
unabridged decree of 1906.
In absence of the decree of 1907, theologians found them-
selves in deep difficulty when trying to exegete the true meaning
of the decree of 1917. One solution could be obtained by em-
phasizing the phrase ‘‘sub conditione,’’ while another would re-
sult from stressing ‘‘Adhibendae.’’ The former would yield the
unlawfulness of the subsequent unctions; the latter would imply
that the unctions were to be supplied absolutely.
Theological minds were therefore in a quandary. The Irish
Theological Quarterly*®® refused to make a decision. The Ameri-
ean Ecclesiastical Review 29° reversed its interpretation within
a few months, first holding that nothing was to be repeated and
afterwards maintaining the absolute performance of the omitted
unctions. In this confusion on the correspondents of the Ephe-
merides Liturgicae sent to that publication the following query:
‘Quid de novo decreto 8. Officii (die 9 Martii, 1917) de Sa-
eramento Extremae Uncetionis in casu necessitatis? Multi periti
apud nos non possunt interpretar! responsionem §. Officii, et
nemo scit aliquid de decreto citato diei 31 J anuarii 1907.”’
Without stating the source of its information, this journal pub-
lished the decree of 1907. Presumably it is authentic. As given
by the periodical,?®’ the decree reads: ‘‘Meria v die januaril,
1907, Suprema 8. Congregatio S. Officii a S.-M. Pio-PPa XS
hujus resolutionis approbationem retulit: ‘SSmus D. N., ne in
posterum dubium oriantur, ita reformari jussit decretum de die
25 aprilis, 1906; ‘‘Sufficere formam ‘Per istam sanctam wune-
tionem indulgeat tibi Dominus qudquid deliquisti. Amen.’ Si
vero infirmus supervixerit, suppleantur singulae unctiones et
orationes.’’’ ’’
The fact that this decree was not published had the effect
of frustrating its purpose. It amended the decree of 1906 “ne
in posterum dubium oriantur,’’ yet the unamended form was
incorporated in the Ritual of 1918.°°° Why the Roman authori-
—
295 Vol. XII (1917), p. 274.
296 Vol. LVI, p. 620; vol. LVII, pp. 196-8.
297 Anno 31, num. 8, p. 437.
gos Tit. V5 Cap. 4,.0. av.
The Rite of Administration 8380
ties did this is difficult to say. Without a knowledge of the rea-
sons which prompted them to such a course, it would be im-
prudent, if not impudent, to criticise their action.
The promulgation of the Code shortly after the decision of
1917 brought to an end a discussion which would have other-
wise assumed great proportions. A single unction with a single
form suffice, the Code says, but there must be a supply of the
unctions omitted.
None of the theories advanced before 1917 exactly hit the
truth. The recommendation of Tanquerey would have been
correct, had he omitted the words “‘sub conditione’’—which
at best were a very illogical insertion on his part. Ferreres
came very near the truth when he inclined to the belief that the
subsequent unctions were to be done absolutely. All he announced
was, however, only an optional supplying of these omitted
anointings. But there is still a difference between what is law-
ful and what is of obligation. Not only may the supplementary
unctions be made, but they must be done, if there is time.
Strictly speaking, the Code has wrought no change in the
mode of procedure determined by the decisions of 1906, 1907 and
1917. Practically, however, it has ended the disputing of theolo-
gians which resulted from a lack of knowledge of the decree of
1907. Thus all theological minds must change their views,
while Rome continues in the steady tenor of its ways.
Since the Code, the manner of action is clear. If the pa-
tient continue to live after he has been anointed with the brief
form, all the unctions prescribed by the longer rite are to be
supplied. Every unction of the longer rite should be made,
whether the first unction was made on the forehead or on a
sense organ. The first unction is an anointment of the subject
simpliciter, the second is an unction of the particular part of
the individual. The first unction was made, not to obtain the
particular graces resulting from the unction of an individual
sense, but to receive the effect of the complete sacrament. Con-
sequently, even if anointed before, the sense organ should re-
ceive its proper unction (with its particular form) when the
anointings are being supplied.
The supplementary rite is to be done absolutely, in accord-
ance with the decree of 1917. ‘‘Sapienter,’’ writes Vermeersch-
386 Extreme Unction
Creusen, 29 ‘‘respondit 8. C. 8. Officii, 9 Mar. 1917, unctiones
istas supplendas esse absolute, non condicionate. Condicionata
enim administratio priorem dubiam fuisse supponeret: quod ad-
mitti nequit.’’
Immediately we are precipitated into another difficulty. Is
the ‘‘supplying’’ a repetition of the sacrament or not? If it 1s,
how can it be reconciled with the second paragraph of Canon
940, forbidding readministration in the same danger of death?
If it is not, what is the meaning and the effects of the ‘‘sup-
plied’’ unctions?
Various replies are possible. Taking for granted that the
supplying of the unctions is really a second bestowal of the sac-
rament upon the sick man, three theories can be advanced. They
can be briefly outlined as follows: When a patient rallies, the
danger of death in which he is then placed has changed from
an ‘‘imminent’’ danger to a ‘‘normal’’ or ‘‘ordinary’’ one.
Consequently this second sacrament is given in a new danger
of death—and Canon 940 is not violated.3°
This theory labors under some difficulties. The ‘‘ordinary’’
or ‘‘normal’’ danger is hardly a new and distinct peril. At most,
it is a modified form, a partial recession, of the former jeopardy.
Hence the principle of Canon 940 must be violated. Further-
more, suppose the necessity which caused the use of the short
form was due, not to a proximity of death, but to a moral
urgency. Suppose, too, that the opportunity presents itself to
confer the longer rite, yet in the meantime the patient has not
rallied but has been sinking gradually toward the end. In
such a case surely there is no new danger of death, yet just as
surely the unctions must be supplied. The inadequacy of this
theory becomes apparent.
A second explanation fares better. It appeared in the Il
Monitore Ecclesiastico*°! and has been adopted as an alterna-
tive explanation by Sabetti-Barrett.3°
299 Fpit., II, 231.
300 Cf. I. E. Record, vol. XI, fifth series, p. 295; O’Kane, The Rubrics,
n. 899.
301 vol. XXIX, p. 166.
302 Th. M., p. 799.
The Rite of Administration 387
The prescription of Canon 940, 2, applies only when the
sacrament is conferred with the full rite. Consequently it is
licit to administer the sacrament twice in every occasion where
the brief form has been used, even if the patient be in the none
danger of death. oT} precetto di non iterare l’estrema unzione, ’
wrote the I] Monitore, ‘‘vale quando si e conferita nella sua piena
integrita, non gia quando si é dovuta ridurre al minimum neces-
sario.’? This procedure then is an exception to Canon 940 made
by the Code itself.
This theory certainly escapes the difficulties of the first.
There is only one thing against it—and that is the seemingly de-
cisive character of the wording of Canon 940. Not the faintest
hint of a conditional prohibition appears therein; there is no
room made for an exception.
Another explanation is mentioned as possible by Fr. O’Don-
nell in The Irish Ecclesiastical Record.2°* The obligation of
‘“supplying’’ the unctions arises only when the danger has
ceased —‘‘cessante periculo.’’ This must be interpreted to mean
after all peril has ceased, with the consequence that the adminis-
tration is not repeated during the same danger. While this
escapes the prohibition of paragraph 2 in Canon 940, it runs
counter to the prescription of paragraph 1 of the very same
canon. Incidit in Scyllam qui vult vitare Charybdin, A pa-
tient out of danger altogether is no longer a valid subject of the
sacrament. Any attempt to anoint at that time would certainly
be inefficacious, to say nothing of being sacrilegious.
Besides these theories which presuppose that the sacra-
ment is twice conferred, there are two others which teach that
the first unction is simply supplemented by the longer rite, so
that the two unctions comprise one moral action. Thus far the
two theories agree, but they differ widely in their explanation
of the reason for ‘‘supplying’’ the unctions and the effects
thereof.
Ferreres 3° is a typical exponent of one of these theories.
He teaches that the unctions of the second rite are required by
the Church for the fuller expression of the signification of the
303 vol. XI, Fifth series (1918), p. 295.
304 Comp. Th. M., II, 838.
388 Extreme Unction
sacrament. In other words, they are nothing more than cere-
monies, designed to make the subject realize in a better way
the true effects of the sacrament. They have no results ‘‘ex
opere operato.’’ They can be compared to the ceremony of the
ordination Mass, where the bishop says to the ordinands: ‘‘Ac-
cipite Spiritum Sanctum. Quorum remiseritis peccata, remit-
tuntur eis,’’ &e. Since the candidates are already priests, they
have already received the power of remitting sins. They receive
nothing more by this supplementary ceremony. It is not sacra-
mental in its nature, but merely explanatory of a sacramental
effect previously received.2 Such is also the doctrine of Kern,
and was accepted by the Ecclesiastical Review *°7 when Ferreres’
interpretation of the rite was called to its attention. Geni-
cot 898 is evidently with this group, although his statement is
none too positive. ‘‘Unctiones absolute supplendae sunt,’’ he
writes, ‘‘saltem ad ritum consueto modo complendum.’’ .Lehm-
kuhl 9° ean be included within this circle of authority. Ac-
cording to him the first unction only has a sacramental effect ;
the repeated unctions, however, stimulate the dispositions of the
sick man and result in the production of a more complete effect
of the sacrament. O’Kane?!® joins in this view, thus complet-
ing a galaxy of authority that cannot be ignored.
The other theory offers a far different explanation. Ac-
cording to its proponents, the separate unctions constitute the
integrity of the sacrament. The essential graces are conferred
by the single unction; but the sacrament has also certain actual
graces which are peculiar to it alone. These actual graces are
produced in proportion to the fulness with which they are ex-
pressed. Hence the supplementary unctions are commanded so
305 Cf. Ferreres, Razon y Fé, vol. XLVIII, pp. 85 & 236: ‘‘En la ordi-
nacién sacerdotal, cuando el Obispo, concuida la Misa, dice a los
ordenandos: ‘Accipite,’ ... . &¢., no les confiere la potestad de
absolver, sino que ésta la recibieron cuando los hizo sacerdotes, que
fué antes de la Misa que acaban ellos de celebrar, consagrando
juntamente con el Obispo. Aquellas palabras sirven para explicar
major la potestad ya recibida en virtud del sacramento.’’
306 Tract. de Eat. Unct., p. 328.
307 vol. LVII, p. 198.
308 Inst. Th. M., IT, 417.
809 Th. M., Il, 718, 8.
810 The Rubrics, n. 899.
ee ee el ee ee
ee SS
The Rite of Administration 389
that the recipient will have the benefit of the minor sacramen-
tal effects which result from the anointments of the particular
senses. By these unctions the sacrament is perfected, not re-
peated. From them its integrity results, not only its fuller
significance. They are not mere ceremonies; they have a sac-
ramental essence. ‘‘Sunt actiones vere sacramentales,’’ says
Sabetti-Barrett,311 ‘‘non sunt sacramentale quid, nam ne ver-
bum quidem in responso 8. Officii habetur de usu sacramentalis,
nec de mutata natura actionis quae est materia ipsa sacramenti.”’
Thus Extreme Unction can be compared in this respect to the
Eucharist. With the consumption of either species, the sacra-
ment is fully received. When it is received under both species,
the grace received from the first is increased, accidentally and in
a minor degree, but none the less ‘‘ex opere operato.’’ In simi-
lar fashion the effects occur in Extreme Unction. As Ver-
meersch 312 puts it: ‘‘Novis tamen unctionibus significatio itera-
tur, et novus titulus gratiae ponitur, sive gratiae ejusdem si di-
spositio manserit eadem, sive amplioris si subjectum sit perfec-
tius dispositum.”’
Those who favor this theory are likewise a formidable host.
The principal names on its roster are those of Noldin,?'* Ver-
meerseh,?!4 Tanquerey-Quevastre,?!> and Quinn.?!® Sabetti-
Barrett 17 gives it as an alternative to a theory noted before,
which maintains the true repetition of the sacrament. In gen-
eral, their conclusions on this point are traceable to their opin-
ions of the unity of this sacrament.
No matter what theory is accepted, the practical procedure
is the same. If there is time and occasion to supplement the
short form with individual unctions of the senses, it is binding
upon the priest by virtue of this canon to do so. Not to comply
would be a serious sin, for it not only violates an ecclesiastical
precept in grave matter, but also deprives the subject of a grave
StAeT he MM... 799:
312 Th. M., III, 651.
313 De Sac., 431.
314 Th. M., III, 651.
315 Brev. Syn. Th. M., n. 1260.
316 Some Aspects of the Dogma of Extreme Unction, p. 80-2.
Bt Th... p. 729. ¢
390 Extreme Unction
thing due to him in justice. If the ceremonies in the baptismal
rite, which are surely only sacramentals, must be supphed sub
gravi, certainly these unctions, which are probably part of the
sacrament, must constitute grave matter. A proportionate cause
however will excuse from this obligation, just as in the case of
the baptismal ceremonies.
The duty of supplying the unctions rests in justice upon the
pastor of the parish. Hence if another priest has anointed ex
caritate with the short form, the ‘‘supplying’’ of the unctions
can be left to the! pastor. It must be noted, however, that it is
not lawful for any priest to use the short form except in case
of necessity. But when this contingency does occur, the sup-
plying of the unctions may be left to the ordinary minister of the
sacrament, if he is at all obtainable. If the single unction 1s
given because of the patient’s supposed proximity to death, it
will be advisable to continue with the unctions immediately
without informing the pastor. A delay may be fatal. If, on the
other hand, the necessity was moral and not physical, it is bet-
ter for the priest to notify the parish priest and leave things
in his hands.
If the patient was anointed with the brief form in one par-
ish, and transported, by ambulance for example, to another,
the pastor of the second parish is bound to complete the anoint-
ings, if time and other circumstances permit. The duty of car-
ing for the sick in his parish rests on the ‘‘parochus loci’’ and
not upon the pastor of the sick person.*"®
There is hardly any divergence of opinion on the exegesis
of the words ‘‘cessante periculo.’’ They are interpreted to mean
the recession of that urgency which forced the use of a single
unction, but not to such an extent that the subject has passed
beyond all danger of death. Thus Genicot *® writes: ‘‘Ces-
sante wrgentia seu periculo.’’ Ferreres**° and Tanquerey-Que-
vastre 321 consider as equivalent the phrase ‘‘Si tempus supe-
318 Cf. canons 468, 1 and 938, 2.
319 Genicot-Salsmans, Inst. Th. M., Il, 417.
320 Comp. Th. M., II, 838.
$21 Brev. Syn. Th. M., 1260.
Nie i, ~ a, pai) es
The Rite of Administration 391
rest.” WVermeersch 32? suggested that it would have been better,
if the clause ‘‘non cessante periculo’’ had been used. Under no
circumstances can it be taken, to mean the cessation of all dan-
ger in the patient, for then he would no longer be ‘‘in mortis
periculo ob inurmitatem.”’
There is a difference of opinion as to the amount of time
that may lapse between the single unction and its supplemen-
tary rite. Genicot,?23 in pursuance of the theory that the sup-
plied unctions are merely ceremonial, contends that the obliga-
tion of supplying them ceases after they would fail to signify
what they were intended to express, viz., the full signification of
the sacrament. Hence the lapse of a notable period of time
(one hour, in the opinion of Genicot) would suffice to relieve
a priest from this obligation.
Vermeersch 324 admits this as a reasonable interpretation of
the canon. He does not favor it, however. He inclines toward
the belief that the unctions may be supplied at any time within
the duration of the identical danger of death. Since these unc-
tions are sacramental in character (as he alleges with Noldin),
their execution is never without some avail, no matter how
ereat the interval between the single unction and this subse-
quent rite. Furthermore, he notes, the specific efficacy which
these individual unctions have because of the peculiar actual
graces conferred by them is not to be discounted. ‘‘Quod si res
ita se habent,’’ he concludes l.c., ‘‘suppletio omissae unctionis
semper utilis esse potest, ac proin facienda videtur.”’
Either theory may be safely followed; and even though one
odopts the view of Genicot in theory, it will not be wrong for
him to use in practice the more generous view of Vermeersch.
It may also be noted that, if there is still time remaining after
the supplying of the unctions, the prayers of the Ritual, pre-
seribed for recitation when conferring Extreme Unction ordi-
narily, should be recited.**°
$22 Th, M., III, 651,
23 Inst. Th. M., II, 417.
$2477. M., T11,-651.
325 Cf. Rit. Rom., tit. V, c. 1, n. 12; Blat, Comm. Tezt., lib. III, p. I,
n, 292.
392 Extreme Unction
The practical course to be followed can be summed up
briefly :
1. If there is no danger that the patient will die before
the completion of the entire formula as found in the Rituale,
all the rubrical prescriptions should be carried out accurately.
2. If it is feared that the patient will die before the rive
can be completed, yet not before the unction of the senses can
be carried out, the priest will commence with the anointings.°*®
Moral necessity may also compel this, for example, when there
is a danger of contagion, or when the work of the surgeons upon
the patient will not brook delay. If, however, the priest has the
time and opportunity after anointing thus, he should say the
prayers prescribed by the Ritual, first those which follow the
unctions, and later, those which are preparatory to the anoint-
ing,
3. If through a mistake in judgment the longer rite of unc-
tion has been commenced, only to have the patient seemingly
die before its completion, at least the unctions remaining should
be quickly performed conditionally, as has already been said in
the treatment of Canon 941.877 It is even in this case quite law-
ful to add the prayers of the Ritual.?*°
4. If, due to physical obstacles or other causes, all the senses
cannot be anointed, the priest shall proceed to anoint as many
as he can. If afterwards he finds that the obstacle has been
removed, he shall anoint the senses that he has omitted.*? The
supposition here is that the priest can get in no way close to the
organs which should receive the oil, as in the case where a man 's
head is wholly bandaged, &¢. It is to be noted, however, that
if he can get near to the place of unction, he may anoint the
nearest part—provided, of course, it is reasonably contiguous to
the sense organ prescribed for the unction. When this unction
is done, nothing need be repeated.
326 Rit. Rom., tit. V, cap. n. 12.
327 Cf. supra, chap. vi, p. 221 sq.
328 Of, I. E. Record, vol. XI, Fifth Series, p. 296 (art. by M. J. O’Donnell).
329 Cf. Vermeersch-Creusen, Fpit. II, 231.
The Rite of Administration 393
5. When there is danger that the patient will succumb be-
fore the completion of the longer form could be reached, it is
permissible to anoint one organ of sense, or preferably the fore-
head, pronouncing simultaneously the short form. This may
also be done when the necessity is moral as well as physical.
If the patient still lives after this brief rite, the unctions are
to be supplied on the individual senses absolutely.
6. Where there are many to be anointed and it is feared
that some will die before the longer form can be performed in
each ease, all should be anointed first with a single unction.
Then the individual unctions should be supplied on those still
alive, starting, naturally, with the subjects nearest to death.
If some survive even after this, the prayers should be supplied
as in the other cases, except that the plural number should be
used instead of the singular.?*°
7. Supplying of the unctions in cases where the brief for-
mula has been used may be done as long as the identical danger
of death continues. A: priest is not to be blamed, however, who
feels himself freed from all obligation on this score after an
hour has intervened without presenting an opportunity to pe.-
form the subsequent rite.
8. The right and the obligation of supplying the unctions
belong exclusively to the pastor of the place where the man
lies sick.
9, When the unction is conditionally given by a single form,
as e. g., in cases of apparent death, the unctions should not be
supplied until the subject has given signs of life. Until that
time there is no cessation of the urgency which prompted the
short form.??}
830 Rit. Rom., Tit. V, cap. I, n. 22.
831 Amer. Eccl. Review, LXIX, p. 303.
394 Extreme Unction
Il. THe UNCTION oF THE REINS.
Unctio renum semper omittatur.
Besides five forms for the unctions of the senses and an-
other for the anointing of the feet, the Roman Ritual contained
until its revision in 1925 a seventh form for the anointing of
the reins. It was identical with the other forms except, of
course, for the specific mention of the sins of the flesh. Thus it
read: ‘‘Per istam sanctam-unctionem et suam plissimam miseri-
cordiam indulgeat tibi Dominus quidquid per lwmborum delecta-
tionem deliquisti. Amen.’’ This unction, the rubric told us,
was to be performed only upon men; ‘‘sed renum unctio in
mulieribus, honestatis causa, semper omittitur.’’*°2 Even in
men the omission of this anointment was allowed when the sick
man could not be conveniently moved.?33 Finally instructions
were given that neither in men nor in women should any other
part of the body be anointed in substitution for the unction of
the reins.°*4
Authors differed as to the exact: place of unction. Van der
Stappen 335 mentions three different modes of making this
anointment. The renal region is situated in the back between the
lowest ribs and the hip or haunch bone (ossa coxalia). Hence
a single unction made in the middle of the back upon the lumbar
vertebrae (i e., the spinal column at the height at which the
priest’s cincture encircles him) would suffice for the unction of
both reins, and was consequently permissible. Likewise a double
unction, one on the right and the other on the left of the spinal
column in this region was permitted. Some authors taught that
a single unction on either side of the spine sufficed. In these two
latter cases the anointings could be made immediately by the
side of the lumbar vertebrae, or in the middle of the renal re-
ion on each side of the spine, or on the side of the body.??°
332 Tit. V, cap. 1, n. 15, edit. 1913.
333 Rit. Rom., l.c.
334 Rit. Rom., l.c.
335 Sac. Lit., tom. IV, Q. 219, n. 7.
336 Cf. De Herdt, Prax. Lit., III, 201; Wapelhorst, Comp. Sac. Lit., n. 290,
6; De Amicis, Caerem. Paroch., n. 203, 14 (g).
The Rite of Administration 395
The unction of the reins was hardly universal at any time.
Of the thirty rituals given by Martene*** only two are found
to contain a form for the reins.*’> The older, the Codex Regiae
Bibliothecae (Francorum), dates back no further than the lat-
ter part of the fourteenth century, while the other is the Am-
brosian Ritual edited in 1645 by command of Caesar Montius,
then archbishop of Milan. Launoi’s collection **° reveals a simi-
lar omission in many ancient rituals and codices. |
It did exist in many localities, however. The Sixth Pro-
vineial Council of Benevento, held) in 1374, prescribed this unc-
tion. These organs, the Council wrote,*#° ‘‘loco genitalium,
quibus maxime in hominibus culpa contrahitur et perpetratur,
et venialis et mortalis, inunguntur propter foeditatem membri,
propter quam natura rationalis erubescit cogitare; et ideo absit
quod Oleum Sanctum debeat ibi opponi.’’
Many rituals of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries ordered
the unction of the reins for men and that of the umbilicus for
women.*#!
In view of this rather widespread practice, it is hard to
account for the denunciations of Victorelli made by Baruffaldo**#
and Catalano 343 because he recommended this procedure in re-
gard to women.**#
The Council of Salerno, celebrated in 1579, did not allow
this unction to be made upon women, but permitted an unction
upon, the reins of men, if the sickness did not prevent it.°*° If
the unction of the reins could not be made, it was lawful to sub-
stitute for it an unction of the breast. The appearance of the
3837 De Aniiq. Eccl. Rit., lib. I, cap. 7, a. 4.
338 Ordines XXIV and XXV.
339 Ov. Omnia, t. I, p. 574 sqq.
340 Tit. 8, cap. 4—Catalano, Rit. Rom., t. I, p. 336.
341 Vis prescription is found in the following Rituals of Launoi’s coilec-
tion (apud Op. Omnia, t. I, p. 574 sqq.): Coutances (1494), Uzés
(1500), Lisieux (1505 & 1522), Paris (1504, 1542 & 1581), Clermont
(1518 & 1525), Nimes (1533), Magalonesis (1533), Abrincensis
(1539), Limoges (1555), Noyon (1560), Bordeaux (1561), Lucon
(1584), Nantes (1592), Poitiers (1584), Maleacensis (1584), Vannes
(ia06), Bayeux (1611).
$42 Ad Rit. Rom. Comm., tom. I, tit. xxvii, n. 109.
343 Rit. Rom., t. I, p. 319.
344 Tract. de Sancto Ext. Unct. Sacram., p. 62, (edit. 1609).
345 Tit. 32, de Sac. Ext. Unot., cap. 6—Catalano, Bit. Rom., t. I, p. 319.
396 Extreme Unction
Roman Ritual shortly afterwards corrected this regulation in
regard to substituting one part of the body for another.**
Gradually, however, the custom of anointing the reins fell
into desuetude. Benedict XIV *47 witnesses to its omission in
many places in his day. Van der Stappen *** states that it was
never general in Belgium. France had many local rituals which
omitted this custom, and some of these even prescribed the unc-
tion of the breast instead.?49 In the Ritual published for the use
of the English clergy,®°° the unction of the reins was not men-
tioned. Kenrick®5! and the ‘‘Excerpta ex Rituali,’’ published
at Baltimore in 1860, reveal the fact that the practice of anoint-
ing the reins had never been in vogue in the United States.
It is not without reluctance that the Holy See abandoned
this rite. This is evidenced by a reply given to the Archbishop
of Utrecht by the Sacred Congregation of Rites in 1858.>°? His
Grace had asked permission of the Holy See to permit the omis-
sion of this unction in his archdiocese. In answer the Sacred
Congregation wrote:
‘Quod vero attinet ad renum unctionem quam in admi-
nistrando Sacramento extremae Unctionis nunquam in ista dioecesi
Amplitudo Tua adhibitam fuisse testatur, et quam idcirco postulat
ut in Rituali Romano omitti permittatur, visum est Sacrae Congre-
gationi nullam prorsus, sive in hac sive in alia quacumque re, suppres-
sionem vel immutationem in Rituali induci oportere, sed illud voluit
integre et fideliter imprimi, prout a Paulo V editum et a Benedicto
XIV recognitum et castigatum fuit. Quod si unctio renum inusitata
istic hactenus fuit, declaravit S. Congregatio patienter se laturam
si singularia istius Diocesis adjuncta impediant quominus illico et
universim ad praxim unctio isthaee deducatur; insimul tamen ardentis-
simum votum suum expressit, ut, curante Amplitudine Tua et
docentibus parochis, paulatim et sensim sine sensu disponantur fideles
ad istam quoque specialem unctionem in extremo agone recipiendam,
juxta Ritualis Romani praescriptiones.’’
Since that time there has been a gradual leniency shown
S40) Ey Tit, Vj cap... Ly nei.
347 De Syn. Dioc., 1. 8, ¢..3, n. 2.
348 Sac. Lit., t. IV, Q. 220.
349 Dictionnaire des Rites Sacres, art. ‘‘Eatréme Onct.:’’ Resume d’un
grand de Rituels, par Beuvelet.
350 Richardson, Derby, 1856.
351 Th. M., Til, ‘‘de Hat. Unct.,’’ cap. unic., n. 5.
852 Aug. 14, 1858—D. A., n. 3075: A. S. S., IIT, 612.
;
’
|
The Rite of Administration 397
by the Holy See. It had always been allowed to omit the unc-
tion when there was any danger to the patient. Other conces-
sions had been granted in unusual circumstances. For ex-
ample, it was the custom in China that missionaries should per-
form the unction of consumptives and others sick with lingering
diseases in a public fashion in the church or chapel after Mass.
Naturally the presence of so many people caused much embar-
rassment to the patient and to the priest. Disturbances among
the crowd itself were not infrequent, because of the finicky cus-
toms of the locality.3°* Consequently, it was graciously granted
that the omission of the unction of the reins was allowable when
the sacrament was conferred ‘‘in coetu fidelium.’’ Later, the
Holy See permitted the omission of the unction simply because
of long-standing custom. Thus in 1897 Leo XIII authorized
the extirpation of the unction in the diocese of Bruges for the
selfsame reason that it had been denied to the Archbishop of
Utrecht forty years before.** The path to a general prohibi-
tion of the unction was paved by the concession of this in-
dult.
Under the new regulation it is not only lawful to omit the
unction of the reins, but it is a positive sin not to omit it. It
brings into sharp relief the Church’s power over individual
unctions; and it is, at least to some extent, an argument against
those who held that the separate unctions were divinely or-
dained as the essence of the sacrament. Those who hold with
Kern 2° that the sacrament has a unity of indivisability, where-
in the intention of the minister determines the time at which
the principal effect will be produced during the anointings,
will see that the minister must not extend his intention to the
seventh unction. At the very latest, he must intend that the
effect will be produced after the unction of the feet. Those who
hold with Quinn *57 will have to look upon this prohibition as
353 ‘‘Quando autem pro renum unctione peragenda in viris laxantur et
elevantur vestes, statim multi, maxime mulieres, rubore suffunduntur,
et velociter aufugiunt propter gentis mores’’—S. C. P. F. (C. P.
pro Sin.) 21 Sept., 1843—Sutchwen.—Collectanea, n. 968.
854 Cf. Collationes Brugenses, II, 1897, pp. 601-603,
355 I. E. Record, Fifth Series, vol. XI (1918), p. 289.
356 Tract. de Ext. Unct., pp. 323-331; Cf. swpra, chap. I, s. VI, p.
357 Some Aspects of the Dogma of Extreme Unction, pp. 74-82.
398 Extreme Unction
an exercise of the Church’s power to neglect a minor sacramen-
tal effect for sufficient reasons.
At any rate, to anoint the reins now is probably a grievous
sin. It would resurrect a rite that the Holy See wishes to re-
main dead. It constitutes a serious insertion into the sacramental
rite, resulting in a direct violation of this canon and a grave de-
ordination of the Ritual’s prescriptions.
III. THe UNcTION OF THE FEET.
Unctio pedum ex qualibet rationals causa omitti potest.
The unction of the feet was rarely regarded as an essential
unction. Nevertheless, it was widely practiced, and did not
fall into desuetude like the unction of the loins. Whenever
the Ritual called for the unction of five senses, the anointing
of the feet generally followed. However, exceptions existed
in some localities. Two of Martene’s Ordines *°* do not include
the unetions of the feet, although that of the five senses is
explicitly required. Evidently it was not done in particular
localities at the time of St. Alphonsus, for he writes ‘‘Unctio
vero pedum non est de necessitate sacramenti, ut communiter
dicunt Pal. &¢. ...; unde dicunt in hae unctione pedum
servandam esse consuetudinem Ecclesiarum.’’**® De Herdt 3°°
seems to imply the same thing, when he says “‘Ubi Rituale
[Romanum] est in usu, pedum unctio omitti nequeat.’’
Many difficulties have been encountered in carrying out
this prescription of anointing the feet. Peculiar local condi-
tions have given rise to situations wherein this unction could
not be easily performed. Missionaries in China had a very
difficult time in persuading women of that land to permit their
feet to receive the oils. It was only after long and sedulous
instruction that these people viewed the sacredness of the rite
858 Ordo XI (Codex Regiae Bibliothecae) and Ordo XVIII (The Ponttfical
of Constantinople)—De Antiq. Eccl. Rit., 1. 1, ¢. 7, a. 4. N. B. The
former speaks of additional unctions upon the ‘‘membra con-
venientia.’’ The feet may or may not be included. At any rate,
unction of the feet is not specified in particular. The Pontifical of
Constantinople is content with prescribing the anointing of the
five senses.
359 Th. M., VI, 710, 2.
360 Lit. Praw., III, 200 ad 9.
The Rite of Adminstration 399
in such a light that they put aside their false modesty. The
Synod of Sutchuen, held in 1803, announced that this instruction
had been so successful that no missionary should leave out this
lutary unction, even in the case of women recently converted.?!
any murmuring or scandal was feared in a particular case,
the Synod instructed the priest to enlighten the patient on the
true meaning and internal sanctity of the rite and urge her to
put away the barrier of false shame that was preventing her
from the reception of these special graces. The bystanders were
also to be taught the holiness of this action performed by a
priest administering a sacrament so beneficial to the patient.
When this instruction had been made, the sacrament was to be
administered only to those who acquiesced. If, on the other
hand, a danger might arise from scandal given to the infidels,
the saerament was to be administered, but the unction of the
foot should be omitted. Likewise the Ritual of Passau °® ex-
empted from unction the feet of women in parturition or suf-
fering from a flow of blood.*®
—q—
2
A
ig
4
1
In England the omission of the unction of the feet was
allowed when the patient was a woman in a public hospital or
infirmary, and the priest feared scandal or comment. Such
leave was granted explicitly by the English Ritual.°*
Under the present law the unction can be omitted for any
reasonable cause. It is a welcome innovation, for it will relieve
many scruples in this regard. The omission, however, is not
ad libitum; there must be at hand a proportionate reason.
Pastoral prudence and hygienics will determine very often
whether the unction should or should not be made. A priest
need not be too strict in his judgment of the sufficiency of the
cause. Numerous examples might be cited. If the patient is nm
a ward of a hospital, and no screen about the bed; if the patient
is a woman, and there is no one present to uncover the feet
except the priest; if there is sufficient reason to think that the
361 Cf. Collgctanea, n. 1718—footnote, p. 243, vol. EL.) , The deeree ‘of
this synod was confirmed by the Sacred Congregation for the
Propagation of the Faith on July 29, 1822.
362 ¢. 8.
363 Of, Elbel-Bierbaum, Th. M., III, Conf. IX, n. 194.
364 Cf, Slater—Moral Theol. (third edit.). p. 234.
400 Extreme Unction
feet might not have been properly washed before the arrival
of the priest; if the patient has shoes and stockings on at the
time of unction, or if a woman has her stockings on while con-
fined to bed—these are but a few of the many cases when the
unctions of the feet may, and often should, be omitted. Blat*™
adds several more, viz. the displeasure of the patient at this
unction, the nature of the disease, e. g., if the feet were gan-
erenous, and even their uncleanness. Heuser 366 remarks: ‘‘The
unction of the feet is usually omitted in all cases in which it
would expose the patient to grave inconvenience or prove dan-
eerous to the attendants in contagious disease by reason of the
delay,’’ ete. Finally it may be remarked with O’Kane*®’ that
if the local Ritual or the custom of the place allows the omission
of this unction in every case, it may be followed. Custom is
surely a reasonable cause.
TV. Tuer Use or AN INSTRUMENT.
Extra casum gravis necessitatis, unctiones ipsa mimstry manu
nulloque adhibito instrumento fiant.
Altho Extreme Unction—unlike Confirmation—does not
strictly require the imposition of hands as part of its proximate
matter, nevertheless it is strictly prescribed that the unction be
formed by the personal contact of the hand of the minister with
the sick person. The Code does not specifically state what por-
tion of the hand is to be employed, but the Ritual °°8 orders the
thumb to be employed for this purpose. It is generally con-
ceded, however, that to use another finger is at most a venial
sin; and any reasonable cause makes such a substitution law-
Pee? .
It was not always the case to use the hand immediately in
anointing. Thus the Ritual of the Church of Liege*”? contained
365 Comm. Teat., lib. III, p. I, n. 292.
366 The Parish Priest, p. 103.
367 The Rubrics, n. 936.
368 Tit. V, cap. 2, n. 8.
369 Cf. Genicot-Salsmans, Inst. Th. M., II, 417: Sebastiani, Summ. Th. M.,
n. 513.
370 Martene, De Antiq. Eccl. Rit., lib. 1, cap. 7, a. 4, Ordo XXVIT.
q
{
The Rite of Adminstration 401
the rubric: ‘‘Pollicem vel virgulam intingit in oleum, &c.’’
La Croix 37 states that many learned men of his day anointed
with a small rod. Van der Stappen notes that up until the year
1873, it was done in the Diocese of Mechlin, and that many oil-
vessels were so narrow in diameter that it would be physically
impossible to insert the thumb therein. Similarly custom had
implanted itself in the places which requested decisions of the
Holy See on this point.37"
The new Code allows a substitution only in case of grave
necessity. Custom does not justify the matter, as is evidenced
by the replies of the Roman Congregation. In 1788 The Propa-
‘ganda warned the Bishop of Pekin and the Vicar Apostolic of
Chan-si not to permit the substitution of a ‘‘penicilla’’ for the
hand in the administration of Extreme Unction.37* Three later
decrees of the Congregation of the Rites demanded the extirpa-
tion of this custom in various places, asserting that long-standing
practice was not a sufficient cause for its continuance. A devia-
tion from the prescribed way was permitted only in cases of
necessity.374 |
Almost all the instances of necessity can be placed under
the heading : ‘‘where there is danger of infection or contagion.’’
Infection would result from direct contact with the skin of the
patient; contagion might occur from the proximity of the
priest to the sick man. Since, as noted before, the imposition
of hands is not required in this sacrament, it is permissible to
anoint with an instrument. One anoints when he uses a virgula
to apply the oil, just as truly as he writes when he uses a pen
to form the letter.?”
Hence in every case of plague or pestilence it is entirely
lawful to anoint thru the mediation of an instrument. It is
permissible, too, in every case outside of the time of plague
871 Th. M., lib. 6, pars 2, ‘‘de Ext. Unct.,’’ n. 2115.
872 Sac. Lit., t. IV, Q. 218.
373 §. C. P. F., 21 Jun. 1788, Coll. n. 596.
374 Cf. S..R. C., Portus 8. Aloysiti—9 Maii, 1857 ad 2, D. A., n. 3051;
Toletana—31 Aug. 1872 ad III et IV, D. A., n. 3276; Colimen.—
12 Jul. 1901 ad VIII, D. A. 4077.
375 Cf. Chapeauville, Tract. de Necessitate et Modo Ministrands Sacramenta
tempore pestis, q. 39, quoted by Benedict XIV, De Syn. Dioe., 1.
LLL ck.
402 Extreme Unction
where infection or contagion is reasonably feared. Thus in indi-
vidual! eases of leprosy,?’® syphilis, highly infectious eczema or
any other similar cases, such a mediate unction is allowed. The
mouth may be anointed in this fashion when the patient has
hydrophobia, or other disease where danger lurks in contact
of the saliva. In such cases, however, it is quite as well to
anoint some part near the mouth with the hand rather than
take an instrument for this single unction.?”
A case of physical necessity can be imagined where the
use of the virgula does not arise from danger of infection or
contagion. If the patient could only be reached by some small
aperture thru which the hand could not be inserted, the instru-
ment may be employed to reach the sick man.
The virgula can be made out of practically any substance.
Gold, silver, glass, ebony—any material suitable for use at all
suffices. If nothing else is handy, a small twig will be satis-
factory.378 A brush or even a little cotton can be employed.
It will be advisable to wrap a bit of cotten tightly about the
end of the stick before dipping it in the oil, for the cotton
absorbs more oil and assures a better unction.?”®
This cotton can be changed after each unction, thus pre-
venting infection of the oil. If the cotton is not twisted about
the end of the instrument, the priest should take care to wipe
the instrument carefully with cotton after each unction before
it is dipped again into the vessel of oil.°8° If wooden instru-
ments are used they should be employed only for a single unction
and burned immediately after the rite is completed.**! | It is
highly recommended that a priest should have a separate oil
stock for such contagious diseases.?*?
376 Cf. Ferreres, Comp. Th. M., I, 836.
377 Cf. O’Kane, The Rubrics, n. 926.
878 Augustine, 4 Commentary, IV, 408.
379 Augustine, l.c.
380 Cf. O’Kane, The Rubrics, n. 296; Heuser, The Parish Pretest, p. 103;
Sylvius, Addst. ad III p. S. Thomae, q. 32, a. 3; De Herdt, Lit. Praz.,
III, 207 ad iii.
381 Cf. O’Kane, l.c.
382 Cf, Heuser, The Partsh Priest, p. 103.
The Rite of Administration 403
To use an instrument outside of necessity is a grave sin,
for it is a radical departure from the unity of procedure estab-
lished by the Code. La Croix **? asserted the seriousness of
the offense was ascribable to the fact that it was a grave deviation
from the universal custom. This custom has now become the
written law of the Church.
It is to be remembered that, though such an instrument
may be used, it is not of obligation. Many modern authors ask
priests to scorn such a resource, not only because they thereby
avoid scandal, but also because there is very little danger from
the physical contact. The oil itself acts as a preservative, and
there is no transfer of infectious germs. Capellman *** goes
to great lengths to expostulate with priests who are tempted
+o use an instrument when anointing. In the first place, he
notes, infections are prevented thru the oil. Ulcers and other
open sores upon the sense-organs can be avoided by anointing
the proximate parts of the body. Moreover, the use of a “‘vir-
gula’’ or ‘‘stylus’’ is often a source of scandal to the bystanders.
‘‘Cireumstantes certe,’? he wrote, ‘‘neque id sine ratione,
mirabuntur et offendentur eo, quod pastor animarum adeo
pavidus ac timidus sit, quum eodem in periculo, v. g., a medico
sine ullo timore infirmum iterum iterumque manu tangi et
apprehendi videant. Quid vero de aegrotis fieret, si medicis
etiam tantus contagionis timor inesset? Porro quid de ipsis
medicis fieret, si tantum esset contagionis periculum? Patet, ita
vulgo homines et interrogaturos et judicaturos esse.’’ As 4
consequence Dr. Capellman advises a priest to use a separate
piece of cotton for each unction. Thereby he avoids the scandal
that would oceur from the use of a thin rod, and simultaneously
protects the oil from an infection which might result from the
successive insertion of the thumb into it.
Many other precautions are enumerated by various authors
for eases of contagious diseases. All unnecessary touching
should be avoided; the priest should not stand between the
patient and the fire; special clothing should be worn,
a
888 Th. M., lib. 6, pars 2, n. 2115.
884 Medicina Past., p. 127.
404 Extreme Unction
if advised by the physician; and a judicious use of disin-
fectants should be made. Trust and confidence should fill the
priest in the performance of his duty. The Master did not
shrink from the leper; other Christs should not flee from a
similar situation. The sacramental grace of Holy Orders stimu-
lates the soul of the true shepherd. It is only the hireling ‘‘qui
videns lupum fugit.’ ’3°°
There are two extremes to be avoided. Too many pains
should not be taken in the employment of preventives to avoid
infection. The more means that are used, the greater the fear
of infection becomes and the danger increases.*°° Even pre-
scinding from the element of the supernatural that must sur-
round priests in such situations, the natural protections are
quite sufficient to allay inordinate fears and scruples.
Although ‘‘optimum remedium est administrare confidenter
et intrepide’’ 387 a priest, on the other hand is very unwise in
taking unnecessary risks. Foolhardiness is not to be confounded
with intrepidity. Charity to one’s self exacts a reasonable care
of one’s health—and charity to one’s neighbor requires that we
do not imperil his life by a transfer of germs or in
any other way. A priest has no right to expect himself to
be welcome at the homes of other sick when he neglects all
precautions at a previous attendance upon a person afflicted
with a contagious disease. Indeed, in hospitals, if priests refuse
or neglect to take sufficient means of disinfection after their
visits to contagious wards, they need not be at all surprised
at the unwillingness of hospital authorities to permit indiscrim-
inate access to the other patients of the institution. Accord-
ingly in every case he should use the means which they often
prepare in all kindness for his safety—not in a meticulous
fashion, as though he were full of terror, but thoroughly and
conscientiously, as the rational procedure of one who must
insure himself against being an agent in the transfer of deadly
germs to others under his spiritual care.
885 John, X, 12.
886 De Herdt, Lit. Praw., III, 207 ad iii.
$87 De Herdt, Lit. Praw., III, 207 ad iii.
The Rite of Administration 405
The happy medium is attained by those who do not spurn
natural means or neglect preventive methods to protect their
own health and the health of others, and yet who feel no fear
or hesitation in attendance upon the most virulent case of con-
tagious disease.?88 Such a priest never forgets the words of
the Comforter: ‘‘Noli timere ... Meus es tu. Cum transieris
per aquas, tecum ero et flumina non operient te; cum ambulaveris
in igne, non combureris et flamma non ardebit in te.’’°9
388 Cf, Micheletti, De Past. Animarum, nu. 417 (ce); Stang, Past. Th., p. 70.
889 Isai., XLIII, 1-2.
Bales i.0 Gi Reds Ee Day)
SouRCES
Acta Apostolicae Sedis, Romae, 1909-1926.
Acta Ecclesiae Mediolanensis, (2 vols.), Mediolani, 1843.
Acta et Decreta Sacrorum Conciliorum Recentiwm, (6 vols.),
Friburgi, 1876.
Acta Sanctae Sedis, (41 vols.), Romae, 1865-1906.
Acta Synodi Roffensis Tertiae, Rochester, 1914.
Baw, Summa Conciliorum, (2 vols.), Petavii, 1723.
Benedicti XIV Bullarium, (13 vols.), Mechliniae, 1827.
Bizzarri, Collectanea in Usum Secretariae 8S. C. Episcoporum et
Regularium, Remae, 1885.
Bullarti Romani Continuatio, (14 vols.), Prati, 1844.
Bullarum, Diplomatum, et Privilegiorwm Sanctorum Romano-
rum Pontificum Taurinensis Editio, (24 vols.), Augusta?
Taurinorum, 1865.
Caeremoniale Episcoporum, Benedicti Papae XIV Jussu Editum
et Auctum, Mechliniae, 1867.
Canones et Decreta Concilii Tridentini, Taurini, 1913.
Codex Juris Canonict, Pii X Pontificis Maxim Jussu Digestus,
Benedicto Papae XV Auctoritate Promulgatus, Romae, 1917.
Codicis Juris Canonici Fontes, (vol. I-III) Romae, 1923-1925.
Collectanea Sanctae Congregationis de Propaganda Fide, (2
vols.), Romae, 1907.
Concilii Plenarii Baltimorensis II, Decreta, Baltimorae, 1868.
Corpus Juris Canonici, (Editio Lipsiensis Secunda), Lipsiae,
1922 (Richter-Friedburg).
Decreta Authentica Congregationis Sacrorum Ritwwm et In-
structio Clementina ex Actis Ejusdem Collecta ab Alowsto
Gardellini, in Usum Cleri Commodiorem Ordine Alphabeti-
co Coneinnata Opera et Studio Wolfgangi Muhlbaver, (3
vols. and 3 vols. suppl.), Monachii, 1863.
[ 407 ]
408 Bibliography
Decreta Authentica Congregationis Sacrorum Rituuwm Ex Actis
Ejusdem Collecta Ejusque Auctoritate Promulgata, sub Au-
spiwus SS. Domim Nostri Leonis Papae XIII, (6 vols.),
Romae, 1898-1911.
Decreta Synodi Dioecesanae Kansanopolitanae Secundae, Atchi-
son, 1912.
DENZIGER-BANNWART, Enchiridion Symbolorum, Definitionum
et Declarationum de Rebus Fidei et Morum, (edit. deci-
mamquartam et quintam) Friburgi Brisgoviae, 1922.
Harpuln, Jean, Conciliorum Collectio Regia Maxima, (12 vols.),
Parisiis, 1715.
HEFELE, Charles, Conciliengeschichte, (9 vols.), Freiburg, 1873-
1890,
Manst, Joannes, Amplissima Collectio Conciliorum, Paris-Leip-
sic, (51 vols.), 1759 sqq.
Pontificale Romanum, Clementis VIII ac Urbani VIIL Jussu
Editum et a Benedicto XIV Recognitum et Castigatum,
Romae, 1890.
fiatuale Romanum, Pauli V Pontificis Maximi Jussu Editum, a
Benedicto XIV et a Pio X Castigatum et Auctum, Ratis-
bonae et Romae, 1913.
Rituale Romanum, Pauli V Pontificis Maximi Jussu Editum
Aliorumque Pontificum Cura Recognitum atque Auctoritate
Sanctissimi, D. N. Pit Papae XI Ad Normam Codicis Juris
Canonici Accomodatum, Turonibus, 1925.
Statuta Dioecesis Oklahomensis, Oklahomae (n. d.)
Synodus Dioecesana Prima Habita in Ecclesia Cathedrali ad 8.
Philumenae In Urbe Omaha, Philadelphiae, (n. d.)
AUTHORITIES
ABELLY, Louis, Medulla Theologica, (2 vols.), Parisiis, 1679.
ApamI, J. G., The Principles of Pathology, Philadelphia and
New York, 1908.
AERTNYS, Josephus, C. SS. R., Theologia Moralis, (2 vols.), Tor-
naci, 1898.
A Lapipe, Cornelius, Commentarius in Epistolas Canonicas,
Venetiis, 1717.
ALBERTUS a Butsano (Know), Opera Omnia, Parisiis, 1872.
Bibliography 409
Aupertus Maenus, Opera Omnia, (88 vols.), Parisiis, 1890-
1899.
A Mepia Vinita (Mippueton), Richardus,—see Richard Middle-
ton.
Analecta Juris Pontificii, Romae et Parisiis, 1855-1891.
Anrorng, Paulus Gabriel, Theologia Moralis Universa, (6 vols.},
Avenione, 1818.
ANTONELLI, Joseph, Medicina Pastoralis in Usum Confessario-
rum et Curiarum Ecclesiasticarum, (3 vols.), Romae, 1920.
Arcuptus, De Consensu Ecclesiae Occidentalis et Orientalis In
Septem, Sacramentorum Administratione, Lutetiae Par-
siorum, 1672.
ARHANGELSKIJ, Mihail, ‘‘Izslédovanije ob istericeskom razvitu
Cinosoversenija Jeleosvjascenija ot ustanovlenija sego tain-
stva do izdanija nynésnjago jego ,,Posledovanija,‘ s podrob-
nym izjasnenijem sego poslédnjago,’’ S.—Peterburg, 1895.
Arrecu, Antonius, Summarium Theologiae Moralis, Bilbao,
1922.
AvureEoLus, Commentarius in Textum Magistri, Romae, 1596-
1605.
BaBENSTUBER, Ludovicus, Ethica Supernaturalis Salisburgensis
seu Cursus Theologiae Moralis, Augustae Vindelicorum,
1718.
BALLERINI-PALMIERI, Opus Theologicum Morale, (7 vols.), Prati,
1893.
Barsosa, Augustinus, Pastoralis Sollicitudims sivi De Officio et
De Potestate Parochi Tripartita Descriptio, Lugduni, 1712.
Bareiuiat, M., Droits et Dévoirs des Curés et des Vicaires Paro-
issaiaux, Paris, 1919.
Praelectiones Juris Canonici, (2 vols.), Parisiis, 1928.
Baronius, Cesare, Annales Ecclesiastici, (37 vols.), Barri Dueis,
1864-1883.
BaRUFFALDO, Hieronymus, Ad Rituale Romanum Commenta-
rium, (2 vols.), Florentiae, 1847.
Becanus, Martinus, Summa Theologiae Scholasticae, Parisiis,
1679.
BELsAEv, A., ,,Jeleosvjascenije’ v ,,Pravoslavnoj Bogosiovskoj
enciklopediji,‘ S.—Peterburg, 1904.
410 Bibliography
BELLARMINUS, Robertus, Opera Omnia, (8 vols.), Neapoli, 1872.
BEeNeEpDIctTus XIV, De Synodo Dvioecesana, (2 vols.), Romae,
1806.
Institutiones Canonecae, (3 vols.), Romae, 1784.
BERARDI, Almilius, De Parocho Compendium, Faventiae, 1887.
Praxis Confessarvorum, (2 vols.), Bononiae, 1891.
BERENGO, Joannes, Enchiridion Parochorum, Venetiis, 1877.
Burti, Giovanni, Opus de Theologicis Disciplims, (10 vols.),
Bassani, 1792.
Briuuot, Ludovicus, De Ecclesiae Sacramentis Commentarius in
Tertiam Partem S. Thomae, (2 vols.), Romae, 1897.
Bruuvart, FE. Carolus, Summa Sancti Thomae, Parisiis (8 vols.),
(merd:)
BInTERIM, Anton J., Die Vorziiglichsten Denkwiirdigkeiten de
Christ-Katholischen Kirche, Dusseldorf, 1816.
Buat, Albertus, O. P., Commentartum Textus Codicis Juris
Canonict, Romae, 1924.
BoNAVENTURA, Sanctus, Breviloquum, Friburgi, 1881.
Opera Omnia, (8 vols.),, Ad Claras Aquas, 1892-8.
Born, J. B., L’Eaxtréme Onction, Bruges, 1923.
Buccrroni, Januarius, 8. J., Casus Conscientie, (2 vols.),
Romae, 1918.
Institutiones Theologiae Moralis, (8 vols.), Romae,
1915;
CaBaAssutius, Joannes, Juris Canomci Theorva et Praxis, Lug-
duni, 1687.
CaBrou et LeCuere, Monumenta Ecclesiae Liturgica, (6 vols.),
Parisiis, 1900-2.
CAPELLMAN, C., Medicina Pastoralis, Aquisgrani, 1890.
CAPPELLO, Felix, S. J., Tractatus Canomeco-Moralis De Sacra-
mentis jucta Codicem Juris Canonici, (vols. I & IIT), Tauri-
norum Augustae, 1921-1923. .
CAPREOLUS, Joannes, Defensiones Theologiae D. Thomae, Turoni-
bus, 1902-8.
CARAMUEL, Joannis, Theologia Moralis Fundamentalis, (4 vols.),
Lugduni, 1675-1676.
Caswuist, The (5 vols.), New York, 1906-1917.
ee ee. of
Bibliography 411
CaTALANUS, Josephus, Rituale Romanum, Benedictt Papae XIV
Jussu Editum et Auctum, Perpetuis Commentarus Exorna-
tum, (2 vols.), Petavii, 1760.
Catholic Encyclopedia, The (16 vols. and Supplement), New
York, 1907-1922.
CAVALUIERI, Joannes Michael, Opera Omnia Liturgica, (5 vols.),
Venetiis, 1758.
Cave, Gulielmus, Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Historia Lite-
raria, Genevae, 1705.
CueLopr, Joannes, Jus de Personis juxta Codicem Juris Cano-
met, Tridenti, 1922.
CLeRIcatus, Joannes, Decisiones Sacramentales, (3 vols.), Ro-
mae, 1757.
Coccut, Guidus, Commentarium in Codicem Juris Canons ad
Usum Scholarum, (7 vols.), Taurinorum Augustae, 1925
(edit. tertia).
Cotuzt, Pierre, Institutiones Theologiae Moralis, Lugduni, 1768.
Concina, Daniel, Theologia Christiana Dogmatico-Moralis, (10
vols.), Neapoli, 1772-1775.
Contncx, Aegidius de, Commentariorum ac Disputationum im
Universam Doctrinam D. Thomae De Sacramentis et Cen-
suris Tomi Dwo, Antverpiae, 1619.
DanieL, Herm. Adalb., Codex Liturgicus Ecclesiae Unwersae,
(4 vols.), Lipsiae, 1847.
D’ANNIBALE, Josephus, Summula Theologiae Moralis, (3 vols.),
Romae, 1892.
De Amicis, Petrus, Caeremoniale Parochorum, Romae, 1910.
De Avoustinis, Almilius, 8. J.. De Re Sacramentaria Praelec-
tiones Scholastico-Dogmaticae, (2 vols.), Woodstock Mary-
landiae, 1879.
De Lex, Joseph, The Principles and Practice of Obstetrics,
Philadelphia and London, 1915.
De Luao, Joannes, De Sacramentis in Genere, Venetiis, 1718.
Disputationes Scholasticae et Morales (8 vol.), Parisiis,
1868-1869.
Dens, Petrus, Theologia Mechlimensis, Mechliniae, 1865.
Denzicer, Henricus, Ritus Orientaliwm, (2 vols.), Wirceburgi,
1864.
412 Bibliography
Drana, Antoninus, Coordinati Opera Omnia, (10 vols.), Vene-
tiis, 1728.
Dictionnaire des Ceremonies et des Rites Sacres, Petit-Mont-
rouge, 1847.
Dionysius, Carthusianus, In Sententiarum Librum Quartum
Commentaru Locupletissum, Venetiis, 1784.
Opera Omma, (18 vols.), Monstroli, 1896-9.
Drovuven, Renatus, De Re Sacramentaria Contra Perduelles
Haereticos, (2 vols.), Venetiis, 1772.
Duranpbus, In P. Lombardi Sententias Theologicas Commenta-
riorum Libri Quattuor, Venetiis, 1586.
Durantus, Joannes, De Ritibus Ecclesiae Catholicae, Romae,
1591.
E.LBEL-BreRBAUM, Theologia Moralis per Modum Conferentta-
rum, (3 vols.), Paderbornae, 1892.
Encyclopedie de la Theologie Catholique, Paris, 1903.
Estius (Est), Gulielmus, In Quattuor Libros Sententiarum
Commentaria: Quibus Pariter S. Thomae Summae Theolo-
gicae Partes Omnes Mirifice Illustrantur, (2 vols.), Parisiis,
1696.
Fa@nanus, Prosperus, Jus Canomcum seu Commentarium Ab-
solutissimum in Quinque Libros Decretales, (4 vols.), Vene-
tiis, 1696.
Fauise, J. B., Liturgiae Practicae Compendium, Ratisbonae,
1876,
FANFANI, De Jure Parochorum Ad Normam Codicis Juris Ca-
nonici, Taurini-Romae, 1924. ;
De Jure Religiosorum, Taurini-Romae, 1925.
Fr1yoo, O. 8. B., Cartas Eruditas, (ed. Rivadeneyra) Madrid.
Frrraris, F. Lucius, Bibliothecae Prompta Canonica, Juridica,
Moralis, Theologica, (8 vols.), Romae, 1885.
FERRERES, Joannes, S. J., Compendium Theologiae Moralis ad
Normam Codicis Juris Canonici, Barcinone, (3 vols.), (edit.,
quarta) 1909; (edit. tertia decima) 1925.
| Death, Real and Apparent in Relation to the Sacra-
ments, St. Louis, Freiburg, 1906.
Fortescun, Adrian, The Orthodox Eastern Church, London,
1907.
Bibluography 413
FrassEn, F. Claudius, Scotus Academicus, (12 vols. in 9), Ro-
mae, 1720-1722.
GENICOT-SALSMANS, Casus Conscientiae, Bruxellis, 1922.
Institutiones Theologiae Moralis, (2 vols.), Bruxellis,
1921, (edit. nona).
GERSONIUS, Joannes, Opera Omma, (5 vols.), Antverpiae, 1706.
GiurR, Nikolaus, Die hl. Sacramenten d. Kath., Kirche, 1903.
Goar, Huchologion swe Rituale Graecorum, Venetiis, 1730.
Gosatus, Georgius, 8S. J., Operum Moraliwm, hoc est, Experien-
tiarum Theologicarum, sive Experimentalis Theologiue de
Septem Sacramentis, Duaci, 1700.
GoneEtT, Joannes B., Clypeus Theologuae Thomisticae Contra No-
vos Ejus Impugnatores, (6 vols.), Parisiis, 1876.
GuRY-FERRERES, Casus Conscientiae, (2 vols.), Barcinone, 1921.
Gury, Joannes, Compendium Theologiae Moralis, (2 vols.), Ro-
mae, 1873.
Hanusgy P. J., Treatise on the Sacrament of Extreme Unction,
New York, 1907.
HEIMBUCHER, Die heilige Oelung, Ratisbonne, 1888.
Herpt, P. J. de, Sacrae Liturgiae Praxis et Cura, (8 vols.),
Lovanii, 1883.
Heuser, Herman J., The Parish Priest on Duty, New York-
Cinecinnati-Chicago (n. d.)
Hourter, Henricus, S. J., Theologiae Dogmaticae Compendium,
(3 vols.), Oentiponte, 1885.
Icarp, Severin, La Mort Reélle et la Mort Apparente, 1897.
TenatiJ, ,,O tainstvah jedinoj, svjatoj, sobornoj 4 apostolskoj
cerkvi. Opyt arheologicesky..’ Sanktpeterburg, 1863.
JUENIN, Gaspare, Commentarius Historicus et Dogmaticus de
Sacramentis In Genere et in Specie, Venetiis, 1740.
Kenrick, F. P., Theologia Moralis, (3 vols.), Philadelphiae,
18438.
Kenrick, F. P. Theologia Dogmatica, (3 vols.) Mechliniae,
1859.
Kurn, Josephus, 8. J., De Sacramento Extremae Unctionis Trac-
tatus Dogmaticus, Ratisbonae, 1907.
Kine, James I., The Adminstration of the Sacraments to Dying
Non-Catholics, Washington, 1924.
414 Bibliography
KIRCHELEXICON, (12 vols.), Freiburg-Briesgau, 1882-1901.
Koninas, Theologia Moralis, Neo-Eboraci, (n. d.)
KoupreuKa, Charles, Pastors, Their Rights and Duties, Wash-
megton, 1921.
KozMa DE Papt, Carolus, Liturgica Sacra Catholica, Ratisbonae,
1863.
LaCroix, Claudius, Theologia Moralis, (2 vols.), Venetiis (n.
d.)
Lavunol, Joannes, Opera, Omnia, (5 vols. in 10), Coloniae Allo-
gobrorum, 1731.
LAYMANN, Paulus, Theologia Moralis, (2 vols. in 1), Venetiis,
1719.
LEHMKUHBL, Augustinus, Casus Conscientiae, (2 vols.), Friburgi
Brisgoviae, 1902.
Theologia Moralis, (2 vols.), Friburgi Brisgoviae, 1914.
Liguori, St. Alphonsus, Homo Apostolicus, Augustae Taurino-
rum, 1879.
Theologia Moralis, (10 vols.), Mechliniae, 1842-1845.
LinearD, John, The Antiquities of the Anglo-Saxon Church,
Philadelphia, 1841.
MABILLON, Jean, Praefationes in Actis Sanctorum Ordimus BS.
Benedictt in Saeculorum Classes Distributis Praefizae, Ro-
tomagi, 1732.
MAaBILLONIvs, Joannes, Museum Italicum seu Collectio Veterum
Scriptorum ex Bibliothecis Italicis, (2 vols.), Lutetiae Pari-
siorum, 1724,
MAGISTRETTI, Mareus, Manuale Ambrosianum, 1905.
MakKaRiJ, ,,Pravoslavno-dogmaticeskoje bogoslovije..‘ Peter-
burg, 1895.
MaLponarTus, Joannes, Commentarius in Quattuor Evangelistas,
(2 vols.), Moguntiae, 1862.
Mautzew, Alexios, Die Sacramente der Orthodoz-katholischen
Kirche des Morgenlandes, Berlin, 1898.
Many, S., S. S., Praelectiones de Locis Sacris, Parisiis, 1904.
Marinooua, Aloisius, Institutiones Liturgicae, Neapoli, 1864.
MarrEeng, Edmundus, De Antiquis Ecclesiae Ritibus, (4 vols.),
Rotomagi, 1700-6.
Mastrius, Bartholomeus, Theologia Moralis, Venetiis, 1671.
Bibliography 415
MATHARAN-CASTILLON, Asserta Moralia, Paris, 1920.
Micueterti, A. M., De Pastore Animarum, Friburgi et Romae,
ime day
MippLeTon, Richard, Authorati Theologi Ricard a Media Villa,
Parisiis, 1519.
Mieng, J. P., Cursus Theologius Completus, (28 vols.), Petit-
Montrange, 1845-1860.
Patrologia Graeca, (161 vols.), Parisiis, 1858-1864.
Patrologia Latina, (221 vols.), Parisiis, 1847-1870.
Moron, Joseph, Institutions Canoniques a L’Usage des Curves
Episcopales, du Clerge Paroissial, et des Familles Reli-
greuses, (2 vols.), Lille, 1924.
Murpuy, George, Delinquencies and Penalties in the Adminis-
tration and the Reception of the Sacraments, Washington,
1923.
Natauis, Alexander, Theologia Dogmatica et Moralis, (2 vols.),
Venetiis, 1705.
Neyracuet D., Compendium Theologiae Moralis, Ratisbonae,
1851.
Noupin, H., 8. J.. Summa Theologiae Moralis, Oentiponte, (3
vols.), (ed. septima) 1908; (edit. quarta decima), 1921.
O’Kanz, James, Notes on the Rubrics of the Roman Ritual, Dub-
jin, 1922. ;
O’Mauiey, Austin, The Ethics of Medical Homicide and Mutila-
tion, New York, 1922.
PALLAVICINI, Sforza, Istoria del Concilio di Trento, (4 vols.),
Roma, 1833.
PauMIERI, Dominicus, Opus Theologicum, Prati, 1889-93.
PaLupANus (Peter de Palude), Exactissimia atque Maxime
Probati ac Clarissimi Doctoris Petri de Palude Predicatori
ordims Hierosolymitani quondam patriarchi diguissimi
quartus sententiarum liber, Parisiis, 1518.
Pappiani, Albertus, Doctrina Christiana de Sacramentis Eccle-
siae Sacrosanctis Ab Heterodoxorum Erroribus Vindicata,
“ Florentiae, 1772.
PascHane, John L., The Sacramentals According to The New
Code of Canon Law, Washington, 1925.
416 Bibliography
Peuuicta, De Christianae Ecclesiae Primae, Mediae et Novis-
simae Polita, (2 vols.), Collonniae, 1829.
PERRONE, Joannes, Praelectiones Theologicae, Mediolani et Gene-
vae, 1857.
Pescu, Christianus, Praelectiones Dogmaticae, (9 vols.), Fri-
burgi Brisgoviae, 1920.
Perrus Lomparpus, Quattuor Libri Sententiarum (Cf. Migne,
Be D2a)92 ).
Pierrot, L’Abbé, Dictionnaire de la Theologie Morale, Petit-
Montrouge, 1849.
Picui-Frrrais, Liturgia Sacerdotalis, Veronae, 1907.
PIGNATELLI, Jacobus, Consultationes Canonicae, (vols. 10), Colo-
niae Allogobrorum.
PouuE-Prevuss, The Sacraments, St. Louis, 1920.
PRuEMMER, Manuale Juris Ecclesiastici, Friburgi Brisgoviae,
1922.
Manuale Theologiae Moralis, (8 vols.), Friburgi Bris-
goviae, 1923.
RauMant, Ignatius Ephraem II, Testamentum Domim Nostre
Jesu Christi, Moguntiae, 1899.
Repina, Augustinus, Vheologia Scholastica Universa, Einsiedeln,
1687.
REIFFENSTUEL, Anacletus, Jus Canonicum Universum, (7 vols.),
Paris, 1864-70.
RevuTER-LEHMKUHL-UMBERG, Neo-Confessarius Practice Instruc-
tus, Friburgi Brisgoviae, 1919.
Routine, Augustinus, Medulla Theologiae Moralis, Sti. Ludovici,
1875.
Ropzs, James Hardy, International Commentary on the Epistle
of St. James, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary, New
York, 1916.
SapBertr-BaRReTr, Compendium Theologiae Moralis, Neo-Ebo-
raci, 1920.
SaInTE-BEuvE, Jacobus de, Tractatus de Sacramento Extremae
Unctionis, (apud Migne, Cursus Theologicus Completus,
vol. xxiv.)
SALMANTICENSES, Collegti Salmanticensis Fratrum Discalcea-
torum B. Mariae de Monte Carmeli Primitwae Observan-
tiae Cursus Theologiae Moralis, Venetiis, 1728.
Bibliography 417
SancueEz, Joannes, Selectae, Illaeque Practicae Disputationes de
Rebus in Administratione Sacramentorum, Venetiis, 1639.
Sanrorp, Alexander, Pastoral Medicine, Revised and Enlarged
by a Chapter on the Moment of Death by the Rev. Walter
M. Drum, S. J., New York, 1905.
Sassz, Joannes, 8. J., Institutiones Theologicae De Sacramentis
Ecclesiae, (2 vols.), Friburgi Brisgoviae, 1898.
Scavint, Petrus, Theologia Moralis Universa Ad Mentem S. Al-
phonsi M. de Ligorio, Pio IX Pontificr M. Dicata, (4 vols.),
Mediolani, 1869.
ScHaaF, Valentine T., The Cloister, Cincinnati, 1921.
Scuanz, Die Lehre von der heilegen Sakramenten der Katholis-
chen Kirche, 1893.
ScuetL, Herman, Katholische Dogmatik, (4 vols.), Paderborn,
1889.
Scumitz, De Effectibus Extremae Unctionis, Friburgi Brisgo-
viae, 1893.
Scotus, Joannes Duns, Reportata Parisiensia, Parisiis, 1894.
SEBASTIANI, Nicolas, Swmmarium Theologiae Moralis ad Codicem
Juris Canonici Accomodatum, Taurinorum Augustae, 1921.
Srmar, Theophil, Lehrbuch der Dogmatik, Paderborn, 1889.
Sater, Thomas, A Manual of Moral Theology, (2 vols.), New
York, 1908.
Sorus, Dominicus, Commentarium FP’. Dom. Sotiin Quartum Sen-
tentiarum, (2 vols.), Venetiis, 1579.
Srane, William, Pastoral Theology, Brussels, 1897.
Suarez, Franciscus, 8. J., Opera Omnia, (26 vols.), Parisiis,
1861. ;
Synvester, Summae Sylvestrinae, (2 vols.), Venetiis, 1601.
Syuvius, Franciscus, Commentarium in Tertiam Partem 8.
Thomae Aquinatis, Venetiis, 1726.
TAMBURINI, Thomas, S. J., Juris Divini, Naturalis, et Ecclesia-
stici Expedita Morals Explicatio, (3 vols. in 2), Venetiis,
1748.
TanquerEy, Adrian, Synopsis Theologiae Dogmaticae ad Men-
tem 8. Thomae Aquinatis Holdiernis Moribus Accomodata,
Romae-Tornaci-Parisiis, (3 vols.), 1921.
418 Bibliography
TANQUEREY-QUEVASTRE, Brevior Synopsis Theologiae Moralis et
Pastoralis, Romae-Tornaci-Parisiis, (editions of 1911 and
1920).
Tapper, Richardus, Opera, Coloniae, 1583.
TELCH, Carolus, Epitome Theologiae Moralis Unwersae per De-
finitiones, Divisiones et Summaria Principia, Oentiponte,
LOLS,
THomas Aquinas, Sanctus, Opera Omnia, (34 vols.), Parisiis,
1871-1880. :
Summa Philosophia Contra Gentiles, Parisiis (n. d.).
Summa Theologica, (6 vols.), Romae, 1894.
TouRNELY, Honoratus, Praelectiones Theologicae de Septem Ec-
clesiae Sacramentis, (2 vols.), Parisiis, 1729.
Tractatus de Unwersa Theologia Moral, (9 vols.), Pa-
risiis, 1743-50.
TROMBELLIO, Joannes C©., Tractatus de Sacramentis per Pole-
micas et Liturgicas Dissertationes Dispositii—De Extrema
Unctione, (3 vols.), Bononiae, 1776.
VAN DER StTAPPEN, J. F., Sacra Liturgia, (5 vols.), Mechliniae,
le
VAN Espen, Zegerus, Jus Ecclesiasticum Universum Ceteraque
Scripta Omnia, Venetiis, 1769.
VeRMEERSCH, Arturus, S. J., Theologiae Moralis, Principia, Re-
sponsa, Consilia, (8 vols.), Romae, 1923.
VERMEERSCH-CREUSEN, Summa Novis, Juris, Romae, 1918.
Epitome Juris Canonici, (3 vols.), Romae, 1925.
VicroriA, Franciscus, Summa Sacramentorum, Antverpiae, 1572.
VicoureEL, Adrian, 8. 8., A Synthetical Manual of Liturgy, Bal-
timore, 1907.
Voir, Edmundus, Theologia Moralis, (2 vols.), Wireeburgi, 1860.
WALDENSIS (Thomas Netter), Doctrinale Antiqui Fidei, Vene-
LHS rd:
Warren, F. E., The Liturgy and Ritual of the Celtic Church,
Oxford, 1881.
WatTERWOoRTH, Canons and Decrees of The Council of Trent,
London, 1848.
WERNZ-VIDAL, Jus Canonicum De Personis, Romae, 1923.
a en ee ee a ae ee ee eee SS ee eee eee
Bibliography 419
Woyrwonp, Stanislaus, O. F. M., A Practical Commentary on the
Code of Canon Law, (2 vols.), New York, 19209.
PERIODICALS
AcotytrE, The, Huntington, vol. IT (1926).
American EccursiasticAL Review, The, Philadelphia, vols.
XVIII (1898), XIX (1898), XxX (1899), xX XLT CL900),
XXV (1901), XXXI (1904), XXXIIT (1905), XO
(1906), XLII (1910), XLVITI (1913), LVI (1917); LD Vit
(1917), LVIII (1918), LX (1919), LXI (1919), LXIL
(1920), LXITX (1923).
Anauecta Eccuestastica, Romae, vol. VIII (1900).
Britis Meprcan Journau, The, London, Feb. 1914.
Canonists Contremporain, Louvain, vol. XXX (1907).
De Reuiqgiosis Er Missionarus SUPPLEMENTA ET MONUMENTA
Prrropica, Brugis, vol. III (1911).
Ex Crrrerio Caruonico En Las Crencias MEpicas, Barcelona,
May to Aug., 1903.
Epuemerwes Lirurcicar, Romae, vols. V (1891), XX (1906),
NOMI GRUVER 2:0-@-4 BGR
Erupes FRANCISCAINES, Paris, tome V, No. 25, (Jan. 1901)
Hommetic aNp Pasrorat Review, The, New York, vols. XXII
(1922), XXVI (1926).
In Monrrore Eccuxstastico, Roma, vols. VI (1895), XIX
(1907), XXIX (1916).
Irisu Eccuestastican Recorp, The, Dublin, (Fifth Series), vols.
VI (1915), VII (1916), XII (1918).
Irish THEOLOGICAL QuARTERLY, The, Dublin, vols. LE OY0R
Pelee LU Li):
JouRNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL Mepicing, The, New York, vol. XVI
(1912).
JouRNAL or THE AMERICAN MEpICAL ASSOCIATION, Chicago, July
6, 1912 (vol. LIX, No. 1), Jan. 9, 1915, (vol. LXIV, No. 2).
L’Amr pu Cuerae, Langres, vols., XXX (1908), XX XIII (1911),
KX LV (L912
NovuveLLe RevvE THEOLOGIQUE, Tournal, vol. XXXL 61899):
PumapELPHIA Pusuic Leper, Jan. 3, 1923.
Presse Meprcaueg, La, Paris.
420 Bibliography
Razon Y Fs, Madrid, vols. VIII (1903), IX (1903), XVI
(1906), XLVIII (1917).
REVUE BENEDICTINE, Abbaye de Maredsous, vol. XIII (1896).
REVUE CATHOLIQUE DES Hetuisss, vol. II, (1905).
RevvuE D’ HISTOIRE ET DE LITTERATURE RELIGIEUSES, Paris, vol.
X (1905).
REVUE THEOLOGIQUE FRANCAIS, Toulouse, 1906.
‘THEOLOGISCH-PRAKTISCHE QUARTALSCHRIFT, Linz, vols. LXIX
(1916), LXXI (1918), LXXIX (1926). (This is quoted
in the footnotes as the Linzer Quartalschrift).
WasHINGTON Post, The, March 10, 1926.
ZEITSCHRIFT FUR KIRCHENGESCHISCHICHTE, Gotha, vol. XX
(1900).
INDEX
ADDITION, of unblessed oil to
blessed, 326.
ADMINISTRATION, conditional, 205 sqq.,
237; to drunken people, 239; to
those rendered unconscious in act
of mortal sin, 237 sqq.; to those
who have refused the sacraments
until unconsciousness, 241; to those
under censure, 236; absolute, to all
those petitioning it, 261; to the
violently insane or delirious, 261;
to the unconscious, 249; fee for,
151 sqq.; rite of, 345, sqq., when
given by several priests in the Latin
Rite, 91; ordinary mode of, 347
sqq.; mode of, in case of necessity,
371.
ADULTERATION, of the oil, danger of,
72.
Acer, of reason, in regard to E. U.,
142 sqq.; doubtful attainment of,
206 sqq.
AmBry, 335, sq.; place in church, 336,
in the rectory, 341.
ASPHYXIA, 216.
BISHOP, minister of the blessing of
the oil, 299.
BLESSING, of the oil, 297; some bless-
ing required, 45; nature of required
blessing, 299.
BLIND, unction of the, 371.
Bopy, health of, as effect of E, U., 35.
Bourse, for oil-stock, 335.
CADAVERIC COLDNESS, in cases
of apparert death, 213.
CATALEPSY, 216.
CATECHUMENS, oil of, in administer-
ing E. U., 312 sqq.; prohibition to
take, on sick-calls, 341; prohibition
to keep, in rectory, 340.
CATHEDRAL, blessing of oil in, 318;
dispensing of oil from, 321.
CENSURE, administration to those un-
der, 236.
CHARITY, obligation in, of every priest
in case of necessity, 117; towards
one’s self to receive EK. U., 275
sqq.; to take care of health, 404.
CHILDREN, anointment of those who
have reached the age of reason,
142; administration to, in case of
doubtful attainment of use of rea-
son, 206 sqq.; obligation of pastor
in this regard, 112.
CHRISM, use of, in administering
i. U., 312 sqq.
CONDITION, to be inserted, when
anointing in apparent death, 222;
when anointing children whose use
of reason is doubtful, 208; when
subject is doubtfully obstinate in
manifest mortal sin, 246, when a
subject thus doubtfully obstinate
becomes repentant, 247.
CONDITIONAL ADMINISTRATION, 205
sqq.; to those who have doubtfully
attained the use of reason, 206 sqq.;
to those doubtfully in danger of
death, 208 sqq.; to those doubtfully
alive, 210 sqq.; to those undergoing
surgical operations, 179, sqq.; in
eases of repetition, 198; when a
subject, once anointed, falls into a
danger of death from a_ second
source, 200.
CONFESSION, prior to E. U., necessity
of, 232; seal of, anointing of one
whose unworthiness is known from,
248.
CONTAGIOUS DISEASE, behavior of
priest when anointing in, 404.
CoNTUMACY, in manifest mortal sin,
229 sqq.
CoNTEMPT, in the reception of E. U.,
278.
Corton, use of, in reservation of the
oil, 334; in wiping off unctions,
362; disposal of, after use, 362
sqq.; in contagious diseases, 402.
CREMATION, anointing of those who
have ordered, 231.
Cross, unctions made in form of, 358.
Custom, of carrying the oil habitually
upon the person of the priest, 343;
of keeping the oil in the rectory,
340,
[ 421]
422
DANGER, of death, required for valid
administration of E. U., 164 sqq.;
must be intrinsic to the subject,
164.
Dear, unction of the, 371.
DEATH,
anointing in,
anoint in, 113.
apparent, signs of, 211;
219; obligation to
DELINQUENCY, of duty, on the part of
pastors, in regard to HE. U., 289.
DeLIRiouUS, administration to the, 261.
DENIAL, of the sacrament, to the con-
tumaciously impenitent, 225 sqq.
DISINFECTANTS, use of, by priest when
anointing, 107, 403.
DisposaL, of old oil, 325.
DISPOSITION, required for remission of
mortal sin by E. U., 30; for remis-
sion of venial sin, 31; for remission
of temporal punishment, 33; evil-
ness of, to warrant denial of ad-
ministration, 229.
DISTRACTION, voluntary, in the form,
28.
DISTRIBUTION, of oils, fee for, 321.
Docrors, duty of, in regard to pro-
curing E. U., for patients, 291.
DRUNKENNESS,
voluntary, anointing
Lala toe be eee ;
Duty, of the pastor, to administer
EK. U., 108, sqq.; to promote timely
administration of E. U., 282; of
parents, in regard to procuring
B. Use 29) of physicians | Gein
regard to procuring HE. U., 291; de-
linqueney of, on part of pastor to
administer HE. U., 289.
EARS, unction of, 359.
EFFECTS, 28 sqq.; remission of sins,
ibid.; remission of temporal punish-
ment, 32; the ‘‘confortatio
animae,’” 34; the restitution of
bodily health, 35; principal, 38.
ELEMENTS, of EK. U., 61 sqq.
EMERGENCY CALLS, frequency of, as
reason for keeping the oils in the
rectory, 340, 342.
Enp, of KE. U., the immediate entrance
into glory, 20 sqq.
EPILEPTIC COMA, 216,
Index
EPISCOPAL BLESSING, required for oil,
299 sqq.
:xPRESS, transportation of the oil by,
324.
Eyes, unction of, 359.
FAITHFUL, subject of E. U. must be
elas
Fre, for distributing the oils, 321;
for administration of E. U., 151
sqq.
Fret, unction of, 368; omission of,
for a reasonable cause, 394.
FOREHEAD, unction of, in short
method of administration, 377.
Form, variety of forms, 26 sqq., 73
sqq.; necessity of deprecatory, 27;
distractions in, 28; in the ordinary
mode of administration, 348; es-
sential words of, 348, sqq.; short
form, in case of necessity, 378.
ForMULA, for blessing the oil, 310,
318.
FRIGUS cadavericum, 218.
GREEKS, customs of, in the admin-
istration of E. U., 53, 66; variety
of forms in Greek rite, 66; in re-
gard to the minister, 88, 91; abuses
by, in regarding to conferring
EK. U., 145 sqq.
HABITUAL earrying of the oils on
the person of the priest, 343.
TiANpsS, unction of, 365; in case of
necessity, 221, 378, 245.
HEALTH, bodily, recovery of, 35.
IHIERETICS, anointing of, 124 sqq.
Hoty THURSDAY, ceremony of blessing
the oil on, 318; prohibition of add-
ing unblessed oil to the oil just
blessed, 327.
Houses, priest’s, see Rectory.
ILLNESS, gravity of, required for
validity, 157 sqq.
IMPLICIT, intention, 252; petition, 255.
INSANE, administration to the, 143;
when violent, 261.
INTENTION, kinds of, 251; in the con-
tumaciously impenitent, 225; mani-
festation of, thru petition, 253 sqq.
INTERPRETATIVE, intention, 255; peti-
tion, ibid,
Index
INSTRUMENT, use of, 400.
INVERSION, of order of unctions, 397.
TTERABILITY, 51 sqq.; validity of, in
same danger of death, 51; liceity
of, 185 sq.; in different dangers of
death, 191 sqq.; in lingering ill-
nesses, 194 sqq.,
JUSTICE, obligation in, for ordinary
minister, 103.
LAYMEN, cannot administer E. U.,
81 sqq.; can touch vessels of oil for
sufficient reason, 323; transporta-
tion of oil by, 322 sqq.
LATENT LIFE, length of, 218.
Leprosy, anointing in cases of, 402.
LETHARGY, 216.
LIcENSE, to administer E. U., 100.
LINGERING ILLNESS,
BE. U., in, 194 sqq.
Lips, unction of, 364.
Livipity, cadaveric, 214.
repetition of
MAIL, transportation of oil by, 324.
MaTerraL of vessel for oil, 334.
Marter, remote, of E. U., 24 sqq.;
proximate, 64 sqq.
MINISTER OF E. U., valid, 79 sqq.;
proof from text of St. James, 11
sqq.; not a layman, 81 sqq.; num-
ber of ministers, 85 sqq.; licit, 92
sqq.; in case of necessity, 99; ordi-
nary, 103, bound from justice, ibid. ;
extraordinary, 100, 117.
MopeE of unction, 357.
MoutH, unction of, 364.
Mutes, unetion of, 371.
NAME, called by many names, 4; in
Latin Rite, ibid.; in Greek Rite,
ibid.; reasons for present name, 5.
NARCOSIS, as a
death, 216.
NeEcEssity, cases of, in regard to law-
fulness of administration, 99; ob-
ligation of every priest to anoint
in, 117; of E. U. for salvation, 265;
of precept, 269; duty of physician
in cases of, 294; of relatives, 292
sq.; for reservation of oil in rec-
tory, 339; for short form of unc-
tion, 371 sqq.; examples of, 375 sq.
sign of apparent
423
NEGLIGENCE, in the reception of E. U.,
269; distinguished from contempt,
279.
Non-CAaTHOLICS, anointing of, 124
sqq.; arguments of, 126 sqq.; argu-
ments against, 124 sqq.
Nose, unction of, 363.
NursES, duty of, in regard to pro-
curing Hoes L:
OBEX, impeding effects of E. U., 49,
how removed, dl.
OBLIGATION, of minister, ordinary,
from justice, 103 sqq.; on extraordi-
nary minister from charity, 117; on
pastor, when E. U. is sole means
of salvation, 108 sqq.; when child’s
use of reason is doubtful, 112; in
eases of apparent death, 113; in re-
gard to anointing non-Catholics,
115; of repeating E. U., 194, 198,
202; in case of doubtful contumacy,
230; upon the subject to receive
E. U., 263 sqq.
OBSTINATE, impenitence,
tion to one in, 241.
administra-
OccULT SINNERS, anointing of, 248;
when known from seal of confes-
sion, ibid.
Or, of catechumens, use of in admin-
istering E. U., 312 sqq.; of the Sick,
must be olive, 24; danger of adul-
teration of the, 72; distribution of,
321; transportation of, by laymen,
322; disposal of old, 325; replen-
ishing supply of, 326; addition of
unblessed to blessed, 326; prohibi-
tion of adding unblessed to blessed
on Holy Thursday, 327; reserva-
tion of, 331; material of vessels for,
334; reservation of, under lock and
key, 336; custom of carrying
habitually upon the person of the
priest, 343; prohibition to keep in
tabernacle, 337; wiping off, after
unction, 361.
Oru-stTocK, regulations for, 334 sqq.;
burse for, 3385.
OLD AGE, see senility.
OMISSION, of unction, 357.
OrpDER, of unctions, 356; inversion of,
ir
RW
ORDINARY, permission of, to keep oi
in rectory, 339,
424 Index
PARTURITION, danger of death
from, 173 sqq.
Pastor, the ordinary minister of
E. U., 103; duty of, to use zeal in
promoting the timely administra-
tion of E. U., 282; obligation of, to
renew oil promptly, 319, from his
own Ordinary, 319, 321; right to
supply the unctions, when short
form has been used, 390, 393.
PETITION, as the manifestation of in-
tention, 253 sqq.; implicit, 255, in-
terpretative, ibid., explicit, ibid.
PLACE OF UNCTION, in older Rituals, °
66 sqq.; in present Latin Rite, 356,
sqq.
PREGNANCY, see Parturition.
Priest, the minister of E. U., 79
sqq.; as shown from the text of St.
James, 11 sqq.; as minister of the
blessing of the oil, 310; unction of
the hands of a, 366.
PROCEDURE, mode of, against delin-
quent pastors, 290.
PROTESTANTS, see Non-Catholics.
‘PUNISHMENT, temporal, remission of,
32.
PURGATORY, remission of punishment
of, 32
PUTREFACTION, as only certain sign
of somatic death, 215.
QUANTITY of unblessed oil that
may be added to blessed, 328.
REASON, age of, subject must have
attained, 135.
Rectory, reservation of oil in, 338
sqq.
REDUNDANCY of members, anointing
when there is a, 370.
REFUSAL of subject, to receive E. U.,
274, 284; duty of pastor in case
of, ibid.
REINS, unction of, 394.
RELATIVES, duty of, to procure E. U.,
Pah
REMISSION, of sins, as effect of E. U.,
28; of temporal punishment, as ef-
fect of E. U., 32.
RENEWAL, of the oil, obligation on
pastor in regard to, 319.
REPETITION, see Iterability.
REPLENISHING of the oil, 326.
RESERVATION, of oil, 331; under lock
and key, 336, but not in tabernacle,
337; in sacristy, 337; in the rec-
tory, 338.
REVIVISCENCE, 49 sqq.; requirements
for, 57.
Rigor, cadavericus, 213.
Rite, of blessing the oil, 310, 318;
of administering E. U., in the Latin
Church, 357 sqq.
SACRAMENTALITY, proof in favor
of, from Scripture, 7 sqq.; from
Tradition, 19 sqq.
SACRILEGE, committed in reception of
E. U., repetition after, 200.
Saocristy, reservation of oil in, 3387.
Sr. JAMES, epistle of, promulgation
of E. U. found therein, 8; examina-
tion of the text (V, 14), 8 sqq.
Sr. Mark, gospel of, in regard to the
sacramentality of E. U., 17 sqq.
SCHISMATICS, anointing of, 124; also
see Non-Catholic.
ScRIPTURE, argument from, 7 sqq.
Senmity, danger of death from, 184;
repetition of E. U. in cases of, 191
sqq.
Sick, the, as the subject of E. U., 8
sqq., 164 sqq.; oil of, 24, 72.
Siens, of apparent death, 212.
SINGLE UNCTION, sufficient for valid-
ity, 45, 377.
SoLicrrupE, of the Church, in regard
to E. U., 280.
SrrpEND, for administration of EK. U.,
291, for distribution of the oil, 321.
Srock, for oil, regulations for, 334
sqq.
SUBJECT, requisites in, 123 sqq.; ob-
ligation to receive, 269.
SuFFICIENCY, of a single unction, 49,
377.
SUPERSTITIONS in regard to E, U.,
153, 279.
Supply of oil, replenishing of, 326.
SuppLyina of unctions, 379; is it @
repetition of the sacrament, 386.
SurGEONS, duty of, in regard to pro-
curing E. U., 291.
SWOONING, 216,
|
Index
TABERNACLE, prohibition to keep
oils in, 337.
TEMPORAL PUNISHMENT, remission of,
32.
‘HURSDAY, Holy, ceremony of bless-
ing the oil on, 318; prohibition of
adding unblessed oil to oil just
blesscd on, 327.
TRANSPORTATION of oil, by laymen,
322; by mail or express, 324.
TRADITION, proof of sacramentality
fiom, 19 sqq.
THUMB, unctions made with, 358.
UNBLESSED oil, addition to blessed
oil, 326; quantity of, to be added,
328.
Unconscious, administration to the,
249
~ .
425
Unctions, places of, in old Rituals,
66 sqq.; in Roman Ritual 347; when
organs are missing, 369; when
members are redundant, 370; order
of, 356; inversion of order of, 357;
omission of, 357; mode of, 357 sqq.;
made with thumb, 358; in the form
of a cross, 358; of eyes, 359; of
ears, 363; of nose, 363, of mouth,
364; of hands, 365, priest’s hands,
366; of feet, 368, omission of, for
reasonable cause, 398; of forehead,
373; of reins, 294; wiping off of,
361; one, sufficient for validity, 45,
377; supplying of, 379; does the
supplying of, constitute a repetition
of the sacrament, 366.
Unity, nature of, in E. U., 42 sqq.
VESSEL, for oil, material of, 334.
ViRGULA, use of, 400.
WORDS, essential, of form, 348 sqq.
FacuLtTas JURIS CANONICI
UNivERsITAS CAaTHOLICA AMERICAE
W ASHINGTONII
1925-1926
No. 32
[ 427 ]
ks aol 4 Be
> vy . LS hnly
+ ¢ ° i re /
ay "9 j A ws, fi Jt ae c. (Se
‘. iy ‘A +. , 5" a ’ ;
k ; Ly , : . : he
4 . } To ae
8 4% é - & oi Db. act ‘ he Mh é <
t re f a } j P >. : iv is Ey
£ Pn -pte fF, 7) Date er ba A
DEUS LUX MEA
THESES
QUAS
AD DOCTORATUS GRADUM
IN
JURE CANONICO
Apud Universitatem Catholicam Americae
CONSEQUENDUM
PUBLICE PROPUGNABIT
ADRIANUS HIERONYMUS KILKER
SACERDOS ARCHIDIOECKESIS
PHILADELPHIENSIS
JURIS CANONICI LICENTIATUS
HORA XI A. M. DIE XXVIII MAIL A. D. MCMXXVI
[ 429 ]
EVEL
XVII.
AVIII.
UEXG
XX.
OGL
MOGI
XXII.
DOG IN
PD. QGE
XXVI.
DOGS AE
XXVIII.
DDG DS
XXX.
XXXII.
XXXIT.
XXXITI.
JUS CANONICUM
De Ambitu Codicis
Promulgatione Legis
Subjecto Legum Particularium
Temporis Supputatione
Aequisitione Privilegiorum
Dispensationibus
Romano Pontifice
. De Idoneitate Requisita ad Episcopatum
Usu Pontificalium
Visitatione ad Limina
. De Functionibus Parocho Reservatis
. De Appheatione Missae pro Populo
. De Vicario Cooperatore
. De Requisitis pro Admissione in Novitiatum
. De Ingressu in Clausuram Monialium
De Ministro Baptismi
De Loco Baptismi
De Ministro Confirmationis
De Sacerdote Extraneo Volente Litare
Sacrum
De Administratione S. Communionis
De Confessionibus Exeipiendis i Mari
De Obligatione Confitendi Peceata
De Subjecto Extremae Unctionis
De Licentia Coneessa Assistendi Matri
monio
De Denegatione
asticae
De Abstinentia et Jejunio
De Notione Judicii Eeclesiastici
De Causis ad 8. Sedem Reservatis
Sepulturae Ecclesi-
1569,
De Tribunali Seeundae Instantiae
De Causis contra Sacram Ordinationem
De Modo Procedendi contra Parochum
in Adimplendis Officiis Paroecialibus
Negligentem
De Natura et Divisione Delicti
De Divisione Poenarum
[ 430 ]
Canons
1a
8-9
13-14
31-35
63-65
80-84
218-221
ai)
337
341-342
462
339, 466
476
542
600
738-744
771; 713,716
782-784
804
867-869
883
906-907
940-944
1096
1240-1241
1250-1254
1552-1553
1557-1558
1962-1963
1594-1596
1993-1998
2182-2185
2195-2198
2216-2217
ee eee te
Theses 431
XXXIV. De Superiore Potestatem Coactivam
Habente 2220-2225
XXXV. De Remissione Poenarum 2236-2240
XXXVI. De Absolutione Censurarum 2252-2254
XXXVII. De Natura et Divisione Excommunica-
tionis 22571-2208
XXXVITI. De Effeetibus Excommunicationis 2259-2267
XXXIX. De Definitione et Divisione Interdicti 2268-2269
ROMAN LAW
JUSTINIAN Law
XL. Slavery—Modes and Effects
XLI. Release from Slavery
XLII. The Effects of Release
XLITI. ‘‘ Affines Servi’’
XLIV. Citizens—Who are Citizens and How Citizenship
Is Acquired
XLV. Loss of Citizenship
XLVI. Modification of Personality
XLVII.<‘‘Cura et Tutela’’
INSTITUTES OF GAIUS
XLVIII. Modes of Manumission
XLIX. Rights of Citizenship
L. Loss of Citizenship
INTERNATIONAL LAW
LI. The Nature of International Law
LIT. Sourees of International Law
LIII. The Drago Doctrine
LIV. The Extraterritoriality of Vessels
LV. The Monroe Doctrine
LVI. Spheres of Influence
LVII. Treaties—Purpose and Scope
IVIL. Diplomatic Agents: Immunity
LIX. Extradition
LX. Piracy
Vipit FACULTAS:
PHILIPPUS BERNARDINI, 8S. T. D., J. U. D., Decanus.
H. LUDOVICUS MOTRY, S. T. D., J. C. D., a Secretis.
Vinit Rector UNIVERSITATIS:
THOMAS J. SHAHAN, 8. T. D., J. U. LB, L. L. D.
“VITA
Adrian Jerome Kilker was born in Girardville, Pennsy!-
vania, on August 21, 1901. He attended the public schools of
that town, graduating from High School in 1916. In September
of the same year, he entered the Seminary of Saint Charles
Borromeo at Overbrook and eight years later was ordained to
the priesthood by His Eminence, D. Cardinal Dougherty.
In September, 1924, he matriculated at the Catholic Uni-
versity of America at Washington, and registered in the School
of Canon Law. At the end of the academic year of 1924-25,
the degrees of Bachelor and Licentiate in Canon Law were con-
ferred upon him. In partial fulfillment of the requirements for
the degree of Doctor in Canon Law, he wrote and published
this dissertation on Extreme Unction.
[ 432 ]
7 hey :
=)
ae iii
eee
Cees, iene |
Ngan”
/ iy is
@ \) oF
>. i
re. =» /
Da ri ,
/. Jon 2 :
tg
; ey eAse 2 te
io 44;% ;
Cea fs
J
1
Princeton Theological Seminary-Speer Libra
11 2714
epeiste
aes
2
Sialases
Me
gyi
sett
4
pent
wr
tt t
ae
fends
creer
its:
ase.
taf
tsth
ise
Ssts Ss tate iitetetes
=e
itd
past
ef
.
+
Rete!
an
sat
shots
thebes
hare
SSH
Hake z ePalarst
paseresta
Heat ignite : ie tees
tied i ee : pest roeepts ttc
preter teeth ta ntiptipatacr state pis ; seo
\<: heres aad eoyrecateestnd sheep tetas i ve sea
pelgarhentit tatececstebelabnits aintaenteaie tt tatetal baitiatie ct
7 lao? tor seesey tatty
Gal thrapeseetestht cate ot