Can bishops suspend the sacrament of extreme
unction? To answer this question, a distinction needs to be drawn between
whether there is a divine right to the sacrament, and whether the sacrament is
a necessity of means or precept. Once an individual has been constituted a person
in the church through baptism he acquires certain divine, and not merely
ecclesiastical, rights to the sacraments. A baptized person certainly has a
right to extreme unction under normal circumstances. However, this right is not
absolute since the sacrament is not considered to be a necessity of means by
theologians. Only baptism and confession of mortal sins is a relative necessity
of means. According to dogmatic theologian Joseph Pohle, “If Extreme Unction
were absolutely necessary for salvation, the Church could not suspend the administration
of this Sacrament, as she sometimes does during an interdict, because a divine
law is always binding.”[1] Canon
944 of 1917 Code also adds, “Although
Extreme Unction is not a Sacrament absolutely necessary for salvation, no one
is allowed to neglect it, and care should be taken that the sick receive it
while they are yet fully
conscious.”
Under normal circumstances, the pastor is bound in
justice to administer the sacrament of extreme unction. Canon 939 of the 1917
Code reads, “The ordinary minister is bound in justice to administer Extreme
Unction, and in case of necessity any priest is bound to do so by the virtue of
charity.” However, there exists excusing factors to this rule. According to St.
Alphonsus de Ligouri,
The
shepherd, by reason of office, is held under pain of mortal sin to give extreme
unction to those who ask, even in a time of plague, unless a just cause might
excuse from doing so in such a manner that he might avoid danger to his life … if
those infected with plague might have confessed, one can omit without sin.[2]
St. Alphonsus provides two necessary conditions whereby a pastor is excused of mortal sin for withholding the sacrament of extreme unction. First, a reasonable risk to the pastor’s life must exist. Second, the pastor must have moral certitude that those infected are not in a state of mortal sin, either by the admission of the infected or through knowledge acquired by other means. The fact that the current epidemic satisfies the first condition does not gives bishops the authority to suspend the sacrament wholesale. According to theologian Adrian Kilker,
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 can be absolved only conditionally
now because unconscious, there is a grave obligation of the pastor to give
Extreme Unction even at the peril of his life.[3]
To suspend the sacrament of extreme unction in
cases when the salvation of a soul is at stake is a sin against justice and
a violation of the rights of the faithful.
Charles Augustine, “A Commentary on the New Code of Canon Law,” Book III, Title V (St. Louis, Mo.: B. Herder Book Co., 1921), 400.
The ordinary minister, says canon 939,
is obliged in justice to administer Extreme Unction either himself or by a
substitute. In case of necessity every priest is bound by charity to administer
this Sacrament. This law was inculcated by Clement XII and Benedict XIV, who exhorted
missionaries not to discriminate between rich and poor, as even pagan
physicians do not disdain to minister to the lower classes.
That great canonist and Pontiff,
Benedict XIV, also discussed the question whether a pastor is obliged to administer
Extreme Unction to such as are afflicted with a contagious or epidemic disease.
After having quoted several authors, among them Suarez and Silvius, he concludes
that sound theology answers in the affirmative, but adds that the pastor may
send another priest and that all reasonable precautions should be taken to
avoid contagion.
"Parochus, nisi justa causa (qualis esset periculum vitae) excuset, tenetur justitia, ratione officii sui (et quidem sub gravi) illud suis subditis petentibus conferre. Can. 939 [CIC 1917]. Immo, in quolibet casu, ne excepto quidem vitae periculo, ad hoc tenetur, si infirmus a longo jam tempore non amplius confessus sit atque probabiliter in statu peccati mortalis esse judicetur, et ob sensuum privationem non possit nisi sub conditione absolvi (VI, 729; H.Ap., VII, 28; XVII, l.c.). Alius sacerdos, ex eod. can., in casu necessitatis ad idem tenetur ex caritate ... sub gravi vero, si aegrotus hoc sacramento valde indigeret, v.gr. si alioquin sine ullo sacramento esset moriturus (VI, l.c., 12o)."
The pastor, unless a just cause
(which can be danger to life) may excuse, is held in justice, by reason of his
office (and really under pain of mortal sin) to confer [extreme unction] to his
subjects who ask for it. Can. 939 [Code
of Canon Law of 1917]. On the contrary, in every case, assuredly not
even excepting danger to [the priest’s] life, he is held to this, if the sick
one has not confessed for a long time and it is probable that he would be
judged [to be] in the state of mortal sin, and due to his privation of the
senses one could not absolve except sub
conditione [under condition]. (VI, 729; H.Ap., VII, 28; XVII,
l.c.). Another priest, by reason of the same canon in a case of necessity is
held to do the same out of charity […] on the contrary under pain of mortal
sin, if the sick one be greatly in need of this sacrament, for example, if otherwise he would die without any
sacrament (VI, l.c., 12o).
[1] Joseph Pohle, “The
Sacraments: Extreme Unction, Holy Orders, Matrimony,” Volume XI, edited by
Arthur Pruss (St. Louis, Mo: B. Herder, 1917), 36.
[2] Ligouri, Theologia Moralis, Lib.
VI, n. 3: "Pastor, ratione
officii, tenetur sub mortali dare iis qui petunt, nisi justa causa excuset:
etiam tempore pestis, modo possit absque periculo vitae … Si peste infecti
sint confessi, posse sine peccato omitti…"
[3] Adrian Kilker, Extreme Unction: A Canonical
Treatise (New York: B. Herder Book Co., 1927) 108.
No comments:
Post a Comment