Anointing In Extremis

A reader writes:

I have a question that arose in a discussion of Brideshead Revisited,
but I suppose the answer has practical application today too. You’re
probably familiar with the fictional scene, but to summarise, in BR, the
dying Lord Marchmain has been persisting in manifest grave sin for quite
a long time, and when lucid, refuses the sacrament of anointing of the
sick. Soon, when he is almost gone and unable to protest, members of his
family bring in the priest again, Lord Marchmain is anointed and makes
the sign of the Cross.

Lord Marchmain’s family and the priest seem to be violating Canon Law as
currently set out (although obviously the book is set in the 1930s), as

Can.  1006 This sacrament is to be conferred on the sick who at least
implicitly requested it when they were in control of their faculties.

Can.  1007 The anointing of the sick is not to be conferred upon those
who persevere obstinately in manifest grave sin.

Has canon law / Catholic practice changed, or are they violating
something?  What ought to be the position of Catholics today in a
similar situation with a lapsed, dying relative?

In the story (and I’m going from my memories of the DVDs, here), Lord Marchmain was living in an illicit sexual relationship with a woman after he left his wife. When near death, he came home and his family urged him to receive the sacrament of extreme unction. At the time, he protested, saying that he was not in extremis (basically, at the point of death itself). This then became a point of argument in the family: Was he rejecting the sacrament or was he rejecting it now, with the expectation that he would receive it when actually at the point of death? When he reached that point and was unable to speak, the family had the sacrament conferred on him, and he made the sign of the cross, signaling that he accepted what was done for him.

Now let’s deal with the canonical aspects of the situation.

Let’s deal with the situation in the 1930s first, because canon law has changed.At the time the story is set, the 1917 Code of Canon Law as in effect, and according to that Code:

Canon 942
This sacrament is not to be conferred on those who are impenitent,
persevering contumaciously in manifest mortal sin; if there is doubt
about this, it should be conferred under condition.

Canon 943
Nevertheless, [the sacrament] should be absolutely conferred on those
who, when they were in possession of their faculties, had at least
implicitly asked [for it] or who seemed to ask [for it], even if they
later lost their senses or the use of reason.

BUY
THE OLD CODE (IN ENGLISH) HERE.

It seems to me that the fact pattern in the story (as I remember it) allows for Lord Marchmain to have received the sacrament under the 1917 Code. It was not clear at the time of his reception that Lord Marchmain was impenitent regarding his illicit sexual relationship. The relationship had clearly ended (he wasn’t engaging in illicit sexual activity from his deathbed), and his objection to receiving the sacrament on the grounds that he wasn’t in extremis could be construed as a sign that he wished to receive the sacrament when he was at the point of death. That would be taken as an indicator of a desire to get right with God before dying and thus of not being impenitent. At least there was doubt about this, which would have allowed the sacrament to be conferred conditionally under canon 942.

But 942 isn’t the whole story, because there was still 943. According to this canon, even if there is doubt about whether the person is penitent (note that it begins "Nevertheless," presumably setting aside what the preceding canon had just said in the case it is about to examine), the sacrament is to be administered unconditionally if the person requested it. The request for the sacrament thus seems to be taken of itself as at least enough of a token of penitence that it can be administered absolutely, even in cases of doubtful penitence.

Lord Marchmain’s objection to receiving the sacrament when he wasn’t in extremis could reasonably be taken as an implicit request for the sacrament, triggering 943 and allowing the sacrament to be administered absolutely.

Either way, under 942 or 943, it seems to me that his reception of it was licit, and the fact that he made the sign of the cross signalled that those around him had guessed right: At least by the point of his death, he did want to receive it and the graces it offers, allowing us to reasonably infer the salvation of his soul, notwithstanding his prior illicit sexual relationship.

Now, let’s flash forward to today. How would the law handle the same situation under the 1983 Code of Canon Law that is presently in force?

It seems to me that it would handle it in basically the same way. Given the right of the faithful to receive the sacraments unless specifically prohibited by law (Can. 843), and the requirement to subject laws that restrict the exercise of rights to a strict interpretation (Can. 18), there is a duty to read canons 1006 and 1007 (which the reader quoted) in a strict fashion, meaning: In cases of doubt, you err on the side of the faithful’s ability to receive the sacrament.

It is reasonably arguable that Lord Marchmain implicitly requested the sacrament, and as long as this is reasonably arguable then canon 1006 would allow him to receive it.

Canon 1007 would not block him from receiving it because it was at least reasonably arguable that he had repented of his illicit sexual relationship sufficiently that he did not "persevere obstinately in manifest grave sin." Once again, as long as it’s arguable, you have to read the law in favor of administering the sacrament.

So while this is an extreme case–which is what Evelyn Waugh meant it to be as part of his exploration of the human condition in Brideshead–it seems to me that both under former and current law it would be licit to administer the sacrament to him.

Fortunately for the reader, Waugh also included him making the sign of the cross, telling us that giving him the sacrament was the right thing to do and allowing us to–at least in terms of the story–infer his salvation.

Regarding situations in which a person has not made an in extremis statement like Lord Marchmain’s, it should be pointed out that it is fairly easy to satisfy the requirement for making an implicit request. On this point the most informative official discussion is found in the document "Pastoral Care of the Sick: Anointing and Viaticum" (found in The Rites, vol. 1), which contains the official texts for the celebration of the sacrament. According to its introduction,

14. The sacrament of anointing is to be conferred on sick people who, although they have lost consciousness or the use of reason, would, as Christian believers, have at least implicitly asked for it when they were in control of their faculties.

The way I read that (notice it says "would" not "did"), for practical purposes (and given the requirement to err on the side of administering the sacrament), if you’ve got a person who is about to die and can’t speak for himself (or who is otherwise gravely ill and can’t speak for himself) then the fact that the person was a Catholic and maintained some kind of Catholic identity (even if he didn’t practice his faith regularly) can of itself be taken as evidence that the person would want the sacrament in these circumstances unless the person specifically indicated otherwise. Thus in the case of most dying relatives, even if they weren’t active in their Catholicism, their desire is to be presumed unless they said that they don’t want the sacrament on their deathbed.

In other words, there doesn’t have to be a distinct, overt action whereby a person requests or hints that he wants the sacrament. If he’s a Catholic then, since this is what Catholics are supposed to have done for them, you presume it’s what he wanted unless you know for a fact otherwise. The mere maintenance of some form of Catholic identity is to be taken as an implicit request for what Catholics should have done for them unless he said he didn’t want it.

BTW, on a related note, I’m looking forward to going to Rome next year as part of Catholic Answers’ 2007 pilgrimage/cruise. I hope to send back photos of all the sacred monkeys in the Vatican.