It’s my understanding that, except for baptism, no Catholic sacraments may be given to anyone who is not a member of the Catholic Church. For example, it’s canonically illegal for a priest to knowingly allow a non-believer to take communion. It seems that this proscription also applies to the sacrament of the Annointing of the Sick (also referred to as the Extreme Unction or Last Rites):
I am interested to know what the procedure is for a priest who encounters a lone person who is unconscious and extremely sick or dying. If the person is a Catholic, then obviously she is entitled to, and the priest is obliged to administer, the Annointing. But the priest has no way of knowing whether or not this person is a “member of the faithful”. Must the priest then refrain from giving the sacrament? Can he give it conditionally, as with conditional baptisms? What happens if the priest gives the sacrament and then later learns that the person was not Catholic?
Can. 1006 provides that the sacrament is to be administered to the sick who, when they were in possession of their faculties, at least implicitly asked for it. However, I suspect most priests, in a case of grave necessity, would err on the side of caution and deliver the sacrament. There is no grave harm done if the priest delievers the sacrament to a person who turns out to not have been a member of the faithful.
Nope. The reason that baptism is conferred conditionally is that the sacrament of Baptism may be received only once – it leaves an indelible mark on the soul of the recipient. A second baptism is meaningless. But if there is doubt about whether a person has been baptized, then the formula of “conditionally conferring” makes sense – if there was already a baptism, this is meaningless; if there was NOT, this is the baptism.
Anointing of the Sick has no such pitfall; the sacrament may legitimately be conferred multiple times, so no “conditional” is required.
A friend of mine who’s a Dominican priest told me about a situation where he did exactly what Bricker has suggested: erred on the side of caution. It was at the scene of a road accident in Melbourne about five or six years ago. He had no way of knowing whether the unconscious woman was Catholic or not (the odds in Australia would be about 1 in 4). So he gave her the sacrament. She later died in hospital. It turned out that she wasn’t a Catholic. However, her son and daughter came to see him afterwards at the priory and thanked him for what he had done for their mother anyway.
I’m aware of this; I was thinking that the conditional would be worded not as “If you haven’t already been annointed, then I annoint thee…” but rather as “If you are a Catholic, then I annoint thee…”. The latter wording would provide an out were annointing a non-Catholic is a grave sin, similar to how rebaptizing someone is a grave sin.
The Catholic Encyclopedia repeatedly states that rebaptism is “sacrilegious”, and gives details concerning the history of the prohibition, but unfortunately doesn’t really answer your question on why or how rebaptism is actually harmful:
Neither does the Code of Canon Law provide (so far as I can tell) for any sanctions for the act of rebaptism, which omission does not imply that it is permitted.
I don’t think this is quite correct: It’s my understanding that any couple who wed, regardless of the faith of either, is considered to have received the Sacriment of Matrimony. Certainly, any non-Catholic who marries a Catholic receives the Sacrament. Not that this is particularly relevant to the OP, beyond establishing the precedent that a non-Catholic may receive a sacrament.
Well, a priest could easily do a conditional baptism on the injured, unconscious person. Then, since they are now baptised and a member of the faithful, the priest could now properly give them Last Rites.
Another point: I understand that this sacrament is to given only to sick, living people. But I remember that being tacitly ignored by priests in the field.
I grew up in a town with a large railroad switching yard. Accidents, with severe, even fatal injuries were not uncommon. Our priest was sometimes called to the yard after an accident, to administer Last Rites to someone. Sometimes he grabbed a nearby altar boy to come with and assist him. A friend of mine, a fellow altar boy, once accompanied Father to such an accident. He reported afterward that they had to gather pieces of the body together to be able to annoint it with holy oil. Clearly, this person was not sick, but dead!
After much discussion among us, we got up the courage to ask Father about giving Last Rites to someone already dead. He responded “I’m a priest, not a doctor. It’s not for me to pronounce someone as dead.” He then added, “Besides, if he was dead, the sacrament won’t hurt him, it just won’t count. So it’s better to go ahead and give the sacrament. And God knows everything, so he knew we were rushing there – possibly he kept his soul with that persons body until we arrived to give the sacrament. And it’ll comfort his family to know he received the Last Rites.”
Looking back, it seems to me that Father was really stretching the rules here. If not breaking them entirely. I imagine he was right in the sacrament not hurting the person, just not counting. But was Father hurting himself by doing something that violated Canon Law? Could he have gotten in trouble if the Bishop had heard about this? Any experts on Canon Law here who can satisify my curiosity on this point?
(If it matters, this was in the late-1950’s, in the US.)
I don’t think it would really be that easy—I doubt it’s permissible for a priest to baptize someone without their (or their guardian’s) consent. Otherwise priests would probably routinely haunt parks, airplanes, trains, dormitory hostels, and other public places where people sleep, for the express purpose of converting people without their consent. In fact, the people wouldn’t even have to be asleep; even if they were merely facing away from the priest and had their attention otherwise occupied, that would give the priest enough time to perform the baptism. Imagine, if you will, a renegade priest at the back of a crowded movie theatre with a water pistol loaded with holy water.
Now, this isn’t to say such activities haven’t happened occasionally; I seem to recall a very famous case, maybe a hundred years ago, in which a Jewish infant was baptized without consent. The Church then used that as an excuse to remove said infant from his Jewish community, much to its uproar.
I’ve always wondered about this. What would a priest say or do in the event that a known non-believer came up to the front of the church (is that the altar? sorry) and kneeled with the rest of the folks at communion? Is there a stock phrase or behavior that he is supposed to follow? Or is it up to him to be mannerly and just tell the guy to get up and go back to his seat?
When I was 7 I had peritonitis and the doctors weren’t sure if I was going to survive (even after surgery). Apparently I was given last rites while unconscious even though I’m not Roman Catholic. Didn’t seem to hurt me. We never found out the name of the priest, but in my heart I thank him.
I did not claim that it was permitted – merely that “There is no grave harm done if the priest delivers the sacrament to a person who turns out to not have been a member of the faithful.”
If “Re-baptism” means deliberately baptizing again despite a knowledge that there had been a prior baptism, then the person doing this act is an apostate from the faith, a heretic or a schismatic; someone who is obstinately denying the truths of the faith - specifically, that baptism leaves an indelible mark on the soul. There IS a penalty for such: a latae sententiae excommunication.
What counts as a baptism, though? I’ve heard that the Church recognizes any baptism done in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Do all Christian churches use that formula?
Any person, even an upbaptized person, may in urgent circumstances validly confer the sacrament, and so far as I am aware, the Church recognizes any baptism done by any Christian church, as all Christian churches use some variant of that formula. All that is required is the intent to baptize, a splash of water, and the words.
