Execution and anointing

Question: The media reported that Timothy McVeigh received the “Last Rites of the Church” from a priest chaplain before his execution. Would not Penance be the appropriate sacrament and not Anointing of the Sick?

Answer: I have no more facts available to me than the same media reports that puzzled me also when I read them. I believe you are correct. As I understand the case, this is confused sacramental practice and contrary to received teaching and practice.

The Rite of Anointing (in universal use since 1/1/74) has a section in the Introduction on “The Subject of Anointing of the Sick” (nn. 8-15). Number 8 of the Rite specifies: “those who are dangerously ill (periculose aegrotant) due to sickness (propter infirmitatem) or old age (senium) receive this sacrament.” The Rite here reflects precisely the teaching of Vatican Council II (Sacrosanctam Concilium, n. 73.)

The present (1983) Code of Canon Law legislates the same point: “. . . who, having reached the age of reason, begins to be in danger by reason of illness or old age” (cn. 1004, #1)(confer as well, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, #1514). If this sacrament is to take effect, the intention to receive it is already clearly required (cn. 1006), whereas it is not to be conferred on those who obstinately persist in a manifestly grave sin (cn. 1007).

The article in the New Catholic Encyclopedia on the “Anointing of the Sick, I,” explains well what is required of the recipient of this sacrament: “The subject of this sacrament must, of course, be baptized, have attained the use of reason, and be here and now sick. These conditions are all necessary for the validity of the sacrament. . . . Illness, not danger of death, is an intrinsically necessary requirement in the subject of this Sacrament for its valid reception. Danger, even certainty, of death from a cause other than sickness or old age does not entitle one to receive this Sacrament” (NCE, vol. 1, p. 573).

The Commentary of the Canon Law Society of Great Britain and Ireland, The Canon Law (1995) is clear and specific about this case. Among the conditions listed for administering this sacrament are: “(c) he or she must be in danger of death by reason of illness or old age. In danger of death from other reasons, e.g., before execution or battle, the sacrament is not to be administered” (p. 546). The revised (2000) Commentary of the Canon Law Society of America is silent on this point (cf. pp. 1187-1191).

The “approved authors” are unanimous and most often quite explicit that the “danger of death” has to be internal not external. For example, M. Zalba writes that it is certainly required for validity that the subject of this sacrament be (a) baptized; (b) have or had the use of reason; (c) in danger of death ex cause interna — from which he explicitly excludes any causa extrinseca, namely, an execution of capital punishment or soldiers going into a dangerous battle (Theologiae Moralis Compendium, II, [1958] n. 1203, 1, pp. 692-3).

Noldin-Schmitt make the same point that the illness or danger must be internal (in ipso organismo exsistens), but it is not valid to administer for soldiers before battle or qui capitis damnatus est,” (Summa Theologiae Moralis, III [1962] n. 444, p. 382).

Aertnys-Damen-Visser state the same teaching that the danger must be from illness, so this Sacrament is not for the healthy (sano corpore) in face of external danger, specifically capital punishment (capite mox plectendi)(Theologia Moralis, IV [1968] n. 12, p. 17). H. Davis repeats the same traditional teaching: “those who are not sick cannot validly receive this Sacrament. Therefore, it may not be administered to soldiers going into battle, condemned criminals, travellers on a dangerous journey, etc.” (Moral-Pastoral Theology, IV [1959] p. 7).

In a comprehensive and closely reasoned canonical dissertation, The Recipient of Extreme Unction (1961) (#419 — Canon Law Studies of the Catholic University of America), C. G. Renati presents the conventional points cited above. Renati summarizes: “Bodily illness is, without doubt, a requirement de necessitate sacramenti in the recipient of Extreme Unction. Remove this condition and it is difficult to find a distinctive purpose for this sacrament. One who is healthy and in serious sin has the Sacrament of Penance, as does also a sick person as long as he can manifest his sinfulness and sorrow. . . .” (p. 7). “For the Christian in danger of death there is the ‘last and indispensable’ sacrament, Viaticum, which is the consummation of the whole Christian life, the sacrament that prepares man for his journey to Christ and the vision of God. The sacrament for those in danger of death is not the Anointing, but Viaticum, as the I Council of Nicea (325) taught over sixteen hundred years ago” (pp. 7-8). (For canon 13 of Nicea, cf. Tanner I [1990] p. 12).

Renati continues: “The particular contingency in the Christian life for which Extreme Unction was instituted is not primarily dying or of death. If it were, one would rightly expect it to be conferred on all who are in danger of death, no matter what the cause, whereas in fact it is refused to those who are in danger of death if they are not sick. Sickness is an indispensable condition for the anointing” (pp. 8-9).

To the very case at issue, Renati correctly notes: “Convicts about to be executed, soldiers ready to plunge into an odds-against-survival battle, passengers on sinking ships, people trapped in a burning building, or persons about to risk their lives in an effort to save someone else from certain death — none of these can be anointed because they are not sick, and thus they do not fit into the class described by St. James as the beneficiaries of this sacrament — ‘Is any among you sick?’” (p. 12). Since Renati’s dissertation was written (1961) before Vatican Council II (1962-65), he uses the then-correct terminology “extreme unction,” but if you substitute the current correct description “Anointing,” his theological reasoning is quite correct and accords perfectly with what the Council taught (SC, n. 73), what the new Rite of Anointing (n. 8) prescribes, what the Code (cn. 1004, #1) legislates and what the Catechism (#1514) teaches.

Many, indeed all, of the final moments and intentions of Timothy McVeigh are completely unknown to me. If, in fact, he “made his peace with God,” that would be through the worthy reception of the sacrament of Penance — a sacrament apparently made available to him by the prison chaplain. However, if as the press reported it — he received the “Last Rites of the Church” — that suggests to me that both McVeigh and the Chaplain caused confusion to the very end.

As I understand it, he was not a proper recipient of the Anointing of the Sick, and, the wide media coverage (if accurate) distorts the teaching of the Council, the Rite, the Code and the Catechism. Surely, God wishes all men to be saved, but none will be saved against their will and no one will be helped by confusing and confounding the sacramental order of the Church.

Please address questions to Msgr. Wm. B. Smith, St. Joseph’s Seminary, Dunwoodie, Yonkers, NY 10704. 

Back to Homiletic & Pastoral Review Table of Contents October 2001

Back to Catholic Information Center Main Periodical Page