I noticed in reading the Rite of Initiation of a Person in Danger of Death that Baptism is conferred followed immediately by Confirmation followed immediately by Viaticum. My first thought was that Anointing of the Sick would be unnecessary because of the lack of sin and temporal punishment due to sin as well as the fact that Anointing is the completion of the Christian life of penance. I was also mindful, however, of the effect of Anointing in strengthening against temptation.

However, in the context of a discussion on whether only a person with actual sins is capax to receive the sacrament of Anointing, Felix Cappello says (Tractatus Canonico-Moralis de Sacramentis, Vol III, editio altera, 1941, No. 222):

2. Ex communi certaque sententia, si quis in fine vitae gravi morbo correptus baptizetur, potest et debet ei sacramentum hoc ministrari, etiamsi nullius peccati conscientiam post baptismum habeat. Quod confirmatum est responso S. Congreg. de Prop. Fide diei 26 sept. 1821, quo declaratum fuit, ungendum esse paganum adultum graviter decumbentem immediate post baptismum (cfr. Collect. I, n. 768).

My translation:

2. From the common and certain opinion, if someone in the throes of grave illness at the end of life were baptized, this sacrament can and should be administered to him, even if he has consciousness of no sin after baptism. This was confirmed by the response of the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith on 26 Sept., 1821, by which it was declared, that a pagan adult lying gravely ill should be anointed immediately after baptism (cf. Collect. I, n. 768).

So, what should be the current practice? Should Anointing be administered to someone just baptized who is in danger of death? Should it be conferred before Viaticum?

Perhaps I spoke too soon on the question of sacramental form.

Cappello says on the sacrament of Penance (Tractatus Canonico-Moralis de Sacramentis, Editio 4a, Vol. II, p. 65):

67. I. Sacramentalis absolutio verbis proferenda est.

Sane:

1. Omnes libri rituales continent formam absolutionis oralem seu vocalem, quatenus semper exhibent ministrum proferentem ore absolutionem, et nunquam aliter.

2. Concilia Florentinum et Tridentinum docent formam huius sacramenti esse verba: Ego te absolvo etc.; immo non solum indicant huiusmodi verba formam exprimentia, sed etiam doctrinam generalem tradunt, praesertim Florentinum, quod << omnia sacramenta perficiuntur verbis tamquam forma >>.
<< A qua generali regula, scite monet Suarez, non est facienda exceptio neque improprie vel secundum analogiam de aliquo sacramento interpretanda, nisi ubi ex traditione Ecclesiae et consensu antiquorum Doctorum id constiterit >>.

3. Accedit communis doctrina theologorum qui docent absolutionem esse ore proferendam.
<< Solus Deus per auctoritatem et a peccato absolvit, et peccatum remittit; sacerdotes tamen utrumque faciunt per ministerium, in quantum scilicet verba sacerdotis in hoc sacramento instrumentaliter operantur in virtute divina… Unde sicut in Eucharistia sacerdos sola prolatione verborum super materiam perficit sacramentum, ita etiam sola verba sacerdotis absolveventis super poenitentem perficiunt absolutionis sacramentum >>.
Ita S. Thomas.

Quare absolutio scripto vel signo aut nutu dari nequit, etiam in gravissima necessitate. Proinde sacerdos mutus potest absolvere. Hinc apparet distinctio in hac re inter sacramentum poenitentiae et sacramentum matrimonii, in quo forma, nempe consensus, valide exprimi potest etiam signis seu nutu.

68. Non solum ad liceitatem, verum etiam ad valorem absolutionis sacramentalis requiritur, ut ore proferatur.
Verum quidem est, hanc doctrinam probari non posse ex natura rei, scil. ex natura iudicii, cum sententiae iudiciali minime repugnet eam scripto ferri. At sacramentum poenitentiae est positivae institutionis, secundum voluntatem Christi, et non aliter, administrandum; atqui ex Traditione constat voluntatem Christi fuisse, ut absolutio voce humana detur; ergo.

Quidam veteres theologi docebant verba non requiri ad valorem absolutionis, atque idcirco censebant valide confessarium absolvere signo aut scripto, itemque valide tum confessionem tum absolutionem inter absentes peragi posse per litteras. Haec opinio falsa est, ut patet ex dictis ac statem dicendis. Utrum in extrema necessitate confessarius praesans, destitutus omnino usu linguae, valeat poenitenti praesenti impertire absolutionem scripto vel signo, disputatur.

My Translation:

67. I. Sacramental absolution must be given with words.
For:

1. All ritual books contain an oral or vocal form of absolution, insofar as they always present the minister as giving absolution orally, and in no other way.

2. The Florentine and Tridentine Councils teach that the form of this sacrament is the words: I absolve you etc.; indeed they indicate not only the words expressing the form in this way, but they also hand on a general doctrine, especially the Florentine, which states “all sacraments are completed by words as the form.”
“From this general rule, carefully warns Suarez, we must not make an exception nor interpret it regarding some sacrament either improperly or by analogy, except where it is considered as being from the tradition of the Church and the consensus of the ancient Doctors.”

3. The common doctrine of theologians agrees who teach that absolution is to be given orally.
“Only God through his authority absolves from sin and remits sin; nevertheless priests do both through their ministry, inasmuch as the words of the priest are clearly working instrumentally in this sacrament with divine force… Wherefore as in the Eucharist the priest completes the sacrament only by the offering of the words over the matter, so also the words alone of the priest absolving [over] the penitent complete the sacrament of absolution.”
So also St. Thomas.

Wherefore absolution cannot be given by writing or sign or a nod, even in grave necessity. No more can a mute priest absolve. In this matter there appears a distinction between the sacrament of penance and the sacrament of matrimony, in which the form, namely consent, can be validly expressed even by signs or a nod.

68. It is required not only for liceity, but also for the validity of sacramental absolution, that it be given orally.
This is true however, that this doctrine cannot be proven from the nature of the matter, namely from the nature of judgment, since it is not repugnant in the least to a judicial sentence that it be given in writing. But the sacrament of penance is of positive institution, according to the will of Christ, and in no other way, is it to be administered; moreover there is an agreement from the Tradition that it was the will of Christ that absolution be given with the human voice; therefore.
Certain older theologians used to teach that the words are not required for the validity of absolution; and therefore they reckoned that a confessor validly absolved by sign or writing, and moreover that confession and absolution could be validly given through a letter. This opinion is false, as is manifest from the things said and to be said shortly. Whether in extreme necessity a present confessor, absolutely deprived of any use whatsoever of the tongue, would be able to impart absolution to a present penitent by writing or sign is disputed.

Can American Sign Language be used to supply the essential sacramental form of the sacraments? For example, can a priest sign “I absolve you” or “This is my body” or “I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” and validly administer/confect the sacraments of Penance, Eucharist, and Baptism?

This question is not new.

Dr. Ed Peters writes: “Rather, the ASL liturgical language question really comes down to whether a celebrant could offer Mass solely in sign language, without using an approved oral language (here, English) at the same time, even inaudibly.”

Dr. Ed Peters also writes:

Thanks for your kind words, as always, Jimmy. About your question on sacramental form and orality, I have (what I think is) an exhaustive analysis of that topic already finished. It is being juried for the professional journals now. In short, I think what we see is an example of, how to put it, Ecclesiae praxis aliquando docet doctrinam Ecclesiae. It really wasn’t hard to work it all out; St. Thomas, Regatillo, and Cappello provided the necessary tools.

Sacramental Form

Cappello, in the context of the history of the usage of the terms “matter” and “form” as applied analogously to the sacraments, writes (Tractatus Canonico-Moralis de Sacramentis, Editio 4a, Vol. I, p. 12):

Materia est pars determinabilis; forma est pars determinans, ea nempe quae determinat materiam ad rem individuam. Ita pariter in sacramentis: res sensibilis, v. g. aqua, est indeterminata; forma, v. g. verba, materiae applicata specialem significationem ipsi tribuit.

My translation:

Matter is the determinable part; form is the determining part, it is certainly that which determines the matter toward an individual thing. Thus likewise in the sacraments: the sensible thing, e.g. water, is undetermined; the form, e.g., the words, when applied to the matter gives it a special significance.

Cappello says on sacramental form (Tractatus Canonico-Moralis de Sacramentis, Editio 4a, Vol. I, p. 13):

Forma Est pars sacramenti, quae materiam determinat ad effectum sacramentalem producendum; et consistit generatim in verbis a ministro prolatis, vel, pro Matrimonii sacramento, etiam in signis, nutibus, facto, quae verborum locum tenere possunt.

My translation:

Form Is the part of the sacrament, which determines the matter in order to produce the sacramental effect; and it consists generally in the words offered by the minister, or, for the sacrament of Matrimony, even in signs, in nods, or in deed, which can take the place of words.

Regarding the form of Matrimony, Cappello further writes (Tractatus Canonico-Moralis de Sacramentis iuxta Codicem Iuris Canonici, Vol. III, #31):

Diximus verior certissime est, et vix non certa nobis videtur, quia verba Benedicti XIV in Const. << Paucis >>, 19 mart. 1758, sunt clara atque explicita: << Legitimus contractus materia insimul et forma est sacramenti matrimonii, mutua nempe ac legitima corporum traditio verbis ac nutibus interiorem animi sensum exprimentibus materia, et mutua pariter ac legitima corporum acceptatio, forma >> .

My translation:

We have said this is most certainly more true, and it seems scarcely uncertain to us, because the words of Benedict XI in the Constitution “Paucis“, 19 March 1758, are clear and explicit: “The legitimate contract is at once the matter and form of the sacrament of matrimony, indeed the mutual and legitimate giving of bodies by words or nods expressing the interior thought of the mind is the matter, and likewise the mutual and legitimate acceptance of bodies, the form.”

Aquinas says (STh. III, q. 60, a. 6, resp.):

Thirdly, a sacrament may be considered on the part of the sacramental signification. Now Augustine says (De Doctr. Christ. ii) that “words are the principal signs used by men”; because words can be formed in various ways for the purpose of signifying various mental concepts, so that we are able to express our thoughts with greater distinctness by means of words. And therefore in order to insure the perfection of sacramental signification it was necessary to determine the signification of the sensible things by means of certain words.

He adds (STh. III, q. 60, a. 6, ad 2um):

And under words are comprised also sensible actions, such as cleansing and anointing and such like: because they have a like signification with the things.

In Latin (according to Corpus Thomisticum) this is:

Sub rebus autem comprehenduntur etiam ipsi actus sensibiles, puta ablutio et unctio et alia huiusmodi, quia in his est eadem ratio significandi et in rebus.

My translation:

Under things, however, are contained even sensible acts themselves, for example washing and anointing and other things of this kind, in these is the same principle of signifying [ratio significandi] as in the things.

My Thoughts

It seems to me, then, that the essence of the concept of form (as applied analogously to the sacraments) is that it determines the proper significance of the matter, that is, it expresses what is to be brought about whereas the matter on its own would be ambiguous in this regard. The notion of expressing the significance of the matter is taken to be objective, that is, even if the recipient of the sacrament does not understand what the words mean or even if the minister (with the proper intention) does not literally understand what the words mean the form is valid. Thus, the words of the form have a certain stable meaning. This is one reason why the Church is so keen on Latin; it guarantees that the meaning of the words does not change.

The issue, then, as regards the concept of what is essentially a “word” seems to me to be whether it is capable of signifying a meaning according to the mode of language. It seems a safe bet to me that older documents from ecclesiastical sources which use the term “word” regarding the form of the sacraments, even if they insist on the spoken character of the word, are presuming that all languages are spoken. Therefore, it does not seem to me to be contrary to these definitions of form to say that signs as employed in American Sign Language are “words.”

American Sign Language is a true, natural language with its own vocabulary and grammar. Thus, it is sufficiently complex to determine properly the significance of the matter of the sacraments.

This came in handy on the Catholic Answers Forums the other day regarding a question about whether water had to be poured over the head in baptism.

Tractatus Canonico-Moralis de Sacramentis by Felix Cappello (Vol. 1, Fourth edition, p. 105) says this:

1 Aqua immediate tangere debet corpus baptizandi. Id ex ipso conceptu et fine ablutionis liquet. Nomine capitis intelligitur frons, vertex, visus.

Invalidus est Baptismus, si, prole nondum in lucem edita, matris corpus abluatur; item, si aqua tangat solum vestes baptizandi; validus, contra, est Baptismus, si aqua effundatur super caput crusta ulcerosa opertum aut sordibus ante lotionem adhuc obductum, quia corpus vere tangitur.

Dubius est Baptismus collatus super secundinam, i.e., super membranam qua usque ad partum infantis corpus involvitur.

Baptismus collatus super crines validus est, quia crines revera ad corpus pertinent ideoque, dum ipsi abluuntur, caput vere proprieque abluitur. Contraria opinio quavis caret solida probabilitate; quare attendenda non est.

2 Aqua super caput effundi debet. Id affirmatur, ut certa omnino sit validitas Baptismi. Probabilissime est validus Baptismus, speculative loquendo, si in alia notabili corporis parte, ex. gr., in pectore, vel scapulis, puer ablatus fuerit. Tamen certum omnino est, Baptismum in casu habendum esse practice ut dubium, et consequenter sub conditione postea repetendum.

My translation:

1 The water should directly touch the body of the person to be baptized. This is proved from the concept and purpose of washing. By the name head is understood the forehead, the crown, it seems.

Baptism is invalid, if, while the child has not yet been drawn into the light [read "born"], the body of the mother is washed; likewise, if the water only touches the clothes of the person to be baptized; Baptism is valid, on the other hand, if the water is poured over the head covered over by scabs or drawn out [read "delivered"] still covered in filth before being washed, because the body is truly touched.

Baptism is doubtful if conferred over the amniotic sac, i.e., over the membrane in which the body of an infant is wrapped up even till birth.

Baptism conferred over the hair is valid, because the hair in fact pertains to the body therefore, when it is washed, the head is truly and properly washed. Whatever opinion there is to the contrary lacks solid probability; therefore it should not be regarded.

2 The water should be poured over the head. This is affirmed, so that there might be the altogether certain validity of Baptism. Baptism is very probably valid, speculatively speaking, if the child is washed on other notable body parts, e.g., on the chest or shoulders. Nevertheless it is altogether certain, that Baptism in that case should be regarded practically as doubtful, and consequently should afterward be repeated under condition.

No, it’s not the latest Harry Potter book, it’s the age-old question posed by devout Catholics to priests and seminarians.

What if a person confesses that he’s poisoned the wine in the chalice before Mass?

Well, I was reading today a certain book by your friend and mine (ICEL translation: “our friend”^*), one Felix Cappello, whom I’ve quoted before and I came across this example. Now, I never did end up mentioning that I did get a copy of some of his books for a very reasonable price (ten dollars per volume). My gamble also paid off, they’re not in French (as the description indicated) but in Latin as I had thought that they would be. Anyway, Volume II, De Poenitentia, was mis-bound such that the tops of many pages were not separated. So, today I finally decided to go through and cut the pages apart in the sections I wanted to read.

From Tractatus Canonico-Moralis de Sacramentis by Felix M. Cappello:

Item quaeritur de sacerdote, qui ex confessione noverit insidias sibi parari, aut venenum esse in vino quo debet Missam celebrare, etc., utrum possit vitare insidias sibi paratas aut Missam omittere.

Lugo ita respondet: << Non est dubium, quando illa actio vel omissio (scil. fugere insidias sibi paratas, vel omittere Missam propter notitiam veneni) non ostenderet aliis notitiam peccati nec ullum damnum poenitenti affert, quod confessionem redderet odiosam ac gravem, tunc utique posse alio praetextu fugere vel Sacrum omittere >>

At quaestio gravior est, an liceat id ipsum si, deficiente alio praetextu, ex fuga vel omissione alii, qui sunt conscii criminis, coniicerent poenitentem esse confessum illud peccatum, ita ut indirecta sigilli revelatio haberetur.

Quidam concedunt, confessarium posse nihilominus fugere vel Missam omittere.

Alii negant, ob indirectam revelationem. Quae sententia, si revera adsit revelatio indirecta, certa omnino est.

My translation:

Likewise one might ask about the priest, who knows from confession that an attack is planned against him, or that there is poison in the wine with which he should celebrate the Mass, etc. whether he can avoid the attack planned against him or omit the Mass.

Lugo responds thus: “There is not a doubt, when that action or omission (namely to flee the attack planned against oneself, or to omit the Mass on account of knowledge of poison) would not show to others knowledge of the sin nor cause some other injury to the penitent, which would render confession hateful and burdensome, that he can certainly, therefore, on another pretext flee or to omit the Sacred.”

But the more serious question is whether it is permitted if, lacking another pretext, those who are conscious of the crime would infer from flight or from the omission of something that the penitent confessed that sin, such that this would be held to be an indirect revelation of the seal.

Some concede that the confessor can nevertheless flee or omit the Mass.

Others deny this, on account of the indirect revelation. This opinion, if in reality indirect revelation is present, is altogether certain.

---

* The current ICEL translation of “sacrificium meum ac vestrum” (my sacrifice and yours) is “our sacrifice” which does not accurately represent the different modes of offering the sacrifice which the priest and the faithful have. See also, for example, Christ’s repeated references in the Gospel to “my Father and yours” indicating the difference in the type of sonship (e.g., John 20:17).

The list of things that are not water continues to grow, that is, the list of invalid matter for Baptism is being amplified. I’m not surprised that these things are invalid matter: no doubt at all, but I am shocked at some of the things that people have apparently thought of.

From Tractatus Canonico-Moralis de Sacramentis by Felix M. Cappello (p. 102):

3. Materia certe invalida est:

1. lac, sanguis, sputum, urina, pituita, saliva, sudor, lacrimae;
2. vinum, cerevisia, oleum, ius densum;
3. lutum, atramentum;
4. succus e floribus, herbis et radicibus expressus.

4. Est materia dubia:

1. ius tenue, lixivium, cerevisia valde tenuis, tenue atramentum;
2. aqua ex sale soluto;
3. nix et glacies non soluta;
4. humor fluens e vite aliisque plantis;
5. aqua per artem chemicam e floribus, plantis, radicibus, vino etc. educta

.

My translation:

3. Matter that is certainly invalid:

1. milk, blood, spittle, urine, mucus, saliva, sweat, tears;
2. wine, beer, oil, thick broth;
3. mud, ink;
4. juice squeezed from flowers, herbs, and roots.

4. Matter that is doubtful:

1. thin broth, lixivium, very thin beer, thin ink;
2. water released from salt;
3. snow and ice not melted;
4. moisture flowing from a vine or other plants;
5. water produced out of flowers, plants, roots, wine, etc. through chemistry.

.

Due to a question on the Catholic Answers Forum about whether baptism in the name of the Father and in the name of the Son and in the name of the Holy Spirit is valid, I’ve been reading–at the recommendation of Archbishop Burke–a book by Felix M. Cappello called Tractatus Canonico-Moralis de Sacramentis. It’s fascinating because it covers all sorts of even bizarre practical cases involving the sacraments.

One thing that struck me in the section on baptizing children in-utero, while partially born, etc. was the following passage (p. 138):

An et quomodo sint baptizandi fetus abortivi, monstra et ostenta

Omnes fetus abortivi, quovis tempore editi, sunt baptizandi (cfr. can. 747). Ratio est quia, iuxta sententiam longe communiorem et probabiliorem ob rationes theologicas et philosophicas, quae nobis aliisque videtur omnino certa, fetus humanus a primo conceptionis momento anima rationali informatur.

…

2. Ex dictis, si fetus certo vivant, sunt baptizandi absolute; contra, si dubie vivant, sub conditione (can. 747).

My Translation:

Whether and how aborted fetuses, monstra and ostenta* are to be baptized.

All aborted fetuses, expelled at whatever time, are to be baptized (cf. can. 747). The reason is that, according to what has long been the more common and probable opinion for theological and philosophical reasons, and which seems altogether certain to us and to others, the human fetus is from the first moment of conception informed by a rational soul.

…

2. From the things stated [above], if fetuses are certainly alive, they are to be baptized absolutely; otherwise, if they are doubtfully alive, under condition (can. 747).

This book is from the nineteenth century.

I omitted, by the way, a very long explanation of why a fetus is a human being with a rational soul from the first moment of conception.

Don’t let anyone–e.g., The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Understanding Catholicism, convince you that the Catholic Church has only recently decided that life begins at conception or that this is only a practical, provisional decision.

---

* “monstra and ostenta“: these words refer to something which was born apparently contrary to nature. It did not seem apt to translate these as “monsters” because they are technical terms being used in a medical sense to refer to certain more extreme physical deformities. Interestingly, monstra and ostenta were thought to be special ’signs’ from God which is why both words literally mean “things shown” or “signs” (English cognates are ‘demonstrate’ and ‘ostensible’, for example).