Last Rites

[shocktrooper]

Does anyone know the process for a priest when administering the last rites to a person that dies before he can give them? Does he give them anyway just in case the person really is not dead? Is there a set time for when the last rites can’t be performed after someone appears to be dead? What is the determining factor for a priest that would cause him to not perform the last rites?

Pax Christi

 

[Gorgias]

Does anyone know the process for a priest when administering the last rites to a person that dies before he can give them?

The priest administers the sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick when requested. See this link (catholic.com/tracts/anointing-of-the-sick) for a lot of helpful information and background.

Does he give them anyway just in case the person really is not dead? Is there a set time for when the last rites can’t be performed after someone appears to be dead?

“Last Rites” are given to a living person, and never to a dead person.

What is the determining factor for a priest that would cause him to not perform the last rites?

From the Catechism, #1514: “The Anointing of the Sick ‘is not a sacrament for those only who are at the point of death. Hence, as soon as anyone of the faithful begins to be in danger of death from sickness or old age, the fitting time for him to receive this sacrament has certainly already arrived.’”

So, I would say that a priest would not perform the anointing if the person was neither suffering from serious sickness or the effects of old age. Pastorally, though, if a person requests the sacrament, it is generally reasonable to administer it. (However, if the desire to receive the sacrament was based in – for example – hypochondria, I would wonder whether it was more pastorally sensitive to administer it or not…)

 

[shocktrooper]

The priest administers the sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick when requested. See this link (catholic.com/tracts/anointing-of-the-sick) for a lot of helpful information and background.

“Last Rites” are given to a living person, and never to a dead person.

From the Catechism, #1514: “The Anointing of the Sick ‘is not a sacrament for those only who are at the point of death. Hence, as soon as anyone of the faithful begins to be in danger of death from sickness or old age, the fitting time for him to receive this sacrament has certainly already arrived.’”

So, I would say that a priest would not perform the anointing if the person was neither suffering from serious sickness or the effects of old age. Pastorally, though, if a person requests the sacrament, it is generally reasonable to administer it. (However, if the desire to receive the sacrament was based in – for example – hypochondria, I would wonder whether it was more pastorally sensitive to administer it or not…)

What if the person dies in the process? Should the priest continue?

Thanks

 

[Gorgias]

What if the person dies in the process? Should the priest continue?

I guess it depends where “in the process” he is. You can’t give absolution to a dead person, right? However, if the person is in his last moments, you can certainly take in consideration that he hears you, even if he can’t respond. So, it’s possible to continue. I know of some priests who might, for the sake of family members present, bless the deceased’s body – pastorally, he’s doing it for the family members, not their deceased loved one.

 

[Evan]

He does continue. For the time of death is never known. Even an hour after a person had ‘died’ does not necessarily stop the administration of the sacrament of anointing. People have been buried, only to have woken up an died in the coffin.

There is still no way to determine death as far as the soul leaving the body is concerned. Anyone that can be ‘brought back from death’ was never dead.

One of the tests for brain death is tested for by putting ice water in the ears and seeing if the person shudders.

But only God knows when the soul leaves the body. The priest should always err on the side of adminstering the sacrament.

 

[Elizium23]

catholic.com/quickquestions/could-jfk-have-received-last-rites-if-he-was-already-dead

The problem is that the onset of death is not so obvious. We really don’t know, scientifically, what constitutes physical death. Is it when breathing stops, when the heart stops, or when there is no brain activity? In spiritual terms death is when the soul leaves the body.

Priests are not able to discern exactly when this occurs. No physical event defines when the soul leaves. No “vacancy” sign pops up. Once all activity associated with life is gone and the process of decomposition begins, then it is clear the soul is no longer present, but at what moment the soul left we can’t tell. Unless he is sure death occurred, a priest should perform the anointing (Jas 5:14-15).

 

[shocktrooper]

He does continue. For the time of death is never known. Even an hour after a person had ‘died’ does not necessarily stop the administration of the sacrament of anointing. People have been buried, only to have woken up an died in the coffin.

There is still no way to determine death as far as the soul leaving the body is concerned. Anyone that can be ‘brought back from death’ was never dead.

One of the tests for brain death is tested for by putting ice water in the ears and seeing if the person shudders.

But only God knows when the soul leaves the body. The priest should always err on the side of adminstering the sacrament.

Evan, thanks for the response. Do you feel this applies to a person already declared dead by doctors? Say a priest gets there 30 minutes to an hour after being declared dead? Should he perform the rites?

Thanks.

 

[shocktrooper]

catholic.com/quickquestions/could-jfk-have-received-last-rites-if-he-was-already-dead

Elizium, thank you for the reference. I think it is interesting but I seem a little cautious about it since the same mindset can then be used for baptizing the dead. Also, if the soul is the animating principle of the body, and the body is not being animated anymore, e.g. no movement, breathing, heartbeat, brain activity, then isn’t it safe to say that the soul has departed. And if not, then where do we draw the line? After 5 minutes of “death”? 20? 30? 1 day? 7 days? More? When decay starts?

What if we freeze the person to delay decay?

Thanks.

 

[Evan]

Evan, thanks for the response. Do you feel this applies to a person already declared dead by doctors? Say a priest gets there 30 minutes to an hour after being declared dead? Should he perform the rites?

Thanks.

That is up to the priest. If there is still a reasonable hope, yes.

The Jews gave you 3 days (ie more than 24 hours) to be sure you are dead (see the rising of Lazarus and the Resurrection of Jesus).

I was there when they declared that the father had died. Yet 5 minutes later he took one last breath. They said that happens often, its not a sign of life. But how do they know it is not a sign? Can they see the soul? I would say, when every cell had died, the person is certainly dead.

But there are stories of heads that had been cut off where the person said: “I will give you sign if I am still alive afterwards” and the severed head winked! Although I think the tale indicated this was moments after the beheading. But I also believe any doctor would declare a person dead upon their head being cut off without waiting 5 minutes.

It was because of the confusion as to when death occurs that I have removed my name from the organ donor lists. To much vested interests in organ harvesting to be comfortable for me.

 

[shocktrooper]

That is up to the priest. If there is still a reasonable hope, yes.

The Jews gave you 3 days (ie more than 24 hours) to be sure you are dead (see the rising of Lazarus and the Resurrection of Jesus).

I was there when they declared that the father had died. Yet 5 minutes later he took one last breath. They said that happens often, its not a sign of life. But how do they know it is not a sign? Can they see the soul? I would say, when every cell had died, the person is certainly dead.

But there are stories of heads that had been cut off where the person said: “I will give you sign if I am still alive afterwards” and the severed head winked! Although I think the tale indicated this was moments after the beheading. But I also believe any doctor would declare a person dead upon their head being cut off without waiting 5 minutes.

It was because of the confusion as to when death occurs that I have removed my name from the organ donor lists. To much vested interests in organ harvesting to be comfortable for me.

Evan, can you address the concern I posed to the other poster?

I think it is interesting but I seem a little cautious about it since the same mindset can then be used for baptizing the dead. Also, if the soul is the animating principle of the body, and the body is not being animated anymore, e.g. no movement, breathing, heartbeat, brain activity, then isn’t it safe to say that the soul has departed. And if not, then where do we draw the line? After 5 minutes of “death”? 20? 30? 1 day? 7 days? More? When decay starts?

 

[Evan]

Evan, can you address the concern I posed to the other poster?

The teaching is that if the person has truly died, then the actions do NOT constitute a sacrament. Just as if I baptize my grandson’s stuffed bear. I can say the words, but the bear does not become Catholic, does not receive grace, and will not journey with him to heaven.

A dead body is to be respected because it once was a living person with an immortal soul. But once he has died, it is just a human BODY.

At the resurrection of the dead there is no guarantee that we will receive our original bodies with all their original flaws. We will receive new glorified bodies.

The atoms that made up my body when I was baptized have all left my body, none of that original body remains, yet I am still the same person: a living body with an immortal soul. The body is not the atoms, it is the union of the flesh and the soul that makes me fully human. Just as my body without my soul is not fully human, my soul without a body is not fully human. Only at the resurrection will we be fully human again. Sorry for the rambling

 

[shocktrooper]

At the resurrection of the dead there is no guarantee that we will receive our original bodies with all their original flaws. We will receive new glorified bodies.

Didn’t Christ retain his wounds after resurrection? I am pretty sure the Church teaches we do receive our old bodies but they are glorified and become “new”.

The atoms that made up my body when I was baptized have all left my body, none of that original body remains, yet I am still the same person: a living body with an immortal soul. The body is not the atoms, it is the union of the flesh and the soul that makes me fully human. Just as my body without my soul is not fully human, my soul without a body is not fully human. Only at the resurrection will we be fully human again. Sorry for the rambling

Evan, the physical body is made up of atoms. Where do you get the idea that the original atoms are discarded at baptism? I never heard that before. I know body tissue is constantly dying and being replenished, so one’s body at death is not the exact body at birth; this I understand.

And can this idea be applied to the Sacrament of Baptism even though the Church teaches that one cannot baptize the dead? Can’t one say that we don’t know the man that died 2 weeks ago is really dead, so let’s baptize him just in case his soul is still in his body?

Thanks.

 

[Evan]

Didn’t Christ retain his wounds after resurrection? I am pretty sure the Church teaches we do receive our old bodies but they are glorified and become “new”.

I don’t think that infants will live eternity without every growing up.
I don’t think, if we died in a fire, we will return with a horribly disfigured body.
“Every tear will be wiped away”

Evan, the physical body is made up of atoms. Where do you get the idea that the original atoms are discarded at baptism?

You misunderstood me. I said that the body I have now (over 60 years later) no longer has any of my original atoms. This may have taken 10 or 20 years, but by now they are all gone.

Can’t one say that we don’t know the man that died 2 weeks ago is really dead, so let’s baptize him just in case his soul is still in his body?

There must be a reasonable hope that he is still alive. After 2 weeks, not only is he dead, but every cell that was once part of his body is also dead. However, if there is, for some reason, a hope he still lives, there is no harm in baptizing him. But if he is dead, there is no effect. Only the living can receive the sacraments.

To quote the coronor of Munchkin County “she’s not only merely dead, she’s really most sincerely dead.”