Dear Mahina:

There is nothing in your examples that are an exception to the rules. You have it all wrong and that priest ought to be horse-whipped for not properly explaining this to you.

1) "Last Rites" is not a requirement for someone to receive before they die. I imagine most Catholics do not have the opportunity to receive the Sacrament of Anointing (so-called "last rites") when they die.

The eternal destination of a person is based on the state of their soul at the time of death. If the person is in a state of grace when they die, they go to heaven. If the person is not in a state of grace at death, then they are eternally separated from God (hell).

The State of Grace is not, and never has been dependent upon the Sacraments. That has never been "the rule". Rather, the Sacraments are the normal and surest way to maintain a state of Grace. God gave us the Sacraments to help us maintain a state of Grace. The Sacraments are a tool to obtain and maintain this grace, but not the only way we can receive the grace.

God is not bound by His Sacraments the He created for us, because these Sacraments are a tool to help us to gain and maintain the grace He gives, not to help Him to administer that grace. God does know our heart apart from the Sacraments.

2) The rule on Baptism is that ANYONE, even an atheist, can validly baptize someone. The normal way of administering Baptism, however, is in a Catholic Church with a priest or deacon. Again, this is the normal way, but not the only way. So there is no breaking of any rule when Baptism is administered in an emergency to a dying person.

There are many things that one might think are contradictions in "rules" but those contradictions are actually not there. To understand what the Church is teaching requires more than merely knowing a rule. One needs to understand the theology behind the rule.

Rules are merely a reflection of a deeper teaching. There is a rule that if you want your car to go you must put gasoline in the tank. But, the deeper understanding of this rule is why the rule exists. The gasoline is the needed fuel to caused the explosions needed in the cylinders of an internal combustion engine, etc. One may not understand the mechanics and physics of the engine, but it is enough for them to understand the rule that they need to fill the tank with gasoline.

All religious rules and teachings are based upon a consistent underlying theology. There are no contradictions when the underlying theology is understood. All of existence and all of creation is part of the nature of God. God does not violate his own theological nature. But He is not bound to use the same tools that He created for us. He does not need those tools, we do. That is not a violation of the rules, that is a rule that God does not need those tools to accomplish what He wants.

As for your teacher analogy, a teacher friend of mine said this:

Even a teacher in the classroom makes exceptions for students when there are extenuating circumstances.  For example, a child with Tourette's syndrome would not be punished for blurting out even though the class rule is to raise your hand and wait to be called on before speaking.  God is all merciful and all just.  He is not going to hold people accountable for keeping rules that are impossible for them to keep; hence the mercy shown them in emergency situations.  The Church teaches us in the Catechism that God "is not bound by his sacraments." (CCC, 1257).   It is not our place to question God, since His ways are far above our ways, (Isaiah 55:8-9)  and He knows infinitely better than we do the situations when not following the "rules" is the right thing to do.

The point to remember is that these "exceptions" are already accounted for theologically. The exceptions are built into the rules as part of the rule. Thus, the exceptions do not violate the rule at all.

Therefore, God does not violate His own rules.

God Bless,
Bro. Ignatius Mary