Extreme Unction by New Advent Encyclopdeia Part 2
(For the technical meaning of these terms in sacramental theology see SACRAMENTS.)
(1) The remote matter of extreme unction is consecrated oil. No one has ever doubted that the oil meant by St. Jamesis the oil of olives, and in the
The prayers for blessing the oil that have come down to us differ very widely, but all of them contain some reference to the purpose of anointing the sick. Hence, at least in the case of a bishop, whose power is ordinary and not delegated, no special form would seem to be necessary for validity, provided this purpose is expressed. But where it is not at all expressed or intended, as in the forms at present used for blessing the chrism and the oil of catechumens, it appearsdoubtful whether either of these oils would be valid matter for extreme unction (cf. Kern, op. cit., p. 131). But in thenature of things there does not seem to be any reason why a composite form of blessing might not suffice to make the same oil valid matter for more than one sacrament.
(2) The proximate matter of extreme unction is the unction with consecrated oil. The parts anointed according to present usage in the Western and Eastern Churches have been mentioned above (I), but it is to be observed that even today there are differences of practice in various branches of the Orthodox Church (see Echos d'Orient, 1899, p. 194). The question is whether several unctions are necessary for a valid sacrament, and if so, which are the essential ones.Arguing from the practice with which they were acquainted and which they assumed to have existed always, theScholastics not unnaturally concluded that the unctions of the five organs of sense were essential. This was the teaching of St. Thomas (Suppl., Q. xxxii, a. 6), who has been followed pretty unanimously by the School and by many later theologians down to our own day (e.g. Billot, De Sacramentis, II, p. 231) who set the method and tradition of theSchool above positive and historical theology. But a wider knowledge of past and present facts has made it increasingly difficult to defend this view, and the best theologians of recent times have denied that the unction of the five senses, any more than that of the feet or loins, is essential for the validity of the sacrament. The facts, broadly speaking, are these: that no ancient testimony mentions the five unctions at all, much less prescribes them as necessary, but most of them speak simply of unction in a way that suggests the sufficiency of a single unction; that the unction of the five senses has never been extensively practiced in the East, and is not practiced at the present time in the Orthodox Church, while those Uniats who practice it have simply borrowed it in modern times from Rome; and that even in theWestern Church down to the eleventh century the practice was not very widespread, and did not become universal till the seventeenth century, as is proved by a number of sixteenth- century Rituals that have been preserved (for details and sources see Kern, op. cit., p. 133 sq.). In face of these facts it is impossible any longer to defend the Scholasticview except by maintaining that the Church has frequently changed the essential matter of the sacrament, or that she has allowed it to be invalidly administered during the greater part of her history, as she still allows without protest in theEast. The only conclusion, therefore, is that as far as the matter is concerned nothing more is required for a validsacrament than a true unction with duly consecrated oil, and this conclusion may henceforth be regarded as certain by reason of the recent decree of the Holy Office already referred to (I), which, though it speaks only of the form, evidently supposes that form to be used with a single unction. Besides the authority of the Scholastic tradition, which was based on ignorance of the facts, the only dogmatic argument for the view we have rejected is to be found in the instruction of Eugene IV to the Armenians [see above, III (A)]. But in reply to this argument it is enough to remark that this decree is not a dogmatic definition but a disciplinary instruction, and that, if it were a definition, those who appealto it ought in consistency to hold the unction of the feet and loins to be essential. It is hardly necessary to add that, while denying the necessity of the unctions prescribed in the Roman Ritual for the validity of the sacrament, there is nointention of denying the grave obligation of adhering strictly to the Ritual except, as the Holy Office allows, in cases of urgent necessity.
(3)The forms of extreme unction from the Roman Ritual and the Euchologion have been given above(I). However ancient may be either form in its substance, it is certain that many other forms substantially different from the present have been in use both in the East and the West (see Martène, "De Antiquis Eccl. Rit.", I, vii, 4; and Kern, op. cit., pp. 142-152); and the controversy among theologians as to what precise form or kind of form is necessary for the validity of thesacrament has followed pretty much the same lines as that about the proximate matter. That some form is essential, and that what is essential is contained in both the Eastern and Western forms now in use, is admitted by all. The problem is to decide not merely what words in either form may be omitted without invalidating the sacrament, but whether the words retained as essential must necessarily express a prayer--"the prayer of faith" spoken of by St. James. Both forms as now used are deprecatory, and for the West the Holy Office has decided what words may be omitted in case of necessity from the form of the Roman Ritual. That the form, whether short or long, must be a prayer-form, and that a mere indicative form, such as "I anoint thee" etc., would not be sufficient for validity, has been the opinion of most of the great Scholastics and of many later theologians. But not a few Scholastics of eminence, and nearly all later theologians who have made due allowance for the facts of history, have upheld the opposite view. For the fact is that the indicative form has been widely used in the East and still more widely in the West; it is the form we meet with in the very earliest Church Orders preserved, viz., those of the Celtic Church (see Warren, "Liturgy and Ritualof the Celtic Church", e.g. p. 168: "I anoint thee with sanctified oil in the name of the Trinity that thou mayst be savedfor ever and ever"; cf. p. 223). Among contemporary theologians Kern (op. cit., pp. 154 sq.), who is followed by Pohle (Lehrbuch der Dogmatik, 3d ed., Paderborn, 1908, III, 534) suggests a compromise by holding, on the one hand, that at least a virtual prayer-form is required by the text of St. James and, on the other hand, that the indicative forms that have been used are virtually deprecatory. But this seems to be only a subtle way of denying the raison d'être of the controversy; one might argue on the same principle that the forms of baptism, penance, and confirmation are virtually prayer-forms. Some of the so-called indicative forms may be reasonably construed in this way, but in regard to others we may say, with Benedict XIV, that "we do not know how a prayer can be discovered in certain other forms published from very many ancient Rituals by Ménard and Martène, in which there is used merely the words 'I anoint thee' without any thing else being added from which a prayer can be deduced or fashioned" (De Synod. Dioec., VIII, ii, 2). If it be insisted that prayer as such must be in some way an element in the sacrament, one may say that the prayer used inblessing the oil satisfies this requirement. What has been said in regard to the matter is to be repeated here, viz., that the dogmatic controversy about the form does not affect the disciplinary obligation of adhering strictly to theprescriptions of the Ritual, or, for cases of urgent necessity, to the decree of the Holy Office.
(1) The Council of Trent has defined in accordance with the words of St. James that the proper ministers (proprios ministros) of this sacrament are the priests of the Church alone, that is bishops or priests ordained by them (Sess. XIV, cap. iii, and can. iv, De Extr. Unct.). And this has been the constant teaching of tradition, as is clear from the testimonies given above. Yet Launoi (Opp., I, 569 sq.) has maintained that deacons can be validly delegated by thebishop to administer extreme unction, appealing in support of his view to certain cases in which they were authorized in the absence of a priest to reconcile dying penitents and give them the Viaticum. But in none of these cases is extreme unction once mentioned or referred to, and one may not gratuitously assume that the permission given extended to thissacrament, all the more so as there is not a particle of evidence from any other source to support the assumption. TheCarmelite Thomas Waldensis (d. 1430) inferred from the passage of Innocent I [see above, under III (C), (2), (b)] that, in case of necessity when no priest could be got, a layman or woman might validly anoint (Doctrinale Antiq. Fidei, II, clxiii, 3), and quite recently Boudinhon (Revue Cath. des Eglises, July, 1905, p. 401 sq.) has defended the same view and improved upon it by allowing the sick person to administer the sacrament to himself or herself. This opinion, however, seems to be clearly excluded by the definition of the Council of Trent that the priest alone is the "proper"minister of extreme unction. The word proper cannot be taken as equivalent merely to ordinary, and can only mean "Divinely authorized". And as to the unction of themselves or others by lay persons with the consecrated oil, it is clear that Pope Innocent, while sanctioning the pious practice, could not have supposed it to be efficacious in the same way as the unction by a priest or bishop, to whom alone in his view the administration of the Jacobean rite belonged. Thislay unction was merely what we call today a sacramental. Clericatus (Decisiones de Extr. Unct., decis. lxxv) has held that a sick priest in case of necessity can validly administer extreme unction to himself; but he has no argument of any weight to offer for this opinion, which is opposed to all sacramental analogy (outside the case of the Eucharist) and to a decision of the Congregation of Propaganda issued 23 March, 1844. These several singular opinions are rejected with practical unanimity by theologians, and the doctrine is maintained that the priests of the Church, and they alone, can validly confer extreme unction.
(2) The use of the plural in St. James--"the priests of the Church"--does not imply that several priests are required for the valid administration of the sacrament. Writing, as we may suppose, to Christian communities in each of which there was a number of priests, and where several, if it seemed well, could easily be summoned, it was natural for the Apostleto use the plural without intending to lay down as a matter of necessity that several should actually be called in. The expression used is merely a popular and familiar way of saying: "Let the sick man call for priestly ministrations", just as one might say, "Let him call in the doctors", meaning, "Let him procure medical aid". The plural in either case suggests at the very most the desirability, if the circumstances permit, of calling in more than one priest or doctor, but does not exclude, as is obvious, the services of only one, if only one is available, or if for a variety of possible reasons it is better that only one should be summoned. As is evident from several of the witnesses quoted above (III), not only in the Westbut in the East the unction was often administered in the early centuries by a single priest; this has been indeed at all times the almost universal practice in the West (for exceptions cf. Martène, op. cit., I, vii, 3; Kern, op. cit., p. 259). In the East, however, it has been more generally the custom for several priests to take part in the administration of thesacrament. Although the number seven, chosen for mystical reasons, was the ordinary number in many parts of theEast from an earlier period, it does not seem to have been prescribed by law for the Orthodox Church before the thirteenth century (cf. Kern, op. cit., p. 260). But even those Oriental theologians who with Symeon of Thessalonica(fifteenth century) seem to deny the validity of unction by a single priest, do not insist on more than three asnecessary, while most Easterns admit that one is enough in case of necessity (cf. Kern, op. cit., p. 261). The Catholicposition is that either one or several priests may validly administer extreme unction; but when several officiate it is forbidden by Benedict XIV for the Italo-Greeks (Const. "Etsi Pastoralis", 1742) for one priest merely to anoint and another merely to pronounce the form, and most theologians deny the validity of the unction conferred in this way. Theactual practice, however, of the schismatical churches is for each priest in turn to repeat the whole rite, both matterand form, with variations only in the non-essential prayers. This gives rise to an interesting question which will best be discussed in connection with the repetition of the sacrament (below, IX).
(1) Extreme Unction may be validly administered only to Christians who have had the use of reason and who are in danger of death from sickness. That the subject must be baptized is obvious, since all the sacraments, besides baptismitself, are subject to this condition. This is implied in the text of St. James: "Is any man sick among you?" i.e. any member of the Christian community; and tradition is so clear on the subject that it is unnecessary to delay in givingproof. It is not so easy to explain on internal grounds why extreme unction must be denied to baptized infants who are sick or dying, while confirmation, for instance, may be validly administered to them; but such is undoubtedly thetraditional teaching and practice. Except to those who were capable of penance extreme unction has never been given. If we assume, however, that the principal effect of extreme unction is to give, with sanctifying grace or its increase, the right to certain actual graces for strengthening and comforting and alleviating the sick person in the needs andtemptations which specially beset him in a state of dangerous illness, and that the other effects are dependent on the principal, it will be seen that for those who have not attained, and will not attain, the use of reason till the sickness has ended in death or recovery, the right in question would be meaningless, whereas the similar right bestowed with thecharacter in confirmation may, and normally does, realize its object in later life. It is to be observed in regard to children, that no age can be specified at which they cease to be incapable of receiving extreme unction. If they have attained sufficient use of reason to be capable of sinning even venially, they may certainly be admitted to thissacrament, even though considered too young according to modern practice to receive their First Communion; and in cases of doubt the unction should be administered conditionally. Those who have always been insane or idiotic are to be treated in the same way as children; but anyone who has ever had the use of reason, though temporarily delirious by reason of the disease or even incurable insane, is to be given the benefit of the sacrament in case of serious illness.
(2) Grave or serious bodily illness is required for the valid reception of extreme unction. This implied in the text of St. James and in Catholic tradition (see above, III), and is formally stated in the decree of Eugene IV for the Armenians: "This sacrament is not to be given except to the sick person, of whose death fears are entertained" (Denzinger, no. 700--old no. 595), and in the teaching of the Council of Trent that "this unction is to be administered to the sick, butespecially to those who seem to be at the point of death [in exitu vitæ]" (Sess. XIV, cap. iii, De Extr. Unct.). It is clear from these words of Trent that extreme unction is not for the dying alone, but for all the faithful who are seriously ill with any sickness as involves danger of death (discrimen vitæ, ibid.), i.e. as may probably terminate fatally. How grave must be the illness or how proximate the danger of death is not determined by the council, but is left to be decided by the speculations of theologians and the practical judgment of priests directly charged with the duty of administering thesacrament. And there have been, and perhaps still are, differences of opinion and of practice in this matter.
(3) Down to the twelfth century in the
But if the Easterns have had some justification for their charge against the Westerns of unduly restricting the administration of this sacrament, the Orthodox Church is officially responsible for a widespread abuse of the opposite kind which allows the euchelaion to be given to persons in perfect health as a complement of penance and a preparation for Holy Communion. Many Western theologians, following Goar (Euchologion, pp. 349 sq.), have denied that this rite was understood and intended to be sacramental, though the matter and form were employed precisely as in the case of the sick; but, whatever may have been the intention in the past, it is quite certain at the present time that at least in the Constantinopolitan and Hellenic branches of the Orthodox Church the intention is to give the sacramentitself and no mere sacramental to those in sound health who are anointed (Kern, op. cit., 281). On the other hand, in the Russian Church, except in the metropolitan churches of Moscow and Novgorod on Maundy Thursday each year, this practice is reprobated, and priests are expressly forbidden in their faculties to give the euchelaion to people who are not sick (Kern, pp. 279 sq.; Fortescue, The Orthodox Eastern Church, London, 1907, p. 425). We have already noticed (III) among Nestorians what appears to have been a similar abuse, but in the Orthodox Church till long after the schismthere is no evidence of its existence, and the teaching of Eastern theologians down to modern times, to which theRussians still adhere, has been at one with the Western tradition in insisting that the subject of this sacrament must be labouring under a serious sickness.
(4) Nor will danger, or even certainty, of death from any other cause than sickness qualify a person for extreme unction. Hence criminals or martyrs about to suffer death and other similarly circumstanced may not be validly anointedunless they should happen to be seriously ill. But illness caused by violence, as by a dangerous or fatal wound, is sufficient; and old age itself without any specific disease is held by all Western theologians to qualify for extreme unction, i.e. when senile decay has advanced so far that death already seems probable. In cases of lingering diseases, like phthisis or cancer, once the danger has become really serious, extreme unction may be validly administered even though in all human probability the patient will live for a considerable time, say several months; and the lawfulness of administering it in such cases is to be decided by the rules of pastoral theology. If in the opinion of doctors the sicknesswill certainly be cured, and all probable danger of death removed by a surgical operation, theologians are not agreed whether the person who consents to undergo the operation ceases thereby to be a valid subject for the sacrament. Kern holds that he does (op. cit., p. 299), but his argument is by no means convincing.
The decree of Eugene IV for the Armenians describes the effects of extreme unction briefly as "the healing of the mindand, so far as it is expedient, of the body also" (Denzinger, no. 700--old no. 595). In Sess. XIV, can. ii, De Extr. Unct., the Council of Trent mentions the conferring of grace, the remission of sins, and the alleviation of the sick, and in the corresponding chapter explains as follows the effects of the unction: "This effect is the grace of the Holy Ghost, whose unction blots out sins, if any remain to be expiated, and the consequences [reliquias] of sin, and alleviates and strengthens the soul of the sick person, by exciting in him a great confidence in the Divine mercy, sustained by which [confidence] he bears more lightly the troubles and sufferings of disease, and more easily resists the temptations of thedemon lying in wait for his heel, and sometimes, when it is expedient for his soul's salvation, recovers bodily health." The remission of sins, as we have seen, is explicitly mentioned by St. James, and the other spiritual effects specified by theCouncil of
(1) It is therefore a doctrine of Catholic faith that sins are remitted by extreme unction, and, since neither St. Jamesnor Catholic tradition nor the Council of Trent limits this effect to venial sins, it is quite certain that it applies to mortalsins also. But according to Catholic teaching there is per se a grave obligation imposed by Divine law of confessing all mortal sins committed after baptism and obtaining absolution from them; from which it follows that one guilty of mortalsin is bound per se to receive the Sacrament of Penance before receiving extreme unction. Whether he is further bound, in case penance cannot be received, to prepare himself for extreme unction by an act of perfect contrition is not so clear; but the affirmative opinion is more commonly held by the theologians, on the ground that extreme unction is primarily a sacrament of the living, i.e. intended for those in the state of grace, and that every effort should be made by the subject to possess this primary disposition. That the remission at least of mortal sins is not the primary end ofextreme unction is evident from the conditional way in which St. James speaks of this effect; "and if he be in sins" etc.; but, on the other hand, this effect is attributed, if conditionally and secondarily, yet directly and per se to the unction--not indirectly and per accidens as we attribute it to other sacraments of the living--which means that extreme unction has been instituted secondarily as a sacrament of the dead, i.e. for the purpose not merely of increasing but of conferring sanctifying grace sacramentally. Hence, if for any reason the subject in mortal sin is excused from theobligation of confessing or of eliciting an act of perfect contrition, extreme unction will remit his sin and confersanctifying grace, provided he has actual, or at least habitual, attrition, or provided (say on recovering the use ofreason) he elicits an act of attrition so that the sacrament may take effect by way of reviviscence (see below, X). Byhabitual attrition in this connection is meant an act of sorrow or detestation for sins committed, elicited since their commission and not retracted in the interval before the sacrament is received. The ordinary example occurs when theact of attrition has been elicited before the sick person lapses into unconsciousness or loses the use of reason. That such attrition is necessary, follows from the teaching of
Extreme unction likewise remits venial sins provided the subject has at least habitual attrition for them; and, following the analogy of penance, which with attrition remits mortal sins, for the remission of which outside the sacramentperfect contrition would be required, theologians hold that with extreme unction a less perfect attrition suffices for the remission of venial sins than would suffice without the sacrament. But besides thus directly remitting venial sins,extreme unction also excites dispositions which procure their remission ex opere operantis.
The relics or effects of sin mentioned by the Council of Trent are variously understood by theologians to mean one, or more, or all of the following: spiritual debility and depression caused by the consciousness of having sinned; the influence of evil habits induced by sin; temporal penalties remaining after the guilt of sin has been forgiven; and venial, or even mortal, sins themselves. Of these only the remission of temporal punishment is distinct from the other effects of which the council speaks; and though some theologians have been loath to admit this effect at all, lest they might seem to do away with the raison d'être of purgatory and of prayers and indulgences for the dying and dead, there is really no solid ground for objecting to it, if passing controversial interest. are subordinated to Catholic theory. It is not suggested that extreme unction, like baptism, sacramentally remits all temporal punishment due to sin, and the extent to which it actually does so in any particular case may, as with baptism, fall short of what was Divinely intended, owing to obstacles or defective dispositions in the recipient. Hence there is still room and need for Indulgences for the dying, and if the Church offers her prayers and applies Indulgences for adults who die immediately after baptism, she ought, a fortiori, to offer them for those who have died after extreme unction. And if temporal punishment be, as it certainly is, one of the reliquioe of sin, and if extreme unction be truly what the Council of Trent describes (Sess. XIV, De Extr.Unct., introduct.) as "the consummation not merely of [the Sacrament of] Penance, but of the whole Christian life, which ought to be a perpetual penance", it is impossible to deny that the remission of temporal punishment is one of the effects of this sacrament.
(2) The second effect of extreme unction mentioned by the Council of Trent is the alleviation and strengthening of thesoul by inspiring the sick person with such confidence in the Divine mercy as will enable him patiently and even cheerfully to bear the pains and worries of sickness, and with resolute courage to repel the assaults of the tempter in what is likely to be the last and decisive conflict in the warfare of eternal salvation. The outlook on eternity is brought vividly before the Christian by the probability of death inseparable from serious sickness, and this sacrament has been instituted for the purpose of conferring the graces specially needed to fortify him in facing this tremendous issue. It is unnecessary to explain in detail the appropriateness of such an institution, which, were other reasons wanting, wouldjustify itself to the Christian mind by the observed results of its use.
(3) Finally, as a conditional and occasional effect of extreme unction, comes the restoration of bodily health, an effect which is vouched for by the witness of experience in past ages and in our own day. Theologians, however, have failed to agree in stating the condition on which this effect depends or in explaining the manner in which it is produced. "When it is expedient for the soul's salvation", is how Trent expresses the condition, and not a few theologians have understood this to mean that health will not be restored by the sacrament unless it is foreseen by God that a longer lifewill lead to a greater degree of glory--recovery being thus a sign or proof of predestination. But other theologiansrightly reject this opinion, and of several explanations that are offered (cf. Kern, op. cit., pp. 195 sq.) the simplest and most reasonable is that which understands the condition mentioned not of the future and perhaps remote event ofactual salvation, but of present spiritual advantage which, independently of the ultimate result, recovery may bring to the sick person; and holds, subject to this condition, that this physical effect, which is in itself natural, is obtainedmediately through and dependently upon the spiritual effects already mentioned. The fortifying of the soul by manifoldgraces, by which over-anxious fears are banished, and a general feeling of comfort and courage, and of humbleconfidence in God's mercy and peaceful resignation to His Will inspired, reacts as a natural consequence on the physicalcondition of the patient, and this reaction is sometimes the factor that decides the issue of certain diseases. Thismediate and dependent way of effecting restoration of health is the way indicated by the Council of Trent in the passage quoted above, and the view proposed is in conformity with the best and most ancient theoretical teaching on the subject and avoids the seemingly unanswerable difficulties involved in opposing views. Nor does it reduce this effect of extreme unction to the level of those perfectly natural phenomena known to modern science as "faith cures". For it is not maintained, in the first place, that recovery will follow in any particular case unless this result is spiritually profitable to the patient--and of this God alone is the judge--and it is admitted, in the second place, that the spiritual effect, from which the physical connaturally results, is itself strictly supernatural (cf. Kern, loc. cit.).
(4) There remains the question, on which no little controversy has been expended, as to which of these several effects is the principal one. Bearing in mind the general theory that sacramental grace as such is sanctifying grace as imparted or increased by the sacrament, with the right or title to special actual graces corresponding to the special end of eachsacrament, the meaning of the question is: Which of these effects is the sacramental grace imparted in extreme unction primarily and immediately intended to produce, so that the others are produced for the sake of, or by means of, it? Or, more ultimately, what, according to Christ's intention in instituting it, is the primary and distinctive purpose of thissacrament, its particular raison d'être as a sacrament? Now, clearly this cannot be either the remission of mortal sin or the restoration of physical health, since, as we have seen, extreme unction is primarily a sacrament of the living; and restoration of bodily health is not a normal effect, but only brought about, when at all, indirectly. There remain the remission of venial sins and of the temporal punishment due for sins already forgiven, and the invigoration of the soul in face of the probability of death. Reference has already been made to the Scotist view (VI) which singles out the final and complete remission of venial sin as the chief end or effect of extreme unction, and which logically leads to the practical conclusion, adopted by St. Bonaventure and Duns Scotus, that only the dying should receive the sacrament; and the same conclusion, which must in any case be rejected, would also follow from holding in a similarly exclusive sense that the principal effect is the remission of temporal punishment. Thus we are left in possession of the theory, held by many of the best theologians, that the supernatural invigoration of the soul in view of impending death is the chief end and effect of extreme unction. This effect, of course, is actually realized only when the subject is sui composand capable of co-operating with grace; but the same is true of the principal effect of several other sacraments. It is no argument, therefore, against this view to point to the fact that sins are sometimes remitted by extreme unction while the recipient is unconscious and incapable of using the invigorating graces referred to. The infusion or increase ofsanctifying grace is an effect common to all the sacraments; yet it is not by this of itself that they are distinguished from on another, but by reference to the special actual graces to which sanctifying grace as infused or increased gives a title; and if the realization of this title is sometimes suspended or frustrated, this is merely by way of an accidentalexception to which, in general, sacramental efficacy is liable. It does not seem, however, that this theory should be urged in an exclusive sense, as implying, that is, that the remission of venial sin or of temporal punishment is not also a primary effect which may be obtained independently; rather should the theory be enlarged and modified, and the primary and essential end of the sacrament so described as to comprehend these effects.
This is the solution of the whole question proposed by Kern (op. cit., pp. 81 sq., 215 sq.), who, with no little learning and ability, defends the thesis that the end of extreme unction is the perfect healing of the soul with a view to its immediate entry into glory, unless it should happen that the restoration of bodily health is more expedient. This view is quite in conformity with, and may even be said to be suggested by, the teaching of the Council of Trent to the effect that extreme unction is "the consummation of the whole Christian life"; and Kern has collected an imposing weight of evidence in favor of his thesis from ancient and medieval and modern writers of authority. Dr. Pohle (op. cit., pp. 535, 536) reviews Kern's suggestion sympathetically. Besides being self-consistent and free from any serious difficulty, it is recommended by many positive arguments, and in connection with the controverted point we have been discussing it has the advantage of combining and co-ordinating as parts of the principal effect--i.e. perfect spiritual health--not only the remission of venial sins and the invigoration of the soul, for which respectively Scotists and their opponents have contended too exclusively, but also the remission of temporal punishment, which not a few theologians have neglected.
Theologians are agreed that extreme unction may in certain circumstances be the only, and therefore the necessary, means of salvation for a dying person. This happens when there is question of a person who is dying without the use ofreason, and whose soul is burdened with the guilt of mortal sin for which he has only habitual attrition; and for this and similar cases in which other means of obtaining justification are certainly or even probably unavailing, there is no doubtas to the grave obligation of procuring extreme unction for the dying. But theologians are not agreed as to whether or not a sick person in the state of grace is per se under a grave obligation of seeking this sacrament before death. It is evident ex hypothesi that there is no obligation arising from the need of salvation (necessitate medii), and the greatmajority of theologians deny that a grave obligation per se has been imposed by Divine or ecclesiastical law. The injunction of St. James, it is said, may be understood as being merely a counsel or exhortation, not a command, and there is no convincing evidence form tradition that the Church has understood a Divine command to have been given, or has ever imposed one of her own. Yet it is recognized that, in the words of Trent, "contempt of so great a sacramentcannot take place without an enormous crime and an injury to the Holy Ghost Himself" (Sess. XIV, cap. iii); and it is held to depend on circumstances whether mere neglect or express refusal of the sacrament would amount to contempt of it. The soundness, however, of the reasons alleged for this common teaching is open to doubt, and the strength of the arguments advanced by so recent a theologian as Kern (pp. 364 sq.) to prove the existence of the obligation which so many have denied is calculated to weaken one's confidence in the received opinion.
The Council of Trent teaches that "if the sick recover after receiving this unction, they can again receive the aid of thissacrament, when they fall anew into a similar danger of death" (Sess. XIV, cap. iii, De Extr. Unct.). In the Middle Agesdoubts were entertained by some ecclesiastics on this subject, as we learn from the correspondence between Abbot(later Cardinal) Godfried and St. Yves, Bishop of Chartres (d. 1117). Godfried considered the custom in vogue in theBenedictine monasteries, of repeating extreme unction, reprehensible on the ground that "no sacrament ought to be repeated" (P.L., CLVII, 87 sq.); but he wished to have St. Yves's opinion, and the latter quite agreed with his friend (ibid., 88). Not long afterwards Peter the Venerable, Abbot of Cluny, was asked by Abbot Theobald to explain "why it was that the unction of the sick was the only unction [out of many] repeated, and why this took place only at Cluny", and Peter in reply gave a convincing explanation of the Benedictine practice, his main contention being that the personanointed may on recovery have sinned again and be in need of the remission of sins promised by St. James, and that the Apostle himself not only does not suggest that the unction may be given only once, but clearly implies the contrary--"ut quoties quis infirmatus fuerit, toties inungatur" (P.L., CLXXXIX, 392 sq.). After this all opposition to the repetition of the sacrament disappears, and subsequent writers unanimously teach, what has been defined by theCouncil of
Coming to the more accurate determination of the circumstances or conditions which justify the repetition of extreme unction, theologians, following the authority of Trent, are agreed that it may be validly and lawfully repeated as often as the sick person, after recovery, becomes seriously ill again, or, in cases of lingering illness where no complete recovery takes place, as often as the probable danger of death, after disappearing, returns. For verification of this latter condition some theologians would require the lapse of a certain interval, say a month, during which the danger would seem to have passed; but there is really no reason for insisting on this any more than on the year which medievalcustom in some places was wont to require. St. Bonaventure's remark, that "it is absurd for a sacrament to be regulated by the motion of the stars" (in IV Sent., dist. xxiii, a. 2, q. iv, ad 2), applies to a month as well as to a year. Not a fewtheologians (among recent ones De Augustinis, "De Re Sacramentariâ, II, 408) understand, by the new danger of death, proximate or imminent danger, so that, once imminent danger has passed and returned, the sacrament may be repeated without waiting for any definite interval to elapse. The majority of theologians, however, deny the validity of extreme unction repeated while the danger of death remains the same, and they assume that this is the implicit teaching of theCouncil of
The question of reviviscence arises when any sacrament is validly administered, but is hindered at the time from producing its effect, owing to the want of due dispositions in the recipient. Thus, in regard to extreme unction, the subject may be unconscious and incapable of spiritual invigoration in so far as this requires co-operation with actual grace. Or he may, for want of the necessary attrition, be indisposed to receive remission of sins, or indisposed in case of mortal sin for the infusion of sanctifying grace. And the want of disposition--the obstacle to the efficacy of thesacrament--may be inculpable or gravely culpable; in the latter case the reception of the sacrament will be sacrilegious. Now the question is, does extreme unction revive, that is does it afterwards (during the same serious illness) produce such effects as are hindered at the time of reception, if the obstacle is afterwards removed or the requisite disposition excited? And theologians all teach that it certainly does revive in this way; that for its reviviscence, if no sacrilege has been committed in its reception nor any grave sin in the interval, all that is needed is that the impeding defect should be removed, that consciousness, for instance, should be recovered, or habitual attrition excited; but that, when a grave sin has been committed at or since the reception, this sin must be remitted, and sanctifying grace obtained by other means (e.g. penance or perfect contrition) before extreme unction can take effect. From this doctrine of reviviscence--which is not, however, defined as a dogma--there follows an important practical rule in regard to the administration of extreme unction, viz., that, notwithstanding doubts about the dispositions of a certainly valid subject, the sacrament should always be conferred absolutely, never conditionally, since a condition making its validity dependent on the actual dispositions of the recipient would exclude the possibility of reviviscence. The conditional form(si capax es) should be used only when it is doubtful whether the person is a valid subject for the sacrament, e.g., whether he is not already dead, whether he has been baptized, has attained the use of reason, or has the implicithabitual intention of dying in a Christian manner.
From among, and in addition to, sources mentioned in the course of this article see KERN, De Sacramento Extremoe Unctionis Tractatus Dogmaticus (Ratisbon, 1907)--the best recent treatise on the subject; SCHMITZ, De Effectibus Extremoe Unctionis Dissert. Hist.- Dogmatica (