Repetition of Extreme Unction

Few of those who have devoted any attention to the matter will differ from the main conclusion at which Dr. Toner arrived in his article on this subject in the April number of the Theological Quarterly. That conclusion was that it is a solidly probable opinion that Extreme Unction may be validly repeated on the same person in the same sickness even though there has been no change in the state of the sickness. Dr. Toner, of course, admitted that such a proceeding would be contrary to present discipline. But present discipline, he maintains, defers to the common opinion among theologians that Extreme Unction cannot be validly administered to a sick person as long as he remains in the same state of sickness. Some would seem to look forward to a change of discipline in this matter if only the common opinion can be dislodged.

I think something may be said concerning this supposed common opinion and concerning the desirability of a change of discipline, and so I will accept Dr. Toner’s courteous invitation to discuss these two points in the following article.

I do not think that, at any rate since the time of Benedict XIV, it can be said that the common opinion of theologians has been against the validity of a repetition of Extreme Unction in the same state of the same sickness. There can hardly be question about the opinion of Benedict XIV himself. Catalanus dedicated his commentaries on the Roman Ritual to him. With rather fulsome flattery he says in the Dedicatory Epistle that he has altogether neglected the Casuists, who, he asserts, have for the most part done no little injury to Christian discipline and morality by their lax, foolish, and erroneous opinions about the sacraments and their administration. He professes to have derived much of his information from the synodal Acts of St. Charles Borromeo and from what Benedict XIV himself has most wisely taught in his most renowned work, De Synodo Dioecesana. If we turn to his commentary on the rubric which prescribes that Extreme Unction should not be repeated in the same sickness unless it is protracted, so that after recovery the sick person falls again into the danger of death, we find that Catalanus has the following: —

“Neither the Council of Trent nor its Catechism determined whether Extreme Unction can be repeated while the same illness and the same state of illness continue, because they knew that this depended upon discipline, as Van Espen observed.” So that, according to Catalanus, it is merely a question of discipline whether Extreme Unction should be repeated or not during the same dangerous state of the same sickness. If now we turn to the De Synodo of Catalanus’ patron we there find that Benedict XIV had before his mind practically all the evidence on this question which we possess to-day. He says that there used to be a variety of opinions on the point. Some held in the eleventh and twelfth centuries that Extreme Unction can only be received once lawfully in a lifetime; others later on maintained that it could not lawfully be received oftener than once a year; while others held that it could be repeated often in the same sickness, and that in early times it was repeated on seven successive days. Then the learned Pontiff adds: —

“But the usage afterward received by the universal Church, approved by theologians with common assent, and strengthened by the authority of Synods and Rituals, has prevailed, so that Extreme Unction is applied only once in the same illness; for one unction supplies the necessary strength for avoiding those troubles which the illness from which the sick person is actually suffering brings. . . . During the same illness, however, if after Extreme Unction has been received the illness so abates that the sick person seems to have escaped the danger of death, but before he recovers he again relapses into danger of life, even according to the present discipline he can without scruple be fortified anew by sacred Unction; . . . as may be seen in the cited Van Espen, who not inopportunely warns parish priests not to act too scrupulously in this matter; but if they doubt whether the state of the illness has truly changed, or whether the danger of life in which the sick person is situated is the same or different, he says that it is expedient that they incline to a repetition of the Sacrament, because this repetition is more conformable to the ancient custom of the Church, and through it new spiritual help and consolation come to the sick person.” Although in these passages Benedict XIV does not expressly say that Extreme Unction can be repeated validly during the continuance of the same danger in the same 1 Lib. VIII., c. 8, n. 4.

sickness, it is plain that he regards the whole question as one of mere discipline, as Catalanus expressly says that it is. He attributes the present rule on the subject to the usus ab universa Ecclesia receptus; he refers to it as juxta præsentem disciplinam; and he approves of the advice of Van Espen to parish priests that they should not be too scrupulous about repeating Extreme Unction. In case of doubt, he says, whether the state of the sickness has changed or remains the same, or whether the danger of death is different or not, it is well to lean to a repetition of the sacrament, because such a repetition is more in keeping with the ancient practice of the Church, and thereby new spiritual help and consolation is given to the sick person. It is to be observed that Benedict XIV could hardly have written in this way if he had thought that the opinion was even probable that Extreme Unction cannot validly be administered during the same state of the same sickness. For such an opinion would touch the valid administration of a sacrament, and we may not, except in case of necessity of which there can be no question here, use a merely probable opinion concerning the validity of a sacrament. What we read in Dr. Heiner’s recently published Opera inedita of Benedict XIV throws additional light on the Pontiff’s opinion on this question. Referring to the Greek practice, according to which several priests together administer Extreme Unction, he says: — Conosciamo che imbevuti i Teologi Latini della massima di non ripetere nella stessa malattia ’Estrema Unzione, vedono mal volentieri che i Sacerdoti chiamati per amministrare quel Sacramento, ungono uno dopo l’altro ciaschedun membro che deve ungersi, proferendo ciaschedun d’essi nell’ ungere le parole della forma, valutando cio per contrario al loro sistema, e come una vera piu volte ripetita amministrazione dell’ Estrema Unzione. Ma per andare al riparo di questo, che credono grave inconveniente,” &c.² It is clear, I think, from this extract that Benedict XIV himself did not think much of the difficulty felt by many theologians about the repetition of the sacrament of Extreme Unction. This conviction will be strengthened if we quote here the words of Van Espen to which Benedict XIV refers. Van Espen says: —

² Page 367.

“In these matters, therefore, each person must follow the law and custom of his own Church; otherwise, if discipline did not stand in the way, it would not be absurd to confer this sacrament several times even in the same illness and the same state of illness, according to the ancient custom of the Latin Church and the present custom of the Greeks. . . . From these things let the parish priest learn that he ought not scrupulously to abstain from repeating this sacrament because of a danger of the sacrament’s nullity, but only lest he offend against the discipline now established. Accordingly, if it is doubtful whether perhaps the state of the illness has so changed that it may be repeated even according to modern discipline, one should incline rather to repetition, both because this repetition is more conformable to the ancient custom of the Church and because through it new spiritual help may be hoped for the sick person himself.” There we have the definite reason assigned why a parish priest need not be scrupulous about repeating this sacrament when he is in doubt whether the sick man is in the same danger of death; it is merely a question of discipline, there is no doubt about the validity of the sacrament.

3 De Extrema Unctione, c. III., nn. 39, 40.

The theologians who have written on Extreme Unction since the time of Benedict XIV have for the most part been content to quote his doctrine on the question before us. Many of them like Sardagna and Voit merely synopsize the Pope’s teaching. Very few of them, as far as I have seen, face the question whether a repetition of Extreme Unction in the same danger of death would be valid or not. They say that it cannot be repeated in the same state of the same sickness, and quote the Council of Trent and the Ritual in proof of this doctrine, but they do not as a rule discuss the question whether such a repetition would be invalid as well as unlawful. Still the great majority imply at least that it is only a question of discipline. St. Alphonsus may be taken as the representative of the moralists. He quotes the doctrine of Benedict XIV given above, and then explains it by saying that there must be a positive doubt, or a probable opinion, that the sick person is in a new danger of death before Extreme Unction can be repeated, otherwise, he says, in mere negative doubt the precept of Trent must be observed. These words show that St. Alphonsus understood the question of the iteration of this sacrament to be merely disciplinary, and that there could be no question about the validity of the sacrament, as otherwise it would not be lawful to follow a probable opinion concerning its administration.

The Wirceburgenses, whom we may take as representatives of the dogmatic theologians of the latter half of the eighteenth century, teach that Extreme Unction is one of the sacraments which may be repeated since it does not impress a character on the soul. They mention the fact that formerly this sacrament was repeated during the same dangerous state of the same illness, but in the words of Benedict XIV they add that for many centuries the practice of the Church has been that it should only be administered once during the same danger of death arising from the same sickness.

Collet, who wrote about the same time as the Wirceburgenses, says:—

“Unction can be conferred several times. Indeed, it was formerly repeated in the same illness; this is forbidden today unless the sickness is physically or morally different.”⁴

⁴ De Extrema Unctione, n. 20.

Billuart, a few years earlier, wrote: —

“Whatever may be the case concerning the custom which is said formerly to have prevailed among some of repeating unctions several times in the same state of illness . . . it is certain that it is now not lawful.” Tom. xix., p. 51.

Reuter says:—

“In the same illness and state, however, strictly speaking, it is not lawful to receive it several times; it is otherwise in different ones.” Pt. IV., Tract. vi. q. 3.

All these are among the best and most representative theologians of the latter half of the eighteenth century; they were in common use in the nineteenth as they are still in the twentieth. It can hardly be said, I think, that the facts brought to light by the great historical theologians of the seventeenth and ' eighteenth centuries about the administration of Extreme Unction fell into oblivion during the latter half of the eighteenth and the beginning of the nineteenth century. There are, indeed, two or three theologians of this period who teach that the repetition of Extreme Unction in the same danger of death is invalid. Sasserath is one of these, who says:—

“While the same danger of death continues, it is also repeated invalidly, as Bosco holds with some others.”⁵

⁵ De Extrema Unctione, n. 12.

But neither Sasserath nor Bosco are in the front rank of theologians.

In the period before the time of Benedict XIV there were more theologians of note who taught that during the same danger of death Extreme Unction cannot be repeated validly. Among these are La Croix, G. Hurtado, Sporer, and Herincx, and the three last assert that this was the common opinion of Doctors. The words of Benedict XIV, which were quoted above, indicate the same, and so we may allow that before the time of Benedict XIV the view was commonly accepted that this sacrament cannot validly be repeated in the same danger of death. Most of the theologians of this period whom I have consulted do not expressly teach either one view or the other. Suarez, for example, says: —

“Hence it follows [because it does not imprint a character] that this sacrament is repeatable simply and absolutely . . . but in a qualified sense, or while the necessity of the same illness continues, this sacrament cannot be repeated.”⁶

⁶ Disp. 40, sec. 5.

How unsafe it would be to conclude from these last words that Suarez held that Extreme Unction cannot be repeated validly in the same danger is shown by what Arriaga wrote a little later. He uses the same words as Suarez —

“not to be able to be repeated while the same danger continues”— but he adds: —

“Here there can still be a new question: whether it cannot be given twice within the same danger in such a way that this is only unlawful, or whether in such a way that the sacrament is also invalid or void because of a lack of capacity in the subject. I answer that the matter is altogether uncertain, because the Councils have defined nothing concerning this point.”⁷ He thinks, however, that if the question could be settled by the practice of the Church, we should have to conclude that a repetition of this sacrament in the same danger of death would be invalid.

⁷ De Extrema Unctione, disp. 53, n. 47.

If, however, we go back to the eleventh and twelfth centuries we shall find ourselves confronted with two opposite opinions and practices on the point at issue. One maintained that Extreme Unction could not be administered twice to the same person, any more than the anointing in Baptism, or the priesthood, or the consecration of a church or chalice could be repeated. The other, apparently much more common than the first, simply and without distinction, held that Extreme Unction was of the number of the sacraments that could be repeated. Peter Lombard held this view. His words are: —

“But the sacrament of the altar, and of penance, and of marriage seem to be repeated often, because the sacrament of the body is often received, penance is frequently performed, and marriage is often contracted. Why, then, can unction likewise not be repeated? If the illness does not return, the medicine should not be repeated. But if the illness cannot be restrained, why should the medicine be forbidden? Just as prayer can be repeated, so unction seems able to be repeated; for James mentions both there, and each cooperates with the other in conferring relief of body and soul. Why, then, is it denied that unction over the sick person can be repeated, to obtain more often health of mind and body, when because of the illness the same prayer must often be repeated? . . . But if the question concerns reception of the sacrament: of some it is true that they are not repeated by frequent reception, but of certain others it is not, because they are received frequently, as this sacrament of unction, which is repeated often in almost every Church.”⁸

⁸ Lib. IV., dist. 23.

His argument, therefore, is that doses of medicine are repeated until either the disease is conquered or it conquers the patient; prayer for health is repeated, why should not the unction also be repeated. The holy oil indeed is not consecrated twice, but as the same subject can repeatedly receive Penance, and the Eucharist, so this sacrament of Extreme Unction can be often received, and in fact in almost all the Churches it is frequently repeated.

Albert the Great, seeking to apply the well-known rule of law, discovered a distinction by means of which he reconciled the two opposite opinions. “It must be said,” he says,

“that this sacrament, like certain others, is repeated if their cause is repeated; as Augustine says expressly in the text: If the illness does not return, the medicine should not be repeated. But if the illness cannot be restrained, why should the medicine be forbidden? To the first, therefore, it must be said that no injury is done to a sacrament when it is repeated over the same subject, but when it is repeated over the same cause numerically. Hence those sacraments which have immovable causes are not repeated, such as baptism, because original sin never returns, and confirmation, because weakness from the fomes never returns. Likewise, deprivation of ecclesiastical power never returns in one who receives order, and therefore those are never repeated. But certain sacraments have movable causes in the same subject, and therefore they are repeated in the same person, although not from the same cause. Through this solution it is clear how the two opinions recited in the text are to be reconciled, and the solution to the last objection is clear.” 9 To the difficulty about prolonged sickness where the cause seems to be always numerically the same, and, therefore, according to his distinction the sacrament should not be repeated, Albert, not without serious doubts and misgivings, applies a physical theory of the time. The four humors of the human body were thought to undergo a change during the progress of the four seasons, and so after a year’s interval the sickness could not be the same. Extreme Unction, therefore, might be repeated after a year’s interval. Later theologians have sometimes laughed — at Albert’s application of physics, as he understood the science, to theology. Too many of them have failed to learn caution from his example, and like him they have tried to solve theological questions by the application of the philosophical or physical theories 9 In 4 Lib., Sent. XXIII, art. 20,

of their time. Almost up to the period of the Council of Trent many local synods in France and in England applied Blessed Albert’s rule in practice and forbade the administration of Extreme Unction to the same person oftener than once a year. St. Thomas, the great disciple of Albert, saw what was sound in the distinction of his master and put it in a truer light. He teaches that this sacrament may be repeated inasmuch as it does not produce an effect which is perpetual. This may be done even in the same sickness when the danger of death ceases and returns again.

“It must be answered that this sacrament regards not only illness but also the state of the illness, because it should be given only to sick persons who according to human estimation seem to be approaching death. Some illnesses are not long-lasting; hence, if this sacrament is given in them when a person reaches the state in which he is in danger of death, he does not leave that state unless the illness is cured, and so he should not be anointed again. But if he suffers a relapse, it will be another illness, and another anointing can take place. Other sicknesses are long-lasting, such as consumption, dropsy, and the like; and in such cases unction should be given only when they seem to bring a person to danger of death. And if the person escapes that crisis while the same illness continues, and through that sickness is again brought to a similar state, he can be anointed again, because there is now as it were another state of the illness, although it is not simply another illness.”¹⁰ St. Bonaventure agrees with St. Thomas on this question. The teaching of St. Thomas and St. Bonaventure became the common doctrine of the schools, and it was adopted by the Council of Trent and the Roman Ritual. It is not a mere compromise between two opposite views. It is grounded on the nature and effects of the sacrament with which it deals. For Extreme Unction is a sacrament instituted for the benefit of those who are dangerously ill, of those who are in danger of death from sickness. So that it produces its effects whenever the recipient of it is reasonably presumed to be in danger of death. Those effects are many and various; Extreme Unction infuses sanctifying grace into the soul, it removes the remains of sin, it forgives venial sin and sometimes even mortal sin, it cheers, soothes, consoles the sick person, and if God sees good it restores him to bodily health. The effects which are peculiar to this sacrament are the cheering, soothing, consoling of the sick person, and at times the restoration of his bodily health. The other effects are common to other sacraments, and more properly belong to them, especially to Penance, of which Extreme Unction is the complement. If remission of sin or an increase of sanctifying grace is desired, it will be better for the sick person to go to confession or receive holy communion again. There is no necessity for him to receive Extreme Unction again in the same danger of death in order to obtain the special fruits of this sacrament. The reason is because those special fruits are in the nature of actual graces and favors which are not necessarily given immediately on

¹⁰ Summa theol. Supplementum, q. 33, a. 2.

receiving this sacrament, but the reception of the sacrament gives the recipient the right to receive them at suitable times during his sickness. As long as the same danger lasts the sacrament once received gives him a title to receive its special effects; a repetition of the sacrament could not do more for him in this respect. This does not prove that a repetition of Extreme Unction in the same danger would be invalid, but it does show that it is not necessary. Indeed Extreme Unction is not a necessary means of salvation at all, nor is its reception by the sick a matter of precept; but the above argument shows that its repetition is not even necessary in order to procure its special effects during the same dangerous state of illness, and its other effects can be more satisfactorily obtained in other ways.

The doctrine which has just been laid down does not, I think, differ in substance from that of Richard Middleton (Mediavilla), the celebrated Minorite of the thirteenth century. In his commentary on the Sentences he says : —

“I answer that this sacrament is repeatable in one way and not in another. With respect to the same sick person, the same illness numerically, and the same state of that illness, it should not be repeated; because every sacrament, with respect to its proper matter, obtains its entire effect on one occasion if there is no indisposition in the recipient. Therefore the same host is not consecrated twice, because in the first consecration it becomes the true body of Christ under one species, nor are the same spouses betrothed twice. Concerning baptism, confirmation, and order the matter is clear. In the sacrament of penance alone there is doubt, since with respect to the same sins numerically it would have some effect each time it was repeated. Yet because the same person numerically can be ill several times, and in the same illness numerically there can be different states in each of which the sick person is in notable and probable danger of death, therefore, since it imprints no indelible effect on the sick person, it can and should be conferred several times on the same person, either for different illnesses or for the aforesaid different states of the same illness. Nor let it move you that it was said that the sacrament of the Eucharist obtains its entire effect on one occasion with respect to the same matter, because it must be received several times by the same person. The essence of that sacrament does not consist in its reception; and therefore, although it is received several times and has an effect several times in the same recipient, nevertheless the essence of the sacrament is not repeated with respect to the same matter, and if repeated would have no effect. . . . And because, with respect to the same sick person, the same illness, and the same state of that illness, this sacrament obtains its entire effect if there is no defect on the part of the recipient, therefore it is not repeated in this manner.”¹¹

¹¹ In Lib. IV., dist. 23, a. 2, q. 6.

This, then, is the doctrine on which the modern discipline regarding the repetition of Extreme Unction is grounded. It would seem to show that no change in that discipline is desirable, and if taken together with certain other reasons it will, I think, explain why the historical investigations of such men as Launoi, Van Espen, and others brought about no change of discipline in the administration of Extreme Unction.

For it is not difficult to discover the reasons why Extreme Unction was administered less frequently than perhaps it might have been during the Middle Ages. Sometimes bishops forbade its too frequent reception in the same sickness lest it should come to be held in too little esteem and reverence. Thus Stephen Poucher, Archbishop of Sens, issued the following decree in 1514: —

“Priests must take care that no sick person is anointed more often in the same illness, lest this sacrament be held in low esteem; nevertheless this sacrament can be repeated in different illnesses or in the same illness when it recurs, because it does not have a perpetual effect, inasmuch as health of mind and body, which are its effects, can be repeated, lost, and recovered.”

A similar decree couched in the same words was issued by Louis, Bishop of Chartres, in 1524, and the authority of the Holy Fathers was claimed for it — Juxta sanctorum Patrum decreta.¹²

¹² Launoi, De sacram. Unctionis, I., p. 552.

This reason for not repeating Extreme Unction is not without its weight still. The Church even now forbids holy communion oftener than once a day, and some priests think that in some places the sacrament of Penance is beginning to lose something of its efficacy as a remedy against sin from its too frequent repetition without due preparation. Besides, it is only right that the priest should be considered. In populous districts, where each priest not unfrequently has two or three thousand souls to look after, there may easily be half a dozen who are in danger of death at the same time. Even under modern discipline the administration of the last sacraments to the sick makes a serious demand on the time of the overburdened priest. What would be the case if each sick person demanded Extreme Unction every day?

Another reason why Extreme Unction came to be administered less frequently than it might have been was the avarice of the clergy. Benedict XIV conjectured that this was the reason why the ancient custom of employing several priests in its administration fell into desuetude. Each priest required his fee, and the poor began to speak of Extreme Unction as the sacrament of the rich. It was doubtless on this ground that we find many English synods prescribing that this sacrament should be administered without fee by the parish priest. Thus, among the decrees of the Synod of Exeter held under Peter Quivil in the year 1287, we read the following: —

“But if they show themselves difficult in this matter and do not confer this sacrament freely upon sick persons who are penitent and ask for it, without any exaction of money, since grace is freely given and is not to be conferred for a price, upon conviction of this they shall be fittingly punished according to the canonical sanctions.”¹³

¹³ Wilkins, Concilia, II., p. 185.

Other councils made similar provisions, as that held at Durham about the year 1220, and another held a little later in Scotland.¹⁴

¹⁴ Wilkins, I., pp. 583, 615.

In our days Extreme Unction is administered without fee, and so, perhaps, there would not be much danger on this head if it were more frequently received. Still the means which have been found useful in other ages for the suppression of abuses may sometimes be retained as the best means of preventing their coming back to life.

But the chief reason for not repeating Extreme Unction more frequently seems to have been the repugnance of the people themselves. Even nowadays we come across instances of this strange repugnance to receive the sacrament of healing and consolation. I could mention instances of this feeling which have occurred within my own recollection, not only among the poor and ignorant but also among the well-to-do and educated. The synods of the Middle Ages mention several curious superstitions connected with this feeling, which it required all the authority of the Church to correct. Thus Walter of Cantilupe, Bishop of Worcester, held a synod in 1240 and made the following decree among others: —

“There are some, as we have heard, who after receiving a sacrament of this kind and being restored to their former health consider it unlawful either to know their wives, to eat meat, or for any reason to walk with bare feet. We detest their error as contrary to sound doctrine, and we have determined that they are to be corrected by communications and warnings; because wounds which do not receive dressings must be cut away with iron, we command, if necessary, that they be recalled from these errors by their priests through ecclesiastical coercion. Some also so abhor receiving this sacrament that they scarcely permit it to be administered to them only at the very point of death; because of this it perhaps happens that many, deprived of it, are taken from this life. Against this error, therefore, together with the others, we command that they be forearmed by their priests and other preachers with frequent exhortations.”¹⁵

¹⁵ Wilkins, I., p. 670.

Mention is made of similar superstitions in many synods held both in England and in other countries, so that they were widespread and difficult to eradicate.¹⁶ This strange repugnance of the people against the reception of Extreme Unction, together with the doctrine of Albertus Magnus, may have had its weight in inducing various synods and bishops in the Middle Ages to make laws prohibiting the reception of this sacrament oftener than once a year. Launoi mentions nine diocesan rituals which contained such a prohibition, and to these we may add the synodal decree of Raynold, Archbishop of Canterbury, in the early part of the fourteenth century, which Lyndwood, at the end of the next century, inserted in his Provinciale and glossed. This shows that it was still in force at the eve of the Reformation in England.

¹⁶ Cf. Wilkins, I., pp. 588, 615; II., p. 185.

These decrees may, perhaps, be regarded as a compromise between two extremes. They rightly insist on the doctrine that Extreme Unction may be repeated, but they prescribe that it should not be repeated in favor of the same person in the same sickness oftener than once a year. It seems to me, then, that if we bear in mind the special effects of Extreme Unction and the experience of the past, we shall not be tempted to try to change the modern discipline of the Church on this subject. While admitting that the repetition of this sacrament is, to a large extent, a question of discipline, which might be changed, we should, as it seems to me, be slow to interfere with the wise practice which has been universal at any rate since the time of the Council of Trent.