The Nature of Extreme Unction

428. Definition. Extreme unction is a sacrament by which, through an anointing with olive oil and the prayer of a priest, health of soul and sometimes also of body is conferred on one gravely sick.²

a. The common source from which those things are taken which theologians teach concerning this sacrament is the words of the Apostle James: Is any man sick among you? Let him bring in the priests of the Church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer of faith shall save the sick man, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he is in sins, they shall be remitted to him.³

b. It is called extreme unction because of all the anointings which Christ instituted or entrusted to the Church to institute, it is the last which is administered. This sacrament is the complement of penance in almost the same way that confirmation is the complement of baptism.

c. Extreme unction is of itself a sacrament of the living, because it was instituted primarily not for destroying mortal sins, but for removing the remains of sins. Yet because by the force of its institution it also destroys mortal sins, it can per accidens be called a sacrament of the dead.

¹ St. Thomas, Suppl. q. 29-32; St. Alphonsus, l. 6, n. 706-733; Coninck, De sacramentis II, disp. 19; Sporer-Kazenberger, Supplementum theol. sacram. c. 2, sect. 3-4; Suarez, De poenitentia, disp. 39-44; Ballerini-Palmieri, Opus theol. mor. V, n. 840-881; Ign. Schmitz, De effectibus sacramenti extremae unctionis (Friburgi: Herder, 1893); J. Kern, De sacramento extremae unctionis (Ratisbonae: Pustet, 1907); Heimbucher, Die hl. Olung (Regensburg: Manz, 1888).

² Cn. 937 sets forth a description of the sacrament.

³ James 5, 14-15. Cf. Council of Trent, sess. 14, De extr. unct., can. 1.

429. Effects in General. The proper effect of this sacrament is fourfold: a. strength of soul; b. cleansing of venial sin and of punishments; c. remission of mortal sin; d. health of body. They are taken from the words of James cited above.

a. This sacrament was instituted for disposing and preparing the soul proximately, so that without delay it may be able to enter the kingdom of heaven. Now, for obtaining this end, extreme unction especially does two things: alpha. it strengthens the soul by actual graces, so that it may persevere in good until death; beta. it purges the soul from sins and punishments which delay entrance into eternal glory.

b. Of these effects some are intended primarily and principally, others indeed per se, but only secondarily. The first among those named above, the strengthening of the soul, belongs to the primary effects; the same seems to have to be said of the second, the cleansing of sin and of punishments. The third and fourth, remission of mortal sin and healing of the body, constitute, by the consent of all, secondary effects of extreme unction.

c. All theologians teach that extreme unction removes the remains of sin, both original and actual, but not all explain in the same way what those remains are. The infirmities of soul to be enumerated below primarily pertain to these remains.¹

d. This sacrament completes and perfects the sacrament of penance. For penance was instituted for destroying sins, both mortal and venial; extreme unction was instituted for destroying the remains of sin, both original and actual. Therefore, just as penance, so likewise extreme unction must be called a sacrament of divine mercy, which supplies to man a means of disposing and preparing the soul so that, separated from the body, it may immediately be able to enter the kingdom of heaven.

¹ Cf. Suarez, disp. 40, sect. 1, n. 8 ss.

430. Effects in Species. 1. Strength of soul: for with an increase of sanctifying grace there is conferred on the sick man a right to actual graces by which he is strengthened and comforted for overcoming those difficulties which threaten at the time of death: The Lord shall raise him up.

These difficulties arise from spiritual infirmities, of which sort are: a. weakness of soul left from past sins, by which it happens that one more easily relapses into sins; b. weakness arising from the fact that God, on account of past sins, deprives the soul of more abundant helps of grace; c. fear, sadness, and lack of confidence, because the sick man indeed knows that he has sinned, but does not know that God has already forgiven the sins committed; d. temptations of the devil, by which at death he tries to reduce the soul into perpetual servitude to himself; e. weakness of soul arising from the very bodily infirmity itself, for a man pressed by the gravity and pains of disease is hindered from attending to spiritual things.

2. Cleansing of venial sins and punishments which hinder immediate passage to eternal glory. a. That the sacrament produces this effect, because grace infused through the sacrament from divine ordination has the force of destroying sins and all of them, unless there is an obstacle in the soul of the sick man, and of remitting punishment, of itself indeed all punishment unless defect of disposition in the recipient stands in the way, is clear from the words of James: And if he is in sins, they shall be remitted to him. Then, through the form the proper effect of the sacrament is signified; but remission of sins is signified; therefore at least venial sins are remitted. b. Since the sacrament was instituted to remove those things which hinder immediate passage to heavenly glory, it must be said that, as much as is of itself, it destroys both venial sins and punishments of sins.

All indeed teach that this sacrament confers remission of temporal punishments, since it was instituted for wiping away the remains of sins, among which temporal punishments also are numbered; but concerning the manner and measure of remission, not all speak in the same way. From the sense of the Church it seems altogether necessary to say that this sacrament, ex opere operato, immediately indeed does not remit all punishments, but according to the measure which Christ determined when instituting the sacrament, provided the necessary disposition of the recipient is present; then, however, this sacrament ex opere operato confers actual graces by which the sick man can obtain for himself remission of all temporal punishments which delay entrance into eternal glory, by eliciting salutary acts and by acquiring indulgences.

3. Remission of mortal sin which cannot be destroyed by another means, provided attrition is had concerning it. For both the words of the Apostle James and the words of the sacramental form are altogether universal; for this reason they are not to be restricted to venial sins alone without manifest reason. But since this sacrament was instituted not per se first but only per se secondarily for destroying mortal sins, it remits these only if they cannot be remitted either by confession or by contrition.

a. That this effect is secondary is clear from the fact that the sacrament of penance was primarily instituted for destroying all mortal sins whatsoever. Therefore this sacrament was instituted not for destroying mortal sins simply, but only those which can no longer be destroyed through penance from whatever cause, while the obligation of confessing them, if this can be done, always remains.

b. Therefore he who is guilty of mortal sins and indeed cannot confess, but can elicit contrition, is bound to this before extreme unction, both because this means of destroying mortal sins is available and because extreme unction is a sacrament of the living. Hence it is not licit knowingly to receive it in the state of mortal sin.

c. Therefore he who is guilty of mortal sins but lacks the actual use of reason, likewise he who has actual use of reason but invincibly does not know that he is constituted in mortal sins, or invincibly thinks that he is contrite when he is not, obtains remission of mortal sins through extreme unction, provided he is attrite. But since this doctrine is morally certain, it is easily clear that for a dying man deprived of his senses extreme unction is a far more secure means of salvation than sacramental absolution itself.¹

4. Health of body likewise follows from the reception of this sacrament not per accidens but by the force of the institution; nevertheless, not always, but only when it is expedient for the salvation of the soul, and therefore conditionally. That this sacrament was instituted also for restoring health of body is gathered both from the words of St. James, the prayer of faith shall save the sick man, and from the Council of Trent, which counts also this among the effects of extreme unction: "and health of body sometimes, where it shall have been expedient for the salvation of the soul, the sick man obtains."²

a. From the added restriction, if it is expedient for the salvation of the soul, it is understood why that effect, although it is produced ex opere operato, nevertheless does not always and infallibly follow. For the secondary effect depends on the primary, which is the salvation of the soul, so that the secondary does not follow if it impedes the primary.

b. The sacrament does not work this effect suddenly after the manner of a miracle, but because by its supernatural force it helps and directs natural and free causes so that they effect health. Others derive this effect from the overflow of spiritual strengthening into the body; for they judge that supernatural strengthening of the soul has influence in producing health of body.³ Therefore the sacrament cannot produce this effect if health then cannot be restored through natural means but only by miracle. Therefore it is expedient that this sacrament be received as soon as the danger of death begins, so that there may be greater hope of recovering health by the force of the sacrament.

¹ Cf. Suarez, disp. 41, sect. 1, n. 19.

² L. c., c. 2.

³ Cf. Kern, l. c., p. 205 ss.

431. When It Produces Its Effect. More commonly theologians had taught that this sacrament produces its effect only at the last anointing. For they thought that the individual anointings by themselves alone did not have the character of a sacrament, but that all the partial anointings of the senses together with their forms were necessary for the perfect character of the sacrament. But after the recent declaration of the Church (n. 434), from which we learn that one anointing on some sense suffices for producing the essential effect of the sacrament, it now seems that this question can be determined thus. Each anointing with its form completely and perfectly signifies the effect of the sacrament, and therefore also produces it. Therefore by the first anointing the sacrament with its essential effect has already been conferred; then the following anointings increase and perfect the grace of the sacrament, especially if meanwhile the sick man has procured for himself a greater and more perfect disposition, in almost the same way in which, according to some theologians, in the most holy sacrament of the altar the reception of one species already suffices for perceiving the essential effect of the sacrament; then the reception of the other species increases and perfects this effect, especially if the communicant meanwhile has disposed himself better.

Note. Above (n. 8) we called the reviviscence of extreme unction probable. There are those who say that the reviviscence of this sacrament is plainly certain.¹ Their assertion has as much force as this argument has: Every sacrament validly conferred, even without the effect of grace, produces something in the recipient; this, however, is a right or title to the effect of grace, the obstacle having been removed afterward, if the recipient is still capable of it.

¹ Gihr, p. 94 ss.; Kern, l. c., p. 372 ss.

436. The Form of Extreme Unction is this: Through this holy anointing and his most loving mercy may the Lord forgive thee whatever thou hast sinned through sight (hearing, smell, taste and speech, touch, walking). It is a prayer signifying the effect of the sacrament.

In this form these things are essential: through this anointing may the Lord forgive thee whatever thou hast sinned; for in these all things are had which must be expressed through the form of this sacrament: a. the sacramental action: anointing; b. the proper effect of this sacrament: may he forgive, etc.; c. the deprecatory form, for it is required for the essence of this sacrament that the form in some way, at least formally, be deprecatory: the prayer shall save the sick man.

The word holy and those other words, through his most loving mercy, do not pertain to the essence. Indeed it is not necessary that the senses be named either specifically or in general, since express mention of them is lacking in many forms, and especially in the Greek form and in the form recently approved by the holy see.¹

¹ Cf. Chr. Pesch VII, n. 531 ss.

437. Concerning the Form To Be Used in a Case of Necessity. 1. In a case of necessity, where on account of danger of delay extreme unction must be administered as quickly as possible, the dying man is to be anointed on the forehead with this form used: Through this holy anointing may the Lord forgive thee whatever thou hast sinned. Amen.

The holy see approved this form as sufficient in a case of necessity (n. 434). By this declaration it is clear: a. that for the value of extreme unction it is not required that the senses be named either in general or individually; b. that one anointing on the forehead, or on some sense, of the sick man suffices for the value of extreme unction, and it is not necessary that the individual senses be named either explicitly or implicitly, or that the individual senses be anointed; for by one anointing the sick man is judged to have been anointed.

2. If the sacrament in danger of death has been conferred by one anointing, afterward when the danger has ceased the individual anointings are to be supplied absolutely, not because the value of the sacrament is doubtful, but for the greater spiritual utility of the sick man.¹

a. The individual anointings are to be supplied not from necessity of the sacrament, but from precept of the Church; for since the cited decrees and the Code of Canon Law say that one anointing on the forehead of the sick man suffices, certainly for producing the essential effect of the sacrament, there can be no doubt concerning its validity.

b. The anointings are to be supplied not conditionally but absolutely, because they ought to exercise their force not in the case in which the first anointing perhaps was invalid, but in every case, even if the first anointing was valid and efficacious. But the effect which the individual anointings produce is gathered from those things which were said above (n. 431).

¹ Holy Office, March 9, 1917. Cn. 947, 1.

438. Concerning the Rite of Extreme Unction. a. If extreme unction is to be administered to several persons at the same time, the prayers which are not joined with actions are to be said only once in the plural, if the change can conveniently be made; but the actions with the prayers joined to them are to be repeated over each one. Therefore if extreme unction is conferred on several persons, the imposition of the hand with the prayer: Let it be extinguished, and then the anointings with their forms, are to be repeated over each one; but the other prayers can be said only once over all in the plural.

b. If a priest fails during the anointings, another ought not to repeat the anointings already made, unless a notable time, that is, a quarter of an hour, has already passed; but it suffices that he add those which are still lacking. Indeed, the administration of this sacrament would not be invalid, but outside a case of necessity in the Latin Church gravely illicit, if it were done by several priests at the same time in such a way that one anoints one part of the body, another another part, pronouncing the form appropriate to that anointing.

442. The Subject of extreme unction is every baptized man who has attained the use of reason and is in danger of death from disease or old age.¹

For the valid reception of this sacrament, three conditions are required in the subject:

1. That the one to be anointed be baptized. This sacrament can also be conferred on an adult immediately after baptism has been received absolutely and duly, because the effect of this sacrament is both to strengthen the sick against the temptations of the devil and to wipe away the remains of sins; but an adult recently baptized can perceive both of these effects.²

2. That he has attained the use of reason, or that he is capable of sin; for before the use of reason man is not yet capable of the effects of this sacrament, which was instituted as the complement of penance for wiping away the remains of sins. Moreover the form of the sacrament does not apply to one who has not yet attained the use of reason, since he could not yet have sinned through the senses; but as soon as man is capable of sin, he is also capable of this sacrament.

a. Therefore children before the use of reason are not capable of this sacrament; but as soon as they are capable of sin, they are altogether to be anointed, although they have neither approached first communion nor confession, nor completed the seventh year. And in doubt concerning the use of reason they are to be anointed conditionally: if thou art capable.³

b. Those perpetually insane are not capable of this sacrament; nevertheless those who have had lucid intervals are to be anointed absolutely, and those who probably have had them are to be anointed conditionally.

¹ Cn. 940, 1.

² S. C. de prop. fide, September 26, 1821.

³ Benedict XIV, De synodo, l. 8, c. 6, n. 2. Cn. 941.

443. 3. That he is in danger of life from disease; for the word of the Apostle: is any man sick, and that other word: shall save the sick man, if not of itself, certainly from the interpretation of the Church, signifies a sick man lying dangerously ill.

a. Grave disease is judged to be that which of itself and by its nature can have a lethal outcome and has progressed to that point at which it can probably be judged that it will bring death. As soon as this probable danger of death is judged to be present, extreme unction can be conferred, because the subject is capable of it; but it ought not yet immediately be given. It ought to be given at least when death with moral certainty is now imminent.¹ Nevertheless, in order to perceive all effects more certainly, it is expedient that the sacrament be received as soon as the danger of death is judged to be present.

b. Therefore if extreme unction is conferred on a sick man who is thought to be in danger of death, but in reality is not, the sacrament is invalid; for the capable subject from the institution of Christ is a sick man who in reality is in danger of death, just as the capable subject of absolution is a penitent who in reality is disposed.²

If a healthy man, or one oppressed by only a light infirmity which is not joined with probable danger of death, is anointed, the sacrament is invalid, as conferred on an incapable subject.

Likewise those who are constituted in danger of death not from disease but from another cause can receive this sacrament neither licitly nor validly. Therefore those are not to be anointed who are soon to be beheaded; soldiers who are about to enter battle; those who are about to undertake a voyage, even a very dangerous one; women who are about to give birth, even for the first time.

Those who undergo a difficult surgical operation can be anointed before the operation if they are already laboring under a dangerous disease, but not if the operation itself only then brings the danger of death.

c. It suffices, however, that the infirmity will probably have a lethal outcome, even if the danger is still remote. Therefore a sick man who labors under hectic fever or a similar long-lasting disease can be validly and licitly anointed, even if it is foreseen that he will still live for several months or even a whole year.

d. Those can be anointed for whom danger of death is imminent from a wound received, from poison drunk, or from old age without another infirmity; for old age itself is a disease. Therefore when viaticum can be ministered to a sick man who is not fasting, extreme unction can also be given to him.

e. In positive doubt whether the infirmity is dangerous, extreme unction can be given, but conditionally: if thou art capable, lest the sacrament and its effect be frustrated.

¹ St. Alphonsus, n. 714.

² Cf. Reuter, n. 438.

444. In Order That Extreme Unction Can Be Received Licitly and with Fruit, the state of grace is required. Therefore these things are to be observed:

a. Confession is to be premised if the sick man is in the state of mortal sin; and if the sick man cannot confess, sorrow with at least conditional absolution is to be premised.

If the sick man cannot confess, in order to perceive the effect of the sacrament he ought to try to elicit at least putative contrition, since extreme unction is a sacrament of the living. But if it happens that he elicits only attrition, the sacrament does not lack its effect, because in this case it also confers first grace (n. 430).

alpha. Although the state of grace procured by contrition before reception of extreme unction suffices if only the nature of the sacrament is considered (n. 42), nevertheless, if it can be done, confession must be premised, because for one existing in mortal sin confession in danger of death is necessary by divine law (221). Moreover the Roman Ritual has these words: "From the general custom of the Church this is to be observed: if time and the condition of the sick man permit, before extreme unction the sacrament of penance and of the Eucharist are to be provided."¹

beta. Although a dying man is to be absolved before the administration of extreme unction, because extreme unction is a sacrament of the living and the complement of the sacrament of penance, and because the Church so commands, nevertheless this is not required with such necessity that it is not licit to anoint the dying man before absolution where there is deserved fear that time for administering both sacraments will be lacking.

b. From the present practice of the Church, viaticum is to be administered before extreme unction; this precept, however, does not oblige under grave obligation, and therefore for a just cause the order can licitly be inverted. Another practice flourished in the Church in antiquity, since extreme unction was administered to the sick immediately after completed sacramental confession. The Roman Ritual (l. c.) decreed that the present practice is to be observed.

c. This sacrament is not to be conferred on those who, impenitent, persevere contumaciously in manifest mortal sin.²

Therefore one who, while in possession of himself, contumaciously rejected the sacraments of the Church is not to be anointed when he has lost the use of senses or reason; for there is no even probable foundation for supposing the intention of this sacrament.

¹ Rituale rom., tit. 5, c. 1, n. 2.

² Cn. 942.

445. When It Is To Be Given Conditionally. As often as doubt exists concerning the existence of a condition which is necessarily required for valid administration, extreme unction, no differently from the other sacraments, can and must be administered under the condition that that thing is present: if thou livest; if thou art baptized; if thou hast the use of reason or at some time hast had it; if thou art gravely sick; if this matter is valid; if thou hast not yet been anointed; if thou hast sufficient intention. But as often as there is doubt concerning the existence of the disposition on which fruitful administration depends, extreme unction is to be given not conditionally but absolutely; for, when the obstacle of bad disposition has been removed, extreme unction probably, others say certainly, revives. But if under the condition if thou art worthy it is conferred on an unworthy man, then, as null, it cannot revive.

a. Nor should it be thought illicit to confer extreme unction absolutely where the disposition of the recipient is doubtful and therefore the sacrament is exposed to frustration of its effect, if the sick man is in reality indisposed. For because the sacraments are for men, it is licit to confer a sacrament with danger of frustrating the effect not only when the sacrament is the only means of procuring certain salvation of the soul, but also when it brings great utility to the sick man.

b. To the sick who, while in possession of themselves, had an implicit or interpretative intention of this sacrament, it is to be provided absolutely, even if afterward they lost the use of senses or reason.¹

c. Canon 942, which to some seems to offend against the doctrine and practice admitted up to this point by all, is rightly interpreted by Alb. Schmitt as affirming that there the question is not of disposition but of intention, and therefore in doubt the sacrament must be conferred conditionally. For the reason on account of which the sacrament is not to be conferred on those contumaciously impenitent consists in defect of intention.²

¹ Cn. 943.

² Linz.-Quartalschr. 1918, p. 419.

446. The Obligation of Receiving the Sacrament of Extreme Unction cannot be said to be grave; for no precept exists of receiving this sacrament.¹ But the negligence by which someone, when occasion has been given, does not receive this sacrament from mere sloth is certainly a venial sin.

a. And indeed a precept of receiving extreme unction cannot be gathered: alpha. from the nature of the thing, since it is not of itself necessary for salvation; nor beta. from the words of St. James: let him bring in the priests, which words of themselves ought not to be taken as preceptive any more than the words immediately preceding; but the Church has never declared them to be preceptive; nor gamma. from the will of the Church, which has never given such a precept, for the words of Cn. 944, no one may neglect it, do not contain a precept obliging under grave obligation. Cf. Concerning confirmation, n. 92. Nor finally delta. from the institution of this sacrament; for it cannot be affirmed that it is for the dying the only ordinary means of procuring salvation, and that God denies to him who neglects receiving this sacrament the necessary graces by which he is helped in the last struggle. These things are confirmed from what the Roman Catechism has.²

Concerning the obligation of receiving extreme unction, up to this point the same question was debated as concerning confirmation. The new Code deliberately abstained from settling it, and concerning each sacrament says only: no one may neglect it. Therefore, since the state of the question has not been changed by these words, each opinion of authors retains its probability.

A light obligation of receiving this sacrament is to be presumed from the precept of charity, by which everyone is bound to procure for himself so useful a help in extreme danger. Yet he who refuses to receive this sacrament when occasion has been given can sin gravely either by reason of scandal or by reason of contempt.

b. Although the sick man is not bound under grave obligation to receive extreme unction, nevertheless the parish priest: alpha. is bound under grave obligation to administer it to one asking expressly or interpretatively, especially where it would be the only means of salvation, because the parish priest by force of his pastoral office is bound under grave obligation to procure for his subjects means not only necessary but also very useful for salvation; beta. either by himself or through another is bound to warn the gravely sick man concerning the danger and to induce him to receive the sacrament.

c. To the question what obligation there is of taking care that extreme unction be administered to the sick man, a distinction must be made: alpha. those who, by some special title of office or piety, have spiritual care of the sick man, such as superiors, parents, spouses, can be bound even under grave obligation to warn the sick man about the danger and to procure its administration if he asks for it; beta. those, however, who do not have spiritual care of the sick man, such as doctors, nurses, and other domestics, are not bound under grave obligation, except in the case in which this sacrament is necessary for the sick man's salvation. For these are bound only from charity to procure this sacrament for the sick man; but their obligation of charity toward the sick man cannot be greater than the sick man's obligation of charity toward himself, who is not bound under grave obligation to procure it for himself.

¹ St. Thomas, Suppl. q. 29, a. 3, ad 1; Suarez, q. 44, sect. 1; St. Alphonsus, n. 733, who says that the negative opinion is sufficiently probable.

² Part II, c. 6, q. 14.

447. Concerning the Iteration of Extreme Unction. This sacrament in the same infirmity and in the same danger of death can be administered only once, because the efficacy of the sacrament lasts as long as the same danger of death lasts in which it was conferred. But it can, or even ought to, be repeated as often as the sick man falls into a new danger of death.¹

a. There are those who say that this sacrament can be validly repeated in the same infirmity and in the same danger of death, and that this was in reality done in antiquity; nevertheless, from the present discipline of the Church, it cannot licitly be repeated in the same danger of death. Whatever may be said about this matter, this is certain: the sacrament of extreme unction is given to those lying dangerously ill so that it may provide them the helps which they need in that state; therefore its effect endures until either they have died or have been freed from the danger of dying from that disease.

b. If the sick man received the sacrament of extreme unction validly indeed, but sacrilegiously and therefore without effect, it probably revives when the obstacle has been removed, others affirm that it certainly revives, and nevertheless in the same danger of death it cannot be repeated. For the Ritual, l. c., n. 14, says: "In the same infirmity this sacrament ought not to be repeated unless it is long-lasting"; and Cn. 940, 2 has these words: "In the same infirmity it cannot be repeated unless the sick man has recovered and has fallen into another danger of life." Since in this case the obstacle has been culpably placed, sacramental confession, and, if this cannot be made, perfect contrition, is required for removing it (n. 8).

1. In a new dangerous infirmity, namely if the sick man has recovered from a dangerous disease and has fallen into another likewise dangerous one; and in this case indeed the sacrament ought to be repeated.

2. In the same infirmity, if the sick man has recovered either certainly or at least probably from the danger of death and has fallen into another danger of death, as sometimes happens in phthisis or dropsy; and in this case indeed the sacrament can be repeated.

3. But in the same infirmity the sacrament is not to be repeated as long as certainly the same danger of death endures. But if, with a new disease coming on, the danger of death is increased, it is judged the same danger, not a new one.

The same danger is judged to endure if the sick man has been better only for a short time, namely for some days, unless from the nature of the disease another judgment is established. On the contrary, the danger is judged to have ceased if the sick man in a long-lasting infirmity has been better for a notable time, namely for a month. In doubt whether the danger of death is the same or another, the decision should rather stand for repetition, "because repetition is more conformed to the ancient custom of the Church, and through it a new spiritual help and alleviation will come to the sick man."²

Therefore if it is certainly established that the sick man after anointing has recovered from the danger, as can happen in asthmatics and consumptives, he can be anointed again when a new danger returns after even a brief interval, one week.

But if it is not certain that the danger ceased after the anointing, when a new danger returns he cannot be anointed unless a notable time has elapsed, namely one month after the first anointing.

¹ Cf. Rituale rom., tit. 5, c. 1, n. 14; Council of Trent, sess. 14, c. 3, De extr. unct. Cn. 940, 2.

² Benedict XIV, De synodo, l. 8, c. 8, n. 4.

THE Council of Trent defined that Extreme Unction is a true sacrament of the New Law insinuated by St Mark and promulgated and recommended to the faithful by St James when he wrote: “Is any man sick among you? Let him bring in the priests of the Church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord: and the prayer of faith shall save the sick man; and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he be in sins they shall be forgiven him.”¹

This sacrament, as the Council of Trent also teaches, is the complement or completion of Penance. As we have seen, Penance was specially instituted for the remission of postbaptismal sin, and its reception is necessary for all Christians who have fallen into grave sin after Baptism. Penance, then, ordinarily precedes Extreme Unction, which is properly a sacrament of the living; its primary effect is to infuse sanctifying grace into the soul for the salvation of the sick man. If any sins still remain on the soul, provided that there be at least attrition for them, they will be remitted together with the remains of sin. By the remains of sin are understood the temporal punishment due to them, spiritual weakness and inclination to evil, lethargy in the doing of good. The sacrament removes these wholly or in part, according to the dispositions of the recipient, and, moreover, if it be for the good of the sick person and in keeping with the providence of God, it restores him to bodily health. This last effect is not produced by miracle, but by means of natural causes; the sacrament consoles and soothes the sick person, dispels his mental anxieties, and the resultant state, with the blessing of God, sometimes brings about a recovery. In order to produce this effect with more certainty the administration of the sacrament should not be too long deferred.

¹ Jas. v 14, 15.

The remote matter of Extreme Unction is olive oil blessed by a bishop for the purpose, or by a priest who has received power to bless it from the Holy See (Can. 945). Ecclesiastical law requires that priests obtain the oil of the sick from their own ordinary, not from any other Bishop.

The proximate matter is the anointing with oil of the principal organs of the senses, and where the organs are double both are anointed, the right one first. In England, according to the Ritual, the eyes, ears, nostrils, mouth, hands, and feet, are anointed; but when the recipient is a woman in a public infirmary or hospital, the priest has special leave to omit the anointing of the feet if he thinks that it would excite scandal or comment. According to Canon 947, sec. 3, the anointing of the feet may be omitted for any reasonable cause.

If some sense-organ is wanting, the part of the body nearest to where it should be is anointed. Each anointing has its own special form, that for the eyes being: “ By this holy anointing and through his most sweet mercy may the Lord forgive whatever sins thou hast committed through thy sight. Amen.” The form for the other senses is similar. If the near approach of death will not allow of all the senses being anointed with their appropriate forms, the forehead may be anointed with the following general form: “ By this holy anointing may the Lord forgive whatever sins thou hast committed. Amen.”¹ As, however, Extreme Unction is only probably valid when administered with such a single anointing under one general form, if there is time it should be repeated immediately in the form prescribed by the Ritual.

¹ S.O., April 25, 1906; can. 947, sec. I.

Extreme Unction can be defined: the sacrament by which a sick person, through an anointing with blessed oil and the prayer of the priest, is relieved according to the soul, and, if it is expedient for the soul, also, at least sometimes, according to the body (cf. St. Thomas, In IV Sent., dist. 23, q. 1, a. 1, 2, 3, 4; q. 2, 1 and 2; St. Alphonsus, VI, 706). It is also called simply anointing, or the anointing of the sick, the sacrament of those departing, etc.

With this definition given, we shall treat first of the existence, then of the essence, then of the effects, and finally of the necessity of Extreme Unction.

The primary effect, to which all the other effects are reduced, is disputed. According to the Scotists, Extreme Unction is ordered to the final remission of venial sins in the dying person who is now incapable of helping himself; from this remission of venial sins follows the relief of sorrow and sluggishness, which are effects of sin. They argue from the form of the sacrament, which seems directly destructive of sin. According to St. Thomas (Supplement, q. 30, a. 1) and St. Alphonsus (VI, 721, 731), it is ordered primarily to helping and strengthening the soul of the sick person, or to healing his spiritual infirmity, which is left in us from original and actual sin and which must especially be healed in the last struggle. But sins are remitted secondarily, namely insofar as they obstruct spiritual strengthening. This opinion is supported by the words of St. James, who seems to mention the remission of sins as a secondary effect: "And the prayer of faith shall save the sick man, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he be in sins, they shall be forgiven him."¹ In particular, the following are enumerated:

I. Sanctifying grace, in itself and primarily second grace, or the increase of grace; likewise in itself but secondarily first grace, as follows from the things said above (n. 574).

II. Sacramental grace, which consists in this, that the sanctifying grace which Extreme Unction increases is ordered to this: that the sick person not be cast down by illness, but on the contrary be strengthened in illness, and, having been strengthened, vigorously fight against the last temptations and readily bear the final pains; and it brings with itself a right to actual graces to be received in order to those effects. Now, that the sacramental grace of this sacrament is what we have described is supported first by these words of St. James: "And the Lord shall raise him up," that is, shall stir him up and strengthen him.² Then the Council of Florence says: "The effect of this sacrament is the healing of the mind and, insofar as it is expedient, also of the body."³ And the Council of Trent says: "Our most merciful Redeemer, who wished that at every time there be provided for His servants salutary remedies against all the weapons of all enemies, just as in the other sacraments He prepared the greatest helps by which Christians could preserve themselves whole, while they lived, from every graver harm of the spirit, so by the Sacrament of Extreme Unction He fortified the end of life as by a certain strongest protection. For although our adversary seeks and seizes occasions throughout the whole of life so that he may in any way be able to devour our souls, nevertheless there is no time at which he more vehemently strains every nerve of his cunning to destroy us utterly and, if he can, to disturb us even from confidence in the divine mercy, than when he perceives that the end of life is impending for us."⁴ Tradition is added, whose testimonies Kern brings forward (St. Thomas, Supplement, q. 30, a. 1, ad 2; St. Alphonsus, VI, 731).⁵

III. The remission of mortal sins; this is clearly gathered from the words of St. James and Trent cited above (St. Thomas, Supplement, q. 30, a. 1; St. Alphonsus, VI, 731). It is required, however, that the sick person be attrite, at least habitually. But this also suffices, since that cannot be demanded which already of itself remits mortal sins, namely contrition.

IV. The remission of venial sins. For St. James and the Council of Trent do not distinguish between mortal and venial sins. Besides, there is no reason to exclude venial sins; indeed, since lesser offenses are more easily remitted, there is rather reason to include them. Nevertheless they are not remitted unless the sick person is at least habitually attrite for them.

V. The remains of sins, as the Council of Trent cited above expressly states (St. Thomas, Supplement, q. 30, a. 1, ad 2; St. Alphonsus, VI, 731). "But the remains of sin here are not called dispositions left from acts, which are certain begun habits, but a certain spiritual weakness existing in the mind itself; when it has been removed, even if the same habits or dispositions remain, the mind cannot be inclined to sin in the same way" (St. Thomas, loc. cit.; St. Alphonsus, loc. cit.).

VI. The remission of punishments, which by some is also referred to the remains of sins of which we have just spoken, more or less fully according to the disposition of the recipient. Thus it is taught not improbably: for since the end of this sacrament is also the consummation of the Christian life, as the Council of Trent speaks,⁶ or the final disposition of the soul so that it may enter glory, it also remits temporal punishment; but, because Extreme Unction works by way of medicine, whose effect depends on the disposition of the subject, a greater or lesser remission of punishment is given according as the disposition of the subject is better or less good.

VII. Health of the body. This is clear both from the words of the Council of Florence cited above and from the Council of Trent, according to which the anointed person "sometimes obtains health of body, where it is expedient for the salvation of the soul."⁷ Besides, note:

1. Extreme Unction does not confer health of body if it is not expedient for the salvation of the soul. "The operative reason," says St. Thomas, "never induces a secondary effect except insofar as it is expedient for the principal effect; therefore from this sacrament bodily healing does not always follow, but when it is expedient for spiritual healing" (Supplement, q. 30, a. 2). But it is disputed whether this sacrament confers health whenever it is expedient for the soul, or only sometimes, that is, according to the order of divine wisdom and providence, as is said. Some deny that it always produces that effect whenever it profits the soul. They deduce that this happens only sometimes from the words of the Council of Trent cited above. Others teach the contrary, and think that the sense of the words of the Council of Trent is this: "sometimes, namely, where it is expedient for the salvation of the soul."

2. Extreme Unction confers health not by way of miracle, but insofar as spiritual strengthening overflows into the body, and brings with it a right that the means of recovering health be directed by the special Providence of God. "The unction," as the Council of Trent teaches, "raises up and confirms the soul of the sick person, exciting in him great confidence in the divine mercy; by this confidence the sick person, being relieved, bears the inconveniences and labors of illness more lightly, resists more easily the temptations of the devil lying in wait for his heel, and sometimes obtains health of body, where it is expedient for the salvation of the soul."⁸ And St. Thomas teaches that in Extreme Unction grace is conferred "not only so that it may remove guilt, but also the remains of guilt and the infirmity of the body" (Supplement, q. 29, a. 5), so that healing according to the holy Doctor must be called an effect of the grace conferred. Hence they are deprived of the aforesaid effect who defer reception of the sacrament so long that health cannot be expected without a miracle (St. Alphonsus, VI, 714).

¹ James 5:15.

² James 5:15.

³ Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 700.

⁴ Session XIV, De extrema unctione, Prooemium.

⁵ Op. cit., p. 238.

⁶ Session XIV, doctrine on the Sacrament of Extreme Unction.

⁷ Session XIV, De extrema unctione, cap. 2.

⁸ Loc. cit.

I. Necessity of means must be denied, both because of canon 944, which denies it, and because of the reasons for which we denied the necessity of means of Confirmation (n. 116).

II. Necessity of precept. 1. There is an obligation of receiving Extreme Unction. This is deduced first from canon 944: "It is lawful for no one ... to neglect it." Then he who neglects a special means, instituted by Christ, by which the sick person is fortified and strengthened in those most serious moments of life on which eternity proximately depends, seems to sin against charity toward himself.¹

2. The obligation is quite probably only light. I understand the obligation in itself, because one who neglects Extreme Unction can accidentally sin gravely, for example by reason of scandal or contempt.² But in itself a grave obligation is quite probably lacking. The reason is that such an obligation is not established either from the nature of this sacrament, "which is not necessary for salvation, but only useful" (St. Alphonsus, VI, 733), or from a positive precept, because it is not clear that the words of St. James, "let him bring in the priests," are to be understood of a precept and not only of counsel; nor from the precept of charity toward oneself, "for charity does not oblige under grave precept to that which is better" (St. Alphonsus, loc. cit.). Finally, the Code does not settle this controversy, neither insofar as it concerns divine law, which it does not intend to interpret,³ nor insofar as the ecclesiastical Legislator imposes a grave precept in canon 944. If he had intended that, he would certainly have used clearer and weightier words.

Objection. The Council of Trent declares: "Now, as regards the prescription of those who ought both to receive and to minister this sacrament," etc.

Response. The Council does not intend to urge the obligation of reception, but rather to signify to whom the reception and to whom the ministration of the sacrament belongs.

¹ Cf. Council of Trent, session 14, De sacramento extremae unctionis, at the beginning and cap. 2.

² Cf. Council of Trent, loc. cit., cap. 3.

³ Cf. Preface.

The Sacrament of Extreme Unction.—As Confirmation perfects Baptism by bringing to maturity the new life of grace, so Extreme Unction perfects Penance by strengthening against the spiritual debility that remains after sin itself has been wiped away. Confirmation makes ready for the battle of life, Extreme Unction assists during the struggle of death. The fifth Sacrament is defined: “A Sacrament of the New Law in which through the anointing with oil and the prayer of the priest adult persons who are in danger of death receive health of soul, and also at times health of body.”

(a) The remote matter or element of the Sacrament is oil (James, v, 14, 15). For validity it is required that this be olive oil, blessed by a bishop or by a priest having special papal delegation, with the special blessing for the oil of the sick (O. I.); for lawfulness, sub gravi that it be oil blessed the previous Holy Thursday (Canon 734), sub levi at least that it be blessed by the bishop of the diocese, or, in case of vacancy, by the neighboring bishop. In necessity the old oils may be lawfully used, while chrism and the oil of the catechumens may be used as doubtful matter. Unblessed oils and oils blessed by an unauthorized priest do not suffice for validity.

(b) The proximate matter is the anointing of the sick man with blessed oil. In urgent necessity it suffices to anoint one sense, or rather the forehead; in other cases the various senses should be anointed in the order given in the Ritual. Each anointing of a double sense should begin with the right organ (e.g., the right eye) and should be given with the right thumb in the form of a cross. If one organ is missing (e.g., a hand amputated), the anointing should be made, if possible, near to its place (e.g., on the wrist); if there is danger of contagion, the anointing may be made by means of an instrument, such as a brush or small stick. The anointing of the reins should always be omitted and the anointing of the feet may be omitted for any good reason, such as inconvenience to the dying person.

(c) The form of the Sacrament is the prayer used by the priest. In the Latin Church the ordinary form is contained in the words: “Per istam sanctam unctionem, etc. By this holy anointing and His most tender mercy may the Lord forgive thee whatever sin thou hast committed by sight (by hearing, by smell, by taste and speech, by touch, by thy steps). Amen.” The extraordinary rite for use when there is not time to give all the anointings is bestowed on the forehead in the words: “Per istam sanctam unctionem et suam piissimam misericordiam indulgeat tibi Dominus quidquid deliquisti. Amen.” The essential words of the form are: “Per istam unctionem indulgeat tibi Dominus quidquid deliquisti,” because they express the intercession and the effect of the rite. It would probably be a grave sin to omit the reference to the senses in the ordinary form, as that seems to be a notable part of the form; but it would be a light sin, apart from contempt or scandal, to omit an unimportant word such as “Amen.” If there is doubt about the recipient’s capacity (i.e., whether he has reached the use of reason, whether he is in danger of death, whether he is already dead, whether he is impenitent and unwilling to receive the Sacrament), the form should be conditional. The condition should be “si es capax,” not “si es dispositus,” even in the last-mentioned case. For the Sacrament is given validly even to one who is not well disposed (i.e., who lacks repentance) and there is thus the possibility, when validity is not made dependent on the condition of good disposition, that sacramental fruitfulness will follow later when impenitence, the obstacle to the Sacrament’s activity, shall have been removed.

(d) The recipient of the Sacrament is a Catholic who after attaining the use of reason has come into the danger of death through sickness or old age. No one is capable of receiving this Sacrament unless he is baptized, for Baptism is the gateway of the Sacraments (2671); unless he has reached the use of reason, for the Sacrament is a remedy against personal sin and supposes that the recipient can or formerly could distinguish between right and wrong; unless he is in danger of death through the infirmity of disease or of decrepitude, for St. James teaches that the anointing is for those who are enfeebled by illness dangerous unto death. Hence Extreme Unction cannot be administered validly to the unbaptized, to young children who have not come to the use of reason, to the perpetually insane, to those who are sick but not in danger of death, to those who are in danger of death but not sick (e.g., a strong man going to the gallows or to battle). But the Sacrament may be administered to children who have not yet made their first confession, if they are capable of sin, and to the insane who once had the use of reason. The danger of death need not be immediate, and hence Extreme Unction may be given when the disease is mortal but the patient will last for several months or even a year, as in tuberculosis. Illness includes not only chronic sickness, but also fatal disorders caused by wounds, accidents, poison. The rule about the old is that those who have reached sixty years and show some signs of approaching death, such as great feebleness or fainting spells, even though they have no special malady, may be anointed; for their old age itself is a disease.

(e) The minister of Extreme Unction is the priest, since St. James directs that the presbyters (i.e., the priests) of the Church be called to anoint the sick. Extreme Unction, unlike Penance, is not exercised in the form of a judicial process, and hence the power of Orders suffices for its valid administration, and any priest, even one who lacks jurisdiction, gives it validly. But for lawful administration church law prescribes that the minister regularly be the ecclesiastical superior or spiritual director (i.e., the pastor for his parish, the head of a clerical religious institute for his house, the parish-priest or chaplain for a lay religious body, the confessor for nuns), and that the minister extraordinarily (i.e., in necessity) be any other priest who has permission, or reasonably presumed permission.

(f) The effects of Extreme Unction are per se an increase of sanctifying grace, since this is a Sacrament of the Living; per accidens (i.e., when the recipient is not in the state of grace, but is in good faith and has attrition) the forgiveness of sins and first grace. Extreme Unction produces first grace more surely than does absolution, if the penitent is unconscious, since it does not call for any external manifestation of contrition; hence the importance of anointing those who are dying but unconscious. The special benefit of Extreme Unction is immediate preparation of the soul for entrance to heaven, though restoration of the health of the body is sometimes vouchsafed when this is for the spiritual good of the sick person. Venial sins and the remains of past sins (i.e., the debility left by them) are removed and the soul is strengthened with confidence as to things past and future and with peace and resignation as to present suffering. Since the Sacrament is given for the period of danger of death, it cannot be repeated during the same danger; but should the patient recover and relapse into a distinct danger through the same or another sickness, there arises a new need and the Sacrament may then be repeated.

"Which part of the feet, the upper or lower, is to be anointed in the Sacrament of Extreme Unction? Resp. Nothing is to be innovated." S. R. C. 27 Aug. 1836. Cf. Gardell. n. 4780.

"The good pleasure of His Holiness is desired, that in Extreme Unction to be given to women, the anointing of the feet be omitted. It was responded at another time: the common custom of the Church is to be observed." Qualifiers of the Holy Office, 1674, Father Navarette, Missionary in China. Cf. On Baptism, N. 253.

"But as regards the anointing of the loins, which Your Amplitude testifies was never employed in that Diocese in administering the Sacrament of Extreme Unction, and which therefore you request be permitted to be omitted in the Roman Ritual, it seemed to the Sacred Congregation that no suppression or change whatever in the Ritual, whether in this or in any other matter whatever, ought to be introduced, but it willed that it be printed integrally and faithfully as it was edited by Paul V and revised and corrected by Benedict XIV. But if the anointing of the loins has been unused there until now, the Sacred Congregation declared that it indeed would patiently bear it, if the singular circumstances of that Diocese impede that this anointing be immediately and universally reduced to practice; at the same time, however, it expressed its most ardent wish that, through the care of Your Amplitude and by the teaching of Parish Priests, the faithful be gradually and imperceptibly disposed to receiving also that special anointing in the final struggle, according to the prescriptions of the Roman Ritual." S. R. C. 14 Aug. 1858, Utrecht.

What is extreme unction? - Extreme Unction is so called because, of all the sacred unctions which the Lord our Savior entrusted to his Church, it is the last to be administered. Roman Catechism 3. Extreme unction is a sacrament of the New Law, instituted by Christ the Lord and promulgated by Blessed James the Apostle, by which, through anointing with oil and the prayer of the priest, there is conferred upon sick adults in danger of life the salvation of the soul, and sometimes also health of the body. James 5:14, 15; Trent, sess. 7, c. 1; sess. 14, de E. U., C. 1, c. 1, 2; Florence, Decree for the Armenians; L. 706; Decree of the Holy Office Lamentabili, July 3, 1907, prop. 48; St. Thomas, Suppl., q. 29, a. 1, 3; 4, d. 23, q. 1, a. 1; E. M.

What are the effects of extreme unction? - To confer grace. - To remit venial sins, and also mortal sins if they are present and there is at least attrition for them, if one can neither be contrite nor confess. This sacrament is the complement of penance, for it was chiefly instituted to wipe away the remnants of sins. "But because, when sin is found in the soul, the remnants cannot be taken away unless the sin is first taken away, therefore consequently this sacrament takes away sin." L. 731. Hence it is primarily a sacrament of the living, secondarily of the dead. Therefore Confession or contrition ought, of itself, to precede if the sick person is in mortal sin. - To wipe away the remnants of sin and to relieve and strengthen the soul of the sick person. - The remnants of sin are not only the punishments due to sins, but also anxiety and fear of soul, weakness and torpor toward good.

Therefore the effect of this sacrament is the strengthening of the sick person against the temptations of the devil, the relief and raising of the soul by hope in the divine goodness and mercy. - Sometimes to restore health of body, where this is expedient for the salvation of the soul, by aiding natural causes. Therefore they err who do not receive this sacrament except when the sickness has prevailed so much that they cannot be healed without a miracle. - James, l.c.; Trent, sess. 14, de E. U., C. 2, c. 2; Florence, Decree for the Armenians; Roman Catechism, n. 5-7, 9, 12, 14-16; L. 714, 716, 731; Billuart, art. 7; St. Thomas, Suppl., q. 29, a. 1 ad 2, ad 3, a. 2; q. 30; q. 32.

Does extreme unction confer grace in the individual anointings, or only when all are completed? - It is disputed, and each opinion is probable to St. Alphonsus. The reason is that each anointing is completed by its own matter and form; but from all of them one anointing at last coalesces. L. 707, H. A., tr. 17, n. 3. But St. Thomas, Suppl., q. 30, a. 1 ad 3, says: "grace is conferred in the last anointing." - Yet "it is certain that this sacrament is one; for although the anointings are several, nevertheless all pertain to one signification of interior healing." L. 706. - St. Thomas, Suppl., q. 29, a. 2; Benedict XIV, de Syn., l. 8, c. 3; Roman Catechism, n. 4.

What is the matter of extreme unction? - The remote matter of this sacrament is necessarily olive oil, which must be blessed by a Bishop not only for liceity but also for validity, even when extreme necessity presses. Trent, sess. 14, C. 1; Florence, Decree for the Armenians; S. I. C., Jan. 13, 1665; Sept. 14, 1842; Jan. 10, 1850; May 15, 1878. By a Bishop, namely by the diocesan, or, when the See is vacant, by another neighboring Bishop; on Holy Thursday the oil of the sick, just like the oil of catechumens and chrism, must be renewed each year, though not for the validity of the sacrament, from the precept of Clement VIII and from the Roman Ritual, de Extr. Unct. And this more probably is grave. Nevertheless, if new oil cannot be had, it is licit to use the old. L. 708. It was granted to Latin America by Leo XIII, Constitution Trans oceanum, "that sacred oils even old ones can be used, yet not beyond four years, provided they are not corrupted, and after all diligence has been carried out new or more recent sacred oils cannot be had." But if perhaps within the year the blessed oil seems to be failing, and no other blessed oil can be had, it can be repaired by pouring in a small amount of unblessed oil in lesser quantity. Roman Ritual. And this several times, although in the end the added quantity has been greater than that which was blessed by the Bishop and which was there from the beginning. Blessed; whether it must be blessed in order to extreme unction is disputed. Some probably deny, because the Church requires nothing else except that it be blessed by a Bishop. Others probably affirm, because by a special blessing it must be deputed to the sacrament of extreme unction. Yet in practice the safer opinion is to be held, except in a case of necessity, in which, after another oil of catechumens or chrism has been used, which is used in the sacrament of confirmation and in the ceremonies of baptism, if afterward the oil of the sick can be had, the sacrament is to be repeated. Blessed. A simple priest by concession of the Supreme Pontiff can bless oil of this kind, as is clear from the use of the Greek Church. Benedict XIV, de Syn., l. 8, c. 1, n. 4.

The oil is to be preserved in a clean and decently adorned place, in a silver or tin vessel, Roman Ritual, de Sacr. extr. unct., namely in the church or sacristy, or even at home, if the pastor's house is very distant from the church. S. R. C., Dec. 16, 1826, n. 2650.

The proximate matter is the anointing of five principal parts of the body, namely the eyes, ears, nostrils, mouth, hands, or, if someone lacks one of them, the part nearest to it, although he has lacked it from birth. But whether all these anointings are necessary by necessity of the sacrament, or whether one alone suffices, with a universal form comprehending all the senses, is disputed, and each opinion is probable; and in practice, outside the case of necessity, one must stand by the opinion affirming the necessity of all. Yet the resolution of the Holy Office about one form, although in a case of necessity, seems to favor one anointing. Cf. 869. Nor indeed is the order among the various anointings of parts necessary for the sacrament; nor, in paired senses, is the anointing of each necessary, but only by precept is it to be observed outside a case of necessity. Besides, unless the usage of the place provides otherwise, the feet and loins are to be anointed, but the loins only of men, provided they can conveniently be moved. In some places the anointing of the loins is omitted in male religious. Where however it is not in use, let it be introduced, if this can be done. S. R. C., Aug. 14, 1858. And it can never be omitted unless in particular cases, with precautions applied, decency cannot otherwise be sufficiently provided for. Holy Office, May 15, 1878. The Greeks anoint the forehead, chin, both cheeks, breast, hands, and feet. - Trent, sess. 14, C. 1, c. 3; Florence, Decree for the Armenians; Roman Ritual, de Sacr. Extr. Unct.; Roman Catechism, n. 5, 10; Benedict XIV, de Syn., l. 8, c. 1, n. 4, c. 3; L. 707, 710, 732; St. Thomas, Suppl., q. 29, a. 4, 6; q. 32, a. 5-7; E. M.

What is the form of extreme unction? - The form is: "Through this holy anointing, and his most loving mercy, may the Lord forgive you whatever you have committed through sight, or hearing, etc. Amen." Roman Ritual, de Sacr. Extr. Unct.; Florence, Decree for the Armenians. Certainly essential are: Through this anointing, by which the sacramental action is signified; May the Lord forgive you, by which the sacramental effect is expressed generally; more truly also, when it is conferred in the ordinary way, outside a case of necessity, cf. 869, Whatever through sight, etc., you have committed, by which the special effect of this sacrament is contained; and in a case of true necessity, when one anointing and one form have been used, whatever you have committed.

On the contrary, more truly the following are not essential: Through his mercy; for they are tacitly comprehended in the words, May God forgive you; nor certainly are these essential: Holy, Most loving, Amen, which signify neither the sacramental action nor the sacramental effect. To omit essentials is grave; accidentals light or grave according as the omission is light or notable.

Therefore it is grave to omit through his mercy; but light to omit holy, or most loving, or amen. The form of Extreme Unction is essentially deprecatory. Roman Ritual, l.c. Therefore, if it is pronounced in the indicative or imperative mode, according to the more common opinion, it is invalid. - Florence, Decree for the Armenians; Trent, sess. 14, de E. U., C. 1; Benedict XIV, de Syn., l. 8, c. 2; L. 710, 711; St. Thomas, Suppl., q. 29, a. 7, 8, 9. "Although some change certain words, when for May God forgive you they put May he remit or May he spare; sometimes also, May he heal whatever you have committed; nevertheless, because no change of meaning is made, it is clear that the same form is religiously observed by all." Roman Catechism, n. 6. Cf. here 869.

Who is the minister of extreme unction? - The minister of Extreme Unction is a priest. Any priest validly confers it; licitly only the pastor of the place in which someone is sick, who confers it also on clerics, but not on Regulars and those who enjoy the privileges of Regulars. For their own prelate confers it on Regulars. St. Pius V, Constitution Immarcescibilem, 1567. The Bishop himself chooses by whom he would prefer to be anointed, whether the Sacristan, i.e., the greater Dignitary of his Chapter, or the Curate. Ceremonial of Bishops, C. 38, § 4; S. C. C., June 7, 1760; March 24, 1873, A. S. S., vol. 8, p. 202 ff. - But any priest can more probably licitly also minister this sacrament from the reasonably presumed consent of the pastor. For it does not seem that one must proceed with such rigor where there is question of mere delegation for liceity, and in no way for the validity of the sacrament.

They validly confer it whether one priest or several; and these either simultaneously perform the various anointings, one anointing one part, another another, and pronouncing the form corresponding to that anointing; or successively, if namely one begins the anointings and another continues them. But outside the case of necessity this is grave, namely either of the sick person about to die soon, or because, once the anointings have begun and have not yet been completed, the minister fails. But if this happens, another minister must complete the anointings not yet performed, but must not repeat those performed, not even under condition, unless a notable delay intervenes, namely a quarter of an hour; therefore after a quarter hour they must be repeated under condition. - But in the Greek Church seven or at least three priests anoint the sick person. Benedict XIV, de Syn., l. 8, c. 4, n. 8. - James, Catholic Epistle, 5:14; Trent, sess. 14, C. 1, 3, c. 4; Florence, Decree for the Armenians; L. 722, 723, 724; St. Thomas, Suppl., q. 29, a. 2 ad 3; q. 31; Roman Catechism, n. 13; Benedict XIV, de Syn., l. 8, c. 4; E. M.

How are the anointings to be performed? - As regards validity, the part must be truly anointed; but to anoint is to smear with oil. Therefore if the oil is only dripped, there is no anointing; but whether one drop of oil suffices is disputed. Moreover, it suffices in the individual anointings to dip the tip of the finger in the oil and anoint. L. 709. - All the senses are to be anointed, and indeed continuously.

The reason is that it is probable that from all of them one anointing coalesces, and that grace is conferred when all have been completed; but if a longer delay is interposed between one and another anointing, the moral union is no longer preserved and the sacrament becomes doubtful. - As regards liceity, the anointing must be made with the thumb, and it is light matter to use another finger; nor may a little rod or brush be used, even if usage has this, except from a cause of necessity, if, e.g., the sick person is laboring under a contagious disease. S. R. C., May 9, 1857, Portus Aloysii, ad 2; Benedict XIV, de Syn., l. 13, c. 19; L. 710. Likewise, except for a cause of necessity, neither in baptism is it lawful to use a little rod or brush. S. R. C., Aug. 31, 1872, n. 3276. The anointings must be made in the figure of a cross, and again this is light matter, L. 728; and in the prescribed order, which some judge grave, others of itself light, since there is question only of a certain accidental manner, L. 710; and in paired senses, which is grave, and one must begin from the right; nor is the form to be completed before paired members of this kind have been anointed, which seems light. Roman Ritual, de Sacr. extr. unct.; L. 711; St. Thomas, Suppl., q. 29, a. 2; q. 32, a. 5; E. M.

Note: The anointing begins from the eyes. That they may be anointed conveniently, they must be closed, and the anointing made upon both eyelids. If they cannot be closed, let the anointing be made on the eyebrows, near the corners of the eyes, as the very ancient Catalan Ritual has it. - The ears come next, which are anointed on the lobe or lowest part of the ear; not on the helix or in its hollow, and this so that they can more easily be wiped. - The nostrils; let the nostrils be anointed outside, which are the lateral wings of the nose, to avoid sneezing, which would easily arise if it were done otherwise. - The mouth, with the lips pressed together: here there must be one anointing, and therefore the lips are to be joined so that it can be done more easily; but, if this could not be obtained, it will suffice that the lower or upper lip be anointed; nevertheless there are those who still anoint each. - The hands; the anointing is made in the middle of the palm of each hand, or on another nearer part if it cannot be done otherwise, nevertheless on the inner side; for only priests and Bishops must be anointed on the outer part of the hand. - The feet; the anointing is made at the metatarsus, commonly the instep; according to St. Charles it is made on the soles, because namely we use them for walking. Moreover it will suffice if that part of the feet is anointed which conveniently can be; nor does it matter if both cannot be anointed because of sickness, or difficulty, or because one has been cut off; for this anointing is only an integral part. And indeed the feet fall under the sense of touch. The anointing of the loins may be omitted while the essence of the sacrament nevertheless remains. For the loins fall under all the other five senses, which according to St. Thomas, Suppl., q. 32, a. 6, are, as principles of acting, so principles of sinning.

Each piece of cotton or similar thing prepared for wiping the anointed parts serves for each paired member anointed. The priest rubs well with bread crumb the thumb with which he anointed, and washes it with water in some vessel prepared for this, then wipes it with a towel; but he brings the water-washing together with the crumbs and the tufts of cotton used for wiping to the sacrarium. Yet some are accustomed to hand over all these things to be burned in the house itself of the sick person, and to carry to the sacrarium only the cotton or tow that was anointed. - Trent, sess. 14, c. 3; Benedict XIV, de Syn., l. 8, c. 3; L. 711, 730; E. M.

Is it ever lawful to minister extreme unction with one form and one anointing? - If danger of imminent death is present, it is lawful to perform all the anointings under one formula: "Through this holy anointing and his most loving mercy may God forgive you whatever you have committed through sight," while he anoints the eyes, "hearing," while he anoints the ears, etc., putting the word committed before, lest if it is placed after and the sick person dies in the meantime, the anointings performed would be utterly invalid. Indeed, when death is soon imminent, one anointing on the forehead, or breast, or shoulders will suffice, with these words: whatever you have committed THROUGH THE SENSES; or better, by expressing the senses thus: Through this holy anointing, etc., may God forgive you whatever you have committed through the senses: sight, hearing, taste, smell, and touch. And "in a case of true necessity the form suffices: Through this holy anointing may the Lord forgive you whatever you have committed. Amen." Holy Office, Apr. 25, 1906. And consequently one anointing also suffices. - L. 710; Benedict XIV, de Syn., l. 8, c. 3; A. S. S., vol. 33, fasc. 7.

What of the various ceremonies and prescribed prayers? - It is grave, without urgent necessity, to omit the prayers prescribed by the Roman Ritual; and if they have been omitted because of danger of instant death, afterward, if time is available, they will have to be said. The prayers which precede the anointings; the Psalms and Litanies are not to be said by the minister, but by the bystanders, because from even the Ambrosian Ritual they are to be said only by counsel and not by precept. S. R. C., June 20, 1902. - It is likewise grave, apart from necessity, to minister this sacrament without surplice and stole. - But it is light matter to minister it without a light, without a minister, or with a woman serving. According to several, however, it is not even light matter to minister without a light, or to employ no minister. - If a cleric or layman cannot easily be found, the priest alone should perform all the ceremonies, and he himself should respond to the prayers. - Roman Ritual, h.t.; L. 724-728; E. M.

Pastors cannot for their own convenience retain the holy oil of the sick in their own houses, except however in the case of great distance from the church, in which case the rubric concerning honorable, decent, and safe custody must altogether be observed even at home. S. R. C., Aug. 31, 1872, ad 5, n. 3276; Nov. 15, 1890, Comp. ad 2, n. 3739; June 23, 1892, ad 7, Laud. n. 3779.

Who is the subject of extreme unction? - The subject of Extreme Unction is a baptized man who has reached the use of reason and is sick in probable danger of death, from disease, difficult childbirth, a received wound, poison, or old age, although he has not yet communicated, although he is mute, deaf, or blind from birth; although he is insane, if he has lucid intervals; although he is delirious or deprived of the senses, if beforehand he asked for the sacrament or would have asked for it if he had thought of this, and all irreverence toward the sacrament is absent. - Therefore it is invalidly given to healthy persons about to enter battle, to those condemned to capital punishment, to children not yet having attained the use of reason, or to those like children, namely idiots and the insane from birth, and to the sick outside the aforesaid danger. - But it is to be given only once in the same infirmity and danger; if the infirmity is long-lasting and the danger has at least probably passed, when a new danger is imminent it can be given again; and it must be given if the new danger is certain. - Trent, sess. 14, Doctrine on the Sacrament of Extreme Unction, C. 3; Decree for the Armenians; Roman Ritual, de Sacr. E. U.; Benedict XIV, Constitution Ex quo primum, de Syn., l. 8, c. 5-8; Suarez, d. 4, s. 2; L. 713-721, 732; St. Thomas, 4, d. 23, q. 2, a. 4, q. 2; Suppl., q. 32, q. 33; Roman Catechism, n. 9, 11; E. M.

Is there a grave obligation of receiving extreme unction? - No precept is present concerning this matter. Therefore, with contempt, scandal, and danger of combat with the devil removed, one who does not receive it does not sin gravely. L. 733; St. Thomas, III, q. 65, a. 4. But the proper pastor is nevertheless bound from office to minister it, and consequently sins gravely, unless some grave cause excuses him, by not conferring it on those asking, or by deferring it until the sick person, with health despaired of, is deprived of the senses. For thus the sick person lacks the richer fruit which he would have perceived, is deprived of spiritual strength for resisting the devil and for enduring the inconveniences of sickness; if he were in mortal sin, by conceiving attrition he would have obtained grace; and if it had been given at a suitable time, he could also have obtained bodily health. - It is given by custom after Viaticum, but it can be given before it. S. R. C., March 8, 1879, n. 3486. - Roman Ritual, de Sacr. E. U.; Roman Catechism 9; La-Croix 2120; L. 714, 716, 728, 729.

“The anointing of the loins in Extreme Unction can never be omitted unless, in particular cases and with precautions employed, modesty cannot otherwise be sufficiently safeguarded.” Holy Office, 28 August 1889.

“Very feeble elderly persons and sick persons suffering from hectic fever or a similar illness, who are presumed likely to die before they can have the missionary present, can be anointed as though in their final illness, as the Sacred Congregation answered by rescript in the year 1801. Very often, however, in an assembly of the faithful, after Viaticum has been received and Mass has ended, elderly and sick persons of this kind, as well as certain others suffering more dangerously, are customarily anointed here. But when the garments of men are loosened and lifted in order to perform the anointing of the loins, many at once, especially women, blush and flee quickly because of the customs of the people. If, therefore, it shall seem good to the Sacred Congregation, may it deign, I beseech it, to obtain from Our Most Holy Lord that the anointing of the loins be omitted not only when the sick person cannot conveniently be moved, as the Roman Ritual prescribes, but also when Extreme Unction is administered in an assembly of the faithful.—Response. Affirmative, after consultation with His Holiness. His Holiness approved.” Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 21 September 1843.

“But as regards the anointing of the loins, which Your Excellency testifies has never been employed in this diocese in administering the Sacrament of Extreme Unction, and which you therefore request that the Roman Ritual permit to be omitted, it has seemed to the Sacred Congregation that no suppression or alteration whatsoever, whether in this or any other matter, ought to be introduced into the Ritual; rather, it willed that the latter be printed entire and faithfully, just as it was published by Paul V and revised and corrected by Benedict XIV. But if the anointing of the loins has hitherto been unaccustomed there, the Sacred Congregation declared that it would indeed bear patiently with it if the particular circumstances of that diocese prevent this anointing from being put into practice immediately and universally. At the same time, however, it expressed its most ardent desire that, through the care of Your Excellency and the teaching of the parish priests, the faithful be disposed gradually and imperceptibly to receive this special anointing also in the final agony, according to the prescriptions of the Roman Ritual.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 14 August 1858, Utrecht.

“Besides the upper part of the feet, is the lower part also to be anointed in the Sacrament of Extreme Unction?—Response. Nothing is to be changed.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 27 August 1836, Rennes, response to 1.

“The good pleasure of His Holiness is sought that, in Extreme Unction administered to women, the anointing of the feet be omitted.—It was answered on another occasion: The common custom of the Church is to be observed.” Qualifiers of the Holy Office, 1674; Father Navarrete, missionary in China. Cf. no. 433.

“Indeed, since Your Charity wished to consult concerning this matter as concerning the others, my son Celestine the deacon also added in his letter that Your Charity had set forth what is written in the epistle of the blessed Apostle James: ‘Is anyone among you sick? Let him bring in the priests, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; and the prayer of faith shall save the sick man, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he be in sins, they shall be forgiven him.’ There is no doubt that this ought to be received or understood of the sick faithful, who can be anointed with the holy oil of chrism, “which, having been confected by a bishop, not only priests but all Christians may use for anointing in their own necessity or that of their own. But we see that this was superfluously added, so that doubt might be raised concerning a bishop, when it was said of priests, because bishops, being hindered by other occupations, cannot go to all the sick. But if a bishop either is able or judges someone worthy to be visited by him, he can without hesitation both bless and touch him with chrism, since it belongs to him to confect the chrism itself. For this cannot be poured upon penitents, because it is a kind of sacrament. For how is it thought that one kind can be granted to those to whom the other sacraments are denied?” Innocent I, from Letter 25 to Decentius, Bishop of Gubbio, chapter 8.

“We venerate the anointing of the sick with consecrated oil.” Profession of Faith prescribed to the Waldensians by Innocent III.

“Another sacrament is Extreme Unction, which according to the doctrine of blessed James is applied to the sick.” Profession of Faith of Michael Palaeologus.

“Upon inspection of the very words of the divine utterance, it is easily apparent that the Sacrament of Extreme Unction, even in a case of necessity—namely, in the absence of another priest—cannot be administered by a sick missionary to himself.” Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 23 March 1844.

2. Augustinus, a parish priest, administering extreme unction in a case of urgent necessity, since he did not have the Ritual before his hands, used this form, which then occurred to his memory: I anoint thee with holy oil, that through His mercy God may pardon thee, etc. - Is it valid?

R. St. Alphonsus, l. 6, n. 711, dub. 3, says: "Bonacina, etc., deny it. But Suarez, Laymann, Filliucci, Henriquez, Reginaldus, and the others more commonly apud the Salmanticenses, affirm more probably, although they say that the matter is uncertain. The reason is that by these words the substance of the form is already expressed." - I. M. 865.

672. • I. Extreme Unction is defined as a Sacrament of the new law instituted by Christ for conferring salvation of soul, or even of body, upon a sick person in danger of death, through the anointing with blessed Oil and the prayer of the Priest.

Extreme Unction is a true Sacrament of the new law. This is established, first, because it is a sensible sign, conferring grace, and instituted by the Lord Jesus Christ. For the nature of a sign is sufficiently evident through the anointing and the prayer of the Priest. That it confers grace is established from its effects. But its divine institution is demonstrated by apostolic tradition. It was promulgated especially by St. James in the Catholic Epistle, 5:14-15, where it is said: Is any man sick among you? Let him bring in the Priests of the Church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil...; and the prayer of faith shall save the sick man, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he be in sins, they shall be forgiven him.

This is established, second, from the definition of the Council of Trent, session 14, On Extreme Unction, where it is thus said: If anyone says that Extreme Unction is not truly and properly a Sacrament instituted by Christ our Lord and promulgated by the blessed Apostle James, but only a rite received from the Fathers or a human invention, let him be anathema.

673. • II. The effects of the Sacrament of Extreme Unction are: first, sanctifying grace together with the actual graces proper to the Sacrament, which wonderfully assist in reviving the sick person and strengthening him against the temptations of the devil.

Second, remission of all sins not yet remitted, even mortal sins. This is established from the text of St. James cited above: And if he be in sins, they shall be forgiven him. Hence the Sacrament of Extreme Unction is indeed primarily a Sacrament of the living, but secondarily a Sacrament of the dead, namely, in the hypothesis of the state of sin. It certainly remits venial sins primarily and per se; but more probably it remits mortal sins also in the same manner. - St. Ligorius, no. 731.

Third, the cleansing away of the remnants of sin, which are not only the punishments due to sins but also anxieties of mind, weaknesses, languor toward the good, torpor, fear, and other similar things which are contracted from sins.

But these effects are greater in proportion as the sick person is better disposed in soul. Fourth, restoration of bodily health at times, if it is expedient for the salvation of the soul. This is established from the cited text of St. James and from the Council of Trent, session 14, On Extreme Unction, chapter 2. Hence it is evident how shamefully those err who do not receive this Sacrament unless the disease has become so strong that they can no longer be healed without a miracle. - St. Ligorius, no. 731.

(cc. 937-947)

Utility. A priest, devoted to sacred ministries, must know well the rite, especially the essential rite. It is necessary that he be so instructed and persuaded concerning the utility and sweetness of this sacrament that, according to the repeated admonitions of the Supreme Pontiff, he procure and obtain the timely administration of the sacrament, far from being an accomplice of those who tolerate only too late that the sick be strengthened by this sacrament.

— Appendix XIV belongs to this section. Historical. Cf. Appendix XIV.

569. Name. The sacrament of Extreme Unction has been called by many names, for example, holy oil, oil of blessing, oil of unction, the sacrament of those departing, and so forth. By the Greeks, however, it is called ἅγιον ἔλαιον, εὐχέλαιον, ὑστεραχρίσις, θεῖον μύρον, and so forth.

Definition. Extreme Unction is a sacrament of the New Law by which, through the anointing of blessed oil and the prayer of a priest, the salvation of soul and sometimes of body is conferred upon a man capable of malice and gravely ill.

This definition will become clearer from what is to be said below concerning the matter, form, effects, and subject of this sacrament.

Errors. Although the Waldensians and Wycliffites perhaps did not totally deny the existence of this sacrament, nevertheless they spoke of it rather irreverently.² Luther, in the sermon On the New Testament (in the year 1520), n. 24, still enumerates Extreme Unction among the sacraments, but in the book On the Babylonian Captivity (in the same year 1520) he rejects this sacrament, although he admits it as a kind of sacramental. Calvin,³ however, calls Extreme Unction "histrionic hypocrisy."

² Cf. Billuart, De extr. unct., diss. unica, a. 1.

³ Instit., l. 4, c. 19, § 18.

570. Thesis. Extreme Unction is a true sacrament of the New Testament.

It is defined as of faith. The Council of Florence⁴ says: "The fifth sacrament is Extreme Unction, whose matter is olive oil blessed by a bishop." The Council of Trent⁵ defines: "If anyone says that Extreme Unction is not truly and properly a sacrament instituted by Christ Our Lord and promulgated by the blessed Apostle James, but only a rite received from the Fathers or a human invention, let him be anathema."

Proof 1. From Sacred Scripture. "Is anyone among you sick? Let him bring in the priests of the Church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; and the prayer of faith shall save the sick man, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he be in sins, they shall be forgiven him."⁶ Almost all Protestants, from Martin Chemnitz down to Hase, explain this text of the gift of healings, which was signified by the anointing with oil. But this explanation is forced and false. For: a) If bodily healing were treated here, there is no reason why St. James should command the priests to be called. For then physicians, or those who have the gift of healings, which priests did not always exercise, ought rather to be called. b) The gift of healings was given not only for the sick who were bedridden, but also for the lame, blind, deaf, and so forth. Why, therefore, does St. James speak only of the sick? c) St. James adds: "And if he [the sick man] be in sins, they shall be forgiven him."⁷ But it is impossible for sins to be infallibly remitted by some natural anointing or prayer. Protestants indeed think that sins are remitted neither through the anointing nor through the prayer, but through the faith of the man anointed; but this faith is asserted gratuitously, since the Apostle speaks of the prayer of faith of the priests, and not of the man anointed.

Since these things are so, the argument from the cited text of St. James is constructed thus: A sacrament is a sensible sign efficacious of grace, permanently instituted by Christ. But Extreme Unction is such a sign. Therefore Extreme Unction is a true sacrament. Proof of the minor: Extreme Unction is: a) a sensible sign, for a sensible anointing and the words of the priest are employed; b) it effects grace, because it remits sins, if any are present; c) it was permanently instituted by Christ. This is evident a priori, because no one except God alone can annex grace to a sensible sign. Furthermore, St. James speaks neither to one church nor for one time, but simply, without any limitation. Moreover, he could not do this except by the authority of God.

If it is further asked when Christ instituted this sacrament, theologians do not agree. Some (Maldonatus, Sainte-Beuve, and others) think that Christ instituted this sacrament already before the Passion, since it is said of the Apostles in Mark 6:13: "They anointed with oil many who were sick and healed them"; but this opinion is deservedly rejected, since the Apostles were not yet priests at that time and consequently could not administer this sacrament. Therefore the better and more common opinion teaches that Extreme Unction was instituted by Christ together with the sacrament of Penance after the Resurrection and was afterward promulgated by St. James.

Proof 2. From tradition. Origen⁸ (third century) presents Extreme Unction as a complement of the sacrament of Penance. Innocent I (402-417), when asked by Decentius, Bishop of Gubbio, concerning certain doubts about this sacrament, responds: 1. that the words of St. James are to be understood of the faithful who are sick; 2. that this anointing can be performed both by bishops and by priests; 3. that this anointing is not to be administered to public penitents, "because it is a kind of sacrament. For to those to whom the other sacraments are denied, how is it thought that one kind can be granted?"⁹ St. Gregory the Great (sixth century) not only knows this sacrament, but in his Sacramentary prescribes the manner of administering it.¹⁰ For other testimonies of the ancients, see Drouven.¹¹ The Scholastics of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, and thereafter all Catholic authors, hold Extreme Unction to be a true sacrament, although some (Hugh of St. Victor, the Master of the Sentences, St. Bonaventure) teach that it was instituted not by Christ, but by the Apostle St. James under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. This opinion, however, can no longer be maintained today because of the canon of the Council of Trent already cited above.¹²

Proof 3. From prescription, that is, from the consent of the Eastern Churches, in whose most ancient Euchologia the rite of this sacrament is found.¹³

Proof 4. From the reason of fittingness. Extreme Unction very fittingly assists man in the final danger of death. For it can be administered even to those deprived of their senses, upon whom another sacrament can scarcely, if at all, be conferred. Furthermore, in agony man most needs assistance. Certainly assistance perhaps is already afforded through the Eucharist and Penance, but perhaps the remnants of sins remain. Moreover, the Eucharist cannot always be given to the dying person. Therefore it is most fitting that Christ, who during His earthly life assisted so many sick persons, should have instituted Extreme Unction as a permanent sacrament and the best assistance for a happy passage into eternal life.

⁴ Denz., n. 700.

⁵ Sess. 14, can. 1, De extr. unct. (Denz., n. 926).

⁶ James 5:14 ff.

⁷ κἂν ἁμαρτίας ᾖ πεποιηκώς, ἀφεθήσεται αὐτῷ.

⁸ Hom. 2 in Lev., n. 4 (Migne, Patr. lat. 12, 419). For an explanation of this text, cf. Kern, De sacr. extr. unct., p. 53.

⁹ Ep. 25 to Decentius, n. 8 (Denz., n. 99).

¹⁰ In Migne, Patr. lat. 78, 233.

¹¹ De re sacr., l. 7, q. 1, c. 1.

¹² P. 408, note 5.

¹³ Cf. Goar, Euchol., p. 408 ff., and Drouven, loc. cit.

The Council of Trent⁴⁴ enumerates the effects of Extreme Unction in this manner: "Moreover, the thing and effect of this sacrament are explained by those words: And the prayer of faith shall save the sick man, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he be in sins, they shall be forgiven him. For this thing is the grace of the Holy Spirit, whose anointing wipes away offenses, if any still remain to be expiated, and the remnants of sin, and relieves and strengthens the soul of the sick person by arousing in him great confidence in the divine mercy, by which the sick person, sustained, bears the inconveniences and labors of sickness more lightly; and he more easily resists the temptations of the devil lying in wait for his heel; and he sometimes obtains health of body, when this is expedient for the salvation of the soul." From these words it is lawful to deduce the following conclusions:

⁴⁴ Sess. 14, c. 2, De extr. unct. (Denz., n. 909).

576. Proposition 1. The primary effect of Extreme Unction is not the remission of sins (whether mortal or venial), but an increase of habitual grace, which of itself destroys the remnants of sin and, consequently, sins themselves.

Concerning this matter the Roman Catechism⁴⁵ teaches: "For this sacrament was not instituted in the first place for the remission of graver crimes, but Baptism alone and Penance effect this by their own power." Therefore Extreme Unction is truly a sacrament of the living and not of the dead. Hence one receiving Extreme Unction must already be in the state of sanctifying grace, which is ordinarily to be obtained by a sinner through the sacrament of Penance; but in a case of necessity it suffices that, before receiving Extreme Unction, he elicit an act of contrition at least putatively perfect (although in reality it is imperfect). Although, according to the common opinion of theologians, the other sacraments of the living also produce first grace in a case of necessity after contrition (at least imperfect) has been elicited, nevertheless Extreme Unction produces this much more certainly, because: a) St. James says of it: "And if he be in sins, they shall be forgiven him"; b) in the form of this sacrament there is: "May the Lord forgive you whatever you have sinned"; c) the Council of Trent⁴⁶ defines: "If anyone says that the sacred anointing of the sick does not confer grace or remit sins, ... let him be anathema." Therefore Extreme Unction produces first grace not only accidentally, as do Confirmation and the Eucharist, but was directly instituted by Christ that it might proximately dispose the soul for entrance into heaven and consequently remit all sins perhaps standing in the way. Therefore Extreme Unction is primarily indeed a sacrament of the living, but consequently (and indeed from its specific nature) a sacrament of the dead.

⁴⁵ Loc. cit., q. 14.

⁴⁶ Sess. 14, can. 2, De extr. unct. (Denz., n. 927).

577. Note. Although Extreme Unction remits mortal sins for a man who is in the impossibility of confessing, nevertheless, when this impossibility ceases, there arises the obligation of integrally confessing the sins thus remitted.

For dying persons deprived of their senses, Extreme Unction is a most precious sacrament. For although it is piously believed that sacramental absolution can also be validly given to them if they are at least attrite, nevertheless this is not altogether certain. For contrition and confession are the proximate matter of the sacrament of Penance, as was said above under n. 326. But the proximate matter, as an essential part of the sensible sign of the sacraments, must be manifested externally. It is difficult, however, to understand how a dying person deprived of his senses can externally manifest contrition and confession, and consequently the absolution granted to him is not altogether certainly efficacious. On the contrary, Extreme Unction, when conferred, is certainly efficacious provided that the sick person is at least inwardly truly attrite. Since these things are so, the pastor and the others standing by should strive altogether that the sacrament of Extreme Unction be conferred upon a dying person deprived of his senses.

578. Proposition 2. The sacramental grace of Extreme Unction produces: a) strength of soul; b) the wiping away of venial sin and of the remnants of sin; c) sometimes bodily health.

a) Strength of soul is an effect of Extreme Unction.

For St. James says: "And the Lord shall raise him up." The weakness of the soul, however, is produced especially from a threefold cause, that is, from past, present, and future evils: 1. from distrust concerning the sins of one's past life; for the sinner knows certainly that he has sinned often and gravely, but he does not know with equal certainty that God has forgiven all those sins; 2. from pusillanimity on account of present hardships, which indeed arise both from bodily illness, which weighs down the soul, and from diabolical assaults, which especially attack a man now about to die; 3. from trepidation because of one's uncertain lot in eternity. Against all these weaknesses Extreme Unction confers the most powerful strength.

b) The wiping away of venial sin and of the remnants of sin is the second effect.

Since Extreme Unction is the immediate preparation for heaven, it must remove all those things which obstruct entrance into heaven. These indeed are sins not yet destroyed and the punishments of sins not yet discharged. Therefore Extreme Unction ex opere operato destroys sins and the remnants of sins, if the man is rightly disposed, that is, if he sincerely grieves over all and each of his sins, even the least. But since such a disposition is not always present, Extreme Unction sometimes cannot wipe away all sins and all their remnants.

c) Bodily health is sometimes produced by this sacrament, if this is expedient for the salvation of the soul.⁴⁷

This indeed follows from the words of St. James: "The prayer of faith shall save the sick man." Certainly this effect is not produced suddenly, nor even if the powers of the body are already altogether exhausted. Hence, also for the sake of recovering bodily health, it is to be counseled that Extreme Unction be conferred upon the sick person as soon as possible and not be deferred until the very end of life.

⁴⁷ Thus the Council of Trent, loc. cit. The Scholastics instituted subtle indeed, but practically useless, disputations concerning the precise conditions under which the sick obtain bodily health through Extreme Unction. See Kern, De extr. unct., l. 3, c. 2.

579. Scholion. On the moment at which Extreme Unction produces its effects. Theologians go into diverse opinions in disputing about the moment at which Extreme Unction produces its effects. For there are several successive anointings. Concerning this question (which is purely speculative, since after the decision of the Holy Office cited above it is certain that in a case of necessity one anointing and one form suffice), St. Thomas⁴⁸ writes: "When there are many actions ordered to the same effect, the last is formal with respect to all the preceding actions and acts in their power; and therefore in the last action grace is infused, which affords the effect to the sacrament."

⁴⁸ Suppl., q. 30, a. 1 ad 3.

1500. - I. Extreme Unction is defined as a Sacrament of the new law instituted by Christ for conferring the salvation of the soul, or even of the body, upon a sick person whose life is in danger, through the anointing of blessed Oil and the prayer of the priest.

II. The effects of the Sacrament of Extreme Unction are:

1° Sanctifying grace, with actual graces proper to the Sacrament, which wonderfully help to recreate the sick person and to strengthen him against the temptations of the devil.

2° Remission of all sins not yet remitted, even mortal sins. It is established from Scripture: And if he be in sins, they shall be forgiven him.¹ Hence the Sacrament of Extreme Unction is indeed primarily a Sacrament of the living, but secondarily it is a Sacrament of the dead, namely in the hypothesis of the state of sin. It certainly remits venial sins per se; more probably it also remits mortal sins in the same way, although secondarily.²

3° The wiping away of the remnants of sin, which are not only the penalties due to sins, but also anxieties of soul, infirmities, languor toward good, torpor, fear, and other similar things which are contracted from sins. But these effects are greater, the better the sick person is disposed in soul.

4° Restoration of the health of the body sometimes, if it is expedient for the salvation of the soul. It is established from Scripture: The prayer of faith shall save the sick man,³ and from Trent.⁴ Hence it appears how shamefully they err who do not receive this Sacrament unless when the disease has so prevailed that now they cannot be healed without a miracle.¹

Notes near n. 1500, final warning concerning delayed reception (printed p. 197; right-column note sequence).

1 L. VI. 731.

685. Extreme Unction is the fifth sacrament. - Just as in bodily life, besides the remedy which heals from lethal sickness, another is required which perfectly restores health and totally gives back strength; so in spiritual life, besides Penance, which frees from the disease of lethal sin, another sacramental remedy is required which perfectly heals and takes away all the remnants of sin. This is the sacrament of Extreme Unction, which accordingly is as it were the complement of Penance, and stands to it almost as Confirmation stands to Baptism; indeed "it is the last and in a certain way consummative sacrament of the whole spiritual healing, by which man is prepared as it were for receiving glory; whence it is also called extreme unction." Thus St. Thomas, c. Gent. IV, 73.

The name, therefore, is taken from the fact that it is the last anointing in life, which after all others must be administered to the sick who are in danger of life. It is also called holy oil (heilig Oliesel), oil of the sick, sacrament of those departing; in Greek euchelaion, that is, prayer with oil, hagion elaion, or holy oil.

686. Extreme Unction is defined: A sacrament of the New Law, in which, through the anointing of blessed oil and the prayer of the priest, relief of soul and body is conferred upon adult sick persons in danger of life; or, that which is given to the sick for the salvation of soul and body.

In this definition are indicated 1) the matter: anointing with blessed oil; 2) the form: prayer; 3) the minister: a priest; 4) the subject: an adult sick person in danger of life; 5) the effect: relief conferring unto the salvation of soul and body.

687. Division of the treatise. - The treatise is divided into four questions:

1. On the sacrament of Extreme Unction itself: a) on its institution; b) on its constitutive parts, or on matter and form.

2. On the effects of Extreme Unction.

3. On the minister of Extreme Unction.

4. On the subject of Extreme Unction.

There is added an appendix on the apostolic blessing to be imparted to the dying.

1. On Extreme Unction there can usefully be consulted: St. Thomas, in Suppl., q. 29-33, with the commentators, among whom is Billuart; among dogmatic theologians: Billot, Hugon, Tanquerey, Van Noort-Verhaar; Heimbucher, Die H. Oelung; Schmitz, De Effectibus extremae unctionis; Kern, De Sacramento Extremae Unctionis; Chardon, Histoire des Sacrements; Bord, L'Extreme-Onction; Ruch and Godefroy, in Dict. de Theol.; de Guibert, in Dict. Apol.; Theologia Mechliniensis, De Extrema Unctione, under the care of Gougnard; A. Janssens, Het H. Oliesel; Cappello, Tractatus canonico-moralis de Sacramentis, II, p. 11; and the moral manuals known to all.

S. Th., Suppl., q. 29, a. 1-3.

688. State of the question. - The innovators expressly denied to the anointing of the sick the dignity of a sacrament; against them the Council of Trent vindicated it and defined that it must be believed by all as of faith, sess. 14, on Extreme Unction, can. 1.

Already formerly the Waldenses and Wicleffites seem to have neglected or contemned this sacrament. But Luther denied that it was a sacrament, yet retained anointing as a rite similar to sacramentals. Calvin thinks it was once a charism, but now is wholly useless and reeks of theatrical hypocrisy. Present-day Protestants, with the Ritualists for the most part excepted, wholly deny the power of a sacrament, and they understand the words of St. James, V, 14-15, of the gift of healing bodily diseases, by which many at that time rejoiced. Liberal Protestants and Modernists assert that the custom of the Jews, who used oil for healing wounds, was adopted by Christians for pious use and only slowly transformed into a symbol of grace. To this pertains proposition 48 of the Modernists: "James in his epistle does not intend to promulgate any sacrament of Christ, but to commend some pious custom; and if in this custom perhaps he sees some means of grace, he does not take it with that strictness with which the theologians who instituted the notion and number of the sacraments took it."

689. Thesis. There is in the Church a true and properly so-called sacrament, instituted by Christ the Lord and promulgated by the Apostles, to be given to the sick by extreme anointing. - It is of faith from the Council of Trent, sess. 14 on Extreme Unction, c. 1, and can. 1 and 3; which thus confirms the profession of faith emitted in the Council of Lyons and the doctrine of the Council of Florence.

It is proved: A. From the Scriptures, in which this sacrament:

1. Is insinuated and as it were foreshown, Mk. VI, 12-13: Going forth they preached that men should do penance; and they cast out many demons, and anointed with oil many sick, and healed them.

There the effect of bodily health alone is attributed to the anointing and to the power of the Apostles; yet because this power was ordered to the health of souls and the kingdom of God, it insinuated a sacramental anointing to be instituted for the salvation of soul and body.

2. Also was expressly promulgated and commended to the faithful, Jas. V, 14-15: Is anyone sick among you? Let him bring in the presbyters of the Church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord, and the prayer of faith shall save the sick man, and the Lord shall raise him up, and if he be in sins, they shall be remitted to him.

By these words is indicated a) a sensible sign, namely, matter and form: anointing with oil and the prayer of faith; b) instituted by Christ the Lord: in the name, that is, by the command and authority, of the Lord, namely Jesus (I, 1; II, 1; V, 7, 8); c) conferring grace ex opere operato: the prayer of faith shall save the sick man and the Lord shall raise him up; these things are obtained once the sign is posited and are not to be understood of the body alone but also of the salvation of the soul (I, 21; II, 14; IV, 12; V, 20) and of relief, especially since it is added: if he be in sins, they shall be remitted to him, which cannot happen without the infusion of grace; d) remaining in perpetuity: for it is commended without restriction to all faithful gravely sick, and therefore has force for all. That these things are to be understood thus is most certainly clear from Tradition.

Therefore there is not question of the gift of healing diseases: for then a) presbyters would not have to be called, but charismatics who have the gift of healings; nor b) for a miraculous healing would matter, namely anointing, have to be prescribed, for miracles are done by diverse signs according to divine inspiration; nor c) would it be added: if he be in sins, they shall be remitted to him, because those endowed with the power of miracles cannot by this power forgive sins.

1. From the usage of the New Testament, the word asthenei (v. 14) and kamnonta (v. 15) signify grave infirmity.

B. From Tradition. In the ninth century, in the Church both Western and Eastern, Extreme Unction was universally held as a sacrament to be conferred upon the sick for the salvation of soul and body; from the eighth century down to the fourth, several explicit testimonies about it also exist; indeed in the third century rather clear allusions are found. From these it is historically probable that this sacrament existed from the beginning and that tradition rises up to the testimony of James; but theologically it is wholly certain, because under the assistance of the Holy Spirit faith is preserved incorrupt in the Church, and therefore from the fact that unanimous tradition admits some point of faith in whatever century, it is proved that it was always believed in the Church and handed down by the Apostles.

a) The consensus of the ninth century is clear, both from the Councils of various regions - of Ticinum, Mainz I, Aachen, Chalon II - or from statutes of bishops: Isaac, bishop of Langres, Herard, archbishop of Tours, Theodulf, bishop of Orleans, St. Boniface, apostle of Germany, Egbert, bishop of York, etc.; and from diverse testimonies, such as those of Amolo of Lyons, Jonas of Orleans, Prudentius of Troyes, Amalarius of Metz, Haymo of Halberstadt. For the East it is clear from the Euchologies, even those of the Orthodox, and from the writings of Eastern theologians of later age who testify to the ancient faith of their Churches in this sacrament.

b) Before that, testimony is furnished: in the eighth century, by Bede the Venerable (on Jas. V, P. L. CXIII, 39); in the seventh century, by St. Eligius of Noyon (de Rectitudine cath. conversationis, P. L. XL, 1172); in the sixth century, by Cassiodorus (Complexiones in ep. Ap., P. L. LXX, 1380) and Caesarius of Arles (P. L. XXXIX, 2238), and also by a synod celebrated by the Patriarch of the Nestorians; in the fifth century, by Victor of Antioch (on Mk. VI, 13), Cyril of Alexandria (de Ador. in sp. et ver.), Augustine (Spec. de S. S.), John Mandakuni among the Armenians, and Innocent I (ep. 25, c. 8); in the fourth century, by the Euchology of Serapion, the Canons of Hippolytus VI, 4, and John Chrysostom (de sac. III, 6).

c) In the third century, the following seem to allude to Extreme Unction: St. Aphrahat (Dem. 23), Eusebius (P. G. XXIV, 267, 1111), and Origen (hom. 2 in Lev.), who nevertheless, like Chrysostom (l. c.), does not distinguish it altogether clearly from the penance of the dying.

The silence of earlier times does not stand in the way. For a) only few writings survive, and many have been lost; b) they were wholly occupied in catecheses in which they explained the fundamental dogmas and the sacraments to be received by catechumens, or in defending the truth of the Christian religion; c) there are also few testimonies concerning Penance, much more concerning Extreme Unction, which is only its complement for the sick; d) moreover, in the time of persecutions prudence warned that sacred rites be reduced to a minimum; but the anointing of the sick is not a necessary sacrament; e) the sacrament of Penance itself was less in use, nor was it received for venial faults; similarly Extreme Unction, as being the complement of Penance; f) until the fourth century Baptism was often deferred until the end of life, and Extreme Unction was not given to public penitents, as Innocent I says, ep. 25, n. 8; g) the ancient commentaries on the epistle of James have perished, so that the first extant one is that of Venerable Bede; but the Gospel of Mark did not find an interpreter before Victor of Antioch in the Greek Church, before Venerable Bede in the Latin Church; h) but if today, when the use of Extreme Unction has become altogether universal, speech about this sacrament is made very rarely in pious or doctrinal books, it should not seem strange that very few things, or even none, concerning it have come down to us from certain times.

C. By reason of fittingness, which Billuart declares thus, taking it from St. Thomas, a. 1:

Christ instituted the sacraments so that he might aid the faithful for every time and according to every state: thus at the entrance into the Church there is Baptism; in the progress and course of life, Confirmation, Eucharist, Penance, etc.; therefore also at the exit, at which our adversary strains all the sinews of his cunning to destroy us, as the Council of Trent has it, sess. 14, on Extreme Unction, in the proem. But there is no other than Extreme Unction, which therefore is called the sacrament of those departing.

690. Extreme Unction is one sacrament, although it is ministered under several anointings, or by several priests, each of whom places a different anointing with its respective form. St. Thomas shows this thus, a. 2:

"Any sacrament is called one insofar as the many things which are in one sacrament are united for signifying, or causing, one thing, because the sacrament causes by signifying. And therefore when one action suffices for perfect signification, the unity of the sacrament consists in that action alone, as is clear concerning Confirmation. But when the signification of the sacrament can be both in one action and in many actions, then the sacrament can be perfected both by one action and by several, as Baptism by one immersion and by three, because washing, which is signified in Baptism, can be by one immersion and by many. But when perfect signification cannot be except by several actions, then several actions belong to the perfection of the sacrament, as is clear in the Eucharist, because bodily refection, which signifies spiritual refection, cannot be except by food and drink. And it is similar in this sacrament, because the healing of interior wounds cannot be perfectly signified except by the application of medicine to the diverse roots of wounds. And therefore several actions belong to the perfection of this sacrament." And "although those actions are several simply, nevertheless they are united in one perfect action, which is the anointing of all the exterior senses by which the interior disease is drawn in" (ad 2). "Nor does the plurality of ministers take away the unity of this sacrament, because he works only instrumentally; but the changing of hammers does not take away the unity of the operation of the craftsman" (ad 3).

691. Observation. It is uncertain when and how Christ instituted this sacrament. Yet it seems that he did not institute it before the sacrament of Penance, and therefore not before the Resurrection; he did not exhibit it, because immediate preparation for entrance into glory was not to be granted before the Ascension; nor does it seem that he determined it perfectly, nor did he promulgate it himself, but left it to be promulgated by the apostles (n. 18 and 71).

S. Th., Suppl., q. 30; c. Gent. IV, 73.

697. The proper and principal effect of Extreme Unction is grace relieving and strengthening the soul of the sick person against the remnants of sins, or against spiritual languor and weakness which takes away perfect vigor for acts of the virtues; - not, however, the remission of mortal sin. That relief and strengthening of the soul are the effect of this sacrament is of faith, from the Council of Trent, sess. 14, on Extreme Unction, can. 2; that it is the primary effect and indeed exclusively so, is the opinion of St. Thomas.

The effect is indicated in the epistle of James, V, 15: The prayer of faith shall save the sick man and the Lord shall raise him up and if he be in sins they shall be remitted to him; and it is thus described by the Council of Trent, c. 2: "This reality is the grace of the Holy Spirit, whose anointing wipes away offenses, if any still remain to be expiated, and the remnants of sin, and relieves and strengthens the soul of the sick man, exciting in him great trust in divine mercy, by which the sick man a) being lifted up, and b) bears the inconveniences and labors of illness more lightly, and c) more easily resists the temptations of the demon lying in wait for the heel..."

It is proved from St. Thomas, q. 30, a. 1:

"Any sacrament is instituted principally for one effect, although it can also bring in other effects consequently. And because the sacrament effects what it figures, therefore its principal effect must be taken from the very signification of the sacrament. But this sacrament is applied according to the manner of a certain medication, as Baptism by the manner of washing. But medicine is for driving away infirmity. Hence principally this sacrament was instituted for healing the infirmity of sin. Hence just as Baptism is a certain spiritual regeneration, and Penance a certain spiritual raising, so also Extreme Unction is a certain spiritual healing or medication.

"But just as bodily medication presupposes bodily life in the one medicated, so spiritual medication presupposes spiritual life. And therefore this sacrament is not given against defects by which spiritual life is taken away, namely, against original or mortal sin; but against those defects by which man is spiritually infirm, so that he does not have perfect vigor for the acts of life, of grace or glory: and this defect is nothing other than a certain weakness and ineptitude which is left in us from actual or original sin, and against this weakness man is strengthened through this sacrament."

Hence the sacrament of Extreme Unction:

1. confers sanctifying grace with special vigor against the infirmity left from sin;

One must treat: 1. Of the notion and effect of this Sacrament. 2. Of the matter and form by which it is constituted.

1871. DEFINITION. Extreme Unction is "a Sacrament instituted by Christ and promulgated by Blessed James, for conferring the health of the soul, or even of the body, on the sick who are in danger of life, through the anointing of blessed oil and the prayer of the priest."¹¹

Principles. - I. Extreme Unction is truly and properly a SACRAMENT of the New Law. - It is of faith; and it is clear: 1. from the words of James (5, 14 and 15): "Is any one of you sick? Let him bring in the priests of the Church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; and the prayer of faith shall save the sick man, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he be in sins, they shall be forgiven him." - 2. From Trent, sess. 14, on Extreme Unction, can. 1: "If anyone shall say that Extreme Unction is not truly and properly a Sacrament instituted by Christ our Lord and promulgated by the blessed Apostle James, but only a rite accepted from the Fathers, or a human figment: let him be anathema."

This Sacrament was instituted by Christ the Lord after the resurrection, as the more common opinion holds with Suarez; and it was promulgated by St. James, as is clear from the text alleged above.¹²

1872. II. Besides sanctifying grace, which, like the other Sacraments, it produces, Extreme Unction has ITS OWN PROPER EFFECTS, which are the following:

1. The PRIMARY effect is to strengthen the soul in its last agony. "This Sacrament," says the Council of Trent (sess. 14, on E. U., cap. 2), "alleviates and confirms the soul of the sick person, by exciting in him great confidence in the divine mercy; by which the sick man, supported, both bears more lightly the inconveniences and labors of disease, and more easily resists the temptations of the devil lying in wait for his heel."

2. The SECONDARY effect is threefold: 1. To delete the remnants of sin, such as obscurity of mind, hardness of heart, love of sensible things, diffidences, anxieties, and similar things which are contracted from sins. - 2. To take away part of the punishments which remain to be expiated for sins. (These two effects are produced greater or lesser according to the degree of disposition of the sick person.) - 3. To confer health of body, if it is expedient for the health of the soul, as Trent has it (loc. cit.); and to this end the prayers placed in the Ritual are also directed. But the Sacrament does not work this effect by way of miracle, lest faith be emptied out; but by a certain supernatural power, which aids natural causes, as far as the body is capable of their action.¹³

1873. Questions. Q. 1. Whether and in what way sins ARE REMITTED through Extreme Unction?

Resp. 1. Although the principal effect of this Sacrament is not to remit sins, neither mortal nor venial, as the Thomists more commonly and more probably teach against the Scotists, and as the Apostle James himself seems to suggest, saying conditionally "and, if he be in sins"; nevertheless, remission of sins must be specially attributed to it; for the Apostle continues, saying: "they shall be forgiven him," and Trent teaches similarly: "delicts, if any are still to be expiated, it wipes away."

Resp. 2. But concerning the mode in which mortal sins are remitted, Theologians do not agree. - Some with Gonet, Sporer, etc., to whom St. Thomas seems to give support,¹⁴ say that they are remitted per accidens, since it is a question of a Sacrament of the living; but others more probably and more commonly, with Suarez, Tournely, etc., teach that they are remitted per se, not indeed directly, but consequently; for it is clear that Extreme Unction was instituted to take away the remnants of sins; but because these cannot be taken away from a soul in which sin is found, unless the sin itself is first taken away, therefore this Sacrament, consequently, takes away sin.¹⁵

Q. 2. Whether through EACH ANOINTING partial grace is conferred?

Resp. 1. Suarez and others affirm it; because any anointing with its own form already signifies grace independently of the other anointings. - 2. But St. Thomas with the more common opinion denies it; because no anointing of itself constitutes the Sacrament, nor even a partial Sacrament; hence, grace is not conferred unless when the Sacrament is completed by the last anointing. - Each opinion is probable.¹⁶

Q. 3. Whether this Sacrament can be VALID and UNFORMED, so that, with the obstacle receding, grace is conferred?

Resp. "The Doctors commonly affirm. Hence the Salmanticenses with others infer that, if a sick person in good faith, or destitute of senses, received the Sacrament in mortal sin, it suffices that afterwards he have attrition, for grace to be received. Otherwise, if in bad faith. - But this runs, if the obstacle is removed while the same disease and danger persevere, at least as regards the effect of special helps, as Suarez and others say."¹⁷

From these things you will gather that through Extreme Unction souls often are saved, both because the Sacrament supplies strength and helps without which the sick person would yield victory to the devil; and because it is received more easily with a lesser disposition, and with a more lasting efficacy; and finally because it is the most salutary admonition of all concerning the proximity of death.¹⁸

1874. A twofold matter is distinguished, namely remote and proximate.

I. The REMOTE matter is oil expressed from olives, and blessed by a special blessing by a Bishop.¹

But the choice of this matter was most fitting: "for, as OIL greatly profits for mitigating pains of the body, so the power of the Sacrament diminishes the sadness and pain of the soul. OIL besides restores health, brings cheerfulness, and supplies, as it were, food to light; and then it is most greatly accommodated to restoring the strength of a wearied body. All these things declare what, in the sick person, is effected by divine power through the administration of this Sacrament." - Thus the Roman Catechism.²

We said, 1. IT IS OIL; for it is clear from the words of the Apostle, anointing him with oil; and this oil, by necessity or validity of the Sacrament, must be the juice of the olive; because in common use this juice alone is designated by the name of oil. Hence Eugene IV, in the Decree to the Armenians, expressly names oil of olive. "This oil moreover, at least from the precept of the Church, ought to be simple, that is, without any admixture of another liquid," as Benedict XIV teaches.³

2. BLESSED BY A BISHOP: wherefore Trent (sess. 14, cap. 1) has these words: "For the Church understood that the matter is oil blessed by a Bishop." But whether this blessing is not only of precept, but also of the necessity of the Sacrament, is disputed; but Authors most commonly affirm it with St. Thomas, and today the matter is plainly certain. For to the doubt: whether, with the oil of the sick lacking, it is licit to administer, under condition, the Sacrament of Extreme Unction with oil blessed by a simple priest, at least in a case of extreme necessity, for instance when the dying person, destitute of senses, previously gave no sign of sorrow and does not give it: the response was always Negative. Thus the Holy Office on January 13, 1611, before Paul V, and September 14, 1842, before Gregory XVI.⁴ Nevertheless, the blessing of oil can be committed by the Supreme Pontiff to a simple priest, as is clear from the Decree of Clement VIII,⁵ who (indirectly) declared that the Sacrament of Extreme Unction conferred on Latins by Greek priests, with oil blessed by the same priests, is valid.⁶

3. Blessed BY A SPECIAL BLESSING, i.e. in order to Extreme Unction: for that this is required by necessity of the Sacrament the Salmanticenses with Bellarmine affirm probably, against Suarez and others; because, just as by the blessing of chrism the matter is deputed for the Sacrament of Confirmation, so by the blessing of the oil of the sick the matter is deputed to the Sacrament of Extreme Unction.⁷ Hence, in a case of necessity, the Oil of catechumens or Sacred Chrism can indeed be employed UNDER CONDITION. But when the oil of the sick itself has been found, the anointings must be repeated under condition; and the same must be done if by error the priest had employed those oils.

It is doubted: Whether one single drop of oil suffices for administering the Sacrament? - St. Alphonsus responded: "Only speculatively probable is the opinion saying that it suffices to administer this Sacrament with one drop of oil, without spreading it over parts; not, however, practically, because this would not be a true anointing."⁸ Nevertheless, for the value of the Sacrament, it certainly suffices to dip the extreme part of the finger in oil for the individual anointings which are made under the repeated form.

Note. This oil (as also the oil of catechumens and Sacred Chrism), from the precept of Clement VIII⁹ (which according to the more probable opinion obliges under grave sin), must be renewed yearly; and, the renewal having been made, the oil of the preceding year must be burned (namely in the lamp which burns before the Most Holy Sacrament); nor is it licit to use it any longer, except in the case in which the new cannot be had. - But if the new does not suffice, another, not blessed, can be mixed with it, but in lesser quantity, as the Ritual says. Indeed, it is licit to renew the admixture several times, provided that the oil to be mixed in is always in lesser quantity, and true necessity requires this.¹⁰ - See the rest in the Ritual.

1875. II. The PROXIMATE matter is the anointing of certain parts of the body, and at least of the five senses, made by a priest. - From the Roman Ritual, principally five parts of the body ought to be anointed, namely: 1. the eyes (or eyelids) or eyebrows; - 2. the ears (at the lowest part of the ear, so that it can be wiped more easily); - 3. the nostrils, i.e. both nostrils (outside), or the extremity of the summit of the nose, with one anointing; - 4. the mouth, with the lips compressed so that one anointing can be made (if this could not be obtained, it will be enough that the lower or upper lip be anointed); - 5. the hands (outside for priests, inside for others); - 6. the feet (either on the soles, or above the feet, according as custom bears or diocesan Statutes prescribe, or as it can be done more conveniently).¹¹ Although, however (from the common opinion), this anointing of the feet is not of the necessity of the Sacrament, nevertheless it cannot be omitted at the priest's pleasure.¹² - 7. The reins; whose anointing is not of the necessity of the Sacrament, as is clear from the Roman Ritual, where it is read: "But the anointing of the reins in women, for the sake of modesty, is always omitted; and also in men, when the sick person cannot conveniently be moved. But, whether in women or in men, another part of the body ought not to be anointed for the reins." At Rome it is customary to anoint the reins of men from each side, or at least from one side, upon the bone which they call the ischion (hip): for thus the sick person scarcely needs to be moved. Elsewhere, the anointing of the reins is omitted in all indiscriminately; nevertheless the S. R. C. (August 1, 1858) desires that it be introduced where it is not in use.¹³ Meanwhile, the custom of the diocese is to be observed by the priest.

1876. Questions. Q. 1. In what way ought the anointings to be made?

Resp. 1. From the ROMAN RITUAL, each anointing ought to be made with the thumb dipped in the holy oil, in the manner of a cross, adapting the cross and the words in the anointing of each part, always beginning from the right. "But the minister, if he is in Sacred Orders, or the priest himself, after each anointing, should wipe the places anointed with a new little ball of cotton or of something similar, and should place it in a clean vessel, and afterwards carry it to the church, burn it, and cast the ashes into the Sacrarium."

Resp. 2. It is certain that it is not of the necessity of the Sacrament that the anointings be made through the immediate contact of the hand; wherefore in a case of necessity, i.e. when plague is raging, a little rod anointed with oil can be employed, which afterwards is to be burned.¹⁴ - Nor is it of the necessity of the Sacrament that a double anointing be made in double parts; since the tinder of sins is now sufficiently indicated through the anointing of one part: hence, when necessity urges, or if the sick person cannot be turned to another side, it suffices to anoint one eye, one ear, etc. Nor finally is it essential to observe the order of the RITUAL among the anointings of the parts; since the inversion of order does not impede the signification of the Sacrament. - But, outside the case of necessity, these three things are to be observed under grave sin, as is commonly taught.¹⁵

Q. 2. Whether the anointing OF THE FIVE SENSES is of the necessity of the Sacrament?

Resp. It is controverted. - The first opinion (speculatively probable), with Merbesius, Tournely, etc., denies it; for from St. James a simple anointing is prescribed, and in Trent mention is made of only one anointing by these words: "this sacred anointing"; whence it seems to suffice that a man be anointed in only one part, so that he may be called anointed. But the more common and safer opinion (to be held under grave sin in practice) affirms that the simple anointings of the five senses are of the necessity of the Sacrament. Thus St. Bonaventure, St. Thomas, Suarez, Bellarmine, etc., who gather this chiefly from the use of the Church.¹⁶

Q. 3. Whether and in what way are the BLIND, DEAF, MUTILATED to be anointed?

Resp. "If someone is mutilated in some member, the part nearest to that place is to be anointed, with the same form of words." Thus the Roman Ritual. In the same way, those blind from birth, deaf, and mute are to be anointed, namely near the organs of the senses of which they are deprived; for although they have not sinned exteriorly through them, nevertheless they could have sinned through the interior powers to which those correspond, e.g. through desires of seeing, hearing, etc. Thus D. Thomas and the Salmanticenses with the common opinion.¹⁷

1877. The FORM of Extreme Unction is this: Through this holy anointing, and His most loving mercy, may the Lord forgive thee whatever THROUGH SIGHT (if the eyes are anointed, and so concerning the others) thou hast committed. Amen. - It is clear from the Council of Trent and from the Roman Ritual. The indicative form would be invalid, as is taught more truly; for from the words of St. James, And let them pray over him, it ought to be deprecatory.¹⁸

Moreover, to one asking why the form of this Sacrament is deprecatory, the Roman Catechism responds:¹⁹ "This was constituted by the best right; for since this Sacrament is therefore applied so that, besides the spiritual grace which it bestows, it may also restore health to the sick; nevertheless, because it does not always follow that the sick recover from diseases, for that cause the form is completed by prayer, so that from the kindness of God we may obtain that which the power of the Sacrament is not wont to effect by a constant and perpetual order."

As regards the form, LET THE FOLLOWING BE NOTED:

1. To the essence of the Sacrament pertain the words: Through this anointing may the Lord forgive thee whatever thou hast committed. - There are indeed some who deny that the word thou hast committed is of the essence; but undeservedly: for this word expresses the remission of sins, which is the principal effect of this Sacrament.

2. The word holy does not pertain to the essence, as all confess; nor these other words: through His most loving mercy, because one who prays God that He forgive already implores His mercy, as the Authors more commonly and more probably teach. Nevertheless, to omit these last words would be a grave sin against the use of the Church, in a grave matter; but neither can the word holy be omitted without fault.

3. The form is not to be ended before the other part of the same sense has been anointed. If the priest fails between the anointings, the anointings already made are not to be repeated, unless a fourth part of an hour has now elapsed; in which case they would have to be repeated under condition.²⁰

4. Once the form has been ended, in the individual anointings, the sick person with those standing by can respond Amen. And it will be excellent if, while the five senses of the body are being anointed, he expressly grieves concerning the faults committed through them.²¹

IT IS ASKED. In what way, WHEN NECESSITY URGES, must the Sacrament be conferred?

Resp. 1. "If someone labors in extremis, and danger is imminent lest he depart before the anointings are finished, let him be anointed quickly, beginning from that place: Through this holy anointing, etc. Then, if he still survives, let the prayers omitted, placed in their own place, be said." Thus the ROMAN RITUAL.

2. If the danger of death is so imminent that all the anointings do not seem able to be carried out in the due manner, let the priest make one anointing, under condition if it is valid, on some sense (yet more advisedly on the forehead, since the nerves of all the senses descend from the head), using this form: Through this holy anointing... may the Lord forgive thee whatever thou hast committed through the senses: sight, hearing, taste, smell, and touch; therefore placing first the word thou hast committed, because if it were pronounced at the end, and meanwhile the sick person should die, there is no Sacrament. - If the sick person survives, the anointings, as Lacroix rightly affirms, are to be repeated on the individual senses, and the other omitted prayers are to be added.

3. But if it is doubted whether the sick person still lives, let the priest continue the anointing under condition, saying: If thou livest, through this, etc. "But if the sick person, while he is anointed, departs, let the priest proceed no further, and let him omit the aforesaid prayers." Thus the RITUAL.

e) In a case of necessity, Extreme Unction is to be ministered by one anointing only on the forehead, with the form: Through this holy anointing may the Lord pardon you whatever you have sinned. Amen. But if death has not followed, the other anointings are to be added as indicated in the ritual, and indeed absolutely, not under condition. The anointing on the loins is now to be omitted; the anointing of the feet can be omitted for any reasonable cause, can. 947.

I. Extreme Unction is a sacrament of the New Law instituted by Christ the Lord for conferring the salvation of the soul, or even of the body, where it is expedient for the salvation of the soul, upon the sick person in danger of life, through the unction of blessed oil and the prayer of the priest.

II. Extreme Unction is a true sacrament of the New Law, as is established from the definition of the Council of Trent, sess. 14, can. 1, on Extreme Unction, where it is thus said: "If anyone shall have said that Extreme Unction is not truly and properly a sacrament instituted by Christ our Lord and promulgated by blessed James the Apostle, but only a rite received from the Fathers, or a human fiction, let him be anathema." - Cf. De Augustinis, Thesis 1, p. 354.

III. The effects of the sacrament of Extreme Unction are: 1°. sanctifying grace with the actual graces proper to the sacrament, which wondrously help toward recreating the sick person and strengthening him against the temptations of the devil; 2°. remission of all sins, both venial and also mortal, and indeed not by accident, but of itself, namely by force of its secondary institution, if the sick person has inculpably remained in the state of sin, provided he has elicited true attrition; 3°. the wiping away of the remains of sin, which are not only the penalties owed to sins but also anxieties of soul, weaknesses, languor toward good, dullness, fear, and other similar things which are contracted from sins; 4°. restoration sometimes of the health of the body, if it is expedient for the salvation of the soul; and consequently they err basely who do not receive this sacrament except when the disease has so prevailed that now they cannot be healed without a miracle. Therefore it can be said that this sacrament is, as it were, the complement of penance, and is referred to it in almost the same way as Confirmation is referred to Baptism. - Cf. Lehmkuhl, nn. 565 and 568.

The sacrament of Extreme Unction must be conferred through sacred unctions, with oil of olives duly blessed being employed, and through the words prescribed in the ritual books approved by the Church (Can. 937).

I say. § 1. Extreme unction cannot be furnished except to a faithful person who, after having attained the use of reason, is situated in danger of death on account of infirmity or old age (Can. 940).

It is established 1°. from the words of St. James: "Is anyone sick among you? Let him bring in the presbyters of the Church," etc.; but the word is sick in Greek signifies a dangerous disease; 2°. from the definition of the Church, for thus in the Decree of union: "This sacrament ought not to be given except to a sick person concerning whose death there is fear"; 3°. from the Council of Trent, sess. 14, ch. 3. - Hence infants are not capable of this sacrament, nor the perpetually insane, because they have committed no actual sins.

But children, if they are masters of reason and are judged capable of deceit and fault, can and must be anointed, even if they have not yet received first communion and have not even once approached to perform confession.

"Altogether detestable is the abuse of not ministering Extreme Unction to children after the use of reason," says Pius X in the Decree Quam singulari. - Cf. Can. just cited 940, § 1.¹

¹ Cf. Addenda, p. 1142, n. 111, n. 112.

Question 1. Whether Extreme Unction can be given to adult neoconverts immediately after Baptism absolutely and rightly received, if nevertheless true danger of death is present?

Resp. Affirmatively, and the reason is because the chief end of this sacrament is to strengthen the sick against the temptations of the devil, and to wipe away the remains of sins. But an adult recently baptized, otherwise than an infant, can suffer temptations and perhaps is subject to many remains of sins. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 721. - Lehmkuhl, n. 576.

For thus the S. C. de Propaganda Fide says: The sacrament of Extreme Unction can be conferred upon adult pagans already baptized, sufficiently instructed and fully disposed, who are oppressed by grave infirmity (26 September 1821). To this should be added the response of the Holy Office: The Sacrament of Extreme Unction is not to be conferred upon a dying neophyte whom the missionary believed capable of Baptism, unless at least the same has some intention of receiving Sacred Unction ordered for the benefit of the soul for the time of death. 10 May 1703.

Question 2. Whether this sacrament can be conferred validly and licitly upon a sick person in doubtful or probable danger of death?

Resp. Affirmatively, with the common and true opinion; thus in the Roman Ritual, edition of the year 1913: "This sacrament must be furnished to the sick who labor so gravely that danger of death seems to be imminent." Note besides that the word imminent does not signify that death is now-now going to follow, but only that the sick person labors under a lethal disease. Therefore a sick person can be validly and licitly anointed who lies seized by hectic fever (consumption), although he is foreseen to live still for several months or even for an entire year. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 714. - Konings, n. 1508, question 2, with note (29). Canon 941 is to be noted:

When it is doubted whether the sick person has attained the use of reason, whether he is actually situated in danger of death, or whether he is dead, this sacrament is to be ministered under condition (Can. 941). Let the illustrious Kern, De Extrema Unctione, pp. 296 and following, be compared.

Question 3. Whether this sacrament can be conferred upon those who are about to enter battle or a dangerous navigation, or upon the guilty who are immediately to be affected with the ultimate punishment?

Resp. Negatively, because these are not properly sick. Yet the case of a soldier already gravely wounded and still wishing to fight would have to be excepted, or of a guilty person who, after the sentence of death has been heard, would be seized by fever. - Women also who suffer extraordinary and dangerous labors in childbirth can be anointed. Likewise those who are altogether failing from old age, even if they were held by no other disease. - Cf. O'Kane, nn. 868 and 859.

Question 4. Whether, or when, this sacrament can be repeated?

Resp. § 2. In the same infirmity this sacrament cannot be repeated unless the sick person, after receiving unction, has recovered and fallen into another danger of life (Can. 940).

It can also be repeated in the same infirmity if it has been long-lasting, and the sick person has notably recovered, so that he seemed to have been rescued from the danger of death, and again has fallen into the same. The reason is because then there is truly a new danger of death. Let the Roman Ritual, edition of the year 1913, be consulted. "In the same infirmity this sacrament ought not to be repeated, unless it is long-lasting, as if, when the sick person has recovered, he again falls into danger of death." Indeed in the same long-lasting disease, if it is doubted whether the state of the disease has truly been changed, if namely a probable reason is present for judging that the sick person has gone out of the danger of death, this sacrament can more probably be repeated. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 715. - O'Kane, nn. 878 and following.

Question 5. Whether there is a grave obligation of receiving this sacrament?

Resp. Negatively, probably; for neither from tradition nor from the Decrees of Councils is there established a precept of receiving this sacrament. But what St. James says, let him bring in the presbyters ..., can be received and explained as counsel. Nevertheless, as is asserted in the Code: although this sacrament of itself is not of necessity of means for salvation, nevertheless it is lawful for no one to neglect it (Can. 944). Truly by accident it can be the sole means, if someone in extremis is situated in the state of mortal sin, and cannot confess nor receive communion, and meanwhile is deprived of the senses. Besides, it is not lawful to neglect it; hence the negligent person sins. Certainly of itself he would not sin gravely "who therefore did not seek this sacrament because it was not a precept, or, as the Wurzburgers say, v. 10, p. 286: because from elsewhere he feels difficulty and repugnance. Therefore for grave contempt it is required that one esteem the sacrament and its fruit as little ... But if someone rejects this sacrament which he can easily receive, such contempt is deservedly presumed in him." - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 733. - Lehmkuhl, n. 578.

Question 6. What must the priest do if he approaches the sick person and finds him just now dead, as is commonly said?

Resp. The priest can and, as it seems to us, must absolve him and endow him with Extreme Unction, under condition. For as long as probable hope is present that life still remains and it is not certain that death has truly entered, so long the sacraments which such a person perhaps needs can and must at least conditionally be conferred; but these are Penance and Extreme Unction. Now then, from the opinion of very many most learned physicians, it is probable that men in almost all cases, after the instant of death, as is commonly said, or after the last respiration, live internally for some time, for a shorter or longer time, according to the nature of the cause which induced death. In cases of death from diseases of slow progress it is probable that internal life endures for some moments, about six, or, according to some experts, one half hour; but in cases of sudden death internal life endures longer, perhaps not improbably, up to putrefaction. And therefore if the priest arrives morally at the same time at which death, whether from ordinary disease or from some sudden accident, is commonly thought to have entered, the priest can and, as it seems to us, must confer the aforesaid two sacraments conditionally. And we judge that the same must be held if in cases of sickness the priest has arrived before half an hour, and in cases of sudden accident before an hour, from the entrance of apparent death. But if nevertheless, in a case of sudden death, he has arrived one or another hour after the last respiration, but before corruption, he can administer the sacraments; but whether he must, I leave to wiser men to decide. It is to be noted: 1°. that those who are deprived of the senses and have not previously sought the sacraments are more securely assisted by Extreme Unction than by Penance; 2°. that the reverence owed to the sacraments is saved by the condition being added; 3°. that scandal of the faithful is forestalled by opportune instruction. - Cf. Gury-Ferreres, nn. 693bis-693ter; Casus, nn. 1192 and following. Alberti, Theol. Pastoralis, part 1, n. 18, VI. - Antonelli, Medicina Pastoralis, vol. 2, p. 260 and following. - Villada, Casus, vol. 3, p. 244. - Capellmann, Medicina Pastoralis, p. 178. - Lehmkuhl, Linzer Quartalschrift, vol. 57, p. 600. - Amer. Eccl. Review, vol. 33, p. 168 and following; 273 and following.

Question 7. Whether this sacrament can be given to those who are deprived of the senses in the act of sin?

Resp. A twofold opinion is given: the negative rests upon the words of the Ritual itself: This sacrament is not to be conferred upon those who, impenitent, contumaciously persevere in manifest mortal sin, tit. V, ch. 1, n. 10. The other opinion affirms that it can be given to them under condition according to the principle: "Concerning any faithful person about whom the contrary is not established, it must be presumed that he would have sought this sacrament if he had been able." - Benedict XIV, de Syn. Dioec., l. 8, ch. 6, n. 5. - Lehmkuhl, v. 2, n. 274. - Piat, Nouv. Rev. Theol. v. 31, p. 481. Indeed such dying persons in the very state of destitution of the senses can often be changed, by the help of grace, and elicit an act of sorrow; and truly more securely provision will be made for them through unction than through conditional absolution. - Cf. Dict. de Theol. Cath. v. 5, col. 2019.

Question 8. Whether this sacrament can be given to those who refused to receive it and then have been deprived of the senses?

Resp. The matter is involved: in some cases refusal does not come from an evil will of rejecting the sacrament, but rather from some fear or judgment that they are not so sick. In these circumstances it does not seem to be denied to them. Indeed is there not hope in almost every case, at least of those who remained Catholics, of some changed will by force of grace in unconsciousness, by which, if they had been able, they would have sought it? Therefore I certainly would not condemn a priest who, under condition and with precautions employed lest scandal arise, would anoint these. - Piat, Nouv. Rev. Theol. v. 31, p. 482. - Genicot, n. 423. - Ball.-Palm. n. 32.

Question 9. To which adults is this sacrament to be denied?

Resp. This sacrament is not to be conferred upon those who, impenitent, contumaciously persevere in manifest mortal sin; but if this has been doubtful, let it be conferred under condition (Can. 942).

Question 10. How is the sacrament to be furnished to the sick who, when they were masters of their mind, sought it at least implicitly, or probably would have sought it, even if afterward they have lost the senses or the use of reason?

Resp. Let it be furnished absolutely: thus can. 943.

Question 11. How must the oil of the sick be kept?

Resp. Let the pastor diligently keep the oil of the sick in a neat and decently adorned place, in a silver or tin vessel; nor let him retain it at home except according to the norm of can. 735 (Can. 946).

Note 1°. - Concerning visitation of the sick, the following statute of the Baltimore Fathers must be kept before one's eyes: "According to the prescriptions and mind of the Roman Ritual, let the Pastor of souls be diligent in visiting the sick and agonizing even after they have received the last sacraments; and let him exhort, console, and help them; and, after a new act of confession and contrition has been elicited from them, if they can, let him again and again give new absolution." - Cf. Second Plenary Council of Baltimore, n. 116.

Note 2°. - Priests indeed are always held to carry prudence before them, but never so gravely as in visiting the sick, both with relation to the sick themselves and with relation to their blood relatives or friends and neighbors who perhaps have gathered at the home of the sick person. Cf. Konings, nn. 1509 and following.¹

¹ Cf. Addenda, p. 1142, n. 111, n. 112.

I. QUESTION I. Is extreme unction a true sacrament? ANSWER. Luther, Calvin, and all the Protestants deny it. On the contrary all Catholics affirm it, and prove it by the testimonies of the Scriptures. Is any man sick among you? Let him bring in the priests of the Church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord: and the prayer of faith shall save the sick man, and the Lord shall raise him up: and if he be in sins, they shall be forgiven him. Epistle of James, chapter 5. All things are contained in these words which are required for the character of a true sacrament. There is had a sensible thing, namely the unction, which constitutes the matter; the prayer of the priests, which constitutes the form. There is had a divine institution, for the Apostle writes to the universal Churches that which he had received from Christ the Lord. Lastly the effect of the sacrament is set forth, namely the expiation of sins, if there be any, the alleviation of the sick man, and the restoring of strength for resisting the temptations of the demon, and the health of the body, if it be expedient for eternal salvation. The error of the innovators Trent condemned, session 14, canon 1.

II. QUESTION II. What is the matter of this sacrament? ANSWER. The remote is oil pressed from the berries of olives; the proximate is the use of the same, namely the unction. It is necessary that this oil be blessed by a bishop, as all affirm. Theologians dispute on either side whether this blessing be necessary by the necessity of the sacrament, and not merely of precept. To me it is more probable that the blessing is required by the necessity of the sacrament. By pontifical dispensation, which is not granted save upon urgent necessity, simple presbyters can bless this oil.

The Sacred Office, asked to determine a short form for administering Extreme Unction in necessity, on April 26, 1906, decreed: “In a case of true necessity the following form suffices: By this holy anointing, may the Lord forgive you whatever you have sinned. Amen.” After this decree, some teach that in cases in which this form is employed, the anointing must afterwards be repeated conditionally according to the ritual form if time permits; others teach that this can be done but that no obligation to do the same is present; others maintain that it ought not to be done. Titius, however, a priest who, since he serves a public hospital, not rarely employs the short form, perplexed, inquires what he must do. Hence it is asked:

1. Before the said decree was issued, what did theologians teach about the essential form of Extreme Unction?

2. What did the same decree determine, and with what certainty?

3. What is to be said of the case?

Before the decree of the Holy Office, 26 April, 1906, what did theologians teach about the essential form of Extreme Unction?

The ritual form of Extreme Unction is: “ Per istam sanctam unctionem et suam piissimam misericordiam indulgeat tibi Dominus quidquid per visum, etc., deliquisti. Amen.” Theologians taught that in this form the words et suam piissimam misericordiam, sanctum Amen, did not belong to its essence. They did not agree as to whether the mention of the senses in special or at least general terms belonged to its essence. They differed also as to whether a single anointing was sufficient or not for the validity of the sacrament. Hence they taught that in a case of necessity Extreme Unction might be given conditionally with one form such as: Indulgeat tibi Deus quidquid per sensus deliquisti. Others required all the senses to be expressed in the single form. If the sick man survived, St. Alphonsus teaches that the anointing of each sense and the prayers were to be supplied.¹

1 St. Alphonsus, Theol. Moral., lib. vi, n. 710.

2. What did the decree determine and with what certainty?

The Holy Office was asked to determine a single short form for the administration of Extreme Unction to be used in case of death being imminent. It decided that the following form would be sufficient: “ In casu verse necessitatis sufficere formam: Per istam sanctam unctionem indulgeat tibi Dominus quidquid deliquisti. Amen.” This decree was confirmed next day by Pius X. Hence it determines authentically but not infallibly that in case of necessity it is not necessary to mention the different senses nor even one, and that one anointing under this general form is sufficient for the validity of the sacrament.

3. The case. This decree tells us what is sufficient for the validity of Extreme Unction in casu verae necessitatis, when there is not time to perform the full rite according to the Ritual. If the sick person thus anointed survives, and there is time to go through the Ritual form and prayers, then the case is one not contemplated in the decree. We think, then, that the first opinion mentioned is to be followed in practice, and that if time allows and the state of the sick person permits it, the sacrament should be given according to the form prescribed by the Ritual after this short form has been used. This is the opinion of the Redactor of the Acta Sanctae Sedis when the decree was issued. He says: “ But when the danger has ceased, especially if the sick person was unable to receive the other sacraments safely, the individual anointings upon the individual senses are to be repeated conditionally, under their own particular forms, and all the omitted prayers are to be added at once. This formula accords perfectly with the prescriptions of the Roman Ritual, and as far as the disposition of the recipient of the sacrament may be improved, contributes to obtaining a greater increase of grace.” (A. S. S., XXXIX, 275.)

The Ritual provides the rite by which several children or adults may be baptized at one time. It contains, however, no explicit instruction for the case that Extreme Unction is to be administered simultaneously to two or more patients, occupying one and the same room, a case which sometimes occurs in hospitals and during epidemics. The renowned author of the Sacrae Liturgicae Praxis, De Herdt, treats this case in Vol. I. (Pars. VI. No. 24. II.) in his work, and Hartmann, in his Repertorium Rituum (§186, n. 3) states: “If several persons at the same time are to receive Extreme Unction, all prayers without accompanying ceremonies are to be spoken in the plurality, but those to which are joined ceremonies are to be said individually.”

In justification of this procedure De Herdt refers to the baptismal rite, and claims that what the Ritual allows in administering Baptism to several at the same time, cannot be unallowable in administering Extreme Unction, and here also should the rule apply: that prayers which are not joined with actions are to be said only once, but actions with their accompanying prayers are to be repeated over each person, this all the more because a continued repetition of the long prayers would not only be a hard task for the priest, but also irritating to the patients in the room. About changing into the plural form of prayers to be said only once De Herdt remarks: At least if this change can conveniently be made; otherwise words spoken in the singular are understood as applying separately to each person.

Concerning the various ceremonies, or actions, to which De Herdt no further refers, the prescribed anointings are, of course, to be given each patient separately. Besides these the Ritual for Extreme Unction prescribes only three other actiones: 1. The presenting of the crucifix to be devoutly kissed by the patient: He presents the Cross to the sick person to be devoutly kissed (Rit. Rom.). Wherever so prescribed during the ceremony it must be handed to each patient separately. 2. The blessings over the patient, accompanying certain prayers and bestowed with the priest’s right hand (in some dioceses with the crucifix). These blessings may be given, according to the universal usage of the Church, without doubt in the plural form sub uno to all recipients simultaneously. 3. Finally, the Ritual prescribes the laying on of hands. Such laying on of hands is also prescribed in the baptismal rite, particularly in the one for the Baptism of adults. For the baptismal rite the Roman Ritual ordains explicitly: The priest lays his hand upon the Elect, or, if there are several, upon each one.—And the prayer is to be said in the plural number; and again: if there are several, he lays his hand upon the head of each one and says the same Exorcism in the plural number and the appropriate gender. If we follow the baptismal rite as guidance for our subject, then in Extreme Unction the prescribed imposition of hands is to be made super singulos, super capita singulorum, but the accompanying prayers are to be said in numero plurali just once, over all. Since, however, the first imposition of hands stands in close relation to the sacramental anointing and form, and the accompanying prayer, extinguatur in te, etc., being very brief, it would recommend itself to repeat the prayer for each individual patient.

All other prayers of Extreme Unction may be said once, in the plurality, if several patients receive it at the same time, and thus the sacred function will be greatly simplified. This applies all the more to the prayers said while giving holy Communion to the sick, if this Sacrament is administered at the same time.

Regarding the Benedictio Generalis in articulo mortis S. Bened. XIV. praescripta, usually bestowed after Extreme Unction, the following decision of the S. Cong. Indulg. of July 10, 1884, may serve for guidance: To the doubt: Whether, in imparting the Apostolic Blessing with a plenary indulgence at the point of death, the practice may be tolerated whereby several dying persons together are once admonished, in the plural number and the proper gender, concerning those things which Benedict XIV (Pia Mater) prescribes as preliminaries, and the prayers and orations designated by that Constitution are said, while the formula of the Blessing itself, which begins, ‘May the Lord N. J. Ch.,’ etc., as far as the words, ‘I grant thee in the Name of the Father,’ etc. Amen, is pronounced in the singular over each person? It judged that the answer should be: Yes. According to this decision, therefore, the exhortations and prayers, but not the actual absolution: Dominus noster Jesus Christus, Filius Dei vivi, etc., may be said once for several patients, while the absolution itself, to be lawful and valid, must be repeated over each individual, as seems plain from the wording and sense of above decision.

John Schwienbacher, C.SS.R.

Case.—James, a workman, is seriously injured in a subway accident. He is taken to a hospital where one foot is found to be crushed and the other also injured, but not severely. His lower limbs are then put in splints and copiously bandaged. When the priest comes to administer the Sacrament of Extreme Unction he asks to have the dressings removed. Under protest the nurse removes the bandages and the patient’s feet are anointed.

Question.—Was the priest right in insisting on the removal of the splints, or should he have omitted the unction of the feet?

Solution.—The Church, in harmony with the dicta of theologians, teaches that the five senses are to be anointed except in case of necessity. She commands, likewise, the anointing of the feet and loins, though the theologians hold that this is not necessary for the validity of the Sacrament. The reason for their position is found in the fact that while the eyes, ears, etc., are representative of particular senses, the feet and loins are not, and hence the need of placing the holy oils on these parts cannot be urged from the viewpoint of validity or invalidity of this Sacrament. But since the rubrics of the Church demand that these sections of the human body have the holy oil applied to them, the priest is not at liberty to omit the required unction unless grave reason or an admitted custom sanction the omission. Such a custom would naturally depend upon the open or tacit approval of the Bishops of the country, or of the diocese. In England, for instance, custom permits the priest to pass over the anointing of the feet of any woman who is a patient in a public hospital. In this country no such concession is granted universally, though some bishops may tolerate it within their local jurisdiction. The one thing that could be urged in justification of the omission in question would be the impossibility of carrying out the rubrics in full, arising from physical conditions, such as an absence of the foot, or the presence of some serious risk or inconvenience to the dying person. This last condition, to our mind, is present in the case of James and it is serious enough to warrant the suspension of the rubric which demands the unction of the feet. The priest should not have called for the removal of the dressings which bound the injured feet. It was sufficient for the validity of the Sacrament to anoint the five senses. He has put himself, the nurse, and the patient, to needless trouble.

IN the last issue of the I. E. Record* an interesting question concerning the administration of Extreme Unction was proposed by "Religiosus." In April, 1906, the Holy Office determined a short form for the administration of the sacrament in case of imminent danger of death. What is to be done in a case where this short form has been used, and the sick person does not die immediately? I had expressed the view that in such a case the ordinary ritual form should at once be gone through by the priest. "Religiosus" rejects this opinion, and favours that which he says is held by Father Noldin. He then asks for the editorial solution of the question which, with very courteous expressions to myself, is given on the same side.

The question is important and very practical, and I propose to discuss it at greater length than I have already done elsewhere.

We must, first of all, be clear as to what was done and what was not done by the decree of the Holy Office of April 25, 1906. On that occasion the Holy Office did what it was asked to do. It had been asked to determine one short form to be used in the administration of Extreme Unction in a case where death was imminent. The question had been discussed by theologians for centuries. Opinions were various and numerous. They are briefly summed up for us by O'Kane in his well-known Notes on the Rubrics of the

* See I. E. Record, November, 1915, p. 525.

Roman Ritual. In discussing what belongs to the essential form of the sacrament of Extreme Unction this author says:

" It is agreed that the word sanctam is not essential; and it is probable that the words et suam piissimam misericordiam are not essential. Hence the form expressed thus would be valid: Per istam unctionem indulgeat tibi Dominus quidquid deliquisti per visum, auditum, etc. It is commonly admitted that the word deliquisti, or some other of the same import, is essential. But it is not equally certain that the expression of the senses is essential. We have seen that when, in case of necessity, a single form is used, it should contain an expression of each sense after the word deliquisti, but many are of opinion that it suffices for the validity to express them in general quidquid deliquisti per sensus. Some go still further, and contend that it is not necessary to express the senses at all, and that the words Indulgeat tibi Deus alone are essential; for the act of anointing, they say, precludes the necessity of using the words per istam unctionem, while the word indulgeat sufficiently implies quidquid deliquisti.”* The Holy Office was asked, not to settle the theoretical question as to what words in the ordinary form of Extreme Unction were essential and what were not essential. It was asked to approve one short form which might be used in case of necessity. The Holy Office granted the

* Notes on the Rubrics, n. 900.

request by decreeing that the form—Per istam sanctam unctionem indulgeat tibi Dominus quidquid deliquisti. Amen.—would be sufficient in a case of real necessity. On April 26, 1906, Pope Pius X. approved this decree.

There was no question about settling any theoretical opinions as to whether one anointing was valid or not, nor was there any question of settling the doubt as to whether the anointing of the five senses was essential to the validity of the sacrament. The petitioner asked for the solution of a practical difficulty. He knew from the rubrics of the Roman Ritual what was to be done in ordinary cases of imminent danger of death. The rubric says:

"Si quis autem laborat in extremis, et periculum immineat ne decedat antequam finiantur Unctiones, cito ungatur incipiendo ab eo loco Per istam sanctam Unctionem, etc., ut infra: deinde si adhuc supervivat dicantur orationes prætermissæ suo loco positæ." But cases sometimes happen where death seems so near that there is not time to give the separate anointings with their appropriate forms. Hitherto there was no authoritative guidance as to what was to be done in such a case as that. The matter was left to the discussions of theologians. The theologians commonly taught that the minister of the sacrament should apply a single unction with a single form expressing all the senses. They allowed, and expressly taught, that it was not certain that such a single anointing was valid. They taught that it was highly probable that it was valid, and they knew that Benedict XIV. had given them solid grounds for thinking so. But still, as there is question of the validity of a sacrament which may not lawfully be exposed to risk, they taught with St. Alphonsus that whenever in cases of real necessity Extreme Unction had been given with one general form, the separate anointings of the senses should afterwards be supplied with their appropriate forms. As we have seen already, the theologians were not agreed as to what the general form used in a case of real necessity should express. Some said that it should express all the five senses separately; others thought that it would suffice if a word expressing the senses generally were employed; others saw no necessity for either special or general mention of the senses. On this point alone was the Holy Office asked for guidance. Some good priest or bishop was anxious to do all he could in a case of extreme necessity when death was imminent. In such a case of necessity he was justified, as he knew well, in administering the sacraments with a probability of their validity. He was justified then in using one general form for Extreme Unction, with the obligation of supplying the ritual form afterwards, according to the prescriptions of the ritual and the unanimous teaching of theologians. His only doubt was as to what the general form should express. Theologians differed on the point, and so he asked the Holy Office to give its decision. The request was granted, and the Holy Office decided that it was not necessary to express the senses separately, nor even to mention them under some general term, but that in a case of real necessity it was sufficient for the minister to say: Per istam sanctam unctionem indulgeat tibi Dominus quidquid deliquisti. Amen.

The Holy Office does not say that this one short form is sufficient for validity. It simply declares that those words are sufficient for the purpose intended, and that no more need be used in order to secure, as far as is possible under the circumstances, the benefits of a probably valid administration of the sacrament. That is all that the decree expressly determines, and I do not see what more can be extracted out of it. To use the expression of Dr. O'Donnell, I am anxious to give the decree its full force, but I do not see what more force it can have. This point is of capital importance in the discussion, and I will try to make it clearer by taking an illustration from the sacrament of Penance. Priests are sometimes called to attend cases where there is imminent danger of death, accompanied by a state of apparent unconsciousness. In such cases they give absolution conditionally, and they know that in the circumstances absolution is probably valid. If the danger of death is imminent a priest will make use of the shortest form of absolution which is compatible with the validity of the sacrament. Theologians are not quite at one as to what words a short form of absolution should necessarily contain. Some think that Absolvo a peccatis tuis is sufficient, while others deny it. Some hold that Ego te absolvo is sufficient, while others say it is not. The common opinion holds that the invocation of the Blessed Trinity does not belong to the necessary essence of the form. We can imagine a priest asking the Holy Office to determine a short form of absolution to be used in case of necessity, and we can imagine the Holy Office acceding to his request. If the Holy Office determined that in cases of real necessity it is sufficient for the priest to say Absolvo te a peccatis tuis, the priest, of course, would be perfectly safe in using only those words. In cases of real necessity he would do his duty by the sick person if he gave absolution with that form without manifest confession. But the supposed decree of the Holy Office would not make the absolution certainly valid. We must say the same, as it seems to me, about the decree of the Holy Office concerning the short general form for the administration of Extreme Unction in cases of true necessity. Even if the ordinary rules of interpretation permitted us to say that by determining the short form, the Holy Office had decided what was sufficient for the validity of the sacrament, we should not be justified in asserting that what was doubtful before the decree is now absolutely certain. Such decrees as that with which we are dealing are not infallible and irreformable utterances of the Holy See. They are practical and safe rules for the cases to which they refer, but, as Santi says, quoting another eminent Roman canonist:

"Responsa hujusmodi non esse infallibilia et irreformabilia. Nam infallibilitas uni Romano Pontifici promissa est; responsa autem hæc non sunt actus Papales, et licet Summus Pontifex eadem probet, tamen semper retinent naturam decisionis Sacræ Congregationis et uti talia Summus Pontifex probat et vulgari jubet.”*

* Prælectiones juris canonici, lib. 1. tit. 31, n. 70.

So that, even if the decree under consideration had determined a short form sufficient for validity, as " Religiosus " implies, that would not settle the question and make the opinion which it favoured certain. There would still be room for the opinion which St. Alphonsus says is probable —that the anointing of the five senses with the separate forms is necessary for the validity of Extreme Unction, and as there is here question of the validity of the sacrament, this safer opinion must be followed in practice. The following argument seems to me not to be destitute of weight.

The Sacred Congregation determined a short form which it declared to be sufficient in case of real necessity, that is, in a case where there is not time to give all the anointings, with their separate forms. If in a particular case the sick person does not die immediately, but continues to live, so that there is a probability of being able to receive the sacrament according to the form of the ritual, the case does not come under the decree. The decree contemplates a case where nothing else can be done. In this case, however, something more can be done. It is quite possible that what would be valid in a case where nothing more could be done, would be invalid in another case where more could be done. This also may be illustrated from the sacrament of Penance. A sick person who sends a message to a priest asking him to come and hear his confession, and before the priest arrives becomes unconscious, is to be absolved absolutely in that state, according to many authors. They gather this from the Roman ritual, and draw the conclusion that such absolution is certainly valid. And yet, under other circumstances, confession made through an interpreter or messenger to an absent priest would certainly be invalid, as theologians conclude from the absolute prohibition of Clement VIII.

Those are the chief reasons why I still think that the decree of the Holy Office, April 25, 1906, does not greatly modify pre-existing opinions on the subject. It seems to me still that if Extreme Unction has been administered with one general form, the ordinary ritual form must be added, because, according to the common teaching of theologians, voiced by St. Alphonsus, administration under one general form is only probably valid. This also seems to me to be prescribed by the new editions of the Roman Ritual, which print the short form approved in 1906, but also retain the rubric quoted above, which prescribes that when only part of the rite has been followed in case of necessity and imminent danger of death, the rest should be afterwards supplied if the sick person continue to live. Such anointing of the five senses would be, according to the present legislation of the Church, as it seems to me, not unlawful, as Dr. O'Donnell says.

I may refer to the article reprinted in my Questions of Moral Theology on the "Repetition of Extreme Unction," to show that I have devoted some attention to the history of Extreme Unction. I know of nothing in the history of the subject which calls for any modification of my views, and so I do not propose to make any change in what I wrote in my "Manual" on the subject.

If we consult the theologians who have written on the point in question after the publication of the decree of 1906, I find I am in very good company. It is true that Father Noldin holds that the decree settles the question as to the validity of one anointing with a single general form, but as to repeating or supplying anything afterwards, he does not say what "Religiosus" makes him say. "Religiosus" quotes him as saying:

" If the patient rally, nothing is to be repeated." The words used by Father Noldin are:

" Si sacramentum in periculo mortis unica unctione collatum fuerit, postea cessante periculo nihil repetendum vel supplendum est." Of course when the danger has ceased, when the sick person is no longer in danger of death, nothing should be repeated or supplied. But, according to the new edition of the Ritual, if the sick person continue to live, though still dangerously ill, the prayers at least should be supplied, and, in my opinion also, the separate anointings, whenever one general form has been used previously.

The editor of the Acta Sanctae Sedis commented on the decree when it was issued, maintaining the opinion which I have defended. He says:

"Sed cessante periculo præsertim si ægrotus alia sacramenta secure suscipere non potuit, sub conditione repetendæ sunt singulæ unctiones in singulis sensibus, sub suis particularibus formis atque addendæ sunt simul omnes orationes omissæ. Quæ norma apprime congruit præscriptionibus Ritualis Romani, et quatenus melior fiat dispositio suscipientis sacramentum, ad majus gratiæ augmentum obtinendum concurrit."* head with the prescribed short form, but the obligation remains of supplying the other anointings if the danger ceases."

Father Vermeersch writes:

" Quodsi peracta summaria ista unctione, tempus superfuerit, consuetæ singulorum sensuum unctiones sub longiore forma peragere non negleget [sacerdos].”†

Tanquerey says:

"Ad integritatem vero Sacramenti eas [unctiones in singulis sensibus] perficiendas esse censemus (sub conditione) quamvis alii aliter sentiant.”‡

Father Ferreres writes: "Sed si tempus post peractam hanc unicam unctionem supersit, videntur fieri posse sensuum unctiones cum forma singulis propria ad pleniorem sacramenti significationem exprimendam." §

These quotations show that I am not singular in my opinion, and the arguments show, I think, that the opinion is well based.

Canon 947 of the New Code of Canon Law lays down the following rule:

"In case of necessity one anointing is sufficient on one sense or better on the fore-

* Acta Sanctae Sedis, 39, 275.

† Periodica, 1911, p. 242.

‡ Brevior Synopsis, n. 1260.

§ Vol. ii. n. 683.

To a question whether the other anointings were to be supplied conditionally or not, the Holy Office answered that they were not to be supplied conditionally.*

* A. A. S., ix., p. 178.