Scotus Academicus, Tomus decimus: De Baptismo, De Poenitentia, De Extrema Unctione

NOTE 1. The present difficulty does not concern the fruits and effects that this Sacrament has in common with the other Sacraments of the New Law, such as the conferral of sanctifying grace or its increase. For since St. James said that through it the remission of sins takes place, if the recipient were still defiled by them, it is clear that sanctifying grace, or its increase, is also conferred, since in the ordinary course the remission of sin does not occur without the infusion of such grace. Hence the Council of Trent, canon 2 on extreme unction, says: If anyone says that the sacred anointing of the sick does not confer grace or remit sins … let him be anathema. The discussion, then, concerns only the effects proper to this Sacrament, all of which the Council of Trent declares in sess. XIV. For after saying in its preamble that the sacred Anointing is the firmest defense against the temptations of the devil, who, as death approaches, strains every nerve of his cunning to destroy us and devour our souls, it adds in ch. 2: The Anointing wipes away offenses, if any still remain to be expiated, and the remnants of sin; it relieves and strengthens the sick person’s soul, stirring up in him great confidence in divine mercy, so that he bears his trials more lightly; he resists more easily the temptations of the demon, who lurks at his heel, and sometimes attains bodily health, when this is expedient for the salvation of his soul. From these words theologians infer six effects of this Sacrament. The first, shared with the other Sacraments, is sanctifying grace. The second is a special help of grace, both for overcoming the temptations that arise at the point of death, for raising hope and confidence in God more easily and firmly, and for bearing the trials of illness and death with a steadfast spirit. The third is the remission of venial sins, which the Sacrament itself intends per se. The fourth is the remission of mortal sins, but secondarily and accidentally, if the sick person still has any that he invincibly ignores and does not think he is stained by. The fifth is the wiping away of the remnants of sin. The sixth, finally, is the restoration of bodily health, if this is expedient for the soul’s salvation. The question, then, is which of these effects is primary and chief.

NOTE 2. Theologians do not agree about the explanation of the remnants of sin, whose cleansing the Council of Trent counts among the effects of extreme unction. Some want these remnants to mean venial sins. But the Council’s own words refute them: it says that this Sacrament wipes away not only the remnants themselves but also offenses, if any remain. It is certain, however, that venial sins are truly offenses and truly sins. Others think that the remnants of sin mean the inclination and habit left by sin. But this is removed only through the frequent performance of contrary acts, and it sometimes persists even in justified men. Still others hold that the remnants of sin mean the sluggishness and torpor that hinder the doing of good, and the weakness of mind that hinders the contemplation and meditation of heavenly things. These remnants are not sins, but are left by original sin and subsequently strengthened by other sins. Hence St. Augustine, addressing his own soul in the last book of On the Trinity, ch. 17, says: “What,” he says, “is the reason you cannot see that unchanging light with a fixed gaze, unless it is weakness? And what causes this in you, unless it is iniquity?” Now this weakness of spirit, or torpor and difficulty in doing good, is removed by this Sacrament. Therefore it is called the spiritual healing of the soul, just as Baptism is its regeneration and Penance its spiritual resurrection from the death of sin.

NOTE 3. Every Sacrament has two effects: a common effect and a proper one. The common effect is that which belongs to all the Sacraments of the New Law, namely sanctifying grace or its increase; for all the Sacraments of the New Law produce grace in a recipient who places no obstacle. The proper effect is the one each Sacrament is ordered to produce. Moreover, a proper effect may be considered in two ways: first, as intended per se and directly; second, as intended accidentally, when the Sacrament produces an effect on the occasion of something else that is incompatible with the Sacrament’s proper effect. Finally, an effect intended per se and directly is twofold: principal and less principal, or intended primarily and secondarily. This is clear from the example of the Sacrament of Penance, whose proper effect, intended per se and directly in the first place, is the remission of mortal sins duly confessed; its effect intended per se and directly, but not in the first place, only secondarily, is the remission of venial sins. — Now theologians hold three opinions about the primary and chief effect of this Sacrament. Some, with St. Thomas, teach that the principal and most proper effect of extreme unction is an increase of grace that has the power to remove the aids to sin and to confer special helps against sluggishness and weakness in acting (III, q. 65, a. 1; also In I Sent., d. 23, q. 1, a. 2). Others, with Suárez, teach that this Sacrament’s proper and primary effect is to strengthen the sick person’s soul against the difficulties and temptations that arise at the point of death, by means of certain divine helps specially ordered to this end. Consequently, they say that it also remits every fault, mortal as well as venial, and the debt of punishment left by sin, not merely accidentally but in some way per se, though by secondary rather than primary intention, provided there is no obstacle in the subject. This occurs when the sick person receives this Sacrament while invincibly ignorant of a sin. The rest, finally, teach with the Subtle Doctor that the primary and principal effect of this Sacrament is the remission of venial sins, while the other effects are only less principal and secondary. Let the following conclusion, as the truer opinion, be set down in favor of this view:

First conclusion. — THE PRIMARY AND PRINCIPAL EFFECT OF THIS SACRAMENT IS THE INFUSION OF HABITUAL GRACE, INSOFAR AS IT HAS ATTACHED TO IT THE FINAL REMISSION OF VENIAL SIN, BUT NOT OF MORTAL SIN. THE LATTER, HOWEVER, IT ALSO REMITS ACCIDENTALLY. So teaches the Subtle Doctor, d. 23, n. 3. He had indeed given a fitting reason for this, saying: “It is fitting that one departing this life be finally absolved from venial sins, because, if not remitted, these would impede the attainment of glory; and they can remain unremitted until death, because a sinner sins almost continually in such sins.” As if he were saying: just as the Sacrament of Baptism was instituted to cleanse original sin, and Penance to wipe away mortal and venial sins committed throughout life while a person is in possession of reason, so it was fitting that a Sacrament be instituted to cleanse the venial sins that remain to be expiated by a person at the point of death, after the last Sacraments of Penance and the Eucharist, when, because of the extreme severity of illness and the agitation caused by imminent death, he is no longer in possession of freedom and consequently cannot perform the penance by which he could cleanse such sins. The Seraphic Doctor teaches the same in the place cited above. After saying, Extreme Unction is directed against venial sin and, accidentally, contributes to the relief of bodily illness and to the strengthening of the soul, he adds: “But one must note that venial sin is spoken of in two ways: either as one is in the state of the wayfarer, or as one is at the point of departure. If one speaks of it as one is in the state of the wayfarer, or on the journey, then venial illness is almost inseparable, or by a certain necessity recurring, and thus in some way incurable; therefore no medicine ought to be specially and principally ordered against it. Indeed, all the Sacraments are of some help toward its cure, more or less. But if we speak of it as the soul is at the point of departure, then such sins can be cured without recurrence; and since the soul can carry such burnable sins that would hold it back from glory, divine mercy instituted a remedy by which the soul could be cured as regards the remission of guilt and also part of the punishment. This is the Sacrament of Extreme Unction. The way this Sacrament cures venial sins corresponds to the kind of illness. Venial sin weighs down the soul, depressing it, so that it does not reach toward God with devotion and love as it should, because there is an inordinate turning there toward a changeable good and a lesser love of God, as Augustine touches on in the book of the Confessions. Therefore, since healing takes place directly through the contrary, that which lifts the burdened soul upward through devotion is what cures it. And because the body, which is subject to corruption, weighs down the soul, while this Sacrament is meant to lift the soul through devotion, in which the soul receives a certain vigor, and in which venial sins are always wiped away if they are present in the soul, with the result that bodily troubles are restrained if this is expedient for the soul, this Sacrament is principally for curing and relieving spiritual illness, namely venial sin; and accidentally it is for curing and relieving bodily illness, in a way that strengthens the soul which governs the body. Thus it is clear what in this Sacrament is the reality alone, what is the sign, and what is both reality and sign. The exterior anointing is the sign alone. The cure of venial sin is the reality alone. The stirring of devotion in the soul itself is both reality and sign, and is nothing other than a kind of spiritual Anointing.”

Further proof of the conclusion: The effect of a Sacrament must be considered primary when the sacramental form signifies and expresses it. But the form of the Sacrament of Extreme Unction used by the Roman and Greek Churches signifies and expresses the remission of sins. Therefore this is the Sacrament’s primary effect. The major premise is established: since the Sacraments of the New Law effect what they signify, and their signification pertains to their causality, there is no doubt that the effect must be considered primary which is most clearly declared and signified by the sacramental form, in which the very character and operation of the Sacrament chiefly consists. The minor premise is also clear from the words of both forms, Greek and Latin, in which the remission of sin is implored by the words Indulgeat, or pareat, or “May God remit whatever you have done wrong,” and so forth. — This is confirmed by the Council of Trent, which assigns this remission as the chief effect. For in ch. 2, where it treats of the Sacrament’s effects, it says: “For this reality,” it says, “is the grace of the Holy Spirit, whose Anointing wipes away offenses, if any remain to be expiated, and the remnants of sin.” In a later passage it names the other effects, so as to show that the remission it assigned first is the chief among this Sacrament’s effects. It repeats this in canon 3, saying: “If anyone says that the sacred anointing of the sick does not confer grace, nor remit sins, nor relieve the sick … let him be anathema.” By these words it signifies that habitual grace is conferred in this Sacrament, whose immediate effect is the remission of sins itself. This is even clearer from the Roman Catechism, n. 27, where it says: “Pastors, then, shall teach that grace is bestowed by this Sacrament, which remits sins, especially lesser sins, commonly called venial. For deadly sins are removed by the Sacrament of Penance; this Sacrament was not instituted in the first place for the remission of graver crimes, since only Baptism and Penance effect this by their power,” and so forth. These words signify that the primary effect of this Sacrament is the remission of sin itself—not mortal and graver sin, but only venial sin.

Second proof: The effect from which the others flow and proceed as from a source must be considered the primary effect. But all the effects of this Sacrament assigned by the Council of Trent proceed from the remission of sin itself and necessarily presuppose it. For the languor of illness in the soul cannot be cured, nor can the remnants of sin be emptied away, unless sin itself is emptied away; nor can peace of mind at death be secured unless sin itself is erased, since sin makes the Lord’s coming and dreadful judgment appear; nor can anyone be successfully armed against the enemy of the human race so long as he contains sin within himself, through which the devil has some dominion over him; nor, finally, can full bodily health be restored unless the sin on account of which the illness perhaps occurred is cleansed. Therefore the removal of that sin must be considered the primary effect of this Sacrament. But the sin that must be removed through extreme unction is not mortal, as is clear both from the words of the Roman Catechism cited above and because mortal sin committed after Baptism can be wiped away only through Penance, as the Council of Trent teaches in sess. XIV, ch. 2: “For Penance was at all times necessary for people who had stained themselves with some mortal crime, in order to attain grace and righteousness.” So it says in ch. 1, and likewise in ch. 4, where it teaches: “At all times this act of Contrition was necessary in order to obtain forgiveness of sins; and in a person after Baptism it prepares him for the remission of sins only if it is joined with confidence in divine mercy and the resolve to fulfill the other requirements for receiving this Sacrament worthily,” and so forth. Further on it teaches that perfect contrition does not justify unless accompanied by the resolve to receive the Sacrament of Penance, and imperfect contrition does not justify without actually receiving the Sacrament. Again, Penance was instituted per se to be the second plank after shipwreck, by which a sinner can be saved from mortal sins. Nowhere is a third plank after shipwreck numbered among the Sacraments; consequently, the Sacrament of Extreme Unction cannot claim this power and title for itself. It would have both if it were ordered per se to the remission of mortal sin. Therefore it is ordered to the remission of such mortal sin only accidentally. Finally, mortal sins must be remitted together, since mortal sin is not remitted without the infusion of sanctifying grace, which in the ordinary course cannot coexist with mortal sin. But the sins that are to be remitted through extreme unction cannot all be remitted at once by the power of the Sacrament, since this Sacrament cannot be administered all at once except in a case of necessity. For the Anointing and the form, which implores remission of the sins committed through the corresponding faculty of the body, are repeated for anointing each part; consequently, each of these applications of the Sacrament must effect some remission of sin—not mortal sin, as was said, but only venial sin, because venial sin can coexist with sanctifying grace, and so one venial sin can be remitted separately from another.

YOU WILL SAY 1: Venial sin can be remitted without the infusion of grace and by various means, as we have said several times. Therefore it was not necessary to institute a Sacrament for the remission of that sin. — I distinguish the antecedent: venial sin can be remitted in this way when a person is still capable of performing penance and applying means ordered to the remission of such sin, I grant; when he is in a state in which he can neither elicit an act of penance nor apply such means, as happens at the final period of life, I deny.

YOU WILL PRESS: The sacred Rituals, as well as the Roman Catechism, n. 18, advise that this Sacrament be conferred while the recipient still has a sound mind and is in possession of reason, and thus while still in a state in which he can sin again and repent. Therefore this Sacrament was not instituted for the final remission of sin. — I deny the consequence. As for the antecedent, I say that these directions are given not because the Sacrament must necessarily be conferred then, but so that the recipient, through his greater disposition, may obtain a more abundant effect of the Sacrament and receive it with greater reverence. Moreover, the validity of this Sacrament does not require that its recipient still be in possession of reason, because it can achieve its effect even in a person deprived of his senses and reason and already near death.

YOU WILL INSIST: If this Sacrament had been instituted per se for the remission of venial sins, one would not have to wait for the final period of life to administer it; it ought also to be conferred in full health and repeated more often. But the consequence is false; therefore the inference from which it follows is false as well. — I deny the consequence of the major premise. For, as was said in the proof of the conclusion, this Sacrament is not ordered per se to the remission of venial sins without qualification, but only for the state in which the recipient cannot use another remedy to expiate venial sins. Although it is conferred on a person who still uses reason, and consequently can sin venially again, for the sake of a greater disposition, this is why the Sacrament does not bring about the final remission of sins: sins committed after its reception would not be remitted by its power, but by other means, namely Penance, confession, and sacramental absolution, which he can receive if he still has sufficient reason to be able to sin. For as long as a person can sin, he can also repent.

YOU WILL SAY 2: The Ambrosian and Venetian forms are sufficient and valid for the essence of this Sacrament; but they make no mention of the remission of sin, as the Roman and Greek forms do. Therefore this Sacrament is not ordered per se and primarily to the remission of sin. — I distinguish the minor premise: there is no explicit and distinct mention, as there is in the other forms, I grant; there is no implicit and equivalent mention, I deny. For the words “that he may be prepared for combat like a soldier” signify sanctifying grace, which removes the obstacle of sin. By reason of this grace, not only is actual grace granted for winning a victory over the enemy, but also final innocence and purity from all sins that could weigh down the soldier and make him less worthy of divine protection.

The second part is proved: although this Sacrament is not ordered per se to the remission of mortal sins by the force of its proper institution, it nevertheless remits them accidentally, namely when the sick person has such sins of which he is in good faith and invincibly ignorant. For although this Sacrament is ordered per se only to conferring second grace—that is, to conferring an increase of sanctifying grace—and presupposes that the person has already been cleansed from mortal sin by the Sacrament of Penance or by perfect Contrition, nevertheless, secondarily and accidentally it can sometimes also confer first grace and wipe away mortal sins, if sacramental confession was invalid through no fault of the sick person, who is otherwise invincibly unaware that he is in a state of mortal sin and is at least attrite for those sins in general. This is gathered clearly enough both from the words of St. James cited above, “If he is in sins, they will be forgiven him,” and from those of the Council of Trent, ch. 2: “It wipes away offenses, if any remain to be expiated,” and finally from the words of the form itself: “May the Lord pardon you whatever you have sinned.” Since these words are indefinite and without any restriction, they can also be understood of mortal sins in the manner already explained, namely secondarily and accidentally. — St. Augustine also signified this in Sermon 215, On Time, where he says: “Whenever any illness comes upon someone, let the sick person receive the Body and Blood of Christ and then anoint his body, so that what is written may be fulfilled: ‘If anyone among you is ill, let him call for the presbyters of the Church, who will anoint him.’” In this argument the holy Doctor presupposes that reception of the Eucharist precedes the administration of Extreme Unction. Since reception of the Eucharist presupposes grace in the soul, as it is a Sacrament of the living, the same must also be said of Extreme Unction; consequently, it is said to be directly and per se a Sacrament of the living. By accident, however, and as it were indirectly, it can also be called a remedy and antidote for the dead, as was said in its proper place of the other four Sacraments. Our Doctor also expressed this in the place cited above, when he says that no one can worthily receive this Sacrament unless he is in grace, for this Sacrament is not a remedy for acquiring grace, since only Baptism and Penance serve that purpose. By these words the Doctor signifies that only these two Sacraments are ordered per se to the remission of mortal sin, while the other five are ordered to it only indirectly and accidentally, insofar as the habitual grace they effect as Sacraments is incompatible with mortal sin.

YOU WILL SAY: This Sacrament is ordered per se to the remission of the sin that may be present conditionally, for St. James says: “If he is in sins, they will be forgiven him.” But if the sin that may be present conditionally is mortal, there is no room for a conditional statement about venial sins, since St. James knew very well that scarcely anyone is free from such sins for even a short time. For he says in ch. 2: “We all offend in many things.” Therefore he must be speaking of mortal sins, and consequently he holds that this Sacrament is ordered per se, and not only accidentally, to the remission of mortal sin. — I deny the major premise. For the particle (if) is not always conditional, nor does it introduce doubt; sometimes it is absolute, especially when joined to a thing that has happened. This is clear from Cicero’s first oration against Catiline, where he says, “If these things are exposed, if they burst forth”: he does not doubt that they have been exposed and brought to light, but takes them as established so that Catiline may change his conduct. Hence, in reply to the minor premise, I say that St. James spoke in this way to signify that this Sacrament is ordered to the remission of venial sins on the supposition that they have not already been remitted by the Sacrament of Penance or the Eucharist, or by sacramentals. This is much the same sense in which it is usually said of each Sacrament that it infallibly produces its effect, provided there is no obstacle on the part of the recipient.

YOU WILL ASK: What should be thought about the other spiritual effects and fruits of this Sacrament? — I answer that the Roman Catechism explains them clearly and excellently in n. 28. After declaring this Sacrament’s primary benefit, namely the remission of sin, it adds: “Another benefit of the sacred Anointing is that it frees the soul from the languor and weakness it contracted from sin, and from all the other remnants of sin. The most fitting time for this healing is when we are afflicted by a grave illness and the danger of death is imminent. For nature has implanted in man a fear of nothing in human affairs so much as death. The memory of past deeds greatly increases this fear, especially when the gravest accusation of our conscience presses upon us; for, as it is written: ‘The fearful will remember their sins, and their iniquities will stand against them as accusers.’ — Next, the thought and concern that soon we must stand before the tribunal of God, who will pronounce a most just sentence upon us in keeping with what we have deserved, greatly distresses us. It often happens that the faithful, struck by this terror, feel themselves tormented in extraordinary ways. Nothing contributes more to tranquility in death than casting off sadness and awaiting the Lord’s coming with a joyful heart, ready and willing to return our deposit whenever he wishes to claim it from us. The Sacrament of Extreme Unction frees the minds of the faithful from this anxiety and fills the soul with holy and devout joy. We also gain from it another benefit, which may rightly seem the greatest of all. For although the enemy of the human race never ceases, while we live, to plot our destruction and ruin, he strains every nerve more fiercely at no other time to destroy us utterly and, if he can, to rob us of hope in divine mercy than when he sees the last day of life drawing near. Therefore this Sacrament supplies the faithful with arms and strength by which they can break the power and dominion of their adversary and resist him bravely. The sick person’s spirit is relieved and raised by hope in divine goodness; strengthened by this hope, he bears all the hardships of illness more lightly and more easily eludes the skill and cunning of the demon who lurks at his heel.”

Second conclusion. — THE RESTORATION OF BODILY HEALTH IS AN ACCIDENTAL EFFECT OF THIS SACRAMENT. This ought to be the common opinion among theologians.

That bodily health can be restored as an effect of this Sacrament is clear from the Council of Trent, sess. XIV, ch. 2, where, after listing the spiritual effects of this sacred Anointing, it adds: “And sometimes it attains bodily health, when this is expedient for the soul’s salvation.” This is also gathered from the words of St. James: “The prayer of faith will save the sick person, and the Lord will raise him up.” This raising up concerns not only the uplifting of the soul, by which through the grace granted in this Sacrament the soul rises from torpor, sadness, and anxiety, and is raised up to God, while the sick person, strengthened by hope in his mercy, bears all the hardships of illness more lightly; it also tends to relieve the bodily illness that afflicts the sick person. Since the Apostle was speaking of bodily illness, it follows that the relief he promises through the sacred Anointing concerns not only the soul’s health but also the body’s. Hence, in its decree on extreme unction, the Council of Florence refers the term “healing” to both: “Its effect,” it says, “is the healing of the mind; insofar as it is expedient, also of the body.” Certainly, by a singular benefit of divine providence, the power to cure and heal the body was attached to this Sacrament above the others. For among all the evils of this world nothing is more terrible than death, just as nothing is more desired than life and health. This desire is strongest and most forceful precisely when a person sees, as his illness grows worse, that human and natural remedies are unavailable for prolonging life. Then the sick often undergo temptations to seek illicit and superstitious remedies to extend their lives, as is clear from the example of Ochozias in 2 Kings, ch. 1. Although the primary power of this Sacrament is spiritual, as is that of the other Sacraments, Christ our Lord, taking account of human frailty and weakness, also willed to attach to this sacred sign the power to cure bodily illness, lest the sick, despairing of a remedy for their disease, have recourse to illicit and superstitious aids. St. Augustine (or whoever is the author of the book On the Uprightness of the Catholic Life) indicated this reason when he says: “Whenever some illness comes upon anyone, let him seek no enchanters, diviners, or fortune-tellers; rather, let the sick person trust in God’s mercy alone, receive the Eucharist with faith and devotion, and faithfully ask the Church for blessed oil, and, according to the Apostle, ‘the prayer of faith will save the sick person.’”

This effect, however, is not intended per se, but only accidentally in this Sacrament, since, as the Councils of Trent and Florence say, this effect is produced only when it is expedient for the salvation of the recipient’s soul. Add that, although it happens less often for a person dangerously ill and anointed with this sacred Oil to be restored to his former health, it often happens that the sick person feels some relief from his illness, along with the interior consolation of the Holy Spirit, which this Anointing properly signifies and effects.

YOU WILL ASK 1. Who is the minister of this Sacrament?

I answer that this Sacrament cannot be validly administered by anyone other than a priest. So the Council of Trent defines in canon 4: “If anyone says that the presbyters of the Church, whom the Lord James exhorts to be called to anoint the sick, are not priests ordained by a bishop, but elderly men in any community, and that therefore a priest is not the proper minister of Extreme Unction, let him be anathema.” This is gathered from the words of St. James: “If anyone is ill, let him call for the presbyters,” where “presbyters” does not mean an elder or someone of greater age, as heretics wrongly interpret it, but truly means a priest, in keeping with 1 Timothy 4: “Do not neglect the grace that is in you, which was given to you through prophecy”—that is, through sacred ordination—“with the laying on of the hands of the presbyterate,” that is, the assembly of priests. This is confirmed, first, because not elders but bishops and priests have been appointed to pray for others, as is said in Hebrews 6. Second, otherwise it would be not the older but the holier whom one should call, since their prayers would be far more effective, as more acceptable and pleasing to God.

The Seraphic Doctor gives this reason for the truth in In IV Sent., d. 23, a. 2, q. 1: “It must be said,” he says, “that the administration of this Sacrament belongs by office to priests, and this is confirmed by authority and by reason. For it is said, ‘Let him call for the presbyters,’ etc., ‘and let them pray over him.’ The reason is that, since the matter of this Sacrament is oil consecrated by a bishop, it ought not be administered or touched except by one whose hands are consecrated, and such a person is a priest. Therefore it does not extend to everyone. Nor is it restricted to bishops alone, for since this is a Sacrament for those in danger, who cannot go to prelates but rather need the prelates to come to them, many would have to perish if it could be given only by bishops. Therefore the Holy Spirit ordained that the ointment should not be only on the head or beard of Aaron but should also descend to the edge of his garment, that is, to the lower-ranking priests. The reason is taken not only from the anointing but also from the prayer: since the office of mediation belongs to priests, as does offering gifts and sacrifices for sins, and belongs neither to bishops alone nor to laypeople, so too the administration of this Sacrament—whose efficacy consists chiefly in the prayer of faith, of which the priest is the minister by reason of his office—belongs to priests.”

YOU WILL SAY 1: In his letter to Decentius, Pope Innocent I, explaining the words of St. James, “Let him call for the presbyters of the Church,” writes: “There is no doubt that this is to be understood of the faithful who are sick, who may be anointed with the holy oil of chrism, made by a bishop, which not only priests but all Christians may use in their own need or that of their family.” Therefore it is lawful not only for priests but also for all Christians, at least in a case of necessity, to administer this Sacrament. — I deny the consequence. For the Pontiff is speaking of anointing not actively, on the minister’s part, but passively, on the recipient’s part: his meaning is that all the Christian faithful alike, not only priests, may be anointed with the oil of the sick; he does not mean that everyone alike is permitted to confer this Sacrament. That this is his meaning is clear from the words that follow, where he adds that not only a priest but a bishop is the minister of this Sacrament: “Moreover,” he says, “we see that the addition about the bishop is superfluous, since there is no doubt that this is permitted to priests. The presbyters are mentioned because bishops, occupied with other duties, cannot go to all the sick. Moreover, if a bishop can, or deems it worthy, bless and touch with chrism someone whom he visits, he can do so as the one who makes the chrism itself.”

YOU WILL SAY 2: The administration of this Sacrament was granted not to bishops alone but also to presbyters because bishops could not be present to each sick person. But priests cannot do this either, especially in places where they are scarce. Therefore, in a case of necessity, not only priests but any of the faithful may administer this Sacrament.

I deny the consequence. Since this Sacrament is not absolutely necessary for salvation, and the sick person’s devotion can make up for its absence and for the absence of a priest, it was not necessary to grant its administration to all the faithful. — Although St. James advises that “the presbyters are to be called,” this advice is not to be understood as if several presbyters were necessary for the valid conferral of this Sacrament, as the Greeks think, summoning seven presbyters to administer Extreme Unction to the sick. Simon of Thessalonica, in Arcudius, ch. 3, gives this reason for the practice: “The brother of God James,” he says, *“does not specify the number of these presbyters; nevertheless, tradition has handed down that seven are to be summoned. I think this is done because of the seven gifts of the Spirit listed in Isaiah, or because of the seven priests of the Old Law who, at God’s command, marched around the city of Jericho and blew their trumpets seven times, bringing down its walls. So too here, seven priests may demolish the city of evil and the hard walls of the heights of sin. Or, since the soul is as if dead, the priests may pray seven times and raise it, following the example of the prophet with the child of the Shunammite woman. Elisha raised the child by returning seven times and praying seven times. Just as Elijah, praying seven times, reopened the heaven that he had closed against sinners and brought down rain, so these priests, praying seven times, may remove the stain of sin and, having received the key of grace, open heaven like Peter and bring down God’s mercy and forgiveness like rain. This, in my opinion, is the meaning of the number seven. In a necessity, fewer priests may administer the Sacrament.” And further: “Some, where priests are scarce, summon only three, and this is not to be condemned. First, this is on account of the power of the Trinity; then also on account of another deed of Elijah, as a testimony to and proclamation of the Trinity: when he raised the dead son of the woman of Zarephath by praying three times and stretching himself over him three times. Moreover, one should not inquire too curiously about the number when no number is written. Even though it is not written, one must nevertheless observe the ancient tradition: if possible, seven, as in the old custom; but if there is need, at least three. They should recite everything that tradition has handed down for them to say, for we must acknowledge that the things handed down by the Fathers are also of the Spirit.” But, as Arcudius replies there, from what does Simon infer that because the Apostle said “Let him call for the presbyters of the Church,” he meant more than one presbyter? If the reason is the plural number, Scripture often uses the plural for the singular. For the Apostle, writing to the Hebrews about the prophets, says: “They stopped the mouths of lions, they were stoned, they were sawn in two, they wandered about in sheepskins and goatskins”; yet Daniel alone stopped the mouths of lions, Jeremiah alone was stoned, and Isaiah alone was sawn in two. Likewise, St. Matthew and St. Mark report that the robbers crucified with Christ reproached him for his weakness, although St. Luke explicitly writes: “One of the robbers who were hanging there blasphemed him.” They must therefore be answered in the same way: they used the plural for the singular, as St. Augustine observed in book 3 of On the Harmony of the Gospels, ch. 16. — Next, Scripture often uses ordinary ways of speaking. In ordinary speech we say, “Sins must be confessed to priests,” and “When ill, one must call doctors,” although we always confess our sins to one priest and very often one doctor treats the sick person. Therefore, when the Apostle James said, “Let him call for the presbyters,” it is as if he had said, “Let him call for one of the presbyters.” Christ our Lord likewise said to the lepers, “Go, show yourselves to the priests,” although he said to another leper, “Go, show yourself to the priest.” And Leviticus 13 says of the leper: “He is brought to Aaron the priest, or to any one of his sons.” Certainly, if all ten lepers had shown themselves to one priest, they would have fully satisfied the command of Christ our Lord. — And further: One presbyter considered individually truly, properly, and in himself, even according to the Greeks, provides the subject with the true matter and complete form of this Sacrament. Therefore, he truly and properly confers this Sacrament alone. The others thus seem superfluous—superfluous, I say, if they perform the Sacrament by reciting the same form. Indeed, I shall say in its proper place whether they also sin gravely by repeating the Sacrament without reason. — Finally, if the Thessalonian seeks fitting explanations, as he requires at least three to signify the most holy Trinity, we likewise require one to declare the one Divinity, or the one person of Christ incarnate, or something similar; ingenious parallels and fitting explanations of things are not lacking. Therefore, if one presbyter is present, he alone is sufficient, especially in a necessity. So says Arcudius. It follows, then, that when St. James says, “Let him call for the presbyters,” he commends the quality of the minister rather than the number. He said this by an enallage, just as it is often said that a sinner must confess his crimes to priests, that is, to a man who is a priest, or to one of the priests.

From these points, CONCLUDE that the Sacrament of Extreme Unction ought to be administered entirely by the same minister, so that each Anointing, with its forms and prayers, be performed by the same priest. For St. James says that those who anoint must pray over the sick person; but one prayer, spoken in part by several people, cannot have a complete sense according to common usage. Nevertheless, the Anointings of different senses, together with their corresponding forms, could be administered by different priests: validly, though illicitly, outside a case of necessity, because this would be contrary to the Church’s practice, which must be especially observed in the administration of the Sacraments; but licitly in a necessity, for example if the first priest becomes incapacitated after the first Anointing of one sense, and another then completes the remaining Anointings.

CONCLUDE 2. The ordinary minister of Extreme Unction is the proper pastor of each church. Although every priest can validly confer this Sacrament even outside a necessity, he cannot licitly do so unless he is the recipient’s own priest or has obtained permission from him. First, administering a Sacrament is the pastor’s office, which no one may claim for himself unless he has received authorization from that pastor or his superior. Hence, after the Catechism of the Council of Trent says in n. 26 that the administration of this Sacrament is entrusted to a priest alone, it adds: “Nevertheless, by decree of the Church it is not lawful for just any priest to administer this Sacrament, but only for the proper pastor, who has jurisdiction, or for another to whom he has granted the authority to perform this office.” Second, under the penalty of excommunication, the first Clementine constitution On Privileges forbids religious to administer this Sacrament to clergy or laity who are not subject to them without the permission of their own priest or parish priest.

YOU WILL ASK 2. To whom should this Sacrament be administered?

I ANSWER, only a Christian who is a wayfarer, an adult, and sick is capable of receiving this Sacrament.

The first part is clear, for no person is capable of receiving a Sacrament unless he is marked with the baptismal character, since, as we have said several times with the Council of Trent, Baptism is the gateway to all the Sacraments. Hence, if this Sacrament were conferred on an unbaptized person, even if he were a catechumen in a state of grace, it would be altogether invalid and null.

The second part is also clear: only a living person who is a wayfarer is capable of receiving this Sacrament. First, St. James says that the person on whom this sacred Anointing is to be conferred must be sick, and consequently alive and a wayfarer. Second, as we said when treating of the Sacraments in general, the Sacraments of the New Law are remedies that do not benefit the finally dead and condemned, nor those enjoying perpetual health, such as the blessed, but only the sick, as wayfarers are.

The third part, namely that this Sacrament should be conferred only on adults, is sufficiently gathered from what has been said. Since this Sacrament’s chief effect is the remission of venial sin and, accidentally, of mortal sin as well, it should be administered only to one capable of committing such sins. But children before the use of reason are incapable of committing any sin; therefore they are not capable of receiving this Sacrament either. This is no objection: they are capable of grace and its increase, but an increase or infusion of grace is a general effect of the Sacraments, which is conferred through each Sacrament only as joined to that Sacrament’s proper effects. Therefore, where there is no capacity for the primary and proper effect, there is no capacity for the Sacrament either, and the common effect of the Sacraments is not to be conferred through that Sacrament. — Or I say, with the Master, that the Sacraments were indeed instituted to cause grace, since this is their common effect; yet they were not instituted to cause it in just any way, but as something necessary for some particular effect proper to them. Otherwise it would follow that, since the habitual grace caused by all of them is of the same species, it would produce the same effects in each Sacrament, and all the Sacraments would also be of the same species. Hence we said above that Baptism was instituted to cause grace by which original sin and the other actual sins are erased, and Penance to cause grace by which a person can firmly confess the faith, and so on with the others. Thus, in the present case, Extreme Unction was instituted to cause grace that in itself remits venial sins in a person capable of them, to strengthen against temptations, and to relieve the soul, as is clear from what was said. Since children are capable neither of sins nor of the devil’s temptations, they are also not capable of the grace conferred through this Sacrament, which in itself remits venial sins in a subject capable of them. So Mastrius, q. 6, n. 106. — Nor is it an objection that infants are capable of receiving health, which is counted among the effects of Extreme Unction. For, as we said, this effect is intended only accidentally, not first and per se; therefore the Sacrament should not be administered for the sake of producing this effect alone. Accordingly, this Sacrament can licitly be conferred only on adults who have at some time had the use of reason, provided it is not certain that before losing the use of reason they were in sin and did not repent of it—for example, if someone were deprived of reason and his senses while blaspheming or committing adultery, and were suffering from a dangerous illness. In this situation the Sacrament should not be conferred on him, because it is not ordered directly to the remission of mortal sin and, moreover, presupposes a penitent person or someone in a state of grace. — But this Sacrament must be administered to all other adults, even if they presently have no use of reason, provided they had it before. For this Sacrament’s primary effect is not only the strengthening of the soul against the devil’s temptations, but also the remission of venial sins and of mortal sins innocently forgotten or not remitted by other Sacraments. Although the insane in this state cannot receive those effects, they can receive another, namely the remission of sins. For it can happen that someone in mortal sin, with only attrition, falls into insanity; in that case, through the power of this Sacrament he receives grace and, from being attrite, becomes equivalent to one who is contrite. This is no objection: St. James says, “Let him call for the presbyters.” These words do not mean that the sick person must make a formal and explicit request for this Sacrament; a virtual and interpretative request suffices, which each person has for his own salvation. Indeed, if this interpretative and virtual request suffices for receiving Baptism, it will suffice all the more for conferring the sacred Anointing.

Finally, the last part is clear: only a sick person is capable of Extreme Unction. For it is believed to have been instituted by Christ our Lord on the basis of St. James’s words: “Is anyone among you ill?” and so forth. The Council of Florence declares this when it says: “This Sacrament is not to be given except to a sick person whose death is feared,” and the Council of Trent says: “Only to the sick who seem to be at the end of life.” Hence this Sacrament cannot validly be conferred on a healthy person, even if he is in evident danger of death, such as those condemned to death, those about to sail into danger, or soldiers about to go to battle. For these people are not sick, and they can provide for themselves through other Sacraments, especially the Sacrament of Penance.

The Doctor explains all these points clearly and neatly in d. 23, n. 3, where he gives and explains the definition of Extreme Unction in this way: “Extreme Unction is the anointing of a sick, penitent person, performed on designated parts of the body with oil consecrated by a bishop, administered by a priest who at the same time speaks the appointed words with the proper intention; by divine institution it effectively signifies the final healing of venial sins. This definition,” he says, “seems good because it is not false in itself, according to Metaphysics V, ch. 17, since none of its parts conflicts with another. In explaining its parts, first it says that it is an anointing. This is fitting because this sensible sign corresponds to its effect, namely a healing anointing. It adds, of a sick person. Therefore it must not be conferred on a healthy person or on someone exposed to danger of death in just any way: not on someone whose death threatens because of external violence, such as weapons, drowning, or the like, nor when he is at the end of the state of a wayfarer, so that danger, rather than the illness, is what is probably imminent for the sick person. The added word penitent is clear, because no one is capable of this Sacrament worthily unless he is in grace. For this Sacrament is not a remedy for acquiring grace; only Baptism and Penance serve that purpose. This excludes those who do not use reason, such as little children, and those who lack the matter for penance, at least those who have no penance for venial sins, such as the perfectly innocent. Since those who do not use reason cannot be penitent either, the furious and insane are excluded, unless they are presumed to will it on the basis of a prior express will. The addition on designated parts refers to the organs of the faculties through whose acts one often sins venially, such as the organs of the five senses and the faculty of movement. Sometimes this is with respect to the same doubled sense or faculty, such as the organs of sight, the two eyes; the organs of hearing, the two ears; the organs of smell, the nostrils; the organs of touch, the hands. Accordingly, just as the organs named above are doubled, so too are the Anointings. The organ of taste is the tongue, on which no anointing is made, so as to avoid revulsion; rather, it is made externally over the mouth. The anointing on the loins is for the organ of the generative faculty, in accordance with Gregory’s words on the passage in Luke, ‘Let your loins be girded.’ He says, ‘For men, lust is in the loins.’ The principal organ of the moving faculty, insofar as it is locomotion, is the reason for the two Anointings on the two feet, as organs ordered to that movement. Another movement by which one often sins is the movement of the tongue, in accordance with James 3: ‘The one who does not offend in speech is a perfect man,’ and much else there. The anointing of the mouth is directed against this, so that it is a remedy for two kinds of venial sin, just as the tongue serves two natural functions, according to On the Soul II, namely taste and speech. There are therefore eleven Anointings, that is, individual ones; but some are doubled as if they were one, so that there are seven principal Anointings: five on the organs of the five senses, the sixth on the principal organ of the faculty of locomotion, and the seventh on the principal organ of the generative faculty.”

The Catechism of the Council of Trent agrees with the Doctor in n. 17, where it says: The faithful must be taught that, although this Sacrament concerns everyone, certain classes of people are nevertheless excepted, and it must not be administered to them. First, those who are sound and strong in body are excepted. The Apostle teaches that Extreme Unction is not to be given to them when he says, “Is anyone among you ill?” Reason also shows this, since the Sacrament was instituted to bring medicine not only to the soul but also to the body. Since only those suffering from illness need healing, this Sacrament should be given to those who seem to be so dangerously ill that there is reason to fear their final day of life is near. Yet those who customarily wait to anoint the sick person until “all hope of recovery has been lost and he begins to lose life and his senses” are gravely at fault. For it is clear that, to receive the Sacrament’s more abundant grace, it helps greatly if the sick person is anointed with the sacred oil while his mind and reason are still sound and he can bring faith and a devout disposition of soul. Parish priests should therefore take care to apply this heavenly medicine at the time when, though it is always very salutary by its own power, they understand that it will be more beneficial through the piety and devotion of those who are to be healed. Accordingly, it is not lawful to give the Sacrament of Anointing to anyone who is not afflicted by a grave illness, even if he faces danger of death because he is about to undertake a dangerous voyage or enter a battle in which certain death threatens him, or even if he is condemned to death and being led to execution. Moreover, all those who lack the use of reason are unfit to receive this Sacrament, as are children, who commit no sins whose remnants need to be healed by this Sacramental remedy. The insane and the mentally ill are likewise excluded, unless they had the use of reason at some time and, especially at that time, showed a devout disposition and requested to be anointed with the sacred oil. For a person who from birth has never been in possession of mind and reason is not to be anointed. The case is different if the sick person, while still of sound mind, had wished to receive this Sacrament and later fell into insanity and madness.”

YOU WILL ASK: What obligation is there to receive this Sacrament? — I answer first that, considered in itself and absolutely, in relation to a person suffering from a dangerous illness, Extreme Unction does not oblige adult members of the faithful to receive it, since they would be bound to do so either by necessity of means or by necessity of precept. Not by the first, because this Sacrament is not so necessary that salvation cannot be attained without receiving it. No necessity of this kind can be inferred on any ground, since there is no precept in Scripture, Tradition, the canons, or the Church’s practice. It is not in Scripture: if there were a precept to receive this Sacrament, it would most likely be inferred from the words of St. James. But this is not so, since St. James there only promulgates this Sacrament and exhorts the faithful to receive it more than he commands them to do so. Therefore there is no obligation to receive it under pain of sin. Nor does such an obligation arise from the canons or the Church’s practice, because the Church’s practice is founded not on an obligation but on the benefit obtained from receiving this Sacrament. Nor does it arise from the canons, for no canon appears from which this necessity can be inferred. Hence, at a time of interdict, the Church forbids the Sacrament of Extreme Unction to be given to the dying, in ch. Quod in te, On Penance and Remission. It certainly would not forbid it if it were necessary for them by necessity of means or precept; for that reason it does not forbid them to receive the Sacraments of Penance and the Eucharist as viaticum. — I answer second that, if this Sacrament is considered in relation to certain special circumstances, such as scandal, contempt, or conscience, adult members of the faithful are sometimes obliged to receive it. For each person is bound to avoid scandal and to procure for himself the means that his conscience judges necessary for attaining salvation. Now omitting to receive this Sacrament can sometimes cause scandal, for example, suspicion of heresy or contempt for this Sacrament, if someone who is well regarded by everyone knows that he is suffering from a dangerous illness and that it is common practice among the faithful to receive this Sacrament in such a state, yet rejects it in front of many people and thus gives them reason to suspect that he is a heretic. Or the obligation can arise from conscience: if the sick person doubts his Contrition and cannot receive the Sacrament of Penance, through which he would become contrite from being attrite, then he is bound to procure the reception of this Sacrament so that he may have sufficient means for salvation.

YOU WILL ASK, FINALLY: What dispositions are required beforehand in the recipient for the worthy reception of this Sacrament? — I answer that the recipient must, first, be cleansed from every mortal sin. Hence this Sacrament is customarily conferred only after sacramental Absolution. Second, the recipient must have faith and hope for the attainment of health of soul and body, if bodily health is expedient for salvation. Third, he must join and unite his intention and prayers to the intention and prayers of the Church. Fourth and finally, he must hope that divine help and protection against all the assaults of demons will thereby be granted to him. The Roman Catechism, n. 29, explains all these dispositions very well when it writes: “Since every effort must be made to ensure that nothing impedes the grace of the Sacrament—and nothing opposes it more than consciousness of some mortal sin—the perpetual custom of the Catholic Church must be observed: before Extreme Unction, the Sacraments of Penance and the Eucharist are to be administered. Then parish priests should strive to persuade the sick person to present himself to the priest for anointing with the same faith with which those who were to be healed by the Apostles once used to offer themselves. Above all, the salvation of the soul, and then bodily health, should be sought, with the qualification that the latter be beneficial for eternal glory. The faithful should not doubt that God hears those holy and solemn prayers which the priest uses while acting not in his own person but in the person of the Church and our Lord Jesus Christ. This is the chief reason they should be urged to see that the Sacrament of this most healthful Oil is administered to them in a holy and devout manner, since a fiercer battle seems to be imminent and the strength of both soul and body seems to be failing.”