Extreme Unction — Sacramental Effects; The Minister

Section 3: Sacramental Effects

The fact that Extreme Unction produces internal grace is clearly stated in St. James’ Epistle (salvabit, alleviabit, remittentur peccata). Nevertheless it is not easy to decide wherein the principal effect of the Sacrament (effectus primarius) consists. Our only safe guide in the matter are the decisions of various councils. The Decretum pro Armenis merely says: “The effect [of this Sacrament] is the healing of the mind and, so far as is expedient, of the body also.”¹ This is more fully explained by the Council of Trent, which defines: “If anyone saith that the sacred unction of the sick does not confer grace, nor remit sin, nor comfort the sick, but that it has now ceased, as though it had been of old only the grace of working cures, let him be anathema.”²

According to this authentic declaration the Sacrament of Extreme Unction produces three principal effects: (1) it confers grace and forgives sin; (2) it comforts the sick; and (3) it conditionally restores health to the body.

1. The First and Principal Effect of Extreme Unction: Healing and Strengthening the Soul. According to the Decretum pro Armenis Extreme Unction “heals the mind.” This effect must have reference to the impending death struggle, for the Sacrament was instituted for the dying.

a) How is this effect produced in the soul? Extreme Unction, be it remembered, belongs to the Sacraments of the living and therefore presupposes sanctifying grace. Hence, when the Tridentine Council says that this Sacrament “confers grace,” it must mean an increase of sanctifying grace and a claim to all those actual graces that flow from the nature of the Sacrament. Now it belongs to the nature of the Sacrament that it (1) alleviates or comforts the sick and (2) strengthens the soul. These two effects (alleviatio — confirmatio), according to the Tridentine definition, are produced simultaneously, since the Sacrament “excites a great confidence in the divine mercy,” which in turn “supports” the recipient and enables him to “bear more easily the inconveniences and pains of his sickness” and to “resist more readily the temptations of the devil.”³

The reality of the first-mentioned effect can be shown from the scriptural use of the terms salvare and alleviare. These words designate absolute effects of the Sacrament, and hence cannot have reference to the body alone, because the Sacraments are intended primarily for the soul. In so far as it strengthens the soul for the final conflict, Extreme Unction is related to Confirmation, which enables the recipient to sustain the battle of life. In so far as it alleviates, i.e., comforts the sick, it has a special relation to Penance. Both these features constitute Extreme Unction a consecratory as well as a medicinal rite. The fact that it cannot readily be repeated seems to indicate that this Sacrament imprints a sort of character (quasi-character).

b) Father Joseph Kern, S.J., in a remarkable treatise De Sacramento Extremae Unctionis, published at Innsbruck in 1907,⁴ insists that the proper object of Extreme Unction is the perfect healing of the soul (perfecta sanitas animae) with a view to its immediate entry into glory, unless indeed it should happen that the restoration of bodily health were more expedient. He holds that this view may be traced to the Fathers, that it is expressed in the ancient rituals, clearly propounded by Bl. Albertus Magnus, St. Bonaventure, St. Thomas, Durandus, Innocent V, and practically all pre-Tridentine theologians up to Ruardus Tapper.⁵ This teaching, says the learned Innsbruck Jesuit, far from being opposed to, is in full conformity with, that of Trent. It was only under the influence of the Protestant Reformation that it began to wane. The denial of purgatory with its corollary that the souls of the just enter immediately into glory, led to an attenuation of the traditional teaching on the part of Catholic theologians. This tendency is particularly noticeable in the writings of Suarez. Jansenism with its rigoristic notions and its exaggerated views of divine justice and vengeance did not improve the situation. As the older view gradually fell into desuetude, theologians forgot that Extreme Unction remits temporal punishments and preserves the soul from purgatory, which, according to the ancient Fathers, really was its main object — “ut anima eius aeque pura sit post obitum ac infantis, qui statim post baptisma moritur,” as the so-called Penitential of St. Egbert of York has it.⁶

To gain all the fruits of Extreme Unction, the recipient must be rightly disposed. If he is rightly disposed, it follows from Father Kern’s argument that the remission of all temporal punishments still due to his sins must be one, indeed the principal, effect of the Sacrament. Of course this full effect is gained only by those who receive the sacred unction with due preparation and great devotion at a time when they are still able to cooperate with the sacramental grace.

The objections raised against his view are effectively refuted by Father Kern.⁷ Most important among them are these four:

(1) If Extreme Unction had for its main object the remission of temporal punishments, the Mass, prayer, and indulgences for the dead would lose their value and importance.

Answer: No one ever knows for certain whether a departed person has observed all the conditions necessary for gaining the full sacramental effect of Extreme Unction, and therefore it will still remain a duty of Christian charity to offer up Masses, prayers, and indulgences for the departed.

(2) The plenary indulgence granted by the Church to the dying would be useless.

Answer: That the dying man gains this indulgence may be a secondary effect of Extreme Unction.

(3) Extreme Unction would be on a level with martyrdom.

Answer: By no means. It is the peculiar privilege of a martyr to go straight to Heaven, provided he has imperfect contrition for his sins, no matter how defective his disposition may otherwise be.⁸ This privilege is not claimed for Extreme Unction.

(4) Extreme Unction, in Father Kern’s hypothesis, is not sufficiently differentiated either in character or purpose from Baptism.

Answer: Extreme Unction, in order to obtain its complete effect, requires more of the recipient than Baptism, namely, faithful cooperation with the grace of the Sacrament. The two Sacraments differ essentially in the following points: (a) that Extreme Unction demands more of the recipient than Baptism, follows from the fact that (b) Baptism is: (α) the Sacrament of spiritual regeneration; (β) the mystic representation of the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ; and (γ) the efficient cause of our incorporation with the mystical body of Christ; whereas Extreme Unction is none of these things.

It is consoling to have a truth so long forgotten restored to its proper place in dogmatic and moral theology. Father Kern’s thesis is apt to arouse interest and sharpen the sense of duty in the clergy as well as the faithful, thereby leading to a more frequent and devout reception of the Sacrament of the dying. At the same time it is calculated to increase the confidence of the living in the fate of their brethren who have departed this life fortified by a Sacrament which, if properly received, will spare them the sufferings of purgatory. Since, however, the counsels of Divine Providence are inscrutable and the ways of men obscure and tortuous, we must never cease to pray for the poor souls.

2. The Second Effect of Extreme Unction: Cure of the Spiritual Debility Caused by Sin, and Remission of Sins, Venial as Well as Mortal. St. James expressly teaches: “If he [the sick man who is anointed with the sacred unction] be in sins, they shall be forgiven him.”⁹ The Tridentine Council says: “[Extreme Unction] blots out sins, if there be any still to be expiated, as also the remains of sins.”¹⁰ The question arises: what sins does Extreme Unction blot out — venial sins, mortal sins, or merely the debility and depression caused by the consciousness of having sinned? Theologians are not unanimous on this subject. A distinction must be drawn between “the remains of sin” (reliquiae peccati) and sins (peccata). Both are remitted by the Sacrament.

a) That Extreme Unction cures the soul and strengthens it against the debility caused by sin — it is this debility which the Tridentine Council calls “the remains of sin” — is the unanimous teaching of all theologians.

“Another advantage of the sacred unction,” says the Roman Catechism, “is that it frees the soul from the languor and infirmity which it has contracted from sins, and from all the other remains of sin.”¹¹

Sin, especially if it has grown to be a habit, leaves in the soul a certain debility or moral weakness, which makes the last battle with the powers of darkness more difficult. This weakness the Tridentine Council means by “the remains of sin,” as can easily be shown by exclusion.

The remains of sin mentioned by the Council may mean one, or more, or all of the following:

(1) The eternal punishment of sin. But this cannot properly be called a relic of sin because it stands and falls with sin and is not forgiven unless the guilt has first been blotted out.

(2) The temporal punishments due to sin. These are a real remnant of sins forgiven, and are cancelled by Extreme Unction according to the disposition of the recipient, ex opere operato.¹² However, this is not the primary object for which Extreme Unction was instituted, but rather appertains to indulgences and works of satisfaction, and hence we are dealing with a merely secondary effect of the Sacrament, though if the recipient is properly disposed, this effect is infallible.

(3) Concupiscence. Concupiscence is a relic not of actual but of original sin, and hence can no more be removed by Extreme Unction than by Baptism.

(4) Former mortal sins omitted in confession, or new ones committed since the last confession. Mortal sins unconsciously omitted in confession are forgiven together with those actually confessed. Freshly committed mortal sins belong before the tribunal of Penance. Of course, this proves no more than that the remission of mortal sins is not a primary and proper effect of Extreme Unction.

b) Does Extreme Unction remit mortal sins, or only venial sins?

There can be no doubt that St. James has reference to personal or actual sins when he says that sins are forgiven in Extreme Unction. It is not so clear whether he means venial sins, or mortal sins, or both. The Scotists limit the efficacy of Extreme Unction to venial sins. Extreme Unction, they say, is essentially a Sacrament of the living, and mortal sins committed after Baptism can be forgiven only in the tribunal of Penance. While this interpretation is not directly opposed to the Tridentine decree, it leaves open the question whether the Council did not also have in mind mortal sins. The general term peccata or delicta seems to indicate that it did. A careful study of St. James’ Epistle renders this interpretation certain. Mere sins of weakness are to the Apostle a matter of course. In speaking of them he says, “For in many things we all offend.”¹³ In speaking of the Sacrament of Extreme Unction, however, he employs the hypothetical phrase: “If he [the sick man] be in sins,” thereby evidently meaning mortal sins. Bellarmine, Tournely, Sainte-Beuve, Tepe, Kern, and other theologians probably go too far when they assert that Extreme Unction is intended per se and directly for the remission of mortal sins, even though only ex secundaria institutione. If this were true, Extreme Unction would not be a Sacrament of the living, but a Sacrament of the dead; Penance could not in justice be termed “a second plank after shipwreck,”¹⁴ and the power of the keys could be dispensed with. We can imagine only one case in which Extreme Unction could forgive mortal sins without trenching on the Sacrament of Penance, namely, if a dying man were unable to confess his sins and had at least imperfect contrition. In that case Extreme Unction, as a sacramental rite, would remit his sins ex opere operato, though only per accidens. The necessitas medii of Penance is safeguarded by the condition that if the patient recovers, he must submit himself to the power of the keys, i.e., go to confession and ask for the priestly absolution. With this limitation we may subscribe to Oswald’s dictum: “Extreme Unction not only completes the Sacrament of Penance, but in certain cases takes its place.”¹⁵

3. Third (Conditional) Effect: The Restoration of Bodily Health. The restoration of bodily health is a secondary and purely conditional effect of Extreme Unction. The condition upon which it depends is expressed thus by the Decretum pro Armenis and the Council of Trent: “When it is expedient for the soul’s salvation.”¹⁶

Does the Sacrament always restore health when it is expedient for salvation? “Sanitatem corporis interdum, ubi saluti animae expedierit, consequitur,” says the Tridentine Council. How are we to interpret interdum? St. Thomas holds that the patient will surely recover after receiving Extreme Unction if his recovery will redound to his spiritual benefit.¹⁷ Dr. Oswald goes so far as to assert that the Sacrament of the dying has a charismatic effect similar to that produced by the gratia curationum. However, it is more reasonable to assume that the restoration of bodily health, if it lies in God’s plan, is effected by the powers of nature, stimulated supernaturally by the Sacrament. We prefer the explanation given by the older Scholastics and approved by the Council of Trent, viz.: that the Sacrament of Extreme Unction, by relieving anxiety, banishing fear, giving comfort, and inspiring confidence in God’s mercy and humble resignation to His will, reacts favorably on the physical condition of the patient. If this explanation is correct, the sacramental effect in question can be expected only when the priest is called in time and the body not too badly ravaged by disease.¹⁸

The reality of this effect is proved by theologians from the words of St. James: “And the prayer of faith shall save the sick man: and the Lord shall raise him up.” Though, as we have seen,¹⁹ these expressions refer primarily to the soul, it is the constant belief of Tradition that they also include the body. The Apostle employs positive rather than hypothetic terms, because he regards the supposition that the recovery of bodily health must redound to the patient’s spiritual benefit as a matter of course, and, secondly, because the spiritual “saving” and “raising up” of the sinner are absolute effects which, by reacting upon the body, may restore bodily health.²⁰

Chapter 3: The Minister

The Sacrament of Extreme Unction can be validly administered only by “presbyters,” i.e., bishops and priests. This is an article of faith, for the Tridentine Council says: “The proper ministers of this Sacrament are the presbyters of the Church; by which name are to be understood in that place [James V, 15] not the elders by age, or the foremost in dignity among the people, but either bishops, or priests rightly ordained by bishops… .”²¹ And again: “If anyone saith that the presbyters of the Church, whom Blessed James exhorts to be brought to anoint the sick, are not the priests who have been ordained by a bishop, but the elders in each community, and that for this reason the priest alone is not the proper minister of Extreme Unction, let him be anathema.”²²

It is not difficult to prove this dogma from Sacred Scripture and Tradition.

1. Proof from Sacred Scripture. St. James says by implication that the presbyteri Ecclesiae alone can administer the Sacrament of Extreme Unction.

If the sacred unction were nothing but a natural or charismatic cure of the body, there is no reason why it should be administered by priests. The natural ministers in that case would be physicians, or deacons, or lay persons endowed with the gratia curationum. The Protestant contention that St. James meant the elders of each community was rejected by the Tridentine Council, which defines that “the presbyters of the Church” means members of the sacerdotal college, men ordained by the bishop and empowered to administer the Sacrament of Penance, of which Extreme Unction is the complement.

2. Proof from Tradition. The Sacrament of Extreme Unction has never been administered in the Church by any other persons than validly ordained priests. Origen and St. Chrysostom regarded its administration as a sacerdotal privilege. Pope Innocent I (402–417) says in his famous letter to Bishop Decentius of Eugubium, already quoted by us on a previous page: “We notice the superfluous addition of a doubt whether a bishop may do what is said to priests, for the reason that bishops, hindered by other occupations, cannot go to all the sick. But if the bishop is able to do so, or thinks anyone specially worthy of being visited, he, whose office it is to consecrate the chrism, need not hesitate to bless and anoint the sick person.”²³ Church history furnishes no instance of the administration of Extreme Unction by deacons or laymen.

But what does Pope Innocent mean when in the same letter he says: “The holy oil of chrism … it is permitted not only to priests but to all Christians to use for anointing in their own need or that of their families”?²⁴ This passage led the famous Carmelite Thomas Netter, of Walden (d. 1430), Launoy,²⁵ and latterly Boudinhon,²⁶ to assume that at the time of Pope Innocent the First lay persons of either sex were permitted to administer Extreme Unction to themselves and their families in case of necessity. But to interpret the Pope’s letter thus is to make him contradict himself. By vindicating the right of administering this Sacrament to bishops as well as simple priests, the Pontiff manifestly meant to exclude deacons, and, a fortiori, laymen. What, then, is the meaning of his rather obscure dictum? The words of the Pontiff may be interpreted in three different ways. The first and simplest explanation is that the anointment administered by laymen was not a Sacrament but merely a sacramental. This explanation gains weight from the fact that at the time of Pope Innocent I, consecrated elements, like baptismal water and chrism, were often employed for other than sacramental purposes, e.g. the restoration of health.²⁷ Another interpretation (Bellarmine, Estius) is that the Pontiff employs the gerund “inungendo” passively, thereby indicating that “all Christians may use the holy chrism to have themselves and their families anointed in their need.” A third explanation is suggested by Dr. Schell: “The Pope’s decision is probably to be understood as applying to a sort of unction by desire in case of necessity (an analogue of lay confession), showing the patient’s good will to do what is in his power.”²⁸ Launoy’s²⁹ distinction between the ordinary and the extraordinary minister of Extreme Unction has no basis in Tradition.

Clericatus³⁰ asserts that in case of urgent necessity a priest may administer Extreme Unction to himself. This view is untenable because priests are not exempt from the general rule that no one can administer a Sacrament to himself.

3. Incidental Theological Problems. Extreme Unction may be validly administered by one priest or by several priests.

a) One priest is sufficient for the validity of the Sacrament. This clearly appears from the constant teaching and practice of the Latin Church. The Decretum Gratiani expressly declares that one priest may anoint a sick person.³¹

It is true that St. James speaks of presbyteri in the plural. But this does not mean that several priests are required to administer the Sacrament. It is simply a popular and familiar way of saying: “Let the sick call for priestly ministrations,” just as one might say: “Let him call in the doctors,” meaning, “Let him procure medical aid.” In other words, the plural stands by a figure of speech (enallage) for the singular, as in Luke XVII, 14: “Go, show yourselves to the priests.” Doubtless St. James did not wish to exclude the participation of a number of priests where they were available. This may have been the case in Jerusalem, Antioch, or Corinth; but there were many places where only one bishop or presbyter could be summoned. Surely in such places the faithful were not to be deprived of this important and necessary Sacrament. In the “Orthodox” (schismatic) Church of the East it has been customary for seven priests to take part in the administration of the Sacrament.³² Owing partly to the difficulty of obtaining the simultaneous presence of so many priests, and partly perhaps to a misunderstanding of the rite, the Nestorians abolished Extreme Unction altogether and substituted in its place a new rite (cornu gratiae sancti), which is performed by a single priest with oil mixed with dust from the grave of St. Thomas the Apostle.

b) The Oriental custom of the administration of Extreme Unction by seven (or sometimes three) priests, to which we have just referred, seems at one time to have been known also in the West.³³ Some schismatic theologians³⁴ hold that one priest cannot administer the Sacrament validly.³⁵ We on our part have rather to consider the question whether and under what conditions Extreme Unction can be validly administered by a number of priests conjointly. There are three possibilities to be considered.

(1) If one of the priests performs the unctions while another pronounces the prayer, the rite is invalid, because matter and form of a Sacrament constitute an indivisible whole.³⁶

(2) If the Sacrament is administered by several priests, each in turn performing the complete rite, both matter and form, in regard to one or more of the several senses, the ceremony is probably valid, because in that case the partial acts coalesce into one whole, as when one priest consecrates the bread and another the wine during the same Mass. The Gregorian Sacramentary seems to direct that while one priest performs the unction, another should pronounce the form. Kern is of opinion that the Sacrament could be validly administered by two because of the moral unity of the ministers present for the administration; but the form must not be in the first person, or a false sense is conveyed. Quinn comments that if the validity of the Sacrament so administered is secured by the moral unity of the ministers, then the use of the first person singular is justified by the same reason.

(3) If the whole rite is performed by several priests either simultaneously or successively, provided the unctions are properly performed and the prayers simultaneously recited by all, all cooperate in administering the Sacrament, just as at ordination all the priests ordained celebrate the same Mass with the bishop. If the whole series of unctions is performed by several priests successively, it is likely that the first alone administers the Sacrament, while the others merely confer a sacramental.³⁷