QUESTIONS 29-33 QUESTION OF EXTREME UNCTION, AS REGARDS ITS ESSENCE AND INSTITUTION (NINE ARTICLES)

We must now consider the sacrament of Extreme Unction: in respect of which five points have to be considered: (1) Its essentials and institution; (2) Its effect; (3) Its minister; (4) on whom should it be conferred and in what parts; (5) Its repetition.

Under the first head there are nine points of inquiry: (1) Whether Extreme Unction is a sacrament? (2) Whether it is one sacrament? (3) Whether this sacrament was instituted by Christ? (4) Whether olive oil is a suitable matter for this sacrament? (5) Whether the oil ought to be consecrated? (6) Whether the matter of this sacrament should be consecrated by a bishop? (7) Whether this sacrament has any form? (8) Whether the form of this sacrament should take the shape of a deprecatory phrase? (9) Whether this is a suitable form for this sacrament?

P(4)- Q(29)- A(1) Whether Extreme Unction is a sacrament?

P(4)- Q(29)- A(1)- O(1) —

It would seem that Extreme Unction is not a sacrament. For just as oil is used on sick people, so is it on catechumens.

But anointing of catechumens with oil is not a sacrament. Therefore neither is the Extreme Unction of the sick with oil.

P(4)- Q(29)- A(1)- O(2) —

Further, the sacraments of the Old Law were figures of the sacraments of the New Law. But there was no figure of Extreme Unction in the Old Law. Therefore it is not a sacrament of the New Law.

P(4)- Q(29)- A(1)- O(3) —

Further, according to Dionysius (Eccl. Hier. iii, v) every sacrament aims at either cleansing, or enlightening, or perfecting.

Now Extreme Unction does not aim at either cleansing, or enlightening, for this is ascribed to Baptism alone, or perfecting, for according to Dionysius (Eccl. Hier. ii), this belongs to Confirmation and the Eucharist. Therefore Extreme Unction is not a sacrament.

P(4)- Q(29)- A(1) —

On the contrary, The sacraments of the Church supply man’s defects sufficiently with respect to every state of life. Now no other than Extreme Unction does this for those who are departing from this life. Therefore it is a sacrament.

P(4)- Q(29)- A(1) —

Further, the sacraments are neither more nor less than spiritual remedies. Now Extreme Unction is a spiritual remedy, since it avails for the remission of sins, according to James 5:15. Therefore it is a sacrament.

P(4)- Q(29)- A(1) —

I answer that, Among the visible operations of the Church, some are sacraments, as Baptism, some are sacramentals, as Exorcism. The difference between these is that a sacrament is an action of the Church that reaches to the principal effect intended in the administration of the sacraments, whereas a sacramental is an action which, though it does not reach to that effect, is nevertheless directed towards that principal action. Now the effect intended in the administration of the sacraments is the healing of the disease of sin: wherefore it is written ( Isaiah 27:9): “This is all the fruit, that the sin... should be taken away.” Since then Extreme Unction reaches to this effect, as is clear from the words of James, and is not ordained to any other sacrament as an accessory thereto, it is evident that Extreme Unction is not a sacramental but a sacrament.

P(4)- Q(29)- A(1)- RO(1) —

The oil with which catechumens are anointed does not convey the remission of sins to them by its unction, for that belongs to Baptism. It does, however, dispose them to receive Baptism, as stated above ( P(3), Q(71), A(3) ). Hence that unction is not a sacrament as Extreme Unction is.

P(4)- Q(29)- A(1)- RO(2) —

This sacrament prepares man for glory immediately, since it is given to those who are departing from this life.

And as, under the Old Law, it was not yet time to enter into glory, because “the Law brought nobody [Vulg.: ‘nothing’] to perfection” ( Hebrews 7:19), so this sacrament had not to be foreshadowed therein by some corresponding sacrament, as by a figure of the same kind.

Nevertheless it was somewhat foreshadowed remotely by all the healings related in the Old Testament.

P(4)- Q(29)- A(1)- RO(3) —

Dionysius makes no mention of Extreme Unction, as neither of Penance, nor of Matrimony, because he had no intention to decide any question about the sacraments, save in so far as they serve to illustrate the orderly disposition of the ecclesiastical hierarchy, as regards the ministers, their actions, and the recipients.

Nevertheless since Extreme Unction confers grace and remission of sins, there is no doubt that it possesses an enlightening and cleansing power, even as Baptism, though not so copious.

P(4)- Q(29)- A(2) Whether Extreme Unction is one sacrament?

P(4)- Q(29)- A(2)- O(1) —

It would seem that Extreme Unction is not one sacrament. Because the oneness of a thing depends on its matter and form, since being and oneness are derived from the same source. Now the form of this sacrament is said several times during the one administration, and the matter is applied to the person anointed in respect of various parts of his body. Therefore it is not one sacrament.

P(4)- Q(29)- A(2)- O(2) —

Further, the unction itself is a sacrament, for it would be absurd to say that the oil is a sacrament. But there are several unctions. Therefore there are several sacraments.

P(4)- Q(29)- A(2)- O(3) —

Further, one sacrament should be performed by one minister. But the case might occur that Extreme Unction could not be conferred by one minister: thus if the priest die after the first unction, another priest would have to proceed with the others. Therefore Extreme Unction is not one sacrament.

P(4)- Q(29)- A(2) —

On the contrary, As immersion is in relation to Baptism, so is unction to this sacrament. But several immersions are but one sacrament of Baptism. Therefore the several unctions in Extreme Unction are also one sacrament.

P(4)- Q(29)- A(2) —

Further, if it were not one sacrament, then after the first unction, it would not be essential for the perfection of the sacrament that the second unction should be performed, since each sacrament has perfect being of itself. But that is not true. Therefore it is one sacrament.

P(4)- Q(29)- A(2) —

I answer that, Strictly speaking, a thing is one numerically in three ways. First, as something indivisible, which is neither actually nor potentially several — as a point, and unity. Secondly, as something continuous, which is actually one, but potentially several — as a line. Thirdly, as something complete, that is composed of several parts — as a house, which is, in a way, several things, even actually, although those several things go together towards making one. In this way each sacrament is said to be one thing, in as much as the many things which are contained in one sacrament, are united together for the purpose of signifying or causing one thing, because a sacrament is a sign of the effect it produces. Hence when one action suffices for a perfect signification, the unity of the sacrament consists in that action only, as may be seen in Confirmation. When, however, the signification of the sacrament can be both in one and in several actions, then the sacrament can be complete both in one and in several actions, even as Baptism in one immersion and in three, since washing which is signified in Baptism, can be completed by one immersion and by several. But when the perfect signification cannot be expressed except by means of several actions, then these several actions are essential for the perfection of the sacrament, as is exemplified in the Eucharist, for the refreshment of the body which signifies that of the soul, can only be attained by means of meat and drink. It is the same in this sacrament, because the healing of the internal wounds cannot be perfectly signified save by the application of the remedy to the various sources of the wounds. Hence several actions are essential to the perfection of this sacrament.

P(4)- Q(29)- A(2)- RO(1) —

The unity of a complete whole is not destroyed by reason of a diversity of matter or form in the parts of that whole. Thus it is evident that there is neither the same matter nor the same form in the flesh and in the bones of which one man is composed. In like manner too, in the sacrament of the Eucharist, and in this sacrament, the diversity of matter and form does not destroy the unity of the sacrament.

P(4)- Q(29)- A(2)- RO(2) —

Although those actions are several simply, yet they are united together in one complete action, viz. the anointing of all the external senses, whence arises the infernal malady.

P(4)- Q(29)- A(2)- RO(3) —

Although, in the Eucharist, if the priest die after the consecration of the bread, another priest can go on with the consecration of the wine, beginning where the other left off, or can begin over again with fresh matter, in Extreme Unction he cannot begin over again, but should always go on, because to anoint the same part a second time would produce as much effect as if one were to consecrate a host a second time, which ought by no means to be done. Nor does the plurality of ministers destroy the unity of this sacrament, because they only act as instruments, and the unity of a smith’s work is not destroyed by his using several hammers.

P(4)- Q(29)- A(3) Whether this sacrament was instituted by Christ?

P(4)- Q(29)- A(3)- O(1) —

It would seem that this sacrament was not instituted by Christ. For mention is made in the Gospel of the institution of those sacraments which Christ instituted, for instance the Eucharist and Baptism. But no mention is made of Extreme Unction. Therefore it was not instituted by Christ.

P(4)- Q(29)- A(3)- O(2) —

Further, the Master says explicitly (Sent. iv, D, 23) that it was instituted by the apostles. Therefore Christ did not institute it Himself.

P(4)- Q(29)- A(3)- O(3) —

Further, Christ showed forth the sacraments which He instituted, as in the case of the Eucharist and Baptism. But He did not bestow this sacrament on anyone. Therefore He did not institute it Himself.

P(4)- Q(29)- A(3) —

On the contrary, The sacraments of the New Law are more excellent than those of the Old Law. But all the sacraments of the Old Law were instituted by God. Therefore much more do all the sacraments of the New Law owe their institution to Christ Himself.

P(4)- Q(29)- A(3) —

Further, to make an institution and to remove it belongs to the same authority. Now the Church, who enjoys the same authority in the successors of the apostles, as the apostles themselves possessed, cannot do away with the sacrament of Extreme Unction.

Therefore the apostles did not institute it, but Christ Himself.

P(4)- Q(29)- A(3) —

I answer that, There are two opinions on this point.

For some hold that this sacrament and Confirmation were not instituted by Christ Himself, but were left by Him to be instituted by the apostles; for the reason that these two sacraments, on account of the plenitude of grace conferred in them, could not be instituted before the mission of the Holy Ghost in perfect plenitude. Hence they are sacraments of the New Law in such a way as not to be foreshadowed in the Old Law. But this argument is not very cogent, since, just as Christ, before His Passion, promised the mission of the Holy Ghost in His plenitude, so could He institute these sacraments.

Wherefore others hold that Christ Himself instituted all the sacraments, but that He Himself published some, which present greater difficulty to our belief, while he reserved some to be published by the apostles, such as Extreme Unction and Confirmation. This opinion seems so much the more probable, as the sacraments belong to the foundation of the Law, wherefore their institution pertains to the lawgiver; besides, they derive their efficacy from their institution, which efficacy is given them by God alone.

P(4)- Q(29)- A(3)- RO(1) —

Our Lord did and said many things which are not related in the Gospel. For the evangelists were intent on handing down chiefly those things that were necessary for salvation or concerned the building of the ecclesiastical edifice. Hence they related the institution by Christ of Baptism, Penance, the Eucharist and orders, rather than of Extreme Unction and Confirmation, which are not necessary for salvation, nor do they concern the building or division of the Church. As a matter of fact however an anointing done by the apostles is mentioned in the Gospel ( Mark 6:13) where it is said that they “anointed the sick with oil.”

P(4)- Q(29)- A(3)- RO(2) —

The Master says it was instituted by the apostles because its institution was made known to us by the teaching of the apostles.

P(4)- Q(29)- A(3)- RO(3) —

Christ did not show forth any sacrament except such as He received by way of example: but He could not be a recipient of Penance and Extreme Unction, since there was no sin in Him: hence He did not show them forth.

P(4)- Q(29)- A(4) Whether olive oil is a suitable matter for this sacrament?

P(4)- Q(29)- A(4)- O(1) —

It would seem that olive oil is not a suitable matter for this sacrament. For this sacrament is ordained immediately to the state of incorruption. Now incorruption is signified by balsam which is contained in chrism. Therefore chrism would be a more suitable matter for this sacrament.

P(4)- Q(29)- A(4)- O(2) —

Further, this sacrament is a spiritual healing.

Now spiritual healing is signified by the use of wine, as may be gathered from the parable of the wounded man ( Luke 10:34). Therefore wine also would be more suitable a matter for this sacrament.

P(4)- Q(29)- A(4)- O(3) —

Further, where there is the greater danger, the remedy should be a common one. But olive oil is not a common remedy, since the olive is not found in every country. Therefore, since this sacrament is given to the dying, who are in the greatest danger, it seems that olive oil is not a suitable matter.

P(4)- Q(29)- A(4) —

On the contrary, oil is appointed ( James 5:14) as the matter of this sacrament. Now, properly speaking, oil is none but olive oil. Therefore this is the matter of this sacrament.

P(4)- Q(29)- A(4) —

Further, spiritual healing is signified by anointing with oil, as is evident from Isaiah 1:6 where we read: “... swelling sores: they are not... dressed nor fomented with oil.” Therefore the suitable matter for this sacrament is oil.

P(4)- Q(29)- A(4) —

I answer that, The spiritual healing, which is given at the end of life, ought to be complete, since there is no other to follow; it ought also to be gentle, lest hope, of which the dying stand in utmost need, be shattered rather than fostered. Now oil has a softening effect, it penetrates to the very heart of a thing, and spreads over it. Hence, in both the foregoing respects, it is a suitable matter for this sacrament. And since oil is, above all, the name of the liquid extract of olives, for other liquids are only called oil from their likeness to it, it follows that olive oil is the matter which should be employed in this sacrament.

P(4)- Q(29)- A(4)- RO(1) —

The incorruption of glory is something not contained in this sacrament: and there is no need for the matter to signify such a thing. Hence it is not necessary for balsam to be included in the matter of this sacrament, because on account of its fragrance it is indicative of a good name, which is no longer necessary, for its own sake, to those who are dying; they need only a clear conscience which is signified by oil.

P(4)- Q(29)- A(4)- RO(2) —

Wine heals by its roughness, oil by its softness, wherefore healing with wine pertains to Penance rather than to this sacrament.

P(4)- Q(29)- A(4)- RO(3) —

Though olive oil is not produced everywhere, yet it can easily be transported from one place to another. Moreover this sacrament is not so necessary that the dying cannot obtain salvation without it.

P(4)- Q(29)- A(5) Whether the oil ought to be consecrated?

P(4)- Q(29)- A(5)- O(1) —

It would seem that the oil need not be consecrated. Because there is a sanctification in the use of this sacrament, through the form of words. Therefore another sanctification is superfluous if it be applied to the matter.

P(4)- Q(29)- A(5)- O(2) —

Further, the efficacy and signification of the sacraments are in their very matter. But the signification of the effect of this sacrament, is suitable to oil on account of its natural properties, and the efficacy thereof is due to the Divine institution. Therefore its matter does not need to be sanctified.

P(4)- Q(29)- A(5)- O(3) —

Further, Baptism is a more perfect sacrament than Extreme Unction. But, so far as the essentials of the sacrament are concerned, the baptismal matter needs no sanctification. Neither therefore does the matter of Extreme Unction need to be sanctified.

P(4)- Q(29)- A(5) —

On the contrary, In all other anointings the matter is previously consecrated. Therefore since this sacrament is an anointing, it requires consecrated matter.

P(4)- Q(29)- A(5) —

I answer that, Some hold that mere oil is the matter of this sacrament, and that the sacrament itself is perfected in the consecration of the oil by the bishop. But this is clearly false since we proved when treating of the Eucharist that that sacrament alone consists in the consecration of the matter ( Q(2) , A(1), ad 2).

We must therefore say that this sacrament consists in the anointing itself, just as Baptism consists in the washing, and that the matter of this sacrament is consecrated oil. Three reasons may be assigned why consecrated matter is needed in this sacrament and in certain others. The first is that all sacramental efficacy is derived from Christ: wherefore those sacraments which He Himself used, derived their efficacy from His use of them, even as, by the contact of His flesh, He bestowed the force of regeneration on the waters. But He did not use this sacrament, nor any bodily anointing, wherefore in all anointings a consecrated matter is required. The second reason is that this sacrament confers a plenitude of grace, so as to take away not only sin but also the remnants of sin, and bodily sickness. The third reason is that its effect on the body, viz. bodily health, is not caused by a natural property of the matter. wherefore it has to derive this efficacy from being consecrated.

P(4)- Q(29)- A(5)- RO(1) —

The first consecration sanctifies the matter in itself, but the second regards rather the use of the matter considered as actually producing its effect. Hence neither is superfluous, because instruments also receive their efficacy from the craftsman, both when they are made, and when they are used for action.

P(4)- Q(29)- A(5)- RO(2) —

The efficacy which the sacrament derives from its institution, is applied to this particular matter when it is consecrated.

P(4)- Q(29)- A(5)- RO(2) The Reply to the Third Objection is gathered from what has been said.

P(4)- Q(29)- A(6) Whether the matter of this sacrament need be consecrated by a bishop?

P(4)- Q(29)- A(6)- O(1) —

It would seem that the matter of this sacrament need not be consecrated by a bishop. Because the consecration of the Eucharistic elements surpasses that of the matter in this sacrament. But a priest can consecrate the matter in the Eucharist. Therefore he can do so in this sacrament also.

P(4)- Q(29)- A(6)- O(2) —

Further, in material works the higher art never prepares the matter for the lower, because the art which applies the matter is more excellent than that which prepares it, as stated in Phys. ii, text. 25.

Now a bishop is above a priest. Therefore he does not prepare the matter of a sacrament which is applied by a priest. But a priest dispenses this sacrament, as we shall state further on ( Q(31) ). Therefore the consecration of the matter does not belong to a bishop.

P(4)- Q(29)- A(6) —

On the contrary, In other anointings also the matter is consecrated by a bishop. Therefore the same applies to this.

P(4)- Q(29)- A(6) —

I answer that, The minister of a sacrament produces the effect, not by his own power, as though he were the principal agent, but by the efficacy of the sacrament which he dispenses. This efficacy comes, in the first place, from Christ, and from Him flows down to others in due order, viz. to the people through the medium of the ministers who dispense the sacraments, and to the lower ministers through the medium of the higher ministers who sanctify the matter. Wherefore, in all the sacraments which require a sanctified matter, the first consecration of the matter is performed by a bishop, and the application thereof sometimes by a priest, in order to show that the priest’s power is derived from the bishop’s, according to <19D202> Psalm 132:2: “Like the precious ointment on the head,” i.e. Christ, “that ran down upon the beard of Aaron” first, and then “to the skirt of his garment.”

P(4)- Q(29)- A(6)- RO(1) —

The sacrament of the Eucharist consists in the consecration of the matter and not in its use. Consequently, strictly speaking, that which is the matter of the sacrament is not a consecrated thing. Hence no consecration of the matter by a bishop is required beforehand: but the altar and such like things, even the priest himself, need to be consecrated, all of which can be done by none but a bishop: so that in this sacrament also, the priest’s power is shown to be derived from the bishop’s, as Dionysius observes (Eccl. Hier. iii). The reason why a priest can perform that consecration of matter which is a sacrament by itself, and not that which, as a sacramental, is directed to a sacrament consisting in something used by the faithful, is that in respect of Christ’s true body no order is above the priesthood, whereas, in respect of Christ’s mystic body the episcopate is above the priesthood, as we shall state further on ( Q(40), A(4) ).

P(4)- Q(29)- A(6)- RO(2) —

The sacramental matter is not one that is made into something else by him that uses it, as occurs in the mechanical arts: it is one, in virtue of which something is done, so that it partakes somewhat of the nature of an efficient cause, in so far as it is the instrument of a Divine operation. Hence the matter needs to acquire this virtue from a higher art or power, since among efficient causes, the more prior the cause the more perfect it is, whereas in material causes, the more prior the matter, the more imperfect it is.

P(4)- Q(29)- A(7) Whether this sacrament has a form?

P(4)- Q(29)- A(7)- O(1) —

It would seem that this sacrament has no form.

Because, since the efficacy of the sacraments is derived from their institution, as also from their form, the latter must needs be appointed by the institutor of the sacrament. But there is no account of the form of this sacrament being instituted either by Christ or by the apostles. Therefore this sacrament has no form.

P(4)- Q(29)- A(7)- O(2) —

Further, whatever is essential to a sacrament is observed everywhere in the same way. Now nothing is so essential to a sacrament that has a form, as that very form. Therefore, as in this sacrament there is no form commonly used by all, since various words are in use, it seems that this sacrament has no form.

P(4)- Q(29)- A(7)- O(3) —

Further, in Baptism no form is needed except for the sanctification of the matter, because the water is “sanctified by the word of life so as to wash sin away,” as Hugh states (De Sacram. ii). Now the matter of this sacrament is already consecrated. Therefore it needs no form of words.

P(4)- Q(29)- A(7) —

On the contrary, The Master says (Sent. iv, D, 1) that every sacrament of the New Law consists in things and words. Now the words are the sacramental form. Therefore, since this is a sacrament of the New Law, it seems that it has a form.

P(4)- Q(29)- A(7) —

Further, this is confirmed by the rite of the Universal Church, who uses certain words in the bestowal of this sacrament.

P(4)- Q(29)- A(7) —

I answer that, Some have held that no farm is essential to this sacrament. This, however, seems derogatory to the effect of this sacrament, since every sacrament signifies its effect. Now the matter is indifferent as regards its effect, and consequently cannot be determined to any particular effect save by the form of words. Hence in all the sacraments of the New Law, since they effect what they signify, there must needs be things and words. Moreover James ( 5:14,15) seems to ascribe the whole force of this sacrament to prayer, which is the form thereof, as we shall state further on (ad 2: AA(8),9 ). Wherefore the foregoing opinion seems presumptuous and erroneous; and for that reason we should hold with the common opinion that this, like all the other sacraments, has a fixed form.

P(4)- Q(29)- A(7)- RO(1) —

Holy Writ is proposed to all alike: and so, the form of Baptism, which can be conferred by all, should be expressed in Holy Writ, as also the form of the Eucharist, which in regard to that sacrament, expresses faith which is necessary for salvation. Now the forms of the other sacraments are not contained in Holy Writ, but were handed down to the Church by the apostles, who received them from our Lord, as the Apostle declares ( 1 Corinthians 11:23): “For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered to you,” etc.

P(4)- Q(29)- A(7)- RO(2) —

The words which are essential to the form, viz. the prayer of deprecation, are said by all; but other words which pertain to the well-being thereof, are not said by all.

P(4)- Q(29)- A(7)- RO(3) —

The matter of Baptism has a certain sanctification of its own from the very contact of our Saviour’s flesh; but the form of words sanctifies it so that it has a sanctifying force. In like manner when the matter of this sacrament has been sanctified in itself, it requires sanctification in its use, so that it may sanctify actually.

P(4)- Q(29)- A(8) Whether the form of this sacrament should be expressed by way of assertion or of petition?

P(4)- Q(29)- A(8)- O(1) —

It would seem that the form of this sacrament should be expressed by way of assertion rather than of petition. Because all the sacraments of the New Law have a sure effect. But sureness of effect is not expressed in the sacramental forms except by way of assertion, as when we say: “This is My body” or “I baptize thee.”

Therefore the form of this sacrament should be expressed as an assertion.

P(4)- Q(29)- A(8)- O(2) —

Further, the intention of the minister should be expressed in the sacramental forms because it is essential to the sacrament.

But the intention of conferring a sacrament is not expressed except by an assertion. Therefore, etc.

P(4)- Q(29)- A(8)- O(3) —

Further, in some churches the following words are said in the conferring of this sacrament: “I anoint these eyes with consecrated oil in the name of the Father,” etc., which is in keeping with the forms of the other sacraments. Therefore it seems that such is the form of this sacrament.

P(4)- Q(29)- A(8) —

On the contrary, The form of a sacrament must needs be one that is observed everywhere. Now the words employed according to the custom of all the churches are not those quoted above, but take the form of a petition viz.: “Through this holy unction, and His most tender mercy, may the Lord pardon thee whatever sins thou hast committed, by sight,” etc. Therefore the form of this sacrament is expressed as a petition.

Further, this seems to follow from the words of James, who ascribes the effect of this sacrament to prayer: “The prayer of faith,” says he (5:15), “shall save the sick man.” Since then a sacrament takes its efficacy from its form, it seems that the form of this sacrament is expressed as a petition.

P(4)- Q(29)- A(8) —

I answer that, The form of this sacrament is expressed by way of a petition, as appears from the words of James, and from the custom of the Roman Church, who uses no other than words of supplication in conferring this sacrament. Several reasons are assigned for this: first, because the recipient of this sacrament is deprived of his strength, so that he needs to be helped by prayers; secondly, because it is given to the dying, who are on the point of quitting the courts of the Church, and rest in the hands of God alone, for which reason they are committed to Him by prayer; thirdly, because the effect of this sacrament is not such that it always results from the minister’s prayer, even when all essentials have been duly observed, as is the case with the character in Baptism and Confirmation, transubstantiation in the Eucharist, remission of sin in Penance (given contrition) which remission is essential to the sacrament of Penance but not to this sacrament. Consequently the form of this sacrament cannot be expressed in the indicative mood, as in the sacraments just mentioned.

P(4)- Q(29)- A(8)- RO(1) —

This sacrament, like the others mentioned, considered in itself, is sure of its effect. yet this effect can be hindered through the insincerity of the recipient (though by his intention he submit to the sacrament), so that he receives no effect at all. Hence there is no parity between this sacrament, and the others wherein some effect always ensues.

P(4)- Q(29)- A(8)- RO(2) —

The intention is sufficiently expressed by the act which is mentioned in the form, viz.: “By this holy unction.”

P(4)- Q(29)- A(8)- RO(3) —

These words in the indicative mood, which some are wont to say before the prayer, are not the sacramental form, but are a preparation for the form, in so far as they determine the intention of the minister.

P(4)- Q(29)- A(9) Whether the foregoing prayer is a suitable form for this sacrament?

P(4)- Q(29)- A(9)- O(1) —

It would seem that the foregoing prayer is not a suitable form for this sacrament. For in the forms of the other sacraments mention is made of the matter, for instance in Confirmation, whereas this is not done in the aforesaid words. Therefore it is not a suitable form.

P(4)- Q(29)- A(9)- O(2) —

Further, just as the effect of this sacrament is bestowed on us by the mercy of God, so are the effects of the other sacraments. But mention is made in the forms of the other sacraments, not of the Divine mercy, but rather of the Trinity and of the Passion.

Therefore the same should be done here.

P(4)- Q(29)- A(9)- O(3) —

Further, this sacrament is stated in the text (Sent. iv, D, 23) to have a twofold effect. But in the foregoing words mention is made of only one effect, viz. the remission of sins, and not of the healing of the body to which end James directs the prayer of faith to be made ( James 5:15): “The prayer of faith shall save the sick man.”

Therefore the above form is unsuitable.

P(4)- Q(29)- A(9) —

I answer that, The prayer given above ( A(8) ) is a suitable form for this sacrament, for it includes the sacrament by the words: “By this holy unction,” and that which works in the sacrament, viz. “the mercy of God,” and the effect, viz. “remission of sins.”

P(4)- Q(29)- A(9)- RO(1) —

The matter of this sacrament may be understood in the act of anointing, whereas the matter of Confirmation cannot be implied by the act expressed in the form. Hence there is no parity.

P(4)- Q(29)- A(9)- RO(2) —

The object of mercy is misery: and because this sacrament is given when we are in a state of misery, i.e. of sickness, mention of mercy is made in this rather than in other sacraments.

P(4)- Q(29)- A(9)- RO(3) —

The form should contain mention of the principal effect, and of that which always ensues in virtue of the sacrament, unless there be something lacking on the part of the recipient.

Now bodily health is not an effect of this kind, as we shall state further on ( Q(30), AA(1),2 ), though it does ensue at times, for which reason James ascribes this effect to the prayer which is the form of this sacrament.

QUESTION OF THE EFFECT OF THIS SACRAMENT (THREE ARTICLES)

We must now consider the effect of this sacrament: under which head there are three points of inquiry: (1) Whether Extreme Unction avails for the remission of sins? (2) Whether bodily health is an effect of this sacrament? (3) Whether this sacrament imprints a character?

P(4)- Q(30)- A(1) Whether Extreme Unction avails for the remission of sins?

P(4)- Q(30)- A(1)- O(1) —

It would seem that Extreme Unction does not avail for the remission of sins. For when a thing can be attained by one means, no other is needed. Now repentance is required in the recipient of Extreme Unction for the remission of his sins. Therefore sins are not remitted by Extreme Unction.

P(4)- Q(30)- A(1)- O(2) —

Further, there are no more than three things in sin, the stain, the debt of punishment, and the remnants of sin. Now Extreme Unction does not remit the stain without contrition, and this remits sin even without Unction; nor does it remit the punishment, for if the recipient recover, he is still bound to fulfill the satisfaction enjoined; nor does it take away the remnants of sin, since the dispositions remaining from preceding acts still remain, as may easily be seen after recovery.

Therefore remission of sins is by no means the effect of Extreme Unction.

P(4)- Q(30)- A(1)- O(3) —

Further, remission of sins takes place, not successively, but instantaneously. On the other hand, Extreme Unction is not done all at once, since several anointings are required. Therefore the remission of sins is not its effect.

P(4)- Q(30)- A(1) —

On the contrary, It is written ( James 5:15): “If he be in sins, they shall be forgiven him.”

P(4)- Q(30)- A(1) —

Further, every sacrament of the New Law confers grace. Now grace effects the forgiveness of sins. Therefore since Extreme Unction is a sacrament of the New Law, its effect is the remission of sins.

P(4)- Q(30)- A(1) —

I answer that, Each sacrament was instituted for the purpose of one principal effect, though it may, in consequence, produce other effects besides. And since a sacrament causes what it signifies, the principal effect of a sacrament must be gathered from its signification.

Now this sacrament is conferred by way of a kind of medicament, even as Baptism is conferred by way of washing, and the purpose of a medicament is to expel sickness. Hence the chief object of the institution of this sacrament is to cure the sickness of sin. Therefore, just as Baptism is a spiritual regeneration, and Penance, a spiritual resurrection, so Extreme Unction is a spiritual healing or cure. Now just as a bodily cure presupposes bodily life in the one who is cured, so does a spiritual cure presuppose spiritual life. Hence this sacrament is not an antidote to those defects which deprive man of spiritual life, namely. original and mortal sin, but is a remedy for such defects as weaken man spiritually, so as to deprive him of perfect vigor for acts of the life of grace or of glory; which defects consist in nothing else but a certain weakness and unfitness, the result in us of actual or original sin. against which weakness man is strengthened by this sacrament. Since, however, this strength is given by grace, which is incompatible with sin, it follows that. in consequence, if it finds any sin, either mortal or venial, it removes it as far as the guilt is concerned, provided there be no obstacle on the part of the recipient; just as we have stated to be the case with regard to the Eucharist and Confirmation ( P(3), Q(73), A(7) ; P(3), Q(79), A(3) ). Hence, too, James speaks of the remission of sin as being conditional, for he says: “If he be in sins, they shall be forgiven him,” viz. as to the guilt. Because it does not always blot out sin, since it does not always find any: but it always remits in respect of the aforesaid weakness which some call the remnants of sin.

Some, however, maintain that it is instituted chiefly as a remedy for venial sin which cannot be cured perfectly in this lifetime: for which reason the sacrament of the dying is ordained specially against venial sin. But this does not seem to be true, since Penance also blots out venial sins sufficiently during this life as to their guilt, and that we cannot avoid them after doing penance, does not cancel the effect of the previous penance; moreover this is part of the weakness mentioned above.

Consequently we must say that the principal effect of this sacrament is the remission of sin, as to its remnants, and, consequently, even as to its guilt, if it find it.

P(4)- Q(30)- A(1)- RO(1) —

Although the principal effect of a sacrament can be obtained without actually receiving that sacrament (either without any sacrament at all, or indirectly by means of some other sacrament), yet it never can be obtained without the purpose of receiving that sacrament.

And so, since Penance was instituted chiefly against actual sin, whichever other sacrament may blot out sin indirectly, it does not exclude the necessity of Penance.

P(4)- Q(30)- A(1)- RO(2) —

Extreme Unction remits sin in some way as to those three things. For, although the stain of sin is not washed out without contrition, yet this sacrament, by the grace which it bestows, makes the movement of the free will towards sin to be one of contrition, just as may occur in the Eucharist and Confirmation. Again it diminishes the debt of temporal punishment; and this indirectly, in as much as it takes away weakness, for a strong man bears the same punishment more easily than a weak man. Hence it does not follow that the measure of satisfaction is diminished. As to the remnants of sin, they do not mean here those dispositions which result from acts, and are inchoate habits so to speak, but a certain spiritual debility in the mind, which debility being removed, though such like habits or dispositions remain, the mind is not so easily prone to sin.

P(4)- Q(30)- A(1)- RO(3) —

When many actions are ordained to one effect, the last is formal with respect to all the others that precede, and acts by virtue of them: wherefore by the last anointing is infused grace which gives the sacrament its effect.

P(4)- Q(30)- A(2) Whether bodily health is an effect of this sacrament?

P(4)- Q(30)- A(2)- O(1) —

It would seem that bodily health is not an effect of this sacrament. For every sacrament is a spiritual remedy. Now a spiritual remedy is ordained to spiritual health, just as a bodily remedy is ordained to health of the body. Therefore bodily health is not an effect of this sacrament.

P(4)- Q(30)- A(2)- O(2) —

Further, the sacraments always produce their effect in those who approach them in the proper dispositions. Now sometimes the recipient of this sacrament does not receive bodily health, no matter how devoutly he receives it. Therefore bodily health is not its effect.

P(4)- Q(30)- A(2)- O(3) —

Further, the efficacy of this sacrament is notified to us in the fifth chapter of James. Now healing is ascribed there as the effect, not of the anointing, but of the prayer, for he says: “The prayer of faith shall save the sick man.” Therefore bodily healing is not an effect of this sacrament.

P(4)- Q(30)- A(2) —

On the contrary, The operation of the Church is more efficacious since Christ’s Passion than before. Now, before the Passion, those whom the apostles anointed with oil were healed ( Mark 6:13).

Therefore unction has its effect now in healing bodies.

P(4)- Q(30)- A(2) —

Further, the sacraments produce their effect by signifying it. Now Baptism signifies and effects a spiritual washing, through the bodily washing in which it consists outwardly. Therefore Extreme Unction signifies and causes a spiritual healing through the bodily healing which it effects externally.

P(4)- Q(30)- A(2) —

I answer that, Just as Baptism causes a spiritual cleansing from spiritual stains by means of a bodily washing, so this sacrament causes an inward healing by means of an outward sacramental healing: and even as the baptismal washing has the effect of a bodily washing, since it effects even a bodily cleansing, so too, Extreme Unction has the effect of a bodily remedy, namely a healing of the body. But there is a difference, for as much as the bodily washing causes a bodily cleansing by a natural property of the bodily element, and consequently always causes it, whereas Extreme Unction causes a bodily healing, not by a natural property of the matter, but by the Divine power which works reasonably. And since reasonable working never produces a secondary effect, except in so far as it is required for the principal effect, it follows that a bodily healing does not always ensue from this sacrament, but only when it is requisite for the spiritual healing: and then it produces it always, provided there be no obstacle on the part of the recipient.

P(4)- Q(30)- A(2)- RO(1) —

This objection proves that bodily health is not the principal effect of this sacrament: and this is true.

The Reply to the Second Objection is clear from what has been said above (cf. Q(29), A(8) ).

P(4)- Q(30)- A(2)- RO(3) —

This prayer is the form of this sacrament as stated above ( Q(29), AA(8),9 ). Hence, so far as its form is concerned, this sacrament derives from it its efficacy in healing the body.

P(4)- Q(30)- A(3) Whether this sacrament imprints a character?

P(4)- Q(30)- A(3)- O(1) —

It would seem that this sacrament imprints a character. For a character is a distinctive sign. Now just as one who is baptized is distinguished from one who is not so is one who is anointed, from one who is not. Therefore, just as Baptism imprints a character so does Extreme Unction.

P(4)- Q(30)- A(3)- O(2) —

Further, there is an anointing in the sacraments or order and Confirmation, as there is in this sacrament. But a character is imprinted in those sacraments. Therefore a character is imprinted in this one also.

P(4)- Q(30)- A(3)- O(3) —

Further, every sacrament contains something that is a reality only, something that is a sacrament only, and something that is both reality and sacrament. Now nothing in this sacrament can be assigned as both reality and sacrament except a character. Therefore in this sacrament also, a character is imprinted.

P(4)- Q(30)- A(3) —

On the contrary, No sacrament that imprints a character is repeated. But this sacrament is repeated as we shall state further on ( Q(33) ). Therefore it does not imprint a character.

P(4)- Q(30)- A(3) —

Further, a sacramental character causes a distinction among those who are in the present Church. But Extreme Unction is given to one who is departing from the present Church. Therefore it does not imprint a character.

P(4)- Q(30)- A(3) —

I answer that, A character is not imprinted except in those sacraments whereby man is deputed to some sacred duty. Now this sacrament is for no other purpose than a remedy, and man is not deputed thereby to do or receive anything holy. Therefore it does not imprint a character.

P(4)- Q(30)- A(3)- RO(1) —

A character marks a distinction of . states with regard to duties which have to be performed in the Church, a distinction which a man does not receive by being anointed.

P(4)- Q(30)- A(3)- RO(2) —

The unction of orders and Confirmation, is the unction of consecration whereby a man is deputed to some sacred duty, whereas this unction is remedial. Hence the comparison fails.

P(4)- Q(30)- A(3)- RO(3) —

In this sacrament, that which is both reality and sacrament is not a character, but a certain inward devotion which is a kind of spiritual anointing.

QUESTION OF THE MINISTER OF THIS SACRAMENT (THREE ARTICLES)

We must now consider the minister of this sacrament: under which head there are three points of inquiry: (1) Whether a layman can confer this sacrament? (2) Whether a deacon can? (3) Whether none but a bishop can confer it?

P(4)- Q(31)- A(1) Whether a layman can confer this sacrament?

P(4)- Q(31)- A(1)- O(1) —

It would seem that even a layman can confer this sacrament. For this sacrament derives its efficacy from prayer, as James declares ( James 5:15). But a layman’s prayer is sometimes as acceptable to God as a priest’s. Therefore he can confer this sacrament.

P(4)- Q(31)- A(1)- O(2) —

Further, we read of certain fathers in Egypt that they sent the oil to the sick, and that these were healed. It is also related of the Blessed Genevieve that she anointed the sick with oil. Therefore this sacrament can be conferred even by lay people.

P(4)- Q(31)- A(1) —

On the contrary, Remission of sins is given in this sacrament. But laymen have not the power to forgive sins. Therefore, etc.

P(4)- Q(31)- A(1) —

I answer that, According to Dionysius (Eccl. Hier. v) there are some who exercise hierarchical actions, and some who are recipients only. Hence laymen are officially incompetent to dispense any sacrament: and that they can baptize in cases of necessity, is due to the Divine dispensation, in order that no one may be deprived of spiritual regeneration.

P(4)- Q(31)- A(1)- RO(1) —

This prayer is not said by the priest in his own person, for since sometimes he is in sin, he would not in that case be heard. But it is said in the person of the whole Church, in whose person he can pray as a public official, whereas a layman cannot, for he is a private individual.

P(4)- Q(31)- A(1)- RO(2) —

These unctions were not sacramental. It was due to the devotion of the recipients of the unction, and to the merits of those who anointed them that they procured the effects of bodily health, through the “grace of healing” ( 1 Corinthians 12:9) but not through sacramental grace.

P(4)- Q(31)- A(2) Whether deacons can confer this sacrament?

P(4)- Q(31)- A(2)- O(1) —

It would seem that deacons can confer this sacrament. For, according to Dionysius (Eccl. Hier. v) “deacons have the power to cleanse.” Now this sacrament was instituted precisely to cleanse from sickness of the mind and body. Therefore deacons also can confer it.

P(4)- Q(31)- A(2)- O(2) —

Further, Baptism is a more excellent sacrament than the one of which we are speaking. But deacons can baptize, as instanced by the Blessed Laurence. Therefore they can confer this sacrament also.

P(4)- Q(31)- A(2) —

On the contrary, It is written ( James 5:14): “Let him bring in the priests of the Church.”

P(4)- Q(31)- A(2) —

I answer that, A deacon has the power to cleanse but not to enlighten. Hence, since enlightenment is an effect of grace, no sacrament whereby grace is conferred can be given by a deacon in virtue of his office: and so he cannot confer this sacrament, since grace is bestowed therein.

P(4)- Q(31)- A(2)- RO(1) —

This sacrament cleanses by enlightening through the bestowal of grace: wherefore a deacon is not competent to confer it.

P(4)- Q(31)- A(2)- RO(2) —

This is not a necessary sacrament, as Baptism is. Hence its bestowal is not committed to all in cases of necessity, but only to those who are competent to do so in virtue of their office. Nor are deacons competent to baptize in virtue of their office.

P(4)- Q(31)- A(3) Whether none but a bishop can confer this sacrament?

P(4)- Q(31)- A(3)- O(1) —

It would seem that none but a bishop can confer this sacrament. For this sacrament consists in an anointing, just as Confirmation does. Now none but a bishop can confirm. Therefore only a bishop can confer this sacrament.

P(4)- Q(31)- A(3)- O(2) —

Further, he who cannot do what is less cannot do what is greater. Now the use of consecrated matter surpasses the act of consecrating the matter, since the former is the end of the latter. Therefore since a priest cannot consecrate the matter, neither can he use the matter after it has been consecrated.

P(4)- Q(31)- A(3) —

On the contrary, The minister of this sacrament has to be brought in to the recipient, as is clear from James 5:14. Now a bishop cannot go to all the sick people of his diocese. Therefore the bishop is not the only one who can confer this sacrament.

P(4)- Q(31)- A(3) —

I answer that, According to Dionysius (Eccl. Hier. v), the office of perfecting belongs to a bishop, just as it belongs to a priest to enlighten. Wherefore those sacraments are reserved to a bishop’s dispensation, which place the recipient in a state of perfection above others. But this is not the case with this sacrament, for it is given to all.

Consequently it can be given by ordinary priests.

P(4)- Q(31)- A(3)- RO(1) —

Confirmation imprints a character, whereby man is placed in a state of perfection, as stated above ( P(3), Q(63), AA(1), 2,6). But this does not take place in this sacrament; hence there is no comparison.

P(4)- Q(31)- A(3)- RO(2) —

Although the use of consecrated matter is of more importance than the consecration of the matter, from the point of view of the final cause; nevertheless, from the point of view of efficient cause, the consecration of the matter is the more important, since the use of the matter is dependent thereon, as on its active cause: hence the consecration of the matter demands a higher power than the use of the matter does.

QUESTION ON WHOM SHOULD THIS SACRAMENT BE CONFERRED AND ON WHAT PART OF THE BODY? (SEVEN ARTICLES)

We must now consider on whom this sacrament should be conferred and on what part of the body: under which head there are seven points of inquiry: (1) Whether this sacrament should be conferred on those who are in good health? (2) Whether it should be conferred in any kind of sickness? (3) Whether it should be conferred on madmen and imbeciles? (4) Whether it should be given to children? (5) Whether, in this sacrament, the whole body should be anointed? (6) Whether certain parts are suitably assigned to be anointed? (7) Whether those who are deformed in the above parts ought to be anointed thereon?

P(4)- Q(32)- A(1) Whether this sacrament ought to be conferred on those who are in good health?

P(4)- Q(32)- A(1)- O(1) —

It would seem that this sacrament should be conferred even on those who are in good health. For the healing of the mind is a more important effect of this sacrament than the healing of the body, as stated above ( Q(30), A(2) ). Now even those who are healthy in body need to be healed in mind. Therefore this sacrament should be conferred on them also.

P(4)- Q(32)- A(1)- O(2) —

Further, this is the sacrament of those who are departing this life, just as Baptism is the sacrament of those who are entering this life. Now Baptism is given to all who enter. Therefore this sacrament should be given to all who are departing. But sometimes those who are near departure are in good health, for instance those who are to be beheaded. Therefore this sacrament should be conferred on them.

P(4)- Q(32)- A(1) —

On the contrary, It is written ( James 5:14): “Is any man sick among you,” etc. Therefore none but the sick are competent to receive this sacrament.

P(4)- Q(32)- A(1) —

I answer that, This sacrament is a spiritual healing, as stated above ( Q(30), AA(1),2 ), and is signified by way of a healing of the body. Hence this sacrament should not be conferred on those who are not subjects for bodily healing, those namely, who are in good health.

P(4)- Q(32)- A(1)- RO(1) —

Although spiritual health is the principal effect of this sacrament, yet this same spiritual healing needs to be signified by a healing of the body, although bodily health may not actually ensue. Consequently spiritual health can be conferred by this sacrament on those alone who are competent to receive bodily healing, viz. the sick; even as he alone can receive Baptism who is capable of a bodily washing, and not a child yet in its mother’s womb.

P(4)- Q(32)- A(1)- RO(2) —

Even those who are entering into life cannot receive Baptism unless they are capable of a bodily washing. And so those who are departing this life cannot receive this sacrament, unless they be subjects for a bodily healing.

P(4)- Q(32)- A(2) Whether this sacrament ought to be given in any kind of sickness?

P(4)- Q(32)- A(2)- O(1) —

It would seem that this sacrament should be given in any kind of sickness. For no kind of sickness is determined in the fifth chapter of James where this sacrament is delivered to us. Therefore this sacrament should be given in all kinds of sickness.

P(4)- Q(32)- A(2)- O(2) —

Further, the more excellent a remedy is, the more generally should it be available. Now this sacrament is more excellent than bodily medicine. Since then bodily medicine is given to all manner of sick persons, it seems that this sacrament should be given in like manner to all.

P(4)- Q(32)- A(2) —

On the contrary, This sacrament is called by all Extreme Unction. Now it is not every sickness that brings man to the extremity of his life, since some ailments prolong life, according to the Philosopher (De Long. et Brev. Vitae i). Therefore this sacrament should not be given in every case of sickness.

P(4)- Q(32)- A(2) —

I answer that, This sacrament is the last remedy that the Church can give, since it is an immediate preparation for glory.

Therefore it ought to be given to those only, who are so sick as to be in a state of departure from this life, through their sickness being of such a nature as to cause death, the danger of which is to be feared.

P(4)- Q(32)- A(2)- RO(1) —

Any sickness can cause death, if it be aggravated. Hence if we consider the different kinds of disease, there is none in which this sacrament cannot be given; and for this reason the apostle does not determine any particular one. But if we consider the degree and the stage of the complaint, this sacrament should not be given to every sick person.

P(4)- Q(32)- A(2)- RO(2) —

The principal effect of bodily medicine is bodily health, which all sick people lack, whatever be the stage of their sickness. But the principal effect of this sacrament is that immunity from disorder which is needed by those who are taking their departure from this life and setting out for the life of glory. Hence the comparison fails.

P(4)- Q(32)- A(3) Whether this sacrament ought to be given to madmen and imbeciles?

P(4)- Q(32)- A(3)- O(1) —

It would seem that this sacrament should be given to madmen and imbeciles. For these diseases are full of danger and cause death quickly. Now when there is danger it is the time to apply the remedy. Therefore this sacrament, which was intended as a remedy to human weakness, should be given to such people.

P(4)- Q(32)- A(3)- O(2) —

Further, Baptism is a greater sacrament than this. Now Baptism is conferred on mad people as stated above ( P(3), Q(68), A[12] ). Therefore this sacrament also should be given to them.

P(4)- Q(32)- A(3) —

On the contrary, This sacrament should be given to none but such as acknowledge it. Now this does not apply to madmen and imbeciles. Therefore it should not be given to them.

P(4)- Q(32)- A(3) —

I answer that, The devotion of the recipient, the personal merit of the minister, and the general merits of the whole Church, are of great account towards the reception of the effect of this sacrament.

This is evident from the fact that the form of this sacrament is pronounced by way of a prayer. Hence it should not be given those who cannot acknowledge it, and especially to madmen and imbeciles, who might dishonor the sacrament by their offensive conduct, unless they have lucid intervals, when they would be capable of acknowledging the sacrament, for then the sacrament should be given to children the same in that state.

P(4)- Q(32)- A(3)- RO(1) —

Although such people are sometimes in danger of death; yet the remedy cannot be applied to them, on account of their lack of devotion. Hence it should not be given to them.

P(4)- Q(32)- A(3)- RO(2) —

Baptism does not require a movement of the free-will, because it is given chiefly as a remedy for original sin, which, in us, is not taken away by a movement of the free-will. On the other hand this sacrament requires a movement of the free-will; wherefore the comparison fails. Moreover Baptism is a necessary sacrament, while Extreme Unction is not.

P(4)- Q(32)- A(4) Whether this sacrament should be given to children?

P(4)- Q(32)- A(4)- O(1) —

It would seem that this sacrament ought to be given to children. Because children suffer from the same ailments sometimes as adults. Now the same disease requires the same remedy.

Therefore this sacrament should be given to children the same as to adults.

P(4)- Q(32)- A(4)- O(2) —

Further, this sacrament is given in order to remove the remnants of sin, whether original or actual, as stated above ( Q(30), A(1) ). Now the remnants of original sin are in children. Therefore this sacrament should be given to them.

P(4)- Q(32)- A(4) —

On the contrary, This sacrament should be given to none but those to whom the form applies. But the form of this sacrament does not apply to children, since they have not sinned by sight and hearing; as expressed in the form. Therefore this sacrament should not be given to them.

P(4)- Q(32)- A(4) —

I answer that, This sacrament, like the Eucharist, requires actual devotion in the recipient. Therefore, just as the Eucharist ought not to be given to children, so neither ought this sacrament to be given to them.

P(4)- Q(32)- A(4)- RO(1) —

Children’s infirmities are not caused by actual sin, as in adults, and this sacrament is given chiefly as a remedy for infirmities that result from sins, being the remnants of sin, as it were.

P(4)- Q(32)- A(4)- RO(2) —

This sacrament is not given as a remedy for the remnants of original sin, except in so far as they gather strength, so to speak, from actual sins. Hence from the very form it appears that it is given chiefly as a remedy for actual sins, which are not in children.

P(4)- Q(32)- A(5) Whether the whole body should be anointed in this sacrament?

P(4)- Q(32)- A(5)- O(1) —

It would seem that the whole body should be anointed in this sacrament. For, according to Augustine (De Trin. vi, 6), “the whole soul is in every part of the body.” Now this sacrament is given chiefly in order to heal the soul. Therefore the whole body ought to be anointed.

P(4)- Q(32)- A(5)- O(2) —

Further, the remedy should be applied to the part affected by the disease. But sometimes the disease is general, and affects the whole body, as a fever does. Therefore the whole body should be anointed.

P(4)- Q(32)- A(5)- O(3) —

Further, in Baptism the whole body is dipped under the water. Therefore in this sacrament the whole body should be anointed.

P(4)- Q(32)- A(5) —

On the contrary, stands the rite observed throughout the Church, according to which in this sacrament the sick man is anointed, only in certain fixed parts of the body.

P(4)- Q(32)- A(5) —

I answer that, This sacrament is shown to us under the form of a healing. Now bodily healing has to be effected, by applying the remedy, not to the whole body, but to those parts where the root of the disease is seated. Consequently the sacramental unction also ought to be applied to those parts only in which the spiritual sickness is rooted.

P(4)- Q(32)- A(5)- RO(1) —

Although the whole soul is, as to its essence, in each part of the body, it is not as to its powers which are the roots of sinful acts. Hence certain fixed parts have to be anointed, those, namely, in which powers have their being.

P(4)- Q(32)- A(5)- RO(2) —

The remedy is not always applied to the part affected by the disease, but, with greater reason, to the part where the root of the disease is seated.

P(4)- Q(32)- A(5)- RO(3) —

Baptism is given under the form of washing: and a bodily washing cleanses only the part to which it is applied; for this reason Baptism is applied to the whole body. It is different with Extreme Unction for the reason given above.

P(4)- Q(32)- A(6) Whether the parts to be anointed are suitably assigned?

P(4)- Q(32)- A(6)- O(1) —

It would seem that these parts are unsuitably assigned, namely, that the eyes, nose, ears, lips, hands, and feet should be anointed. For a wise physician heals the disease in its root. Now “from the heart come forth thoughts... that defile a man” ( Matthew 15:19,20).

Therefore the breast ought to be anointed.

P(4)- Q(32)- A(6)- O(2) —

Further, purity of mind is not less necessary to those who are departing this life than to those who are entering therein.

Now those who are entering are anointed with chrism on the head by the priest, to signify purity of mind. Therefore in this sacrament those who are departing should be anointed on the head.

P(4)- Q(32)- A(6)- O(3) —

Further, the remedy should be applied where the disease is most virulent. Now spiritual sickness is most virulent in the loins in men, and in the navel in women, according to Job 40:11: “His strength is in his loins, and his force in the navel of his belly,” as Gregory expounds the passage (Moral. xxxii, 11). Therefore these parts should be anointed.

P(4)- Q(32)- A(6)- O(4) —

Further, sins are committed with other parts of the body, no less than with the feet. Therefore, as the feet are anointed, so ought other members of the body to be anointed.

P(4)- Q(32)- A(6) —

I answer that, The principles of sinning are the same in us as the principles of action, for a sin is an act. Now there are in us three principles of action; the first is the directing principle, namely, the cognitive power; the second is the commanding principle, namely, the appetitive power; the third is the executive principle, namely, the motive power.

Now all our knowledge has its origin in the senses. And, since the remedy for sin should be applied where sin originates in us first, for that reason the places of the five senses are anointed. the eyes, to wit, on account of the sight, the ears on account of hearing, the nostrils on account of the smell, the mouth on account of the taste, the hands on account of the touch which is keenest in the finger tips, (in some places too the loins are anointed on account of the appetite), and the feet are anointed on account of the motive power of which they are the chief instrument. And since the cognitive power is the first principle of human activity, the anointing of the five senses is observed by all, as being essential to the sacrament. But some do not observe the other unctions — some also anoint the feet but not the loins — because the appetitive and motive powers are secondary principles.

P(4)- Q(32)- A(6)- RO(1) —

No thought arises in the heart without an act of the imagination which is a movement proceeding from sensation (De Anima ii). Hence the primary root of thought is not the heart, but the sensory organs, except in so far as the heart is a principle of the whole body, albeit a remote principle.

P(4)- Q(32)- A(6)- RO(2) —

Those who enter have to receive purity of the mind, whereas those who are departing have to cleanse the mind. Hence the latter need to be anointed in those parts in respect of which the mind’s purity may be sullied.

P(4)- Q(32)- A(6)- RO(3) —

Some are wont to anoint the loins, because they are the chief seat of the concupiscible appetite: however, as stated above, the appetitive power is not the primary root.

P(4)- Q(32)- A(6)- RO(4) —

The bodily organs which are the instruments of sin, are the feet, hands, and tongue, all of which are anointed, and the organs of generation which it would be unbecoming to anoint, on account of their uncleanliness, and out of respect for the sacrament.

P(4)- Q(32)- A(7) Whether those who are deformed in those parts should be anointed?

P(4)- Q(32)- A(7)- O(1) —

It would seem that those who are deformed should not be anointed in those parts. For just as this sacrament demands a certain disposition on the part of the recipient, viz. that he should be sick, so it demands that he should be anointed in a certain part of the body. Now he that is not sick cannot be anointed. Therefore neither can he be anointed who lacks the part to be anointed.

P(4)- Q(32)- A(7)- O(2) —

Further, a man born blind does not sin by his sight. Yet in the anointing of the eyes mention is made of sins by sight.

Therefore this anointing ought not to be applied to one born blind, and in like manner as regards the other senses.

P(4)- Q(32)- A(7) —

On the contrary, Bodily deformity is not an impediment to any other sacrament. Therefore it should not be an impediment to this one. Now each of the anointings is essential to the sacrament. Therefore all should be applied to those who are deformed.

P(4)- Q(32)- A(7) —

I answer that, Even those who are deformed should be anointed, and that as near as possible to the part which ought to have been anointed. For though they have not the members, nevertheless, they have, at least radically, the powers of the soul, corresponding to those members, and they may commit inwardly the sins that pertain to those members, though they cannot outwardly.

This suffices for the Replies to the Objections.

QUESTION OF THE REPETITION OF THIS SACRAMENT (TWO ARTICLES)

We must now consider the repetition of this sacrament: under which head there are two points of inquiry: (1) Whether this sacrament ought to be repeated? (2) Whether it ought to be repeated during the same sickness?

P(4)- Q(33)- A(1) Whether this sacrament ought to be repeated?

P(4)- Q(33)- A(1)- O(1) —

It would seem that this sacrament ought not to be repeated. For the anointing of a man is of greater import than the anointing of a stone. But the anointing of an altar is not repeated, unless the altar be shattered. Neither, therefore, should Extreme Unction, whereby a man is anointed, be repeated.

P(4)- Q(33)- A(1)- O(2) —

Further, nothing comes after what is extreme.

But this unction is called extreme. Therefore it should not be repeated.

P(4)- Q(33)- A(1) —

On the contrary, This sacrament is a spiritual healing applied under the form of a bodily cure. But a bodily cure is repeated.

Therefore this sacrament also can be repeated.

P(4)- Q(33)- A(1) —

I answer that, No sacramental or sacrament, having an effect that lasts for ever, can be repeated, because this would imply that the sacrament had failed to produce that effect; and this would be derogatory to the sacrament. On the other hand a sacrament whose effect does not last for ever, can be repeated without disparaging that sacrament, in order that the lost effect may be recovered. And since health of body and soul, which is the effect of this sacrament, can be lost after it has been effected, it follows that this sacrament can, without disparagement thereto, be repeated.

P(4)- Q(33)- A(1)- RO(1) —

The stone is anointed in order that the altar may be consecrated, and the stone remains consecrated, as long as the altar remains, hence it cannot be anointed again. But a man is not consecrated by being anointed, since it does not imprint a character on him. Hence there is no comparison.

P(4)- Q(33)- A(1)- RO(2) —

What men think to be extreme is not always extreme in reality. It is thus that this sacrament is called Extreme Unction, because it ought not to be given save to those whose death men think to be nigh.

P(4)- Q(33)- A(2) Whether this sacrament ought to be repeated during the same sickness?