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.
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.
Summa Theologica
"
Therefore the above form is unsuitable.
I answer that, The prayer given above [4895](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. "
Reply to Objection 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.
Reply to Objection 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.
Reply to Objection 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 ([4896]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.
__________________________________________________________________
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?
__________________________________________________________________
Whether Extreme Unction avails for the remission of sins?
Objection 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.
Objection 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.
Objection 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.
On the contrary, It is written (James 5:15): "If he be in sins, they
shall be forgiven him. "
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.
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 (TP, Q[73], A[7]; [4897]TP, 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.
Reply to Objection 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.
Reply to Objection 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.
Reply to Objection 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.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether bodily health is an effect of this sacrament?
Objection 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.
Objection 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.
Objection 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.
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 (Mk. 6:13). Therefore unction
has its effect now in healing bodies.
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.
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.
Reply to Objection 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. [4898] Q[29], A[8]).
Reply to Objection 3: This prayer is the form of this sacrament as
stated above ([4899]Q[29], AA[8],9). Hence, so far as its form is
concerned, this sacrament derives from it its efficacy in healing the
body.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether this sacrament imprints a character?
Objection 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.
Objection 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.
Objection 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.
On the contrary, No sacrament that imprints a character is repeated.
But this sacrament is repeated as we shall state further on
([4900]Q[33]). Therefore it does not imprint a character.
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.
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.
Reply to Objection 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.
Reply to Objection 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.
Reply to Objection 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.
__________________________________________________________________
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?
__________________________________________________________________
Whether a layman can confer this sacrament?
Objection 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.
Objection 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.
On the contrary, Remission of sins is given in this sacrament. But
laymen have not the power to forgive sins. Therefore, etc.
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.
Reply to Objection 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.
Reply to Objection 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 Cor. 12:9) but not through
sacramental grace.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether deacons can confer this sacrament?
Objection 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.
Objection 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.
On the contrary, It is written (James 5:14): "Let him bring in the
priests of the Church. "
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.
Reply to Objection 1: This sacrament cleanses by enlightening through
the bestowal of grace: wherefore a deacon is not competent to confer
it.
Reply to Objection 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.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether none but a bishop can confer this sacrament?
Objection 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.
Objection 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.
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.
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.
Reply to Objection 1: Confirmation imprints a character, whereby man is
placed in a state of perfection, as stated above ([4901]TP, Q[63],
AA[1], 2,6). But this does not take place in this sacrament; hence
there is no comparison.
Reply to Objection 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.
__________________________________________________________________
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?
__________________________________________________________________
Whether this sacrament ought to be conferred on those who are in good
health?
Objection 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 ([4902]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.
Objection 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.
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.
I answer that, This sacrament is a spiritual healing, as stated above
([4903]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.
Reply to Objection 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.
Reply to Objection 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.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether this sacrament ought to be given in any kind of sickness?
Objection 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.
Objection 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.
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.
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.
Reply to Objection 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.
Reply to Objection 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.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether this sacrament ought to be given to madmen and imbeciles?
Objection 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.
Objection 2: Further, Baptism is a greater sacrament than this. Now
Baptism is conferred on mad people as stated above ([4904]TP, Q[68],
A[12]). Therefore this sacrament also should be given to them.
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.
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.
Reply to Objection 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.
Reply to Objection 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.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether this sacrament should be given to children?
Objection 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.
Objection 2: Further, this sacrament is given in order to remove the
remnants of sin, whether original or actual, as stated above
([4905]Q[30], A[1]). Now the remnants of original sin are in children.
Therefore this sacrament should be given to them.
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.
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.
Reply to Objection 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.
Reply to Objection 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.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the whole body should be anointed in this sacrament?
Objection 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.
Objection 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.
Objection 3: Further, in Baptism the whole body is dipped under the
water. Therefore in this sacrament the whole body should be anointed.
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.
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.
Reply to Objection 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.
Reply to Objection 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.
Reply to Objection 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.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the parts to be anointed are suitably assigned?
Objection 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" (Mat. 15:19,20).
Therefore the breast ought to be anointed.
Objection 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.
Objection 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.
Objection 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.
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.
Reply to Objection 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.
Reply to Objection 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.
Reply to Objection 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.
Reply to Objection 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.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether those who are deformed in those parts should be anointed?
Objection 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.
Objection 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.
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.
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.
__________________________________________________________________
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?
__________________________________________________________________
Whether this sacrament ought to be repeated?
Objection 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.
Objection 2: Further, nothing comes after what is extreme. But this
unction is called extreme. Therefore it should not be repeated.
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.
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.
Reply to Objection 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.
Reply to Objection 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.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether this sacrament ought to be repeated during the same sickness?
Objection 1: It would seem that this sacrament ought not to be repeated
during the same sickness. For one disease demands one remedy. Now this
sacrament is a spiritual remedy. Therefore it ought not to be repeated
for one sickness.
Objection 2: Further, if a sick man could be anointed more than once
during one disease, this might be done for a whole day: which is
absurd.
On the contrary, Sometimes a disease lasts long after the sacrament has
been received, so that the remnants of sin, against which chiefly this
sacrament is given, would be contracted. Therefore it ought to be given
again.
I answer that, This sacrament regards not only the sickness, but also
the state of the sick man, because it ought not to be given except to
those sick people who seem, in man's estimation, to be nigh to death.
Now some diseases do not last long; so that if this sacrament is given
at the time that the sick man is in a state of danger of death, he does
not leave that state except the disease be cured, and thus he needs not
to be anointed again. But if he has a relapse, it will be a second
sickness, and he can be anointed again. on the other hand some diseases
are of long duration, as hectic fever, dropsy and the like, and those
who lie sick of them should not be anointed until they seem to be in
danger of death. And if the sick man escape that danger while the
disease continues, and be brought again thereby to the same state of
danger, he can be anointed again, because it is, as it were, another
state of sickness, although strictly speaking, it is not another
sickness. This suffices for the Replies to the Objections.
__________________________________________________________________
HOLY ORDERS (QQ[34]-40)
OF THE SACRAMENT OF ORDER AS TO ITS ESSENCE AND ITS PARTS (FIVE
ARTICLES)
In the next place we must consider the sacrament of Order: (1) Order in
general; (2) the difference of Orders; (3) those who confer Orders; (4)
the impediments to receiving Orders; (5) things connected with Orders.
Concerning Order in general three points have to be considered: (1) Its
essence, quiddity, and parts; (2) Its effect; (3) The recipients of
Orders.
Under the first head there are five points of inquiry:
(1) Whether there should be Order in the Church?
(2) Whether it is fittingly defined?
(3) Whether it is a sacrament?
(4) Whether its form is expressed properly?
(5) Whether this sacrament has any matter?
__________________________________________________________________
Whether there should be Order in the Church?
Objection 1: It would seem that there should not be Order in the
Church. For Order requires subjection and preeminence. But subjection
seemingly is incompatible with the liberty whereunto we are called by
Christ. Therefore there should not be Order in the Church.
Objection 2: Further, he who has received an Order becomes another's
superior. But in the Church everyone should deem himself lower than
another (Phil. 2:3): "Let each esteem others better than themselves. "
Therefore Order should not be in the Church.
Objection 3: Further, we find order among the angels on account of
their differing in natural and gratuitous gifts. But all men are one in
nature, and it is not known who has the higher gifts of grace.
Therefore Order should not be in the Church.
On the contrary, "Those things that are of God, are in order [*Vulg:
'Those (powers) that are, are ordained of God. ']. " Now the Church is of
God, for He Himself built it with His blood. Therefore there ought to
be Order in the Church.
Further, the state of the Church is between the state of nature and the
state of glory. Now we find order in nature, in that some things are
above others, and likewise in glory, as in the angels. Therefore there
should be Order in the Church.
I answer that, God wished to produce His works in likeness to Himself,
as far as possible, in order that they might be perfect, and that He
might be known through them. Hence, that He might be portrayed in His
works, not only according to what He is in Himself, but also according
as He acts on others, He laid this natural law on all things, that last
things should be reduced and perfected by middle things, and middle
things by the first, as Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. v). Wherefore that
this beauty might not be lacking to the Church, He established Order in
her so that some should deliver the sacraments to others, being thus
made like to God in their own way, as co-operating with God; even as in
the natural body, some members act on others.
Reply to Objection 1: The subjection of slavery is incompatible with
liberty; for slavery consists in lording over others and employing them
for one's own profit. Such subjection is not required in Order, whereby
those who preside have to seek the salvation of their subjects and not
their own profit.
Reply to Objection 2: Each one should esteem himself lower in merit,
not in office; and orders are a kind of office.
Reply to Objection 3: Order among the angels does not arise from
difference of nature, unless accidentally, in so far as difference of
grace results in them from difference of nature. But in them it results
directly from their difference in grace; because their orders regard
their participation of divine things, and their communicating them in
the state of glory, which is according to the measure of grace, as
being the end and effect, so to speak, of grace. on the other hand, the
Orders of the Church militant regard the participation in the
sacraments and the communication thereof, which are the cause of grace
and, in a way, precede grace; and consequently our Orders do not
require sanctifying grace, but only the power to dispense the
sacraments; for which reason order does not correspond to the
difference of sanctifying grace, but to the difference of power.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether Order is properly defined?
Objection 1: It would seem that order is improperly defined by the
Master (Sent. iv, D, 53), where it is said "Order is a seal of the
Church, whereby spiritual power is conferred on the person ordained. "
For a part should not be described as the genus of the whole. Now the
character which is denoted by the seal in a subsequent definition is a
part of order, since it is placed in contradistinction with that which
is either reality only, or sacrament only, since it is both reality and
sacrament. Therefore seal should not be mentioned as the genus of
Order.
Objection 2: Further, just as a character is imprinted in the sacrament
of order, so is it in the sacrament of Baptism. Now character was not
mentioned in the definition of Baptism. Therefore neither should it be
mentioned in the definition of Order.
Objection 3: Further, in Baptism there is also given a certain
spiritual power to approach the sacraments; and again it is a seal,
since it is a sacrament. Therefore this definition is applicable to
Baptism; and consequently it is improperly applied to Order.
Objection 4: Further, Order is a kind of relation, and relation is
realized in both its terms. Now the terms of the relation of order are
the superior and the inferior. Therefore inferiors have order as well
as superiors. Yet there is no power of preeminence in them, such as is
mentioned here in the definition of Order, as appears from the
subsequent explanation (Sent.
Therefore the above form is unsuitable.
I answer that, The prayer given above [4895](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. "
Reply to Objection 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.
Reply to Objection 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.
Reply to Objection 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 ([4896]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.
__________________________________________________________________
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?
__________________________________________________________________
Whether Extreme Unction avails for the remission of sins?
Objection 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.
Objection 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.
Objection 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.
On the contrary, It is written (James 5:15): "If he be in sins, they
shall be forgiven him. "
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.
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 (TP, Q[73], A[7]; [4897]TP, 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.
Reply to Objection 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.
Reply to Objection 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.
Reply to Objection 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.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether bodily health is an effect of this sacrament?
Objection 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.
Objection 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.
Objection 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.
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 (Mk. 6:13). Therefore unction
has its effect now in healing bodies.
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.
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.
Reply to Objection 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. [4898] Q[29], A[8]).
Reply to Objection 3: This prayer is the form of this sacrament as
stated above ([4899]Q[29], AA[8],9). Hence, so far as its form is
concerned, this sacrament derives from it its efficacy in healing the
body.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether this sacrament imprints a character?
Objection 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.
Objection 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.
Objection 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.
On the contrary, No sacrament that imprints a character is repeated.
But this sacrament is repeated as we shall state further on
([4900]Q[33]). Therefore it does not imprint a character.
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.
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.
Reply to Objection 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.
Reply to Objection 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.
Reply to Objection 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.
__________________________________________________________________
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?
__________________________________________________________________
Whether a layman can confer this sacrament?
Objection 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.
Objection 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.
On the contrary, Remission of sins is given in this sacrament. But
laymen have not the power to forgive sins. Therefore, etc.
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.
Reply to Objection 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.
Reply to Objection 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 Cor. 12:9) but not through
sacramental grace.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether deacons can confer this sacrament?
Objection 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.
Objection 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.
On the contrary, It is written (James 5:14): "Let him bring in the
priests of the Church. "
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.
Reply to Objection 1: This sacrament cleanses by enlightening through
the bestowal of grace: wherefore a deacon is not competent to confer
it.
Reply to Objection 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.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether none but a bishop can confer this sacrament?
Objection 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.
Objection 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.
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.
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.
Reply to Objection 1: Confirmation imprints a character, whereby man is
placed in a state of perfection, as stated above ([4901]TP, Q[63],
AA[1], 2,6). But this does not take place in this sacrament; hence
there is no comparison.
Reply to Objection 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.
__________________________________________________________________
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?
__________________________________________________________________
Whether this sacrament ought to be conferred on those who are in good
health?
Objection 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 ([4902]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.
Objection 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.
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.
I answer that, This sacrament is a spiritual healing, as stated above
([4903]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.
Reply to Objection 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.
Reply to Objection 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.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether this sacrament ought to be given in any kind of sickness?
Objection 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.
Objection 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.
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.
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.
Reply to Objection 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.
Reply to Objection 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.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether this sacrament ought to be given to madmen and imbeciles?
Objection 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.
Objection 2: Further, Baptism is a greater sacrament than this. Now
Baptism is conferred on mad people as stated above ([4904]TP, Q[68],
A[12]). Therefore this sacrament also should be given to them.
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.
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.
Reply to Objection 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.
Reply to Objection 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.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether this sacrament should be given to children?
Objection 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.
Objection 2: Further, this sacrament is given in order to remove the
remnants of sin, whether original or actual, as stated above
([4905]Q[30], A[1]). Now the remnants of original sin are in children.
Therefore this sacrament should be given to them.
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.
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.
Reply to Objection 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.
Reply to Objection 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.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the whole body should be anointed in this sacrament?
Objection 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.
Objection 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.
Objection 3: Further, in Baptism the whole body is dipped under the
water. Therefore in this sacrament the whole body should be anointed.
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.
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.
Reply to Objection 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.
Reply to Objection 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.
Reply to Objection 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.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the parts to be anointed are suitably assigned?
Objection 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" (Mat. 15:19,20).
Therefore the breast ought to be anointed.
Objection 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.
Objection 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.
Objection 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.
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.
Reply to Objection 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.
Reply to Objection 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.
Reply to Objection 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.
Reply to Objection 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.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether those who are deformed in those parts should be anointed?
Objection 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.
Objection 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.
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.
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.
__________________________________________________________________
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?
__________________________________________________________________
Whether this sacrament ought to be repeated?
Objection 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.
Objection 2: Further, nothing comes after what is extreme. But this
unction is called extreme. Therefore it should not be repeated.
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.
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.
Reply to Objection 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.
Reply to Objection 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.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether this sacrament ought to be repeated during the same sickness?
Objection 1: It would seem that this sacrament ought not to be repeated
during the same sickness. For one disease demands one remedy. Now this
sacrament is a spiritual remedy. Therefore it ought not to be repeated
for one sickness.
Objection 2: Further, if a sick man could be anointed more than once
during one disease, this might be done for a whole day: which is
absurd.
On the contrary, Sometimes a disease lasts long after the sacrament has
been received, so that the remnants of sin, against which chiefly this
sacrament is given, would be contracted. Therefore it ought to be given
again.
I answer that, This sacrament regards not only the sickness, but also
the state of the sick man, because it ought not to be given except to
those sick people who seem, in man's estimation, to be nigh to death.
Now some diseases do not last long; so that if this sacrament is given
at the time that the sick man is in a state of danger of death, he does
not leave that state except the disease be cured, and thus he needs not
to be anointed again. But if he has a relapse, it will be a second
sickness, and he can be anointed again. on the other hand some diseases
are of long duration, as hectic fever, dropsy and the like, and those
who lie sick of them should not be anointed until they seem to be in
danger of death. And if the sick man escape that danger while the
disease continues, and be brought again thereby to the same state of
danger, he can be anointed again, because it is, as it were, another
state of sickness, although strictly speaking, it is not another
sickness. This suffices for the Replies to the Objections.
__________________________________________________________________
HOLY ORDERS (QQ[34]-40)
OF THE SACRAMENT OF ORDER AS TO ITS ESSENCE AND ITS PARTS (FIVE
ARTICLES)
In the next place we must consider the sacrament of Order: (1) Order in
general; (2) the difference of Orders; (3) those who confer Orders; (4)
the impediments to receiving Orders; (5) things connected with Orders.
Concerning Order in general three points have to be considered: (1) Its
essence, quiddity, and parts; (2) Its effect; (3) The recipients of
Orders.
Under the first head there are five points of inquiry:
(1) Whether there should be Order in the Church?
(2) Whether it is fittingly defined?
(3) Whether it is a sacrament?
(4) Whether its form is expressed properly?
(5) Whether this sacrament has any matter?
__________________________________________________________________
Whether there should be Order in the Church?
Objection 1: It would seem that there should not be Order in the
Church. For Order requires subjection and preeminence. But subjection
seemingly is incompatible with the liberty whereunto we are called by
Christ. Therefore there should not be Order in the Church.
Objection 2: Further, he who has received an Order becomes another's
superior. But in the Church everyone should deem himself lower than
another (Phil. 2:3): "Let each esteem others better than themselves. "
Therefore Order should not be in the Church.
Objection 3: Further, we find order among the angels on account of
their differing in natural and gratuitous gifts. But all men are one in
nature, and it is not known who has the higher gifts of grace.
Therefore Order should not be in the Church.
On the contrary, "Those things that are of God, are in order [*Vulg:
'Those (powers) that are, are ordained of God. ']. " Now the Church is of
God, for He Himself built it with His blood. Therefore there ought to
be Order in the Church.
Further, the state of the Church is between the state of nature and the
state of glory. Now we find order in nature, in that some things are
above others, and likewise in glory, as in the angels. Therefore there
should be Order in the Church.
I answer that, God wished to produce His works in likeness to Himself,
as far as possible, in order that they might be perfect, and that He
might be known through them. Hence, that He might be portrayed in His
works, not only according to what He is in Himself, but also according
as He acts on others, He laid this natural law on all things, that last
things should be reduced and perfected by middle things, and middle
things by the first, as Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. v). Wherefore that
this beauty might not be lacking to the Church, He established Order in
her so that some should deliver the sacraments to others, being thus
made like to God in their own way, as co-operating with God; even as in
the natural body, some members act on others.
Reply to Objection 1: The subjection of slavery is incompatible with
liberty; for slavery consists in lording over others and employing them
for one's own profit. Such subjection is not required in Order, whereby
those who preside have to seek the salvation of their subjects and not
their own profit.
Reply to Objection 2: Each one should esteem himself lower in merit,
not in office; and orders are a kind of office.
Reply to Objection 3: Order among the angels does not arise from
difference of nature, unless accidentally, in so far as difference of
grace results in them from difference of nature. But in them it results
directly from their difference in grace; because their orders regard
their participation of divine things, and their communicating them in
the state of glory, which is according to the measure of grace, as
being the end and effect, so to speak, of grace. on the other hand, the
Orders of the Church militant regard the participation in the
sacraments and the communication thereof, which are the cause of grace
and, in a way, precede grace; and consequently our Orders do not
require sanctifying grace, but only the power to dispense the
sacraments; for which reason order does not correspond to the
difference of sanctifying grace, but to the difference of power.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether Order is properly defined?
Objection 1: It would seem that order is improperly defined by the
Master (Sent. iv, D, 53), where it is said "Order is a seal of the
Church, whereby spiritual power is conferred on the person ordained. "
For a part should not be described as the genus of the whole. Now the
character which is denoted by the seal in a subsequent definition is a
part of order, since it is placed in contradistinction with that which
is either reality only, or sacrament only, since it is both reality and
sacrament. Therefore seal should not be mentioned as the genus of
Order.
Objection 2: Further, just as a character is imprinted in the sacrament
of order, so is it in the sacrament of Baptism. Now character was not
mentioned in the definition of Baptism. Therefore neither should it be
mentioned in the definition of Order.
Objection 3: Further, in Baptism there is also given a certain
spiritual power to approach the sacraments; and again it is a seal,
since it is a sacrament. Therefore this definition is applicable to
Baptism; and consequently it is improperly applied to Order.
Objection 4: Further, Order is a kind of relation, and relation is
realized in both its terms. Now the terms of the relation of order are
the superior and the inferior. Therefore inferiors have order as well
as superiors. Yet there is no power of preeminence in them, such as is
mentioned here in the definition of Order, as appears from the
subsequent explanation (Sent.
