Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 5.djvu/808

 EXTREME

728

EXTREME

The relics or effects of sin mentioned by the Council of Trent are variously understood by theologians to mean one, or more, or all of the following: spiritual debility and depression caused by the consciousness of having sinned; the influence of evil habits induced by sin; temporal penalties remaining after the guUt of sin has been forgiven; and venial, or even mortal, sins themselves. Of these only the remission of temporal punishment is distinct from the other effects of which the council speaks; and though some theologians have been loath to admit this effect at all, lest they might seem to do away with the raison d'etre of purgatory and of prayers and indulgences for the dying and dead, there is reaUy no solid ground for objecting to it, if pass- ing controversial interests are subordinated to Catho- lic theory. It is not suggested that extreme unction, like baptism, sacramentally remits all temporal pun- ishment due to sin, and the extent to which it actually does so in any particular case may, as with baptism, fall short of what was Divinely intended, owing to obstacles or defective dispositions in the recipient. Hence there is still room and need for Indulgences for the dying, and if the Church offers her prayers and applies Indulgences for adults who die immediately after baptism, she ought, a fortiori, to offer them for those who have died after extreme unction. And if temporal punishment be, as it certainly is, one of the rcliquiw of sin, and if extreme unction be truly what the Council of Trent describes (Sess. XIV, De Extr. Unct., introduct.) as "the consummation not merely of [the Sacrament of] Penance, but of the whole Christian life, which ought to be a perpetual penance ", it is impossible to deny that the remission of temporal punishment is one of the effects of this sacrament.

(2) The second eft'ect of extreme unction mentioned by the Council of Trent is the alleviation and strength- ening of the soul by inspiring the sick person with such confidence in the Divine mercy as will enable him pa- tiently and even cheerfully to bear the pains and worries of sickness, and with resolute courage to repel the assaults of the tempter in what is likely to be the last and decisive conflict in the warfare of eternal sal- vation. The outlook on eternity is brought vividly before the Christian by the probability of death in- separable from serious sickness, and this sacrament has been instituted for the purpose of conferring the graces specially needed to fortify him in facing this tremendous issue. It is unnecessary to explain in de- tail the appropriateness of such an institution, which, were other reasons wanting, would justify itself to the Christian mind by the observed results of its use.

(3) Finally, as a conditional and occasional effect of extreme unction, comes the restoration of bodily health, an effect which is vouched for by the witness of experience in past ages and in our own day. Theolo- gians, however, have failed to agree in stating the con- dition on which this effect depends or in explaining the manner in which it is produced. " When it is expedient for the soul's salvation", is how Trent ex- presses the condition, and not a few theologians have understood this to mean that health will not be re- stored by the sacrament unless it is foreseen by God that a longer life will lead to a greater degree of glory ■ — recovery being thus a sign or proof of predestina- tion. But other theologians rightly reject this opin- ion, and of several explanations that are offered (cf. Kern, op. cit., pp. 195 sq.) the simplest and most rea- sonable is that which understands the condition men- tioned not of the future and perhaps remote event of actual salvation, l)ut of present spiritual advantage which, independently of the ultimate result, recovery may l)ring to the sick person; and holds, subject to this condition, that this physical effect, which is in itself natural, is obtained mediately through and dependent ly upon the spiritual effects already men- tioned. The fortifying of the soul by manifold graces, by which over-anxious fears are banished, and a gen-

eral feeling of comfort and courage, and of humble confidence in God's mercy and peaceful resignation to His Will inspired, reacts as a natural consequence on the physical condition of the patient, and this reaction is sometimes the factor that decides the issue of certain diseases. This mediate and dependent way of effect- ing restoration of health is the way indicated by the Council of Trent in the passage quoted above, and the view proposed is in conformity with the best and most ancient theoretical teaching on the subject and avoids the seemingly unanswerable difficulties involved in opposing views. Nor does it reduce this effect of extreme unction to the level of those perfectly natu- ral phenomena known to modern science as "faith cures". For it is not maintained, in the first place, that recovery will follow in any particular case unless this result is spiritually profitable to the patient — and of this God alone is the judge — and it is admitted, in the second place, that the spiritual effect, from which the physical connaturally results, is itself strictly supernatural (cf. Kern, loc. cit.).

(4) There remains the question, on which no little controversy has been expended, as to which of these several effects is the principal one. Bearing in mind the general theory that sacramental grace as such is sanctifying grace as imparted or increased by the sacra- ment, with the right or title to special actual graces corresponding to the special end of each sacrament, the meaning of the question is: Which of these effects is the sacramental grace imparted in extreme unction primarily and immediately intended to produce, so that the others are produced for the sake of, or by means of, it? Or, more ultimately, what, according to Christ's intention in instituting it, is the primary and distinctive purpose of this sacrament, its particular raison d'etre as a sacrament? Now, clearly this cannot be either the remission of mortal sin or the restoration of physical health, since, as we have seen, extreme unction is primarily a sacrament of the living; and res- toration of bodily health is not a normal effect, but only brought about, when at all, indirectly. There remain the remission of venial sins and of the temporal punish- ment due for sins already forgiven, anti the invigora- tion of the soul in face of the probalnlity of death. Reference has alreatly been made to the Scotist view (VI) which singles out the final and complete remis- sion of venial sin as the chief end or effect of extreme unction, and which logically leads to the practical con- clusion, adopted by St. Bona venture and Duns Scotus, that only the dying should receive the sacra- ment; and the same conclusion, which must in any case be rejected, would also follow from holding in a similarly exclusive sense that the principal effect is the remission of temporal punishment. Thus we are left in possession of the theory, held by many of the best theologians, that the supernatural invigoration of the soul in view of impending death is the chief end and effect of extreme unction This effect, of course, is actually realized only when the subject is sui coryipos and capable of co-operating with grace; but the same is true of the principal effect of several other sacra- ments. It is no argument, therefore, against this view to point to the fact that sins are sometimes re- mitted by extreme unction while the recipient is un- conscious and incapable of using the invigorating graces referred to. The infusion or increase of sancti- fying grace is an effect common to all the sacraments; yet it is not by this of itself that they are distinguished from one another, but by reference to the special ac- tual graces to which sanctifying grace as infused cr in- creased gives a title; and if the realization of this title is sometimes suspended or frustrated, this is merely by way of an accidental exception to which, in general, sacramental efficacy is liable. It does not seem, how- ever, that this theory should be urged in an exclusive sense, as implying, that is, that the remission of venial sin or of temporal punishment is not also a primary