EXTREME
726
EXTREME
centuries by a single priest ; this has been indeed at all
times the almost universal practice in the West (for
exceptions of. Martene, op. cit., I, vii, 3; Kern, op.
cit., p. 259). In the East, however, it has been more
generally the custom for several priests to take part in
the administration of the sacrament. Although the
number seven, chosen for mystical reasons, was the
ordinary number in many parts of the East from an
earlier period, it does not seem to have been prescribed
by law for the Orthodox Church before the thirteenth
century (cf. Kern, op. cit., p. 200). But even those
Oriental theologians who with Sj-meon of Thessalonica
(fifteenth century) seem to denj- the validity of unc-
tion by a single priest, do not insist on more than tlu-ee
as necessary, wliile most Easterns admit that one is
enough in case of necessity (cf. Kern, op. cit., p. 261).
The Cathohc position is that either one or several
priests may vahdly administer extreme unction; but
■when several officiate it is forbidden bv Benedict XI\'
for the Italo-Greeks (Const. "Etsi Pastorahs", 1742)
for one priest merely to anoint and another merely to
pronounce the form, and most theologians deny the
vahdity of the unction conferred in this way. The
actual practice, however, of the schismatical churches
is for each priest in turn to repeat the whole rite, both
matter and form, with variations only in the non-
es.sential prayers. Tliis gives rise to an interesting
question which will best be discussed in connexion
with the repetition of the sacrament (below, IX).
VI. Subject. — (1) E.xtreme Unction may be val- idly administered only to Christians w ho have had the use of reason and who are in danger of death from sick- ness. That the subject must be baptized is obvious, since all the sacraments, besides baptism itself, are subject to this condition. This is implied in the text of St. James: "Is any man sick among you?" i. e. any member of the Christian community; and tradition is so clear on the sul^ject that it is unnecessary to delay in giving proof. It is not so easy to explain on internal grounds why extreme unction must be denied to bap- tized infants who are sick or dying, while confirmation, for instance, may be validly administered to them; but such is undoubtedly the traditional teaching and practice. Except to those who were capable of pen- ance extreme unction has never been given. If we assume, however, that the principal elTcct of extreme unction is to give, with sanctifying grace or its in- crease, the riglit to certain actual graces for strength- ening and comforting and alleviating the sick person in the needs and temptations which specially beset him in a state of dangerous illness, and that the other effects are dependent on the principal, it will be seen that for those who have not attained, and will not attain, the use of reason till the sickness has ended in death or re- covery, the right in question would be meaningless, ■whereas the similar right bestowetl with the character in confirmation may, and normally does, realize its object in later life. It is to be observed in regard to children, that no age can be specified at which they cease to be incapable of receiving extreme unction. If they have attained sulhcient use of reason to be capable of sinning even venially, they may certainly be admitted to this sacrament , even though consitiered too young according to modern practice to receive their First Communion; and in cases of doubt the unction should be administered conditionally. Those who have always been insane or idiotic are to be treated in the same way as children; but anyone who has ever had the use of reason, though temporarily delirious by reason of the di.sease or even incurably insane, is to be given the benefit of the sacrament in case of serious illness.
(2) Grave or serious bodily illness is required for the valid reception of extreme unction. Tliis is implied in the text of St. James and in Catholic tradition (see above. III), and is formally stated in the decree of Eugene IV for the Armenians: " This sacrament is not
to be given except to the sick person, of whose death
fears are entertained" (Denzinger, no. 700 — old no.
595), and in the teacliing of the Council of Trent that
"this unction is to be administered to the sick, but
especialhj to those who seem to be at the point of
death [in exitu rila]" (Sess. XIV, cap. iii, De Extr.
Unct.). It is clear from these ■n-ords of Trent that
extreme unction is not for the dying alone, but for all
the faithful who are seriously ill with any such sickness
as involves danger of death {discrimen vltce, ibid.), i. e.
as may probably terminate fatally. How grave must
be the illness or how proximate the danger of death is
not determined by the council, but is left to be decided
by the speculations of theologians and the practical
judgment of priests directly charged with the duty of
administering the sacrament. And there have been,
and perhaps still are, differences of opinion and of
practice in this matter.
(3) Down to the twelfth century in the Western Church the practice was to give the unction freely to all (except public penitents) who were suffering from any serious illness, without waiting to decide whether danger of death was imminent. This is clear from many testimonies quoted above (III). But during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries a change of prac- tice took place, and the sacrament came to be regarded by many as intemled only for the dying. The causes contributing to this change were: (a) the extortionate demands of the clergy on the occasion of administering the unction which prevented the poor or even those of moderate means from asking for it except as a last resource; (b) the influence of certain popular super- stitions, as, for instance, that the person anointed could not, in case of recovery, use the rights of mar- riage, eat flesh meat, make a will, walk with bare feet, etc.; and (c) the teaching of the Scotist School and of other theologians that, as the principal effect of the sacrament was the final remission of venial sins, it should not be given except to those who could not recover, and were no longer able or at least likely to fall again into venial sin (St. Bonaventure, " Brevilo- quium", P. VI, c. xi; Scotus, "Report. Parisien.", dist. xxiii, Q. unica). It was doubtless under the in- fluence of tliis teaching that one or two provincial sjmods of the sixteenth century described the subject of extreme unction as " the dangerously sick and almost dying" (H.ardouin, X, 1S4S, 1535); and the neglect of the sacrament induced by these several causes resulted, during the disturbances of the six- teenth century, in itstotal abandonment in many parts of Germany and especially of Bavaria (Knopfler, " Die Kelchbewegung in Bayern unter Ilerzog .\lbrecht V.", pp. 61 sq.; and on this^ndiole matter see Kern, op. cit., pp. 2S2 sq.). In view of these facts, the oft-repeated accusation of the Eastern schismatics, that the Latins gave the sacrament only to the dying and withheld it from the seriously ill who were capable of receiving it, is not without foundation (Kern, op. cit., p. 274); but they were ■nTong in assuming that the Western Church as a whole or the Holy See is responsible for abuses of this kind. Church authority earnestly tried to correct the avarice of the clergy and the superstitions of the people, while the Scotist teaching, regarding the chief effect of the unction, was never generally admitted in the schools, and its post-Trident ine adherents have felt compelled to modify the practical conclusion which St. Bonaventure and Scotus had logically drawn from it. There still linger in the popular mind traces of the erroneous opinion that extreme unction is to be postponed till a sickness otherwise serious has taken a critical turn for the worse, and the danger of death become imminent; and priests do not always combat this idea as strongh- as they ought to, with the result that possibly in many cases the Divinely ordained effect of corporal healing is rendere<l impossi<ile ex- cept by a miracle. The best ami most recent theo- logical teaching is in favour of a lenient, rather than of
