|
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, Question 73, Article 7; TP, Question
79, Article 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.
|
|