Article. 1 - Whether Extreme Unction avails for the remission of sins?

Objection 1: It would seem that Extreme does not avail for the remission of sins. For when a thing can be attained by one means, no other is needed. Now is required in the recipient of Extreme for the remission of his sins. Therefore sins are not remitted by Extreme .

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 does not remit the stain without , and this remits sin even without ; 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 .

Objection 3: Further, remission of sins takes place, not successively, but instantaneously. On the other hand, Extreme 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 of the New Law confers . Now effects the forgiveness of sins. Therefore since Extreme is a of the New Law, its effect is the remission of sins.

I answer that, Each was instituted for the purpose of one principal effect, though it may, in consequence, produce other effects besides. And since a causes what it signifies, the principal effect of a must be gathered from its signification. Now this 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 is to cure the sickness of sin. Therefore, just as Baptism is a spiritual , and Penance, a spiritual resurrection, so Extreme 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 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 or of glory; which defects consist in nothing else but a certain weakness and unfitness, the result in us of actual or . against which weakness man is strengthened by this . Since, however, this strength is given by , 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]; 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 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 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 can be obtained without actually receiving that (either without any at all, or indirectly by means of some other ), yet it never can be obtained without the purpose of receiving that . And so, since Penance was instituted chiefly against actual sin, whichever other may blot out sin indirectly, it does not exclude the necessity of Penance.

Reply to Objection 2: Extreme remits sin in some way as to those three things. For, although the stain of sin is not washed out without , yet this , by the which it bestows, makes the movement of the free will towards sin to be one of , 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: by the last anointing is infused which gives the its effect.