Extreme Unction: Necessity, Minister, and Recipient

Chapter II: Necessity

Chapter III: The Minister

Chapter IV: The Recipient

CHAPTER II NECESSITY OF EXTREME UNCTION A Sacrament is necessary for salvation either as a means (necessitate medii) or by way of precept (necessitate praecepti). 1. Extreme Unction is Not Necessary as a Means of Salvation. — This is evident from the fact that the Sacraments of the living presuppose the state of sanctifying grace, and the graces bestowed by Extreme Unction can, in case of necessity, be supplied by extraordinary helps. It follows that one who is dangerously sick is not obliged to have a desire for Extreme Unction (votwn sacramenti) if he cannot actually receive it. However, if his conscience is burdened with mortal sin, for which he has only imperfect contrition, and he finds himself unable to go to confession, Extreme Unction may be for him the only, and therefore a necessary, means of salvation.1 2. Whether Extreme Unction is Necessary by Way of Precept. — Theologians are not agreed as to whether or not a person who is l V. supra, Ch. I, Sect 3, No. a. 35 seriously ill is per se under a grave obligation of seeking this Sacrament. a) St. Thomas, Suarez, Gotti, Billuart, and the majority of modern authors hold that no such obligation exists. Billuart 2 points out that the phrases “inducat presbyter os” and “ungi debent” in the Epistle of St. James have been interpreted by various synods as embodying merely a counsel, not a command. The Council of Trent speaks of Extreme Unction as a “sacramentum fidelibus commendatum” which it would be a crime to contemn. Now mere neglect or refusal to receive a Sacrament is not contempt. Billuart adds that if Extreme Unction were absolutely necessary for salvation, the Church could not suspend the administration of this Sacrament, as she sometimes does during an interdict, because a divine law is always binding. b) Peter Lombard, St. Bona venture, Peter Soto, and Tournely, on the other hand, interpret the “inducat presbyter os” of the Jacobean Epistle as a divine command and the “ungi debent” as an ecclesiastical precept. Billuart’s appeal to the Tridentine Council is not convincing, for that Council interprets the words of St. James as follows: “This unction must be applied to the sick,” 8 and rejects the assertion that Extreme Unction f De Bxtr. Unct., art 7. firmis adhibendam.” (Seas. XIV, 9 ”… esse hanc unction em in- cap. 3; Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 910). NECESSITY 37 ” is a human figment or a rite received from the Fathers, which neither has a command from God, nor a promise of grace.” 4 Moreover, thoughtless neglect or obstinate refusal to receive the Sacrament undoubtedly verges on that ” contempt ” of which the Council says that it involves ” a heinous crime and an injury to the Holy Ghost Himself.” 5 Be this as it may, no one who values his salvation will neglect or refuse to receive this comforting and soulstrengthening Sacrament. Those who have charge of the sick (physicians, nurses, relatives, etc.) are bound in charity to enable them to receive Extreme Unction when there is danger of death. Christ would not have instituted a special Sacrament for the dying if it were merely useful. Extreme Unction is necessary. Only on this assumption is there any force in the well-known argument that congruity demands a Sacrament of the nature of Extreme Unction in the septenary number of the Sacraments. Justly, therefore, does Dr. Schell observe: ” The necessity and obligation of Extreme Unction is of divine right and follows from the simple fact that this Sacrament was instituted by Christ. … In sickness and danger of death the duty of properly providing for body and soul is self-evident; there is no need of an express law.”* 4 * Hanc unctionem vet figmentum potest * (/. c). Cfr. Sess. XIV, esse humanutn vel ritutn a Patribus can. 3; Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 928. acceptum nee mandatum Dei nee Kath. Dogmatik, III, 3, 636 sq. promissionem gratiae habentem” Kern contends that those who are (/. c). sick unto death are obliged sub 8 ” Nee veto tanti sacramenti eon- gravi to receive Extreme Unction. temptus absque ingenti scelere et (De Sacram. Exit, Unct., pp. 364 ipsius Spirit us Sonet i iniuria esse sqq.) CHAPTER III THE MINISTER The Sacrament of Extreme Unction can be validly administered only by “presbyters,” i. e. bishops and priests. This is an article of faith, for the Tridentine Council says: “The proper ministers of this Sacrament are the presbyters of the Church ; by which name are to be understood in that place [James V, 15] not the elders by age, or the foremost in dignity among the people, but either bishops, or priests rightly ordained by bishops… 1 And again : “If anyone saith that the presbyters of the Church, whom Blessed James exhorts to be brought to anoint the sick, are not the priests who have been ordained by a bishop, but the elders in each community, and that for this reason the priest alone is not the proper minister of Extreme Unction, let him be anathema.2 1 Sen. XIV, De Extr. Unci:, cap. gendum hortaturi now esse sacer 3: … out e pise o pi out sac er dotes dotes ab episcopo ordinate j, sed ab ipsis rite ordinati at tat e seniores in quavis eommuni2 Seas. XIV, De Extr. Unct., can. tate, qb idque proprium extremae 4: Si quis dixerit, presbyter os unctionis ministrum non esse solum EccUsiae, quos beatus laeobus ad- sacerdotem, anathema sit,09 (Densducendos sue ad mHrmum inun- inger-Bannwart, n. 929) 38 THE MINISTER 39 It is not difficult to prove this dogma from Sacred Scripture and Tradition. 1. Proof from Sacred Scripture. — St. James says by implication that the presbyteri Ecclesiae (vpcfffrSripfH rip acjcAiyaiw) alone can administer the Sacrament of Extreme Unction. If the sacred unction were nothing but a natural or charismatic cure of the body, there is no reason why it should be administered by priests. The natural ministers in that case would be physicians, or deacons, or lay persons endowed with the gratia curationum. The Protestant contention that St. James meant the elders of each community was rejected by the Tridentme Council, which defines that irptvfivTepot rye IfcjcAiprfa? means members of the sacerdotal college, men ordained by the bishop and empowered to administer the Sacrament of Penance, of which Extreme Unction is the complement 2. Proof from Tradition. — The Sacrament of Extreme Unction has never been administered in the Church by any other persons than validly ordained priests. Oxigen and St. Chrysostom regarded its administration as a sacerdotal privilege. Pope Innocent I (402-417) says in his famous letter to Bishop Decentius of Eugubium, already quoted by us on a previous page: “We notice the superfluous addition of a doubt whether a bishop may do what is said to priests, for the reason that bishops, hindered by other occupations, cannot go to all the sick. But if the bishop is able to do so, or thinks anyone specially worthy of being visited, he, whose office it is to consecrate the chrism, need not hesitate to bless and anoint the sick person.” 8 Church history furnishes no instance of the administration of Extreme Unction by deacons or laymen. But what does Pope Innocent mean when in the same letter he says : ” The holy oil of chrism … it is permitted not only to priests but to all Christians to use for anointing in their own need or that of their families ” ? 4 This passage led the famous Carmelite Thomas Netter, of Walden (+ 1430), Launoy,5 and latterly Boudinhon,6 to assume that at the time of Pope Innocent the First lay persons of either sex were permitted to administer Extreme Unction to themselves and their families in case of necessity. But to interpret the Pope’s letter thus is to make him contradict himself. By vindicating the right of administering this Sacrament to bishops as well as simple priests, the Pontiff manifestly meant to exclude deacons, and, a fortiori, laymen. What, then, is the meaning of his rather obscure dictum? The words of the Pontiff may be interpreted in three different ways. The first and simplest explanation is that the anointment administered by the laity was not a Sacrament but merely a sacramental. This explanation gains weight from the fact that at the time of Pope Innocent I, consecrated elements, like baptismal water and chrism, were often emEp., 25, c 8 (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 99). (Latin text quoted supra, p. 13, note 22). 4 . . non solum sacerdotibus, sed omnibus uti Christianis licet in sua out suorum necessitate inungendo {al. ungendum.” 5 Opera Omnia, Vol. I, pp. 569 ■qq. 6 Revue Catholique des Eglises, 1905, p. 400. ployed for extra-sacramental purposes, e. g. the restoration of health.7 Another interpretation (Bellarmine and Estius) is that the Pontiff employs the gerund ” inungendo ” passively, thereby indicating that * all Christians may use the holy chrism to have themselves and their families anointed in their need.* A third explanation is suggested by Dr. Schell : ” The Pope’s decision is probably to be understood as applying to a sort of unction by desire in case of necessity (an analogue of lay confession), showing the patient’s good will to do what is in his power.”8 Launoy’s* distinction between the ordinary and the extraordinary minister of the Sacrament has no basis in Tradition. Clericatus 10 asserts that in case of urgent necessity a priest may administer Extreme Unction to himself. This view is untenable because priests are not exempt from the general rule that no one can administer a Sacrament to himself. 3. Incidental Theological Problems. — Extreme Unction may be validly administered by one priest or by several priests. a) One priest is sufficient for the validity of the Sacrament. This clearly appears from the constant teaching and practice of the Latin Church. The Decretum Gratiani expressly declares that one priest may anoint a sick person.11 It is true that St. James speaks of presbyteri in the plural. But this does not mean that it requires several ? Cfr. Perrone, Dt Extr. Unct, n. 10 Deris, de Extr. Unct., n. 75. 41* 11 Deer. Grat., 1. V, tit. 40, c. 14: 8 Kath. Dogmotik, III, 2, 623. * Sacerdos una praesente clerico et • Optra Omnia, Vol. I, pp. 569 stiam solus potest inHrmum nngtrs.* 42 EXTREME UNCTION priests to administer the Sacrament. It is simply a popular and familiar way of saying: “Let the sick call for priestly ministrations,” just as one might say: Let him call in the doctors, meaning, ” Let him procure medical aid.” In other words, the plural stands by a figure of speech (enallage) for the singular, as in Luke XVII, 14: “Go, show yourselves to the priests.” Doubtless St. James did not wish to exclude the participation of a number of priests where they were available. This may have been the case in Jerusalem, Antioch, or Corinth ; but there were many places where only one bishop or presbyter could be summoned. Surely in such places the faithful were not to be deprived of this important and necessary Sacrament In the “Orthodox” {schismatic) Church of the East it has been customary for seven priests to take part in the administration of the Sacrament. Owing partly to the difficulty of obtaining the simultaneous presence of so many priests, and partly perhaps to a misunderstanding of the rite, the Nestorians abolished Extreme Unction altogether and substituted in its place a new rite (cornu gratiae sancti), which is performed by a single priest with oil mixed with dust from the grave of St. Thomas the Apostle. b) The Oriental custom of the administration of Extreme Unction by seven (or sometimes three) priests,12 to which we have just referred, seems at one time to have been known also in the West.1* Some schismatic theologians 14 hold that one priest cannot administer the Sacrament validly.15 We on our part have rather to consider the question whether and under what conditions 12 V. Go&r, Euchol, p. 438. 15 Cf r. C. RhalHs, Ilepi tup i» Cfr. Martene, De Anfiq. Ec- fivffrrjplwy riji yueravolat kcl\ row eltsiae Ritibus, I, 7, 3. e$xe\alov, p. 1x4, Athens 1905. UB, g., Simeon of Tbetttionica, Extreme Unction can be validly administered by a number of priests conjointly. There are three possibilities to be considered. (1) If one of the priests performs the unctions while another pronounces the prayer, the rite is invalid, because matter and form of a Sacrament constitute an indivisible whole.1* (2) If the Sacrament is administered by several priests, each in turn performing the complete rite, both matter and form, in regard to one or more of the several senses, the ceremony is probably valid, because in that case the partial acts coalesce into one whole, as when one priest consecrates the bread and another the wine during the same Mass.17 (3) If the whole rite is performed by several priests either simultaneously or successively, provided the unctions are properly performed and the prayers simultaneously recited by all, all cooperate in administering the Sacrament, just as at ordination all the priests ordained celebrate the same Mass with the bishop. If the whole series of unctions is performed by several priests successively, it is likely that the first alone administers the Sacrament, while the others merely confer a sacramental.18 ltCfr. Suarez, Comment in S. is On the minister of the SacraTh., Ill, disp. 43, sect. 2, n. 3. ment of Extreme Unction the stui7Cfr. the Supplement to the dent may profitably consult Chr. Summa Theologica of St Thomas, Pesch, Praelect. Dogmat., Vol. VII, qu. 39, art a, ad 3. 3rd ed., pp. 279 sqq.; Kern, De Sacram. Extr. Unci., pp. 263 sqq. CHAPTER IV THE RECIPIENT The conditions of a valid administration of Extreme Unction on the part of the recipient are three : ( i ) He must be baptized ; ( 2 ) he must be sick of a disease which is judged dangerous, and (3) he must be morally responsible. 1. The Recipient Must be Baptized. — Baptism is “the spiritual door” to all the Sacraments. -Hence no unbaptized person, no matter how pious or how well prepared, can validly receive Extreme Unction. This has been the invariable teaching and practice of the Catholic Church, based on St. James’ Epistle : “Is any man sick among you mv9 %% e. you who are baptized Christians).“1 2. The Recipient Must be Sick of a Disease Which is Judged Dangerous.— The Decretum pro Armems defines: “This Sacrament must not be given except to one who is sick and judged likely to die.”2 Substantially identical with this declaration is that of the Tridentine 1 lac. V, 14. non debet.” (DenzingerBannwart, a” Hoe sacramentum nisi in’ n. 700). Hfrno, de cuius morte timetur, dart 44 THE RECIPIENT 45 Council, that “This unction is to be applied to the sick, but to those especially who are in such danger as to seem to be about to depart this life/* 8 This teaching is also based on the Epistle of St. James. When the Apostle says: “If any man is sick 4 among you,” he plainly mean$ so sick that he can no longer betake himself to a priest. a) In the Latin Church Extreme Unction has always been known as the Sacrament of the departing (sacramentum exeuntiunt). This explains how some Catholics got the mistaken notion that once a man had this Sacrament administered to himself, his account with the world was closed, — a belief which at times resulted in much delay and negligence. * In the Middle Ages/’ says Oswald, * the reception of Extreme Unction was often regarded as a complete break with the world, a formal exit from the various relations of denizens of this terrestrial globe. One who had been anointed in a dangerous illness and happened to recover, was treated as if he had come back from the other world. He was not allowed to continue his conjugal relations nor to take an oath ; in fact he was held to all practical intents and purposes to be dead.” 5 In the Greek Church the faithful are regularly anointed with holy oil on Maundy Thursday as a preventive of disease. Provost Maltzew writes on this subject : ” Though the sacerdotal Ordo prescribes that a priest should not administer this Sacrament to subjects who are in good S Seat. XIV, De Extr. Unct., cap. videantur.” (Denzinger-Bannwart, 3: ”… esse hone unctionem in- n. 910). Hrrnis adhibendam, Hits veto prae- Unfirtnori, dffOrjrelr. sertim, qui in exitu vita* constituti 5 Die M. Sakramente der hath. Kirche, II, 296. health, it is an ancient custom in the Greek as well as in the Russian Church (at Moscow and Nowgorod) that the bishop applies the holy oil once a year, on Holy Thursday, to the healthy.” 6 The Greek theologian Arcudius inveighs against this custom as an abuse bred by ignorance and greed. Goar seeks to justify it by saying that the anointment administered in Holy Week is not regarded as a Sacrament, but merely as a ceremony or sacramental. According to Sainte-Beuve 7 the example of the Greek Church proves that Extreme Unction can be validly administered to persons in good health. This assertion drew a sharp criticism from Benedict XIV.8 Rhallis* and Mesolaras 10 have shown that the sacramental anointment of persons not ill with any disease is widely practiced in the kingdom of Greece and the Patriarchate of Constantinople, whereas the Russian Church officially teaches that Extreme Unction can be validly administered only to those who are seriously sick. The Catholic Church teaches that no one who is not seriously ill can receive Extreme Unction, even though he be in danger of death from external causes, as a soldier going into battle or a condemned criminal ascending the scaffold. If a man is dangerously ill, however, it makes no difference, so far as the Sacrament is concerned, whether his sickness arises from an internal disease or an external lesion. Senile decay qualifies for Extreme Unction when it has advanced so far that death seems probable (* senectus est morbus*). Calvin’s jibe that the e A. Maltzew, Die Sakramente De Synodo Dioecesana, VII, 5» der orthodox-kath. Kirche des Mot- 4. genlandes, p. 549, Berlin 1898. • RhaUis, op. cit. (see page 42, 7 Di Extr. Unci., ditp. 7, art. 1. supra, n. is), p. “510 Enchiridion, pp. 2x8 sq. THE RECIPIENT 47. Catholic Church anoints ” semi-putrid corpses 99 (cadavera semi-mortm), is meaningless, for it is the danger of death (periculum mortis), and not the death struggle (articulus mortis), which the Church regards as marking the proper time for the administration of the Sacrament. We advisedly say, the Church; because unfortunately it can not be denied that, beginning with the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, sacerdotal greed often caused the faithful, especially of the poorer class, to forego Extreme Unction altogether or to postpone it until it was too late.11 Repeated protests on the part of bishops and councils failed to uproot this deplorable abuse,12 which was furthered by the erroneous teaching of the Scotists that led people to conclude that Extreme Unction should be postponed until the patient was no longer able to commit even a venial sin. Our schismatic critics are justified in censuring this grievous abuse ; but it would be unjust to blame the Church for it The Tridentine Council is in accord with Tradition when it says that Extreme Unction * is to be applied to the sick, especially to those who are in such danger as to seem to be about to depart this lif e. 18 b) It is forbidden to receive Extreme Unction more than once in the course of the same sickness. This brings us to the question of the repetition of the Sacrament The Tridentine Council says: “If the sick recover 11 V. Pelliccia, De Christ. Eccle- a), and which formed the subject of %ae Politic, 1. VI, sect a, c 3, f 1. a discussion between the Latins and i2Cfr. Kern, De Sacrum. Extr. the Greeks at the Council of FlorUnct., pp. 28a sqq. ence (A. D. 1439), was not the 18 Cfr. Cat. Rom., P. II, c. 6, f Sacrament of Extreme Unction, but 9. The anointment of the dead men- a mere ceremony. Cfr. the Theol. tioned in the writings of the Pseudo- Quartalschrift, of Tubingen, 1904, Dionysius (De Ecctes. Hier., VII, p. 382. 4» EXTREME UNCTION after receiving this unction, they may again be aided by the succor of this Sacrament, when they fall into another like danger of death.”14 Hence, though Extreme Unction is not, as regards repetition, in the same class with Baptism, Confirmation, and Holy Orders, it differs essen tially from Penance and Holy Communion, which can be received often. Only in Matrimony do we find something of the same quasi-character, as neither party to a marriage can again receive this Sacrament validly while the other lives. There was an ancient Latin custom, also found among the Copts, of administering Extreme Unction on seven successive days, or repeating it seven times by as many different priests. Theologians do not know what to think of this. Fr. Schmid 16 and Gutberlet 16 hold that the seven unctions coalesced into one sacrament. The Scotists maintain that, when Extreme Unction is administered according to the present Roman rite, there are seven different partial Sacraments. Father Kern on the other hand maintains17 that each separate rite is fully sacramental and concludes from the fact that this practice is still in vogue in the Orient that, speculatively speaking at least, Extreme Unction may be repeated during the same sickness. However, this view is difficult to reconcile with the teaching of Trent. 3. The Recipient Must be Morally Responsible.— As one of the effects of Extreme Unetion is the cure of the spiritual debility caused 14 Sew. XIV, De Extr. Unci., is Zeitsckrift fUr katK Theologie, cap. 3: ” Quodsi infirmi post sus- Innsbruck, 1901, p. 261. ceptam hdnc unctionem convalue- 16 Heinrich’s Dogmatise ht Theolo* tint, iterum huius sacrament i subsi- gie. Vol. X, p. 231. dio iuvari poterunt, quum in aliud n De Saeram. Extr. Unct., pp. simile vitae discrimen inciderint.” 342 sqq. by sin,8 those only who are morally accountable and capable of committing sin (either mortal or venial) , are fit to receive this Sacrament. Extreme Unction, being the complement and consummation of Penance, is evidently intended for penitents who have led a life not entirely free from sin.19 a) Upon this dogmatic basis rests the ecclesiastical practice of refusing Extreme Unction to infants who have not yet attained the use of reason and to adults who have always been insane or idiotic. Theoretically, those also who have led a stainless life are incapable of receiving the Sacrament of the dying. But such holiness is attainable only by virtue of a special grace like that granted to the Blessed Virgin Mary.20 Children who have attained the use of reason can and should receive Extreme Unction when they are dangerously ill.21 b) Suarez,22 Atzberger,28 Kern,2 and other theologians claim that one need not have committed a sin in order to be able to receive Extreme Unction, the real purpose of the Sacrament being to strengthen the soul for its last struggle. In order to square this theory with the present formula of administration the writers in question are compelled to interpret the latter as though it read : ” Indulgent tibi Deus culpam, si adsit, et reliquias eius, si is V. supra, pp. 29 sqq. loCfr. the Supplementum to the Summa Theologica of St. Thomas, qu. 32, art 4, ad 2. 20 See Pohle-Preuss, Gract: Actual and Habitual, 2nd ed., p. 116, St Louis 19 1 7. 2iCfr. Sainte-Beuve, De Bxtr. Unci,, disp. 7$ 3. 2a Comment, in S. Th., Ill, disp. 42, sect 2, n. 7 sqq. 28 In Scheeben’s Handbuch der kath. Dogmatic Vol. IV, 3, 749, Freiburg 1903. 24 De Sacram. Extr. Unct., pp. 397 sqq. EXTREME UNCTION necesse sit” This artificial construction does not inspire confidence. Theologians generally are convinced, and their conviction is borne out by experience, that even the most saintly men and women, and the best-behaved children do not escape ordinary venial sins (peccata quotidiana),25 and hence no morally responsible person is likely to receive Extreme Unction without having those peccata and reliquiae peccati which the Sacrament is calculated to blot out. Quite a different question is whether Extreme Unction, like Penance, presupposes the personal sins committed after Baptism, or whether it may exercise its effects upon the debility contracted before Baptism. The S. Congregation of the Propaganda has decided 26 that one who is baptized during a serious sickness should be given Extreme Unction immediately afterward, and hence it is safe to say that spiritual debility of whatever kind, whether due to sins committed before or after Baptism, is cured by the Sacrament of the dying.27 Readings : — Besides the general works on the Sacraments mentioned in Pohle-Preuss, The Sacraments, Vol. I, pp. 3 and 4, the student may consult the following: St Thomas, Suntma Theologica, Supplementum, qu. 29 sq.; Idem, Contra Gentiles, IV, 72, and the commentators, especially Suarez, Comment, in S. TheoL, III, disp. 39 sqq., and Billuart, De Extrema Unctione. ♦Card. Bellarmine, De Extrema Unctione. — A. Victorelli, De Extrema Unctione, 1609. — N. Serarius, S.J., De Sacramento Extremae Unctionis, Mayence 161 1. — J. Launoy, De Sacramento Unctionis Infirmorum, Paris 1673. — Rosignoli, Tractatus de Socramentis Poenitentiae et Extremae Unctionis, Milan 1706. — De Gaetanis, De Suprema Unctione, 1747. — Benedict XIV, De Synodo 25 V. Cone. Trid., Sess. VI, cap. 27 Cfr. Billuart, De Extr. Unct, xi (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 804). art 6. 2« Sept ax, x8ax. THE RECIPIENT Dioecesana, I. VIII.— *Sainte-Beuve, De Sacramento Unctionis InUrmorum Extremae, in Migne, Theol. Curs. Complete Vol. XXIV. — M. Heimbucher, Die hi. Oelung, Ratisbon 1888. — Ign. Schmitz, De Effectibus Sacramenti Extremae Unctionis, Freiburg 1893. — Boudinhon in the Revue Catholique des Bglises, 1905, pp. 385 sqq.— *J. Kern, S. J., De Sacramento Extremae Unctionis, Ratisbon 1907. — W. Humphrey, S.J., The One Mediator, or Sacrifice and Sacraments, pp. 188-201, London 1890. — A. Devine, CP., The Sacraments Explained according to the Teaching and Doctrine of the Catholic Church, pp. 383-399, 3rd ed., London 1905. — P. J. Toner, art. “Extreme Unction,” in the Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. V, pp. 716-730. — W. McDonald, “The Sacrament of Extreme Unction,” in the Irish Theological Quarterly, Vol. II (1907), No. 7, pp. 330-345 — P. J. Hanley, Treatise on the Sacrament of Extreme Unction, New York 1907. Non-Catholic works: J. H. Blunt, Sacraments and Sacramental Ordinances, London 1867 ; Morgan Dix, The Sacramental System, New York 1893; F. Kattenbusch, in the New S chaff Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, Vol. IV, pp. 251253, New York 1909 ; Puller, The Anointing of the Sick in Scripture and Tradition, London 1904. (Puller’s contentions are criticized and, so far as necessary, refuted by Dr. Toner in his article in the Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. V, pp. 710-730). •The asterisk before an author’s name indicates that his treatment of the subject is especially clear and thorough. As St Thomas is invariably the best guide, the omission of the asterisk before his name never means that we consider his work inferior to that of other writers. There are vast stretches of theology which he scarcely touched.