I would not phrase in that way for it is not really “any condition that impairs bodily function and requires medical assistance”. That is not the measure.I think that illness encompasses more than disease. It is any condition that impairs bodily function and requires medical assistance to correct.
And from the US Conference of Catholic Bishops site:
“The Rite of Anointing tells us there is no need to wait until a person is at the point of death to receive the Sacrament. A careful judgment about the serious nature of the illness is sufficient. The Sacrament may be repeated if the sick person recovers after the anointing but becomes ill once again, or if, during the same illness, the person’s condition becomes more serious. A person should be anointed before surgery when a dangerous illness is the reason for the intervention (cf. Rite of Anointing, Introduction, nos. 8-10).”
usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/sacraments/anointing-of-the-sick/
It is not about the pain or the recovery involved …it is when there is danger (of death) from the illness.
Right! -and such is not a reason for the Sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick per se.Hello.
Bookcat, there’s always danger of death from surgery, especially any involved with general anesthesia.
.
And it is important to note that it is not just a question of is it “serious surgery” --but one looks at the “reason” for the surgery.Yet, if the church teaches it must be serious surgery before the Anointing of the Sick can be requested, then that’s what we are to follow.
Thank you for defending this point.
Each situation is different. Pregnancy is a normal condition, but birth is and always has been dangerous for the mother. While pregnancy is not an illness by any means, it is a health condition. A condition which requires a scheduled c-section is cannot be considered minor. Major abdominal surgery is not considered by most medical professionals to be the preferred way to get a baby out and is, at least in theory, not undertaken without very good reason. (In practice is quite different). A woman scheduling a 3rd c-section is at increased risk of complications in the surgery.The Instruction for the Rite of the Anointing of the Sick notes that “A sick person may be anointed before surgery* whenever a serious illness is the reason for the surgery*.”
So is pregnancy and birth a “serious illness”?
My pregnant wife certainly does not feel well often…but she will inform you that she does not have a serious illness…and she too will be having a needed (third) C- section. I noted this thread to her and she said – what the person should do is go to confession.
(now perhaps there is something else involved…with a particular case…)
The decisions of the past of even various Priests does not make the decision the correct one. Priests can misjudge matters. And when in doubt as to the dangerous illness one anoints.Each situation is different. Pregnancy is a normal condition, but birth is and always has been dangerous for the mother. While pregnancy is not an illness by any means, it is a health condition. A condition which requires a scheduled c-section is cannot be considered minor. Major abdominal surgery is not considered by most medical professionals to be the preferred way to get a baby out and is, at least in theory, not undertaken without very good reason. (In practice is quite different). A woman scheduling a 3rd c-section is at increased risk of complications in the surgery.
I received Holy Anointing before the last of my 4 c-sections, at my confessor’s suggestion. It was suggested by my confessor and the sacrament was administered by another priest . Both thought it was an acceptable and appropriate action in my circumstances.
It seems that, in the case of this grace-giving sacrament, the most generous interpretation possible would be appropriate.
The church does not define “grave” and “serious”. If the Church meant an illness which could lead to death, the Church certainly could have defined it that way. Certainly, someone going in for a tummy tuck or a breast augmentation would not be considered for the sacrament. To me, any condition which requires surgery to correct is pretty serious. It does not have to be life-threatening to be serous. A cold is not a grave or serious illness( for most people). In most cases, even the flu is not a grave and serious illness. Chronic knee problems that affect your ability to walk? Seems serious to me. A gall bladder that needs to be removed because it is causing significant, ongoing detrimental effects? Certainly a possibility. This is a prudential judgement on the part of the priest. Even if it has become routine among medical professionals, surgery is always significant and should not be undertaken lightly. It is generally only done for serious reasons. A couple of months ago, I witnessed the anointing of the sick from one priest to another. The priest receiving the sacrament was going in for knee surgery the next day. (Both priests were Eastern in this case.) If a woman and her doctors have determined that a baby needs to be born by c-section, there should have been a serious reason for this determination. It seems that that alone could be sufficient reason for the sacrament. I felt the need for the sacrament due to my personal circumstances, and two separate priests agreed that it was appropriate for me. The priest who suggested it was western, the priest who administered the sacrament was Eastern. If your wife considers this surgery to be routine and does not feel the need for the physical and spiritual healing that are unique to this sacrament, then confession is sufficient for her.The decisions of the past of even various Priests does not make the decision the correct one. Priests can misjudge matters. And when in doubt as to the dangerous illness one anoints.
It is NOT the fact of the danger “of the surgery” itself that is what determines if this Sacrament is to be given.
I realize that Eastern practice will not have much bearing on most reading this, but you brought up the CCEO, so I wanted to point out one of the preliminary canons, which is often overlooked when viewing the CCEO through western eyes.I note now (in coming back to edit my post) that your an Eastern Catholic (Ruthenian) - I am not as familiar with the Eastern Code -there are some differences of the Sacraments between the Rites -but I will note that I found that your Eastern Code of Canon Law in terms of the Holy Anointing refers to "the Christian Faithful who are gravely ill*". Which seems to mirror the Roman Code.
In many Eastern Rite churches (Catholic and Orthodox both) thy Mystery of Holy Anointing is offered to all of the faithful who desire to receive it on Holy Wednesday. This is not as common in the churches of Slavic origin (such as my own), but it is standard practice in the Greek Orthodox Church and in Eastern Catholic churches who have traditionally looked to the Greeks rather than the Russians. (Melkites, for example.)Canon 2
The canons of the Code, in which for the most part the ancient
law of the Eastern Churches is received or adapted, are to be
assessed mainly according to that law.
The bolded portion alone is reason for me to receive the sacrament, even if I am not in danger of death in the short or long term. If I am suffering from a physical or mental infirmity, I will welcome the Grace offered in this sacrament to accomplish this in me. While this is an Eastern perspective, the sacrament accomplishes the same thing, East or West. Even if the west does not emphasize this aspect, it is still present.The express purpose of the Sacrament of Holy Unction is healing and forgiveness. Since it is not always the will of God that there should be physical healing, the prayer of Christ that God’s will be done always remains as the proper context of the Sacrament. In addition,** it is the clear intention of the Sacrament that through the anointing of the sick body the sufferings of the person should be sanctified and united to the sufferings of Christ.** In this way, the wounds of the flesh are consecrated, and strength is given that the suffering of the diseased person may not be unto the death of his soul, but for eternal salvation in the resurrection and life of the Kingdom of God.
“in periculo incipit versari”The church does not define “grave” and “serious”. If the Church meant an illness which could lead to death, the Church certainly could have defined it that way. .
Eastern Code of Canon Law in terms of the Holy Anointing refers to “the Christian Faithful who are* gravely ill*”.
I was not arguing with this point at all. I was simply addressing the OP’s original question, regarding whether she should receive the sacrament prior to her surgery. You have eloquently made the point several times by quoting Church documents that surgery is not reason for the sacrament, and it is obvious by the purpose of the sacrament. This is an important distinction to make. Often, though, people only think of this sacrament when the prospect of death looms, such as is always a possibility with major surgery. The need for surgery is generally, though not always, an indicator of a serious illness. You would not receive the sacrament because of the surgery, you would receive the sacrament because of the condition that necessitates the surgery. We completely agree on this point.“begins to be in danger” (CIC 1004)
The Point I am getting at is -it is not that one can be anointed simply due to a surgery.
See the documents regarding Surgery – such is only when the surgery is for serious illness. It is not a question of serious surgery alone.
Pregnancy is not a dangerous illness.I was not arguing with this point at all. I was simply addressing the OP’s original question, regarding whether she should receive the sacrament prior to her surgery. You have eloquently made the point several times by quoting Church documents that surgery is not reason for the sacrament, and it is obvious by the purpose of the sacrament. This is an important distinction to make. Often, though, people only think of this sacrament when the prospect of death looms, such as is always a possibility with major surgery. The need for surgery is generally, though not always, an indicator of a serious illness. You would not receive the sacrament because of the surgery, you would receive the sacrament because of the condition that necessitates the surgery. We completely agree on this point.
Of course not. But, delivery via c-section, while extremely common these days, is usually recommended due to complications in the pregnancy, for mother or baby. Even a c-section that is scheduled for no other reason than the a pre-existing uterine scar is done so because normal labor and delivery presents an increased risk to mother and child. That uterine scar, combined with late pregnancy, creates a serious illness.Pregnancy is not a dangerous illness.
Yes I was thinking that very thing -in writing that last part in my last post up above. Such would be a good question.Of course not. But, delivery via c-section, while extremely common these days, is usually recommended due to complications in the pregnancy, for mother or baby. Even a c-section that is scheduled for no other reason than the a pre-existing uterine scar is done so because normal labor and delivery presents an increased risk to mother and child. That uterine scar, combined with late pregnancy, creates a serious illness.
I’m not arguing with you on the disciplinary law of the Latin Church on when this sacrament is to be legitimately offered. What I’m saying is that the OP’s circumstances might be a reason to seek the sacrament. This requires a prudential judgement on the part of the priest who is to administer the sacrament. It is not really for you nor I to say that her condition does or does not warrant the sacrament. If she feels a desire to receive the sacraments, she would be perfectly justified in approaching her priest to discuss her individual circumstances and he can make a decision.
When does a person begin to be in danger of death and how do we determine if an illness has caused this danger? In the case of a serious, but not life-threatening illness, for example, a torn ligament, the illness does not really put one in danger of death. The treatment for the illness, surgery, does indeed put one in danger of death. It seems that anointing in this case can be appropriate. The danger of death is real and has been indirectly caused by the illness. The recent case in the news of the now brain-dead girl who had surgery to have her tonsils removed comes to mind. (Yes, I am aware that the medical circumstances of this case and the need for surgery are more complicated. I wonder, though, if anyone would have thought this girl a candidate for anointing of the sick because her illness did not appear to be life-threatening.)“in periculo incipit versari”
“The anointing of the sick can be administered to any member of the faithful who, having reached the age of reason, begins to be in danger by reason of illness or old age” (CIC 1004-translation from Code of Canon Law Annotated -referenced in next post)
“Great care and concern should be taken to see that those of the faithful whose health is seriously (periculose) impaired by sickness or old age receive this sacrament. A prudent or reasonably sure judgment, without scruple, is sufficient for deciding on the seriousness of an illness; if necessary a doctor may be consulted.” (General Introduction to the Roman Ritual, Pastoral Care of the Sick: Rites of Anointing and Viaticum, par. 8)
The United States edition of General Introduction to the current Roman Ritual for Anointing contains a helpful footnote [this footnote is from the USCCB, not from the Vatican, but the edition was approved by Pope Paul VI] – “The word periculose * has been carefully studied and rendered as ‘seriously,’ rather than as ‘gravely,’ ‘dangerously,’ or ‘perilously.’ Such a rendering will serve to avoid restrictions upon the celebration of the sacrament. On the one hand, the sacrament may and should be given to anyone whose health is seriously impaired; on the other hand, it may not be given indiscriminately or to a person whose health is not seriously impaired.” (Footnote to paragraph 8)
*
Did you read my last posts?When does a person begin to be in danger of death and how do we determine if an illness has caused this danger? In the case of a serious, but not life-threatening illness, for example, a torn ligament, the illness does not really put one in danger of death. The treatment for the illness, surgery, does indeed put one in danger of death. It seems that anointing in this case can be appropriate. The danger of death is real and has been indirectly caused by the illness.
Yes, but “serious” is not limited to life-threatening. I am arguing that any illness that necessitates surgery to treat could be interpreted to be serious. Unless the surgery is purely elective, such as a breast augmentation or a c-section chosen simply for convenience, a serious illness could be presumed to exist. For myself, I would not have surgery unless I were seriously ill.Did you read my last posts?
…the illness…the illness…the illness…
Is such “serious illness?” Is it dangerous? No.
It is not about the “surgery being dangerous” or “serious” but about the illness being so.
From the US Catholic Bishops site:
“A person should be anointed before surgery when a dangerous illness is the reason for the intervention”
And likewise the very instruction for the Rite of the Sacrament from the Church states:
“A sick person may be anointed before surgery whenever a serious illness is the reason for the surgery.”
The United States edition of General Introduction to the current Roman Ritual for Anointing contains a helpful footnote [this footnote is from the USCCB, not from the Vatican, but the edition was approved by Pope Paul VI] –** “The word periculose** * has been carefully studied and rendered as ‘seriously,’ rather than as ‘gravely,’ ‘dangerously,’ or ‘perilously.’* Such a rendering will serve to avoid restrictions upon the celebration of the sacrament. On the one hand, the sacrament may and should be given to anyone whose health is seriously impaired; on the other hand, it may not be given indiscriminately or to a person whose health is not seriously impaired.” (Footnote to paragraph 8)
If that was the case -then the Church would simply say in the Rite – “any illness that necessitates surgery” is good reason for the Sacrament.Yes, but “serious” is not limited to life-threatening. I am arguing that any illness that necessitates surgery to treat could be interpreted to be serious. .
Confusion is inevitable when the US Bishops contradict themselves:What is said? (to avoid confusion…very precise…)
The United States edition of General Introduction to the current Roman Ritual for Anointing contains a helpful footnote [this footnote is from the USCCB, not from the Vatican, but the edition was approved by Pope Paul VI] –** “The word periculose** * has been carefully studied and rendered as ‘seriously,’ rather than as ‘gravely,’ ‘dangerously,’ or ‘perilously.*’ Such a rendering will serve to avoid restrictions upon the celebration of the sacrament. On the one hand, the sacrament may and should be given to anyone whose health is seriously impaired; on the other hand, it may not be given indiscriminately or to a person whose health is not seriously impaired.” (Footnote to paragraph 8)
a dangerous illness is the reason for the intervention"From the US Catholic Bishops site:
"A person should be anointed before surgery when
for the surgery.It must be a “serious illness”/ “dangerous illness” that is the reason
I think this is the source of our disagreement. You equate serious with dangerous in this case, but I do not. We are reading the same documents, yet each of us has come to a different conclusion. Neither of us in a position to administer the sacrament.
There is a wide variety of human ailments: On one end of the spectrum, we have the common cold. I don’t think there is anyone who would say that Anointing of the Sick would be called for in this case. On the other end, we have, for example, a sucking chest wound. Of course, a priest would anoint in this case. Somewhere in between, there is a huge gray area. That is where prudential judgement come in.
Have you ever had a torn ligament? It is quite a serious condition. Dangerous, no.Lets look at that example: a torn ligament.
Is such “serious illness?” Is it dangerous? No.
I have never disagreed with you on this point. Our only point of disagreement is in what constitutes a serious illness.It is not about the “surgery being dangerous” or “serious” but about the illness being so.