Anointing of the Sick circumstances

  • Thread starter Thread starter ajcstr
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Don_Ruggero said:
40.png
FrDavid96:
In the example of the kidney donor: what exactly is the illness (infirmity, sickness, or whatever word might apply) that is cause for Anointing of the Sick?

It is after all, Anointing of the Sick (infirm)? or is it not?

Ultimately, we pray for God’s deliverance from the illness. So how are we praying for deliverance from an event which is being intentionally (as an act of mercy, surely) performed?

So, again: What is the infirmity that is cause for Anointing of the Infirm? in the kidney donor example.
Click to expand...
There is no illness. [emphasis added] That is precisely why I chose that example. In fact, the presence of an illness or medical condition can be a contraindication to the donor even donating the kidney.

I suggest, Father, you consult the Rite for what is sought post-surgery. The oration is clear…that the person is need of healing. A person who has undergone a medical procedure that has adverse physical and psychological impacts upon her body.
God of compassion,
our human weakness lays claim to your strength.
We pray that through the skills of surgeons and nurses
your healing gifts may be granted to N.
May your servant respond to your healing will
and be reunited with us at your altar of praise.
Grant this through Christ our Lord.
R. Amen.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
This is where I see the contradiction.

Either there is an illness, or there is not an illness. First you say that there is none, then you say the person is in need of healing. That’s not logical.

If there’s no illness, there’s no need to pray for healing. To heal what exactly?

A kidney donor does not have an illness.

I am assuming, of course, a healthy donor. If the donor is unhealthy, then the donor is already a candidate for anointing (by virtue of being infirm), so there’s no question here.

A person who is post-surgery might indeed be a candidate for Anointing because that person has an infirmity. I only say “might” because there are all kinds of surgery—so likewise, let’s take the infirmity as a given for discussion sake. So I have nothing contrary to say about Anointing POST-surgery.

The prayers of the Rite are consistent. We are praying and asking God for healing.

Can you explain how we ask God for healing over a person who is perfectly good health?

I don’t see the plain logic of this, and I certainly do not see the Sacramental Theology of asking for healing of a healthy person.
 
Don_Ruggero said:
What you have written is wrong.
Click to expand...
Can you provide any contemporary or even historic precedent for Anointing of the Sick in anticipation of an infirmity that does not yet exist?

We all know that we do not anoint people because they have dangerous occupations, in anticipation that they might have accidents.

We know that we do not anoint soldiers in preparation for battle, despite the urban legend that priests do this, but rather anoint the wounded after battle.

As I look through the contemporary theology of Anointing (I’m not going to invoke some 11th century text here, as we all know we’ve moved beyond that king of thinking), I cannot find anything justifying anointing a healthy person in anticipation of the person becoming infirm in the future. The Church is (as I read things) clear in saying that Anointing of the Sick is exactly that, Anointing of the Sick (ie infirm). I don’t find anything about anointing the healthy.

Can you provide anything to substantiate Anointing healthy people with this Sacrament?
 
FrDavid96 said:
40.png
Arkansan:
40.png
FrDavid96:
An infirmity which seriously affects the quality of life of a person would be (in my assessment) a perfectly valid reason for the Sacrament of Anointing.
Click to expand...
The argument has been made that the term “serious illness” in the Rite can be interpreted to apply to illnesses which have no possibility of being lethal. But given that the Church elsewhere states expressly that it is for those who “begin to be in danger of death”, wouldn’t it be more reasonable to hold that “serious illness” means the same (especially given that the translation of that phrase is difficult)?

Sacrosanctum Concilium #73 “Extreme unction,” which may also and more fittingly be called “anointing of the sick,” is not a sacrament for those only who are at the point of death. Hence, as soon as any one of the faithful begins to be in danger of death from sickness or old age, the fitting time for him to receive this sacrament has certainly already arrived.

Can. 1004 §1. The anointing of the sick can be administered to a member of the faithful who, having reached the use of reason, begins to be in danger due to sickness or old age.
Click to expand...
It’s is one step, one ambiguous and undefined step, before “begins to be in danger of death.”

The reason is that what the Fathers actually said at Vatican II is that by that time (begins to be), the time for Anointing has already arrived.

So once a serious illness is known, then Anointing is appropriate.
Click to expand...
The question is what constitutes a serious illness. If a given illness has effectively no chance of causing death (ever), then it isn’t a step (however ambiguous) before “begins to be in danger of death”.
 
Arkansan said:
The question is what constitutes a serious illness. If a given illness has effectively no chance of causing death (ever), then it isn’t a step (however ambiguous) before “begins to be in danger of death”.
Click to expand...
This is why it’s difficult to deal in hypotheticals on this matter.

The initial response to your question would be: yes, that’s correct.

However, when dealing with illnesses, we rarely encounter such absolutes.

Say a person loses a finger at age 12. The person is now 32. By now, there’s really no danger of death, even the most remote. So while I might (I say might because this is a hypothetical) anoint a 12 year old in the emergency room shortly after the injury, I would surely not anoint the 32 year old after the wound has had 20 years to heal and will not likely cause any further injury or effect quality of life. If a 96 year old loses a finger in an accident, I don’t think I would hesitate on Anointing.

So if an infirmity is truly minor and matches exactly what you typed above, then Anointing would not be appropriate. At the same time, though, we have to be cautious that we’re dealing in hypotheticals and it’s always possible to add something to that hypothetical which might cause a different answer.
 
What motivated my question was:
An infirmity which seriously affects the quality of life of a person would be (in my assessment) a perfectly valid reason for the Sacrament of Anointing.
Click to expand...
There are illnesses that fit this but which have basically no chance of causing death. Let’s take the case you mentioned of a 12 year old losing a finger (let’s say the right thumb).

That would certainly seriously affect his quality of life, but if you got there after whatever surgical interventions had happened (and there were no anemia or other complications), then there would be basically no danger of death resulting. Obviously the situation would be different if he was 96, or immunocompromised, but for a normal 12 year old this would be true.

Would this justify Anointing? This is what I was getting at, it seems that there are illnesses which aren’t “minor” in the way that people normally use that word, but which wouldn’t seem to justify Anointing (if I’m understanding things right).
 
Arkansan said:
Would this justify Anointing? This is what I was getting at, it seems that there are illnesses which aren’t “minor” in the way that people normally use that word, but which wouldn’t seem to justify Anointing (if I’m understanding things right).
Click to expand...
What I am trying to explain (and perhaps I have been less than clear) is that every situation is unique.

That’s why I keep adding qualifying adjectives such as “usually” or “probably” or “likely”

I can give a hypothetical situation, but due to the vary nature of hypotheticals, it’s always possible for me (or someone else) to add something later that might change the final answer.

So, take this example: a 98 year old man has a massive heart attack. He’s taken to the hospital. I go to his hospital room. Should I anoint him?

The answer might seem to be an absolute “yes.” But it’s not that simple. Instead, I would say that he is most likely a candidate for Anointing. I cannot just say an absolute “yes.”

Here’s why: what I did not tell you is that when he was in the ER just 15 minutes ago, another priest Anointed him. That’s the thing about hypotheticals. They are whatever we say they are.

I do hear what you’re asking (at least I think). You’re asking about “if there is no danger of death whatsoever” and adding that the situation is closed to further hypotheticals. No one is allowed to add “but wait, I didn’t mention…”

First of all, do I understand your question correctly?

Now, assuming I do, here’s my response.

We cannot take those words “danger of death” too strictly, any more than we can err in the opposite direction. Some ailments or injuries do seriously affect the person’s quality of life, even though they are not themselves life-threatening. That 12 year old from earlier might live a perfectly happy, normal life and live beyond 100. At the time of the injury, though, the injury is very traumatic. In the long-term (decades) it might amount to nothing, but at that given moment his physical and emotional pain is very severe (unlike the spiritual hypochondriac with the bee-sting).

I want to repeat your last point:
it seems that there are illnesses which aren’t “minor” in the way that people normally use that word, but which wouldn’t seem to justify Anointing
Click to expand...
I’ll answer that “yes.” The double-negative is throwing me at the moment. I read “not minor” and “not anointing.”

First of all, if it is severe, I say “yes, anointing.” But the way it’s phrased, that could also mean something in the middle. More than minor, less than severe. I would say yes, there are times when a person has an ailment that’s above the status of just “minor” but at the same time not severe enough to say “serious.”
 
FrDavid96 said:
What I am trying to explain (and perhaps I have been less than clear) is that every situation is unique.
Click to expand...
So in my case I have an illness that is life threatening if not treated but maybe not for a long time. Now I think you are saying that simply because there is an illness, the anointing would be warranted? Would this be true regardless of the surgery?
 
ajcstr said:
So in my case I have an illness that is life threatening if not treated but maybe not for a long time. Now I think you are saying that simply because there is an illness, the anointing would be warranted?
Click to expand...
I have never said anything to the contrary.
I have said all along (repeatedly) that a serious illness is reason for Anointing.

You ask about “life threatening illness.” My response is “yes, Anoint.”
Would this be true regardless of the surgery?
Click to expand...
As I’ve said multiple times here now, the Church does not Anoint because of surgery. The Church anoints because of infirmity.

If there is a serious infirmity, then the person should be Anointed. Period.
 
Don_Ruggero said:
cont’d
…
Click to expand...
I’m finally getting some post-Christmas time-off this week. I’ll be gone until Friday and hope not to have to be on the computer.

Again, I look forward to reading your thoughts on this, so if my reply is late, it’s because I am away from the computer. I’ll have to read it when I get back.
 
FrDavid96 said:
I do hear what you’re asking (at least I think). You’re asking about “if there is no danger of death whatsoever” and adding that the situation is closed to further hypotheticals. No one is allowed to add “but wait, I didn’t mention…”

First of all, do I understand your question correctly?
Click to expand...
Yes. The point of the hypothetical is to address the case in which quality of life is substantially affected, but there is no chance of death resulting.
Now, assuming I do, here’s my response.

We cannot take those words “danger of death” too strictly, any more than we can err in the opposite direction. Some ailments or injuries do seriously affect the person’s quality of life, even though they are not themselves life-threatening. That 12 year old from earlier might live a perfectly happy, normal life and live beyond 100. At the time of the injury, though, the injury is very traumatic. In the long-term (decades) it might amount to nothing, but at that given moment his physical and emotional pain is very severe (unlike the spiritual hypochondriac with the bee-sting).
Click to expand...
Certainly it’s possible to be overly strict about the criteria of “danger of death”, but I don’t see how it’s too strict to insist on there being some danger of death resulting, at some point. I agree that it should be interpreted widely, but this seems to make it metaphorical.

Is there anything in canon law, sacramental theology, or the liturgical instructions which indicates that “serious illness” can exist based on the traumatic nature of the illness or the impairment of quality of life, without some chance of death resulting?
 
Yes, contact your priest and have the Annointing of the Sick. I recently received the Sacrament before my hysterectomy.
 
Before my hysterectomy, there was a chance I had cancer. They needed todo the surgery and biopsy to find out. My priest was happy to give me the Annointing of the Sick. I’m glad, too.
 
Last edited:
The Rite says:

“A sick person may be anointed before surgery whenever a serious illness is the reason for the surgery.”

As Fr. David explained, the illness is the cause for the sacrament, the surgery is simply the occasion.
 
Hope1960 said:
Before my hysterectomy, there was a chance I had cancer. They needed to do the surgery and biopsy to find out. My priest was happy to give me the Anointing of the Sick. I’m glad, too.
Click to expand...
I am glad for you. No priest should have refused the request for anointing in that circumstance.

I pray you have recovered well and that the biopsy was negative.
 
Thank you Father, the biopsy was negative and I’m recovering well.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top