Anointing of the Sick circumstances

[babochka]

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?

There is danger of death from the human condition. Each of us could die at any moment and some of us could die from diseases lurking in our body that we don’t yet know.

Common sense indicates that “serious illness” can exist outside of a danger of death from the illness. I was anointed a couple of weeks ago for a condition that is quite serious, though not life-threatening. It impairs my daily activities and permanent nerve damage is a significant concern. The inability to care for my children, cook for my family, dress my toddler, and complete other daily activities has caused significant situational depression.

The Catechism states “The sacrament of Anointing of the Sick has as its purpose the conferral of a special grace on the Christian experiencing the difficulties inherent in the condition of grave illness or old age.”

And also “The proper time for receiving this holy anointing has certainly arrived when the believer begins to be in danger of death because of illness or old age.” If the time has certainly arrived when one begins to be in danger of death, then other case would obviously be left to the discretion of the minister.

 

[Arkansan]

There is danger of death from the human condition. Each of us could die at any moment and some of us could die from diseases lurking in our body that we don’t yet know.

If the Church meant “anyone at any time”, it presumably would say so directly.

Common sense indicates that “serious illness” can exist outside of a danger of death from the illness.

This would be a valid argument if the Instruction for the Rite had originally been written in English. But given that the word is difficult to translate, as Fr. David noted, it makes little sense to try to read it through the way that word is used in English. Especially since such an interpretation would place the Instruction at odds with the Catechism and Canon Law.

And also “The proper time for receiving this holy anointing has certainly arrived when the believer begins to be in danger of death because of illness or old age.” If the time has certainly arrived when one begins to be in danger of death, then other case would obviously be left to the discretion of the minister.

That would hold true if we were speaking of illnesses which would at some point create danger of death.

 

[FrDavid96]

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?

I think the answer lies in the very fact that the Church speaks about 'by danger of death, the time has already arrived" and by the use of “serious” illness rather than outright life-threatening illness. Serious illness is sufficient.

The history also plays a part here. Clearly, the Fathers of Vatican II wanted to change the standard away from a “danger of death.” So we know they wanted a change; that means clearly not-having the same standards we did before.

 

[Arkansan]

I don’t see how a statement which is about chronology (by danger of death, the time has already arrived) can justify expanding it to illnesses which will never result in danger of death.

My understanding was that they wanted to move away from the attitude that Anointing should be delayed until the hour of death, is there anything to indicate they wanted to change the rules themselves (is the new code of canon law different from the old on this point?)?

 

[paperwight]

I have also experienced what you describe with patients who were under my pastoral care…not coming back from a procedure. They may have a reaction to the contrast agent, for example. The surgical procedure or other intervention put them into danger of death. That reality has to be acknowledged.

That is absolutely so, and not very well-known, In fact, we had a funeral in our parish not so long ago of a comparatively young woman, who had reacted badly to the iodine used as the contrast agent for a scan. A terrible and unexpected shock for the family. I don’t know if the risk was explained to them prior to the procedure. They may not have given it much weight, as scans seem to be ordered so frequently.

It seems that it is not possible to check for sensitivity to iodine beforehand, and there is no way to predict any reaction if any. Sometimes it is not too serious, sometimes brain damage, sometimes death.

I hesitated to tell this, as I wouldn’t want to frighten anyone who is facing a scan. But it certainly should be better known.

 

[FrDavid96]

I don’t see how a statement which is about chronology (by danger of death, the time has already arrived) can justify expanding it to illnesses which will never result in danger of death.

That’s exactly what we see with the use of the word “serious” (with all the qualifications that we’re talking in English here) and not the words “life-threatening” or similar.

My understanding was that they wanted to move away from the attitude that Anointing should be delayed until the hour of death, is there anything to indicate they wanted to change the rules themselves (is the new code of canon law different from the old on this point?)?

Yes. That’s what I am explaining. It’s addressed in the words of the Council itself. It’s also in the revision of the Rite done by Bl Paul VI.

Canon Law does not address liturgical matters, for the most part. See canon #2.

This question is addressed mostly in liturgical law, and remember that the two forms of law are equal to each other.

That’s where we turn to the text of the Rite itself. Read Paul VI’s Constitution and read the General Instructions which accompany the new Rite of Anointing. That’s where the answer to your question is found. The fact that the rules were changed is proof that there was an intention to change them.

 

[cmjmevans]

I’m sorry you are going through this. I’m fairly new to this forum. The question makes sense to me. Even after a priest answers you, you might still be wondering about things with questions for your brothers and sisters in Christ as to their experiences because of feelings of helplessness or loss. I wonder about these things at times, too. At times of loss or just because I don’t understand. Please take care by doing as the Doctor says.

 

[FrDavid96]

So, again: What is the infirmity that is cause for Anointing of the Infirm? in the kidney donor example.

I must take issue with your assertion here:

Where does the Church speak of Anointing of the healthy (in your own words “there is no illness”), in anticipation of a future infirmity?

It is a sacrament of healing. If there is no infirmity, then there is no need of healing. Therefore, no reason to administer the Sacrament of Anointing of the Sick.

Your example from the ritual does not work. I asked you to substantiate anointing a healthy person. You responded by pointing to a prayer for someone who is the opposite of healthy.

This is the same as the other sacrament of healing, Confession. Priests do not absolve from “future sins” and neither should we be Anointing for possible "future infirmity."

We do not pray for healing of a healthy person. It makes no sense to say that we should.

In parallel examples, we do not anoint those who “might” become sick or injured in the future.
We do not anoint people because they have dangerous occupations.
We do not anoint soldiers before a battle (despite urban legend)
We do not anoint the condemned before execution (despite urban legend)
We do not anoint people who have dangerous hobbies like extreme mountain climbing
We do not anoint healthy people in cases of an epidemic
We do not anoint in anticipation of a natural disaster (eg earthquake or volcano)

Why? Because they are not infirm. Since they are not infirm, they are not candidates for Anointing of the Infirm.

I’ve asked you before to substantiate the notion of anointing the healthy. You have chosen not to, so I’ll ask again.

Can you substantiate your claim? Can you show where the Church teaches this?

When I read the history and tradition of the Sacrament, contemporary teaching, Vatican II, the Rite itself, Catechism, Canon Law, etc. etc. There is one point on which the entire body of teaching is unanimous: it is the Anointing of the Infirm. This point has not changed.

If what you claim is true, it should not be all that hard to substantiate it.

As far as I know, the Church’s theology is that the subject of Anointing of the Sick is a sick person—not a healthy person who might become sick in the future.

Since you seem to claim that it has changed, can you show me where and when the Church changed her theology of this sacrament?

 

[kmartin60]

I have a quick question about the “Anointing of the sick” what if I am not a catholic? I have not gone thru the classes yet. I have been baptized (dunked) but I will be have a heart surgery coming up soon and was wondering if I could ask for this. (I have read the entire thread and did not catch if this was brought up or not if it has already I apologize.) God Bless everyone, Kim

 

[FrDavid96]

I have a quick question about the “Anointing of the sick” what if I am not a catholic? I have not gone thru the classes yet. I have been baptized (dunked) but I will be have a heart surgery coming up soon and was wondering if I could ask for this. (I have read the entire thread and did not catch if this was brought up or not if it has already I apologize.) God Bless everyone, Kim

Kim,

That would not be the appropriate response in your situation. Keep reading, though.

Since you have a bad heart (prayers for you), that might be a reason to speed-up your reception into the Church. In my personal opinion, the fact that your situation is enough to warrant heart surgery is enough to indicate that you should be received as a full Catholic without any further delay.

Since you are already baptized, the Church says that you should be received as a Catholic as soon as you are ready. This should not be unduly delayed. Your condition only reinforces that and makes it more important not to delay you in becoming a full Catholic.

On the one hand, as a Candidate, you’re not eligible for Anointing of the Sick. HOWEVER (heaven forbid it comes to this) if you are in danger-of-death, the priest can receive you into the Church, hear your confession, Confirm you, administer Communion, and yes, Anoint you. But at that point you would be a full Catholic.

Even if you’re not in danger of death (pray not) you might want to ask your parish priest if he can receive you into the Church earlier than what’s scheduled. Once he does that (and that would include Confirmation and first Communion as part of the overall process) then you can be Anointed.

 

[kmartin60]

Thank you very much for this information I will contact the church this coming week and speak to the priest and see what he will wish to do. I appreciate this very much! God Bless you, Kim

 

[Augustinian]

While this type of surgery is not high risk, I was wondering if the sacrament would be appropriate or not.

I don’t think this is a problem at all. When my mum was in the hospital for her hip replacement a few years ago- she wasn’t anointed. But the woman she shared a room with , having the exact same surgery was.

If you think its appropriate, ask your priest.

 

[FrDavid96]

That depends. If surgery is being had for a life-threatening condition (including when there is no danger of imminent death), then anointing should be administered. But surgery itself does not justify it, as it is only allowed for danger of death due to sickness, not danger of death due to things which will be externally done to the person (thus convicts and soldiers cannot receive the sacrament).

Yes, exactly.

Anointing of the (Infirm) Sick is exactly what we call it. It’s not done in anticipation of an infirmity, but only when a serious infirmity actually exists.

 

[ajcstr]

Thank you all again for your responses.

I received the sacrament today after noon mass.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

I received the sacrament today after noon mass.

I am glad to know that you received it and I assure you of my prayers for you and for your surgery.

 

[ajcstr]

Thanks all. I had my surgery on Monday. All indication is that it went well. Resident actually told me that it was a “textbook” procedure.

 

[Joe_5859]

Good to hear! Prayers for a good and speedy recovery.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Thanks all. I had my surgery on Monday. All indication is that it went well. Resident actually told me that it was a “textbook” procedure.

I am delighted to hear this and pray that the reception of the sacrament of the sick continues to sustain you in your recovery from surgery.