Confused about when Annointing of the Sick is to be performed

[MysticMissMisty]

Salvete, omnes.

Precisely when is Annointing of the Sick to be performed? I have been reading through quite a few posts here on the subject and have heard so many different things.

From what I’ve read of the canons on the subject, it is to be performed when one “begins to be in danger”. I presume this means “of dying”? And, what, exactly, does “begins” mean here? Why would’t it just say “is in danger”?

Also, how directly does this “danger” have to relate to the illness? Does it have to result quite directly from it or can it be very peripherally related to it? Let’s say, for example, that one has a disability that makes one more vulnerable, say, to injury (potentially causing death) or, say, to crimes (such as robbery) that could potentially cause death? Would this be a reason for administering Annointing of the Sick, or, again, does the “danger” have more directly to result from the illness itself or even from surgery to fight this illness?

TO me, “begins to” implies an observed “change” in state from not being in danger to being in danger of death and, when this is observed, the Annointing of the Sick must be administered. It seems to imply an immediacy in the observed condition of the patient. This also implies time to call a priest and perhaps precludes something like a sudden peril of death that might be caused, say, by a robbery which, while perhaps a little more likely for someone more vulnerable, is still not too much more likely for that kind of individual.

Also, why was the name changed from Extreme Unction to Annointing of the Sick and how does this relate to my questions here? After all, in the cannons, it still seems that “danger of death” is the main criterion… Perhaps the danger is no longer to be as extreme? If so, how extreme must it be?

I guess my questions regard how much in danger of death should someone be before the Annointing of the Sick is performed and how directly must this danger relate to the illness or even disability?

Gratias.

 

[pianistclare]

ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/ANOISICK.HTM

People on CAF will tell you that yes, you have to be dying.
But the priests in my Archdiocese will anoint anyone who is ill, mentally, or physically.

Ask you priest.

 

[Michael_Mayo]

“Extreme Unction” meant “Last Anointing”. Unless, of course the patient survives.

But the anointing is for healing of the not risky behavior or situations.

“Begins to be in danger” is indeed vague. But that leaves for more discretion of the priest.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

From what I’ve read of the canons on the subject, it is to be performed when one “begins to be in danger”. I presume this means “of dying”? And, what, exactly, does “begins” mean here? Why would’t it just say “is in danger”?

No. “In danger” means “in danger.” “Begins” is to be read as “the initial stage of” or “at its first indication.” This constitutes the outer perimeter of when the sacrament may be conferred. Where danger of death is present, you are in the realm of where it is certainly to be given. At the first sign a person is in danger, the sacrament may be given.

If I have a parishioner, for example, who has just received a diagnosis of cancer, I can proceed to anoint her without needing to know how advanced the cancer is or what the prognosis is…the mere presence of cancer means she has, in fact, begun to be “in danger” even if death is not even remotely envisioned at that point.

Similarly, if I am summoned to the Emergency Room for a patient who has suffered a cardiac episode, by that fact they are in danger and I would proceed to anoint them without needing more specifics.

Also, how directly does this “danger” have to relate to the illness? Does it have to result quite directly from it or can it be very peripherally related to it? Let’s say, for example, that one has a disability that makes one more vulnerable, say, to injury (potentially causing death) or, say, to crimes (such as robbery) that could potentially cause death? Would this be a reason for administering Annointing of the Sick, or, again, does the “danger” have more directly to result from the illness itself or even from surgery to fight this illness?

The danger must be directly related to illness or advancing years. If there is a disability, such as Multiple Sclerosis or a chronic illness that is degenerative or detrimental to quality of life, then that person would also be a candidate for anointing. A surgical procedure would certainly justify anointing.

The fact that one could be robbed and thereby injured or that one’s plane could crash is not an occasion for the anointing of the sick

Also, why was the name changed from Extreme Unction to Annointing of the Sick and how does this relate to my questions here? After all, in the cannons, it still seems that “danger of death” is the main criterion… Perhaps the danger is no longer to be as extreme? If so, how extreme must it be?

The Council Fathers address the name change in 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.
But, beyond the danger of death, there is a latitude for a discretionary imparting of this sacrament, by one who can administer it, beyond when the time for receiving it has certainly already arrived. He has discretion in making a pastoral judgment which may be affected by many factors.

The canons are explicit in what they articulate
*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.

§2. This sacrament can be repeated if the sick person, having recovered, again becomes gravely ill or if the condition becomes more grave during the same illness.

Can. 1005 This sacrament is to be administered in a case of doubt whether the sick person has attained the use of reason, is dangerously ill, or is dead.*
Thus, if the priest is presented with a case where he is unable to assess the degree of danger and has not the ability to consult a medical professional, he is err on the side of being overly generous and is to anoint.

I guess my questions regard how much in danger of death should someone be before the Annointing of the Sick is performed and how directly must this danger relate to the illness or even disability?

Unfortunately, once upon a time, people would wait to receive this sacrament when death was deemed inevitable. This often meant that the person was no longer in any condition to be able to meaningfully participate and that was very regrettable. Today, that happens less and less frequently…thankfully.

 

[edwest2]

I received it shortly before my last mental illness struggle really got going. The priest came to me.

Ed

 

[Vico]

Salvete, omnes.

Precisely when is Annointing of the Sick to be performed? I have been reading through quite a few posts here on the subject and have heard so many different things.

From what I’ve read of the canons on the subject, it is to be performed when one “begins to be in danger”. I presume this means “of dying”? And, what, exactly, does “begins” mean here? Why would’t it just say “is in danger”?

Also, how directly does this “danger” have to relate to the illness? Does it have to result quite directly from it or can it be very peripherally related to it? Let’s say, for example, that one has a disability that makes one more vulnerable, say, to injury (potentially causing death) or, say, to crimes (such as robbery) that could potentially cause death? Would this be a reason for administering Annointing of the Sick, or, again, does the “danger” have more directly to result from the illness itself or even from surgery to fight this illness?

TO me, “begins to” implies an observed “change” in state from not being in danger to being in danger of death and, when this is observed, the Annointing of the Sick must be administered. It seems to imply an immediacy in the observed condition of the patient. This also implies time to call a priest and perhaps precludes something like a sudden peril of death that might be caused, say, by a robbery which, while perhaps a little more likely for someone more vulnerable, is still not too much more likely for that kind of individual.

Also, why was the name changed from Extreme Unction to Annointing of the Sick and how does this relate to my questions here? After all, in the cannons, it still seems that “danger of death” is the main criterion… Perhaps the danger is no longer to be as extreme? If so, how extreme must it be?

I guess my questions regard how much in danger of death should someone be before the Annointing of the Sick is performed and how directly must this danger relate to the illness or even disability?

Gratias.

The Very Reverend Francis J. Marini, J.D., J.C.O.D., states that the canon law specifies one is to be “at least in some danger of death, however remote, by reason of illness or even old age” and that “physical illness is traditionally the norm, serious mental illness is not necessarily excluded, provided the other requirements of the law are satisfied”.

Comparative Sacramental Discipline in the CCEO and CIC, Canon Law Society of America; First Edition edition (2003), p. 150

 

[Tantum_ergo]

No. “In danger” means “in danger.” “Begins” is to be read as “the initial stage of” or “at its first indication.” This constitutes the outer perimeter of when the sacrament may be conferred. Where danger of death is present, you are in the realm of where it is certainly to be given. At the first sign a person is in danger, the sacrament may be given.

If I have a parishioner, for example, who has just received a diagnosis of cancer, I can proceed to anoint her without needing to know how advanced the cancer is or what the prognosis is…the mere presence of cancer means she has, in fact, begun to be “in danger” even if death is not even remotely envisioned at that point.

Similarly, if I am summoned to the Emergency Room for a patient who has suffered a cardiac episode, by that fact they are in danger and I would proceed to anoint them without needing more specifics.

The danger must be directly related to illness or advancing years. If there is a disability, such as Multiple Sclerosis or a chronic illness that is degenerative or detrimental to quality of life, then that person would also be a candidate for anointing. A surgical procedure would certainly justify anointing.

The fact that one could be robbed and thereby injured or that one’s plane could crash is not an occasion for the anointing of the sick

The Council Fathers address the name change in 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.
But, beyond the danger of death, there is a latitude for a discretionary imparting of this sacrament, by one who can administer it, beyond when the time for receiving it has certainly already arrived. He has discretion in making a pastoral judgment which may be affected by many factors.

The canons are explicit in what they articulate
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.

§2. This sacrament can be repeated if the sick person, having recovered, again becomes gravely ill or if the condition becomes more grave during the same illness.

Can. 1005 This sacrament is to be administered in a case of doubt whether the sick person has attained the use of reason, is dangerously ill, or is dead.
Thus, if the priest is presented with a case where he is unable to assess the degree of danger and has not the ability to consult a medical professional, he is err on the side of being overly generous and is to anoint.

Unfortunately, once upon a time, people would wait to receive this sacrament when death was deemed inevitable. This often meant that the person was no longer in any condition to be able to meaningfully participate and that was very regrettable. Today, that happens less and less frequently…thankfully.

What about priests who offer the sacrament monthly, thus:

Our faith reminds us to always take care of the ill, the troubled, anyone
who is hurting or infirm. We will be celebrating the Sacrament of the
Sick monthly before/after our Saturday/Sunday or weekday Masses. It
will vary depending on other parish/community events. We will first
offer this annointing on Saturday, February 4th, immediately following
our 4PM Liturgy. Please consider staying a few minutes for this prayer
service, invite someone in need of Christ’s healing assurance

.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

What about priests who offer the sacrament monthly, thus.

That determination rests with the priest’s diocesan bishop.
Can. 1002 The communal celebration of the anointing of the sick for many of the sick at once, who have been suitably prepared and are properly disposed, can be performed according to the prescripts of the diocesan bishop.
If the bishop of your diocese approves it, I am certainly not going to critique his decision…he, after all, is moderator of the liturgy for his diocese.

Personally, I never chose to do the anointing publicly as often as monthly. But my parishioners knew it was always available by approaching me after Mass if, for example, they were going in for a surgery.

On the other hand, the scenario described in your posts seems to indicate – perhaps I am mis-reading – that the anointing will vary among the Masses for Saturday, Sunday, weekdays, and take into account what is happening nearby in your deanery. That is different from it occurring, for example, after the anticipated Mass on the First Saturday of each month.

Where I had discretion, I exercised it. Where the discretion was vested in the bishop, his will was implemented…without regard for my preference.

 

[buc_fan33]

Thus, if the priest is presented with a case where he is unable to assess the degree of danger and has not the ability to consult a medical professional, he is err on the side of being overly generous and is to anoint.

I’ve made up my mind that when I pass from this life to the next, whenever that may be, I would far rather have to make an account to the Divine Justice of having administered the sacraments too liberally (in the best sense of the term, meaning erring on giving the sacraments when in doubt) than to have to make an account to the same Divine Justice for having refused to celebrate a sacrament for someone who both needed said sacrament and was properly disposed.

The problem that I often times run into is that people forget that the Anointing of the Sick is a Sacrament of the Living. In other words, just like the Eucharist, it is to be received in a state of grace. We generally are aware of this with regards to the Eucharist. I would say the average Catholic in the pews isn’t aware that they are not to be anointed if conscious of some unconfessed mortal sin.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

That determination rests with the priest’s diocesan bishop.
Can. 1002 The communal celebration of the anointing of the sick for many of the sick at once, who have been suitably prepared and are properly disposed, can be performed according to the prescripts of the diocesan bishop.
If the bishop of your diocese approves it, I am certainly not going to critique his decision…he, after all, is moderator of the liturgy for his diocese.

Personally, I never chose to do the anointing publicly as often as monthly. But my parishioners knew it was always available by approaching me after Mass if, for example, they were going in for a surgery.

On the other hand, the scenario described in your posts seems to indicate – perhaps I am mis-reading – that the anointing will vary among the Masses for Saturday, Sunday, weekdays, and take into account what is happening nearby in your deanery. That is different from it occurring, for example, after the anticipated Mass on the First Saturday of each month.

Where I had discretion, I exercised it. Where the discretion was vested in the bishop, his will was implemented…without regard for my preference.

Every other parish in the diocese offers this by appointment only, but I can hope that the bishop gave him ‘permission’, just as he apparently gave him permission to ad lib the Eucharistic prayers and dispense with the Creed at Sunday Mass. among other things This is a small rural parish with nobody important and although plenty of people wonder and worry, there is also a huge concern about speaking out to the bishop because ‘ratting out’ a popular priest would mean repercussions for the whole family, from bullying of the school children to ‘lost paperwork’, refusal of services, and social shunning for the older members.

In the grand scheme of things it’s not really important. A priest does more than 'just celebrate the Mass" and that’s why this is so hard; this priest is, as so many are, one who is very pastoral and caring ‘outside the Mass’. I mean, who cares if one’s small children grow up seeing a Mass that is wildly different from the ones according to the GIRM? They’re kids, right? Too young to be affected, right? Basically a whole generation of kids will grow up not having experienced a licit (and questionably valid Mass) for their formative years, and then will be expected to accept something that seems (I hate this word) “rigid” and rote. We see enough children drop away from the Faith as they grow; how much easier it is when they aren’t even exposed to a solid and unified Faith to start OUT with. Yes, of course they get taught ‘in the home’ but let me tell you as a mother and now grandmother who has wrestled with trying to even teach the Faith to her family when I’ve been constantly undermined by those who should be not just my partners in helping my family be Catholic, but should be my shepherds and guardians as well… . People like me have been the ‘good little sheep’ our lives long. We have trusted, we have accepted, and we’ve been shafted by too many.

I still believe in the Faith, and I know God will not let us be tested too far, and I pray for my family and hope. . .but you know, a lot of times it seems that when people express a desire for clarity and a concern over teachings and actions that seem to contradict known truths, it isn’t that we are some kind of bitter, rigid people trying to search out non-existent ‘problems’ and ‘impose our will’ or ‘set the clock back’.

We are people who have undergone bitter suffering and who are trying to help others; if we could keep others from suffering as we do, that would be the goal.

 

[Gorgias]

What about priests who offer the sacrament monthly

The fact that it is offered monthly to the *community *doesn’t imply that individuals should receive it monthly, now does it?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

The fact that it is offered monthly to the *community *doesn’t imply that individuals should receive it monthly, now does it?

but according to the diocese it should not be offered ‘to the community’ at all. . .not monthly, not yearly. . .etc.

If my own health permits (ironic, no?) I may attend the next celebration. Until then I will operate on the ‘benefit of the doubt’ principle, that it’s fine until it is proven ‘not’.

 

[melekali]

The answer is clearly elucidated in the Catechism…

1514 The Anointing of the Sick “is not a sacrament for those only who are at the point of death. Hence, as soon as anyone
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.” [SC 73; cf. CIC, Cann. 1004 # 1; 1005; 1007; CCEO, Can. 738.]
1515 If a sick person who received this anointing recovers his health, he can in the case of another grave illness receive
this sacrament again. If during the same illness the person’s condition becomes more serious, the sacrament may be
repeated. It is fitting to receive the Anointing of the Sick just prior to a serious operation. the same holds for the elderly
whose frailty becomes more pronounced.
“ . . . let him call for the presbyters of the Church”

God bless,

Dcn. Andy