Infant Anointing

[AEM2]

Our youngest (as in less than one year of age) has a genetic condition which requires lots of doctor visits and so far to date three operations and one diagnositic proceedure.

Once while we are at the hospital we had the priest from the Hospital’s pastoral office drop by for a blessing. What he did was an anointing of the sick.

So the question is, is this a valid?

From what I seen so far about the canon it doesn’t seem to be…but I do wonder about this sacrament and infants…

 

[Brendan]

Canon 1004 states that this Sacrament is to be given to those who have reached the use of reason.

It would be a stretch to say that a 1 year old has reached that state.

The Sacrament in such a case would almost certainly be Valid, but illicit.

 

[AEM2]

The Sacrament in such a case would almost certainly be Valid, but illicit.

And the difference being?

 

[Titus]

And the difference being?

The priest was competent to administer the sacrament, so the effect was there, but it was against the norms and rules of the Church. It’s not a great situation, and the church doesn’t teach that anointing is necessary- he cannot have committed sins!

 

[Joe_Kelley]

And the difference being?

Money stolen from a bank is illicit. Counterfeit money is invalid.

 

[Brendan]

Money stolen from a bank is illicit. Counterfeit money is invalid.

Exactly

A VALID Sacrament is one where Grace is imparted.

This is most likely the case here. The child did recieve the Sacrament of the Annointing of the Sick.

But Sacraments should also be LICIT, that is conducted in accordance with the mandates of the Church.

The Church sets certain rules on how, where and when the Sacraments may be adminsitered.

Those are adminstrative rules, and God is not bound by them, only the ministers and the faithful.

An example would be if a priest takes some unconsecrated hosts and some wine and says the Eucharistic Prayer over them on his dining room table outside of a Mass. He just says the E.P.

The bread and wine DO become Christ. If the priest put that in a pyx and brought it to a sick person, that person would recieve the VALID Eucharist. It would be Christ.

But that consecration would be illicit, as the Church has mandated that a consecration only be done within a Mass.

 

[puzzleannie]

I disagree with previous posters. the sacrament of anointing of the sick is also a healing sacrament, and entirely appropriate for anyone who is gravely ill or facing a dangerous treatment, regardless of age. If this child has a condition that threatens to shorten his life, or if the treatments he is facing are dangerous, he may also be confirmed at this time, in fact he should be.

 

[aloejamb]

I agree with puzzleannie. Our priest was telling us of an infant who was not healthy and not expected to live. He went and baptized the infant and also confirmed him. I am unsure about the annointing of the sick but it seems to me that if a child is gravely ill and they can be confirmed, then the annointing of the sick would also be appopriate.
I will keep your baby in prayer.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Our youngest (as in less than one year of age) has a genetic condition which requires lots of doctor visits and so far to date three operations and one diagnositic proceedure.

Once while we are at the hospital we had the priest from the Hospital’s pastoral office drop by for a blessing. What he did was an anointing of the sick.

So the question is, is this a valid?

From what I seen so far about the canon it doesn’t seem to be…but I do wonder about this sacrament and infants…

An infant (under seven) after Baptism is in a perfect state of Grace. Their Baptism however allows them to receive other Sacraments, I personally would have no problem with ill infants and children under 7 receiving Anointing of the Sick if it were allowed by law.

 

[BobP123]

Exactly

A VALID Sacrament is one where Grace is imparted.

This is most likely the case here. The child did recieve the Sacrament of the Annointing of the Sick.

But Sacraments should also be LICIT, that is conducted in accordance with the mandates of the Church.

The Church sets certain rules on how, where and when the Sacraments may be adminsitered.

Those are adminstrative rules, and God is not bound by them, only the ministers and the faithful.

An example would be if a priest takes some unconsecrated hosts and some wine and says the Eucharistic Prayer over them on his dining room table outside of a Mass. He just says the E.P.

The bread and wine DO become Christ. If the priest put that in a pyx and brought it to a sick person, that person would recieve the VALID Eucharist. It would be Christ.

But that consecration would be illicit, as the Church has mandated that a consecration only be done within a Mass.

I think it’s the sacrificial aspect of the Mass that bestows the full graces of the Eucharist. To consecrate outside Mass, in fact, may be sacrilegious as well. Not sure, though.

 

[otjm]

The priest was competent to administer the sacrament, so the effect was there, but it was against the norms and rules of the Church. It’s not a great situation, and the church doesn’t teach that anointing is necessary- he cannot have committed sins!

The sacrament, however, is not limited to the issue of sin; it also encompasses healing.

 

[dylanschrader]

I agree with puzzleannie. Our priest was telling us of an infant who was not healthy and not expected to live. He went and baptized the infant and also confirmed him. I am unsure about the annointing of the sick but it seems to me that if a child is gravely ill and they can be confirmed, then the annointing of the sick would also be appopriate.
I will keep your baby in prayer.

It’s true that Canon Law proscribes that even those without the use of reason, if they are in danger of death, should be confirmed:

Can. 891 The sacrament of confirmation is to be conferred on the faithful at about the age of discretion unless the conference of bishops has determined another age, or there is danger of death, or in the judgment of the minister a grave cause suggests otherwise.

Canon Law, as mentioned above, also proscribes, regarding the anointing of the sick:

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.

 

[lak611]

It’s true that Canon Law proscribes that even those without the use of reason, if they are in danger of death, should be confirmed:

Is a child in danger of death who is without the use of reason allowed to be given Holy Communion also?

 

[John_Lilburne]

Is a child in danger of death who is without the use of reason allowed to be given Holy Communion also?

From the Code of Canon Law:
“Can. 913 §1. The administration of the Most Holy Eucharist to children requires that they have sufficient knowledge and careful preparation so that they understand the mystery of Christ according to their capacity and are able to receive the body of Christ with faith and devotion.
§2. The Most Holy Eucharist, however, can be administered to children in danger of death if they can distinguish the body of Christ from ordinary food and receive communion reverently.”
From vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P39.HTM .

The liturgical book “Pastoral Care of the Sick” has:
“12. Sick children are to be anointed if they have sufficient use of reason to be strengthened by this sacrament. In case of doubt whether a child has reached the use of reason, the sacrament is to be conferred. [footnote 9: See CIC, can. 1005].”
From The Rites Volume Two, Liturgical Press, 1991, ISBN: 0-8146-6037-1, page 781.

The liturgical book “Book of Blessings” includes a blessing for the sick, with a section for blessing children. The rubrics include:
“405 As circumstances suggest, a minister who is a priest or deacon may lay hands on the sick person while saying the prayer of blessing; a lay minister may trace the sign of the cross on the sick person’s forehead while saying the prayer.”
(Book of Blessings, Liturgical Press, Minnesota, 1989, ISBN 0-8146-1875-8, page 132).

In “Pastoral Care of the Sick” it also has “Chapter II Visits to a Sick Child”. This ceremony includes:
"70. The minister makes the sign of the cross on the child’s forehead, saying one of the following: …
B
All praise and glory is yours, heavenly God,
for you have called us to serve you in love.
Have mercy on us and listen to our prayer
as we ask you to help N.
Bless + your beloved child,
and restore him/her to health
in the name of Jesus the Lord.
R. Amen.

Each one present may in turn trace the sign of the cross on the child’s forehead, in silence.

If the minister is a priest or deacon, he concludes as described in no. 61.

The priest may then lay hands upon the sick child, in silence.

A minister who is not a priest or deacon concludes as described in no. 61."

From n. 61:
“If the minister is a priest or deacon he immediately concludes:
May the blessing of almighty God, the Father, and the Son, + and the Holy Spirit, come upon you and remain with you for ever.
R. Amen.
The priest may lay hands upon the sick person’s head.
A minister who is not a priest or deacon invokes God’s bless and makes the sign of the cross on himself or herself, while saying:
May the Lord bless us,
protect us from all evil,
and bring us to everlasting life.
R. Amen.
The minister may then trace the sign of the cross on the sick person’s forehead.”
(The Rites Volume One, Liturgical Press, 1990, ISBN: 0-8146-6015-0, pages 796, 799-800.

A little confusing. The right margin numbers show it is not a direct translation of the Latin liturgical book. Rather as it has in the 1983 Introduction by “John S. Cummins, Bishop of Oakland, Chairman, The Bishops’ Committee on the Liturgy, National Conerence of Catholic Bishops.”
“… While the material in this volume is substantially a translation of the Latin editio typica of the Ordo Unctionis Infirmorum eorumque pastoralis curae promulgated by the Apostolic Constitution of Paul VI, Sacram Unctionem infirmorum, of November 30, 1972, at the request of the member and associate member episcopal conferences at the Joint International Commission on English in the Liturgy, the Latin edition has been expanded and adapted for greater pastoral effectiveness.
This expansion and adaptation includes original English texts which address pastoral circumstances not foreseen in the Latin edition nor in the provisional English edition of 1973. Also included in this volume are texts from other approved parts of the Roman Ritual, e.g. Rite of Funerals, Rite of Christian Initation of Adults, etc. …”

Not the sort of “translation” that would be approved today, with the 2001 Instruction Liturgiam Authenticam.