MERGED: Annointing of the Sick for Infant/Denied annointing for an infant

  • Thread starter Thread starter James924
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

James924

Guest
Note: This is not about the Last Rites.

I had always been under the impression that annointing of the sick, in addition to spiritual health, also had the potential, should God will it, to cause physical healing. Therefore, despite knowing that a baptised infant is free of sin, it still seemed to make sense that abbointing of the sick could be given for the sake of the possibility of physical healing. To clarify, this is not about being close to death, or wanting the last rites, but simply about being sick and wanting the annointing of the sick.

But when I requested it of a Priest for our infant when he was sick, his answer was only to insist that he didn’t need it, because he’s baptised and sinless. Is it possible that he thought I meant the last rites? Or is it true that infants aren’t given the sacrament of annointing of the sick? If so, what am I failing to understand about the sacrament and its scriptural and historical potential to heal?
 
I’m not an expert…

But my understanding is that infants who are sick (in danger of death) should be baptized and can also be confirmed.

Anointing is for those over the age of reason.

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.
 
SuscipeMeDomine said:
I’m not an expert…

But my understanding is that infants who are sick (in danger of death) should be baptized and can also be confirmed.

Anointing is for those over the age of reason.

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...
Thats what I needed. Thanks!

Yet still, it leaves me slightly confused. I had always thought that the annointing of the sick really did have the potential to bring physical healing, apart from issues of forgiveness of sins, age of reason, etc etc.
 
James924 said:
Thats what I needed. Thanks!

Yet still, it leaves me slightly confused. I had always thought that the annointing of the sick really did have the potential to bring physical healing, apart from issues of forgiveness of sins, age of reason, etc etc.
Click to expand...
This is from the Catechism:

IV. The Effects of the Celebration of This Sacrament

1520
A particular gift of the Holy Spirit. The first grace of this sacrament is one of strengthening, peace and courage to overcome the difficulties that go with the condition of serious illness or the frailty of old age. This grace is a gift of the Holy Spirit, who renews trust and faith in God and strengthens against the temptations of the evil one, the temptation to discouragement and anguish in the face of death.135 **This assistance from the Lord by the power of his Spirit is meant to lead the sick person to healing of the soul, but also of the body if such is God’s will.**136 Furthermore, "if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven."137

1521
Union with the passion of Christ. By the grace of this sacrament the sick person receives the strength and the gift of uniting himself more closely to Christ’s Passion: in a certain way he is consecrated to bear fruit by configuration to the Savior’s redemptive Passion. Suffering, a consequence of original sin, acquires a new meaning; it becomes a participation in the saving work of Jesus.

1522
An ecclesial grace. The sick who receive this sacrament, “by freely uniting themselves to the passion and death of Christ,” "contribute to the good of the People of God."138 By celebrating this sacrament the Church, in the communion of saints, intercedes for the benefit of the sick person, and he, for his part, though the grace of this sacrament, contributes to the sanctification of the Church and to the good of all men for whom the Church suffers and offers herself through Christ to God the Father.

1523
A preparation for the final journey. If the sacrament of anointing of the sick is given to all who suffer from serious illness and infirmity, even more rightly is it given to those at the point of departing this life; so it is also called sacramentum exeuntium (the sacrament of those departing).139 The Anointing of the Sick completes our conformity to the death and Resurrection of Christ, just as Baptism began it. It completes the holy anointings that mark the whole Christian life: that of Baptism which sealed the new life in us, and that of Confirmation which strengthened us for the combat of this life. This last anointing fortifies the end of our earthly life like a solid rampart for the final struggles before entering the Father’s house.140

The part I bolded mentions physical healing. But the sacrament does so much more than that. I guess that in her wisdom, the Church doesn’t see that these other elements apply to infants.
 
I agree with the parent. Annointing of the sick is a celebration with the potential of healing, and could have been administered; there is no telling if the infant was at risk of dying. My girlfriend from Catholic school was a registered nurse and her child died unexpectedly of SIDs at age 3, all infants are at risk especially if experiencing a health issue. Upto and including toddlers!

The lesson this parent learned long ago, came from Catholics much wiser than those we see intrepreting our 2000 year old religion today. Moreover many lay people are erroring in intrepretation, as was this parent’s clergy. He should have looked further were he would have found a priest who would have annointed the child.

Additionally how does anyone know if the infant has come to the age of reason? No matter how obscure, the little one learns if nothing else manipulation from the get go, and by age 2 months some are absolutely spoiled; a very small sin of selfishness, but none the less he is reasoning.

Again this parent was to quick to agree with the researched answers that are subject to interpretaion, as he was to agree with the clergy. I am sure he is long gone, but…I hope that he would stick to his guns in the future.
SuscipeMeDomine said:
This is from the Catechism:

IV. The Effects of the Celebration of This Sacrament

1520
A particular gift of the Holy Spirit. The first grace of this sacrament is one of strengthening, peace and courage to overcome the difficulties that go with the condition of serious illness or the frailty of old age. This grace is a gift of the Holy Spirit, who renews trust and faith in God and strengthens against the temptations of the evil one, the temptation to discouragement and anguish in the face of death.135 **This assistance from the Lord by the power of his Spirit is meant to lead the sick person to healing of the soul, but also of the body if such is God’s will.**136 Furthermore, "if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven."137

1521
Union with the passion of Christ. By the grace of this sacrament the sick person receives the strength and the gift of uniting himself more closely to Christ’s Passion: in a certain way he is consecrated to bear fruit by configuration to the Savior’s redemptive Passion. Suffering, a consequence of original sin, acquires a new meaning; it becomes a participation in the saving work of Jesus.

1522
An ecclesial grace. The sick who receive this sacrament, “by freely uniting themselves to the passion and death of Christ,” "contribute to the good of the People of God."138 By celebrating this sacrament the Church, in the communion of saints, intercedes for the benefit of the sick person, and he, for his part, though the grace of this sacrament, contributes to the sanctification of the Church and to the good of all men for whom the Church suffers and offers herself through Christ to God the Father.

1523
A preparation for the final journey. If the sacrament of anointing of the sick is given to all who suffer from serious illness and infirmity, even more rightly is it given to those at the point of departing this life; so it is also called sacramentum exeuntium (the sacrament of those departing).139 The Anointing of the Sick completes our conformity to the death and Resurrection of Christ, just as Baptism began it. It completes the holy anointings that mark the whole Christian life: that of Baptism which sealed the new life in us, and that of Confirmation which strengthened us for the combat of this life. This last anointing fortifies the end of our earthly life like a solid rampart for the final struggles before entering the Father’s house.140

The part I bolded mentions physical healing. But the sacrament does so much more than that. I guess that in her wisdom, the Church doesn’t see that these other elements apply to infants.
Click to expand...
 
Long gone? I just posted like an hour ago…

As for the age of reason, I always thought the church had an official age for that. I am curious though if/when the canon law on this was different. i.e. was it part of the change in 1983 or has it always been the case?
 
I suggest that people look to the General Introduction for the Rites of Anointing and Viaticum

Under the heading “Recipients of the Anointing of the Sick” we find the following:

#12 Sick children may be anointed if they have sufficient use of reason to be strengthened by this sacrament.

This is a “younger” standard that the one for Confession and First Communion, which is the age of reason. To be anointed, children need only sufficient use of reason to be strengthened. A child too young to have that use of reason is not a candidate for anointing. Once a child has reached the age of reason (thereby a candidate for Confession and Communion), there is no doubt that he is a candidate for Anointing in case of a serious illness.
 
The Sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick is not meant to be understood and used as a means of physical healing. If that were it’s purpose priests would have to spend most of their day travelling around to the sick and administering the sacrament. And then, if physical healing did not result (which would probably be most of the time as that is not it’s purpose) the sacrament would soon be viewed as ineffective or powerless.

We do believe in praying for physical healing.
 
When I was an infant (less than a year old), I had to have emergency surgery to correct an abdominal hernia so bad, it could have killed me; before I went in to the hospital, my mother asked a priest to give me the Anointing of the Sick, but he gently refused, since I hadn’t reached the age of reason.
 
FrDavid96 said:
This is a “younger” standard that the one for Confession and First Communion, which is the age of reason. To be anointed, children need only sufficient use of reason to be strengthened. A child too young to have that use of reason is not a candidate for anointing. Once a child has reached the age of reason (thereby a candidate for Confession and Communion), there is no doubt that he is a candidate for Anointing in case of a serious illness.
Click to expand...
This is interesting. Would you think that a two- or three-year-old is potentially old enough?

Also, what about confirming a sick child, either infant or preschool age? Would you be more inclined to confirm or anoint?
 
SuscipeMeDomine said:
This is interesting. Would you think that a two- or three-year-old is potentially old enough?

Also, what about confirming a sick child, either infant or preschool age? Would you be more inclined to confirm or anoint?
Click to expand...
An infant who is baptized in danger of death is also to be confirmed if the priest has the Sacred Chrism with him. Confirmation does not require the age of reason to be effective. Anointing, OTOH, requires that the recipient at least understand what it is.
 
SuscipeMeDomine said:
This is interesting. Would you think that a two- or three-year-old is potentially old enough?

Also, what about confirming a sick child, either infant or preschool age? Would you be more inclined to confirm or anoint?
Click to expand...
It’s not about what any particular priest “thinks” about this. It’s about following what the Church says may/should be done.

No, a 3 year old would simply not meet the Church’s definition of having enough reasoning ability to benefit from Anointing.

There’s a considerable difference between “infant” (at least as we use the word in English–the Latin use of the word means anyone below the age of reason) and a pre-schooler. An infant? No. A pre-schooler? Perhaps. That’s in regard to Anointing.

In danger of death, even an infant should be Confirmed (immediately after Baptism if necessary).
 
How ironic that this discussion is going on now. I had to take my family to a local Novus Ordo this afternoon (just hours ago) because my son and wife are both too sick for the road trip to the Mass of Ages. And guess what the homily was about? Anointing of the sick and the last rites. And guess how many times things like the supernatural aspects of it, or grace, or sin, or salvation, or the afterlife were mentioned? Zero. The reason repeatedly given for the importance of the last rites was the happiness of the person dying (and I’m not talking about the proper noun, Happy Death, but literally stories about people being happy before they die) and the happiness of their loved ones. Add that to the choir leader shaking her hind end at the beginning of each song and the plethora of super bowl jokes and it was quite an interesting (though not surprising) experience.

Ah, well.

Thanks to everyone for the information and thanks, Father David, for the reference to the General Introduction.
 
jqualteri said:
Additionally how does anyone know if the infant has come to the age of reason? No matter how obscure, the little one learns if nothing else manipulation from the get go, and by age 2 months some are absolutely spoiled; a very small sin of selfishness, but none the less he is reasoning.
Click to expand...
YOu do not seriously believe a 2 MONTH old is spoiled and capable of manipulation, do you? 2 MONTH old infants do not reason. They are trying to survive and get their NEEDS met. Those needs at age 2 months include food, dry bottoms, warmth, comfort, and love. The church teaches the age of reason is about 7 YEARS old, which is a common age for the reception of First Communion.
 
When our son was born in June, he had to go to the NICU for breathing issues and was put on a ventilator. Although the NICU staff said it wasn’t necessary as he was expected to be fine, we had him baptised by our priest a few hours after birth.

When he was 3 days old, he had to be lifeflighted to another facility about 9 hrs away due to his condition. At this point, he had become critically ill, and was in imment danger of death. We requested annointing of the sick from a priest prior to him being transferred, and it was denied. THe priest said it wasn’t necessary as he had had baptism, and being an infant had committed no personal sins. We were so distraught over this, the NICU staff called another priest. He came, but also denied annointing for the same reason.

Our son died at the age of 16 days old, from a hospital aquired infection. The priest at the children’s hospital where he died offered and gave him the sacrament of Confirmation prior to his death.

While I realize that annointing of the sick forgives sins, it also prays for healing, body and soul. I have since met numerous people whose children and infants under the age of reason HAVE received annointing of the sick. I’m mystified why this was denied to us for our son. Even if it wasn’t NECESSARY, couldn’t it have been given for pastoral reasons, as it was so important to my husband and I during the most horrendous experience in our lives?

Thank you for your thoughts on this.

Mom to 5 who walk, 1 who soars
 
I should mention that my husband and I are active members in good standing at our parish, actively involved in parish life. Our own parish priest was unavailable on the day Maximilian was transferred as there was an ordination of several new priests in our diocese that day.
 
The priests were correct, your son should have been baptized and confirmed, but the anointing of the sick is administrated to those past the age of reason.

From here:
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...
 
THe priests who denied the annointing of the sick didn’t offer Confirmation. That was another priest once my son was transferred, some days later.

So the grace from the sacrament of annointing of the sick is thought to be unhelpful to infants and children, or is it that that they are felt be be not in need of prayer, graces or healing? Would not the Holy Spirit be at work in the child? Aren’t children also part of the body of Christ? It has been explained that the sacrament of annointing of the sick, after Vatican II, puts more emphasis on healing, not just forgiveness of sins and preparation for death. Can you explain further? Could another prayer for strength, God’s grace and possible healing been offered instead? Is this the verse that is the basis for the sacrament, as well as only offering prayer, for those over the age of reason?

“Is anyone among you sick? He should summon the presbyters of the church, and they should pray over him and anoint (him) with oil in the name of the Lord, and the prayer of faith will save the sick person, and the Lord will raise him up. If he has committed any sins, he will be forgiven.”

And the issue that is very confusing to me, is that many other children who have received this sacrament. The sacrament of Marriage or the conditions to administer baptism, will apply to all. Why the huge discrepancies in annointing of the sick? I admit to not understanding this sacrament well, I never imagined desiring it for one of my children. I’m needing to understand not just the canon, but the reasoning. Confirmation is to be administered after the age of reason as well, and with proper instruction beforehand, but 1 priest thought it was appropriate due to the grave danger of death, 2 others did not with the exact same medical conditions.
 
Also, since tone is hard to get right in a board forum, I’m asking these questions in all sincerety, with a genuine desire to understand more completely
 
etmom said:
THe priests who denied the annointing of the sick didn’t offer Confirmation. That was another priest once my son was transferred, some days later.

So the grace from the sacrament of annointing of the sick is thought to be unhelpful to infants and children, or is it that that they are felt be be not in need of prayer, graces or healing? Would not the Holy Spirit be at work in the child? Aren’t children also part of the body of Christ? It has been explained that the sacrament of annointing of the sick, after Vatican II, puts more emphasis on healing, not just forgiveness of sins and preparation for death. Can you explain further? Could another prayer for strength, God’s grace and possible healing been offered instead? Is this the verse that is the basis for the sacrament, as well as only offering prayer, for those over the age of reason?

“Is anyone among you sick? He should summon the presbyters of the church, and they should pray over him and anoint (him) with oil in the name of the Lord, and the prayer of faith will save the sick person, and the Lord will raise him up. If he has committed any sins, he will be forgiven.”

And the issue that is very confusing to me, is that many other children who have received this sacrament. The sacrament of Marriage or the conditions to administer baptism, will apply to all. Why the huge discrepancies in annointing of the sick? I admit to not understanding this sacrament well, I never imagined desiring it for one of my children. I’m needing to understand not just the canon, but the reasoning. Confirmation is to be administered after the age of reason as well, and with proper instruction beforehand, but 1 priest thought it was appropriate due to the grave danger of death, 2 others did not with the exact same medical conditions.
Click to expand...
Confirmation is the seal of baptism. The armor of the Holy Spirit. It was the tradition of the church to give baptism, confirmation, and eucharist all at the same time, in infancy. In the west, theology developed a little differently than in the east and the practices reflect that western tradition.

The west teaches that we are born with a stain of sin on our souls which is washed away at baptism. It teaches that the effects are still present even after the stain is washed away in baptism. They would give an example of a repentant criminal still needing to serve his sentence in jail and still having his record follow him for years after he left jail, affecting his job possibilities. The west teaches that the stain of sin is completely washed away in baptism and then the person is perfectly in union with God until he reaches the age of reason and chooses to sin. At that point, the person needs sacramental grace to strengthen him as he returns to the Lord. Before then, he already has everything. Let the little children come to me, for such is the kingdom of God. It really is a positive and loving approach if you think about it. They saw anointing your baptized baby the same as giving medicine to a healthy man. They saw your child in a spiritual state the rest of us should desire.

They might not have been the best communicators. Or they might have communicated well but you might have been so distraught that a theology lesson was lost on you at the time. Or they might not be well versed in the pastoral care of sick children. The Roman Catholic canon law says an infant in danger of death should receive Confirmation. The priest who confirmed Maximilian was a wise man who took care of your baby’s spiritual needs. What a blessing that you encountered him in your baby’s short life here on earth!

Confirmation is in a no man’s land right now. It wasn’t that long ago that it was administered around the age of reason and then followed by first communion. Priests can baptize and only bishops confirm traditionally, so it makes since that confirmations were pushed out a couple years waiting for the bishop to come around. Any time a person is in danger of death, the sealing of baptism shouldn’t be put off and should be given as soon as possible.

But in the US, confirmation has been pushed out later and later. A lot of educators like it this way because they say it keeps kids coming for religious ed classes as long as a sacrament is dangled as a reward at the end of the stick. Not surprisingly, Confirmation has come to be understood as a coming of age, which is a terrible understanding of the sacrament and shows how little they’re learning in all those extra years of catechesis. But I digress.

About 60 years ago, IIRC, the pope was asked why first communion was happening so late because it used to be that children were communed. First Communion still came after Confirmation then and Confirmation was happening much older. Instead of moving Confirmation back down to a younger age which would have moved Communion down with it, he left Confirmation alone and moved first communion out of order down to the age of reason. It’s no wonder that the average lay Catholic is confused! Or our clerics! It’s all such a mess right now. I’m not surprised that you’ve heard that other priests have done other things. What you need to know is that your baby was taken care of and had the very best the priests could provide.

The west teaches that Maximilian was in a spiritually perfect state, incapable of sin, and assured of salvation. The priests gave him all the spiritual strength he needed for his short journey. You did your job and got him to heaven. It isn’t an easy job being the mother of a saint. It’s OK to be angry, sad, to grieve, and to try to understand. What you’re dealing with now is that you are still on the journey and needing more. And the Church has the sacraments, especially the Eucharist, you’ll need as you continue this journey.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top