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.
To the OP, it does appear the priests were correct, according to Canon law; but I do not understand the law also.

From the CCC
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.134 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.135 Furthermore, "if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven."136
(boldness added)

Since the effect of the sacrament is both healing of the soul and potential healing of the body, why is it reserved for those who have reached the age of reason. Yes, a baptized infant does not need healing of the soul, I certainly understnad that. But why not have the opportunity for healing of the body?

I would love some of our experts to address the OP’s concern along these lines.
 
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.
Thank you, this is incredible helpful to me. This brings up more 1 more question: since I know that the Church teaches that Maximilian IS a saint, and assured of salvation, many, many people from our parish had Mass offered for our son after his death. Since we are assured of his salvation, is this not proper? My husband wanted to have it offered on Max’s birthday this June. Max does not need the merits of the Mass, correct?
 
Thank you, this is incredible helpful to me. This brings up more 1 more question: since I know that the Church teaches that Maximilian IS a saint, and assured of salvation, many, many people from our parish had Mass offered for our son after his death. Since we are assured of his salvation, is this not proper? My husband wanted to have it offered on Max’s birthday this June. Max does not need the merits of the Mass, correct?
You are correct but the merits of offered prayers are never wasted. If someone wants to offer a Mass for you dear son, it will make them feel better and the offering will flow to a soul in more need.
 
To the OP, it does appear the priests were correct, according to Canon law; but I do not understand the law also.

From the CCC

(boldness added)

Since the effect of the sacrament is both healing of the soul and potential healing of the body, why is it reserved for those who have reached the age of reason. Yes, a baptized infant does not need healing of the soul, I certainly understnad that. But why not have the opportunity for healing of the body?

I would love some of our experts to address the OP’s concern along these lines.
1532 The special grace of the sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick has as its effects:
  • the uniting of the sick person to the passion of Christ, for his own good and that of the whole Church;
  • the strengthening, peace, and courage to endure in a Christian manner the sufferings of illness or old age;
  • the forgiveness of sins, if the sick person was not able to obtain it through the sacrament of Penance;
  • the restoration of health,** if it is conducive to the salvation of his soul**;
  • the preparation for passing over to eternal life.
 
I understand that the anointing of the sick is not administered to those too young to have at least an understanding of it – for this one it doesn’t have to be the age of reason, just to be able to understand enough to be strengthened by it.

What I don’t understand is why priests who baptize babies in danger of dying don’t also confirm them at the same times when the Rite clearly says it should be done.
 
I understand that the anointing of the sick is not administered to those too young to have at least an understanding of it – for this one it doesn’t have to be the age of reason, just to be able to understand enough to be strengthened by it.

What I don’t understand is why priests who baptize babies in danger of dying don’t also confirm them at the same times when the Rite clearly says it should be done.
It’s not that they need to understand the sacrament. It’s that they need to understand right and wrong in order to sin. They don’t need the sacrament if they’re baptized and haven’t sinned. So they don’t need the sacrament if they don’t yet understand right from wrong because they don’t need it if they haven’t sinned.

It’s a nuance, but an important one. Without it, people start thinking that we merit the sacraments or are able to fully understand grace, or that the disabled are not able to receive the sacraments, or other heresies.

I agree with you on the latter point. It is my suspicion that it is a combination of factors which includes a lack of understanding of the sacrament of Confirmation, ignorance of their obligation to the sick through poor catechesis, and fear of scandal when the rest of the community thinks you have to understand and accept it for yourself as a coming of age sacrament. It would be hard to explain why a 7-yr-old who desires Confirmation has to stay in classes until she’s 16 before she can receive it while a baby was able to receive it last week, especially if the baby survives and remains in the community. The importance of the nuance becomes visible when seen in this light. Our priests need better catechesis and need to offer it in turn to the laity.

A few bishops in the US have started this process by restoring the original order of the sacraments: baptism, then confirmation, then eucharist. I started a thread about the pope praising them for this the other day and the people there are posting a lot of great information about the history of Confirmation. forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=653409
 
It’s not that they need to understand the sacrament. It’s that they need to understand right and wrong in order to sin. They don’t need the sacrament if they’re baptized and haven’t sinned. So they don’t need the sacrament if they don’t yet understand right from wrong because they don’t need it if they haven’t sinned.
It’s not even that. As FrDavid96 wrote in a post on another thread "In 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.
 
It’s not even that. As FrDavid96 wrote in a post on another thread "In the General Introduction for the Rites of Anointing and Viaticum, under the heading “Recipients of the Anointing of the Sick” we find the following:
Hmmm. I don’t know how the use of reason affects efficacy, or what it is this line is discussing efficacy of, in Latin theology. I know western theology mainly from a historical perspective.
 
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, my dauthter died at four and a half years old of leukemia. She was baptized when she was an infant but that was more of a cultural thing for me because I had not yet turned to God and didn’t understand.

I was not educated enough in the faith to even think to call a priest to have additional sacraments administered. I am so comforted by the fact that she was baptized and am so glad to hear that your son had bapbism and confirmation.

I hope we both get to see our children some day.

-Tim-
 
I hope we both get to see our children some day.

-Tim-
I’m so sorry for the loss of your daughter, Tim. The hope of seeing our little max again keeps us sharply attuned on heaven. I don’t think there is any grief like the loss of a child.
 
1532 The special grace of the sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick has as its effects:
  • the uniting of the sick person to the passion of Christ, for his own good and that of the whole Church;
  • the strengthening, peace, and courage to endure in a Christian manner the sufferings of illness or old age;
  • the forgiveness of sins, if the sick person was not able to obtain it through the sacrament of Penance;
  • the restoration of health,** if it is conducive to the salvation of his soul**;
  • the preparation for passing over to eternal life.
Thankyou.

Interesting. It seems 1520 and 1532 slightly differ as to the effects of the sacrament with respect to healing the body, with the former saying only “if such is God’s will” and the latter saying “if it is condicive to the salvation of his soul”. It seems quite minor, but it certainly seems to make a difference in this case (and in a couple of others I can imagine). Taking 1532 into account, yes a recently baptized infant does not need a restoration of physical health in order for his soul to be saved; so the canon is logical. But 1520 just says God’s will, and God could have other reasons, besides the salvation of the sick person’s soul, for wanting to restore the health of the baby (maybe the baby will grow to be a great saint). So the canon does not make sense when considering 1520.

Welcoming more explanation.
 
I am so sorry for your loss.

I think maybe this is the best response you can get- and should hold on to!
Code:
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
.

That was a splendid response.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top