Sacramentish of the Sick

[ckasa]

Hello all, so I was debating something with a friend and we wondered about the properness of the actions in this scenario.

For the sake of the argument, lets say a seminarian that has been in formation for a few years is in a parish where the priest is either unavailable one night or is away on vacation and a family calls requesting the sacrament of the sick for a person that is definitely in their final hours of life. The Seminarian knows that he cannot validly confer it because of his lack of ordination and contacts every parish in the surrounding area and even retired priests but alas, none are available or willing to do it. The seminarian does not want the person to die without feeling some comfort and goes to be by the persons bedside. In so doing the seminarian declares to everyone there that he cannot confer any of the sacraments but offers to share some readings from scripture and brings the Eucharist (viaticum), in addition he offers a prayer by the persons bedside asking the Lord to bestow his mercy and peace upon the individual dying.

At no point does he hear a confession, nor anoint the person with oil.

So the question I have is this, would this be an acceptable pastoral action in light of the canon law mentioning that no person may perform an act reserved to someone that is ordained or is this over stepping the bounds?

The scenario was inspired by a story in the book “To Save a Thousand Souls” by Fr. Brett Brannen where a seminarian does an action reserved to a priest and his Bishop tells him he could not have conferred the sacrament due to his lack of Holy Orders.

 

[CB_Catholic]

I do not see where the Sacrament of Anointing of the Sick was conferred at all in your scenario. Anybody can read Scripture at any time to or with someone else, can pray with anyone at any time, and laity who are EMHC’s can bring Eucharist to the sick. Usually seminarians in a parish are also EMHC’s. IOW, you do not need to be a priest to do any of this, even if they are dying.

There was no attempt at Confession, Anointing as a Sacrament, the seminarian did not present himself as a priest, and told the family this was not the Sacrament.

 

[ckasa]

Those were my thoughts, the friend I was discussing it with was initially thinking that there can be the attempt to overstep the bounds or accidentally go too far with it. Especially since many seminarians wear the roman collar while serving in parishes and many people easily believe they are priests and speak to them as such, and in such a dire moment a person can simply open up or unload on a person forgetting their actual abilities.

My friend was of the mindset that the seminarian should not put himself into the position because of the risk of being either misinterpreted or over stepping the boundaries in the moment.

 

[Phemie]

Those were my thoughts, the friend I was discussing it with was initially thinking that there can be the attempt to overstep the bounds or accidentally go too far with it. Especially since many seminarians wear the roman collar while serving in parishes and many people easily believe they are priests and speak to them as such, and in such a dire moment a person can simply open up or unload on a person forgetting their actual abilities.

My friend was of the mindset that the seminarian should not put himself into the position because of the risk of being either misinterpreted or over stepping the boundaries in the moment.

That’s silly. Those of us who are involved in the care of the sick in our parish do all that the seminarian did. If Father is out of town we are the ones who will take viaticum to a patient and pray the prayers when death is imminent. I’ve done it myself. Of course there is no danger that I will ever be mistaken for a priest but still…

 

[Samwise1]

I think it’s not only “allowed”, I think it’s an obligation for a seminarian. It’s our duty to stay close to the sick, especially for those entrusted with pastoral care.

Of course he can’t wear any priestly/deacon garments, take oil or something, but the viaticum (as long as he has been appointed an acolyte / extraordinary minister).

As an appointed acolyte (ex-seminarian), even I would do this (in all humility) if I’d hear from such a situation.

 

[dans0622]

…So the question I have is this, would this be an acceptable pastoral action in light of the canon law mentioning that no person may perform an act reserved to someone that is ordained … ?
…

Hello,

Yes.

Dan

 

[Gorgias]

Of course he can’t wear any priestly/deacon garments

By this, I would assume you’re talking about chasubles and dalmatics, but that wouldn’t apply in a visit to a home or hospital anyway. (Maybe you’re thinking about a stole? That could happen – but I don’t know of many priests who put on stoles for sick calls, although they might, if they were hearing confessions.)

The Roman collar is the crux of the issue here. I’d be willing to bet a month’s pay that almost all Catholics fail to make the distinction between a priest wearing a Roman collar, a deacon wearing a Roman collar (where permitted, of course, and even then, often wearing a shirt that’s not black), and a seminarian wearing a Roman collar. Ask any seminarian how often he’s been called ‘Father’.

Moreover, sadly, Catholics fail to understand what happens when priests minister to people at the end of their lives. No matter what he does, it’s “Last Rites”; or, regardless what a priest says or does, it’s “a blessing” (“excuse me, my grandma’s taken a turn for the worse – can the priest come and give her a blessing?”). In general, we don’t even understand that the Anointing of the Sick is a distinct sacrament. Add to that, the fact that, at that highly stressful moment in the family’s life, they aren’t going to be thinking clearly – the seminarian who says, “I’m not a priest, and I can’t anoint or absolve” will probably get a nod or an affirmation from the family … but very likely, they’re not hearing him at that moment. If they asked for an anointing for a family member, and someone in a Roman collar shows up, they’re going to think that he’s there to anoint their family member.

So, the issue is twofold: whether, seeing a man in a Roman collar will make a poorly-informed Catholic think ‘priest’, and whether, seeing him praying with a person will make them think “Last Rites”.

Personally, I think that this misunderstanding is likely. However, as long as the seminarian doesn’t do anything quasi-liturgical/sacramental (laying hands on a person, signing the cross over them, etc), then he’s not simulating a sacrament or trying to give the appearance of simulating a sacrament.

Even if the family does misunderstand, I think it’s a reasonable move by the seminarian. Nevertheless, I think it would be prudent for him to speak with a superior beforehand (the priest to whom he’s assigned at a summer assignment, or a formation advisor), asking advice on what he should do if such a situation should occur. (At least that way, he has a better understanding of what he’s permitted to do, should such a situation arise and he be required to defend his actions afterward, should that be necessary.)

After all, there are two potential sets of consequences: serious repercussions for ‘simulating a sacrament’, or disciplinary action for over-stepping his bounds. The former would seem inapplicable here, given the OP’s description. The latter, however, might apply – unless the seminarian has clear guidance from the appropriate person in advance.

As an appointed acolyte (ex-seminarian), even I would do this (in all humility) if I’d hear from such a situation.

You wouldn’t go there wearing a Roman collar though – and that seems the difference here.

 

[Samwise1]

You’re totally right - that’s the difference.
Here seminarians only wear collars after deaconate ordination (so I also never wore one).

I agree with the confusion… and it sounds a lot like the confusion between Mass and Communion Service…

Funny, because this would mean someone who is studying to give these blessings, is less appropriate than a lay person ‘in normal attire’.

I guess something could be construed to articulate the difference between anointing and this pastoral visit. Though one, but can we continue about this? I’m curious!

 

[TimothyH]

ffers to share some readings from scripture and brings the Eucharist (viaticum), in addition he offers a prayer by the persons bedside asking the Lord to bestow his mercy and peace upon the individual dying.

This is never inappropriate but rather an incredibly beautiful act.

This is exactly what we are supposed to do for each other. I hope someone does this for me when I am on my deathbed.

-Tim-

 

[cadet17]

Hello all, so I was debating something with a friend and we wondered about the properness of the actions in this scenario.

For the sake of the argument, lets say a seminarian that has been in formation for a few years is in a parish where the priest is either unavailable one night or is away on vacation and a family calls requesting the sacrament of the sick for a person that is definitely in their final hours of life. The Seminarian knows that he cannot validly confer it because of his lack of ordination and contacts every parish in the surrounding area and even retired priests but alas, none are available or willing to do it. The seminarian does not want the person to die without feeling some comfort and goes to be by the persons bedside. In so doing the seminarian declares to everyone there that he cannot confer any of the sacraments but offers to share some readings from scripture and brings the Eucharist (viaticum), in addition he offers a prayer by the persons bedside asking the Lord to bestow his mercy and peace upon the individual dying.

At no point does he hear a confession, nor anoint the person with oil.

So the question I have is this, would this be an acceptable pastoral action in light of the canon law mentioning that no person may perform an act reserved to someone that is ordained or is this over stepping the bounds?

The scenario was inspired by a story in the book “To Save a Thousand Souls” by Fr. Brett Brannen where a seminarian does an action reserved to a priest and his Bishop tells him he could not have conferred the sacrament due to his lack of Holy Orders.

Yeah, the only thing is if the seminarian wasn’t a mandated minister to the sick, then he shouldn’t have administered viaticum, but anyone can pray for someone. A seminarian is essentially a layman who is going through training. It also depends if he’s an instituted acolyte or not because the ability differs with each one.

 

[John_Lilburne]

The official liturgical book is Pastoral Care of the Sick. It includes the sacrament of Anointing of the Sick. But there are many other ceremonies that do not require a priest, for example:
Visits to the Sick.
Communion of the Sick.
Viaticum Outside Mass
Commendation of the Dying
Prayers for the Dead
Christian Initiation for the Dying (Baptism can be done by a layperson, not confirmation).

 

[Gorgias]

Yeah, the only thing is if the seminarian wasn’t a mandated minister to the sick, then he shouldn’t have administered viaticum, but anyone can pray for someone. It also depends if he’s an instituted acolyte or not because the ability differs with each one.

Right: if he’s an Acolyte, then there’s no issue: certainly, he’s an EMHC in his diocese, and therefore, he can bring Communion to the sick.

Still, if he’s assigned to a parish while in seminary – as an Acolyte, Lector, or seminarian who has not yet been assigned to a major seminary – it stands to reason that he’s been authorized to act as an EMHC at least in that parish. Therefore, for him to distribute Viaticum is not an issue.

A seminarian is essentially a layman who is going through training.

No, that’s not accurate. Even if not yet ordained, a seminarian may have been instituted into ministries for the Church (Lector, Acolyte) or will have been deputed into ministries for the parish in the course of an assignment there.

 

[Joannm]

No, that’s not accurate. Even if not yet ordained, a seminarian may have been instituted into ministries for the Church (Lector, Acolyte) or will have been deputed into ministries for the parish in the course of an assignment there.

But that still makes him a lay person. Until he received Holy Orders at diaconate ordination he is part of the laity.

 

[Micosil]

But that still makes him a lay person. Until he received Holy Orders at diaconate ordination he is part of the laity.

I am not convinced “lay person” means anyone on whom the sacrament of Holy Orders has not been conferred. Would you say a nun, or a friar (who is not an ordained deacon, transitional or permanent, or priest) is a “lay person”?

 

[Phemie]

I am not convinced “lay person” means anyone on whom the sacrament of Holy Orders has not been conferred. Would you say a nun, or a friar (who is not an ordained deacon, transitional or permanent, or priest) is a “lay person”?

Canon Law defines them as “lay persons”
Can. 207 §1. By divine institution, there are among the Christian faithful in the Church sacred ministers who in law are also called clerics; the other members of the Christian faithful are called lay persons.
§2. There are members of the Christian faithful from both these groups who, through the profession of the evangelical counsels by means of vows or other sacred bonds recognized and sanctioned by the Church, are consecrated to God in their own special way and contribute to the salvific mission of the Church; although their state does not belong to the hierarchical structure of the Church, it nevertheless belongs to its life and holiness.

 

[Micosil]

Canon Law defines them as “lay persons”
Can. 207 §1. By divine institution, there are among the Christian faithful in the Church sacred ministers who in law are also called clerics; the other members of the Christian faithful are called lay persons.
§2. There are members of the Christian faithful from both these groups who, through the profession of the evangelical counsels by means of vows or other sacred bonds recognized and sanctioned by the Church, are consecrated to God in their own special way and contribute to the salvific mission of the Church; although their state does not belong to the hierarchical structure of the Church, it nevertheless belongs to its life and holiness.

I stand corrected.

That being said, what are we to make of this (from the CCC)?

897 "The term ‘laity’ is here understood to mean all the faithful except those in Holy Orders and those who belong to a religious state approved by the Church. That is, the faithful, who by Baptism are incorporated into Christ and integrated into the People of God, are made sharers in their particular way in the priestly, prophetic, and kingly office of Christ, and have their own part to play in the mission of the whole Christian people in the Church and in the World."430

Reference “430” is taken from “LG 31”, presumably Lumen gentium.

 

[Gorgias]

But that still makes him a lay person. Until he received Holy Orders at diaconate ordination he is part of the laity.

True; he’s still part of the laity. However, I was contesting the whole assertion, which was “essentially a lay person going through training.” That’s inaccurate: he may have been instituted into the ministry of Acolyte or the ministry of Lector, and in all probability, had been authorized to be an EMHC for the parish where he’s assigned. That means that he’s got more responsibilities and opportunities for ministry than just someone “going through training.”

 

[Gorgias]

That being said, what are we to make of this (from the CCC)?

In this context, the CCC is discussing the ways that Christians participate in the munera (i.e., ‘offices’) of Christ: priestly, prophetic, kingly.

Those who are ordained participate in them in various ways.

Those who are laity participate in them as well, but in different various ways.

Those who in consecrated life (and religious life, etc, etc) live their lives in a way that is particularly distinct from the way that the hierarchy and the laity at large do.

So, in this case, the CCC is attempting to make a distinction between “laity in consecrated life” and “laity not in consecrated life.” (Remember, too, that there are those who live the consecrated life who also are ordained!)

 

[dans0622]

Canon Law defines them as “lay persons”
Can. 207 §1. By divine institution, there are among the Christian faithful in the Church sacred ministers who in law are also called clerics; the other members of the Christian faithful are called lay persons.
§2. There are members of the Christian faithful from both these groups who, through the profession of the evangelical counsels by means of vows or other sacred bonds recognized and sanctioned by the Church, are consecrated to God in their own special way and contribute to the salvific mission of the Church; although their state does not belong to the hierarchical structure of the Church, it nevertheless belongs to its life and holiness.

I can’t believe it. This is an opportunity to refer to my j.c.l. thesis, which I thought would have no practical use at all. The ultimate conclusion was that it is inappropriate for canon lawyers to refer to “religious” as laity. They are have, and are part of, a separate canonical status.

Dan

 

[Gorgias]

I can’t believe it. This is an opportunity to refer to my j.c.l. thesis, which I thought would have no practical use at all. The ultimate conclusion was that it is inappropriate for canon lawyers to refer to “religious” as laity. They are have, and are part of, a separate canonical status.

Interesting!

Did you conclude, though, that it’s appropriate to have a binary distinction (‘ordained’ and ‘unordained’), and that consecrated religious and ‘laity’ fall into the latter?

More to the point, I guess, does ‘separate canonical status’ address what we’re touching upon here (that is, a status that is sacramental in nature, rather than asserted by law)?