The Sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick

[hcruz402]

Hello. I have a question, concerning the Sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick. First of all, I am keenly aware that, within the Sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick, there is an aspect of the forgiveness of sins.

In the Catechism (CCC, 1532, I believe), it says that one of the graces of the Sacrament of Anointing is the forgiveness of sins, if the sick person was unable to obtain it through the Sacrament of Penance/Reconciliation (I would imagine that this means something, such as a person who is unconscious, has a mental defect/ailment that would render them unable to make a confession (i.e., Alzheimer’s, perhaps, etc.), etc.).

I’ve asked a few priests around, and frankly, I’m afraid that I am not getting a clear-cut answer. I’ve heard that the Sacrament of the Sick always forgives sins, I’ve heard that it only forgives sins of those unable to make a confession, AND that are in danger of death, at the same time, and I’ve heard that it simply forgives sins of those who are unable to make a confession (i.e., unconscious, etc.), but not specifying whether or not they have to be in danger of death, in order to receive the forgiveness of sins. My question is, “Which answer is correct?”

Just for the record, I know that this Sacrament is NOT meant to be a substitute for the Sacrament of Penance/Reconciliation. I do not need the Sacrament of Anointing, myself, nor do I know anyone else who is currently in need of the Sacrament of the Sick. I am just a curious person, especially in sacramental/liturgical matters.

To that end, if a person is alert, then I believe that they should first make a confession, just prior to receiving the Sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick, but perhaps I may be wrong, if the Church’s teaching on this matter says otherwise. I am uncertain.

I am simply looking for some clarification on this matter. Could someone please make this clear to me? This is a difficult question that I need some closure on.

Pax Vobiscum,

Herbert Cruz

 

[Confiteor_Deo]

Here are some quotes from the Baltimore Catechism:

Q. 962. When should we receive Extreme Unction?

A. We should receive Extreme Unction when we are in danger of death from sickness, or from a wound or accident.

Q. 969. Which are the effects of the Sacrament of Extreme Unction?

A. The effects of Extreme Unction are:

1.To comfort us in the pains of sickness and to strengthen us against temptations;
2.To remit venial sins and to cleanse our soul from the remains of sin;
3.To restore us to health, when God sees fit.

Q. 970. Will Extreme Unction take away mortal sin if the dying person is no longer able to confess?

A. Extreme Unction will take away mortal sin if the dying person is no longer able to confess, provided he has the sorrow for his sins that would be necessary for the worthy reception of the Sacrament of Penance.

Normally, Extreme Unction is received after Confession & Holy Viaticum.

 

[FrDavid96]

It actually comes down to this: as much as the person is “in need” the Unction supplies forgiveness and absolution.

If someone is conscious and able to make a Confession, then there is no “need” for the Anointing/Unction to substitute for sacramental Confession. One who is unconscious is obviously unable; yet, even then (in danger of death) a priest can grant absolution without an auricular Confession. So if a priest absolves first (which he normally should do) then there’s no “need.”

If there is only time for the Unction itself, then that Sacrament supplies the forgiveness & absolution as far as the person is in need.

In true danger of death, the priest need only pronounce the essential words of absolution “I absolve you from your sins…” Considering that those words take mere seconds, there is very little practical application here.

It does not always happen that Confession precedes Anointing (even though it should), and this might be for a variety of reasons, some legitimate, some less so. In a case like that, then the Anointing would supply the forgiveness and absolution (again, whatever the need).

What we must remember is that God is infinitely merciful and the Church is the dispenser of His mercies. As such, the Church wants to make forgiveness and absolution as easy as possible for everyone. Therefore the Church is as generous as She can possibly be in absolving sinners.

 

[FrDavid96]

Here are some quotes from the Baltimore Catechism:

Normally, Extreme Unction is received after Confession & Holy Viaticum.

Actually, the order is:

Confession
Anointing
Communion (as Viaticum)

But if the person is not expected to live long enough even for that, then Communion comes first. That’s the rite for emergencies.

The order is explained in the General Instruction #30.

 

[Confiteor_Deo]

Actually, the order is:

Confession
Anointing
Communion (as Viaticum)

But if the person is not expected to live long enough even for that, then Communion comes first. That’s the rite for emergencies.

The order is explained in the General Instruction #30.

That’s interesting. I didn’t know that the order changed according to the circumstances. Thank you for pointing that out, Father.

 

[FrDavid96]

That’s interesting. I didn’t know that the order changed according to the circumstances. Thank you for pointing that out, Father.

The idea is that if there is so little time that the priest might not even have a chance to finish before death occurs, then Communion should be done immediately—since receiving the Body of Christ is certainly a remedy for all spiritual ills.

Also, a person who is physically unable to receive Communion can be Anointed, so it’s better to do Communion while that’s still possible—in other words, the patient can be anointed passively, but cannot receive Communion passively.

 

[Confiteor_Deo]

The idea is that if there is so little time that the priest might not even have a chance to finish before death occurs, then Communion should be done immediately—since receiving the Body of Christ is certainly a remedy for all spiritual ills.

Also, a person who is physically unable to receive Communion can be Anointed, so it’s better to do Communion while that’s still possible—in other words, the patient can be anointed passively, but cannot receive Communion passively.

Oh okay, now it makes sense why the order would be different. Thank you, again, Father.

 

[chimo]

Hello. I have a question, concerning the Sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick. First of all, I am keenly aware that, within the Sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick, there is an aspect of the forgiveness of sins.

In the Catechism (CCC, 1532, I believe), it says that one of the graces of the Sacrament of Anointing is the forgiveness of sins, if the sick person was unable to obtain it through the Sacrament of Penance/Reconciliation (I would imagine that this means something, such as a person who is unconscious, has a mental defect/ailment that would render them unable to make a confession (i.e., Alzheimer’s, perhaps, etc.), etc.).

I’ve asked a few priests around, and frankly, I’m afraid that I am not getting a clear-cut answer. I’ve heard that the Sacrament of the Sick always forgives sins, I’ve heard that it only forgives sins of those unable to make a confession, AND that are in danger of death, at the same time, and I’ve heard that it simply forgives sins of those who are unable to make a confession (i.e., unconscious, etc.), but not specifying whether or not they have to be in danger of death, in order to receive the forgiveness of sins. My question is, “Which answer is correct?”

Just for the record, I know that this Sacrament is NOT meant to be a substitute for the Sacrament of Penance/Reconciliation. I do not need the Sacrament of Anointing, myself, nor do I know anyone else who is currently in need of the Sacrament of the Sick. I am just a curious person, especially in sacramental/liturgical matters.

To that end, if a person is alert, then I believe that they should first make a confession, just prior to receiving the Sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick, but perhaps I may be wrong, if the Church’s teaching on this matter says otherwise. I am uncertain.

I am simply looking for some clarification on this matter. Could someone please make this clear to me? This is a difficult question that I need some closure on.

Pax Vobiscum,

Herbert Cruz

I know in the Eastern Orthodox tradition that just before the celebration of Easter there is a service of the Sacrament of Unction which the Church offers on Wednesday. Since we are all sick in one way or another the Sacrament is given to all the faithful who are there. All the people on that day who receive the Sacrament will receive the forgiveness of their sins. The Sacrament is a consoling Sacrament which prepares the person to receive the Lord Jesus at Easter. The Sacrament can give you the forgiveness of your sins without you expressing them. This does not mean the Orthodox will not also attend to the Confessional just because they have received the Sacrament of Unction for many will go to Confession as well receiving both Sacraments.

 

[pianistclare]

I know in the Eastern Orthodox tradition that just before the celebration of Easter there is a service of the Sacrament of Unction which the Church offers on Wednesday. Since we are all sick in one way or another the Sacrament is given to all the faithful who are there. All the people on that day who receive the Sacrament will receive the forgiveness of their sins. The Sacrament is a consoling Sacrament which prepares the person to receive the Lord Jesus at Easter. The Sacrament can give you the forgiveness of your sins without you expressing them. This does not mean the Orthodox will not also attend to the Confessional just because they have received the Sacrament of Unction for many will go to Confession as well receiving both Sacraments.

I go to a Latin Rite church and we have an annual Healing Mass with the Anointing of the Sick after the homily.
We were told that if we were in need, we could come forward. The forgiveness of any sins was specifically mentioned.

 

[chimo]

I go to a Latin Rite church and we have an annual Healing Mass with the Anointing of the Sick after the homily.
We were told that if we were in need, we could come forward. The forgiveness of any sins was specifically mentioned.

Yes it can be very comforting and consoling at the same time. I attended to one Catholic annual service and I must say I was very moved by the experience. I am very happy this service is offered by your parish.

 

[FrDavid96]

I go to a Latin Rite church and we have an annual Healing Mass with the Anointing of the Sick after the homily.
We were told that if we were in need, we could come forward. The forgiveness of any sins was specifically mentioned.

It depends on how this is done. If the priest is anointing anyone who comes forward, then he’s abusing the sacrament. I’m of the opinion that this is actually a simulation of the Sacrament. It is, after all, called “Anointing of the Sick” and not “Anointing of anyone who comes into line.”

Only those who are seriously ill are legitimately candidates for Anointing. The priest has a very serious responsibility to anoint only those who are legitimate candidates. He is not permitted to simply invite anyone to come forward—even though some do this.

 

[pianistclare]

It depends on how this is done. If the priest is anointing anyone who comes forward, then he’s abusing the sacrament. I’m of the opinion that this is actually a simulation of the Sacrament. It is, after all, called “Anointing of the Sick” and not “Anointing of anyone who comes into line.”

Only those who are seriously ill are legitimately candidates for Anointing. The priest has a very serious responsibility to anoint only those who are legitimate candidates. He is not permitted to simply invite anyone to come forward—even though some do this.

Well, he read a whole bunch of prayers from a book, and many of the parishes in this Archdiocese are permitted to do it.
During his homily, he said that it was of the greatest blessings of his vocation.
I believe he did it with permission, and all good intent.
Our Archbishop is a former President of the USCCB and a S.L.D.

If they give explicit permission, is it wrong?

 

[hcruz402]

Actually, the order is:

Confession
Anointing
Communion (as Viaticum)

But if the person is not expected to live long enough even for that, then Communion comes first. That’s the rite for emergencies.

The order is explained in the General Instruction #30.

When does the Apostolic Pardon take place, in the instance, where a dying person is unable to confess?

 

[FrDavid96]

Well, he read a whole bunch of prayers from a book, and many of the parishes in this Archdiocese are permitted to do it.
During his homily, he said that it was of the greatest blessings of his vocation.
I believe he did it with permission, and all good intent.
Our Archbishop is a former President of the USCCB and a S.L.D.

If they give explicit permission, is it wrong?

There is no permission for “Anointing of the healthy.”

The norms for Anointing of the Sick specify who can be anointed. There’s no doubt there that the candidates for the Sacrament are the seriously ill. There’s nothing permitting administering the “Sacrament of the Sick” to the healthy. It doesn’t make any sense.

I respect the Eastern Tradition on this, but that’s not the issue that I’m addressing.

Read a copy of “Pastoral Care of the Sick” if you have one. The norms (rules) are printed in the very beginning. They’re clear that only the seriously ill are legitimate candidates for anointing.

 

[FrDavid96]

When does the Apostolic Pardon take place, in the instance, where a dying person is unable to confess?

In that case the order is:

Sacramental Absolution (even without auricular confession)
The Apostolic Pardon
The Anointing
Communion as Viaticum

This (above) is printed in the books as the “continuous rite.”

There is also the “rite for emergencies”
Absolution
Apostolic Pardon
Communion as Viaticum
Anointing

In both cases, auricular confession of sins is always preferred, but if this is not possible, the priest can still absolve if he has reason to believe that the person wants forgiveness and absolution. It might even be done with signs or nods. A simple “are you sorry for your sins?” answered by an affirmative nod is enough if the person is awake.

 

[pianistclare]

There is no permission for “Anointing of the healthy.”

The norms for Anointing of the Sick specify who can be anointed. There’s no doubt there that the candidates for the Sacrament are the seriously ill. There’s nothing permitting administering the “Sacrament of the Sick” to the healthy. It doesn’t make any sense.

I respect the Eastern Tradition on this, but that’s not the issue that I’m addressing.

Read a copy of “Pastoral Care of the Sick” if you have one. The norms (rules) are printed in the very beginning. They’re clear that only the seriously ill are legitimate candidates for anointing.

Healthy people did not approach. Maybe I was not clear, I’m sorry.
We were told if we were scheduled for surgery, mentally infirmed, or have ailments such as cancer, or severe arthritis, etc. that we would qualify for Anointing of the Sick. Most of the people who went up were very obviously elderly and infirmed, there was a paraplegic parishioner in a motorized chair, and a couple of people who have suffered terrible loss recently. The rest of us who felt we were not THAT ill, stayed in the pews, kneeling and praying silently.

 

[FrDavid96]

Healthy people did not approach. …

That’s good to know.

We’re talking about 2 different things happening. What I wrote earlier just does not apply to what you posted.

 

[pianistclare]

That’s good to know.

We’re talking about 2 different things happening. What I wrote earlier just does not apply to what you posted.

Yes, and thank you fro clarify the other point. Always wonderful to hear from you Father.

 

[Vico]

… I’ve heard that the Sacrament of the Sick always forgives sins, I’ve heard that it only forgives sins of those unable to make a confession, AND that are in danger of death, at the same time, and I’ve heard that it simply forgives sins of those who are unable to make a confession (i.e., unconscious, etc.), but not specifying whether or not they have to be in danger of death, in order to receive the forgiveness of sins. My question is, “Which answer is correct?”…

IT does not always forgive sins.

Just as with the Sacrament of Penance, to receive sanctifying grace with Anointing of the Sick requires that the annointed at least have imperfect contrition for any serious sins.

Administered when in the danger of death with benefit of the doubt:

CIC
Can. 1004 §1 The anointing of the sick can be administered to any member of the faithful who, having reached the use of reason, begins to be in danger of death by reason of illness or old age.
Can. 1005 If there is any doubt as to whether the sick person has reached the age of reason, or is dangerously ill, or is dead, this sacrament is to be administered.

 

[Thomas_Valli]

Confiteor Deo states on 9/13, quoting the Baltimore Catechism, Q 970:
“Extreme Unction will take away mortal sin if the dying person is no longer able to confess, provided he has the sorrow for his sins that would be necessary for the worthy reception of the Sacrament of Penance.”

Vico states on 9/24:
IT does not always forgive sins.
“Just as with the Sacrament of Penance, to receive sanctifying grace with Anointing of the Sick requires that the annointed at least have imperfect contrition for any serious sins.”

Ludwig Ott, in Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, p 418 states:
“Extreme Unction effects the remission of grievous sins still remaining and of venial sins. (De Fide)
As Extreme Unction is a Sacrament of the Living, it presupposes in general the remission of grievous sins. But if a person in mortal sin is seriously ill and can no longer receive the Sacrament of Penance, or if he erroneously believes that he is free from grievous sin, Extreme Unction eradicates the grievous sins per accidens, but still by reason of Christ’s Institution. A necessary pre-condition of the forgiveness of sins is that the sinner has turned away from sin at least by an habitually continuing imperfect contrition.”

Assume a person declines to avail himself of the Sacrament of Penance for the forgiveness of a mortal sin, presuming that, on his deathbed, he will receive Extreme Unction and be freed of the eternal punishment due to that sin.

This seems to be a precarious course because the person may not have advance warning of impending death and sufficient time to receive Extreme Unction.

But also, isn’t the person’s failure to receive the Sacrament of Reconciliation, (assuming he understands the effects of that sacrament and that it was available) strong evidence that he was not in the state of “habitually continuing imperfect contrition” necessary to receive forgiveness of mortal sin through Extreme Unction? Is it sufficient if the person only experiences contrition at the time of receiving Extreme Unction?

Assuming contrition born on the deathbed is sufficient, a person who, for instance, is rendered comatose by an auto accident and dies without regaining consciousness will not experience such contrition. In that case, receiving Extreme Unction while in a coma would not be a sufficient remedy for the mortal sin, correct?

Thank you.