In the past week, the topic of the sacrament of Anointing of the Sick (aka Extreme Unction) has come across my screen or conversation.
A review is in order.
The effects of the Sacrament of Anointing or Anointing of the Sick or, sometimes, Extreme Unction, are:
- To increase sanctifying grace in a moment of great need (danger of death)
- To console the person
- To strengthen against temptation
- To heal the body
- To forgive mortal sins when a person is incapable of confessing them or is unaware of his state of soul
Anointing was placed in the category of “sacraments of the living”, a handy way of saying that for them to be as effective as they can be, we must receive them while “alive”, that is, not “dead in sin”, that is, in the state of grace.
If a person is compos sui and can make his own decisions and understand what is going on, he must be given a chance to make his confession before being anointed. Even if his communication is impeded, he should indicate by signs and respond to the priest’s questions.
If a person is not sui compos, cannot respond, and isn’t aware of what is going on, such a person can be anointed and, in that case, the sacrament can also impart forgiveness of mortal sins.
If a person in the state of mortal sin – who is able to confess and receive absolution – receives the sacrament of anointing, the sacrament will not be effective in her in the way Christ and the Church intend.
If a person is NOT able to confess, then the sacrament also forgives mortal sins so that the sacrament can be effective.
How merciful is our God?
Something must be clarified, because the sacrament is often administered when it is not appropriate.
The law is pretty clear.
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.
This doesn’t say before execution or about to engage in battle or some other dangerous activity like driving in a NASCAR race.
And there is the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
1514 “The anointing of the sick is not a sacrament for those only who are at the point of death. Hence, as soon as anyone of the faithful begins to be in danger of death from sickness or old age, the fitting time for him to receive this sacrament has certainly already arrived.”
NB: “At the point of death… danger of death”.
One can be in danger of death for many reasons. For example, someone who is about to undergo surgery could be in danger of death, depending on the reason for surgery. Cosmetic surgery is one thing, triple bypass is another. In the latter case, the heart problem puts one in danger of death, thus calling for anointing. People about to be executed or go into battle are in danger of death. Even general anesthesia can be dangerous. Those are not occasions for the sacrament because they are external to the person. Once damage is inflicted through a wound and danger of death is obvious, that’s another matter.
Soldiers and those to be executed along with people receiving a medical procedure that is not prompted by a life threatening condition ought to be given the opportunity to make their confession and receive Communion.
Some of you might be saying:
“But Father! But Father! You must really hate Vatican II! Vatican II did away with rules. Francis said so! All sacraments should be given to everyone all the time. You make me cry. I need to be anointed now.”
You, instead, need the face slap you didn’t receive at your Confirmation by the nice, delicately mustached bishop who doesn’t hold to all those mean traditions.
The sacrament of anointing is widely abused. For example, there are “healing Masses” in which everyone, the young, perfectly healthy, are all anointed harum-scarum. That’s just wrong, but it happens all over the place because the sacrament is not well-understood.
Following Vatican II, seminarians and priests were taught that the sacrament “formerly called Extreme Unction” was no longer to be reserved for the dying, but administered earlier in serious illness. It came to be known simply as the “Anointing of the Sick.” Yet the norms specify that “the sick” means those who are according to the USCCB, “seriously” ill or whose health is “seriously” impaired by old age (Pastoral Care of the Sick 9). The problem is that the LATIN document to which they refer says “dangerously… periculose”. The same USCCB (which didn’t honestly or accurately translate GIRM 299 on the position of the altar) downgraded the law and doctrine by using “seriously,” rather than “dangerously,” or “perilously”. They say the sacrament “should be given to anyone whose health is seriously impaired” instead of “dangerously”.
Sacram Unctionem Infirmorum provides an important clarification: “as soon as anyone of the faithful begins to be in danger of death from sickness or old age, the fitting time for that person to receive the sacrament has certainly already arrived.” What this does is broaden the moment for administration of the sacrament to before the very point of death (extreme unction… in extremis … in the last moments of life). But it’s clear that there should be an illness or condition involving a genuine danger of death, even if death is not imminent. The illness must be of a kind that could lead to death and thereby place the patient under a serious spiritual trial.
This distinction matters because the sacrament has a specifically spiritual purpose. Sacram Unctionem Infirmorum says that its anointing signifies the grace of the Holy Spirit, bringing forgiveness of sins and “the remnants of sin,” while strengthening the seriously ill person in the particular spiritual dangers accompanying grave sickness.
thank you for posting this. my late wife had not confessed in a long time before she passed away from alzheimer’s disease. but she did receive anointing a few weeks before her passing. this is a great relief.
Another way might be to say they turn (versari) towards death.
What is not specified is what constitutes “old age (senium).” In theory, there could be mass anointing in a nursing home. As for healing Masses, that is an innovation from Pentecostalism, akin to a faith healing service, I think. Their theology of suffering is different than the Catholic teaching because they have no concept of redemptive suffering, so suffering is almost always seen as an enemy to be conquered, and not a sharing in the suffering of Christ on the Cross.
The Chicken
P. S. There are some grey areas with regards to the sacrament. I was e-mailing with Ed Peters a few years ago about the case of a person who has a brain tumor which consists of swollen blood vessels, which, while not growing, could burst at any second and immediately kill the person, so the danger is unpredictable, even though the person might appear healthy, in the moment. He said that this is exactly the sort of situation that can be helpful in clarifying the sacrament.
The Chicken
I WANT MY FACE SLAP!! I did not receive this “accolade” when confirmed by our liberal Irish bishop ….. instead, we had dancing vestal virgins.
I was robbed!
Great clarification, Fr. Z! Thank you for teaching what the Church teaches.
An opportunity to do more teaching (for Fr. Z or anyone here who knows this): This sacrament and the sacrament of confession refer to the person having reached the “age of reason”. As I understand it, this age is generally accorded to occur around age 7, and all parishes that I have been in have administered First Communion / Confession programs in such a way that pretty much treats all children as “you WILL be able to receive your 1st Communion / confession at age 7, and forget about trying to before that age.”
But that seems (to me) to be the wrong idea. For parents of children with truly severe mental disability (what used to be called “retarded”, e.g. many kids (but not all) with Down Syndrome) the parents probably can be confident saying their kid didn’t reach the age of reason at 7, but short of that level of impairment, I have never once heard a priest admonish parents to consider whether their child has in fact reached the age of reason before submitting them to the FC program, nor offered a single suggestion of criteria or signs by which to tell.
And the problem runs also on the other side: some kids certainly reach the use of reason by age 6, some by age 5, and perhaps a few even by age 4. (We should expect the curve for the age it happens is a “normal” curve.) SHOULD they be required to wait until age 7 because “everyone else does”? Other than homeschoolers, this wait seems to have been the universal standard for all Catholics in the US, at least so far as I have heard, and homeschool families have usually had very uphill battles to persuade a priest to consider a child younger than 7, even though in principle they should have been expecting all along that some kids reach the use of reason earlier (or later), and should have been taught to manage (make easy provision for) that situation as just a standard fact of human life.
Have I got something wrong here?
Perhaps someone can answer a question I have that I wish I had asked the priests at the times my mother received the Sacrament of the Sick. Why did none of them ever actually anointed her body with oil during the sacrament? This was a time period between 1999 and 2015.
My mom had a severe stroke but survived it, but several times before her death she became seriously ill and could have died, and at those times we called a priest. And although the various priests said the prayers of the sacrament, none of them actually anointed her with oil. And this happened at least four times, and even happened when she entered the hospital in her last illness with a serious pneumonia and we called a priest who came to the E.R., and even on the day of her death, when a different priest did in fact (God bless him!) pray the prayers of the Commendation of a Soul to God, and bestow on her the Apostolic Blessing and Plenary Indulgence, and even Viaticum, but he did not anoint her body.
I wish I had said something at the time to the priests who administered the sacrament, but can someone explain to me why actual anointing of her body did not happen? (This was in the Archdiocese of Chicago.)
I say the Confiteor in English…. or an Act of Contrition regularly. I confess regularly and say the Pater Noster… in English and short prayers asking Jesus to help us all to love him more and more.
I’m still the same old wretch I always was, I hope God will have mercy on me at the end… whenever that is.
Long ago in a place very far away, I received Baptism and Extreme Unction (being an infant on death’s door). I only learned of this when I was a young adult preparing to enter the Church, having felt like a homing pigeon my whole life. It was astonishing to unpack the effects of these Sacraments that had been entirely unknown to me before that time. It was only after I made the change to the Vetus Ordo that I realised that those initial sacraments (given my age) were of the old Rite. God is so very good!
a follow-up question presents: what if a person who is unable to confess has been excommunicated latae sententiae, does anointing still remit mortal sin?
“…because they have no concept of redemptive suffering, so suffering is almost always seen as an enemy to be conquered, and not a sharing in the suffering of Christ on the Cross.”
My dying mother had been adamant for years that she did not EVER want psychotropics or narcotics (except for surgery). In the hospital she died in (her 6th one in as many months) they tried to convince me to allow it. When I explained that beyond the adverse effects she’d experienced once, that suffering was part of her faith the doctor backed off.
@fac the priest who came for my mom annointed her body…he’s a canon with St John Cantius. Perhaps those priests didn’t think it mattered considering how I’ve seen some priests give blessings for sacramentals. The 1st time a priest came for mom it was a retired auxiliary bishop of Chicago and we had to show him the Apostolic Blessing online. The St. John Cantius priest told me 1st thing he’d be doing the Apostolic Blessing also and why.
I have maintained for many years now that this must be the most abused sacrament. I cannot tell you how many “healing” or “anointing Masses” I have seen promoted where the Sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick is given “to anyone in need of healing”.
I once regularly served as an acolyte at Mass celebrated every Sunday in the chapel of a diocesan owned senior living facility. Once a month the Sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick would be celebrated during Mass, in accordance with the rubrics. Not everyone was anointed, but in a place like that, a resident might pass on, so it was deemed appropriate.
Sadly, a new chaplain was eventually assigned who had very different ideas. He encouraged everyone to be anointed and once actually came up to me saying “you too!” before anointing me with the Oil of the Sick and pronouncing the formula, very much against my will.
I know I was not culpable, but I am curious about those who regularly receive (or give!) this sacrament when one is not in danger of death. Is it a sin? Mortal? Venial?
How does the Apostolic Blessing (AB) fit in with this sacrament then?
My understanding is that the AB releases one from the pains of purgatory. Is it sort of an accelerant to the Anointing of the Sick, like squirting lighter fluid on smoldering coals?
I wish I knew these things.