Anointing Someone Just Baptized?

I noticed in reading the Rite of Initiation of a Person in Danger of Death that Baptism is conferred followed immediately by Confirmation followed immediately by Viaticum. My first thought was that Anointing of the Sick would be unnecessary because of the lack of sin and temporal punishment due to sin as well as the fact that Anointing is the completion of the Christian life of penance. I was also mindful, however, of the effect of Anointing in strengthening against temptation.

However, in the context of a discussion on whether only a person with actual sins is capax to receive the sacrament of Anointing, Felix Cappello says (Tractatus Canonico-Moralis de Sacramentis, Vol III, editio altera, 1941, No. 222):

2. Ex communi certaque sententia, si quis in fine vitae gravi morbo correptus baptizetur, potest et debet ei sacramentum hoc ministrari, etiamsi nullius peccati conscientiam post baptismum habeat. Quod confirmatum est responso S. Congreg. de Prop. Fide diei 26 sept. 1821, quo declaratum fuit, ungendum esse paganum adultum graviter decumbentem immediate post baptismum (cfr. Collect. I, n. 768).

My translation:

2. From the common and certain opinion, if someone in the throes of grave illness at the end of life were baptized, this sacrament can and should be administered to him, even if he has consciousness of no sin after baptism. This was confirmed by the response of the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith on 26 Sept., 1821, by which it was declared, that a pagan adult lying gravely ill should be anointed immediately after baptism (cf. Collect. I, n. 768).

So, what should be the current practice? Should Anointing be administered to someone just baptized who is in danger of death? Should it be conferred before Viaticum?

3 Responses to “Anointing Someone Just Baptized?”

Gravatar Josh Miller

I’m not much of a canonist yet, but I do have an answer from sacramental theology.

From my understanding, the answer to your question is yes, certainly. As a matter of fact, this happened in my internship parish late last month; the guy was baptized, confirmed, received first communion, anointed, and then married, one after another, in about an hour. Heck of a day.

It’d be improper if all Anointing did was forgive sins, or if this was its primary effect. But the forgiveness of sins is a kind of secondary grace, and not the primary effect of the sacrament (which, as you know, can be conditional). As our friend the Catechism points out, the actual effect of Anointing is “the uniting of the sick person to the passion of Christ, for his own good and that of the whole Church” (1525) healing the person spiritually and, by God’s will, physically. So its really this healing action which differentiates it from baptism.

Hope all is well down there.

Gravatar Jeff

Josh: Wow, 5 sacraments in an hour, is there a better way to go to the Father’s house?

Dylan: I would say baptism, followed by confirmation, they followed by the continuous rite of anointing which would include viaticum.

Gravatar Dylan

Our canon law professor pointed out, as some of us noticed, that this response was from the Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith and not the Holy Office. This may be an example, then, of tutiorism, that is, in a doubtful situation do the safer thing.

Certainly, the effect of Anointing to strengthen one against temptations at the final hour could be beneficial here.

In terms of current practice, I don’t know of anything that spells it out definitively.

Leave a Reply

Creative Commons License
By submitting a comment, you agree to place it under the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.

Powered by WP Hashcash