A reader writes:
I’ve a friend who’s 8month old child (baptized child) has a medical syndrome and is having increasing medical problems. I think that the child should receive the Sacrament of Anointing of the Sick. That it will impart grace and possible healing and strengthen the child in it’s health battles, even though they are too young to understand. I believe that the power of the Holy Spirit is present in this anointing, and prayers. Others seem to be leaning so much towards the forgiveness of sins in the sacrament, that they are overlooking the strengthen and healing portion of the sacrament. I realize that the child has nothing to forgive, But as a baptized catholic christian they are in titled to the strength that this sacrament can give. Do you think that this is appropriate for an infant.
I agree with you! Infants should be able to receive the anointing of the sick!
Unfortunately, canon law in the Latin Rite of the Church does not presently provide for this. The Latin Code of Canon Law provides:
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.
I consider the age-of-reason requirement absolutely reprehensible. It is a remnant, so far as I can tell, of the mindset that existed in the last number of centuries, in which the anointing of the sick (then called "extreme unction," meaning final anointing) was viewed principally as a preparation for death. From that perspective, children below the age of reason wouldn’t need it since they can’t sin gravely.
But that’s NOT why Christ gave us this sacrament. He didn’t give it to us just as a preparation for death but as a means of healing, which is the way Scripture presents it (the forgiveness of sins being a secondary aspect, which is why even those who receive the anointing of the sick still need to go to confession if they are able to confess).
Whether you are sick and need healing has absolutely ZERO to do with whether you have reached the age of reason, and so I do not approve of denying this sacrament to gravely sick children under the age of reason.
Fortunately, following Vatican II, the Church started moving away from envisioning this sacrament principally as a preparation for death. Unfortunately, not all aspects of its law regarding this sacrament have yet caught up with that insight.
So what would I do if I had a gravely sick child below the age of reason? If my child was in danger of death I would immediately seek out a priest in one of the Eastern Catholic Churches (i.e., Eastern Catholics in union with the pope, not Eastern Orthodox).
Their equivalent to the Code of Canon Law–known as the Code of Canons for the Eastern Churches (CCEO)–contains NO age-based requirement for the administration of this sacrament. It merely says:
Can. 738. The Christian faithful are to receive the anointing of the sick gladly whenever they are gravely ill; pastors of souls and the relatives of the sick are to see to it that the sick find relief in this sacrament at an appropriate time.
The CCEO also contains NO prohibition on Eastern priests administering this sacrament to Latin Catholics, so I would take my child to an Eastern priest in a hot second if the child was gravely ill.
Hopefully the deficiency in the Latin Code of Canon Law will be corrected in short order.
Interesting, as usual.
Might want to see my: http://www.canonlaw.info/a_childrenindanger.htm
It’s not clear to me that discrepancies between Eastern and Western Codes imply the western legislation is wrong.
I would hesitate to characterize any law approved by John Paul II as “absolutely reprehensible”.
Jimmy’s analysis suggests an opening for deacons to celebrate this sacrament. Needs thinking about.
Until reading this post, I, as a priest, was unaware of Canon 1004 §1. I notice, though that this does not forbid the giving of the sacrament to infants. However, perhaps another canon does. I need to look into that.
Before reading this post, I would have given the anointing of the sick to a baptized infant who was in need of it. Even now, I would personally find it quite difficult to deny it if parents in distress asked for it.
There is a liturgical “parallel” in Latin practice for giving the anointing of the sick to baptized infants. It is as follows.
In our rite for baptizing infants, after the baptism at the font we anoint the child with Sacred Chrism–in a sort of pre-imitation of the sacrament of Confirmation. If it were the baptism of an adult, we would use the same Sacred Chrism but AS the Sacrament of Confirmation AND using the words of Confirmation.
Finally, in the past couple of months, I recall the Holy See issued a clarification that deacons and laity are NOT to administer the Oil of the Sick. The minister of the anointing of the sick MUST be a priest (or even a bishop).
Speaking of anointings and the ordained…. Note that in their rites of ordination, bishops and priests receive anointing with the Sacred Chrism. Deacons do not.
I don’t think that anyone is saying that the differences between the Code of Cannon Law and the CCEO mean anything necessarily beyond that our rites are different. What it DOES indicate in this case, however, is that the Church, in allowing her Eastern Rite members to annoint anyone, regardless of age, is that she does not consider age requirements as something vital and necessary to the proper administration and reception of this particular sacrament.
I also don’t see how this would open up deacons to administering this sacrament.
In allowing for John Paul II to be able to issue disciplines and approve legal statutes that might not be correct, or even if not wrong then not the greatest thing, we are guarding against the opposite of saying that nothing issued from Rome is de fide unless you want it to be, which is an ultra-montaigne extreme that everything the Pope issues is automatically correct. Surely, we would not take Benedict XV’s encyclical praising Dante as a declaration that Dante is the official poet of the Church. Nor should we take JPII’s issuance of a particular law to mean that this law is irreformable or infallibly correct.
I’m glad our parish priest was unaware of this prohibition in 1971, when my baby brother was dying from a heart malfunction. The doctor advised my parents to call a priest, as there was nothing medical science could do to save him. After the priest administered the Anointing of the Sick, my brother’s heart began beating normally. There was no medical explanation for it. Eventually he had surgery to correct the heart problem. He’s now 35 and has a wife and two children.
Fr. Stephanos raises a good point.
The canon you cited does not forbid the giving of the sacrament to infants except by exclusion. If it were to be read that strictly then you could even exclude middle aged people who are in danger of death due to an accident. (Not Sickness or old age)
Should the canon be read as an exhaustive determination of who may receive the sacrament?
David: do you know anyone who is making the mistakes you correct? As for your not seeing “how this would open up deacons to administering this sacrament”, you might want to look at the considerable literature in this area, wherein the connection between annointing and absolution (obviously, the latter reserved to priests) is often cited as the leading (or second-leading, depending) reason for restricting deacons from conferring annointing. There is also the (to my mind) more fundamental question of the type of grace conferred (e.g., first or second) that needs addressing. Either way, Jimmy’s post, if correct, –as it might be– would clear the decks of a signifcant obstacle to diaconal annointing.
Kathy: I’m glad your baby brother is doing great now, but…well, Deo gratias. Next point.
Chris-2-4: I finally figured out (I think) what your moniker means. Anyway, the Latin of 1004 is “infirmitatem” which, ntw “aegere” later, suggests “infirm” without demanding it be by illness. It could be by an accident or injury. Still, it probably should have be clarified during the revision process.
Fr.S: really interesting posts.
That’s a clever argument, but I don’t think it washes. “Due to sickness or old age” does seem like a shockingly poorly thought-out enumeration, and the obvious omission of injury strikes me as a stunning oversight. OTOH, the phrase “having reached the use of reason” seems to indicate a deliberate intent to exclude those not meeting this requirement in a way that the list “due to sickness or old age” does not as clearly exclude those in danger of death due to other factors.
Propositions that are contrary (different) are not necessarily contradictory (mutually exclusive and antithetical). To have reached the age of reason or not are contradictory, antithetical possibilities; to call out one is by definition to exclude the other. Thus, no one would call out one unless the intention was to exclude the other. But sickness and old age are merely different from injury; to call out sickness or old age is not by definition to exclude injury.
Thus, even though the canon does not explicitly allow for other possible factors such as injury, it seems unarguable that the framers of the canon intended to exclude those not having reached the age of reason than that they intended to exclude those in danger of death due to a factor they happened not to think of.
Ah, never mind, I see Dr. Ed has made this line of thought irrelevant.
P.S. Following Ed’s clarification, the enumeration “due to infirmity or old age” does seem to deliberately exclude certain persons whose life may be in jeopardy but who are not “sick” in the relevant sense. For example, pre-partum mothers.
I have heard of priests giving the sacrament to expectant mothers prior to childbirth, but this seems a misuse of the sacrament. Pregnancy and childbirth have certain attendant dangers, but pregnancy per se is not a sickness or infirmity, and so healthy expectant mothers would seem not to be eligible for the sacrament. Other examples might include soldiers or firefighters about to enter hazardous situations.
OTOH, one might perhaps imagine someone arguing for a tortuous application, at least in English, to individuals who, themselves not yet having contracted any illness or disease-causing agent, might still rightly be said to be “beginning to be in danger of death due to illness” — e.g., a healthy doctor going into some kind of highly contagious emergency situation in which the danger of infection is high.
This would involve interpreting the canon to mean “those who are beginning to be in danger of death from these factors” rather than “due to having actually contracted these conditions.” But this may not be possible in the Latin.
Anyway, as with childbirth, this would seem to me contrary to the intent of the sacrament, which is for the actually infirm, not those who are in danger, however gravely, of becoming infirm or suffering death due to an accident that has not yet happened.
Hmm, Typepad seems to have done something weird. I posted this information earlier but it seems to have vanished… I’m sorry if we end up with a double post.
The document referred to by Fr Stephanos is a note from the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith in February 2005:
When sending the note to Presidents of Bishops’ Conferences around the world, Cardinal Ratzinger (as he then was) enclosed a helpful commentary surveying the historical and doctrinal questions involved. You can find all the details here.
SDG: right. that is an abuse of the sacrament.
Kurt: good post. thx for the link, too.
I would argue that anyone who is sick can receive this sacrament and that Canon Law and the Catechism support this.
Canon 1004 lays the groundwork for the sacrament, but Canon 1005 allows for the possibility that children and others can receive the sacrament.
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.
This Canon suggests that any one of the three criteria can be met, without the other two needing to be met. Therefore, someone who is dangerously ill, regardless of age, can receive. Whereas Canon 1004 states that the sacrament can be administered to someone who, “having reached the age of reason, begins to be in danger due to sickness or old age”, others need only be dangerously ill or on this side of death to receive.
The Catechism seems to support this.
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.”
Jason: you cannot build an argument that turns on (an alleged) precise use of terms unless you yourself are committed to the precise use of terms. Take a look at your first sentence and find three amibiguous or equivocal expressions therein. Then, maybe we can talk. Best, edp.
May I save some time and quote myself:
…Canon 1004 § 1 authorizes anointing for those who have “reached the use of reason”. Noting, correctly, that attaining the use of reason is a gradual process which the law presumes to have taken place sufficiently by age seven, [some writers think] that [pre-schoolers] have “partial use of reason” and that attaining “partial use of reason” suffices for the administration of anointing, despite the language of the law expressly requiring, not “partial” use of reason, but “the use of reason” itself. It seems to me that unless [these writers] are willing to defend the assertion that [pre-schoolers are] capable of some sin (indeed, of any sin), they should abandon their claim that attaining a “partial” use of reason suffices for administration of this sacrament. Appeal to canon 1005 (allowing administration of the sacrament if there is doubt about whether the person has attained the use of reason) is bootless. Canon 1005, like canon 1004, speaks in terms of attaining “the use of reason” not “the partial use of reason” and cannot be read so as to eviscerate canon 1004. Canon 1005 serves a useful purpose by allowing, say, priests in urgent situations with no time to determine a young recipient’s status, to celebrate the sacrament first, and ask questions later…
Then there are persons “beyond the use of reason”: unconscious, comatose, insane. I am not aware of having yet anointed anyone who might fall into the third of those categories.
Ed Peters, if you’re not a deacon, have you ever considering becoming one?
Dr. Peters makes an excellent point about Can. 1005 (does anyone really need me to point that out, sheesh). Saying “if there is doubt” does not constitute a blanket with which everyone can be covered, it simply frees the priest from determing the exact state of the annointee. People who quite obviously do not possess the use of reason (such as infants) are still excluded, just as are people are obviously dead.
Also, I think a lot of the discussion seems to have gotten confused because of a lack of clarification as to what the Sacrament of Annointing of the Sick is intended for. The Sacrament is designed to help strengthen the will and soul against the temptations that will afflict it more strongly during times of prolonged illness or at the time of death. Being ill or incapacitated weakens the body and the will together, and makes you more susceptible to sin.
Likewise, it has always been taught that souls are in danger when they are near death, for one must muster the effort to embrace full repentence and gain final perseverance — a task from which the many bodily concerns of the dying can distract one. Thus we ask Mary to pray for us “at the hour of our death”; we are asking Her to help us acheive the final victory over temptation, a task in which we desperately need aid.
That then, is why soldiers going into combat or firemen going to a fire are not annointed. Their deaths would come about without the prolonged period of spiritual weakness (at least of the same type). Also, it illuminates why infants are not permitted to receive the Sacrament — they do not engage in the spiritual battle that the rest of us do, and therefore would not be aided by the armor that assists the combatants.
PS — by saying that the Annointing of the Sick performs that function, I’m not intending to exclude the affects mentioned by others, which are of course part and parcel of the Sacrament.
Suppose a Roman Catholic with a desperately ill eight day old baby (thus clearly not of the age of reason) got an eastern rite priest to do the anointing? That’s what I would do in that situation having read this discussion. Maybe Dr. Peters could comment on whether this would actually be forbidden by canon law, or just somewhat irregular, or completely fine – if the last, that does seem to indicate some inconsistency in canon law. There is no restriction I think on Romans receiving other sacraments like the Eucharist or confession from eastern priests, so I don’t see how the sacrament of the sick could be stragithforwardly excluded. Paul – as for your soldier example, are not condemned criminals about to be executed given the sacrament – shortly beforehand, like the morning of their execution – even though they don’t face a prolonged period of spiritual weakness?
John, that was Jimmy’s suggestion, no? And condemned prisoners ARE NOT to be annointed. Confession, yes. Eucharist, sure. Confirmation, ok. Married, heck, why not? But Annointing, no.
Fr. S: Videbimus.
Extreme Unction (Annointing of the sick) Confirmation, Communion, Holy Orders and Matrimony are called Sacraments of the Living because those that receive them are already living the life of grace.
As far as Vatican II, the Baltimore Catechism nowhere prohibits the giving of Extreme Unction to anyone who is sick, as it cleary states in 273-“We should not wait until we are extreme danger (of death) before receiving Extreme Unction, but shall receive it while we have our senses.
What clearly happened is that the church after Vatican II just forgot to take out of Canon 1005 the fact about the age of reason, as one who is before the age of reason is not in danger of being in mortal sin, not having received their first confession or Penance, and in their haste to change the meaning of the sacrament, along with its form and matter I might add (still valid?) to make it the “annointing of the sick”-and hence given to all, they forgot to change canon law, or leave it wishy washy in 1983 as most of the church teachings have been since Vatican II
The remote matter of Extreme Unction is oil of olives. The “proximate matter” is the oil of olives blessed by the Bishop. This the Council of Trent definitely defined. “Intellexit enim Ecclesia materiam esse oleum ab episcopo benedictum” (Session XIV). There is no doubt about what St. James meant when he said “oil of olives” (V:14). Initially the oil of the sick could be blessed by priests and even saintly laymen, but ever since the Council of Châlons in 813 canon law requires that it be blessed by a Bishop. In the Eastern Church it is customary for the oil to be blessed by the priest in the house of the sick person.
In the Latin church it has ever been the custom to employ pure unadulterated olive oil, to which a fragrant oleoresin called Balm or Balsam has been added. In some Eastern rites the practice of adding a little water as a symbol of Baptism, or of a little wine in memory of the good Samaritan, or even of the dust of the sepulchre of some saint, has long been in vogue.
Now this oil is blessed by the Bishop at the magnificent Mass of Maundy Thursday in Holy Week – a Mass so sacred that the Bishop is traditionally attended and assisted by twelve priests, seven deacons and seven sub-deacons in order to say it properly. The prayer reads: Emitte, quaesumus Domine, Spiritum sanctum tuum Paraclitum de coelis in hanc pinguedinem olivae, quam de viridi ligno producere dignatus es and refectionem mentis et corporis…” (“Send forth we pray, Your Holy Spirit, the Paraclite, from heaven into this rich substance of oil…” For Catholics the remote matter of Extreme Unction remains oil of olives and the proximate mattter, “the anointing with oil blessed by a bishop.
What then is the “matter” specified by Paul VI? in his new Rite of Anointing and Pastoral Care of the Sick (promulgated November 30, 1972)? The answer is any oil of plant origin – and pray – what oil is ultimately not of plant origin? Axle-grease, Vaseline and Mazola oil can satisfy the requirement. Further, the oil can be blessed by any priest who has the “faculty,” and this faculty has been extended by the “Bishop’s Committee on the Liturgy” to any priest “where didactic or catechetical reasons prompt it.”
The blessing has of course also been changed. No longer is the Holy Spirit invoked, but rather, it now reads: “May your blessing come upon all who are anointed with this oil, that they may be freed from pain and illness and made well again in body and mind and soul.” Notice also that the emphasis is almost entirely on the healing of illness, and not on the forgiveness of sins.
As far as the “Form” of the Sacrament, or the words that the priest uses when anointing the patient “in danger of death.” The traditional words are: “PER ISTAM SANCTAM UNCTIONEM ET SUAM PIISSIMAM MISERICORDIAM, INDULGEAT TIBI DOMINUS QUIDQUID PER… DELIQUISTI” (“Through this Holy Unction or oil, and through the great goodness of His mercy, may God pardon thee whatever sins thou hast committed [by evil use of sight – smell, touch etc. – depending on the organ anointed.”)
Of course the this form also has been changed by Paul VI after Vatican II “PER ISTAM SANCTAM UNCTIONEM ET SUAM PIISSIMAM MISERICORDIAM ADIUVET TE DOMINUS GRATIA SPRITUS SANCTI, UT A PECCATIS LIBERATUM TE SOLVAT ADQUE PROPITIUS ALLEVIAT.” The semi-official translation given out through the Holy See Press Office is: “Through this holy anointing and His most loving mercy, may the Lord assist you by the grace of the Holy Spirit, so that when you have been freed from your sins, he may save you and in his goodness raise you up.”
So with the entire meaning of the sacrament changed, the form, the matter, and everything that went with it, I see no reason for all to be so up in arms as I am sure that JPII in 1983 just forgot to take out the part of “age of reason” as now it is basically no different than most blessings one receives from a priest
Incidentally,
I did a bit of reading on the Society of St. John Cantius–interesting group, great apostolate. I hope they flourish!
oops, that should have gone elsewhere!
Sorry!!
Pregnancy and childbirth have certain attendant dangers, but pregnancy per se is not a sickness or infirmity, and so healthy expectant mothers would seem not to be eligible for the sacrament.
Um, SGK, have you ever given birth??? It may be a natural process, but it can certainly be life-endangering, even if one is healthy before labour.
Some women go into labour fine and healthy, and some emergency presents itself: and infection, a uterine rupture, a hemmorage when the placenta detaches.
I think all pregnant Catholics should certainly consider this sacrament before entering the physical and spiritual warfare that is labour.
Besides, what about women who have planned or emergency C-sections due to health?
I have had 2 C-sections, both unplanned, and was bitterly disappointed when no priest could be found quickly enough to give me annointing of the sick before the operation. If I had been anointed beforehand, the fear of dying without the sacraments would not have been with me during those unplanned operations.
I am currently pregnant with my third: I certainly plan to be anointed before the planned c-section this time around.
Cin wrote: “Um, SGK, have you ever given birth???” Sarcastic questions don’t make your point, and the celebration of Annointing for women in normal delivery is illicit. That doesn’t mean you can’t find some priest to administer the sacrament, just that doing so is illicit. Obviously, emergency deliveries, etc, might occasion “beginning to be in danger”, but that is already encompassed in the law.
John: I beleive the proximate matter of Annointing is the applying of the remote matter (oil) to the recipient. Rather like baptism: remote matter, water; proximate matter, washing.
“Also, it illuminates why infants are not permitted to receive the Sacrament — they do not engage in the spiritual battle that the rest of us do, and therefore would not be aided by the armor that assists the combatants.”
##########
I am certainly not educated in matters of Canon Law etc , but from a “commoners” point of view how would we know what God is doing with that child? From a pastoral point of view I would think that the annointing would be very helpful for the parents. Would not the Holy Spirit be at work in the child? Are infants not part of the body or Christ?
Romans 8:26 In the same way the Spirit also helps our weakness; for we do not know how to pray as we should, but the Spirit Himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words;
Are not some children witnesses to the faith through their sufferings? My brother was annointed at 6 months as he was dying from spinal menegitits, our parish priest refused to meet the ambulance to administer the sacraments but the priest in the next town was waiting for them as they passed through town. It has been a comfort to know that the priest (as representative of the church) cared in that time of grave need. ( This was in the mid-1970’s) If that makes it illicit then there needs to be a change. Is there an official blessing for sick children that could be used in place of the Annointing of the Sick? “Annointing of sick children in time of death”?
Of course people from the Latin Rite are allowed to go to priests from the Eastern Rites. We are all Catholics together, and there’s nothing stopping laypeople from going to whatever parish or priest they feel like.
It’s like different states. State law may be different in Nevada than Ohio, but we’re all part of the same country. If I want to do certain things (like get married) in a different state under different laws, it still counts when I get back home. (Subject to constitutional demands.)
Or again, some dioceses excuse people from Lenten obligations on St. Patrick’s Day, while others don’t. Both are being fair. And if somebody wants to drive to the other diocese to have corned beef with his cabbage, well, that’s his right. When in Boston, do as the Bostonians do.
That doesn’t mean you’re being unfaithful; it means you’re exercising Christian freedom. And telling the faithful what rights and freedoms exist is one of the things canon law is supposed to do.
Now, no doubt it’s possible to be too “wise as serpents” about exercising this stuff; but that’s between you and your confessor.
Anyway, someone seeking Sacraments and healing for a sick child is entitled to get anything vaguely allowable, I’d say. “Let the children come to me”, said Jesus.
I would say the Anointing of the Sick would be pretty important for women whose unborn babies were also in danger from some illness or accident.
I mean, obviously an unborn child wouldn’t have been baptized yet, but the mother would intrinsically also be in some danger. But if the mother received the sacrament, the baby might well get some of the benefit, too.
Isn’t this a great thread?
Maureen: good points, except don’t use marriage as an example of something you “drive over to the next diocese” kind of thing to get. You can’t. See canonical form. Also, how would a non-baptized fetus benefit from the mother’s annointing? One must be baptized to receive any sacramental graces. 😉
“Of course people from the Latin Rite are allowed to go to priests from the Eastern Rites. We are all Catholics together, and there’s nothing stopping laypeople from going to whatever parish or priest they feel like.”
This is partly true.
BUT… It implicit and explicit throughout canon law that Catholics should participate in the rites of the sui juris church to which they belong. (Roman, Ruthenian, Melkite, etc)
Occasional participation in the liturgical and sacramental lives of other (Catholic) churches is good, healthy and educational. BUT, I don’t think it is accurate to think of the East offering extra options… For example, a Latin Rite married Catholic could not just pop on over to a Byzantine cathedral for priestly ordination.
Rather pious Roman Catholic friends of mine had expressed a desire to have their child baptized in a Byzantine Church so the child would be confirmed and recieve first communion as an infant. (Byzantine Catholics get confirmation and communion as infants). Of course this was not permitted as it was not an emergency situation but rather a preference.
Trent, session 14, on Extreme Unction, chapter III: For it is there also shown, that the proper ministers of this sacrament are the Presbyters of the Church; by which name are to be understood, in that place, not the elders by age, or the foremost in dignity amongst the people, but, either bishops, or priests by bishops rightly ordained by the imposition of the hands of the priesthood.
Canon 4 on Extreme Unction: If any one saith, that the Presbyters of the Church, whom blessed James exhorts to be brought to anoint the sick, are not the priests who have been ordained by a bishop, but the elders in each community, and that for this Cause a priest alone is not the proper minister of Extreme Unction; let him be anathema.
I think Jimmy also dealt with this question earlier.
“From a pastoral point of view I would think that the annointing would be very helpful for the parents. . . . Are infants not part of the body or Christ? . . . Are not some children witnesses to the faith through their sufferings?”
How does my receiving a Sacrament help my parents? They’re not the one receiving grace, I am. If you mean that having the child annointed will make them feel better, then a) if they don’t realize that this is illict, probably, and b) that’s beside the point. Sacraments are not intended to be psychologically therapeutic — I don’t receive extreme unction or Holy Communion to “feel good.” I receive the Sacraments to receive sanctifying and sacramental grace.
Yes, baptised infants are members of the Body of Christ. I don’t see why this gives them a right to receive any particular Sacrament, though. Sacraments are divine gifts — you don’t have a right to a gift (cf, there are requirements, sometimes very complex ones, for receiving ANY Sacrament). And yes, infants and small children bear witness to Christ through their sufferings, and it’s entirely possible that they receive special graces through that suffering. But that doesn’t mean they fully understand the nature or importance of their suffering or their witness. It also doesn’t mean they should receive the Sacrament. The Annointing of the Sick isn’t a symbol of suffering, or being in danger of death, or of bearing witness to Christ’s passion; it’s a means by which sacramental grace is imparted to those who, because of physical weakness, are in special need of such grace. But children not yet at the age of reason don’t require those graces. If you can’t sin, you don’t need help to keep you from sinning. It would be like taking your baby on Safari with you and putting an elephant gun in his bassinet — elephant guns are useful things on safari, but the kid can’t use it. Or say you gave your friend who speaks only English and is a chemist a library full of German archeology texts — German archeology texts are really good, but you have to be a German-speaking archeologist to be able to use them.
Can the child receive some other form of blessing? Sure, of course. Sacramentals aren’t governed by the same rules as Sacraments, and unless Dr. Peters wants to correct me on this, I’m not aware of any prohibition against a priest blessing babies, expectant mothers, firemen, or anybody else in need/want of blessing.