A reader writes:
Have you heard of the ‘oil of gladness’? Someone told us that it is a non-sacramental oil used by lay people. My friend’s mother has been asked to administer it at school on the the feast of St. Peter & St. Paul to those recently confirmed and she’s a bit suspicious about it.
Firstly, what is this oil? Secondly, can a layperson administer it? (and if so, what would be the point in administering it if it is non-sacramental?)
Oh, if it makes any difference, we live in England!
I have to say that I haven’t heard of anyone using the phrase "oil of gladness" in this way. The phrase originally comes from the Old Testament. In Psalm 45:7, we read:
Thou lovest righteousness, and hatest wickedness: therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.
This is in a Messianic Psalm whose literal signification originally applied to the king in Jerusalem but which also applies to Christ, so the same verse gets quoted in reference to Jesus in Hebrews 1:9.
In these passages, "the oil of gladness" might refer to anointing oil used on kings of Israel at their coronation or it may refer more generally to the anointing oils that were used as part of daily Israelite culture and hygeine. These oils were often scented and putting them on could symbolize gladness in something like the way putting on perfume or cologne does in our culture.
It wouldn’t surprise me if the phrase "oil of gladness" turned up in some of the Church’s rites for blessing various oils, but I am not aware of any oil specifically called "the oil of gladness," though the term does show up in a non-technical sense (i.e., not as a literal name) in some church documents (see here).
That being said, it also wouldn’t surprise me if some folks had taken to calling particular oils "the oil of gladness." Folk Catholicism often generates unusual names for things.
As to whether laity can perform non-sacramental anointings with oil, this was addressed in the 1997 Instruction on Colaboration, where we read:
Article 9
The Apostolate to the Sick
ยง 1. In this area, the non-ordained faithful can often provide valuable collaboration. Innumerable works of charity to the sick are constantly provided by the non-ordained faithful either individually or through community apostolates. These constitute an important Christian presence to sick and suffering of the greatest importance. The non-ordained faithful particularly assist the sick by being with them in difficult moments, encouraging them to receive the Sacraments of Penance and the Anointing of the Sick, by helping them to have the disposition to make a good individual confession as well as to prepare them to receive the Anointing of the Sick. In using sacramentals, the non-ordained faithful should ensure that these are in no way regarded as sacraments whose administration is proper and exclusive to the Bishop and to the priest. Since they are not priests, in no instance may the non-ordained perform anointings either with the Oil of the Sick or ony other oil [SOURCE].
This is a rather sweeping statement, and since it has been the custom of lay people to perform at least some non-sacramental blessings with oil (at least on themselves) in Catholic history, there is some question in my mind about whether the Holy See meant the boldface statement above as a reference to non-sacramental anointings of sick people (given the fact that this is under the head of the apostolate to the sick) or whether they meant it to refer to anointings in general.
What I would do if I were your friend is this:
Here in America we have a book known as the Book of Blessings which contains many of the Church’s rites for the administration of sacramentals. Some of these are approved for laypeople to perform, and if this situation were occurring in America the first thing I would do is check the Book of Blessings to see what it says.
That’s an American document and wouldn’t apply in England, but there’s sure to be a British equivalent, so what I would do is ask to see a copy of the official ritual that she has been asked to perform. Then I would check it out to make sure that it really is an official ritual approved for use in the your country and not something that somebody just made up.
If it checks out–if it has the proper approvals from your conference of bishops and Rome–then I would feel comfortable in going ahead and performing the rite. Otherwise, I’d start asking more questions and would say that your friend’s concern about participating in the rite is warranted.
Hope this helps!
I read an excellent science fiction novel by Connie Willis entitled Doomsday Book (which won both Hugo and Nebula awards in 1992). In it, a young woman is sent back in time to find herself mistakenly placed during the Black Death. Due to the extreme nature of the plague, and the loss of so many priests, the Bishops issue a proclamation that in the event that no priest can be found, any Catholic may hear final confession and grant final absolution (last rites?). I was wondering if you knew of any historical basis for this, or if the author just made it up. Her novels tend to be very well researched, so I’m thinking it’s probably true, but is it even possible for a lay person to do this?
That sounds like something she made up to me. It would never happen. At least, it breaks my suspension of belief there…
HOLY SEE: “Since they are not priests, in no instance may the non-ordained perform anointings either with the Oil of the Sick OR ANY OTHER OIL.” [emphasis added]
JAMES AKIN: This is a rather sweeping statement, and since it has been the custom of lay people to perform at least some non-sacramental blessings with oil (at least on themselves) in Catholic history, there is some question in my mind about whether the Holy See meant the boldface statement above as a reference to non-sacramental anointings of sick people … or whether they meant it to refer to anointings in general.
There ought to have been no “question in [anyone’s] mind.” Since the text refers to “any other oil,” it is clearly a prohibition of the laity performing ANY kind of blessing with oil (old customs now coming to an end). This discipline is part of the Church’s overdue effort to do away with the “overclericalization of the laity.”
Who’s JAMES AKIN?
I’m sorry Anon, but in reading the document linked and how it is broken down, my initial reaction is that it was clearly designed to forbid the laity in blessing with oil in the Apostolate to the Sick. The breakdown in that document is very clear as to which areas it’s being addressed. I think you’re making a sweeping generalization that doesn’t flow with the direction of the document.
That said, I’ve seen oils used with various prayer teams and what not, on retreats, and that sort of thing, almost always with a priest present setting up what is and is not happening in the situation. I have a difficult time seeing this sort of thing banned based on the reading of that section of the document.
However, I have been known to be incorrect in the past.
It’s been a while since I read Doomsday Book, which I also loved, but if I recall correctly the Bishops’ statement urged lay Christians to confess to each other but did not say they could grant absolution. I assume the thinking was that making a spoken confession to another lay person when no priest was available would be viewed favorably by God as a sign of repentance. I remember Willis referred to this as the X document, where X was a name of some particular place, and strongly implied that it was historical. If someone checks the book and finds out what X is, we should be able to research this.
a general rule of canonical interpretation is that rules which restrict must be interpreted strictly. Therefore, I would interpret this to mean annointing of the sick by the laity, particularly as that is what might be confused as a quasi-sacramental act.
Furthermore, the document is an instruction, a clarification of the law, so it doesn’t have the authority to introduce a new general norm, only clarify the law. That fact points to Jimmy’s interpretation as the correct one.
Ed?
My take on the ‘any other oils’ bit is that it is there to make it clear that a lay person can not substitute another oil (say Chrism) for the oil of the sick so that they can get around the requirement of annointings being performed by ordained ministers. I can just imagine one of our “experimental liturgists” looking at that mandate without the ‘any other oils’ bit and saying, “well I can’t annoint with the oil of the sick… but what if I used Chrism instead?” In context of the document (being about ministering to the sick) that seems to me that the intent was to close that loophole.
David, you may be right. The document cited in Doomsday Book might have urged Confession only, not Absolution. I do recall a scene at the end, though, where the priest himself confessed to Kivrin, and she replied using the Latin text of the Sacrament. He did believe her to be an Angel, so may have considered her capable. Kivrin herself was not even Catholic, however, but an historian from the future. The character thought she was merely providing comfort, not Sacrament. It’s an interesting scenario.
I am still curious about that document, though.
I remember a movie some time ago about the early life of John Paul II. In this story another man was having a discussion with an elderly priest when the priest fell ill. The priest sensing his time was near said that he would make his confession. The young man objected stating ‘I am not a priest!’. The old priest says ‘I will make my confession to God, you will be my witness.’
Although no absolution is obtained, is it important for a witness to divulge to a priest or bishop the fact that a certain priest made a good final confession?
Suppose the person hearing the confession made a detailed report to another confessor. Can absolution be given posthumously? Is the person hearing the confession bound by the same seal of confession that they would normally be bound to when they mistakenly overhear another persons confession?
“Since the text refers to ‘any other oil,’ it is clearly a prohibition of the laity performing ANY kind of blessing with oil (old customs now coming to an end).”
“Any other oil” applies to “anointings.” It’s a legitimate interpretive question as to whether “anointings” means “Sacramental anointings” (which the context would suggest) or “any sort of blessing involving oil.” It is clear that the prohibition is intended to prevent Anointing of the Sick with any kind of oil; it is not clear that it goes any farther.
Laypeople can baptise in extreme circumstances, though I wouldn’t have thought the same about confession.
Since a sincere Act of Contrition counts when you are, for example, about to die in a plane crash, I wouldn’t think it necessary for laypeople to be given the ability to absolve sins in times of emergency or otherwise.
It has bothered me for some time that laymen and women are anointing in large numbers with chrism following monthly “healing Masses” in our parish, to the sound of a “praise band” (yechhh!). I had read Article 9, and could not find any wiggle room. Of course, this is Orange County.
I discussed lay confession with a deacon. He said that, yes, non-priests, including deacons, can under very extreme circumstances hear a confession but could not administer absolution since only a priest or bishop may act in God’s behalf for this. This person is then under the same confessional seal as is a priest. It is really God who forgives, speaking through the priest.
I just finished reading The Doomsday Book last month. This is great reading a side-discussion on it, as I was wondering about the very same things being discussed.
Love you guys and love this blog.
A lot of people do a lot of anointing with a lot of oils. I purchase a variety of oils mentioned in the Bible from a company called Abba Oil. Most are fragrant.The prohibition by the Church would only apply to anointings wrongly represented as being of a sacramental nature, I would think. The Good Samaritan anointed the fallen victim with oil. It is a common way of providing care.