| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
by wm. b. smith
Habitual Intention
Question: I’m a part-time hospital chaplain and have sometimes anointed sick people a second time when their illness has noticeably worsened even when they are not communicating. In the seminary I was taught that a “habitual intention” was sufficient to receive a sacrament. At a recent chaplains meeting, I was told that is no longer done because it is “pre-Vatican II.” Is that so?
Answer: The slogan “pre-Vatican II” is something of an unguided missile; its selective use and landing place are quite unpredictable. Often it’s a temporal code word for “old fashioned” (or, “old Church”), sometimes it’s a lazy excuse for avoiding effort or duty.
The Last Supper, of course, is “pre-Vatican II,” as are the Apostles Creed and the Ten Commandments. None of those are inoperative simply because they are pre-1962-5. The moral categories of intentionality—especially in sacramental practice—are today, after the Council, what they were before the Council.
In the context of administering and/or receiving a sacrament there can be a progressive diminution of the voluntary. The best and fullest is the actual intention that engages both the attention of the mind and the intention of the will. Next, a virtual intention proceeds from an act of the will previously made even though there is no present conscious advertence to that previous act of the will because of some present distraction. These are both “human acts” and are sufficient to receive or confer a sacrament.
A habitual intention is in accord with an act of the will previously made and never retracted but does not influence the present action. In other words, the will to perform the action is present only habitually. It is sufficient to receive a sacrament passively but not to confer or confect a sacrament.
It is true that the Rite of Anointing was revised (11/30/72) after Vatican Council II as were all the sacraments. The Praenotanda (Introduction) of the new Rite of Anointing—therefore post not pre-Vatican II—directs: “Anointing may be conferred upon sick people who have lost consciousness or lost the use of reason, if, as Christian believers, they would have asked for it were they in control of their faculties” (Intro. n. 14).
Also, the 1983 Code of Canon Law is explicit: “This sacrament is to be administered to the sick who, when they were in possession of their faculties, at least implicitly asked for it” (canon 1006). A reliable commentary on the Code states: “If the sacrament is to take effect, the intention to receive it is obviously required; however, it should always be presumed in any baptized Catholic, unless it is proven otherwise, according to the common interpretation of cn. 943 of the 1917 Code” (Code of Canon Law Annotated [1993] p. 632).
While not explicitly treating the varied kinds and degrees of intention, the Catechism (1992) does address the situation you describe: “If during the same illness the person’s condition becomes more serious, the sacrament may be repeated” (CCC #1515).
Perhaps in response to a prior distortion of delaying anointing almost and only to the moment of death, some counter distortions have gone to the opposite extreme—so emphasizing sickness that near death anointings are seen or called inappropriate. The same Catechism properly corrects this overreaction: “If the sacrament of anointing of the sick is given to all who suffer from serious illness and infirmity, even more rightly is it given to those at the point of departing this life; so it is also called sacramentum exeuntium (the sacrament of those departing), . . . It completes the holy anointings that mark the whole Christian life, . . .” (CCC #1523).
Another View on Holy Days
Question: I read and agree with your April 2000 Q/A concerning the litigant Catholic teacher trying to force local school officials to grant “holiday” status to the Church Holy Days of Obligation. But perhaps there is a simpler response?
Answer: (of priest writer condensed). One can think of a Holy Day of Obligation in terms of sacrificial giving. Out of respect for the enormity of the sacrifice of Our Lord on our behalf, we are called to offer (generously) a much smaller sacrifice.
This sacrifice—of time and personal convenience—can accomplish at least three ends. First, it permits a greater image of the Body of Christ (gathered in worship, united with Christ its Head) manifesting Christian witness to the rest of the world. Second, it affords other Catholics attending Mass a greater sense of the catholicity of their Faith. Third, it permits me personally to offer sacrifice and thus unite myself to the one great Sacrifice of Calvary. There are, of course, other great goods—the grace of attending Mass and receiving Communion worthily—but these three would provide reasons to make the sacrifice (effort) necessary to attend Mass on a Holy Day of Obligation.
That said, could one not advise the teacher in question to use one of her personal days or vacation days on the (admittedly rare) days when a Holy Day of Obligation falls on a school day? Certainly, most union and individual contracts in this country allow for vacation, personal and/or sick days. (Personally, I would not claim a sick day when one is not sick.) The sacrifice of giving up a personal or vacation day could serve as a greater witness to the strength of the teacher’s faith. Surely, this is firmer testimony to the Faith than having the Catholic employee trying to squeeze an extra holiday out of the State which in the view of some might be seen as the manipulation of still another questionable “entitlement.” (I thank the Massachusetts priest who sent this advice.)
Communion in the Hand
Question: I am increasingly uncomfortable with the lack of reverence often shown by those receiving Holy Communion. Does a priest have the authority to decide he will no longer distribute Communion in the hand, but only on the tongue?
Answer: No. I do not believe an individual priest has such authority.
The U.S. hierarchy (with others) petitioned the Holy See to permit the optional practice of Communion in the hand. An indult (dated: 6/17/77) was received from the Congregation for Worship authorizing this option.
At the time, prior to, and ever since, it was always emphasized that this optional practice should be preceded by sound catechesis in the broader context of eucharistic faith and devotion.
Recall, it was always presented as an “option” but it is the option of the communicant not the minister. Thus, the Bishops’ Committee on the Liturgy made this point (among others) when reporting this authorization: “The practice, once introduced, must remain the option of the communicant. The priest or minister of communion does not make the decision as to the manner of reception of communion. It is the communicant’s personal choice” (BCL Newsletter v. 13 [Aug. 1977] p. 1).
Again, on April 3, 1985, the Congregation for Divine Worship sent a “Notice” re “Communion in the Hand” to our National Conference of Bishops stating several normative directives, the seventh and last of which says: “The faithful are not obliged to adopt the practice of communion in the hand. Each one is free to communicate in one way or the other” (BCL Newsletter v. 21, June 1985).
Thus, the question or the problem of a lack of reverence remains. Without revoking a practice, why not work long range toward correct practice. It may be that the only catechesis given in this regard is the preparation of children for First Communion.
Surely, a range of inserts or mentions in the parish bulletin could be useful. Indeed, some well-chosen texts or explanations could be repeated over time. During the B-cycle year in the late summer, there are five Sundays in Ordinary Time (17-21) where the gospel of the day is John chapter 6. This presents a natural homiletic and teaching opportunity to present that broader context of eucharistic faith and devotion. The splendid treatment of the Eucharist in the Catechism (##1322-1419) presents a full context that is worth reviewing every three years.
Msgr. Wm. B. Smith
St. Joseph’s Seminary
Dunwoodie, Yonkers, N.Y. 10704
Back to Homiletic & Pastoral Review Table of Contents July 2000