Communion to the Sick

Status
Not open for further replies.
C

CatholicCajun

New member
A seminarian went to the hospital and gave Communion to a sick patient, he refused to give Communion to the person who was helping the sick patient, claiming that Canon Law does not allow him to? Can anyone clarify this for me, since I have never heard of this? Thank you.
 
Canon law 918 states that Communion outside of Mass is to be offered for “just cause.” Perhaps there was not a just cause for the person helping the sick to receive it.
 
Indeed - one was infirm, the other healthy. As well, the healthy person was free to attend the Sacrifice of the Mass. It does not qualify as a “Communion Service” but rather is part of the ministry to the sick. As I see it, anyway.
 
Perhaps the other person would have been able to attend Mass and the Seminarian thought this would rule out “just cause”?

Oops, Po18guy got it in before me!
 
Last edited:
CatholicCajun said:
A seminarian went to the hospital and gave Communion to a sick patient, he refused to give Communion to the person who was helping the sick patient, claiming that Canon Law does not allow him to?
Click to expand...
I’m not sure it’s canon law, but he’s correct. When I participated in that ministry as a volunteer, that was the training I received, as well – we’re there to distribute communion to the sick, not to distribute generally to everyone present.
 
Even though not presented as the Sacrament of Anointing, that Eucharist might end up being the patient’s Viaticum.
 
My copy of “Pastoral Care of the Sick” (Catholic Book Publishing 1983, approved by the National Conference of Catholic Bishops) says on p.77 under Liturgy of Holy Communion in a Hospital or Institution, after the sick person receives Holy Communion, “Others present who wish to receive communion then do so in the usual way.”

The training I received reflected this instruction, including the fact that in such circumstances the Communion fast was waived for the “others present.”
 
Last edited:
If the only reason the seminarian refused them communion was that they were not sick, then he has misunderstood the ceremony.

In the liturgical book “Holy Communion and the Worship of the Eucharist Outside of Mass” it has Chapter II with the title “Administration of Communion and Viaticum to the Sick by an Extraordinary Minister”.

It has:

“61. The minister goes to the sick person and, showing him the sacrament, says:

The body of Christ (or: The blood of Christ).

The sick person answers:

Amen,

and receives communion.

Others present then receive in the usual manner.”

Also for the words said before receiving communion, in n. 60, the rubric is “The sick person and the other communicants say once:”.

In the Introduction it has about a reduced fast of “about a quarter of an hour” for “persons who care for the sick or aged, and the family of the sick or aged, who wish to receive communion with them, when they cannot conveniently observe the fast of one hour.”

In the 1983 Code of Canon Law this is changed, in Canon 919 §3: “The elderly and those who are suffering from some illness, as well as those who care for them, may receive the blessed Eucharist even if within the preceding hour they have consumed something.” (from The Code of Canon Law: New Revised English Translation, published by Harper Collins in 1997, ISBN 000599375X).

So the idea that “Communion for the Sick” is for the sick and no one else is wrong.

[Excerpts from the English translation of Holy Communion and the Worship of the Eucharist Outside of Mass © 1974, International Commission on English in the Liturgy Corporation. All rights reserved.]
 
JohnLilburne said:
in Canon 919 §3: “The elderly and those who are suffering from some illness, as well as those who care for them, may receive the blessed Eucharist even if within the preceding hour they have consumed something.” (from The Code of Canon Law: New Revised English Translation, published by Harper Collins in 1997, ISBN 000599375X).
Click to expand...
It depends on how you interpret “as well as those who care for them.” I always like to turn to the “New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law”; it’s a non-magisterial document, but it’s a good one for non-canonists to get a feel for the mind of the Church with respect to the canons. In its treatment of c.919, it mentions “[t]hose who care for the sick and aged are exempted from the fast only when they are actually caring for the sick or aged at the time they receive communion.”

In the 1917 code, the required fast for the ill or infirm or their care-givers was a quarter-hour. That was not carried through to the 1983 code, so it’s been abrogated.

So, if you’ve been “caring for the communicant” for the past hour, it’s reasonable to suggest that you would not have had sufficient ability to fast. If you haven’t, and you haven’t maintained the fast, then you shouldn’t receive. Moreover, if you’ve already received communion at Mass that day, you cannot receive a second time at a liturgy outside of Mass. (And, let’s not even get into the question of whether the person is properly disposed – which is something that an EMHC shouldn’t be taking responsibility for, anyway.)

So, there are plenty of situations to consider, when deciding whether to distribute or not. As a practical matter, then, the safe approach would seem to be “distribute to the ill or infirm person. Full stop.”
So the idea that “Communion for the Sick” is for the sick and no one else is wrong.
Click to expand...
Right. But the idea that all who are present should receive is a mischaracterization as well. You’re there for the ill person: distribute communion to them.
 
When I was at Dad’s bedside I was always offered Communion when they came to give Communion to him. And because I was with him, fasting was not expected since we never knew when the EMHC would be there.
 
Last edited:
When I was in the hospital this past summer, the people who brought me Holy Communion were part of the Hospital Caplancey and have a list of names of the patients who are Catholic and desiring to receive.

So, they have just enough consecrated hosts for the patients.
 
JimR-OCDS said:
So, they have just enough consecrated hosts for the patients.
Click to expand...
This is what I was thinking; he may have cited something about Canon Law, but the practical side is he may not have had enough for all of his visits. Some hospitals have a tabernacle on site, but most are not so fortunate.
 
That makes more sense. Doesn’t it? It is still a communal celebration. Why would other Catholics, especially family, be excluded.
 
There is a story related to this that I heard. A priest was describing something that he had heard in confession that he wanted to mention for clarification. He said that someone came to him and said, "I missed mass due to my own fault.
The priest asked the man, “Why did you miss mass?”
The man said, “i was taking care of my sick wife in the hospital.”
The priest told the man, “If you had left your sick wife in the hospital to go to mass then that would have been a sin. It appears that you are not in mortal sin.”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top