Consuming unconsecrated hosts broke the Eucharistic fast

[JimG]

Just a strange incident recounted in Fr. Z’s blog:

wdtprs.com/blog/2017/08/ask-father-deacon-consumed-unconsecrated-hosts-which-dropped-to-the-floor/

 

[psalm90]

ok, i read the blog. Why do you suppose the deacon consumed the wafers?

It doesn’t seem to say that he took Communion at that Mass, so what’s the deal? (am I wrong?)

I agree it would break the fast.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Consuming the unconsecrated hosts was not food or drink.

Not any kind of a meal or sustenance.

Consuming the unconsecrated hosts was part of the act of preparing everything needed for the altar to set up for Mass.

Moreover, §3 says that elderly people, those who are ill, and their caretakers are excused from the Eucharistic fast.

People taking care of infants who test the babies’ food.

In this instance, the deacon could be considered as an ad hoc caretaker of the elderly person, even if only for a few moments.

What the deacon could do is to mention it to the priest who would give him any kind of absolution or dispensation needed.

There are a lot of grey areas.

One day I was cleaning up an empty church and found a host in a pew under a pile of bulletins. There was nobody around. The church was huge 1000+ seats]. I assumed the Host was consecrated. If I left the Host and went in search of a priest, I would never find the Host again. So I said a prayer and consumed the Host. Mentioned it later. I was thanked and told it happens often enough that the pastor had heard about it and was very concerned. When eight people are distributing Holy Communion in a huge crown of people, control is extremely difficult.

One day I was at a Mass said by the Cardinal Archbishop and concelebrated by 27 priests who then went among the crowd to distribute Holy Communion. The logistics were “daunting” to say the least.

 

[Tarpeian_Rock]

Well, if we believe the hosts are “real bread” before consecration, and that the accidents of bread remain afterwards, I guess we have to say the hosts are really food. That said, since this clearly reflexive action - likely a momentary auto-response to dropped hosts - seems to have been done in the context of liturgy, I wouldnt characterize it as “eating” as that term is normally understood. That’s my issue with Fr. Z: all legalism, no mercy.

 

[Gorgias]

Consuming the unconsecrated hosts was not food or drink.

Not any kind of a meal or sustenance.

:nope:

In this instance, the deacon could be considered as an ad hoc caretaker of the elderly person.

Wow… these are quite the stretch.

What the deacon could do is to mention it to the priest who would give him any kind of absolution needed.

Absolution for what sin?

I assumed the Host was consecrated. If I left the Host and went in search of a priest, I would never find the Host again.

Or, you could’ve taken the host and put it in the sacristy, and then went off in search of a priest, I guess. Your way was fine, too, though…
Tarpeian Rock:

That’s my issue with Fr. Z: all legalism, no mercy.

Hmm… I didn’t see any “lack of mercy” in his response, or any condemnation, for that matter. Just a “yep, he broke the fast.” Simple, to the point, and accurate. And then, as it were, “move along folks; nothing to see here”…

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Leaving a Consecrated Host unattended would just duplicate the mishandling by the previous person.

I have no right to pick Him up and carry Him to an unattended sacristy.

Or as I often say when discussing with people, you have one second to decide what to do.

Time’s up!!!

[Usually, it’s a life and death situation. A rescue. Someone caught in traffic or drowning. So, I say: “Time’s up!!! You’re dead!”]

 

[SyroMalankara]

I don’t believe Fr. Z was being legalistic here. He was asked and gave the accurate answer. He never placed culpability on this particular Deacon.

Besides, in my opinion, the 1hr fast is in itself a joke.

 

[Gorgias]

Leaving a Consecrated Host unattended would just duplicate the mishandling by the previous person.

No, it wouldn’t – you would have placed it in a secure location. After all, consecrated hosts are left “unattended” all the time, in tabernacles! They’re just secured there.

I have no right to pick Him up and carry Him to an unattended sacristy.

Umm… if you say so. By the same token, you have no right to touch your neighbor’s wife, and pick her up and carry her. But, as you say, “you have one second to decide what to do” – if she’s lying, unconscious, in a burning building, you do what you need to do to protect her.

Anyway, the Church doesn’t say that “you have no right” to pick up a consecrated host. Maybe 800 years ago… not today.

We’re just quibbling, anyway. What you did wasn’t wrong; but neither would giving it to the priest have been wrong.

 

[pianistclare]

Well, if we believe the hosts are “real bread” before consecration, and that the accidents of bread remain afterwards, I guess we have to say the hosts are really food. That said, since this clearly reflexive action - likely a momentary auto-response to dropped hosts - seems to have been done in the context of liturgy, I wouldnt characterize it as “eating” as that term is normally understood. That’s my issue with Fr. Z: all legalism, no mercy.

Me too. Furthermore, in my Archdiocese…all of the Deacons are what they consider “elderly” as they refuse to ordain anyone with offspring who are not yet grown and out of the house. So they are all over 65.
All legalism. No mercy. Yup.

 

[SyroMalankara]

How so? Did FrZ. assign culpability to this particular Deacon? Fr. himself wrote that the initial writer did not mention that the Deacon did receive Eucharist, but it is probable.

All the Deacons cannot be under 65 in your Diocese, unless your Diocese has no seminarians or monastics – there must be Deacons among them under 65.

 

[pianistclare]

How so? Did FrZ. assign culpability to this particular Deacon? Fr. himself wrote that the initial writer did not mention that the Deacon did receive Eucharist, but it is probable.

All the Deacons cannot be under 65 in your Diocese, unless your Diocese has no seminarians or monastics – there must be Deacons among them under 65.

VERY very few, and when interviewing candidates, they strongly advise men with kids to wait.
I know this because my former pastor was one of the Professors in the Deaconate Formation Program.

Of the 5 in that parish, the youngest was about 68, oldest, 77.

Around 55 Seminarians. I wasn’t talking about the Transitional Deaconate.

 

[dans0622]

Furthermore, in my Archdiocese…all of the Deacons are what they consider “elderly” as they refuse to ordain anyone with offspring who are not yet grown and out of the house. So they are all over 65. …

I think Fr. Z’s answer was fine but you raise an interesting point about what “elderly” means in the context of the Eucharistic fast (c. 919.3). To my knowledge, the term has not been authoritatively defined. So, some commentators say it means anyone over 59 (cf. canon 1252). I don’t agree with that but, at the same time, I don’t know what I think it means.

Dan

 

[pianistclare]

I think Fr. Z’s answer was fine but you raise an interesting point about what “elderly” means in the context of the Eucharistic fast (c. 919.3). To my knowledge, the term has not been authoritatively defined. So, some commentators say it means anyone over 59 (cf. canon 1252). I don’t agree with that but, at the same time, I don’t know what I think it means.

Dan

Good point.
I think because the USCCB defines 59 as the cutoff for Lenten fasting, I think our minds go there.

In any case, ours are all well past retirement and were ordained post-retirement.
There certainly are some men in formation that are younger, with teens. Most of those have some other “skills” they brought to the table, such as being a published author for a Catholic publishing company, or already possessing a Masters in Theology. I assume that is why they were accepted and encouraged at a younger age.

Who knows?

 

[stinkcat_14]

In hindsight, perhaps not the most prudent strategy, but this is one of those rare events where we don’t know how we would react if it were us in that situation. Occasionally weird things happen and we have to ad lib a bit.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Here’s what went through my mind:

1. How old was the deacon? If an elderly man, the one-hour fast doesn’t apply to him.
2. If not elderly, does he have some other medical condition, like diabetes, that makes him exempt from the fast?
3. Did he even receive Communion at the Mass? (Fr. Z seems to just assume he did in order to go on a rant about people who receive Communion too much.)
4. Even if he wasn’t elderly or ill and did receive Communion, did he mention the host business to the priest, or maybe to one of the other priests there if this was a large feast-day Mass, and get a dispensation on the spot?
5. Why would whoever is writing the question be so concerned about a deacon and his fast, rather than concerned about a lady “helping” in the Mass who is spilling things and is not in good shape to be a “helper”? I would be either concerned about her participation if this is a regular thing, or concerned about her health if this is the first time she’s ever been shaking like that.
6. If the person writing in was so concerned about what the deacon did, then why didn’t they ask the deacon instead of writing a question to a total stranger to make an Internet post out of?

That’s about the extent of my concern with this. I’m sure if the deacon somehow acted wrongly by making an incorrect split second judgment, he can get absolution for it. The way this whole thing is discussed sounds like somebody is trying to do a “gotcha” for liturgical abuse.

 

[PaulfromIowa]

I think Fr. Z’s answer was fine but you raise an interesting point about what “elderly” means in the context of the Eucharistic fast (c. 919.3). To my knowledge, the term has not been authoritatively defined. So, some commentators say it means anyone over 59 (cf. canon 1252). I don’t agree with that but, at the same time, I don’t know what I think it means.

Dan

Some of us feel old and broken down from a comparatively young age!

 

[Usige]

VERY very few, and when interviewing candidates, they strongly advise men with kids to wait.
I know this because my former pastor was one of the Professors in the Deaconate Formation Program.

Of the 5 in that parish, the youngest was about 68, oldest, 77.

Around 55 Seminarians. I wasn’t talking about the Transitional Deaconate.

Off topic, but so glad I am in the dioceses I am. We just received directives for the characteristics of permanent deacons and one of the directives was that they would not ordain anyone over 60. The head of formation said the candidate would have to be extraordinary for him to even consider it. This is mainly because there is concern that the permanent diaconate in the US has become a retirement vocation. In my current class the average age is right around 50 with about 40% under 45. That being said it is not unusual for the average age of a Deacon to be well into their 60s or early 70s (that is the case with most my dioceses current deacons).

 

[Usige]

I think Fr. Z’s answer was fine but you raise an interesting point about what “elderly” means in the context of the Eucharistic fast (c. 919.3). To my knowledge, the term has not been authoritatively defined. So, some commentators say it means anyone over 59 (cf. canon 1252). I don’t agree with that but, at the same time, I don’t know what I think it means.

Dan

Interesting point. I guess I would never have defined 59 as elderly, but who’s to say.

BTW, glad to see you are still around. It’s nice to have a canonist around that can shed light on church law.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

I think Fr. Z’s answer was fine but you raise an interesting point about what “elderly” means in the context of the Eucharistic fast (c. 919.3). To my knowledge, the term has not been authoritatively defined. So, some commentators say it means anyone over 59 (cf. canon 1252). I don’t agree with that but, at the same time, I don’t know what I think it means.

Dan

Well…I don’t think most people, outside our world of canon law, would mirror the attitude of Canon 97 “A minor before the completion of the seventh year is called an infant”. A six year old child that you called an infant to her face is likely to tell you “I am not a baby!”

That same infant, 53 years later, is likely to take even greater umbrage if you call her elderly.

It is a matter of respect for societal and cultural custom and usage – the main times I saw people I would not call “elderly” by contemporary convention readily declaring themselves senior citizens was when they could get a discount for it – as opposed to assessing obligations and responsibilities imposed by ecclesiastical law.

Sadly, though, there are places yet in the world where people hope and dream to make it to the ripe old age of 59.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

I can’t remember the exact number, but I know that when my past parish used to publish the Lenten fast reminders in the bulletin, they would definitely give the age cutoff, “Those over age X are not obligated to fast.”

I seem to recall maybe it was age 65. I presumed this directive came from the diocesan Bishop.