Don't Ask Don't Tell Communion Policy!?

[malphono]

Senility and senile mean “old age”. These words have nothing to do with disease’s such as Alzheimer’s or dementia. We sometimes say senile dementia to indicate dementia related to cerebral aging. There’s also pre-senile dementia to refer to a person say in their forty’s with dementia. I don’t think we should always assume that older persons have lost their mental faculties.

Irrespective of the dictionary definition, and irrespective of clinical jargon, and irrespective of whatever the use may be in the UK, in North American English the words “senile” and “senility” are often used colloquially as synonymous with Alzheimer’s or senile dementia.

 

[OraLabora]

Irrespective of the dictionary definition, and irrespective of clinical jargon, and irrespective of whatever the use may be in the UK, in North American English the words “senile” and “senility” are often used colloquially as synonymous with Alzheimer’s or senile dementia.

Thanks. We definitely don’t use (in Canada) the word “senile” to indicate just old age. We use it to indicate those in old age who have lost all or part of their faculties, due to whatever disease process. At least in laymen’s terms.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

Irrespective of the dictionary definition, and irrespective of clinical jargon, and irrespective of whatever the use may be in the UK, in North American English the words “senile” and “senility” are often used colloquially as synonymous with Alzheimer’s or senile dementia.

So that makes it OK? I don’t think so! Senile means old age, whether you accept that or not does not alter its meaning. It is incorrectly used to generally label older persons as “gaga” and that is wrong, condescending, and TOTALLY unacceptable.

 

[Anrando]

Hello,

A little different take on the OP’s situation. I live in Japan. In my parish it seems the local mental health day care center sends some of it’s patients to mass to amuse them. They like the singing I guess. I never fail to see 2 or 3 obviously not quite all there people approaching for communion. They simply do what everyone else is doing. Only once did I see an elderly “Church Lady” pull one of these people out of line and sit them down. Usually they are allowed to receive, typically by the Eucharistic Ministers.

Now I don’t know if they are baptized, frankly I don’t see how they could have possibly completed RCIA, and since there are few child baptisms here I assume that they are not.

It seems the “don’t ask don’t tell” policy is in full practice. Obviously they are incapable of committing a sin in receiving, but the policy of allowing them to do so seems to be to avoid “problems”.

An odd situation, and I can’t say what I would really do were I the priest offering the mass.
Would a fight with a screaming mental patient be better than allowing reception where clearly there is no ill intent?

Regards,
W.Unland

 

[Matthew_Holford]

Thanks. We definitely don’t use (in Canada) the word “senile” to indicate just old age. We use it to indicate those in old age who have lost all or part of their faculties, due to whatever disease process. At least in laymen’s terms.

But that’s a common problem. People regularly use the word senile in the UK to mean a person who has a disease of the central nervous system. The correct use of the word senile means old age. I remember a former colleague using the phrase: “I’ve reached the statutory age of senility”. She was using the term correctly. She’d reached 65 the legal retirement age in the UK, the age which in effect the law said she was “old”. My objection to the misuse of this word is that a word which means old has become confused as a word that means someone has a dementia-type illness. This then leads to discrimination against older persons where they’re all labelled as having lost their mental faculties. That is wrong and unacceptable.

 

[rebecca123]

RCIA in a nursing home!!! now i’ve heard it all. Have you ever worked in a nursing home?

God forbid we should ever err on the side of “compassion” by giving someone who is not a fully confirmed Catholic, communion when they’re at the last outpost before entering death’s door. Pitiful.

 

[hartleymartin]

Take a look at the standard “point of reference” texts that we have

Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church

293. When is it possible to give Holy Communion to other Christians?

Catholic ministers may give Holy Communion licitly to members of the Oriental Churches which are not in full communion with the Catholic Church whenever they ask for it of their own will and possess the required dispositions. Catholic ministers may licitly give Holy Communion to members of other ecclesial communities only if, in grave necessity, they ask for it of their own will, possess the required dispositions, and give evidence of holding the Catholic faith regarding the sacrament.

Catechism of the Catholic Church 1398-1401

1398 The Eucharist and the unity of Christians. Before the greatness of this mystery St. Augustine exclaims, “O sacrament of devotion! O sign of unity! O bond of charity!” The more painful the experience of the divisions in the Church which break the common participation in the table of the Lord, the more urgent are our prayers to the Lord that the time of complete unity among all who believe in him may return.

1399 The Eastern churches that are not in full communion with the Catholic Church celebrate the Eucharist with great love. “These Churches, although separated from us, yet possess true sacraments, above all - by apostolic succession - the priesthood and the Eucharist, whereby they are still joined to us in closest intimacy.” A certain communion in sacris, and so in the Eucharist, “given suitable circumstances and the approval of Church authority, is not merely possible but is encouraged.”

1400 Ecclesial communities derived from the Reformation and separated from the Catholic Church, “have not preserved the proper reality of the Eucharistic mystery in its fullness, especially because of the absence of the sacrament of Holy Orders.” It is for this reason that, for the Catholic Church, Eucharistic intercommunion with these communities is not possible. However these ecclesial communities, “when they commemorate the Lord’s death and resurrection in the Holy Supper . . . profess that it signifies life in communion with Christ and await his coming in glory.”

1401 When, in the Ordinary’s judgment, a grave necessity arises, Catholic ministers may give the sacraments of Eucharist, Penance, and Anointing of the Sick to other Christians not in full communion with the Catholic Church, who ask for them of their own will, provided they give evidence of holding the Catholic faith regarding these sacraments and possess the required dispositions.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

I strongly agree with those posters who say that Holy Communion should not be given to people unless they are baptised Catholics who are entitled to receive Holy Communion. It is the responsibility of our sacred ministers and EMHCs to maintain the dignity of this Sacrament. It seems to me part of the general laxity that is pervading the Church when we distribute Communion on a “don’t ask, don’t tell basis”. Let’s take our lead from the Holy Father and maintain the discipline of the Church even when it’s difficult for us to do so.

So far we have only looked at one side of the coin. Does any one know what these people would have wanted before their mental health declined? They may be non-Catholic Christians, belong to a non-Christian faith, be agnostic, or atheist. They may have found it abhorrent to receive Communion from the Catholic Church when they were of sound mind.

We should not treat people differently because their mental health has deteriorated. OK, their care needs to be geared towards their needs but other than that they should be treated in the same way as other people. So, if they are not Catholics they should not receive Communion.

It seems to me that those who say things like have you ever worked in a care home and claim these things are too difficult are in the wrong job.

Let us ask those martyrs who died for the Faith to intercede for us. St Robert Bellarmine pray for us.

 

[Petergee]

Simple. The Parish Priest should tell his Episcopalian and Lutheran counterparts at the local Ministers’ Fraternal meeting, “Hey, there’s a bunch of your parishioners at the local nursing home who want to receive communion. Do you want to arrange it, or is it OK if I arrange RCIA classes for them so that they can become Catholics and receive communion from us?”

 

[malphono]

So that makes it OK? I don’t think so! Senile means old age, whether you accept that or not does not alter its meaning. It is incorrectly used to generally label older persons as “gaga” and that is wrong, condescending, and TOTALLY unacceptable.

One can be as “politically correct” as one pleases, but no, it is not “generally used to label older persons” anything. On the contrary, the usage is quite specific. Shame the “politically correct” cannot see that. (It rather reminds of their insistence on “inclusive language” (among other things) but I digress.)

And thus concludes my involvement in this tangent.

 

[Elizabeth502]

When I was a hospital communion minister, we were given a list and room #/bed # of all those who listed themselves as Catholic upon admission. Even then, we did not distribute to anyone who was not coherent enough to answer whether they wished to receive or not. (Obviously you can list yourself as Catholic at hospital admission, but not be practicing, not be disposed, etc. The designation is useful for lots of reasons, including Annointing of the Sick by an ordained priest.)

This prevented a lot of awkwardness.

 

[Phemie]

When I was a hospital communion minister, we were given a list and room #/bed # of all those who listed themselves as Catholic upon admission. Even then, we did not distribute to anyone who was not coherent enough to answer whether they wished to receive or not. (Obviously you can list yourself as Catholic at hospital admission, but not be practicing, not be disposed, etc. The designation is useful for lots of reasons, including Annointing of the Sick by an ordained priest.)

This prevented a lot of awkwardness.

The problem at Seniors’ Homes is that the Communion Service is open to all who wish to attend. That means that non-Catholics are often in attendance and will present themselves to receive (as they do when they attend Mass). That’s why there is no ‘Communion Service’ in the local Home but the priest will go give Communion to each person individually. The pastoral care ministers, OTOH, simply take their turn at leading a worship service on Sunday afternoons.

 

[OraLabora]

But that’s a common problem. People regularly use the word senile in the UK to mean a person who has a disease of the central nervous system. The correct use of the word senile means old age. I remember a former colleague using the phrase: “I’ve reached the statutory age of senility”. She was using the term correctly. She’d reached 65 the legal retirement age in the UK, the age which in effect the law said she was “old”. My objection to the misuse of this word is that a word which means old has become confused as a word that means someone has a dementia-type illness. This then leads to discrimination against older persons where they’re all labelled as having lost their mental faculties. That is wrong and unacceptable.

My Oxford Dictionary of Current English defines senility as such:

Senile: 1. Of old age. 2. Mentally or physically infirm because of old age.

The N. American usage is the second one.

 

[Alex2008]

I’m not sure that the Deacon totally blew it!

If you look at the OP, it says that the Pastor has been allowing this for some time…where is his responsibility in all of this? When the Deacon arrived and explained about the Holy Eucharist, he was faced with an angry response from others and gave in with a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy.

I have the feeling he faced absolutely no support from his Pastor and was left blowing in the wind, and so came up with an obviously wrong idea to solve the problem. If the OP knew what was going on, perhaps he/she could have said to the Deacon: “we need to talk to the Bishop about this.”

It’s easy to judge and make observations when you are not part of the situation and facing hostility on many fronts…I wonder if the OP could meet with the Deacon and do what I suggested to help him out of quite a mess!

 

[Timothysis]

We should not treat people differently because their mental health has deteriorated.

Really? Gee, when I was caring for my dad who had Alzheimer’s, I would shower him, dress him, shave him, fix his dinner and put him to bed. I had no idea that I shouldn’t have treated him “differently.” And to think of the time I wasted on him…

You should really think before you speak.

 

[Elizabeth502]

The problem at Seniors’ Homes is that the Communion Service is open to all who wish to attend. That means that non-Catholics are often in attendance and will present themselves to receive (as they do when they attend Mass). That’s why there is no ‘Communion Service’ in the local Home but the priest will go give Communion to each person individually. The pastoral care ministers, OTOH, simply take their turn at leading a worship service on Sunday afternoons.

Then perhaps invitations (in-person) to that group service should be extended only to those listed as Catholics? Otherwise, scandal is being created, as the situation is really improper.

 

[FromTheAshes777]

I have never understood why a person who is a non-Catholic, or a non-practicing Catholic would want to recieve the Catholic Eucharist.

Recieving the Catholic Eucharist is making a public statement to all those who witness you recieving that you are a Catholic, agree with and believe all of the Catholic Church’s teachings, and are in full communion with Rome and the Magesterium (in a state of Grace).

If you do not believe what the Church teaches, and have no desire to be in communion with Her, then why would a person want to make this statement to the world?

Why would anyone want to put a large neon side above their head that says “PRACTICING CATHOLIC” when you adamently identify as something other than this. In all charity, it just doesn’t make any sense.

A person of another faith should recieve communion from their own ministers and from people from their own faith tradition that agree with their personal beliefs on the subject.

Unless the conditions apply that the Catechism mentions of course, even in that situation though, I thought the person had to express a will to be in full communion with the Church. Right?

 

[malphono]

I have never understood why a person who is a non-Catholic, or a non-practicing Catholic would want to recieve the Catholic Eucharist.

I suspect that the reason many Protestants do this is simple ignorance. They have no idea what the **real **Eucharist is, and think it’s the same as their Protestant “Eucharist” (which, of course, it is not). If they can “take communion” in a Protestant church other than their own, why not in a Catholic (or Orthodox) church?

(The Orthodox, to their credit, will generally not commune someone unknown or will at least ask the person a question or two before doing so. In the latter case, if the person’s answer doesn’t “sit right” with the priest, communion is denied. But of course Orthodox congregations are normally far smaller than those in Catholic churches. In Catholic churches, (even many ECC/OCC churches with large congregations) using that same procedure would be unwieldy to say the very least. That said, though, it certainly could work in, e.g, a hospital or nursing home situation, where the numbers are definitely manageable.)

 

[Phemie]

It’s hard to change the mentality when Protestant ministers regularly present themselves at Communion. If anyone should know better it should be them, especially in light of the media circus that resulted from our Evangelical Prime Minister receiving Communion at the funeral of a Catholic politician last year. Yet they regularly present themselves, usually in clerical garb, and are given Communion.

 

[lutherlic]

In order to administer Communion to non-Catholics, several conditions must be met (and not even the bishop is able to dispense from these conditions–per Redemptionis Sacramentum).

First, it must be a dire situation, like war, famine, persecution, or natural disaster. A nursing home is none of these. The standard is “grave necessity” which is the highest standard in canon law.

It must be physically or morally impossible (not just “inconvenient”) for the Protestant to approach a minister of his own faith for their bread in memory of the Last Supper.

Each person must express belief in the True Presence, and every other Eucharistic doctrine, including the necessity of a validly ordained priesthood (which is almost an impossible standard for non-Catholics to meet, since they would have to at the same time deny their own ministers version of the Last Supper memorial). RS states that not even the bishop can dispense from this requirement.

The non-Catholic must approach the Catholic minister and request this–the Catholic deacon or priest cannot “invite.”

This is just a start–the most obvious requirements.

None of these seem to apply here.

There are a lot of posts with opinions that follow Father David’s reply which seems to answer the question.

It should not be too difficult to determine which residents are Catholic, if not from the facility itself (which should know), then from the family or asking them about the parish they were previously in.

As to Protestants who no longer have the faculty to meet the requirements Father David outlined, then the answer is they can not. Not to be harsh, but like death - their time to accept the Church and the nature of the Eucharist has passed. We can still be “nice” without knowingly or carelessly violating our core beliefs.