Q1: I am a theology teacher at a Catholic diocesan high school. I have non-Catholic students that are wanting to join the Church. My initial thought is that these students need to join a local parish and ask the pastor to begin [catechetical instruction for this purpose]. Yet, I know that the quality of catechesis that these parishes offer is not ideal.
Instead, I would like to offer these students the opportunity to attend specific classes at school and do only those things that are necessary at a local parish. Is this permissible? If not, is there anything that a Catholic school can do to help non-Catholic students initiate the process of joining the Church? – Daniel
Q2: I recently contacted our parish priest regarding a problem I have with anxiety, walking up to receive Communion. I told him that my husband used to get a Host for me and bring it back to me [in my pew] until we were told by a priest that this was not allowed… However, my husband and I talked to others about it and were told that other people do this so we thought it would be ok, and we went back to my husband getting me one when he went up. I recently found out that he wasn’t taking one for himself and getting me one rather he was giving me his. This is very sweet of him however I told him I would rather he keep it for himself.
We wondered if my husband became a Eucharistic Minister we could “get around” my problem while I worked on rectifying it. I reached out to my pastor regarding my anxiety issue…. I also tried taking communion after Mass and I just feel that is too much attention on me therefore, I would feel uncomfortable receiving communion from the Eucharistic Minister that walks around the church at communion looking for people who for whatever reason are unable to go to altar to receive communion. I do not mean to be difficult.
… His response was no. Specifically, “While you are dealing with a unique situation, I’m not able to honor your request as you have suggested. Communion must be consumed at the moment of reception. This is to avoid the profanation of the Eucharist. I encourage you to continue attending Sunday Mass, and to receive Communion either by approaching the altar, or from [the minister who brings the Eucharist to those in the congregation who are infirm and cannot approach the altar themselves].” I feel that my priest is just not willing to help and this truly hurts my heart…. I don’t mean to be difficult or argumentative. I just feel that if he could do something it would be nice if he did and not so hurtful. –Jeanne
A: Superficially, these two questions are entirely different—but there is a common thread running through them which one might say is a canonical fundamental. That’s because a lot of canon law involves determining who has authority to do X, or whose responsibility it is to see that X is done (and done properly). And if it’s your responsibility to ensure that X is done, can anyone else legally come on the scene and do it in your stead … and if so, can it be done without your knowledge and consent?
This sort of general question can be (and is) applied to a whole plethora of people in the Church, including diocesan bishops, seminary rectors, religious superiors, diocesan finance officers, parish school administrators … but as the two questions above indicate, the most common scenarios in which this general question is relevant are probably those involving pastors of parishes. Questions about the balancing-act that must be observed between (a) the responsibilities of the parish priest, and (b) the rights of the faithful, come up all the time—and the answers depend on the particular situation. At the same time, the answers can also depend on the sincerity and good will of those involved (more on this later).
Whether regular readers realize it or not, we have already examined numerous situations in this space which fall under this broad conceptual umbrella. For example, in “Can the Pastor Refuse to Baptize Our Child?” we saw that it is the parish priest who has the responsibility to determine whether an infant may be baptized, depending on the intentions and the sufficient spiritual preparation of the parents (cf. cc. 843.2 and 851 n. 2). At the same time, in “Laypeople Can Always Baptize—But When Should They?” and “What Happens When the Clergy Refuse to Baptize, Because of the Virus?” we looked at some exceptional situations where the laity can, validly and licitly, bypass the pastor and baptize a child themselves.
That is not to say, however, that laypeople can take a priest’s responsibilities into their own hands in every situation that can be described as “exceptional”! Take, for instance, children’s reception of First Holy Communion: after sufficient instruction and preparation, which the code tells us is a joint responsibility of both the parents and the parish priest, the final determination as to whether a child is ready to receive the Eucharist is made by the pastor—not the parents (cf. c. 914). Consequently, it is the pastor’s prerogative to decide whether or not a child is suitably prepared for First Communion (see “Refusing First Holy Communion to Children Who are Ill Prepared” for more on this); and parents may not, under any circumstances, take that determination upon themselves (see “Homeschooling and Catechetics (Part I)” and “Do Children Have to Make Their First Communion at Their Own Parish?”).
While we’re on the subject, why do so many laypeople want to bypass the parish priest and take his responsibilities into their own hands, anyway? The answer is both simple and sad: in recent decades it has been painfully evident that in far too many cases, the parish clergy have failed to do their job—and the laity are aware of this. Take a look, for example, at the case discussed in “Who is Responsible for Children’s Religious Education?” In that situation, parishioners objected to the questionable catechetical materials being used in their children’s classes … and the pastor of the parish falsely asserted that he could do nothing about it, because all authority for religious education in the parish belonged (he claimed) to a laywoman whom the pastor had hired as Director of Religious Education. This was an inexcusable eschewal of his own responsibility for the spiritual formation of the children of his parish—and tragically, it’s instances like this one which understandably lead so many of the lay faithful to be suspicious of the work that their pastors are (or aren’t) doing.
At the same time, as was seen in “Homeschooling and Catechetics (Part II),” there are also far too many Catholic lay faithful out there who think that they have the right to critique every decision that their parish clergy make. Often lacking any formal theological training themselves, they are nonetheless quick to conclude that their pastors are preaching heresy, and/or administering invalid sacraments, and are quite convinced that they themselves can do a much better job. It’s no wonder that so many parish clergy, who are already overworked and underappreciated, can be discouraged and frustrated by such complaints; and when they naturally react with a tepid lack of enthusiasm (if not outright hostility), the relationship between priest and people can, tragically, become downright toxic.
Clearly, then, there is no absolute, “one size fits all” rule about the roles of the parish clergy and of parishioners in every scenario. Different situations have different solutions! Bearing that in mind, let’s look at our two specific questions.
Daniel is a lay theologian, and some of his non-Catholic students want to enter the Church, which is great! He rightly notes that these students should approach the pastor of the Catholic parish where they live, and ask to begin catechetical instruction in order to become Catholics. (Canonically, as high-school students they are old enough to make this decision for themselves: as was discussed in “Canon Law and Non-Infant Baptism,” once a child reaches the age of seven, he is presumed to have the use of reason, and is then considered to be sui compos, or capable of personal responsibility for his actions [c. 97].)
But as Daniel points out, “I know that the quality of catechesis that these parishes offer is not ideal.” We don’t know how Daniel knows this, or what “not ideal” actually means; but regardless, Daniel believes that he can provide his students with a more solid catechetical preparation for reception into the Catholic Church.
Since Daniel is trained in theology, his concerns about the suitability of the local parishes’ catechetical programs might be valid. He may be absolutely right that he could give these students a more solid and orthodox education in theology than they’ll get from any nearby parish. But the fact remains that as per canon 776, it’s the parish priest who is responsible for the instruction and preparation of those preparing to enter the Catholic Church.
This doesn’t mean, however, that Daniel must simply throw up his hands and abandon any thought of assisting his theology students in their journey toward becoming Catholics! He might, if he wishes, contact the pastor(s) who will be responsible for preparing these students, and offer to help in some way. Perhaps Daniel could, tactfully and diplomatically, ask the priest what the catechumens will be learning each week, noting that in his own theology classes at the high school, he will try to provide instruction which complements what they are learning at the parish. It may be entirely possible to present this as a respectful request to assist in their formation—without appearing to want to take control. Who knows, maybe an overworked parish priest would welcome the idea, and even end up asking Daniel for his input in the parish’s catechetical program? After all, since Daniel is trained in theology, one would assume that any constructive contributions he might make would be of value to a parish.
In this way, Daniel could indeed have an important role in the education of these students in the Catholic faith, as they prepare to enter the Catholic Church … but at the same time, he wouldn’t be usurping the pastor’s rightful authority over the spiritual formation of the faithful.
Far different is Jeanne’s attitude toward her pastor, with regard to the reception of Holy Communion. For unclear reasons, Jeanne claims to have “anxiety” which somehow prevents her from walking up the aisle of the church with everyone else at Communion time. She nevertheless wants to receive the Eucharist—an entirely laudable desire!—so how has she handled this?
It’s easier to start by noting what Jeanne did not do. She did not immediately contact the parish priest to seek his assistance, asking him what might constitute a lawful work-around in her case. On the contrary, it is evident that she and her husband simply took the law (and the Eucharist!) into their own hands: without saying a word, much less asking permission, her husband began receiving Communion in the hand … and then, instead of consuming the Host immediately as is required, he returned with It to the pew and handed It to his wife.
Note that Jeanne and her husband both appear to understand that becoming an Extraordinary Minister of the Eucharist (see “Questions about Eucharistic Ministers”) requires both training and the authorization of the parish priest. Thus it’s not at all clear why they both seem to think that his bringing a Host to her in the pew (which is, after all, what a cleric or an Extraordinary Minister does) is an appropriate action on his part—especially since this has been going on without the priest’s knowledge, much less his consent. The grave responsibility of the priest to ensure that the Host is consumed at the time of reception, and is not carried off by the communicant, was addressed at length in “Preventing Desecration of the Eucharist.” You really have to wonder why Jeanne would describe her husband’s conduct as “sweet” when in fact he is committing a serious act of irreverence toward the Most Blessed Sacrament.
According to Jeanne, a priest finally became aware of what was happening and rightly told her/her husband that this was “not allowed.” That should, of course, have ended the practice; but Jeanne says that they “talked to others about it” (why?), and “were told that other people do this” (who?), so Jeanne and her husband decided simply to disregard the instructions of the priest, and continue their abuse. By this point, their lack of reverence for the Eucharist, and their lack of respect for the direction provided by the priest, are pretty evident.
But the story doesn’t end there. When Jeanne’s pastor finally learned what had been going on, it sounds like he handled the situation perfectly. Firstly, he made it clear that what Jeanne and her husband were doing was not acceptable, and pointed out the need to “avoid the profanation of the Eucharist.” Secondly, he apparently provided a couple of different options that Jeanne could choose from, to enable her to receive Communion correctly without having to fight her anxiety. For starters, Jeanne mentions being allowed to receive Communion after Mass, by herself. Alternately, it appears that at their parish, people who are physically unable to walk up the aisle to receive Communion can just stand up at their place, and an Extraordinary Minister will bring Communion to them. While Jeanne isn’t physically incapacitated, the pastor invited her to do this all the same. It is obvious that the pastor is entirely willing to try to help Jeanne to receive Communion without having an anxiety attack.
Yet note Jeanne’s response to these options. She won’t receive Communion after Mass, because “I just feel that is too much attention on me.” And she won’t stand at her pew, so that someone can bring the Eucharist to her, because “I would feel uncomfortable.” In short, she is being provided with two possible workarounds but refuses to do either one; and then concludes that “my priest is just not willing to help.” Finally, she declares that the priest is not “nice” and is “hurtful,” because he won’t permit Jeanne and her husband to continue to abuse the Eucharist in the manner that they devised without permission.
The law in such a bewildering situation couldn’t be more obvious! Jeanne’s parish priest is to be commended for his defense of the integrity of the Blessed Sacrament, by teaching these parishioners the right (and the wrong) way to receive Holy Communion. It’s important to point out that Jeanne’s right to receive Communion is not being denied: the pastor has provided her with different creative ways to work around her anxiety about walking down the church aisle, and so her non-reception of the Eucharist is entirely her choice. One wonders whether the parish priest himself is feeling “hurt” by this parishioner, who attacks his attempts to assist her and then declares that she isn’t being “difficult or argumentative.” If you don’t have enough reasons to pray for our parish clergy already … here is one more.
What should be our takeaway from all this? Parish priests have very clear and very serious responsibilities for the spiritual wellbeing of their parishioners; and if they abandon these responsibilities, at least some of the laity will frequently try to take those duties upon themselves. Sometimes, the lay faithful are permitted to do these things on their own, in accord with theology and canon law; but in many cases (like those addressed here), these matters remain the responsibility of the parish priest alone. Perhaps our goal in such situations can be summed up like this: in matters of faith, we should do our utmost to work with our parish clergy—not around them.
Why is Google hiding the posts on this website in its search results? Click here for more information.
Canon lawyers are not responsible for the content of canon law. The Supreme Legislator is. Only Pope Francis can change the Code of Canon Law, so if you're not happy with what the law says, please take it up with him.
