Case 2. The Minister of the Sacraments

Caius, a missionary priest and a religious, heard at his own home the confession of his sick friend Titius, who was not, however, dangerously ill and who lived in the district of Julius, a secular priest, and refreshed him with Holy Communion. When Julius heard this, he wrote the following to Caius: Unless he had been ignorant of the ecclesiastical law which prescribes that the sacraments are to be received from one’s own priest, he would not have administered the sacraments outside the district assigned to him. Caius denied that he had done anything contrary to any ecclesiastical law, and affirmed that, if some common ecclesiastical law were in force which prescribed that the sacraments are to be sought from the parish priest, it did not affect missionaries such as we have in England. Hence it is asked:

1. By common law are the sacraments to be administered by one’s own parish priest, and by the quasi-parish priest in this region?

2. Is there a special law that prohibits religious from administering the Eucharist?

3. What is to be said of the case?

1. Are the sacraments to be administered by one’s own parish priest according to the common law, and by the priest who has charge of the district in England and America?

The parochial sacraments of Baptism, Extreme Unction, Marriage, the Easter Communion, and Viaticum must be so administered according to the common law. Penance may be administered by any priest who has faculties in the place where the confession is heard. In England and in the United States the Easter Communion according to present discipline may be made in any church or public oratory.¹

1 Manual of Moral Theology, vol. i, p. 627.

2. Is there a special law which forbids Religious to administer the Eucharist?

Religious strictly so called are forbidden under pain of excommunication reserved to the Pope from administering Extreme Unction or the Eucharist as Viaticum to the clergy or laity except in case of necessity without leave of the parish priest.²

2 Manual of Moral Theology, vol. ii, p. 406.

3. The case. No objection could lawfully be made to Caius hearing the confession of Titius, his sick friend. The faithful have a perfect right to go to confession to any priest who has faculties in the place. With regard to Holy Communion there is more difficulty. Whenever Holy Communion is of precept, as is the Easter Communion and the Viaticum, it is per se a parochial sacrament, and Religious are specially forbidden to administer it. However, in the case, communion was not of precept, but of devotion. To carry the Blessed Sacrament publicly to the sick is reserved to the parish priest. In English-speaking countries it is not carried publicly to the sick, and some authors maintain that in such places Regulars may carry Holy Communion to the sick in secret unless the Bishop prohibits it. In England the Bishops make

Digith I by LiOOQie known their wish that Holy Communion should not be carried to the sick by Regulars or others without the permission of the priest of the district. The Society of Jesus has a special privilege in this matter for use in the Missions under Propaganda.