Testimony to the Truth

Author: Leon Suprenant | Posted: 5. February 2010 14:00 4

After reading my post on extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion, a friend of mine wrote:

"I have practically memorized this section of Redemptionis Sacramentum, but it does no good. A plethora of EMHCs at every parish seems to be the norm here in the United States. I don't know if it can be stopped unless all the bishops put out a directive to their priests. It has just gotten out of hand. Aren't there at least some "guidelines" for "Who" should be selected to be an EMHC?"

Well, I know a bishop who actually took this issue head on.

Bishop Robert Vasa of Baker, Oregon, whom I mentioned here in a previous post, issued such guidelines for his diocese in 2004. He authored a pastoral letter for lay ministers entitled Giving Testimony to the Truth. In this pastoral letter and accompanying letter to lay ministers, he set forth the relevant criteria for the commissioning of lay ministers in his diocese, including extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion. In addition to assuring the moral uprightness of those seeking such commissioning (he makes particular reference to pro-choice politicians), he also provided at the end of the pastoral letter an "Affirmation of Personal Faith" that any lay minister must publicly make in order to be commissioned for lay ministry. Here's how he explained it in his cover letter:

"The summary statements which I have collected in the Affirmation of Personal Faith are all taken from the Catechism of the Catholic Church. They represent the authentic and authoritative teaching of the Catholic Church and acceptance of these tenets is expected of every Catholic. While it is sufficient for me to ‘presume’ that Catholics who attend Mass and receive communion adhere to these teachings (unless the contrary is clearly evident), such a presumption is not sufficient for those whom I commission to teach and act in some official capacity."

Bishop Vasa emphatically states that he is not "suspicious" of those desiring to exercise ministry in the diocese. Rather, he was striving to fulfill his serious responsibility as shepherd of the local Church.

By way of analogy, we can generally presume that the average person we meet in the public square is not going to harm us or our family. However, before we give this "average person" a position of responsibility in our household (e.g. babysitter, tutor, nanny, etc.) we would exercise due diligence to ensure that we can reasonably trust this person.

Similarly, when people assume leadership roles in the Church, the Church must exercise some diligence to ensure that scandal is not given to the faithful. Surely, as Bishop Vasa explicitly recognized, even greater scrutiny must be given to men who present themselves as candidates for the priesthood.

I heard when Bishop Vasa issued these guidelines many of those who were interested in lay ministry did not submit to the "Affirmation of Personal Faith." While in some sense that is sad, in another sense it shows that this level of oversight is needed to ensure that those taking on these roles meet some verifiable minimum standards.

While this doesn't answer all the questions regarding what seems to be an extraordinarily ordinary use of extraordinary ministers, I think it's a very good start. I think all of us who are engaged in some form of ministry would do well to take to heart Bishop V's guidelines, even if we don't live in Oregon!

Tags: lay ministers, bishops, eucharist, holy communion

Categories: General Interest | Liturgy and Sacraments

LJ , on 2/7/2010 1:18:36 AM Said:

I have often thought that there is one simple expedient to complying with Redemptionis Sacramentum's practical direction regarding EMHCs.

In our parish, for example, they have selected ahead of time two or three for each mass.  The practical reason is obvious, that they will actually be at that mass if required.

The problem is in the presumption that they will be required.  They have become a fixture particularly in their own expectations.  This is not to cast aspersion or blame in their direction.  I believe that virtually all of them do not know what the Church actually teaches.

If the Bishop were to simply direct the priests of each parish to use a rule of thumb according to the numbers at mass, by doing a quick head count of those in the pews just prior to the mass, the priest would have a way to deflect the inevitable anger when he tells the EMHCs that for this particular mass he does not need any EMHCs or he only needs one, etc. and he could blame it on the Bishop.

We normally have between 100-200 attending any Sunday morning or vigil mass.  There is no need at all for EMHCs.  At a Christmas or Easter mass the numbers rise considerably and when the Church is full to capacity a case might be made for EMHCs.

There is another reason why this problem has arisen.  The practical method of reception.  When we consider that Vatican II said nothing about removing altar rails (or changing the orientation of the celebrant, or moving the altar for that matter) we can see that part of the time problem is the line up to receive standing, one by one.

Perhaps, way back in the history of the Church, one of the reasons altar rails were instituted was for the sake of efficiency.  Not the only reason probably, but a practical one nonetheless.  When the communicants are lined up at the rail ready to receive, the time it takes for the priest to dispense the Body of Christ to each is reduced.  And further, if EMHCs or ushers were delegated to direct traffic in an orderly way to and from the altar rails it seems to me that a greater number of people could receive in a shorter time.

I know there are some that would see such a thing as step backward into the medieval past but over time I think it would catch on once more.  Today's younger Catholic is generally a lot more traditional than the previous generation and they might take to altar rails rather quickly.