Adoration When There Is No Tabernacle
Date: November 8, 2025
Author: Fr. Edward McNamara, LC
Question: I have a question regarding the adoration of the Blessed Sacrament in places without a tabernacle. For example, a youth camp or any Catholic event held at an outdoor facility for several days. We would like to have adoration after Mass, using a host consecrated in that Mass, but there is no suitable place to bring a tabernacle. May the minister (a priest or deacon) in this case consume the host after the adoration in order that the adoration may occur and prevent any disrespect to the Blessed Sacrament? I saw your article on consuming the host at the end of a procession, with the answer as a negative, and so it would seem that you may have the same idea here. However, what is the principle we can use? Is there a difference between “receiving Communion” and “preventing abuse of the sacrament”? For example, if a priest or deacon is bringing Communion to the sick, and for some unforeseen circumstances, he is left with hosts (the people are not present at the last stop) and he wasn’t prepared to go back to the Church, should he consume? Would this be “another Communion”? What about a priest who assists with the distribution of Communion in a Mass with many ciboria and chalices; could he help purify? Would this be receiving another Communion? Even on a “standard” visit to the sick, after giving the final host, there may be particles when the minister purifies; is this not “another Communion”? While the Church only allows us to receive the Eucharist under certain conditions (once a day, twice if in a Mass, and a second or even third in Viaticum, or a priest when celebrating a Mass), it seems that when purifying there is something “different,” and perhaps this same principle applies in the case of desiring to promote Eucharistic adoration in an environment where there is no suitable place to house our Lord after prayer. — P.T., Chicago
Answer: I first would like to commend our reader for his desire to promote Eucharistic adoration, especially among the young. But I think his reasoning requires a different approach that will take all factors into account.
In the aforementioned article of June 21, 2021, apart from the argument regarding the second Communion only within a Mass, I mentioned that we should always be guided by the Church's official rites found in the third chapter of the ritual book Holy Communion and Worship of the Eucharist Outside Mass, entitled “Forms of Worship of the Holy Eucharist,” Nos. 82-100. The rites foreseen are exposition, adoration, Benediction, and reposition of the Blessed Sacrament.
As I said:
"If it is not possible to organize things in such a way that all the proper rites will take place with due reverence, veneration and respect towards the Blessed Sacrament, then the exposition or procession should not take place."
Now, exposition of the Blessed Sacrament is practically equivalent to reserving the sacred species, as the term reservation would cover any conservation of the consecrated hosts after the celebration of Mass for the devotion of the faithful. The fact that this reservation takes place in a monstrance rather than the tabernacle is obviously different from the spiritual and liturgical point of view, but not from the point of view of the need for legitimate authorization to reserve the Blessed Sacrament.
As mentioned in the previous article, the local bishop (of the place where the camp is located) is the proper authority on such questions (See Canons 934-944). Without his explicit authorization, no reservation and hence no exposition can lawfully take place.
This is not something that a priest or deacon can decide by himself.
Therefore, rather than seeking exceptions to the general law, I think the best approach is to find a way of working within the law itself.
For example, one could approach the bishop, explain the situation and the desire to promote adoration, explain the situation at the camp. The bishop, if he considers the proposal worthy, might allow for an exception to the usual requirements of a tabernacle and allow for an alternative means of reserving the host for exposition in a dignified and secure place, albeit not one where public adoration takes place. If the minimum requirements cannot be met, then one has to renounce the activity.
I am not convinced by our correspondent's examples. There is a principle that hard cases make for bad law. Laws are formulated to regulate the things that we desire should happen. The hard cases come from the unforeseen situations that happen to us. If we legislate to try to cover all exceptional eventualities, then they often end up emptying the law of any concrete content.
In the examples offered, some, such as the last family to receive Communion not being present, can and usually should be avoided by calling ahead to confirm their presence before risking taking Communion to an empty house. If it happens due to some unforeseen circumstances, the priest or deacon still has many options other than simply consuming the host.
Some of these situations might require sacrifice, such as an unplanned return to the church, but they are legitimate possibilities. If consuming the host is the only feasible solution, I think the minister could do so with a clear conscience. The rule that allows for a second communion only during Mass is a disciplinary rule for normal situations.
The same could be said regarding purification. The missal itself foresees the possibility of a priest or even an extraordinary minister consuming fragments, extra hosts, or the Precious Blood, after the distribution of Communion. For those who have participated in the Mass this consummation is never classed as a second communion as the reception of communion is more than just the physical act of consuming the species; rather, it embraces the entire spiritual action of full conscious participation in the Eucharistic celebration.
The case of a priest who has not participated in the Mass but only comes to assist at communion might be different. In normal circumstances he may help to purify the sacred vessels but consuming any extra hosts or consecrated wine would usually fall upon the celebrant and the deacon.
In some unforeseen emergency he could consume the sacred species, but it would be exceptional. Rather than a second communion outside of Mass, which as mentioned requires a different level of participation that goes beyond simply consuming the host, it would be a necessary action and an exercise of his ministry.
In short, from what I have said above, I think there is a difference between what might be deemed acceptable in an unforeseen and emergency situation, and circumstances that are pre-planned being fully aware of the canonical difficulties and liturgical anomalies involved. What might be legitimate in the first case is not necessarily so in the latter.
Therefore, I can only recommend to our reader that he consult with the bishop of the place where the camp is to be held and follow his indications in good conscience.
* * *
Readers may send questions to zenit.liturgy@gmail.com. Please put the word "Liturgy" in the subject field. The text should include your initials, your city and your state, province or country. Father McNamara can only answer a small selection of the great number of questions that arrive.