13. On Doubtful Conscience

Ferdinandus, on a certain day, doubtful whether he had drunk after midnight, although he had certainly drunk that night, received Holy Communion. In doubt, he says, the condition of the possessor is better. When again on another day he was about to receive Communion, he inadvertently brought a small piece of sugar to his mouth, but, immediately adverting to the Communion to be received, as quickly as possible he spat out whatever was in his mouth. Nevertheless, doubtful whether he had swallowed anything of the sugar, he nonetheless approached the sacred table, saying again: in doubt, the condition of the possessor is better.

Q. 1. What is doubtful conscience, and can it be a rule of morals? 2. What as to the case?

R. To the first, cf. I. M. 137 seqq. To the second: if the matter happened involuntarily, Ferdinandus reasoned rightly, and he cannot be deprived of the right which he certainly possesses of approaching Holy Communion in each case. Cardinal Lugo, De Sacr. euch., d. 15, n. 43, distinguishes case from case. He concedes that in the latter case Communion can be received, but denies it in the former. His reason is that "he who admits eating must prove a new day after eating, in order that he may have a right to Communion; meanwhile he will be rejected on this title, that he ate, and he does not have the right until a new day begins after the eating. This reason does not proceed in the case when there is doubt about the eating itself; for nothing can be opposed to this man by which he has lost the right to communicate on the same day, since eating cannot be opposed to him, concerning which it is not established." But, if this man has a right to communicate because eating cannot be opposed to him, that man also has a right to communicate, because eating after midnight cannot be opposed to him. For he is deprived of the right to communicate not by eating, but by eating after midnight. But in order that he be deprived of this right, which he certainly and legitimately possesses, the fact of eating after midnight must be proved. Aptly St. Alphonsus, l. 1, n. 39: "Therefore, if, in order that they cannot communicate, the fact that they have taken something must be proved, the fact that they took it after midnight must also be proved." Thus also G. 67, 68; La-Croix l. 6, p. 1, n. 565-567, and many others. Cf. Gur.-Ball., Comp., t. 1, n. 79, q. 5.

If the matter is done voluntarily, Eusebius Amort rightly says, tom. 2, diss. 5, quaestiunc. in fin., § 4, q. 4, 5, that "he would sin at least venially who, for the sake of merely pleasurable drinking, would thus traffic around the laws of the Church, exposing himself to the danger of at least material transgression; and if he does this from custom, or from a purpose of always acting in this way, with no other reasonable cause concurring, for example thirst, infirmity, etc., he will also sin mortally. Because such a purpose argues an interpretative contempt of the laws, and a defect of charity toward God and the Church, whose comeliness he defiles." - Elbel 165 seqq.