IV. On the Subject of the Eucharist

Who is the subject of the Eucharist? - Only a baptized man can receive the Eucharist sacramentally, because only the baptized person is capable of the sacraments. Hence an unbeliever receiving the Eucharist would indeed receive it truly, but only materially, not sacramentally. But a man baptized yet indisposed receives sacramentally indeed, but not spiritually, or receives without fruit. But the baptized person disposed receives both sacramentally and spiritually, or with fruit. Trent sess. 13, c. 8, can. 8.

What is the obligation of receiving the Eucharist? - It is certain that the Eucharist is not necessary, by necessity of means, for obtaining first justification, as regards actual reception. But whether it is necessary at least in desire, by necessity of means, is disputed. As regards practice, however, the matter has no difficulty. For in the opinion of all, at least a virtual and implicit desire suffices. "Adults have such a desire when they receive the sacraments of Baptism or Penance; but little children have the desire, not from their own will, but from the implicit will of the Church." L. 192. Likewise it is disputed whether, in reality or in desire, it is a necessary means for adults for preserving spiritual life. Suarez and others deny this, because other means are not lacking. The Salmanticenses and others affirm it, because the life of the soul cannot be preserved without spiritual food; and therefore it is necessary at least in desire, and indeed explicitly in one who notices the necessity of this sacrament. Hence they hold that one is not excused from sin, even if he receives the Eucharist once a year, if he knows that such rare Communion is not sufficient for him to persevere, having regard to his own weakness. L. 192.

The reception of the Eucharist is necessary for adult faithful by necessity of divine precept obliging both at the article of death, by way of Viaticum, and also more often during life. This is proved both from Sacred Scripture, and from the Council of Nicaea can. 13, and Trent sess. 13, ch. 6, can. 9, and from the practice of the Church, and because the Eucharist was instituted by way of food, the use of which is more often necessary. L. 285, 290; Suarez disp. 69, sect. 3; Lugo disp. 16, n. 27. "Sometimes accidentally a man is held by this divine precept to communicate perhaps even more often in the year, if he judged this necessary for overcoming some grave temptation. Suarez, however, says that this can happen most rarely, since other remedies, prayers, penances, etc., can suffice for this. But in that case, in which Communion would be necessary, a man by omitting it would not sin against that precept, but against the virtue against which he suffers temptation. For the rest, it is certain among all that, speaking per se, each person satisfies this precept by communicating once in the year." L. 295. The reception of the Eucharist is necessary also from the grave precept of the Church once in the year, at least at Easter, unless perhaps by the counsel of one's own priest, for some reasonable cause, one has judged that abstaining from such reception is necessary. Lateran Council IV, c. Omnis, de Poenit. et remiss.; Trent sess. 13, can. 9.

The reception of the Eucharist under both species is not only not necessary for laymen, but is even prohibited; and this also in the necessity of receiving Viaticum. For both the reverence due to this sacrament, since especially in the case of death there is danger of spilling; and also that the error of heretics may be rooted out, who say that the whole Christ is not contained under each species, or that the use of the chalice is necessary, and that the Church erred by administering one species without the other, are sufficient motives for the Church to prohibit this with such rigor. Hence not even a drop of the consecrated chalice can be given to a dying man who cannot receive the species of bread for Viaticum and could receive a drop of the Blood; because in a matter of such importance a door is not to be opened to other liberties, even if that man should die without Viaticum. Trent sess. 21, chs. 1, 2, 3, cans. 1, 2, 3; sess. 22, Decr. super petit. conc. Calc.; Roman Catechism, p. 2, nn. 65, 66; Lugo, Responsa Moralia, l. 1, disp. 10; Suarez disp. 71, sect. 3; St. Thomas 3 p., q. 73, a. 3; q. 74, a. 1 ad 3; q. 80, a. 11, 12; E. M.

Resolutions: Every faithful person in danger of life, which he foresees, is bound under mortal sin to communicate. L. 291. - One who after receiving Viaticum has sinned mortally is not bound to communicate again. L. 293. - One who did not communicate in danger of death is not bound afterward to make it up. L. 293.

When can, or must, children be communicated? - "For the greater reverence of this sacrament, the Latin Church rightly prohibited giving it to little children." L. 301. And this holds even in danger of death for such little children who are still without the use of reason, both because the same danger of irreverence is present, and because such is the usage of the Roman Church. And one who acted otherwise would sin gravely. L. 301; Trent sess. 21, ch. 4, can. 4.

But whether children, as soon as they have the use of reason, can and must communicate, was a disputed matter among earlier theologians. "The first opinion affirms... But the second opinion, very common and more probable, denies that they are bound... Of those, however, who defend this opinion, some say that such infants are neither bound nor able to communicate; but others say that they are not bound, yet are always able, provided they know how to discern this heavenly food from profane food. Commonly the doctors say that, regularly speaking, children are not obliged to Communion before the ninth or tenth year; nor is Communion to be deferred for them beyond the twelfth." L. 301. Certainly received custom has so interpreted this precept that children are not immediately bound by it before they have a more perfect use of reason, so that they may receive the Eucharist with greater reverence and fruit. "But when children already begin to have some use of reason, so that they can conceive devotion toward this sacrament, then this sacrament can be conferred on them." St. Thomas 3 p., q. 80, a. 9 ad 3; 4 Dist. 9, q. 1, a. 5, q. 4. "But at what age," says the Roman Catechism, On the Sacrament of the Eucharist, n. 63, "the sacred mysteries should be given to children, no one will be able to determine better than the father and the priest to whom they confess their sins. For it belongs to them to examine and to inquire of the children whether they have received some knowledge and taste of this admirable sacrament." And this pertains also to pastors, as regards children who are presented to them by their parents. Therefore it is not an exclusive right of the pastor to admit children to first Communion. This was never counted among the exclusive rights of the pastor. - Benedict XIV, Const. Etsi minime, Feb. 7, 1844, § 4; E. M.

This matter at present is already beyond all controversy from the Decree of the S. Congregation of the Sacraments Quam singulari, Aug. 8, 1910. The prescriptions of that Decree have already been reported in the first part of vol. 2, n. 1270 bis.

Is someone bound to receive sacred Viaticum when danger of death is imminent, if a few days before he communicated from devotion? - It seems that this must be affirmed, at least more probably. The reason is that this precept, from the interpretation of the Church, presses in danger of death, so that we may be fortified by this divine aid against spiritual enemies.

Therefore it is not fulfilled by Communion made before the illness, because although someone fulfilled the prescribed work, nevertheless he did not fulfill it at the time when he was bound. L. 285. Yet many deny this with Lugo disp. 15, n. 39. Their reason is that the precept of Communion has already been fulfilled in substance. St. Alphonsus, l. c., concerning this denying opinion says: "The more common opinion denies it, even if Communion preceded by about eight days; Laymann holds this, Lugo with the common opinion, as Roncaglia asserts, with Concina, Angelo, Filiucius, Tamburini, Henry, Molfesius, Suarez, who with Soto and Paludanus holds it if Communion was received three days before; and Palaus and the Salmanticenses think it probable.... This opinion is sufficiently probable, at least if the danger of death happens naturally, because during that brief preceding time it had already begun morally to be imminent, although it was unknown." Indeed some cited by Busembaum think that, at least, it is not mortal to omit Communion, provided you received it at Easter. But St. Liguori by no means acquiesces in this opinion, and rightly, 291, 297 at the end of the paragraph beginning Dicit.

Is one who communicated in the morning from devotion bound, or able, when danger of death presses, to receive Viaticum? - The first opinion affirms that he is bound, because then Viaticum must be received in order to fulfill the divine precept, which, since it was not yet pressing at the time when Communion was received, therefore could not be fulfilled by that reception. The second opinion says that he is not bound, but can communicate: 1. not bound, because the time in which he communicated is morally the same, since it is the same day; 2. able, because although strictly he does not seem to be bound, nevertheless he is not therefore prohibited, since favors are to be enlarged. - The third opinion contends that he is neither bound nor able to communicate. The reason is that since the precept obliges according to the intention of the Church, the practice of the Church is that no one communicate twice in one day; nor is there a reason why this case should be excepted.

Benedict XIV thinks all three of these opinions probable, saying thus: "In so great a disagreement of the opinions of the doctors, it will be open to the pastor to embrace that opinion which has more pleased him." De Synodo, l. 7, c. 11. - St. Alphonsus, 285, and Quaestiones reformatae 66, says more probably that one must distinguish between natural and violent illness, because in the latter case "one did not receive Viaticum while placed in the article of death; but otherwise, if one already placed in illness communicated in the morning from devotion."

Can the Eucharist be given to a sick person who suffers from a cough? - Resp. In the affirmative, because the danger that the sacred species be rejected together with phlegm is generally absent. And the reason is that the way through which spittle is expelled by coughing is not the esophagus, that is, the way through which food and drink are passed into the stomach, but is the trachea, through which breathing extends even to the lungs. If, however, the cough is so continual that it prevents the sacred host from being passed into the stomach, then Communion must be abstained from. Roman Ritual. But when a sick person suffers from constant vomiting, regularly he cannot communicate, unless perhaps he has been free from vomiting for at least six hours. In doubt, however, whether the sick person is going to vomit up the sacred particle, it must not be given to him. L. 291, 292.

In danger of death, is Communion to be given to children who have not yet been admitted to the sacred synaxis? - Resp. In the negative, if they have not yet obtained the use of reason. The reason is that this is against the present discipline of the Church. - In the affirmative as regards children who are possessed of reason and who have some notion of this sacrament. Indeed not only can Communion be given to him, but it also must be. The reason is that, on the one hand, children placed in such danger are bound by divine precept to communicate; and, on the other, the usefulness of the Eucharist then does not demand a greater disposition. Benedict XIV, De Synodo, l. 7, c. 12; L. 301; St. Thomas 3 p., q. 80, a. 9.

In danger of death, is Communion to be given to the insane, the semi-fatuous, the delirious, and those deprived of the senses? - As regards the insane, if they have been perpetually insane, or phrenetic, Communion is never to be given to them. Roman Ritual, de SS. Euch. sacr. If they have lucid intervals and have manifested a desire of communicating, Communion can be given to them; indeed it also must be, excluding the danger of irreverence. Roman Ritual, ib.; St.

Thomas 3 p., q. 80, a. 9; Roman Catechism 64; L. 302. - As regards semi-fatuous persons, Communion is to be given to them when they have sufficient discretion to distinguish this heavenly food from others; but rarely, namely only in the article of death, and where the strict precept of communicating presses. L. 303. Nevertheless, if a semi-fatuous person shows a desire for Communion and approaches it with due exterior devotion, so that there is no irreverence, Communion can be permitted to him more frequently. Cf. Roman Ritual ibid.; John Sanchez, Disputationes Selectae 26, n. 5; St. Thomas l. c. - As regards the delirious, Communion can be given to them if they have manifested a desire for Communion, and if they are able to communicate, excluding danger of irreverence toward the Eucharist.

L. 292. - As regards those deprived of the senses, they are certainly dispensed from the precept, since they are capable of observing no law. But the pastor is not therefore dispensed from the obligation of ministering the Eucharist to them, if before the loss of reason they were prepared. For the sacraments work ex opere operato in those who desired to receive them before they lost the use of reason. Yet except the case in which there is danger of irreverence, or if it is feared that they will not be able to swallow the host. Gousset 232.

Is Communion to be given to deaf-mutes, the possessed, and epileptics? - Resp. As regards deaf-mutes, in the affirmative, if from signs it is clear that they have some discretion and are sufficiently instructed. If they enjoy not just any discretion and instruction, but some sufficient discretion and instruction, they will be able to communicate more often. L. 303; St. Thomas 3 p., q. 80, a. 9; cf. 385. As regards the possessed, a distinction must be made: Communion must be denied to them when they are not masters of themselves; otherwise it is to be granted. Indeed it is expedient that such persons communicate more often according to the prudence of the confessor, since the Eucharist is a special remedy for driving away demons. As regards epileptics: Communion cannot be given to them when they are in an actual paroxysm, because of the proximate danger of irreverence; but at other times it is not to be denied. L. 303.

Can Communion be given to those condemned to death? - Resp. In the affirmative. Benedict XIV indeed teaches that "that custom is to be followed which is known to exist respectively in each place," De Synodo, l. 7, c. 11. But he calls the usage of ministering the Eucharist to them more conformable to Christian piety, and says it is to be introduced where it is not, and he brings forward the testimony of St. Pius V on this matter. Gousset 230. Communion is then ministered by way of Viaticum. S. C. de Prop. Fide, July 21, 1841; E. M.

What dispositions of soul are required? - For receiving the Eucharist the state of grace is required, at least prudently estimated. Otherwise a most grave sacrilege is committed. The reason is clear from the nature of the thing, and also from the words of the Apostle, 1 Cor. 11:28: But let a man prove himself, and so let him eat of that Bread and drink of the Chalice. For he who eats and drinks unworthily eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the Body of the Lord. - It is not sufficient that the state of grace be acquired by perfect contrition, but it is required that Confession of mortal sins be first made and sacramental absolution be received, except in a case of necessity of celebrating or communicating, and when the availability of a confessor is lacking. Trent sess. 13, ch. 7, can. 11. - In a priest celebrating, however, the state of grace is required both insofar as he is the subject receiving the Eucharist and insofar as he is the minister confecting it. St. Thomas 3 p., q. 80, a. 4, 5; q. 82, a. 5, 7. Besides the state of grace, it is required that someone at least discern spiritual food from bodily food, and have some devotion. - L. 256, 257; E. M.

When is the aforesaid necessity considered to exist as regards making Confession? - The necessity by which, if a confessor is lacking, after only contrition has been first made, someone could celebrate and receive the Eucharist is judged to exist in the following cases: 1. In danger of death, i.e., that a host may be consecrated for one dying. 2. If the sacrifice or Communion cannot be omitted without grave infamy or scandal. 3.

If a pastor must celebrate by office, and cannot through another, so that the people may hear Mass; nor can he omit the celebration without infamy or scandal, L. 261; and according to Suarez and others, even if he could abstain without infamy. Cf. Lugo disp. 14, p. 114; Suarez disp. 66, sect. 4. 4. If the precept concerning annual Communion presses, or if a priest cannot hear the prescribed Mass unless he celebrates. Thus many; but far more commonly and truly others deny it. As regards hearing Mass, St. Alphonsus 261 says that others better contradict this; but as regards Communion he says that each opinion is probable. 5. If a priest after the consecration commits a mortal sin, or remembers one committed before. St. Thomas 3 p., q. 83, a. 6 ad 2. But if this occurs before the consecration, and especially before the canon, he must confess, if he can without the mark of infamy, and therefore he can also interrupt the Mass. Indeed many more probably add that he is also bound to abandon the Mass if he cannot confess; and this is prescribed in the Rubrics de Defectibus, tit. 8, n. 5, if scandal is not feared. St. Thomas l. c. But, ordinarily speaking, danger of scandal is present, and in that case the mark of infamy will scarcely be able to be avoided. 6. If at the Communion rail you remember that you forgot to confess, and you cannot withdraw without mark or grave scandal. L. 260, 263.

When is the availability of a confessor considered lacking? - It is considered lacking: 1. If no confessor is present, and, considering the circumstances of weakness, age, business, distance, weather, shortness of time, etc., an absent one cannot be approached without grave difficulty. 2. If no other confessor is present except one ignorant of the language, or lacking jurisdiction, or one who is unwilling or unable to hear Confessions, or to whom you cannot confess without grave harm to yourself or another. - Nevertheless, in these cases perfect contrition is required. - But the availability of a confessor is not considered lacking if the one to whom you are accustomed to confess is absent; rather, any approved confessor whatever must be lacking. L. 264.

What distance is required for a priest to be considered lacking? - It cannot be determined rigorously, but depends on the circumstances. Some require a distance of two leagues; others a league and a half or a league and a quarter; others only one league. But besides the reason of the journey, other reasons often press, e.g., illness or shortness of time. Thus a priest already about to celebrate can be excused from Confession, even if the confessor is fifty paces away. L. 264.

Is one who remembers a mortal sin which, from inculpable forgetfulness, he did not declare in Confession, bound to confess it before Communion? - Resp. Certainly in the negative, if the penitent is already sitting at the sacred table, or if a grave cause for communicating is present, so that he can confess again only with difficulty. The reason is that even if there were a precept of Confession, it would not press with such great inconvenience. - If the penitent can confess without inconvenience or omit Communion, it is controverted: more probably he is neither bound to confess nor to abstain from Communion, because a sin involuntarily omitted certainly has been remitted, though only indirectly; and therefore it in no way obstructs Communion being received. Nor should you say that the precept of Trent urges confessing before Communion; for since the penitent has already been duly confessed and justified by the sacrament of Penance, he has been sufficiently proved even according to the mind of Trent. Thus Gousset 249 and others against Lugo and others, who more commonly and not improbably held the opposite. St. Liguori comes closer to the former opinion, yet judges that the second should be advised in practice, provided some cause does not counsel otherwise. H. A. 23; L. 257.

Is a priest who celebrated, or a layman who communicated, conscious of mortal sin, without Confession, on account of an urgent necessity, bound to confess as soon as possible? - Resp. As regards the priest, in the affirmative. For so expressly Trent sess. 13, ch. 7, and prop. 38 condemned by Alexander VII. As regards the layman, more probably in the negative. The reason is that Trent speaks only of priests celebrating under urgent necessity. Therefore it does not touch priests who merely communicate. But there is doubt whether it touches one who celebrates on Good Friday, or one who completes the Mass of another who failed after the consecration, because the case is extraordinary, and Trent must be understood strictly of him who truly himself celebrates, i.e., consecrates and communicates. La Croix 539. - But it is very commonly asserted that it does not touch the priest who celebrates sacrilegiously when no necessity presses and the availability of a confessor is not lacking, for whom the law would rather be harmful, and a certain occasion of a new sin, without hope of fruit. "But Lugo rightly notes that if a priest from necessity, with contrition omitted, celebrated, he would indeed be bound to confess as soon as possible, because the precept of Trent by no means distinguishes between a priest having contrition and not having contrition, but speaks of any priest whatever celebrating from necessity." L. 266, 268; Lugo disp. 14, nn. 138, 139, 150; Suarez disp. 66, sect. 7; E. M.

How is that precept imposed on priests of confessing as soon as possible to be understood? - More probably it suffices that the priest confess within three days, because since this precept is only ecclesiastical, the word quamprimum can be understood morally, as it is understood in other human laws, where that word, or another similar one, by common interpretation is extended to a space of three days. Nevertheless such a priest cannot celebrate again before he has confessed, because he was not excused from Confession except because of the instant necessity. Hence, if the same necessity of celebrating presses on the following day, and he can confess, he cannot put Confession off to another day. - L. 266.

Note: Some said that the particle quamprimum was to be understood as soon as such a priest has celebrated. "But this opinion is altogether improbable, because then he would be bound to Confession by reason of the celebration itself; but Trent, apart from celebration, imposes the precept of confessing as soon as possible." L. 266; E. M.

Is a priest celebrating after Confession, in which he inculpably forgot some mortal sin, bound to confess as soon as possible? - Resp. In the negative, if he remembers the sin after celebration, because he did not celebrate conscious of that sin, as Trent speaks. - In the negative also, more probably, if he remembers the sin before celebration, because since he first made Confession, although he forgot some grave sin, in reality he cannot be said to have celebrated conscious of mortal sin without previous Confession. St. Liguori says this opinion is probable, 266. Likewise in the negative if he remembers the sin or committed the sin after Mass was begun. For the Council speaks of a priest celebrating, under urgent necessity, without previous confession. Rubrics of the Missal, de Defectibus, tit. 8, n. 4; Lugo disp. 14, nn. 145, 146; L. 267.

Is one bound to confess who, because of narrowness of time, cannot confess everything; or who has even reserved sins for absolving all of which the confessor does not have faculty? - Resp. In the affirmative, since when Confession materially integral cannot be made, formally integral Confession suffices, and therefore, since Confession is still possible, one is bound to it. Many and grave doctors, however, deny that there is an obligation of Confession if someone has reserved and non-reserved sins, and St. Alphonsus judges their opinion probable, 265. But all agree that such an obligation of Confession is not present if someone has only reserved sins for absolving which the confessor does not have faculty. Cf. 802.

What if the penitent has a reserved excommunication? - "Suarez, Lugo, Coninck rightly judge that he can well receive the Eucharist when scandal or the mark of infamy presses. The reason is that the precept of the Church prohibiting excommunicated persons from receiving the sacraments does not oblige when the natural precept of avoiding scandal concurs, or it does not oblige with such great inconvenience of enduring infamy." L. 265. - But can he confess to one who does not have faculty over the excommunication? According to St. Alphonsus, the first probable opinion denies it; wherefore he can communicate, with contrition having first been made, although he has other non-reserved sins. For he cannot confess, "since he is bound by excommunication, which forbids him from receiving the sacrament of Penance." L. ib. But the second and more probable opinion affirms it. The reason is that in that case of necessity "excommunication, just as it does not deprive him of receiving the Eucharist, so also does not deprive him of receiving Penance, which must be received when it can be, so that the divine precept of first making Confession before Communion may be observed." L. ib.; Ithur. Cas. 52, nn. 24, 25. Cf. 802.

Do actual or virtual affections toward venial sins, or actual concomitant venial sins, e.g., voluntary distractions, impede the whole fruit of Communion? And what about frequency of Communion? - Resp. To the first, in the negative. Thus more commonly. The reason is that all the sacraments confer grace ex opere operato on those placing no obstacle. But the obstacle to the sacrament of the Eucharist is only consciousness of grave sin. Yet, although actual venial sins, or an actual affection toward them, do not remove the whole fruit of Communion, they nevertheless partly impede it. For "the effect of this sacrament is not only the attaining of habitual grace or charity, but also a certain actual refreshment of spiritual sweetness, which indeed is impeded if someone approaches this sacrament distracted in mind by venial sins; but the increase of habitual grace or charity is not taken away." St. Thomas 3 p., q. 79, a. 8, 4, 5. Actual venial sins, or an actual affection toward them; "for it can happen that someone, after many venial sins committed, approaches this sacrament devoutly and obtains fully the effect of this sacrament." St. Thomas ib.; Decree of Innocent XI, 1679; L. Praxis 148 seqq.; Trent sess. 7, can. 6; sess. 13, ch. 7; Suarez disp. 63, sect. 3; Lugo disp. 14, sect. 3; L. 270.

Resp. To the second. By frequent Communion can be understood Communion several times in the year, monthly, weekly, several times in the week, daily. Now the Angelic Doctor has this: "Concerning the use of this sacrament two things can be considered: one indeed on the part of the sacrament itself, whose power is salutary for men, and therefore it is useful to receive it daily, so that a man may daily receive its fruit.... In another way it can be considered on the part of the one receiving, in whom it is required that he approach this sacrament with great devotion and reverence. And therefore, if someone finds himself daily prepared for this, it is laudable that he receive it daily.... But because often in many men many impediments to this devotion occur, because of indisposition of body or of soul, it is not useful for all men to approach this sacrament daily, but as often as a man finds himself prepared for it.... This sacrament is spiritual food; hence just as bodily food is received daily, so also it is laudable to receive this sacrament daily.... And therefore each pertains to reverence for this sacrament, both that it be received daily and that one sometimes abstain.... Yet love and hope, to which Scripture always provokes us, are preferred to fear." St. Thomas 3 p., q. 80, a. 10. And 4 Sent., dist. 12, q. 3, a. 1, q. 2: "If someone knew experimentally that from daily reception the fervor of love increased and reverence was not diminished, such a one ought to communicate daily; but if he felt that through daily frequency reverence was diminished and fervor was not much increased, such a one ought sometimes to abstain, so that afterward he might approach with greater reverence and devotion." Therefore no determined rule can be established in this matter, but "it can be taken solely from the particular state, devotion, and charity of each one." Benedict XIV, De Synodo, l. 7, c. 12, n. 7. According to the Decree of Innocent XI, for frequent Communion the criterion must be taken from a threefold head: from purity of soul, from the devotion with which one approaches it, and from the fruit which one receives from it. Trent sess. 13, ch. 8; sess. 21, ch. 2; sess. 22, ch. 6; Lugo disp. 17; Suarez disp. 69, sect. 4; La Croix 655 seqq.; L. Praxis 148 seqq.; E. M.

To counsel frequent Communion pertains to the confessor, also as regards religious and nuns, with attention to the dispositions of each penitent, and with no regard had to any prohibition of more frequent Communion which perhaps is found in the rules of nuns and religious. Trent sess. 23, ch. 18 de R.; Innocent XI, Decree of the S. C. C., Feb. 12, 1679; S. C. EE. et RR., Dec. 17, 1890; Aug. 17, 1891.

Now S. C. C., Dec. 16, 1905, Decree Sacra Tridentina Synodus, established and declared: "1. Frequent and daily Communion, as most desired by Christ the Lord and by the Catholic Church, is open to all the Christian faithful of whatever order or condition, so that no one who is in the state of grace and approaches the sacred Table with a right and pious mind can be prohibited from it." "2. But a right mind consists in this: that one who approaches the sacred table indulge neither usage, nor vanity, nor human reasons, but wish to satisfy the good pleasure of God, to be joined more closely to Him by charity, and by that divine medicine to meet his infirmities and defects." "3. Although it is most expedient that those using frequent and daily Communion be free from venial sins, at least fully deliberate ones, and from affection for them, it nevertheless suffices that they be free from mortal faults, with the purpose of never sinning in the future; and with this sincere purpose of soul, it cannot happen that those communicating daily should not gradually free themselves from even venial sins and from affection for them."

Wherefore, "if the penitent, notwithstanding frequent or daily Communion, makes no progress, but keeps the will clinging to venial sins, the frequency of Communion is to be diminished; for it is a sign that the penitent lacks a right mind." Aertnys, ed. 8, n. 95. And this is much more to be said if he continues always to sin gravely as before, without any amendment appearing in him. "4. Since the Sacraments of the New Law, although they obtain their effect ex opere operato, nevertheless produce a greater effect the greater dispositions are applied in receiving them, therefore care must be taken that diligent preparation precede sacred Communion, and suitable thanksgiving follow from it, according to each one's strength, condition, and duties."

In the Council of Trent, sess. 13, ch. 8, these things are contained concerning the admirable use of this sacrament: "As regards use, however, our Fathers rightly and wisely distinguished three ways of receiving this holy sacrament. For they taught that some receive it only sacramentally, as sinners; others only spiritually, namely those who, eating that proposed heavenly bread by desire, with a living faith which works through love, perceive its fruit and usefulness; but a third class receive it both sacramentally and spiritually; and these are they who so prove and prepare themselves that, clothed in the wedding garment, they approach this divine table.... With paternal affection the holy synod admonishes, exhorts, asks, and beseeches, through the bowels of the mercy of our God, that... mindful of so great a majesty and so excellent a love of Jesus Christ our Lord, who gave His beloved soul as the price of our salvation and His flesh to us to eat, they believe and venerate these sacred mysteries of His Body and Blood with that constancy and firmness of faith, that devotion of soul, that piety and worship, and that they may be able frequently to receive that supersubstantial bread, and it may truly be for them life of the soul and perpetual health of mind." Roman Catechism p. 2, c. 4, q. 47. "5. In order that frequent and daily Communion may be done with greater prudence and be increased by more abundant merit, the counsel of the Confessor ought to intervene. Yet Confessors should beware lest they turn anyone away from frequent or daily Communion who is found in the state of grace and approaches with a right mind." "6. Since it is clear that from frequent or daily reception of the Holy Eucharist union with Christ is increased, spiritual life is more abundantly nourished, the soul is more richly furnished with virtues, and a firmer pledge of eternal happiness is given to the receiver, therefore pastors, confessors, and preachers, according to the approved doctrine of the Roman Catechism (Part II, c. 60), should exhort the Christian people to this so pious and so salutary use by frequent admonitions and with much zeal."

The Roman Catechism l. c. premises these things: "But whether monthly, or weekly, or daily, it is more expedient, no certain rule can be prescribed to all. Nevertheless that most certain norm of St. Augustine: Live so that you may be able to receive daily." "7. Frequent and daily Communion should be promoted especially in religious Institutes of every kind; for which, however, the Decree Quemadmodum of the 17th day of December 1890, issued by the Congregation of Bishops and Regulars, remains firm. It should also be promoted as much as possible in clerical Seminaries, whose students aspire to the service of the altar; likewise in other Christian schools of every kind."

In the praised Decree Quemadmodum these things are contained: "V. But as regards permission or prohibition to approach the Sacred Synaxis, His Holiness decrees that permissions or prohibitions of this kind pertain only to the ordinary or extraordinary Confessor, and that superiors have no authority to insert themselves in this matter, except in the case in which one of their subjects, after the last sacramental confession, has been a scandal to the community or has committed a grave external fault, until he has again approached the sacrament of Penance. "VI. Hence all are warned that they should take care diligently to prepare themselves for the Sacred Synaxis and to approach it on the days established in their own rules; and whenever, because of the fervor and spiritual progress of someone, the confessor shall have judged it expedient that he approach more frequently, this can be permitted to him by the confessor himself. But one who has obtained permission from the confessor for more frequent and even daily Communion is bound to inform the superior of this; but if the superior judges that he has just and grave causes against more frequent Communions of this kind, he is bound to manifest them to the confessor, whose judgment must altogether be acquiesced in." "8. If there are any Institutes, whether of solemn or simple vows, in whose rules or constitutions, or even calendars, Communions are found assigned to certain days and ordered on them, these norms are to be regarded as merely directive, not as preceptive. But the prescribed number of Communions must be held as something minimum for the piety of Religious. Therefore a more frequent or daily approach to the eucharistic table must always be freely open to them, according to the norms handed down above in this Decree. But so that all religious of each sex may duly know the dispositions of this Decree, the moderators of each house shall take care that it be read every year in the vernacular language in common within the Octave of the feast of Corpus Christi." "9. Finally, after this Decree has been promulgated, all ecclesiastical writers should abstain from every contentious disputation concerning the dispositions for frequent and daily Communion."

His Holiness further commanded that local Ordinaries and Regular Prelates "inform the Holy See about the execution of those things which have been established in the preceding Decree in their reports concerning the state of the Diocese or Institute."

The preceding Decree on frequent Communion is obligatory as regards the nine prescriptions which are contained in it. - For exciting daily Communion and devotion toward the Most Holy Eucharist, the institution of three-day supplications is highly commended to bishops, which are to be celebrated in cathedral churches and also parochial churches within the octave of the solemnity of Corpus Christi or at another time. And they will always be carried out on Friday, Saturday, and Sunday. S. C. Indulg., Apr. 10, 1907. "Children who, according to the norms in the Roman Catechism ch. 4, n. 63, have once been admitted to the sacred table, must not be prohibited from frequent participation in it, but rather they should be exhorted to this, the contrary practice, in force somewhere, being reproved." S. C. C., Sept. 15, 1906.

What disposition of body is required for receiving the Eucharist? - By precept of the Church, natural fasting is required for Communion, or total abstinence after midnight from any thing whatever, however small, which is taken by way of food and drink, with certain cases nevertheless excepted. This is clear: 1. from the universal custom of the Church and unanimous tradition; 2. from all Catechisms and Rituals approved by the Church; 3. from various Councils, and especially from the Council of Constance, sess. 13.

For breaking that fast, three conditions are required according to the common opinion: 1. That what is taken be taken from outside and passed into the stomach, because what does not come from outside, even if it is voluntarily swallowed, is not called eating; for things which are eaten come from outside. Hence blood flowing from the mouth, tongue, gums, etc., does not break the fast. 2. That something be taken by way of eating or drinking. The reason is that, according to the common sense of men, the natural fast is broken only in that way. Hence whatever is drawn in by way of breathing or saliva in no way breaks the fast. Thus you remain fasting even if by breathing you swallow dust or a fly. 3. That the thing taken have the character of food or drink, that is, that it be something alterable in the stomach. The reason is that otherwise, according to the common mode of conceiving, it is not eating, nor drinking. For no one is said to eat iron, glass, wood, etc. L. 279-281; St. Thomas 3 p., q. 80, a. 8; 4 dist. 8, q. 1, a. 4, q. 2 ad 3; E. M.

Does swallowing remnants of food which cling between the teeth break the fast? - Resp. In the negative, if it is involuntary, because it does not have the character of food. This is also clear from the Rubrics of the Missal, de Defectibus, tit. 9, n. 3. - If it is voluntary, it is controverted. The first probable opinion denies it, because such remnants are not taken by way of food, although deliberately, but by way of saliva. St. Thomas 4, dist. 8, q. 1, a. 4, q. 2 ad 3: "Eating," he says, "is principally said from the taking of exterior food, although it is terminated at the passage of food into the belly, and further at nutrition; and therefore things which are done interiorly without the taking of exterior food do not seem to dissolve the fast of nature, nor to impede the reception of the Eucharist, as the swallowing of saliva; and similarly it seems concerning those things which remain within the teeth, and also concerning eructations." Cf. also Rubr. tit. 9, n. 3. The second opinion affirms it, because swallowing of this kind, since it is done intentionally, seems to be a new eating. St. Liguori says this opinion is more probable, 279. - Lugo disp. 15, n. 36.

Do little drops of water or broth tasted, mixed with saliva, break the fast if they are swallowed? - Resp. In the negative, if they are passed down by chance, beyond intention, provided they are not in great quantity. The same must be said of little drops which are involuntarily passed down while washing the mouth. The reason is that they are not taken by way of nutrition.

This is also clear from the Rubrics of the Missal, de Defectibus, tit. 9, n. 3; St. Thomas 3 p., q. 80, a. 8 ad 4. St. Alphonsus 279 says: "It is doubtful if they are swallowed intentionally. Coninck and Henry, cited by Croix 566, think that they do not break the fast, provided they are mixed with saliva; and Lugo and Tamburini seem to think the same, when they say that since it is not drinking to swallow saliva, therefore one does not violate the fast by passing down these little drops by way of saliva; but it must altogether be affirmed with the common opinion....

And the same Doctor Thomas teaches this, l. c., where after he said that remnants of food do not break the fast if they are accidentally swallowed, he said that the same reason applies to remnants of water or wine with which the mouth is washed.... This is confirmed from the Rubrics l. c., where it is thus held: the same must be said, namely that the fast is not broken, if while washing the mouth little drops of water are swallowed beyond intention. Therefore, if intentionally, it is broken. The same must be said if someone before midnight put sugar in his mouth, and after midnight passed down something. The reason is that this is not a remnant of eating from the preceding day, but a continued eating.... Thus also he would break the fast if someone sucked blood from a finger, or tears flowing from the eyes. But otherwise it must be said if someone swallows blood flowing from the head or gums, or pus issuing from a pustule of the mouth, even intentionally. The reason is that whatever comes from within is not truly eaten and does not dissolve the fast."

Does snuff taken through the nostrils dissolve the fast? - Resp. In the negative, even if something is transmitted into the stomach. The reason is that although such matter is nutritive, nevertheless it is not taken by way of eating. L. 280; St. Thomas l. c.

Does tobacco smoke or something similar dissolve the fast? - Resp. In the negative, because tobacco smoke is neither food nor drink; nor is it taken by eating or drinking. Otherwise we would have to say that those also break the fast who, in the kitchen, draw in the smoke of foods both through the mouth and through the nostrils. And this holds even if the smoke is voluntarily introduced into the stomach. The same seems to be said concerning the juice or odor of camphor, which is drawn in after the manner of tobacco smoke. L. l. c.; St. Thomas l. c.

Does one dissolve the fast who takes a tobacco leaf, or a spice, so that he may crush it with his teeth and spit out the phlegm? - Resp. Probably in the negative, even if some small amount of juice inseparably mixed with saliva is swallowed beyond intention, because if this is swallowed by chance, it is passed down not by way of food, but by way of saliva. But all agree that chewing of this kind before Communion is indecent; hence it does not seem to be excused from venial fault, unless some reasonable cause intervenes. "The same must be said of one who would swallow dust, or rain, a flake of snow, a gnat, or a fly; for if this happened by chance through breathing, it would certainly not dissolve the fast, because such an action is not eating, but breathing." L. 280; St. Thomas l. c.; Lugo, Responsa Moralia, l. 1, disp. 9.

Does eating hairs, nails, wood, paper, little stones, and similar things impede Communion? - The first opinion universally denies it, because all these things do not have the character of food, or at least in usage are not held as edible; and Busembaum thinks it probable. The second opinion universally affirms it, because it does not matter whether something nourishes or does not nourish, provided it is taken by way of food. The third, common opinion affirms it if digestible things are eaten, such as paper or wax; but denies it if the things are altogether indigestible, such as woolen or silken threads. For indigestible things do not have the character of food; and the Church forbids the Eucharist to be received after food or drink. Council of Toledo VII, can. 2; St. Thomas 3 p., q. 80, a. 8 ad 4; L. 281.

Can one communicate who doubts whether after midnight he took food or drink, or swallowed something on the very day? - Resp. More probably in the affirmative. The reason is that in the case it is not clear that the fast has been violated, and therefore it is not clear that Communion is forbidden; for the fact of the violated fast would have to be proved before the law prohibiting the Eucharist to one not fasting is invoked. L. 282, l. 1, nn. 38, 39.

Midnight can be computed according to true time, or mean time, or legal time.

Among several disagreeing clocks, is it licit for someone to follow the latest one for receiving Communion? - Most commonly they affirm it, provided its error is not clear, and it is not one of those which for the most part err, because these are presumed always to err. L. 282.

Can one communicate who swallows food after the first stroke of the clock, but before the last? - The Salmanticenses and others affirm it, because, as they say, the last stroke morally completes the same hour, so that all the strokes are counted as one. But Lugo and others better and more commonly deny it. The reason is that at the first stroke of the hour midnight is already completed. The first stroke of the clock announces the following hour, and therefore the preceding is understood already to have passed. L. 282.

Is it licit to eat and drink immediately after Communion? - Formerly indeed after Communion fasting was prescribed until Sext. De Consecrat., Dist. 2, cap. 23. But this precept has long since been abrogated. Nevertheless, from fittingness, some delay must be observed between reception of this sacrament and other foods, at least as long as the consecrated species have not yet plainly been corrupted in the stomach, unless some reasonable cause for taking something immediately is present; otherwise such eating is not excused from venial fault because of irreverence. Since thanksgiving after Communion is customarily made for a quarter hour, or for twenty minutes, after such a space of time has now passed, food and drink can licitly be taken. The species then regularly have already been corrupted. - L. 225, 283; St. Thomas 3 p., q. 80, a. 8 ad 5, 6.

Is it illicit to spit after Communion? - Resp. In the negative per se, provided no fragment of the host remains in the mouth. For there is no danger of irreverence toward the sacred species, since the way through which spittle flows into the mouth is not the esophagus, or the way of food and drink, but is the way of breathing. Yet all agree that it is suitable for communicants to abstain from spitting for some interval of time. L. 283.

When is it licit for someone not fasting to communicate? - One not fasting licitly communicates: 1. in danger of death, from whatever cause it comes; 2. in danger lest the Eucharist perish or be badly treated, e.g., by heretics or impious men; 3. in proximate danger of grave scandal from omission of the Sacrifice or Communion; 4. in necessity of completing the sacrifice or Communion, e.g., if for the species of wine the priest has taken water, etc., "because necessity has no law." St. Thomas 3 p., q. 80, a. 8; L. 284, 285; Roman Ritual, de Comm. infirm.

Note: "If a priest remembers after the consecration that he is not fasting, it is certain that he is not bound, nor able, to abandon the Mass, since the divine precept of completing the sacrifice outweighs the ecclesiastical precept of communicating fasting.... But if he remembers the dissolved fast before the consecration, and especially before the canon, he certainly must desist from the Mass, if he can without the mark of infamy or scandal, as they also commonly say... from St. Thomas 3 p., q. 83, a. 6 ad 2.... St. Bonaventure judges, and Soto and others think it probable, that because of this reason of scandal one must never desist from a Mass begun, because it could almost never be omitted without scandal. On the contrary, Concina says that scandal can rarely occur in this. I think it better to say that scandal can always be feared, unless the celebrant is of known, or at least presumed, probity." L. 287.

"If for the species of wine the priest took water, if he notices this while he has it in his mouth, it is not to be spit out, because of the danger of ejecting a fragment of the host and of irreverence, but is to be swallowed.... If a part of the host after the ablution has been taken adheres to the chalice or palate, more fittingly it is moved by a new ablution, i.e., purification, than by the finger, although the Missal also permits it to be drawn with the finger to the lip of the chalice and received before the ablution; in this way also those are excused who, from devotion, retaining the host in the mouth for a long time, by chance first take something of the ablution; nevertheless this is not licit voluntarily, unless good faith and holy simplicity excuse." L. 288.

"It is licit to give a sick person a smallest particle together with ablution, if because of dryness he cannot swallow it.... An ablution of water or wine is also licitly given to a healthy person, so that he can swallow fragments of the particle which have adhered to the mouth... because Communion is not morally judged to have preceded... then that whole from the ablution and particles is taken by one reception....

And therefore on Good Friday the Church instituted that the particle consecrated on the preceding day be received together with wine; and in the Rubrics of the Missal tit. 10, n. 8, it is said: if the particle adheres to the chalice, wine can be poured in and it can be received; and Lugo and the Salmanticenses add that wine can be poured in again until the particle is received." L. ib. "That because of fear of death it is licit to celebrate after food, contempt excluded, several doctors admit." L. 289. For in such necessity there is no irreverence, and there is a legitimate excuse for not observing the precept of the fast.

Can a priest, for ministering Viaticum, celebrate not fasting? - Resp. The first opinion affirms it. The reason is that the divine precept of Viaticum is to be preferred to the ecclesiastical precept of fasting. The second opinion denies it. The reason is that since this sacrament is not of such necessity, the reverence due to the sacrament, on account of which fasting is prescribed, is to be preferred. "I think the first opinion probable," says St. Alphonsus 286, "but this second seems to me more probable, unless the dying person could not be fortified by the sacrament of Penance or Extreme Unction; for in that case the Eucharist will be able to be a sacrament of necessity, so that from attrite he may become contrite. But otherwise it must be said if a priest, when he was near death, had to celebrate in order to give Viaticum to himself, because then he could well celebrate not fasting, so that he might satisfy the precept of Viaticum; for then in the same person the ecclesiastical and divine precepts concur, and the divine must be preferred: thus commonly." If it is known that the priest is not fasting, practically it will indeed be difficult, because of scandal, to follow the first opinion.

Can a priest who is not fasting celebrate so that the people may hear Mass and satisfy the precept? - The sole reason of taking care that the people hear Mass does not suffice, according to the common opinion, for celebrating when the fast has been violated, because it is preferable that the people be deprived of Mass than that the priest celebrate not fasting. If another grave reason is added, namely public scandal which could not easily be impeded, e.g., by warning the people that from some accident the priest is no longer fasting, celebration of Mass would be licit. Nevertheless, practically one must attend lest perhaps greater scandal result from this, for example if it is not hidden that the priest is not fasting, or if afterward it is learned. La Croix 582 seq.; D'Annibale ed. 3, p. 3, n. 411; E. M.

Is moral certainty of danger of death required so that Viaticum can be ministered to one not fasting? - In the negative, but a founded doubt, or probability of danger, suffices, especially when it is to be feared lest the sick person be seized by sudden death. Indeed pastors and parents or relatives of the sick are gravely to be rebuked who, through neglect or vain fear, delay the administration of sacred Viaticum with the danger that these persons may die without the Eucharist. L. H. A. 46. And St. Alphonsus 285 shrewdly warns that in this matter one must not proceed scrupulously, since in the Council of Constance, sess. 13, the sick are simply excepted from the law of fasting. "The sick," says St. Thomas 3 p., q. 80, a. 8, "are to be communicated immediately, even after food, if there is doubt of danger for them, lest they die without Communion." Roman Ritual, de Comm. infirm.

From the S. C. de Prop. Fide, Feb. 20, 1801, n. 361, a missionary can minister Viaticum to a sick person suffering from hectic fever, who will still live several months, but at that time when that sick person is near death the missionary will not be present.

Is it ever licit to give Communion to a sick person not fasting, and not dangerously lying ill, if the illness is long-lasting? - It must be denied, with attention to the actual practice of the Church, unless the illness is such that of itself it can induce danger of death. Nevertheless there are not lacking several and grave theologians who sometimes permit this, if the illness is long-lasting and the sick person is never able to communicate altogether fasting, provided it is done rarely, e.g., some times in the year. But the more common opinion of the doctors contradicts this, who assert that only the Pope can dispense in this law. In fact the Supreme Pontiff sometimes dispenses. This dispensation is customarily sought from the Holy Office.

And it is customarily granted with the clause that something be taken by way of drink, and twice in the month for laymen, twice in the week for religious. It seems, however, that then there is sufficient reason for the Eucharist sometimes to be administered to the sick person after midnight. - But there is no doubt as regards the case of annual, or Easter, Communion, which is prescribed not by merely ecclesiastical law, but also by divine law, because the divine command is more excellent than the human. And the Roman Ritual, de Comm. infirm., seems to concede this tacitly, since it forbids it to be given only to sick persons not fasting who communicate from devotion. - Gury-Ballerini 334; Elbel 90.

At present the Supreme Pontiff Pius X "benignly granted that the sick, who have already lain ill for a month without certain hope that they will soon recover, by the counsel of the confessor, can receive the Most Holy Eucharist once or twice in the week, if it concerns sick persons who live in pious houses where the Most Holy Sacrament is reserved, or who enjoy the privilege of celebration of Mass in a domestic oratory; but once or twice in the month for the rest, even if they have previously taken something by way of drink, with the rest of the Rules prescribed for the matter by the Roman Ritual and by the S. R. C. being observed." S. C. C., Dec. 7, 1906.

This can also be done by those sick persons who, although seized by grave illness, and according to the judgment of the physician not able to observe the natural fast, nevertheless cannot lie in bed, or are able to rise from it for some hours of the day. S. C. C., Mar. 6, 1907.

The words, "have taken something by way of drink," of the Indult of Dec. 7, 1906, for the Communion of the sick, are to be so understood that it is licit to take, e.g., broth, coffee, and other liquid drinks, even if some substance of flour has been mixed in, provided nevertheless that the mixture does not lose the nature of liquid food. 597.

Is it licit to minister Communion again to a sick person not fasting, who has already been fortified with Viaticum? - Resp. In the affirmative. The reason is that this sacrament is not given to the sick precisely for satisfying the precept, but as a protection against temptations which press more at the time of death. Wherefore this is licit not only if a new danger recurs, but also if the same danger continues. Roman Ritual, de Comm. infirm.; L. 285; Benedict XIV, De Synodo, l. 7, c. 12.

How much time must one Communion be distant from another, if a sick person communicates not fasting? - From the general rule, about eight days, and even less if the sick person desires; and even daily if the sick person was accustomed to communicate often, and if from the external arrangement there is no inconvenience, as for sick religious, or other pious persons living in a monastery, when the sacred Eucharist is not to be carried publicly through the streets. Benedict XIV, De Synodo, l. 7, c. 12, warns bishops that in this matter, abstracting from the various opinions, they should suggest to pastors that "the Most Holy Viaticum can and must be administered a second and third time in the same illness, especially if the sick person asks and wishes it." Therefore particular local statutes must be attended to. L. 285; H. A. tr. 5, n. 47. Cf. here 579, 597.

What about the exterior decency of the body? - By natural law that exterior habit and that bodily composure are required which exhibit internal reverence and devotion of soul. The reason is clear: for not only internal but also external veneration is owed to this most august sacrament, since Christ Himself, by means of the species, exists and is treated in it in a certain sensible way. - No bodily stain at all of itself impedes Communion, since the Eucharist is only the food of the soul, nor is purity diminished by stains of the body, which contribute nothing to moral goodness or malice. Yet decency and reverence due to so great a sacrament require that if externally apparent filth can be removed, it be removed diligently. - There is no obligation to abstain from Communion because of hidden stains of the body, or even stains apparent externally but indelible. If, however, external stains, here and now indelible, are very notable and ought to cease shortly, it will be fitting, where it can conveniently be done, to defer Communion. But when they last longer, there is no reason why someone should be deprived of heavenly nourishment. L. 271, 275; St. Thomas 4 dist. 9, q. 1, a. 4, q. 2.

Resolutions: Women must approach sacred Communion in holy adornment, redolent of modesty; if some should present themselves to the sacred table very indecently, Communion would have to be denied to them, with due cautions, however, for preventing scandals as far as possible. Leprosy, flow of blood, and similar things, which occur without the fault of the sufferer, of themselves do not prohibit Communion, because those blemishes do not obstruct devotion, which is the disposition required for Communion. - A priest infected with leprosy or another illness exciting horror can celebrate, but not in public, c. Tua nos 4, de Cler. aegrot. - It is fitting from decency and Christian humility that soldiers about to communicate approach the sacred table with arms laid aside. Yet they are bound to this by no law. The same should be said about laymen wearing gloves. - When a priest receives the Eucharist in the manner of laymen, he must be vested in a stole. Some excuse this from mortal sin but not from venial; others excuse it even from venial.

A deacon also must approach Holy Communion vested in a stole. It is fitting that clerics be vested in a surplice. S. R. C., Dec. 18, 1896, n. 3940. To the Missionaries of the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus it responded: lay brothers can approach Holy Communion vested in a pallium or mantle, but not clerics. - L. 275, 276; St. Thomas 3 p., q. 80, a. 7.

Because of pollution is someone bound to omit Communion? - Resp. In the negative, if it was involuntary, and this even if it came from a venially culpable cause, provided notable disturbance of mind, arisen from that commotion of the body, does not continue, or some just cause of necessity or devotion is present; otherwise, speaking per se, it will be venial. The reason is that the external stain, since it is now past, does not impede present bodily decency. - In the negative, if it was culpable and has already been retracted by due penance, provided there is a just cause of necessity or even usefulness for approaching Communion; otherwise it will be venial because of the reverence due to so great a sacrament; but sufficient provision is made for this by that proportionate reason which is present for receiving Communion. - Rubrics of the Missal, de Defectibus, tit. 9, n. 5; L. 272; St. Thomas 3 p., q. 80, a. 7, 4, q. 2; Suarez disp. 68, sect. 2; Lugo disp. 15, n. 4 seqq. Cf. here n. 579, par. 1, Frequent Communion.

Does conjugal intercourse impede one from the Eucharist? - "It is venial to approach the Eucharist on the day on which intercourse was had for pleasure, unless some reasonable cause excuses. But if intercourse was had for the sake of procreating offspring, or also for avoiding incontinence, then abstaining from Holy Communion is only counsel, c. Si vir 7, caus. 33, q. 7. And likewise it is counsel to abstain on that day on which the spouse rendered the debt.... But after Communion has been received, it is no sin to render it. But to ask for it? Some say it is venial; others, no sin." L. 922, 273, 274; Sporer, de Matr., n. 494; St. Thomas 3 p., q. 80, a. 6 ad 2; 4 Dist. 32, q. 1, a. 1 ad 1. Cf. St. Jerome, Ep. 48, n. 15, Migne vol. 22, col. 506, and here n. 579, par. 1, Frequent Communion. "A married Greek presbyter, before he approaches the sacred sacrifice, or the celebration of Holy Mass, should take care to abstain from his wife either for a week or for three days." Benedict XIV, Const. Etsi pastoralis, May 26, 1742, de Sacr. Ord., § XXVIII.

What is spiritual Communion, and how far is it to be commended? - Spiritual Communion is called a pious desire of receiving the sacrament of the Eucharist, when it cannot be received really. Hence for it there is required: 1. An act of faith, by which the one about to communicate spiritually presents to himself Christ truly present in the Eucharist. 2. An act of desire, by which he longs to receive Christ in the sacrament and to be united with Him with his whole heart. 3. A humble and fervent prayer, by which he asks our Lord Jesus Christ kindly to bestow on him those graces which He is accustomed mercifully to impart to us by His sacramental presence. - This Communion was very much in the delights of the Saints, and is commended by Trent sess. 13, ch. 8; sess. 22, ch. 6.

This is very useful to pious faithful. For if God rewards the pious desire of any virtue whatever, how much more the desire of possessing Him Himself! Therefore it is to be diligently suggested and most vehemently commended by confessors to the faithful, their penitents. - Spiritual Communion can be made at every time and in every place, both morning and evening. Yet the more opportune time is the time of Mass itself, namely when the priest communicates; for then, since the most august sacrament is presented to the eyes and is more vividly represented to the mind, it will more ardently inflame the heart with divine love. - St. Thomas 3 p., q. 80, a. 11.