Case II: Fasting Before Holy Communion

Is it lawful for a person to receive holy Communion when there exists a well-founded doubt as to whether the person has broken the fast required for holy Communion?

Answer.—Theologians are not agreed as to whether it is lawful or not. Rigorists maintain that under no circumstances is it lawful to receive holy Communion, unless one is sure that the fast has not been broken since midnight preceding the holy Communion. This is according to their general principle: In dubio, quod tutius est, tenendum. This principle, of course, is denied by all those who adopt probabilism as a system of morals or a norm of moral conduct. But the probabilists themselves do not agree as to whether it is lawful to receive holy Communion when one is in doubt as to whether the fast has been broken. For the sake of clearness, it is necessary to premise that the doubt concerning the fast may arise either from the fact that one has partaken of food or drink, but is in doubt as to whether it was before or after midnight, or one may be sure that one was fasting at midnight, but doubts whether he broke the fast after midnight. The principle on which the probabilists solve the case is: Melior est conditio possi dentis. But they do not agree in the application of the principle. Some maintain that when doubt exists about the fast required for holy Communion, then the law forbidding holy Communion to the non-fasting is in possession and makes the Communion under the circumstances unlawful. Others, on the contrary, maintain that when one is in doubt as to whether one is fasting or not, such an one is in possession as against the law, because the law is doubtful, that is to say, it is doubtful whether the law applies to this particular case, making the Communion illicit. Owing to this different application of the principle melior est conditio possedentis, we have three different opinions of the theologians belonging to the probabilistic school about this matter.

The first opinion holds that in either case it is lawful to receive holy Communion. That is to say, whether you are sure of the fact that you partook of food or drink, and doubt only concerning the time, namely, whether it was before or after midnight that you partook of the same, or whether you are sure that you were fasting at midnight and are in doubt whether you ate anything after that time or not, in either case you may tuta conscientia approach the holy table. Sporer, among others, holds this opinion, de sacrif. Missae, VI., 474, and justifies it in this manner: "The right that I have to receive holy Communion cannot be rendered uncertain by an uncertain or doubtful fact; but the fact that I broke my fast is doubtful. To prove the major, it is only necessary to recall that in law facts are not presumed, but must be proven. The precept to receive holy Communion fasting is a prohibition. The prohibition must be established by fact, that is, unless you can prove beyond reasonable doubt that you have broken your fast after midnight, there exists no prohibition against your receiving holy Communion. St. Alphonsus thinks well of this manner of reasoning (de conscien. 38).

The second opinion holds that it is unlawful to receive holy Communion, unless one is sure that one is fasting. No one must receive holy Communion, unless he knows himself to be worthy. Now if one does not know for certain whether he is fasting or not, he does not know whether he is worthy or not. Therefore let him prove himself worthy or else abstain. "But let a man prove himself, and so let him eat of that bread" (I. Cor. xi, 28).

This opinion maintains that we have no absolute right to receive holy Communion, but only a conditional right, conditional, namely, on our worthiness, and until we satisfy the condition and prove our worthiness, we have no right to holy Communion. As no one has the right to receive Holy Orders unless he can prove the justice of his claims to them, by proving his age and legitimate birth, so no one has a right to receive holy Communion, unless he can prove, among other things, that he is fasting. And as no injury is done to him who is refused Holy Orders, because he cannot prove his age or legitimate birth, so no injury is done to one who is refused holy Communion because he cannot prove, beyond doubt, that he is fasting. Thus the Salmanticenses, Sanchez, Bonacina, etc.

The third opinion makes a distinction between the two cases of doubt and holds that in case you are sure that you were fasting at midnight, and only doubt whether afterwards you broke your fast, you may receive holy Communion; whereas if you are sure you ate or drank something around midnight, but are not sure whether it was before or after midnight, in that case it is not lawful to receive holy Communion. De Lugo makes this distinction, de Euch. disp. 15, sect. 5. In the first case, says Lugo, it is lawful to receive holy Communion, whenever you are sure that you were fasting at midnight, and only doubt whether afterwards you may have broken your fast, because every one has a right to receive holy Communion, unless he knows that he is prohibited. In this case the man is certain that he was fasting at midnight, therefore that at midnight he was worthy to receive, and it cannot be required of him now, v. g., in the morning, to prove that he is still worthy, because at midnight he was in possession of the right to receive holy Communion and it is unjust to dispossess him of that right in the morning, because he can no longer prove an undisputed title. Once lawfully and certainly in possession of a right or privilege, One remains in possession of the same until one’s title to the right or privilege can be proven invalid beyond reasonable doubt. If such an one were refused holy Communion, it would be nothing else than ousting him from his rights or possessions on account of an unproven fact. This would be against all law, because in law facts are not presumed, but must be proven. In the second case, however, namely, where a person is sure that he ate or drank something around midnight, but is not able to determine whether it was before or after midnight, in this case, Lugo holds that it is not permitted to receive holy Communion, because since he knows that he ate something he is not in possession of the right to receive, as the man is in the other case, but rather is under the necessity of proving himself worthy to receive, which he is not able to do, as long as he is in doubt whether it was before or after midnight that he broke his fast. He must prove himself worthy, like one who wishes to receive Holy Orders, or, to be promoted to an ecclesiastical benefice. If he cannot prove himself worthy, you do him no injury by refusing to promote him.

In conclusion, it must be said that at present theologians discard all distinctions and maintain that in any case of doubt about the fast one may receive holy Communion.

St. Alphonsus says: “The law prohibiting Communion does not seem certain, and, as doubtful, it does not bind.” de consc. 38. Again: “But whether, in a negative doubt as to whether midnight has passed or not, someone may receive Communion? The affirmative opinion is very probable, indeed perhaps more probable, because, since this precept is negative—not to approach the Eucharist after eating—you are not bound to abstain from it so long as you are not certain, and all the more if you have no probable reason for thinking that you ate; for then you still remain in possession of your liberty.” De Euch, lib. VI, tr. 5.

Ita Gasparri, de sanct. Euch. cap. IV, 447; Bucceroni, de Euch, tr. IV, 587; Noldin, de Euch. 150; Tanquerey, de Euch. 143.