Case LV: Is Daily Communion Allowed in Spite of Innumerable Venial Sins?

Whoever maintains, assuming the state of grace to exist, that daily Communion is permissible in spite of the presence of innumerable, or even very many, venial sins, is directly opposed to the first three practical points in the decree of December 20, 1905.

In the first place, he overlooks the good and pious intention, emphasized in the first two points as an indispensable condition; for such an intention is altogether incompatible with innumerable or a great many venial sins. Any one who commits innumerable venial sins must be aware that he is deficient in a good intention at Holy Communion, and has wilfully a bad intention of going to receive it merely out of habit, or vanity, or from motives of human respect. If any one communicates daily for some time as a matter of course, although he has innumerable venial sins on his conscience, he is paying no attention to one of the chief reasons for receiving Holy Communion daily, which is that by means of this divine remedy our weakness and frailty may be cured.

The third practical point in the decree also suggests a negative answer to the question whether daily Communion is permitted in spite of innumerable venial sins. We shall do well here to follow the text, which runs thus: Although it is most expedient that those who receive frequent and daily Communion be free from venial sins, at least those fully deliberate, and from attachment to them, it nevertheless suffices that they be free from mortal sins, with the resolution never to sin in the future; with this sincere resolution of mind, it cannot but happen that daily communicants gradually free themselves even from venial sins and from attachment to them.

The Congregation of the Council distinguishes here three things that are unfortunately often confused, even at the present day. In the first place, it praises and recommends (etsi maxime expediat) the best and most desirable dispositions, which are however merely matters of counsel, viz., freedom from all venial sins and from all attachment to them. By these words it condemns any complete and unscrupulous indifference on the part of daily communicants to innumerable or all possible venial sins. Let us imagine a physician saying to a patient: " Your best plan is to take this medicine as far as possible when you are fasting, although it is not absolutely necessary for you to do so." The patient would certainly be acting contrary to the express wish of his doctor if he disregarded his advice to the extent of always eating as much as possible before taking his medicine, thus not trying in any way to comply with the physician's instructions. In the same way it is plain that a person acts altogether in opposition to the will of the Church, if he commits as many voluntary venial sins as he can, and then has no scruple in approaching Holy Communion daily. In the second place, the Church emphasizes the indispensable and sufficient conditions for Communion, viz., freedom from mortal sin and an intention never to sin in future. It might strike any one considering these words closely that the good intention previously emphasized is here simply called a resolution not to sin. " Why," it may be asked, " did the Congregation of the Council, in the very sentence in which it distinguished venial and mortal sins, describe the necessary resolution merely by the words nunquam se peccaturos, without adding graviter or mortaliter to make the meaning clear, as many translators have done, interpreting the meaning according to the usage of moralists? "

We think that the following suggested explanation is probably correct: This identification of the resolution — never to sin again — with the required good intention, and especially the omission of the word graviter before peccaturos, show that the S. Congregation wished to avoid any appearance of sanctioning daily Communion in the case of those who, being in the state of grace, resolve only to avoid mortal sin, but take no pains to avoid venial sin, — which is equivalent to being indifferent to innumerable venial sins. Even if this explanation is incorrect, we are in a position to prove that the Congregation of the Council meant mortal sin more immediately, when using the word peccaturos, but at the same time considered the resolution quite incompatible with complete indifference to innumerable venial sins, and far more incompatible with a positive determination not to trouble at all about venial sins. A real resolution never again to sin (grievously) implies, at least in a general way, the further resolution to avoid all immediate occasions of mortal sin and to use all needful means to prevent it. It is an axiom, based both on asceticism and experience, that complete indifference to quite deliberate venial sins gradually leads to mortal sin, because the will constantly grows weaker and because the special graces, without which the soul cannot remain in the state of grace, are withdrawn more and more. Therefore complete indifference to innumerable venial sins is absolutely incompatible with a genuine resolution never in future to sin (grievously), quite apart from the fact that such a communicant would not possess the good intention that is required.

We are now in a position to understand the conclusion of the third paragraph of the decree: " If they have this sincere purpose, it is impossible but that daily communicants will gradually emancipate themselves even from venial sins, and from all affection thereto."

It is not correct to say that constant resistance to venial sin is of necessity contained in the condition, required by the decree, for daily Communion. What really follows of necessity from the practical instructions in the decree is that, at the time of Communion, we must not only be in the state of grace, but have the good intention (we need not discuss other good intentions), the firm resolution " by means of this divine remedy to cure our faults and frailties," or at least to avoid mortal sin, and consequently to resist venial sins in so far as they may become immediate occasions of mortal sin. If we are trying to find out the necessary conditions and conclusions, and nothing more, it appears not essential that this resolution should be permanent, but sufficient if it is present actually, virtually or habitually, at the time of Communion. Assuming such a resolution to be present, the daily reception of Holy Communion, supplying, as it does, an increase of grace ex opere operato, will produce a permanent and habitual disposition of mind, and the daily renewal of good intentions and of the pious practises connected, ex opere operantis, with daily Communion. It is impossible that these means will not result in energetic resistance to venial sins, so that they will gradually be diminished in number, and all attachment to them will be destroyed in the soul, although it may never be completely exterminated. The soul will be constantly under the influence of quite extraordinary graces, and will cooperate with them in a truly heroic manner.

The more resolutely one struggles against venial sins, the better in his disposition for daily Communion, and the greater is the benefit that he derives from it. In cases where there is no effort at all made to avoid deliberate venial sins, and where there is complete indifference to them, a communicant ought to be gently admonished and encouraged to do better, and, if this has no effect, it should be explained to him that he cannot conscientiously receive Holy Communion daily in such dispositions, for he has not the necessary good intention, and an absolute absence of all progress becomes in time a certain sign of defective intention.

Every priest ought to keep in view the charitable spirit of the Decree and the fact that, in issuing it, the Holy Father's chief intention was to advocate and restore the practise of frequent and daily Communion.

Persons liable to commit mortal sins, who by help of the Sacraments and especially by means of daily Communion succeed, in spite of many falls, in gradually overcoming their habitual sins, undoubtedly possess the requisite degree of good will, and ought not, during this period of struggle, to be judged harshly because of their persistence in many venial sins, but rather leniently because of their honest resistance to mortal sin. A similar remark may be made with regard to those who, for some time after their conversion, find it very hard to stand firm. In spite of many venial sins they often make really heroic efforts, and obtain the strength to do so chiefly from frequent or daily Communion. With others, whose position is more assured, we may in time become more strict with regard to venial sins, should they appear quite indifferent to them.

With respect to the struggle against venial sins necessary in daily communicants, the truth lies midway between lax indifference to innumerable, deliberate venial sins and the other very desirable, but not absolutely indispensable extreme, — constant resistance to all sin. This was the normal practice in the Church, recognized by St. Thomas Aquinas and the Council of Trent, and followed by the early Christians and the Fathers. After falling into abeyance for a time, it has been restored in its original form by Pope Pius X.— J. Bock, SJ.