Case LXI: Abstinence from Holy Communion Given as a Penance

Case.—Emerentianus, a saintly confessor, has many penitents, some of whom he is preparing to enter the ecclesiastical state. In the course of his preparation, he has laid down certain rules for their daily government; that is, he has marked out certain rules, a sort of novitiate, to be followed by these special penitents. When he finds they have not lived up to these rules, he orders them to abstain from Holy Communion on specific days, either as a stimulus, or as penance. He even follows this plan in dealing with some of his other penitents, who are to remain in the world.

Question.—Is such a plan advisable?

Solution.—Holiness, no doubt, is very desirable in the life of a confessor; but it is not the only requisite. God, whose place the confessor takes, expects his representative to have the necessary knowledge for his work, and a certain amount of practical prudence. Now it is evident from the decree of Pius X. (Dec. 20th, 1905), that confessors should urge their penitents to receive Holy Communion frequently, even daily. The confessor is obliged to be familiar with this decree, and to desire to execute it. According to this decree, only two things are required for daily Communion, freedom from mortal sin, and a right intention. The law reads: “Nevertheless, confessors are to take care not to turn away from frequent or daily Communion anyone who is found in the state of grace and approaches with a right intention.” Freedom from mortal sin and a desire to please God, coupled with a wish to run to the Divine Physician with our infirmities and defects, entitle a penitent to receive the Holy Eucharist daily. It is evident that the penitents in question are of this class and fulfil all the conditions demanded by the late Holy Father. Therefore they should be permitted to receive the Body and Blood of their Lord as often as they desire. It seems to us that the method of action pursued by the confessor in question is very unwise, and imprudent, and at the same time very unjust. His penitents are endeavoring to come closer to God, as is evident from their acceptance of the rule of life, and the confessor should therefore encourage them to the use of every means at his disposal that will help them to realize their desire. Now theology, reason, and common sense tell us that daily Communion is the most sure means of obtaining strength for all who are bent upon the acquisition of purity of life, and who are determined to advance in holiness. The confessor’s ruling deprives these penitents of this powerful, God-given means to a successful issue with the infirmities and temptations of weak human nature, and is consequently detrimental to the very end he has in view. It should, therefore, not be countenanced. It is true that the Holy Father declares that the confessor should be consulted, on so important a spiritual matter; but in doing so, he lays down the laws that are to govern the confessor in forming his judgment. In the present case, we must notice that there is no question of sin, either mortal or venial, but of the breaking of regulations merely arbitrary in their nature. Now, no such regulations fall under the laws specified by the Supreme Pontiff. It is evident, likewise, that the infraction of these arbitrary rules does not show a lack of the necessary intention. It is clear that the injunctions of the Vicar of Christ are by no means lived up to in the case before us. Emerentianus should find some less damaging and more fruitful plan to accomplish his excellent and holy object. Let us add here that abstinence from Holy Communion not being a salutary penance, should not be made a Sacramental penance. It is subversive of the very object of Sacramental penance, and is therefore unjustifiable. Penance by its nature is intended to do good: this one does harm. It is intended to heal: this one removes the most salutary of all remedies. Emerentianus is pursuing a wrong course, one that is in no way to be praised.