Case VII: Receiving Holy Communion Twice on the Same Day

In a certain town, a convent of nuns is situated about half a mile from the parish church. In the absence of the convent's chaplain, the parish priest looks after the spiritual needs of the sisters. Now, it happened some time ago, that one of the sisters was very sick, and had been so for several months and was not expected to recover. One Sunday morning the sisters' chaplain heard this sister's confession, and gave her holy Communion. He then left for the day. About noon a heavy storm began to threaten, and the sick sister became very much alarmed and thought that she was going to die. She sent for the parish priest to administer to her holy Viaticum. While the parish priest did not delay in going, nevertheless, he suspected that there was no immediate danger, and besides, he was very busy just then, having just finished the High Mass, and making preparations for Sundayschool, and Vespers, and Benediction. But his chief difficulty was that the sick sister had already on that Sunday received holy Communion, and he did not think it just right to give her holy Communion twice on the same day. However, to forestall any criticism that his refusal might give rise to, he gave the sick sister the holy Viaticum. On his way home he got a thorough drenching, which only confirmed his feeling that the sick sister should not have been given holy Communion a second time on the same day. Did he do right or wrong, in giving this person holy Communion a second time on that Sunday?

Answer—As there was no authoritative pronouncement of the Church on this case the theologians were divided on this question. Some thought that it was not only lawful, but obligatory, to give holy Communion a second time, on the same day, in a case like this. Others thought that it was neither obligatory nor even permitted. Others, again, defended that it was not obligatory, but that it was lawful. Cardinal De Lugo treats the case (Disp. 16, num. 49, 50): “Whether Viaticum ought or may be given to one who had received Communion out of devotion on the same day.” The Cardinal notes the fact that the theologians are not agreed on the question, and points out the reasons of their disagreement. There are really two cases in which it may happen that persons might desire to receive holy Viaticum on the same day that they had already received holy Communion ex devotione. “First,” says De Lugo, “if, for example, a priest celebrated in the morning, or a layman received Communion when he was in good health, and afterward, either suddenly seized by illness or struck by a wound or some other accident, is in danger of death on that same day. Second, if, when he was already ill in the morning, he received Communion not with the intention of receiving Viaticum but out of devotion, and afterward on the same day, as the illness became worse and death drew near, he wished to receive Viaticum.”

A person may be perfectly well in the morning and go to holy Communion out of devotion, and later in the day be grievously wounded in an accident, or fatally hurt in one way or another. Or, it may be that a person was suffering from some disease or sickness in the morning, when he received holy Communion, but that there was no thought of death for many days or weeks, when suddenly later in the day the patient takes a bad turn and threatens to die at any moment.

Some theologians believed that in this latter case it was not lawful to give holy Communion a second time. Others held that it was not only lawful, but obligatory. Others, again, thought that it was lawful, but not obligatory.

Pope Benedict XIV. considered all these three opinions probable, and left it to the choice of the priest, which one he would follow. He says: "Amid so great a disagreement among the opinions of the doctors, the pastor will be free to embrace the opinion that pleases him more" (De Synod. 1. 8, c. n).

St. Alfonsus also admits that in practise any one of these opinions may be followed with a clear conscience. Theoretically, he thinks that if a person receives holy Communion in the morning in good health, and later in the day is grievously or fatally wounded, such a person may receive Viaticum that same day; but that if the person is already sick in the morning, when receiving holy Communion, ex devotione, and with no danger of death present, and later in the day is placed in the danger of death, owing to a sudden aggravation of the disease, such a person may not receive holy Communion a second time. This is the opinion of De Lugo, also, who says: "I do not see how Communion can be given again on the same day."

St. Alfonsus considers this opinion of De Lugo more probable than the others. The reason for this opinion is this: If, in the early morning, when Titius received holy Communion or said Mass, he was in danger of death, although he was not cognizant of the danger at the time, because the disease, for instance, had not sufficiently developed, then it is neither obligatory nor is it even lawful for him to receive again on that day, because he has already complied with the divine precept of receiving holy Communion in extremis, and now it is incumbent on him to obey the precept of the Church, which forbids receiving twice on the same day. If, on the contrary, when Titius received in the morning or said Mass, he was quite well, and later in the day is fatally hurt, he is obliged to receive holy Communion again that same day, because his first Communion early in the day was not a fulfilment of the divine precept of receiving holy Communion when in danger of death, because in the morning the divine precept did not urge, since there was no danger of death, and a precept cannot be satisfied before it urges.

Among modern theologians Cardinal Gasparri holds this same opinion (de Euch. II., 1152).

All this regards the theory only. In practice, it was perfectly lawful to give this sick sister holy Communion a second time on the same day. On the other hand, it was not obligatory, and had the priest postponed it until the next morning, and in the meantime the sister had died, he could not be blamed in any way.

The solution of the case is confirmed by the new Code, Canon 864, and it will once for all settle every uncertainty in this matter. The Canon referred to rules that one who received Holy Communion and comes into danger of death the same day shall be urgently advised to receive again.