Appendix I. On Frequent Communion

338. By the name of frequent Communion, commonly with St. Ligorius, there are understood in the stricter sense those Communions which, beyond Sundays or feast days, are made on weekdays, even without previous confession.

No entirely certain rule concerning frequent Communion can be established. Therefore we shall indicate only certain things generally.

It is certain that frequent Communion, even daily Communion, has always been most desired in the Church. This is clear 1. from the common testimony of the Fathers, who always earnestly commended it to the faithful. It is clear 2. from the Council of Trent, sess. 22, c. 6, where it says: The holy Synod indeed would desire that at each Mass the faithful standing by should communicate not only by spiritual affection, but also by sacramental reception of the Eucharist, so that the fruit of this most holy Sacrifice might come to them. It is clear 3. from the Decree of Innocent XI in the year 1679, and also from the common testimony of Doctors. Therefore frequent Communion is greatly to be praised, and is to be earnestly urged upon the faithful by Parish Priests and also by Confessors. It is certain besides that days for receiving the sacred Eucharist cannot generally be established; nor are those to be barred from it who desire to approach frequently, unless they appear unworthy. Therefore this whole matter must be left to the judgment of Confessors, who, according to the purity of conscience and the fruit perceived from the sacred table, ought to prescribe that which they judge will profit each one more. - Thus from the same Decree of Innocent XI.

339. • It is useful to report the principal things which St. Ligorius has concerning this matter in the book The Practice of the Confessor (which is found toward the end of the larger Work):

We speak here only of the manner in which Confessors ought to conduct themselves in conceding Communion to their penitents. In this, some err by too great indulgence, others by too great rigor. There is no doubt that it is an error, as Benedict XIV notes in his golden book On the Synod, to concede frequent Communion to those who often fall into grave sins, and are not solicitous about doing penance and about their amendment, or to those who approach > to Communion with affection for venial sins, without any desire of freeing themselves from them.

It is indeed expedient to concede Communion to some who would be in danger of falling into mortal sins, that they may receive strength for resisting; but with respect to those persons who are not in such danger and, on the contrary, ordinarily commit deliberate venial sins, and in whom no amendment nor desire of amendment shines forth, it will be best not to permit them Communion more than once a week; indeed it may be expedient sometimes to forbid them Communion for an entire week, that they may conceive a greater horror of their defects and greater reverence toward this Sacrament.... (n. 149.)

Certain Directors surely err, and depart greatly from the spirit of the Church, when, without any regard for need or progress, they indiscriminately deny frequent Communion, led by no other reason than because it is frequent. The Roman Catechism itself, explaining the desire of the Council of Trent that all those assisting at the Sacrifice communicate, teaches that it is the office of the Parish Priest diligently to exhort the faithful to Communion not only frequent but daily, with the obligation of instructing them that, just as the body, so also the soul, needs daily nourishment.... Moreover, in the Decree of Innocent XI it is imposed upon Bishops that they most diligently take care that Communion, even daily Communion, be denied to no one, and that, as is fitting, they seek to nourish this devotion in their subjects.

Certain more rigid spirits readily admit that daily Communion is indeed lawful; but they say that a due disposition is required for this. But we desire to know from them what they understand by this name, due disposition. If they understand a worthy disposition, who then should ever again approach the Eucharist? Jesus Christ alone worthily received the Eucharist, because God alone could worthily receive God. But if they understand a suitable disposition, it has already been said above that it is equitable to deny frequent Communion to those who have actual venial sins, or affection for them without a desire of amendment. But if then we speak of those who, affection even for venial sins now being removed ¹, and the greater part of their depraved inclinations having been overcome ², have a great desire of communicating, St. Francis de Sales says that these, with the previous counsel of their director, could rightly communicate daily. (n. 150.) > And although to abstain from Communion on some day is also a virtue, nevertheless Father Granada, in his Treatise on Communion, says that it is the common opinion of Doctors that it is better to approach Communion daily from love than to abstain from reverence. And St. Thomas confirms this, part 3, q. 80, art. 10, ad 3, saying: And therefore both pertain to reverence for this Sacrament: both that it be received daily, and that one sometimes abstain. Yet love and hope, to which Scripture always calls us, are preferred to fear. Indeed Father Barisonus rightly says that he who approaches the Eucharist with a desire of growing in divine love also exercises an act of reverence toward Jesus Christ; indeed, the former performs a positive act, whereas he who abstains performs only a negative act.... The Venerable Father Master Avila does not hesitate to say that those who condemn persons who approach the Eucharist more often perform the office of the devil. (n. 151.)

¹ Affection for venial sins is said to be removed, not indeed when someone no longer falls into venial sins; for this perfection belongs not to man journeying on earth, but to the blessed comprehensor in heaven; but when someone, although he sometimes falls into venial sins from infirmity, nevertheless is accustomed immediately to grieve and diligently to guard against a relapse.

² Here the words of the Council of Trent must be recalled to memory (sess. 5, Decree On Original Sin, n. 5): But that concupiscence or the tinder remains in the baptized, this holy Synod confesses and perceives; and since it has been left for combat, it cannot harm those who do not consent, but who manfully resist through the grace of Jesus Christ; indeed, he who shall have contended lawfully shall be crowned. Therefore, to have overcome depraved inclinations is not to have them extinguished, or not to feel their force, however vehement, but not to be led away by them to violating the law of God. Wherefore victory of this kind over depraved inclinations falls back into the preceding condition of a man who strives with all his strength to guard against at least fully deliberate venial faults. For this cannot be furnished by one who does not endeavor to deny himself, that is, his depraved inclinations, through continual and laborious combat against them.

Moreover, considering the doctrines related, it seems that a Director cannot without scruple deny frequent, even daily, Communion to certain souls desiring it in order that they may advance in divine love; always, however, provided that, living alienated from affection for any venial fault, they moreover devote themselves much to mental prayer ³, endeavor to tend toward perfection, and no longer fall into sins, even venial sins, that are plainly voluntary.... Except, ordinarily speaking, one day in each week, as certain prudent Directors are accustomed to do; and except that time in which they wish to deprive their penitents of Communion in order to prove their obedience ⁴, or humility, or for some just cause.... (n. 152.)

³ This condition is not to be required indiscriminately from all. And indeed it not rarely happens that you find souls distinguished by singular purity of conscience and constantly leading a life especially noble in innocence of morals, which nevertheless do not devote themselves to the exercise of mental prayer, either because they are occupied by other employments, or because God, wonderful in His Saints, does not draw all souls to Himself by the same way, and knows how to feed, direct, and fortify them with the heavenly light of His grace. See concerning this argument the excellent little work of the Reverend Joseph Frassinetti, entitled: The Pater Noster of St. Teresa of Jesus: A Treatise on Prayer by the Priest Giuseppe Frassinetti.

⁴ This reason of proving obedience seems not to be entrusted everywhere nor indiscriminately to all, but at most sometimes, and indeed to men who have not only been exercised by long experience in the direction of souls and by intensive study in the spiritual way, but who moreover singularly excel in an abundance of divine light and in that heavenly gift which they call discernment of spirits. Otherwise, besides other inconveniences, effects plainly opposite to the intended purpose will very easily follow. Besides, is there lacking some other more suitable matter concerning which the virtue of obedience can be exercised?

But what in the present matter deservedly ought to seem altogether intolerable is that even women who perhaps exercise some power in monasteries or in some pious Congregation, either over nuns subject to them, or over girls who are educated in the same monasteries, or even merely frequent schools or sodalities there, do not hesitate rashly to usurp for themselves the faculty of conceding or denying access to Holy Communion. This abuse, introduced long ago into certain monasteries of Gaul by Jansenist frauds, I do not know how, in no small part, gradually and imperceptibly pervaded especially the more recent Congregations of women, so that women claim for themselves the governance of the spirit and a certain episcopate, as it were. And thus, while the government of souls is called by St. Gregory the art of arts; while decrees of Synods and pontifical Constitutions prescribe that the choicest men of the clergy, who excel in doctrine, prudence, maturity of judgment, gravity, experience in spiritual matters, etc., be appointed to the spiritual cultivation of this assembly, and therefore Bishops approve not all confessors, but a certain few as fit above others for that duty; while in Religious Orders only the most grave men, if there are any, and those distinguished by judgment and prudence, are chosen for the office of Spiritual Father; while even the Saints admonish that he who determines to enter upon the spiritual journey should so labor in taking a guide of the way that he select one out of thousands; while we all confess that in the theological disciplines that part which they call ascetical or mystical is held to be the most difficult, since it requires certain singular gifts of judgment, discretion, etc.; nevertheless we sometimes see this most grave and difficult office now almost wholly committed to the weakness and ignorance of the female intellect. And since weakness and poverty of mind, when some authority and power are added, are accustomed to be followed by a rashness the more audacious, hence one could see recalled into monasteries, as though by right of return, certain of those scenes which elsewhere in Jansenist history provoked us to laughter and at the same time to just indignation. You would have seen, namely, every effort brought to this, that nuns be withdrawn from the care, instruction, and direction of confessors, so that the whole governance of the spirit might be drawn from the venerable mother of all as from its sole fountain; to which end, even in the Constitutions themselves, one could perceive it most cunningly insinuated, under specious colors and by deceitful art, that the work of the Confessor should not be employed except for the absolution of sins, but that all other things should be reserved to the provident care of the spiritual mother; so that that part which is held to be especially arduous in ecclesiastical governance was now to be referred to women, concerning whom otherwise the Apostle prescribed (1 Tim. 2): Let a woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I permit not a woman to teach... but to be in silence.

Nevertheless, you would have said that very little except the matter of absolution remained reserved from these spiritual mothers. For to these mothers and mistresses the fullest account of the whole conscience was prescribed to be rendered. To this certainly pertained not only to disclose all movements of the soul, depraved inclinations, and temptations, but also lapses and sins. And, what surpasses all belief, while even in communities of Religious men which observe this law of rendering an account of conscience it is prudently guarded that some matter, if perhaps there has been sin in it, be reserved to sacramental confession to be made before the Superior himself, so that provision may be made for decency and shame; the levity and imprudence of women had progressed so far that even those things which pertain to vices contrary to chastity had to be narrated to female curiosity in familiar conversation, so much so that even in the Constitutions themselves, under the pretext obtained of teaching the manner in which this was to be furnished, the necessity of this narration appeared expressly inserted. Anyone easily sees how similar these abuses were to the confessions which the most celebrated Mondonville, as the history of the Jansenist Institute of the Holy Childhood relates, was accustomed to receive from her nuns.

Most wisely, therefore, the Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars, which did not permit even male religious, if they were merely laymen, the office or duty of spiritual direction, either of receiving an account of conscience even rendered in writing, or even merely of knowing the temptations of subjects (see Method of the Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars in Approving New Institutes, etc., pp. 30, 31), and which willed that this duty with respect to nuns be so proper to the Confessor that it did not approve an account of conscience to be rendered by them even to Directors or Superiors (ibid., pp. 28, 29), took care that abuses of this kind be removed from Congregations of women. First, therefore, it restricted the matter concerning which nuns are permitted to render some account to the moderator or Superior General to two heads, namely, to exterior or public transgressions of the Constitutions, and to progress in virtues (ibid., p. 26, n. 3, and p. 28, n. 16). Then it conceded this manifestation of conscience itself not obligatorily but only facultatively (ibid.); that is, it willed that there be no obligation of manifesting conscience even concerning those two heads, but permitted it to the free judgment of each. Finally, what is of greatest importance, it did not concede this absolutely, but always added that it permitted this for the present; by which it is openly signified that these things are tolerated meanwhile by way of a certain experiment. And this indeed was most prudently guarded, both because it is manifest that the moderator does not lack means and arts by which she may easily compel to that which is called facultative nuns who do not wish to have that offense, and because the argument concerning progress in virtues furnishes a very easy and almost necessary transition to defects against virtues, and thus the inconvenience of confessions concerning any sins whatsoever to be made by nuns to the moderator can perhaps return under an obvious pretext.

Moreover, from this spiritual governance and inspection of consciences committed to these moderators, behold that inconvenience from which the occasion of this Note was taken. For while the Constitutions of Religious Orders which prescribe an account of conscience to be rendered at the same time most severely prohibit Superiors from using the knowledge drawn from it in any way for external government, it could not be hoped that the female disposition would patiently bear this bridle. Hence that which pertains to the prudent judgment of the Confessor, namely what frequency of Holy Communion is suitable for each of the nuns, the president of the monastery, as moderator of consciences, seizes as her own office; and therefore whether this nun may approach Holy Communion once, that one three times, this one twice a week, another daily, is left to be determined by the decisive judgment of a petty woman.

But there arises from this also another most wicked abuse, which indeed it was natural to expect from so great a power given to a disposition not mistress of itself. For that which formerly, as the gravest punishment, by the canons of Synods and at the judgment of Bishops was sometimes accustomed to be inflicted for graver sins and more atrocious crimes, namely that offenders be barred from sacred Communion, the female mind, lacking judgment, uses as a weapon for avenging certain very slight faults, whether real or imagined. Nor is the president of the monastery accustomed to do this easily only with subject nuns, but, according to the proverb, the lesser ox learns to plow from the greater: individual mistresses of girls who are educated in monasteries also rashly assume this power for themselves; and where you would think that some light disobedience of a girl, or some annoyance caused to another pupil, or a violation of the law of silence could suitably be punished by withdrawing an apple or a sweetmeat or even part of breakfast, for these most slight heads they foolishly and cruelly withdraw the heavenly food of the Eucharist and the grace of the Sacrament.

Nor is this enough. For since the weakness of woman has now imbibed this opinion of her authority, that, according to the phrase of the Apostle (1 Cor. 4:1), she considers the dispensation of the mysteries of God entrusted to herself, and that the use of the Sacraments with respect to the girl pupils resides entirely in her own power and judgment, she exercises a blind tyranny not only with respect to the Eucharist, but also with respect to the Sacrament of Penance. And that which is unheard of in ecclesiastical discipline, that which nowhere was denied even to the most criminal malefactors, is forbidden to girls on account of some light fault, namely that they confess on the day on which the other pupils confess. These things, namely, and others of this kind had to happen when, the due grades and offices of each not being observed, the matter is brought to that place concerning which Sacred Scripture prophesied (Eccles. 10): There is an evil which I have seen under the sun, as though proceeding by error from the face of the prince: the fool set in high dignity, and the rich sitting below. I have seen servants upon horses, etc.

Nor indeed should anyone object here that certain Constitutions of nuns have been approved by the Apostolic See in which it is not only permitted, but even prescribed, that the fullest account of the whole conscience be rendered to the president of the monastery. What this argument is worth in a disciplinary matter, learn from similar examples, which you have innumerable at hand. Formerly Parish Priests could choose for themselves and their sheep a confessor from whatever priests they wished; but after the Council of Trent they cannot choose one unless approved by the Ordinary. Formerly Mendicant Regulars could receive the confessions of any faithful even when their Ordinaries were unwilling and resisting; but afterward it was established that they could not exercise this ministry unless approved by the Ordinaries of places. Formerly Bishops, after a process instituted by themselves concerning virtues and miracles, could grant and decree to someone the honors of the heavenly citizens; but afterward this was reserved to the Apostolic See. Formerly, when Sees were vacant, a chosen Bishop was handed over by the Metropolitan; but afterward the institution of Bishops had to be sought and awaited from the Apostolic See. Formerly nuns were not bound by the severe discipline of enclosure; but afterward solemn profession of vows is not permitted except where the strictness of enclosure can be observed. In a few words: the Apostolic See, according to its wisdom and the power handed down to it by Christ the Lord, uses now this, now another discipline according to diverse circumstances; but it pertains to the sheep of the Lord's flock, whoever they may be, not to judge concerning these things, but faithfully and most lovingly to obey the Shepherd.

And although some soul should sometimes fall into a voluntary venial sin from mere frailty, but soon afterward should grieve and propose amendment, if it should then desire Communion in order to receive strength from the Sacrament, lest it fall, and in order to advance in the way of perfection, for what reason should Communion be denied to it?...

Moreover, that which St. Francis de Sales says on this subject must be noted (The Devout Life, c. 21): If they ask you why you communicate so frequently, answer them that two kinds of persons ought to communicate more often: the perfect, namely that they may be able to arrive at perfection; the strong, lest they become weak; the weak, that they may become strong; the sick, that they may be cured; those in good health, lest they become sick.... Those who are not involved in worldly affairs ought to communicate more often because they have the opportunity; but those who are detained by affairs of this kind, because they need Communion.... (n. 153.) > But if afterward it is recognized that, notwithstanding the frequency of Communion, the soul advances nothing in the way of perfection, nor amends itself from deliberate faults, even venial ones, as if it adheres to pleasures of the senses in seeing, hearing, eating, and dressing with some vanity, then certainly the use of Communion will advisedly have to be restricted, so that it may begin seriously to think about its amendment and to provide for its spiritual perfection. Moreover, it must be noted that, although in order that someone may approach Communion it is required that he approach with great devotion, nevertheless it is not necessary that this be the highest and sensible devotion.

It suffices for the Director to discover in the innermost will of his penitent a certain alacrity for executing whatever things shall please God. He who would abstain from Communion because he did not feel in himself some great fervor, says the learned Gerson, would be compared to one who, being exceedingly cold, would be unwilling to approach the fire because he experiences no heat in himself. Hence Father Granada, with Cajetan, teaches that pusillanimous persons who omit Communion on account of a disordered fear of their unworthiness inflict great prejudice upon their own progress. Nor, says St. Lawrence Justinian, in order to continue Communions is it necessary that the soul feel, or openly discern in itself, an increase of fervor, since not rarely this Sacrament operates without our noticing it.... (n. 155.) ⁵.

⁵ The little work of the Most Reverend de Segur, Holy Communion, is to be earnestly commended to the faithful; in it, by solid principles and reasoning most suitably accommodated to the common understanding of all, the sophistical little reasons by which certain pusillanimous persons deter themselves, and certain pseudo-ascetics deter others, from frequent participation in the Most Holy Eucharist are refuted.

344. From the things said, according to the mind of St. Ligorius and of others related by him, the doctrine concerning frequent Communion can thus be confined to a few general rules.

First Rule. - Monthly Communion is to be denied to no one sufficiently disposed; indeed it is especially to be recommended to all, even if they lead a life involved in worldly affairs; for otherwise it is very difficult to persevere long in divine grace because of innumerable occasions and the almost obliteration of eternal things. - Thus commonly.

Second Rule. - Weekly Communion is to be permitted, indeed recommended, to those who do not commit grave faults from habit; yet if they labor under several light vices and are in no way solicitous about amendment, it will sometimes be useful to forbid them Communion for some week, so that they may be aroused with some alacrity to cast away their vices ⁶. - St. Ligorius, n. 149.

⁶ Yet take care lest you be deceived by the principle which the Author also shortly afterward calls most false, namely, as though Communion ought to be regarded as the reward of virtue, since it is a means for acquiring virtue.

Third Rule. - Frequent Communion, or several times in the week, can be permitted or even recommended to those faithful who, although weak, observe the duties of a good Christian, desire both to love, worship, and pray to God, willingly devote some time daily to mental prayer when they can, and do not frequently fall into deliberate faults. - St. Ligorius, n. 150, 153.

Fourth Rule. - Daily Communion is to be conceded to those who lack affection even for light faults, have for the greater part overcome evil desires, and seriously endeavor to tend toward Christian perfection. Yet it is expedient, if cause is present, sometimes once, and at times even several times in the week, to withdraw Communion from them. - St. Ligorius, n. 150. - See Cases, tom. II, n. 13 and following.

Finally, it must be noted that authors opposing frequent Communion rest upon a most false principle. For they suppose Communion to be the reward of virtue; but according to the doctrine of the Holy Fathers, the Eucharist is a means of acquiring virtue.