Article — Konings, Theologia Moralis
ARTICLE I: ON THE OBLIGATION OF RECEIVING THE EUCHARIST
1304. Principles. - I. The real reception of the Eucharist is necessary neither for children nor for adults by necessity of means unto salvation. It is established 1° from the universal practice of the Church, which gives Communion neither to little children, nor to adults impeded by infirmity, e.g. those prone to vomiting, the delirious, etc.; 2° from the definition of the Church at least as regards little children, Trent.2
II. The reception of the Eucharist is necessary by necessity of divine precept. It is drawn from the words of Christ: Unless you shall eat the Flesh of the Son of man, and drink his Blood, you shall not have life in you.3 But whether, and by what necessity of means, it is necessary, see above n. 1207. III. 1°.
III. The reception of the Eucharist is necessary also from a precept of the Church. It is proved from the Fourth Lateran Council,4 where it is said: "Every faithful person of either sex, after he has reached the years of discretion, should confess at least once in the year, ... receiving reverently, at least at Easter, the Sacrament of the Eucharist, unless perhaps, by the counsel of his own priest, he should judge that he must abstain from such reception for some reasonable cause." It is established also from Trent.1
IV. The reception of the Eucharist is not necessary under both species, except for priests alone in the act of the celebration of Mass. It is proved from Trent.2 It is established also from the universal practice of the Church, although in earlier centuries it was different.
Notes to nn. 1304-1305 - note sequence 1. (1) Sess. 13. c. 8. (2) Sess. 21. Can. 4. (3) John 6. 54. L. VI. 295. (4) L. V. Decr. T. XXXVIII. c. 12. Notes to nn. 1304-1305 - note sequence 2. (1) Sess. 13. Can. 9. (2) Sess. 21. Can. 1. (3) L. VI. 295. (4) L. VI. 295. (5) Ib. Notes to nn. 1304-1305 - note sequence 3. (1) D. 16. n. 39. sq. (2) L. VI. 285. Dub. 2. (3) L. VI. 285. Dub. 3. Quest. Retr. 66. Notes to nn. 1304-1305 - note sequence 4. (1) L. VI. 292. (2) Ib. (3) L. VI. 301. Dub. 2. and Conc. Pl. Balt. II. a. 261. (4) Kenr. Tr. XVII. 41. (5) St. Thomas, P. III, q. 80. a. 9. Catechism of the Council of Trent. St. Alphonsus, L. VI. 302. Notes to nn. 1304-1305 - note sequence 5. (1) L. VI. 303. (2) Ib. 302. (3) n. 232. (4) L. VI. 303. (5) L. VI. 303. (6) Ib. (7) Ib. Notes to nn. 1304-1305 - note sequence 6. (1) De Syn. L. VII. c. XI. n. 8. (2) L. VI. 303. Notes to nn. 1304-1307 - note sequence 1. (1) 1 Cor. 11. 28. 29. (2) Sess. 13. c. 7. (3) L. VI. 256. sq. Notes to nn. 1304-1307 - note sequence 2. (1) L. VI. 264. (2) Ib. (3) Ib. 257. Notes to nn. 1304-1307 - note sequence 3. (1) H. A. Tr. XV. 23. (2) Sess. 13. c. 7. (3) L. VI. 268. (4) Ib. 266. Notes to nn. 1304-1309 - note sequence 1. (1) De defect. disp. corp. n. 3. (2) L. VI. 279. (3) De defect. disp. corp. n. 3. (4) L. VI. 279. (5) Ib. 280. Dub. 1. (6) Ib. 280. Dub. 2. 1. L. VI. 280. Dub. 3. 2. Ib. 282. in fine, and L. I. 89. H. A. Tr. XV. 35. 3. Ib. 280. 4. Ib. Notes to nn. 1304-1313 - note sequence 1. (4) Sess. 22. c. 6. Notes to nn. 1304-1307 - note sequence 4. (1) L. VI. 267. coll. n. 257 and H. A. Tr. XV. 23. (2) L. VI. 266. (3) Ib. 270. (4) Sess. 13. Notes to nn. 1304-1307 - note sequence 5. (1) L. VI. 279. (2) Ib. 280. Dub. 1. (3) P. III. q. 80. a. 8. (4) L. VI. 281. (5) Acta. T. VII. p. 399. (6) De defect. Tit. IX. n. 3. Notes to nn. 1304-1313 - note sequence 2. (1) Conc. Pl. Balt. II. p. 294. (2) Praxis conf. n. 149-155. (3) Ib. 149. (4) Ib. 150. 153. Notes to nn. 1304-1309 - note sequence 2. (1) L. VI. 284, 286 sq. (2) H. A. Tr. XV. 46. (3) L. VI. 285. Dub. 3. (4) p. 90. Notes to nn. 1304-1313 - note sequence 3. (1) Praxis conf. n. 149. (2) Ib. 150. 152.
1305. Questions. - Query 1° At what time does the divine precept of communicating urge?
Resp. 1° It obliges of itself in the article or proximate danger of death, and indeed under grave sin. The reason is because the Eucharist was instituted as a viaticum strengthening against the enemies of salvation.3
Resp. 2° It obliges of itself also several times in life. It is established from the fact that the Eucharist was instituted by way of spiritual food, by which the soul is nourished and strengthened; but food must be taken several times. It is also drawn from Sacred Scripture cited above, and also from the Councils just mentioned. Nevertheless Christ did not determine how often this Sacrament is to be approached, but left this to be established by his Church. But the Church established annual Communion in Paschal time. Hence by Communion received once in the year at that time, both the divine and ecclesiastical precept are satisfied.4
Resp. 3° This precept obliges accidentally sometimes, and perhaps even several times in the year, if the Eucharist is necessary for overcoming some grave temptation. Nevertheless this, says Suarez, happens most rarely, since other means can suffice for this, prayers, penances, etc. But he who in that case neglected Communion would not sin against this precept, but against the virtue against which he is tempted.5
Query 2° Is someone held to receive sacred Viaticum, when danger of death is imminent, if a few days before he communicated from devotion?
Resp. Affirmatively, more probably. The reason is because this precept, by interpretation of the Church, urges in danger of death, that we may be fortified against spiritual enemies by this divine help. Therefore it is not fulfilled by Communion made before the illness; because, although someone has fulfilled the prescribed work, nevertheless he has not fulfilled it at the time at which he was held.
Nevertheless several deny with Lugo.1 Their reason is because the precept of Communion has already been fulfilled in substance. - St. Alphonsus says that this sentence is sufficiently probable, at least if the danger of death occurs naturally, because through that brief preceding time it has already morally begun to be imminent, although it had been unknown.2
Query 3° Is he who communicated in the morning from devotion held, or can he, when danger of death urges, receive Viaticum?
Resp. There is a fourfold sentence.
The first affirms that he is held, because then Viaticum must be received in order to fulfill the divine precept, which, since it was not yet urging at the time at which Communion was received, therefore could not be fulfilled by that reception.
The second says that he is not held, but can communicate: 1° indeed he is not held, because the time at which he communicated is morally the same, since it is the same day; 2° he can, because although strictly he does not seem to be held, nevertheless he is not for that reason prohibited; since favors are to be enlarged.
The third contends that he is neither held, nor can communicate. The reason is because the precept obliges from the intention of the Church, and the practice of the Church is that no one communicate twice in a day; nor is there a reason why this case should be excepted.
The fourth, which to St. Alphonsus3 seems more probable, distinguishes between a natural illness, as sudden apoplexy is also reputed, and a violent one, for example from a wound, or if someone has fallen from a height. In the latter case he is held to communicate, because in truth he did not receive Viaticum as constituted in the article of death.3
Query 4° Can the Eucharist be given to a sick person who suffers from a cough?
Resp. Affirmatively, because the danger lest the sacred species be rejected together with phlegm is for the most part absent. And the reason is because the way through which spittle is expelled by coughing is not the esophagus, i.e. the way through which food and drink are conveyed into the stomach, but is the rough artery, through which respiration extends even to the lungs. If nevertheless the cough is so continual that it impedes the host from being conveyed into the stomach, then Communion must be abstained from. - Thus the Roman Ritual. (w) p. 402.
But when the sick person labors under continual vomiting, he cannot communicate, unless perhaps he has been free from vomiting for at least six hours. But in doubt whether the sick person will vomit back the sacred particle, it must not be given to him.2 (A) p. 402.
Query 5° In danger of death, is Communion to be given to children who have not yet been admitted to the sacred Synaxis?
Resp. 1° Negatively, if they have not yet obtained the use of reason. The reason is because this is against the present discipline of the Church.
Resp. 2° Affirmatively as regards children who are possessed of reason. Indeed not only can Communion be given to them, but it also ought to be. The reason is because, on the one hand, children constituted in such danger are held from divine precept to communicate, even if the precept of Paschal Communion did not yet oblige them; and on the other hand the utility of the Eucharist then does not demand a greater disposition. Therefore Pastors gravely err who do not wish to administer Viaticum to children of this kind.3
Query 6° Is Viaticum to be given to those recently converted to the faith?
Resp. Affirmatively, "if they have the faith by which Baptism can be ministered to them, together with some knowledge" of the Eucharist; ... otherwise, if Baptism is ministered to them when they have not been sufficiently instructed, or are doubtfully disposed, so that, insofar as it can be done, provision may be made for them.4
Query 7° In danger of death, is Communion to be given to the insane, the half-witted, the delirious, and those destitute of the senses?
Resp. 1° As regards the insane: 1) If they have been perpetually insane, Communion is never to be given to them. Thus from the Roman Ritual on the Eucharist. - 2) If they sometimes have lucid intervals, and have manifested the desire of communicating, at least implicitly, Communion can be given to them; indeed it ought to be, danger of irreverence being excluded.5 (B) p. 402.
Resp. 2° As regards the half-witted: Communion is to be given to them when they have sufficient discretion to distinguish this heavenly food from others; but rarely, namely only in the article of death, and where the strict precept of communicating urges.1 (I) p. 403.
Resp. 3° As regards the delirious: Communion can be given to them if they can communicate, danger of irreverence being excluded. But the best practice is that beforehand a non-consecrated particle be given to the sick person, and thus it appear whether he can communicate decently.2 (A) p. 403.
Resp. 4° As regards those destitute of the senses: they certainly do not sin when they do not receive Communion, since they are capable of observing no law. But the Pastor is not for that reason dispensed from the obligation of ministering the Eucharist to them, if before the loss of reason they were disposed. For the Sacraments operate ex opere operato in those who desired to receive them before they lost the use of reason. Except, however, if danger of irreverence is present, or if it is feared that they cannot swallow the Host. - Thus commonly. - Gousset.3 (A) p. 403.
Query 8° Is Communion to be given to the deaf-mute, the possessed, and epileptics?
Resp. 1° As regards the deaf-mute: Affirmatively, if from signs it is established that they have discretion and are sufficiently instructed. But if they enjoy not merely some discretion, but sufficient discretion, they will be able to communicate more often.4
Resp. 2° As regards the possessed, one must distinguish: Communion is to be denied to them when they are not in control of themselves; otherwise it is to be granted. Indeed it is expedient that such persons communicate more often according to the prudence of the confessor, since the Eucharist is a special remedy for warding off demons.5
Resp. 3° As regards epileptics: Communion cannot be given to them when they are in an actual paroxysm, on account of the proximate danger of irreverence; but at other times it is not to be denied.6 (E) p. 403.
Note. - To those who are deaf-mute and at the same time blind from birth, Communion is to be denied.7
Query 9° Ought Communion to be given to those condemned to death?
Resp. Affirmatively. Benedict XIV indeed teaches that "that custom is to be followed which is known respectively to exist in each place";1 but he calls the usage of ministering the Most Holy Eucharist to them "more conformable to Christian piety." But St. Alphonsus teaches absolutely that it is to be given to them, as they are constituted in the article of death; nevertheless Communion should precede the execution by one hour. And indeed it can be given to one not fasting;2 for it is administered by way of Viaticum, as is clear from the Response of the particular Sacred Congregation de Propaganda Fide concerning Chinese matters, 5 July 1841.
Appendix annotation (omega), to n. 1305. q. 4°. p. 59. col. 2. If the cough were so vehement that it seemed about to excite vomiting, Communion, as is clear of itself, would have to be abstained from, or at least deferred until that more vehement cough has ceased. Capellmann, Past.-Med., p. 154. Appendix annotation (Alpha), to n. 1305. q. 4°. p. 59. col. 2. The distinguished Capellmann, Past.-Med., p. 154 sq., judges that case must be distinguished from case. In place of a rule he has these things: If the sick person has suffered much more frequent vomitings through shorter intervals of time, and then after a longer space of time, which according to the circumstances can be shorter even than six hours, has been free from vomiting, in doubt it can be presumed that the stomach, now somewhat settled, will not at once again be excited to vomiting from the slight irritation through the Sacred Species. Thus those who are laid low by cholera are very frequently accustomed to vomit; but if these have been free from vomiting for 2, 4, or certainly for 6 hours, it will be a sign that the condition of the sick has been so changed that the danger of vomiting is much less to be feared. On the contrary, if vomiting has taken place through irregular intervals, now longer, now shorter, and the general condition of the sick person has not been changed, Holy Communion cannot be given to him, even if he has been free from vomiting for the space of six hours. Thus, for example, they would have to be free from vomiting at least for 12 hours who have strangulated hernia, or who labor under cerebral diseases, or who are laid low from a wound of the brain, or from a disease of the kidneys, or from peritonitis, that is, inflammation of the bowels. Say the same of pregnant women while they suffer the vomiting proper to them. In particular cases the physician, if he can be had, should be consulted; or, when Viaticum is in question, some solid or liquid food, or even water, should be given by way of experiment to the sick person who has taken absolutely nothing after the last vomiting. After Communion has been administered in these circumstances, let the sick person remain quiet and drink nothing, or, if he must drink something to swallow the Sacred Species, let him drink a little. Cold water will be best, or, if it can be had, water cooled with ice. Ice itself especially is an excellent remedy against vomiting, and one so harmless that, even without consulting a physician, it can be used for this end. But the most advisable thing in this case will be that the sick person swallow ice in little pieces which scarcely exceed the size of a hazelnut. Concerning the so-called morning vomiting, the same author, p. 156, remarks these things. It arises from chronic catarrh of the stomach or throat. Those who are affected by it, and drinkers are affected before others, in the morning, after they have risen from bed or have thrown something into the stomach, are tormented as though by no slight suffocation; and, when the stomach is empty or almost empty, they vomit a certain quantity of phlegm with some remains of food. To these, indeed, if outside the case of Viaticum they are to communicate, nothing remains except that they rise very early in the morning and not approach the church before they have freed themselves by their vomiting. Pregnant women also are accustomed to be tormented by morning vomiting, whether fasting or after the first food has been thrown into the stomach, and this in the first and second, or even the third or fourth, month of gestation. These, as is clear of itself, outside the case of Viaticum, must defer Communion until the danger of vomiting has ceased. Appendix annotation (Beta), to n. 1305. q. 7°. R. 1°. p. 59. col. 2. What if someone had fallen into madness while he was existing in mortal sin? A case could be if someone, having contracted delirium tremens from long-protracted drunkenness, entirely deprived of reason, without a lucid interval, had been reduced to extremities. St. Alphonsus answers, L. VI. 302, that Communion cannot be administered to this man if it is certainly presumed that he fell into madness utterly impenitent, that is, not even attrite. Appendix annotation (Gamma), to n. 1305. q. 7°. R. 2°. p. 60. col. 1. Yet it must be seen in what degree the semi-fatuous are; for there are some who can be equated with those deaf-mutes who, as St. Alphonsus says, L. VI. 303, with Holzmann, are not endowed with any discretion whatever, and whom you would with equal right call dull and semi-fatuous; these, like those deaf-mutes, will often be able to communicate. Appendix annotation (Delta), to n. 1305. q. 7°. R. 3°. R. 4°. p. 60. col. 1. It is also advisable to give to those delirious persons, and generally to those who are destitute of their senses, a little water or wine together with the Sacred Species or immediately after this has been put into the mouth, since these persons easily retain solids, and therefore also the Sacred Species, in the mouth. Thus Capellmann, Past.-Med., p. 152. 153. Appendix annotation (Epsilon), to n. 1305. q. 8°. R. 8°. p. 60. col. 1. Except if the paroxysms followed one another at intervals so brief that there was almost no moment at which danger of them was absent. Yet in this case the disturbance of reason progresses at so swift a pace that they are to be treated as mad or semi-fatuous. There are also some who have learned by experience that paroxysms befall them precisely in church very often, or even always. Communion can be administered to these at home. Capellmann, Past.-Med., p. 153.