§ 2. On the Dispositions on the Part of the Body

On the part of the body, two things are required: 1. fasting; 2. cleanliness and decent habit.

First we shall speak concerning the obligation of fasting, then concerning the causes excusing from it.

1556. Principles. I. For the licit consumption of the Eucharist NATURAL FASTING is required, namely that the one about to communicate has consumed nothing of food or drink from midnight. - This is clear both from universal custom, which has constantly flourished from the time of the Apostles to the present, and from various Councils, especially from Constance.⁷ But this precept was sanctioned on account of the reverence due to the Sacrament, and on account of its signification, "namely that it may be given to be understood that Christ, who is the reality of this Sacrament, and His charity ought first to be founded in our hearts."⁸

But although this precept is not of divine law, but only of ecclesiastical law, nevertheless it does not admit smallness of matter: "because the precept is not now of approaching the Eucharist fasting, but of not approaching after food or drink; but he who communicates after any very small part whatever already communicates after food or drink. Thus all."⁹

1557. II. For breaking the natural fast THREE things are required: 1. that what is consumed come from outside; 2. that it have the nature of food or drink; 3. that it be consumed after the manner of eating or drinking. - Thus authors commonly.¹⁰

It is required 1. That what is consumed come from outside; for, as St. Thomas observes, what comes from within is not eaten, and therefore does not harm the natural fast. - Hence, he can communicate who has swallowed saliva, or phlegm, or blood flowing from the interior head or gums, even if he has swallowed it purposely. - But indeed he cannot communicate who at night placed sugar in his mouth, and after midnight swallowed some; nor he who swallowed blood flowing from the fingers, or tears flowing from the eyes; nor he who, having fallen or been thrown into a river, swallowed water.¹¹

It is required 2. That it have the nature of food or drink; for according to the more common and more probable opinion, only digestible things break the fast, but not indigestible things. Hence: hair, metals, crystal, nails, silk or woolen threads, little fruit-stones altogether cleaned, because they are not digested, do not have the nature of food. - The contrary must be said of paper, straw, linen threads, medicinal powder, wax, earth or chalk, etc., which, altered in the stomach, can be converted into the substance of a human being.¹²

It is required 3. That it be consumed after the manner of eating or drinking. Therefore every digestible thing which is deliberately transmitted into the stomach breaks the fast, although it is transmitted in an unaccustomed manner, for example through the nostrils; because such an action is morally equivalent to drinking or eating. But that which is drawn in unintentionally, after the manner of breathing or saliva, does not break the fast. - Hence, the fast is not broken if someone, breathing, accidentally draws in flies, water, snow, etc.; but it is broken if someone draws in such things purposely. Likewise, it is not broken by tobacco taken through the nostrils, nor by the smoke of tobacco, or by juice of camphor, nor by tobacco rubbed with the teeth; provided the juice is spat out, and if anything is swallowed beyond intention, it is mixed with saliva and passes as such, not as food. But although chewing of this kind does not impede Communion, nevertheless it is indecent, nor is it easily excused from venial sin.¹³

1558. Questions. Q. 1. Whether to swallow REMAINS OF FOOD left in the mouth, or DROPS OF WATER mixed with saliva, breaks the fast?

Resp. The first opinion, not improbable, denies simply, whether this happens accidentally or purposely. The reason is both that the passing down of such remains is not to be regarded as a new eating, but as part of the preceding eating; and because they are consumed not after the manner of food, but after the manner of saliva. And the Rubric of the Missal indeed seems to favor this opinion. But the second opinion, more common and more probable, says that the fast is broken if they are swallowed purposely, but not if accidentally. The reason is that the passing down of remains of this kind, when it happens by design, seems to be a new eating. Yet no obligation is given of applying diligence to extracting those remains from the teeth; "for otherwise this obligation would be liable to innumerable scruples and perplexities, to which certainly the Church is not presumed to have wished to oblige."¹⁴ Hence also the fast is not broken, according to the Rubric, "if, in washing the mouth, a drop of water is swallowed beyond intention"; provided it does not pass down in a great quantity, but mixed with saliva, which cannot be avoided. And the same must be said of the remains of wine, or of broth, which someone has tasted.¹⁵

Q. 2. Whether it is licit, immediately after the Eucharist has been received, to consume an ABLUTION, by which the particle may be swallowed more easily?

Resp. Affirmatively, where such a custom flourishes, or necessity requires it, for example if someone suffers extreme dryness of mouth. But in this case, "although the ablution is swallowed before the host or fragments of the host, nevertheless this does not obstruct the fast. The reason is that the violation is not judged morally to have preceded Communion; for the precept of the fast is that nothing be consumed before the reception of the Eucharist; but when the Eucharist is consumed together at the same time with the ablution, then that whole thing from the ablution and particles is consumed by one single consumption; whence it is well verified that the violation of the fast did not precede Communion."¹⁶

Q. 3. Whether one who dined before midnight can communicate A LITTLE AFTER, and while the food has not yet been digested?

Resp. This is not prohibited by reason of the fast, since this is truly observed; wherefore, a just cause being present, it can be done.¹⁷

Q. 4. How is the time of MIDNIGHT to be computed?

Resp. It is to be computed physically, not morally. Now, at the first stroke of the hour, midnight is completed; wherefore he cannot communicate who swallows food after the first stroke, but before the last.¹⁸ But the time is rightly determined from public clocks; for, in designating time, the Church follows that rule which publicly directs all human business in individual places.¹⁹ Yet it is licit, at one's choice, to follow true or mean time; indeed the time of another meridian, for example of the metropolis, if the public clocks of the place mark it.²⁰

Q. 5. Whether IN DOUBT whether he has broken the fast, someone can communicate?

Resp. Affirmatively. For the law of fasting is prohibitive, namely forbidding that someone communicate after food has been consumed; wherefore the fact of the broken fast must be proved, that someone may be prohibited from communicating. And as long as the breaking is not established, liberty of communicating possesses. This reason applies both for the case in which you doubt whether you consumed something of food or drink, and for the case in which, certain of the consumption, you doubt whether you consumed it after midnight (cf. n. 49, 2).

Hence the Doctors very commonly affirm that, among several discordant clocks, it is licit to follow the last, for receiving Communion; provided the error is not established, or the clock is not one of those which for the most part err, because these are presumed always to err.²¹ The reason is that individual good clocks generate a probable opinion, and therefore a positive doubt.

Q. 6. Whether it is licit to eat or drink IMMEDIATELY after Communion?

Resp. Formerly fasting after Communion until Sext was prescribed; but this precept has now long since been abrogated. Nevertheless, to eat and drink without cause, while the sacred species still endure in the stomach, where they are judged to endure for a quarter of an hour in priests, is not excused from venial sin. Thus commonly. It was said without cause; because any just cause excuses, for example if the sign for table were given for a Religious.²²

Q. 7. Whether it is licit to SPIT OUT immediately after Communion?

Resp. "All agree that it is indeed fitting that those communicating abstain from spitting out for some interval of time, and the Ritual agrees. - Yet authors say there is no sin in spitting out after Communion, if no fragment of the host has remained in the mouth."²³

1559. The law of the Eucharistic fast, since it is positive and ecclesiastical, sometimes admits an exception, but on account of most grave causes, which can stand either on the part of the Sacrament or on the part of man. The CASES in which the Eucharist can be received by one not fasting are numbered as FOUR:

I. When the Sacrifice must be completed. This can happen in many ways, namely: 1. If the priest notices that he took water for wine, etc.; in which case he ought again to consecrate either each species, or at least the wine, as was said above (n. 1528, II).

2. If it happens that the priest fails after consecration; in which case another priest, even one not fasting, is held to complete the Sacrifice. 3. If the priest, after the consecration even of one species, remembers that he is not fasting, he is held to finish the Mass. It was said after consecration; for if he remembers before it, he is held to desist, as often as this can be done without scandal or infamy. - 4. If the priest, after the ablution has been consumed, notices some relics of the same Sacrifice, he ought to consume them, as we have said (n. 1542, q. 4).¹

II. When grave irreverence against the Sacrament is to be avoided; for example if there is danger that the sacred Host may perish, or be corrupted, or be badly handled by infidels or heretics; because the precept of preventing such irreverence prevails over the precept of fasting, as they commonly teach. - Whence, if a priest is then absent, a layman can consume the sacred Host; indeed, in such a case, a priest can offer sacred particles to laymen who are not fasting.²

III. When danger of infamy or scandal is to be avoided, which would arise from the omission of Mass or Communion; for in this case the natural precept urges, which prevails over the ecclesiastical precept. Now, the case would be if a priest celebrating in public remembered before consecration that he was not fasting, and could not depart without scandal. - Similarly, if on a Sunday or feast day Mass had to be celebrated for the people, and the pastor, not fasting, had no other fasting priest to celebrate. Yet it is supposed in this last case that no one knows the pastor is not fasting; otherwise a greater scandal would arise, at least among the simple, from the celebration than from the omission of Mass.³

IV. When the article or danger of death is imminent, from whatever cause the danger proceeds, whether from natural illness, or from the sentence of a judge (cf. n. 1565). - It is also licit for one not fasting to celebrate in order to avoid danger of death, provided this is not demanded in contempt of the Church.⁴

And here a fifth case can be added, from a response given by the S. C. de Prop. Fide to the Vicar Apostolic of Eastern Tonkin (February 13, 1806), which has itself thus: "Salt having been tasted beforehand by catechumens in the conferral of Baptism, although the fast seems to be broken, still there is no doubt that, Baptism having been received, they can be admitted to Holy Communion, indeed must be."⁵

1560. Questions. Q. 1. Whether and HOW OFTEN in the same infirmity it is licit for a sick person not fasting to REPEAT Communion after the manner of Viaticum?

Resp. 1. "It is not doubted by the Doctors that Viaticum can be received several times, even during the same infirmity, since this Sacrament ought to be received not only for satisfaction of the precept, but also for strength against temptations, which in death are stronger and more dangerous. And this not only if a new danger supervenes, but also if the same danger endures. Thus commonly."⁶ And Benedict XIV⁷ exhorts Bishops that they even "decree a penalty against pastors who, when the sick devoutly ask, refuse to carry the Eucharist again and a third time on false pretexts."

Resp. 2. The common opinion is that an interval of eight days, or even six, must be interposed between Communions. Nevertheless, others not improbably teach that Viaticum can already be repeated on the following day, in the case in which the sick person had been accustomed to frequent Communion and danger of death was imminent. Indeed several authors universally admit that Communion can be offered on any day if circumstances suggest it.⁸ Thus in monasteries, and where less apparatus is required, it can more easily be conceded. - Particular statutes in this matter are also to be attended to.

Q. 2. Whether a priest can CELEBRATE not fasting, in order to minister Viaticum?

Resp. 1. Affirmatively, if the priest himself, near death, ought to celebrate in order to give himself Viaticum; for then in the same person an ecclesiastical and a divine precept concur, but the latter is to be preferred. Thus commonly.

Resp. 2. If Viaticum is to be given to another, it is controverted. The first probable opinion affirms, because the divine precept of giving and receiving Viaticum is to be preferred to the ecclesiastical precept of observing the fast. - But the second opinion, common and perhaps more probable, denies; because the precept of not celebrating after the consumption of food is also divine as to its substance, namely by reason of the reverence which is due to the Sacrament. But the precept of ministering Viaticum ceases when it cannot be ministered rightly. - Yet otherwise, if the dying person could not be fortified by the Sacrament of Penance or Extreme Unction; for the Eucharist, in this case, will be able to be a Sacrament of necessity, so that he may become contrite from attrite.⁹

Q. 3. Whether sometimes, OUTSIDE DANGER OF DEATH, it is licit to give Communion to a sick person not fasting, who cannot observe the fast, if indeed the illness is going to be long-lasting?

Resp. The common opinion denies, which common practice also confirms, since the Pontiff alone has power to dispense in this most grave law.¹⁰ - Hence, if such a case occurs, the Eucharist, with license of the Bishop, is to be carried at night, so that thus the sick person, immediately after midnight, can communicate fasting. But if this cannot be done, recourse must be had to the Supreme Pontiff for dispensation¹¹ (cf. n. 1881, end).

1561. Principles. I. "No stain of the body BY ITSELF impedes the reception of the Eucharist, since it does little toward moral goodness or malice; yet sometimes BY ACCIDENT it can impede, on account of the effects which follow."¹² - For before all else it is required that one about to receive the Eucharist be immune from every venereal filth. Concerning this matter the following things are to be noted:

1. On account of voluntary pollution which occurred on the same day, even if it has been expiated through the Sacrament of Penance, one must abstain from Communion under venial sin, just as also from celebration, unless a just cause excuses, "as will seem to the prudent confessor," as the Rubric of the Missal speaks.¹³ But on account of involuntary pollution one is not to abstain, unless perhaps from the commotion of the body disturbance of the mind still endures; for to approach with disturbance of this kind is commonly not excused from venial sin, unless some just cause is present, or unless the person strives, as much as he can, to quiet the disturbed mind, and applies diligence that he may approach devoutly, as all reasonably teach.¹⁴

2. The conjugal act, by itself, does not impede worthy Communion, if the debt was asked or rendered from a good end, for example for obtaining offspring, or for avoiding incontinence. But if it was rendered or asked for the sake of pleasure alone, or if disturbance remains in the mind from it, etc., one must abstain on that day under venial sin, on account of decency. Yet any reasonable cause excuses.¹⁵ - To a spouse asking whether he is held to render on the day of Communion, St. Alphonsus proposes this RULE: If he communicates frequently, he ought to render, lest by his devotion he burden his consort, and lest justice or charity be injured; but if he communicates only on the principal feasts, let him invite the spouse to continence, in honor of the Sacrament; if the other resists, let him render, and nevertheless communicate, provided he is otherwise disposed.¹⁶

3. Those having notable external uncleanness, which can easily be removed, should deservedly abstain until they have been cleaned. Yet if it is hidden, or perpetual and involuntary, as leprosy, flow of blood, scabies, it does not impede Communion. - But to a priest who is leprous, or laboring under a horrible disease, it is permitted to celebrate privately, since in the Law it is prohibited only "on account of the scandal and abomination of the people."¹⁷

1562. II. By natural law, an EXTERIOR HABIT and COMPOSITION of the body are required, which exhibit internal reverence and devotion of the soul. - The reason is evident; for to this most august Sacrament not only internal but also external veneration is due, since Christ Himself, by means of the species, exists and is handled in it in a certain sensible manner.¹⁸

Hence: 1. Women ought to approach Holy Communion in holy adornment, redolent of modesty. If any should present themselves very indecently at the sacred Table, for example with the breast uncovered, Communion would have to be denied to them, yet with due precautions, so far as can be done, to prevent scandals.¹⁹ 2. It is fitting that armed persons approach with weapons laid aside. The soldiers of St. John are excepted, who bear arms as a sign of Religion to be defended.²⁰ 3. Priests communicating in the manner of laymen should communicate with a stole. Thus the Rubric, which seems to prescribe this under venial sin.²¹