Article I: On the Dispositions of Soul

S. Th. III, q. 80, a. 2-6 and 9.

270. The subject capable of communion is every and only baptized man who is a wayfarer, who alone is the proportioned subject of the Eucharist, because he alone is capable of its effects. Angels do not have a body; moreover the blessed are united to Christ in a more perfect and eminent way through the beatific vision and through perfect charity; to them it does not belong to receive in a sign, because they do not have faith but manifest vision.

In adults, for validity, intention is required, for which, for Viaticum, habitual and implicit intention suffices: for he who wills to live Christianly implicitly wills not to die without the sacraments; - for worthy and fruitful reception, faith alone does not suffice (Council of Trent, sess. 13, can. 11), but three dispositions of soul are required; two remote: a) proof of the state of grace, and b) sufficient discretion, and one proximate: c) great devotion and reverence.

271. First, under grave obligation, proof of the state of grace is required. - It consists in this, that by prudent estimation one is not conscious of mortal sin; or if he is conscious, that he first make sacramental confession, however contrite he may seem to himself.

Proof is required by natural and divine law (I Cor. XI, 28), because the Eucharist is a sacrament of the living; but proof through confession is not so required, because without it, by perfect contrition alone, provision could be made for reverence toward the sacrament. But confession is prescribed by ecclesiastical law, and was introduced by ancient custom declaring such proof to be necessary, which Trent decreed was to be observed, sess. 13, c. 7, and which the Code of Law confirmed (can. 856 and 807).

It is said: 1. is not conscious of mortal sin; whence a) one doubting, whether negatively or positively, whether he has sinned mortally, is not bound to confess: for he does not have conscience, i.e., certain knowledge; b) one negatively doubting whether a sin was rightly confessed, i.e., having no solid reason for believing this, is bound to confession; one positively doubting, i.e., on account of a grave reason, probably is not bound, because he is no longer conscious of sin;

2. if he is conscious, that he first make confession; whence if someone has confessed and without grave fault has omitted a mortal sin, he has already satisfied the precept, because through confession his state of grace was proved.

Nevertheless in these cases confession is to be counseled; but not to the scrupulous.

272. To communicate or celebrate without prior confession is licit when at the same time necessity urges and the availability of a confessor is lacking.

A. The necessity required is grave, because it is also grave not to carry out a precept of great moment in so grave a matter; whence per se the celebrity of a feast, the burden of a Mass to be said from a benefice, great devotion, an indulgence to be gained, or poverty of the priest would not suffice unless it were altogether grave.

Commonly among excusing necessities are numbered:

1. Danger of death either of the one about to communicate himself (if he is himself a priest, or a layman in the presence of a priest who does not know how to speak), or of another (that a host may be consecrated for him).

2. An office to be fulfilled from which follows great utility for many, as if a pastor or another priest is bound to celebrate, for example so that the people may hear Mass on a feast day, and another is lacking; but not, as it seems, for the utility of one, as if for a layman the precept of annual or paschal communion were urgent, because it can be deferred.

Certainly, however, a priest could not celebrate so that he himself may be able to hear Mass, because this is not a necessity: for no priest is bound to celebrate so that he may hear Mass.

3. A founded danger of infamy or scandal, which would arise from omission of the sacred rite (for example in celebrating funerals or blessing marriages) or of communion (for example if someone at the communion rail remembers a sin and cannot withdraw without infamy).

4. The integrity of the sacrifice, when another is not present to complete it, or if the celebrant after consecration should remember a sin or should become guilty.

But if this happens before consecration, per se he ought to confess or interrupt the sacrifice; in practice, however, infamy or scandal can almost always be feared.

5. Danger of profanation, for example in a sudden irruption of those who will profane the hosts.

In these cases, however, an act of perfect contrition, to be elicited with moral diligence, is prescribed, unless time is lacking, as can happen while one seated at the table of communion remembers a sin, or while enemies make an irruption; in which last case the host should not be received sacramentally from the intention of communicating, but merely materially, to hide it in the body.

B. The availability of a confessor is lacking, not indeed if that one is absent to whom you are accustomed or desire to confess, or if no one is present except a familiar person, to whom you can confess only with great shame, but if confession cannot be made, or not without a great inconvenience extrinsic to it.

Thus: 1. If there is no present approved priest with jurisdiction, and you cannot go to an absent one without great difficulty, which is to be estimated with consideration of weakness, age, business of the priest, and the circumstances of weather, distance, shorter time, conditions of the journey, etc.

2. If the one present is unwilling or unable to hear confession, for example deaf, an accomplice, ignorant of the language, bound by censure.

3. If from confession you fear a grave inconvenience extrinsic to confession, excusing from its material integrity, such as breach of the seal, infamy of the accomplice, one's own infamy before a third party, grave enmities, grave provocation to evil.

Great confusion to be undergone or infamy before the confessor does not suffice, because it is an inconvenience intrinsic to confession. Yet a few more recent authors judge, by epikeia, that extraordinary and truly invincible shame is an extrinsic inconvenience, as if a sister before her brother, a father before his son, had to confess a very shameful sin. But it was never so declared in the course of so many centuries, and therefore only in the last time those few authors would have rightly understood the law! Moreover they bring forward no positive foundation for this exception; but if it were admitted, there would easily be occasion for multiplying cases, and so danger of eluding the law.

273. For those celebrating without prior confession there is a special precept of confessing as soon as possible. - The Council of Trent imposes on priests conscious of sin, who with or without contrition celebrated from urgent necessity without prior confession, that they confess as soon as possible (sess. 13, c. 7); and this is confirmed by the Code of Law, can. 807. This is not counsel but a strict precept, as is clear from proposition 38 condemned by Alexander VII.¹

¹ "The mandate of Trent, given to a priest sacrificing from necessity with mortal sin, of confessing as soon as possible, is counsel, not a precept."

Since it is an ecclesiastical law, it is to be strictly interpreted; whence it is not applied to laymen, nor to priests only communicating, nor to those who so celebrated from mere malice, i.e., without necessity or while availability of a confessor was present to them, nor to those who after Mass had begun should remember a sin or become guilty, as the words indicate: without prior confession.

Moreover that as soon as possible does not signify: when the priest shall confess at his own time, as is clear from condemned proposition 39,² but morally at once, which ordinarily they explain as within three days: for what is done within three days is said in law to be done at once. Yet such a priest cannot celebrate again before he has confessed, unless necessity and at the same time the lack of a confessor persevere. But if a confessor morally present is about to depart and another is foreseen to be lacking, confession would have to be made without delay.

² "That particle as soon as possible is understood as when the priest shall confess at his own time."

274. To communicate with consciousness of sin is a very grave sin of sacrilege. - For the Apostle, in whose manner the Fathers speak, says that one guilty of the body and blood of the Lord eats and drinks judgment to himself (I Cor. XI, 27-29), which Trent confirms, sess. 13, can. 11, c. 7. And indeed: He who impedes the principal effect of the sacrament sins notably, because as much as he can he renders its signification false; this is against the reverence due to the sacrament and to Christ its institutor; whence it is sacrilege.

"Whoever," says St. Thomas, a. 4, "receives this sacrament signifies that he is united to Christ, which is done through charity, which no one has with mortal sin; and therefore he who receives with sin commits falsehood in this sacrament, and therefore incurs sacrilege as a violator of the sacrament."

More completely in the Commentary on IV Sent., d. 9, q. 1, a. 3, qc. 1, he indicates that in the unworthy reception of the sacrament there is a threefold abuse, as if from a threefold falsehood: "1. From that which is sacrament only, from which it appears that this sacrament is proposed by way of food, but food does not befit except one living; whence if one lacking spiritual life through mortal sin receives this sacrament, he abuses it. 2. From that which is there reality and sacrament, which is Christ Himself, who is the Holy of Holies, whence His receptacle ought to be holy; and therefore if someone receives the body of Christ with what is contrary to holiness, he abuses the sacrament. 3. From that which is reality only, which is the mystical body of Christ, because from this very fact that someone approaches this sacrament, he signifies that he tends to the unity of the mystical body; whence if he holds sin in conscience, through which he is separated from the mystical body, he incurs the fault of fiction (in the strict sense), and thus abuses the sacrament."

Nevertheless it is not the gravest of all sins:

1. Per se, i.e., on the part of the object, sins which are directly opposed to God or to the reverence due to Him are graver (against the theological virtues or the virtue of religion), such as infidelity, blasphemy, perjury; and those which are done against the humanity of Christ in its proper species (by offending religion), because they immediately touch Christ; whence if sacrilegious communion is compared by the Fathers to the sin of Judas kissing or of those killing Christ, this is to be understood with proportion, according to a certain likeness, because each is committed against the body of Christ, yet not according to the quantity of the crime. Moreover it is a graver irreverence to cast the sacrament into mud (to be trampled) or to give it to dogs (to be eaten), because thus one recedes more from the use of the sacrament. - Yet it is graver than sins which are done against other sacraments or sacred things, - or against creatures (by offending other moral virtues), although these can be graver on the part of the injury or damage inflicted (for example homicide).

2. Nor per accidens, i.e., on the part of the sinner, is it ordinarily graver than others, because rarely is it done from contempt but more often from fear, lest someone be thought a sinner.

275. Sufficient instruction and discretion are also required. - From the nature of the thing there is required that instruction and discretion by which they at least discern this sacramental table from a profane one, this heavenly bread from common bread: for by an adult the sacrament is not validly received without intention, which is impossible without the aforesaid instruction and discretion. Yet on account of greater reverence, from custom a greater instruction is required concerning the truths of faith and the duties of Christian life: which instruction, established by ecclesiastical law, is not to be demanded for Viaticum, which is prescribed by divine law.

Thus can. 854: "§ 1. To children who, on account of the weakness of age, do not yet have knowledge and taste of this sacrament, the Eucharist is not to be administered.

"§ 2. In danger of death, that the most holy Eucharist can and ought to be administered to children, it is enough that they know how to discern the body of Christ from common food and reverently adore it.

"§ 3. Outside danger of death, a fuller knowledge of Christian doctrine and more accurate preparation is deservedly required, namely that by which they may perceive according to their capacity at least the mysteries of faith necessary by necessity of means for salvation, and devoutly, according to the measure of their age, approach the most holy Eucharist."

Therefore for receiving Holy Communion some use of reason is required, which is judged then to be had, and only then is had, when the child can sin mortally. This is clear from the Council of Trent, which, in teaching that "little children lacking the use of reason are bound by no necessity to sacramental communion of the Eucharist," assigns one reason for this, that they cannot sin mortally: "Since indeed," it says, "they cannot in that age lose the grace of the sons of God already attained" (sess. 21, c. 4). - Nevertheless children would communicate validly before the use of reason: for one who lives through Baptism can also be nourished; as moreover is clear from the practice of the primitive Church, which practice was vigorous even to our times among Orientals, and today still exists at least by law among the Greeks, but in the Latin Church it has reasonably been abrogated by approved custom and expressed in the Roman Ritual (tit. 4, c. 1, nn. 10 and 11): for that the sacrament might be most highly esteemed by the faithful, the Church grants it to no one who does not know how to discern so great a gift. Whence to grant the Eucharist to children before the use of reason in the Latin Church would be gravely illicit.

Hence: 1. Under grave obligation it is prohibited to give Viaticum to those who have not yet come to the use of reason, such as the perpetually insane.

2. To the fully insane who have had the use of reason, and to the delirious, Viaticum is to be given, provided they previously had at least the implicit intention of communicating, and danger of irreverence is absent.

3. To the half-witted and to old persons returning to childishness, communion should be given at Easter if they have the strictly sufficient disposition; but if they have a greater disposition, it can be given several times in the year according to the degree of discretion and devotion.

4. To the insane who have lucid intervals, to the frenzied, to energumens, to those possessed by the devil, communion can be given when they are masters of themselves, namely in lucid intervals or moments of tranquility.

5. To those deaf and mute from birth, even if they have been born blind, it should be given if they have been instructed, according to the degree of discretion which is recognized in them.

6. In positive doubt concerning a child's capacity for receiving Viaticum, the pastor will choose what he wishes: for it is a perplexing case.

Judgment concerning the sufficient disposition of children belongs to their confessor, and to parents and to those who are in the place of parents (can. 854, § 4). Therefore it is not the exclusive right of the pastor; to him a twofold right and office is assigned: both of watching lest children approach Holy Synaxis before having attained the use of reason or without sufficient disposition, for which he will also be able to submit them to examination if he has prudently judged it opportune, as if he rightly suspects that the confessor or parents conduct themselves imprudently in this matter; - and of taking care that those who have attained the use of reason and are sufficiently disposed be refreshed by this divine food as soon as possible (can. 854, § 5).

276. Furthermore great reverence and actual devotion, or elevation of the mind into God, are required. - As the Council of Trent says, sess. 13, c. 7, "the more the holiness and divinity of this sacrament has been discovered by the Christian man, the more diligently he ought to beware lest he approach to receive it without great reverence and holiness"; whence the Council exhorts all that they believe and venerate this sacrament "with that constancy and firmness of faith, that devotion of soul, and piety and worship, that it may truly be for them the life of the soul and perpetual health of mind" (c. 8).

From the nature of the thing it is required that communion be made:

1. with acts at least implicit of faith, hope, desire, and pious religion; of which acts a more perfect mode is commended, proceeding from greater intensity, or from an added exercise of humility, contrition, and especially charity: for the greater the disposition in which the faithful rejoice, the greater the fruits they receive;

2. with attention: for communion is an act of religion which demands to be done with attention;

3. for a good end and without venial sins actually exercised or virtual affection for venial sins; for these include a certain positive irreverence, and impede the effect of the sacrament, which is fervor of charity, and diminish the increase of grace. But because they do not take away every effect, therefore in the case there is no grave precept from strict necessity lest communion be unworthy, but only a light precept from the necessity of fittingness of avoiding every irreverence.

Hence: 1. He who communicates with voluntary distraction commits a venial sin of irreverence.

2. He who has past venial sins not remitted and does not actually adhere to them does not sin, because there is no positive irreverence but merely the absence of more perfect reverence; but if by his affection here and now he adheres to them, he incurs venial irreverence.

3. He who in the act of communicating places an act which is also otherwise a venial sin, for example a vain thought, a desire of slight theft, contracts the malice of this sin and the malice of slight irreverence.

4. Likewise if he makes communion for an end secondarily venially evil, for example for vanity.

277. Observations. - 1. According to what was said in the treatise on the Sacraments, n. 89, Holy Communion is to be denied to sinners, even to those who are destitute of the senses, unless they have given certain signs of repentance; likewise to those destitute of the senses whose disposition is unknown: for on the one hand it is not necessary for them, and on the other hand reverence toward so great a sacrament must be placed before the mere utility of the faithful. Nevertheless there is no reason for denying it to those under capital punishment, if they repent; to them it is to be administered by way of Viaticum on the very day or the day before the punishment.

To a penitent public sinner, Viaticum cannot be carried publicly unless he has repaired the public scandal; but if this is impossible, it can be carried secretly.

2. Communion is prohibited both to the excommunicated (can. 2260, § 1) and to those personally interdicted (can. 2275, § 2), before they have been absolved from the censure.