Article — Noldin, Summa of Moral Theology
Article Third. On the Disposition of the Soul
139. The required disposition. 1. For receiving the Eucharist with fruit there is required the state of grace, because the Eucharist is a sacrament of the living. Therefore the Apostle admonishes: But let a man prove himself, and so let him eat of that bread and drink of the chalice;1 and from the declaration of the Council of Trent this proving consists in this, that he who approaches holy communion be conscious to himself of no mortal sin.2
a. A twofold disposition as regards the soul can be distinguished: substantial, which consists in immunity from mortal sin, and accidental, which consists in immunity from actual venial sin and in actual devotion with which the sacrament is received. On the former depends the very effect of this sacrament; on the latter depends the degree of the effects which holy communion can produce. The former is required under grave sin, the latter under venial sin; for he sins against the reverence due to so great a sacrament who approaches with actual venial sin or without any devotion and preparation.
Therefore for perceiving the effect of this sacrament no disposition besides the state of grace is required. Therefore he who approaches without actual devotion or with venial sins not yet remitted, indeed even he who in receiving the Eucharist commits a venial sin, does not lack the substantial fruit of this sacrament. For the sacraments confer grace ex opere operato on those not placing an obstacle; but the obstacle of this sacrament is nothing except grave sin. But the better the disposition is, the greater also is the fruit which is perceived from the sacrament.
b. Since there is an obligation of procuring actual devotion for oneself before holy communion, he commits a venial sin of irreverence not only who communicates with actual light sin, but also who communicates without actual devotion. Nevertheless the same measure of devotion is not required in all, but one fitting the condition and state of the communicant: greater, namely, in those who communicate more often and strive after perfection than in those who rarely communicate and are involved in secular business. Hence it can happen that the defect of particular devotion which in a layman is no sin is a venial sin in a priest or religious.3
2 Cf. Council of Trent, sess. 13, c. 7.
3 Cf. Lugo, disp. 14, sect. 1; Suarez, disp. 66, sect. 1.
140. 2. It does not suffice to repair, before communion, the state of grace lost through sin by perfect contrition; but by the prescription of the Church: a. he who is in the state of mortal sin, before communion, is bound under grave sin to premise sacramental confession, unless there is lacking the supply of a confessor and at the same time there urges the necessity of celebrating or communicating; nevertheless they should first elicit an act of perfect contrition; b. a priest who, necessity urging, has celebrated without previous confession is bound to confess as soon as possible.1
alpha. There are some who say that the precept of confessing before communion is divine: for by the precept of the Apostle, which he himself received from Christ the Lord, proving is to be premised before communion; but this proving, from the declaration of the Church, is sacramental confession. But this opinion, as lacking solid reason, is rejected by others.2
beta. If someone, after a confession made in good faith, remembers a mortal sin which he forgot to confess, confession before communion can be advised, but he cannot be obliged to it. For the Council commands confession to him who is conscious to himself of mortal sin not yet destroyed through confession; but in our case the communicant is not conscious to himself of sin not yet destroyed through confession, for the sin omitted in confession has already been indirectly remitted. Therefore neither is an act of contrition strictly required before communion in this case. Although, therefore, according to the most common opinion of the ancients, a sin omitted through forgetfulness must be declared in confession before communion, nevertheless, for the reason stated, the contrary opinion, which denies this obligation, has prevailed.
gamma. He who doubts concerning a grave sin committed, even if the doubt is truly probable, likewise cannot be obliged to confession before Mass or communion; for only he is conscious to himself of mortal sin who knows certainly that he has committed it. Nevertheless confession is to be advised, and even enjoined on him who does not know how to form his conscience, unless it is a question of a scrupulous person. But the communicant in this case must try to elicit perfect contrition before communion, lest he expose himself to the danger of frustrating the effect of the sacrament.3
delta. He who has applied a serious effort to eliciting perfect contrition can safely approach holy communion, even if he doubts whether in reality he has happened to elicit an act of it; for a doubt can scarcely exist unless negative and to be spurned.
epsilon. Practically, in a case of doubt concerning a grave sin committed, the penitent is to be directed from the presumption taken from those things which ordinarily happen to him in temptations of this kind. For if in temptations of this kind he is not accustomed to consent, it is to be presumed with moral certitude that consent was not present, and therefore holy communion is to be permitted without confession and contrition; but if he ordinarily consents, it is to be presumed that consent was also present this time, and therefore confession is to be urged.
1 Council of Trent, sess. 13, c. 7; Cn. 856, 807.
2 1 Cor. 11, 23 ss. Cf. Lugo, disp. 14, n. 69 ss.
3 There are not lacking authors who think that no obligation exists in this case of premising an act of perfect contrition, because this obligation is not certainly established. But since the obligation of forestalling the frustration of the effect of the sacrament is certain, the obligation is also certain of using the means necessary for this end, namely either perfect contrition or confession with attrition. For it is not asked whether it is licit or not to approach holy communion without contrition, but whether frustration of the effect of the sacrament is absolutely to be forestalled. Cf. Lehmkuhl, II, n. 150 (n. 208).
141. Declaration of this precept. A twofold condition is required so that it be licit to celebrate or communicate without confession having been premised: a. that the supply of a confessor be lacking; b. that the necessity of celebrating or communicating urge.
- The supply of a confessor is lacking if no confessor is present, and one absent, with regard to the circumstances of the person (illness, necessary business) or of the journey (a distance of one hour), cannot be approached without great difficulty. But it is not said to be lacking if only one's own confessor is lacking, or if there is present only a familiar confessor, to whom you could confess only with great shame.
a. It is clear that there is no obligation of confessing if an approved confessor is indeed present, to whom, nevertheless, the penitent cannot confess without certain and grave harm to another, as if he cannot declare the sin without the confessor knowing the accomplice; or if the penitent has only a sin reserved to the bishop, and no confessor is present who has power over reserved cases.
b. It is certain that a cause external to confession and sufficiently grave excuses from this precept. All admit that danger of grave scandal and infamy constitutes a cause of this kind; it must be affirmed that shame alone arising from the fact that afterward you must converse or live with the confessor is not a cause of this kind. Nevertheless the opinion does not seem improbable that extraordinarily great and invincible shame, as if an uncle had to confess a shameful matter to his nephew, excuses from this precept.1 This excuse, however, is not to be extended to the case in which a pastor would have to manifest a grave and shameful sin to a young vicar, unless the repugnance in the particular case is extraordinarily great.
- The necessity of celebrating or communicating must be grave so that the priest can say Mass with only contrition premised and a layperson can receive communion; otherwise they must omit Mass or communion. Hence rarely will there be present a necessity of communicating in a layperson, more frequently in a priest a necessity of celebrating.
This necessity is judged present in a priest: alpha. if he is bound to celebrate by office, so that the faithful may hear Mass as prescribed, or so that funerals or nuptials may be had;2 beta. if he cannot omit Mass without grave infamy or scandal of the people; gamma. if the priest, already clothed in vestments or with Mass already begun, commits mortal sin, or only then finally remembers a sin previously committed, and cannot confess without mark of infamy; delta. if a particle is to be consecrated so that Viaticum can be administered to a dying person. But the necessity of celebrating is not judged present if the priest was going to celebrate only from devotion, or for gaining an indulgence, or from the obligation of a benefice.
1 Berardi proposes this opinion (Prax. conf.^3, III, n. 338), to which Genicot assents, Theol. mor. inst., II, n. 193, and Casus consc., II, p. 214.
2 To celebration due from office can also be numbered the case in which, because of a particular devotion, a frequent people comes together to hear Mass, even if not prescribed. Cf. Genicot, Casus consc., II, p. 213.
142. Concerning the precept imposed on priests alone of confessing as soon as possible if, urgent necessity requiring, they have celebrated without previous confession, these things must be noted:
a. It is a true precept1 obliging under grave sin those who, urgent necessity requiring, have celebrated without confession, even sacrilegiously, provided that they have the supply of a confessor.
b. It does not oblige priests who, without necessity, celebrate in mortal sin without confession having been premised, because the Council speaks expressly of the priest who celebrates without confession when necessity urges.
Authors, who with almost common consent interpret the law in this way, note that the Council wished by this law to take care lest priests defer confession under pretext of the necessity of celebrating, but did not directly wish to take care against sacrilegious celebrations; for the law would have profited little for obtaining this end. And indeed a priest who knowingly dares to celebrate sacrilegiously will scarcely care for this ecclesiastical precept. Therefore those who have celebrated without necessity are not affected by this law.
c. The obligation of confessing as soon as possible is to be understood in such a way that confession be made at least within three days, since the term as soon as possible, as in other human laws, is rightly understood morally, i.e., of the space of three days. This obligation urges even if the priest after three days will not celebrate, but only after one or another week. Nevertheless on the second or third day of this three-day period he cannot celebrate without confession, unless again and again the necessity of celebrating and the lack of a confessor continue.
d. Accidentally, however, it can happen that the priest is obliged to confession even on the same day, namely if on that day there is an occasion of confessing and he himself wishes or ought to celebrate on the following day, or if he foresees that in the following days there will be no occasion of confessing.
Article Fourth. On the Disposition of the Body
The disposition of the body also is twofold: one essential, which consists in the natural fast; the other accidental, which consists in external reverence and must appear in decency of dress and cleanliness of body. The essential disposition is required under grave sin, the accidental under light sin.
This twofold disposition of body is taken from the Roman Missal, which, looking not only to the celebrant but also to communicants, treats in chapter IX De defectibus of the disposition of body and brings forward the following: defect of the natural fast and defect of cleanliness arising from pollution, even if the stain of the soul has been destroyed by confession; for it says: "unless something else seems good to the confessor."
1 Cf. proposition 38 of Alexander VII: "The mandate of Trent made to a priest sacrificing from necessity with mortal sin, of confessing as soon as possible, is a counsel, not a precept."
143. With decent dress. The reverence due to this most worthy sacrament demands that communicants approach the sacred table reverently and devoutly in decent and clean dress. Hence:
a. The negligence and carelessness by which someone approaches holy communion in disordered, dirty, or torn garments is certainly venially sinful.
b. If the immodesty and indecency by which women sometimes approach the sacred table, with the breast not sufficiently covered and surrounded with vain ornament, should proceed so far that, having regard to the custom of regions, they offend chaste eyes and are a scandal to others, they would even sin gravely and would have to be kept from communion.
c. It is fitting that soldiers approach the sacred table after laying aside arms, but they are bound to this by no law.
d. Priests and deacons, by prescription of the Church, must approach holy communion clothed with a stole, if they communicate publicly.
144. With a clean body. Reverence toward the most holy sacrament also demands this: that communicants approach the sacred table with a clean body, i.e., without an external and removable stain and without filth. For although a stain of the body, whether external or hidden, does not of itself impede holy communion, since purity of the soul is not diminished by defilement of the body, nevertheless decency requires this cleanliness too.
a. If an external stain is present which is hoped to be removed shortly, it is fitting that holy communion be deferred for a short time. But if the stain is lasting, there is no reason that someone be deprived of holy communion on that account. Nevertheless a priest infected by a disease which excites horror can indeed celebrate, but privately, not publicly.
b. Women at the time of menstrual flow and of purification after childbirth, since these things happen without fault and do not outwardly appear, are not prohibited from receiving holy communion.
c. Involuntary pollution does not prohibit from Mass or from communion. Therefore of itself it is not necessary on that account to omit Mass or communion, especially if there is present a particular reason on that day of celebrating, e.g., in those who are accustomed to celebrate daily, or of communicating, e.g., in communities where on stated days all approach communion, or if an indulgence is to be gained, etc.1
d. The marriage debt rendered on the preceding night with due end and manner in no way impedes holy communion. Indeed, if the debt is exercised for pleasure alone and therefore sinfully, it is not necessary that the married abstain from the sacred table, especially since in them there is ordinarily a reasonable cause either of approaching holy communion or of performing the conjugal act.
1 Cf. Lugo, De euchar., disp. 15, sect. 1.
145. On the natural fast. 1. By the precept of the Church, obliging under grave sin, it is required that the one about to communicate observe the natural fast, i.e., abstinence from every food and drink, however minimal, from the preceding midnight. The foundation of this precept is decency and reverence toward the most holy sacrament; for it is plainly fitting that the Eucharist be received before every other food.
a. The natural fast before communion, which is also called sacramental, introduced at first through particular statutes and through custom, has been sanctioned by ecclesiastical law.1
b. The sacramental fast requires that no other food or drink be received on that day, i.e., after midnight, before holy communion. But it does not require that the Eucharist be received into a stomach entirely empty or fasting, nor that the Eucharist be the first substance, but only that it be the first food (or drink) which on that day is received into the stomach.
c. That one who celebrates soon after midnight must abstain for some time from taking food or drink is prescribed by no law. Therefore, although of itself he can still eat or drink a little before midnight, nevertheless, apart from unforeseen cases, decency demands that he abstain from food and drink for several hours, about four, before Mass, lest sacred food be mixed with profane food taken a little before.2
d. He who positively doubts whether he has taken something of food or drink, and in like manner he who positively doubts whether what he took he took before or after midnight, can approach holy communion; for unless it is certainly established that the fast has been broken, he is not bound to abstain from holy communion.
e. The law of the sacramental fast, although it is an ecclesiastical law, nevertheless does not admit smallness of matter. Since the law was established from a motive of religion because of reverence toward Christ the Lord present in the Eucharist, he who violates it commits a sin of sacrilege.
f. The precept by which formerly the faithful after holy communion were bound to keep the fast until evening no longer is in force. Nevertheless natural decency demands that one abstain from food and drink for as long as the sacred species in the stomach are not yet corrupted. Therefore he who immediately after holy communion eats or drinks without a reasonable cause sins venially against the reverence of the most holy sacrament. But he is free from all fault who soon after communion spits, provided that no fragment of the host remains in the mouth or throat. For there is no danger of irreverence, since the way by which spittle flows into the mouth is not the way of food and drink.
1 The Code of Canon Law contains an explicit precept concerning this matter. For the faithful, Cn. 858, 1: "He who has not observed the natural fast from midnight cannot be admitted to the holy Eucharist, unless danger of death urges, or necessity of preventing irreverence toward the sacrament." For priests celebrating, Cn. 808: "It is not licit for a priest to celebrate unless the natural fast from midnight has been observed." Indeed Cn. 2321 wills that the Ordinary suspend from sacred functions priests who have presumed to celebrate not fasting or twice on the same day. Since the law is ecclesiastical, it can be taken away by dispensation of the Supreme Pontiff; but dispensation, which formerly is read as scarcely ever granted, today is more easily granted, but only to the sick who are not gravely bedridden, who cannot remain fasting, for communicating, not however to priests for celebrating.
2 When the Supreme Pontiff Leo XIII (26 Feb. 1885) granted the privilege of celebrating Masses in the church at Lourdes immediately after midnight, he added this condition, that the priests celebrating abstain from food and drink four hours before Mass.
146. 2. Midnight, from which the communicant must be fasting, begins from the first stroke of the clock indicating the twelfth hour. Therefore for one about to communicate, who while drinking hears the hour strike, it is not licit to finish the draught; nevertheless he is not bound to spit out what, while drinking, he still has in his mouth.
Some assign this reason for the matter: because the Church is not judged to wish to oblige to such rusticity; others perhaps more rightly: because in that place there will not be lacking approved clocks which have not yet indicated twelve.
The twelfth hour can be estimated from all the public clocks of the region ordinarily well directed, even if they mark a time diverse from the true time, namely either local mean time or legal mean time. Therefore it is licit to follow the latest clock, provided the error is not established and that clock does not ordinarily err.1
The Church has permitted this because it does not require that the faithful in observing ecclesiastical precepts use a computation of time different from that which publicly directs the other affairs of men in individual places.2 Therefore it is always licit to follow true time, but it is also licit to follow mean time, whether local or legal, according as the clocks of the region indicate the one or the other.
1 Cn. 33.
2 S. Poenitentiaria, 18 June 1873; 29 Nov. 1882. Cf. Acta S. Sedis, VII, p. 399.
147. On the breaking of the fast. The natural fast is broken by eating or drinking, i.e., by the taking of any food or drink which is taken in the manner of food or drink.
a. For the notion of eating or drinking it makes no difference of itself whether something is taken deliberately or by accident and beyond intention; therefore he who in sleep drinks water, or who inadvertently swallows a leaf which he was rolling about in his mouth, is no longer fasting.
b. Therefore three things are required for the breaking of the fast: one of them pertains to the thing which is taken, namely that it be food or drink; the other two pertain to the manner in which the thing is taken, namely that it be taken by the mouth from outside, and that it be taken by eating or drinking and descend into the stomach by swallowing.
148. 1. In order that the fast be broken, it is required that that which is taken have the nature of food or drink. Now by the name of food is designated only and everything which, received into the stomach, can in some manner, even if not fully, be digested and converted into the substance of man; for what can in no way be altered in the stomach is not said to be eaten. But by the name of drink is signified every liquid (which does not at the same time nourish).
a. What can be digested, and what cannot, must be determined chiefly from the common estimation of men. Hence he who swallows iron, glass, wood, nails, hair, scraped-off fruit stones, threads of silk or wool, and similar things, does not break the fast; but he breaks it who swallows straw, wax, paper, medicinal powder, etc.
b. But if from the doctrine of chemists it should be established that some thing commonly considered digestible, as chalk, can in no way be altered in the stomach, that thing would not have the nature of food and drink, and therefore would not break the fast. Nevertheless a thing which in common estimation is not considered digestible must not on that account be reckoned among foods because chemists say that it is altered a little in the stomach.
149. 2. In order that that which is taken be taken by the mouth from outside and be swallowed: for the fast is broken by eating; but what is not taken by the mouth from outside, even if it is swallowed voluntarily, and likewise what is only put into the mouth, without being swallowed, is not said to be eaten.
a. Therefore he who swallows a humor flowing inwardly from the head, or blood flowing from the tongue, gums, or teeth, or tobacco powder drawn in by the nostrils, or a drop of water descending through the ears, does not injure the fast; but he injures it who sucks blood from the wound of a finger, who licks tears flowing from the eyes, blood from the exterior lips, etc., unless some small amount beyond intention descends into the stomach in the manner of saliva, etc.
b. He who, for washing out the stomach by means of some instrument, draws in water and again rejects it, remains fasting, even if a small part of the water remains in the stomach, because nothing is taken by swallowing in the manner of drink. Indeed also, as it seems, it is licit to put down into the stomach the tube of the instrument smeared with oil, without the fast being broken.1
1 Cf. Monitore eccles. (Roma, Direzione del Mon. eccl.), t. 9, p. 184.
150. 3. In order that that which is taken be taken by eating or drinking, or in the manner of food or drink, not in the manner of saliva or respiration: for what is taken in the manner of saliva or respiration, by the common judgment of men, is not eaten.
That is taken in the manner of saliva which is inseparably mixed with saliva and, with it, beyond intention (even if advertently), is passed into the stomach; that is taken by respiration which, flying through the air, is drawn in by breathing and beyond intention (even if advertently) descends into the stomach. But what is sent down with saliva in greater quantity, or what is deliberately taken with saliva, or drawn from the air and swallowed, breaks the fast. For although it makes no difference to the notion of eating whether a thing is taken by accident or deliberately, nevertheless, if something is taken purposely with saliva or by breathing, the intention causes the taking to be voluntary swallowing and to have the character of eating or drinking.
a. Therefore he who rinses his mouth and by accident swallows a little water mixed with saliva; he who keeps some aromatic thing in his mouth, deliberately swallowing nothing, even if something descends with the saliva; he who holds a tobacco leaf in his mouth and rubs it with his teeth, but deliberately does not swallow the juice, but spits it out, does not break the fast. Yet chewing of this sort, unless there is present a reasonable cause, e.g., of health or of purifying the breath, is not becoming before communion. In the same way, he who by breathing draws in vapors from food or drink present; he who draws tobacco smoke through the mouth; he who passes down a fly, dust, snow, rainwater drawn from the air, does not break the fast: for these things either do not have the nature of food, or are taken in the manner of respiration or saliva.
b. But he who voluntarily swallows even the smallest thing, with whatever intention this is done, who, for example, takes in the manner of medicine a single little drop or a single grain, ceases to be fasting and is excluded from communion; in like manner, he who, lying down in the evening, takes into his mouth a piece of sugar to soften hoarseness, if the whole has not been liquefied and swallowed before midnight, does not remain fasting.1
c. Remnants of food which cling between the teeth do not break the fast, whether they are taken involuntarily or even voluntarily. This indeed is certain from the rubric of the Missal;2 but in assigning the reason why those remnants do not hinder the fast, authors do not agree: according to some, because they are not taken from outside; and according to others, because they are taken in the manner of saliva. Perhaps better you would say with Lehmkuhl that this comes from the definition of the Church, which, in order to forestall anxieties and doubts in these matters which occur rather often and can with difficulty be guarded against, has itself interpreted the law more broadly.
d. That which is taken together with the sacred species does not break the fast, which the Church commands to be observed in a human manner. Therefore if someone in the first Mass on the day of the Nativity should have taken a fly or a small particle of wax which had fallen into the chalice, or drops of wine clinging inside the chalice, even though they were not consecrated, he can still celebrate another Mass. To the sick (even those not gravely bedridden) the sacred species can be offered with wine or water, just as the priest himself on Good Friday takes the particle of the consecrated host with wine, even if perhaps the water or wine descends into the stomach before the sacred species.
1 Cf. Sporer-Bierbaum III, pars 2, n. 467 ss.
2 Missale rom., De defectibus IX, 3.
151. Causes excusing from the natural fast. The precept of the sacramental fast belongs to the gravest precepts of the Church; therefore, from the custom of the Church, which the Council of Constance reports, it ceases only in a case of infirmity or of another necessity granted or admitted by law or by the Church.1 Moreover five cases of this sort are enumerated, four of which are indeed admitted by all, but concerning the fifth authors dispute.
When the individual cases in which the law of the sacramental fast ceases are considered, it will be clear that not just any grave inconvenience excuses from this law, but only the necessity of fulfilling a higher law, which cannot be fulfilled while the fast is observed.
Therefore the Eucharist can be received by one not fasting:
- For completing the sacrifice: for the obligation of the divine precept concerning the completion of the sacrifice is greater than that of the ecclesiastical precept concerning the fast to be observed before communion. Therefore:
a. If a priest in the sacred action itself, after the consecration of one or both species, remembers that he is not fasting, he can and must communicate, not fasting, in order to complete the sacrifice; but if he remembers before consecration, he must withdraw from the altar, where this can be done without infamy and scandal.
b. If a priest performing the sacred action, after the consecration of one or both species, being overtaken by a sudden illness, cannot complete the sacrifice, then, in default of a fasting priest, it must be completed by another priest who is not fasting.
c. If a priest has poured water instead of wine into the chalice, and does not notice it until after the reception either of all or of part of the water, he must, in order to complete the sacrifice, consecrate again and receive the consecrated species.
d. If a priest, after the ablution has already been taken, finds a whole consecrated host or remnants of hosts, he can and must receive them, if another Mass is not to be said that day and if they cannot be placed in the ciborium or be kept decently in another way, because that reception is as it were the complement of the sacrifice and of the banquet performed.2
1 Sess. 13.
2 Missale rom., De defectibus VII, 2.
152. 2. For avoiding irreverence toward the most holy sacrament: for the natural law of reverence due to the sacrament is to be preferred to the ecclesiastical law of the fast before communion.
Therefore, if there is imminent danger from fire, from the attack of enemies, from infidels or heretics by whom this sacrament would be treated injuriously, the consecrated hosts can and must be received by a priest who is not fasting and, if he is absent, even by a layman with his own hands; or a priest can offer them to laypersons who are not fasting. Cf. cn. 858.
153. 3. For avoiding public scandal: for the obligation of the natural law concerning the avoiding of scandal is greater than this precept of the Church.
a. Therefore, if a priest before consecration remembers that he is not fasting and cannot withdraw from the altar without infamy and scandal of the people, he can communicate though not fasting. The same also is to be conceded to a layman who, about to communicate, is already present at the altar and remembers that he is not fasting, namely where he cannot withdraw without disgrace and scandal.
b. If a pastor on a Sunday, whether by accident or by fault no longer fasting, cannot omit the sacred action without grave scandal and offense of the people or without his own grave infamy, he certainly could perform the sacred action even though not fasting. But this cause alone, namely lest the people on a feast of precept have to be deprived of Mass, does not excuse from the law of the fast, which is graver than the precept of hearing Mass.1 In a case of this sort, however, other excusing causes often concur, especially scandal of the people, danger of infamy, and finally the danger that many, although an opportune occasion exists and although they could and ought to go elsewhere to hear Mass, will gravely neglect to do so. Besides, a priest who is not ill spoken of among the faithful will easily remove the danger of scandal and infamy by candidly declaring the cause for which he cannot celebrate. But if the faithful cannot go to a nearby church to hear Mass, it is helpful to institute another sacred function in place of the Mass.
c. Many authors concede that a newly ordained priest who has inadvertently broken the fast can celebrate his first Mass, if circumstances concur in which it cannot be deferred without very grave inconveniences, as if many relatives have come from elsewhere, if it is publicly known that the first Mass is to be celebrated today, but the breaking of the fast has remained hidden: for ordinarily the reason of scandal will excuse; but if no scandal is to be feared, it is licit in this case to use epikeia.2
1 S. Officium, 2 Dec. 1874.
2 Cf. Gobat, Experient., tr. 3, n. 411; Lacroix, l. 6, pr. 1, n. 583; Genicot, Theol. mor. instit., II, n. 202.
154. 4. For receiving viaticum in danger of death: for the Council of Constance declares that the sick laboring under a grave illness joined with danger of death are exempt from the law of the fast to be observed before communion,1 and the Roman Ritual has: Viaticum can be given to those shortly about to die when they are not fasting.2 Therefore these, as exempt, are not bound to observe the fast, even though they could observe it without grave inconvenience.
a. This exemption, however, does not apply to those who are brought into danger of death not from illness but because of an external cause: for then both the Council and the Ritual speak only of the sick. Therefore those who are not sick, as soldiers before battle, persons condemned to death, etc., must observe the fast before viaticum. But if they cannot observe it without great inconvenience, viaticum can be given even to those not fasting.3
b. If it is doubtful whether the sick person is in probable danger of death or not, whether the disease is truly lethal or not, nevertheless viaticum can be administered to him though not fasting, both because the obligation of the fast is not certain, and because the Church is rightly presumed to wish in this case to favor the sick person, lest he be exposed to the danger of dying without viaticum. This holds especially when the sick person is far from the church, or the priest can no longer return to him; for then the danger is greater of dying without viaticum.
1 Cf. sess. 13.
2 Rituale rom., tit. 4, c. 4, n. 4; cf. cn. 858, from which the same is inferred.
3 S. C. de prop. fid., 21 July 1841.
155. 5. For administering viaticum. There are those who add this fifth case to the preceding: namely, if there is no consecrated host for viaticum, a priest who is not fasting can celebrate, even if he has already celebrated on that day. And this indeed is certain, if there is question of administering viaticum to himself; for he who is exempt from the fast so that he can communicate, is also exempt so that he can celebrate. But if there is question of administering viaticum to another, many authors concede it either absolutely or at least probably,1 and not without reason: for the divine law, which commands the reception of viaticum, is to be preferred to the ecclesiastical law commanding the fast before celebration, especially since from this no relaxation of the law of the fast to be observed before communion is to be feared. Besides, St. Alphonsus, whose probable opinions the Church permits in practice, says that this opinion is probable.
1 Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 286.
156. How often holy communion can be ministered to a gravely sick person who is not fasting. Holy communion can be given more often to the sick dangerously bedridden, even when they are not fasting, not only if a new danger recurs, but also in the same danger; indeed nothing prevents it from being offered to them as often as they desire it for the consolation and help of the soul and the circumstances of persons and places permit, even if this were done daily.1
a. For the Council of Constance declares the sick dangerously bedridden simply exempt from the law of the natural fast. And certainly the reason for exempting them is not only the obligation of receiving viaticum, but also the necessity of the soul, by which the sick especially at the time of death need the help and consolation of this sacrament. Therefore, if the sick person can remain fasting without inconvenience, he should be advised, out of reverence toward the most holy sacrament, to receive holy communion fasting; but he is not bound to this.
b. Therefore the Roman Ritual admonishes:2 "But if the sick person, having received viaticum, lives some days . . . and wishes to communicate, the pastor will not be lacking to his pious desire." These words are to be understood of the reception of the most holy sacrament by one not fasting. Therefore all the provincial synods held in recent times exhort pastors to bring the Eucharist more often to the gravely sick, even if they cannot observe the natural fast.3 With these agrees cn. 864, 3 cited above (n. 138).
c. If holy communion is administered to the gravely bedridden sick, whether they have already been refreshed by viaticum or not yet, the ordinary form is used: The Body of our Lord, etc.
1 Cf. Zeitschrift f. k. Th., 1880, p. 717 ff.
2 Rituale rom., tit. 4, c. 4, n. 3.
3 Cf. Collectio lacens., under the word Viaticum.
157. Whether it is licit to give communion to one who is not dangerously bedridden, but because of long-lasting illness cannot observe the fast, when he is not fasting. The Holy See has resolved this question, disputed up to now, in such a way that it is now established which sick persons, and how often, can receive holy communion when they are not fasting.1 Namely, the sick who have already been bedridden for a month without certain hope of soon recovering can receive holy communion once or twice in the week, even if they have previously taken some medicine or something in the manner of drink,2 but with the counsel of the confessor employed in this matter.
a. The privilege conceded by this decree must be extended also to those who, because of the quality of the disease, cannot lie in bed, but are forced to remain outside the bed; likewise to those whom the disease permits to remain outside the bed during the day for a time.3
b. Besides these sick persons there are others who properly are not called sick, since they habitually remain outside bed, go out from the house, indeed come to church, and yet cannot observe the fast. To these the privilege conceded to the sick cannot be extended, lest under the pretext of infirmity the precept of the fast gradually be relaxed. In order that these also may be able to receive holy communion, either holy communion must be administered to them so early that up to that time they can observe the fast, or a dispensation from the sacramental fast must be sought, which in our time is more easily granted.4
c. If, however, in a sick person of this sort there is question not of communion from devotion, but of Easter communion to be received by precept, already some more recent theologians think it probable that in that case the law of the fast ceases: for the divine-ecclesiastical precept of communicating at Easter prevails over the merely ecclesiastical precept of observing the fast before communion. Nevertheless the scandal of the faithful must be guarded against.5
d. If someone bedridden from a non-grave illness cannot observe the natural fast and desires to receive holy communion more often in the week, the privilege cannot be extended beyond communion twice; but nothing prevents him from communicating twice in the week not fasting, and on other days fasting, if he observes the fast, although with difficulty.6
e. Priests can indeed use this privilege conceded to those not dangerously bedridden, when the required conditions are supposed, for communicating in the manner of laypeople, but not likewise for celebrating.
1 S. C. C., 7 Dec. 1906. The resolution of the Sacred Congregation was somewhat modified by cn. 858, 2.
2 The Holy Office, 7 Sept. 1897, declared: the words in the manner of drink are to be understood so that it is licit to take broth, coffee, and other liquid foods with which some substance has been mixed, e.g., flour (semolino, emoule), grated bread (pangrattato, pain rape), etc., provided the mixture does not lose the nature of liquid food.
3 S. C. C., 6 March 1907.
4 Formula for petitioning from the Sacred Congregation of the Sacraments a dispensation from the sacramental fast: Most Blessed Father, Stephen N. of the diocese N., although he does not lie in bed because of infirmity, nevertheless suffers from such weakness of stomach that it is morally impossible for him to observe the natural fast prescribed before holy communion. Therefore, humbly prostrate at the feet of Your Holiness, he suppliantly asks the faculty of taking something in the manner of drink before he approaches to receive holy communion.
5 Of this opinion are Berardi, Examen conf., I, n. 764; D'Annibale, III, n. 411; Gasparri, De euchar., II, n. 1129; Genicot, Theol. mor. inst., II, n. 202; Lehmkuhl, Casus consc., n. 176; Gennari, Consultazioni, I, cons. 50, n. 6.
6 Cf. Monitore eccles., 1907, p. 472.