§ 1. The Disposition of the Soul

191. Requirements. For receiving the Eucharist with fruit there are required: 1. freedom from two censures; 2. freedom from mortal sins; 3. actual devotion.

1. Freedom from two censures, namely, from excommunication (can. 2260, § 1) and personal interdict (can. 2275, n. 2), is required before Communion, as will be explained more fully in the treatise on censures.

2. Freedom from mortal sin is altogether necessary, since the Eucharist is a sacrament of the living, and spiritual food, such as Communion, is not given to a corpse, that is, to a sinner spiritually dead. But freedom from venial sin, or rather from affection for venial sin, is not indeed altogether required for the efficacy of this sacrament, but it is very useful for receiving more abundant fruits.

The Council of Trent⁹⁷ says: "If it is not fitting for anyone to approach any sacred functions except holily, certainly the more the holiness and divinity of this heavenly sacrament are known to a Christian man, the more diligently must he beware lest he approach to receive it without great reverence and holiness, especially since we read those words full of terror in the Apostle: 'He who eats and drinks unworthily eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the Body of the Lord.' Therefore, the precept, 'Let a man prove himself,' is to be recalled to the memory of one wishing to communicate. But ecclesiastical custom declares that this proving is necessary, so that no one conscious to himself of mortal sin, however contrite he may seem to himself, ought to approach the Holy Eucharist without prior sacramental confession. This holy Synod has decreed that this is perpetually to be observed by all Christians, even by those priests upon whom it is incumbent by office to celebrate, provided that access to a confessor is not lacking to them; but if, necessity urging, a priest has celebrated without prior confession, let him confess as soon as possible." From this law the following two principles are deduced:

⁹⁷ Session 13, c. 7 on the Eucharist (Denz., n. 880); cf. Code of Canon Law, cc. 807 and 856.

192. Principle 1. For worthily receiving Holy Communion, contrition does not suffice, but confession is required if anyone is conscious of a mortal sin committed and not yet remitted by absolution, unless, however, a) a confessor is lacking, and b) at the same time the necessity of communicating is urgent.

Theologians dispute whether this precept of prior confession is of divine law or ecclesiastical law. St. Alphonsus says: "The common and true opinion ... teaches that this precept is divine,"⁹⁸ because by the precept of Christ a proving is to precede Communion, and this proving, as the Council of Trent declares, is sacramental confession. Moreover, already in the most ancient times (for example, those of St. Cyprian), confession was prescribed before Holy Communion.⁹⁹ Other authors, such as John Medina and, among moderns, Noldin,¹⁰⁰ Génicot,¹⁰¹ etc., think that this precept is indeed grave but was introduced by the Church to guard against many sacrilegious Communions. Génicot endeavors to demonstrate that such was the mind of the Council of Trent from the history of the Council written by Cardinal Pallavicini and from the acts edited by Theiner.¹⁰² For practice this controversy is of little importance, since, against Cajetan¹⁰³ and certain others, all theologians now teach that there exists a strict and grave precept of confessing mortal sins before receiving Communion. "But if anyone shall presume to teach, preach, or pertinaciously assert the contrary, or even to defend it by public disputation, let him be excommunicated by that very fact."¹⁰⁴ This excommunication indeed is no longer in force in our days, since it was not renewed in the Code of Canon Law. That this precept is of divine law can be proved indirectly in two ways. For if it were of ecclesiastical law, a) the Pope could dispense from it; b) contrary custom could abolish it. But both are most commonly denied. Therefore, that precept pertains to divine law.

There is no grave obligation of prior confession unless the sin was certainly committed and is certainly mortal.¹⁰⁵ The reason is that otherwise a man is not, in the strict sense, conscious to himself of mortal sin, since consciousness is certain knowledge. Nevertheless, unless it concerns a very scrupulous man, even in the case of a doubtfully mortal and doubtfully committed sin, confession is greatly to be counseled, lest the Eucharist be deprived of its effect. But if anyone, after confession duly performed, remembers an omitted mortal sin, he is not bound to confess again before Communion; yet he must accuse himself of it in the following confession. The reason is that a sin of this kind is not indeed remitted because of contrition alone, which the Council of Trent declared to be insufficient, but through sacramental absolution, which indirectly remitted this sin also. Nevertheless, if this omitted sin can easily be accused before Communion, it is better to do this.

⁹⁸ Theol. mor., l. 6, n. 256.

⁹⁹ Cf. Schanz, Die Lehre von den Sakramenten I, § 33.

¹⁰⁰ De sacr., n. 140.

¹⁰¹ Theol. mor. II, n. 192.

¹⁰² Acta gen. I, 489.

¹⁰³ Commentary on S. theol. 3, q. 80, a. 4.

¹⁰⁴ Council of Trent, sess. 13, can. 11 on the Eucharist (Denz., n. 893).

¹⁰⁵ Cf. below, on doubtful sins to be confessed, n. 375.

193. The precept of prior confession does not bind, provided that these two conditions are present cumulatively, that is, at the same time: the lack of a confessor and the necessity of Communion.

a) The lack of a confessor signifies the absence of any suitable confessor. Therefore, access to a confessor is not considered lacking if only the customary confessor or another to whom confession could be made more easily is absent. Hence confession must be made before Communion whenever anyone can confess without a grave inconvenience extrinsic to confession itself.¹⁰⁶ Such an inconvenience would be present, for example, if someone had to make a journey of two hours in order to make his confession; if scandal for the people would arise from the confession, as if a pastor already prepared for Mass had to confess before others, who would therefore conceive sinister suspicions; if the confessor would learn from the confession the name of an accomplice; if the pastor had to confess a very shameful sin to his young vicar and consequently rightly feared that the vicar would experience grave temptations or violate the seal,¹⁰⁷ etc. But no inconvenience intrinsic to confession, such as great and even extraordinary shame, excuses from confession.

Theologians disputed whether one who has a reserved sin, when a confessor endowed with the faculty is lacking, is bound to confess to a simple confessor before Communion; but today this controversy is ended. For in more urgent cases any confessor can directly absolve from all reserved sins, as will be said more fully below in n. 425 sqq.

b) The necessity of Communion is present, for example, if Viaticum must be administered to a dying person by a priest burdened with sins, who must first celebrate in order to obtain the Eucharistic species; if a priest cannot omit Mass without grave infamy or scandal of the people; if someone already standing at the Communion rail remembers a mortal sin and cannot withdraw without infamy, etc. But there is not sufficient necessity of communicating (with contrition alone elicited) in order to satisfy the Easter precept. For the Easter Communion can then be deferred. There are nevertheless several authors who think that even such necessity is sufficient.¹⁰⁸ Likewise, there is not sufficient necessity for celebrating Mass without prior confession of mortal sin, even if he himself or even several others must then be without Mass on a Sunday or feast day. If, however, infamy for the priest would arise in this case, which indeed easily happens, or if the priest is bound by office to celebrate Mass, sufficient necessity is present.

¹⁰⁶ Cf. below, n. 380.

¹⁰⁷ Thus also Génicot, Cas. consc., De subi. euch., cas. 2.

¹⁰⁸ Cf. Marc, Instit. mor. II, n. 1550.

194. Principle 2. A priest who, with a confessor thus lacking and necessity compelling, has celebrated Mass with contrition alone must confess as soon as possible, that is, within three days.

The precept of confessing as soon as possible does not bind the laity, but priests. For the Council of Trent and the Code of Canon Law, c. 807, name priests alone, and the law is not to be extended beyond its proper terms. The reason for this law is that the necessity of communicating without confession can occur more frequently in priests than in the laity. But the Church wishes to guard against priests celebrating repeatedly without confession under the pretext of necessity. "The command of Trent made to a priest sacrificing from necessity while in mortal sin, to confess as soon as possible, is a counsel, not a precept."¹⁰⁹ This proposition (38) was condemned by Alexander VII, and therefore confession to be made as soon as possible is truly commanded under grave obligation for those priests who celebrated in necessity and with a confessor lacking. The obligation of confessing as soon as possible is to be understood in such a way that confession is made at least within three days, since the term "as soon as possible" in laws is customarily taken morally for a space of three days. By the same Alexander VII proposition (39) was condemned: "That phrase 'as soon as possible' is understood as when the priest shall confess in his own time."¹¹⁰ This obligation of confessing is urgent even if the priest is not going to celebrate within this period of three days or for a longer time. Accidentally, a priest is bound to confession on the same or the following day if he foresees that in the subsequent days no opportunity of confessing will be present, and if he is going to celebrate Mass on the following day. But if confession is impossible within three days, for example, in mission territories, the priest can celebrate repeatedly until he can confess.

Theologians commonly teach that this Tridentine precept of confessing as soon as possible does not exist for priests sacrilegiously celebrating in the state of mortal sin, if the necessity of celebrating is absent or access to a confessor is present, because the Council wished to guard against priests deferring confession under the pretext of the necessity of celebrating. But those priests who knowingly celebrate sacrilegiously do not care much about making confession as soon as possible, since they neglect it even apart from necessity; nor, nevertheless, are these priests who celebrate sacrilegiously for that reason in a better condition, because they multiply sacrileges.

¹⁰⁹ Denz., n. 1138.

¹¹⁰ Denz., n. 1139.

195. 3. Actual devotion is required because of the reverence due to so great a sacrament.¹¹¹ Therefore, not only are all distractions to be avoided in Communion itself as impeding more abundant grace, but also diligent preparation and fervent thanksgiving are to be made.

Nothing certain has been determined concerning how long both preparation and thanksgiving ought to last. St. Alphonsus¹¹² says: "Let thanksgiving be made for at least half an hour"; indeed, he admonishes those who aspire to Christian perfection and are not occupied by other affairs that they ordinarily devote a whole hour to this exercise. Nevertheless, in present times let a confessor ordinarily require no more than that the faithful and priests truly and fervently give thanks for a quarter of an hour after Communion has been received. Except in a case of necessity, however, no briefer time is to be spent. The same holds for preparation for Holy Communion. Alas! That saying, "Things of every day grow cheap," is manifested even in the reception of the Most Holy Eucharist. Therefore, tepidity and negligence are to be fought with all diligence and fortitude in preparation and thanksgiving for Communion. Ascetical writers indicate the individual acts of piety which are to be elicited in the reception of this sacrament.

It remains to be noted that after receiving Communion a man should take care not immediately or shortly afterward to spit or blow his nose, lest perhaps the smallest particles of the sacred species, not yet transmitted into the stomach, be spat out or expelled through the nose.

¹¹¹ Cf. Billuart, De sacr. in gen., diss. 3, a. 4, § 2.

¹¹² Praxis confess., n. 155.