§ 2. The Disposition of the Body

Requirements. A threefold bodily disposition is required: 1. decency of attire; 2. cleanliness of body; and 3. the natural fast.

196. 1. Decency of attire is required because of the reverence due to so great a sacrament; but it is violated both by deficiency and by disordered luxury. Provided, however, that the attire is clean and not torn, its cheapness is no obstacle.

Hence the poor can approach the sacred table in cheap but clean and intact attire. He commits no small irreverence toward the Eucharist in whose attire disordered and altogether worldly luxury appears. For one ought not to go in the same attire to a dance and to Holy Communion. Therefore, women especially sin who by immodest attire give scandal to sensible members of the faithful. But if the immodesty of the attire is excessive, and especially if it is scandalous, such women, as publicly unworthy, are to be excluded from Holy Communion. It is fitting that gloves be removed before Communion, and likewise that soldiers approaching the sacred table first lay aside their arms. Priests communicating after the manner of laymen must, according to the prescription of the Ritual,¹¹³ put on a stole. This rubric indeed seems to bind also if the priest is going to communicate in sickness.¹¹⁴ Deacons approaching privately to Holy Communion must wear over the cotta (surplice) a transverse stole, white or of the same color as that of the priest who administers.¹¹⁵

¹¹³ Tit. 4, c. 2, n. 4.

¹¹⁴ Cf. St. Alphonsus, Theol. mor., l. 6, n. 276.

¹¹⁵ Decr. auth., n. 3499, dub. 2; Roman Ritual, tit. 4, c. 2, rubr. 4.

197. 2. Cleanliness of body is likewise required of one receiving this nourishing sacrament. Now the body is considered unclean: a) because of adhering dirt; b) because of illnesses outwardly disfiguring; c) because of the flow of semen or menstrual blood.

a) Adhering and visible dirt is to be washed away before the reception of Communion. Hence one who approaches the sacred table with very dirty hands, face, and head sins; but a priest can or ought only very rarely to repel someone from Communion for this reason.¹¹⁶

b) Illnesses outwardly disfiguring, such as a grave inflammation of the eye, eczema, psoriasis, etc., do not of themselves impede the reception of the Eucharist, since they are involuntary, cannot be removed at will, and do not affect the purity of the soul itself. Accidentally, however, namely, if such blemishes strike horror into those who see them and will cease shortly, it is better either to abstain from Communion for a brief time or to receive it privately without outsiders assisting.

c) A flow of semen which was joined with mortal sin impedes the reception of Communion on the same day, even if the sin has been erased through a good confession. Thus the rubric of the Missal.¹¹⁷ Nevertheless, if a just cause exists, it is lawful to receive Communion in this case after the sin has been erased. But a flow of semen which occurs without any sin, namely, in an involuntary emission (or in the conjugal act), does not of itself impede the reception of Communion or even the celebration of Mass.¹¹⁸ The reason is that otherwise a great inconvenience would arise. For according to physiologists, involuntary emissions are sometimes something altogether natural in those who do not exercise carnal intercourse. Similarly, the conjugal act is sometimes necessary and strictly due. But it would be harsh if, because of an unavoidable natural act or one strictly due, a man were excluded from the table of the Lord. The same is to be said of the flow of menstrual blood and of purification after childbirth in women. Accidentally, it is sometimes counseled in these cases to abstain from Communion or the celebration of Mass because of the disturbance of mind which follows therefrom and the carnal movements still existing. If a flow of semen was joined with venial sin, for example, if marital intercourse was had from pleasure and without necessity, or if an emission occurred from a venially evil cause, then it is a venial sin to approach Holy Communion without necessity, unless, however, this venial sin was previously erased through confession or in another manner. The reason is that then there are both bodily uncleanness and a stain of the soul, which two things are contrary to the reverence due to so great a sacrament.¹¹⁹ It belongs to the confessor to judge in individual cases what is more expedient after all the circumstances have been considered. Ancient authors were often excessively severe in this matter.

¹¹⁶ Cf. Gasparri, De S. euchar., n. 1132.

¹¹⁷ De defect. Missae, tit. 9, n. 5; cf. S. theol. 3, q. 80, a. 7 ad 4.

¹¹⁸ Cf. St. Alphonsus, Theol. mor., l. 6, n. 272.

¹¹⁹ S. theol., loc. cit., a. 7.

198. 3. The natural fast (that is, abstinence from all food and drink from the preceding midnight) is required by a grave precept of the Church for licitly receiving Communion. Thus it is from the most ancient universal custom, which has been confirmed in several Councils¹²⁰ and in the Code of Canon Law, c. 858.

Thus the Council of Constance says: "Although Christ instituted and administered to His disciples after supper ... this venerable sacrament, nevertheless, notwithstanding this, the authority of the sacred canons and the laudable and approved custom of the Church has observed and observes that a sacrament of this kind ought not to be confected after supper, nor received by the faithful when they are not fasting, except in a case of sickness or another necessity conceded or admitted by law or by the Church."¹²¹ These things were indeed approved by Martin V through the Bull In eminentis in 1418.

Christ, indeed, wishing to conform Himself to the Mosaic law, administered the Eucharist after the celebration of the Pasch; in the times of the Apostles also, an agape was not rarely placed before Holy Communion. But already St. Augustine¹²² said that this natural fast was "observed throughout the whole world." The day of the Lord's Supper was nevertheless excepted, on which Communion was received in the evening after supper. The reason why the Church introduced the natural fast before Communion is the reverence due to so great a sacrament. For it is not fitting that the Eucharistic food be received after another food has shortly before filled the stomach. Therefore, it is also fitting that one who communicates shortly after midnight (as is customarily done on the Nativity of the Lord) should have taken no food for some hours. Nothing indeed has been established in this matter by general law, but abstinence for several hours has sometimes been sanctioned by particular law. Thus, for example, Leo XIII¹²³ granted the privilege of celebrating Mass in the church at Lourdes immediately after midnight under this restriction: that priests then celebrating had abstained from food and drink for four hours beforehand.

This ecclesiastical law of the natural fast altogether admits no parvity of matter, either on the part of the time or on the part of the thing consumed; therefore, even the least thing which is consumed after the manner of food and drink violates it and constitutes a grave sin unless there is an excuse, concerning which below. The reason is that it is not so much a precept of approaching the Eucharist fasting as rather of not approaching after food or drink has been consumed. But one who communicates after any smallest portion has been consumed already communicates after food or drink.¹²⁴ It is very becoming that even after Communion (for at least a quarter of an hour) no food or drink be consumed; nevertheless, a cause excusing and rendering it honorable can easily be present. For example, if a priest immediately after Mass must carry Viaticum to a very distant place, he can licitly take some food or drink beforehand. The old discipline in this matter was much more severe.¹²⁵

For the sake of greater clarity, the extension of this law is first to be explained, and then exemption from it.

¹²⁰ For example, Council of Hippo, A.D. 393, can. 28; Council in Trullo, can. 29; Council of Constance, A.D. 1415, sess. 13.

¹²¹ Denz., n. 626.

¹²² Epistle 54 (otherwise 118), n. 8 (Migne, Patr. lat. 33, 203).

¹²³ February 26, 1885.

¹²⁴ St. Alphonsus, loc. cit., n. 278.

¹²⁵ Cf. S. theol. 3, q. 80, a. 8 ad 6.

199. The extension of the law of fasting concerns its object and its time.

The object of this law is total abstinence from all food and drink before Communion, as has been said. I say: before Communion, for the fast does not seem to be violated if, together with the consecrated species or immediately afterward, water or wine is given which perhaps passes into the stomach before the consecrated species itself. For it is one reception. Thus, according to the liturgical prescription, water is given to a sick person to drink after Communion has been received; wine is given to clerics communicating on the Lord's Supper; but on Good Friday a consecrated host is placed into unconsecrated wine and is consumed together with it.¹²⁶

Three things are required for the notion of food and drink:

a) That the thing consumed be digestible. Hence, if someone were to swallow metal, a small stone, a silken or woolen thread, fingernails, etc., he would not violate the natural fast; the contrary is to be said of straw, grass, etc.

b) That the thing come from outside, because that which comes from within is not properly eaten or drunk. Therefore, one who swallows saliva or blood flowing from the teeth or even the nostrils does not violate the fast. The same seems to be said of remnants of food which adhere between the teeth. There are indeed some authors who deny this or distinguish, saying: If such remnants are swallowed accidentally, the fast is not broken; but otherwise if they are swallowed with full will. This distinction indeed seems insufficiently solid, since the violation of the fast is a physical thing altogether independent of the will. For if water is poured into someone, however much he resists, he is already not fasting and cannot communicate. Therefore, no one is to be troubled if before Communion he has swallowed remnants of food adhering between the teeth.¹²⁷ The matter is otherwise if someone in the evening placed sugar or other lozenges in his mouth and, after midnight, swallows them while they are still present in the mouth. For then there is true food or drink, and the fast is violated.

c) That it be consumed after the manner of eating or drinking. Therefore, the fast is not broken by those things which pass into the stomach: 1. after the manner of saliva, such as droplets of water with which the teeth, mouth, or throat are washed; droplets of blood which adhere to a slightly wounded finger; or tobacco which is chewed, provided that the juice is spat out. Although chewing tobacco in this manner does not break the natural fast, it is nevertheless very indecent before Communion and is not excused from venial sin.¹²⁸ 2. After the manner of inhalation, as if someone smokes tobacco or swallows tobacco placed in the nostrils, or if someone swallows a drop of rain, a fly, or dust accidentally flying into the mouth. If, however, someone deliberately ate flies or similar things, he would violate the fast. One who, in order to wash out the stomach,¹²⁹ draws in water by means of an instrument and casts it out again, as is now often done by a physician's prescription, probably does not violate the fast, even if perhaps a small part of the water remains in the stomach, because nothing is consumed after the manner of drink.¹³⁰

¹²⁶ Cf. Roman Missal, De defect. Missae, tit. 9, n. 3, and S. theol. 3, q. 80, a. 8 ad 4.

¹²⁷ Thus also teaches the rubric De defect. Missae, loc. cit.

¹²⁸ St. Alphonsus, Theol. mor., l. 6, n. 280.

¹²⁹ German: Den Magen auspumpen (to pump out the stomach); French: laver l'estomac (to wash the stomach).

¹³⁰ Cf. Monitore ecclesiastico IX, 184. Today physicians often employ so-called "artificial nutrition," namely, by means of a tube which passes nourishment into the stomach or by means of an injection into the rectum. This latter manner does not seem to violate the natural fast, since gastric digestion is not had there; it is otherwise with the first manner.

200. The time of midnight is to be computed from the first stroke of a clock correctly indicating the twelfth hour. Theologians commonly teach that one who hears the first stroke of a clock correctly announcing midnight must immediately cease eating and drinking, but need not spit out food or drink already present in the mouth but not yet swallowed. Certain old authors thought that eating or drinking could be continued until the final stroke of the clock, but in practice the first opinion is better followed.¹³¹ It is necessary to follow a clock correctly indicating the time; hence, if several clocks indicating differently are present, the clock which seems to be more correct is to be followed. Nevertheless, excessive scruples are to be avoided in these cases, since it concerns only a positive ecclesiastical law, and therefore in a case of doubt it is lawful to follow any clock which is probably correct.

At present, in almost all places, true or solar time is distinguished from mean or legal time. Solar time is diverse in diverse places according to the apparent movement of the sun. Mean or legal time is the same in all places of the same country. Now the faithful can, but are not bound to, follow either solar or legal time in observing the natural fast and in reciting the Divine Office.¹³² A difficulty can arise if someone at night passes from one place where one legal time is in force to another place where a greatly different legal time is in force. For example, at Brussels someone eats supper at 11:45 in the evening and then departs for Aachen, where on the following day he receives Holy Communion. But since 11:45 at Brussels is 12:45 at Aachen, it can be doubted whether such a man is still fasting. With deference to a better opinion, it seems more conformable to the mind of the law if midnight is always computed according to the clocks of that place in which Communion is received. For the fast exists on account of Communion. Therefore, it is to be measured according to the latter. Nevertheless, one who ate supper at Brussels at 11:45 in the evening and communicated the following day at Aachen is not to be troubled, because the prohibition is not certain, nor has the Church determined anything concerning this matter.

¹³¹ Cf. St. Alphonsus, loc. cit., n. 282.

¹³² Code of Canon Law, c. 33, § 1.

201. Exemption from the natural or Eucharistic fast is granted in six cases:

1. For completing the sacrifice of the Mass.

For the divine obligation not to leave the sacrifice incomplete is greater than the ecclesiastical obligation of the sacramental fast. This case can occur in diverse ways:

a) If the priest consumed water in place of the species of wine and notices this while he has it in his mouth, it is not to be spat out because of the danger of casting out a particle of the Host previously consumed, but is to be swallowed. The rubric of the Missal then prescribes that the oblation and consecration be made again, a new host being taken and wine being poured into the chalice; if, however, "Mass is celebrated in a public place where several persons are present, in order to avoid scandal he will be able to add wine with water, and, the oblation having been made, consecrate and immediately consume it and proceed with the rest."¹³³

b) If, after the consecration of one or both species, the priest is seized by a sudden illness and cannot complete the sacrifice. Then, if a fasting priest is lacking, the sacrifice must be completed by another who is not fasting. But the priest thus completing the sacrifice cannot celebrate another Mass on the same day,¹³⁴ unless, however, he has the faculty of bination.

c) If, after the consecration of one or both species, the priest remembers that he is not fasting, he must nevertheless complete the sacrifice. But if he notices the same thing before the consecration, then "I would consider it safer ... that he abandon the Mass begun, unless grave scandal were feared." Thus St. Thomas.¹³⁵ Such grave scandal is almost always present if the priest celebrates in a public chapel.

d) If, after already consuming the ablution, the priest finds upon the corporal a host or particle of a host which he can neither replace in the tabernacle nor preserve becomingly in another manner, then let him consume such consecrated remains, "whether they are small or large, because they pertain to the same sacrifice." Thus the Missal.¹³⁶ But fragments of another sacrifice are not to be consumed after the ablution has been consumed unless a danger of grave irreverence has arisen.

2. For avoiding the profanation of the Eucharist.¹³⁷

This can occur in diverse ways; for example, when a fire is imminent or heretics are breaking in and threatening sacrilegious violation, even a priest who is not fasting could distribute consecrated hosts to himself and to others not fasting, lest they be violated. Indeed, a layman could then, if a priest or deacon is lacking, save the hosts with his own hands. The reason is evident. For an intrinsically licit means is employed to avoid a great evil.

3. For avoiding public scandal.

For the natural law of avoiding scandal prevails over the ecclesiastical law of observing the sacramental fast. Older theologians speak more severely in this matter. Thus, for example, Busembaum:¹³⁸ "Some nevertheless think that this can scarcely occur, because the scandal can be met by saying that the priest accidentally consumed something and is therefore impeded." Certainly, the sole reason that the people should not have to be without Mass on a feast day of precept does not excuse from the law of fasting, which seems to bind more gravely than the precept of hearing Mass; but scandal or sinister detractions by the people are almost always rightly feared if the priest must declare to the people prepared to hear Mass on feast days that he cannot celebrate because the fast was violated. Moreover, it is often to be feared that several persons will then culpably neglect to hear Mass elsewhere, even if this is possible for them. Since these things are so, the ecclesiastical law of fasting is not to be exaggerated, and therefore, if scandal is feared in some measure but truly, a priest who is not fasting can say Mass. If a priest having the faculty of bination, that is, of saying two Masses on Sundays and feast days, has through forgetfulness consumed the ablution in the first Mass or has otherwise broken the fast after Mass, he can no longer say the second Mass, even if wonder or scandal among the people would arise therefrom. Thus the Holy Office on December 2, 1874. For in this case the scandal is pharisaical and is to be despised, since all can easily know that the priest omits Mass for no other reason than the broken fast. Nevertheless, if even in this case grave scandal would arise, the priest could say the second Mass, because today the discipline of the Eucharistic fast has been made milder than it was in the year 1874. But if without scandal the priest can declare that he cannot celebrate because of the violated fast, and the people cannot conveniently hear Mass elsewhere, it is preferable that another sacred function then be held in the church in place of Mass.

¹³³ De defect. Missae, tit. 4, n. 5.

¹³⁴ Thus Leo XII through the Sacred Congregation of Rites, December 16, 1823 (Decr. auth., n. 2630).

¹³⁵ S. theol. 3, q. 83, a. 6 ad 2.

¹³⁶ De defect. Missae, tit. 7, n. 2.

¹³⁷ Code of Canon Law, c. 858, § 1.

¹³⁸ In St. Alphonsus, Theol. mor., l. 6, n. 287.

202. 4. For receiving Viaticum.

Viaticum is Communion received in danger of death. In a probable danger of death which arises from any cause whatsoever (from a wound, poison, illness, an impending dangerous surgical operation, or a sentence of a judge), the Eucharist can licitly be received by one who is not fasting. Thus it is from universal custom, from the Council of Constance cited above, and from the Code of Canon Law, c. 858, § 1. This indult, however, does not seem to be understood as if someone in danger of death could communicate when not fasting from mere whim. This indeed seems certain if someone who is not gravely ill receives Viaticum, for example, soldiers before battle, a man before a very dangerous surgical operation, or one condemned to death before execution. But not even the sick can receive Viaticum when not fasting entirely at will, without any excusing reason. For the Council of Constance requires some necessity; therefore, some reasonable cause must be present, even if it is not so grave. But any reasonable inconvenience on the part either of the sick person, of those serving him, or of the priest himself suffices for Viaticum to be given to one who is not fasting. Hence St. Alphonsus, after the Salamancans, rightly notes that one must not proceed scrupulously in this matter.¹³⁹

Concerning the repetition of Viaticum, the Roman Ritual establishes:¹⁴⁰ "While the danger of death continues, it is both lawful and fitting that Holy Viaticum be administered several times, on distinct days, according to the prudent counsel of the confessor." The reason is that this sacrament is given to the sick not solely to satisfy the precept, but also for consolation and protection against temptations. The opinion already held probable by St. Alphonsus,¹⁴¹ and which is almost certain (cf. Code of Canon Law, c. 864, § 3), teaches that a sick person in danger of death can receive Viaticum even every day.

Theologians, especially the older ones, also ask here whether a priest who is not fasting can and ought to celebrate Mass in order to confect the Eucharist which he is to give after Mass to a man in danger of death. This case is certainly very rare, but if it truly occurred, then neither would Mass be to be prohibited nor would the ecclesiastical law of fasting be to be urged to the detriment of the divine law of receiving Viaticum and to the spiritual harm of the dying man.¹⁴²

¹³⁹ Loc. cit., n. 285.

¹⁴⁰ Tit. 4, c. 4, n. 1.

¹⁴¹ Loc. cit. Thus also the Code of Canon Law, c. 864, § 3.

¹⁴² St. Alphonsus, loc. cit., n. 286.

203. 5. Sick persons who have now been confined to bed for a month (for thirty days), without certain hope that they will recover quickly (that is, within a few days), can, on the prudent counsel of a confessor, receive the Most Holy Eucharist once or twice in the week, even if they have previously taken some medicine or something after the manner of drink.

Thus the Code of Canon Law, c. 858, § 2. All those things which are drunk or can be drunk, even if they nourish, are consumed after the manner of drink, for example, coffee, tea, chocolate, milk even mixed with a liquefied egg, wine, etc.¹⁴³ Nothing prevents even solid medicine from being taken, for example, pills. It is required, however, a) that the prudent counsel of a confessor precede; b) that such a sick person be confined to bed, although not for the whole day and night. Therefore, sick persons who can leave the house and receive Communion in an outside oratory or church do not seem able to use this indult.¹⁴⁴

Note. a) Although those sick persons who can rise from bed for several hours can also use this indult, nevertheless priests who are sick in this manner cannot say Mass, even in a private oratory, if they cannot observe the natural fast. For the indult does not seem to have force except for lay Communion, but not for saying Mass.¹⁴⁵

b) A confessor indeed cannot concede that such sick persons communicate without fasting more than twice in a week; nothing, however, prevents the same sick persons from receiving Communion fasting on other days of the week also.

6. "Although the fast seems to be broken by the salt tasted beforehand by catechumens in the conferral of Baptism, nevertheless there is still no doubt that, after Baptism has been received, they can, indeed ought to, be admitted to Holy Communion." Thus the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, February 16, 1806.

¹⁴³ Cf. Holy Office, September 7, 1897.

¹⁴⁴ Thus teaches the common opinion, which is nevertheless opposed by Cappello (De sacr., n. 506) and Vermeersch (Commentar., n. 57 [1922]).

¹⁴⁵ Thus also Göpfert, *Moraltheol.*⁷ III, 67; cf. Code of Canon Law, c. 808.

204. Scholion. On dispensation from the Eucharistic fast. In the law of the sacramental fast, no one by his own authority can dispense except the Supreme Pontiff. Examples of dispensations of this kind are not lacking. Thus Julius III is said to have dispensed Emperor Charles V, and Pius IV the missionaries in the Indies, according to the circumstances of affairs.¹⁴⁶ In our days this dispensation can be obtained without such great difficulty from the Sacred Congregation of the Sacraments for the faithful, from the Holy Office for priests celebrating Mass, and from the Sacred Congregation of Religious for religious communicating, if reasonable causes are present; indeed, for priests in a more urgent case, from the local Ordinary.¹⁴⁷

But is it lawful to employ epikeia in this law if someone otherwise cannot receive Easter Communion? Several affirm it, for example, Toletus,¹⁴⁸ Gasparri,¹⁴⁹ D'Annibale,¹⁵⁰ Génicot,¹⁵¹ Berardi,¹⁵² Lehmkuhl,¹⁵³ and Noldin.¹⁵⁴ The reason is that Easter Communion is commanded by a quasi-divine precept which prevails over the ecclesiastical law of fasting. This opinion indeed seems probable, but in practice scandal is to be guarded against; indeed, if it is possible, Communion should rather be administered to such sick persons shortly after midnight. Moreover, the case is exceedingly rare in which throughout the entire Easter season someone is so sick that he cannot receive Communion either as Viaticum, or according to the indult of Pius X explained above, or while fasting.

Similarly, according to some authors (for example, Génicot, Cappello, and Cornelisse), with epikeia employed, it is lawful, in order to avoid the gravest inconveniences, that a newly ordained priest who involuntarily and secretly is not fasting celebrate his solemn first Mass; likewise, that a child not fasting receive solemn First Communion.

¹⁴⁶ See Benedict XIV, De syn. dioec., l. 6, c. 8, n. 19.

¹⁴⁷ Cf. Holy Office, March 22, 1923 (Acta Ap. Sed. XV, 151).

¹⁴⁸ Summa casuum consc., l. 2, c. 28.

¹⁴⁹ De euchar. II, n. 1129.

¹⁵⁰ Summula Theol. mor. III, n. 411.

¹⁵¹ Theol. mor. II, n. 202.

¹⁵² Exam. confess. I, n. 764.

¹⁵³ Theol. mor. II, n. 221.

¹⁵⁴ De sacr., n. 157.