Chapter I. On the Disposition of the Soul

I. The state of grace. That the state of grace is required is clear from Sacred Scripture,¹ and from what was said about the sacraments in general, n. 43. In the same place it was likewise proved that broad moral certitude about the state of grace is required.

1. One who is conscious to himself of mortal sin is bound per se to recover lost grace through Confession. Per accidens he sometimes satisfies by an act of contrition, as will be explained under 4. That Confession is required per se is clear from the Council of Trent: "One who wishes to communicate must recall to memory that precept of his, that is, of the Apostle: Let a man prove himself. But ecclesiastical custom declares that this proof is necessary, so that no one conscious to himself of mortal sin, however much he may seem to himself contrite, ought to approach the Holy Eucharist without previous sacramental Confession. This holy Synod has decreed that this must perpetually be observed by all Christians, even by those priests upon whom, by office, it is incumbent to celebrate, provided that a supply of a confessor is not lacking to them."² Canons 807 and 856 are added.

It is disputed, however, whether the precept of premising Confession is divine or ecclesiastical; likewise, if it is ecclesiastical, whether it was imposed by Paul or introduced by custom. Concerning this, note: 1. nothing can be deduced from the cited place of Trent, since from the history³ and acts⁴ of the Council it is clear that the Fathers adhered to different opinions and did not intend to reject any one. 2. It is difficult to admit that an obligation of this kind was imposed by Paul upon the whole Church, unless it is positively proved; but a solid argument is lacking. Hence the said precept seems either to be divine or to have been introduced by ecclesiastical custom; which is to be preferred, I do not know.

Nor should you object: According to Trent, ecclesiastical custom declares that the proof of which Paul speaks is placed in Confession; therefore custom did not introduce the obligation of confessing. Response: According to Trent, ecclesiastical custom does not declare that the proof of which Paul speaks is placed in Confession, but that proof through Confession is necessary; by this it is left undecided whether such proof was introduced by Christ, by Paul, or by ancient custom.

2. One who, all things considered, doubts whether after his last Confession he sinned gravely, is not bound to confess, but satisfies by an act of contrition. For the Council of Trent speaks only of one who is conscious of mortal sin; this cannot be said of one who doubts (St. Alphonsus, VI, 473). Nevertheless, if he does not confess, that he is bound to an act of contrition was proved in the treatise on the sacraments in general (n. 43). I said all things considered, because Confession is prescribed if from the circumstances it must be presumed that a grave sin was committed (De Sacramentis in genere, loc. cit.).

It is disputed whether before Communion one must confess again who, all things considered, doubts whether he has worthily confessed the sin committed. But according to the principles of St. Alphonsus it must be affirmed, because he doubtfully satisfied the law of worthy Confession. Nevertheless I again said all things considered; for if the doubt arises from doubt about the mode in which the Confession was made, for example whether it was instituted with true attrition or not, it can be presumed that it was rightly made (vol. I, n. 229).

3. One who confessed worthily, but forgot a mortal sin, with sufficient probability is not bound to confess again before he communicates. Most older theologians reject this doctrine, because the Council of Trent, which binds one who is conscious to himself of mortal sin to previous Confession, in the obvious sense speaks of the Confession of all mortal sins of which he is conscious to himself before Communion. But St. Alphonsus (VI, 257), and after him almost all more recent authors, hold as sufficiently probable that only a worthy previous Confession is prescribed, in other words, that it suffices that someone has been justified through Confession, or that sins have been remitted through Confession, whether directly, or, as in the case of a sin omitted through forgetfulness, indirectly. Considering the not-to-be-despised explanation of the Council of Trent and the authority of the authors, we hold this opinion as safe in practice.

4. One who per se is bound to Confession, per accidens is not bound to it, but satisfies by an act of perfect contrition, if both there is a necessity of communicating or celebrating, and the supply of a confessor is lacking (canons 807, 856).

a) The necessity of celebrating or communicating is understood as grave or urgent, as the Council of Trent, loc. cit., and the Code (cited canons) have it. Necessity is present:

First, if Communion or Mass cannot be omitted without infamy or scandal, as if a layperson has already approached the Communion rail; if a priest has already begun Mass, or has arrived at the altar, or is eagerly awaited by the faithful (St. Alphonsus, VI, 260). Necessity also seems to be present if someone, for example, goes to church with his family intending to communicate and is not absolved. As regards those who in colleges, etc., communicate daily, infamy does not seem to be a sufficient reason, nor one to be admitted by the confessor, because either they rarely sin, and then they can more easily allege another motive, for example a broken fast; or they sin more often, and then they are bound to arrange their Communions so that they are no longer known to communicate daily. Therefore the obligation of Confession is also to be urged more, especially in younger persons, lest the reverence due to the Eucharist be diminished, the horror of sin be lost, and the efforts to root out a depraved habit be lessened.⁵

Second, if Mass must be continued; namely: 1. if the consecration has already begun, the priest should not interrupt Mass in order to confess, but, having elicited an act of contrition, should continue it. 2. If the consecration has not yet begun, the same seems to be said of a priest who remembers a grave sin or becomes guilty of one, since the Missal states without distinction: "If in the very celebration of Mass the priest remembers that he is in mortal sin, let him be contrite with the purpose of confessing and satisfying."⁶ But the priest who "remembers that he is excommunicated or suspended, or that the place is interdicted... if scandal is not feared, ought to leave the Mass already begun."⁷ The reason of scandal, or infamy, will commonly excuse from leaving Mass, so that Mass should rather be continued, after an act of contrition has been elicited.

Third, if Viaticum must be consecrated for a dying person and another who may celebrate is lacking. Likewise if there is danger that the sacrament may be profaned and that danger cannot be averted in another equally safe way (St. Alphonsus, VI, 260).

Fourth, if there is, whether for a pastor or for an assistant, an obligation of celebrating by office, for example on a feast day so that the people may hear Mass, for funerals, or for blessing nuptials, and another who may celebrate in his place is lacking (St. Alphonsus, VI, 261). But there is not a necessity of celebrating or communicating which of itself is sufficiently grave if the priest suffers from the omission of Mass only the privation of the stipend; likewise if he must celebrate only from a vow, or from the precept of a superior, or so that he himself may hear Mass of precept, or so that another may satisfy the precept of Easter Communion. But with sufficient probability a necessity of celebrating per se sufficiently grave is present if otherwise the priest himself cannot satisfy the precept of Easter Communion; likewise, for a layperson, a necessity of communicating per se sufficiently grave is had if otherwise he cannot fulfill the precept of Easter Communion. The reason is that annual Communion obliges in some way from divine law (St. Alphonsus, VI, 261).

b) The supply of a confessor is lacking:

First, if no one is present who can, and licitly can, and wills to hear Confession, and another cannot be approached without grave difficulty. But the difficulty which arises from the journey to be made can be increased on the one hand by infirmity, by the imminent time of celebrating, etc., and on the other hand lessened by the fact that the journey can be made by carriage, railway, etc. Abstracting from the aforesaid special circumstances, according to St. Alphonsus a journey of one and a half leagues excuses (VI, 264). Therefore the supply of a confessor is not lacking because the ordinary confessor cannot be had.

It is disputed whether or not the supply of a confessor is lacking if only a confessor is present, or can be approached, to whom someone cannot confess without extraordinary shame arising from an extraordinary circumstance; for example, if an uncle would have to confess a very shameful sin to his nephew. Some affirm, but it seems it must be entirely denied. For: 1. an intrinsic inconvenience does not excuse from law (De Legibus, vol. I, n. 169). But that extraordinary circumstance only causes the intrinsic inconvenience, namely shame, to become greater, not to become extrinsic. There is added that the more benign opinion gives occasion to laxity and weakens the law, since limits cannot be assigned. Finally, the aforesaid opinion was formerly commonly rejected, either explicitly or implicitly.

Objection. The law of premising Confession to Communion is probably only ecclesiastical. Hence it is permitted, at least by epikeia, to regard extraordinary shame as an excusing cause.

Response. Passing over the antecedent, I observe that the two latter arguments adduced by us also exclude epikeia.

Second, if no one is present except one ignorant of the language, or lacking jurisdiction, or an excommunicated person to be avoided. Concerning the case in which someone has fallen into a reserved sin and the priest present per se lacks jurisdiction over it, see the treatise on Penance.

Third, if someone cannot confess to a confessor who is present or can be approached without grave harm extrinsic to Confession; harm, I say, whether to himself, to the confessor, or to a third party, as is more fully explained in the treatise on Penance (St. Alphonsus, VI, 264).

¹ 1 Cor. 11:29.

² Session 13, chapter 7.

³ Pallavicini, cited work, book 12, chapter 2.

⁴ Theiner, cited work, vol. I, p. 488 and following.

⁵ Cf. Vermeersch, Epitome, 3rd ed., vol. II, n. 120.

⁶ On Defects, VIII, n. 4.

⁷ Roman Missal, loc. cit., n. 5.

II. Actual devotion. Although a voluntary defect of this devotion does not simply prevent the fruit of Communion, it nevertheless causes one to receive much slighter fruits. Moreover, one who at the time of Communion is voluntarily distracted commits a venial sin of irreverence. Likewise he also seems to commit a venial sin of irreverence who communicates either from a venially evil motive, for example from vainglory, or with an actual or virtual affection for venial sin. In such a case there seems to be a certain positive irreverence. It must be said otherwise of one who communicates with habitual venial sin, because there is rather a defect of perfect reverence than positive irreverence (St. Alphonsus, VI, 270).

Corollary I. Nocturnal pollution, in relation to Communion to be received on the following day, is to be judged thus: It never prohibits it under grave sin, provided the grave sin perhaps committed has been removed by Confession. For the rest:

1. If it occurred with grave sin, although remitted by Confession, "one should abstain from Communion and celebration unless something else seems good to the confessor."¹

2. If it occurred with venial sin or without sin, Communion is prohibited under venial sin by reason of the effects, namely if because of dishonorable fantasies it obstructs the required devotion. Yet it is prohibited only insofar as either one must abstain from Communion, or effort must be applied to removing the impediment² (St. Alphonsus, VI, 272).

Corollary II. Conjugal intercourse practically does not impede Communion; nor, for the most part, should spouses be positively advised to abstain from intercourse on the night before the day of Communion. To those asking, let it be said that it is licit, and at most let it be added that abstinence is a thing of greater perfection.

¹ Missal, On Defects, title IX, n. 5.

² Cf. Missal, loc. cit.

III. Preparation and thanksgiving. In order that one may receive richer fruits, he should not omit remote and proximate preparation, and thanksgiving.

1. Preparation can be distinguished as twofold: remote and proximate. Remote preparation consists especially in purity of heart; proximate preparation, in acts of faith, hope, charity, etc., and "let it be made according to the powers, conditions, and offices of each one."¹

2. Thanksgiving should likewise be carried out carefully, and not be finished in a few minutes. For the rest, it too, as the cited Decree has it, "should be made according to the powers, conditions, and offices of each one" (cf. St. Alphonsus, Praxis Confessarii, n. 155).

Corollary. To eat or drink immediately after Communion is venial, unless a reasonable cause excuses (St. Alphonsus, VI, 283). To spit immediately after it has been cast into the stomach is unbecoming; if it were done with danger of ejecting a particle, it would be a sin.

¹ Decree of the Sacred Congregation of the Council Sacra Tridentina Synodus, 20 December 1905.