Chapter II. On the Disposition of the Body

The disposition of the body comprehends cleanliness of body, decency of dress, and the natural fast.

As regards cleanliness of body, it suffices to note these things:

1. Dirt adhering to the body and appearing should be washed away before the reception of the Eucharist.

2. Stains inherent in the body are commonly not attended to, unless they are apparent, notable, and removable. If there is hope that they will soon be removed, and Communion can conveniently be deferred, it is fitting to defer it. Nevertheless, a priest infected with a disease that brings horror should not celebrate publicly; he can celebrate secretly (St. Alphonsus, VI, 275).

As regards decency of dress, observe that it depends much on the custom of places and the condition of persons. For the rest:

1. So far as can be done, one should not approach in torn and dirty clothes.

2. Women should avoid superfluous ornament and especially immodest or indecent dress. One who approached too immodestly would have to be kept away from Communion; but one must proceed with the greatest prudence.

3. It is fitting that soldiers approach with arms laid aside.

4. "If Communion is to be given to priests or others from the clergy, let it be given to them kneeling at the steps of the altar, or, if it can conveniently be done, let them be distinguished from the laity within the altar rail. But let priests communicate with a stole."¹ Deacons, if they approach Holy Communion privately, do so with a stole worn transversely over the cotta.² Those who acted otherwise would sin venially (St. Alphonsus, VI, 275-276).

As regards the natural fast, several things must be noted:

¹ Roman Ritual, title IV, chapter 2, n. 4.

² Sacred Congregation of Rites, 4 July 1879, n. 3499, ad II.

I. The existence of the precept. The precept of the natural fast, introduced formerly by custom and confirmed by several councils,¹ was established by canon 858, § 1, in these words: "One who has not observed the natural fast from midnight cannot be admitted to the Most Holy Eucharist, unless danger of death urges, or there is necessity of preventing irreverence toward the sacrament." It is a precept only of ecclesiastical law (St. Alphonsus, VI, 278).

¹ Council of Hippo, year 393, canon 28; Council in Trullo, canon 29; Council of Constance, year 1415, session 13.

II. The object of the precept consists in this, that from midnight the communicant has transmitted nothing digestible and coming from outside into the stomach or another organ serving the digestion of foods, and retained it there. Therefore, in order that the natural fast be violated, it is required:

1. That something be taken after midnight. Now:

a) Midnight, according to canon 33, § 1, can be computed according to: 1. usual time; 2. local time, both true and mean; 3. legal time, both regional and other extraordinary time (vol. I, n. 167).

b) Midnight must be taken physically, not morally; but the completed hour is commonly indicated by the first stroke of the clock (St. Alphonsus, VI, 282), and sometimes by the last stroke.

Here it is customary to ask what one can do who, while eating or drinking, hears the first stroke of the clock; namely, whether someone can communicate even if he does not spit out what he has in his mouth. Several more recent authors affirm, because, they say, the Church is not judged to oblige one to such rusticity. But the Church does not oblige one to that, even if it commands: "If you swallow, it is not permitted for you to communicate." Hence if, considering the circumstances, you cannot spit out without rusticity, swallow it and abstain from Communion. Thus theoretically; for in practice it will scarcely be clear that the fast has been violated, because approved clocks will scarcely be lacking which indicate midnight somewhat later and which it is permitted to follow (St. Alphonsus, loc. cit.).

What if someone passes from one place to another, in which a different time prevails; for example, someone eats at Maastricht at 11:30, then departs for Aachen and communicates there, although 11:30 at Maastricht is 12:30 at Aachen? I think he acts illicitly, because the time of the fast seems to be computed in order to the time at which Communion is received; but the time of Communion must be computed according to the time of the place in which someone communicates.

2. That something be taken which comes from outside. Hence the swallowing of saliva, or blood from the gums, or fluid flowing from a pustule which exists in the mouth, does not obstruct the fast; nor the skin of the lips, for these pertain to the interior parts of the mouth, whose extremities and curvature they are. It is otherwise if someone, for example, sucks blood from a wound on the finger, or tears flowing from the eyes. Nevertheless, it is not required that something be put into the mouth from outside after midnight, but it suffices that after midnight it be swallowed. Hence the fast is violated if someone at night puts sugar into his mouth to be dissolved and swallowed after midnight, even partly (St. Alphonsus, VI, 279).

3. That something be taken which has the character of food or drink. Certainly that which is not digestible does not pertain here (St. Alphonsus, VI, 281). Nor does that seem to pertain here which can only in some way be altered in the stomach and, according to common estimation, does not have the character of food, such as fingernails. For the rest, "it does not matter," says St. Thomas (III, q. 80, a. 8, ad 4), "whether something nourishes or does not nourish"; nor does it matter at all that the thing is taken by way of medicine.¹ Considering all these things, the following do not violate the fast, although some of the things to be enumerated, according to chemists, are not excluded from every alteration in the stomach: glass, hair, silk, wool, linen, a pebble of metal, little fruit-stones wholly cleansed, wood, straw, fingernails. The following violate it: bones, wax, chalk, metal dust, artificial silk.

4. That what is taken not be retained in the mouth, but transmitted into the stomach. If the thing taken is not passed into the stomach, there is neither eating nor drinking nor, as we suppose, nutrition. It is the same, however, whether food or drink is introduced into the stomach in a natural or artificial manner (n. 171). Considering this condition, one is not bound, unless perhaps by reason of danger, to abstain from Communion who vomits whole the food taken,² or washes the stomach by means of a tube and ejects the water. Nevertheless one should abstain from using a tube anointed with oil, because some oil will almost certainly remain. Moreover, he who is nourished by a clyster seems to violate the fast, because although foods are not received in the stomach, nevertheless nutrition takes place, so that Christ is no longer the first food of those communicating. The Holy Office,³ indeed, responded, when a priest sought the faculty of proceeding in this way: "The Most Holy Father is to be petitioned for the grace, according to the prayers"; and this grace was afterward granted by the Supreme Pontiff. But it seems to be a dispensation rather than a declaration.

¹ Roman Missal, On Defects, title IX, n. 1.

² But these things are merely theoretical, because it will not be sufficiently clear that everything has been vomited.

³ 23 April 1890.

III. Further determination of the object. Lest the ecclesiastical law smell of pharisaical superstition, certain, so to speak, exceptions are admitted. Namely, the following do not violate the fast:

1. One who by chance swallows remains of foods adhering to the teeth; this is clear from the Roman Missal.¹ The same is said with sufficient probability of one who does this voluntarily (St. Alphonsus, VI, 279).²

2. One who by chance or voluntarily inhales the smoke of foods, tobacco, incense, etc. (St. Alphonsus, VI, 280, doubt 2); likewise one who uses a medicine which sends the medicine into the bronchi under the form of vapor.

3. One who by chance or voluntarily swallows a very small quantity wholly joined with saliva, for example of water after someone has washed his mouth and spat out the water, or of the juice or very small particle of tobacco which remains inseparably mixed with the saliva when someone crushes tobacco with his teeth and spits out the phlegm. Nevertheless chewing of this kind is prohibited under venial sin because of irreverence, unless a just cause is present (St. Alphonsus, VI, 280, doubt 3).

4. One who by chance swallows a sufficiently small quantity, for example a fly, dust, snow, rain, or a little drop of blood flowing from the nose (St. Alphonsus, VI, 280, doubt 1). The fact that passage into the stomach is merely noticed does not impede Communion.

5. One who uses nasal tobacco and by chance passes something into the stomach (St. Alphonsus, VI, 280, doubt 1). For the rest, it should be advised that the use of tobacco, both nasal and smoking, be omitted before Communion, although it is not prohibited.

The reason for all these things is that the law is to be taken in a human way, lest, as we have hinted, it smell of pharisaical superstition. There is added that otherwise it would give occasion to continual anxieties.

6. Finally, sometimes an exception is had from the disposition of the liturgy, namely if an adult is baptized, "with the salt," says the Sacred Congregation of Propaganda Fide,³ "tasted beforehand by catechumens in the conferral of Baptism, even if it seems to break the fast, nevertheless there is still no doubt that after Baptism has been received they, the adults, can be admitted to Holy Communion, indeed ought to be." Finally, the law does not regard the case in which the ablution is given to one licitly communicating, or together with the host a little water or wine, although something is swallowed before the sacred species (St. Alphonsus, VI, 288).

Corollary I. One who doubts whether he has violated the fast, in other words whether he has taken something, whether he took it after midnight, whether that which he took obstructs the fast, can communicate, because in a doubt of fact founding the law the condition of liberty is better. But in all the cases mentioned, the fact founding the law is doubtful (St. Alphonsus, VI, 282; I, 38, 39).

Corollary II. One who at night does not know what hour it is, and, without asking the hour, eats with the intention of afterward communicating, sins, because he rashly admits the danger of violating the law. Nevertheless after the fact, if the truth can no longer be investigated, it is permitted to him, the things to be posited being posited, to communicate.

¹ On Defects, title IX, n. 3.

² The Roman Missal, loc. cit., says thus: "If the remains of food remaining in the mouth are swallowed, they do not impede Communion, since they are swallowed not by way of food, but by way of saliva."

³ 13 February 1906.

IV. The gravity of the precept. The precept is grave from its whole genus, both as regards the time and as regards the thing to be taken. This is clear both from the consensus of all authors and from the ends of the precept.

"One end is mystical, namely that it may be signified that Christ is the first food of man. Other ends are that those communicating may be more disposed to devotion, and that every danger of the sacrament being vomited may be avoided; which danger indeed sometimes arises from the disordered use of food or drink. But the said ends are not obtained with sufficient certainty unless every use of food or drink before Communion is absolutely prohibited" (St. Thomas, III, q. 80, a. 8; St. Alphonsus, VI, 278).

V. The causes because of which it is permitted to communicate not fasting are:

1. Urgent danger of death (canon 858, § 1), namely such that Communion can be given by way of Viaticum; this was explained in n. 158. But danger of death exempts from the law of fasting, even if someone could observe it without inconvenience, since the cited canon speaks absolutely. And this holds as regards all, both as regards those for whom danger of death threatens from outside, for example from imminent battle or from the sentence of a judge, and as regards the gravely sick; for the canon does not distinguish.

Corollary I. A sick person constituted in danger, as long as the danger endures, can communicate as often as desired, or daily, not fasting, and this even if when healthy he had been accustomed to communicate rarely. The reason is that one constituted in danger of death is absolutely exempted from the law (St. Alphonsus, VI, 285; cf. canon 864, § 3).

Corollary II. Just as it is permitted for one constituted in danger to communicate not fasting, so also a priest can celebrate not fasting in order to give Viaticum to himself, because to celebrate is not more than to communicate. The same is permitted with sufficient probability in order to give Viaticum to another, because by divine precept, to which ecclesiastical law yields, he is bound to receive Viaticum; but the case is of little practical importance, because the Eucharist is usually reserved (St. Alphonsus, VI, 286).

2. Long infirmity. The sick, however, who have already been bedridden for a month without certain hope that they will recover soon, can, by the prudent counsel of the confessor, receive the Most Holy Eucharist once or twice a week, even if they have previously taken some medicine or something by way of drink (canon 858, § 2).¹ As regards the interpretation of this canon, observe that it seems one must incline toward the more benign side, because it concerns a favor, and one universal and granted by way of derogation from the law, not by way of dispensation. These things having been noted, I explain briefly the faculty granted. Therefore, in order that someone may enjoy the privilege, it is required:

a) That he be sick, or affected by some illness. Nevertheless it suffices that someone be worn out by old age, because old age itself is judged to be a certain infirmity.

b) That he be bedridden. Yet this must be understood so that the privilege also belongs to the sick who, as the Sacred Congregation of the Council² responded, "cannot lie in bed, or can rise from it for some hours of the day." The same seems to be said of those who, suffering from a chronic disease, according to the different condition of the disease, now lie in bed, now perform some domestic tasks, yet cannot go out without notable inconvenience. But those are excluded who can attend to domestic cares and go out conveniently enough. For the word bedridden cannot sufficiently be applied to the aforesaid. Then the more benign interpretation can give occasion to scandal and to a looser application; namely, there is fear lest gradually several persons, with necessity as a pretext, will wish to communicate not fasting.

c) That he has been bedridden for a month. Therefore the sick person cannot use the privilege before he has lain ill for a month.

d) That, after he has lain ill for a month, there is absent certain hope, that is, moral certitude, of recovery to be attained soon, for example after three or four days.

e) That one proceed by the prudent counsel of the confessor. Nevertheless, the request for counsel and the approval of the confessor are not judged to be a condition which, if neglected, would cause the sick person to sin gravely by communicating not fasting. Indeed, I think that per se there is not even an obligation of seeking counsel, although it is especially fitting, and per accidens can even be necessary, namely so that there may be sufficient certainty about the required conditions. The confessor can give counsel both within and outside Confession; for no restriction occurs in the concession of the privilege. Yet let him proceed prudently, namely by seriously inquiring whether the required conditions are present. For the rest, observe:

First, when the explained conditions have been fulfilled, the sick can use the indult even if they would be able to observe the fast, since the canon requires nothing besides the explained conditions. There is added that the stricter opinion would give occasion to anxieties. They can communicate both at home and in church; yet the latter commonly cannot be done by the bedridden.

Second, by force of the concession "they can receive the Most Holy Eucharist once or twice a week, even if they have previously taken some medicine or something by way of drink" (canon 858, § 2). Medicine can be taken even if it is solid, such as, for example, a pill. But it is required that the matter to be taken directly serve the curing of the illness, so that solid foods used to recover strength are excluded. Besides medicine it is permitted to take something by way of drink. Yet it is not required that what is taken have the character of drink, but it suffices that it be taken by way of drink, like liquid food. Therefore the response of the Holy Office³ can be applied, by which it is permitted "to take broth, coffee, milk, or another liquid food, even if some substance has been mixed into it, for example light little pills of flour (semolino), grated bread reduced to crumbs (pangratto), a diluted egg, etc., provided the mixture does not lose the nature of liquid food." Chocolate can be added, but not sugar or solid chocolate, not even when they are not swallowed except after they have been dissolved in the mouth; for it is clear that the taking which occurs by mouth must be considered. Moreover, the sick person can also take some medicine or something by way of drink several times before Communion.

Third, nothing prevents one who can use the explained privilege and therefore communicates not fasting twice in a week from receiving Communion also on other days, after accepting the burden of the fast.

Question. Whether Easter Communion to be received excuses from the law of fasting in the case in which someone otherwise would be deprived of it, because on the one hand he cannot observe the fast without very grave inconvenience even if Communion were given very early, and on the other hand he cannot use the indult of which we have spoken.

Now several think this must be denied, because canon 858, § 1 declares that the fast must be observed unless danger of death urges, or the necessity of preventing irreverence toward the sacrament. But the cited canon cannot be so urged that other cases, for example infamy and scandal to be avoided, are excluded.⁴ Whether our case truly ought to be excluded is theoretically doubtful to me; but, with the doubt posited, in practice one can stand for the spiritual good of the person about to communicate and for the somewhat divine law of annual Communion, while the ecclesiastical law of the natural fast is set aside. Nevertheless scandal and abuses must be guarded against. Moreover, if the difficulty would vanish by deferring Communion, let the delay be made. Finally, in the proposed case it would also be permitted to minister the Holy Eucharist at night (canon 867, § 4).

3. Scandal, that is, the sin of one's neighbor, to be avoided; for example if Mass cannot be omitted without the danger of rash judgments or backbiting; likewise without the danger that several persons will omit, with grave sin, to assist at another Mass. Observe, however, that the sole reason that the people on a feast day would lack Mass does not suffice. Nevertheless it suffices with sufficient probability that otherwise a dying person could not receive Viaticum (St. Alphonsus, VI, 286, 287). To avoiding scandal there is often added:

4. Infamy to be avoided. This reason is present if the priest is already at the altar, unless he is of known probity (St. Alphonsus, VI, 287); likewise if a layperson is already sitting at the Communion rail.

5. Irreverence toward the Most Holy Sacrament to be guarded against (canon 858, § 1), as if there is danger that the species may perish or be profaned.

6. The sacrifice to be completed. This reason can be present in three cases, namely: 1. if after the consecration the priest remembers that he is not fasting, he must continue Mass. 2. If after the consuming of the host or chalice he notices that the matter is invalid, he must consecrate and communicate again.⁵ 3. If after the consecration, even of bread alone, the priest dies or faints, and no fasting priest is present, a priest who is not fasting must complete the Mass from the place where the prior one stopped.⁶

Finally, partly because of moral union with the completed sacrifice, partly because of irreverence toward the sacrament to be avoided, it is permitted for one not fasting to consume particles of the consecrated species, as is explained in n. 274.

¹ Cf. Decree of the Sacred Congregation of the Council, 7 December 1906.

² 6 March 1907.

³ 7 September 1897.

⁴ The same once had to be said about ecclesiastical documents brought forward by adversaries, namely the Council of Constance, session 13, and the Constitution of Benedict XIV Quadam de more, 24 March 1756.

⁵ Roman Missal, On Defects, title III, n. 5 and title IV, n. 5.

⁶ Roman Missal, On Defects, title X, n. 3.

VI. Dispensation, which can be obtained from the Holy See, and is granted through the Sacred Congregation for the Discipline of the Sacraments if it concerns seculars, and through the Sacred Congregation of Religious if it concerns religious.¹ Moreover, Nuncios, Internuncios, and Apostolic Delegates can concede to the bedridden of whom canon 858, § 2 speaks that even before the end of the month they may communicate once a week, without observing the fast according to the norm of the cited canon. They can grant the same to sick persons not bedridden who labor under such a disease that, in the judgment of a physician, they cannot observe the fast without danger. Finally, the faculties of the Sacred Congregation of Propaganda Fide grant to bishops, vicars, and prefects apostolic the power "of granting to bedridden sick persons about whom there is no certain hope that they will recover soon, even before the end of the month from which they have been bedridden, that they may receive Holy Communion two or three times a week, and, if it concerns priests or religious, even daily, without observing the fast, that is, even if they have previously taken some medicine or something by way of drink."²

¹ Thus the meeting of Cardinals, 7 December 1922 (cf. Acta Apostolicae Sedis 1929, p. 39).

² Vermeersch, Commentarius de Formulis faciendis, n. 57.

VII. Epikeia is also admitted in this matter, but with the greatest difficulty, so that scarcely a case occurs in which Communion can be received by one not fasting from epikeia alone. It is disputed whether the case would be present if a newly ordained priest about to celebrate his first Mass had broken the fast, and very grave inconveniences would follow, considering the circumstances, if the Mass were not celebrated. In such a case, the reason of avoiding infamy will not easily be present, because such a man will rather be ridiculous than infamous. Sometimes the reason of scandal will not be entirely lacking. Observe, however, "that scandal is then said to exist when an occasion is given for detracting or judging rashly, but not when an occasion of mere wonder is given" (St. Alphonsus, VI, 257).