Section II. On the Person Receiving

I. In order that the Holy Eucharist can be validly ministered to someone, it suffices that he be baptized and, if he has arrived at the years of discretion, that he have the intention of receiving the sacrament (nn. 38, 40).

II. In order that the Holy Eucharist be licitly ministered to someone, indeed, if he asks for it, that it ought to be ministered, it suffices that he be baptized and not prohibited by law. It will be clear from what is to be said about children, about the insane, about the unworthy, etc., to what extent someone is prohibited by law.

1. Children. As regards the Communion of children, the Code, though with certain additions, briefly repeats what is contained more fully in the decree of the Sacred Congregation for the Discipline of the Sacraments Quam singulari.¹ Now:

a) The Eucharist is not to be ministered to children who, because of the weakness of age, do not yet have knowledge and taste of this sacrament (canon 854).²

b) As regards the required knowledge, these things now hold:

First, in danger of death, in order that the Most Holy Eucharist can and ought to be ministered to children, it is enough that they know how to distinguish the Body of Christ from common food and to adore it reverently (canon 854, § 2). Although these requisites, if the family is religious, can be presumed, it is nevertheless better to make oneself more certain about them. Moreover, a child who has attained the use of reason, if his condition permits it, should commonly, at least as a precaution, be expressly taught, and indeed before Communion is ministered, the things which must be known by necessity of means.

Second, outside danger of death, a fuller knowledge of Christian doctrine and a more accurate preparation is rightly required, namely that by which they themselves, according to their capacity, perceive at least the mysteries of faith necessary by necessity of means for salvation, and approach the Most Holy Eucharist devoutly according to the measure of their age (canon 854, § 3). "Therefore, to use the words of the decree cited above, not a perfect knowledge of matters of faith is required, since certain elements only are enough, that is, some knowledge." It is enough, therefore, that the child: 1. know the things to be known by necessity of means; 2. distinguish Eucharistic bread from common bread, and therefore know that under the host Christ, or the Infant Jesus, is present and that He is united with us through Communion. But in order that he sufficiently discern Eucharistic bread from common bread, he should moreover: 3. know that natural fasting and the state of grace are required for licit Communion. Finally, in order that he may understand what the state of grace involves and requires, 4. he should have some notion of mortal sin and of the means by which lost grace must be recovered, namely the sacrament of Penance. Observe, however, that that knowledge of the aforesaid things suffices which a child can have who enjoys some use of reason, or who begins to reason.³ Nor is it required that he hold in memory the formulas by which the aforesaid truths are presented in the Catechism. But if the required knowledge is present, the child can also approach the Most Holy Eucharist devoutly according to the measure of his age.

c) The obligation of the precept of Confession and Communion, which burdens the child, and generally the prepubescent, falls also and especially upon those who ought to have care of him, that is, upon parents, guardians, the confessor, teachers, and the pastor (canon 860). Therefore the obligation rests upon the aforesaid persons of taking care that the child, after he has begun to reason, learn the necessary things to be known and, once knowledge has been acquired, fulfill the precepts in due time.

d) Judgment about the sufficient disposition of children for first Communion belongs to the priest hearing their confessions and to their parents or those who are in the place of parents (canon 854, § 4), for example teachers in a college.

e) But it is the office of the pastor to watch carefully, even through an examination if he has prudently judged it opportune, lest children approach the Sacred Synaxis before having attained the use of reason or without sufficient disposition; and likewise to take care that those who have attained the use of reason and are sufficiently disposed be refreshed by this divine food as soon as possible (canon 854, § 5). From these things do not deduce that the pastor can of himself subject children to an examination. He can do this if he has prudently judged it opportune; and that happens only when he has a positive reason for doubting about the requisites for Communion.

¹ 8 August 1910.

² Concerning the contrary custom formerly in force and even now persisting among the Greeks and Orientals, the cited decree Quam singulari speaks thus: The Church "from its very beginnings took care to bring little children near to Christ through Eucharistic Communion, which it was accustomed to administer to them even as infants. This, as was prescribed in almost all Rituals up to the thirteenth century, was done in Baptism, and this custom obtained longer in some places; among the Greeks and Orientals it still perseveres. But to remove the danger that especially nursing infants might spit out the consecrated bread, the custom prevailed from the beginning of ministering the Eucharist to them under the species of wine alone. Nor were infants refreshed with the divine banquet only at Baptism, but afterward more often. For it was also the custom of certain churches to give the Eucharist to little children immediately after the clergy, and elsewhere, after the Communion of adults, to give them the remaining fragments. This custom then became obsolete in the Latin Church, and infants did not begin to become sharers of the sacred table unless they had some use of dawning reason and some knowledge of the august sacrament. This new discipline, already received by several particular synods, was confirmed by the solemn sanction of the Fourth Ecumenical Lateran Council, in the year 1215, by the promulgation of the famous canon XXI, by which sacramental Confession and Holy Communion are prescribed for the faithful after they have reached the age of reason."

³ Cf. the decree Quam singulari, 8 August 1910.

2. The insane are some perpetually insane, others not perpetually insane, others insane only about one or another point, and others semi-insane.

a) The perpetually insane. To these, since they are equated with little children, the Holy Eucharist cannot be ministered,¹ not even in danger of death. The reason for the prohibition is that they neither have, nor ever had, knowledge and taste of the Holy Eucharist.

b) The insane, but not perpetually so, the delirious, epileptics, the possessed, and those obsessed.

First, outside danger of death, the Eucharist cannot be ministered to the aforesaid while they are not in possession of themselves. "Nevertheless it will be permitted, if at some time they have lucid intervals and show devotion while they remain in that state, if there is no danger of unworthiness"² (St. Alphonsus, VI, 302).

Second, in danger of death it should not be given: 1. if it is sufficiently certain that they are constituted in sin and impenitent, for example if in the act of sin, or after a scandalous life, they have fallen into insanity, delirium, or deprivation of the senses; 2. if a danger of positive irreverence is present. In doubt whether such danger is present, that is, the danger that the sick person may expel the Sacred Host or move indecently during the ministration, it is useful to give him an unconsecrated particle before the Holy Eucharist; 3. if it is clear that they lack and have always lacked sufficient knowledge and devotion toward the Eucharist (St. Thomas, III, q. 80, a. 9; St. Alphonsus, VI, 302). Nevertheless imperfect knowledge suffices; likewise devotion broadly taken, or such that someone can be presumed to will to receive the Eucharist in danger of death. Outside the enumerated cases, according to the opinion of almost all authors, it is permitted to minister the Eucharist to them.³

For the rest, nothing can obstruct liceity except the defect of actual devotion in the one receiving or the prohibition of the Church. But since the sacraments are for human beings, the greatest good of the one receiving prevails over the reverence owed in itself (St. Alphonsus, loc. cit.). The Roman Ritual⁴ can be understood of ordinary circumstances, that is, abstracting from danger of death. But it is disputed whether there is an obligation of giving Viaticum to the aforesaid. Now with St. Thomas (III, q. 80, a. 9), St. Alphonsus (loc. cit.), and most theologians, against some, it must be affirmed. For if it is permitted to give that greatest good to the dying person, there is also an obligation of giving it; all the more because the dying person must be said at least implicitly to ask for the sacrament, namely because his intention or profession of the Christian religion involves at least an implicit petition for Viaticum (St. Alphonsus, loc. cit.). From these things it follows that the practice of not ministering Viaticum to the persons of whom we have spoken is truly an abuse.

c) Those insane only about one or another point can communicate at least sometimes, provided the insanity does not regard the substance of the Holy Eucharist. The reason is that at least it is doubtful whether human beings of this kind lack the faculty of placing human acts; and in doubt, favor must be shown to them.

d) The semi-insane and the elderly becoming childish again. Communion is to be given to these: 1. in danger of death; 2. at Easter (St. Alphonsus, VI, 303); 3. if they enjoy greater discretion, they can also communicate more often. These things also hold of those deaf and mute from birth, unless they have been specially instructed in some institute (St. Alphonsus, loc. cit.).

¹ Cf. Roman Ritual, title IV, chapter 1, n. 10.

² Roman Ritual, loc. cit.

³ Cf. Fourth Council of Carthage (cause 26, question 6, chapter Is qui poenitentiam); First Council of Orange (cause 26, question 6, chapter Qui recedunt); Decretals of Gregory IX (De poenitentiis et remissionibus, chapter Quod in te), and the Roman Catechism (De Eucharistia, n. 64).

⁴ Title IV, chapter 1, n. 10.

3. The unworthy are either publicly or occultly unworthy. Now:

a) The publicly unworthy are to be kept away from the Eucharist, such as the excommunicated, the interdicted, and the manifestly infamous, unless their repentance and amendment are clear and they have first made satisfaction for public scandal (canon 855, § 1). Besides those enumerated, all public sinners are to be counted among the publicly unworthy. Moreover, those who are indecently dressed seem able to be repelled, even if they cannot be said to be gravely guilty; but great prudence is needed in such a case. The publicly unworthy must be repelled whether they ask publicly or secretly, unless nevertheless the minister has positively known that they are repentant, and they have first satisfied for public scandal. See these things explained in the treatise on the sacraments in general, n. 28.

b) Occult sinners are to be repelled only when they ask secretly and the minister has positively known outside confession that they have not been amended; but not if they ask publicly and he cannot pass them over without scandal (canon 855, § 2).

4. Those suffering from a cough. To these, unless the cough is constant, Communion can be given. For the phlegm which is expelled by coughing comes not from the stomach and esophagus, but from the lungs or bronchi. Only then, if the sick person is suddenly afflicted by a very violent cough, is there danger that the sacred species may be ejected by the force of the cough.

5. Those suffering from frequent vomiting cannot communicate unless it is clear, for example from the declaration of those standing by, or more advisedly of a physician, that noteworthy danger is absent. Note, however, that often a particle of the host can be given to them without danger of vomiting.

6. As regards those who cannot take the species except in an artificial way, for example through a tube inserted into the esophagus or another part of the body, receive these points:

There is no obligation of communicating or of ministering in this way, not even in danger of death; both because it is doubtful whether such taking is sacramental (n. 171), and because the Holy Office, on 27 January 1886, concerning a similar case,¹ responded: "As it is explained, it is not expedient," which, considering the style of the Curia, seems to involve a prohibition; and on 27 November 1919, to a petition in which the faculty of taking the Holy Eucharist through a tube inserted into the stomach was asked, it responded: "Negative."² Nevertheless, considering the probability of sacramental taking together with the lack of a general prohibition, I would not condemn one who in danger of death communicated in this way.

The fact that someone uses an artificial esophagus does not prevent him from truly absorbing food, or passing it into the stomach through a vital act. Therefore such a person without doubt receives the Holy Eucharist sacramentally, and therefore can communicate just as others can.

Note. In doubt whether a dying person can swallow the species, those standing by should be asked whether he still takes food; or an experiment should be made by giving him some food or an unconsecrated host. In what way the Eucharist can be ministered if the dying or sick person cannot swallow the species because of dryness of the mouth, see n. 169.

¹ The case concerned a sick person for whom an opening for receiving food had been made below the chest; this case does not formally differ from the case of a tube inserted into the esophagus.

² In Nederlandsche Katholieke Stemmen, 1921, p. 16.