Annual Confession and Easter Communion

692. On the precept itself. The Church establishes that all the faithful who have arrived at the years of discretion should confess their sins at least once a year to their own priest.

a. Annual confession was first prescribed by the Fourth Lateran Council, c. 21: "Every faithful person of either sex, after he has arrived at the years of discretion, should faithfully confess all his own sins alone at least once a year to his own priest ... reverently receiving at least at Easter the sacrament of the Eucharist, unless perhaps by the counsel of his own priest, for some reasonable cause, he judges that he should abstain from receiving it for a time." The same precept was renewed by the Council of Trent.¹

b. Since a certain time of the year in which confession must be made from the prescription of the Church cannot be determined, the precept of annual confession is satisfied at whatever time of the year confession is made. It is not certainly established how, from the will of the Church, the year within which the prescribed confession is to be made should be computed. De Lugo indeed maintains that the year must be computed according to civil use, from January to January, because the word year naturally has this sense;² nevertheless the opinion seems preferable which Suarez holds with others, that the year must be computed from Easter to Easter, both because universal custom has interpreted the law in this sense, and because the Church, prescribing communion at Easter, seems at the same time to prescribe confession as a necessary preparation.³

¹ Cf. sess. 13, can. 9; sess. 14, can. 8 and c. 5.

² Lugo, De poenitent., disp. 15, n. 157.

³ Suarez, De poenitent., disp. 35.

693. Its declaration. 1. The precept of annual confession obliges under grave obligation; this is gathered both from the gravity of the matter and from the grave penalty added (privation of ecclesiastical burial).

2. This precept of itself obliges all the faithful who have arrived at the years of discretion, that is, who are capable of grave sin; therefore, after the seventh year has been completed, the faithful are bound to confession, unless it is established that, beyond the ordinary course of nature, they have not yet arrived at sufficient use of reason.

Pastors are not excused from the obligation of admitting to confession children who have reached the eighth year of age, unless they prudently suppose that they have not yet sinned gravely. Therefore, as Busembaum warns, "if the child seems, at least in a crude way, to know that God is offended by this or that, and shows sorrow and purpose, he must be absolved; otherwise, however, if sufficient use of reason is not noted; but if it is doubtful, he can (indeed in the article of death must) be absolved under condition."

3. The precept of annual confession obliges only those who have committed grave sin: for we are not held to the confession of venial sins by divine law, because according to the Council of Trent venial sins can be kept silent in confession without fault,¹ nor by ecclesiastical law, because by this precept the Church does not intend to impose a new obligation as regards the matter of confession, but only to prescribe the time for making confession.

Only he satisfies the precept of annual confession who confesses necessary matter, which alone falls under the precept; but not he who confesses only venial sins (or mortal sins already remitted), because these do not fall under the precept. Therefore he who, for example, at Easter confessed only venial sins and then, as the year passes, commits a mortal sin, is by that very fact held to another confession in the same year. Many authors defend this doctrine with Lugo;² but Ballerini, with many others, judges that he who has committed only venial sins indeed is not obliged to confession, but that by the confession itself of venial sins the precept is satisfied. And indeed the use and persuasion of the faithful certainly confirm this opinion: for he who in Paschal time confesses his venial sins with the intention of satisfying the precept judges that he has satisfied it, and does not think that he is obliged to make confession again in the same year if perhaps he commits a mortal sin.³ Moreover, it is not equitable that he who has confessed mortal sins in the same year should be in a better condition than he who has confessed only venial sins. Hence Lehmkuhl (n. 1204) rightly advises that the faithful are not to be warned of a further obligation.

4. This precept is not satisfied by invalid confession, and much less by sacrilegious confession: for the divine precept requires confession by which the sinner is reconciled with God, which can happen only through valid confession. Hence the contrary proposition was condemned.⁴

5. The proper priest is the pastor, the bishop, and the pope; but confession now can be made to any approved priest, nor is it any longer required that it be made to the pastor or in the parish church: for after pontifical privileges granted to regulars, the custom prevailed of making annual confession before any approved priest, by which custom the contrary disposition of the Lateran Council was abolished.

6. Whether the obligation of confessing is affixed to the time of one year for ending the obligation, or rather for urging the obligation, authors do not agree; but it seems that one must altogether say with St. Alphonsus that the time is determined by the Church for urging the fulfillment of the divine precept.⁵

Therefore he who did not fulfill the precept within the year is held afterwards to confess as soon as possible in order to fulfill the precept, because the obligation of the preceding year still urges.

¹ Sess. 14, c. 5.

² Cf. Lugo, De poenitent., disp. 15, n. 162 ss.

³ Ballerini-Palmieri V, n. 696.

⁴ Proposition 14 condemned by Alexander VII: He who makes a confession voluntarily null satisfies the precept of the Church.

⁵ Cf. Lugo, De poenitentia, disp. 15, n. 177 ss.

As the Council of Trent teaches, there is a divine law which prescribes that all who fall into grievous sin after receiving Baptism should confess such sin to a priest and receive absolution for it from him. This divine precept is contained in the institution of the sacrament of Penance, and will best be explained when we come to treat of that sacrament. Here we have to do with a positive ecclesiastical law which supposes the divine law, but further determines it according to time and the person to whom the confession is to be made. The divine law does not determine any precise time for making the confession nor does it limit the choice of confessor. This was done by the Fourth Lateran Council, c. 21: “‘ Let all the faithful of both sexes after they have come to years of discretion faithfully confess all their sins in private at least once a year to their own priest, and do their best to perform the penance which he shall enjoin them.”

It is the common opinion of theologians that this law only affects those who have fallen into mortal sin, so that although venial sin may be confessed and affords sufficient matter for sacramental absolution, yet there is no law, human or divine, which imposes any obligation on the faithful in general to confess venial sins. The divine law does not do this, as the Council of Trent explains (sess. 14, c. 5), and the Lateran law only determines the divine law.

One’s own priest, according to the modern discipline of the Church, is any priest who has faculties for hearing confessions in the place where they are made. ‘To satisfy the precept it is not sufficient merely to make one’s confession; it must be made fruitfully, so as to merit absolution and reconciliation with God.¹

¹ Prop. 14, condemned by Alexander VII.

No special time within the year is mentioned by the council, and various methods of reckoning the year would satisfy its requirements; but as Easter time is assigned for the annual Communion which is also prescribed, in practice the two precepts are fulfilled together within the time appointed for the Easter duties. If one has neglected to go to the Sacraments within the prescribed time, he is not free for a further term, but he should go as soon as he can (Can. 906, 907).

THERE is also a divine precept to receive Holy Communion: ““ Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood you shall not have life in you.” + But no special time was assigned by our Lord for the fulfilment of this precept; he left all such matters to be determined by the Church. The Fourth Council of the Lateran, therefore, made the universal law that all the faithful, after coming to years of discretion, should reverently receive the holy Eucharist at least at Easter, unless it be deemed advisable to abstain for a time for some reasonable cause.”

Canon 859 of the new code repeats the words of the Lateran Council and interprets the words “years of discretion ”’ as ‘‘ coming to the use of reason,” so that children ¹ become subject to this law after completing their seventh year. This obligation, as far as it affects those under the age of puberty, falls chiefly on those who have care of them—that is, on their parents, guardians, confessor, teachers, and parish priest (Can. 860).

The Easter Communion should be made during the fortnight from Palm Sunday to Low Sunday, but local Ordinaries can anticipate the time from the fourth Sunday of Lent or prolong it to Trinity Sunday.

The faithful are to be exhorted to fulfil this precept in their own parish church, and if they fulfil it in another parish they should inform their parish priest.

In England the time for fulfilling the Easter duties is still from Ash Wednesday to Low Sunday.

In the United States the time for fulfilling the Easter precept is from the first Sunday in Lent till Trinity Sunday; in Ireland it extends from Ash Wednesday to the octave day of the feast of SS Peter and Paul.

This precept is not fulfilled by a sacrilegious Communion, and if it has not been complied with at the proper time the obligation still remains, and should be discharged as soon as the occasion offers.

Other matters concerning Holy Communion will be treated when we come to the Sacraments (Can. 861).

¹ John vi 54.

(St. Alphonsus, Theologia Moralis, book VI, nn. 662-674; Homo Apostolicus, tract 12, nn. 35-38.)

I. Existence of the precept. The precept of annual confession, enacted by the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215,¹ confirmed by the Council of Trent,² is stated thus by can. 906: "Every one of the faithful of either sex, after he has reached the years of discretion, that is, the use of reason, is bound faithfully to confess all his sins at least once a year." For the rest, note that the precept of confessing is divine, as will be said in the treatise on the sacrament of Confession, but the precept of annual confession is ecclesiastical.

¹ Chapter Omnis.

² Session 14, De Poenitentia, canon 8.

II. The subject of the precept is those who have sinned mortally, and indeed - as is clear from can. 12, compared with can. 906 - even if they are not yet seven years old (St. Alphonsus, III, 270; VI, 686). It has been disputed whether those who have sinned only venially are held by the precept. This must be denied, considering, namely, the tenor of the law, which requires that the faithful "confess all their sins," so that if the aforesaid were held by the law, they would have to declare all venial sins; this cannot be admitted. It is confirmed by the fact that the Council of Trent¹ testifies that "nothing else is required in the Church from penitents than that... they confess those sins by which they remember having mortally offended their Lord and God" (St. Alphonsus, VI, 667).

Corollary. One who committed only venial sins and confessed them has not satisfied the precept for that year, since he was not bound by it. Yet sufficiently probably, by epikeia, he is not bound to confess again, even if during the same year he has committed a mortal sin: namely, the Church is not judged to oblige him to that. This is confirmed by the fact that otherwise he who had confessed only venial sins would be in a worse condition than he who had confessed a mortal sin. The same must be said about him who committed and confessed only doubtfully mortal sins.

¹ Session 14, De Poenitentia, chapter 5.

III. Time of fulfilling the precept. The precept obliges each year, but not at a determined time. Moreover, some compute the year from 1 January to 31 December;¹ others from Easter to Easter;² others say that it suffices that no greater interval of time than twelve months intervene between successive confessions.

In the internal forum the confessor can as it were extend the time of annual confession, and this for a reason which pertains to confession, for example if he judges that absolution must be deferred.

Corollary I. One who, once the useful time has begun, foresees that an obstacle will be placed to fulfilling the law is bound to anticipate (n. 167; St. Alphonsus, Homo Apostolicus, tract 12, n. 40).

Corollary II. One who has not satisfied the precept is more probably still bound to confess for the elapsed year, and indeed as soon as possible, because the time affixed seems to be for urging the obligation, not for ending it (St. Alphonsus, VI, 297, 668).

Corollary III. One who has confessed for the elapsed year is more probably bound to confess again in the same year if he again falls into mortal sin. The reason is that by the prior confession he satisfied a fulfillment affixed per se to the elapsed year, and a man of this sort cannot by epikeia be judged immune from the burden of confessing again (St. Alphonsus, VI, 669).

¹ With the year understood in this way, per se someone who confessed on 1 Jan. 1915 could postpone confession until 31 Dec. 1916.

² With the year understood in this way, one who confessed at Easter of the year 1915 could per se defer confession until the Saturday before Easter of the year 1917.

IV. Mode of fulfilling the precept. 1. It is open to any one of the faithful to confess his sins to any legitimately approved confessor, even of another rite, whom he prefers. So says can. 905. For the rest, the obligation concerning which Lateran spoke, of confessing to one's own pastor or of asking permission from him so that confession could be made before another, has long since ceased.

St. Thomas had already written in his own time: "Moreover, a priest would sin if he were not ready to grant permission to confess to another, because many are so weak that they would rather die without confession than confess to such a priest. Hence those who are too solicitous to know through confession the consciences of their subjects cast many into a snare of damnation, and consequently themselves also... And therefore, if it seems expedient to superior prelates for promoting the salvation of the people and the honor of God, that they commit to others things which are of jurisdiction, no prejudice is done to inferior prelates, except to those who seek the things that are their own, not the things that are Jesus Christ's, and who preside over the flock not that they may feed it, but that they may be fed by it" (Supplementum, q. 8, arts. 4 and 5).

2. One who makes a sacrilegious or voluntarily null confession does not satisfy the precept of confessing sins (can. 907): sacrilegious, as if someone conceals sins; voluntarily null, suppose if a penitent, having confessed sacramentally and having been instructed by the confessor concerning a grave obligation, does not wish to fulfill it, so that he cannot be absolved.

(St. Alphonsus, Theologia Moralis, book VI, nn. 295-301; Homo Apostolicus, tract 12, nn. 39-42.)

I. Existence of the precept. The precept of Easter communion, just like that of annual confession, was enacted by the Fourth Lateran Council¹ in 1215, and confirmed by the Council of Trent.² It is presented thus by the Code of Canon Law: "Every one of the faithful of either sex, after he has reached the years of discretion, that is, the use of reason, must once a year, at least at Easter, receive the sacrament of the Eucharist, unless perhaps, by the counsel of his own priest, for some reasonable cause, he has judged that he should abstain for a time from receiving it" (can. 859, § 1). That the prescription obliges under grave sin follows from the nature of the matter, which is grave. Finally, it is clear that the precept is not satisfied by a sacrilegious communion (can. 861); hence proposition 55 condemned by Innocent XI: The precept of annual communion is satisfied by a sacrilegious eating of the Lord.³

¹ Chapter Omnis, De poenitentia et remissione.

² Session 13, canon 9, De Eucharistia.

³ Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 1205.

II. The subject of the precept is all who have been baptized and enjoy the use of reason. It is said:

1. Have been baptized; both because infidels cannot sacramentally receive Holy Communion, and because they are not subject to the power of the Church.

2. And enjoy the use of reason, so that little children and the perpetually insane are excluded, but not children below the seventh year who have reached the years of discretion. Hence the decree Quam singulari: The age of discretion, both for confession and for Holy Communion, is that in which a child begins to reason, that is, around the seventh year, whether above or even below. From this time begins the obligation of satisfying each precept, of Confession and Communion.¹ So also the President of the P. C. to the Bishop of Valleyfield.²

In doubt whether a child has attained the use of reason, before the completion of the seventh year he is judged not to be in possession of himself; but after the seventh year has been completed, he is presumed to have the use of reason (can. 88, § 3).

Note. The obligation of the precept of receiving communion, which burdens those under puberty, also and especially falls back upon those who ought to have care of them, that is, upon parents, guardians, the confessor, teachers, and the pastor (can. 860).

¹ S. C. de Sacr., 8 Aug. 1910 (A. A. S. 1910, p. 577).

² 3 Jan. 1918; cf. Linzer Quartalschrift 1922, p. 113.

III. Time of fulfilling the precept. 1. Easter communion is to be made from Palm Sunday to Low Sunday, unless the time has been legitimately anticipated or extended (can. 859, § 2), or in a particular case deferred. Note, however:

a) With respect to anticipation. Local Ordinaries can, if circumstances of persons and places so require, anticipate the time of Easter communion even for all their faithful, but not before the fourth Sunday of Lent (can. 859, § 2). Travelers also can use the anticipated time (n. 131). The pastor and confessor lack the faculty of anticipating the time.

b) With respect to extension. Local Ordinaries enjoy the same faculty with respect to extension as with respect to anticipation; yet they cannot extend the time beyond the feast of the Most Holy Trinity (can. 859, § 2). The pastor and confessor are without the said faculty.

c) With respect to deferral. In particular cases, communion can be deferred for a time, for a reasonable cause, according to the judgment of one's own priest (can. 859, § 1). Under the name of one's own priest come the pastor or the confessor (St. Alphonsus, VI, 297). For the rest, the circumstance of time also obliges under grave sin.

Corollary. One who, when the useful time, that is, the time established by law or by the local Ordinary, has not yet begun, foresees that he will be impeded during the aforesaid time is not bound to anticipate. The reason is that he cannot yet satisfy the precept, so that the communion received would not be a fulfillment of the precept (St. Alphonsus, VI, 298; n. 167). But one who, once Easter time has begun, sees that afterwards he will not be able to satisfy the precept, is bound to communicate now (St. Alphonsus, loc. cit.; n. 167).

2. The precept of Easter communion still urges if someone, for whatever reason, has not fulfilled it at the prescribed time (can. 859, § 4). Moreover, the obligation of supplying seems to urge not only until the end of the civil year, as some think, but until the following Easter. The reason is that, as Eugene IV declared in the constitution Fide digna,¹ the year within which, before the Code, communion was to be received ran "from Easter to Easter." But the Code repeats the ancient law, and indeed in the same words (St. Alphonsus, VI, 297). Finally, with St. Alphonsus (loc. cit.) against others, we judge that the obligation of supplying must be fulfilled as soon as morally possible. That this is the mind of the legislator seems to have to be deduced from the end of the law, which is that reception of the Holy Eucharist not be deferred longer than is fitting.

¹ 8 July 1440.

IV. Place of fulfilling the precept. The faithful should be advised that each satisfy this precept in his own parish, and those who satisfy it in another parish should see to it that their own pastor is informed concerning the fulfilled precept (can. 859, § 3). Notification of one's own pastor is judged to be of counsel rather than of precept.

V. Counsels. 1. It is expedient that on Thursday of Holy Week all clerics, even priests who abstain from celebrating Mass on that day, be refreshed with the most holy Body of Christ in the solemn or conventual Mass (can. 862).

2. The faithful should be encouraged to be refreshed frequently, even daily, with the Eucharistic bread according to the norms handed down in the decrees of the Apostolic See; and those assisting at Mass, if rightly disposed, should communicate not only by spiritual affection, but also by sacramental reception of the Most Holy Eucharist (can. 864). More will be said about these things in the treatise on the Most Holy Eucharist.

The Third Precept of the Church.—This precept commands that all the faithful, male and female, who have reached the age of discretion go to confession at least once a year (Canon 906).

(a) The subject of this precept is every baptized person who has entered the Church through valid Baptism and who has the use of reason, which begins usually at the age of seven. Infants are incapable of committing sin, and the unbaptized are incapable of receiving the Sacrament of Penance.

(b) The matter of the precept is a good sacramental confession of the grave sins not yet confessed, made with the purpose of obtaining absolution to any duly authorized priest. Hence, those who have only venial sins on their conscience are not bound according to the common opinion by this precept, and, on the other hand, those who make a sacrilegious or voluntarily null confession do not fulfill the law (Denzinger, n. 1114; Code, Canon 907). It seems that one who, after a confession of venial sins at Easter, falls into grave sin is not bound from this precept to confess again before the end of the year.

(c) The time for fulfillment of the precept is once during the year. The law leaves one free to confess on any day during the twelvemonth, and to count the year either civilly (i.e., from January 1 to December 31), or ecclesiastically (e.g., from Easter time to Easter time, as is commonly done), or from the date of the last confession. The limit is set, however, not to terminate but to insist upon obligation, and hence it seems that he who has not made his 1957 confession must make it as soon as possible in 1958, but the 1957 confession made in 1958 will satisfy for the 1958 obligation also (see 468 sqq.).

The Obligation of the Third Precept.—(a) Origin.—From divine law sacramental confession is necessary for all who have fallen into serious sin after Baptism, since Christ has given His Church the keys of heaven and appointed His bishops and priests the physicians and judges to cure and pardon (Matt., xviii. 18; John, xx. 23). But Our Lord did not fix the frequency of confession, and it is this which the present precept determines. The law of annual confession goes back to the Fourth Lateran Council (1215).

(b) Gravity.—The precept of annual confession obliges under pain of mortal sin, for its purpose is of vital importance and the Church has always regarded it as a grave obligation. The purpose of the law is to ensure the use of the Sacrament instituted by Christ for forgiveness and to keep sinners from delaying their repentance too long. If a good business man takes stock of his assets and liabilities at least once a year, and those who are careful of their health have medical attention or examination at least yearly, it is most reasonable that the faithful should settle their spiritual accounts and attend to the well-being of their souls within an equal period of time. In the early centuries when fervor was greater and conditions different, no general church law on the frequency of confession was needed; but there is no doubt that the Lateran Decree met well the need that began after the change from the early penitential discipline, The penalties for violation of this precept were excommunication and exclusion from ecclesiastical burial, and, though they are not enforced today, they show the intention of the Church to impose a grave duty.

The Fourth Precept of the Church.—This precept commands that all the faithful, male and female, who have attained the use of reason, go to Holy Communion at least once a year, and that during Easter time (Canon 859).

(a) The subjects of this precept are the same as those of the previous precept, and consequently children of seven years or thereabout, who are able to understand, must make the Easter duty.

(b) The matter of the precept is a worthy Communion (Viaticum or ordinary Communion) received in any parish, but preferably in one’s own parish. Persons living in community (e.g., religious, soldiers, college boarders) may make the Easter duty in their own chapels, strangers and vagi in any church or chapel, and priests in the place where they say Mass.

(c) The time of the precept is the Paschal Season (i.e., from Palm Sunday to Low Sunday, but in the United States, by privilege, from the First Sunday of Lent to Trinity Sunday). The Easter time may be prolonged for an individual by his pastor or confessor for a just reason. The year within which the Easter duty is to be made begins, it seems, with the opening of one Paschal Season and ends with the opening of the Paschal Season of the following calendar year. Since the law requires that the Easter duty be made, not only within the Paschal Season, but also once a year, it follows that he who neglects Communion during the Easter period is still bound by the law to go to Communion before the opening of the next Paschal Season, but probably he is not bound to go at the first opportunity. As a rule, we believe those who do not make their Easter duty during a year are guilty of but one sin, since they do not think of distinct violations.

The Obligation of the Fourth Precept.—(a) Origin.—There is a divine precept of receiving Communion some time during life, since Our Lord willed the Eucharist to be the necessary nourishment of the soul’s journey (John, vi. 54) and the perpetual memorial of Himself (I Cor., xi. 24). The Church in the present precept has prescribed both the frequency and the time for complying with the will of Christ. Since the Eucharist is a daily bread, the law does not permit it to be abstained from by anyone beyond a year; and, since the Paschal Season brings the anniversary of Christ’s sacrifice and of the institution of the Blessed Sacrament, it is the time most fitly chosen for the obligatory Communion.

(b) Gravity.—The precept obliges under pain of grave sin, for it determines a law given by Our Lord Himself and regulates the minimum in the use of the Eucharist, the greatest of the Sacraments and the end of all the others. The doctrine of theologians is that it is a grave sin to delay culpably the Easter Communion for even a day beyond the Paschal Season as prescribed.

“Every faithful person of either sex, after having arrived at the years of discretion, shall faithfully confess all his sins by himself, at least once a year, to his own priest, and shall strive according to his powers to fulfill the penance imposed upon him, reverently receiving at least at Easter the Sacrament of the Eucharist, unless perhaps, on the counsel of his own priest, for some reasonable cause he shall judge that he ought to abstain from receiving it for a time; otherwise, while living he is to be barred from entry into the church, and when dying he is to lack Christian burial.” Fourth Lateran Council, Decrees, chapter 21.

“If anyone shall deny that all the faithful are bound every year, at least at Easter, to communicate according to the precept of Mother Church, let him be anathema.” Council of Trent, sess. 13, canon 9.

“13. One satisfies the precept of annual confession who confesses to a religious presented to the bishop but unjustly rejected by him. — 14. One who makes a confession voluntarily invalid satisfies the precept of the Church.” Propositions condemned by Alexander VII.

“35. The precept of annual Communion is satisfied by a sacrilegious eating of the Lord.” Proposition condemned by Innocent XI.

What is the third and fourth precept of the Church? - The third precept of the Church is that the faithful confess their sins at least once each year to their own priest, namely to the Pope, Bishop, pastor, or any priest approved by the Bishop. Innocent III in Lateran Council IV, a. 1218, can. 21, Omnis utriusque sexus; Benedict XIV, de Syn. l. 11, c. 14, n. 2-6. - The fourth precept is that the faithful, each year, at least at Easter time, approach the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist. Innocent III, l. c.; Trid. s. 13, c. 9.; E. M.

When are children judged to have attained the years of discretion, so that they are bound by the precept of Confession? - When they are capable of mortal sin; that is around the seventh year, which is to be judged not from age alone, but chiefly from the degree of understanding or discretion of good and evil. But the spirit of discretion is judged to be present in those who now apprehend that lying or disobedience is evil, or who are ashamed of certain impure actions, etc. Hence pastors of souls are held gradually to prepare these little children for Confession, and to absolve those in whom they observe mortal sin, even doubtful, at least within the year, by force of the Lateran Council. In doubt concerning discretion, let them be absolved conditionally. Therefore Confessors who never wish to absolve children committed to them gravely err and cannot be excused. But from the same age of discretion, that is around the seventh year, the obligation also of Communion begins. S. C. de Sacram. 8 Aug. 1910.; L. 1. 3, n. 370.; l. 6, n. 432-666.

Whether he who is not burdened with mortal sins is held to confess by reason of the precept of annual Confession? Resp. Negatively. The reason is that the Church, by commanding annual Confession, determines the precept of Confession imposed by Christ. But Christ imposed no other precept of Confession than that of mortal sins, as is clear from Trent s. 14, C. 1, 5.; c. 1, 2, 6, 7. - Therefore. C. De Lugo calls this opinion common and truer, Resp. Mor. l. 1, d. 15, n. 2.; L. l. 6, n. 663, 667.; Schmalz. de Poenit. et Rem. n. 16.

Note: "Notwithstanding these things, certain regular, or even synodal, statutes are given, by which religious, and in certain dioceses clerics, are obliged to receive the sacrament of penance more often within the year, even if they are conscious to themselves only of venial sins.... Meanwhile, however, similar statutes ordinarily, and speaking of themselves, do not oblige under grave sin." Struggl 18. From the Norms of the S. C. EE. and RR., art. 138, Religious are held ordinarily to make sacramental confession once a week.

Resolutions: "If someone within the year and at the beginning of Easter time confessed only venial sins, and then within Easter time fell into mortal sin, he would be held to confess it: because he would not yet have satisfied the precept of the Church, which obliges only to confessing mortal sins. Meanwhile, however, it is also probable that he is not held to confess before the year has elapsed from the sin committed." Struggl 12. Indeed, since doctors are not lacking who hold that annual Confession from obligation, in defect of mortal sins, is extended to venial sins; and the faithful think that by annual Confession they have now satisfied the obligation; certainly they ought not to be obliged, in the case, to a repeated Confession of mortal sins committed afterward. Cf. St. Thomas, 4 d. 17, q. 3, a. 1.; d. 16, q. 2, a. 2.; s. q. 6, a. 3.; q. 8, a. 5 ad 4.; Benedict XIV, Inst. 18, n. 24.

Whether this precept is attached to Easter time? - This precept is not per se, but only per accidens, attached to Easter time. The reason is that the Church nowhere commanded annual Confession determinately for Easter time, as it did Easter Communion. It is not per se, but only per accidens attached, etc.; for one having mortal sin is obliged to Confession at Easter time per accidens, and by reason of Communion to be received at Easter time; because for receiving this worthily in a sinner, contrition does not suffice, but sacramental Confession is required. Trent s. 13, C. 17, c. 11.; Struggl 10.

From what time is the year of Confession to be computed? - It can probably be computed from the first day of January to the last of December, or from the last Confession, or from one Easter time to another Easter time. Struggl 11.; L. 662. "But Lugo with the common opinion says that there is no obligation of confessing on account of the sole danger of forgetting sins." L. 665, 671.

Whether the precept of the Church is satisfied by an invalid Confession? Resp. Negatively, whether the Confession is voluntarily or involuntarily invalid. The first part is openly clear from proposition 14 condemned by Alexander VII. The second part is clear from the fact that the Church commands a Confession through which the sinner is reconciled with God. Hence, if a priest had invalidly absolved a penitent from defect of due intention or jurisdiction, and the latter found this out, he would have to confess again, if he knew himself to be guilty of mortal sin. Struggl 13. - Likewise he by no means satisfies the precept of Communion who communicates sacrilegiously. E. M.

Whether annual Confession which is not made to the pastor, or to another with the pastor's permission, is sufficient for satisfying the precept of the Church concerning annual Confession to be made to one's own priest? Resp. Affirmatively. The reason is that he who confesses to a priest having jurisdiction and approved now confesses to him by the permission of his own pastor, namely either of the Supreme Pontiff or of the Bishop, who deputed him so that he might hear the Confessions of all coming to him. Lugo Resp. Mor. l. 1, d. 15, n. 2.

Whether he who has not confessed for a whole year is held to confess as soon as possible? - Resp. Affirmatively. Because the precept imposed by the determination of the Church urges; for the term of the year was not placed by the Church to end the obligation, but only to urge it, as is sufficiently gathered from the words of the precept: at least once in the year. Yet another opinion is present which denies it. Moreover, he who confesses in the following year satisfies by one confession the precept of each year; and there is no one in practice who obliges him to another confession. For the precept is only concerning confession to be made once in the year. Therefore in this same year he is not held to another. L. l. 6, n. 668, 669. Cf. 1568 and Lugo de Poenit. d. 15, n. 180.

What is the nature of the precept of Easter Communion? - The precept of Easter Communion, not otherwise than the precept of annual Confession, is divine as regards substance, but ecclesiastical as regards the determination of time. But Communion is commanded in one's own parish, as is clear from the general practice of the Church and various Constitutions of the Supreme Pontiffs. Benedict XIV, C. Cum magno, a. 1751. Each is grave: not to communicate in one's own parish, and not to communicate at Easter time, although one or another day after Easter time has elapsed. There is no precept of the Church of receiving Communion determinately on the day of Easter, or on the Supper of the Lord, even for clerics. But priests satisfy this precept by celebrating anywhere; otherwise they are held to communicate in the parish, as other laymen. L. 300.; Lugo d. 17, n. 31.; E. M. In the often cited Catechism, promulgated in 1913 and edited by order of the Holy Father Pius X, 18 Oct. 1912, the third precept of the Church is expressed thus: "To confess at least once a year, and to communicate at least at Easter." In one's own parish is omitted.

What is Easter time; and who can grant delay? Easter time by common law begins from Palm Sunday and ends on Low Sunday. But it can be prolonged by dispensation of the Bishop or pastor. Thus judged S. C. C. 19 Nov. 1616. Ferraris v. Eucharistia n. 10. But pastors, only in individual cases. L. l. 6, n. 294, 296. Since the Confessor is judge not only of the disposition required for Communion, but of the greater opportuneness for receiving the Most Holy Sacrament, he can permit or impose some delay, if he judges that the greater good of the penitent requires this, at least if the latter is not unwilling. L. l. 6, n. 297, third part at the end. For this was expressly provided in C. Omnis de Poenit. et remiss.

Yet the penitent would indeed sin if the Confessor had to defer Easter Communion for him on account of defect of due disposition for receiving sacred absolution. For he who is held to the end is also held to the means. But due disposition for absolution is a means altogether necessary for receiving the sacred Eucharist at the prescribed time. Therefore. In Latin America all the faithful can satisfy the precept of annual confession and communion from Septuagesima Sunday up to and including the eighth day of the solemnity of Corpus Christi. Leo XIII, C. Trans oceanum § VIII. At present in Rome the aforesaid time for Easter Communion is prolonged up to the feast of the Most Holy Trinity.

Who can dispense from Communion in the parish? From the precept of communicating in one's own parish the Bishop, the vicar general, and the pastor himself can dispense. But interpretative or presumed consent suffices, provided there is moral certainty concerning their will. Thus St. Alphonsus l. c. n. 300.; Gousset 224, 226.

Whether in the Cathedral all who are of the diocese can fulfill the precept by communicating there? Tamburini responds "that they can, because there resides the Bishop, who is the common head and pastor of the whole diocese. Thus Diana.... Thus also Bonacina." De 3 Eccl. pr. c. 4, n. 4. And concerning this same matter, "there are many of the ancients," says C. De Lugo Resp. Mor. l. 1, d. 15, "who recognize in the archpriest of the Cathedral Church the power of administering sacraments to all subjects of that diocese, and therefore they seem to suppose the Cathedral Church to be common to the whole diocese; Thomas Sanchez reports and gathers these, l. 3 de Matrim. d. 27, n. 1. Wherefore he who receives Communion in the cathedral church seems to receive it in the common parish of the whole diocese. Hence just as, if he received it from the hand of the Bishop, he would without doubt satisfy the precept of the Church, since the Bishop is pastor of the whole diocese, so if he receives it in the episcopal Church, he seems to satisfy the same precept," n. 3. "Yet I," C. De Lugo continues, "rather believed that in strictness satisfaction is not made except in the proper parish of each one, or unless the Bishop expressly or tacitly consents," n. 4. St. Alphonsus, l. 6, n. 300, adheres to this opinion of Lugo, and says of the opposite opinion: "I do not know whether it is probable, unless in some place there is a common usage which causes the consent of the Bishop to be presumed; for sheep ought to be known by their own shepherd." And the same opinion is clear from S. C. EE. and RR. 21 Jan. 1848. Yet S. R. C. 6 Sept. 1636, 1 Apr. 1662, n. 1230, favors the contrary opinion.

Where can travelers, vagi, soldiers, and servants satisfy the precept of Easter Communion? - Travelers and vagi can communicate in any church, nor are they held to approach the parish of the place where they are staying; because they do not have their own pastor who ought to know them. - Soldiers in station, or having domicile in a city, ought to communicate in the parish in which they dwell; otherwise they can fulfill the precept in any church. Servants and all others having quasi-domicile are bound by the same law as inhabitants. L. l. 6, n. 300.

Whether he who communicated sacrilegiously in the parish is held to communicate again in the parish? - Resp. Negatively, because he fulfilled the end of the precept as regards the circumstance of place: therefore it suffices that he communicate in any place whatever to satisfy the precept of Easter Communion, which he did not fulfill through sacrilegious Communion. Nor is he held to making Easter Communion in the parish who at Easter time received sacred Viaticum, for the end of the law was sufficiently fulfilled. But cf., as regards this question and the preceding 1564-1566, n. 1562 at the end. La-Croix 630.

Whether he who omitted Communion at Easter is afterward held, once Easter time has passed, to receive Communion as soon as possible? The first opinion, more common, and which St. Alphonsus holds, l. 6, n. 297, affirms; and according to this opinion, as one is held to Communion after Easter time has passed, so also he is held to receiving Communion in his own parish.

The reason is that Easter time was not assigned by the Church to end the obligation, but to urge it; hence when the obligation already contracted has not yet been fulfilled, it must be fulfilled as soon as possible. Indeed, from the Lateran Council, one is not held simply to receiving Communion at Easter, but at least at Easter. The other opinion denies it. The reason is that the precept of Communion is affixed to Easter time. For as in the precept of hearing Mass on Sunday, and in similar precepts, the obligation ceases with the predefined time, so also it must be said in this precept of Communion at Easter time. Indeed, if Communion were not truly affixed to Easter time, but had to be made each year at least after that time had elapsed, it would be licit also to make it before Easter time, with just cause standing. Several and grave theologians hold this opinion, among whom is St. Antoninus; Busembaum, Palaus, Bonacina, and others think it probable, and St. Alphonsus himself, l. c., thinks it not to be contemned. But according to this second opinion, as one is not any longer held in that year to Communion when Easter time has now passed, so consequently neither is he obliged to Communion in his own parish. "Which," notes the holy Doctor, 688, "proceeds pari passu with the precept of annual Confession." But the precept of the Church here is determinative of the divine precept of communicating sometime in life.

Hence, when Easter time has passed, just as certainly the divine precept does not cease, so the ecclesiastical precept always urges, namely for that year; for it is said that the faithful ought to communicate each year, at least at Easter. Trent s. 13, c. 9. Therefore, if not at Easter, certainly not as soon as possible; but within the year one ought to communicate. Within the year, i.e., from Easter to Easter; otherwise the year cannot here be verified, since, in the time from January to Easter, the precept cannot be anticipated.

Whether one who cannot communicate at Easter time is held to anticipate? Resp. Negatively, because "such communion would not fulfill the precept; for at the time at which it would be made, the time of obligation would not yet have begun, since the time of annual communion had not yet begun. Conversely it is certain that, when Easter time has begun, if someone foresees that he is to be impeded from Communion, he is held to receive it immediately, as they commonly teach." L. 298.

Whether an excommunicated person is held to obtain absolution so that he can fulfill the precept? - They commonly affirm it; "because Communion greatly contributes to the salvation of the soul, whence its precept strictly obliges to removing spiritual evils which stand in the way." L. 299. Indeed he who is held to the end is held to the necessary means ordered per se to it. Wherefore just as he who is in mortal sin is held to confess, so that he can fulfill the precept of Communion, so also he who is excommunicated is held to obtain absolution from excommunication, so that he can receive Communion. And this is confirmed from the fact that, if someone wishes, he can most easily obtain the aforesaid absolution.

1570 bis. Decree concerning the first Communion of children. "...With all these things maturely weighed, this Sacred Order concerning the discipline of the Sacraments, in the general Congregation held on the fifteenth day of the month of July, in the year 1910, so that the mentioned abuses may be entirely removed and children even from tender years may adhere to Jesus Christ, live His life, and find protection against the dangers of corruption, judged it opportune to establish the following norm concerning the first Communion of children, to be observed everywhere. I. The age of discretion both for Confession and for Holy Communion is that in which the child begins to reason, that is around the seventh year, whether above or even below. From this time begins the obligation of satisfying each precept of Confession and Communion. II. For first Confession and first Communion a full and perfect knowledge of Christian doctrine is not necessary. Yet afterward the child will have to learn the whole catechism gradually according to the measure of his understanding. III. The knowledge of religion which is required in the child, so that he may suitably prepare himself for first Communion, is that by which he perceives according to his capacity the mysteries of faith necessary by necessity of means, and distinguishes Eucharistic bread from common and bodily bread, so that he may approach the Most Holy Eucharist with that devotion which his age bears. IV. The obligation of the precept of Confession and Communion, which burdens the child, falls chiefly upon those who ought to have care of him, that is, upon the parents, the confessor, the teachers, and the pastor. But it pertains to the father, or to those who take his place, and to the confessor, according to the Roman Catechism, to admit the child to first Communion. V. Once or several times in the year let pastors take care to announce and hold a general Communion of children, and to admit to it not only the newly admitted, but also others who, with the consent of parents or confessor, as was said above, have already previously for the first time tasted holy things from the altar. For each group let some days of instruction and preparation be put before.

VI. Those having care of children must take care with every zeal that after first Communion the same children approach the sacred table more often, and, if it can be done, even daily, as Christ Jesus and mother Church desire, and that they do this with that devotion of soul which such an age bears. Let those to whom this care belongs remember moreover the very grave office by which they are held of providing that the children themselves continue to be present at public catechetical instruction, or if not, that they supply for the religious instruction of the same in another way. VII. The custom of not admitting children to confession, or of never absolving them, when they have arrived at the use of reason, is altogether to be disapproved. Wherefore local Ordinaries, with remedies of law also employed, will take care that it be thoroughly removed from the midst. VIII. Altogether detestable is the abuse of not ministering Viaticum and Extreme Unction to children after the use of reason, and of burying them with the rite of little children. Let local Ordinaries proceed severely against those who do not depart from a custom of this kind. These things sanctioned by the Fathers Cardinals of this Sacred Congregation, Our Most Holy Lord Pope Pius X, in the audience of the seventh day of the current month, approved all, and ordered the present decree to be issued and promulgated. Moreover he commanded individual Ordinaries that they signify the same decree not only to pastors and clergy, but also to the people, to whom he wished it to be read every year at the time of the Easter precept, in the vernacular language. But the Ordinaries themselves will have to report to the Holy See, after every five years has passed, together with the other affairs of the diocese, also concerning the observance of this decree. - Notwithstanding anything whatever to the contrary." Decr. Quam singulari, S. C. de Sacr. 8 Aug. 1910. - E. M. n. 500.

316. Principles. - I. The real reception of the Eucharist is necessary neither for children nor for adults by necessity of means for salvation. This is clear 1. from the universal practice of the Church, which gives Communion neither to little children, nor to adults hindered by infirmity, for example those inclined to vomiting, the frenzied, etc.; 2. from the definition of the Church for little children; and thence it is inferred also for adults ¹. For thus the Council of Trent, sess. 21, can. 4: If anyone shall say that for little children, before they have arrived at the years of discretion, the Communion of the Eucharist is necessary, let him be anathema.

¹ Yet this argument perhaps will seem less firm to someone; indeed, using the aphorism that the exception confirms the rule to the contrary, he will rather conclude that by the canon of Trent the necessity of the Eucharist is implied for adults; a necessity, I say, not indeed absolute, but insofar as we know that by the divine economy it has been so arranged that the ordinary means of preserving spiritual life is placed in the use of this spiritual nourishment, according to that saying of Christ the Lord (John 6): Unless you shall eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. See below, n. 318.

II. The reception of the Eucharist is necessary by necessity of divine precept; it is drawn from the words of Christ, John 6:54: Unless you shall eat the Flesh of the Son of man, and drink his Blood, you shall not have life in you. It is also clear from the words of Christ, Luke 22:19: Do this in commemoration of me ². - St. Ligorius, n. 295.

² The Author (above, n. 288) had already warned that these words were said to all and only the Apostles reclining with Christ, and therefore to all and only those who would succeed them in the priesthood.

317. • III. The reception of the Eucharist is necessary also from a precept of the Church. It is proved from the Fourth Lateran Council, cap. Omnis, de poenit. et remiss., where it is said: Every faithful person of either sex, after he has arrived at the years of discretion, shall confess all his sins alone at least once a year to his own priest... receiving reverently at least at Easter the Sacrament of the Eucharist, unless perhaps by the counsel of his own Priest, for some reasonable cause, he should judge that he must abstain from a reception of this kind. It is also clear from Trent, sess. 13, can. 9.

IV. The reception of the Eucharist is not necessary under both species except for Priests alone in the act of celebrating Mass. It is proved from Trent, sess. 21, can. 1, where it says thus: If anyone shall say that, by God's precept or by necessity of salvation, all and individual Christians ought to receive both species of the most holy Sacrament of the Eucharist, let him be anathema. It is also clear from the universal practice of the Church, although in the earlier centuries it was different.

318. Questions. - QUESTION 1. At what time does the divine precept of communicating urge?

Resp. 1. It obliges per se in the article or proximate danger of death, and indeed under grave obligation. The reason is that the Eucharist was instituted as Viaticum, strengthening against the enemies of salvation. - Thus commonly with St. Ligorius, n. 295.

Resp. 2. It obliges per se also several times in life. This is clear from the fact that the Eucharist was instituted in the manner of spiritual food, by which the soul may be nourished and strengthened; for food is to be taken more than once. It is also drawn from Sacred Scripture cited above, and from the Councils just adduced. Yet Christ did not determine how often one must approach this Sacrament, but left this to be established by His Church. But the Church established annual Communion in Easter time. Hence by Communion taken once in the year at that time the divine and ecclesiastical precept are satisfied at the same time. - St. Ligorius, n. 295.

Resp. 3. This precept obliges per accidens sometimes, and perhaps also several times in the year, if the Eucharist is necessary for overcoming some grave temptation. Yet this rarely happens, since other means can suffice for this, prayers, penances, etc. - St. Ligorius, n. 295.

319. • QUESTION 2. Whether one is bound to receive the sacred Viaticum when the danger of death is imminent, if a few days before he communicated from devotion?

Resp. It seems that the answer must be affirmative, at least more probably. The reason is that this precept, from the interpretation of the Church, urges in danger of death, that we may be fortified by this divine aid against spiritual enemies. Therefore it is not fulfilled by Communion made before the illness; because although someone has fulfilled the prescribed work, nevertheless he did not fulfill it at the time at which he was bound. - St. Ligorius, n. 285. - Billuart. - Salmanticenses, etc.

Yet several deny this with Lugo, disp. 15, n. 39. Their reason is that the precept of Communion has already been fulfilled in substance. - St. Ligorius says that this opinion is sufficiently probable, at least if the danger of death occurs naturally, because during that short preceding time it had already morally begun to be imminent, although it was unknown.

QUESTION 3. Whether one who communicated in the morning from devotion is bound, or is able, when danger of death urges, to receive Viaticum.

Resp. There is a threefold probable opinion according to Benedict XIV, On the Synod, lib. 7, c. 11.

The first opinion affirms that he is bound, because then Viaticum must be received in order to fulfill the divine precept, which, since it did not yet urge at the time when Communion was taken, therefore could not be fulfilled through that reception.

The second opinion says that he is not bound, but can communicate: 1. indeed, that he is not bound, because the time at which he communicated is morally the same, since it is the same day; 2. that he can, because although strictly he does not seem to be bound, nevertheless he is not therefore prohibited, since favors are to be enlarged.

The third opinion contends that he is neither bound nor able to communicate. The reason is that, since the precept obliges from the intention of the Church, the practice of the Church is that no one communicate twice in a day; nor is there a reason why this case should be excepted. - See St. Ligorius, n. 285. - Therefore in practice one must stand for liberty ³.

³ ** To these [authors] the VV. oppose (p. 932, n. 96) these things of St. Alphonsus (lib. 6, n. 285, dub. 3): But moreover, the opinion of Lugo seems more probable to me, disp. 16, n. 53 and 54, who distinguishes between a natural and a violent disease, and says that if someone has been struck by a wound, or has fallen from a height, he can communicate (indeed, he is bound, according to our opinion), because here in reality he did not receive Viaticum while placed in the article of death; but otherwise if someone, already placed in sickness, communicated in the morning from devotion.

Resp. I concede the antecedent; and I deny the consequence. For the Holy Doctor had already premised (ibid.): Our Father Benedict XIV thinks all these three opinions probable (On the Synod, lib. 7, c. 12), saying thus: In so great a discrepancy of the opinions of Doctors, it will be free to the parish priest to embrace that opinion which has pleased him more. Now surely, if there is some probability in the other opinions, it does not perish because St. Doctor, in giving his opinion, wrote that one of them seemed to him more probable. Therefore it equally remains free to the parish priest to choose the opinion which he prefers.

I said, moreover: I concede the antecedent. For Lugo, whose opinion St. Alphonsus says that he prefers as more probable, rather than hold this opinion, altogether rejects it. For after bringing forward the opinion which grants that Communion can be given twice on the same day, he adds (On the Eucharist, disp. 16, n. 52): Therefore all Doctors teach the contrary opinion, either in common or even in particular, who, when they say that even he who communicated a little before can afterwards, when danger has arrived, communicate again, add the exception: Unless he communicated on the same day. Thus Suarez speaks, who adds that the contrary is not only against all Doctors, but also against the custom of the Church. Then, after bringing forward similar votes of others, he concludes: All others speak in the same way, with no one granting it for the same day; and from this common authority it does not seem easy to depart.

And indeed, after Lugo wrote these things (l.c., n. 53): If the discussion is about him who, already placed in sickness, communicated from devotion on that day, I do not see how Communion can be given again on the same day, he distinguishes another case, as St. Alphonsus has it, and writes (l.c., n. 54): But if the discussion is about him who was well in the morning, and, struck by a wound or suddenly seized by disease, dies in the evening, it could more apparently be said that he could communicate again; because in reality he had not yet received the Eucharist while placed in the article of death. These words St. Alphonsus transcribed as if they expressed the true opinion of Lugo.

In reality, however, there Lugo is merely proposing a difficulty which he undertakes to solve for himself. Hence he concludes that same paragraph by saying: The precept of receiving Viaticum does not oblige one to receive it when it cannot be received; but then it cannot be received on the same day because of the prohibition of the Church, because it is prohibited that anyone communicate several times on the same day.

Then Lugo proceeds to confirm the same opinion even to the end of the same section (n. 55 to 60); and especially (n. 57) he answers the reason which he had added in the difficulty objected to him. By Communion, he says, made a little before death, even without thought of danger or death, satisfaction has in reality been made for the precept of communicating at the end of life: just as in fact he satisfies it who, while well, knowing that he is to be killed tomorrow, communicates today.... Since therefore the danger is not increased from the fact that a man knows death to be imminent (for the danger is present in reality, although it is unknown), it must be admitted that even he for whom death was imminent on the same day in reality communicated in danger of death, although he was ignorant of it, and therefore satisfied the divine precept. Therefore the Church rightly did not dispense in the prohibition of communicating twice on the same day, since there was no necessity of a second Communion.

But to the principal foundation of the contrary opinion, which is taken from the obligation of the divine precept concerning receiving Viaticum, which ought to be preferred to the human precept prohibiting communicating twice on the same day, Lugo (ibid.) replies: The answer is easy: in that case satisfaction has already been made for the divine precept by the first Communion, as we said. Add that, even if satisfaction had not been made, the divine precept would not oblige one to receive again on the same day, while the contrary prohibition of the Church stands, just as it does not oblige one to celebrate without sacred vestments because of the prohibition of the Church. Hence Vasquez and others, who say that satisfaction had not yet been made for the divine precept, nevertheless do not concede that Communion ought or could be received again on the same day, but on the following day.

He also solves that which they object (ibid., n. 60), that this opinion is too rigid. I answer, he says, that the contrary opinion is more rigid, since it obliges under mortal sin to receive Communion again on the same day, on which the same sick person had already communicated. For what some say, following a middle way, that a second Communion can indeed be received, but ought not to be received from obligation, does not seem to be said with sufficient consistency. For if the precept of receiving Viaticum does not oblige, it does not appear from where that license of communicating several times against the universal prohibition is had, since it cannot be proved either from custom or from some law.

QUESTION 5. Whether in danger of death Communion is to be given to children who have not yet been admitted to the sacred Synaxis ⁴?

⁴ Doctors usually inquire in this place, not so much about children in danger of life, but generally about them, whether and when they are obliged by the precept of receiving the Eucharist.

The obvious and easy solution of this question will indeed seem to be available in this Decree of the Ecumenical Fourth Lateran Council under Innocent III (cap. Omnis utriusque sexus): Every faithful person of either sex, after he has arrived at the years of discretion, shall confess all his sins alone once a year to his own priest..., receiving reverently at least at Easter the sacrament of the Eucharist. And this all the more because, for establishing this obligation, there came also the Tridentine canon striking with anathema those who would deny it. For thus the Holy Synod (sess. 13, can. IX): If anyone shall deny that all and individual faithful of Christ of either sex, when they have arrived at the years of discretion, are bound each year, at least at Easter, to communicate according to the precept of Holy Mother Church, let him be anathema.

Therefore concerning the obligation, which no one denies to be grave, it is sufficiently clear. It remains to inquire when children are to be considered to have arrived at the years of discretion, and what discretion is to be required in the present matter. But this can be known under a twofold head.

First, indeed, from the sense of the Doctors. Among these, St. Thomas, who flourished a little after the Lateran Synod, wrote these things (3, q. 80, a. 9, ad 3): When children now begin to have some use of reason, so that they can conceive devotion for this sacrament, then this sacrament can be conferred upon them. In these words carefully notice those expressions: begin to have, and some use of reason. Nor should it move you that the Holy Doctor requires children to be capable of devotion. For already in the body of the article he had said that only some devotion is required. Some, he says, are said not to have the use of reason in two ways: in one way, because they have a weak use of reason, just as one who sees badly is said not to see; and because such persons can conceive some devotion for this sacrament, this sacrament is not to be denied to them. From these things it is also clear that some use of reason is the same as a weak use of reason. And indeed from the same St. Thomas the celebrated rule was drawn among very many writers, that children can then be made participants in this sacrament when they know how to distinguish bread from bread. For thus the Holy Doctor (In 4, dist. 9, q. 1, a. 5, q. 4): It must be said that to children lacking the use of reason, who cannot distinguish between spiritual and corporal food, the Eucharist is not to be given.... But to children already beginning to have discretion, even before perfect age... this can be given, if signs of discretion and devotion appear in them.

This very thing you find in Dominic Soto, where (In 4, dist. 12, art. 9, at the end) he writes: But what is the lawful age at which little children can receive this Sacrament? There is no more certain rule than when, by the judgment of prudent men and especially of the Confessor, it appears that the child has reached the fork of the Pythagorean letter Y, namely that he can distinguish between good and evil, and therefore between this food and other secular foods.

And lest more be brought forward here, let it be enough to have heard Martin Ledesma, who expressed the common opinion of all in this way (In S. Thom., q. 80, a. 9, dub. 6): I say from the consent of all that the Eucharist is to be given to all having the use of reason, however early they have that use of reason, even though that child still confusedly knows what he does.

And the Roman Catechism is added (On the Eucharist, n. 62), which at last excepts from the precept of receiving the Eucharist only those who lack the use of reason. But, it says, although this law, sanctioned by the authority of God and of the Church, pertains to all the faithful, nevertheless it must be taught that those are excepted who do not yet have the use of reason because of the weakness of age.

The other thing from which it may be known what the years of discretion are, let it be the common sense not only of Doctors but of all men. And indeed not only Doctors, but all men agree in this, that the use of reason or the years of discretion are required even in a child so that he may be considered capable, and in reality be capable, 1. of sinning mortally, 2. of validly pronouncing vows which induce a grave obligation, 3. of validly receiving the sacrament of Penance. And if indeed scarcely any controversy exists concerning these things, and finally only this one thing is guarded, that a certain rule, by which sufficient use of reason or discretion may be presumed, must be defined from things commonly occurring, and thus, for example, betrothals are to be considered valid from a child in his eighth year (that is, after the seventh year has been completed), unless it is proved that someone has obtained the use of reason later, contrary to the ordinary laws of nature; indeed it does not appear why we ought to hesitate so greatly where the sense of the law given in the Lateran and Tridentine Councils is at issue.

And in reality St. Antoninus defined concerning this matter without any hesitation, and declared that a child, when he was capable of sinning mortally, was subject to the law of receiving the Sacraments both of Penance and of the Eucharist. Thus he says (part 3, tit. 14, cap. 12, sec. 5): But when he is capable of deceit (the child), namely when he can sin mortally, then he is obliged to the precept of Confession and consequently of Communion, which are given together.

Whence then, you will say, comes the disagreement of certain Authors who, although they all equally venerate the Decrees of the Church, nevertheless as if depart from them, and prolong somewhat the time of approaching the Eucharist? I answer that this seems to have happened from three causes, which nevertheless you would vehemently doubt can be approved by all. And first indeed some, which perhaps you would say must be attributed to special circumstances of places or times, thought that some use of reason arrives much later than now generally happens. Hence St. Antoninus (part 2, tit. IX, cap. VIII, sec. 2), asking: What, according to the Lateran decree, is called the year of discretion, in which someone is bound to confess? and premising that the Gloss on the said chapter Omnis says that the year of discretion is when one is capable of deceit; Richard in 4 says the same; and another certain one

holds the same, saying that one is capable of deceit when he has the use of reason and recognizes sin; the sign of which is that he gives ordered answers to one asking; but Hostiensis... says that children are bound to confess when they are capable of deceit and not otherwise; then he refutes those who said that the year of discretion is the eighth year, because, he says, in many persons in the eighth year the child does not yet have the use of reason. Hence he infers this: But it is certain that before the use of reason no one can sin nor is bound by laws; hence neither is such a one consequently bound to confess. But he adds his own opinion thus: And since each one is obliged by an equal precept to Communion as to Confession, as is clear from that Decretal itself, Blessed Thomas says in 4 Sent., that children around the eleventh or twelfth year, if signs of devotion appear in them, namely so that they know how to distinguish material bread from sacramental bread, can communicate: which he says because one is presumed already to have the use of reason, and not before. Into this place, perhaps from a less corrected codex of St. Thomas, an error crept in; for the text of St. Thomas (In 4, dist. 9, q. 1, art. 5, q. 4) does not have eleventh or twelfth, but tenth or eleventh, as, among others, Tabiena also read (word Communicate, n. 6), and Sylvester (word Eucharist III, n. 7). But this is little; for others (see Ledesma, l. sup. c.) judged that discretion of this kind was still lacking in children before the fourteenth year.

Another cause of this quasi-departure from the Lateran and Tridentine sanction we find in Soto; for although he somehow concedes (In 4, disp. 12, art. 9, at the end) that children are capable of the sacred Synaxis in the tenth year of age, and approves the opinion of Paludanus, who thinks them fit even in the ninth year (see Tabiena, word Communicate, n. 6), and even states that a very lively child in the eighth year cannot be prohibited from the sacred table, nevertheless, having established a certain general principle, that no one is obliged by the laws of the Church except in the twelfth year of age, he teaches that children are bound by neither the precept of Confession nor of Communion before this age. For thus he says (l.c., art. 11): But if you ask whether all Christians are obliged by this precept (namely, of the Lateran Synod), the first response is that children are not obliged up to the twelfth year, when they are bound by other ecclesiastical laws. For although a little before the dawn of reason they can receive it, nevertheless a greater age is required for obliging to the sacrament both of Penance and of the Eucharist. And after Soto, Valentia (tom. 4, disp. 6, q. 8, punct. 4) hands down the same thing thus: Certain things are to be noted here. The first is that before the twelfth year that precept of the Church does not oblige, as Soto well notes. For although even before that it happens to some to have that discretion of reason so that the Eucharist can indeed be given to them..., nevertheless before that time of age they do not have that discretion such that they are also bound to receive the Eucharist, or also to confess, says Soto. Yet he himself (l.c., punct. 2) had conceded that, speaking generally, children can be admitted to the Eucharist in the tenth year. But the time, he says, at which children can be admitted to the Eucharist is that when they begin to be strong with such use of reason that they can sufficiently distinguish this heavenly food from the rest. This ordinarily tends to happen around the tenth year of age, as Soto notes.

Finally, a third cause of thinking otherwise than the Lateran law seems to bear can be discerned in Suarez. For although he affirms that the opinion of Soto and Valentia is approved by him, namely that children can be fit for Communion, and yet are not therefore bound to it by law, nevertheless he does not seek the reason with Soto from some general principle concerning ecclesiastical laws not obliging before the twelfth year, but he uses other supports, to which perhaps in great part the confusion introduced into this question seems to be owed. It is better to hear him himself (On the Sacraments, disp. 70, sect. 1): Soto adds, and it is also approved by me, that not immediately when these children arrive at the age in which they can lawfully communicate are they bound to it, but after some time, for example after one or another year. Thus then he gives the reason for these things: For both the use of the Church seems to have declared this law thus; and it is consonant with reason that the Church not oblige as soon as it can, but grant the faculty of waiting for some time, either on account of the greater reverence of the Sacrament, or on account of the greater fruit of the receiver, or lest these children be exposed to the danger of transgression; and this will be done more safely if it is done by the counsel of the Confessor; for thus there will also be no discord from the words of the law.

Moreover, I said that it must be greatly doubted whether those three causes of delay can be approved. And as regards the first, even the few things which we touched upon above concerning defining the year of discretion more than sufficiently prove that the opinion of St. Antoninus in this matter is opposed to the common sense of all. And indeed from those things which are commonly handed down concerning the sufficiency of age and therefore of discretion in children, both for contracting obligations either of vow or of betrothals, and for sinning gravely and receiving the sacrament of Penance, an argument can be made a fortiori as regards the capacity of receiving the Eucharist. For who does not see that, for having that some sense of devotion, as St. Thomas says, which alone is required for receiving the Eucharist worthily, a much smaller discretion suffices than either for conceiving the affections necessary for validly receiving the sacrament of Penance, or for perceiving the force of a grave obligation in vows and betrothals?

But as regards Soto's opinion, which denies that children are bound by ecclesiastical laws before the twelfth year of age, this, as is clear, has the common opinion of Doctors against it. Concerning this matter Suarez also (On Penance, disp. 56, sect. 2, n. 3) has this: Some think that they (children) are not bound by this precept (of Confession); indeed Soto rather says that children before the twelfth year are not bound by this precept, for which he brings forward no reason.... But it must be said that every one who knows how to sin mortally is bound by this precept; hence, just as no certain age can be designated in which a man arrives at the use of reason and is able to discern between good and evil, but some use reason earlier, others later (which is to be discerned by the judgment of a prudent man), so no certain age can be prescribed in which a man begins to be bound by this precept. This is the common doctrine.... The Gloss and Canonists also agree on the said cap. Omnis utriusque sexus, and Soto too finally thinks the same, d. 18, q. 1, a. 3, at the end. It is proved from the words of the text: When he shall have arrived at the years of discretion; for years of discretion signify the age in which a man knows how to sin. Secondly, because these are bound by a precept of divine law; but this precept is the determination of that precept, as was said. Thirdly, these can be bound by other precepts of the Church, at least as to directive force, whatever Soto may say; for they are bound to hear Mass on feasts, and to abstain from flesh-meats on a prohibited day: why therefore will they not be bound by this precept, especially necessary? But what Suarez says, that Soto too finally agrees in this, pertains to defining the year of discretion and the obligation of confessing. For Soto has these things (l.c.): But concerning that word of the Decretal, After they shall have arrived at the years of discretion, there is no need to dispute. For it does not designate a certain time, such as twelve or fourteen years, as for contracting matrimony, but as soon as the child has been capable of deceit, namely if he has begun to discern between good and evil, and by the judgment of prudent men sins mortally. And the reason is clear: for since the necessity of the precept of Confession, both divine and human, arises from its necessity for salvation, as soon as a man incurs the necessity of salvation, he is also bound to Confession both once a year and in the article of death. Yet it is true that up to the twelfth year of age the Church would compel no one to Confession by censures, although it knows that even before that one can sin...; for from seven years, when infancy ends and childhood begins, they can sin. These last things agree with those which we brought forward above from him, namely that a lively child even in the eighth year can be capable of Communion.

Finally, to touch upon the opinion of Suarez, truly this could deservedly seem perhaps less reasonable than the preceding opinions of St. Antoninus and Soto. And indeed those opinions, after the principles established by them, at least cohere with themselves. But Suarez indeed admits with Soto that one or another year can be waited even when children could already before that lawfully approach to receive the Eucharist; yet he does not receive the reason brought forward by Soto, namely that children are not bound to observe ecclesiastical laws before the twelfth year; rather, he expressly rejects and refutes it. By what way therefore, or by what reason, does he exempt children, even according to his own opinion fit for Communion, from the obligation of Communion, which the Ecumenical Synods, Lateran and Tridentine, so manifestly proclaim? He has recourse, as we saw above, 1. to the use of the Church; 2. to the congruity of the matter; of which congruity he brings forward a threefold reason, namely 1. greater reverence, 2. greater fruit of the receiver, 3. danger of transgression.

Now, to begin from this last, if he judges that the Church did not wish to oblige children before the twelfth year because of the danger of transgression, namely because a less mature age will easily omit fulfilling the precept, why does he reject the doctrine of Soto, who for exactly this reason denied that that immature age is capable of obligation? Why does he oppose to the same Soto the obligations either of Confession, or of abstinence from flesh-meats, or of hearing Mass, by which he contends that children before the twelfth year are bound? Indeed, if the Church for this cause defers, as he thinks, the obligation of Communion, by stronger right other obligations would have to be deferred; for much more easily, as experience suggests, it will happen that children transgress the precept of hearing Mass on feast days, or of abstaining from flesh-meats.

But what is said about greater reverence is light. For either the child before the twelfth year is considered to furnish sufficient reverence, or he is not. If he does not furnish sufficient reverence, why does Suarez himself concede that even then he can approach to Communion? But if he presents sufficient reverence, why does he exempt him from this grave precept? With the course of age, he says, greater reverence will come. But this reason proves too much. For with equal right another will oppose that greater reverence will be present in the twentieth year than in the twelfth. Will it therefore be lawful, under the pretext of greater reverence, to defer Communion up to that age, the law of the Church being postponed? St. Thomas, as we said above, teaches that one capable of some devotion, not of greater devotion, is bound by the Decree of the Church; and, as Paludanus says (see Tabiena, word Communicate, n. 6), innocence compensates for ignorance in children.

But the reason sought from the greater fruit of the receiver, if Communion is deferred, in the first place labors under the same fault as the preceding reason, and proves too much. Moreover it limps also for this reason, that it somehow supposes that the greater fruit which perhaps is hoped for at a more adult age is hindered by the lesser fruit which is received earlier. But this of itself is altogether false. Finally, it is necessary to remember that the Eucharist is numbered among the Sacraments of the New Law, which confer both sanctifying and sacramental grace ex opere operato, whenever they do not find an obstacle in the one receiving. But although perhaps it can be conjectured that some greater fruit, which may come ex opere operantis, is to be expected from a less tender age, yet will not something more of an obstacle have to be feared from that very age in which the vices of corrupt nature begin to grow, whereas on the contrary the innocence of a more tender age, as the old Doctors used to say, compensates for ignorance? But besides, cause yourself to recall to memory the singular charisms of this Sacrament and its proper fruits (above, n. 275), and that from Christ's institution it is the nourishment and strength of spiritual life, and the antidote of sins and vices. Therefore, under the imagined pretext of some greater fruit, will it be better to have deprived childhood of these excellent and at the same time necessary aids, and of the most abundant supply of graces, by which its innocence may be preserved and fortified?

Finally, as to what is objected concerning common use, which is the interpreter of law: if indeed it is taken for the custom by which children are generally admitted to Confession before participation in the Eucharist, this is easily conceded; nor is a just reason for this custom lacking. Since by the consent of all it pertains especially to the Confessor to judge whether children are capable of deceit and therefore fit for the reception of the Sacraments, and at the same time in this way the danger is absent lest the sacrament be conferred on the incapable, certainly they are most wisely sent to Confession beforehand. But if it is understood as a custom of deferring Communion beyond that age at which the child is capable of it, you would better say that this is an abuse to be ascribed both to negligence and to the prejudged opinion of certain persons, rather than a custom of the Church.

And indeed Suarez himself (cited disp. 70, sect. 1) had premised these things: Almost all agree in this, that this obligation cannot be defined generally by the ages of men, or by the number of years.... Often before the twelfth year of age many are so capable of deceit, and so instructed in the things of faith, THAT WITHOUT DOUBT THEY ARE BOUND BY THIS PRECEPT. And then he adds that this happens also in the tenth year, that is, after the ninth has been completed. But if, as he himself admits, almost all Doctors agree (we shall of course except Soto, whom Suarez there also refutes) that the obligation is to be taken from age, to what purpose is the abuse of those who defer Communion further than age requires thrust upon us as a legitimate custom of the Church? He adds (ibid.) that it is consonant with reason that the Church not oblige as soon as it can. Indeed we would confess that these things were excellently said where the mind of the Church had to be conjectured from plainly uncertain indications. But after the Church, most manifestly opening its mind, not only could oblige to receiving the Eucharist, but in reality obliged all whoever had arrived at the years of discretion, and moreover struck with anathema those denying this obligation, what place of doubting concerning this, I ask, now remains? Or shall we say that the Church, when it obliged as soon as it scarcely could oblige, performed something less consonant with reason?

Nor is there any need to linger over certain persons who, after Suarez, recall here those words of the Lateran Decree: Unless perhaps by the counsel of his own priest, for some reasonable cause, he should judge that he must abstain for a time from reception of this kind: as if indeed from these words there is made a free power for the confessor of exempting from the obligation those who otherwise are capable and are obliged. For certainly, to use the words of St. Antoninus (part 2, cap. 9, sec. 1), according as the Confessor can perceive from their confession concerning their greater or lesser use of reason, so he can and ought to counsel them or bind (namely oblige) them to Communion; where he also warns parents and schoolmasters (ibid.) that they ought well to exhort them if they see them to have good discretion, or to leave them to the judgment of their Confessors; and finally he adds that very grave thing also: But by drawing them back solely from this, that they are small, and because it is not according to the custom of the country that they communicate, however much they have the use of reason, they sin gravely. But it is one thing that it is deferred to the Confessor's judgment concerning sufficient use of reason; another thing that the Confessor can exempt from the obligation those who have attained the use of reason. But what the cited words of Innocent III have regard to is obvious; namely when, as Gonzalez notes (On the Decretals, lib. V, tit. 38, cap. VII), the Confessor defers absolution, that he may test whether the penitent's purpose is firm, or because he has judged it unjust to absolve him until the penitent avoids the proximate occasion of sin: in which cases a faithful person not communicating at Easter will in no way be guilty of the ecclesiastical precept, nor will he suffer the penalties imposed in the present law. And in like manner it is obvious that those words do not regard children; for since Innocent says, Unless perhaps... by the counsel of the Confessor he should judge that he must abstain, it is absurd to understand this concerning those children who are led in these matters not by their own judgment but by another's.

Moreover, once that anomalous opinion of Soto concerning children exempt from any ecclesiastical law before the twelfth year has been rejected, and the other little reasons by which Suarez contends that delay can be conceded to children who from the common opinion are obliged have been put aside, there remains the opinion in which, after St. Thomas, Doctors commonly agree, as St. Alphonsus also affirms (lib. 6, n. 301): that children ten years old are regularly both fit for participation in the Eucharist, and therefore capable of this obligation. Concerning this matter the same St. Alphonsus, after he reported from the Ninth Synod of Milan the admonition of St. Charles that Parish Priests should summon those who have reached the tenth year (note well: have reached, not completed), instruct them for knowledge of the Eucharist, and teach them with what reverence they should approach it, gives this reason why it was said regularly: For, he says, as the Doctors note, children can be obliged earlier who before such (namely, the tenth) age are seen to be more perspicacious. Hence Bonacina rightly reproves parish priests who indiscriminately do not admit to Communion except children constituted in a certain age.

320. • QUESTION 4. Whether the Eucharist can be given to a sick person who labors under a cough?

Resp. Affirmatively, because the danger that the sacred species be rejected together with phlegm is for the most part absent. And the reason is that the path by which spittle is expelled by coughing is not the esophagus, that is, the path by which food and drink are conveyed into the stomach, but is the rough artery, by which respiration extends even to the lungs. Yet if the cough is so continual that it prevents the host from being able to be transmitted into the stomach, then Communion must be abstained from. - Thus the Roman Ritual. - St. Ligorius, n. 292.

But when the sick person labors under continual vomiting, he cannot communicate unless perhaps he has been free from vomiting for at least six hours. But in doubt whether the sick person is going to vomit back the sacred particle, it must not be given to him. - St. Ligorius, n. 291.

Resp. 1. No, if they have not yet attained the use of reason. The reason is that this is against the present discipline of the Church.

Resp. 2. Affirmatively with respect to children who are in possession of reason. Indeed not only can Communion be given to them, but it also ought to be given. The reason is that on the one hand children placed in such danger are bound by divine precept to communicate; on the other hand the utility of the Eucharist then does not demand a greater disposition. Therefore Parish Priests err gravely who are unwilling to administer Viaticum of this kind to children. - St. Ligorius, n. 301. - Billuart, diss. 6, art. 1. - Gousset, n. 233.

321. • QUESTION 6. Whether Communion in danger of death is to be given to the insane, the semi-fatuous, the delirious, and those deprived of senses?

Resp. 1. Concerning the insane: 1. If they have been perpetually insane, Communion is never to be given to them. Thus from the Roman Ritual on the Eucharist. 2. If they often have lucid intervals, and have manifested a desire of communicating, Communion can be given to them; indeed it ought to be given, with the danger of irreverence removed. - St. Thomas, part 3, q. 80, art. 9. - Catechism of the Council of Trent. - St. Ligorius, n. 302.

Resp. 2. Concerning the semi-fatuous, Communion is to be given to them when they have sufficient discretion, so that they distinguish this heavenly food from others; but rarely, namely only in the article of death, and where the strict precept of communicating urges. - St. Ligorius, n. 303, and others commonly ⁵.

⁵ I have found no one earlier than Henry Henriquez who teaches that to those who have sufficient discretion to distinguish the heavenly food from others, Communion is to be permitted only once a year. And Henriquez indeed, according to his own manner, alleges in a note a long series of Authors (Summa, lib. 8, cap. 42, n. 3) as if for that opinion. But they do unanimously affirm that the Eucharist is to be supplied to these semi-fatuous persons, among whom Henriquez also numbers Ethiopians; yet none of them grants only Easter Communion. And from this it seems to have happened that afterwards certain others adhered to this opinion as if commonly received; although Laymann, departing from them (lib. 5, tr. 4, cap. 5, n. 4), said that these are to be admitted to the Eucharist at least at Easter. Meanwhile, however, no solid reason for this doctrine is brought forward; and on the contrary John Sanchez rightly attacks Henriquez thus (Select Disputations, 26, n. 5): Nor do I know by what reason Henriquez thinks that frequency of Communion must be denied to the foolish (he means those whom Henriquez calls semi-fatuous), if he once concedes that it ought to be given at Easter: for if, when they communicate once, they commit no irreverence, neither will they commit it by communicating several times, since both the man receiving and the sacrament received are always one and the same. Nor can I imagine how by communicating today there arises anew an irreverence which did not arise yesterday by receiving the Eucharist, while the action is the same in species, the sacrament the same, and the man who receives is with the same use of reason today as he was yesterday. Does he approach irreverently the second time, who approaches with grace acquired from the first Communion?

Resp. 3. Concerning the delirious, Communion can be given to them if they are able to communicate, with the danger of irreverence removed. But the best practice is that beforehand a non-consecrated particle be given to the sick person, and so it may appear whether he can communicate becomingly. - St. Ligorius, n. 292.

Resp. 4. Concerning those deprived of senses: they are indeed dispensed from the precept, since they are capable of observing no law. But therefore the Pastor is not dispensed from the obligation of ministering the Eucharist to them, if before the loss of reason they were disposed. For the Sacraments operate ex opere operato in those who desired to receive them before they lost the use of reason. Yet except the case if danger of irreverence is present, or if it is feared that they are not able to swallow the Host. - Thus commonly. - Gousset, n. 232.

322. • QUESTION 7. Whether Communion is to be given to deaf-mutes, the possessed, and epileptics?

Resp. 1. Concerning deaf-mutes: Affirmatively, if from signs it is clear that they have discretion and are sufficiently instructed. But if they enjoy not just any sort, but some sufficient discretion, they will be able to communicate more often. - Thus commonly with St. Ligorius, n. 303.

Resp. 2. Concerning the possessed, a distinction must be made: Communion is to be denied to them when they are not masters of themselves; otherwise it is to be granted. Indeed it is expedient that such persons communicate more often according to the prudence of the Confessor, since the Eucharist is a special remedy for driving away demons.

Resp. 3. Concerning epileptics: Communion cannot be given to them when they are in an actual paroxysm, on account of the proximate danger of irreverence; but at other times it is not to be denied. - Thus commonly with St. Ligorius, n. 303.

323. • QUESTION 8. Whether Communion can be given to those condemned to capital punishment?

Resp. Affirmatively. Benedict XIV indeed teaches that the custom which is recognized respectively to exist in each place is to be followed, On the Synod, lib. 7, c. 11; but he calls the use of ministering the Most Holy Eucharist to them more conformable to Christian piety, and brings forward the testimony of St. Pius V concerning this matter. Several provincial Councils of Gaul, for example the Council of Soissons, Auch, etc., have very recently commended this pious use. Gousset, n. 230, most greatly urges this practice.

See those things which especially pertain to Easter Communion in the Treatise On the Precepts of the Church, n. 489 and following.

1. Antoninus in paschal time confesses his sins, although he had made sacramental confession only in the paschal time of the preceding year. In the present confession he confesses only venial sins; then he accuses a doubtful mortal sin, and forgets a certain grave sin.

Q. Is he held to confess again?

Resp. 1. Antoninus satisfied the precept of annual confession, confession having been made in the paschal time of the preceding and following year. For there are various opinions concerning the year to be computed as to this precept. Among others this also is present, that the year is computed from Easter to Easter, because this is considered the ecclesiastical year, and more conformable to the custom of the Church. The faithful, especially those who confess their sins only once in a year, are accustomed to make confession in paschal time, by a custom approved by Trent, sess. 14, c. 5, so that they may prepare themselves for paschal communion. I. M. 1558.

2. Antoninus does not seem to be held to repeating confession. For, 1. by confession of venial sins he probably satisfied the precept of annual confession. For although the common opinion holds that by this precept the Church imposes only the confession of mortal sins, nevertheless there are grave authors who judge that this precept also embraces the confession of venials only, if someone has committed no grave sin. S. Th. 4. d. 16. q. 2. a. 2; d. 17. q. 3. a. 1; Suppl. q. 6. a. 3; q. 8. a. 5 ad 4; Bened. XIV, Inst. 18. n. 2-4. Besides, he also probably satisfied the precept of annual confession by confessing a doubtful mortal sin. For many and grave authors teach that an obligation is present of confessing doubtful sins. “Here truly,” says Lugo, de Sacr. poenit. d. 15. n. 169, “he has already once fulfilled the precept of the Church and of Christ in the same year; for the precept of Christ, although it is not of confessing venials, nevertheless is of confessing not only certain grave sins, but also doubtful ones. Therefore that precept has been fulfilled by confessing those doubtful sins which he then had.” And La-Croix, l. 6. p. 2. n. 2041: “He who at least once during the year has confessed a doubtful mortal sin with venials satisfies, and is not held to confess again, although afterward he falls into a certain mortal sin; because there was an obligation of confessing that doubtful sin. Therefore he placed matter of the precept.” Cf. S. Alph. l. 6. n. 473 seqq. But that Antoninus forgot a grave sin does not impede that he has already sufficiently satisfied the precept of the Church of annual confession. Wherefore he is indeed held to accuse that sin in the next confession, but he is not held to a repeated confession, so that satisfaction may be made to the precept of annual confession of the present year, since he has already satisfied this precept. I. M. 1554, 1556.

2. Hedvigis, a woman lying sick with a grave illness, received sacred Viaticum on Palm Sunday. But, since after a few days she almost entirely recovered, she asks her confessor whether she is held to go out of the house, so that she may satisfy the precept of paschal communion.

3. Emporius, a merchant, since by reason of commerce he is found outside his own parish during paschal time, asks his confessor whether he can receive paschal communion in the place where he presently is, or whether he ought to return to his own parish.

Q. What as to the Cases?

R. Hedvigis does not seem to be obligated to repeated communion. For although she received communion by way of Viaticum, nevertheless she truly received communion in paschal time, and, as is supposed, she received it from the pastor or his delegate, and in a public manner; whence she adequately satisfied the end of the law, which is public edification and submission to one’s proper pastor. G. 453.

Emporius is not held to return to his own parish unless he can do so easily. He can then receive communion in the place where he is. For pilgrims satisfy this precept by receiving communion where they are staying during paschal time. I. M. 1566; G. 454.

We have adverted to the ecclesiastical precept of annual confession and Easter Communion in Volume II of this Handbook. The importance of the matter justifies the insertion of an extra chapter on the subject here. We shall treat of it in two Sections: (1) The Annual Confession; (2) The Easter Communion.

1. The precept of annual confession is stated in the New Code of Canon Law as follows: “Every Catholic of either sex, after having arrived at the years of discretion, that is, after having attained the use of reason, is bound to confess all his sins truthfully at least once a year.”¹

¹ C. I. C., can. 906.

a) The subject of this law is omnis utriusque sexus fidelis, i. e., every baptized Catholic who has arrived at the age of discretion. The age of discretion, as the law itself explains, is that at which a child begins to use his reason, i. e., about the seventh year. Pastors are consequently obliged to prepare the children entrusted to their care for the reception of the Sacrament of Penance, hear their confession, and give them absolution if they have committed a mortal sin, when they approach their seventh year, nay, even earlier if they enjoy the use of reason before that age.² Pope Pius X, in his famous decree “Quam singulari,” condemns the custom of not admitting children to confession, or not absolving them, when they have arrived at the age of discretion.³

² Cfr. A. Tanquerey, Synopsis Theol. Moralis et Pastoralis, Vol. I, p. 29.

³ “Quam singulari,” Aug. 8, 1910; cfr. J. B. Ferreres, S.J., The Decree on Daily Communion, tr. by H. Jimenez, S.J., London 1909.

b) The object of this precept is stated in the phrase, “omnia peccata sua.” It is the common opinion of theologians that this law affects only those who have fallen into mortal sin, as there is no precept, human or divine, which makes it obligatory to confess venial sins. The divine law does not impose this obligation, as the Council of Trent explains,⁴ and the Lateran law, transcribed by the Code, merely determines the divine law.⁵

⁴ Conc. Trident., Sess. XIV, c. 5.

⁵ Slater, Manual of Moral Theol., Vol. I, pp. 576 sq.

Hence a Catholic who has committed no mortal sin in the course of a year is not strictly bound to go to confession. It is advisable, however, that those too, who are conscious of venial sins only, go to confession at least once a year, lest, deprived of the grace of the Sacrament of Penance, they fall more easily into mortal sin.⁶

⁶ Tanquerey, op. cit., I, 29.

Some theologians hold that the precept of annual confession is not satisfied by confessing venial sins only and that, therefore, if one has gone to confession, say, at the beginning of the year, or of the paschal season, with none but venial sins, and afterwards, before the end of the year, has had the misfortune of falling into a mortal sin, he is obliged to go again, in order to comply with the law of the Church. Others (Palau, Victor, Reginald, Coninck, Laymann, Bonacina, Ballerini, Génicot, Tan- querey, etc.) hold that the ecclesiastical precept is fulfilled by any valid confession. In practice, therefore, it will be prudent to advise, but not to compel, penitents to make another confession.⁷

⁷ Op. cit., I, 30.

c) The manner in which the faithful should confess their sins is described by the word “fideliter,” which means that the confession must not be voluntarily invalid. “He who makes a sacrilegious or voluntarily invalid confession does not satisfy the law.”⁸ Voluntarily to make an invalid confession is to commit a sacrilege, and the law of the Church cannot be satisfied by a sacrilege.⁹

⁸ C. I. C., can. 907.

⁹ Tanquerey, Synopsis Theol. Mor. et Pastor., Vol. I, p. 30.

d) The frequency with which confession should be made is determined by the words, “saltem semel in anno.” The year within which the obligation must be complied with may be reckoned variously, e. g., from Easter to Easter, or from one confession to the next, or from the first of January to the thirty-first of December.¹⁰ However, as the Easter time is expressly assigned for the annual Communion, the two precepts are in practice generally fulfilled together within the time appointed for the Easter duty.¹¹ “Hence one who in the beginning of the year foresees that he will probably not be able to go to confession before the year ends, if conscious of mortal sin, must receive the Sacrament of Penance when the opportunity presents itself; for as the precept obliges “once a year,” it must be satisfied when it is morally possible to do so.

¹⁰ Cfr. J. B. Ferreres, S.J., Compend. Theol. Mor., Vol. I, p. 386; J. Bucceroni, Theol. Mor., Vol. I, n. 1558.

¹¹ Cfr. Slater, Manual of Moral Theol., Vol. I, p. 577.

One who is conscious of mortal sin, but has neglected to go to confession during the prescribed period, must do so as soon as the opportunity presents itself, because the law assigns the time for satisfying the obligation ad determinandam, not ad finiendam obligationem. This is the opinion of most theologians, though a few eminent authors hold that the obligation ceases when the time appointed for its fulfilment has expired.¹² No difficulty is likely to arise on this head, however, as St. Alphonsus teaches¹³ that one who has neglected the duty of annual confession one year, and comes to confession the next, accusing himself of the mortal sins he has committed in both years, satisfies his duty and is not, therefore, bound to confess twice, and the penitent, whether he knows of the theological discussion or not, will not consider himself guilty of a multiplication of sins for not having confessed quam primum or whenever an opportunity offered after the year had elapsed.

¹² Cfr. Tanquerey, Synopsis Theol. Mor. et Pastor., Vol. I, p. 30.

¹³ Theol. Mor., n. 669.

e) According to the present discipline it is no longer necessary to make the annual confession to one’s pastor, or to some priest authorized by him, for the Code says: “Every Catholic is free to confess his sins to any legitimately approved confessor, even of a different rite, as he may prefer.”¹⁴

¹⁴ C. I. C., can. 905.

f) A few historical notes on the precept of annual confession may be welcome. The canon “omnis utriusque sexus” of the fourth Lateran Council (1215), which has been received into the new Code, is the first universal law imposing annual confession in the Latin Church. It was preceded by many particular or local laws, which made the practice all but general throughout the West several centuries before that council was held. How far back the origin of this discipline goes cannot be determined with any degree of certainty. In the early days of Christianity the faithful probably went to confession only when they had committed “grave and mortal sins,”—sins of which St. Augustine says that, unlike the daily faults which God Himself pardons, they can be ordinarily remitted only through the power of the keys.¹⁵ A synodal statute of Rheims (perhaps of the seventh century) designates Lent as the time of the year when the pastor should hear the confessions of his people. But the authenticity of this law is doubtful. Towards the middle of the eighth century annual confession appears to have been a common practice.¹⁶ Later it became customary to go to confession three times a year,¹⁷ and laws to this effect were passed in various dioceses.¹⁸ But they were poorly observed. In 1215, the fourth Lateran Council finally issued its twenty-first canon, which still governs ecclesiastical discipline on this point.¹⁹

¹⁵ Serm., 278 (Migne, P. L., XXXVIII, 2273 sqq.).

¹⁶ Cfr. A. Villien, History of the Commandments of the Church, p. 158.

¹⁷ Ibid., pp. 162 sqq.

¹⁸ Ibid., pp. 166.

¹⁹ Text of the whole canon in the Corpus Iuris Canonici, l. V, tit. XXXVIII; analysis in Villien, op. cit., pp. 167 sqq.

READINGS.—Ths. Slater, S.J., A Manual of Moral Theology, Vol. I, pp. 576 sq.—Ad. Tanquerey, Synopsis Theol. Mor. et Pastor., Vol. I, pp. 27 sqq.—H. Noldin, S.J., Summa Theol. Mor., Vol. II, pp. 713 sqq.—J. B. Ferreres, S.J., Comp. Theol. Mor., Vol. I, pp. 386 sq.—A. Lehmkuhl, S.J., Theol. Mor., Vol. I, pp. 838 sqq.—Sabetti-Barrett, Comp. Theol. Mor., pp. 328 sqq.

On the history of the precept see A. Villien, A History of the Commandments of the Church (English tr.), St. Louis, 1915, pp. 151-188.

1. The precept of the Easter Communion is formulated as follows in the new Code of Canon Law: “Every Catholic of either sex, who has reached the age of discretion, that is, attained the use of reason, must receive the Sacrament of the Eucharist once a year, at least during Easter time, unless he should deem it his duty to abstain therefrom temporarily on the advice of his pastor and for some reasonable cause.”¹

¹ C. I. C., can. 859, § 1; cfr. P. Chas. Augustine’s Commentary, Vol. IV, pp. 237 sqq.

This precept is divine so far as its substance is concerned, but purely ecclesiastical in regard to the time appointed for its fulfilment. In other words, it is a divine commandment to receive the Body of Christ, aye, to receive it frequently as a nourishment of the soul; and an ecclesiastical precept to receive it at least once a year during Easter time.

2. The time within which the Easter Communion must be made, is the paschal season, which is reckoned from Palm Sunday to Whitsunday, but may be prolonged by the diocesan Ordinaries so as to embrace the period from Laetare to Trinity Sunday.² In this country the bishops still enjoy the privilege of extending the time to the first Sunday in Lent. (See Appendix, p. 418.)

² C. I. C., can. 859, § 2.

This precept is a grave one, both in itself and with regard to the time appointed for its fulfilment, and hence a Catholic who culpably neglects to receive holy Communion within the Easter season, commits a sin which is per se mortal.

The determination of the time within which this precept must be fulfilled was made not ad finiendam, but ad urgendam obligationem; consequently, if one has not received holy Communion during the paschal season, he is bound to do so afterwards, though it is not necessary that he do so as soon as he can;³ for, as De Lugo observes, “when the paschal Communion is impossible, all that remains is the precept to communicate once a year, which can be satisfied at any time.”⁴

³ C. I. C., can. 859, § 4.

⁴ De Lugo, De Euch., disp. XVI, n. 69. Cfr. Noldin, Summa Theol. Mor., Vol. II, p. 717. Others take a stricter view.

No one is bound to fulfil this precept as long as the paschal season has not yet commenced, even though he may foresee that he will be prevented from making his Easter duty later. But if the paschal season has commenced, he is bound to communicate as soon as possible in case he anticipates an impediment, nay, to remove the impediment, even though it be grave (because the precept is divine and grave), and he should, therefore, communicate once more during the Easter season if he can, even though he has done so already by anticipation.⁵

⁵ Cfr. C. I. C., can. 861.

One who has received holy Communion during the paschal season as viaticum (per modum viatici), has complied with his Easter duty and need not go to Communion again because the intention to fulfill the law is not required by the law.

This precept is not satisfied by a sacrilegious communion.

3. The place where the Easter Communion should be received is one’s parish church; those who comply with their Easter duty in some other parish are advised to notify their pastor of the fact.⁶ There is no longer a strict command, therefore, to communicate in one’s parish church.

⁶ C. I. C., can. 859, § 3.

Can. 859, § 3 says: “Who satisfies the precept in some other parish.” This seems to make it obligatory to receive the Easter Communion either in one’s own or in some other parish church, to the exclusion of churches that are not strictly parochial, and of public oratories. However, in Fr. Ferreres’ opinion, this is not the mind of the legislator. “As there is no obligation, but merely a counsel to receive the Easter Communion in one’s own parish,” he says, “there can, a fortiori, be no obligation to receive it in some other parish church.”⁷

⁷ St. Alphonsus, Theol. Mor., n. 207; Ferreres, Compend. Theol. Mor., Vol. I, pp. 388 sq.

4. The question at what age children should be admitted to first Communion has given rise to many controversies and considerable differences in practice. The matter was definitely decided by a decree of the S. C. of the Sacraments, Aug. 10, 1910, which says that children should be ad- mitted to confession and Communion as soon as they have arrived at the age of discretion, which generally happens about the seventh year. Of course, they should first be duly instructed. The fitness of a child to be admitted to first Communion in forma privata is to be judged by the confessor and the parents. Children who are not able to grasp the elementary truths of the Catholic religion are not permitted to receive holy Communion.⁸ If confessors and parents neglect their duty, the pastor is obliged to see to it that the children are admitted to the Holy Table as soon as they have attained the use of reason and are properly disposed. For this purpose he may hold an examination if he sees fit.⁹ But to admit children to first Communion is not strictly a parochial right, and all synodal decrees or particular customs treating it as such are abrogated by the new Code.¹⁰

⁸ C. I. C., can. 854, § 1, n. 1; cfr. P. Chas. Augustine, Commentary on the New Code, Vol. IV, pp. 226 sqq.

⁹ C. I. C., can. 854, § 5.

¹⁰ Ferreres, Comp. Theol. Mor., Vol. II, p. 241; P. Chas. Augustine, Commentary, Vol. IV, p. 228.

Parents, confessors, teachers, and pastors are in conscience bound to see to it that all minors entrusted to their care comply regularly with their Easter duty after they have been admitted to first Communion.¹¹

¹¹ C. I. C., can. 860.

5. The history of this precept has been traced at length by Villien.¹² In the early days of Christianity no law was required to induce the faithful to receive holy Communion frequently. But already in the time of St. Augustine the practice of communicating on certain days, or at certain periods, was imposed either by custom or by a law or precept.¹³ The Council of Agde, in Gaul (506), treated those who did not communicate on the three great festivals of Christmas, Easter, and Pentecost, as apostates.¹⁴ This ruling was substantially adopted by other councils, and finally through divers collections of canons and capitularies found its way into Gratian’s Decretum and thereby became, so to speak, a universal law.¹⁵ In course of time some churches succeeded in inducing the faithful to receive Communion every Sunday in Lent, but the main obligation, the minimum below which no one was allowed to fall without being cut off from Christian fellowship, was annual communion.¹⁶ The fourth Lateran Council rendered the discipline uniform by requiring nothing more than the minimum universally accepted. Its famous twenty-first canon, “Omnis utriusque sexus,” has substantially found its way into the new Code.

¹² History of the Commandments of the Church, pp. 189–223.

¹³ Villien, op. cit., p. 193.

¹⁴ Ibid., p. 194.

¹⁵ Ibid., pp. 195 sq.

¹⁶ Ibid., p. 203.

READINGS.—Ths. Slater, S.J., A Manual of Moral Theology, Vol. I, pp. 578 sq.—H. Noldin, S.J., Summa Theol. Mor., Vol. II, pp. 716 sqq.—J. B. Ferreres, S.J., Compendium Theol. Mor., Vol. I, pp. 387 sqq.—Sabetti-Barrett, Comp. Theol. Mor., pp. 330 sqq.

Villien, History of the Commandments of the Church, English ed., pp. 189 sqq.

1563. Principles. I. The real reception of the Eucharist is not necessary for salvation by NECESSITY OF MEANS. - The proposition is of faith, if it concerns children; but if it concerns adults, it is common and certain. The reason is that the Eucharist by itself does not confer, but supposes first grace; but this gives a right to heavenly glory; whence one who dies with it, even without the Eucharist having been received, certainly obtains eternal salvation.

It is said real reception; because reception in desire, according to the more probable opinion, is necessary for salvation by necessity of means, both for adults and for little children. It is proved: 1. From the words of the Lord (John 6:54): "Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, you will not have life in you." 2. From reason, "because the Sacraments of Baptism and Penance, which are certainly necessary by necessity of means, at least in desire, for obtaining first grace, do not confer grace except with regard to the Eucharist, as to the end of all the Sacraments.... But adults have such a desire when they receive the Sacraments of Baptism or Penance; for their will of fulfilling all precepts includes at least implicitly this precept also of the Eucharist. But little children have the desire, not from their own will, but from the implicit will of the Church, which is applied to children, just as the will of receiving Baptism is applied."²²

It is asked: Whether the Eucharist, in reality or in desire, is a necessary means FOR ADULTS for preserving spiritual life?

Resp. Some deny, "saying that other means are present for this. But more commonly and more truly others affirm with St. Thomas.²³ The reason is that just as the life of the body cannot be preserved for long without material food, so neither can the life of the soul without this spiritual food, at least in desire, and indeed explicit desire, in one who notices the necessity of this Sacrament."²⁴

1564. II. The consumption of the Eucharist is necessary for adult faithful by necessity of PRECEPT, both divine and ecclesiastical. The divine precept is proved from the words of Christ: "Unless you eat," etc.; but the ecclesiastical precept from the Fourth Lateran Council, whose words we shall relate below (n. 1568).

Moreover, from the DIVINE precept, we are held to receive the Eucharist not only in danger of death, but also several times in life. But how often we are held to this has not been declared by Christ the Lord, but He Himself left the matter to be determined by His Church; whence each one, speaking by itself, satisfies the divine precept by satisfying the ecclesiastical precept. - We say speaking by itself; for "sometimes, by accident, a man is held from the divine precept to communicate perhaps even several times in the year, if he judged this necessary for overcoming some grave temptation. Yet Suarez says this can happen very rarely, since other remedies can suffice for this, prayers, penances, etc. But in that case in which Communion were necessary, a man, by omitting it, would not sin against its precept, but against the virtue against which he suffers temptation"²⁵ (cf. n. 1579, Rule I, It is said 2).

These things having been said concerning the necessity of the Eucharist in general, it remains that we treat separately of the twofold Communion which each one is held to receive, that is, concerning Communion in the article of death or Viaticum, and concerning Paschal Communion.

1565. Principles. I. The DIVINE precept of receiving the Eucharist obliges especially in the ARTICLE or in the DANGER of death. It is clear from the Council of Nicaea, can. 13, in which it is established that with those who are thought to be departing from life the ancient law is to be observed, namely that they not be deprived of the last and necessary Viaticum.²⁶ The reason a priori can easily be given, because from the institution of this Sacrament as nourishment is gathered the obligation of consuming it when it is judged necessary; but never can the necessity of this food be greater than in that article upon which eternity ultimately depends, and in which the last struggle with the enemy is imminent, for deciding the whole matter.²⁷

"It was said in danger; because for receiving Viaticum it is not necessary nor laudable to wait for the time when no further hope of life remains; but it suffices that probable danger of death be present."¹

Hence: 1. "Each faithful person, in danger of life, which he foresees or deservedly fears, for example in a grave illness, before battle, or childbirth, especially a first one, before navigation, etc., is held under mortal sin to communicate."² Thus commonly.

2. One who did not communicate in danger of death is not afterwards held to supply. Similarly, one who after Viaticum has been consumed sinned mortally is not held to communicate again; confession alone then suffices.³

1566. II. Sick persons who CANNOT receive it with due reverence are excepted from the law of Viaticum. The Ritual also admonishes: "It must diligently be cared for that Viaticum not be given to those from whom, whether on account of frenzy, or on account of continual cough, and another similar illness, some indecency with injury to so great a Sacrament can be feared." The reason is that it does not concern a Sacrament of every sort of necessity, and therefore provision must be made rather for reverence toward the Sacrament than for the utility of the sick person.⁴

Therefore: 1. In danger of vomiting, Viaticum is not to be given. Whence, if the sick person labors under continual vomiting, he cannot communicate unless he has been free from it at least for six hours. But if the vomiting proceeds from the food itself, an unconsecrated particle can be given to him for the sake of experiment; and then, if he retains this, a consecrated particle. In doubt, it is better to abstain.⁵

2. A cough, unless it is continual or so frequent that the sick person cannot pass down the particle, does not impede Communion; because there is one way, namely the throat, by which food is passed down, and another, namely the windpipe, from which phlegm and breaths are ejected.⁶

3. To the delirious who were duly prepared before the failing of the mind, Viaticum can and ought to be given, if they are able to communicate, danger of irreverence having been excluded. But the best practice is that also to sick persons of this kind there first be given an unconsecrated particle, for testing whether from this they can decently consume the Eucharist.⁷ (See n. 1546.)

1567. Questions. Q. 1. Whether one who A FEW DAYS BEFORE communicated from devotion is HELD, danger of death supervening, to receive Viaticum?

Resp. It is controverted. - "The more common opinion denies, even if he communicated eight days before, because he has already satisfied the end of the precept. This opinion is sufficiently probable, at least if the danger of death occurs naturally, because then, at the time of the Communion received, danger had already begun morally to be imminent. But the second and more probable opinion affirms, because this precept, which is divine, obliges precisely when the danger of death actually urges; and just as a debt cannot be satisfied before it is contracted, so neither can a precept be fulfilled before it begins to oblige. Nor is it valid to say that through that Communion the end of the precept has already been satisfied; because if this sufficed, it would also suffice for fulfilling the Paschal precept that someone communicate on the day preceding Palm Sunday; but this cannot be said."⁸

Q. 2. Whether one who communicated IN THE MORNING from devotion OUGHT or CAN receive Viaticum, danger of death supervening?

Resp. Three opinions are present. The first says that he is held, that he may satisfy the precept. - The second says he is not held, but can. - The third says he is neither held nor can, since the practice of the Church is that no one communicate twice on the same day. Benedict XIV says that the pastor can embrace whichever of these opinions he prefers; whence he holds all three as probable. For the rest, among these, the more probable seems to be the opinion which distinguishes thus: in a violent illness, for example if someone has been struck by a wound, or has fallen from a height, he can communicate, indeed he is held according to the things said in the preceding question; because here he truly did not receive Viaticum while constituted in the article of death. But otherwise, in a natural illness, when someone, already placed in sickness, has communicated in the morning; because then the danger of death was already present, although unknown. And the same must be said if the illness was sudden, say apoplexy, or something similar; for illnesses of this kind are judged already to have previously existed disposed in their causes, although they are unknown.⁹

Note. "To a sick person unto death, who has been judged worthy of absolution from sins, the Most Holy Viaticum also is to be conceded." Thus the S. C. DE PROP. FIDE to the Vicar Apostolic of Pondicherry, July 26, 1845.¹⁰

1568. From the DIVINE precept, as we have said (n. 1564), we are held to receive the Eucharist several times in life. "The reason is that just as it is necessary to take earthly food several times for preserving bodily life, so heavenly food for preserving spiritual life."¹¹ But from the ECCLESIASTICAL precept the time and manner of this obligation are more closely determined, as is had in the Constitution of the Fourth Lateran Council, which sounds thus: "Every faithful of either sex, after he has arrived at the years of discretion, shall faithfully confess all his sins at least once in the year to his own priest... receiving reverently, at least at Easter, the Sacrament of the Eucharist; unless perhaps, by the counsel of his own priest, for some reasonable cause, he should judge that for a time one must abstain from reception of this kind; otherwise, living, let him be kept from entering the church, and dying, let him lack Christian burial." It is confirmed from Trent, sess. 13, can. 9.

In these words of the Council are contained three obligations, and these grave: the first regards the frequency of receiving the Sacrament; the second the time of reception, and the third the place of reception. Wherefore let there be the following:

1569. Principles. I. Each faithful person is held AT LEAST ONCE IN THE YEAR to receive the Sacrament of the Eucharist. - But he who communicates sacrilegiously does not satisfy the precept, as is clear from proposition 55 condemned by Innocent XI: "The precept of annual Communion is satisfied by sacrilegious eating of the Lord." Therefore one who communicated unworthily is afterwards held to satisfy, no otherwise than one who omitted Communion altogether.¹²

It is asked: How is the year of the obligation of this annual Communion to be computed?

Resp. "Some judge that it is to be computed from January to December. But from the common opinion of the Doctors, and from custom received everywhere, the time is computed from Easter to Easter, because this is judged to be the ecclesiastical year. But the Paschal time begins from Palm Sunday, and ends on Low Sunday, from the declaration of Eugene IV in the Bull Fidei digna, in the year 1440. Yet from custom, necessity, or privilege, more time is conceded."¹³

1570. II. The annual Communion prescribed to Christ's faithful is to be performed IN PASCHAL TIME. This time, according to the more common and more probable opinion, is assigned by the Church not for ending, but for urging on the obligation of the divine precept; wherefore one who omitted Communion at Easter is held to communicate as soon as possible, from both the ecclesiastical and the divine precept.¹⁴

But Paschal time is to be computed strictly, so that any delay, even of one day, by itself is judged grave.¹⁵ Yet this obligation by no means urges the confessor to absolve the indisposed more quickly than is just. But the faithful are held to remove impediments. Hence "the excommunicated and those detained in prisons, when they can, are held to procure absolution or liberty, by which they can satisfy the Paschal precept"¹⁶ (cf. n. 225).

It is asked: Whether one who cannot communicate in Paschal time is held to ANTICIPATE?

Resp. 1. "It is certain that, Paschal time having begun, if someone foresees himself about to be impeded from Communion, he is held to receive it immediately, as they commonly teach."¹⁷ 2. Before Paschal time has begun, he is not held to anticipate, because, according to the common opinion, "before that time the obligation has not yet been contracted; and if someone anticipates, he does not satisfy the precept; and this is so much so that if someone, on account of a foreseen impediment, anticipated, and afterwards the impediment ceased, he would still be held to communicate at Easter."¹⁸

1571. III. "Anyone is held to receive Paschal Communion IN HIS OWN PARISH from his pastor, or his delegate, unless he is exempted by his license, custom, or privilege." This is clear from various Constitutions of the Supreme Pontiffs and declarations of the Roman Congregations,¹⁹ and from the practice of the universal Church. The reason of the law is that the pastor may know the sheep committed to his care.

It is said 1. in his own parish, that is, in the parish of his domicile or quasi-domicile (cf. n. 203). - Hence, he does not satisfy who communicates in the cathedral church, since this cannot despoil parochial churches of their rights. - But he satisfies who anywhere receives Communion from the hand of his own pastor, because the pastor is judged to know his sheep everywhere. Similarly, one who has received Viaticum in Paschal time from the hand of his own pastor has satisfied each precept.

It is said 2. unless he is exempted by license of the pastor; "because, with the consent of the Supreme Pontiff, or of the Bishop or Ordinary, or his Vicar General, or the pastor, for all these are understood under the name of pastor, the Doctors concede that by communicating outside the parish, the precept is satisfied." Yet PRESUMED or interpretative license suffices, provided consent can morally certainly be supposed. And if the pastor is, or is presumed to be, unwilling unreasonably, the consent of the Bishop or Pontiff can licitly be presumed. But it is not licit for a pastor to concede to his parishioners a general license that they satisfy the Paschal precept in another church, since he cannot dispense universally in the law of the Church. Thus the S. C. Conc., September 7, 1615.

It is said 3. by custom: by this reason priests satisfy wherever they celebrate. Understand, if they celebrate; for otherwise they are held to communicate in the parish, as laymen. Likewise, pilgrims and vagi are exempted, who either do not have a parish, or are so absent from it that they cannot conveniently return to it. Therefore they can communicate in any church whatever, unless, as the Ritual bears, in some place a custom flourishes of remitting them to the cathedral church.²⁰ - And the same must be said of soldiers, if they are not at station, nor have domicile or quasi-domicile in the city.

It is said 4. or by privilege: for to Regulars privilege has been conceded, that their familiars can satisfy in their churches; provided they actually serve, reside within the enclosures of the monastery, and live under the obedience of the Prelates, as is had in Trent (cf. n. 2186).²¹

It was asked: "Whether male and female secular servants of Nuns, living in dwellings situated in the courts of monasteries surrounded by a wall, and which are contiguous to the monasteries and have a gate which is closed, are held to receive the Sacrament of the Eucharist in Paschal time from the pastors in whose parishes the monastery and dwellings are situated? - And the S. C. C., September 19, 1722, responded: Affirmatively and no more... by which word no more, it is declared that all the Cardinals were unanimous, and that no question about the same matter, clear enough, is to be had in the future." Thus Benedict XIV.²²

1572. It is asked: To what is he held who DID NOT SATISFY the Paschal precept in his own parish?

Resp. 1. One who communicated in his own parish, but, on account of unworthy reception, did not satisfy, is indeed held to communicate as soon as possible, but can do this in any church; because he is already sufficiently recognized by the pastor.²³ 2. One who in good faith communicated in another church does not seem to be obligated under grave sin to repeat Communion in his own parish church; because the pastor is reasonably presumed not to urge his right in this way, at least toward those who receive the Sacraments more rarely. 3. One who omitted Communion, or in bad faith communicated in another church, is held to communicate as soon as possible in his own church; because his own dishonesty excuses no one from the law. Yet, Paschal time having now elapsed, the consent of the pastor can more easily be presumed, so that satisfaction be made in another church.²⁴

It must be noted that the penalty decreed against transgressors of the law is not incurred except after the sentence of a judge²⁵ (cf. n. 1387, 4).

1573. IV. Every faithful of either sex is held by the Paschal precept, after he has arrived AT THE YEARS OF DISCRETION. - But at what age children are judged to have this discretion must be weighed in this place. Hence the following:

Questions. Q. 1. Whether CHILDREN, as soon as they have the use of reason, are held to communicate?

Resp. Negatively, from the most common and more probable opinion. "The reason is that the common usage of the Church thus interprets the obligation of this precept, both that children may receive the Eucharist with greater reverence and fruit, and lest they themselves be easily exposed to danger of transgression. And although they are obligated to confession, nevertheless they are not for that reason held to receive the Eucharist, which is of greater excellence and not of so great necessity. Nor does the canon of the Lateran Council obstruct, where it is said that every faithful, after he has reached the years of discretion, is held not only to confession but also to Communion; for the years of discretion are to be understood respectively according to the reason of the matter, namely when someone has reached the years of discretion for confession, let him confess; when he has reached the years of discretion for Communion, let him communicate."¹

But to children constituted in DANGER OF DEATH, provided they are able in some way to discern between profane and heavenly food, Communion not only can be given, but also ought to be, as authors very commonly teach.² "The reason is that, on the one hand, children constituted in such danger are held from the divine precept to communicate; on the other, the utility of the Eucharist then does not demand a greater disposition."³

Q. 2. When are children judged OBLIGATED to communicate?

Resp. "The Doctors commonly say that, REGULARLY speaking, children are not obligated to Communion before the ninth or tenth year"; the Council of Albi in the year 1850 thinks the same⁴; "nor is Communion to be deferred for them beyond the twelfth or at least beyond the fourteenth year.... It was said REGULARLY; for, as authors notice, children who before such an age are seen to be more perspicacious can be obligated sooner. Whence Roncaglia rightly reprehends pastors who indiscriminately do not admit to Communion except children constituted in a certain age. - But it must be noted that, although children in the tenth year can be admitted to Communion, nevertheless they themselves are not held to it, but only then when they have been warned by the pastor or parents."⁵

Q. 3. To WHOM does it pertain to institute an examination and bring judgment concerning the capacity of the child?

Resp. "1. With respect to AGE and DISPOSITION OF SOUL, it pertains to parents and the confessor to decide the matter. For thus the Roman Catechism:⁶ 'At what age the sacred mysteries are to be given to children, no one will be able to determine better than the father and the priest to whom they confess their sins; for it pertains to them to explore and ask from the children whether they have received some knowledge of this admirable Sacrament and have a taste for it.'

"2. With respect to EXAMINATION concerning Christian doctrine, nothing particular is established by common law. Therefore it pertains to the confessor to attend whether the child has sufficient doctrine. But by particular law, established by Bishops in many places, children to be admitted to first Communion must be examined by the pastor himself, or his delegates, concerning doctrine and maturity of judgment."⁷

1574. Concerning the FIRST COMMUNION of children it is useful to add the following things from the Council of Bordeaux, celebrated in the year 1850:⁸

"Since on the first approach to the sacred Synaxis the course of the whole life, and therefore eternal salvation itself, often depends, we beseech in the Lord every rector of souls, that they expend the greatest possible diligence in disposing little ones for first Communion.... Let them demand, as far as can be done, that the children be present assiduously at catechism for two years; let them instruct them with particular diligence, question them frequently, and not admit them unless it is altogether clear concerning their sufficient knowledge.

Then: "Let them stir them up in every way to prepare a dwelling for God, which is a great work; and, for the sake of discerning who are preparing themselves with a great heart and willing soul, let them diligently inquire concerning the manner of acting of each one, and let them themselves watch over them attentively; at least once in the month, let them receive them at the sacred tribunal, or care that they be received, and the more frequently as the time of Communion becomes more imminent.

"Before Communion, let them receive a general confession of the whole life, taking care lest, through fear of repulsion, some sin be concealed. But three days before Communion, let them proximately prepare them by pious exercises, and on the day itself let them take care that the greatest solemnity be applied, and that the baptismal vows be renewed."

FROM THE SYNOD OF TURIN we add: "But if an adolescent, already having attained the thirteenth year, cannot approach his proper pastor, the confessor will perform an excellent work of charity if he teaches him in catechesis and promotes him to Communion; but let him exhort him that he make his pastor more certain concerning this matter."⁹

1304. Principles. - I. The real reception of the Eucharist is necessary neither for children nor for adults by necessity of means unto salvation. It is established 1° from the universal practice of the Church, which gives Communion neither to little children, nor to adults impeded by infirmity, e.g. those prone to vomiting, the delirious, etc.; 2° from the definition of the Church at least as regards little children, Trent.²

II. The reception of the Eucharist is necessary by necessity of divine precept. It is drawn from the words of Christ: Unless you shall eat the Flesh of the Son of man, and drink his Blood, you shall not have life in you.³ But whether, and by what necessity of means, it is necessary, see above n. 1207. III. 1°.

III. The reception of the Eucharist is necessary also from a precept of the Church. It is proved from the Fourth Lateran Council,⁴ where it is said: "Every faithful person of either sex, after he has reached the years of discretion, should confess at least once in the year, ... receiving reverently, at least at Easter, the Sacrament of the Eucharist, unless perhaps, by the counsel of his own priest, he should judge that he must abstain from such reception for some reasonable cause." It is established also from Trent.¹

IV. The reception of the Eucharist is not necessary under both species, except for priests alone in the act of the celebration of Mass. It is proved from Trent.² It is established also from the universal practice of the Church, although in earlier centuries it was different.

1305. Questions. - Query 1° At what time does the divine precept of communicating urge?

Resp. 1° It obliges of itself in the article or proximate danger of death, and indeed under grave sin. The reason is because the Eucharist was instituted as a viaticum strengthening against the enemies of salvation.³

Resp. 2° It obliges of itself also several times in life. It is established from the fact that the Eucharist was instituted by way of spiritual food, by which the soul is nourished and strengthened; but food must be taken several times. It is also drawn from Sacred Scripture cited above, and also from the Councils just mentioned. Nevertheless Christ did not determine how often this Sacrament is to be approached, but left this to be established by his Church. But the Church established annual Communion in Paschal time. Hence by Communion received once in the year at that time, both the divine and ecclesiastical precept are satisfied.⁴

Resp. 3° This precept obliges accidentally sometimes, and perhaps even several times in the year, if the Eucharist is necessary for overcoming some grave temptation. Nevertheless this, says Suarez, happens most rarely, since other means can suffice for this, prayers, penances, etc. But he who in that case neglected Communion would not sin against this precept, but against the virtue against which he is tempted.⁵

Query 2° Is someone held to receive sacred Viaticum, when danger of death is imminent, if a few days before he communicated from devotion?

Resp. Affirmatively, more probably. The reason is because this precept, by interpretation of the Church, urges in danger of death, that we may be fortified against spiritual enemies by this divine help. Therefore it is not fulfilled by Communion made before the illness; because, although someone has fulfilled the prescribed work, nevertheless he has not fulfilled it at the time at which he was held.

Nevertheless several deny with Lugo.¹ Their reason is because the precept of Communion has already been fulfilled in substance. - St. Alphonsus says that this sentence is sufficiently probable, at least if the danger of death occurs naturally, because through that brief preceding time it has already morally begun to be imminent, although it had been unknown.²

Query 3° Is he who communicated in the morning from devotion held, or can he, when danger of death urges, receive Viaticum?

Resp. There is a fourfold sentence.

The first affirms that he is held, because then Viaticum must be received in order to fulfill the divine precept, which, since it was not yet urging at the time at which Communion was received, therefore could not be fulfilled by that reception.

The second says that he is not held, but can communicate: 1° indeed he is not held, because the time at which he communicated is morally the same, since it is the same day; 2° he can, because although strictly he does not seem to be held, nevertheless he is not for that reason prohibited; since favors are to be enlarged.

The third contends that he is neither held, nor can communicate. The reason is because the precept obliges from the intention of the Church, and the practice of the Church is that no one communicate twice in a day; nor is there a reason why this case should be excepted.

The fourth, which to St. Alphonsus³ seems more probable, distinguishes between a natural illness, as sudden apoplexy is also reputed, and a violent one, for example from a wound, or if someone has fallen from a height. In the latter case he is held to communicate, because in truth he did not receive Viaticum as constituted in the article of death.³

Query 4° Can the Eucharist be given to a sick person who suffers from a cough?

Resp. Affirmatively, because the danger lest the sacred species be rejected together with phlegm is for the most part absent. And the reason is because the way through which spittle is expelled by coughing is not the esophagus, i.e. the way through which food and drink are conveyed into the stomach, but is the rough artery, through which respiration extends even to the lungs. If nevertheless the cough is so continual that it impedes the host from being conveyed into the stomach, then Communion must be abstained from. - Thus the Roman Ritual. (w) p. 402.

But when the sick person labors under continual vomiting, he cannot communicate, unless perhaps he has been free from vomiting for at least six hours. But in doubt whether the sick person will vomit back the sacred particle, it must not be given to him.² (A) p. 402.

Query 5° In danger of death, is Communion to be given to children who have not yet been admitted to the sacred Synaxis?

Resp. 1° Negatively, if they have not yet obtained the use of reason. The reason is because this is against the present discipline of the Church.

Resp. 2° Affirmatively as regards children who are possessed of reason. Indeed not only can Communion be given to them, but it also ought to be. The reason is because, on the one hand, children constituted in such danger are held from divine precept to communicate, even if the precept of Paschal Communion did not yet oblige them; and on the other hand the utility of the Eucharist then does not demand a greater disposition. Therefore Pastors gravely err who do not wish to administer Viaticum to children of this kind.³

Query 6° Is Viaticum to be given to those recently converted to the faith?

Resp. Affirmatively, "if they have the faith by which Baptism can be ministered to them, together with some knowledge" of the Eucharist; ... otherwise, if Baptism is ministered to them when they have not been sufficiently instructed, or are doubtfully disposed, so that, insofar as it can be done, provision may be made for them.⁴

Query 7° In danger of death, is Communion to be given to the insane, the half-witted, the delirious, and those destitute of the senses?

Resp. 1° As regards the insane: 1) If they have been perpetually insane, Communion is never to be given to them. Thus from the Roman Ritual on the Eucharist. - 2) If they sometimes have lucid intervals, and have manifested the desire of communicating, at least implicitly, Communion can be given to them; indeed it ought to be, danger of irreverence being excluded.⁵ (B) p. 402.

Resp. 2° As regards the half-witted: Communion is to be given to them when they have sufficient discretion to distinguish this heavenly food from others; but rarely, namely only in the article of death, and where the strict precept of communicating urges.¹ (I) p. 403.

Resp. 3° As regards the delirious: Communion can be given to them if they can communicate, danger of irreverence being excluded. But the best practice is that beforehand a non-consecrated particle be given to the sick person, and thus it appear whether he can communicate decently.² (A) p. 403.

Resp. 4° As regards those destitute of the senses: they certainly do not sin when they do not receive Communion, since they are capable of observing no law. But the Pastor is not for that reason dispensed from the obligation of ministering the Eucharist to them, if before the loss of reason they were disposed. For the Sacraments operate ex opere operato in those who desired to receive them before they lost the use of reason. Except, however, if danger of irreverence is present, or if it is feared that they cannot swallow the Host. - Thus commonly. - Gousset.³ (A) p. 403.

Query 8° Is Communion to be given to the deaf-mute, the possessed, and epileptics?

Resp. 1° As regards the deaf-mute: Affirmatively, if from signs it is established that they have discretion and are sufficiently instructed. But if they enjoy not merely some discretion, but sufficient discretion, they will be able to communicate more often.⁴

Resp. 2° As regards the possessed, one must distinguish: Communion is to be denied to them when they are not in control of themselves; otherwise it is to be granted. Indeed it is expedient that such persons communicate more often according to the prudence of the confessor, since the Eucharist is a special remedy for warding off demons.⁵

Resp. 3° As regards epileptics: Communion cannot be given to them when they are in an actual paroxysm, on account of the proximate danger of irreverence; but at other times it is not to be denied.⁶ (E) p. 403.

Note. - To those who are deaf-mute and at the same time blind from birth, Communion is to be denied.⁷

Query 9° Ought Communion to be given to those condemned to death?

Resp. Affirmatively. Benedict XIV indeed teaches that "that custom is to be followed which is known respectively to exist in each place";¹ but he calls the usage of ministering the Most Holy Eucharist to them "more conformable to Christian piety." But St. Alphonsus teaches absolutely that it is to be given to them, as they are constituted in the article of death; nevertheless Communion should precede the execution by one hour. And indeed it can be given to one not fasting;² for it is administered by way of Viaticum, as is clear from the Response of the particular Sacred Congregation de Propaganda Fide concerning Chinese matters, 5 July 1841.

295. The ecclesiastical precept of receiving the Eucharist. - The Church, for various times and in various ways, has determined the divine precept. From the time of the Fourth Lateran Council, c. 21, it was established what is still announced in the Code of Law, can. 859, § 1: "Every faithful person of either sex, after he has arrived at the years of discretion, i.e., at the use of reason, ought once in the year, at least at Easter, to receive the sacrament of the Eucharist; unless perhaps by the counsel of his own priest, for some reasonable cause, he has judged that for a time he must abstain from its reception." This precept obliges under grave obligation.

It is said: 1) Every faithful person of either sex, namely every baptized person, with no one excepted, whether layman or priest, whether just or sinner, even excommunicated, whether healthy or infirm, although some delay could sometimes be granted to this latter.

2. After he has arrived at the years of discretion, or at sufficient use of reason by which he can sufficiently discern good and evil, and tend to the last end and turn himself away from it and be capable of committing mortal sin, as we know from the Council of Trent, sess. 21, c. 4 de ref. (n. 275), and from the decree of the Sacred Congregation of the Sacraments Quam singulari, August 8, 1910. This, in our times and in our regions, is accustomed to happen around the seventh year, as we find declared in the same decree.

3. Ought to receive the sacrament of the Eucharist, namely devoutly and with due dispositions, as is clear both from the end of the precept and from the fact that the Lateran Council explicitly added the word: reverently.

4. Once in the year: that is principally prescribed, that the sacrament be received once in the year; which year, from the authentic declaration of Eugene IV, July 8, 1440, is not to be computed from the first of January, nor from the last communion, but from Easter to Easter.

5. At least at Easter: that is secondarily prescribed, that communion at least be made in the time of Easter, although the Church desires that it be received more often. The Paschal time runs from Palm Sunday up to Low Sunday.³ But local Ordinaries can for a just cause, i.e., if the circumstances of persons and places so require, anticipate this time even for all their faithful, but not before the fourth Sunday of Lent, or postpone it, but not beyond the feast of the Most Holy Trinity (can. 859, § 2); which privilege, if it is local, pilgrims staying there can use. But the pastor cannot anticipate the time, not even in a particular case, because the time of the precept has not yet begun, but only postpone it, as is explicitly said.

³ The Church opportunely chose Paschal time: a) because at that time Christ instituted this sacrament; b) because communion is the memorial of the passion which happened around Easter; c) because the faithful are better disposed by the Lenten fast for communicating worthily.

6. Unless perhaps by the counsel of his own priest, for some reasonable cause, he has judged that for a time he must abstain from its reception. The proper priest is the pastor (and a fortiori the local Ordinary), who for a reasonable cause can defer to another time, for example if a woman after childbirth has not yet come to church, if someone must undertake a journey from which he will shortly return, if someone is sick and can shortly go to church, if he needs fuller knowledge of Christian doctrine or better preparation. Likewise the confessor, who in the internal forum holds the place of the proper priest, but in confession and on account of a cause of conscience only.

Let it be noted: a) He who before the seventh year has the use of reason or sufficient discretion is held to communion (can. 859, § 1), yet not to be made at once but within the year.

b) The precept of receiving communion is not satisfied through sacrilegious communion (can. 861), as was already certain from proposition 55 condemned by Innocent XI.

c) The precept of Paschal communion still urges, if someone, for whatever cause, has not fulfilled it in the prescribed time (can. 859, § 4). Although the secondary precept of communicating at Easter can no longer be fulfilled, the principal precept of communicating once in the year does not cease to be fulfilled. And indeed as soon as possible, as is safer lest it be handed over to oblivion, and as is suggested by the word: urges; although according to some it suffices that it be done before the following Easter.

d) He who foresees that he will be impeded during the whole Paschal time is not held to anticipate it. Indeed not even by anticipating does he satisfy, because the time of obligation has not begun; unless, however, he has obtained permission of anticipating from the local Ordinary.

e) He who, after Easter has begun, foresees an impediment for the last days, is held to communicate as soon as possible.

f) He who omitted communion at Easter, whether he omitted it from sin, or inculpably, is still held to communicate: and indeed if he has been dispensed to defer, he is held at the time which was assigned to him; otherwise during the year, at least before the future Paschal time.

g) By the Fourth Lateran Council it had been prescribed that Paschal communion be received from one's own priest, i.e., from the pastor or his delegate, and therefore in the parish church. But now can. 859, § 3 says: "It is to be advised to the faithful that each satisfy this precept in his own parish. And those who have satisfied it in another should take care to make their own pastor more certain of the fulfilled precept." Yet this is not to be extended to priests, who even before satisfied anywhere, by celebrating.

St. Th., Suppl., q. 6, a. 3 and 5; q. 8, a. 4 and 5.

511. There is given a twofold precept concerning confession: divine and ecclesiastical. - The divine precept, as is clear from the preceding article, determines the obligation, but not the time in which it must be fulfilled; the ecclesiastical precept defines beforehand the time and other circumstances.

512. The divine precept does not oblige immediately after mortal sin, just as neither does penance itself or contrition: "it is not of the necessity of bodily health," says St. Thomas, "that a physician be sought immediately, unless when the necessity of healing is urgent, and similarly it is with spiritual evil" (q. 6, a. 5, ad 2). Hence at no time has the Church ever enjoined immediate confession, nor are the faithful conscious of such an obligation. Nevertheless:

A. The precept obliges of itself:

1. Certainly, in the article of death and in a very probable danger of death, or of perpetual insanity, or of another impediment on account of which one can foresee that he will never have an occasion of confessing sins.

Thus, whether the danger arises from disease, or from battle, or from condemnation by a judge, or from dangerous childbirth, or from surgical cutting, or from a very dangerous voyage, or from any other cause. For he who, placed in such a danger, does not fulfill the divine precept, rashly exposes himself to the proximate danger of never fulfilling it; hence he is judged not to will to fulfill it, since he neglects the necessary means, which certainly is the same as violating the precept.

2. Probably, several times in life, because the sinner seems to be bound not to remain long in mortal sin, as one who otherwise will fall into a new sin; but the ordinary means of rising from sin is confession. This is valid at least concerning him who cannot elicit perfect contrition or does not will to elicit it.1

In practice there is no difficulty concerning this, since the Church has decreed that confession must be made at least every year. For since Christ obliged to this indeterminately, and left it to the Church to be determined, and since by perfect contrition also, with the desire of the sacrament, the natural precept of penance can be fulfilled, of itself it cannot be urged upon penitents that they confess more frequently than has been determined in the precept of the Church; and to observe this of itself suffices.¹

¹ Cf. Quodl. I, 11.

B. Accidentally and by reason of another natural or positive precept we are held to confess:

1. when Holy Communion is to be received, if the one about to communicate is in mortal sin not yet remitted by the keys, not even indirectly (Council of Trent, sess. 13, c. 7; Code of Canon Law, can. 856);

2. when the state of grace is required, e.g., for receiving another sacrament of the living, and at the same time the sinner cannot or does not will to elicit an act of perfect contrition;

3. when a grave temptation or depraved habit cannot be overcome without confession. Since, however, there are often other means, sinners are rather to be exhorted to this than compelled.2

In all these cases the obligation does not arise from the precept itself of confession; hence its omission is not a sin against the divine precept of confessing, but against another precept by force of which confession was required. Nor does an obligation of confessing immediately arise from the danger of forgetting sins, because no precept exists of retaining them in memory or of providing lest sins be given over to oblivion; rather, the one precept is of confessing those sins of which, after diligent examination, we have consciousness.

1. Of itself; for accidentally, if the confessor judged that more frequent confession was altogether necessary for someone in order to persevere, he could impose it.

2. Others add: upon return to the Church, even if Baptism is repeated conditionally (Holy Office, Dec. 17, 1868; S.C.P.F., July 12, 1869). But this is nothing other than the ecclesiastical precept of annual confession, because while in the external forum Baptism is presumed valid, the Church urges the precept of confessing every year. On this see our Questions concerning Various Sins to be Remedied in Sacramental Confession, c. II, § A, q. 1, n. XIV.

513. The ecclesiastical precept, after several and diverse particular laws were already in force in particular Churches for various times, was imposed universally in the thirteenth century in the Fourth Lateran Council (1215): "Every faithful person of either sex, after he has reached the years of discretion, shall alone faithfully confess all his sins at least once a year to his own priest, and shall strive according to his strength to fulfill the penance enjoined on him..., otherwise, while living, he shall be barred from entrance into the church, and when dying, shall lack Christian burial." This was confirmed by the Council of Trent, sess. 14, c. 5, can. 8, and substantially retained in the Code of Canon Law, can. 906. Moreover, that precept was not enacted precisely on account of Paschal Communion, because the end of each is different; and therefore he who, on account of some cause, cannot receive Holy Communion must nevertheless confess once a year.

In this precept six things are indicated, namely the subject of the commanded confession, the object, the mode, the frequency, the minister, and the penalties upon transgressors.

1. The subject of the precept is: every faithful person of either sex. By these words all the baptized and they alone are indicated, who are conscious of mortal sin not yet declared in valid confession;1 also children who have reached the years of discretion, i.e., the use of reason, as is clear from can. 906, by which, namely, they can discern between good and evil and are capable of mortal sin.

Hence pastors are bound

a) to instruct children concerning confession already from the seventh year, and sometimes earlier, if they already enjoy the use of reason;

b) they must absolve those who accuse themselves of mortal sin, even doubtful mortal sin, provided they are rightly disposed; and in doubt concerning sufficient discretion or disposition, they are to be absolved under condition, "if you are capable," lest perhaps they remain in sin;

c) confessors gravely err who do not will to absolve children entrusted to them before first Communion; this abuse Pius IX reproved in a letter to the bishops of France, March 12, 1855.

2. The object of the precept is that he confess all his sins. This certainly cannot be understood of venial sins, because no one can confess all of them (St. Thomas, q. 6, a. 3, ad 3), but only of mortal sins.2 For the Church by her precept willed only to determine more closely the divine precept by establishing the time of confession; but the divine precept obliges only to the confession of mortal sins, as is clear from the Council of Trent, sess. 14, c. 5.

From this it follows that he who has not sinned mortally during the year, strictly speaking, is not held to confess. Nevertheless it is expedient that one having venial sins not abstain from annual confession; indeed, formerly several said that he is bound "to present himself to the priest and show himself to be without consciousness of mortal sin" (St. Thomas, l. c.), but today at least such an obligation is not proved to exist, unless sometimes accidentally, by reason of scandal.

3. The mode of confession is that he confess faithfully, by which it is signified that the precept is not satisfied by a voluntarily invalid or sacrilegious confession, as is clear from the condemnation of prop. 14 by Alexander VII and from can. 907; nor by a confession involuntarily null, because it is not true confession, nor by it is the end of the precept obtained, reconciliation with God.

And indeed: sacramental confession is required, because the Church intends more closely to determine the divine precept, and because the Lateran Council adds: "he shall strive to fulfill the penance enjoined." Hence he who has not received absolution, whether because of a defect of contrition, or because of a reserved sin, or because of another reason, does not satisfy. Hence in the case the precept still urges (Council of Trent, sess. 14, c. 5).

205. Existence of the obligation. Principle 1. The actual reception (in re) of the Eucharist is necessary to no one by necessity of means.

This proposition is of defined faith against several Greeks and Calvinists. For the Council of Trent says: "If anyone says that Eucharistic Communion is necessary for little children before they have arrived at the years of discretion, let him be anathema."¹⁵⁵ But what is defined here for little children holds also for adults. For by necessity of means nothing is necessary for salvation except sanctifying grace and those things which God has prescribed as absolutely necessary. But sanctifying grace is not given by the Eucharist; rather, it is presupposed as already given, since the Eucharist is a sacrament of the living. Moreover, it cannot be proved that God absolutely prescribed the actual reception of the Eucharist, as, for example, He prescribed actual faith for adults. Hence, without any doubt, one would be saved, for example, an adult pagan, who, rightly disposed, received Baptism and, after receiving it, died suddenly before he could receive the Eucharist.

¹⁵⁵ Session 21, can. 4 (Denz., n. 937).

206. Principle 2. The reception of the Eucharist in desire (in voto), at least implicit, is necessary by necessity of means, so that without it salvation cannot be obtained.

Thus St. Thomas¹⁵⁶ seems to teach: "Through Baptism a man is ordered to the Eucharist; and therefore, from the very fact that children are baptized, they are ordered to the Eucharist through the Church; and thus, just as they believe through the faith of the Church, so through the faith of the Church they desire the Eucharist." The Angelic Doctor elsewhere¹⁵⁷ confirms this doctrine, saying: "This sacrament [of the Eucharist] of itself has the power of conferring grace; nor does anyone have grace before receiving this sacrament except from some desire for it, either through himself, as adults, or through the desire of the Church, as little children." The reason for this doctrine is that the Eucharist is: a) the immolated Flesh of Christ, which is at once the price of our redemption and the principle of our sanctification; b) the end of all the sacraments, since they tend toward union with Christ, which union is greatest in the Eucharist; c) a necessary means for persevering in the state of sanctifying grace. The desire to receive the Eucharist must be explicit in an adult who knows the Eucharist and the precept of Christ: "Unless you eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink His Blood, you shall not have life in you."¹⁵⁸ But in infants an implicit desire suffices, just as implicit faith also suffices in them.

¹⁵⁶ S. theol. 3, q. 73, a. 3. St. Alphonsus (Theol. mor., l. 6, n. 192), John Nicolussi, Die Notwendigkeit der Eucharistie (Bozen, 1917), and the Roman Catechism, p. 2, c. 4, q. 41, think in the same manner. But Cajetan (Commentary on S. theol. 3, q. 80, a. 12; q. 1, a. 6) and many moderns, such as Bucceroni, Génicot, Pesch, Cappello, etc., teach the contrary.

¹⁵⁷ Q. 79, a. 1 ad 1; cf. also q. 80, a. 11.

¹⁵⁸ John 6:54.

207. Principle 3. The actual reception (in re) of the Eucharist is necessary for all who have the use of reason by necessity of precept, both divine and ecclesiastical.

a) The divine precept of receiving the Eucharist is manifestly gathered both from the words cited above, "Unless you eat...," and from the words of Christ uttered after the institution of the Eucharist: "Do this in commemoration of Me."¹⁵⁹ St. Paul indeed applies these words not only to priests, but also to all the faithful.¹⁶⁰ The Council of Trent¹⁶¹ acknowledges this divine precept: "But the Savior wished this sacrament to be received as the spiritual food of souls, by which those living by the life of Him who says, 'He who eats Me, he also shall live because of Me,' may be nourished and strengthened." St. Thomas¹⁶² says: "It is manifest that a man is bound to receive this sacrament not only from the statute of the Church, but from the command of the Lord."

¹⁵⁹ Luke 22:19.

¹⁶⁰ 1 Corinthians 11:26.

¹⁶¹ Session 13, c. 2 on the Eucharist (Denz., n. 875).

¹⁶² S. theol., loc. cit.

208. Time of the obligation. If it is now asked when this divine precept binds, nothing else can be said except that it binds: 1. sometimes in life after the use of reason has been attained; 2. most probably also at the point of death.¹⁶³

1. That the Eucharist must be received by divine law sometimes in life is altogether certain and is manifestly gathered from the texts of Sacred Scripture cited above. Christ did not determine how many times in life the Eucharist is to be received, but left this to be determined by the Church.

2. That Viaticum is to be received at the point of death by divine law can be known from the universal practice of the Church. Reason is added. For if the Eucharistic food ought ever to strengthen the soul, certainly it ought at the point of death. Nor does it stand in the way that in ancient times the Eucharist was sometimes denied even at the point of death to certain great sinners and to those condemned to death. For such a usage never existed in the universal Church, but only in certain places. But when bishops or provincial councils established something similar, especially through the excommunication called "anathema maranatha," they nevertheless customarily added, "unless he shall repent."¹⁶⁴

The point of death at which Holy Communion is to be received as Viaticum ought not to be understood in a strict sense, namely, when death is now inevitably imminent, but more broadly for any grave danger of death. Thus Viaticum ought to be given, for example, before a dangerous surgical operation; during a raging plague, if the danger of contagion and death is very imminent; to soldiers before battle; before childbirth which is extraordinarily dangerous; to those condemned to death before execution, etc. It is expedient that Viaticum be given to those condemned persons at least one hour before death, so that at the execution the Eucharistic species may already be dissolved.

When someone has received Viaticum sacrilegiously, he has not satisfied the divine precept; therefore, he must receive the Holy Eucharist again, at least if this can be done without infamy. It belongs to a prudent confessor to judge what is to be done in a case of sacrilegious Viaticum. Before all else, the dying person must worthily receive sacramental absolution; then care is to be taken that he receive Communion again on the following day. Nevertheless, lest wonder arise, the dying person can request Communion for the sake of devotion. But if for a reasonable cause not even this can be done, there seems to be a sufficient reason for carrying Viaticum secretly, which even a religious confessor can do, lest he disclose the sick person's sacrilege. Thus Noldin¹⁶⁵ and Aertnys.¹⁶⁶ I think, however, that this last course is rarely expedient, because the matter would easily be discovered, the seal of confession would be endangered, and other inconveniences would arise.

¹⁶³ Cf. St. Alphonsus, Theol. mor., l. 6, nn. 290 and 295.

¹⁶⁴ Cf. Synod of Rheims, A.D. 900 (in Hardouin VI, 1, 467); Billuart, De euchar., diss. 6, a. 3, dico 6.

¹⁶⁵ De sacr., n. 137.

¹⁶⁶ Theol. mor. II, n. 91, q. 9.

209. You ask: Since, according to the most probable opinion, Viaticum must be received by divine precept, is one who received Communion out of devotion a short time before or even on the same day bound to receive Viaticum when a sudden danger of death overtakes him? For example, is a priest who said Mass in the morning and, having been struck by apoplexy in the afternoon, is in danger of death, bound to receive Viaticum?

That Viaticum can be received in such a case is today beyond doubt and is manifestly gathered from the Code of Canon Law, cc. 857 and 864, § 2; for the reason which some authors oppose, that no one can receive Communion twice in one day, is futile. Do not so many priests who celebrate two Masses on every Sunday and feast day receive Communion twice in one day? But that Viaticum must be received in such a case cannot be proved either from divine or from ecclesiastical law. Certainly, every adult is bound under grave sin to receive Viaticum at the point of death; but one who received Holy Communion a short time before seems to have had the interpretative intention of receiving Viaticum, since everyone is presumed to wish to fulfill a grave precept which he could fulfill through his act. And this is safe in practice, at least if the person received Holy Communion during an illness which, having suddenly grown worse, brings on the point of death. Nevertheless, repeated reception of the Holy Eucharist is strongly to be counseled, as it is most efficacious for overcoming the dangers of the final agony.¹⁶⁷

Therefore, in practice it seems that the matter should be stated briefly thus: One who worthily received Communion within the preceding week is not strictly bound, when danger of death is imminent, to receive the Holy Eucharist again as Viaticum; but one who received Communion even on the same day is strongly advised to receive Viaticum when a sudden danger of death overtakes him.¹⁶⁸

¹⁶⁷ Thus also the Code of Canon Law, c. 864, § 2.

¹⁶⁸ Code of Canon Law, c. 864, § 2. Cf. St. Alphonsus, Theol. mor., l. 6, n. 258, doubts 2 and 3.

210. b) The ecclesiastical precept of receiving the Eucharist.

The reception of the Eucharist is also prescribed and determined by ecclesiastical law. The Fourth Lateran Council (1215) established that "every faithful person of either sex, after he has arrived at the years of discretion, shall confess all his sins alone at least once a year ... reverently receiving the sacrament of the Eucharist at least at Easter."¹⁶⁹ The Council of Trent defined the same: "If anyone denies that each and every one of Christ's faithful of either sex, when they have arrived at the years of discretion, are bound to receive Communion every year, at least at Easter, according to the precept of holy Mother Church, let him be anathema."¹⁷⁰ The Code of Canon Law, c. 859, prescribes the same.

¹⁶⁹ Denz., n. 437.

¹⁷⁰ Session 13, can. 9 on the Eucharist (Denz., n. 891).

211. First Communion is to be received after a person has arrived at the years of discretion, but not before.¹⁷¹ When the sufficient use of reason required for this sacrament begins cannot be mathematically defined, since it depends upon the maturity of intellect and the instruction received by each person. As a general rule, the teaching of the Angelic Doctor can be held: "When children now begin to have some use of reason, so that they can conceive devotion toward this sacrament, then this sacrament can be conferred upon them."¹⁷² These words are indeed cited and approved by the Sacred Congregation of the Sacraments on August 8, 1910,¹⁷³ which further declared that the age of discretion required for Confession and Communion is the same. "But the knowledge of religion which is required in a child, that he may suitably prepare himself for First Communion, is that by which he perceives, according to his capacity, the mysteries of faith necessary by necessity of means, and distinguishes Eucharistic bread from common and bodily bread, so that he may approach the Most Holy Eucharist with that devotion of which his age is capable."¹⁷⁴

Bishops of each region are generally accustomed to determine at what age children may be admitted to First Communion; nevertheless, to judge whether a particular child is sufficiently disposed to receive Holy Communion belongs to the parents (and those who take their place) and to the confessor.¹⁷⁵ "But it is the duty of the pastor to watch (even by an examination, if he shall prudently judge it opportune) that children do not approach the sacred banquet before attaining 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 are refreshed with this divine food as soon as possible." Thus the Code of Canon Law, c. 854, § 5. In northern regions, the suitable age for receiving solemn First Communion has been fixed by some bishops as the ninth year; but in southern regions a younger age can suffice.

It is to be noted that the right of admitting children to First Communion is by no means a parochial right.¹⁷⁶ Therefore, any confessor can privately admit a child to First Communion. Nevertheless, it is strongly to be counseled that children ordinarily be admitted to First Communion either by the pastor or by him to whom their religious instruction has been entrusted. But if a child before the time established for First Communion falls into danger of death, there is a grave obligation to give Communion by way of Viaticum to that child who has sufficient use of reason, after a brief instruction has first been given.¹⁷⁷

¹⁷¹ Code of Canon Law, c. 854, § 1.

¹⁷² S. theol. 3, q. 80, a. 9 ad 3. The Angelic Doctor says: it can be conferred; but he does not say: it must be conferred. Hence some speak incorrectly when they say: Immediately after attaining the use of reason, everyone must by divine law receive the Most Holy Eucharist.

¹⁷³ Acta Ap. Sedis II, 581 (Denz., nn. 2137–2144).

¹⁷⁴ Ibid., n. 3 (Denz., n. 2139), and Code of Canon Law, c. 854, § 3.

¹⁷⁵ Roman Catechism, p. 2, c. 4, q. 49, and Code of Canon Law, c. 854, § 4.

¹⁷⁶ Cf. Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars, March 14, 1908 (Analecta ecclesiastica XVI [1908], 142); Code of Canon Law, c. 854, § 4.

¹⁷⁷ Cf. decree of the Sacred Congregation of the Sacraments cited above (Denz., n. 2144); Code of Canon Law, c. 854, § 2.

212. Easter Communion is prescribed partly by divine law and partly by ecclesiastical law: by divine law, insofar as it includes the Lord's precept of receiving the Eucharist sometimes; but by ecclesiastical law, insofar as the time of this reception is determined.

Concerning the ecclesiastical precept of Easter Communion, it is useful to note the following briefly:

1. The Easter season extends from Palm Sunday through Low Sunday; nevertheless, it can be extended generally by local Ordinaries for their territory from the Fourth Sunday of Lent through the feast of the Most Holy Trinity.¹⁷⁸ Pastors and confessors can, when a legitimate impediment exists, prolong the Easter season for an individual person.¹⁷⁹ Since the prolongation of the Easter season in force in most regions is a local privilege, all those having a quasi-domicile, or vagrants, or travelers, who licitly receive Communion outside their own parish, participate in this privilege, even if it is not in force in the place of their domicile.

One who without a grave cause delays Communion even by one day beyond the Easter season sins gravely. Thus the common opinion, which teaches that this precept does not admit parvity of matter.¹⁸⁰ One who did not receive Communion during the Easter season is afterward bound to approach the sacred table as soon as possible and cannot wait until the following Easter season. Thus the more probable opinion. For the Easter precept was imposed not to terminate but to urge the obligation of receiving Communion. Hence the Code of Canon Law, c. 859, § 4, establishes: "The precept of Easter Communion still urges if anyone for any cause has not fulfilled it within the prescribed time."

Easter Communion is not satisfied by a sacrilegious Communion. This is certain from proposition 55 condemned by Innocent XI,¹⁸¹ and from the Code of Canon Law, c. 861.

2. The place of Easter Communion is one's own parish.

Thus it is from various decrees of the Supreme Pontiffs.¹⁸² The end of this law is twofold, namely: a) that the pastor may be able to know his own sheep; and b) that the faithful may profess their subjection toward him. This circumstance of place indeed no longer binds strictly; nevertheless, the faithful are to be advised that each fulfill the Easter precept in his own parish; and those who have fulfilled it in another parish should take care to inform their own pastor that the precept has been fulfilled.¹⁸³ Easter Communion can licitly be received in any oratory or church situated within the boundaries of the parish.

One who during the Easter season has received Viaticum from the pastor or his delegate is considered to have satisfied the precept of annual Communion.

¹⁷⁸ Code of Canon Law, c. 859, § 2.

¹⁷⁹ Thus from the Fourth Lateran Council (Denz., n. 437) and from c. 859, § 1.

¹⁸⁰ Lehmkuhl, Theol. mor. II, n. 1452; Noldin, De praecept., n. 695; Marc, Inst. mor. II, n. 1570.

¹⁸¹ Denz., n. 1205.

¹⁸² For example, Benedict XIV, constitution Magno cum animi, § 21, June 2, 1751.

¹⁸³ Code of Canon Law, c. 859, § 3.

213. Exceptions. The following are exempt from the obligation or counsel of receiving Easter Communion in the parish church:

a) A priest, who satisfies it everywhere through the celebration of Mass.¹⁸⁴

b) Religious of either sex and the members of their household who share their table, who can receive Communion in their own chapels. The same holds for men or women living in common without vows.

c) Soldiers, prisoners, students residing in colleges, and others who by particular law or legitimate custom can satisfy the precept in their own chapels.

d) Travelers absent from their own parish during the Easter season, and likewise vagrants, can receive Easter Communion in any church or oratory.¹⁸⁵

¹⁸⁴ St. Alphonsus, Theol. mor., l. 6, n. 300.

¹⁸⁵ Ibid.

214. Scholion. On Communion under both species. In the Latin rite Communion is to be given entirely under the species of bread alone.¹⁸⁶ Communion under both species is necessary only for him who celebrates Mass. The contrary is taught by the Hussites (especially those who were called Utraquists or Calixtines), Luther, Calvin, and the Eastern schismatics. For in the ancient Church Communion was often given under one species only; especially the faithful who carried the Eucharist into their own homes did this under the species of consecrated bread. The Eucharist was given to infants under the species of wine alone.¹⁸⁷ From the most ancient times, on Friday in Parasceve, in the Mass of the Presanctified, the priest received Communion under one species. Therefore, the Council of Trent rightly defined: "If anyone says that, by the precept of God or by necessity of salvation, each and every one of Christ's faithful ought to receive both species of the sacrament of the Most Holy Eucharist, let him be anathema."¹⁸⁸

The reasons why the Church introduced the discipline of Communion for the laity under one species, namely bread, are, for example: the danger of spilling if the chalice is distributed to a great multitude; the danger of contagion if someone drinks from a chalice from which another infected with a contagious disease has drunk; a natural aversion to drinking with others from the same chalice; the difficulty of obtaining pure wine in certain regions; and so forth. These reasons are altogether sufficient for the laity to receive the Eucharist under the species of bread alone, in which they receive the whole Christ in an equally perfect manner as if they received Communion under both species.

But Communion under both species is permitted to the united Easterners. Leo XIII¹⁸⁹ permitted that even laymen of the Latin rite could receive Communion according to the rite of the Easterners in those places where, because of the remoteness of the distance, they cannot without grave inconvenience go to a church of their own rite.¹⁹⁰ Pius X further extended this permission, establishing that even for the sake of devotion all the faithful of any rite may receive the Eucharistic sacrament confected in any rite.¹⁹¹

¹⁸⁶ Code of Canon Law, c. 852.

¹⁸⁷ Cf. St. Cyprian, De lapsis, c. 25 (Migne, Patr. lat. 4, 500).

¹⁸⁸ Session 21, can. 1 on Communion (Denz., n. 934).

¹⁸⁹ Constitution Orientalium dignitas, November 30, 1894.

¹⁹⁰ Cf. Drouven, De re sacr. I, 432 ff., concerning Communion under both species.

¹⁹¹ Constitution Tradita ab antiquis, September 14, 1912 (Acta Ap. Sedis IV, 616). Cf. Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, March 27, 1916 (Acta Ap. Sedis VIII, 106); Code of Canon Law, c. 851, § 2.

I say. There exists a precept of annual confession, and it is proved from can. 906 of the new code: Every faithful person of either sex, after he has arrived at the years of discretion, that is, at the use of reason, is held faithfully to confess all his sins at least once in the year. Cf. Can. 906.

He who makes a sacrilegious confession does not satisfy the precept of confessing sins (Can. 907).

Question 1. How is the year to be computed in this matter?

Response. The Doctors do not agree; for some compute it from one confession to another, others from the beginning of January to the end of the month of December, and still others, whom the custom received almost everywhere favors, compute it from Easter to Easter. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, de Sacram. paenit., n. 662. - Lugo, de paenit., disp. 15, n. 154.

Question 2. To what confessor is confession to be made?

Response. It can be made to any confessor legitimately approved, even of another rite. - Cf. Can. 905.

Question 3. What is the age of discretion?

Response. Pius X, by the Decree Quam singulari, 8 Aug. 1910, established the following norm concerning the first Communion of children to be observed everywhere. "I. The age of discretion, both for Confession and for Holy Communion, is that in which the child begins to reason, that is, about the seventh year, whether above it or even below it. From this time begins the obligation of satisfying both precepts, of Confession and of Communion. II. For first Confession and for first Communion a full and perfect knowledge of Christian doctrine is not necessary. Yet the child afterward must gradually learn the whole catechism according to the measure of his intelligence. III. The knowledge of religion which is required in the child, that he may suitably prepare himself for first Communion, is that by which he perceives according to his capacity the mysteries of faith necessary by necessity of means, and distinguishes the eucharistic bread from common and bodily bread, so that he may approach the Most Holy Eucharist with that devotion which his age allows. IV. The obligation of the precept of Confession and Communion, which burdens the child, chiefly falls upon those who must have care of him, that is, upon parents, upon the confessor, upon teachers, and upon the pastor. But to the father, or to those who take his place, and to the confessor, according to the Roman Catechism, it belongs to admit the child to first Communion. VII. The custom of not admitting children to confession, or of never absolving them, when they have arrived at the use of reason, is altogether to be disapproved." "In this," says the same Supreme Pontiff in the Letter to Cardinal Priest of the Holy Roman Church Fischer, 31 Dec. 1910, "we wish the Christian faithful to understand well that the matter is not so much that obedience be given to the precept of the Roman Pontiff, as that satisfaction be made to an office of this kind, which arises spontaneously from the very doctrine of the Gospel." - Cf. John vi. 54, where concerning the Eucharist.

To the proposed doubts ... namely:

I. Whether children who, although they have not yet completed the seventh year of age, nevertheless, on account of the age of discretion or use of reason, have already been admitted to first communion, are held by the twofold precept of confession at least once in the year, and of Communion once in the year, at least at Easter?

II. Whether canon 1252 has now begun to have the force of obliging everywhere, notwithstanding particular laws, etc.?

His Eminence Cardinal Petrus Gasparri, President of the Commission, responds:

"to I: affirmatively.

to II: affirmatively.

And the reason as regards the first doubt is evident: For although can. 12 states, 'By merely Ecclesiastical laws there are not bound ... those who, although they have attained the use of reason, have not yet completed the seventh year of age,' nevertheless it adds, 'unless something else is expressly provided in law.' But indeed in can. 859, § 1, and 906, it is expressly provided: 'Every faithful person of either sex, after he has arrived at the years of discretion, that is, at the use of reason, etc.'" 3 Jan. 1918.

Question 4. Is he who is not burdened by mortal sins held to confess venial sins, by reason of the precept of annual confession?

Response. Negatively, because the Church established that confession must be made which is prescribed by the institution of Christ. But Christ prescribed no other confession except that of mortal sins, as the Council of Trent explains, sess. 14. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, de Sacram. Paenit., n. 667.

Question 5. Is he who, within the year of obligation, however it may be computed, has confessed only venial sins, either once or more often, still held by the precept of annual confession, if before the end of the year he shall have fallen into mortal sin?

Response. Affirmatively, as it seems; and the reason is that the precept of confessing once in the year regards the confession of mortal sins, as was said above. Hence, just as one who has only venial sins is not held to confess, so also he who afterward in the same year commits a mortal sin is not considered to have satisfied the precept through a confession of venial sins. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, de Sacram. Paenit., n. 669. - Suarez, de Paenit., disp. 35, nn. 9 and 12. - Lugo, de Paenit., disp. 15, n. 162.

I say 1st. § 1. Every faithful person of either sex, after he has arrived at the years of discretion, that is, at the use of reason, must once in the year, at least at Easter, receive the sacrament of the Eucharist, unless perchance, by the counsel of his own priest, for some reasonable cause, he has judged that he must abstain for a time from receiving it (Can. 859).

Moreover, for this region the Holy See has already benignly consented that, unless it is restricted by each Bishop, the time of Paschal communion be computed from the first Sunday of Lent inclusively to the Sunday of the Most Holy Trinity likewise inclusively. - Cf. Conc. Plen. Balt. II, n. 257.

I say 2nd. § 2. Paschal communion is to be made from Palm Sunday to Low Sunday; but it is lawful for local Ordinaries, if the circumstances of persons and places so require, also to anticipate this time for all their faithful, but not before the fourth Sunday of Lent, or to prorogue it, but not beyond the feast of the Most Holy Trinity.

§ 3. The faithful are to be urged that each satisfy this precept in his own parish; and those who shall have satisfied it in another parish should take care to inform their own pastor concerning the fulfilled precept.

§ 4. The precept of Paschal communion still presses, if anyone has not fulfilled it in the prescribed time, for whatever cause (Can. 859).¹

¹ Cf. Addenda, p. 1141, n. 105.

Question 1. Is he who omitted to communicate during Paschal time still held, when he can, to communicate?

Response. Affirmatively; for thus says canon 859 § 4.

Question 2. Is he bound to communion who, when Paschal time has not yet begun, foresees that he will be impeded?

Response. It is greatly controverted; but it seems that it must be denied. Nevertheless, with that time now begun, you are held to satisfy this obligation as soon as possible if you foresee an impediment; indeed you are held to remove even grave impediments, because that precept is also divine and of grave moment. Cf. St. Alphonsus, de Sacram. Euchar., n. 298.

Question 3. Does he sin gravely who defers communion to the first or second day after Paschal time has elapsed?

Response. Affirmatively, of itself; and the reason is that, although a delay of this kind can seem small in itself, it is nevertheless sufficiently notable in comparison with the duration of Paschal time according to the common law. But since among us this time, from Apostolic indult, has been extended to almost one hundred days, a delay of one or two days certainly must not be considered notable.