Communion for those who have lost the use of reason and the dying

Holy Communion should not be given to those who have lost the use of reason, but if they have lucid intervals it may then be given if there be no danger of irreverence. To those who are in danger of death, and have lost the use of their senses, it may be given if they can swallow, and there is no danger of irreverence; and it should be given as Viaticum to criminals condemned to death if they are in the proper dispositions. Reverence forbids it to be given to those who are suffering from constant coughing, and to those who cannot retain any food on the stomach, unless they have been free from vomiting for six hours or so,

III. The time at which it obliges. 1. The divine precept obliges per se: 1. several times during the course of life; 2. in danger of death. It is said:

a) Several times during the course of life. This is deduced from the fact that Christ, by instituting the Holy Eucharist by way of nourishment, sufficiently signifies that it must be received at least several times. Now the one who fulfills the ecclesiastical precept certainly satisfies the divine precept of communicating several times during the course of life (St. Alphonsus, VI, 295).

b) In danger of death. For if the Eucharist is to be received several times in life, it certainly must be received at that moment at which it is of the greatest interest, and is more difficult, to preserve and nourish the spiritual life. There are added the most ancient law and practice¹ of ministering the Eucharist to those constituted in danger of death, even with harm to the minister;² these introduce the suspicion that the Holy Eucharist must be received in danger of death by precept of Christ (St. Alphonsus, VI, 291).

Now grave danger of death is understood; this is present either physically, as if someone is gravely ill; or, morally speaking, as if there is imminent execution of a capital sentence, a dangerous operation, battle, shipwreck, difficult childbirth, or a journey full of danger.

Moreover, the precept of communicating in grave danger which is physically present is to be understood so that as soon as someone is gravely ill, he can fulfill the precept, but when death is more imminent, he must fulfill it.

2. The divine precept obliges per accidens when the Eucharist is held as a morally necessary means of avoiding sins, namely insofar as other means are lacking or at least are not applied; concerning this, note that for the most part those who do not approach the Holy Eucharist attend neither to prayer nor to mortification. "But in that case... a man by omitting it would not sin against its precept, but against the virtue against which he suffers temptation" (St. Alphonsus, VI, 295).

Question 1. Whether one is bound to communicate when danger of death is imminent, if he communicated a few days before when he was not yet constituted in danger.

Response. Several deny it, but with St. Alphonsus (VI, 285) it seems it must be affirmed, because according to what was said above the obligation seems attached to the danger of death itself, so that it cannot be satisfied before.

Question 2. Whether one is bound to communicate when danger of death is imminent, if he communicated the same day when he was not yet constituted in danger.

Response. Such a person certainly can communicate again on the same day; indeed this is urged for him by canon 864, § 2. For the rest, some judge that he is not bound, because the divine precept has already been satisfied, and there is no ecclesiastical precept. There is added the fact that canon 804, § 2 declares: Even if they have been refreshed by Holy Communion on the same day, nevertheless it is strongly to be urged that those brought into danger of life communicate again. But with St. Alphonsus (VI, 285, doubt 3) we judge that he is bound, because according to the things said in the response to the first question he has not yet satisfied the divine precept. As regards canon 864, § 2, I respond that the Code abstracts from the interpretation of divine law, concerning which there is dispute among doctors; and therefore by the cited canon our question is not settled, but, while the dispute stands, the legislating Church, so far as depends on her part, proceeds only by urging. Therefore one who communicated in the morning is bound to communicate again if, for example, in the course of the day he was dangerously wounded or suddenly seized by illness.

It must be said otherwise if at the time of the prior Communion, even one received from devotion alone, grave danger was already present, although afterward it grows worse. In such a case one is neither bound nor able to communicate. He is not bound because he has already satisfied the divine precept. Nor can he, because in this hypothesis there is no reason why the prohibition of communicating twice should be judged not to urge. St. Alphonsus (loc. cit.) also applies this doctrine to the case of apoplexy or something similar, because the illness is presumed already to have pre-existed. Here, however, note that in doubt whether grave danger was present at the time of Communion, its reception can be repeated.

Note. From ecclesiastical law I add these things: Holy Viaticum is not to be deferred too much for the sick; and those who have care of souls should carefully watch that the sick be refreshed by it while fully in possession of themselves (canon 865). Likewise, "while danger of death endures, Holy Viaticum, according to the prudent counsel of the confessor, may and fittingly should be administered several times on distinct days" (canon 864, § 3).

¹ Already the First Council of Nicaea, canon 13, calls that law ancient (Hefele, Histoire des Conciles, Paris ed. 1907, vol. 1, p. 7, p. 593 and following).

² Nor does it stand in the way that Viaticum was once sometimes denied to some dying persons, for example those condemned to death; since this practice was not universal, was rather often disapproved by ecclesiastical authority, and rested on the opinion that the divine precept could not conveniently be fulfilled in such circumstances (Rath, De Eucharistia, n. 219). Indeed I would not even deny that such things, although pertaining to divine law, can be moderated by the Church because of the common good.

II. The power of jurisdiction is likewise required, and this either ordinary or delegated; delegated, I say, either by law or by him who has ordinary power. Ordinary power belongs to all who exercise a pastoral office, such as the Ordinary, the pastor, all who in law come under the name of pastor, etc. These things having been noted in general, something must be said specifically about the dispensation of the Eucharist on the occasion of Mass or outside it, about carrying Communion to the sick, and about the dispensation of Viaticum.

1. Dispensation on the occasion of Mass or outside it. a) Any priest can minister Holy Communion within Mass and, if he celebrates privately, also immediately before and immediately after it (canon 846, § 1).

b) Even outside Mass any priest has the same faculty. Nevertheless, if the priest is a stranger, that is, not assigned to the church, the at least presumed permission of the rector of the church is required (canon 846, § 2).

2. Carrying Communion to the sick. First note that a twofold carrying is distinguished, public and private. It is public if it is done manifestly, with solemnity; otherwise it is called private.¹

a) Public carrying. First, public carrying is prescribed unless a just and reasonable cause suggests otherwise (canon 847).

Second, the right and office of carrying Holy Communion publicly to the sick, even non-parishioners, outside the church, belongs to the pastor within his own territory (canon 848, § 1). Other priests can do this only in a case of necessity or with the at least presumed permission of the same pastor or of the Ordinary (canon 848, § 2). It is said only in a case of necessity, for example if the pastor and another to whom permission perhaps has been granted are impeded for too long.

b) Private carrying. First, private carrying is licit only when a just and reasonable cause suggests it (canon 847). But the judge of a just and reasonable cause is only the local Ordinary.² If, however, he has judged that such a cause is present, and has signified this either explicitly or tacitly, for example by not contradicting custom or common opinion,³ he cannot prevent it from being carried secretly. Now, when a just and reasonable cause has been posited and admitted by the Ordinary:

Second, any priest can carry Communion privately to the sick, with the at least presumed permission of the priest to whom custody of the Most Holy Sacrament has been committed (canon 849, § 1).

3. Dispensation of Viaticum. a) By the name Viaticum here is understood Communion which is considered, or, so to speak, is held in the external forum as fulfilling the precept of receiving the Holy Eucharist in danger of death, about which canon 864, § 1 speaks; but not that Communion which the sick person receives afterward, nor that which one constituted in danger of death previously received, although this Communion, speaking accurately, should be called fulfilling the precept.⁴

b) One who illegitimately administers Viaticum is judged to sin gravely, since he violates a grave right of the competent person.

c) As regards the persons who legitimately administer Viaticum, receive these points:

a) To carry Holy Communion by way of Viaticum, whether publicly or privately, to the sick, even non-parishioners, outside the church, belongs to the pastor within his own territory. Other priests can do this only in a case of necessity or with the at least presumed permission of the same pastor or Ordinary (canon 850 compared with 848).

b) Canons, according to the order of precedence, must minister the sacraments to a bedridden bishop (canon 397, 3).

c) Superiors in every clerical religious institute can and must, personally or through another, minister Eucharistic Viaticum and Extreme Unction to sick professed members, novices, and others dwelling day and night in the religious house for the sake of service, education, hospitality, or ill health (canon 514, § 1). These things also hold for conferring these sacraments outside the religious house, if it concerns professed religious or novices, yet with the right of the pastor preserved as regards the public carrying of the Holy Eucharist.⁵

d) In a house of nuns, the ordinary confessor, or the one who acts in his place, has the same right and office (canon 514, § 2). Under the name of nuns also come religious women whose vows by institute are solemn, but for some places by prescription of the Apostolic See are simple (canon 488, 7).

e) In another lay religious institute this right and office belongs to the local pastor or to the chaplain whom the Ordinary has substituted for the pastor (canon 514, § 3).

f) The rector of a seminary, not the pastor, or his delegate can minister Viaticum and Extreme Unction to all who are in the seminary and are gravely bedridden (canon 1368).

g) Particular law commonly permits those who have domicile or quasi-domicile in ecclesiastical colleges specially entrusted by the bishop to a director or rector, or approved by him, to be able to receive Viaticum and Extreme Unction from the rector himself or from his delegate. This right does not belong to the pastor if the particular law intends the said colleges to be withdrawn from the care of the pastor (cf. canon 464, § 2).

h) Finally, if priest and deacon are lacking, even a subdeacon, cleric, and layperson can with sufficient probability minister Viaticum, provided that scandal is absent or prevented. For the ecclesiastical prohibition is not judged to comprehend this case; all the more because in antiquity even laypeople brought the Eucharist home for the sake of communicating (St. Alphonsus, VI, 237, question 3). If the case concerns a dying priest or deacon, the layperson should only bring the ciborium, and the dying person himself, if he can, should give Viaticum to himself. Note besides that a priest is equivalently lacking if singular dexterity is required in communicating the dying person; hence at times it can be entrusted, for example to a sister, to give Viaticum, for instance, with a spoon. I add with St. Alphonsus (loc. cit.) that in a case of supreme necessity, which can occur for example in time of plague, the bishop can commit the ministration of Viaticum to a layperson.

Corollary. Although in itself no one except the celebrating priest can minister Communion to himself, nevertheless this is permitted:

1. If the case concerns Viaticum, to a priest and deacon, if another priest and deacon are lacking; to an inferior cleric, if priest, deacon, and another inferior cleric are lacking; to a layperson, if priest, deacon, and inferior cleric are lacking. This doctrine is rightly admitted both because the divine precept of receiving Viaticum seems to prevail, and because "formerly lay faithful carried the Eucharist into their homes and communicated themselves with their own hands; and this indeed was permitted because of necessity" (St. Alphonsus, VI, 237, question 2). It is confirmed by a response of the Sacred Congregation of Propaganda Fide,⁶ which declared that in time of persecution it is permitted that confessors of the faith condemned to death, and to whom the sacrament of the Most Holy Eucharist is brought in prison, may secretly receive it in their hands and secretly communicate themselves, lest the priest communicating them in the ordinary manner be known and seized, provided nevertheless that so great a sacrament is not exposed to any irreverence or other danger.⁷

2. If the case concerns Communion to be received only for the sake of devotion, a priest can with sufficient probability minister Communion to himself if another priest is lacking (St. Alphonsus, VI, 238).

3. Where the necessity of preventing profanation of the Most Holy Sacrament is urgent, even laypeople can consume the species and distribute them to one another.

¹ Cf. Sacred Congregation of the Sacraments, 23 December 1912 (Acta Apostolicae Sedis 1912, p. 725, ad III).

² Sacred Congregation for the Discipline of the Sacraments, 5 January 1928.

³ The Ordinary should be easy in admitting a just and reasonable cause. Hence the Sacred Congregation for the Discipline of the Sacraments, in the decree of 5 January 1928, adds "with this mind, which is the following: If from common experience and opinion there is no inconvenience in the diocese or in some particular place for the private carrying of Holy Communion to the sick, Ordinaries must beware lest, by rules too strictly defined or general rules prescribing public carrying, or by a reservation made to themselves of giving permission in individual cases of carrying the sacrament of the Eucharist privately, the consolation of Communion, even daily Communion, be impeded for the sick." And in the annotations to the Decree, the Acta Apostolicae Sedis warns: Most Reverend local Ordinaries must carefully watch lest in a matter of such great importance the end intended by the Church be frustrated in any way. For no one is unaware that in our times Holy Communion, even daily Communion, is commended most highly to the Christian faithful. Now who, more than a sick person, is to be said to need the help and consolation of so great a sacrament for bearing the distresses of illness?

⁴ This Communion is also called Viaticum by the Code (canon 864, § 3).

⁵ Pontifical Commission, 16 June 1931, under I (Acta Apostolicae Sedis 1931, p. 353).

⁶ 10 August 1841.

⁷ Gaude in the cited place of St. Alphonsus.

II. Viaticum can be ministered on any day, even Friday of Holy Week (canon 867, §§ 1 and 2), and at any hour of the day or night (canon 867, § 5).

II. Viaticum can be ministered in almost any place. In itself, indeed, it is unbecoming for Viaticum to be carried to a brothel; but if a penitent prostitute cannot in time be removed from such a house, it seems Viaticum can be ministered to her, provided scandal and the danger of positive irreverence are absent. Moreover, let the priest take care not to be deceived and not to suffer harm to his reputation; hence let him have as companion a safe man and indeed, if it can be done, a public minister.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

¹ 8 August 1910.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

² Roman Ritual, loc. cit.

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

⁴ Title IV, chapter 1, n. 10.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

² 6 March 1907.

³ 7 September 1897.

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

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

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

Is it ever lawful to interrupt Mass? - It is never lawful to interrupt Mass essentially, or in such a way that the sacrifice begun remains truncated, unless a most grave or extreme necessity urges, as in the case of an imminent fire or of an enemy rushing in to kill; for then the priest, omitting the consecration of the chalice, could consume the host already consecrated, or carry it away with him while fleeing. But if he has completed both consecrations, let him immediately consume both species, if he can; or if he cannot, let him carry them with him, to be consumed very quickly in a nearby place. - Nor is it lawful to interrupt Mass accidentally, unless for a just cause before the oblation, for example, because of a sermon after the Gospel, because proclamations of banns are to be made. S. R. C., March 23, 1881, n. 3529.

Nor is it lawful to interrupt Mass except for a grave cause before the Canon, for example: 1. To receive a procession, in honor of an arriving Prince, or a crowd of pilgrims on a feast day, if otherwise they cannot hear Mass. And if the oblation has not been made, the priest can begin anew, so that they may hear the whole sacred rite. 2. If the priest remembers some impediment, e.g., that he is not fasting, or not in the state of grace, or is irregular, provided the Mass can be left without scandal or disgrace. - 3. If the church is polluted or one to be avoided arrives. - But it is not lawful to interrupt Mass once the Canon has begun, unless for a graver cause; and after the consecration has been completed, unless for a most grave cause, e.g., if a dying person must be baptized or absolved. But it is not lawful to administer other sacraments between the consecration and communion, because they are not of such great necessity. Nevertheless Holy Viaticum could be administered to a dying person who was nearby, so that the priest would not have to remove the sacred vestments. But for this it is also required that the celebrant not lose sight of the altar. S. R. C., Dec. 19, 1829, ad 1, n. 2672. Cf. S. R. C., Dec. 7, 1844, n. 2885; Feb. 7, 1874, n. 3322; May 11, 1878, ad 8, n. 3446. "Most theologians... permit a priest to interrupt Mass in order to administer extreme unction to a sick person near death to whom no other sacrament could be conferred." Benedict XIV, de Syn., l. 8, c. 6, n. 5; L. 728. - If Mass has been interrupted, if the celebrant returns shortly, it is to be resumed by him from the place where it was interrupted; but if after an hour, and the consecration had not yet been made, it must again be begun from the beginning. And if another priest completes the Mass begun by another after at least one consecration has been performed, he cannot then celebrate another Mass. S. R. C., Dec. 16, 1823, n. 2630. - L. 352, 353, 355; St. Thomas, 3 p., q. 83, a. 6, ad 1; Rubr. Miss., De defect.

4. Viaticum is lawful in danger or in the article of death, but not in favor of one specially interdicted unless he first makes satisfaction, or, if he cannot, furnishes security, or, if he cannot even do this, swears that he will make satisfaction. In this case the Most Holy Sacrament can and must be carried to the house of the sick person with the customary solemnity, with clerics accompanying, candles lit, and bells rung. Once the Sacrament has been carried, it is also lawful for the priest to show it to the people for adoration and to bless them with it; for these things are not prohibited by interdict, except in the sacrifice of Mass. But in order that the most holy Eucharist can be ministered to those existing in the article of death, it has been granted, as we have already said, to renew it once in any week by celebrating the sacrifice of Mass. C. Quod in te 11, de Poen. et rem.; C. Permittimus 57, de Sent. exc.; C. Alma, ibid., in VI; Sacred Consistorial Congregation, December 10, 1913; Laymann, part 4, chap. 2, n. 1; Schmalzgrueber, n. 354.

XIV. Religious presuming, outside the case of necessity, to minister to clerics or lay persons the sacrament of extreme unction or the Eucharist as Viaticum without the license of the parish priest.

Religious: novices of any order or congregation are not judged such here. Nor are religious of those congregations comprehended in which only simple vows are emitted. The reason is that in penal matters the law is to be interpreted strictly. For the same reason neither are religious of those orders comprehended in which solemn vows are indeed emitted, yet they themselves have emitted only simple vows. But under this name are comprehended all solemnly professed religious, although they themselves are parish priests. For these are held strictly by common law as true religious, but by no means others, although they emitted simple vows in a Religion in which solemn vows are emitted. This was positively declared by special privilege concerning Scholastics of the Society of Jesus. Bizzarri, Collectanea, p. 745, ed. 1885; Suarez, disp. 22, sec. 2, second excommunication; Lugo, Resp. Mor., book 4, disp. 44, nn. 2, 3.

Presuming: therefore excommunication ceases if you falsely thought that a case of necessity was present, or that the license of the parish priest was not lacking; for if you thought thus, you did not presume. To clerics and lay persons. Yet Religious can from Trent, sess. 24, chap. 11, de Ref., minister the last sacraments to clerics and lay persons who "actually serve and reside within their enclosures and houses, and live under their obedience." Nor indeed is excommunication incurred if they ministered to regulars. Outside the case of necessity, namely as often as danger of death is present and the parish priest cannot or will not minister the sacraments to the sick person. Or the Eucharist as Viaticum: therefore there is no censure if not as Viaticum, but to one who has already received Viaticum, they have ministered it again from devotion; this also is not prohibited, unless one must go along public ways.

Without the license of the parish priest, at least presumed. Of the parish priest, namely one who has care of souls, or who takes his place, by whatever name he is called, and of whom the sick person is a subject by domicile or quasi-domicile. Therefore pilgrims and vagi are excluded. Clementine 1, de Privil.; Bonacina, disp. 2, q. 9, part 5.

8. Ferdinand, a missionary, doubts whether he can minister sacred communion by way of Viaticum to Francis when he is not fasting, concerning whose illness it is doubted whether it is mortal or not.

Quaer. What is to be said of the Case?

R. Ferdinand can minister Viaticum; for while that doubt stands, although Francis is not in the article of death, nevertheless he is in danger of death. For there is danger of death when there is a probable doubt, and death is often accustomed to happen in such a Case. But if the doubt is merely negative, because namely neither could a physician be questioned about the gravity of the disease, nor is the sick man himself or the missionary capable of forming a judgment, then Viaticum is still to be administered, and one must not proceed scrupulously in this matter, since in the Council of Constance, sess. 13, the sick are simply excepted from the law of fasting. St. Alph. l. 6. n. 285. dub. 3. in fine., I. M. 596. Indeed, often it cannot be established whether the disease is truly lethal or not; and then the Church, a pious mother, is rightly presumed to wish in such a doubt to favor the sick person, especially since daily experience establishes that many sick persons, beyond everyone's expectation, die without Viaticum. This has force especially when the sick person is far distant from the church, or when, in mission places, the missionary cannot return again to the sick person, because then he is exposed to the greater danger of dying without being refreshed by the sacraments. G. 306., Lig. H. A. 46.

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

IV. Concerning Viaticum. - To those deprived of the senses Viaticum A) is to be denied: 1. to sinners, even ordinary and hidden sinners, unless they have given certain signs of penance; 2. likewise to those whose disposition is unknown; 3. to the insane and the half-witted, unless previously they had at least the implicit intention of communicating. The general reason is that on the one hand the Sacrament is not necessary, and on the other hand reverence toward so great a Sacrament must be set before the conjectural utility of the faithful.

B) On the contrary it is to be granted to those who certainly are in the state of grace, provided nevertheless that every danger of irreverence toward the Sacrament is absent, which can arise from those who are furious, or who are going to vomit the Sacrament, or who are not able to swallow it. In a case of vomiting, Holy Communion is not to be given unless vomiting has ceased for several hours; a physician should be consulted, otherwise an experiment can be tried by giving a very little bread, and, if the sick person retains it for a sufficiently long time, a consecrated particle can also be given. But if a grave doubt remains, that great Sacrament, since it is not necessary, is rather to be denied than exposed to such irreverence.

It should be noted, however, that coughing is not to be confused with vomiting, because sputum does not come from the stomach; hence from coughing there is no danger for the sacrament, unless it is assiduous.

But if there is doubt concerning the capacity of swallowing, by way of experiment something liquid is administered to the sick person, and if this can be swallowed, the sacred Host or at least a particle can be conferred on him in a small quantity of water or wine by means of a spoon.

Moreover, even outside the danger of death, so that sick persons can swallow the host or particles adhering to the mouth, after the host there can be given an ablution of water or wine, although this is swallowed before the host; for the violation of the fast at least morally does not precede communion, indeed the law of fasting prescribes only that nothing be taken before the reception of the Sacrament, and this is fulfilled.

5. How should the priest act if, arriving with Viaticum to a hidden sinner and hearing his confession, he finds him indisposed?

Haine, Th. M. III, de Euch. q. 43, responds:

The priest a) "should strive altogether to dispose him;

b) If he certainly remains indisposed, because, for example, he does not wish to leave the proximate occasion, or does not wish to promise grave and certainly owed restitution, it is not licit to absolve him.

c) As regards communion, he is earnestly to be induced, after confession has been completed, to declare publicly that he no longer wishes to receive the Eucharist.

d) If he refuses to declare this and wishes to communicate, the Eucharist is to be ministered to him, although indisposed, lest the seal of confession be violated."

To avoid this danger, it will be better that in hospitals or clinical houses the priest, or the sister appointed for caring for the sick, not prepare all things for ministering Holy Communion on his or her own motion, but only after the sick person, having confessed, asks for it; but when the priest is asked, let him uniformly say: ask the penitent whether he wishes to communicate.

3. Viaticum, Extreme Unction, and the apostolic blessing are to be administered to children, provided they have sufficient discretion.

296. Observations. - 1. "While the danger of death endures, holy Viaticum, according to the prudent counsel of the confessor, can and fittingly should be administered several times, on distinct days," can. 864, § 3.

2. "Holy Viaticum should not be deferred too much for the infirm; and those who have care of souls should diligently watch that the infirm be refreshed by it while fully masters of themselves," can. 865. This obligation is grave from its genus.

3. "The obligation of the precept of receiving communion, which burdens the not yet pubescent, falls also and chiefly upon those who ought to have care of them, i.e., upon parents, tutors, confessor, instructors, and pastor," can. 860. The obligation is evidently grave.

4. The first communion of children in solemn form, which flourishes in some regions, is per se reserved to the pastor, and to those institutes which give work to educating youths boarded there (S.C. of Bishops and Regulars, March 14, 1908).

Question 4. Is someone held to receive sacred Viaticum, when the danger of death is pressing, if a few days before he communicated from devotion?

Resp. Affirmatively, as it seems; for this precept, from the interpretation of the Church, urges in danger of death for battling spiritual enemies; therefore it is not fulfilled by communion made before the illness. Nevertheless, many deny this, because the precept of communion has already been fulfilled substantially. St. Alphonsus says this opinion is sufficiently probable, at least if the danger of death happens naturally, because through that brief preceding time it already morally began to be imminent, although it was unknown. Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 285. - Lugo, disp. 16, n. 49.

Question 5. Is one who communicated in the morning from devotion held, or can he, when danger of death urges, receive Viaticum?

Resp. §2. Even if they have been refreshed by holy communion on the same day, nevertheless it is greatly to be advised that, when they have been brought into danger of life, they communicate again (Can. 864).

Question 8. In danger of death, can or must communion be given to the insane, the half-witted, the delirious, those deprived of the senses, the obsessed, and finally epileptics?

Resp. As regards the insane. - If they have been perpetually insane, according to the Roman Ritual communion must never be given to them. But if they often have lucid intervals and have manifested a desire of communicating, communion can be given to them, indeed must be given, with the danger of irreverence excluded. - Cf. St. Thomas, 3, q. 80, art. 9. - St. Alphonsus, n. 302.

As regards the half-witted. - Communion is to be given to them when they have sufficient discretion to distinguish this heavenly food from others; nevertheless it can be given to them more rarely or more frequently according as the prudent confessor shall have judged. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 303. - Ballerini, note (a), p. 218.

As regards the delirious. - Communion can be given to them if they are able to communicate, with danger of irreverence excluded; some think it is a good practice if an unconsecrated particle is first given to the sick person, and thus it appears whether he can communicate decently. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 292.

As regards those deprived of the senses. - They indeed are dispensed from the precept, since they are capable of observing no law. But the Pastor is not thereby dispensed from the obligation of administering the Eucharist to them, if he has known that they were disposed before the loss of reason. For the sacraments operate ex opere operato in those who desired to receive them before they lost the use of reason. Except, however, if there is danger of irreverence or if it is feared that they cannot swallow the host. - Cf. Gousset, n. 232.

As regards the obsessed. - A distinction must be made: communion is to be denied to them when they are not masters of themselves; otherwise it is to be conceded. Indeed, it is expedient that such persons communicate rather often according to the prudence of the confessor, since the Eucharist is a special remedy for driving away demons.

As regards epileptics. - Communion cannot be given to them when they are in an actual paroxysm, on account of proximate danger of irreverence; but at other times it is not to be denied. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 303.