Frequent and Daily Communion

158. On frequent communion itself. 1. By the name frequent communion there is properly designated only communion which is received several times in the week or even daily. Therefore weekly communion is not properly and strictly called frequent.

The use of frequent communion took hold especially after the Council of Trent, and today it flourishes and is strong widely in the Church. Its most bitter enemies were the Jansenists, who, under a false pretext of religion, kept the faithful away from receiving sacred communion more frequently: for they demanded such purity and holiness of soul in the recipient that everyone had to consider himself unworthy of frequent communion.

2. According to the mind of the Church, frequent communion must be earnestly recommended to the faithful. Concerning the use of sacred communion the Church has established two things: first, that communion is to be received only once in the day (n. 129), then, that it is to be received at least once in the year. Within these limits she indeed commands nothing, but nevertheless she shows in every way that she greatly desires the faithful to approach sacred communion frequently, indeed even daily.

a. The Council of Trent desires "that in individual Masses the faithful present communicate not only by spiritual affection, but also by sacramental reception of the Eucharist";² and the Roman Catechism, edited by order of the Council of Trent, admonishes pastors to exhort the faithful often to receiving holy communion frequently.³ Hence it happened that the acts of the provincial council of Rouen, which decreed that in the future holy communion would be distributed only twice in the week, were reprobated at Rome, with this admonition added: it is opposed by the Council of Trent.

b. The very celebrated decree of Innocent XI, Cum ad aures (12 Feb. 1679), exhibits the Church's manner of thinking and speaking concerning this matter, so that Benedict XIV declared: if in a synod speech is instituted concerning the frequent or even daily use of the holy Eucharist, one must not depart from the path of this decree. Now this decree contains especially three things: alpha. it reprobates the prohibition of frequent communion made in some dioceses because of abuses which had crept in from daily communion; beta. it decrees that neither the state of merchants nor the conjugal state impedes frequent communion, which depends solely on the disposition of the soul; gamma. it establishes that judgment concerning the interior disposition, and therefore concerning the frequency of communion in a particular case, is to be left to the confessor.

c. Most clearly the Church opened her mind concerning frequent communion by the solemn decree Sacra tridentina synodus, issued by Pius X (20 Dec. 1905), by which not only frequent and daily communion is earnestly commended, but also easier conditions for receiving it are determined.

d. The Church draws this manner of thinking and acting from the words of Christ, who not obscurely manifests the desire that the faithful often eat the eucharistic bread,⁴ and from the end and effects of the Eucharist, concerning which St. Thomas argues thus: this sacrament is spiritual food; hence, as bodily food is taken daily, so it is laudable to receive this sacrament daily.⁵

Note. Therefore there act against the mind of the Church not only priests who indiscriminately deny frequent communion to all the faithful for this reason alone, that it is frequent, and pastors who neither distribute holy communion nor permit it to be distributed except on Sundays and feasts; but also confessors who, in the Jansenist manner, require for frequent communion such great purity of soul that they judge scarcely any penitent worthy of frequent communion. These are led by a false principle, namely that holy communion is the prize and reward of acquired virtue, whereas rather it is the means of acquiring virtue.

¹ Cf. Lugo, De eucharistia, disp. 17; Dalgairns, Die heilige Kommunion; ihre Philosophie, Theologie und Praxis (Mainz, Kirchheim, 1862); Segur, Die wochentliche Kommunion (Mainz, Kirchheim, 1880); Bastien, De frequenti quotidianaque communione (Rome, Desclee, 1907).

² Sess. 22, c. 6; sess. 13, c. 8. Cn. 863 agrees.

³ Pars II, c. 4, q. 58.

⁴ John 6:59.

⁵ Summa III, q. 80, a. 10, ad 1.

159. Required dispositions. 1. As to the required dispositions, all demand the state of grace; but concerning further disposition theologians disputed. Some demanded a greater purity of soul and actual devotion; others, on the contrary, thought that the state of grace suffices, while immunity from venial sins and actual devotion are indeed greatly to be desired, but are not required as necessary conditions.

2. The former opinion, which de Lugo especially defends,¹ and to which St. Alphonsus also adheres,² up to now had by far the greater part of theologians as patrons; few defended the second. Therefore also the practice which up to now was observed in the Church concerning frequent and daily communion was directed according to the norm of the former opinion.

a. They taught that a twofold disposition is required for frequent communion: that affection toward deliberate venial sins be removed, so that therefore they are at least not ordinarily committed; that a serious effort be employed for advancing in virtues and perfection; and that the greater the frequency of communion was, the more perfect this disposition ought to be. Wherefore, in order that someone be worthy of daily communion, they demanded that deliberate venial sin happen rarely, or that depraved inclinations for the most part already be overcome, and that there be present a serious effort of advancing in the way of perfection. From these points they inferred that daily communion must be denied to many and conceded to few.

b. This is their chief reason. The reverence due to Christ the Lord demands that those who communicate frequently do this only with great purity of soul and actual devotion, although from this many must lack the spiritual benefit received from frequent communion; just as, because of the same reverence of the sacrament, holy communion is not given to infants, although grace would be increased in them ex opere operato.

¹ De euchar., disp. 17.

² Praxis confessarii, n. 152.

160. 3. Now, however, the Holy See declares: for frequent, indeed even daily, communion no other disposition is required except that someone be in the state of grace and approach the sacred table with a right mind. Hence it is not only not licit to keep away from frequent and daily communion anyone who is endowed with this disposition, but the faithful are rather to be exhorted to it; especially in religious institutes of whatever kind, frequent and daily communion is to be promoted, with this disposition supposed.¹

a. The state of grace, according to the mind of the decree, is not required as habitual, which excludes relapses into mortal sin, but actual suffices, which consists in the simple existence of sanctifying grace, yet with a firm purpose of not committing mortal sin and a serious will of avoiding occasions and dangers. Therefore nothing prevents a penitent who is now first converted from a looser life from being admitted to frequent communion, provided a true and serious will of amending himself appears. Although, according to the mind of the Church, the state of grace suffices for frequent communion, nevertheless the cited decree admonishes and exhorts that, for receiving greater fruits, greater dispositions also be placed beforehand according to each one's strength and condition.

b. A right mind consists in this: that he who approaches the sacred table does not indulge habit or vanity or human reasons, but wishes to satisfy the good pleasure of God, to be joined to Him more closely by charity, and by that divine medicine to meet his infirmities and defects. He who follows the practice of others only because others do it, or pursues a practice long ago undertaken by himself without due reverence, acts badly; but he who follows the good example of others in this matter, or with due intention and reverence pursues a practice long ago begun by himself, does not act badly. If the pursuit of vain glory is the sole motive for approaching, the approach is morally bad; but if it is a partial motive, the approach is partly good and partly bad. The same is to be said of human reasons.

c. The faithful who are about to receive holy communion frequently or even daily should seek the counsel of a confessor. In order that his counsel be prudent, he, who must follow the norms of the cited decree in all things, should advert: alpha. that what before was designated as the necessary disposition of frequent communion is now rather the end to be intended and the fruit to be gathered from daily communion. "Although it is most expedient" - these are the words of the cited decree - "that those using frequent and daily communion be free from venial sins, at least fully deliberate ones, and from affection toward them, nevertheless it suffices that they be free from mortal faults, with the purpose of never sinning in the future; with which sincere purpose of soul it cannot happen that those communicating daily are not gradually freed from venial sins also and from affection toward them." beta. In order that this effect be obtained, "care must be taken" - again these are the words of the decree - "that careful preparation for holy communion precede, and suitable thanksgiving follow thereafter, according to each one's strength, condition, and duties."

d. The reasons for this doctrine and practice are taken: alpha. From the ancient practice of the Church: for it can scarcely be denied that in the first times of the Church the faithful indiscriminately received holy communion frequently, indeed even daily, and yet in general they were not better and more perfect than the faithful of our time. beta. From the spiritual good of the faithful: as often as a man in the state of grace approaches holy communion, he at least partially receives its fruit ex opere operato, although he commits venial sins; and indeed a fruit of supreme value, namely an increase of sanctifying grace and charity; but a frequent and daily increase of grace and charity causes venial sins and imperfections gradually to be amended. gamma. From the principle: the sacraments are for the sake of men: for from this it must be inferred that Christ the Lord prefers the greater spiritual utility of the faithful to a more perfect disposition, and therefore for daily communion requires nothing else except that the communicant be in the state of grace and approach with a right mind. This opinion, which was that of the holy Fathers, the Church confirms by a recent decree.

e. Therefore frequent communion is not to be denied to those who sometimes fall into mortal sin, provided they detest it and seriously propose to amend; nor is it to be denied to those who have affection toward deliberate venial sins. But it must be denied to those who have affection toward mortal sins and therefore frequently fall into mortal sins; nevertheless those are to be excepted who fall from internal fragility or from vehement and extraordinary temptation and show a serious will of fighting against sin: for from frequent communion these draw greater strength for resisting temptations.²

4. In order that the use of daily communion might be propagated more day by day, to those who have the custom of communicating daily there has been conceded the privilege of gaining, without weekly confession, all indulgences for the gaining of which confession would be necessary.

To those who are accustomed to confess at least twice in the month, unless they are legitimately impeded, there has been conceded the privilege of gaining all occurring indulgences, for the gaining of which confession is prescribed (except the indulgences of the ordinary and extraordinary jubilee); the same privilege is conceded to those who have the practice of daily or quasi-daily communion without the obligation of confessing every week. Therefore they do not lose this privilege who abstain from communion once or twice during the week.³

5. Boys and girls are not to be kept away from frequent communion; indeed daily communion should be recommended to them already after they have received first communion, especially to those who are educated in boys' seminaries and other boarding schools, so that they may be imbued with Christ and His grace before passions arise in their hearts and begin to dominate.⁴

Nevertheless care must be taken: a. lest superiors, unless cautiously, tell someone in particular to approach holy communion more frequently, lest they foster hypocrisy and give occasion to sacrileges; b. lest boys and girls approach from mere habit, distracted and dissipated: for, given the lightness of childish age, there is danger lest the sacred food become cheap to them from daily use.⁵

¹ S. C. C., Sacra tridentina synodus, 20 Dec. 1905.

² Cf. Frassinetti, Compendio della teolog. morale, 9th ed. (Genova, Fassicomo, 1898), Dissertation X; M. C. Gennari, Sulla communione frequente, 2nd ed. (Napoli, Tipogr. degli artigian., 1900).

³ Cn. 931, 3; S. C. Indl., 14 Feb. 1906.

⁴ S. C. C., 15 Sept. 1906.

⁵ Cf. S. C. C., 10 Dec. 1905.

161. For practice. 1. Pastors and confessors should esteem frequent communion greatly, as a practice praised and commended by the Church, and should earnestly exhort the faithful to it. For the Church commands this, because frequent and even daily communion is strongly commended to the Christian faithful by the Lord Himself because of its excellent fruits.¹

2. Although great zeal in commending frequent and daily communion is rightly to be praised, nevertheless let them remember that one must never depart from the norm of prudence and truth. Hence:

a. In extolling the frequency of communion, let them not speak in such a way that they confuse counsel with precept. Annual communion is prescribed to all; more frequent communion to some (the young, habitual sinners), but daily communion, indeed frequent communion generally, is only commended.

b. At the same time let them inculcate the necessity of due preparation and thanksgiving, which also before and after daily communion must certainly be arranged according to the strength, opportunity, duties, and state of the communicants. For the rest, it is not necessary that the whole preparation and thanksgiving take place in the church itself, just as it is not necessary that the faithful, e.g., workers and students, use different clothing for communicating than they use on weekdays.

c. Let confessors see whether frequent and daily communion can be received by penitents without detriment to the obligations of state in servants, maidservants, mothers of families, etc., or without the loss of greater goods, such as peace and tranquility in families for wives, etc.

d. Where up to now not even monthly, bimonthly, or quarterly communion was in use, the pastor should first of all devote every effort to this, that the people approach the sacred table every month, without however being silent about more frequent, indeed daily, communion. For in every parish there are found faithful inclined to true piety and to a more frequent use of the sacraments. These, if they are suitably directed by a zealous and prudent confessor, can induce others to more frequent communion.

3. Unless duties of state or greater goods to be preserved stand in the way, the pastor and confessor must admit to frequent and daily communion all who are in the state of grace and intend to acquire for themselves the fruits of communion, whether they are women or men, unmarried or joined in matrimony, adults or children. Nor is he immune from sin who, when the required conditions are supposed, withdraws anyone from frequent communion or denies it to him.

4. If there is question of children whose parents are displeased by frequent communion in their children, the priest should exhort them to ask from their parents permission to communicate frequently and, if there is need, to obtain it for themselves by obedience, good morals, diligence, kindness, etc. Let the confessor continually exhort and instruct the same children to approach devoutly and to make preparation and thanksgiving well. Similarly, let wives see to it that, with their husbands consenting, they can communicate frequently.

5. Although weekly confession ordinarily seems to be recommended for those communicating frequently, nevertheless not rarely circumstances will be present which suggest less frequent confession. Such are, for example, lack of time either on the part of the confessor or on the part of the penitent; the danger lest access to confession be made more difficult for those who most need it. Hence it can licitly happen that those communicating frequently or daily confess only every month. For pastors of souls should remember that a greater spiritual good is received from holy communion than from sacramental confession. Therefore, where both cannot be joined, it is better to omit confession rather than communion.

¹ Cf. S. C. C., 10 Dec. 1905.

Canon 863 admonishes that the faithful are to be stirred up to be refreshed frequently, even daily, with the Eucharistic bread, according to the norms handed down in decrees of the Apostolic See. But the norms of which the cited canon speaks are contained in the Decree of the Sacred Congregation of the Council Sacra Tridentina Synodus,¹ and in other documents to be cited insofar as needed.

¹ 20 December 1905.

I. Requisites for daily Communion. "Frequent and daily Communion, as being most desired by Christ the Lord and by the Catholic Church, should be open to all Christ's faithful of whatever order or condition; so that no one who is in the state of grace and approaches the sacred table with a right and pious mind can be prohibited from it" (cited Decree, n. 1). "But a right mind consists in this, that one who approaches the sacred table does not indulge custom, vanity, or human reasons, but wills to satisfy God's good pleasure, to be united to Him more closely by charity, and by that divine medicine to meet his infirmities and defects" (n. 2). Now:

1. An intention which is predominantly supernatural suffices to this extent, that one who approaches with such an intention cannot be kept away from Communion.

2. It suffices that the good ends assigned be intended implicitly.

3. Custom, whether one's own or that of others, will in practice rather often be more the occasion than the principal reason. Vanity will be the principal reason if someone becomes conceited because of frequency of Communion and willingly speaks about it to others in the manner of little devotees.¹

¹ Instruction to the Bishops of Prussia, 8 December 1906.

II. The office of the confessor. 1. "In order that frequent and daily Communion may be done with greater prudence and be increased by richer merit, it is fitting that the counsel of the confessor intervene" (n. 5). Therefore the confessor, especially if he is asked, enjoys the right of judging about the state and disposition of the penitent; indeed it is entirely fitting that his counsel be sought. I said it is fitting, because it is disputed whether the word it is fitting in this case involves a true obligation. With sufficient probability it is denied, and the counsel of the confessor is declared necessary only insofar as, by seeking it, one proceeds with greater prudence and greater merit can be hoped for. In a word: the word it is fitting probably signifies only the necessity of greater prudence and greater merit. Moreover, the confessor does not grant permission to communicate daily, but only declares that the requisites for permission are present; the permission itself, or the right, is conferred by the Church or by Christ. Finally, a penitent who is certain about the required disposition is not bound to acquiesce in a confessor turning him away from daily Communion, but can use the right granted to him. But these things are merely theoretical.

2. "Let confessors nevertheless beware lest they turn anyone away from frequent or daily Communion who is found in the state of grace and approaches with a right mind" (n. 5).

Question. Whether the practice of daily Communion can finally be forbidden to one who permanently, without any amendment, falls back into venial sins.

Response. Some deny, because according to number 3 of the decree, it suffices "that those using frequent and daily Communion be free from mortal sins, with the purpose of never sinning in the future," certainly gravely. Others affirm, because the decree itself in n. 3 declares that it cannot happen "that those communicating daily should not little by little free themselves from even venial sins and from their effect." Therefore a permanent defect of amendment is a sign of a defect of right intention in the past, and it introduces a vehement prejudice for the future,¹ unless special circumstances or signs remove the said prejudice. Hence the practice of daily Communion is finally to be forbidden unless there is now hope that the penitent will approach with a right intention. To the argument of the adversaries they respond that the words opposed from number 3 of the decree regard only the required state of grace, but by no means exclude the obligation of bringing a right intention in approaching Holy Communion. Yet one who adheres to this opinion should take care not to bring it into practice too hastily; moreover, let him stir the penitent to greater fervor, and as soon as a founded hope of bringing a right intention is present, let him cease from turning him away from daily Communion.

¹ This argument, however, is weakened somewhat by responding that the quoted words, which are not judged to pertain to the doctrinal part, are not to be urged too much.

III. The office of others. 1. The faithful are to be stirred up 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, being duly disposed, should communicate not only by spiritual affection, but also by sacramental reception of the Most Holy Eucharist (canon 863). The cited Decree, n. 6, inculcates the same upon pastors, confessors, and preachers. Add the response of the Sacred Congregation of the Council,¹ by which it is declared that "the frequency of Holy Communion is commended according to the first article of the Decree even to children, who, once admitted to the sacred table... must not be prohibited from frequent participation in it, but rather are to be exhorted to it; with the contrary practice in force in some places being reproved."

2. Frequent and daily Communion is also to be promoted as much as possible in seminaries of clerics, whose students long for service of the altar; likewise in other Christian schools of every kind² (cited Decree, n. 7). Religious superiors should promote among their subjects the frequent, even daily, reception of the Most Holy Body of Christ; and frequent, indeed even daily, access to the Most Holy Eucharist should be freely open to religious who are rightly disposed (canon 595, § 2). As regards religious, observe besides:

a) If there are religious institutes of either solemn or simple vows in whose rules or constitutions, or even calendars, Communions are found to be assigned or ordered on certain days, these norms have only directive force (canon 595, § 4).

b) But if after the last sacramental Confession a religious has been a grave scandal to the community, or has committed a grave and external fault, the superior can prohibit him from approaching Holy Communion until he has again approached the sacrament of Penance (canon 595, § 3). The words scandal, and grave and external fault, are now to be taken at least in the theological sense. The prohibition falls away as soon as the subject has confessed.

Note. The law of reading the Decree Sacra Tridentina Synodus annually in religious houses is no longer in force (cf. canon 6, 6).

¹ 15 September 1906 (Monitore Ecclesiastico, vol. 18, p. 346).

² Under the name of schools are comprehended "all pious institutes in which boys or girls are instructed and educated" (Acta Sanctae Sedis, vol. XXI, p. 506).

IV. Daily Communion is commended to all by: 1. the desire of Christ and the Church, as is more fully explained in the prior part of the cited Decree; 2. the end and fruit of Communion. Concerning this observe that its end consists especially in this, "that Christ's faithful, united to God through the sacrament, may thence take strength to restrain lust, to wash away the slight faults which occur daily, and to prevent the graver sins to which human frailty is liable; but not principally that the honor and veneration of the Lord be consulted, nor that it be, as it were, wages or a reward of their virtues for those receiving" (cited Decree).

Corollary. The practice of persuading either the faithful or the members of some community to abstain from Communion on one or another day each week must be disapproved. For this practice cannot be reconciled with the cited decree and other ecclesiastical documents, which exhort daily Communion to be brought into practice and promoted, and prohibit the confessor "from turning anyone away from frequent or daily Communion who is found in the state of grace and approaches with a right mind" (n. 5). Nor should members of a community be persuaded to abstain from daily Communion on the occasion of spiritual exercises.

Frequent Communion.—What dispositions are required for frequent Communion (i.e., Communion made several times a week) and daily communion?

(a) The necessary dispositions are the same as for rare Communion, namely, the state of grace and a right intention. Right intention means positively that one have in view the ends that Christ intended when He instituted the Sacrament, namely, that by means of Communion one may please Him, may be more closely united to Him, and may receive a remedy for one’s defects and infirmities. Those who receive devoutly have these purposes at least implicitly, which suffices; but it would be a serious sin wilfully to exclude all these ends. Right intention means negatively that one must not frequent Communion merely from routine, or from vanity, or from purely human motives, such as pecuniary profit or advantage. If the true ends are not excluded, these improper motives do not exceed a venial sin.

(b) Useful, but not necessary, dispositions are freedom from venial sins, especially such as are deliberate, and freedom from affection for venial sins.

338. By the name of frequent Communion, commonly with St. Ligorius, there are understood in the stricter sense those Communions which, beyond Sundays or feast days, are made on weekdays, even without previous confession.

No entirely certain rule concerning frequent Communion can be established. Therefore we shall indicate only certain things generally.

It is certain that frequent Communion, even daily Communion, has always been most desired in the Church. This is clear 1. from the common testimony of the Fathers, who always earnestly commended it to the faithful. It is clear 2. from the Council of Trent, sess. 22, c. 6, where it says: The holy Synod indeed would desire that at each Mass the faithful standing by should communicate not only by spiritual affection, but also by sacramental reception of the Eucharist, so that the fruit of this most holy Sacrifice might come to them. It is clear 3. from the Decree of Innocent XI in the year 1679, and also from the common testimony of Doctors. Therefore frequent Communion is greatly to be praised, and is to be earnestly urged upon the faithful by Parish Priests and also by Confessors. It is certain besides that days for receiving the sacred Eucharist cannot generally be established; nor are those to be barred from it who desire to approach frequently, unless they appear unworthy. Therefore this whole matter must be left to the judgment of Confessors, who, according to the purity of conscience and the fruit perceived from the sacred table, ought to prescribe that which they judge will profit each one more. - Thus from the same Decree of Innocent XI.

339. • It is useful to report the principal things which St. Ligorius has concerning this matter in the book The Practice of the Confessor (which is found toward the end of the larger Work):

We speak here only of the manner in which Confessors ought to conduct themselves in conceding Communion to their penitents. In this, some err by too great indulgence, others by too great rigor. There is no doubt that it is an error, as Benedict XIV notes in his golden book On the Synod, to concede frequent Communion to those who often fall into grave sins, and are not solicitous about doing penance and about their amendment, or to those who approach > to Communion with affection for venial sins, without any desire of freeing themselves from them.

It is indeed expedient to concede Communion to some who would be in danger of falling into mortal sins, that they may receive strength for resisting; but with respect to those persons who are not in such danger and, on the contrary, ordinarily commit deliberate venial sins, and in whom no amendment nor desire of amendment shines forth, it will be best not to permit them Communion more than once a week; indeed it may be expedient sometimes to forbid them Communion for an entire week, that they may conceive a greater horror of their defects and greater reverence toward this Sacrament.... (n. 149.)

Certain Directors surely err, and depart greatly from the spirit of the Church, when, without any regard for need or progress, they indiscriminately deny frequent Communion, led by no other reason than because it is frequent. The Roman Catechism itself, explaining the desire of the Council of Trent that all those assisting at the Sacrifice communicate, teaches that it is the office of the Parish Priest diligently to exhort the faithful to Communion not only frequent but daily, with the obligation of instructing them that, just as the body, so also the soul, needs daily nourishment.... Moreover, in the Decree of Innocent XI it is imposed upon Bishops that they most diligently take care that Communion, even daily Communion, be denied to no one, and that, as is fitting, they seek to nourish this devotion in their subjects.

Certain more rigid spirits readily admit that daily Communion is indeed lawful; but they say that a due disposition is required for this. But we desire to know from them what they understand by this name, due disposition. If they understand a worthy disposition, who then should ever again approach the Eucharist? Jesus Christ alone worthily received the Eucharist, because God alone could worthily receive God. But if they understand a suitable disposition, it has already been said above that it is equitable to deny frequent Communion to those who have actual venial sins, or affection for them without a desire of amendment. But if then we speak of those who, affection even for venial sins now being removed ¹, and the greater part of their depraved inclinations having been overcome ², have a great desire of communicating, St. Francis de Sales says that these, with the previous counsel of their director, could rightly communicate daily. (n. 150.) > And although to abstain from Communion on some day is also a virtue, nevertheless Father Granada, in his Treatise on Communion, says that it is the common opinion of Doctors that it is better to approach Communion daily from love than to abstain from reverence. And St. Thomas confirms this, part 3, q. 80, art. 10, ad 3, saying: And therefore both pertain to reverence for this Sacrament: both that it be received daily, and that one sometimes abstain. Yet love and hope, to which Scripture always calls us, are preferred to fear. Indeed Father Barisonus rightly says that he who approaches the Eucharist with a desire of growing in divine love also exercises an act of reverence toward Jesus Christ; indeed, the former performs a positive act, whereas he who abstains performs only a negative act.... The Venerable Father Master Avila does not hesitate to say that those who condemn persons who approach the Eucharist more often perform the office of the devil. (n. 151.)

¹ Affection for venial sins is said to be removed, not indeed when someone no longer falls into venial sins; for this perfection belongs not to man journeying on earth, but to the blessed comprehensor in heaven; but when someone, although he sometimes falls into venial sins from infirmity, nevertheless is accustomed immediately to grieve and diligently to guard against a relapse.

² Here the words of the Council of Trent must be recalled to memory (sess. 5, Decree On Original Sin, n. 5): But that concupiscence or the tinder remains in the baptized, this holy Synod confesses and perceives; and since it has been left for combat, it cannot harm those who do not consent, but who manfully resist through the grace of Jesus Christ; indeed, he who shall have contended lawfully shall be crowned. Therefore, to have overcome depraved inclinations is not to have them extinguished, or not to feel their force, however vehement, but not to be led away by them to violating the law of God. Wherefore victory of this kind over depraved inclinations falls back into the preceding condition of a man who strives with all his strength to guard against at least fully deliberate venial faults. For this cannot be furnished by one who does not endeavor to deny himself, that is, his depraved inclinations, through continual and laborious combat against them.

Moreover, considering the doctrines related, it seems that a Director cannot without scruple deny frequent, even daily, Communion to certain souls desiring it in order that they may advance in divine love; always, however, provided that, living alienated from affection for any venial fault, they moreover devote themselves much to mental prayer ³, endeavor to tend toward perfection, and no longer fall into sins, even venial sins, that are plainly voluntary.... Except, ordinarily speaking, one day in each week, as certain prudent Directors are accustomed to do; and except that time in which they wish to deprive their penitents of Communion in order to prove their obedience ⁴, or humility, or for some just cause.... (n. 152.)

³ This condition is not to be required indiscriminately from all. And indeed it not rarely happens that you find souls distinguished by singular purity of conscience and constantly leading a life especially noble in innocence of morals, which nevertheless do not devote themselves to the exercise of mental prayer, either because they are occupied by other employments, or because God, wonderful in His Saints, does not draw all souls to Himself by the same way, and knows how to feed, direct, and fortify them with the heavenly light of His grace. See concerning this argument the excellent little work of the Reverend Joseph Frassinetti, entitled: The Pater Noster of St. Teresa of Jesus: A Treatise on Prayer by the Priest Giuseppe Frassinetti.

⁴ This reason of proving obedience seems not to be entrusted everywhere nor indiscriminately to all, but at most sometimes, and indeed to men who have not only been exercised by long experience in the direction of souls and by intensive study in the spiritual way, but who moreover singularly excel in an abundance of divine light and in that heavenly gift which they call discernment of spirits. Otherwise, besides other inconveniences, effects plainly opposite to the intended purpose will very easily follow. Besides, is there lacking some other more suitable matter concerning which the virtue of obedience can be exercised?

But what in the present matter deservedly ought to seem altogether intolerable is that even women who perhaps exercise some power in monasteries or in some pious Congregation, either over nuns subject to them, or over girls who are educated in the same monasteries, or even merely frequent schools or sodalities there, do not hesitate rashly to usurp for themselves the faculty of conceding or denying access to Holy Communion. This abuse, introduced long ago into certain monasteries of Gaul by Jansenist frauds, I do not know how, in no small part, gradually and imperceptibly pervaded especially the more recent Congregations of women, so that women claim for themselves the governance of the spirit and a certain episcopate, as it were. And thus, while the government of souls is called by St. Gregory the art of arts; while decrees of Synods and pontifical Constitutions prescribe that the choicest men of the clergy, who excel in doctrine, prudence, maturity of judgment, gravity, experience in spiritual matters, etc., be appointed to the spiritual cultivation of this assembly, and therefore Bishops approve not all confessors, but a certain few as fit above others for that duty; while in Religious Orders only the most grave men, if there are any, and those distinguished by judgment and prudence, are chosen for the office of Spiritual Father; while even the Saints admonish that he who determines to enter upon the spiritual journey should so labor in taking a guide of the way that he select one out of thousands; while we all confess that in the theological disciplines that part which they call ascetical or mystical is held to be the most difficult, since it requires certain singular gifts of judgment, discretion, etc.; nevertheless we sometimes see this most grave and difficult office now almost wholly committed to the weakness and ignorance of the female intellect. And since weakness and poverty of mind, when some authority and power are added, are accustomed to be followed by a rashness the more audacious, hence one could see recalled into monasteries, as though by right of return, certain of those scenes which elsewhere in Jansenist history provoked us to laughter and at the same time to just indignation. You would have seen, namely, every effort brought to this, that nuns be withdrawn from the care, instruction, and direction of confessors, so that the whole governance of the spirit might be drawn from the venerable mother of all as from its sole fountain; to which end, even in the Constitutions themselves, one could perceive it most cunningly insinuated, under specious colors and by deceitful art, that the work of the Confessor should not be employed except for the absolution of sins, but that all other things should be reserved to the provident care of the spiritual mother; so that that part which is held to be especially arduous in ecclesiastical governance was now to be referred to women, concerning whom otherwise the Apostle prescribed (1 Tim. 2): Let a woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I permit not a woman to teach... but to be in silence.

Nevertheless, you would have said that very little except the matter of absolution remained reserved from these spiritual mothers. For to these mothers and mistresses the fullest account of the whole conscience was prescribed to be rendered. To this certainly pertained not only to disclose all movements of the soul, depraved inclinations, and temptations, but also lapses and sins. And, what surpasses all belief, while even in communities of Religious men which observe this law of rendering an account of conscience it is prudently guarded that some matter, if perhaps there has been sin in it, be reserved to sacramental confession to be made before the Superior himself, so that provision may be made for decency and shame; the levity and imprudence of women had progressed so far that even those things which pertain to vices contrary to chastity had to be narrated to female curiosity in familiar conversation, so much so that even in the Constitutions themselves, under the pretext obtained of teaching the manner in which this was to be furnished, the necessity of this narration appeared expressly inserted. Anyone easily sees how similar these abuses were to the confessions which the most celebrated Mondonville, as the history of the Jansenist Institute of the Holy Childhood relates, was accustomed to receive from her nuns.

Most wisely, therefore, the Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars, which did not permit even male religious, if they were merely laymen, the office or duty of spiritual direction, either of receiving an account of conscience even rendered in writing, or even merely of knowing the temptations of subjects (see Method of the Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars in Approving New Institutes, etc., pp. 30, 31), and which willed that this duty with respect to nuns be so proper to the Confessor that it did not approve an account of conscience to be rendered by them even to Directors or Superiors (ibid., pp. 28, 29), took care that abuses of this kind be removed from Congregations of women. First, therefore, it restricted the matter concerning which nuns are permitted to render some account to the moderator or Superior General to two heads, namely, to exterior or public transgressions of the Constitutions, and to progress in virtues (ibid., p. 26, n. 3, and p. 28, n. 16). Then it conceded this manifestation of conscience itself not obligatorily but only facultatively (ibid.); that is, it willed that there be no obligation of manifesting conscience even concerning those two heads, but permitted it to the free judgment of each. Finally, what is of greatest importance, it did not concede this absolutely, but always added that it permitted this for the present; by which it is openly signified that these things are tolerated meanwhile by way of a certain experiment. And this indeed was most prudently guarded, both because it is manifest that the moderator does not lack means and arts by which she may easily compel to that which is called facultative nuns who do not wish to have that offense, and because the argument concerning progress in virtues furnishes a very easy and almost necessary transition to defects against virtues, and thus the inconvenience of confessions concerning any sins whatsoever to be made by nuns to the moderator can perhaps return under an obvious pretext.

Moreover, from this spiritual governance and inspection of consciences committed to these moderators, behold that inconvenience from which the occasion of this Note was taken. For while the Constitutions of Religious Orders which prescribe an account of conscience to be rendered at the same time most severely prohibit Superiors from using the knowledge drawn from it in any way for external government, it could not be hoped that the female disposition would patiently bear this bridle. Hence that which pertains to the prudent judgment of the Confessor, namely what frequency of Holy Communion is suitable for each of the nuns, the president of the monastery, as moderator of consciences, seizes as her own office; and therefore whether this nun may approach Holy Communion once, that one three times, this one twice a week, another daily, is left to be determined by the decisive judgment of a petty woman.

But there arises from this also another most wicked abuse, which indeed it was natural to expect from so great a power given to a disposition not mistress of itself. For that which formerly, as the gravest punishment, by the canons of Synods and at the judgment of Bishops was sometimes accustomed to be inflicted for graver sins and more atrocious crimes, namely that offenders be barred from sacred Communion, the female mind, lacking judgment, uses as a weapon for avenging certain very slight faults, whether real or imagined. Nor is the president of the monastery accustomed to do this easily only with subject nuns, but, according to the proverb, the lesser ox learns to plow from the greater: individual mistresses of girls who are educated in monasteries also rashly assume this power for themselves; and where you would think that some light disobedience of a girl, or some annoyance caused to another pupil, or a violation of the law of silence could suitably be punished by withdrawing an apple or a sweetmeat or even part of breakfast, for these most slight heads they foolishly and cruelly withdraw the heavenly food of the Eucharist and the grace of the Sacrament.

Nor is this enough. For since the weakness of woman has now imbibed this opinion of her authority, that, according to the phrase of the Apostle (1 Cor. 4:1), she considers the dispensation of the mysteries of God entrusted to herself, and that the use of the Sacraments with respect to the girl pupils resides entirely in her own power and judgment, she exercises a blind tyranny not only with respect to the Eucharist, but also with respect to the Sacrament of Penance. And that which is unheard of in ecclesiastical discipline, that which nowhere was denied even to the most criminal malefactors, is forbidden to girls on account of some light fault, namely that they confess on the day on which the other pupils confess. These things, namely, and others of this kind had to happen when, the due grades and offices of each not being observed, the matter is brought to that place concerning which Sacred Scripture prophesied (Eccles. 10): There is an evil which I have seen under the sun, as though proceeding by error from the face of the prince: the fool set in high dignity, and the rich sitting below. I have seen servants upon horses, etc.

Nor indeed should anyone object here that certain Constitutions of nuns have been approved by the Apostolic See in which it is not only permitted, but even prescribed, that the fullest account of the whole conscience be rendered to the president of the monastery. What this argument is worth in a disciplinary matter, learn from similar examples, which you have innumerable at hand. Formerly Parish Priests could choose for themselves and their sheep a confessor from whatever priests they wished; but after the Council of Trent they cannot choose one unless approved by the Ordinary. Formerly Mendicant Regulars could receive the confessions of any faithful even when their Ordinaries were unwilling and resisting; but afterward it was established that they could not exercise this ministry unless approved by the Ordinaries of places. Formerly Bishops, after a process instituted by themselves concerning virtues and miracles, could grant and decree to someone the honors of the heavenly citizens; but afterward this was reserved to the Apostolic See. Formerly, when Sees were vacant, a chosen Bishop was handed over by the Metropolitan; but afterward the institution of Bishops had to be sought and awaited from the Apostolic See. Formerly nuns were not bound by the severe discipline of enclosure; but afterward solemn profession of vows is not permitted except where the strictness of enclosure can be observed. In a few words: the Apostolic See, according to its wisdom and the power handed down to it by Christ the Lord, uses now this, now another discipline according to diverse circumstances; but it pertains to the sheep of the Lord's flock, whoever they may be, not to judge concerning these things, but faithfully and most lovingly to obey the Shepherd.

And although some soul should sometimes fall into a voluntary venial sin from mere frailty, but soon afterward should grieve and propose amendment, if it should then desire Communion in order to receive strength from the Sacrament, lest it fall, and in order to advance in the way of perfection, for what reason should Communion be denied to it?...

Moreover, that which St. Francis de Sales says on this subject must be noted (The Devout Life, c. 21): If they ask you why you communicate so frequently, answer them that two kinds of persons ought to communicate more often: the perfect, namely that they may be able to arrive at perfection; the strong, lest they become weak; the weak, that they may become strong; the sick, that they may be cured; those in good health, lest they become sick.... Those who are not involved in worldly affairs ought to communicate more often because they have the opportunity; but those who are detained by affairs of this kind, because they need Communion.... (n. 153.) > But if afterward it is recognized that, notwithstanding the frequency of Communion, the soul advances nothing in the way of perfection, nor amends itself from deliberate faults, even venial ones, as if it adheres to pleasures of the senses in seeing, hearing, eating, and dressing with some vanity, then certainly the use of Communion will advisedly have to be restricted, so that it may begin seriously to think about its amendment and to provide for its spiritual perfection. Moreover, it must be noted that, although in order that someone may approach Communion it is required that he approach with great devotion, nevertheless it is not necessary that this be the highest and sensible devotion.

It suffices for the Director to discover in the innermost will of his penitent a certain alacrity for executing whatever things shall please God. He who would abstain from Communion because he did not feel in himself some great fervor, says the learned Gerson, would be compared to one who, being exceedingly cold, would be unwilling to approach the fire because he experiences no heat in himself. Hence Father Granada, with Cajetan, teaches that pusillanimous persons who omit Communion on account of a disordered fear of their unworthiness inflict great prejudice upon their own progress. Nor, says St. Lawrence Justinian, in order to continue Communions is it necessary that the soul feel, or openly discern in itself, an increase of fervor, since not rarely this Sacrament operates without our noticing it.... (n. 155.) ⁵.

⁵ The little work of the Most Reverend de Segur, Holy Communion, is to be earnestly commended to the faithful; in it, by solid principles and reasoning most suitably accommodated to the common understanding of all, the sophistical little reasons by which certain pusillanimous persons deter themselves, and certain pseudo-ascetics deter others, from frequent participation in the Most Holy Eucharist are refuted.

344. From the things said, according to the mind of St. Ligorius and of others related by him, the doctrine concerning frequent Communion can thus be confined to a few general rules.

First Rule. - Monthly Communion is to be denied to no one sufficiently disposed; indeed it is especially to be recommended to all, even if they lead a life involved in worldly affairs; for otherwise it is very difficult to persevere long in divine grace because of innumerable occasions and the almost obliteration of eternal things. - Thus commonly.

Second Rule. - Weekly Communion is to be permitted, indeed recommended, to those who do not commit grave faults from habit; yet if they labor under several light vices and are in no way solicitous about amendment, it will sometimes be useful to forbid them Communion for some week, so that they may be aroused with some alacrity to cast away their vices ⁶. - St. Ligorius, n. 149.

⁶ Yet take care lest you be deceived by the principle which the Author also shortly afterward calls most false, namely, as though Communion ought to be regarded as the reward of virtue, since it is a means for acquiring virtue.

Third Rule. - Frequent Communion, or several times in the week, can be permitted or even recommended to those faithful who, although weak, observe the duties of a good Christian, desire both to love, worship, and pray to God, willingly devote some time daily to mental prayer when they can, and do not frequently fall into deliberate faults. - St. Ligorius, n. 150, 153.

Fourth Rule. - Daily Communion is to be conceded to those who lack affection even for light faults, have for the greater part overcome evil desires, and seriously endeavor to tend toward Christian perfection. Yet it is expedient, if cause is present, sometimes once, and at times even several times in the week, to withdraw Communion from them. - St. Ligorius, n. 150. - See Cases, tom. II, n. 13 and following.

Finally, it must be noted that authors opposing frequent Communion rest upon a most false principle. For they suppose Communion to be the reward of virtue; but according to the doctrine of the Holy Fathers, the Eucharist is a means of acquiring virtue.

70. 5. Frequent reception of the sacraments.² The aforesaid means become much more efficacious if the sacraments are received frequently and devoutly, especially penance and the Eucharist. (a) For as often as we seriously look into the recesses of conscience, and candidly open to the spiritual physician not only external sins, but also internal thoughts more or less shameful which tend to lust, as well as the dangerous occasions which we voluntarily approach, or in which, compelled by a certain necessity, we dwell - first indeed we conceive a greater horror of all such foulnesses; then we receive opportune counsels concerning fleeing occasions and the means of overcoming temptations; and, sacramental grace acceding, we are made more strenuous for despising the enticements of the flesh.

² Lacordaire speaks excellently concerning the means which the Catholic religion supplies for cultivating chastity, Conf. de N. Dame, 22nd and 23rd.

(b) Nor is holy communion less efficacious; for there our flesh is sanctified by the flesh of Christ, and, when we frequently receive the author of purity Himself, does it not shame us to hand over the very members of Christ to luxury? "Know you not that your bodies are the members of Christ? Taking therefore the members of Christ, shall I make them the members of a harlot? God forbid."¹ Besides, nothing protects us more from sensual love than the chaste love of Christ: therefore when we are lovingly joined to the Lord in the sacrament of the altar, earthly pleasures indeed become distasteful; and our heart, preoccupied by the love of God, is less solicitous about unlawful loves.

¹ 1 Pet. 4:8.

Therefore let Christians attend to these words of Paul:² "For this is the will of God, your sanctification; that you should abstain from fornication. That every one of you should know how to possess his vessel in sanctification and honor; not in the passion of desire, like the Gentiles who know not God."

² 1 Thess. 4:3-5.

Civil law in various regions punishes with penalties certain delicts against good morals, especially when they are public, or perpetrated by force, or against justice. From the French Penal Code we have excerpted the following articles:

Art. 330. (Law of May 13, 1863.) Any person who shall have committed a public outrage against modesty shall be punished by imprisonment from three months to two years, and by a fine of 16 francs to 200 francs.³

³ In order that the outrage against modesty be deemed public, it suffices that it has been or could have been perceived, whether it was committed in an open place, or in a private place in the presence of a witness. - This article was completed by the law of March 16, 1898: "Whoever shall have committed the delict of outrage against good morals shall be punished by imprisonment from one month to two years and by a fine of 100 to 5000 francs: - by the sale or placing on sale, the offering, exhibition, posting, or distribution, on the public way or in public places, of writings, printed matter other than a book, posters, drawings, engravings, paintings, emblems, objects, or images which are obscene or contrary to good morals; - by the sale or offering, even non-public, to a minor, of the same writings, printed matter, posters, etc.; - by their distribution at home, by their delivery under wrapper and under unsealed envelope at the door..., by unauthorized songs publicly uttered, by public announcements or correspondence contrary to good morals."

331. (Law of May 13, 1863.) Every assault against modesty, consummated or attempted without violence upon the person of a child of either sex, under the age of thirteen years, shall be punished by reclusion.

The assault against modesty committed by any ascendant upon the person of a minor shall be punished by the same penalty, even if he is more than thirteen years of age, but not emancipated by marriage.¹

¹ The attempt foreseen by article 331 has its own character and is not subject to the general rule of article 2 of the Penal Code; the assault is committed as soon as it has been attempted. Therefore it is not necessary to establish, as in ordinary cases, that the attempt failed to have its effect only by a circumstance independent of the will of its author. - Cass., Aug. 4, 1853.

332. Whoever shall have committed the crime of rape shall be punished by hard labor for a term.

If the crime was committed upon the person of a child below the completed age of fifteen years, the guilty person shall undergo the maximum of the penalty of hard labor for a term.

Whoever shall have committed an assault against modesty, consummated or attempted with violence against individuals of either sex, shall be punished by reclusion.

If the crime was committed upon the person of a child below the completed age of fifteen years, the guilty person shall undergo the penalty of hard labor for a term.

333. (Law of May 13, 1863.) If the guilty persons are ascendants of the person upon whom the assault was committed, if they are of the class of those who have authority over him, if they are his teachers or his hired servants, or hired servants of the persons designated above, if they are public officials or ministers of a cult, or if the guilty person, whoever he may be, was aided in his crime by one or several persons, the penalty shall be that of hard labor for a term, in the case foreseen by paragraph 1 of article 331, and hard labor for life, in the cases foreseen by the preceding article.²

² The designation made by this article of certain persons upon whom their quality impresses the character of authority is only enumerative and does not exclude the application of the law to special and unforeseen facts from which authority can result. - Cass., Aug. 9, 1867. - Article 333 extends to those who have authority over the victim, without distinguishing between permanent authority and discontinuous authority. - Cass., Aug. 27, 1857.

334. Whoever shall have made an attempt against morals, by habitually exciting, favoring, or facilitating the debauchery or corruption of the youth of either sex below the age of twenty-one years, shall be punished by imprisonment from six months to two years, and by a fine of fifty francs to five hundred francs.

If the prostitution or corruption was excited, favored, or facilitated by their father, mother, tutor, or other persons charged with their supervision, the penalty shall be from two years to five years of imprisonment, and from three hundred to one thousand francs of fine.¹

¹ Article 334 is inapplicable to him who, in exciting minors to debauchery, has no other end than to satisfy his own passions, without making himself an intermediary agent of corruption. - Cass., assembled chambers, March 24, 1853; May 1, 1854; March 15, 1860; Aug. 21, 1863. - Although article 334 must be understood in this sense, that it reaches only him who has employed himself as an intermediary agent of corruption in the interest of the passions of another, nevertheless there is complicity in this delict on the part of him who, to satisfy his own libertinage, has, by one of the means set forth in article 60, provoked the intervention of procuring. - Cass., Nov. 10, 1860. - And it is not necessary, in order that complicity exist in such a case, that the provocation in question have been habitual: habit, which forms one of the elements of the delict of excitation to debauchery, is not required to constitute complicity in the terms of article 60.

335. Those guilty of the delict mentioned in the preceding article shall be interdicted from every tutelage or curatorship, and from every participation in family councils; namely, the individuals to whom the first paragraph of that article applies, for at least two years and at most five years, and those of whom it is spoken in the second paragraph, for at least ten years and at most twenty years.

If the delict was committed by the father or the mother, the guilty person shall moreover be deprived of the rights and advantages accorded to him over the person and goods of the child by the Civil Code, book I, title IX, On Paternal Power.

In all cases, the guilty persons may moreover be placed, by the decision or judgment, under the surveillance of the high police, observing, for the duration of the surveillance, what has just been established for the duration of the interdiction mentioned in the present article.

336. The adultery of the wife may be denounced only by the husband; this faculty itself shall cease if he is in the case foreseen by article 339.²

² The public ministry cannot prosecute the delict of adultery except upon the complaint of the husband, and he can charge a third party, by special power, to denounce the adultery in his name and follow the action. - Cass., Nov. 23, 1855.

337. The woman convicted of adultery shall undergo the penalty of imprisonment for at least three months and at most two years.

The husband shall remain master of stopping the effect of this condemnation, by consenting to take back his wife.

338. The accomplice of the adulterous woman shall be punished by imprisonment for the same space of time, and, moreover, by a fine of one hundred francs to two thousand francs.

The only proofs which may be admitted against the accused of complicity shall be, besides the manifest delict, those resulting from letters or other written pieces written by the accused.

339. The husband who shall have kept a concubine in the conjugal home, and who shall have been convicted upon the complaint of the wife, shall be punished by a fine of one hundred francs to two thousand francs.

The Belgian Penal Code contains analogous provisions, art. 372-391, and moreover penalties against the abduction of minors, especially girls below the completed age of sixteen years (368-371).

An international arrangement was concluded at Paris, on May 18, 1904, between France, Germany, Belgium, Denmark, Spain, Great Britain, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, Russia, Sweden and Norway, and Switzerland, in view of assuring effective protection against "the white-slave traffic," that is, against the recruitment of women and girls for debauchery abroad, and to facilitate the repatriation of the victims of this shameful traffic. The text was published by the Journal Officiel of February 19, 1905. Cf. Questions actuelles, t. 77, March 4, 1905, pp. 286-287.

— The reality or special grace of this sacrament, instituted for the refreshment of our soul, is the spiritual transformation of man into Christ, our life, through charity, whose habit it increases and whose acts it excites. That is, the effects which temporal food works for bodily life, this food works the same effects for spiritual life. For it sustains this life, both by increasing habitual grace and by exciting the fervor of charity; it increases it, insofar as it is directly and specially referred to perfecting charity, whence the wound of "egoism" is healed, and sanctifying grace and the other virtues receive an increase; it repairs: for by exciting fervent acts of charity ex opere operato, it takes away venial sins and the damages which they have brought upon us; it delights already through the very active love which it excites. Thus almost Cardinal Billot, De Euch.

— 1. General Rule. "Any baptized person who is not prohibited by law can and must be admitted to Holy Communion." By these words c. 853 establishes the right of a Christian to the spiritual refreshment of his soul, without a positive demonstration of his worthiness, so that only the publicly unworthy and manifestly infamous are to be kept away, if they ask publicly; but hidden ones only if they ask secretly from a minister who outside confession knows that they are not amended (cf. c. 855 and what was said n. 191-194).

Yet those also can be repelled who approach Holy Communion dressed less modestly or with that adornment which approved usage prohibits, especially if they have first been warned, at least by a general edict. These are not kept away as sinners, but as troublesome and uncivil petitioners; nor do they become infamous from a repulse whose reason is manifest.

— II. Communion of Children. Although baptized children receive this sacrament validly and fruitfully, nevertheless the present discipline of the Church, by which greater reverence for the sacrament is provided for, expressed in canon 854, establishes these several things concerning children:

1. Those are not to be admitted who, on account of the weakness of age, do not yet have knowledge and taste of this sacrament;

2. Those constituted in danger of death can and must be admitted to Holy Communion who know how to distinguish the body of Christ from common food, and reverently to adore it;

3. Outside danger of death, that fuller knowledge and more accurate preparation is said to be required by which they know at least the mysteries to be believed by necessity of means, and devoutly, according to the measure of their age, approach the Most Holy Eucharist;

4. The confessors of the children and their parents, or those who are in the place of parents, judge concerning the sufficient disposition of the children;

5. To the pastor a twofold office is assigned: a) of watching lest children approach the sacred synaxis before the use of reason or without sufficient disposition; which vigilance he can exercise even by examination, if he has prudently judged it opportune; b) of taking care that those who have attained the use of reason and are sufficiently disposed be refreshed as soon as possible by this divine food.

That we may explain this canon somewhat, according to its importance, first it must be well held that by it the several norms of the decree of the Sacred Congregation of the Sacraments, Quam singulari, August 8, 1910, are confirmed entirely. Indeed the Code presents them in the same words. For art. 3 of the said decree sounds thus: "The knowledge of religion which is required in a child that he may suitably prepare himself for first Communion is that by which he, according to his capacity, perceives 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." Only in this way do the norms of the Code differ from the norms of the decree, that the decree was issued for uprooting the error of those who delayed the Communion of children too much, and therefore had to insist on the facility with which children were to be admitted; while the Code also, as human nature is inclined to excesses, had to restrain or impede the contrary excesses of those who, not attending at all to the conditions placed in the decree, almost compel children indiscriminately to the sacred table. Wherefore, wishing to meet this indiscreet zeal, it places and vindicates more in recto the necessity of fuller knowledge and more accurate preparation in a healthy child.

Moreover it does three things for this end. In §1, proceeding negatively, with the Roman Ritual, from which that paragraph is taken, it keeps away children to whom knowledge and taste of the Most Holy Eucharist are lacking. Taste can be said either to be that hunger or sincere will by which they desire to receive Christ, and do not merely wish to please parents and imitate adults; or that devotion proportionate to age. For the condition of approach under the form of hunger was expressed by D. de Segur: He loves Jesus Christ and desires him; under the form of devotion it was rendered by St. Thomas: "When children begin to have some use of reason, so that they can conceive devotion for this sacrament." Now each passage has been praised in decrees of the Holy See.

Then §3 says positively that those are to be admitted who, according to their capacity, perceive the mysteries necessary by necessity of means, and approach devoutly according to their measure.

Finally, §5 indicates the regular time: the attained use of reason. For before this they are to be repelled; afterward children are to be led, or disposed as soon as possible. But from can. 88, seven years completed is presumed to be that time. As is clear, according to the cultivation of children, according to the very climate under which they live, exceptions can be more frequent or less frequent.

Wherefore, no less after the promulgated Code than after the decrees of Pius X, children who have not yet attained seven years can be admitted if they satisfy the conditions; but before the completed seventh year, they must dispel the contrary presumption, while after the seventh year, the presumption of capacity favors them.

Nothing is suggested concerning a general or subsequent solemn Communion of children: therefore the usage of the region will have to be considered; but that solemnity is greatly to be commended (Provincial Council of Mechlin, nn. 193 and 280).

Finally it can be asked how the judgment concerning the disposition of children, which is permitted to the confessor and parents, is to be combined with the office of vigilance of pastors.

In this way, unless we are mistaken. Concerning individual children, parents and confessors can judge, nor must they warn the pastor or approach him for consultation. At the same time a certain general inspection, as of the external forum, is committed to the pastor, of observing which children approach or omit Communion. Then, if he has some of those approaching under suspicion of ignorance, he can test them even by examination; but those later whom he thinks fit or to be disposed he will try to lead to Holy Communion. In each case, it is necessary that he have authority among parents ¹; yet a strict obligation of obeying him is not imposed by law. But the pastor cannot, relying on this can. 854, generally subordinate the first Communion of children in his parish to the condition of a previous examination. Nor will he repel from the sacred table a child who publicly but reverently asks for Holy Communion, because he doubts about his age or has himself demanded greater preparation. For such a child is not a public sinner or infamous. And public denial, especially if signs of impatience accompany it, will easily produce lasting or irreparable effects of timidity or aversion, even among other children who are witnesses of the matter. Yet it will be lawful for a pastor who doubts about a child to speak to him kindly and question him, and, if the case bears it, gently remove him from the sacred table.

¹ "The judgment of pastors concerning these children (whom because of a prudent doubt they have examined) must be stood by." Provincial Council of Mechlin, 1920, art. 188.

— III. Required State of Grace. The state of grace is required by divine precept. And he who is in mortal sin, under mortal sin, must confess before reception of the Eucharist, unless there is necessity of communicating and the opportunity of a confessor is lacking: the Church thus defined the proving which from St. Paul, 1 Cor. 11, is necessary, whether it merely declared the divine law, or completed it by its own authority. Cf. Trent, sess. XIII, ch. 7 with can. 11, and Code c. 856.

When the opportunity of a confessor is lacking was said above, n. 317, 2. But the necessity of communicating will scarcely be other than that of avoiding disgrace or infamy; and the almost sole case will be if you are already physically or morally at the Communion rail, and then remember a mortal sin committed after the last confession. Nor is he excused who rashly, conscious of evil disposition, has gone with his family to church intending to confess and communicate, and has not been absolved by the priest.

What shall we say about that wonder which, in more than one community, he will excite who, accustomed to communicate daily, on a certain day, especially if it has been more solemn, omits Communion?

Nor can we, from the general rule, grant Communion to him without confession first made. For either it concerns a very rare case, and then he has an easy opportunity of creating another impediment which he will narrate without shame, by breaking the fast; or it concerns a case not so rare. Then it was his part so to arrange his Communions that from the beginning he would be known as one not communicating daily. But if he neglected this, as a frail man he ought reasonably to have admitted the consequence of some suspicion, which nevertheless is not strictly infaming, since abstinence can also be attributed to scruples. But again consider the harms of a faculty conceded to laypersons, and even to youths, of approaching the sacred table after a mortal sin not remitted by absolution: how much it would derogate from the reverence of the Most Holy Eucharist, how much it would diminish horror of sin, how much it would take away from the effort to extirpate a depraved habit!

But this is the reason why, especially in colleges, there must be holy liberty not only of communicating but also of abstaining from use of the Holy Eucharist; why confessors should prudently direct penitents in a strictly daily approach to the sacred table, and dissuade it from him who easily falls into grave sin and is not prepared to contemn the wonder of bystanders; why also, as far as can be done, daily opportunity of a confessor should be provided for a community where the pious use of daily Communion is accustomed to flourish.

Some also permit Communion without confession to him who otherwise would be prohibited from fulfilling the precept of paschal Communion.

But the precept of confessing immediately after, when in necessity you have omitted confession, obliges only priests celebrating, and therefore not a priest or layperson who has merely received Holy Communion.

— Appendix X belongs to this section. IV. Required Fasting. 1. Historical matters. Cf. Appendix X.

2. The law in force. "He who has not observed the natural fast from midnight cannot be admitted to the Most Holy Eucharist": this is the general rule of c. 858, §1, whose exceptions we shall soon weigh.

Whatever has been taken from midnight onward in the manner of food or drink, even for a medicinal end, breaks the natural fast. Nor does smallness of matter excuse. Thus the concordant opinion of Catholics.

Moreover three conditions are necessary for breaking this fast:

1. That the thing have the ratio of food or drink;

2. That it be taken from without;

3. That it be taken "in the manner of eating or drinking" (St. Alphonsus, 6, 280). And here intention can have some efficacy;

4. That it be taken from midnight onward.

1. A thing is said to have the ratio of food or drink which is digestible, or in itself, for what happens accidentally because of the condition of the stomach is not to be considered, is altered in the stomach, broadly accepted. Wherefore what is chemically demonstrated to be in no way capable of being converted within into something else, but to pass through the body unchanged, for example paraffin, can be taken before Communion without fault. And even if it is altered, that also can be taken which in common estimation is not thought to have the ratio of food or drink. Thus says a truly probable opinion, since in a sacramental matter common estimation is accustomed to have very great force.

Hence the ratio of food or drink is not had, or is judged not to be had, by metal, though certainly by iron powder or the like, not rarely prescribed by physicians; glass; little stones; hairs; silk or woolen thread, though certainly linen thread does; well-cleaned little fruit-pits; and probably fingernails, a little piece of dry wood, unless it is edible like rhubarb (rabarbaro, rhubarbe), glycyrrhiza, or liquorice (regolizia, reglisse), paper, wax, earth, chalk, and perhaps straw. Yet many deny this (cf. St. Alphonsus, 6, 281, end).

2. Taking from without is lacking in him who swallows the remains of food from a meal completed the previous day by chance, or even deliberately, since the rubric does not distinguish cases; who swallows, even deliberately, blood flowing from the teeth, tongue, or an ulcer inside the mouth, or flowing inward from the nose; who puts aromatics or tobacco leaves in the mouth or tastes something, provided that he transmits nothing into the stomach. But he takes from without who before midnight receives sugar or glycyrrhiza into his mouth so that he may gradually swallow them: there is had there a continued eating, just as in him who, with midnight imminent, takes food into the mouth which after midnight he breaks up with the teeth.

3. The following is not taken in the manner of food or drink: a) what at the same time, by chance, is drawn into the mouth while breathing, whether it is dust, a fly, or a gnat; b) what by chance is drawn through the nose, for example tobacco powder; c) what is swallowed mixed with saliva together with it: thus the small water with which you have washed the mouth, a particle of the tobacco leaf which you have chewed, a few little drops of blood or a little skin taken from the exterior lips; d) what of water perhaps remains in the stomach, which you wished to wash by means of a gastric siphon, provided you have not externally anointed the siphon with oil or an edible ointment; e) the smoke of tobacco or another fumigation.

Vomiting after eating does not destroy this, either because there will not be complete evacuation, or because by the eating itself you have broken the fast.

Observe that the response about a thing mixed with saliva or drawn in on the occasion of breathing does not hold unless it has been mixed or drawn in apart from intention.

4. As we said in the earlier part, the time of midnight can be chosen either as the usual time, or the true or mean time of the place, or legal, or regional, or another extraordinary time (c. 33): and various clocks which are not established to be in error are admitted in themselves as good authorities, which make a probable opinion. And they agree that in receiving the sacred banquet it is lawful for you to be content with probability of fact.

Yet this probability is destroyed by a certain indication of the hour, which, for example, in the City is given at midday.

According as clocks announce by their sound the hour already completed, as most do, or the hour imminent, one must cease from eating from the first or from the last stroke. Yet what you have received in the mouth before the stroke of the clock you are permitted to swallow, because the Church does not seem to impose on you the rusticity of spitting it out; and without doubt clocks are not lacking which sound a tiny bit later, so that it is not established that the fast has been broken. Thus Lehmkuhl, II, 316.

— In a doubt, whether positive or negative, whether or not you have taken something after midnight, since Communion is a most favorable thing and it concerns the exclusion of an impediment, not the acquiring of a positive quality, it is lawful to communicate. But it is not therefore permitted to eat or drink at any hour of the night and then allege ignorance of the hour for communicating. The precept of the Church, as the very usage of the faithful demonstrates, does not bear this interpretation. Cf. Lugo, Euch., d. 15, n. 42. In order that, in the night, you deliberately and licitly take something with the purpose of communicating, it is necessary, at least when means are at hand, that you probably judge it is not midnight. Cf. what was said in tome I, n. 374.

Wherefore they commonly keep away from Communion him who, lying down in the evening, has placed something in his mouth against hoarseness, unless he is certain that he transmitted nothing after midnight. Yet if it was in his mind to absorb the whole while awake, or to spit out the remainder, and by chance he was seized by sleep, the benign opinion which permits Communion to one ignorant of the hour of transmission can be admitted, and seems to us preferable. It can also happen that the thing is found so entire that nothing except perhaps a very tiny thing mixed with saliva has been absorbed. Access to the sacred table will be freely open.

For evacuating scruples, the better counsel will be that the nostrils be anointed with some oily material by which slightly humid air may be inhaled.

— Exceptions to the Law of Fasting.

1. When danger of death urges (c. 858). Therefore not only the sick but also those who because of an extrinsic cause are exposed to death are excused from the law. But for these the danger of death must be urgent, so that they cannot conveniently wait for another day on which they may communicate fasting (Cappello, I, n. 514); while the sick, from c. 858 and the former interpretation of the Council of Constance, strictly need no excuse of inconvenience. And in doubt about danger of death, one must respond in favor of the faculty of communicating. Cf. Genicot, II, 202.

N. B. The formula: "Receive, Brother (or Sister), the Viaticum of the body of Our Lord Jesus Christ," etc., is indeed to be used in itself, but it can be omitted if it is to be feared that the sick person may be disturbed by it.

And while the danger of death perseveres, after Viaticum, which is of precept, has been received, and even before, the Communion of the sick person who is not fasting can be repeated several times, on distinct days, according to the counsel of a prudent confessor, and therefore even daily (c. 864, §3).

2. Fear of death otherwise to be undergone, unless he is asked to do this in contempt of the precept or of religion, excuses the faithful person who communicates not fasting.

3. The Eucharist exposed to danger of profanation or loss can be received by one not fasting, even a layperson. Thus the canon itself excepts the necessity of providing for the reverence of the sacrament.

To this belongs the consumption of fragments after the ablution, in Mass. Therefore after the ablution, it is lawful for a priest, per accidens, for this is not to be done from a preconceived purpose, to receive smaller fragments pertaining to the same sacrifice, whether he is at the altar, or already in the sacristy, provided that he has not yet taken off the sacred vestments. Fragments of another sacrifice are not to be received after the ablution, unless danger of irreverence has been added; as if, after the last Mass, you discover very tiny particles which cannot, without danger, be carried to the tabernacle, or the tabernacle is lacking. Indeed, as is probable, a priest can purify a ciborium which he immediately needs, although distractedly he has already received the purification of the chalice, because this consumption is judged to be one with Holy Communion itself. Lehmkuhl, II, 192, 4, does not admit this if it concerns whole hosts. And indeed these in themselves can be preserved in the purified pyx itself. Palmieri, t. IV, n. 947, also inclines to the opinion of Tamburini, Exp. comm., §8, according to which a priest, as long as he is at the altar, can in strictness receive even fragments consecrated in another sacred action.

And by equal reason, "if a priest carries Communion to a sick person, in a hospital, and remains are left on the paten or in the chalice, the priest can receive them if he is still clothed in the sacred vestments for Mass. He can also give them immediately after the small host to the sick person, because it is judged one Communion." Cf. Roman Ritual, Order of administering Holy Communion.

N. B. The observance of the rubrics or an approved manner of acting liturgically must not be impeded by fear of a broken fast, because the Church, while it gives or approves these norms, tacitly dispenses, as far as is necessary, from the law of fasting. Thus the Sacred Congregation itself responded that salt placed in the mouth of a neophyte in the ceremonies of baptism does not obstruct Communion immediately following. Thus, that in a prior sacred action, while before the consumption of the blood fragments are gathered, small unconsecrated things are poured into the chalice and received together with the blood of Christ, this does not impede the following Mass of bination; and say the same about little unconsecrated drops which are mixed with the sacred blood. Thus he who on Friday in Parasceve, by drinking wine, has left part of the sacred host in the chalice, receives this with a safe conscience; and he who, in receiving the blood of Christ, has left a consecrated particle in the chalice, from the rubrics themselves of the Missal (De defectibus, X, 8), has the option of bringing it with his finger to the lip of the chalice, or of pouring in wine and receiving it. Thus finally when, according to received custom, after the species of bread has been received, wine to be drunk is given to children after first Communion or to newly ordained priests, they ought to be affected by no anxiety because they first swallowed liquid. For the manifest intention of the Church does not comprehend these things by its law of fasting. Some give this reason, that by the law it is forbidden that you receive anything before Communion, but by no means that together with Communion you receive something else. The reason given first seems to us more simple and adequate.

— Dispensation by Law. "The sick who have already been lying ill for a month without certain hope that they will quickly recover can, by the prudent counsel of the confessor, receive the Most Holy Eucharist once or twice in the week, even if they have previously taken some medicine or something in the manner of drink" (c. 858, §2).

This faculty was first conceded by a decree of Pius X through the Sacred Congregation of the Council, December 7, 1906, but then Communion twice in the week was not permitted except in houses where the Most Holy Eucharist was preserved, or Mass could be celebrated: outside such houses Communion was conceded only twice in the month; nor was solid medicine indulged.

This canon, since it derogates from a grave law, is to be interpreted strictly. Nevertheless usage has prevailed of benignly understanding the word "lying ill," so that even those sick persons who can carry themselves to church are permitted to use the faculty. Thus also Cappello, op. cit., I, 506.

But the other conditions are to be observed accurately. Therefore it is required:

1. That it concerns the truly sick. Such are those whose strength, whether by disease, by old age, or by weakness, has been truly broken, so that at least morally they can be called lying ill. There is no need of a grave or dangerous disease;

2. That they have already been lying ill, or laboring under infirmity, for a month. A month, from the Code, is a space of 30 days, which Rev. Fr. Cappello, loc. cit., understands morally of a space of 26 or 27 days. But in no way can it be admitted that the faculty be extended to those who are affected by a disease which is foreseen to be going to last at least thirty days. By an interpretation of this kind open force would be inflicted on the words, which are to be taken strictly;

3. That there be lacking certain hope of proximate recovery. Certain hope confers a certain moral certitude. Proximate recovery is that which will be obtained within a few days, three or four;

4. It is necessary that they act according to the counsel of a prudent confessor, such as every approved confessor is judged to be. In giving counsel, the spiritual dispositions of the soul are to be considered first; yet the confessor must also be solicitous that the conditions of the privilege have been fulfilled;

5. Communion is not permitted, after the fast has been broken, except once or twice in the week. It is not in the power of the confessor to permit more frequent Communion under any pretext. And this would be grave. Cf. also Cappello, I, n. 506, 4. Yet a probable opinion allows use of the privilege twice in the week to him who, on the other days, certainly with his own inconvenience, receives the sacrament fasting;

6. Only medicine, or something in the manner of drink, is permitted. Medicine can be solid, such as a little lozenge. Common sense will teach what has the ratio of medicine. It must have a direct order to healing some ailment. Therefore it cannot be confused with food which is used rather for strengthening the powers, although it can be said to have been taken in the manner of medicine. But in the manner of drink are also taken crushed solid fragments which float in a liquid. Hence already on September 7, 1897 the words "in the manner of drink" were so declared that it was lawful "to take broth, coffee, milk, or another liquid food, even if some substance has been mixed with it, for example light little pellets of flour (semolino), bread grated into crumbs (pangrattato), a diluted egg, etc., provided the mixture does not lose the nature of liquid food."

The egg itself in its natural state, or not cooked or very lightly cooked, is said to be drunk. But a little lozenge or sugar is not drunk, but eaten, although dissolved by the heat of the mouth it is then swallowed. For the usage of common speech is that attention is paid to the manner in which it is received in the mouth: at that moment, and not afterward, the thing is said to have been taken. Wherefore, that an uncooked egg is said to be taken in the manner of drink, we easily admit with Rev. Fr. Cappello, I, n. 507; but we think one must respond otherwise about lozenges, sugar, etc., even if they are sent into the stomach completely dissolved by the heat of the mouth.

Now moral inability to observe the fast is not required. But unless some serious inconvenience is connected with observing the fast, the required counsel of communicating without the fast having been observed cannot be given by a prudent confessor.

N. B. It is sometimes conceded to bishops that they may be able to permit Communion to these sick persons three times in the week, after liquid or medicine has been taken. Moreover number 42 of the faculties of Nuncios or Apostolic Delegates allows that, even before the end of the month from which they have been lying ill, or even to sick persons not lying ill, they may concede Communion once in the week without the fast being observed as above. The faculties of Propaganda Fide give to bishops, Vicars, and Prefects Apostolic power to permit Communion to the sick lying ill, even before the end of the month, without the fast being observed, twice or three times in the week, indeed even daily if they are priests or religious.

— Dispensation Through the Sacred Congregation. To those who morally cannot observe the natural fast, the Sacred Congregation of the Sacraments, or, for religious, the Sacred Congregation of Religious, grants Communion even daily, after anything has been taken in the manner of drink. The faculty to be executed is usually committed to the Ordinary of the petitioner, by the counsel of the confessor, and sometimes to the confessor himself. Thus far the Sacred Congregation of the Sacraments does not permit solid medicine, but only what has the ratio of drink.

— Various Things to Be Noted. The strict prohibition is only of taking anything from midnight onward: but the reason of decency will counsel that a fitting interval be interposed from the last meal, unless an excusing cause is present. Wherefore not rarely in indults by which either Communion or nocturnal Mass is permitted, the condition of a reasonable interval of hours is attached.

And although no positive law forbids it, it is certainly counsel that you not take food before the species are prudently thought to have been consumed. To omit this without cause is held as venial irreverence by St. Alphonsus, l. 6, n. 283.

But one must beware lest, after Holy Communion, the stomach at some point be compelled to cast out food together with the species.

But sputum, since it does not flow through the esophagus, can safely be expectorated, unless some fragment of the sacred host adheres to the teeth; on account of which cause it will be better to wait somewhat.

— V. No stain of the body in itself impedes reception of the Most Holy Eucharist, since it has no bearing on moral goodness. How much less the hidden stain of menstruation. Wherefore today we judge it consonant with the mind of the Holy See that not even counsel be given about omitting Communion during the time of menstruation.

— Concerning involuntary pollution, concerning voluntary pollution but expiated by confession, concerning the use of marriage, a universal rule cannot be handed down, but the matter is to be committed to a prudent confessor. He will attend to the utility of Holy Communion, to the reverence due to the Most Holy Eucharist, to the internal disposition of the communicant, who can approach either disturbed by carnal affection or, on the contrary, with a serene mind, and to the scandal which would be given by him who soon after sin committed with an accomplice should sit down at the sacred table. To those who are accustomed to communicate rarely, but not to those who communicate almost daily, the counsel can be given that on days of Holy Communion they not indulge in the carnal work. After a carnal sin has been committed, the very reason of reverence requires, in itself, some delay of Communion. Involuntary pollution is not a reason for dissuading Communion, unless the occupied imagination impedes devotion, or abstinence can contribute to the fervor of devotion. It is clear that a prudent confessor will not of his own accord speak either about the use of marriage or about menstruation.

— VI. The reason of reverence also requires that other signs of honor, although they are not strictly prescribed, be observed by communicants according to the custom of places and the ability which they have: for example, cleanliness of clothing, the custom of laying aside gloves and weapons, etc.

— What the Necessity of Communion Is. The more common opinion of theologians today, denying necessity of means, strongly vindicates only a necessity of precept of receiving the Most Holy Eucharist. For first grace is infused in Baptism and restored through Penance, so that the Most Holy Eucharist, destined for nourishing our spiritual life, can be supplied by other nourishments of that life. Yet the food of our soul ordained by God is to be received sometimes in the manner of food; and this is demonstrated both by the divine ordination itself and by the words of the Lord: "Amen, amen, I say to you: unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you" (John 6:54), in which at least a grave precept must be read. The same theologians also commonly think that Viaticum must be received in danger of death by divine precept. Yet they do not bring forward a compelling reason for this precept. They derive the chief argument from the supreme spiritual necessity in which man is then placed, so that man could neglect that assistance only by gravely derogating from charity toward himself. Moreover it is sufficiently established that a precept not much defined is to be regulated by the Church. Hence they well understand and explain how the discipline concerning the age of first Communion and concerning frequency of use could vary and has varied.

Things are conceived in a sufficiently dissimilar way if, with St. Thomas and the Roman Catechism and most ancient doctors, we profess that the Most Holy Eucharist is necessary by necessity of means, in reality or in desire, so that first grace itself, whether in Baptism or in Penance, is rather conferred from the desire of the Eucharist. This St. Thomas and also the Roman Catechism hand down in express words: "First grace is granted to no one unless they receive this sacrament itself by desire and vow" (2, 4, 51-52). And the reason is that the immolated flesh of Christ is at once the price of our redemption and the principle of our sanctification: to which it is wholly necessary to adhere (de la Taille, op. cit., p. 608). Then there is a genuine use of the words of the Lord just alleged: for less than a precept, they render a condition without which not. And because "a desire would be vain unless it were fulfilled when opportunity was present" (St. Thomas, 3 p., q. 80, art. 11, c.), at once there appears the obligation of sometimes receiving the Most Holy Eucharist as food of the soul, so that we may have life in us. The question concerning the grave obligation of divine law of Viaticum is then solved quite conveniently, limited to him who in danger of death has had to be truly reconciled with God: for he must take care that before death he be refreshed by the Most Holy Eucharist, lest his desire be in itself fruitless.

Yet the explanation of the varied custom of the Church concerning the age of first Communion and concerning frequency of use then becomes less convenient. And a threefold way of solution can be entered upon. For either you contend that the rules most happily given by Pius X had always in themselves to be observed, but remained unknown until our progress in faith had detected them, which in a matter of use so universal and daily is scarcely credible; or you ascribe to obscurity brought in through heresy the cold severity about approach to the sacred table which everywhere prevailed for many centuries before Pius X; and that the Jansenian heresy had to be culpably and harmfully blamed, the pontifical documents on daily Communion signify not obscurely; or also here you place in the power of the Church the establishing of norms, according to the common good, concerning the first and necessary approach to the Most Holy Eucharist, just as the Church also establishes how recourse must be had to Penance, whose necessity of means is denied by no Catholic. And this explanation pleases us more. The Church could, because of better preparation of intellect and soul, in another epoch have delayed first Communion, while today there is a twofold cause why even before the age when the dangers of grave sin are accustomed to be greater, it has defined that one must approach the sacred table: that is, the invading neo-paganism whose attacks must be resisted strongly through supernatural life; and the diffusion of literary education, which brings it about that young people can sooner be refreshed with due devotion by the sacred banquet.

Now he who uses or abstains from the Most Holy Eucharist according to rules approved or commanded by the Church fulfills his desire of receiving the Eucharist in a reasonable manner: which is required for salvation and suffices.

Thus far concerning necessity in itself. Practically, besides, the more frequent use of the sacraments of Penance and the Eucharist becomes, not so rarely, a morally necessary means for overcoming temptations, when there is scarcely hope of obtaining such a use of other remedies as would suffice for carrying off that victory. Wherefore, although it does not seem opportune that this frequency be strictly imposed as per accidens necessary for many, because in strictness other means are at hand, and to the languid a remedy would be prescribed in vain which they would refuse or neglect to take, still by every reason, youths and many unmarried persons are to be brought, especially if they are given to softness, to strengthen themselves as frequently as they can by this sacred banquet.

— I. Communion Prescribed to the Healthy. "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 perhaps, by the counsel of his own priest, for some reasonable cause, he has thought he must abstain for a time from its reception" (c. 859, §1).

By this canon the precept already promulgated in the Lateran Council is confirmed, an opportune explanation being added.

1. And first, by the present discipline all are held by this precept who have arrived at the use of reason, even if they have not yet completed the age of seven years. This age of seven years supplies a certain presumption, which always yields to the truth. Having attained the use of reason, they will not have to communicate as soon as possible; but since from possession of the use of reason they are held by the common law, they do not seem able to defer Communion beyond the next Easter.

2. "Once in the year, at least at Easter": by these words it is shown that the precept is virtually twofold: of communicating once in the year, and of communicating at Easter, so that he who has not wished or has not been able to communicate at Easter is held by the obligation of annual Communion, unless already in the same civil year he has worthily received Holy Communion (cf. c. 859, §4). For although from the decree of Eugene IV, July 8, 1440, the year seems to be computed from Easter to Easter, nevertheless some, among whom is Lugo himself, Euch., d. 16, n. 19, permit civil computation. But then it is necessary that the Christian be constant in that computation, and not wish so to join each that he is refreshed by the sacred banquet only once in two years, as if Communion is made at Easter 1922, and then only in 1924, also at Easter. The obligation of receiving Holy Communion as soon as possible after Easter is not had unless special law has defined the matter otherwise.

The paschal time for satisfying the ecclesiastical precept is vainly anticipated, unless by him who foresees that he will be impeded throughout the whole paschal time, and wishes to compute the year from the first of January.

3. One's own priest, that is, either the pastor or confessor, can give counsel of deferring Communion beyond the paschal time. Therefore they obtain the faculty of quasi-dispensing for a time in this precept, for the utility of the faithful person, reasonably understood. For the utility of the faithful person, I say, for counsel is not given except about a better thing. Therefore it is not a faculty of dispensing properly so called, for a cause almost excusing: they can concede only a spiritually useful dispensation. And scarcely any reason is conceived to be other than that which is gathered from present indisposition or lesser disposition, as if someone remains doubtful in faith.

But the time is defined by the utility itself. If faith must be restored, it could even be quite long.

Practically, however, this faculty is benignly accepted concerning a true dispensation, which, even outside the sacrament of Penance, is conceded by the confessor. Without a dispensation made, even a small delay is judged grave.

— The paschal time regularly runs from Palm Sunday to Low Sunday inclusive. Yet it is lawful for local Ordinaries, "if the circumstances of persons and places so require, to anticipate this time even for all their faithful, not however before the fourth Sunday of Lent, or to prorogue it, not however beyond the feast of the Most Holy Trinity" (c. 859, §2). This requirement will arise, for example, from received usage, or even from a lesser supply of confessors. For one must strive greatly that fitting time can be spent in hearing those who only once in the year, or rarely, are accustomed to use the sacraments, so that they may receive true refreshment of soul.

Therefore, in the manner of a synodal or particular law of that place, the paschal time can be enlarged by the bishop within the said limits. This law, according to general principles, will also benefit travelers.

— The Place of Paschal Communion. Now, what is notable, the precept of paschal Communion can be satisfied in any place. Yet the faithful are to be counseled that "each should satisfy it in his own parish; and those who have satisfied it in another parish should take care to make their own pastor certain concerning the fulfilled precept" (c. 859, §3).

The word "take care," placed absolutely, signifies a command, which however the context shows to be light. Nevertheless some already, for example Cappello, I, n. 475, make the matter one of counsel.

The words "in one's own parish" in themselves have a broader force than "in the parochial church," especially since they are opposed to satisfaction in another parish, which certainly, from §1 itself, where no place is defined for fulfilling the precept, is understood of every oratory of another parish. Therefore the legislator seems to intend this: that by Communion made in one's own domicile, a good example be given to the other inhabitants; and they will lack this edification if the sacraments are received outside the parish.

— The Office of Parents, etc. Prudently and most opportunely the Code warns that the obligation of the impubes also and especially "falls upon those who have care of them"; and it names parents, to whom the Christian instruction of children has been divinely committed; tutors, who must take the place of parents; the confessor, insofar as he is at the same time a spiritual father, or at least from charity must warn penitents concerning their obligation; teachers, both as neighbors bound by fraternal correction, and as delegated by parents; the pastor, as shepherd to whom, in c. 854, §5, this care has been specially mandated by law (c. 860).

— You will ask how, concerning the age at which children are to be admitted to first Communion, ecclesiastical discipline could vary so greatly.

Many explain the matter because the use of the Most Holy Eucharist does not have necessity of means; but the obligation of a grave precept immediately divine is not demonstrated before the age in which there are many dangers of mortal sin, such as the age of puberty is accustomed to be; and the determination of the beginning of the obligation, just as the determination of frequency, was left to the Church by its Spouse and Author. Cf. Lehmkuhl, I, 200 sqq. We have preferred to say that true necessity of means, in reality or in desire, does not prevent the Church from placing on real reception the conditions required by the common good. The means is then satisfied at least in desire. Cf. n. 402.

N. B. They report in the periodical Hostia, Jan.-Feb. 1921, a response of His Eminence Cardinal Gasparri, from which the use of reason in cc. 854, 859, and 906 is to be understood as such as suffices for committing venial sin, and the capacity for mortal sin is not required. Thus indeed it will have to be said by those who think each capacity can be separated: which we see denied by St. Thomas in 1, 2, q. 89, art. 6.

— By express canon 861 we are warned that the precept of receiving Communion is by no means satisfied by a sacrilegious Communion. How this is combined with the doctrine which denies that interior acts can be commanded by the Church, we saw in tome I, n. 254, b.

— Communion in the Mass of Ordination and on Thursday in the Supper of the Lord. 1. In the Mass of ordination, those advanced to a major order must communicate.

2. The Code says it is expedient that on Thursday of the greater week all clerics, even priests who on that day abstain from offering the sacred sacrifice, be refreshed by the most holy body of Christ in the solemn or conventual Mass (c. 862). And in truth, by a general Communion of this kind, a pious representation of the Supper of the Lord is obtained.

By this counsel the obligation which some clerics can have from liturgical law, of receiving Communion from the bishop, is not removed.

— Frequency to Be Counseled to the Healthy. "Let the faithful be excited to be refreshed frequently, even daily, by the eucharistic bread according to the norms handed down in the Apostolic decrees; and let those assisting at Mass, being rightly disposed, communicate not only by spiritual affection but also by sacramental reception of the Most Holy Eucharist." Thus c. 863, which therefore: 1. wishes the frequent, indeed daily, use of the Most Holy Eucharist to be commended by priests; 2. inculcates that the norms handed down in the decrees of the Apostolic See be observed: among which the decree Sacra Tridentina Synodus, December 20, 1905, of the Sacred Congregation of the Council, holds the chief place. To that decree are added: the decree of May 30, 1905, conceding indulgences to prayer for the propagation of daily Communion; the decree of the Sacred Congregation of Indulgences, February 14, 1906, dispensing from the condition of weekly confession as many as use quasi-daily Communion; the encyclical letter of the Sacred Congregation of Indulgences, April 10, 1907, concerning a triduan supplication to be celebrated yearly for spreading the use of daily Communion; the encyclical letter Editae saepe, May 26, 1910, on account of the secular solemnities of St. Charles Borromeo, in the second part ¹; 3. but especially confirms and authentically interprets c. 6, sess. XXII of the Council of Trent as a true desire: "The holy synod would indeed desire that in each Mass the faithful present should communicate not only by spiritual affection but also by sacramental reception of the Eucharist, so that a more abundant fruit of this most holy sacrifice may come to them."

¹ All these are had in Per., II, 68-70; IV, 177; III, 80-84; V, 152-154. Cf. also the dissertation, II, 77-88.

— But the moral norms to be observed seem able to be brought together briefly in this way: a) the question concerning special dispositions required for communicating daily has been raised inopportunely. For that doubt takes its origin from diminution of piety and the Jansenian plague; it has had the effect of distancing from the sacred table; and pious and learned theologians have taught that "there is no precept of the Church concerning greater dispositions for daily Communion than for weekly or monthly Communion" (decree Sacra Trid. Syn., III, 3); b) the right mind necessary for eucharistic use is this: that a supernatural reason induce one to communicate, not however some human respect, which would impel one to Communion because others do this, because thus the custom of the house bears; or vanity, by which praise or fame of devotion or piety would be sought. Although a substantially pure intention can be mixed with some human consideration; c) that purity suffices by which one is immune from mortal sins. Nor are those few to be heard in any way who, contrary to what both the immediately preceding and immediately following words demonstrate, interpret the sentence n. IV, 3°, "it suffices nevertheless that they be free from mortal sins, with the purpose of never sinning in the future," as if there were required a purpose of fleeing every sin, even venial. The whole spirit, as it were, of the decree abhors this interpretation, by which flight from venial sin is said to be the fruit of daily Communion, far from being the prerequisite disposition; d) according to the powers, condition, and offices of the one receiving the sacred banquet, careful preparation and suitable thanksgiving are to be employed; e) for counsel, one's own confessor is to be approached, "so that frequent and daily Communion may be done with greater prudence and be increased by more abundant merit" (Sacra Trid. Syn., IV, 5°).

Here also return the things already said concerning the necessity of taking care that everywhere it be intact for all to consult their own devotion, and to approach the Most Holy Eucharist or abstain from it, and that an easy opportunity of confession before Communion be supplied to all.

— Frequency Necessary or to Be Counseled to the Sick. 1. Concerning the sick who are not dangerously lying ill, the things said above, nn. 387, 396, return. In themselves no special rules about these are to be proposed. By the twofold canon concerning the secret carrying of the Most Holy Eucharist, and concerning the use of the Most Holy Eucharist after drink or medicine has been taken, the frequent refreshment of the sick has been rendered much easier. And because the sacraments are for men, so great a solace of the afflicted, which true and complete worship in itself accompanies, is to be preferred to the greater exterior honor which the Most Holy Eucharist before obtained from public carrying. Moreover it is necessary that we conform ourselves, our own persuasion having been laid aside, to the discipline which recent instructions of the Holy See favor.

2. Concerning those lying dangerously ill, or even concerning those who because of a cause foreign to disease are placed in danger of death, the Code, c. 864, decrees or permits these things: a) it sanctions or confirms the precept of receiving Holy Communion; b) the controversy which existed about this matter having been suppressed, it permits, indeed greatly counsels, that he who, free from danger, has received Communion, should communicate again on the same day, when brought into danger of life; c) but on distinct days it permits and says it is becoming that Holy Viaticum be administered several times, according to the counsel of a prudent confessor. Several times, and therefore even daily, if the confessor judges this expedient. And in itself daily eating of the heavenly bread is to be urged more for those who must be comforted by the proximate hope of heaven; d) by a most opportune warning, it forbids that Holy Viaticum be deferred too much; and it commits to the careful vigilance of those who have care of souls that the sick be refreshed by Viaticum while fully in possession of themselves (cc. 864, 865).

— Yet the sick can be prohibited from Communion by a certain or probable danger of exterior irreverence. The Roman Ritual, t. 4, c. 4, n. 4, warns that care must diligently be taken "lest Viaticum be given to those from whom, because of continual coughing or some other similar disease, some indecency with injury to so great a sacrament can be feared." Wherefore it is not lawful to give Communion to those who suffer from vomiting, unless a skilled man or experience has taught that serious danger of vomiting up the sacred species is absent. If a skilled man is lacking, an interval of some hours, for instance six, seems to be awaited. With those delirious, experience can be taken by first handing over an unconsecrated particle. St. Alphonsus, l. 6, n. 292.

But the species rejected by vomiting, if they have remained incorrupt, are to be adored; and being again received, they again confer grace, since there is a new eating of the body of Christ. Lugo, Euch., 12, 53.

But if because of nausea they are not received, carefully separated, they are to be kept in a sacred place until, perfect corruption having occurred, they are thrown into the sacrarium. But that swifter corruption may occur, it does not seem prohibited to pour some quantity of water over the sacred species.

But if, although they do not appear, the species could be contained in the vomit, "let the vomit be burned and the ashes be sent into the sacrarium." Rubric, De defectibus missae, n. 14. How long the species can remain incorrupt in the stomach, cf. immediately below.

A different reason of indecency arises a) from lack of exterior penance, in a scandalous sinner who has been seized by a sudden disease: conditional absolution indeed, and conditional Extreme Unction, can be given, and in themselves are to be given, but not the Most Holy Eucharist; b) from the infamous place where even a sick person excellently disposed lies: then at least open ministration is forbidden because of the reason of reverence.

— Sacramental grace is conferred from the first eating, even of the first part, since the whole sacrament consists in any eating.

But as long as Christ is present in him, there are some who think that the sacramental grace itself grows in the faithful person, provided he renders his actual disposition more perfect. An increase of disposition is required, because the sacraments give grace according to the disposition of the subject, and it concerns one reception of the sacrament morally. With disposition increased, grace seems to be increased, because the Most Holy Sacrament, in the manner of food, seems to profit more the more it is applied to the subject. But better disposition effects greater application. These things are admitted by many; yet we would not wish to call them certain. Cf. Palmieri, Op. theol., t. IV, nn. 872-875.

Wherefore, in the same opinion, not only he who, having received part of the wine or host with evil disposition, then receives another part well disposed, but also he who disposes himself before the species are consumed, is thought to receive sacramental grace. What obstacle there is, however, we said in n. 208.

Nor is the devotion of him to be faulted who receives a larger matter to be consecrated, with the mind that the species may not be consumed so quickly in the stomach. Yet singularity must be abstained from, and we doubt concerning the sensible efficacy of the means, when it concerns the species of wine, after which has been received, moreover, the corruption of the species of bread is accelerated.

But what must not be doubted is that the intimate presence of the author of all grace brings this about, that the force of impetration ex opere operantis is greatly amplified through that time. Lehmkuhl, II, 151 and cf. 210.

But how long the species can remain incorrupt in the stomach depends greatly on the "digestive" power, so that there are sick persons who reject them almost incorrupt after hours. Nor in a healthy man is the matter plainly established. Today they do not think a great distinction is to be made between a layperson who receives only a smaller host, and a priest, who indeed eats a larger one but together with the species of wine. For the consumption of a small host, they require at least half a quarter of an hour. Dr. van Olfers affirms that the species of wine always perish hardly as soon as they have been received into the stomach. Dr. Capellmann denies this, and therefore thinks that species which have been rejected within half an hour after Communion can never be thrown outside the sacrarium, even if no visible particles are discerned in them. Cf. Medicina pastoralis, pp. 124, 125, 4th Latin ed.

— What is it to eat? Nor is this fully established. Dr. van Olfers thinks that what is received into the mouth is already eaten. Yet for most, eating is the vital transmission of food into the stomach. Therefore eating has begun from the time when food or drink has passed that part of the throat from which ordinarily it can no longer be recalled. From that moment grace seems to be given, although some defer the conferral of grace until some part of the species has been received into the stomach. Cf. Palmieri, Op. theol., t. IV, n. 872.

Hence they counsel that the species not be kept longer in the mouth, that is, not so long that they perish completely in the mouth, which according to several, while others contradict, happens quite quickly. Yet one may doubt about the force of the inference. For he is not thought to eat who spits out at once what he has taken into the mouth; but, in moral estimation, we indeed eat what, put into the mouth in a solid state, we swallow only after it has been dissolved and perhaps chemically changed.

— That greater grace is given in Communion under each species than under one alone is not improbable, although it is rather denied. Cf. Lugo, Euch., d. 12, s. 3.

— Concerning Spiritual Communion. Mere material reception by a non-baptized man, or by an adult communicating involuntarily, having been omitted, the Council of Trent itself, sess. XIII, De Euch., ch. 8, distinguished merely sacramental reception, which belongs to him who, capable, receives the sacrament indisposed or with the obstacle of sin; sacramental and spiritual reception at once, belonging to him who, rightly proved, approaches this divine table; and spiritual reception only of those "who, eating by desire that heavenly bread set before them, by living faith, which works through love, perceive its fruit and utility." Besides a common act of charity, this practice contains a special reason of cultivating the Most Holy Sacrament, and hence merits peculiar praise.

Moreover three things compose spiritual Communion: an act of living faith in the real presence of Christ; an act of charity or also, as the case may be, of contrition; and observe that in him who is conscious of mortal sin, an act of charity cannot be true unless it has passed into formal contrition; finally, an act of desire of receiving Christ sacramentally, if it could be done, and of intimately uniting oneself to Christ. Lest the desire be nugatory, it is necessary that something, at least in a broad sense, obstruct present sacramental use. Nor can he with an absolute will desire the sacrament or the fruit of the sacrament who, at least by the help of perfect contrition, has not acquired for himself the state of grace. With a conditioned will, not even a sinner is prohibited.

This devotion, so greatly commended, can be exercised very frequently. It is done especially usefully during the Communion of Mass: then the circumstances themselves foster apt dispositions, and he who, while he cannot in reality, communicates at least by affection, can hope for himself those more abundant fruits of the sacrifice which the holy Synod of Trent, sess. XXII, ch. 6, affirms to remain in those who communicate sacramentally (cf. Lehmkuhl, II, 194).

— 1. Strictly, no one communicates in favor of another, since no one eats for another, and the opus operatum of every sacrament benefits only the subject. But for another living person, one can offer Holy Communion in this way, that by the good and therefore meritorious and satisfactory act of approaching the sacred table he wishes to help him spiritually, or, after sacramental reception, to pour out prayers for him, which then are poured out with greater fervor and efficacy. But for the deceased one can communicate insofar as, by way of suffrage, he offers for him his own act operantis as impetratory and satisfactory, or applies to him the indulgences joined with Communion. Cf. St. Thomas, 3 p., q. 79, art. 7.

— I. The sacramental grace of the Most Holy Eucharist is for the refreshment of our soul, to be transformed into Christ through charity, whose habit it increases and whose acts it excites.

II. Conditions of Approach. 1. The baptized who are not unworthy and who approach decently have a right to this spiritual refreshment. Solicitude for the common good has led the Church to require of children, even in danger of death, that they distinguish the body of Christ from common food and reverently adore it; but outside danger of death, that they know at least the mysteries to be believed by necessity of means, and, according to the measure of their age, approach devoutly. These children not only can, but also must, be admitted. They are held by the paschal precept; and when parents or tutors are negligent, the violation of that precept is imputed to them. Confessors, parents, or those who hold their place judge concerning the sufficient disposition of children, while the office of watching is committed to the pastor, lest the unprepared approach, and so that those disposed may communicate as soon as possible.

2. The state of grace is required by divine precept; and by at least ecclesiastical precept it must be procured through confession, unless, with a confessor lacking, necessity of communicating urges.

3. The natural fast is to be observed from midnight, so that from without nothing which has the ratio of food or drink is taken in the manner of eating or drinking, not of breathing or attraction through the nose. Intention, which generally changes nothing, is to be attended to where a thing is drawn in or mixed with saliva. The Missal, De defectibus, IX, 3, also tolerates a little drop of water which, in washing the mouth, apart from intention, has entered the throat and stomach. And in a positive doubt, or a negative doubt on each side, whether something has been taken from midnight onward, it will be lawful to communicate.

The law ceases for the sick who are in danger of death; indeed for the healthy who are placed in urgent danger of death; and for those who otherwise cannot protect the Most Holy Eucharist from danger of profanation or loss. To this belongs the consumption of fragments in Mass, after the ablution and in the sacristy, as long as the priest is clothed in the sacred vestments.

The Code (c. 858, §2) allows that by the prudent counsel of the confessor, those who for a month have been truly sick without certain hope that they will quickly, within three or four days, recover, communicate once or twice in the week, after they have taken some medicine or something in the manner of drink. Broader concessions are made through the Sacred Congregation of the Sacraments or of Religious.

Neither a stain of the body, nor involuntary pollution, nor the use of marriage in itself impedes Communion. But external signs of honor in clothing, etc., are owed to the reverence of the sacrament.

III. Necessity of Communion. 1. From the words of Christ, "Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man... you shall not have life in you" (John 6:54), there is gathered a divinely imposed necessity of receiving the Eucharist sometimes, not of precept alone, but also of means, in reality or in desire. Yet not a few admit only a necessity of precept. And the common opinion urges a necessity of divine law of receiving Viaticum in danger of death. This is more certain if life had to be resumed after mortal sin. Besides, the more frequent use of the sacrament becomes practically necessary for overcoming temptations.

2. From the precept of the Church, which according to reasons of the common good can define the beginning and frequency of the obligation, all who have attained the use of reason must once in the year, at least in paschal time, worthily receive Holy Communion. One's own pastor or confessor, because of the utility of the faithful person, can permit delay beyond the paschal time. That time regularly runs from Palm Sunday to Low Sunday; but local Ordinaries can, because of the utility of the flock, enlarge the time, so that it is extended from the fourth Sunday of Lent to Trinity Sunday.

The paschal precept can be fulfilled in any place: nevertheless Communion in one's own parish is counseled; he who has acted otherwise should take care to make his own pastor certain concerning the fulfilled precept.

3. Those promoted to major orders must receive Holy Communion in the Mass of ordination.

IV. Counsels. 1. Canon 862 desires that clerics, and also priests who on Thursday in the Supper of the Lord do not celebrate, be refreshed by the most holy body of Christ in the solemn Mass.

2. Canon 863 wishes priests to commend frequent, indeed daily, Communion to the faithful, especially in the Mass at which they are present. For the faithful, purity from mortal sin suffices, without necessity of special disposition. Yet the confessor is to be approached for counsel; he will be solicitous about preparation and thanksgiving, and will also take care that a frail penitent not begin to frequent the sacrament of the Eucharist in such a way that by some human fear he is placed in danger of communicating sacrilegiously. Nor do special rules bind the sick, except the care of exterior reverence, which can be impeded by lack of exterior penance in a scandalous sinner, by the infamous place where someone lies, and by bodily disease.

3. But it is to be desired that an occasion of Communion even daily be offered to the sick themselves. Holy Viaticum, which must be received by all in danger of death even extrinsic, is not to be deferred long, and can be received on the same day on which, while still free from danger, someone has already communicated.

V. 1. Spiritual Communion means the desire of worthy reception of the sacrament, and of spiritual refreshment, in him who is at least broadly impeded from the sacrament.

2. Although no one communicates for another, nevertheless someone can fruitfully help another living person by the good work of Communion, and apply to the dead the indulgence of Holy Communion.

215. Notion. By the name frequent Communion is properly understood Communion received several times in the week, or even daily Communion. Therefore weekly Communion, and a fortiori Communion from fortnight to fortnight, is not properly frequent Communion.¹⁹² According to the present discipline of the Church, it is no longer lawful to receive Communion several times in one day. Cf., however, what was said above in n. 209 concerning Viaticum and what is to be said below in n. 285 concerning several Masses celebrated on the same day.

Concerning frequent Communion, or rather concerning the dispositions required for it, the rules formerly handed down, especially by St. Alphonsus,¹⁹³ St. Francis de Sales,¹⁹⁴ and others, have been abolished. Now the statutes issued by the Sacred Congregation of the Council and approved by Pius X on December 20, 1905,¹⁹⁵ must be observed altogether. Since the whole doctrine and discipline are found in these statutes, we append them here with brief commentaries.

Rules. 1. "Frequent and daily Communion,¹⁹⁶ as something most desired by Christ the Lord and by the Catholic Church, is to be open to all Christ's faithful of whatever order or condition, so that no one who is in the state of grace and approaches the sacred table with a right and pious mind can be prevented from it." Nearly the essence of the entire decree is contained in these words. Innocent XI¹⁹⁷ had already determined that no one should be barred from frequent Communion solely because of the lay, married, or commercial state, and that the frequency of Communion should be determined by a prudent confessor. But the decree of Pius X adds that no other condition is strictly required for such frequent Communion except: a) the state of grace; and b) a right and pious mind.

2. "A right mind, moreover, consists in this: that he who approaches the sacred table not indulge custom, vanity, or human motives, but wish to satisfy the good pleasure of God, to be more closely united to Him by charity, and to meet his infirmities and defects with that divine medicine." This statute must be attended to altogether, especially in colleges of boys and girls, where several sometimes approach the sacred table more frequently, not from a right mind or from a supernatural motive, but either to please their teachers or solely because they see others doing so. These ends, if they are the principal ones, entirely bar one from Holy Communion, since it ought not serve earthly advantages.

3. "Although it is most expedient that those who use frequent and daily Communion be free from venial sins, at least fully deliberate ones, and from affection for them, it nevertheless suffices that they be free from mortal sins, with the resolution never to sin in the future; with which sincere resolution of mind it cannot happen that daily communicants will not gradually free themselves even from venial sins and from affection for them." By this statute the greater severity of the ancients was indeed abolished, but even now what St. Alphonsus says seems to remain valid:¹⁹⁸ "But if it is afterward recognized that, notwithstanding the frequency of Communion, the soul advances nothing in the way of perfection and does not amend itself of deliberate faults, even venial ones, as if it clings also to pleasures of the senses in seeing, hearing, and eating, and in dressing with some vanity, then certainly the use of Communion is prudently to be restricted, so that it may also begin to think seriously about its amendment and to take counsel for its spiritual perfection." This discipline should indeed also be applied to priests celebrating Mass; but because the sacrifice of the Mass ex opere operato brings such immense fruits to the whole world, a priest, according to the present discipline, is not to be barred from celebrating Mass unless he lives scandalously.

4. "But since the sacraments of the New Law, although they obtain their effect ex opere operato, nevertheless produce a greater effect in proportion as greater dispositions are employed in receiving them, therefore care is to be taken that diligent preparation for Holy Communion precede and fitting thanksgiving follow from it, according to the powers, condition, and duties of each person." It is not indeed necessary that the whole preparation or thanksgiving be made in a church or oratory, but the confessor should diligently insist that the faithful occupy themselves with pious affections before and after Communion and that they avoid all voluntary distractions.

5. "That frequent and daily Communion may be made with greater prudence and be increased with more abundant merit, the counsel of the confessor ought to intervene. Nevertheless, confessors should take care not to turn anyone away from frequent or daily Communion who is found in the state of grace and approaches with a right mind." But the confessor should prudently judge whether frequent Communion is accidentally joined with grave inconveniences, for example, with disturbance of peace in the family, with detriment to the obligations of one's state, and so forth.

6. "But since it is evident that from the frequent or daily reception of the Holy Eucharist union with Christ is increased, the spiritual life is more abundantly nourished, the soul is more copiously furnished with virtues, and an even firmer pledge of eternal happiness is given to the recipient, therefore pastors, confessors, and preachers, according to the approved teaching of the Roman Catechism,¹⁹⁹ should exhort the Christian people to this so pious and so salutary practice by frequent admonitions and with much zeal."

7. "Frequent and daily Communion is especially to be promoted in religious institutes of every kind,²⁰⁰ for which, however, the decree Quemadmodum, issued by the Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars on December 17, 1890, is to remain in force. It is likewise to be promoted most earnestly in seminaries of clerics, whose students aspire to the service of the altar; likewise in other Christian institutions for young persons of every kind."

8. "If there are any institutes, whether of solemn or simple vows, in whose rules, constitutions, or even calendars Communions are found assigned to and commanded on certain days, these norms are to be regarded as merely directive, not as preceptive. But the prescribed number of Communions must be regarded as a minimum for the piety of religious. Therefore, more frequent or daily access to the Eucharistic table must always be freely open to them according to the norms handed down above in this decree. But that all religious of either sex may be able rightly to know the provisions of this decree, the superiors of the individual houses shall take care that it is read in common every year in the vernacular language within the octave of the feast of Corpus Christi."

9. "Finally, after the promulgation of this decree, all ecclesiastical writers are to abstain from every contentious dispute concerning the dispositions for frequent and daily Communion." By this final statute it does not seem to be prohibited at all that theologians discuss the required dispositions; only the contentions and controversies which formerly existed concerning this matter are forbidden.

Note. Although weekly Confession is ordinarily to be recommended to those who receive Communion frequently, it is nevertheless not necessary for them, not even for gaining indulgences.^200a Hence they can defer Confession for a fortnight or three weeks or longer, if a sufficient cause is present, for example, lack of time either on their part or on the part of the confessor. Nevertheless, let this delay not be excessive.

¹⁹² Communion received more frequently and at regular intervals, for example, every month or every two months, is greatly to be commended to pious societies existing in a parish. As experience testifies, Communions of this kind received at regular intervals are accustomed to produce most abundant fruits.

¹⁹³ Praxis confess., n. 148 ff.

¹⁹⁴ Philothea, l. 2, c. 20.

¹⁹⁵ Denz., nn. 1985–1990.

¹⁹⁶ The Angelic Doctor, who is not undeservedly called the Doctor of the Eucharist, says concerning daily Communion: "This sacrament is spiritual food; hence, just as bodily food is taken daily, so also it is praiseworthy to receive this sacrament daily" (S. theol. 3, q. 80, a. 10 ad 1).

¹⁹⁷ Decree Cum ad aures, February 12, 1679 (Denz., n. 1147 sq.).

¹⁹⁸ Praxis confess., n. 155.

¹⁹⁹ P. 2, c. 4, n. 60 or q. 47.

²⁰⁰ Cf. Code of Canon Law, c. 595, § 2 ff.

^200a Ibid., c. 931.

1575. The pious mother Church, by strict precept, obliges only to Paschal Communion. "And yet let not the faithful have it as enough that they, obeying the authority of this decree, receive the Body of the Lord only once each year; but let them judge that Communion of the Eucharist is to be repeated more often. But whether it is more expedient to do this each month, or each week, or each day, a certain rule cannot be prescribed for all";¹⁰ but a varied NORM must be established according to the variety of persons. - But how one must proceed in this will be taught by the following:

1576. Principles. I. The frequency of Communion is so to be defined that provision is made both for the REVERENCE due to so great a Sacrament and for the UTILITY of the one receiving. The reason of the FIRST is that, on account of the excellence of the Sacrament, "it is required that the one receiving approach with great devotion and reverence...; but because many impediments of this devotion often occur in many human beings, because of indisposition of body or of soul, it is not useful for all men to approach this Sacrament daily, but as often as a man has found himself prepared for it."¹¹ Whence proposition 5, which said: "Frequent confession and Communion, even in those who live like Gentiles, is a mark of predestination," was deservedly condemned by Innocent XI. They ought rather to have said, St. Alphonsus observes,¹² "it is a mark of reprobation." The reason of the SECOND is that the Sacrament of the Eucharist was instituted primarily by Our Lord for the spiritual refreshment of souls; nor is there doubt that the most loving Redeemer wishes this food to be offered to all His sheep: to the well, that they may have life more abundantly; and to the languid, that they may recover.

Wherefore the TRIDENTINE SYNOD desires that Christ's faithful so live¹³ "that they can frequently receive that supersubstantial bread, and that it may truly be for them the life of the soul and the perpetual health of the mind." And this 23rd proposition of Baius was condemned by Alexander VIII: "Similarly, those are to be kept from Communion in whom the most pure love of God, free from every mixture, is not yet present."

1577. II. The richer the fruit that comes from Communion for the one receiving, the MORE FREQUENTLY it is to be conceded; and, to whatever degree the fruit decreases, to that degree the frequency is to be LESSENED, not so that Communion is altogether omitted, but so that preparation and devotion may increase. Concerning this matter Innocent XI speaks thus:¹⁴ "Frequent access to receiving the sacred nourishment is to be left to the judgment of confessors..., who, from purity of consciences, and from the fruit of frequency, and from progress toward piety, ought to prescribe to them, namely penitents, what they foresee will be profitable for their salvation." St. Thomas teaches the same,¹⁵ writing: "If someone knew by experience that from daily consumption the fervor of love was increased, and reverence was not diminished, such a one ought to communicate daily."

But one must beware lest, under the pretext of reverence, the Sacrament be deserted; for "although to abstain from Communion on some day is also a virtue, nevertheless, says Fr. Granada in his Treatise on Communion, it is the common opinion of the Doctors that it is better to approach Communion daily on account of love, than to abstain on account of reverence."¹⁶

1578. But it must be noticed that that richer FRUIT which is attended to in Communion is of a twofold kind, so namely that it is found either in hope, or in act. 1. It is found in hope with respect to that communicating person who is held by a true and right desire of Communion, and who therefore receives it not that he may be seen by men, but that he may profit in the love of God and in union with Christ. 2. But it is found in act with respect to that one who shines with great purity of conscience, who advances continually in piety and in charity, who strongly resists temptations, and who always has a will prompt to execute the divine commands.

Whence St. Alphonsus:¹⁷ "It must be noted," he says, "that which St. Francis de Sales says in his Philothea: If they ask you why you communicate so frequently, answer them that two kinds of persons ought to communicate more often, namely the perfect and the imperfect: the perfect, that they may preserve themselves in perfection; the imperfect, that they may be able to arrive at perfection; the strong, lest they become weak; the weak, that they may become strong; the sick, that they may be cured; the well, lest they become sick. And as for you, as being imperfect, sick, weak, you need frequent Communion. - Tell them that those who are not entangled in worldly affairs ought to communicate more often, because they have opportunity; but those who are detained by such affairs, because they need Communion."

For the rest, as the Holy Doctor notices with St. Lawrence Justinian, it is not necessary that the soul feel, or openly discern in itself, an increase of fervor; since not rarely this Sacrament works without our noticing its operation. - Therefore it suffices for the confessor to detect in the depth of the will of his penitent a certain ALACRITY for executing whatever things have pleased God.¹⁸

1579. According to the preceding principles, St. Alphonsus establishes certain SPECIAL RULES, which it is now useful to explain.

Preliminary note. A threefold degree of frequency is distinguished: 1. weekly Communion, which ordinarily is received once in the week; 2. frequent Communion, which is received several times in the week; 3. daily Communion, which is customarily received daily, perhaps with one day removed. - Wherefore the three following rules are given:

RULE I. WEEKLY Communion is regularly to be conceded and counseled to all who are accustomed to avoid mortal sins. It is said 1. to all who are accustomed to avoid mortal sins, that is, who are solicitous about avoiding them, even if they place no care in acquiring greater perfection.

But if they sometimes fall into mortal sin, Communion is not on that account to be denied to them, provided they detest their sins and propose amendment of life for themselves. It is said 2. to be conceded and counseled; for on the one hand, more cannot be conceded to souls of this kind, St. Alphonsus bearing witness, who writes thus:¹⁹ "There is no doubt that it is an error, as Benedict XIV notices, to concede frequent Communion, that is, more than once in the week, to those who approach with an affection toward deliberate venial sins, without any desire of freeing themselves from them"; but neither, on the other hand, is less to be counseled to them, lest namely they fall into mortal sin. "There are many," says St. Alphonsus,²⁰ "who by communicating every eight days will remain free from mortal sin, but not by communicating every month." And elsewhere:²¹ "For those who lead a tepid life, so that at least they can preserve themselves in the grace of God, it is good that they consume the Body of Christ every Sunday, or at least twice in the month." It is said 3. regularly; for sometimes these also will be able to communicate during the week: for example when some special feast occurs, or if they were in danger of falling into mortal sin, so that thus they may receive strength to resist; but sometimes it will be expedient for those who are not placed in such danger to be interdicted from Communion for an entire week, that they may conceive a greater horror for their defects and greater reverence toward the Sacrament.²²

1580. RULE II. FREQUENT Communion can be permitted and advised to the faithful who are accustomed to avoid fully deliberate venial sins, and assume the means of attaining perfection. Behold, concerning this matter, the words of St. Alphonsus: "When a soul is now held by no affection toward a thing prohibited under venial sin, abstains from fully voluntary venial sins, and moreover applies itself to prayer and to mortification of the passions and senses, then the confessor can concede to it that it communicate three, four, indeed even five times in the week."²³ But the Holy Doctor notices:²⁴ "But if afterwards it is recognized that, notwithstanding frequency of Communion, the soul profits nothing in the way of perfection, nor amends itself from deliberate faults, although venial, as if it adhered even to pleasures of the senses in seeing, hearing, eating, dressing with some vanity: then certainly the use of Communion will by counsel have to be restricted, also so that it may begin seriously to think of its amendment, and to provide for its spiritual perfection."

And speaking of persons consecrated to God: "Indeed, I would permit frequent Communion only with difficulty," he says, "to that Nun who was not willing to amend herself concerning some defect, although not evidently sinful, yet certainly contrary to perfection, especially if it concerns a defect against humility or against obedience."¹

1581. RULE III. DAILY Communion is to be conceded to souls which, immune from affection toward any venial sin whatever, apply themselves much to the exercise of prayer and mortification, and are held by a great desire of Communion. - For these fulfill the condition which St. Thomas requires, writing: "If someone knew by experience that from daily consumption the fervor of love was increased, and reverence was not diminished, such a one ought to communicate daily." "Except, ordinarily speaking, one day in any week, as some prudent directors are accustomed to do; and except that time in which they may wish to deprive penitents of Communion, for testing their obedience or humility, or on account of some other just cause."² - Nevertheless, in Novenas of the Holy Spirit, of the Nativity of the Lord, and of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and of one's holy Patrons, such a person can communicate daily.³

And these things are confirmed by the Decree of Innocent XI, where it is had thus: "Nuns asking daily for Holy Communion are to be admonished that they communicate on the days determined by the Institute of their Order: but if any shine with purity of mind and have grown warm with fervor of spirit, so that they can seem worthy of more frequent or daily reception of the most holy Sacrament, let this be permitted to them by the Superiors."

It was requested: "Whether, and with whose license, Nuns ought to receive the Holy Eucharist, who wish to receive it beyond the days established by the Constitutions or by the custom of the monastery, so that on those days all the Nuns communicate?

And the S. C. CONC., April 14, 1725, responded: "With the license of the ordinary confessor, and not of Directors, with previous communication to the ordinary Prelate."⁴

1582. Admonitions. 1. Let the confessor not immediately concede frequent Communion in perpetuity, but, each time, only a certain number of Communions, until he has taken experience concerning the progress and fervor of the penitent. For many begin with fervor, who little by little fall away, and nevertheless withdraw with difficulty from the rule fixed for themselves.

2. Frequent Communion would be imprudently advised or conceded to persons otherwise disposed, who cannot approach it without some detriment to family affairs, the education of children, the care of the sick, etc. Yet prudent persons generally know how to join each, namely devotion and the duties of their state, so that these by no means harm each other.⁵

3. The fruit of Communion depends not on the disposition of those communicating alone, but also, and indeed very much, on THANKSGIVING. Hence St. Alphonsus admonishes the confessor thus:⁶ "Let him also take care to insinuate that each one remain after Communion in thanksgiving for that time for which he can. Very few are the directors who diligently do this...; and the reason is that very few are the priests who, after the Sacrifice of the Mass, remain with Jesus Christ in thanksgiving; and therefore they are ashamed to insinuate to others what they themselves do not do. - Thanksgiving ordinarily ought to last for a whole hour; let it be made at least for a half hour, in which the soul exercises itself in loving and asking" (cf. n. 1554, end, and n. 1555, q. 3).

4. Let the confessor also insinuate to penitents that they communicate SPIRITUALLY more often. For this is very useful to pious faithful and is commended by the holy Council of Trent, when it says that those communicate spiritually "who, eating in desire that heavenly bread set before them, by living faith which works through love, perceive its fruit and utility."⁷ (cf. n. 1563, question.)

St. Alphonsus proposes the METHOD of communicating spiritually thus: "Therefore elicit an act of FAITH, by which you firmly believe that Jesus Christ is present in the Sacrament; an act of LOVE, to which is joined contrition for your sins; then an act of DESIRE, by which you invite Jesus Christ to come into your soul, and to render it His own; finally give thanks to Him, as if you had already truly received Him."⁸

B. As regards communion, conformably to the decree of the Sacred Congregation of the Council, 20 Dec. 1905:

1. For communion, even frequent and daily communion, strictly only two things are required: the state of grace and right intention, by which, namely, one does not indulge custom or vanity or human motives, e.g., empty rivalry, desire of gaining the benevolence of superiors, or sensible sweetness rather than solid piety, but intends to please God, or wishes to be joined more closely to Him by charity, or to meet his own infirmities and defects. For Communion is not the reward of virtue or merit, but a means for acquiring virtue; nor was it instituted before all things for honoring God, but for the utility of men.

2. Yet that communion may be more devout, it is especially expedient that even fully deliberate venial sins be absent, and especially affection toward them; all the more because if this actually perseveres, it impedes the effect of the sacrament, which is fervor or the actual exercise and sweetness of charity. Nevertheless this is not strictly required; indeed, if a pious, right, and sincere intention is present, it cannot happen that those communicating frequently do not free themselves from venial sins and affection toward them.

3. Since the sacraments of the New Law produce a greater effect in proportion to greater dispositions, it must altogether be cared for that careful preparation precede and thanksgiving follow, according to each one's strength, duties, and condition. For one very fervent communion can produce much more fruit than several ordinary ones, or many tepid ones.

4. In frequenting Holy Communion, for the sake of greater prudence and fruit, it is necessary that the counsel of the confessor intervene; not indeed that he may keep away those who have a right intention, but that he may render them more certain concerning right disposition; and stimulate all to a more fervent disposition and greater purity; and also sometimes prohibit those whose right disposition is held suspect, namely so that they may be taught to approach more fervently. Such are those who after many communions do not care about venial sins, but commit them altogether deliberately and with the same frequency as recidivists, and indulge very much, for example, vices of the tongue, or lead a worldly or tepid life.

5. Careful preparation will have to be procured, both remote and proximate. Remote, by which they are habitually preserved in purity, day by day free themselves more from every fault and defect, and burn with a greater desire for Holy Communion; proximate, which consists in diverse affections: living faith, great confidence in Christ, ardent desire, humble contrition even concerning venial sins, profound reverence, and especially perfect unitive charity, which namely more aptly disposes to the proper effect of the sacrament.

6. Thanksgiving should consist in most fervent acts: a vivid and, insofar as can be done, persevering love by which we desire that Jesus be loved more by us and by all creatures; profound adoration; full oblation and handing over of self; subjection of the intellect through faith and of the will through charity; submission of all powers to the Holy Spirit, who is the Spirit of Christ; pious gratitude; humble petition; and through the day an enduring remembrance of so great a benefit.

But care seems to have to be applied to thanksgiving all the more because, while the species remain, the sacrament continues to produce fruit ex opere operato, not indeed an increase of habitual grace, but the fervor and sweetness of charity, unless by distraction, neglect, or inordinate affection we place an obstacle.

1312. By the name of frequent Communion, commonly with St. Alphonsus, are understood in the stricter sense those Communions which, besides Sundays or feast days, are made also on ferial days without previous Confession.

It is certain, 1) frequent Communion, even daily, has always been most desired in the Church. It is established 1° from the common agreement of the Fathers, who always earnestly commended it to the faithful. It is established 2° from Trent,⁴ where it says: "The holy Synod would indeed wish that at individual Masses the faithful standing by communicate, not only with spiritual affection, but also by sacramental reception of the Eucharist, by which the fruit of this Most Holy Sacrifice may come to them." It is established 3° from the Decree of Innocent XI of the year 1679, and also from the common agreement of Doctors. Therefore frequent Communion is greatly to be praised, and earnestly to be urged upon the faithful by Pastors and also by confessors. It is certain, 2) days for receiving the Sacred Eucharist cannot be established generally; nor are those to be kept away from it who desire to approach frequently, unless they seem unworthy. Therefore this whole matter must be left to the judgment of confessors, who, according to purity of conscience and the fruit perceived from the Sacred Table, ought to prescribe that which they judge will profit individuals more. 3) As regards Sacred Virgins, if they ask Sacred Communion daily, "they will be admonished that they communicate on the days established by the institute of their Order; but if some shine with purity of mind and have grown warm with fervor of spirit in such a way that they may seem worthy of more frequent or daily reception of the Most Holy Sacrament, let this be permitted to them by Superiors." - Thus from the same Decree of Innocent XI.¹ Cf. n. 1189. 5°.

1313. - According to the mind of St. Alphonsus,² and of others reported by him, the doctrine on frequent Communion can be constrained in a few general rules thus.

First Rule. - Monthly Communion is to be denied to no one sufficiently disposed; indeed it is to be advised most greatly to all, even if they live a life entangled in secular business; for otherwise it is very difficult to persevere long in divine grace, on account of innumerable occasions, and the quasi-forgetting of eternal things. - Thus commonly.

Second Rule. - Weekly Communion is to be permitted, indeed also advised, to those who by habit do not commit grave faults: nevertheless for those who labor under several light vices and are not at all solicitous concerning amendment, it will sometimes be useful to interdict Communion for some week, namely that they may be stirred up with some zeal to casting aside vices.³

Third Rule. - Frequent Communion, or several times in the week, can be permitted, or even advised, to those in whom these three things are found: 1) Flight from fully deliberate venial sin, and absence of voluntary affection to venial sin, i.e. to its matter. 2) Study of Christian perfection and desire of Communion. 3) Exercise of mental prayer and mortification.⁴ - Thus regularly speaking; for exceptionally it can also be granted "to some who" lack the aforesaid dispositions, but "would be in danger of falling into lethal sins, that they may receive strength for resisting."¹

Fourth Rule. - Daily Communion is to be granted to those who, besides the two former things aforesaid, devote themselves much to prayer and mortification and for the greater part have overcome evil desires. "Except, ordinarily speaking, one day in any week ... and that time in which" directors wish "to deprive their penitents of Communion for proving their obedience, or humility, or on account of some just cause."² It can also be granted on account of some particular passing circumstance, e.g. on account of a novena.

S. Th. III, q. 80, a. 10.

286. State of the question. - Frequent communion is that which is received several times in a week or even daily; but weekly communion is not frequent properly and in the strict sense. Concerning the use of holy communion, the Church has established only two things: 1. that it can be received only once in the day, except in the case of Viaticum for him who on the same day communicated from devotion (can. 857); 2. that communion be received at least once in the year. Within these two limits the Church has prescribed nothing further, although she exhorts to the frequenting of the sacrament. Hence it is asked whether, when, and to whom frequent communion is to be commended; and what dispositions are altogether required or very fitting for the more frequent use of the sacrament.

287. Principle I. Communion per se and from the force of the sacrament itself, whose power is salutary for men, is useful and always praiseworthy, even if it be daily, so that man may daily receive its fruit.

It is proved: 1. From the frequent use of communion in the primitive Church.

But whether the use of daily communion existed rather universally is uncertain, because they were accustomed to communicate in Mass, but Mass was not always offered on each day; yet also at home they were refreshed by the sacred Eucharist.

2. From ancient and perpetual Tradition.

This is established a) from the doctrine of the Fathers: Tertullian, l. 2 ad uxor., c. 6; de or. dom., c. 6; Cyprian, de or. dom., c. 18; Chrysostom, in ep. ad Eph., I, hom. 3; in I ad Tim., hom. 6; Hilary, fragm. VII; Lib. de Sacr., l. 5, c. 4; Jerome, ep. 27 ad Licin.; Augustine, ep. 54 (al. 118) ad Jan.; serm. 227 ad inf.; serm. 351 de poen., n. 10; - b) from the Council of Trent, which, sess. 13, c. 8, exhorts all and each of the faithful to venerate that bread with such faith, devotion, piety, and worship that they may be able to receive it frequently; and sess. 22, c. 6, would desire that in each Mass those standing by communicate sacramentally; - c) from the Catechism of the Council of Trent, which warns pastors to exhort the faithful even to daily communion, p. 2, c. 4, q. 58; - d) from various decrees, as from propositions 22 and 23 condemned by Alexander VIII,¹ and from the decree of the S.C.C., February 12, 1679, under Innocent XI, which reproves the prohibition of frequent communion, asserts that no state, even that of trade or marriage, impedes it, and leaves judgment concerning the internal dispositions for frequent communion to confessors; but especially from the decree of the same S.C.C., December 20, 1905, under Pius X, by which easier conditions for frequent communion were determined than were accustomed to be established by many theologians.

¹ "They are to be judged sacrilegious who claim the right to receive communion before they have done condign penance for their offenses." - "Likewise those are to be kept away from holy communion in whom there is not yet the purest love of God and one free from every mixture."

3. By reason: This sacrament is fittingly received daily, both because it is handed down by way of spiritual food, "whence just as bodily food is received daily, so also it is praiseworthy to receive this sacrament daily" (a. 10, ad 4); - and because manna, which prefigured it, was given daily to the people in the desert; - and because it was instituted for increasing the fervor of charity as a remedy for daily defect and as a most apt means for persevering; - and because in itself it is more perfect to approach it from love than to withdraw from reverential fear (ad 3).

Per accidens, however, and if communion is considered "on the part of the one receiving, in whom it is required that he approach this sacrament with great devotion and reverence," it is not always useful and praiseworthy.² "And therefore if someone finds himself prepared for this daily, it is praiseworthy that he receive daily... But because many impediments of this devotion often occur in many men on account of indisposition of the body or soul, it is not useful for all to approach this sacrament daily, but as often as man finds himself prepared for it" (a. 10).

² Proposition 56 was condemned by Innocent XI: "Frequent communion, even in those who live like Gentiles, is a sign of predestination."

288. Principle II. The dispositions required for frequent or daily communion are not greater than for every communion, namely the state of grace and a right and pious intention; however much it is expedient that those frequently communicating dispose themselves more, and also be free from venial sins, at least fully deliberate ones, and from affection for them.

Thus from the decree of the S.C.C. Sacra Tridentina synodus, under Pius X, December 20, 1905.

It is required and suffices:

a) The state of grace, by which, namely actually here and now or at the moment of communion, "they are free from mortal faults, with the purpose that they will never sin in the future."

b) A right mind or intention, by which, namely, one "does not indulge use or vanity or human reasons (for example vain emulation, desire of capturing the benevolence of superiors, or sensible sweetness rather than solid piety), but wills to satisfy the good pleasure of God, to be united more closely to Him by charity, and by that divine medicine to meet his infirmities and defects." Thus in the praised decree, in which the three negative conditions seem to be understood copulatively, the positive ones disjunctively. They ought to be verified at least substantially, although perhaps some human consideration is mixed in accessorily.

It is proved: 1. Communion in the state of grace is an act substantially good, which produces fruit from the work worked, at least an increase of habitual grace; but if it is done with a mind altogether right and a pious intention, that act is vitiated in no way, and will be good from every part.

2. Communion is not a reward of virtue or merit, but a means for acquiring virtue; nor was it instituted before all else for honoring God, but for the utility of men. Whence according to the intention of Christ, in it the utility of the communicant is more to be sought than a more perfect disposition for it.

Yet it is altogether fitting that better dispositions, as far as can be done, be present; therefore in the decree excellent counsels and prudent rules are added:

a) "Although it is most expedient that those using frequent and daily communion be free from venial sins, at least fully deliberate ones, and from affection for them, nevertheless it suffices that they be free from mortal faults, with the purpose that they will never sin in the future; and with this sincere purpose of soul, it cannot happen that those communicating daily do not gradually drive themselves away from sins, even venial ones, and from affection for them."

It is expedient that every affection for venial sins be absent; if this actually perseveres, it impedes the effect of the sacrament, which is fervor or the actual exercise and sweetness of charity. Yet there is no special sin in this, that a sacramental effect is impeded, provided not every effect of the sacrament is impeded. This is all the more true in the case, since from the frequency of communion it will happen that even that impediment is gradually removed.

b) "But since the Sacraments of the New Law, although they obtain their effect from the work worked, nevertheless produce a greater effect according as greater dispositions are applied in receiving them, therefore care must be taken that diligent preparation for holy communion precede, and suitable thanksgiving follow thereafter, according to each one's powers, condition, and offices."

One very fervent communion can produce much greater fruits than several ordinary ones or many tepid ones. Hence diligent preparation is to be procured, both remote and proximate. Remote, by which habitually one may be preserved in purity, day by day free himself more from every fault and defect, and burn with a greater desire of holy communion; proximate, which consists in diverse affections: lively faith, great trust in Christ, ardent desire, humble contrition even concerning venial sins, profound reverence, and especially perfect unitive charity, which namely disposes more aptly to the proper effect of the sacrament.

Thanksgiving should consist in most fervent acts: in a vivid and, as far as can be done, persevering love by which we desire that Jesus be loved more by us and by all creatures; in profound adoration; in full oblation and handing over of oneself; in the subjection of the intellect through faith and of the will through charity; in the submission of all powers to the Holy Spirit, who is the Spirit of Christ; in pious gratitude; in humble petition; and in a remembrance of so great a benefit enduring through the day. Care seems to have to be applied all the more to immediate thanksgiving because, while the species remain, the sacrament continues to produce a certain fruit, namely the fervor and sweetness of charity (n. 263), unless by distraction, neglect, or disordered affection we place an obstacle (n. 265).

c) "That frequent and daily communion may be made with greater prudence and be increased by richer merit, it is necessary that the counsel of the confessor intervene. Yet confessors should beware lest they turn away anyone from frequent or daily communion who is found in the state of grace and approaches with a right mind."

Therefore the permission of the confessor is not required, but only counsel for the sake of prudence and richer fruit. Nor is it his to grant communion, but to judge concerning its opportuneness and to declare that the required dispositions are present and to watch over them. For as Innocent XI indicated, February 12, 1679, "frequent approach to receiving the sacred nourishment is to be left to the judgment of confessors exploring the secrets of the heart; who, from purity of consciences, and from the fruit of frequency, and from progress toward piety, should prescribe to laymen that which they foresee will profit their salvation."

Therefore the confessor should in no way intervene so as to keep away those who have a right intention, but so that he may render them more certain concerning right disposition; and stimulate all to a more fervent disposition and greater purity; and also sometimes prohibit those whose right intention or due disposition is held suspect, namely so that they may be taught to approach more fervently: such are those who after many communions do not care about venial sins, but commit them altogether deliberately and with the same frequency as recidivists, and indulge very much, for example, in faults of the tongue, or lead a truly worldly or tepid life. Let him also watch lest frequent communion be received with detriment, whether of the duties of state in servants, maids, mothers of families, or of the peace and tranquility of families.

289. Practical corollaries. - 1. Pastors, confessors, and preachers should exhort the Christian people to the pious and salutary use of frequent and daily communion, by frequent admonitions and with much zeal; and indeed persons of every order, condition, and age (can. 863).

Yet let them beware lest they impose it as prescribed, since it is only very much commended; nor let them as it were force anyone to it, lest namely he receive it without taste but with disgust; but rather let them lead the faithful to it progressively. Let them not omit to speak rather frequently about the required dispositions; let them teach that the effects are richer according as the dispositions are better; with diligent care let them especially inculcate suitable preparation and thanksgiving.

2. Frequent and daily communion should especially be promoted in religious institutes of every kind, and most of all in seminaries of clerics, whose students long for the service of the altar; likewise in other Christian youth institutions of every kind.

Hence can. 595, § 2 enjoins superiors: "Frequent, indeed daily, access to the most holy Eucharist should lie freely open to religious who are rightly disposed," concerning which to judge belongs per se not to superiors, but to the confessor. Nevertheless: § 3 "If after the last sacramental confession a religious has been a grave scandal to the community or has committed a grave and external fault, until he has again approached the sacrament of penance, the Superior can prohibit him from approaching holy communion."

3. Wherefore, if there are any institutes in whose rules or constitutions communions are found fixed or commanded on certain days, those norms are to be held not as preceptive but as merely directive; and the number of communions fixed beforehand as something minimum for the piety of religious (can. 595, § 4).

4. Care must be taken with every zeal lest children approach from mere custom, distracted and irreverent: for there is danger, with attention to their levity, lest the Eucharistic bread become cheap to them from daily use. Hence superiors in Catholic youth institutions should only cautiously and prudently counsel more frequent communion to this or that one in particular, lest perhaps they foster hypocrisy and provide an occasion for sacrileges. Let there be great liberty of communion.

5. Frequent communion is not to be denied to those who sometimes fall into mortal sin, provided they detest it and seriously propose to amend; nor to those who have affection for deliberate venial sins; indeed not even to those who from internal frailty or from rather vehement temptation are found recidivist in mortal sins but show a serious will of fighting against sin; - but to those who have voluntary affection for mortal sins and from a depraved will frequently fall into mortal sins.

But if certain penitents habitually neglect diligent preparation and suitable thanksgiving according to their powers, condition, and offices, this ordinarily will be a sign that they do not approach with a right mind and that they lack the necessary dispositions. Therefore they are to be urged to better dispositions, or somewhat restrained from more frequent communion so that they may learn to approach more reverently and more fervently.

6. Weekly confession is very much to be commended for those communicating frequently; yet it is not to be demanded nor always opportunely advised, whether on account of lack of time on the part of confessors or penitents, or on account of the danger lest access to confession be rendered more difficult for those who need it more. Moreover a greater spiritual good is usually received from frequent communion than from frequent confession; whence, where both cannot be joined, it is better to omit confession rather than communion. Yet let them not abstain longer from confession, and let them approach every fortnight, or at least monthly; whence a sufficiently easy availability of confession may lie open to all.³

³ Concerning the aforesaid in the decree Sacra Tridentina Synodus, and in those who wrote a commentary on it. Cappello, Noldin, Aertnijs-Damen can be consulted in the cited work.

290. Observations. 1. On the time of receiving communion.

That they may participate more immediately in the sacrifice and approach communion as to a common supper, the faithful, as much as possible, should receive communion within the sacrifice of the Mass and indeed after the communion of the celebrating priest. Nevertheless, according to can. 867, § 4, the faithful are permitted to communicate outside Mass at the hours in which the sacrifice of the Mass can be offered according to can. 812, § 1; that is from one hour before dawn up to one hour after midday, and, as to afternoon communion, either immediately before or immediately after evening Mass, or if there is no evening Mass, on the occasion of any religious ceremony (Congr. Holy Office, March 21, 1960).

When the sacrament cannot be received really, spiritual communion is greatly commended by the Saints; it is the vow or desire, conceived from living faith, which namely works through love, of receiving the Eucharist, from which some effect of the sacrament comes from the work of the one operating. Thus conformably to the Council of Trent, sess. 13, c. 8.

It is perfected by three acts: 1. an act of living faith in the presence of Christ; 2. an act of charity to which contrition for sins is joined; 3. an act of desire for intimate union with Christ to be obtained through the sacrament.

Although the desire of receiving the Eucharist several times in the day is not right, nevertheless to have several times in the day the desire of receiving the Eucharist at the opportune moment is praiseworthy, even for those who communicated in the morning: for it is an excellent preparation for the following communion.

Sinners also can desire communion but under the condition of conversion; yet they do not communicate spiritually, because from this desire the effect of the sacrament does not come to them.

I. There is a twofold kind of dispositions. The first removes impediments, namely mortal sins; the other adorns the soul with virtues. Of the first at present. The innovators require faith alone for a disposition; but their error Trent proscribed, session 13, canon 5. The first disposition is cleanness from mortal fault. He who after absolution remembers that he committed some crime which through inculpable forgetfulness he did not confess, ought before communion to confess it, as the common and true opinion teaches. There are not lacking theologians, and indeed of great name, who require immunity from affection to venial sins, that the fruits of the Eucharist may be perceived. Others teach that affection to venial sins diminishes indeed the fervour, but does not hinder the fruits of the Eucharist. This disagreement ought to stir us up to detest venial crimes themselves, since according to all they diminish the fervour of charity.

II. QUESTION I. Is the precept of sending confession before, on the part of one who is in mortal sin, divine or human? ANSWER. Many contend that it is merely human. Theologians commonly affirm that it is divine, declared by St. Paul, 1 Corinthians 11, saying: But let a man prove himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice; and again, Holy things are to be handled holily.

III. QUESTION II. What is to be thought of the interpretation of some upon the Tridentine precept of confessing as soon as possible? ANSWER. If a priest, urgent necessity pressing, celebrated in mortal sin being contrite, Trent commands that he confess as soon as possible. Not a few began after their manner to dispute whether this be a precept or a counsel. Some affirmed it to be merely a counsel; but their opinion Alexander VII condemned, no. 38: The command of Trent made to a priest sacrificing of necessity in mortal sin, that he confess as soon as possible, is a counsel, not a precept.

IV. QUESTION III. What is to be said of the interpretation of Frs. La Croix, Viva, and others upon the aforesaid decree of Trent? ANSWER. Fr. Claude La Croix, Book 6, part 1, On the Eucharist, no. 546, § 4, writes here: “Suárez, Vásquez, Sayrus, Marchant, Nuño, de Lugo, Diana, Dicastillo, Aversa, John Sánchez, Gobat, Pellizzari, and Leander teach — in this almost all agree, says Moya, citing very many — that a priest is not bound by this precept, if he has the opportunity of a confessor and has not confessed out of malice: because although he sin more gravely, nevertheless in positive precepts the argument does not hold from the lesser to the greater, or to the like, as de Lugo with the common opinion teaches. … But Trent speaks of him who, urgent necessity pressing, celebrated without previous confession. But if there was an opportunity of a confessor, there was no urgent necessity of celebrating without previous confession. Therefore then he is not bound to confess as soon as possible. This opinion is more probable.” Hence the same opinion Fr. Viva defends in his Treatise on Proposition 38 of Alexander VII, no. 12, and in his Course of Theology, question 7, no. 3.

V. Trent commands that a priest who, urgent necessity pressing and destitute of the opportunity of a confessor, celebrated in mortal sin, confess as soon as possible: since by natural and divine law holy things are to be handled holily. But he who, no necessity urging, having the opportunity of a confessor, out of mere malice celebrates in mortal sin, confession being neglected — he, say the cited probabilists, is not bound to confess as soon as possible, because in positive precepts the argument does not hold from the lesser to the greater, or to the like, as de Lugo with the common opinion says. Unless this be an unheard-of paradox, I confess that I know nothing. The precept of Trent declares natural and divine law, that holy things are to be handled holily, and defines that if, urgent necessity pressing and the opportunity of a confessor being lacking, a priest cannot confess before the celebration of Mass, he confess as soon as possible. This Tridentine precept, as I have said, is a declaration of natural and divine law. Therefore if a priest is bound to confess as soon as possible who, compelled by necessity, for the avoiding of scandal and that he might succour the faithful people, celebrated in mortal sin, by a far and by the very greatest right is that priest bound to confess as soon as possible who, pressed by no necessity but out of mere malice, celebrated in mortal sin. And this is so evident that a common sense void of prejudices suffices for perceiving this truth. Further, if in a truth so clear prejudices bewitch even pious and learned authors themselves, what is to be expected in questions ambiguous and entangled with a coil of difficulties?

VI. QUESTION IV. What of the contrition which Fr. Tamburini teaches is to be sent before by a layman conscious of mortal sin, urgent necessity pressing? ANSWER. Fr. Tamburini in the place cited, § 7, no. 56, writes the following opinion: “Concerning a layman there is no difficulty. For it is enough if he elicit it (contrition) immediately before the taking itself: and because the taking or eating is substantially made when we swallow or transmit the food, but not while it is in the mouth, when the taking is only inchoate — therefore I think it MOST PROBABLE that it is enough that the act of contrition be made while the most holy host is held in the mouth. So de Lugo, and Hurtado, and others.”

VII. While we set forth these and like opinions, now to be derided, now to be deplored, outcries against us are redoubled. But I beseech and adjure even the prudent probabilists themselves to determine whether it is to be permitted that these unheard-of paradoxes be read by Christian readers without a previous warning by which they may beware of them. What? The most holy Host of Christ in the mouth, and the devil reigning in the heart? In the same man God and the devil? Shall a wicked man receive the Sacrament in his mouth before he transmits the host into his stomach, and then elicit an act of contrition — because while it is in the mouth the taking is inchoate, and when we transmit it the eating is substantially made? Who can bear without tears that these things are proposed and persuaded to the Christian people as most probable, not to say probable, documents of morals? Tamburini teaches with the other probabilists that even imperfect contrition itself, formed by charity merely inchoate, is so difficult that he brands with the note of Rigorism the opinion requiring contrition of this kind; and now he reckons it so easy that between the taking of the host inchoatively and the swallowing consummatively he judges that not an imperfect but a perfect contrition can be elicited. It is enough to have described the deplorable figments of those opinions: for they do not deserve to be confuted at greater length.

VIII. QUESTION V. What is to be said of the opinion of Frs. Vásquez and Leander asserting that a priest sinning mortally in the very celebration of Mass is not bound to confess as soon as possible? ANSWER. Fr. Leander, tract 7, disputation 7, question 1, proposes this question in these words: “Whether a priest who in the very act of sacrificing remembers a mortal sin, or perhaps commits it, is bound afterwards by force of the said precept to confess as soon as possible? I answer probably that he is not bound by that precept, because the Council spoke of a priest who, urgent necessity pressing, celebrated without previous confession — that is, of a priest who, compelled by necessity, did not send confession before, before he approached to celebrate the sacrifice … but not of a priest who in celebrating commits a sin, or remembers one. Therefore however much he then consecrate and communicate without confession, he will not be bound afterwards to confess as soon as possible. So Vásquez, Sayrus, Diana.”

IX. What law can stand, such interpretations being admitted? He who in the very celebration of Mass perpetrates a mortal crime is not bound to confess as soon as possible? That paradox is unheard-of by me. Nor less lax is the other opinion of Tamburini, On the Method of Communicating, chapter 1, no. 63, and of Leander, question 8, who teach that a layman standing at the table of communion can receive the Eucharist without sending before the confession of a mortal sin which he remembers, even if he could withdraw without scandal: because, says Leander, since the sacred action has been in a manner begun, he ought not out of reverence for the Eucharist to withdraw from that divine table. So teach and resolve the cases of the times the Doctors of the times. But in very truth the Gospel of Christ cries out — or rather Christ by the mouth of the Evangelist Matthew, chapter 5: If therefore thou offer thy gift at the altar, and there thou remember that thy brother hath anything against thee; leave there thy offering (N.B.) before the altar, and go first to be reconciled to thy brother: and then coming thou shalt offer thy gift. What say the cited casuists to this? Here the discourse is not of the taking of the most sacred body of Christ, but of the offering of a gift. The discourse is not of a mortal sin of the offerer, but of anger and indignation against another brother. Oh how far distant is the Theology of Christ from the theology of those casuists! Tamburini and Leander teach that one is not to withdraw from the sacred table, even if no scandal be feared; others more cautious teach that then one is not to withdraw when scandal is feared. But that scandal which the casuists exaggerate Christ teaches in the praised text is to be contemned. Do not we all approach the tribunal of Penance? Is the sacrament of Penance to be passed over, lest men say that we are guilty of crimes? That a Christian man or woman withdraw from the sacred table exhibits not scandal but an argument of uprightness. For bystanders infer: that man remembered some fault, or became doubtful, and was unwilling with a perplexed conscience to receive the most sacred body of Christ. Therefore the scandal which many casuists obtrude is chimerical. So many priests, so many Christian men and women bring in the most grave scandal by their frequent celebrations and communions, from which they exhibit no fruit and no reformation of morals. So many forward women, shameless and stripped of modesty, who continually sport with their little lovers, who frequent dances, theatres, games, and comedies, and at the same time approach the altars, who attempt to join Christ with Belial and light with darkness — these bring in the most grave scandal to the Christian people. This is the scandal in the taking away of which we must be wholly engaged.

X. QUESTION VI. What is to be said of the opinion of Fr. Tamburini teaching that a case can be given in which one communicating in mortal sin does not commit a new sin? ANSWER. Fr. Tamburini, On the Method of Communicating, chapter 1, § 10, no. 71, that he may open a way for himself to making sacrilege honourable, animates his reader with these words: So kindly are the bowels of the Lord's mercy that he does not disdain sometimes to excuse our obstinacy. For I find one case or another in which a man can take the most pure communion in sin without sin. But lest my adversaries after their manner should be able to impose upon the unskilled, as though I reported the opinions of the casuists truncated, I shall transcribe in just so many words Tamburini's decision, which is of this kind.

XI. “For from the things said above it is established that a priest who, Mass having been begun in good faith, remembers himself guilty of a mortal fault, ought to elicit an act at least of what he reckons contrition. But now if he cannot, or experiences that act to be exceedingly difficult for himself, what shall he do? He cannot confess, he is by no means able to be contrite, and it is most difficult to leave the sacrifice begun on account of the infamy resulting to him. What therefore remains to be extorted from a soul so affected? I judge it probable, from the opinion of some, that this man will not sin mortally if with a conscience of this kind of mortal sin, and with that sorrow which he can then elicit, he pursue the Mass, consecrate, and communicate. So Vásquez, Hurtado, de Lugo. The reason is, because the precept of communicating worthily does not seem to bind the faithful so closely as to compel a priest with so great disgrace to himself to withdraw from a sacred rite begun. But then a priest of this kind will not acquire grace; yet nevertheless he will not sin.”

XII. It is a truth of faith that God does not command impossible things, as Trent defined, session 6, chapter 11. If the cited authors assert that the precept of contrition is impossible, they teach Lutheranism and Jansenism. If they grant that the precept is possible, then those who do not fulfil it sin. Therefore false and full of scandal is the doctrine of Tamburini and of the others asserting that a case is given in which a man can take the most pure communion in sin without sin.

XIII. Fr. Tamburini proceeds in the same place, no. 73: And the same will hold of a layman who, now about to receive the sacred synaxis before the cloth, and unable under any pretext to remove himself, should remember a mortal sin, and could not be contrite: so there; for the reason is the same. LET THE SCRUPULOUS AND THOSE TIMOROUS OF MIND NOTE THIS DOCTRINE. Here the doctrine, which Fr. Viva himself adopts, is not to be refuted with words, but to be deplored with tears.

XIV. QUESTION VII. What is to be said of the other dispositions necessary for the Eucharist? ANSWER. First, the natural fast prescribed by the statute of the Church is necessary; and this discipline has a most ancient origin. The very many disputations which some raise I pass over. The sick, urgent danger of death pressing, can communicate not fasting, as also a priest on account of the necessity of completing a sacrifice left imperfect by another seized by death or by some other unexpected chance.

XV. QUESTION VIII. Is it lawful to approach the Eucharist after conjugal intercourse? ANSWER. Several councils and the Fathers commonly persuade that for a day before communion spouses observe continence. Very many testimonies being omitted, I shall bring forward one or another. St. Paul, 1 Corinthians 7, says: Defraud not one another, except perhaps by consent, for a time, that you may give yourselves to prayer. Like things St. Peter teaches, Epistle 1, chapter 3. The Tridentine Catechism, part 2, chapter 4, § 58, says: The dignity of so great a Sacrament demands that those who are joined in matrimony abstain some days from the company of their wives, admonished by the example of David, who, being about to receive the loaves of proposition from the priest, professed that he and his young men had been pure from wives for three days. Extremes in the adornment of the body are also to be avoided. Squalor is unbecoming and savours of irreverence. An honourable cleanliness ought to shine in the garment, in the countenance, and in the hands. But those women are altogether to be kept from holy communion who with bared bosom, and with vain garments displaying luxury, pride, and worldly pomps, do not blush to approach so great a Sacrament. Their odours, powders, and counterfeited beauty exhale from afar the stench and filth of their souls.

XVI. QUESTION IX. What is to be said of frequent communion? ANSWER. There came forth in the year 1745 at Paris a book entitled The Spirit of Jesus Christ and of the Church upon Frequent Communion. This work, published by Fr. Pichon, several most learned bishops proscribed by their letters, and the Roman See condemned it. To refute its lax paradoxes in this compendium is not expedient. Extremes in this matter, as in the rest, are to be declined. The Council of Trent, session 22, chapter 6, says: The holy Synod indeed would wish that at each Mass the faithful standing by should communicate not only by a spiritual affection but also by the sacramental reception of the Eucharist, that thereby a more abundant fruit of this most holy Sacrifice might come to them. Would that the morals of Christians were such that the wishes of that Council could be committed to execution.

XVII. Lax paradoxes in this matter also some have taught, as is plain from the following proscribed theses. Venerable Innocent XI condemned the following, no. 56: Frequent confession and communion, even in those who live in the manner of the heathen, is a mark of predestination.

XVIII. Into another extreme others have fallen, whose error Alexander VIII condemned, no. 22: They are to be judged sacrilegious who claim a right to receiving communion before they have done condign penance for their offences.

XIX. Similarly: They are to be kept from holy communion in whom there is not yet the most pure love of God and free from every admixture.

XX. The rules of frequent communion Innocent XI prescribed in his decree Cum ad aures, which you can read in Vol. VIII, Book 3, dissertation 1, chapter 11, as also several testimonies of the holy Fathers for a full instruction in this matter, which you can read in the place cited; there you will find the clearest arguments against sacrilegious communions.

Dear Editor:

I am greatly puzzled by a certain recent occurrence in parochial life and have decided to seek advice from the Homiletic. The case is as follows: During a retreat for first Communion I gave an instruction on frequent Communion to the children. On the day when the little lovers of Christ came to the altar rail, I took advantage of the occasion to exhort them as well as their parents and others who were present to frequent and even daily Communion. I was gratified at the result. All that week fully one-half of the children communicated daily, and many of the parishioners followed their example. Now, here is the bothering part: The pastor saw the children dressed in their white garb on Friday and Saturday morning at the rail. Upon inquiry he heard of my Sunday instruction. He sent for me and read me a lecture which stunned me. I was forbidden to mention the subject of frequent Communion till further notice. In vain I pleaded the decree of our Holy Father. I was told my duty was to obey my pastor. His arguments were about Confession and routine, etc. Now, what am I to do? It would be easy to obey him, but would I be doing the right thing? Thanking you, etc, Yours in Christ, Father N.

Answer.—Our friend seems to be overtroubled about the matter. It is easy to know what to do, since it is not difficult to know the right thing. We are obliged to obey the voice of God and not that of man. Without doubt the instructions of a pastor are to be obeyed by an assistant, otherwise there would be no harmony, no unity, without which there would be no hope of success in any field of labor, particularly in the vineyard of the Lord. But there is no obligation to obey the commands of the head of the parish when his orders are in direct contradiction to the commands of his and our superiors. When our bishop, or the Holy Father, gives us specific commands which impose on us duties at once clear and feasible, then we are bound to obey these commands, our pastor or anyone else to the contrary notwithstanding. In the matter of frequent Communion, Pius X. has not left us free to do as we like. He has obliged all having the direction of souls to lead them frequently, yea, daily, to the Sacrament of the altar. I insist he has not left us free, he has placed on our shoulders an obligation which cannot conscientiously be shirked by any priest, be he bishop or pastor or curate. This position is clear from a study of the attitude of the present reigning Pontiff with regard to the blessed Sacrament. Pius X. has proposed to himself as the object of his special endeavor “to restore all things in Christ.” It would seem from a cursory survey of his line of action that his method is to awaken love for Christ in the hearts of His children. We find him a staunch advocate of devotion to Christ in the blessed Sacrament, and particularly of frequent Communion.

Let us refer here to some of his decrees, etc., on this matter:

May 30, 1905.—Pius X. indulgenced a “Prayer for the spread of the pious practice of daily Communion.”

June 4, 1905.—The Holy Father decided to close the Eucharistic Congress at Rome in person. The following passage is taken from his allocution: “I beg and beseech of you all that you recommend the faithful to receive the Divine Sacrament. And I address myself in a special manner to you, my dear sons, who are priests, in order that Jesus, the richest Treasure of paradise, the greatest Good ever possessed by poor, forlorn humanity, may not be abandoned in so injurious and thankless a manner.”

December 20, 1905.—Decree concerning the frequent and daily reception of the holy Eucharist. This is the first in importance. It opens with a rapid historical sketch; then, in eight short paragraphs, we have some perfectly clear rules, or answers; and, as a conclusion, an absolute forbiddance of contentious disputes concerning the dispositions required for the frequent and daily Communion. Articles 1 and 2 are to be adhered to strictly:

“1, Frequent and daily Communion, as a thing most earnestly desired by Christ our Lord and by the Catholic Church, should be open to all the faithful of whatever rank and condition of life; so that no one who is in the state of grace, and who approaches the Holy Table with a right and devout intention can lawfully be hindered therefrom.

“2, A right intention consists in this: That he who approaches the Holy Table should do so, not out of routine, or vainglory, or human respect, but for the purpose of pleasing God, of being more closely united with Him by charity, and of seeking this divine remedy for his weaknesses and defects.”

February 14, 1906.—Those who receive Communion at least five times in the week are able to gain plenary indulgences, even though they go to Confession only once a fortnight, or once a month, or even less often—for the decree puts no limit.

August 10, 1906.—The brief Romanorum Pontificum approves and enriches with indulgences and extraordinary privileges the Priests’ Eucharistic League (Lega Sacerdotale Eucharistica), instituted for the special object of “bringing the faithful to the practise of frequent daily reception of the holy Eucharist.”

By a favor without precedent, confessors enrolled in this league can impart to those of their penitents who are accustomed to communicate daily, or nearly so, a plenary indulgence once a week.

August 16, 1906.—Cardinal V. Vannutelli, delegated by the Pope, declared at Tournai that the great papal act was “the fruit, the victory, the triumph of the Eucharistic Congresses,” and that it should serve as a guide in all their undertakings.

September 15, 1906.—The decree of December 20, 1905, is to be applied not only to grown-up people, or to the youth of either sex, but to children besides, once they have made their first Communion according to the rules of the Roman Catechism. That Catechism allows them to make it as soon as they have sufficient discretion. Every contrary practice that may anywhere prevail is condemned.

December 7, 1906.—Sick people who have been laid up for a month, without any sure prospect of speedy convalescence, are allowed to receive the holy Eucharist, although they have taken some nourishment since midnight per modum potus; and that once or twice a week, if the blessed Sacrament be kept in the house; if not, once or twice a month. (It has been explained that such things as chocolate, tapioca, semolina, soup containing bread-crumbs, are covered by the expression per modum potus.)

March 25, 1907.—The preceding decree is extended to those who, though seriously ill, are obliged, or able, to leave their beds at times during the day.

April 10, 1907.—Bishops are desired to have celebrated yearly in their cathedrals a special Triduum, for the object of exhorting the faithful to frequent Communion. In parish churches one day of religious exercises may be regarded as sufficient. Special indulgences granted.

May 8, 1907.—General leave given to distribute holy Communion in private oratories to all those who attend Mass—“saving parochial rights’—which means except in the case of the Easter Communion and Viaticum.

July 14, 1907—A brief once more appointing Cardinal V. Vannutelli Papal Legate to the Congress of Metz, which was wholly dedicated to the subject of holy Communion. “Here,” says the brief, “we surely have the shortest way towards procuring the salvation of each person in particular, as well as of society.” And the Cardinal, in closing the Congress, congratulated it upon having been the “faithful, docile and unfaltering echo of the decree on daily Communion.”

Conclusion.—Thus has his Holiness Pope Pius X. in the past four years of his Pontificate heaped act upon act to make the Catholic world understand that—to quote the letter addressed to the Legate for the occasion of the Metz Congress—“the center of Christian life, and, so to say, the soul of the Church, is found in the Eucharist.”

According to the decree, then, of December, 1905, wherein the Supreme Ruler of the Church—the Ruler of bishops and pastors and curates as well as of the faithful—expresses his will, the faithful, including the children, are to be brought to the practise of frequent and even daily Communion. Are we not right in saying that such a manifestation of will, made with such insistence on the part of the supreme legislator, is nothing more nor less than the manifestation of the will of Christ himself? And are we not, therefore, obliged to obey it? It is true that the decree is not an infallible one, but it is an authoritative one. Those who have studied the theological tracts on the constitution of the Church know full well that they owe a ready obedience to such decrees. No pastor is allowed to follow ad libitum his own views on the matter. This decree is both doctrinal and disciplinary. This is the view set forth by Cardinal Vannutelli, one of the signers of the decree. As this, matter is well developed in a brochure, entitled “The Eucharistic Triduum,” by Pére Lintelo, S.J. (translated by Pére Zulueta, S.J.), we here quote from it: “This decree is both a doctrinal and disciplinary one.” Consequently, it regulates something in the sphere of doctrine, and enjoins something in the sphere of action or practise.

(a) IN THE SPHERE OF DOCTRINE, the decree affirms certain truths, and, by the very fact of doing so, indirectly imposes a duty— that of mentally accepting the truths affirmed. It does not indeed bind individual Catholics actually to practise frequent or daily Communion, under pain of sin. It ought not to be necessary to emphasize so great a truth. But human nature is ever liable to extremes. Thus the decree itself records the grotesque exaggerations in the past on the part of some who, justly alarmed at the evil fruits of anti-Eucharistic Jansenism, fell into the opposite extreme of representing daily Communion as a divine precept. But, on the other hand, this tendency to exaggerate is by no means confined to advocates of the “salutary practise.” It also reveals itself in those who, fighting shy, on one pretext or another, of the Pope’s pressing invitations to the Holy Table, take refuge in the fanciful plea that priests who earnestly promote daily Communion in obedience to Article VI. of the decree, are equivalently foisting a new precept on the faithful. On the same principle, the zealous parish priest who actively promotes public night prayers in his church, or daily recitation in common of the Rosary in families, is. creating a new precept. And, certainly, the rule of monthly Communion, so strongly impressed upon children of Mary and members of guilds, ought, on the same grounds, to be regarded as tantamount to a precept.

There is a lack of proportion in all this. The truth lies between the two extremes. Neither the decree nor its promoter contemplates the use of daily Communion as an obligation. But the Papal pronouncement does, of its very nature, oblige us—ecclesiastics and laity—to give real interior assent of the mind to the teaching and principles of Eucharistic practise which it lays down, and consequently to abandon, as false, all spiritual theories which conflict with that teaching and with those principles, or which render either nugatory. As our author puts it: “If infallibility has not spoken, authority, at all events, has.” It is unnecessary, in a work intended for priests, to deal with that too common delusion that infallible utterances are the only ones which claim the inward and conscientious submission of Catholics.

(b) IN THE SPHERE OF ACTION, too, the decree imposes several things. In Article V. confessors are told to beware of hindering any one (ne quemquam avertant) from even daily reception of the Eucharist who receives in the state of grace and with a right intention. According to Article VI., priests—é. e., “parish priests, confessors, and preachers, in accordance with the approved teaching of the Roman Catechism” (Part II., cap. 4, n. 60)—are frequently and with much zeal to exhort the faithful to this devout and salutary practise. In Article VII. the practise is ordered to be promoted “especially” in “Religious Orders and Congregations of all kinds ‘ in ecclesiastical seminaries, and in Christian establishments, of whatever kind, for the training of youth.” Further, after the publication of the decree writers are ordered to abstain “from contentious controversies concerning the dispositions requisite for frequent and daily Communion.” In the concluding sentence of the decree His Holiness is stated as having “further ordered” that “local ordinaries and regular prelates,” in their reports concerning the state of their respective dioceses or institutes, should inform the Holy See concerning the execution of the matters therein determined. Here, then, we have not a few duties imposed by the said decree. We may sum up the matter thus: While the actual use of frequent and daily Communion is not enjoined, many other things are ordered for bringing about as widespread an, adoption of that practise as possible among all classes of the faithful.

Yet, with regard even to actual practise, the decree, while giving no command, contains something far more pressing than a mere spiritual suggestion. It gives an urgent counsel—since repeated many times by the Holy See in various forms—to all the faithful, children communicants included, as the Answer of September 15, 1906, puts beyond all cavil. This, then, is no mere refinement of piety, to be indulged in by such as have a taste for it.

Importance AND AUTHORITY OF THE DOCUMENT

“As the decree of the Sacred Congregation of the Council on Daily Communion has been solemnly promulgated by the command of the Sovereign Pontiff, it becomes, therefore, a legislative Act passed by the universal legislator, and the whole Church is bound to obey it... all teaching opposed to what it declares to be that of the Church regarding the practise of daily Communion must be withdrawn, and be silent henceforth; every custom or practise opposed to what it ordains must cease” (Tesniére, “Commentary,” p. 16).

Here are some declarations made by Cardinal Vannutelli, the dignitary who signed the decree, and Papal Legate, in his opening speech at the Eucharistic Congress at Tournai, August 16, 1906:

“It is competent authority that speaks concerning frequent access to the Holy Table... This great pontifical Act, so maturely considered, and so seasonably promulgated, is at one and the same time both doctrinal and disciplinary.”

Under these circumstances, theologians declare that Catholics are bound in conscience to yield to the decree “an interior assent of the mind, even though the decree have not the character of a final judgment that it is of its own nature unalterable... To refuse that assent would be to sin by rashness (Choupin, S.J., “Valeur des décisions du Saint-Siege”). If infallibility has not spoken, authority, at least, has.

The Cardinal, moreover, boldly proclaimed the duty of everyone:

“All of you, illustrious members of the Episcopate, civil magistrates, presidents of organizations, priests, religious, laity—Catholics here present—you have all fully understood, as I am glad to bear witness, the duty incumbent upon this Congress—the first assembled since the decree was issued. That duty can be no other than gratefully to take action upon the same, to welcome it with reverence, to hail it with enthusiasm, and make it henceforward the watchword to be woven upon our banner for a beneficent propaganda, and to serve as a symbol of the perfect union which should reign in future amongst all Catholics.

“The decree of December 20 (1905) is, in truth, like a rainbow appearing in the firmament of the Church as a sign that the squall has blown over, and that the Heart of Jesus—the Heart of the King of Peace in the Eucharist—resumes His undivided empire over souls, even as, in nature, after a storm, the sun once more freely diffuses light and heat.”

There ought, then, to be no obscurity upon the question of the duty of priests with regard to daily Communion.

To Priests

1. Tuer Duty.—‘Parish priests are bound, in virtue of their pastoral office, to exhort the faithful frequently to take as much care to nourish their souls daily with this Sacrament as they deem it necessary to bestow upon securing material bread for the nourishment of their bodies. For it is evident that the soul has no less need of food than the body. And it will be extremely useful for winning over their hearers if preachers recall to their minds the immense, and wholly divine, benefits which flow from holy Communion. Let them discourse, in particular, upon that miraculous and prophetical bread—the manna—with which the Israelites were obliged to nourish themselves each day, and give authorities from the writings of the fathers—those powerful advocates of frequent reception of this Sacrament. For it was not St. Augustine alone who expressed the sentiment: ‘Since you sin daily partake daily of the antidote to sin.’ If anyone will examine into the matter he will find that it conveys the mind of all of those fathers who have treated of holy Communion” (Roman Catechism, Part II, chap, iv. nm. 54).

This passage from the Catechism of the Council of Trent is referred to in several documents of Pius X. relating to daily Communion.

Let us add the following words taken from the same Catechism, n. 39: “There is, in fact, no class of the faithful to whom the knowledge of all that can be said of the wonderful power and fruits of this Sacrament is not easily accessible and at the same time most necessary.”

2. Is Every Pastor Bound To Procure DAILY COMMUNION AMONGST HIS FLOCK AS FAR AS POSSIBLE?—“The inability to communicate under which many of the faithful labor, if it be involuntary, is a misfortune—a distressing poverty which should move the compassion and zeal of pastors to diminish the same to the best of their power. If it be voluntary, and due to contempt for the Divine Bread and indifference to salvation, it is an evil to be combated without respite, and with a zeal that should become the more intense in proportion to the outrage inflicted by such contempt upon the Heart of Him whose loving designs the priest professes to forward. A universal aloofness from daily Communion can never be viewed as a good state of things, nor even calmly acquiesced in. At best, it can be borne as being, it is true, a lesser misfortune or evil than profanation of the Sacred Bread; yet one that is to be pursued without a truce by means of illuminating instruction, zealous exhortation, and even by warnings as to the sad effects which follow from it. It is a case of recalling the command of St. Paul to Timothy: ‘Preach the good word, be instant in season and out of season: reprove, entreat, rebuke in all patience and doctrine’ Tim. iv, 2” (Tesniére, “Pratique,” p. 49). °

The difficulties raised about the burden of Confession have no value since the Pope has provided for this in his decrees. Nor need we consider the danger of routine further than to say that if we put any stress on this point we would all become pagans in the religious world and good-for-nothings in the civic realm. The objecting pastor would have to give up his daily Mass, his daily office, etc., upon the same score, viz., danger of routine. To conclude, we say that the pastor transgressed his jurisdiction and the curate should hear and obey the voice of the supreme pastor, the vicar of Christ.