Bodily reverence and the Eucharistic fast

Although God looks to the soul and its dispositions rather than to externals, yet, as the Ritual says, those who communicate should approach the altar with humble deportment, and their dress and everything about them should show forth the reverence which they feel for the Blessed Sacrament. Reverence taught the first Christians that the holy Eucharist should be the first food taken in the day, so that fasting Communion very soon came to be a universal practice in the Church. St Augustine says that it was the custom throughout the whole world in his time, and he traces it back to the times of the Apostles.¹ The Council of Constance says: “This present council declares, decrees, and defines, that although Christ instituted and gave this venerable sacrament to his disciples under both species of bread and wine after supper, yet notwithstanding, the laudable authority of the sacred canons and the approved custom of the Church has and keeps this observance that this sacrament ought not to be consecrated after supper nor received by the faithful unless they be fasting, except in case of sickness or of some other necessity allowed and admitted by law and by the Church.”² The rubrics of the Missal³ contain the following: “ If anyone has not kept fast after midnight, though he has taken only water or other drink or food, even as medicine, and in however small a quantity, he cannot communicate or celebrate. If remnants of food remaining in the mouth are swallowed, they do not hinder Communion, since they are not taken as food, but with the saliva. The same holds good if in washing the mouth a drop of water is swallowed inadvertently ” (cf. Can. 858).

The law of the Church, then, with reference to fasting Communion is that the Eucharist may not be received by one who has not kept strict fast from all food and drink, even in the smallest quantity, since midnight. If Holy Communion is received shortly after midnight, there is no obligation to fast for some time before midnight, although reverence would dictate the advisability of such a course. The law of fasting has been made out of reverence for the Blessed Sacrament, so that violations of it are against the virtue of religion and sacrilegious.

To constitute a violation of the fast, what is taken must be of the nature of food or drink. Pebbles, wood, paper, hairs are not food, and if swallowed do not hinder Communion. The same is probably to be said of bits of the nails of the fingers, which some people have a habit of biting. The food or drink must also be taken as food or drink, not per modum respirationis, as is said, and must be from without, not from within the mouth. Taking snuff, or smoking, or inhaling a flake of snaw with the breath, do not, then, hinder Communion, nor the swallowing of blood from the gums or from inside the lips.

Midnight may be reckoned according to the time publicly observed in the place, or by the true time according to the sun, or by the mean time.

¹ Decretum Gratiani, c. 54, D. 2, de consec.

² Sess. xiii.

³ De def. ix.

The law which prescribes fasting Communion is a positive ecclesiastical law and admits of exception and excuse. Thus, when in danger of death, from whatever cause, one may receive Holy Communion not fasting. This may also be done if it is not possible to abstain from Communion without grave scandal or serious loss of reputation; or when the Blessed Sacrament is in danger of being profaned; or in order to complete the sacrifice of the Mass left unfinished by another priest from sudden illness; or probably in order to consecrate the Viaticum for a dying person who otherwise would be deprived of it. The common opinion is that Mass may not be said by a priest not fasting merely in order that his people may hear Mass on a Sunday; but this reason, taken together with some other, might justify the action.

There used to be a controversy among divines as to whether one who is sick but not in danger of death, and yet cannot observe the fast before Communion, may be allowed sometimes to communicate not fasting. This controversy has been set at rest by the decree of Pius X, December 7, 1906, and by Canon 858, sec. 2. The law now allows those who have been sick in bed for a month, without a well-grounded hope of their speedy recovery, although they may have taken something by way of drink or medicine, to receive with the advice of their confessor Holy Communion once or twice in the week.

After receiving Viaticum a sick person who continues to live for some time afterward may receive Holy Communion again, practically as often as his devotion urges him thereto and the priest’s occupations will allow of its being brought to him. As long as he remains in danger of death, Holy Communion should be given as Viaticum, with the form, Accipe frater. No merely material uncleanness without moral fault, or mere bodily unsightliness, is a bar to Holy Communion, Married people are advised to abstain from marital intercourse before going to Holy Communion, but there is no strict obligation to do so.

Viaticum should be given to children in danger of death if they can distinguish it from ordinary food and pay it reverent adoration (Can. 854, sec. 2).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. That something be taken after midnight. Now:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

³ 23 April 1890.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

¹ On Defects, title IX, n. 3.

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

³ 13 February 1906.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

² 6 March 1907.

³ 7 September 1897.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What disposition of body is required for receiving the Eucharist? - By precept of the Church, natural fasting is required for Communion, or total abstinence after midnight from any thing whatever, however small, which is taken by way of food and drink, with certain cases nevertheless excepted. This is clear: 1. from the universal custom of the Church and unanimous tradition; 2. from all Catechisms and Rituals approved by the Church; 3. from various Councils, and especially from the Council of Constance, sess. 13.

For breaking that fast, three conditions are required according to the common opinion: 1. That what is taken be taken from outside and passed into the stomach, because what does not come from outside, even if it is voluntarily swallowed, is not called eating; for things which are eaten come from outside. Hence blood flowing from the mouth, tongue, gums, etc., does not break the fast. 2. That something be taken by way of eating or drinking. The reason is that, according to the common sense of men, the natural fast is broken only in that way. Hence whatever is drawn in by way of breathing or saliva in no way breaks the fast. Thus you remain fasting even if by breathing you swallow dust or a fly. 3. That the thing taken have the character of food or drink, that is, that it be something alterable in the stomach. The reason is that otherwise, according to the common mode of conceiving, it is not eating, nor drinking. For no one is said to eat iron, glass, wood, etc. L. 279-281; St. Thomas 3 p., q. 80, a. 8; 4 dist. 8, q. 1, a. 4, q. 2 ad 3; E. M.

329. Principles. - I. From the precept of the Church, for Communion there is required the natural fast, or total abstinence after midnight from any thing whatsoever, however small, which is taken by way of food and drink, yet with certain cases excepted. This is clear 1. from the universal custom of the Church and unanimous tradition; 2. from all Catechisms and Rituals approved by the Church; 3. from the Councils, and especially from the Council of Constance, sess. 13.

II. For breaking that fast, according to the common opinion, three conditions are required, namely: I. That what is taken be taken from outside ¹; because what does not come from outside, even if it is swallowed voluntarily, is not called eating; for things which are eaten come from without. Hence blood flowing from the mouth, tongue, gums, etc., does not break the fast. - St. Ligorius, n. 279. - Elbel, n. 91, etc.

¹ Add: and be conveyed into the stomach.

II. That something be taken by way of eating or drinking. The reason is that according to common sense the natural fast is broken only in this way. Hence whatever is drawn in by way of respiration or saliva in no way breaks the fast. Thus you remain fasting, although through respiration you have swallowed dust or a fly. - St. Thomas. - St. Ligorius, n. 280.

III. That the thing taken have the character of food or drink, that is, that it be something alterable in the stomach and apt for nutrition. The reason is that otherwise, according to the common way of conceiving, it is neither eating nor drinking. For no one is said to eat iron, glass, wood, etc. - Thus commonly the Theologians with St. Thomas, part 3, q. 80, art. 8. - St. Ligorius, n. 281.

330. Questions. - QUESTION 1. Whether the passing through of remains of food which adhere between the teeth breaks the fast?

Resp. 1. No, if it is involuntary, because it does not have the character of food. This is also clear from the Rubric of the Missal, On Defects, n. 3. - Thus all.

Resp. 2. If it is voluntary, it is controverted.

The first probable opinion denies it, because such remains are not taken by way of food, although deliberately, but by way of saliva. Thus St. Thomas, In 4, dist. 8, q. 1, art. 4, q. 2, ad 3. See also Rubric, tit. 9, n. 3.

The second opinion affirms it, because a passing through of this kind, since it is done deliberately, seems to be a new eating. - Thus Roncaglia, etc. St. Ligorius, n. 279, says that this opinion is more probable ².

² Also for this second opinion those words from St. Thomas are usually alleged (3, q. 80, art. 8, ad 4): Yet remains of food remaining in the mouth, if they are swallowed accidentally, do not impede the reception of this sacrament, because they are not conveyed by way of food, but by way of saliva; and the same reason holds concerning remains of water or wine with which the mouth is washed, provided they are not conveyed in a great quantity, but mixed with saliva, which cannot be avoided. To these things Seraphinus Caponi writes: I would wish that he (St. Doctor) be rightly understood, and that there be most watchfully weighed that which he himself for this reason expressed very cautiously, namely the word mixed with saliva, and the word that it cannot be avoided.

Yet it must be admitted that it can be drawn otherwise from another place (In 4, dist. 8, q. 1, art. 4, q. 2, ad 3), in which he employs a different principle: The fast of nature, says the Holy Doctor, is said by privation of the act of eating.... But eating is said from the taking of exterior food, although it is terminated at the conveyance of food into the belly, and further at nutrition; and therefore things which are carried on within, without the taking of exterior food, do not seem to loose the fast of nature, nor to impede reception of the Eucharist, such as the swallowing of saliva; and similarly it seems concerning those things which remain within the teeth, and also concerning eructations. Now the principle here assumed is this, that in order to loose the fast there must be the taking of exterior food; which he denies to be present in the passing through of those remains. But this holds, as is clear, whether they are conveyed accidentally or not accidentally. This sense is clear also from the objection which the Holy Doctor solves there. For it is of this kind: If some remains of food remain in the mouth, someone is not impeded from the reception of the body of Christ; because this could happen to a priest even while he is in the very celebration of the sacrament.... Therefore neither should food put into the mouth impede reception of this sacrament, if taken in a small quantity. Now if the Holy Doctor had thought that the fast is loosed through those remains voluntarily conveyed into the stomach, he should have answered at least by distinguishing the antecedent, namely whether accidentally, etc.

Moreover, St. Alphonsus notes (lib. 6, n. 279) that the rubrics of the Missal (On Defects, n. 3) do not conflict with this opinion, where it is said thus: If remains of food remaining in the mouth are swallowed, they do not impede Communion, since they are not swallowed by way of food, but by way of saliva.

Yet the same St. Alphonsus rightly warns that even Doctors who judge that the fast is not loosed by those remains voluntarily conveyed nevertheless give the counsel that they be spat out, as, for example, Suarez (disp. 66, sect. 4, v. Thirdly); then he adds that in this one must not act scrupulously, as Suarez wisely warns. Hence, he adds, I gladly follow the opinion of Lugo (disp. 15, n. 36), that remains separated from the teeth, which are sensibly perceived on the tongue, should indeed be spat out; but there is not an obligation of applying diligence to extract those remains from the teeth, even if it is foreseen that they will be swallowed if they are not extracted.... For otherwise this obligation would be exposed to innumerable scruples and perplexities, to which the Church certainly is not presumed to have wished to oblige. Indeed Lugo (l.c.) adds: Nor ought we diligently to search for them once extracted from the teeth in the corners within the mouth, that they may be spat out; because to have ourselves omissively in these matters is not to eat, but to permit them to be conveyed with saliva or respiration. But those solicitous admonitions disclose sufficiently that this obligation of spitting out, whatever it may be, falls back into what Laymann (lib. 5, tr. 4, c. 7, n. 18) better calls decency. For you will not easily compose these things: on the one hand, that the fast is violated through those remains conveyed, and on the other, that almost no care is imposed lest they be conveyed. And since care at least to spit out what is sensibly perceived on the tongue can induce those innumerable scruples and anxieties, whether that thing in reality, or whether the whole thing, has been rejected; now help seems to have to be sought from the other opinion of St. Thomas, which, since it denies that the fast is loosed by those remains, exempts from any troublesome solicitude.

QUESTION 2. Whether little drops of water or broth tasted, mixed with saliva, break the fast if they are swallowed?

Resp. 1. No, if they are conveyed accidentally, beyond the intention, provided they are not in great quantity. The same must be said of little drops which are involuntarily conveyed when washing the mouth. The reason is that they are not taken by way of nutrition. This is also clear from the Rubric of the Missal, On Defects, n. 3.

Resp. 2. Affirmatively, if they are swallowed deliberately. The reason is that then nothing is lacking for them to have the character of food or drink ³. - St. Ligorius, n. 279.

³ Understand these things concerning him who deliberately wishes to swallow those little drops. For although it cannot be avoided, as St. Thomas says (3, q. 84, art. 8, ad 4), that the little drops drawn in be mixed with saliva, and the Church, to use the words of Cardinal de Lugo (On the Eucharist, disp. 15, n. 34), did not wish through this precept to prohibit us from swallowing saliva; for it would be a very harsh precept and smelling of Judaic superstition if one had to convey absolutely nothing with saliva...; for the most anxious diligence would be needed in spitting out a thousand times the water received once for washing the mouth, lest something remain with the saliva; nevertheless, for this reason the mixture with saliva does not change the nature of the act, namely of drinking, when the mind is studiously borne not to swallowing saliva but to conveying broth or water. Therefore the same matter (little drops mixed with saliva), and the same act of conveying, with the same advertence on both sides, will break or not break the fast, according as from the two mixed elements the conveyance of this one or of that one is studiously intended.

331. • QUESTION 3. Whether powder of tobacco taken through the nostrils looses the fast?

Resp. No, even if something is sent into the stomach. The reason is that although such matter is nutritive, nevertheless it is not taken by way of eating. - Thus commonly. - St. Ligorius, n. 280.

QUESTION 4. Whether smoke of tobacco or the like looses the fast?

Resp. No, with the more common and more probable opinion, because smoke of tobacco is neither food nor drink, nor is it taken by eating or drinking; otherwise we would have to say that those also break the fast who in a kitchen draw in the smoke of foods both by mouth and by nostrils. And this holds even if the smoke is voluntarily sent into the stomach. - Thus St. Ligorius, ibid. - The same seems to have to be said of the juice or odor of camphor, which is drawn in by way of tobacco smoke (in French: cigarette de Raspail).

332. • QUESTION 5. Whether he looses the fast who takes a leaf of tobacco, or an aromatic, so that he may crush it with his teeth and spit out the phlegm?

Resp. No, probably, even if beyond the intention some small amount of juice inseparably mixed with saliva is swallowed; because if this is swallowed accidentally, it is conveyed not by way of food, but by way of saliva. But all agree that chewing of this kind before Communion is unbecoming; hence it does not seem to be excused from venial fault unless some reasonable cause intervenes. - St. Ligorius, ibid.

QUESTION 6. Whether he can communicate who positively doubts whether after midnight he took food or drink, or on the day itself swallowed something?

Resp. Affirmatively, more probably. The reason is that in the case it is not established that the fast has been violated, and therefore it is not established that Communion is forbidden; for the fact of a violated fast would have to be proved before the law prohibiting the Eucharist to one not fasting is invoked. - St. Ligorius, however, n. 282, with others admits this only for a negative doubt ⁴.

⁴ Yet the reason added by the same St. Alphonsus equally proves the matter also in the case of a positive doubt, namely when there are probabilities on both sides. You are not bound, he says, to abstain from it (the Eucharist), as long as you are not certain, and so much the more if you have no probable reason that you have eaten; for then you remain in possession of your liberty. This is confirmed from lib. 1, n. 38, 39, to which place St. Alphonsus himself refers the reader. For here he distinguishes nothing between positive and negative doubt; and the reason added, that in that case the law prohibiting Communion does not seem certain and, as doubtful, does not oblige, according to the mind of St. Alphonsus, as is clear, holds for both doubts.

** To confirm these things, as it seems, the VV. (p. 932, n. 97) bring forward those things which St. Alphonsus has thus in Homo apostolicus (tr. 15, n. 35): Yet doubt whether he swallowed something after midnight does not impede Communion, as we said, tr. 1, n. 19; because, as we proved there, this precept is not positive, that one approach Communion fasting, but is negative, lest one communicate after the breaking of the fast; wherefore, whenever it is not certain concerning the breaking of the fast, the prohibition no longer possesses, but the liberty of the one wishing to communicate does. Then from the Moral Work (lib. 1, n. 39) the same VV. transcribe those things which St. Alphonsus had brought forward to the same matter from Eusebius Amort, with these words: He can communicate, because the condition of the possessor is better, as long as presumptions so strong are not given to the contrary that the one acting more probably believes that the twelfth hour has already sounded. And from this we shall think it happened that the VV. changed the state of the question. For the Holy Doctor (lib. 6, n. 282) raises the question thus only about a negative doubt: But whether in a negative doubt, whether midnight has passed or not, someone can communicate. But they make the question thus (l.c.) about a positive doubt: Whether he can communicate who positively doubts whether after midnight he took food or drink, etc.; and they silently passed over the doubt as it had been proposed by the Holy Doctor.

333. • QUESTION 7. Whether it is permitted to eat and drink immediately after Communion?

Resp. Formerly indeed after Communion the fast was prescribed until Sext. But this precept has long since been abrogated. Yet from decency some delay ought to be observed between the reception of this Sacrament and other foods, at least as long as the consecrated species still persevere in the stomach not yet plainly corrupted, unless nevertheless some reasonable cause is present for taking something immediately; otherwise such eating, on account of irreverence, is not excused from venial fault. - St. Ligorius, n. 287, and others commonly.

QUESTION 8. Whether it is illicit to spit after Communion?

Resp. No, per se, provided no fragment of the Host remains in the mouth. For there is no danger of irreverence toward the sacred species, since the path by which spittle flows together into the mouth is not the esophagus, or path of food and drink, but is the path of respiration. Yet all agree that it is fitting that communicants abstain from spitting for some interval of time. - St. Ligorius, n. 283.

QUESTION 9. When is it lawful to communicate someone not fasting?

Resp. One not fasting lawfully communicates: 1. in danger of death, from whatever cause it may arise; 2. in danger lest the Eucharist perish or be badly treated, for example by heretics or impious persons; 3. in proximate danger of grave scandal from omission of the Sacrifice or Communion; 4. in the necessity of completing the Sacrifice or Communion, for example if, instead of the species of wine, the Priest has taken water, etc. - St. Ligorius, n. 284 and following.

334. • QUESTION 10. Whether moral certitude of the danger of death is required, so that Viaticum can be ministered to one not fasting?

Resp. No, but a prudent doubt suffices, or probability of danger ⁵, especially when it is to be feared lest the sick person be seized by sudden death. Indeed, Parish Priests and parents or relatives of the sick who, from negligence or vain fear, so prolong the administration of sacred Viaticum that the sick risk departing without the Eucharist, must be gravely rebuked. - St. Ligorius, Homo apostolicus, n. 46.

⁵ You will find this same doctrine handed down in other words among the Doctors, who either take the article and danger of death for one and the same, or, supposing the distinction between these two which had pleased some, teach that this exception from the common law holds not only in the article, but also in the danger of death. For a distinction of this kind is such that the article is when death is proximately imminent and is morally certain and almost inevitable; but the danger is when there is probable doubt, and death is frequently accustomed to occur in such a case. See Suarez, In 3 P., tom. IV, disp. 26, sect. 4, n. 2. - Lugo, On Penance, disp. 18, n. 20. - Sanchez, In Decal., lib. 2, cap. 13, n. 1. Now St. Alphonsus (lib. 6, n. 561) judges that such danger or probable doubt is present even in a dangerous disease, namely one which of itself is adequate for bringing danger of death. Therefore as soon as it is sufficiently established that someone has been seized by a disease of this kind, so that the Eucharist may be supplied to him even not fasting, there is no need to defer up to the point when no or slight hope of life is left, but immediately such a sick person can and ought to be considered exempt from the common law of the Church. And skillfully, after other Doctors, St. Alphonsus (lib. 6, n. 285, dub. 3, at the end) warns that one must not proceed scrupulously in this, since in the Council of Constance, sess. 13, the sick are simply excepted from the law of fasting. But the decree of the Council of Constance has itself thus: A sacrament of this kind ought not... to be received by the faithful when not fasting, except in a case of infirmity or of another necessity conceded or admitted by law or by the Church.

QUESTION 11. Whether it is ever lawful to give Communion to a sick person not fasting, and not lying dangerously ill ⁶, if the disease is long-lasting?

⁶ Extend this to those who, although they are not lying ill with disease, nevertheless cannot preserve the natural fast for some hours.

Resp. It must be denied, with attention to the present practice of the Church, unless the disease is of such a kind that of itself it can induce danger of death. Yet some Theologians sometimes permit this, if the disease is long-lasting and the sick person is never able to communicate wholly fasting, provided it is done rarely, for example a few times in the year. - Thus Elbel, n. 90. - But the most common opinion of Theologians contradicts this with Suarez, who asserts that only the Pope can dispense in this law. In reality the Supreme Pontiff is accustomed to dispense rarely and only for a grave cause. But then there seems to be sufficient reason why the Eucharist sometimes can be administered to a sick person after midnight. And indeed according to very learned Theologians interrogated at Rome, there is no doubt in the case of annual or Easter Communion, which is prescribed not by merely ecclesiastical right, but also by divine right, because a divine command is more excellent than a human one.

335. • QUESTION 12. Whether it is lawful to minister Communion again to a sick person not fasting who has already been fortified with Viaticum?

Resp. Affirmatively. The reason is that this Sacrament is not given to the sick precisely for satisfying the precept, but as a defense against temptations which press more at the time of death. Wherefore this is lawful not only if a new danger recurs, but also if the same danger endures. - Thus commonly with St. Ligorius, n. 285. - Recall what was said above, n. 308.

QUESTION 13. By how much time ought one Communion to be distant from another if the sick person communicates not fasting?

Resp. The more common opinion teaches that they ought to be distant by about eight days. But not improbably several with St. Ligorius say that a sick person accustomed to communicate more often from devotion can receive Communion without fasting twice in the week ⁷. But attention must be paid to the circumstances of places, persons, and particular statutes. Communion can more easily be conceded to sick religious, or to other pious persons living in a monastery, whether they are fasting or not, than to others; because then there is less preparation and less astonishment of the people, since the sacred Eucharist is not to be carried publicly through the streets.

⁷ That a custom of communicating frequently from devotion can be held as a sufficient reason why the Eucharist can be supplied more often to one not fasting can indeed be admitted. But that this should be so restricted to these persons that it must be denied to others who were not accustomed to communicate more often, even if they desire and request it, what reason, I ask, proves this?

** To this place the VV. (p. 932, n. 98) note that St. Alphonsus (lib. 6, n. 285, dub. 1) spoke more liberally and brought forward the opinions of Doctors who think that even daily Communion can be conceded to the sick, although not fasting. Then in the note appended, the same VV. refer the reader to Homo apostolicus (tr. 15, n. 47), where the Holy Doctor, after bringing forward other opinions, adds: Not improbably Laymann, Escobar, Roncaglia, and Hurtado confidently say that Viaticum can be repeated even on the following day, when the sick person was accustomed to communicate often and when moral danger of death is imminent; indeed Castropalao, Armilla, Tamburini, and Dicastillo admit universally that it can be repeated on any day. And these things indeed come most opportunely to be mentioned, so that the difficulties of certain persons either too timid or too morose may be met.

They then add, VV. (l.c. in note), 1. that from the doctrine of St. Alphonsus it in no way follows, as Ballerini seems to hint, that Viaticum is to be denied to others similarly disposed who previously had not been accustomed to communicate so often. And 2. soon they add: Father Ballerini will easily concede that it does not commonly happen that someone can suddenly be admitted to daily Communion.

Resp. To the first: Father Ballerini in no way said or hinted that from the words or doctrines either of Gury or of St. Alphonsus (concerning whom there was not even a word there) that conclusion follows, but judged the warning not inopportune, lest perhaps someone too timid or morose (which can happen not at all improbably) draw the same conclusion.

To the second. Resp. 1. In the note the discussion is not about daily Communion, but about Communion however more frequent according to the Response of Father Gury. 2. Whether it commonly happens that someone can suddenly be admitted to more frequent or daily Communion is an irrelevant question, since in the note it is merely signified that from a preceding rarer use of the Eucharist it does not follow that it cannot be given more frequently to one who is sick. 3. That consideration also, whether he can be admitted SUDDENLY, etc., is irrelevant. For certainly, generally as to others, whether they should be admitted sooner or later to more frequent Communion will seem to have to be defined by the trial of some time. But as to men laboring under so grave an infirmity that Communion is given to them not fasting by way of Viaticum, is there room for asking whether they communicate more frequently suddenly or not suddenly?

336. Principles. - I. By natural right there is required that exterior habit and that composition of the body which exhibit the internal reverence and devotion of the mind. The reason is clear: for to this most august Sacrament there is owed not only internal but also external veneration, since Christ Himself, by means of the species, exists and is treated in it in a certain sensible way.

II. No stain at all of the body of itself impedes from Communion, since the Eucharist is only the food of the soul, nor is purity diminished by stains of the body, which contribute nothing to moral goodness or malice. - St. Ligorius, n. 271 and 275. - Yet decency and reverence owed to so great a Sacrament require that, if filth appearing externally can be removed, it be diligently removed.

III. There is no obligation of abstaining from Communion on account of hidden stains of the body, or even those externally apparent but indelible. - St. Ligorius, ibid. - Yet if external stains, here and now indelible, are very notable and ought to cease shortly, it will be becoming, where it can conveniently be done, to defer Communion. But when they last longer, there is no reason why someone should be deprived of heavenly nourishment. - Thus commonly.

337. Resolutions. - 1. Women ought to approach Holy Communion in holy adornment, breathing modesty; if any presented themselves to the sacred table very indecently, Communion would have to be denied to them, yet with due cautions for preventing scandals as far as can be done.

2. Leprosy, flux of blood, and similar things, which happen without the fault of the sufferer, do not of themselves prohibit from Communion, because those stains do not obstruct devotion, which is the disposition required for Communion. - St. Ligorius, ibid.

3. A Priest infected with leprosy or another infirmity exciting horror can celebrate, but not in public; for thus it is established from Canon Law. - St. Ligorius, ibid.

316. - On the fast to be observed, historical. Acts of the Apostles 20, 7 and the letter of Pliny to Trajan, X, 97, 98, are understood by most concerning a eucharistic celebration which was customarily done in the evening; at which hour fasting seems excluded. Yet Tertullian also mentions a celebration before dawn (De corona militum, c. 3. P.L. 2, 79.80). That the sacraments of the altar are to be celebrated only by fasting persons is testified to us by the Third Council of Carthage (397), c. 29 (Mansi, III, 885). At least somewhere an exception was made on Thursday in the Lord's Supper, when the Lenten fast itself was interrupted. Yet the Council of Laodicea (around 380), c. 50 (Harduin, I, 798), wants the fast to be observed on that day also; this is confirmed by the Trullan Council, in whose canon 29 the exception of the Lord's Supper is expressly removed, admitted in the Third Council of Carthage, in the canon mentioned above (Harduin, III, 1071). A special canon 808 urges an obligation distinct from the obligation of fasting to be observed before communion; and by canon 277, §5, dispensation is reserved to the Holy Office.

The general law of preserving the natural fast before Communion already existed, without doubt, in the fourth century. St. Augustine (epist. ad Ianuarium, n. 8, P. L. 33, 203) bears witness to it for us in these words: "For on this account it pleased the Holy Spirit that, in honor of so great a sacrament, the Lord's Body should enter the mouth of a Christian before other foods; for therefore this custom is observed throughout the whole world." And the observance is inculcated by the so-called Apostolic Constitutions and by monuments which refer to them or are connected with them. Among these stand out the Egyptian Church Constitutions (which, as is probable, are the Αποστολική παράδοσις of St. Hippolytus of Rome, toward the beginning of the third century).

Thursday in the Lord's Supper was excepted; the reason for this exception, by no means mystical, is indicated to us thus by St. Augustine. "For I do not think this was instituted except because many, and almost all in most places, were accustomed to bathe on that day... And because some fast, it is offered in the morning on account of those dining, because they cannot bear fasts and baths together; but toward evening on account of those fasting." The holy Doctor derives the very usage of bathing from the custom of those to be baptized, who then, after laying aside the filth contracted by the Lenten observance, disposed themselves for Baptism by purification of the body (op. cit., n. 9, 10).

Where we treated of fasting before Mass, we alleged the canons of the Council of Laodicea and of the Third Council of Carthage, which urged the obligation of fasting even on the Lord's Supper. Already before the fourth century Tertullian, besides the celebrations before dawn, mentions the bread which (at home) "we are accustomed to taste before every other food" (Ad uxorem, l. II, c. 5, P. L. 2, 1296). Yet in the first times, as is manifest from 1 Cor. 11, 20, the taking of food preceded the eucharistic banquet.

Requirements. A threefold bodily disposition is required: 1. decency of attire; 2. cleanliness of body; and 3. the natural fast.

196. 1. Decency of attire is required because of the reverence due to so great a sacrament; but it is violated both by deficiency and by disordered luxury. Provided, however, that the attire is clean and not torn, its cheapness is no obstacle.

Hence the poor can approach the sacred table in cheap but clean and intact attire. He commits no small irreverence toward the Eucharist in whose attire disordered and altogether worldly luxury appears. For one ought not to go in the same attire to a dance and to Holy Communion. Therefore, women especially sin who by immodest attire give scandal to sensible members of the faithful. But if the immodesty of the attire is excessive, and especially if it is scandalous, such women, as publicly unworthy, are to be excluded from Holy Communion. It is fitting that gloves be removed before Communion, and likewise that soldiers approaching the sacred table first lay aside their arms. Priests communicating after the manner of laymen must, according to the prescription of the Ritual,¹¹³ put on a stole. This rubric indeed seems to bind also if the priest is going to communicate in sickness.¹¹⁴ Deacons approaching privately to Holy Communion must wear over the cotta (surplice) a transverse stole, white or of the same color as that of the priest who administers.¹¹⁵

¹¹³ Tit. 4, c. 2, n. 4.

¹¹⁴ Cf. St. Alphonsus, Theol. mor., l. 6, n. 276.

¹¹⁵ Decr. auth., n. 3499, dub. 2; Roman Ritual, tit. 4, c. 2, rubr. 4.

197. 2. Cleanliness of body is likewise required of one receiving this nourishing sacrament. Now the body is considered unclean: a) because of adhering dirt; b) because of illnesses outwardly disfiguring; c) because of the flow of semen or menstrual blood.

a) Adhering and visible dirt is to be washed away before the reception of Communion. Hence one who approaches the sacred table with very dirty hands, face, and head sins; but a priest can or ought only very rarely to repel someone from Communion for this reason.¹¹⁶

b) Illnesses outwardly disfiguring, such as a grave inflammation of the eye, eczema, psoriasis, etc., do not of themselves impede the reception of the Eucharist, since they are involuntary, cannot be removed at will, and do not affect the purity of the soul itself. Accidentally, however, namely, if such blemishes strike horror into those who see them and will cease shortly, it is better either to abstain from Communion for a brief time or to receive it privately without outsiders assisting.

c) A flow of semen which was joined with mortal sin impedes the reception of Communion on the same day, even if the sin has been erased through a good confession. Thus the rubric of the Missal.¹¹⁷ Nevertheless, if a just cause exists, it is lawful to receive Communion in this case after the sin has been erased. But a flow of semen which occurs without any sin, namely, in an involuntary emission (or in the conjugal act), does not of itself impede the reception of Communion or even the celebration of Mass.¹¹⁸ The reason is that otherwise a great inconvenience would arise. For according to physiologists, involuntary emissions are sometimes something altogether natural in those who do not exercise carnal intercourse. Similarly, the conjugal act is sometimes necessary and strictly due. But it would be harsh if, because of an unavoidable natural act or one strictly due, a man were excluded from the table of the Lord. The same is to be said of the flow of menstrual blood and of purification after childbirth in women. Accidentally, it is sometimes counseled in these cases to abstain from Communion or the celebration of Mass because of the disturbance of mind which follows therefrom and the carnal movements still existing. If a flow of semen was joined with venial sin, for example, if marital intercourse was had from pleasure and without necessity, or if an emission occurred from a venially evil cause, then it is a venial sin to approach Holy Communion without necessity, unless, however, this venial sin was previously erased through confession or in another manner. The reason is that then there are both bodily uncleanness and a stain of the soul, which two things are contrary to the reverence due to so great a sacrament.¹¹⁹ It belongs to the confessor to judge in individual cases what is more expedient after all the circumstances have been considered. Ancient authors were often excessively severe in this matter.

¹¹⁶ Cf. Gasparri, De S. euchar., n. 1132.

¹¹⁷ De defect. Missae, tit. 9, n. 5; cf. S. theol. 3, q. 80, a. 7 ad 4.

¹¹⁸ Cf. St. Alphonsus, Theol. mor., l. 6, n. 272.

¹¹⁹ S. theol., loc. cit., a. 7.

198. 3. The natural fast (that is, abstinence from all food and drink from the preceding midnight) is required by a grave precept of the Church for licitly receiving Communion. Thus it is from the most ancient universal custom, which has been confirmed in several Councils¹²⁰ and in the Code of Canon Law, c. 858.

Thus the Council of Constance says: "Although Christ instituted and administered to His disciples after supper ... this venerable sacrament, nevertheless, notwithstanding this, the authority of the sacred canons and the laudable and approved custom of the Church has observed and observes that a sacrament of this kind ought not to be confected after supper, nor received by the faithful when they are not fasting, except in a case of sickness or another necessity conceded or admitted by law or by the Church."¹²¹ These things were indeed approved by Martin V through the Bull In eminentis in 1418.

Christ, indeed, wishing to conform Himself to the Mosaic law, administered the Eucharist after the celebration of the Pasch; in the times of the Apostles also, an agape was not rarely placed before Holy Communion. But already St. Augustine¹²² said that this natural fast was "observed throughout the whole world." The day of the Lord's Supper was nevertheless excepted, on which Communion was received in the evening after supper. The reason why the Church introduced the natural fast before Communion is the reverence due to so great a sacrament. For it is not fitting that the Eucharistic food be received after another food has shortly before filled the stomach. Therefore, it is also fitting that one who communicates shortly after midnight (as is customarily done on the Nativity of the Lord) should have taken no food for some hours. Nothing indeed has been established in this matter by general law, but abstinence for several hours has sometimes been sanctioned by particular law. Thus, for example, Leo XIII¹²³ granted the privilege of celebrating Mass in the church at Lourdes immediately after midnight under this restriction: that priests then celebrating had abstained from food and drink for four hours beforehand.

This ecclesiastical law of the natural fast altogether admits no parvity of matter, either on the part of the time or on the part of the thing consumed; therefore, even the least thing which is consumed after the manner of food and drink violates it and constitutes a grave sin unless there is an excuse, concerning which below. The reason is that it is not so much a precept of approaching the Eucharist fasting as rather of not approaching after food or drink has been consumed. But one who communicates after any smallest portion has been consumed already communicates after food or drink.¹²⁴ It is very becoming that even after Communion (for at least a quarter of an hour) no food or drink be consumed; nevertheless, a cause excusing and rendering it honorable can easily be present. For example, if a priest immediately after Mass must carry Viaticum to a very distant place, he can licitly take some food or drink beforehand. The old discipline in this matter was much more severe.¹²⁵

For the sake of greater clarity, the extension of this law is first to be explained, and then exemption from it.

¹²⁰ For example, Council of Hippo, A.D. 393, can. 28; Council in Trullo, can. 29; Council of Constance, A.D. 1415, sess. 13.

¹²¹ Denz., n. 626.

¹²² Epistle 54 (otherwise 118), n. 8 (Migne, Patr. lat. 33, 203).

¹²³ February 26, 1885.

¹²⁴ St. Alphonsus, loc. cit., n. 278.

¹²⁵ Cf. S. theol. 3, q. 80, a. 8 ad 6.

199. The extension of the law of fasting concerns its object and its time.

The object of this law is total abstinence from all food and drink before Communion, as has been said. I say: before Communion, for the fast does not seem to be violated if, together with the consecrated species or immediately afterward, water or wine is given which perhaps passes into the stomach before the consecrated species itself. For it is one reception. Thus, according to the liturgical prescription, water is given to a sick person to drink after Communion has been received; wine is given to clerics communicating on the Lord's Supper; but on Good Friday a consecrated host is placed into unconsecrated wine and is consumed together with it.¹²⁶

Three things are required for the notion of food and drink:

a) That the thing consumed be digestible. Hence, if someone were to swallow metal, a small stone, a silken or woolen thread, fingernails, etc., he would not violate the natural fast; the contrary is to be said of straw, grass, etc.

b) That the thing come from outside, because that which comes from within is not properly eaten or drunk. Therefore, one who swallows saliva or blood flowing from the teeth or even the nostrils does not violate the fast. The same seems to be said of remnants of food which adhere between the teeth. There are indeed some authors who deny this or distinguish, saying: If such remnants are swallowed accidentally, the fast is not broken; but otherwise if they are swallowed with full will. This distinction indeed seems insufficiently solid, since the violation of the fast is a physical thing altogether independent of the will. For if water is poured into someone, however much he resists, he is already not fasting and cannot communicate. Therefore, no one is to be troubled if before Communion he has swallowed remnants of food adhering between the teeth.¹²⁷ The matter is otherwise if someone in the evening placed sugar or other lozenges in his mouth and, after midnight, swallows them while they are still present in the mouth. For then there is true food or drink, and the fast is violated.

c) That it be consumed after the manner of eating or drinking. Therefore, the fast is not broken by those things which pass into the stomach: 1. after the manner of saliva, such as droplets of water with which the teeth, mouth, or throat are washed; droplets of blood which adhere to a slightly wounded finger; or tobacco which is chewed, provided that the juice is spat out. Although chewing tobacco in this manner does not break the natural fast, it is nevertheless very indecent before Communion and is not excused from venial sin.¹²⁸ 2. After the manner of inhalation, as if someone smokes tobacco or swallows tobacco placed in the nostrils, or if someone swallows a drop of rain, a fly, or dust accidentally flying into the mouth. If, however, someone deliberately ate flies or similar things, he would violate the fast. One who, in order to wash out the stomach,¹²⁹ draws in water by means of an instrument and casts it out again, as is now often done by a physician's prescription, probably does not violate the fast, even if perhaps a small part of the water remains in the stomach, because nothing is consumed after the manner of drink.¹³⁰

¹²⁶ Cf. Roman Missal, De defect. Missae, tit. 9, n. 3, and S. theol. 3, q. 80, a. 8 ad 4.

¹²⁷ Thus also teaches the rubric De defect. Missae, loc. cit.

¹²⁸ St. Alphonsus, Theol. mor., l. 6, n. 280.

¹²⁹ German: Den Magen auspumpen (to pump out the stomach); French: laver l'estomac (to wash the stomach).

¹³⁰ Cf. Monitore ecclesiastico IX, 184. Today physicians often employ so-called "artificial nutrition," namely, by means of a tube which passes nourishment into the stomach or by means of an injection into the rectum. This latter manner does not seem to violate the natural fast, since gastric digestion is not had there; it is otherwise with the first manner.

200. The time of midnight is to be computed from the first stroke of a clock correctly indicating the twelfth hour. Theologians commonly teach that one who hears the first stroke of a clock correctly announcing midnight must immediately cease eating and drinking, but need not spit out food or drink already present in the mouth but not yet swallowed. Certain old authors thought that eating or drinking could be continued until the final stroke of the clock, but in practice the first opinion is better followed.¹³¹ It is necessary to follow a clock correctly indicating the time; hence, if several clocks indicating differently are present, the clock which seems to be more correct is to be followed. Nevertheless, excessive scruples are to be avoided in these cases, since it concerns only a positive ecclesiastical law, and therefore in a case of doubt it is lawful to follow any clock which is probably correct.

At present, in almost all places, true or solar time is distinguished from mean or legal time. Solar time is diverse in diverse places according to the apparent movement of the sun. Mean or legal time is the same in all places of the same country. Now the faithful can, but are not bound to, follow either solar or legal time in observing the natural fast and in reciting the Divine Office.¹³² A difficulty can arise if someone at night passes from one place where one legal time is in force to another place where a greatly different legal time is in force. For example, at Brussels someone eats supper at 11:45 in the evening and then departs for Aachen, where on the following day he receives Holy Communion. But since 11:45 at Brussels is 12:45 at Aachen, it can be doubted whether such a man is still fasting. With deference to a better opinion, it seems more conformable to the mind of the law if midnight is always computed according to the clocks of that place in which Communion is received. For the fast exists on account of Communion. Therefore, it is to be measured according to the latter. Nevertheless, one who ate supper at Brussels at 11:45 in the evening and communicated the following day at Aachen is not to be troubled, because the prohibition is not certain, nor has the Church determined anything concerning this matter.

¹³¹ Cf. St. Alphonsus, loc. cit., n. 282.

¹³² Code of Canon Law, c. 33, § 1.

201. Exemption from the natural or Eucharistic fast is granted in six cases:

1. For completing the sacrifice of the Mass.

For the divine obligation not to leave the sacrifice incomplete is greater than the ecclesiastical obligation of the sacramental fast. This case can occur in diverse ways:

a) If the priest consumed water in place of the species of wine and notices this while he has it in his mouth, it is not to be spat out because of the danger of casting out a particle of the Host previously consumed, but is to be swallowed. The rubric of the Missal then prescribes that the oblation and consecration be made again, a new host being taken and wine being poured into the chalice; if, however, "Mass is celebrated in a public place where several persons are present, in order to avoid scandal he will be able to add wine with water, and, the oblation having been made, consecrate and immediately consume it and proceed with the rest."¹³³

b) If, after the consecration of one or both species, the priest is seized by a sudden illness and cannot complete the sacrifice. Then, if a fasting priest is lacking, the sacrifice must be completed by another who is not fasting. But the priest thus completing the sacrifice cannot celebrate another Mass on the same day,¹³⁴ unless, however, he has the faculty of bination.

c) If, after the consecration of one or both species, the priest remembers that he is not fasting, he must nevertheless complete the sacrifice. But if he notices the same thing before the consecration, then "I would consider it safer ... that he abandon the Mass begun, unless grave scandal were feared." Thus St. Thomas.¹³⁵ Such grave scandal is almost always present if the priest celebrates in a public chapel.

d) If, after already consuming the ablution, the priest finds upon the corporal a host or particle of a host which he can neither replace in the tabernacle nor preserve becomingly in another manner, then let him consume such consecrated remains, "whether they are small or large, because they pertain to the same sacrifice." Thus the Missal.¹³⁶ But fragments of another sacrifice are not to be consumed after the ablution has been consumed unless a danger of grave irreverence has arisen.

2. For avoiding the profanation of the Eucharist.¹³⁷

This can occur in diverse ways; for example, when a fire is imminent or heretics are breaking in and threatening sacrilegious violation, even a priest who is not fasting could distribute consecrated hosts to himself and to others not fasting, lest they be violated. Indeed, a layman could then, if a priest or deacon is lacking, save the hosts with his own hands. The reason is evident. For an intrinsically licit means is employed to avoid a great evil.

3. For avoiding public scandal.

For the natural law of avoiding scandal prevails over the ecclesiastical law of observing the sacramental fast. Older theologians speak more severely in this matter. Thus, for example, Busembaum:¹³⁸ "Some nevertheless think that this can scarcely occur, because the scandal can be met by saying that the priest accidentally consumed something and is therefore impeded." Certainly, the sole reason that the people should not have to be without Mass on a feast day of precept does not excuse from the law of fasting, which seems to bind more gravely than the precept of hearing Mass; but scandal or sinister detractions by the people are almost always rightly feared if the priest must declare to the people prepared to hear Mass on feast days that he cannot celebrate because the fast was violated. Moreover, it is often to be feared that several persons will then culpably neglect to hear Mass elsewhere, even if this is possible for them. Since these things are so, the ecclesiastical law of fasting is not to be exaggerated, and therefore, if scandal is feared in some measure but truly, a priest who is not fasting can say Mass. If a priest having the faculty of bination, that is, of saying two Masses on Sundays and feast days, has through forgetfulness consumed the ablution in the first Mass or has otherwise broken the fast after Mass, he can no longer say the second Mass, even if wonder or scandal among the people would arise therefrom. Thus the Holy Office on December 2, 1874. For in this case the scandal is pharisaical and is to be despised, since all can easily know that the priest omits Mass for no other reason than the broken fast. Nevertheless, if even in this case grave scandal would arise, the priest could say the second Mass, because today the discipline of the Eucharistic fast has been made milder than it was in the year 1874. But if without scandal the priest can declare that he cannot celebrate because of the violated fast, and the people cannot conveniently hear Mass elsewhere, it is preferable that another sacred function then be held in the church in place of Mass.

¹³³ De defect. Missae, tit. 4, n. 5.

¹³⁴ Thus Leo XII through the Sacred Congregation of Rites, December 16, 1823 (Decr. auth., n. 2630).

¹³⁵ S. theol. 3, q. 83, a. 6 ad 2.

¹³⁶ De defect. Missae, tit. 7, n. 2.

¹³⁷ Code of Canon Law, c. 858, § 1.

¹³⁸ In St. Alphonsus, Theol. mor., l. 6, n. 287.

202. 4. For receiving Viaticum.

Viaticum is Communion received in danger of death. In a probable danger of death which arises from any cause whatsoever (from a wound, poison, illness, an impending dangerous surgical operation, or a sentence of a judge), the Eucharist can licitly be received by one who is not fasting. Thus it is from universal custom, from the Council of Constance cited above, and from the Code of Canon Law, c. 858, § 1. This indult, however, does not seem to be understood as if someone in danger of death could communicate when not fasting from mere whim. This indeed seems certain if someone who is not gravely ill receives Viaticum, for example, soldiers before battle, a man before a very dangerous surgical operation, or one condemned to death before execution. But not even the sick can receive Viaticum when not fasting entirely at will, without any excusing reason. For the Council of Constance requires some necessity; therefore, some reasonable cause must be present, even if it is not so grave. But any reasonable inconvenience on the part either of the sick person, of those serving him, or of the priest himself suffices for Viaticum to be given to one who is not fasting. Hence St. Alphonsus, after the Salamancans, rightly notes that one must not proceed scrupulously in this matter.¹³⁹

Concerning the repetition of Viaticum, the Roman Ritual establishes:¹⁴⁰ "While the danger of death continues, it is both lawful and fitting that Holy Viaticum be administered several times, on distinct days, according to the prudent counsel of the confessor." The reason is that this sacrament is given to the sick not solely to satisfy the precept, but also for consolation and protection against temptations. The opinion already held probable by St. Alphonsus,¹⁴¹ and which is almost certain (cf. Code of Canon Law, c. 864, § 3), teaches that a sick person in danger of death can receive Viaticum even every day.

Theologians, especially the older ones, also ask here whether a priest who is not fasting can and ought to celebrate Mass in order to confect the Eucharist which he is to give after Mass to a man in danger of death. This case is certainly very rare, but if it truly occurred, then neither would Mass be to be prohibited nor would the ecclesiastical law of fasting be to be urged to the detriment of the divine law of receiving Viaticum and to the spiritual harm of the dying man.¹⁴²

¹³⁹ Loc. cit., n. 285.

¹⁴⁰ Tit. 4, c. 4, n. 1.

¹⁴¹ Loc. cit. Thus also the Code of Canon Law, c. 864, § 3.

¹⁴² St. Alphonsus, loc. cit., n. 286.

203. 5. Sick persons who have now been confined to bed for a month (for thirty days), without certain hope that they will recover quickly (that is, within a few days), can, on the prudent counsel of a confessor, receive the Most Holy Eucharist once or twice in the week, even if they have previously taken some medicine or something after the manner of drink.

Thus the Code of Canon Law, c. 858, § 2. All those things which are drunk or can be drunk, even if they nourish, are consumed after the manner of drink, for example, coffee, tea, chocolate, milk even mixed with a liquefied egg, wine, etc.¹⁴³ Nothing prevents even solid medicine from being taken, for example, pills. It is required, however, a) that the prudent counsel of a confessor precede; b) that such a sick person be confined to bed, although not for the whole day and night. Therefore, sick persons who can leave the house and receive Communion in an outside oratory or church do not seem able to use this indult.¹⁴⁴

Note. a) Although those sick persons who can rise from bed for several hours can also use this indult, nevertheless priests who are sick in this manner cannot say Mass, even in a private oratory, if they cannot observe the natural fast. For the indult does not seem to have force except for lay Communion, but not for saying Mass.¹⁴⁵

b) A confessor indeed cannot concede that such sick persons communicate without fasting more than twice in a week; nothing, however, prevents the same sick persons from receiving Communion fasting on other days of the week also.

6. "Although the fast seems to be broken by the salt tasted beforehand by catechumens in the conferral of Baptism, nevertheless there is still no doubt that, after Baptism has been received, they can, indeed ought to, be admitted to Holy Communion." Thus the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, February 16, 1806.

¹⁴³ Cf. Holy Office, September 7, 1897.

¹⁴⁴ Thus teaches the common opinion, which is nevertheless opposed by Cappello (De sacr., n. 506) and Vermeersch (Commentar., n. 57 [1922]).

¹⁴⁵ Thus also Göpfert, *Moraltheol.*⁷ III, 67; cf. Code of Canon Law, c. 808.

204. Scholion. On dispensation from the Eucharistic fast. In the law of the sacramental fast, no one by his own authority can dispense except the Supreme Pontiff. Examples of dispensations of this kind are not lacking. Thus Julius III is said to have dispensed Emperor Charles V, and Pius IV the missionaries in the Indies, according to the circumstances of affairs.¹⁴⁶ In our days this dispensation can be obtained without such great difficulty from the Sacred Congregation of the Sacraments for the faithful, from the Holy Office for priests celebrating Mass, and from the Sacred Congregation of Religious for religious communicating, if reasonable causes are present; indeed, for priests in a more urgent case, from the local Ordinary.¹⁴⁷

But is it lawful to employ epikeia in this law if someone otherwise cannot receive Easter Communion? Several affirm it, for example, Toletus,¹⁴⁸ Gasparri,¹⁴⁹ D'Annibale,¹⁵⁰ Génicot,¹⁵¹ Berardi,¹⁵² Lehmkuhl,¹⁵³ and Noldin.¹⁵⁴ The reason is that Easter Communion is commanded by a quasi-divine precept which prevails over the ecclesiastical law of fasting. This opinion indeed seems probable, but in practice scandal is to be guarded against; indeed, if it is possible, Communion should rather be administered to such sick persons shortly after midnight. Moreover, the case is exceedingly rare in which throughout the entire Easter season someone is so sick that he cannot receive Communion either as Viaticum, or according to the indult of Pius X explained above, or while fasting.

Similarly, according to some authors (for example, Génicot, Cappello, and Cornelisse), with epikeia employed, it is lawful, in order to avoid the gravest inconveniences, that a newly ordained priest who involuntarily and secretly is not fasting celebrate his solemn first Mass; likewise, that a child not fasting receive solemn First Communion.

¹⁴⁶ See Benedict XIV, De syn. dioec., l. 6, c. 8, n. 19.

¹⁴⁷ Cf. Holy Office, March 22, 1923 (Acta Ap. Sed. XV, 151).

¹⁴⁸ Summa casuum consc., l. 2, c. 28.

¹⁴⁹ De euchar. II, n. 1129.

¹⁵⁰ Summula Theol. mor. III, n. 411.

¹⁵¹ Theol. mor. II, n. 202.

¹⁵² Exam. confess. I, n. 764.

¹⁵³ Theol. mor. II, n. 221.

¹⁵⁴ De sacr., n. 157.

On the part of the body, two things are required: 1. fasting; 2. cleanliness and decent habit.

First we shall speak concerning the obligation of fasting, then concerning the causes excusing from it.

1556. Principles. I. For the licit consumption of the Eucharist NATURAL FASTING is required, namely that the one about to communicate has consumed nothing of food or drink from midnight. - This is clear both from universal custom, which has constantly flourished from the time of the Apostles to the present, and from various Councils, especially from Constance.⁷ But this precept was sanctioned on account of the reverence due to the Sacrament, and on account of its signification, "namely that it may be given to be understood that Christ, who is the reality of this Sacrament, and His charity ought first to be founded in our hearts."⁸

But although this precept is not of divine law, but only of ecclesiastical law, nevertheless it does not admit smallness of matter: "because the precept is not now of approaching the Eucharist fasting, but of not approaching after food or drink; but he who communicates after any very small part whatever already communicates after food or drink. Thus all."⁹

1557. II. For breaking the natural fast THREE things are required: 1. that what is consumed come from outside; 2. that it have the nature of food or drink; 3. that it be consumed after the manner of eating or drinking. - Thus authors commonly.¹⁰

It is required 1. That what is consumed come from outside; for, as St. Thomas observes, what comes from within is not eaten, and therefore does not harm the natural fast. - Hence, he can communicate who has swallowed saliva, or phlegm, or blood flowing from the interior head or gums, even if he has swallowed it purposely. - But indeed he cannot communicate who at night placed sugar in his mouth, and after midnight swallowed some; nor he who swallowed blood flowing from the fingers, or tears flowing from the eyes; nor he who, having fallen or been thrown into a river, swallowed water.¹¹

It is required 2. That it have the nature of food or drink; for according to the more common and more probable opinion, only digestible things break the fast, but not indigestible things. Hence: hair, metals, crystal, nails, silk or woolen threads, little fruit-stones altogether cleaned, because they are not digested, do not have the nature of food. - The contrary must be said of paper, straw, linen threads, medicinal powder, wax, earth or chalk, etc., which, altered in the stomach, can be converted into the substance of a human being.¹²

It is required 3. That it be consumed after the manner of eating or drinking. Therefore every digestible thing which is deliberately transmitted into the stomach breaks the fast, although it is transmitted in an unaccustomed manner, for example through the nostrils; because such an action is morally equivalent to drinking or eating. But that which is drawn in unintentionally, after the manner of breathing or saliva, does not break the fast. - Hence, the fast is not broken if someone, breathing, accidentally draws in flies, water, snow, etc.; but it is broken if someone draws in such things purposely. Likewise, it is not broken by tobacco taken through the nostrils, nor by the smoke of tobacco, or by juice of camphor, nor by tobacco rubbed with the teeth; provided the juice is spat out, and if anything is swallowed beyond intention, it is mixed with saliva and passes as such, not as food. But although chewing of this kind does not impede Communion, nevertheless it is indecent, nor is it easily excused from venial sin.¹³

1558. Questions. Q. 1. Whether to swallow REMAINS OF FOOD left in the mouth, or DROPS OF WATER mixed with saliva, breaks the fast?

Resp. The first opinion, not improbable, denies simply, whether this happens accidentally or purposely. The reason is both that the passing down of such remains is not to be regarded as a new eating, but as part of the preceding eating; and because they are consumed not after the manner of food, but after the manner of saliva. And the Rubric of the Missal indeed seems to favor this opinion. But the second opinion, more common and more probable, says that the fast is broken if they are swallowed purposely, but not if accidentally. The reason is that the passing down of remains of this kind, when it happens by design, seems to be a new eating. Yet no obligation is given of applying diligence to extracting those remains from the teeth; "for otherwise this obligation would be liable to innumerable scruples and perplexities, to which certainly the Church is not presumed to have wished to oblige."¹⁴ Hence also the fast is not broken, according to the Rubric, "if, in washing the mouth, a drop of water is swallowed beyond intention"; provided it does not pass down in a great quantity, but mixed with saliva, which cannot be avoided. And the same must be said of the remains of wine, or of broth, which someone has tasted.¹⁵

Q. 2. Whether it is licit, immediately after the Eucharist has been received, to consume an ABLUTION, by which the particle may be swallowed more easily?

Resp. Affirmatively, where such a custom flourishes, or necessity requires it, for example if someone suffers extreme dryness of mouth. But in this case, "although the ablution is swallowed before the host or fragments of the host, nevertheless this does not obstruct the fast. The reason is that the violation is not judged morally to have preceded Communion; for the precept of the fast is that nothing be consumed before the reception of the Eucharist; but when the Eucharist is consumed together at the same time with the ablution, then that whole thing from the ablution and particles is consumed by one single consumption; whence it is well verified that the violation of the fast did not precede Communion."¹⁶

Q. 3. Whether one who dined before midnight can communicate A LITTLE AFTER, and while the food has not yet been digested?

Resp. This is not prohibited by reason of the fast, since this is truly observed; wherefore, a just cause being present, it can be done.¹⁷

Q. 4. How is the time of MIDNIGHT to be computed?

Resp. It is to be computed physically, not morally. Now, at the first stroke of the hour, midnight is completed; wherefore he cannot communicate who swallows food after the first stroke, but before the last.¹⁸ But the time is rightly determined from public clocks; for, in designating time, the Church follows that rule which publicly directs all human business in individual places.¹⁹ Yet it is licit, at one's choice, to follow true or mean time; indeed the time of another meridian, for example of the metropolis, if the public clocks of the place mark it.²⁰

Q. 5. Whether IN DOUBT whether he has broken the fast, someone can communicate?

Resp. Affirmatively. For the law of fasting is prohibitive, namely forbidding that someone communicate after food has been consumed; wherefore the fact of the broken fast must be proved, that someone may be prohibited from communicating. And as long as the breaking is not established, liberty of communicating possesses. This reason applies both for the case in which you doubt whether you consumed something of food or drink, and for the case in which, certain of the consumption, you doubt whether you consumed it after midnight (cf. n. 49, 2).

Hence the Doctors very commonly affirm that, among several discordant clocks, it is licit to follow the last, for receiving Communion; provided the error is not established, or the clock is not one of those which for the most part err, because these are presumed always to err.²¹ The reason is that individual good clocks generate a probable opinion, and therefore a positive doubt.

Q. 6. Whether it is licit to eat or drink IMMEDIATELY after Communion?

Resp. Formerly fasting after Communion until Sext was prescribed; but this precept has now long since been abrogated. Nevertheless, to eat and drink without cause, while the sacred species still endure in the stomach, where they are judged to endure for a quarter of an hour in priests, is not excused from venial sin. Thus commonly. It was said without cause; because any just cause excuses, for example if the sign for table were given for a Religious.²²

Q. 7. Whether it is licit to SPIT OUT immediately after Communion?

Resp. "All agree that it is indeed fitting that those communicating abstain from spitting out for some interval of time, and the Ritual agrees. - Yet authors say there is no sin in spitting out after Communion, if no fragment of the host has remained in the mouth."²³

1559. The law of the Eucharistic fast, since it is positive and ecclesiastical, sometimes admits an exception, but on account of most grave causes, which can stand either on the part of the Sacrament or on the part of man. The CASES in which the Eucharist can be received by one not fasting are numbered as FOUR:

I. When the Sacrifice must be completed. This can happen in many ways, namely: 1. If the priest notices that he took water for wine, etc.; in which case he ought again to consecrate either each species, or at least the wine, as was said above (n. 1528, II).

2. If it happens that the priest fails after consecration; in which case another priest, even one not fasting, is held to complete the Sacrifice. 3. If the priest, after the consecration even of one species, remembers that he is not fasting, he is held to finish the Mass. It was said after consecration; for if he remembers before it, he is held to desist, as often as this can be done without scandal or infamy. - 4. If the priest, after the ablution has been consumed, notices some relics of the same Sacrifice, he ought to consume them, as we have said (n. 1542, q. 4).¹

II. When grave irreverence against the Sacrament is to be avoided; for example if there is danger that the sacred Host may perish, or be corrupted, or be badly handled by infidels or heretics; because the precept of preventing such irreverence prevails over the precept of fasting, as they commonly teach. - Whence, if a priest is then absent, a layman can consume the sacred Host; indeed, in such a case, a priest can offer sacred particles to laymen who are not fasting.²

III. When danger of infamy or scandal is to be avoided, which would arise from the omission of Mass or Communion; for in this case the natural precept urges, which prevails over the ecclesiastical precept. Now, the case would be if a priest celebrating in public remembered before consecration that he was not fasting, and could not depart without scandal. - Similarly, if on a Sunday or feast day Mass had to be celebrated for the people, and the pastor, not fasting, had no other fasting priest to celebrate. Yet it is supposed in this last case that no one knows the pastor is not fasting; otherwise a greater scandal would arise, at least among the simple, from the celebration than from the omission of Mass.³

IV. When the article or danger of death is imminent, from whatever cause the danger proceeds, whether from natural illness, or from the sentence of a judge (cf. n. 1565). - It is also licit for one not fasting to celebrate in order to avoid danger of death, provided this is not demanded in contempt of the Church.⁴

And here a fifth case can be added, from a response given by the S. C. de Prop. Fide to the Vicar Apostolic of Eastern Tonkin (February 13, 1806), which has itself thus: "Salt having been tasted beforehand by catechumens in the conferral of Baptism, although the fast seems to be broken, still there is no doubt that, Baptism having been received, they can be admitted to Holy Communion, indeed must be."⁵

1560. Questions. Q. 1. Whether and HOW OFTEN in the same infirmity it is licit for a sick person not fasting to REPEAT Communion after the manner of Viaticum?

Resp. 1. "It is not doubted by the Doctors that Viaticum can be received several times, even during the same infirmity, since this Sacrament ought to be received not only for satisfaction of the precept, but also for strength against temptations, which in death are stronger and more dangerous. And this not only if a new danger supervenes, but also if the same danger endures. Thus commonly."⁶ And Benedict XIV⁷ exhorts Bishops that they even "decree a penalty against pastors who, when the sick devoutly ask, refuse to carry the Eucharist again and a third time on false pretexts."

Resp. 2. The common opinion is that an interval of eight days, or even six, must be interposed between Communions. Nevertheless, others not improbably teach that Viaticum can already be repeated on the following day, in the case in which the sick person had been accustomed to frequent Communion and danger of death was imminent. Indeed several authors universally admit that Communion can be offered on any day if circumstances suggest it.⁸ Thus in monasteries, and where less apparatus is required, it can more easily be conceded. - Particular statutes in this matter are also to be attended to.

Q. 2. Whether a priest can CELEBRATE not fasting, in order to minister Viaticum?

Resp. 1. Affirmatively, if the priest himself, near death, ought to celebrate in order to give himself Viaticum; for then in the same person an ecclesiastical and a divine precept concur, but the latter is to be preferred. Thus commonly.

Resp. 2. If Viaticum is to be given to another, it is controverted. The first probable opinion affirms, because the divine precept of giving and receiving Viaticum is to be preferred to the ecclesiastical precept of observing the fast. - But the second opinion, common and perhaps more probable, denies; because the precept of not celebrating after the consumption of food is also divine as to its substance, namely by reason of the reverence which is due to the Sacrament. But the precept of ministering Viaticum ceases when it cannot be ministered rightly. - Yet otherwise, if the dying person could not be fortified by the Sacrament of Penance or Extreme Unction; for the Eucharist, in this case, will be able to be a Sacrament of necessity, so that he may become contrite from attrite.⁹

Q. 3. Whether sometimes, OUTSIDE DANGER OF DEATH, it is licit to give Communion to a sick person not fasting, who cannot observe the fast, if indeed the illness is going to be long-lasting?

Resp. The common opinion denies, which common practice also confirms, since the Pontiff alone has power to dispense in this most grave law.¹⁰ - Hence, if such a case occurs, the Eucharist, with license of the Bishop, is to be carried at night, so that thus the sick person, immediately after midnight, can communicate fasting. But if this cannot be done, recourse must be had to the Supreme Pontiff for dispensation¹¹ (cf. n. 1881, end).

1561. Principles. I. "No stain of the body BY ITSELF impedes the reception of the Eucharist, since it does little toward moral goodness or malice; yet sometimes BY ACCIDENT it can impede, on account of the effects which follow."¹² - For before all else it is required that one about to receive the Eucharist be immune from every venereal filth. Concerning this matter the following things are to be noted:

1. On account of voluntary pollution which occurred on the same day, even if it has been expiated through the Sacrament of Penance, one must abstain from Communion under venial sin, just as also from celebration, unless a just cause excuses, "as will seem to the prudent confessor," as the Rubric of the Missal speaks.¹³ But on account of involuntary pollution one is not to abstain, unless perhaps from the commotion of the body disturbance of the mind still endures; for to approach with disturbance of this kind is commonly not excused from venial sin, unless some just cause is present, or unless the person strives, as much as he can, to quiet the disturbed mind, and applies diligence that he may approach devoutly, as all reasonably teach.¹⁴

2. The conjugal act, by itself, does not impede worthy Communion, if the debt was asked or rendered from a good end, for example for obtaining offspring, or for avoiding incontinence. But if it was rendered or asked for the sake of pleasure alone, or if disturbance remains in the mind from it, etc., one must abstain on that day under venial sin, on account of decency. Yet any reasonable cause excuses.¹⁵ - To a spouse asking whether he is held to render on the day of Communion, St. Alphonsus proposes this RULE: If he communicates frequently, he ought to render, lest by his devotion he burden his consort, and lest justice or charity be injured; but if he communicates only on the principal feasts, let him invite the spouse to continence, in honor of the Sacrament; if the other resists, let him render, and nevertheless communicate, provided he is otherwise disposed.¹⁶

3. Those having notable external uncleanness, which can easily be removed, should deservedly abstain until they have been cleaned. Yet if it is hidden, or perpetual and involuntary, as leprosy, flow of blood, scabies, it does not impede Communion. - But to a priest who is leprous, or laboring under a horrible disease, it is permitted to celebrate privately, since in the Law it is prohibited only "on account of the scandal and abomination of the people."¹⁷

1562. II. By natural law, an EXTERIOR HABIT and COMPOSITION of the body are required, which exhibit internal reverence and devotion of the soul. - The reason is evident; for to this most august Sacrament not only internal but also external veneration is due, since Christ Himself, by means of the species, exists and is handled in it in a certain sensible manner.¹⁸

Hence: 1. Women ought to approach Holy Communion in holy adornment, redolent of modesty. If any should present themselves very indecently at the sacred Table, for example with the breast uncovered, Communion would have to be denied to them, yet with due precautions, so far as can be done, to prevent scandals.¹⁹ 2. It is fitting that armed persons approach with weapons laid aside. The soldiers of St. John are excepted, who bear arms as a sign of Religion to be defended.²⁰ 3. Priests communicating in the manner of laymen should communicate with a stole. Thus the Rubric, which seems to prescribe this under venial sin.²¹

A twofold disposition is required on the part of the body, namely 1° fasting; 2° decency.

1308. - Principles. I. From the precept of the Church, for Communion there is required natural fasting, or total abstinence after midnight from any thing whatever, however minimal, which by way of food, drink, or medicine is conveyed into the stomach, with certain cases nevertheless excepted. It is established 1° from the universal custom of the Church and unanimous tradition; 2° from all Catechisms and Rituals approved by the Church;³ 3° from the Councils and especially from Constance.⁴

II. For breaking that fast, according to the common sentence three conditions are required, namely 1° That what is taken be taken from without and be conveyed into the stomach: for what does not come from without, even if it is voluntarily swallowed, or what is not conveyed into the stomach, but e.g. sticks in the throat, is not said to be eaten; for things which are eaten come from without and are destined for the stomach. Hence blood flowing from the mouth, tongue, gums, etc. does not break the fast.¹

2° That something be taken by way of eating or drinking. The reason is because according to common sense the natural fast is broken only in this way. Hence whatever is drawn by way of respiration or saliva in no way breaks the fast. Thus you remain fasting, although through respiration you swallow dust or a fly, by accident, namely, and not on purpose.²

3° That the thing taken have the character of food or drink, that is, that it be something alterable in the stomach and apt for nutrition. The reason is because otherwise, according to the common mode of understanding, there is not eating nor drinking. For no one is said to eat iron, glass, etc. - Thus commonly the Theologians with St. Thomas,³ St. Alphonsus.⁴

III. From the Response of the Sacred Penitentiary, dated 18 June 1873, it must be gathered that as regards the moment at which the obligation begins of the natural fast, the ecclesiastical fast, the divine office, etc., one must stand by public clocks, or those designated by the Magistrate for indicating noon; and this even if they do not mark true time, but only mean time, or the mean time not of one's own meridian, but of another, e.g. of the metropolis.⁵

Addendum and Corrigendum. - What is said in this place is to be understood according to the following response of the Sacred Penitentiary. "Whether, where clocks accommodated to mean time are used, one must stand by them both for fulfilling the burden of the Divine Office and for observing the natural fast; or whether one ought, or at least can, use true time? The Sacred Penitentiary responded: The faithful, in observing the natural fast and in reciting the Divine Office, can follow mean time, but are not bound to do so. - On 29 Nov. 1882."

1309. Questions. - Query 1° Does the swallowing of remnants of food which adhere between the teeth break the fast?

Resp. 1° Negatively if it is involuntary, because it does not have the character of food. It is established also from the Rubric of the Missal.⁶ - Thus all.

Resp. 2° If it is voluntary, it is controverted.

The first sentence, which to St. Alphonsus² does not seem improbable, denies; because such remnants are morally reputed parts of the eating of the preceding day, and not of a new one, and they are not taken by way of food, although on purpose, but by way of saliva. - See the Rubric.¹

The second sentence affirms; because such a swallowing, since it is done deliberately, seems to be a new eating. - Thus Roncaglia, etc. St. Alphonsus² says that this sentence is more common and more probable, and altogether to be counseled; nevertheless he warns that one must not act scrupulously in this, so that it suffices to spit out those remnants which are sensibly perceived on the tongue, and there is no obligation to employ diligence to draw them out from the teeth, even if otherwise they are foreseen to be swallowed.

Query 2° Do little drops of water or broth tasted and mixed with saliva break the fast if they are swallowed?

Resp. 1° Negatively, if they are swallowed accidentally beyond intention, provided they are not in great quantity. The same must be said of the little drops which are involuntarily swallowed while washing the mouth. The reason is because they are not taken by way of nutrition. It is established also from the Rubric of the Missal.³

Resp. 2° Affirmatively, if they are swallowed on purpose. The reason is because then nothing is lacking so that they have the character of food or drink.⁴

Query 3° Does tobacco powder taken through the nostrils dissolve the fast?

Resp. Negatively, even if something is transmitted into the stomach. The reason is because, although such matter is nutritive, nevertheless it is not taken by way of eating, unless it is done on purpose.⁵

Query 4° Does tobacco smoke or similar smoke dissolve the fast?

Resp. Negatively, because in the common estimation of men tobacco smoke is neither food nor drink, nor is it taken by eating or drinking. On account of the same reason it must be said that those do not break the fast who draw in through both mouth and nostrils the smoke of foods in a kitchen. And this holds even if the smoke is voluntarily sent into the stomach.⁶ - The same seems to be said concerning the juice or odor of camphor, which is drawn in by way of tobacco smoke (in French: cigarette de Raspail).

Query 5° Does he dissolve the fast who takes a leaf of tobacco, or a spice, in order to bruise it with the teeth and spit out phlegm?

Resp. Negatively, probably, even if a little of the juice inseparably mixed with saliva is swallowed, nevertheless beyond intention; because, if this is swallowed accidentally, it is conveyed not by way of food, but by way of saliva. But all agree that chewing of this kind before Communion is indecent; hence it does not seem to be excused from venial fault, unless some reasonable cause intervenes.¹

Query 6° Can he communicate who doubts whether after midnight he has taken food or drink, or on the same day has swallowed something?

Resp. Affirmatively, as is clear from what was said n. 67. 1°. a). Except if presumptions to the contrary are so strong that the one acting believes more probably that twelve o'clock has already sounded.²

Query 7° Is it lawful to eat and drink immediately after Communion?

Resp. Formerly indeed after Communion the fast was prescribed until Sext. But this precept has long since been abrogated. Nevertheless from decency some delay must be observed between the reception of this Sacrament and other foods, at least as long as the consecrated species, not yet wholly corrupted, persevere in the stomach, unless nevertheless there is some reasonable cause of taking something immediately; otherwise such eating, on account of irreverence, is not excused from venial fault.³

Query 8° Is it illicit to spit after Communion?

Resp. Negatively, of itself, provided that no fragment of the Host has remained in the mouth. For there is no danger of irreverence toward the sacred species; since the way through which spittle flows together into the mouth is not the esophagus, or the way of food and drink, but is the way of respiration. Nevertheless all agree that it is fitting that those who have communicated abstain from spitting for some interval of time.⁴

Query 9° When is it lawful to communicate someone not fasting?

Resp. One not fasting communicates lawfully 1° in danger of death, from whatever cause it comes; 2° in danger lest the Eucharist perish or be badly handled, e.g. by heretics, impious persons; 3° in proximate danger of grave scandal from omission of the Sacrifice or Communion; 4° in necessity of completing the Sacrifice or Communion, e.g. if the priest has taken water for the species of wine, etc.¹ (9) p. 417.

Query 10° Is moral certainty of danger of death required, that Viaticum can be ministered to one not fasting?

Resp. Negatively, but a prudent doubt suffices, or probability of danger (for probability of the article of death is not required, if with some it is pleasing to distinguish danger from article), especially when it is to be feared lest the sick person be seized by sudden death. Indeed Pastors and parents or relatives of the sick are to be gravely reproved, who from carelessness or vain fear so prolong the administration of Sacred Viaticum that the sick are in danger of dying without the Eucharist.² But if the sick person could easily receive Viaticum fasting on the following day, he would be held to wait. Nevertheless in this matter one must not proceed scrupulously, since the Council of Constance simply excepts the dangerously sick from the law of fasting.³

Query 11° Is it ever lawful to give Communion to a sick person not fasting, and not dangerously bedridden, if the illness is long-lasting?

Resp. It must be denied, given the present practice of the Church, unless the illness is of such a kind that of itself it can induce danger of death. Nevertheless some Theologians permit this at times, if the illness is long-lasting, and the sick person can never communicate altogether fasting, provided it be done rarely, e.g. some times in the year. - Thus Elbel.⁴ But the most common sentence of Theologians with Suarez contradicts, who asserts that only the Pope can dispense in this law. In fact, the Supreme Pontiff is accustomed to dispense rarely and only from a grave cause, nevertheless even with private persons (as I myself know from a particular case), and not only, as formerly almost, with public persons or from a public cause, that they may communicate once, three times, or even several times in the year. But then there is a sufficient reason why sometimes the Eucharist can be administered to a sick person after midnight. The reason why this can be done only by dispensation of the Pope is that otherwise this law of the Church would be too much relaxed. See, if you please, Benedict XIV, the Brief Quodam de more, dated 24 March 1756, handing down the history of this law.

1310. Principles. - I. By natural law that exterior habit and that composition of body are required which exhibit the internal reverence and devotion of the soul. The reason is clear: for not only internal, but also external veneration is due to this most august Sacrament, since Christ himself, by means of the species, exists and is handled in it in a certain sensible way.

II. No stain whatever of the body of itself impedes Communion, since the Eucharist is only food of the soul, nor is purity diminished by stains of the body, which contribute nothing to moral goodness or malice.¹ - Nevertheless the decency and reverence due to so great a Sacrament require that, if dirt appearing externally can be removed, it be diligently removed.

III. There is no obligation of abstaining from Communion on account of hidden stains of the body, or even those appearing externally, but indelible.² - If nevertheless external stains, here and now indelible, are very notable and ought to cease shortly, it will be becoming, where it can conveniently be done, to defer Communion. But when they last longer, there is no reason why someone should be deprived of heavenly nourishment. - Thus commonly.

1311. Resolves. - 1° Women ought to approach holy Communion in holy ornament, redolent of modesty; if some should present themselves to the Sacred Table very indecently (see n. 1233. 19), Communion would have to be denied to them, with due cautions nevertheless for preventing scandals as far as can be done.

2° Leprosy, flow of blood, and similar things, which happen without fault of the sufferer, of themselves do not prohibit from Communion, because those blemishes do not stand in the way of devotion, which is the disposition required for Communion.³ - After a voluntary pollution had shortly before, to approach holy Communion, although someone is contrite and confessed, they say is venial, unless scandal or another just cause demands Communion; the same holds after one venially evil, or even involuntary, if it leaves disturbance in the mind. They except if the one about to communicate endeavors to repel this as much as he can, or some just cause of necessity or devotion is present.¹ - Concerning Communion after conjugal intercourse it will be said n. 1646. 7°.

3° A priest infected with leprosy, or another infirmity exciting horror, can celebrate, but not in public; for thus it is established from Canon Law.²

4° It is fitting from decency and Christian humility that soldiers about to communicate approach the Sacred Table with arms laid aside. Nevertheless they are obliged to this by no law.³ - The same should be said of laymen wearing gloves. "But priests," says the Roman Ritual, "should communicate with stole."

S. Th. III, q. 80, a. 7 and 8.

278. On the part of the body, for Holy Communion there are required, besides the capacity of communicating, i.e., of swallowing the host, two dispositions: the natural fast, and decency; but this latter consists in this, that the one about to communicate, whether in external habit or in the composure of the body, display nothing which is unbecoming to the Most Holy, whence it comprises two things: decent habit and cleanliness.

Hence three things are said to be required: 1. decent external habit; 2. cleanliness of body; 3. fasting.

279. Decent and humble external habit is required from the nature of the thing under light obligation, so that the communicant display external reverence from his garments and bodily action. Those who approach too irreverently are to be kept away as inopportune and uncivil; nor from this does infamy arise for them, since they are not kept away as sinners.

Hence: 1. They should not approach with torn or dirty garments or shoes, however cheap they may be among the poor.

2. Women ought to approach in modest habit (can. 1262, § 2), with the breast sufficiently covered, and without vain ornament; but if some woman should approach shamefully uncovered or too immodestly, communion would have to be denied, especially if public warning had preceded, and scandal was to be feared.

3. From custom women should communicate with head covered; men, on the contrary, uncovered and with head bare.

4. It is fitting that soldiers lay aside arms and laymen gloves.

5. Priests and deacons communicating in the manner of laymen, from the Ritual (tit. 4, c. 2, n. 4), ought to put on the stole, even if they communicate in sickness. This obliges under venial sin.

280. Cleanliness of body is the absence of uncleanness from stains or filth. These do not impede communion per se, because they do not contain moral malice, but per accidens, either on account of the danger of irreverence which they include, or on account of the effects which follow.

1. On account of irreverence: a) Open filth and stains are to be wiped away, if this can be done.

b) But if it is impossible, yet it is hoped that they will be removed shortly, and communion can conveniently be deferred, let it be deferred out of reverence, or received privately; otherwise if they are perpetual or long-lasting, such as leprosy, fistula, etc. The same is to be said concerning a flow of blood.

Yet a priest infected with leprosy or another disease bringing horror is prohibited from celebrating in public, on account of scandal and the horror of the people; therefore he can celebrate secretly.

c) It is not licit to give communion to the sick who, on account of continual coughing, are in even probable danger lest they reject the sacred host from the mouth, or be unable to send it into the stomach; yet once it has been received, per se it is not to be feared that it will be expelled with saliva, because coughing and saliva do not come from the stomach, as we said in n. 260, 6 and 7.

d) Nor is it licit to give communion to those who suffer from vomiting, as long as probable danger lasts; but if the vomiting ceases, let a doctor be consulted if this can be done; otherwise let experience first be tried with liquid, or with light food if the vomiting comes from food alone. But if doubt remains, communion should be deferred, because reverence for the sacrament urges more.

2. On account of other effects, namely on account of wandering or disturbance of mind, or foul remembrance or commotion left in the soul, which impede man from disposing himself with due reverence and devotion, then pollution or the conjugal act can impede communion. And indeed:

a) By counsel only, the conjugal act had without sin on the same day or the preceding night. This would also have force concerning the time of purgation after childbirth, and concerning menstrual flow if this caused such disturbance.

b) Under venial sin, however, the conjugal act had on account of mere pleasure, and inculpable pollution or pollution not gravely culpable. Yet these are not to be applied universally, as if there is present some just cause of necessity or devotion,¹ or one repels the disturbance, or pollution is rather often excited by the devil or by scruple or anxiety. Thus spouses generally ought not to abstain who are accustomed to communicate very frequently and rather often rightly exercise the conjugal act altogether.

¹ A just cause can be an occurring solemnity, scandal to be avoided, danger of notice, a jubilee or special indulgence to be gained, special devotion, a rule of an order imposing communion.

The confessor should not speak of these things with women unless he is asked; in which case let him tell the wife that she is obliged to render the debt if she communicates often, for example every week, lest namely she be exposed to the danger of sinning against justice or charity; but if rarely, for example on the principal feasts, let her ask her husband to abstain in honor of communion, provided she does not incur the indignation of the husband.

3. On account of both, a consummated act of lust gravely culpable either in itself or in its cause impedes communion under venial sin, such as pollution following from a mortally evil thought or because of excessive indulgence in food and drink, even if one has recovered grace in confession; - unless scandal or a just cause sufficiently notable excuse, as it will seem to the confessor. Thus the Missal, de def., tit. 9, n. 5.

For a similar reason communion can be impeded on account of grave angers, contentions, and drunkennesses had immediately before.

281. The natural fast, introduced from the first times of the Church, and confirmed by universal custom, by Councils, by the Ritual and Missal, prescribed by ecclesiastical law (can. 808 and 858), today is governed by the Apostolic Constitution Christus Dominus (of January 6, 1953) and the Motu Proprio Sacram communionem (of March 19, 1957), in which the indults of the aforesaid constitution are extended. Thence the discipline in force for all the faithful in all places whatsoever is this:

The time of the Eucharistic fast to be observed by priests before Mass and by the Christian faithful before holy communion, whether in morning or afternoon hours, is limited to three hours with respect to solid food and alcoholic drink, but to one hour with respect to non-alcoholic drink.

The drink which is conceded is any non-alcoholic drink, even if sugar, or flour, or egg, etc. be mixed with it.

Let it be noted that even those who celebrate Mass or receive holy communion at midnight or in the first hours of the day, as happens on the night of the Nativity of the Lord and of Easter, are bound to observe the fast for the time stated above.

The precept of fasting:

1. Is negative: for fasting is not prescribed, but it is prohibited that one not fasting approach communion. Food or drink is not prohibited, but communion after the fast has been broken; whence he who has taken the least thing, although by way of medicine, whether voluntarily or not, cannot communicate; yet if the breaking is not certain, the prohibition is not proved and the right of communicating remains, whether one doubts whether he has taken something, or whether he took it before or after the permitted hour: for the fact of breaking is not presumed but must be proved.

2. Is grave, because it was made for a grave end, namely, a) chiefly on account of the reverence due to the Eucharist, so that from this the faithful may learn to discern between this food and ordinary foods; b) to indicate that Christ and His charity ought to occupy the first place in our hearts; c) on account of the danger of vomiting and drunkenness, which happens from this, that men use foods inordinately (a. 3), or on account of devotion, so that the mind may be freer and readier for treating divine things.

3. Indeed it does not admit smallness of matter, because, since it is negative, it consists in an indivisible thing.

282. That the fast be broken three conditions are required:

1. That the thing taken be food or drink, i.e., be per se digestible by the stomach and be so held by common estimation. Nevertheless the taking of water does not break the fast.

Water is not understood only as natural water, but all that which by common use is called water. Thus the taking of "mineral" water does not break the fast, even if certain "gases" have been added for effervescence, nor water to which certain chemicals have been mixed for disinfection.

Hence metal, a piece of solid and hard and fully dry wood, fingernails, hair, stone, glass, a thread of silk or wool, pebbles, fruit pits wholly cleansed do not break the fast, because they are in no way altered in the stomach. On the contrary paper, a thread of linen, earth, coals, chalk, powders from bones or stones, medicinal powders from metal or glass, edible woods such as rhubarb or licorice, wax, straw, gum, because at least in some way they are digestible and according to common estimation are so judged.

2. That it be taken by way of food and drink, i.e., by way of eating and drinking, even if done inadvertently or in sleep.

Hence it does not break the fast: a) that which is taken by way of simple tasting in the mouth and then is spit out, because it does not descend into the stomach, indeed even if by chance something passes mixed with saliva, as will be said below; - on the contrary, if something should be swallowed and afterwards vomited;

b) that which is taken by way of simple respiration, for example smoke of foods or tobacco, dust moving in the air, tobacco dust or water through the nose, a fly, a flake of snow, a small drop of rain; for to breathe is not to eat and drink, even if by chance something of food or drink descended into the stomach, provided this happens apart from intention; - on the contrary, if on purpose, because it would not be respiration, nor would it be taken by simple drawing in, but by deliberate swallowing;

c) that which is taken by way of saliva, as if someone by chance and apart from intention should swallow with saliva a little water mixed in, while washing the teeth, mouth, or throat, or some small thing coming from tasting, remains of foods adhering to the teeth, a little drop of blood or a little skin from the lips, or a little juice or leaf of tobacco from smoking or chewing, although this is very indecent. But if the quantity is great, or if it is swallowed advertently, and of set purpose or from intention, it is no longer taken by way of saliva;

d) that which is taken by way of subcutaneous injection, or nutritive enema, or even, probably, artificial washing of the stomach with water by means of a gastric siphon; - provided this latter has not been externally anointed with edible oil or ointment: for water alone is usually used for washing the stomach, and therefore the passing over of another thing is judged true eating or drinking. Yet some also permit this.

3. That it be taken from without.

Hence blood from a wounded finger, humor descending from the nostrils, tears from the eyes, milk from the breasts, urine, etc. break the fast; but not saliva, blood, phlegm flowing internally from the mouth or gums, or from an ulcer within the mouth, or interiorly from the nose; nor probably remains of foods if they are swallowed intentionally, because morally they are judged parts of the preceding eating; indeed, according to some, neither food or drink which, having already been taken into the mouth a moment before midnight, would be swallowed when the hour sounds. The opposite must be said of one who, when the hour sounds, continues to take food, or finishes a draught of drink; likewise of one who puts food, for example sugar, into the mouth before the permitted hour so as to swallow it gradually, and after the permitted hour swallows it with saliva: for since he put it into the mouth for this end, that it be swallowed gradually, it is not a remnant of a preceding eating, but eating voluntarily and intentionally continued.

I say. By precept of the Church, natural fasting is required for communion, or total abstinence after midnight from any thing whatsoever, however very small, which is taken by way of food and drink, with certain cases, however, excepted.

§1. He who from midnight has not observed the natural fast cannot be admitted to the Most Holy Eucharist, unless danger of death urges, or the necessity of preventing irreverence toward the sacrament (Can. 858).

And concerning a priest let canon 808 be heard: - It is not lawful for a priest to celebrate unless the natural fast from midnight has been observed.

This is established both from the universal custom of the Church and unanimous tradition; both from all Catechisms and Rituals approved by the Church; and also from Councils, and especially from the Council of Constance, sess. 13. But in order that that fast be broken, according to the common opinion, three conditions are required, namely 1st. that what is taken have the nature of food or drink; 2nd. that it be taken from outside and conveyed into the stomach; 3rd. that it be taken by way of eating or drinking. The reason is that if one of these conditions is lacking, eating is not properly had, according to the common sense and estimation of men. Hence iron, glass, wood, etc., or blood flowing from the mouth, tongue, gums, etc., or a fly, snow, water, etc., taken by way of respiration or of saliva, do not break the fast. Thus commonly with St. Thomas, 3, q. 80, art. 8; and St. Alphonsus, n. 281.¹

¹ Cf. Addenda, p. 1108, n. 51.

Question 2. Can one communicate who positively doubts whether after midnight he has taken food or drink, or on that very day has swallowed something?

Resp. Affirmatively, more probably; and the reason is that in the case it is not established that the fast has been violated, and therefore it is not established that communion is forbidden; for the fact of the violated fast would have to be proved before the law prohibiting the Eucharist to one not fasting is invoked. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 282; and de conscientia dubia, n. 39. - Ballerini, note (a), p. 226.

Question 3. Is it lawful to eat and drink immediately after communion?

Resp. Formerly indeed after communion a fast was prescribed until Sext. But this precept has already long since been abrogated. - Nevertheless, from decency, some delay must be observed between the reception of this sacrament and other foods, at least so long as the consecrated species, not yet plainly corrupted, persevere in the stomach, unless, however, some reasonable cause is present for taking some food immediately; otherwise such eating, on account of irreverence, is not excused from venial fault. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 283.

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.

THIS fasting means abstinence from any eatable thing by way of food, drink, or medicine, even if modest, de consecr. dist. 1. cap. Sacramenta. Required indeed for such receiving is matter that can be altered in the stomach, as Lugo teaches de Euch. disp. 15. sect. 2. num. 28. If, however, per accidens it be not alterable, he violates it. Required also is the form, which is the vital passage into the stomach; for this gives that matter the being of food. From the varied consideration, surely, of this matter and form arise various opinions on the breaking of the natural fast.

So also they say that noxious things are taken even by way of medicine, as poison. Many comprehend under this whatever is passed outside through the mouth; others deny it.

THEY ASK, then, first, whether if the remains of the food of the preceding day, sticking to the teeth, be voluntarily swallowed, they impede communion.

THAT THEY IMPEDE assert Vasquez in 3. part. tract. 3. dub. 11. cap. 4. num. 30, Filliucius tom. 1. tract. 4. cap. 8. num. 236, Nungus 3. part. Tom. 1. quaest. 80. art. 8, Paludanus in 4. dist. 8. quaest. 2. art. 2. concl. 2. It seems to St. Thomas 3. part. quaest. 80. art. 8. ad 4. Layman inclines so lib. 5. tract. 4. cap. 6. num. 18.

YET I hold the opposite, as probable, with Suarez 3. part. tract. 3. disput. 68. sect. 4, Henriquez lib. 8. cap. 50, Ioan. de Cruz in direct. quaest. 5. dub. 4, Mosseius in sum. tom. 1. tract. 3. cap. 10. num. 13, Pitigianensis 4. Tom. 1. dist. 18. quaest. 3. art. 3, Camerata de sacram. tract. 4. cap. 10. dub. 19, Rodriquez in sum. Tom. 1. cap. 103. num. 3, Coninch. de sacram. quaest. 80. art. 8. num. 47, Diana part. 3. Tract. 4. resol. 57 — where, however, he says they should be persuaded to spit them out. The reason is, because they fall not by way of food, but of saliva.

HE ADDS, if anyone draw in a little water through the nostrils, which fall into the stomach, it does not impede him from communion, because it has not been passed by way of food or drink. And he teaches, if anything be drawn in by way of respiration, even if it can nourish or alter, as a fly. So also Fagundez de praecep. Eccles. praecep. 3. cap. 5. num. 14, and others. Bassaeus adds V. Communio: if one swallow blood falling from the head, drops of rain, or any particle of broth passed in unnoticed in the preliminary tasting.

THEY ASK secondly, whether if one swallow paper, chalk, a little piece of wood, or something similar eatable, they break the natural fast and impede the most holy communion.

THAT THEY IMPEDE many bring forward, cited by Diana p. p. 34 Tract. 14. de celebr. miss. resol. 51, and Parte 4. tract. 4. resol. 104. So Henriquez lib. 8 cap. 49, and in the gloss, line O., Nungus tract. 1. in 1. part. quaest. 50. art. 8, Villalobos tom. 1. tract. 7. diffic. 39, Reginaldus tract. 2. lib. 29 cap. 6. num. 118, Naldus V. Euch. num. 10, Layman lib. 5. tract. 4. cap. 6, Scortia de sacrificio Missae, lib. 2. cap. 7.

ABOUT Tobacco, if taken in the mouth it be swallowed, the same teach, Diana part. 5. tract. 13. resol. 1, and others.

AND indeed this opinion is to me the more probable, although they hold the opposite as more probable: Sum. Corona part. 4. cap. 4. num. 65, Ioan. de la Cruz p. 2 de Euch. quaest. 5. dub. 4, Ludovicus de S. Iuan: sum. part. 1. Tract. de Euch. cap. 23. concl. 4, Diana loco cit., and part. 3. tract. 4. resol. 38, who concedes the same of the remainder of yesterday's food, with Tabiena V. commun. §. 42, Tannerus tract. 4. disp. 5. quaest. 8. dub. 4. num. 79, Sanchez select. disp. 41. num. 23, Pasqualig. decis. 312, Ioan. Cruz quaest. 5. dub. 4, Baunius punct. cit. tract. 10. quaest. 22 — namely, that if it be swallowed, it does not impede communion.

Titius, a missionary priest in England, wishes to know whether he may bring Holy Communion to Mary, a parishioner who is not fasting, who suffers from consumption and must take milk every two hours by the physician’s prescription, although she is not confined to bed. Sometimes, feeling better, Mary comes to Mass at nine o’clock in the morning and would then like to receive Holy Communion even though not fasting, if this is permitted. Titius himself also, being old and sometimes suffering from influenza and its aftereffects, is compelled to abstain from saying Mass for two or three months. He could, however, sometimes celebrate Mass if it were lawful to take extract of meat or something of this kind beforehand; concerning this he doubts and asks to be instructed. Hence it is asked:

1. To what does the law of fasting before Holy Communion oblige?

2. What did the decree of the Sacred Congregation of the Council of Dec. 7, 1906, concede?

3. What is to be said of the case?

1. To what does the law of fasting before Holy Communion oblige?

This law forbids those to receive Holy Communion who have taken any food or drink whatever after midnight. Those who are dangerously ill are excepted from the obligation of this law.

2. What mitigation was permitted by the decree S. C. C., Dec. 7th, 1906?

The dispositive portion of the decree is as follows: “ The infirm who have been lying in bed for a month without a certain hope of soon recovering may, by the counsel of the confessor, receive Holy Communion once or twice in a week, if it is about the infirm who dwell in pious houses where the Holy Sacrament is kept, or who enjoy the privilege of celebrating Mass in the domestic oratory; once or twice in a month for others, even if they have drunk something in the manner of a drink or tea.” By a subsequent decree dated March 6th, 1907, it was explained that the term decumbunt comprised those “although afflicted with grave illness and, in the physician’s judgment, unable to observe the natural fast, nevertheless cannot remain in bed or can rise from it for some hours of the day.”

The conditions therefore required for the application of this decree are: (a) The person should have been seriously ill for a month, and there should be no reasonable hope of recovery within a short time, say, a month. (b) With the advice of the confessor Holy Communion may be received once or twice a week if the Blessed Sacrament is reserved in the house where the sick person lies, in other cases once or twice a month, (c) Though something liquid has been taken after midnight, e.g., tea, chocolate, soup, even if an egg has been broken up in it.

3. The case. From what has been said it is clear that Titius may take Holy Communion to Mary even though she has taken milk every two hours after midnight.

The decree is not applicable to those who can and do go to Church not fasting, according to the interpretation put upon the decree at Rome, and followed by approved authors. “ It appears that the Holy Eucharist must be brought to the chamber,” says Génicot, (II, n. 202. ed. 6a).

The mitigation of the law is granted to the faithful who wish to communicate, not to priests who wish to say Mass.

Titius, a priest who alone serves a certain Mission, suffering from a cough, is accustomed to put a lozenge into his mouth so that he may sleep at night. One night, awakened as the clock struck twelve, without intending it he swallowed some of the lozenge that still remained in his mouth. He begins to doubt whether in the morning it is lawful to celebrate the Mass which the people are bound by precept to hear (for it was Sunday), or whether he ought to dismiss them without Mass. Hence it is asked:

1. What is required for that eating by which the fast prescribed before Holy Communion is broken?

2. Can smallness of matter, either with regard to the food taken or with regard to the time after twelve o’clock, be admitted in this law of fasting?

3. Can intention cause a fast to be broken that otherwise is not broken?

4. What is to be said of the case?

1. What is required for a violation of the fast prescribed before Holy Communion?

What is taken must have the nature of food or drink or medicine; it must be from without the mouth; and it must be taken in the way food is usually taken, not e.g., by respiration.¹

1 Manual of Moral Theology, vol. ii, p. 110.

1 Manual of Moral Theology, vol. ii, p. 110.

2. Is lightness of matter allowed in this law either in what is taken or in the time?

No, the law admits of no lightness of matter, for the prohibition does not fall on the food or time, but on the receiving of Holy Communion after taking the least food or drink after midnight.¹

3. Can the intention cause the fast to be broken when otherwise it would not be broken?

According to the rubric of the Missal (De Def., IX, 3) if a drop of water is swallowed inadvertently while washing the mouth it does not hinder Holy Communion. And theologians apply the same rule to a drop of rain, or soup mixed with the saliva and swallowed inadvertently. In these cases the common opinion, which St. Alphonsus says is certainly to be held, maintains that if this is done intentionally the fast is broken.²

2 Theol. Mor., lib. vi, 279.

4. The case. Midnight is past after the first stroke of twelve. Titius therefore after twelve swallowed a piece of the pastille which still remained in his mouth. In doing this he broke his fast even though he did it unintentionally, for the sucking of the pastille must be regarded as a continuous action of eating which did not finish until after twelve.³

3 Ibid.

If the necessity for the people to hear Mass is the only reason why Titius should say it, he should abstain from saying it, and explain the reason to the people. He may have prayers and give them a sermon. If he has reason to fear scandal or grumbling on account of his acting in this way he may say Mass, according to a sound opinion.⁴

4 Manual of Moral Theology, vol. ii, p. 111.

Caius, the missionary Rector, had determined to perform the Offices of Holy Week himself. When, however, on Friday in the Preparation he felt unwell, he sent a message to the assistant that he should perform the sacred functions on that day. It was reported that the assistant had already eaten breakfast; notwithstanding this, Caius ordered him to complete all the customary Offices. When a certain theologian heard this, he doubted whether it had been done lawfully. Hence it is asked:

1. By what law is fasting before Holy Communion established?

2. Does one sin who takes food immediately after Communion?

3. What exceptions to this law are admitted?

4. What is to be said of the case?

1. By what law is fasting prescribed before Holy Communion?

Although reverence for Holy Communion suggests that it should be received before any other food, still in strictness it is only the positive law of the Church which prescribes fasting before Holy Communion.

2. Is sin committed by taking food immediately after Holy Communion?

Reverence also suggests that other food should not be taken immediately after Holy Communion but, as there is.no law on the point, sin is not committed by taking food immediately after Communion.

3. What exceptions to the law of fasting Communion are recognized?

Danger of death, danger of scandal or serious loss of reputation, danger of profanation of the Blessed Sacrament, long continued illness with incapacity to observe the fast, necessity of completing the Sacrifice of the Mass, and probably the necessity of consecrating the Viaticum for a dying person, are recognized as valid excuses for saying Mass and receiving Holy Communion though not fasting.¹

1 Manual of Moral Theology, vol. ii, p. 111.

4. The case. As Good Friday is not a day of obligation, and no law imposes a grave precept of saying the Mass of the Presanctified, Caius did wrong in bidding his curate who had taken his breakfast perform that function and consequently receive Holy Communion not fasting. The curate might perhaps have performed the first part of the service and omitted the Mass of the Presanctified, if a considerable number of people had come to church in expectation of the service.