The state of grace for Communion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

³ Pars II, c. 4, q. 58.

⁴ John 6:59.

⁵ Summa III, q. 80, a. 10, ad 1.

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

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

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

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

¹ De euchar., disp. 17.

² Praxis confessarii, n. 152.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

⁴ S. C. C., 15 Sept. 1906.

⁵ Cf. S. C. C., 10 Dec. 1905.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

¹ Cf. S. C. C., 10 Dec. 1905.

Besides having sufficient knowledge of what the Eucharist is, he who receives it should be in the state of grace and free from mortal sin. The presence in the soul of venial sin unrepented of is indeed a defect and an obstacle to the fullest outpouring of God’s grace, but it is not a new sin to receive Holy Communion with only venial sins on the soul. But it is a grievous sacrilege to receive the Eucharist while conscious of being in mortal sin, “‘ For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgement to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord.” It is not sufficient for one who is conscious of mortal sin to recover the state of grace by making an act of perfect contrition before Communion; he is bound to go to confession. This is taught us by the Council of Trent:¹ ‘‘ Wherefore he who would communicate ought to recall to mind the precept of the Apostle, Let a man prove himself. Now ecclesiastical usage declares that necessary proof to be, that no one conscious to himself of mortal sin, how contrite soever he may seem to himself, ought to approach to the sacred Eucharist without previous sacramental confession. This, the Holy Synod hath decreed, is to be invariably observed by all Christians, even by those priests on whom it may be incumbent by their office to celebrate, provided the opportunity of a confessor do not fail them; but if in an urgent necessity a priest should celebrate without previous confession, let him confess as soon as possible.” No one, then, who is conscious of mortal sin may go to Holy Communion without sacramental confession, unless he is under some necessity of receiving the Eucharist and there is no opportunity of going to confession.

There will be such necessity as is here contemplated if a priest has to say Mass for his people on a day of obligation, or to consecrate the Viaticum for a dying person, or if Communion must be received to avoid scandal or to satisfy the Easter precept. There is no opportunity of going to confession if there is no priest present who can give absolution, and it would be a serious inconvenience to go to one at a distance. Even when in these circumstances a priest who is in sin has said Mass with contrition indeed, but without confession, he is commanded by the Council of Trent to go to confession as soon as possible afterward. This is a strict ecclesiastical law, but according to the mind of the Council it only binds priests, not laymen (Can. 807, 856).

¹ Sess. xiii, c. 7.

When one has been to confession with a view to going to Holy Communion, but forgot to mention some grievous sin which he afterward remembers, he is not obliged to repeat his confession before Communion; it will be sufficient if he mentions it in his next confession. The reason is because the forgotten sin was indirectly forgiven by the absolution which he received, and he has proved himself sufficiently according to the words of the Apostle.

Even if there be not sufficient time to make a full confession before Communion, still confession is obligatory, as it is also when the penitent has reserved cases, for now in case of necessity any confessor may absolve directly from reserved cases.

I. The state of grace. That the state of grace is required is clear from Sacred Scripture,¹ and from what was said about the sacraments in general, n. 43. In the same place it was likewise proved that broad moral certitude about the state of grace is required.

1. One who is conscious to himself of mortal sin is bound per se to recover lost grace through Confession. Per accidens he sometimes satisfies by an act of contrition, as will be explained under 4. That Confession is required per se is clear from the Council of Trent: "One who wishes to communicate must recall to memory that precept of his, that is, of the Apostle: Let a man prove himself. But ecclesiastical custom declares that this proof is necessary, so that no one conscious to himself of mortal sin, however much he may seem to himself contrite, ought to approach the Holy Eucharist without previous sacramental Confession. This holy Synod has decreed that this must perpetually be observed by all Christians, even by those priests upon whom, by office, it is incumbent to celebrate, provided that a supply of a confessor is not lacking to them."² Canons 807 and 856 are added.

It is disputed, however, whether the precept of premising Confession is divine or ecclesiastical; likewise, if it is ecclesiastical, whether it was imposed by Paul or introduced by custom. Concerning this, note: 1. nothing can be deduced from the cited place of Trent, since from the history³ and acts⁴ of the Council it is clear that the Fathers adhered to different opinions and did not intend to reject any one. 2. It is difficult to admit that an obligation of this kind was imposed by Paul upon the whole Church, unless it is positively proved; but a solid argument is lacking. Hence the said precept seems either to be divine or to have been introduced by ecclesiastical custom; which is to be preferred, I do not know.

Nor should you object: According to Trent, ecclesiastical custom declares that the proof of which Paul speaks is placed in Confession; therefore custom did not introduce the obligation of confessing. Response: According to Trent, ecclesiastical custom does not declare that the proof of which Paul speaks is placed in Confession, but that proof through Confession is necessary; by this it is left undecided whether such proof was introduced by Christ, by Paul, or by ancient custom.

2. One who, all things considered, doubts whether after his last Confession he sinned gravely, is not bound to confess, but satisfies by an act of contrition. For the Council of Trent speaks only of one who is conscious of mortal sin; this cannot be said of one who doubts (St. Alphonsus, VI, 473). Nevertheless, if he does not confess, that he is bound to an act of contrition was proved in the treatise on the sacraments in general (n. 43). I said all things considered, because Confession is prescribed if from the circumstances it must be presumed that a grave sin was committed (De Sacramentis in genere, loc. cit.).

It is disputed whether before Communion one must confess again who, all things considered, doubts whether he has worthily confessed the sin committed. But according to the principles of St. Alphonsus it must be affirmed, because he doubtfully satisfied the law of worthy Confession. Nevertheless I again said all things considered; for if the doubt arises from doubt about the mode in which the Confession was made, for example whether it was instituted with true attrition or not, it can be presumed that it was rightly made (vol. I, n. 229).

3. One who confessed worthily, but forgot a mortal sin, with sufficient probability is not bound to confess again before he communicates. Most older theologians reject this doctrine, because the Council of Trent, which binds one who is conscious to himself of mortal sin to previous Confession, in the obvious sense speaks of the Confession of all mortal sins of which he is conscious to himself before Communion. But St. Alphonsus (VI, 257), and after him almost all more recent authors, hold as sufficiently probable that only a worthy previous Confession is prescribed, in other words, that it suffices that someone has been justified through Confession, or that sins have been remitted through Confession, whether directly, or, as in the case of a sin omitted through forgetfulness, indirectly. Considering the not-to-be-despised explanation of the Council of Trent and the authority of the authors, we hold this opinion as safe in practice.

4. One who per se is bound to Confession, per accidens is not bound to it, but satisfies by an act of perfect contrition, if both there is a necessity of communicating or celebrating, and the supply of a confessor is lacking (canons 807, 856).

a) The necessity of celebrating or communicating is understood as grave or urgent, as the Council of Trent, loc. cit., and the Code (cited canons) have it. Necessity is present:

First, if Communion or Mass cannot be omitted without infamy or scandal, as if a layperson has already approached the Communion rail; if a priest has already begun Mass, or has arrived at the altar, or is eagerly awaited by the faithful (St. Alphonsus, VI, 260). Necessity also seems to be present if someone, for example, goes to church with his family intending to communicate and is not absolved. As regards those who in colleges, etc., communicate daily, infamy does not seem to be a sufficient reason, nor one to be admitted by the confessor, because either they rarely sin, and then they can more easily allege another motive, for example a broken fast; or they sin more often, and then they are bound to arrange their Communions so that they are no longer known to communicate daily. Therefore the obligation of Confession is also to be urged more, especially in younger persons, lest the reverence due to the Eucharist be diminished, the horror of sin be lost, and the efforts to root out a depraved habit be lessened.⁵

Second, if Mass must be continued; namely: 1. if the consecration has already begun, the priest should not interrupt Mass in order to confess, but, having elicited an act of contrition, should continue it. 2. If the consecration has not yet begun, the same seems to be said of a priest who remembers a grave sin or becomes guilty of one, since the Missal states without distinction: "If in the very celebration of Mass the priest remembers that he is in mortal sin, let him be contrite with the purpose of confessing and satisfying."⁶ But the priest who "remembers that he is excommunicated or suspended, or that the place is interdicted... if scandal is not feared, ought to leave the Mass already begun."⁷ The reason of scandal, or infamy, will commonly excuse from leaving Mass, so that Mass should rather be continued, after an act of contrition has been elicited.

Third, if Viaticum must be consecrated for a dying person and another who may celebrate is lacking. Likewise if there is danger that the sacrament may be profaned and that danger cannot be averted in another equally safe way (St. Alphonsus, VI, 260).

Fourth, if there is, whether for a pastor or for an assistant, an obligation of celebrating by office, for example on a feast day so that the people may hear Mass, for funerals, or for blessing nuptials, and another who may celebrate in his place is lacking (St. Alphonsus, VI, 261). But there is not a necessity of celebrating or communicating which of itself is sufficiently grave if the priest suffers from the omission of Mass only the privation of the stipend; likewise if he must celebrate only from a vow, or from the precept of a superior, or so that he himself may hear Mass of precept, or so that another may satisfy the precept of Easter Communion. But with sufficient probability a necessity of celebrating per se sufficiently grave is present if otherwise the priest himself cannot satisfy the precept of Easter Communion; likewise, for a layperson, a necessity of communicating per se sufficiently grave is had if otherwise he cannot fulfill the precept of Easter Communion. The reason is that annual Communion obliges in some way from divine law (St. Alphonsus, VI, 261).

b) The supply of a confessor is lacking:

First, if no one is present who can, and licitly can, and wills to hear Confession, and another cannot be approached without grave difficulty. But the difficulty which arises from the journey to be made can be increased on the one hand by infirmity, by the imminent time of celebrating, etc., and on the other hand lessened by the fact that the journey can be made by carriage, railway, etc. Abstracting from the aforesaid special circumstances, according to St. Alphonsus a journey of one and a half leagues excuses (VI, 264). Therefore the supply of a confessor is not lacking because the ordinary confessor cannot be had.

It is disputed whether or not the supply of a confessor is lacking if only a confessor is present, or can be approached, to whom someone cannot confess without extraordinary shame arising from an extraordinary circumstance; for example, if an uncle would have to confess a very shameful sin to his nephew. Some affirm, but it seems it must be entirely denied. For: 1. an intrinsic inconvenience does not excuse from law (De Legibus, vol. I, n. 169). But that extraordinary circumstance only causes the intrinsic inconvenience, namely shame, to become greater, not to become extrinsic. There is added that the more benign opinion gives occasion to laxity and weakens the law, since limits cannot be assigned. Finally, the aforesaid opinion was formerly commonly rejected, either explicitly or implicitly.

Objection. The law of premising Confession to Communion is probably only ecclesiastical. Hence it is permitted, at least by epikeia, to regard extraordinary shame as an excusing cause.

Response. Passing over the antecedent, I observe that the two latter arguments adduced by us also exclude epikeia.

Second, if no one is present except one ignorant of the language, or lacking jurisdiction, or an excommunicated person to be avoided. Concerning the case in which someone has fallen into a reserved sin and the priest present per se lacks jurisdiction over it, see the treatise on Penance.

Third, if someone cannot confess to a confessor who is present or can be approached without grave harm extrinsic to Confession; harm, I say, whether to himself, to the confessor, or to a third party, as is more fully explained in the treatise on Penance (St. Alphonsus, VI, 264).

¹ 1 Cor. 11:29.

² Session 13, chapter 7.

³ Pallavicini, cited work, book 12, chapter 2.

⁴ Theiner, cited work, vol. I, p. 488 and following.

⁵ Cf. Vermeersch, Epitome, 3rd ed., vol. II, n. 120.

⁶ On Defects, VIII, n. 4.

⁷ Roman Missal, loc. cit., n. 5.

II. Actual devotion. Although a voluntary defect of this devotion does not simply prevent the fruit of Communion, it nevertheless causes one to receive much slighter fruits. Moreover, one who at the time of Communion is voluntarily distracted commits a venial sin of irreverence. Likewise he also seems to commit a venial sin of irreverence who communicates either from a venially evil motive, for example from vainglory, or with an actual or virtual affection for venial sin. In such a case there seems to be a certain positive irreverence. It must be said otherwise of one who communicates with habitual venial sin, because there is rather a defect of perfect reverence than positive irreverence (St. Alphonsus, VI, 270).

Corollary I. Nocturnal pollution, in relation to Communion to be received on the following day, is to be judged thus: It never prohibits it under grave sin, provided the grave sin perhaps committed has been removed by Confession. For the rest:

1. If it occurred with grave sin, although remitted by Confession, "one should abstain from Communion and celebration unless something else seems good to the confessor."¹

2. If it occurred with venial sin or without sin, Communion is prohibited under venial sin by reason of the effects, namely if because of dishonorable fantasies it obstructs the required devotion. Yet it is prohibited only insofar as either one must abstain from Communion, or effort must be applied to removing the impediment² (St. Alphonsus, VI, 272).

Corollary II. Conjugal intercourse practically does not impede Communion; nor, for the most part, should spouses be positively advised to abstain from intercourse on the night before the day of Communion. To those asking, let it be said that it is licit, and at most let it be added that abstinence is a thing of greater perfection.

¹ Missal, On Defects, title IX, n. 5.

² Cf. Missal, loc. cit.

III. Preparation and thanksgiving. In order that one may receive richer fruits, he should not omit remote and proximate preparation, and thanksgiving.

1. Preparation can be distinguished as twofold: remote and proximate. Remote preparation consists especially in purity of heart; proximate preparation, in acts of faith, hope, charity, etc., and "let it be made according to the powers, conditions, and offices of each one."¹

2. Thanksgiving should likewise be carried out carefully, and not be finished in a few minutes. For the rest, it too, as the cited Decree has it, "should be made according to the powers, conditions, and offices of each one" (cf. St. Alphonsus, Praxis Confessarii, n. 155).

Corollary. To eat or drink immediately after Communion is venial, unless a reasonable cause excuses (St. Alphonsus, VI, 283). To spit immediately after it has been cast into the stomach is unbecoming; if it were done with danger of ejecting a particle, it would be a sin.

¹ Decree of the Sacred Congregation of the Council Sacra Tridentina Synodus, 20 December 1905.

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

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

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

326. • QUESTION 3. Whether one who remembers a mortal sin which through inculpable forgetfulness he did not declare in confession is bound to confess it before Communion?

Resp. 1. Certainly no, if the penitent is already sitting at the sacred table, or there is present a grave cause of communicating, and he can confess again only with difficulty. The reason is that even if the precept of confession were present, it would not urge with so great an inconvenience. - Thus all.

Resp. 2. If the penitent can without inconvenience confess or omit Communion, it is controverted. More probably he is neither bound to confess nor to abstain from Communion, because the sin involuntarily omitted has certainly been remitted, although only indirectly; and therefore it in no way stands in the way of receiving Communion. Nor should you say that the Tridentine precept of confessing before Communion urges; for the penitent, since he has already been duly confessed and justified through the Sacrament of Penance, has been sufficiently proved even according to the mind of the Council of Trent. - St. Ligorius, n. 257, On the Eucharist. - Collet. - Pontas. - Gousset, n. 249, and others, against others who more commonly and not improbably held the opposite. - St. Ligorius inclines more to the former opinion, yet judges that the second is to be advised in practice ¹, provided that some cause does not advise otherwise. - Homo apostolicus, n. 23.

¹ Do not understand this as if in practice you ought to teach with the second opinion that in the case there is present an obligation to confess again before Communion; the meaning of St. Alphonsus here is, namely, that it is more advisable to confess again; especially because the memory of the omitted fault may impede the tranquil peace of conscience, and that devotion which is especially conducive to tasting the sweetness of this divine food and receiving abundant fruit.

481. • QUESTION 5. Can anyone, without confession first being made, approach Holy Communion with a doubtful or probable mortal sin?

Reply. Affirmative, rigorously speaking. The reason is that the Council of Trent requires confession before Communion only for those who are conscious of mortal sin. Hence a Priest who doubts whether he consented to an evil thought, or who judges probably that he did not consent to it, can celebrate, after first making an act of contrition, but without confession, even though he has access to a Confessor. - St. Lig., no. 475. - In practice, however, confession is to be counseled.

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

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

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

¹ 1 Pet. 4:8.

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

² 1 Thess. 4:3-5.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Moreover three conditions are necessary for breaking this fast:

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

2. That it be taken from without;

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

4. That it be taken from midnight onward.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

— Exceptions to the Law of Fasting.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

— I. Communion Prescribed to the Healthy. "Every faithful person of either sex, after he has arrived at the years of discretion, that is, at the use of reason, must once in the year, at least at Easter, receive the sacrament of the Eucharist, unless perhaps, by the counsel of his own priest, for some reasonable cause, he has thought he must abstain for a time from its reception" (c. 859, §1).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

191. Requirements. For receiving the Eucharist with fruit there are required: 1. freedom from two censures; 2. freedom from mortal sins; 3. actual devotion.

1. Freedom from two censures, namely, from excommunication (can. 2260, § 1) and personal interdict (can. 2275, n. 2), is required before Communion, as will be explained more fully in the treatise on censures.

2. Freedom from mortal sin is altogether necessary, since the Eucharist is a sacrament of the living, and spiritual food, such as Communion, is not given to a corpse, that is, to a sinner spiritually dead. But freedom from venial sin, or rather from affection for venial sin, is not indeed altogether required for the efficacy of this sacrament, but it is very useful for receiving more abundant fruits.

The Council of Trent⁹⁷ says: "If it is not fitting for anyone to approach any sacred functions except holily, certainly the more the holiness and divinity of this heavenly sacrament are known to a Christian man, the more diligently must he beware lest he approach to receive it without great reverence and holiness, especially since we read those words full of terror in the Apostle: 'He who eats and drinks unworthily eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the Body of the Lord.' Therefore, the precept, 'Let a man prove himself,' is to be recalled to the memory of one wishing to communicate. But ecclesiastical custom declares that this proving is necessary, so that no one conscious to himself of mortal sin, however contrite he may seem to himself, ought to approach the Holy Eucharist without prior sacramental confession. This holy Synod has decreed that this is perpetually to be observed by all Christians, even by those priests upon whom it is incumbent by office to celebrate, provided that access to a confessor is not lacking to them; but if, necessity urging, a priest has celebrated without prior confession, let him confess as soon as possible." From this law the following two principles are deduced:

⁹⁷ Session 13, c. 7 on the Eucharist (Denz., n. 880); cf. Code of Canon Law, cc. 807 and 856.

192. Principle 1. For worthily receiving Holy Communion, contrition does not suffice, but confession is required if anyone is conscious of a mortal sin committed and not yet remitted by absolution, unless, however, a) a confessor is lacking, and b) at the same time the necessity of communicating is urgent.

Theologians dispute whether this precept of prior confession is of divine law or ecclesiastical law. St. Alphonsus says: "The common and true opinion ... teaches that this precept is divine,"⁹⁸ because by the precept of Christ a proving is to precede Communion, and this proving, as the Council of Trent declares, is sacramental confession. Moreover, already in the most ancient times (for example, those of St. Cyprian), confession was prescribed before Holy Communion.⁹⁹ Other authors, such as John Medina and, among moderns, Noldin,¹⁰⁰ Génicot,¹⁰¹ etc., think that this precept is indeed grave but was introduced by the Church to guard against many sacrilegious Communions. Génicot endeavors to demonstrate that such was the mind of the Council of Trent from the history of the Council written by Cardinal Pallavicini and from the acts edited by Theiner.¹⁰² For practice this controversy is of little importance, since, against Cajetan¹⁰³ and certain others, all theologians now teach that there exists a strict and grave precept of confessing mortal sins before receiving Communion. "But if anyone shall presume to teach, preach, or pertinaciously assert the contrary, or even to defend it by public disputation, let him be excommunicated by that very fact."¹⁰⁴ This excommunication indeed is no longer in force in our days, since it was not renewed in the Code of Canon Law. That this precept is of divine law can be proved indirectly in two ways. For if it were of ecclesiastical law, a) the Pope could dispense from it; b) contrary custom could abolish it. But both are most commonly denied. Therefore, that precept pertains to divine law.

There is no grave obligation of prior confession unless the sin was certainly committed and is certainly mortal.¹⁰⁵ The reason is that otherwise a man is not, in the strict sense, conscious to himself of mortal sin, since consciousness is certain knowledge. Nevertheless, unless it concerns a very scrupulous man, even in the case of a doubtfully mortal and doubtfully committed sin, confession is greatly to be counseled, lest the Eucharist be deprived of its effect. But if anyone, after confession duly performed, remembers an omitted mortal sin, he is not bound to confess again before Communion; yet he must accuse himself of it in the following confession. The reason is that a sin of this kind is not indeed remitted because of contrition alone, which the Council of Trent declared to be insufficient, but through sacramental absolution, which indirectly remitted this sin also. Nevertheless, if this omitted sin can easily be accused before Communion, it is better to do this.

⁹⁸ Theol. mor., l. 6, n. 256.

⁹⁹ Cf. Schanz, Die Lehre von den Sakramenten I, § 33.

¹⁰⁰ De sacr., n. 140.

¹⁰¹ Theol. mor. II, n. 192.

¹⁰² Acta gen. I, 489.

¹⁰³ Commentary on S. theol. 3, q. 80, a. 4.

¹⁰⁴ Council of Trent, sess. 13, can. 11 on the Eucharist (Denz., n. 893).

¹⁰⁵ Cf. below, on doubtful sins to be confessed, n. 375.

193. The precept of prior confession does not bind, provided that these two conditions are present cumulatively, that is, at the same time: the lack of a confessor and the necessity of Communion.

a) The lack of a confessor signifies the absence of any suitable confessor. Therefore, access to a confessor is not considered lacking if only the customary confessor or another to whom confession could be made more easily is absent. Hence confession must be made before Communion whenever anyone can confess without a grave inconvenience extrinsic to confession itself.¹⁰⁶ Such an inconvenience would be present, for example, if someone had to make a journey of two hours in order to make his confession; if scandal for the people would arise from the confession, as if a pastor already prepared for Mass had to confess before others, who would therefore conceive sinister suspicions; if the confessor would learn from the confession the name of an accomplice; if the pastor had to confess a very shameful sin to his young vicar and consequently rightly feared that the vicar would experience grave temptations or violate the seal,¹⁰⁷ etc. But no inconvenience intrinsic to confession, such as great and even extraordinary shame, excuses from confession.

Theologians disputed whether one who has a reserved sin, when a confessor endowed with the faculty is lacking, is bound to confess to a simple confessor before Communion; but today this controversy is ended. For in more urgent cases any confessor can directly absolve from all reserved sins, as will be said more fully below in n. 425 sqq.

b) The necessity of Communion is present, for example, if Viaticum must be administered to a dying person by a priest burdened with sins, who must first celebrate in order to obtain the Eucharistic species; if a priest cannot omit Mass without grave infamy or scandal of the people; if someone already standing at the Communion rail remembers a mortal sin and cannot withdraw without infamy, etc. But there is not sufficient necessity of communicating (with contrition alone elicited) in order to satisfy the Easter precept. For the Easter Communion can then be deferred. There are nevertheless several authors who think that even such necessity is sufficient.¹⁰⁸ Likewise, there is not sufficient necessity for celebrating Mass without prior confession of mortal sin, even if he himself or even several others must then be without Mass on a Sunday or feast day. If, however, infamy for the priest would arise in this case, which indeed easily happens, or if the priest is bound by office to celebrate Mass, sufficient necessity is present.

¹⁰⁶ Cf. below, n. 380.

¹⁰⁷ Thus also Génicot, Cas. consc., De subi. euch., cas. 2.

¹⁰⁸ Cf. Marc, Instit. mor. II, n. 1550.

194. Principle 2. A priest who, with a confessor thus lacking and necessity compelling, has celebrated Mass with contrition alone must confess as soon as possible, that is, within three days.

The precept of confessing as soon as possible does not bind the laity, but priests. For the Council of Trent and the Code of Canon Law, c. 807, name priests alone, and the law is not to be extended beyond its proper terms. The reason for this law is that the necessity of communicating without confession can occur more frequently in priests than in the laity. But the Church wishes to guard against priests celebrating repeatedly without confession under the pretext of necessity. "The command of Trent made to a priest sacrificing from necessity while in mortal sin, to confess as soon as possible, is a counsel, not a precept."¹⁰⁹ This proposition (38) was condemned by Alexander VII, and therefore confession to be made as soon as possible is truly commanded under grave obligation for those priests who celebrated in necessity and with a confessor lacking. The obligation of confessing as soon as possible is to be understood in such a way that confession is made at least within three days, since the term "as soon as possible" in laws is customarily taken morally for a space of three days. By the same Alexander VII proposition (39) was condemned: "That phrase 'as soon as possible' is understood as when the priest shall confess in his own time."¹¹⁰ This obligation of confessing is urgent even if the priest is not going to celebrate within this period of three days or for a longer time. Accidentally, a priest is bound to confession on the same or the following day if he foresees that in the subsequent days no opportunity of confessing will be present, and if he is going to celebrate Mass on the following day. But if confession is impossible within three days, for example, in mission territories, the priest can celebrate repeatedly until he can confess.

Theologians commonly teach that this Tridentine precept of confessing as soon as possible does not exist for priests sacrilegiously celebrating in the state of mortal sin, if the necessity of celebrating is absent or access to a confessor is present, because the Council wished to guard against priests deferring confession under the pretext of the necessity of celebrating. But those priests who knowingly celebrate sacrilegiously do not care much about making confession as soon as possible, since they neglect it even apart from necessity; nor, nevertheless, are these priests who celebrate sacrilegiously for that reason in a better condition, because they multiply sacrileges.

¹⁰⁹ Denz., n. 1138.

¹¹⁰ Denz., n. 1139.

195. 3. Actual devotion is required because of the reverence due to so great a sacrament.¹¹¹ Therefore, not only are all distractions to be avoided in Communion itself as impeding more abundant grace, but also diligent preparation and fervent thanksgiving are to be made.

Nothing certain has been determined concerning how long both preparation and thanksgiving ought to last. St. Alphonsus¹¹² says: "Let thanksgiving be made for at least half an hour"; indeed, he admonishes those who aspire to Christian perfection and are not occupied by other affairs that they ordinarily devote a whole hour to this exercise. Nevertheless, in present times let a confessor ordinarily require no more than that the faithful and priests truly and fervently give thanks for a quarter of an hour after Communion has been received. Except in a case of necessity, however, no briefer time is to be spent. The same holds for preparation for Holy Communion. Alas! That saying, "Things of every day grow cheap," is manifested even in the reception of the Most Holy Eucharist. Therefore, tepidity and negligence are to be fought with all diligence and fortitude in preparation and thanksgiving for Communion. Ascetical writers indicate the individual acts of piety which are to be elicited in the reception of this sacrament.

It remains to be noted that after receiving Communion a man should take care not immediately or shortly afterward to spit or blow his nose, lest perhaps the smallest particles of the sacred species, not yet transmitted into the stomach, be spat out or expelled through the nose.

¹¹¹ Cf. Billuart, De sacr. in gen., diss. 3, a. 4, § 2.

¹¹² Praxis confess., n. 155.

1547. A) In one receiving the Most Holy Eucharist, besides faith and immunity from censures, there is required first of all the STATE OF GRACE; both because the Eucharist is a Sacrament of the living, which presupposes first grace in the subject, and because it is spiritual food, which cannot profit one spiritually dead.

The TRIDENTINE SYNOD speaks aptly to the matter:¹ "If it is not fitting," it says, "for anyone to approach any sacred functions unless holily, certainly the more the holiness and divinity of this heavenly Sacrament is known to a Christian man, the more diligently he ought to beware lest he approach to receive it without great reverence and holiness, especially since we read those words full of fear in the Apostle: He who eats and drinks unworthily, eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the Body of the Lord. Wherefore, to one wishing to communicate, that precept must be recalled into memory: Let a man prove himself. But ecclesiastical custom declares that this proving is necessary, so that no one conscious to himself of mortal sin, however contrite he may seem to himself, ought to approach the Holy Eucharist without previous sacramental confession; and this holy Synod has decreed that this is perpetually to be observed by all Christians, even by priests upon whom it has fallen by office to celebrate, provided they do not lack the opportunity of a confessor: but if, necessity urging, a priest has celebrated without previous confession, let him confess as soon as possible."

But indeed these prescriptions of Trent ask for a fuller explanation for themselves. Whence let there be the following:

1548. Principles. I. No one conscious to himself of mortal sin, however contrite he may seem to himself, can approach the Holy Eucharist WITHOUT PREVIOUS SACRAMENTAL CONFESSION. For the Apostle says: "Let a man prove himself, and so let him eat of that bread." But it is clear, from ecclesiastical custom, that confession itself is that necessary proving.²

There are indeed some, but these are few, who say that this precept is only ecclesiastical; but "the common and true opinion teaches that this PRECEPT is DIVINE. The reason is that, on the one hand, it is clear that from the precept of Christ proving must be premised, since the Apostle testifies that he received it from the Lord; on the other hand, from Trent it is clearly evident that this required proving is confession...; for the Council did not say that this precept of confession had been introduced by ecclesiastical custom, but that by it such a precept had been declared; whence confession is commanded from divine precept. - Nor is it opposed to this that it is called a precept of the Apostle, because in reality it is a precept of Christ promulgated through the Apostle."³

It is said 1. of mortal sin, because venial sins, however many they are, just as they do not deprive one of divine grace, so neither do they prohibit someone from approaching the sacred Table.⁴

It is said 2. conscious to himself, that is, morally certain concerning a grave sin committed, which has not been remitted through the Sacrament of Penance. - But in doubt whether it has been committed, St. Alphonsus teaches that the following distinction must be made: "If someone doubts whether he has sinned gravely or not, then he can licitly approach Communion without previous confession, whether the doubt is negative or positive, it sufficing for him, that he may more safely receive the fruit of the Sacrament, to premise contrition...; because the precept of prohibition does not begin to possess, except after the man is conscious of his sin. On the contrary, if someone is certain concerning a sin committed, then he cannot communicate unless he is certain that he has been proved through confession; because then the precept of prohibition certainly possesses in him."⁵

1549. It is asked: Whether if someone after confession REMEMBERS some mortal sin inculpably forgotten, he is held to confess it before Communion?

Resp. It is controverted. The first opinion, most common among authors, affirms, because this seems more conformable to the words of Trent. "But the second opinion denies.... and, the intrinsic foundation having been considered, it seems altogether consonant with reason, and it seems very probable to others. The reason is that he who premised confession to Communion has already fulfilled the precept of confession, by force of which the forgotten sin has already been indirectly remitted, and the penitent already exists as proved.... For in Trent only this is prescribed, that the penitent approach Communion justified not by contrition alone, but also through confession; but here he has already been justified also through confession, and therefore is not held at once before Communion to confess again. But the practice of the faithful which is opposed is not to be held as a certain rule of obligation, but rather as a pious and laudable usage, which, for the rest, is to be counseled to all as often as some cause in opposition does not suggest something else."⁶

But neither is such a faithful person, according to the common opinion, held to elicit an act of contrition. For since he has been justified, no foundation appears from which contrition is required; not from precept, because this is nowhere found prescribed; not for deleting the sin, because this has already been deleted through the confession previously made.⁷

1550. II. It is licit to receive the Eucharist, with contrition alone premised without confession, when there is present a NECESSITY of celebrating or communicating, and OPPORTUNITY OF A CONFESSOR is lacking. Thus Trent, and the reason is that a positive precept does not oblige with so great an inconvenience.

It is said 1. WHEN NECESSITY IS PRESENT; but by necessity is not understood great devotion, nor the poverty of the priest, unless the poverty were very grave; but urgent necessity is understood. Hence:

1. Danger of death excuses, namely when a host is to be consecrated for one dying; likewise, danger of infamy or scandal, for example if someone were already found at the rail of those communicating, and could not depart without being noticed by others. The same must be said if, Viaticum having been brought to the sick person, confession, because of shortness of time, could not be completed without danger of death or infamy. In which case the priest, having heard some sin, ought to absolve the dying person and offer him Communion, with the obligation imposed on him of completing confession if he recovers. Yet here it must be carefully noticed that scandal is then said to occur when occasion is given for detracting or rashly judging, but not when only occasion for wonder is given.

2. The obligation from office of celebrating excuses, so that the people may hear Mass, provided there is not another who may celebrate. - But one who is not held from office to provide that the people be present at Mass cannot celebrate, even if he himself or the people, on a feast day, would have to lack Mass. For the precept of confessing, which is divine, is to be preferred to the ecclesiastical precept of hearing Mass. But whether, opportunity of a confessor being lacking, someone can communicate with contrition alone, so that he may satisfy the Paschal precept, is controverted: very commonly they affirm, from the fact that the Paschal precept is also divine; yet others deny, and say that the precept of Paschal Communion can be deferred until opportunity of a confessor is had. Each opinion is probable.

3. The necessity of completing a Sacrifice already begun excuses, for example if a priest, while celebrating, remembers a mortal sin. Yet here a distinction must be made. If he remembers the sin after consecration, the Mass is not to be interrupted so that he may confess, as St. Thomas teaches, and as is expressly had in the Rubric. But if he remembers before consecration, and especially before the Canon, he ought to confess if a confessor is present, and if he can effect this without note of infamy, for example in a solemn Mass, during the chant or during the sacred sermon. But if he cannot confess, and no danger of infamy is to be feared, he is more probably held to desist from Mass. Thus many, and this seems to be clear from the Rubric saying: "If before consecration the priest remembers that he is in mortal sin..., if scandal is not feared, he ought to abandon the Mass begun." We have said more probably, because it is not certain whether the Rubric by the word ought imposes a grave precept. For the rest, the Doctors well notice that in such a case it can scarcely happen that the note of infamy be avoided.⁸

It is said 2. AND OPPORTUNITY OF A CONFESSOR IS LACKING; but it is judged to be lacking, not, as some wish, if that one is absent to whom he is accustomed and would desire to confess, or to whom he would confess more devoutly or usefully; but if no suitable one is present, and one absent cannot be approached without great difficulty. - Moreover, this difficulty is to be estimated by considering both the weakness, age, and occupations of the person, and other circumstances, such as weather, shortness of time, distance, etc. Regularly, a distance of two hours excuses; and a much smaller distance, if the priest would be about to celebrate shortly.⁹

1551. It is asked: Whether one who has a RESERVED sin, in defect of a confessor endowed with faculty, is held to confess to a simple confessor, that he may communicate?

Resp. 1. If he has no other sin than the reserved one, from the common opinion, he is not held; so that, necessity urging, he can communicate with contrition. - Nevertheless, if he has only attrition, he is held to confess the venial sins which he has, or a mortal sin already confessed on another occasion, so that thus, at least indirectly, he may be absolved from the reserved one. And he can do this same thing, although he has contrition, so that he may receive the Eucharist more safely (cf. n. 1283, 3).

Resp. 2. If he has reserved and non-reserved sins, we say with the most common and more probable opinion that he is held to confession. The reason is that, since the divine precept of premising confession to Communion urges, confession ought to be made at least formally entire, if it cannot be made materially entire. But, in this second case, from an opinion truly probable, by itself it suffices for the penitent that he declare the non-reserved sins. We say by itself; because by accident he is sometimes held also to declare the reserved sins, so that the confessor can rightly judge concerning the disposition, for example if he is relapsed in reserved sins, or in a proximate occasion of sinning (cf. n. 1778).

1552. III. A priest who, necessity urging, has celebrated without previous confession, is held to confess AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. It is an ecclesiastical law openly expressed in Trent.

It is said 1. A priest; for, from the most common and more probable opinion, this precept of confessing as soon as possible does not oblige laymen. The reason is both that the Council names priests alone, and that the same reason does not run for laymen as for priests. For in priests the necessity of communicating without confession occurs more easily, and therefore they themselves would more easily, under the pretext of this necessity, celebrate with confession omitted.¹⁰

It is said 2. is held; because Trent does not express counsel, but precept. This is evident from proposition 38 condemned by Alexander VII, which sounds thus: "The mandate of Trent made to a priest sacrificing from necessity with mortal sin, of confessing as soon as possible, is counsel, not precept." - But whether this precept obliges a priest who remembers the sin after consecration is controverted. Others deny, because the Rubric, speaking of him, says only: let him be contrite with the purpose of confessing. "This opinion does not seem improbable, but the contrary is more common and perhaps more probable, because then the case supposed by the Council is already verified, namely that he now celebrates in sin and without confession; so much the more because in that phrase of the Rubric, of confessing, the word as soon as possible is easily understood, already expressed by the Rubric a little before."¹¹

It is said 3. as soon as possible, that is, within three days, according to the common interpretation of authors. For in ecclesiastical laws that phrase as soon as possible, or another similar word, must be understood morally, and therefore, as they commonly teach, it is extended to the space of three days. "Yet the authors notice that it can happen that a priest, by accident, is held from this precept to confess on the same day, and perhaps in the same hour, for example if he then had a confessor, whom he will afterwards lack for several days, or if tomorrow the same necessity of celebrating would urge, and he could not confess."¹²

1553. It is asked: Whether a priest is held to confess as soon as possible if, confession having been omitted, he celebrated SACRILEGIOUSLY?

Resp. Distinguish. 1. If without necessity, or with opportunity of a confessor given, he celebrated, the most common and truer opinion denies that he is held. The reason is that the precept of Trent is ordained toward instilling fear in those who, under the pretext of necessity, defer confession; but not in those celebrating sacrilegiously, for whom this precept would very rarely be profitable. For those who, with the divine precept contemned, dare knowingly to celebrate in sin, will more easily contemn an ecclesiastical precept.

2. But if, necessity urging and opportunity of a confessor lacking, he celebrated not contrite, he is indeed held to confess as soon as possible; because the precept of Trent does not distinguish between a priest having or not having contrition, but speaks of any priest whatever celebrating from necessity.¹³

1554. B) Besides the state of grace, which is altogether necessary, there is required in one receiving the Holy Eucharist IMMUNITY FROM VENIAL SINS, and ACTUAL DEVOTION, namely so that a richer harvest of graces may be gathered from the reception of the Sacrament. - For the purer the soul is, the more closely it is joined with the Lord, who is Purity itself; and the greater devotion with which it is borne toward Him, the more lovingly it is treated by the Lover of souls and heaped with richer graces.

Moreover, that actual devotion is best promoted through acts of living faith, sincere humility, ardent desire, and burning charity.

And this is why the people are often to be admonished "with what PREPARATION, and with how great religion and piety of soul, and also humble bearing of body, they ought to approach so divine a Sacrament. Moreover, those communicating are to be warned that, the Sacrament having been received, they should not immediately depart from the church, or converse, or at once look around with wandering eyes...; but, with the devotion that is fitting, they should remain for some time in prayer, GIVING THANKS TO GOD for so singular a benefit, and also for the most holy Passion of the Lord, in memory of which this mystery is celebrated and received."¹

1555. Questions. Q. 1. Whether to approach the Eucharist WITH VENIAL SIN is a new venial sin?

Resp. 1. To approach with habitual venial sin probably is not a new sin. "The reason is both that it would rather be a defect of perfect reverence than a positive irreverence; and because the very will of receiving the Eucharist and its effect is a certain virtual detestation of venial sins, by which faults are removed, so that they by no means impede the fruit of the Sacrament."²

Resp. 2. To approach with an actual concomitant venial sin, for example because of vainglory, or with a purpose of lying afterwards, is a sin; because such a communicating person inflicts a positive injury on the Sacrament. Thus commonly and more truly, against some.³

Q. 2. Whether an actual venial sin IMPEDES the fruit of the Sacrament?

Resp. From the far more common opinion, it does not impede the principal effect, namely an increase of habitual grace; although it impedes some fruits, for example fervor of charity, and from this it is why several priests are observed who celebrate daily in grace, and nevertheless profit nothing. The reason is that venial sin does not fight with habitual grace, nor with any increase whatever of it, and therefore does not impede it (cf. n. 1548).

Q. 3. When does the Eucharist produce its effects in one receiving it who is rightly disposed?

Resp. 1. Grace is given in the very act of eating, namely when passage is made from the mouth into the stomach. Whence "the species are not to be retained in the mouth so long until they entirely perish; because then Christ would not be eaten, nor would the grace of the Sacrament be conferred"; just as it is not conferred if someone dies while he retains the host in his mouth.⁴

Resp. 2. It is very probable that, if the disposition of the subject becomes better, grace is always increased as long as the sacramental species endure in the stomach. "The reason is that this Sacrament was instituted after the manner of food; whence, just as food nourishes the body during the whole time in which it remains in the stomach, so likewise, whenever the Eucharist remains in the body, it nourishes the soul by increasing grace."⁵

Q. 4. What if a PRIEST should dispose himself during the consumption?

Resp. "If someone had consumed part of the wine or host while indisposed, and then disposed himself, he would still receive grace in the consumption of the other part; because even then the Eucharist has the power of conferring grace ex opere operato. Some also probably say that this would happen if he disposed himself before the species are consumed in the stomach."⁶

1306. Principles. - I. For receiving the Sacrament of the Eucharist, besides immunity from excommunication (n. 1676) and interdict (n. 1696. q. 1°. q. 2°), there is required the state of grace, at least prudently judged to be present. Otherwise a most grave sacrilege is committed. The reason is clear from the nature of the thing, and also from the words of the Apostle:¹ But let a man prove himself, and so let him eat of that Bread, and drink of the Chalice. For he who, etc.

II. It does not suffice that the state of grace be acquired by perfect contrition, but it is required that Confession of mortal sins be premised and Sacramental absolution be received, except in a case of necessity, namely either when the supply of a confessor is lacking and Communion cannot be omitted without grave note or suspicion, or when it must be celebrated by a priest so that the people may assist at Mass on a feast day. - Trent.² See St. Alphonsus.³

1307. - Questions. Query 1° When is the supply of a confessor judged to be lacking?

Resp. It is judged to be lacking: 1° If no confessor is present, and, considering the circumstances of weakness, age, business, distance, weather, shortness of time, etc., an absent one cannot be approached without grave difficulty.

2° If no other confessor is present except one ignorant of the language, or lacking jurisdiction, or to whom you cannot confess without grave damage to yourself or another. Nevertheless in these cases perfect contrition is required. But the supply of a confessor is not judged to be lacking if the one to whom you are accustomed to confess is absent; rather any approved confessor must be lacking.¹

But a cause excusing from Confession occurs most rarely for laymen. It can indeed more easily be present as regards priests; but one must surely beware lest, deterred by a vain pretext or by shame and embarrassment, they imagine for themselves a chimerical impossibility.

Query 2° What distance is required, that the priest may be judged to be lacking?

Resp. It cannot be determined rigorously, but depends on circumstances. Some require a distance of two leagues; others one league with a half or a quarter; others one league only. But besides the reason of journey, other reasons often urge, e.g. infirmity or shortness of time. Thus a priest already about to celebrate can be excused from Confession, even if the confessor is distant only 50 paces.²

Query 3° Is he who remembers a mortal sin which from inculpable forgetfulness he did not declare in Confession held to confess it before Communion?

Resp. 1° Certainly not, if the penitent is already at the Sacred Table, or a grave cause of communicating is present, and he can confess again only with difficulty. The reason is because, even if the precept of Confession were present, it would not urge with so great an inconvenience. - Thus all.

Resp. 2° If the penitent can confess or omit Communion without inconvenience, it is controverted: very probably he is neither held to confess, nor to abstain from Communion; because the sin omitted involuntarily has certainly been remitted, although only indirectly; and therefore it in no way stands in the way of Communion to be received. Nor should you say that the precept of Trent of confessing before Communion urges; for the penitent, since he has already been rightly confessed and justified through the Sacrament of Penance, is sufficiently proved, even according to the mind of the Council of Trent. - St. Alphonsus³ and others, against others who more commonly and not improbably held the opposite. - St. Alphonsus inclines more to the former sentence, nevertheless he judges that the second is to be advised in practice, provided that some cause does not counsel otherwise.

Query 4° Is a priest who celebrated, or a layman who communicated conscious of mortal sin, without Confession, because of urgent necessity, held to confess as soon as possible?

Resp. 1° As regards the priest, affirmatively. For thus expressly Trent:² "But if, necessity urging, a priest has celebrated without previous Confession, let him confess as soon as possible."

Resp. 2° As regards the layman, negatively, more probably. The reason is because Trent speaks only of priests, as is clear from the text. - Thus most commonly, says St. Alphonsus.³

Query 5° How is that precept imposed on priests of confessing as soon as possible to be understood?

Resp. More probably it suffices if the priest confesses within three days; because, since this precept is only ecclesiastical, the word as soon as possible can be understood morally, as it is understood in other human laws, where that word, or another similar word, by common interpretation is extended to the space of three days.⁴ - Nevertheless the priest cannot celebrate again before he has confessed, because he was not excused from Confession except on account of present necessity. Hence, if the same necessity of celebrating on the following day urges, and he can confess, he cannot defer Confession to another day.

Query 6° Is a priest celebrating after Confession, in which he inculpably forgot some mortal sin, held to confess as soon as possible?

Resp. 1° Negatively, if he remembers the sin after celebration; because he did not celebrate conscious of that sin, as Trent speaks. - Thus commonly.

Resp. 2° Negatively, very probably, even if he remembers the sin before celebration; because since he has premised Confession, although he forgot some grave sin, nevertheless he cannot be said to have celebrated conscious of mortal sin without previous Confession. St. Alphonsus¹ calls this sentence very probable, after Lacroix and others against Suarez, Lugo, etc.

Query 7° Is a priest celebrating sacrilegiously, when necessity does not urge, or, if it does urge, when the supply of a confessor is not lacking, held to confess as soon as possible?

Resp. Negatively. The reason is because the precept of Trent is ordered only to striking fear into those who defer Confession under pretext of necessity, not however into those celebrating sacrilegiously, to whom a precept of this kind would very rarely be of profit; for those who, having contemned the divine precept, dare to celebrate sacrilegiously, would surely more easily contemn the precept of the Church. - Thus most commonly and more truly, St. Alphonsus.²

Query 8° Does affection to some venial sin impede the whole fruit of Communion?

Resp. Negatively. The reason is because the will can well experience pious movements toward God and the Sacrament, although it retains some lightly disordered affection toward a particular thing; therefore one communicating with such an affection is not deprived of every fruit of the Eucharist.³

271. First, under grave obligation, proof of the state of grace is required. - It consists in this, that by prudent estimation one is not conscious of mortal sin; or if he is conscious, that he first make sacramental confession, however contrite he may seem to himself.

Proof is required by natural and divine law (I Cor. XI, 28), because the Eucharist is a sacrament of the living; but proof through confession is not so required, because without it, by perfect contrition alone, provision could be made for reverence toward the sacrament. But confession is prescribed by ecclesiastical law, and was introduced by ancient custom declaring such proof to be necessary, which Trent decreed was to be observed, sess. 13, c. 7, and which the Code of Law confirmed (can. 856 and 807).

It is said: 1. is not conscious of mortal sin; whence a) one doubting, whether negatively or positively, whether he has sinned mortally, is not bound to confess: for he does not have conscience, i.e., certain knowledge; b) one negatively doubting whether a sin was rightly confessed, i.e., having no solid reason for believing this, is bound to confession; one positively doubting, i.e., on account of a grave reason, probably is not bound, because he is no longer conscious of sin;

2. if he is conscious, that he first make confession; whence if someone has confessed and without grave fault has omitted a mortal sin, he has already satisfied the precept, because through confession his state of grace was proved.

Nevertheless in these cases confession is to be counseled; but not to the scrupulous.

272. To communicate or celebrate without prior confession is licit when at the same time necessity urges and the availability of a confessor is lacking.

A. The necessity required is grave, because it is also grave not to carry out a precept of great moment in so grave a matter; whence per se the celebrity of a feast, the burden of a Mass to be said from a benefice, great devotion, an indulgence to be gained, or poverty of the priest would not suffice unless it were altogether grave.

Commonly among excusing necessities are numbered:

1. Danger of death either of the one about to communicate himself (if he is himself a priest, or a layman in the presence of a priest who does not know how to speak), or of another (that a host may be consecrated for him).

2. An office to be fulfilled from which follows great utility for many, as if a pastor or another priest is bound to celebrate, for example so that the people may hear Mass on a feast day, and another is lacking; but not, as it seems, for the utility of one, as if for a layman the precept of annual or paschal communion were urgent, because it can be deferred.

Certainly, however, a priest could not celebrate so that he himself may be able to hear Mass, because this is not a necessity: for no priest is bound to celebrate so that he may hear Mass.

3. A founded danger of infamy or scandal, which would arise from omission of the sacred rite (for example in celebrating funerals or blessing marriages) or of communion (for example if someone at the communion rail remembers a sin and cannot withdraw without infamy).

4. The integrity of the sacrifice, when another is not present to complete it, or if the celebrant after consecration should remember a sin or should become guilty.

But if this happens before consecration, per se he ought to confess or interrupt the sacrifice; in practice, however, infamy or scandal can almost always be feared.

5. Danger of profanation, for example in a sudden irruption of those who will profane the hosts.

In these cases, however, an act of perfect contrition, to be elicited with moral diligence, is prescribed, unless time is lacking, as can happen while one seated at the table of communion remembers a sin, or while enemies make an irruption; in which last case the host should not be received sacramentally from the intention of communicating, but merely materially, to hide it in the body.

B. The availability of a confessor is lacking, not indeed if that one is absent to whom you are accustomed or desire to confess, or if no one is present except a familiar person, to whom you can confess only with great shame, but if confession cannot be made, or not without a great inconvenience extrinsic to it.

Thus: 1. If there is no present approved priest with jurisdiction, and you cannot go to an absent one without great difficulty, which is to be estimated with consideration of weakness, age, business of the priest, and the circumstances of weather, distance, shorter time, conditions of the journey, etc.

2. If the one present is unwilling or unable to hear confession, for example deaf, an accomplice, ignorant of the language, bound by censure.

3. If from confession you fear a grave inconvenience extrinsic to confession, excusing from its material integrity, such as breach of the seal, infamy of the accomplice, one's own infamy before a third party, grave enmities, grave provocation to evil.

Great confusion to be undergone or infamy before the confessor does not suffice, because it is an inconvenience intrinsic to confession. Yet a few more recent authors judge, by epikeia, that extraordinary and truly invincible shame is an extrinsic inconvenience, as if a sister before her brother, a father before his son, had to confess a very shameful sin. But it was never so declared in the course of so many centuries, and therefore only in the last time those few authors would have rightly understood the law! Moreover they bring forward no positive foundation for this exception; but if it were admitted, there would easily be occasion for multiplying cases, and so danger of eluding the law.

273. For those celebrating without prior confession there is a special precept of confessing as soon as possible. - The Council of Trent imposes on priests conscious of sin, who with or without contrition celebrated from urgent necessity without prior confession, that they confess as soon as possible (sess. 13, c. 7); and this is confirmed by the Code of Law, can. 807. This is not counsel but a strict precept, as is clear from proposition 38 condemned by Alexander VII.¹

¹ "The mandate of Trent, given to a priest sacrificing from necessity with mortal sin, of confessing as soon as possible, is counsel, not a precept."

Since it is an ecclesiastical law, it is to be strictly interpreted; whence it is not applied to laymen, nor to priests only communicating, nor to those who so celebrated from mere malice, i.e., without necessity or while availability of a confessor was present to them, nor to those who after Mass had begun should remember a sin or become guilty, as the words indicate: without prior confession.

Moreover that as soon as possible does not signify: when the priest shall confess at his own time, as is clear from condemned proposition 39,² but morally at once, which ordinarily they explain as within three days: for what is done within three days is said in law to be done at once. Yet such a priest cannot celebrate again before he has confessed, unless necessity and at the same time the lack of a confessor persevere. But if a confessor morally present is about to depart and another is foreseen to be lacking, confession would have to be made without delay.

² "That particle as soon as possible is understood as when the priest shall confess at his own time."

274. To communicate with consciousness of sin is a very grave sin of sacrilege. - For the Apostle, in whose manner the Fathers speak, says that one guilty of the body and blood of the Lord eats and drinks judgment to himself (I Cor. XI, 27-29), which Trent confirms, sess. 13, can. 11, c. 7. And indeed: He who impedes the principal effect of the sacrament sins notably, because as much as he can he renders its signification false; this is against the reverence due to the sacrament and to Christ its institutor; whence it is sacrilege.

"Whoever," says St. Thomas, a. 4, "receives this sacrament signifies that he is united to Christ, which is done through charity, which no one has with mortal sin; and therefore he who receives with sin commits falsehood in this sacrament, and therefore incurs sacrilege as a violator of the sacrament."

More completely in the Commentary on IV Sent., d. 9, q. 1, a. 3, qc. 1, he indicates that in the unworthy reception of the sacrament there is a threefold abuse, as if from a threefold falsehood: "1. From that which is sacrament only, from which it appears that this sacrament is proposed by way of food, but food does not befit except one living; whence if one lacking spiritual life through mortal sin receives this sacrament, he abuses it. 2. From that which is there reality and sacrament, which is Christ Himself, who is the Holy of Holies, whence His receptacle ought to be holy; and therefore if someone receives the body of Christ with what is contrary to holiness, he abuses the sacrament. 3. From that which is reality only, which is the mystical body of Christ, because from this very fact that someone approaches this sacrament, he signifies that he tends to the unity of the mystical body; whence if he holds sin in conscience, through which he is separated from the mystical body, he incurs the fault of fiction (in the strict sense), and thus abuses the sacrament."

Nevertheless it is not the gravest of all sins:

1. Per se, i.e., on the part of the object, sins which are directly opposed to God or to the reverence due to Him are graver (against the theological virtues or the virtue of religion), such as infidelity, blasphemy, perjury; and those which are done against the humanity of Christ in its proper species (by offending religion), because they immediately touch Christ; whence if sacrilegious communion is compared by the Fathers to the sin of Judas kissing or of those killing Christ, this is to be understood with proportion, according to a certain likeness, because each is committed against the body of Christ, yet not according to the quantity of the crime. Moreover it is a graver irreverence to cast the sacrament into mud (to be trampled) or to give it to dogs (to be eaten), because thus one recedes more from the use of the sacrament. - Yet it is graver than sins which are done against other sacraments or sacred things, - or against creatures (by offending other moral virtues), although these can be graver on the part of the injury or damage inflicted (for example homicide).

2. Nor per accidens, i.e., on the part of the sinner, is it ordinarily graver than others, because rarely is it done from contempt but more often from fear, lest someone be thought a sinner.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Question 2. Is one who remembers a mortal sin which, from inculpable forgetfulness, he did not declare in confession, held to confess it before communion?

Resp. Negatively; and the reason is that a sin involuntarily omitted has certainly been remitted, although only indirectly, and therefore it in no way stands in the way of communion to be received. Nor should you say that the Tridentine precept of confessing before communion urges; for the penitent, since he has already been duly confessed and justified through the sacrament of Penance, is sufficiently proved even according to the mind of the Council of Trent. Nevertheless, in practice not only must a penitent of this kind be received kindly if he returns, and be absolved again, but it is also to be advised that he confess that sin at once, if he conveniently can. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 257; and Hom. Ap., n. 23. - Gousset, n. 249.

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

1. What dispositions of soul are required for Holy Communion?

The dispositions of soul required for Holy Communion are the state of grace and a good and upright intention.¹

1 Manual of Moral Theology, vol. ii, p. 106 ff.

2. How and of whom is the precept of the Council of Trent to be understood: “ Let him confess as soon as possible ” (Sess. XIII, c. 7)?

This is a grave precept imposed by the Council on those priests who though conscious of mortal sin and sorry for it did not go to confession before saying Mass on account of not having a confessor to whom they could confess.²

2 Ibid., p. 107.

3. The case. Philip was in doubt whether he was in the state of grace or not, because he was not sure that he had not committed a mortal sin of detraction since his last confession. As he was in doubt, he was not conscious of mortal sin, and only those who are conscious of mortal sin are bound to go to confession before Holy Communion. However, as the Eucharist is a sacrament of the living, and does not of itself certainly confer grace on a soul deprived of the supernatural life of God’s grace, those who receive it are bound to have moral certainty of their freedom from mortal sin in order that the sacrament may be fruitful. Therefore, one who doubts whether he is in the state of grace, although he is not bound to go to confession, yet he is bound to elicit an act of contrition so that thereby he may make sure, morally speaking, of being in the state of grace. Philip, therefore, should have done this, though he did not sin in omitting it, because he was in good faith.

3. What obligation rests on a priest who because he had not a confessor merely made an act of contrition for a mortal sin and celebrated Mass?

He is bound to go to confession as soon as possible according to the decree of the Council of Trent (Sess. XIII, c. 7).

4. The case. Caius was not bound to go to confession so early in the morning to the neighboring priest. His going and inquiring for his confessor at so unusual a time could scarcely help creating suspicion and comment. If he had no other mortal sins on his conscience he was not bound to go to his curate; for the danger of causing him scandal and the probability that he would suspect who was the accomplice excused Caius from confessing this sin to him. If he had other mortal sins not yet confessed which he could confess to his curate without these inconveniences he would be bound to confess them before Mass. Otherwise if he has the grace to make a good act of contrition he will only be obliged to confess his sin as soon as possible, i.e., within the next three days.

Dear Editor:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Importance AND AUTHORITY OF THE DOCUMENT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To Priests

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

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

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

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

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