Worthy Communion

Dispositions for Worthy Communion.—(a) Dispositions of Soul.—The divine law requires the state of grace (I Cor., xi. 27 sqq.), and probably also the previous sacramental confession which the Church prescribes sub gravi for one who is conscious of serious sin not yet remitted through absolution. But he is excused from the duty of previous confession who cannot omit Communion now (e.g., because while at the rails he remembers a grave sin and cannot leave without being disgraced) and who is unable to go to confession (see 2701 c). The recipient must also have a knowledge of the Sacrament suited to his mental capacity, and he must desire it, at least habitually. Since the Sacraments are fruitful in proportion to the cooperation given them, and since the presence and visit of Christ deserves honor and recognition, Communion should be received devoutly, and should be preceded by a preparation and followed by a thanksgiving (Canons 856, 731). The faithful may receive in any Rite, but their own Rite is advised for Easter Communion and strongly urged for the Viaticum (Canon 866).

(b) Dispositions of Body.—The communicant must observe the Eucharistic fast and must conduct himself with external reverence.

By ecclesiastical law a person is bound to the fasting from midnight to receive the Holy Eucharist lawfully (Canons 808, 858). Despite the changes made by the Apostolic Constitution, Christus Dominus (Jan. 16, 1953) and the Motu Proprio, “Sacram Communionem” (Mar. 19, 1957), priests and the faithful who are able to do so are exhorted to observe this venerable and ancient form of Eucharistic fast before Mass or Holy Communion. The legislation of these two papal documents, intended to increase devotion to the Blessed Sacrament by fostering frequent Communion, decrees:

1. that natural water does not break the fast;

2. that the period for observing the Eucharist fast before Mass, at whatever hour it may be said (morning, afternoon, midnight), is three hours from solid food and alcoholic beverages, and one hour from non-alcoholic beverages. The priest who is to celebrate computes his time from the beginning of Mass; the faithful, from the time of Communion;

3. that the sick, although not confined to bed, may consume non-alcoholic beverages and real and appropriate medicines, liquid or solid, without any restriction of time.

The Eucharistic fast is based on primitive tradition and is enjoined by the Church as a grave obligation that admits of no lightness of matter. The fast is violated by the smallest portion of food or alcoholic drink. Food is any solid which the physician considers digestible or alterable by the stomach, and hence the fast is not broken if wood, string, paper, hairs or fingernails are swallowed. But the food or drink must be eaten or drunk, that is, it must come from outside the mouth and be taken into the stomach in the way of consumption, and hence the fast is not broken by what comes from within the mouth (e.g., blood from the gums, food remaining in the teeth from the previous day) or by what is taken into the stomach in the way of saliva (e.g., the accidental remnants of a mouth wash or of a throat gargle, or spray, or of a chew of tobacco or gum, when one has spit out the contents as much as possible), or in the way of breathing (e.g., snuff, tobacco smoke inhaled, an insect or a raindrop blown into the mouth). A solid, like a caramel, however, which is dissolved in the mouth before it is swallowed, can not be considered as a liquid. The liquid of the Sacram Communionem must be a liquid before it enters the mouth. (See “Some Further Elucidations on Sacram Communionem” by Cardinal Ottaviani, American Ecclesiastical Review, Vol. CXXXXVII, No, 2, August 1957, p. 74.)

The reasons that excuse from the Eucharist fast, in regard to solids or alcoholic beverages, in lay Communion, are, in case of the well, the good of the Sacrament (i.e., its preservation from profanation), or the good of self (e.g., avoidance of serious disgrace, as when one who is at the altar rail remembers only then that he is not fasting); in the case of the ill, the danger of death (the Viaticum may be received even daily after nourishment). The salt taken in Baptism does not break the fast, and one who has a papal indult, which is granted for sufficient reasons, may receive Communion when not fasting.

External reverence means that one should approach Communion with cleanliness of body, respectability of dress, and modesty of behavior. No one is unfitted for Communion because of inculpable unsightliness (e.g., a sick man who has irremovable scars or deformities, a poor man who cannot afford any but the simplest garb, a crippled person whose gait is awkward). But unwashed hands and face, dirty mouth or teeth, worn or torn dress, and the like, which one avoids elsewhere as unsuited for human company, should be avoided when receiving the Eucharist. Women immodestly dressed should be refused Communion, if otherwise scandal will result (Canon 858).

For receiving the Eucharist, certain dispositions are required, both on the part of the soul and on the part of the body.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Query 8° Is it illicit to spit after Communion?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

275. Sufficient instruction and discretion are also required. - From the nature of the thing there is required that instruction and discretion by which they at least discern this sacramental table from a profane one, this heavenly bread from common bread: for by an adult the sacrament is not validly received without intention, which is impossible without the aforesaid instruction and discretion. Yet on account of greater reverence, from custom a greater instruction is required concerning the truths of faith and the duties of Christian life: which instruction, established by ecclesiastical law, is not to be demanded for Viaticum, which is prescribed by divine law.

Thus can. 854: "§ 1. To children who, on account of the weakness of age, do not yet have knowledge and taste of this sacrament, the Eucharist is not to be administered.

"§ 2. In danger of death, that the most holy Eucharist can and ought to be administered to children, it is enough that they know how to discern the body of Christ from common food and reverently adore it.

"§ 3. Outside danger of death, a fuller knowledge of Christian doctrine and more accurate preparation is deservedly required, namely that by which they may perceive according to their capacity at least the mysteries of faith necessary by necessity of means for salvation, and devoutly, according to the measure of their age, approach the most holy Eucharist."

Therefore for receiving Holy Communion some use of reason is required, which is judged then to be had, and only then is had, when the child can sin mortally. This is clear from the Council of Trent, which, in teaching that "little children lacking the use of reason are bound by no necessity to sacramental communion of the Eucharist," assigns one reason for this, that they cannot sin mortally: "Since indeed," it says, "they cannot in that age lose the grace of the sons of God already attained" (sess. 21, c. 4). - Nevertheless children would communicate validly before the use of reason: for one who lives through Baptism can also be nourished; as moreover is clear from the practice of the primitive Church, which practice was vigorous even to our times among Orientals, and today still exists at least by law among the Greeks, but in the Latin Church it has reasonably been abrogated by approved custom and expressed in the Roman Ritual (tit. 4, c. 1, nn. 10 and 11): for that the sacrament might be most highly esteemed by the faithful, the Church grants it to no one who does not know how to discern so great a gift. Whence to grant the Eucharist to children before the use of reason in the Latin Church would be gravely illicit.

Hence: 1. Under grave obligation it is prohibited to give Viaticum to those who have not yet come to the use of reason, such as the perpetually insane.

2. To the fully insane who have had the use of reason, and to the delirious, Viaticum is to be given, provided they previously had at least the implicit intention of communicating, and danger of irreverence is absent.

3. To the half-witted and to old persons returning to childishness, communion should be given at Easter if they have the strictly sufficient disposition; but if they have a greater disposition, it can be given several times in the year according to the degree of discretion and devotion.

4. To the insane who have lucid intervals, to the frenzied, to energumens, to those possessed by the devil, communion can be given when they are masters of themselves, namely in lucid intervals or moments of tranquility.

5. To those deaf and mute from birth, even if they have been born blind, it should be given if they have been instructed, according to the degree of discretion which is recognized in them.

6. In positive doubt concerning a child's capacity for receiving Viaticum, the pastor will choose what he wishes: for it is a perplexing case.

Judgment concerning the sufficient disposition of children belongs to their confessor, and to parents and to those who are in the place of parents (can. 854, § 4). Therefore it is not the exclusive right of the pastor; to him a twofold right and office is assigned: both of watching lest children approach Holy Synaxis before having attained the use of reason or without sufficient disposition, for which he will also be able to submit them to examination if he has prudently judged it opportune, as if he rightly suspects that the confessor or parents conduct themselves imprudently in this matter; - and of taking care that those who have attained the use of reason and are sufficiently disposed be refreshed by this divine food as soon as possible (can. 854, § 5).

276. Furthermore great reverence and actual devotion, or elevation of the mind into God, are required. - As the Council of Trent says, sess. 13, c. 7, "the more the holiness and divinity of this sacrament has been discovered by the Christian man, the more diligently he ought to beware lest he approach to receive it without great reverence and holiness"; whence the Council exhorts all that they believe and venerate this sacrament "with that constancy and firmness of faith, that devotion of soul, and piety and worship, that it may truly be for them the life of the soul and perpetual health of mind" (c. 8).

From the nature of the thing it is required that communion be made:

1. with acts at least implicit of faith, hope, desire, and pious religion; of which acts a more perfect mode is commended, proceeding from greater intensity, or from an added exercise of humility, contrition, and especially charity: for the greater the disposition in which the faithful rejoice, the greater the fruits they receive;

2. with attention: for communion is an act of religion which demands to be done with attention;

3. for a good end and without venial sins actually exercised or virtual affection for venial sins; for these include a certain positive irreverence, and impede the effect of the sacrament, which is fervor of charity, and diminish the increase of grace. But because they do not take away every effect, therefore in the case there is no grave precept from strict necessity lest communion be unworthy, but only a light precept from the necessity of fittingness of avoiding every irreverence.

Hence: 1. He who communicates with voluntary distraction commits a venial sin of irreverence.

2. He who has past venial sins not remitted and does not actually adhere to them does not sin, because there is no positive irreverence but merely the absence of more perfect reverence; but if by his affection here and now he adheres to them, he incurs venial irreverence.

3. He who in the act of communicating places an act which is also otherwise a venial sin, for example a vain thought, a desire of slight theft, contracts the malice of this sin and the malice of slight irreverence.

4. Likewise if he makes communion for an end secondarily venially evil, for example for vanity.

277. Observations. - 1. According to what was said in the treatise on the Sacraments, n. 89, Holy Communion is to be denied to sinners, even to those who are destitute of the senses, unless they have given certain signs of repentance; likewise to those destitute of the senses whose disposition is unknown: for on the one hand it is not necessary for them, and on the other hand reverence toward so great a sacrament must be placed before the mere utility of the faithful. Nevertheless there is no reason for denying it to those under capital punishment, if they repent; to them it is to be administered by way of Viaticum on the very day or the day before the punishment.

To a penitent public sinner, Viaticum cannot be carried publicly unless he has repaired the public scandal; but if this is impossible, it can be carried secretly.

2. Communion is prohibited both to the excommunicated (can. 2260, § 1) and to those personally interdicted (can. 2275, § 2), before they have been absolved from the censure.

“I can not get men to receive frequently the Holy Sacraments,” many a priest complains, and therewith he lets them go their own way and turns his attention to the women, who can, with less trouble, be held to heed the priest’s advice. It is no doubt a remarkable fact that even men who in public life valiantly and energetically fight for the Church, are—exceptis excipiendis—very often satisfied with the at least once a year, as regards Holy Communion. This is not a wholesome state of affairs; the exterior life must draw strength from the interior, otherwise it will degenerate. A devout life, practical Christianity, are inconceivable without Holy Communion. What can be done?

1. Men who seldom or never go to hear a sermon, who content themselves with hearing a low Mass, do not give much opportunity to the priest to get at them. How can, nevertheless, influence be brought to bear upon these men? At meetings of a profane character the priest can hardly deliver a sermon; nevertheless there is no end of opportunities, where in a few words, brief and to the point, attention may be drawn to the necessity of practical Christianity, and some good will always be done by such words.

A thoroughly Catholic surrounding at home will often be the only means of reaching this class of men. A few kind words from a pious mother, wife or sister, have frequently achieved great results.

With men who attend sermons the task is an easier one. Above all things the priest should frequently throughout the year invite the men to the Holy Sacraments. The invitation must be cordial, kindly. A priest who summons the men of his parish to confession in harsh and sarcastic terms will of course get not many to come. The feasts of Our Lord, of the Blessed Virgin and of St. Joseph offer good opportunities for such invitations. Many priests have found from experience that in cases of death the relatives, including the men, may be easily induced to receive the Sacraments. It will be wise to express publicly appreciation and pleasure when there has been a good attendance of men.

2. A second means consists in pointing out that God has shown special predilection for men, confiding to them the most important positions in family, State and Church; the priesthood is only accessible to men.

3. Many sodalities and fraternities of men receive Communion in a body, which is a great inducement. A prudent priest will find many occasions, even in worldly societies of Catholics (veterans, firemen, policemen, etc.), of suggesting to the men to receive Communion, for instance at the burial of a member, on anniversary days, etc. Some members at least will take heed and that is a result not to be undervalued.

4. The reception of the Holy Sacraments must be made for men as convenient as possible. Men should not be kept waiting very long; they have not much patience. On special days for men’s confessions appoint special hours, when they can conveniently come. Induce the women to come in the afternoon and to leave the evening to the men.

It is incumbent upon confessors to address the men in polite and pleasant tone, to speak to them, as the difference in age may suggest in individual cases, as friend to friend, as father to son, disregarding high or humble rank. We win them over in this way, and facilitate confession. By friendliness and kindness we show our good will toward them, we get them to return readily. If the confessor is obliged to demand from a man that he receive the Sacraments oftener, it is advisable to let the penitent himself determine when he can and would like to come to confession again. The confessor may express his reliance that the penitent will keep his word.

The confession should not take much time, otherwise men become unwieldy. The priest should not ask too much. Conscientious observance of the divine commandments and of those of the Church, fulfilment of the duties of the state of life, courageous and loyal profession of the faith, these things should be briefly commended.

5. The religious training of men must begin at school age. The priest should take pains to induce boys to receive Holy Communion monthly; the habit to receive frequently will often adhere to them in later years.

A. PACHINGER.

In a certain town, a convent of nuns is situated about half a mile from the parish church. In the absence of the convent's chaplain, the parish priest looks after the spiritual needs of the sisters. Now, it happened some time ago, that one of the sisters was very sick, and had been so for several months and was not expected to recover. One Sunday morning the sisters' chaplain heard this sister's confession, and gave her holy Communion. He then left for the day. About noon a heavy storm began to threaten, and the sick sister became very much alarmed and thought that she was going to die. She sent for the parish priest to administer to her holy Viaticum. While the parish priest did not delay in going, nevertheless, he suspected that there was no immediate danger, and besides, he was very busy just then, having just finished the High Mass, and making preparations for Sundayschool, and Vespers, and Benediction. But his chief difficulty was that the sick sister had already on that Sunday received holy Communion, and he did not think it just right to give her holy Communion twice on the same day. However, to forestall any criticism that his refusal might give rise to, he gave the sick sister the holy Viaticum. On his way home he got a thorough drenching, which only confirmed his feeling that the sick sister should not have been given holy Communion a second time on the same day. Did he do right or wrong, in giving this person holy Communion a second time on that Sunday?

Answer—As there was no authoritative pronouncement of the Church on this case the theologians were divided on this question. Some thought that it was not only lawful, but obligatory, to give holy Communion a second time, on the same day, in a case like this. Others thought that it was neither obligatory nor even permitted. Others, again, defended that it was not obligatory, but that it was lawful. Cardinal De Lugo treats the case (Disp. 16, num. 49, 50): “Whether Viaticum ought or may be given to one who had received Communion out of devotion on the same day.” The Cardinal notes the fact that the theologians are not agreed on the question, and points out the reasons of their disagreement. There are really two cases in which it may happen that persons might desire to receive holy Viaticum on the same day that they had already received holy Communion ex devotione. “First,” says De Lugo, “if, for example, a priest celebrated in the morning, or a layman received Communion when he was in good health, and afterward, either suddenly seized by illness or struck by a wound or some other accident, is in danger of death on that same day. Second, if, when he was already ill in the morning, he received Communion not with the intention of receiving Viaticum but out of devotion, and afterward on the same day, as the illness became worse and death drew near, he wished to receive Viaticum.”

A person may be perfectly well in the morning and go to holy Communion out of devotion, and later in the day be grievously wounded in an accident, or fatally hurt in one way or another. Or, it may be that a person was suffering from some disease or sickness in the morning, when he received holy Communion, but that there was no thought of death for many days or weeks, when suddenly later in the day the patient takes a bad turn and threatens to die at any moment.

Some theologians believed that in this latter case it was not lawful to give holy Communion a second time. Others held that it was not only lawful, but obligatory. Others, again, thought that it was lawful, but not obligatory.

Pope Benedict XIV. considered all these three opinions probable, and left it to the choice of the priest, which one he would follow. He says: "Amid so great a disagreement among the opinions of the doctors, the pastor will be free to embrace the opinion that pleases him more" (De Synod. 1. 8, c. n).

St. Alfonsus also admits that in practise any one of these opinions may be followed with a clear conscience. Theoretically, he thinks that if a person receives holy Communion in the morning in good health, and later in the day is grievously or fatally wounded, such a person may receive Viaticum that same day; but that if the person is already sick in the morning, when receiving holy Communion, ex devotione, and with no danger of death present, and later in the day is placed in the danger of death, owing to a sudden aggravation of the disease, such a person may not receive holy Communion a second time. This is the opinion of De Lugo, also, who says: "I do not see how Communion can be given again on the same day."

St. Alfonsus considers this opinion of De Lugo more probable than the others. The reason for this opinion is this: If, in the early morning, when Titius received holy Communion or said Mass, he was in danger of death, although he was not cognizant of the danger at the time, because the disease, for instance, had not sufficiently developed, then it is neither obligatory nor is it even lawful for him to receive again on that day, because he has already complied with the divine precept of receiving holy Communion in extremis, and now it is incumbent on him to obey the precept of the Church, which forbids receiving twice on the same day. If, on the contrary, when Titius received in the morning or said Mass, he was quite well, and later in the day is fatally hurt, he is obliged to receive holy Communion again that same day, because his first Communion early in the day was not a fulfilment of the divine precept of receiving holy Communion when in danger of death, because in the morning the divine precept did not urge, since there was no danger of death, and a precept cannot be satisfied before it urges.

Among modern theologians Cardinal Gasparri holds this same opinion (de Euch. II., 1152).

All this regards the theory only. In practice, it was perfectly lawful to give this sick sister holy Communion a second time on the same day. On the other hand, it was not obligatory, and had the priest postponed it until the next morning, and in the meantime the sister had died, he could not be blamed in any way.

The solution of the case is confirmed by the new Code, Canon 864, and it will once for all settle every uncertainty in this matter. The Canon referred to rules that one who received Holy Communion and comes into danger of death the same day shall be urgently advised to receive again.

There are still here and there communities of women who are deprived of the precious boon of daily Communion, granted and earnestly recommended by the Holy Father, the head of all religious orders upon earth. This deprivation is due to their immediate superior, who considers daily Communion to be incompatible with the routine imposed by rules and customs.

Question.—Who has power to remedy this evil?

In such cases it is the duty of the Head of the Order and of the confessor to overcome the prejudices of the responsible persons, by explaining the papal decree of December 20, 1905, and seeing that it is fully carried out. In this way the religious will be enabled to enjoy their privileges. The following points especially must be kept in view:

( 1 ) Although the confessor should not interfere in the domestic arrangements of the house, it is his duty to discharge the confessor’s duty of teaching and admonishing, not only in the case of the subordinate Sisters, but also emphatically in that of the local Superior and her advisers. In publishing the decree, the Holy Father paid particular attention to religious communities, including those of women, as appears clearly from sections 7 and 8, where it is laid down that " freedom of access to the Eucharistic table, whether frequently or daily, must always be allowed them... and in order that all religious of both sexes may clearly understand the provisions of this decree, the Superior of each house is to see that it is read in community, in the vernacular, every year within the octave of the Feast of Corpus Christi."

Members of religious Orders, above all other Christians, are bound to obey the Holy Father's instructions, for he is the head of all Orders, it is to him that they have taken a vow of obedience, and so they are pledged to obey him, although not always ex formali obedientia voti, yet at least from the virtue of monastic obedience. The confessor ought to admonish the local superior not merely to inculcate obedience in words and to require it for her own regulations, but also to encourage her subjects to render it most zealously to the supreme head of all religious Orders. It is the duty of the confessor and of the Mother General to show how daily Communion can be arranged in conjunction with the Mass at which the Sisters assist daily, and their other spiritual exercises, so that there may be sufficient time for preparation and thanksgiving without altering the prescribed routine more than is absolutely necessary. It will then be the local Superior's business to announce this re-arrangement of the day's duties to the community, and to see that it is carried into effect.

(2) The confessor ought to adhere closely to the decree in dealing with the individual religious in confession. In section 5 it is stated: " That the practise of frequent and daily Communion may be carried out with greater prudence and more abundant merit, the confessor's advice should be asked." This shows plainly that the penitent, if of the requisite dispositions, i. e. if in a state of grace and of right and pious intention, does not need a positive permission on the part of his confessor to communicate daily, since it is bestowed by the Holy Father himself; but the penitent will do well to act on the confessor's advice. With a religious a confessor should also regard himself as a counselor, not as one empowered to command, provided the penitent has the right dispositions.

(3) He must beware of forbidding a religious in these dispositions to receive Communion daily, for the decree says explicitly in section 1: "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." And in section 5: " Confessors are to be careful not to dissuade any one from frequent and daily Communion, provided that he is in a state of grace and approaches with a right intention."

In his dissertation on " Frequent and daily Communion," Father Haettenschwiller, S.J., remarks: " It would be a mistake on the part of a confessor to a community of women, since the publication of the decree, if he were to say: ' Hitherto you have gone to Communion four times each week; in future you may go every day except on the day appointed for your confession.' "

In the same work it is declared as quite contrary to the spirit of the Church, for postulants and novices, who perhaps communicated daily as long as they were in the world, to be forbidden to do so in the convent, simply to make a difference between them and professed nuns. It would also be a mistake to debar any one from Holy Communion as a punishment for some fault, and a still greater mistake for the Superior to do this. According to the decree " Quemadmodum " of December 17, 1890, article V, a Superior may forbid a subject to receive Holy Communion, not as a punishment, but to avoid scandal, if since her last confession she has given scandal to the community, or committed some serious and notorious offense; but the prohibition can last only until she has again been to confession.

These are a few suggestions that may be of use in removing the alleged obstacles to frequent and daily Communion in communities of women.—Johann Schwienbacher, C.SS.R.

Whoever maintains, assuming the state of grace to exist, that daily Communion is permissible in spite of the presence of innumerable, or even very many, venial sins, is directly opposed to the first three practical points in the decree of December 20, 1905.

In the first place, he overlooks the good and pious intention, emphasized in the first two points as an indispensable condition; for such an intention is altogether incompatible with innumerable or a great many venial sins. Any one who commits innumerable venial sins must be aware that he is deficient in a good intention at Holy Communion, and has wilfully a bad intention of going to receive it merely out of habit, or vanity, or from motives of human respect. If any one communicates daily for some time as a matter of course, although he has innumerable venial sins on his conscience, he is paying no attention to one of the chief reasons for receiving Holy Communion daily, which is that by means of this divine remedy our weakness and frailty may be cured.

The third practical point in the decree also suggests a negative answer to the question whether daily Communion is permitted in spite of innumerable venial sins. We shall do well here to follow the text, which runs thus: Although it is most expedient that those who receive frequent and daily Communion be free from venial sins, at least those fully deliberate, and from attachment to them, it nevertheless suffices that they be free from mortal sins, with the resolution never to sin in the future; with this sincere resolution of mind, it cannot but happen that daily communicants gradually free themselves even from venial sins and from attachment to them.

The Congregation of the Council distinguishes here three things that are unfortunately often confused, even at the present day. In the first place, it praises and recommends (etsi maxime expediat) the best and most desirable dispositions, which are however merely matters of counsel, viz., freedom from all venial sins and from all attachment to them. By these words it condemns any complete and unscrupulous indifference on the part of daily communicants to innumerable or all possible venial sins. Let us imagine a physician saying to a patient: " Your best plan is to take this medicine as far as possible when you are fasting, although it is not absolutely necessary for you to do so." The patient would certainly be acting contrary to the express wish of his doctor if he disregarded his advice to the extent of always eating as much as possible before taking his medicine, thus not trying in any way to comply with the physician's instructions. In the same way it is plain that a person acts altogether in opposition to the will of the Church, if he commits as many voluntary venial sins as he can, and then has no scruple in approaching Holy Communion daily. In the second place, the Church emphasizes the indispensable and sufficient conditions for Communion, viz., freedom from mortal sin and an intention never to sin in future. It might strike any one considering these words closely that the good intention previously emphasized is here simply called a resolution not to sin. " Why," it may be asked, " did the Congregation of the Council, in the very sentence in which it distinguished venial and mortal sins, describe the necessary resolution merely by the words nunquam se peccaturos, without adding graviter or mortaliter to make the meaning clear, as many translators have done, interpreting the meaning according to the usage of moralists? "

We think that the following suggested explanation is probably correct: This identification of the resolution — never to sin again — with the required good intention, and especially the omission of the word graviter before peccaturos, show that the S. Congregation wished to avoid any appearance of sanctioning daily Communion in the case of those who, being in the state of grace, resolve only to avoid mortal sin, but take no pains to avoid venial sin, — which is equivalent to being indifferent to innumerable venial sins. Even if this explanation is incorrect, we are in a position to prove that the Congregation of the Council meant mortal sin more immediately, when using the word peccaturos, but at the same time considered the resolution quite incompatible with complete indifference to innumerable venial sins, and far more incompatible with a positive determination not to trouble at all about venial sins. A real resolution never again to sin (grievously) implies, at least in a general way, the further resolution to avoid all immediate occasions of mortal sin and to use all needful means to prevent it. It is an axiom, based both on asceticism and experience, that complete indifference to quite deliberate venial sins gradually leads to mortal sin, because the will constantly grows weaker and because the special graces, without which the soul cannot remain in the state of grace, are withdrawn more and more. Therefore complete indifference to innumerable venial sins is absolutely incompatible with a genuine resolution never in future to sin (grievously), quite apart from the fact that such a communicant would not possess the good intention that is required.

We are now in a position to understand the conclusion of the third paragraph of the decree: " If they have this sincere purpose, it is impossible but that daily communicants will gradually emancipate themselves even from venial sins, and from all affection thereto."

It is not correct to say that constant resistance to venial sin is of necessity contained in the condition, required by the decree, for daily Communion. What really follows of necessity from the practical instructions in the decree is that, at the time of Communion, we must not only be in the state of grace, but have the good intention (we need not discuss other good intentions), the firm resolution " by means of this divine remedy to cure our faults and frailties," or at least to avoid mortal sin, and consequently to resist venial sins in so far as they may become immediate occasions of mortal sin. If we are trying to find out the necessary conditions and conclusions, and nothing more, it appears not essential that this resolution should be permanent, but sufficient if it is present actually, virtually or habitually, at the time of Communion. Assuming such a resolution to be present, the daily reception of Holy Communion, supplying, as it does, an increase of grace ex opere operato, will produce a permanent and habitual disposition of mind, and the daily renewal of good intentions and of the pious practises connected, ex opere operantis, with daily Communion. It is impossible that these means will not result in energetic resistance to venial sins, so that they will gradually be diminished in number, and all attachment to them will be destroyed in the soul, although it may never be completely exterminated. The soul will be constantly under the influence of quite extraordinary graces, and will cooperate with them in a truly heroic manner.

The more resolutely one struggles against venial sins, the better in his disposition for daily Communion, and the greater is the benefit that he derives from it. In cases where there is no effort at all made to avoid deliberate venial sins, and where there is complete indifference to them, a communicant ought to be gently admonished and encouraged to do better, and, if this has no effect, it should be explained to him that he cannot conscientiously receive Holy Communion daily in such dispositions, for he has not the necessary good intention, and an absolute absence of all progress becomes in time a certain sign of defective intention.

Every priest ought to keep in view the charitable spirit of the Decree and the fact that, in issuing it, the Holy Father's chief intention was to advocate and restore the practise of frequent and daily Communion.