by Very Rev. Francis J. Connell, C.SS.R., S.T.D., LL.D., L.H.D.
Interpretation of the Eucharistic Fast Law
Question: May the three-hour (from solids), one-hour (from non-alcoholic beverages) law that is now the norm for the Eucharistic fast be taken morally? To give a concrete example, would it be permitted to a lay person to receive Holy Communion when his watch tells him that he finished breakfast two hours and fifty-eight minutes previously?
Answer: There is well-nigh unanimous agreement among theologians that the answer must be negative. “If one has not fulfilled the conditions of the fast and goes to Holy Communion, one sins mortally.” The concessions of 1957 gave no indications of any change in this matter.
Theologians and canonists agree that the “three-hour one-hour law” which now constitutes the norm for the Eucharistic fast must be observed exactly, to the very second. It is true, Father Regatillo has suggested that it may be permitted to interpret this law morally, but in view of the fact that all previous legislation regarding the Eucharistic fast demanded mathematical exactness in computing time and there is no evidence of any change in the documents emanating from the Holy See, it is difficult to see how this lenient view can have suffficent weight to be followed in practice. Hence, in explaining the law of the Eucharistic fast to their people, priests should insist that the period of fasting required before receiving Holy Communion is to be interpreted literally and exactly. It is true that some theologians admit parvitas (slight matter) in judging the time element, so that it would be only a venial sin to cut off a few minutes from the time required for fasting, but there seems to be no adequate intrinsic reason for this concession.
The concessions granted by the Holy See in the matter of the Eucharistic fast are very definite; out of these, the law continues unchanged. One of the chief characteristics of this law is its complete gravity. It admits of no parvity of matter in respect to the computation of time and the amount of food or drink that breaks the fast. Hence, it must be regarded as objectively a mortal sin to shorten by a single moment the hour between the taking of liquid nourishment and the beginning of Mass or the reception of Holy Communion, or to receive Holy Communion after the smallest amount of solid food. In the words of Father Ford in reference to the concession of 1953: “Suppose someone has fasted only fifty-five minutes from liquids; or suppose he has taken only a minute quality of forbidden solids along with the liquids. If such a one thereupon went to Communion, could he be said to be sinning only venially, because he has failed to observe the fasting conditions in such a small matter? The answer must be negative.”
Eucharistic Fast
Question: A priest has suffered a coronary thrombosis, but is again able to perform his sacred duties. He is assigned to say the 8 and the 10 o’clock Masses on Sunday. In view of his previous ailment may he take liquid nourishment up to the beginning of his first Mass?
Answer: It is a reasonable interpretation of the Apostolic Constitution Christus Dominus to hold that one who fears that he may be afflicted with sickness unless he takes some liquid nourishment or medicine before the celebration of Mass or the reception of Holy Communion is entitled to this privilege. Thus, Father John Ford, S.J., in his excellent commentary on the Constitution of 1953, says: “A person who is not sick at the moment but who foresees that he will be sick and will suffer grave inconvenience unless he takes medicine or liquid is entitled to the dispensation and may take the nourishment or medicine in order to forestall the sickness.”
Certainly, a priest in the circumstances described by the questioner has reason to fear a recurrence of the ailment he has previously experienced, and hence is entitled to medicine or liquid nourishment before either of the two Masses or both. Such medicine or liquid may be taken even immediately before the Masses.