Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae

Objection 1: It seems that the priest should deny the body of Christ to the sinner seeking it. For Christ's precept is not to be set aside for the sake of avoiding scandal or on account of infamy to anyone. But (Mt. 7:6) our Lord gave this command: "Give not that which is holy to dogs." Now it is especially casting holy things to dogs to give this sacrament to sinners. Therefore, neither on account of avoiding scandal or infamy should this sacrament be administered to the sinner who asks for it.

Objection 2: Further, one must choose the lesser of two evils. But it seems to be the lesser evil if the sinner incur infamy; or if an unconsecrated host be given to him; than for him to sin mortally by receiving the body of Christ. Consequently, it seems that the course to be adopted is either that the sinner seeking the body of Christ be exposed to infamy, or that an unconsecrated host be given to him.

Objection 3: Further, the body of Christ is sometimes given to those suspected of crime in order to put them to proof. Because we read in the Decretals: "It often happens that thefts are perpetrated in monasteries of monks; wherefore we command that when the brethren have to exonerate themselves of such acts, that the abbot shall celebrate Mass, or someone else deputed by him, in the presence of the community; and so, when the Mass is over, all shall communicate under these words: 'May the body of Christ prove thee today.'" And further on: "If any evil deed be imputed to a bishop or priest, for each charge he must say Mass and communicate, and show that he is innocent of each act imputed." But secret sinners must not be disclosed, for, once the blush of shame is set aside, they will indulge the more in sin, as Augustine says (De Verbis. Dom.; cf. Serm. lxxxii). Consequently, Christ's body is not to be given to occult sinners, even if they ask for it.

On the contrary, on Ps. 21:30: "All the fat ones of the earth have eaten and have adored," Augustine says: "Let not the dispenser hinder the fat ones of the earth," i.e. sinners, "from eating at the table of the Lord."

I answer that, A distinction must be made among sinners: some are secret; others are notorious, either from evidence of the fact, as public usurers, or public robbers, or from being denounced as evil men by some ecclesiastical or civil tribunal. Therefore Holy Communion ought not to be given to open sinners when they ask for it. Hence Cyprian writes to someone (Ep. lxi): "You were so kind as to consider that I ought to be consulted regarding actors, end that magician who continues to practice his disgraceful arts among you; as to whether I thought that Holy Communion ought to be given to such with the other Christians. I think that it is beseeming neither the Divine majesty, nor Christian discipline, for the Church's modesty and honor to be defiled by such shameful and infamous contagion."

But if they be not open sinners, but occult, the Holy Communion should not be denied them if they ask for it. For since every Christian, from the fact that he is baptized, is admitted to the Lord's table, he may not be robbed of his right, except from some open cause. Hence on 1 Cor. 5:11, "If he who is called a brother among you," etc., Augustine's gloss remarks: "We cannot inhibit any person from Communion, except he has openly confessed, or has been named and convicted by some ecclesiastical or lay tribunal." Nevertheless a priest who has knowledge of the crime can privately warn the secret sinner, or warn all openly in public, from approaching the Lord's table, until they have repented of their sins and have been reconciled to the Church; because after repentance and reconciliation, Communion must not be refused even to public sinners, especially in the hour of death. Hence in the (3rd) Council of Carthage (Can. xxxv) we read: "Reconciliation is not to be denied to stage-players or actors, or others of the sort, or to apostates, after their conversion to God."

Reply to Objection 1: Holy things are forbidden to be given to dogs, that is, to notorious sinners: whereas hidden deeds may not be published, but are to be left to the Divine judgment.

Reply to Objection 2: Although it is worse for the secret sinner to sin mortally in taking the body of Christ, rather than be defamed, nevertheless for the priest administering the body of Christ it is worse to commit mortal sin by unjustly defaming the hidden sinner than that the sinner should sin mortally; because no one ought to commit mortal sin in order to keep another out of mortal sin. Hence Augustine says (Quaest. super Gen. 42): "It is a most dangerous exchange, for us to do evil lest another perpetrate a greater evil." But the secret sinner ought rather to prefer infamy than approach the Lord's table unworthily.

Yet by no means should an unconsecrated host be given in place of a consecrated one; because the priest by so doing, so far as he is concerned, makes others, either the bystanders or the communicant, commit idolatry by believing that it is a consecrated host; because, as Augustine says on Ps. 98:5: "Let no one eat Christ's flesh, except he first adore it." Hence in the Decretals (Extra, De Celeb. Miss., Ch. De Homine) it is said: "Although he who reputes himself unworthy of the Sacrament, through consciousness of his sin, sins gravely, if he receive; still he seems to offend more deeply who deceitfully has presumed to simulate it."

Reply to Objection 3: Those decrees were abolished by contrary enactments of Roman Pontiffs: because Pope Stephen V writes as follows: "The Sacred Canons do not allow of a confession being extorted from any person by trial made by burning iron or boiling water; it belongs to our government to judge of public crimes committed, and that by means of confession made spontaneously, or by proof of witnesses: but private and unknown crimes are to be left to Him Who alone knows the hearts of the sons of men." And the same is found in the Decretals (Extra, De Purgationibus, Ch. Ex tuarum). Because in all such practices there seems to be a tempting of God; hence such things cannot be done without sin. And it would seem graver still if anyone were to incur judgment of death through this sacrament, which was instituted as a means of salvation. Consequently, the body of Christ should never be given to anyone suspected of crime, as by way of examination.

Articulus 6

Argumentum 1

Ad sextum sic proceditur. Videtur quod sacerdos debeat denegare corpus christi peccatori petenti. Non est enim faciendum contra christi praeceptum propter vitandum scandalum, neque propter vitandum infamiam alicuius.

Sed dominus praecepit, Matth. VII, nolite sanctum dare canibus.

Maxime autem datur sanctum canibus cum hoc sacramentum peccatoribus exhibetur. Ergo neque propter vitandum scandalum, neque propter vitandam infamiam alicuius, debet hoc sacramentum peccatori petenti dari.

Argumentum 2

Praeterea, de duobus malis est minus malum eligendum. Sed minus malum esse videtur si peccator infametur, vel etiam si ei hostia non consecrata detur, quam si sumens corpus christi mortaliter peccet. Ergo videtur hoc potius eligendum, quod vel infametur peccator petens corpus christi, vel etiam detur ei hostia non consecrata.

Argumentum 3

Praeterea, corpus christi interdum datur suspectis de crimine ad eorum manifestationem, legitur enim in decretis, II, qu. IV, saepe contingit ut in monasteriis monachorum furta perpetrentur.

Idcirco statuimus ut, quando ipsi fratres de talibus expurgare se debent, Missa ab abbate celebretur vel ab aliquo ex praesentibus fratribus, et sic, expleta Missa, omnes communicent in haec verba, corpus christi sit tibi hodie ad probationem.

Et infra, si episcopo vel presbytero aliquod maleficium fuerit imputatum, in singulis Missa celebrari debet et communicari, et de singulis sibi imputatis innocentem se ostendere.

Sed peccatores occultos non oportet manifestari, quia, si frontem verecundiae abiecerint, liberius peccabunt, ut Augustinus dicit, in libro de verbis domini.

Ergo peccatoribus occultis non est corpus christi dandum, etiam si petant.

Sed Contra

Sed contra est quod, super illud Psalmi, manducaverunt et adoraverunt omnes pingues terrae, dicit Augustinus, non prohibeat dispensator pingues terrae, idest peccatores, mensam domini manducare.

Corpus

Respondeo dicendum quod circa peccatores distinguendum est.

Quidam enim sunt occulti, quidam vero manifesti; scilicet per evidentiam facti, sicut publici usurarii aut publici raptores; vel etiam per aliquod iudicium ecclesiasticum vel saeculare.

Manifestis ergo peccatoribus non debet, etiam petentibus, sacra communio dari.

Unde Cyprianus scribit ad quendam, pro dilectione tua consulendum me existimasti quid mihi videatur de histrionibus, et mago illo qui, apud vos constitutus, adhuc in artis suae dedecore perseverat, an talibus sacra communio cum ceteris christianis debeat dari. Puto nec maiestati divinae, nec evangelicae disciplinae congruere ut pudor et honor ecclesiae tam turpi et infami contagione foedetur.

Si vero non sunt manifesti peccatores sed occulti, non potest eis petentibus sacra communio denegari. Cum enim quilibet christianus, ex hoc ipso quod est baptizatus, sit admissus ad mensam dominicam, non potest eis ius suum tolli nisi pro aliqua causa manifesta.

Unde super illud I Cor. V, si is qui frater inter vos nominatur etc., dicit Glossa Augustini, nos a communione quemquam prohibere non possumus, nisi aut sponte confessum, aut in aliquo iudicio vel ecclesiastico vel saeculari nominatum atque convictum.

Potest tamen sacerdos qui est conscius criminis, occulte monere peccatorem occultum, vel etiam in publico generaliter omnes, ne ad mensam domini accedant antequam poeniteant et ecclesiae reconcilientur. Nam post poenitentiam et reconciliationem, etiam publicis peccatoribus non est communio deneganda, praecipue in mortis articulo.

Unde in Concilio carthaginensi legitur, scenicis atque histrionibus ceterisque huiusmodi personis, vel apostatis, conversis ad deum reconciliatio non negetur.

Ad 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod sancta prohibentur dari canibus, idest peccatoribus manifestis. Sed occulta non possunt publice puniri, sed sunt divino iudicio reservanda.

Ad 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod, licet peius sit peccatori occulto peccare mortaliter sumendo corpus christi quam infamari, tamen sacerdoti ministranti corpus christi peius est peccare mortaliter infamando iniuste peccatorem occultum, quam quod ille mortaliter peccet, quia nullus debet peccatum mortale committere ut alium liberet a peccato.

Unde Augustinus dicit, in libro quaestionum super Gen., periculosissime admittitur haec compensatio, ut nos faciamus aliquid mali, ne alius gravius malum faciat.

Peccator tamen occultus potius deberet eligere infamari quam indigne ad mensam christi accedere.

Hostia tamen non consecrata nullo modo debet dari loco consecratae, quia sacerdos hoc faciens, quantum est in se, facit idololatrare illos qui credunt hostiam consecratam, sive alios praesentes, sive etiam ipsum sumentem; quia, ut Augustinus dicit, nemo carnem christi manducet nisi prius adoret.

Unde extra, de celebratione Missarum, cap. De homine, dicitur, licet is qui pro sui criminis conscientia reputat se indignum, peccet graviter si se ingerat, tamen gravius videtur offendere qui fraudulenter illud praesumpserit simulare.

Ad 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod decreta illa sunt abrogata per contraria documenta Romanorum pontificum. Dicit enim stephanus Papa, ferri candentis vel aquae ferventis examinatione confessionem extorqueri a quolibet sacri canones non concedunt. Spontanea enim confessione, vel testium approbatione publicata, delicta commissa sunt regimini nostro iudicare, occulta vero et incognita illi sunt relinquenda qui solus novit corda filiorum hominum.

Et idem habetur extra, de purgationibus, cap. Ex tuarum.

In omnibus enim talibus videtur dei esse tentatio, unde sine peccato fieri non possunt. Et gravius videretur si in hoc sacramento, quod est institutum ad remedium salutis, aliquis incurreret iudicium mortis. Unde nullo modo corpus christi debet dari alicui suspecto de crimine quasi ad examinationem.