fessor 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.

LXIV. CELEBRATIO AND BINATIO, AFTER BREAKING THE FAST

The villages M. and G. are about two miles apart. One Sunday morning, having said Mass, and breakfasted shortly afterward, I was called from M. by a messenger to the pastor of G., who had been suddenly taken ill and who wished me to officiate in his stead at High Mass, as otherwise his congregation would go without Mass. Even if they had betaken themselves to M., where there was another Mass, they could have reached the church only after the elevation, as the sermon (according to custom there) was preached after the Communion. "Idem casus," so writes Holzmann, “nuper contigit vel saltem contigere potuisset Riedae in mea patria, ubi D. Parochus die festo fuit subito infirmatus et impotens effectus ad illo die celebrandum. Ablegebatur nuncius ad monasterium Ursi

nense O. S. B. cum precibus, ut mitteretur sacerdos, qui loco Parochi Divina perageret. Sed quoniam nuncius primum circa aut post horam decimam advenerat, omnes sacerdotes jam celebraverant, excepto solo Rmo. D. Praesule ac Abbate Bernardo; qui proinde illico se itineri accinxit et rheda Riedam delatus ibidem ad aram litavit cum maxima populi aedificatione et solatio."

Abbot Bernard was of course in the fortunate position to render the asked assistance, not having broken the jejunium naturale; I, however, had, as already mentioned, partaken of ablution and of food before becoming aware of the embarrassment of the pastor in G., and I therefore gave, regretfully, a declining answer. He, however, considered my view a rigoristic one, and expressed his belief that in this case I might, even after breaking the fast, celebrate Mass, because if the Mass were omitted the people would be given

scandal. That scandal would not be absent, he, as pastor, were better able to judge than I, a stranger, and for this reason he advised me to lay aside my opinion and be guided by his. The people not understanding that the prohibition to say Mass after breaking the fast, and concerning only the individual person of the priest, was more binding than the obligation of a whole parish to hear Mass. "But," I replied, "how can the people be scandalized, if it is made known to them that the pastor has been unexpectedly disabled, and that the summoned priest, not having foreseen the case, had broken the fast and therefore is prevented from celebrating a second Mass? In my opinion the people, if properly instructed, are more appreciative than you assume. Besides, those well disposed and those less critical will not give much heed to the matter beyond some surprise, and in simple faith they will take for granted what is told them." This was the extent of my reply. My offer to hold a devotion instead of saying Mass was not accepted, and I was dismissed in disfavor. That same day I looked over Holzmann's Moral Theology, not from any uncertainty, but to reassure myself, and there I found, besides the above extract, also the following passage: "Quod si ergo in hoc casu etiam altefatus Rmus ipse antea jam celebrasset, nullus alius sacerdos, qui loco Parochi sacrificaret, mitti potuisset, quia ob sumptam in Missa jam lecta ablutionem nullus amplius erat jejunus.”

Nevertheless, had the pastor been able to convince me, or could I have convinced myself, that without doubt, or even only probably, through the omission of the Mass scandal for the people would have ensued, that is to say, "gravis populi offensio, periculum gravis suspicionis vel dicterii contra sacerdotem, aut periculum, ne plures, quamquam possint et debeant alio se conferre ad audiendam Missam, ex inopinato illo casu ansam sumant cum peccato gravi Missam negligendi" (LEHMKUHL, Theol. Moral, II, n. 162), then it would not

have been unlawful for me to say a second Mass, after breaking the fast, as, what is here presupposed as conditio sine qua non, my defectus jejunii was neither known, nor could have easily become known to the people.

In confirmation of what has been said I add a few more lines from Holzmann: "Dices: si oriretur ex non-binatione scandalum in populo, liceret sacerdoti etiam non amplius jejuno celebrare; ergo etiam licebit in casu nostro. Respondetur concedendo in facta hypothesi antecedens et negando consequens. Disparitas est, quia in casu oriundi scandali liceret uti epikia, et mentem ecclesiae interpretari, quod sacerdoti, etsi non amplius jejuno, nolit interdictam esse iteratam celebrationem; siquidem praeceptum de non praebendo scandalo, quum sit juris naturalis, praecepto ecclesiastico de Sacro celebrando a sacerdote jejuno praevalere debet et strictius observari. Secus in nostro casu, in quo nullum intervenit scandalum, quum populus non scandalizetur, si edoceatur, Parochum repente incidisse in infirmitatem, alios vero sacerdotes casum Parochi non praevidentes jam celebrasse, adeoque ob defectum jejunii naturalis sumpta ablutione inductum secundo celebrare non posse, et parochianos ob impotentiam audiendi Missam excusari a peccato, tametsi eo festo Missam non audiant" (Theol. Moral, II, n. 379).

All this fits my case. Similar cases occur not infrequently, and each individual case should be well weighed and considered. Ordinarily there ensues from the omission of Holy Mass, and the solemnity joined to it, a regret only, but no scandal. Even if some ignorant people, or the roundtable at the tavern, may be given an opportunity to hold forth against the priest who inadvertently broke the jejunium, this would be by no means sufficient reason to ignore the ecclesiastical precept. But if one might have to fear what I am about to relate? What in such case?

I once heard a malicious person say that a certain priest was not in the state of grace, and that he purposely partook of some food to have a pretext for not saying Mass, to escape in this way the mortal sin of celebrating sacrilegiously. Where such suspicions and calumny are to be feared (a case not likely to happen often) a priest, to prevent the same, may, if possible, keep his mishap secret, and in good conscience celebrate Holy Mass.

It may happen, and this would be more likely, that some people in town or country, if Mass was not said in their own church, would not take the trouble to go to another church within their reach, and thus sin grievously. In this case, likewise, if no other priest were obtainable, a sacerdos non jejunus could say Mass. Provided of course the defectus jejunii is neither known to the people, nor likely to become known. I have repeatedly noticed how priests, videnti populo, partook of the ablution, and later said another Mass. This was wrong, although the people believed this could be done in case of necessity (and in every one of these instances fortunately they so regarded the case). If at other times a priest in distraction should do something similar, it will not be easy for him to avoid talk, if he makes this (correctly) the ground for not saying Mass. BERNARD DEPPE.