Can a priest 'living' in sin give communion?

[Polak]

By ‘living’ in sin I mean a priest who has sinned and not yet confessed and is now doing a mass, and in that mass, obviously holy communion.

I believe we discussed it on this forum before about how a priest who is in sin can still do it and how it is still valid, but I wanted to double check. I suppose this would mean that the priest would not be able to take the eucharist himself while going through the process of transubstantiation at the altar?

 

[HomeschoolDad]

By ‘living’ in sin I mean a priest who has sinned and not yet confessed and is now doing a mass, and in that mass, obviously holy communion.

I believe we discussed it on this forum before about how a priest who is in sin can still do it and how it is still valid, but I wanted to double check. I suppose this would mean that the priest would not be able to take the eucharist himself while going through the process of transubstantiation at the altar?

Theoretically, a priest cannot celebrate Mass — or at the very least, cannot receive communion, and the priest’s communion is an integral and indispensable part of the Mass, unlike the communion of the faithful, which is optional — if he is so unfortunate as to fall into mortal sin without an opportunity to confess, unless he makes an act of perfect contrition, and confesses as soon as possible.

May God forbid this would ever happen, but if a priest has become a hardened, unrepentant mortal sinner, yet continues to celebrate Mass… well, the eternal consequences are too horrible even to think about.

Administering communion to the faithful would not add anything to his sin. (I will welcome correction if I am wrong about this.)

 

[Polak]

So if he was, as you say, ‘a hardened, unrepentant mortal sinner’, but continued to celebrate mass, the consequences for him might not be good, but for the faithful, the sacrament would still be valid and they could take communion.

if he is so unfortunate as to fall into mortal sin without an opportunity to confess, unless he makes an act of perfect contrition, and confesses as soon as possible.

I think you answered my question here. Assuming that he just, for whatever unfortunate reason, wasn’t able to confess before celebrating the mass, he could make an act of contrition and still take the communion himself, then confess ASAP after that, right?

 

[Tis_Bearself]

The priest is able to consecrate the Eucharist while in mortal sin, and generally give the sacraments to others while he is in mortal sin.

However, if he receives Holy Communion while he is in mortal sin, then he commits another mortal sin himself.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

I think you answered my question here. Assuming that he just, for whatever unfortunate reason, wasn’t able to confess before celebrating the mass, he could make an act of contrition and still take the communion himself, then confess ASAP after that, right?

He’d need a pretty serious reason, such as he’s the only priest in a prison camp or on a desert island and another priest isn’t going to be around for a good long while if ever.

 

[Polak]

However, if he receives Holy Communion while he is in mortal sin, then he commits another mortal sin himself.

So best practice would be for a priest simply not to receive communion while in mortal sin, but he can still celebrate the mass, or would he be better off avoiding doing that too, as mentioned in the first reply?

 

[Tis_Bearself]

I believe the priest is required to commune at the Mass. In fact, if I remember right, he’s the ONLY one who has to commune at the Mass.

It would be really best if he just didn’t say Mass until he gets a chance to confess and be absolved.

If he’s truly repentant, he’s not going to want to add to his problems by receiving Jesus unworthily.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

HomeschoolDad:

if he is so unfortunate as to fall into mortal sin without an opportunity to confess, unless he makes an act of perfect contrition, and confesses as soon as possible.

I think you answered my question here. Assuming that he just, for whatever unfortunate reason, wasn’t able to confess before celebrating the mass, he could make an act of contrition and still take the communion himself, then confess ASAP after that, right?

That is correct. But he would be confessing only the mortal sin itself. Celebrating Mass out of necessity, and receiving the Blessed Sacrament, after having said an act of perfect contrition, would not be a sin, as his soul would be free of mortal sin (assuming he truly repented more for the love of God than for the fear of damnation).

The priest is able to consecrate the Eucharist while in mortal sin, and generally give the sacraments to others while he is in mortal sin.

However, if he receives Holy Communion while he is in mortal sin, then he commits another mortal sin himself.

And therein lies the problem. May he celebrate Mass without receiving communion himself?

Or might it be possible for him to “simulate” reception of the sacrament, through administering an unconsecrated Host to himself? And what, then, of receiving the Precious Blood? An unconsecrated Host would be easy to simulate — just mentally reserve the intention to consecrate that particular Host — but if I’m understanding correctly, all of the Precious Blood must be consumed by someone before Mass is ended. Is the Precious Blood ever reserved in the tabernacle?

 

[RWZiller]

I may be mistaken, but I don’t believe “simulating” the reception would suffice in any way. The idea is that the Priest is duty-bound to complete the Sacrifice he offered, no? I can’t imagine a situation where a spiritual communion like that would suffice. There’s a substantive aspect to it that needs to be fulfilled.

Please do correct me if I’m mistaken. This has me interested and I’d love to hear the correct answer.

 

[Horton]

By ‘living’ in sin I mean a priest who has sinned and not yet confessed and is now doing a mass, and in that mass, obviously holy communion.

How do you know the priest is in a state of sin?

 

[Tis_Bearself]

And therein lies the problem. May he celebrate Mass without receiving communion himself?

Again, my understanding is “No”.

We had this discussion when talking about priests saying livestream Mass with no one receiving communion during the pandemic.
I believe the answer was, the priest HAS to receive communion, and in fact he is the only one there who HAS to receive communion. Everyone else could sit out communion but the priest must receive.

 

[commenter]

If he made a good Act of Contrition, with a firm commitment to the sacrament of confession as soon as possible, it would seem he could receive Holy Communion at a Mass offered as part of an act of Charity to others (the Mass), assuming no other priest was available.

As an act of Prudence, of course he should refrain if possible from public Masses till that cloud is lifted. It might interfere with his sermon, his overall concentration.

But nowadays it’s very unlikely he could find a substitute on short notice.

 

[CTBcin]

I believe the priest is required to commune at the Mass. In fact, if I remember right, he’s the ONLY one who has to commune at the Mass.

It would be really best if he just didn’t say Mass until he gets a chance to confess and be absolved.

If he’s truly repentant, he’s not going to want to add to his problems by receiving Jesus unworthily.

This is correct (although I’m not sure whether the assisting deacons are required receive as well).

The difficulty that arises is that if a priest falls into mortal sin, but does not have the ability to go to confession in time before Mass, then he is in a bit of a pickle. A pastor is also required at the very least to have scheduled Sunday Masses for the faithful. He can’t just not say Mass.

 

[Vico]

I may be mistaken, but I don’t believe “simulating” the reception would suffice in any way. The idea is that the Priest is duty-bound to complete the Sacrifice he offered, no? I can’t imagine a situation where a spiritual communion like that would suffice. There’s a substantive aspect to it that needs to be fulfilled.

Please do correct me if I’m mistaken. This has me interested and I’d love to hear the correct answer.

General Instruction of the Roman Missal

85. It is most desirable that the faithful, just as the priest himself is bound to do, receive the Lord’s Body from hosts consecrated at the same Mass and that, in the instances when it is permitted, they partake of the chalice (cf. no. 283), so that even by means of the signs Communion will stand out more clearly as a participation in the sacrifice actually being celebrated.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

I may be mistaken, but I don’t believe “simulating” the reception would suffice in any way. The idea is that the Priest is duty-bound to complete the Sacrifice he offered, no?

That is my understanding. The Sacrifice is not complete until the priest has partaken of It.

I should have been more clear. I was just grasping for some way for the priest to celebrate Mass without having to receive communion. I had in mind using an unconsecrated host to keep from scandalizing the faithful — they would never know it was unconsecrated, and would just assume he had received the priest’s communion. As I noted above, the Precious Blood would be more problematical. He could just give the appearance of consuming It (which, if Mass were celebrated ad orientem, would be invisible to the faithful). It is not reserved (or is It ever?), and he might not be able to get an adult sacristan or EMHC to consume It instead.

Polak:

By ‘living’ in sin I mean a priest who has sinned and not yet confessed and is now doing a mass, and in that mass, obviously holy communion.

How do you know the priest is in a state of sin?

We don’t, but he himself certainly does.

If he made a good Act of Contrition, with a firm commitment to the sacrament of confession as soon as possible, it would seem he could receive Holy Communion at a Mass offered as part of an act of Charity to others (the Mass), assuming no other priest was available.

No quarrel there. That’s the whole idea.

 

[InThePew]

I should have been more clear. I was just grasping for some way for the priest to celebrate Mass without having to receive communion.

There is no way; a priest has to consume the Eucharist (under both species) in order to complete the sacrifice of the mass - no completion = no sacrifice = no mass. Concelebrants also have to consume the Eucharist under both species. The validity (or quality or effectiveness) of the sacraments does not however depend on the quality on the one celebrating them - the Donatist heresy which holds otherwise

He’d need a pretty serious reason, such as he’s the only priest in a prison camp or on a desert island and another priest isn’t going to be around for a good long while if ever.

Given that most (diocesan) priests live on their own and most have mass everyday, being able to confess before celebrating mass isn’t all that easy. That’s not to say though that a serious reason isn’t required but, as Can 916 notes, the obligation to celebrate mass for the faithful can be such a reason:

Can. 916 A person who is conscious of grave sin is not to celebrate Mass or receive the body of the Lord without previous sacramental confession unless there is a grave reason and there is no opportunity to confess; in this case the person is to remember the obligation to make an act of perfect contrition which includes the resolution of confessing as soon as possible.

 

[Socrates92]

Given that most (diocesan) priests live on their own and most have mass everyday, being able to confess before celebrating mass isn’t all that easy. That’s not to say though that a serious reason isn’t required but, as Can 916 notes, the obligation to celebrate mass for the faithful can be such a reason:

Can. 916 A person who is conscious of grave sin is not to celebrate Mass or receive the body of the Lord without previous sacramental confession unless there is a grave reason and there is no opportunity to confess; in this case the person is to remember the obligation to make an act of perfect contrition which includes the resolution of confessing as soon as possible.

Wouldn’t that be pretty much the only legitimate, grave enough reason? Are there other reasons that would fall under this category?

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Good to know Canon Law has addressed this situation.

 

[Polak]

So if I have understood correctly @InThePew, the priest must consume the body and blood for the mass to be complete, and the only reason he would be allowed to consume them during a mass in a state of mortal sin, is if he has no possibility to confess before the mass.

I suppose another way to deal with the situation might be to push the mass back a few hours, if the priest knows he would be able to confess if this was done.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

I don’t think the average St. So-and-so’s Parish is going to change its Mass schedule by several hours just because Fr. Jones happened to commit a mortal sin between when he woke up and 10 am Mass time. Besides, how would you justify that to the parishioners? Fr. Jones can’t very well announce, “Sorry gang, I fell into mortal sin this morning, please come back later.”