May I receive the Eucharist without confession with the priest's permission?

[DebChris]

Before every Mass? We only have around 5 people on the scheduled time during Saturday. Sad, I know.

Yes, there are lines, especially on the first Saturday of the month.
That is only at one church. The church has confession on Saturday before Mass and Wednesday after the first morning Mass. There are two morning Masses offered.
With my own parish, confession is offered before every daily Mass plus Saturday before the vigil Mass. My parish is much smaller so there are not as many in line. One reason I was attracted to my current parish is the number of people who do attend daily Mass, almost as many as on a given Sunday.

 

[hamburglar]

Yes, there are lines, especially on the first Saturday of the month.
That is only at one church. The church has confession on Saturday before Mass and Wednesday after the first morning Mass. There are two morning Masses offered.
With my own parish, confession is offered before every daily Mass plus Saturday before the vigil Mass. My parish is much smaller so there are not as many in line. One reason I was attracted to my current parish is the number of people who do attend daily Mass, almost as many as on a given Sunday.

We have thousands of families at my parish, but only around 25 people attend daily Mass. I’ve been to confession on Saturdays and I would be the only one there. I’ve seen our priests read books in there.

 

[DebChris]

We have thousands of families at my parish, but only around 25 people attend daily Mass. I’ve been to confession on Saturdays and I would be the only one there. I’ve seen our priests read books in there.

I can understand the priest reading a book while he waits for penitents. As my parish priest marveled at the long hours John Vianney spent in the confession, he said how long even a half hour can be. When I lived in WI, I don’t remember waiting in line except in my own parish or while on retreat. I often received the Sacrament of Reconciliation at the Cathedral with a priest who didn’t know me. Except during Mass, confession was always available so no, there were no lines. It is not like the priest brought fiction to read. What I usually saw was the priest with some type of spiritual reading. It is a good way to use wait time.

 

[FrDavid96]

Hi everyone. A couple of weeks ago, I went to Mass and I needed to go to confession before receiving the Eucharist. It was a weekly Mass. Well, the priest told me to wait until after Mass for confession and that I could still receive the Eucharist since I fully intended to go to confession as soon as possible. Is this ok?

Holly,

You were right to request that the priest hear your confession before Mass. If the priest told you it was all right to receive Communion then it was all right to receive. Period. Exclamation point. No question mark.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Holly,

You were right to request that the priest hear your confession before Mass. If the priest told you it was all right to receive Communion then it was all right to receive. Period. Exclamation point. No question mark.

Frdavid96,

I have a question mark, if you’ll entertain one from the peanut gallery.

Could you elaborate more on your point? I’m not quite clear on the specifics here. Assuming the penitent is morally certain that they have committed a mortal sin, and assuming they have no grave reason to receive communion, why would a dispensation from confession prior to reception be valid in such a case, especially if the penitent has misgivings about it?

Thank you!
VC

 

[FrDavid96]

Frdavid96,

I have a question mark, if you’ll entertain one from the peanut gallery.

Could you elaborate more on your point? I’m not quite clear on the specifics here. Assuming the penitent is morally certain that they have committed a mortal sin, and assuming they have no grave reason to receive communion, why would a dispensation from confession prior to reception be valid in such a case, especially if the penitent has misgivings about it?

Thank you!
VC

The “no question mark” was in reference to myself.

When she asked the priest to hear her confession, that began the priest-penitent relationship. One should always follow the counsel of the priest, who is in persona Christi; and not rely on others to second-guess the judgement of the priest.

If her confessor told her to do something (other than to actually commit a sin, or violate the seal) she should rely entirely on his counsel, judgement, and his decision–the determination of that priest, and no one else, least of all a web forum. The only counsel we here can give her is to follow the direction of that priest.

As Catholics, we have to remember that our role here on these forums is to help each other. When we tell a fellow Catholic to second-guess the decision of a confessor, we are doing far more harm than good.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

FrDavid96,

Prescinding then from Holly’s actual case, wouldn’t counsel from a confessor to receive communion while not in a state of grace qualify as counsel to commit a sin, unless there was some exigency?

VC

 

[FrDavid96]

FrDavid96,

Prescinding then from Holly’s actual case, wouldn’t counsel from a confessor to receive communion while not in a state of grace qualify as counsel to commit a sin, unless there was some exigency?

VC

No.

The exigency is the good of souls itself. A Catholic is not deprived of the Eucharist because of the fault (not in the sense of “sin” but in the sense of “responsibility”) of the priest. When a penitent asks a priest to hear confession, and the priest delays it, then that person has effectively been denied the opportunity for confession through no fault of his own. That’s what makes it different. The desire to confess is obvious by the request; and such confession will occur immediately after Mass.

In any case, there would be no sin on the part of the penitent because the penitent is following the instructions of the confessor. If there is any sin it would be on the part of the priest, who assumes that responsibility, and would not give such counsel lightly.

PS We have to remember that the Sacred Canons are in place precisely for the “good of souls” It is hardly a “good” to deprive a person of the most august Sacrament because of no fault of his own in being denied (delayed) confession.

 

[Holly3278]

Thank you so much for participating in my thread Father David. I was unsure about this and that is why I posted it. I realize now that I probably should not have questioned the priest’s advice. Thank you for reassuring me that I did not commit another sin by going ahead and receiving the Eucharist at Mass.

 

[FrDavid96]

Thank you so much for participating in my thread Father David. I was unsure about this and that is why I posted it. I realize now that I probably should not have questioned the priest’s advice. Thank you for reassuring me that I did not commit another sin by going ahead and receiving the Eucharist at Mass.

Holly, I hope you understand (and I gather you do) that it’s not my advice, or the advice of anyone else on web forums which should form your conscience in matters of the Sacrament of Confession. It is your own priest-confessor who has that role. He is the only one who is in persona Christi in this matter. If Christ is telling you it’s ok to receive Communion, you’re on solid ground when you do.

 

[Holly3278]

Holly, I hope you understand (and I gather you do) that it’s not my advice, or the advice of anyone else on web forums which should form your conscience in matters of the Sacrament of Confession. It is your own priest-confessor who has that role. He is the only one who is in persona Christi in this matter. If Christ is telling you it’s ok to receive Communion, you’re on solid ground when you do.

Yes, Father David, I realize that. I did not realize that before though. I didn’t realize that the priest is acting in persona Christi even outside of the confessional.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

FrDavid96,

Thank you for your reply.

Forgive me, as I am having a bit of trouble understanding the principle applied here.

Why do we presume that if a priest denies a penitent confession after a request that the penitent has been denied through no fault of their own? What if the penitent requests confession an an inopportune or unscheduled time?

I was under the impression that desire for the Eucharist alone would not be considered a grave reason – in other words there must be additional exigent circumstances. In the case of priest, for instance, if no one else could celebrate mass, or if not celebrating would cause scandal or infamy. In the case of a layperson, for instance, danger of death, or scandal, etc.

Additionally, would the desire for confession alone suffice? Canon 916, which seems to be on point regarding this discussion, mentions an obligation of making an act of perfect contrition.

Thanks,
VC

 

[FrDavid96]

Yes, Father David, I realize that. I did not realize that before though. I didn’t realize that the priest is acting in persona Christi even outside of the confessional.

He’s not, unless he’s celebrating Mass. But when you asked him to hear your confession, that’s when it began.

 

[Holly3278]

He’s not, unless he’s celebrating Mass. But when you asked him to hear your confession, that’s when it began.

Oh ok. I didn’t realize that. Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[FrDavid96]

FrDavid96,

Thank you for your reply.

Forgive me, as I am having a bit of trouble understanding the principle applied here.

Why do we presume that if a priest denies a penitent confession after a request that the penitent has been denied through no fault of their own? What if the penitent requests confession an an inopportune or unscheduled time?

We’re not presuming. It’s a given. The penitent asked, the priest delayed. If it is not an appropriate time (say 2 AM), then there wouldn’t be a Mass starting and the priest would say “see me before the 9 AM Mass I’ll make it a point to be available”

I was under the impression that desire for the Eucharist alone would not be considered a grave reason – in other words there must be additional exigent circumstances. In the case of priest, for instance, if no one else could celebrate mass, or if not celebrating would cause scandal or infamy. In the case of a layperson, for instance, danger of death, or scandal, etc.

Additionally, would the desire for confession alone suffice? Canon 916, which seems to be on point regarding this discussion, mentions an obligation of making an act of perfect contrition.

Thanks,
VC

It’s not the “desire for the Eucharist” as such. It’s the good of souls. And you’re right to say that the desire alone would not necessarily suffice. It’s not only the desire, it is the manifest fact that the person has every intention of confessing immediately after Mass.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

We’re not presuming. It’s a given. The penitent asked, the priest delayed. If it is not an appropriate time (say 2 AM), then there wouldn’t be a Mass starting and the priest would say “see me before the 9 AM Mass I’ll make it a point to be available”

FrDavid96,

I had in mind a priest who was about to say Mass, when approached by a penitent. I would think the penitent could have arrived earlier to seek absolution?

It’s not the “desire for the Eucharist” as such. It’s the good of souls. And you’re right to say that the desire alone would not necessarily suffice. It’s not only the desire, it is the manifest fact that the person has every intention of confessing immediately after Mass.

Yes, I can see how the intention of confessing immediately after mass would fulfill the requirement of Canon 916 for “the resolve to go to confession as soon as possible”, but I was speaking of the obligation to make an act of perfect contrition.

In other words, I am having difficulty in reconciling the four requirements of Canon 916 with our conversation, which I will paraphrase as:
Anyone who is conscious of grave sin may not. . . receive the Body of the Lord without previously having been to sacramental confession, unless:

1. there is grave reason,
2. and there is no opportunity to confess
3. remember the obligation to make an act of perfect contrition,
4. which includes the resolve to go to confession as soon as possible.
​

In our conversation I can identify #2, and #4, but not #3 or #1.

Can you help me see the grave reason? I am assuming that the penitent is simply at a daily mass, under ordinary circumstances.

Thank you!

VC

 

[FrDavid96]

FrDavid96,

I had in mind a priest who was about to say Mass, when approached by a penitent. I would think the penitent could have arrived earlier to seek absolution?

Yes, I can see how the intention of confessing immediately after mass would fulfill the requirement of Canon 916 for “the resolve to go to confession as soon as possible”, but I was speaking of the obligation to make an act of perfect contrition.

In other words, I am having difficulty in reconciling the four requirements of Canon 916 with our conversation, which I will paraphrase as:
Anyone who is conscious of grave sin may not. . . receive the Body of the Lord without previously having been to sacramental confession, unless:

1. there is grave reason,
2. and there is no opportunity to confess
3. remember the obligation to make an act of perfect contrition,
4. which includes the resolve to go to confession as soon as possible.
​

In our conversation I can identify #2, and #4, but not #3 or #1.

Can you help me see the grave reason? I am assuming that the penitent is simply at a daily mass, under ordinary circumstances.

Thank you!

VC

Perhaps the penitent arrived a full hour early, but there was a line.

Understand that a priest would not give such counsel lightly. Nor would he refuse someone the opportunity to go to confession before Mass without a very good reason.

If the priest has the opportunity to explain canon 916 to the penitent, or to engage in a conversation about whether or not the person is in fact in a state of mortal sin, then he would certainly be able to spare the time to hear one more confession, and would do so. The point would be moot because the confession would occur. The priest himself made the decision to delay the confession. He must have had some good reason, but that’s still not a reason to deprive someone of the Eucharist through the decision of the priest, and not the decision of the penitent, who is trying to go to confession. That’s the key. The penitent is trying to confess.

I would also make the argument that the moment the penitent says “Father will you hear my confession” the Sacrament of Confession has already begun. In such a case, the Seal would apply, so it stands to reason that the sacrament has effectively begun as well.

1. Grave reason is the good of souls. Remember, that’s what we’re all about.
2. No opportunity to confess. The priest has delayed that opportunity, so that’s a given.
3. The resolve to go to confession as soon as possible is likewise a given because such a confession will occur immediately after Mass.

I’ve saved 3 for last. The penitent should be mindful of the obligation for a perfect act of contrition. Is sacramental confession itself not better than a perfect act of contrition? It is the sacramental confession which is about to happen after Mass. I’m not one to fiddle with the canons, but I do believe it’s safe to say that an actual confession trumps the act of perfect contrition.

 

[DebChris]

No.

The exigency is the good of souls itself. A Catholic is not deprived of the Eucharist because of the fault (not in the sense of “sin” but in the sense of “responsibility”) of the priest. When a penitent asks a priest to hear confession, and the priest delays it, then that person has effectively been denied the opportunity for confession through no fault of his own. That’s what makes it different. The desire to confess is obvious by the request; and such confession will occur immediately after Mass.

In any case, there would be no sin on the part of the penitent because the penitent is following the instructions of the confessor. If there is any sin it would be on the part of the priest, who assumes that responsibility, and would not give such counsel lightly.

PS We have to remember that the Sacred Canons are in place precisely for the “good of souls” It is hardly a “good” to deprive a person of the most august Sacrament because of no fault of his own in being denied (delayed) confession.

This would be my viewpoint.

Holly, I hope you understand (and I gather you do) that it’s not my advice, or the advice of anyone else on web forums which should form your conscience in matters of the Sacrament of Confession. It is your own priest-confessor who has that role. He is the only one who is in persona Christi in this matter. If Christ is telling you it’s ok to receive Communion, you’re on solid ground when you do.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

FrDavid96,

I’m afraid I still do not follow.

If we make “grave reason” to be equivalent to “good of souls” simply, then are we not effectively nullifying this clause of the canon? Certainly receiving communion is for the good of souls, but it seems like under your reading* anyone* who wishes to receive communion has a grave reason.

The older Code (Canon 856) used this language: “In case of urgent necessity, when no suitable confessor is at hand, such a one must make an act of perfect contrition before approaching the Sacred Table.”

I’m having a difficult time finding grave reason or urgent necessity to receive communion in a person who arrives a couple of minutes before a Wednesday morning mass on the way to work. Can you help?

VC

 

[DebChris]

Perhaps the penitent arrived a full hour early, but there was a line.

Understand that a priest would not give such counsel lightly. Nor would he refuse someone the opportunity to go to confession before Mass without a very good reason.

If the priest has the opportunity to explain canon 916 to the penitent, or to engage in a conversation about whether or not the person is in fact in a state of mortal sin, then he would certainly be able to spare the time to hear one more confession, and would do so. The point would be moot because the confession would occur. The priest himself made the decision to delay the confession. He must have had some good reason, but that’s still not a reason to deprive someone of the Eucharist through the decision of the priest, and not the decision of the penitent, who is trying to go to confession. That’s the key. The penitent is trying to confess.

I would also make the argument that the moment the penitent says “Father will you hear my confession” the Sacrament of Confession has already begun. In such a case, the Seal would apply, so it stands to reason that the sacrament has effectively begun as well.

1. Grave reason is the good of souls. Remember, that’s what we’re all about.
2. No opportunity to confess. The priest has delayed that opportunity, so that’s a given.
3. The resolve to go to confession as soon as possible is likewise a given because such a confession will occur immediately after Mass.

I’ve saved 3 for last. The penitent should be mindful of the obligation for a perfect act of contrition. Is sacramental confession itself not better than a perfect act of contrition? It is the sacramental confession which is about to happen after Mass. I’m not one to fiddle with the canons, but I do believe it’s safe to say that an actual confession trumps the act of perfect contrition.

Would not merely standing in line serve as a request for confession?

No.

The exigency is the good of souls itself. A Catholic is not deprived of the Eucharist because of the fault (not in the sense of “sin” but in the sense of “responsibility”) of the priest. When a penitent asks a priest to hear confession, and the priest delays it, then that person has effectively been denied the opportunity for confession through no fault of his own. That’s what makes it different. The desire to confess is obvious by the request; and such confession will occur immediately after Mass.

In any case, there would be no sin on the part of the penitent because the penitent is following the instructions of the confessor. If there is any sin it would be on the part of the priest, who assumes that responsibility, and would not give such counsel lightly.

PS We have to remember that the Sacred Canons are in place precisely for the “good of souls” It is hardly a “good” to deprive a person of the most august Sacrament because of no fault of his own in being denied (delayed) confession.

This would be my understanding.