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

[FrDavid96]

OK. I finally figured out what I’m trying to get at.

A priest would not tell someone to go to communion and see him afterwards for confession unless he had a good reason, and that decision is well-thought out.

If the priest had any reason to believe that the person was in mortal sin, the priest would not make that decision to say “go to communion, see me afterwards”

If the person expressed “I need to confess a mortal sin” the priest would not do this (unless experience as that person’s confessor tells him that the definition of “mortal sin” is inappropriately expanded by the person, and the sin is probably not in fact mortal)

If the priest were not somehow pastorally aware of the overall state of the person, he would not do this.

The priest would not do this as a matter of course. In other words, to say every day “confessions end at 8:55 and anyone who hasn’t confessed yet, just see me afterwards”

A priest would not give that counsel if he believed or new that the person truly needed to confess a mortal sin. There. That’s what I’ve been trying to say for so long now, it just took me this long to realize it.

Now, let’s say that there is in fact a mortal sin. In that case, the responsibility is on the priest, and not on the penitent. The penitent is “safe” for following the directions of the confessor, and that’s why the sin of receiving unworthily woult not apply. At the same time, the penitent would have the obligation to follow the directions of the priest-confessor.

 

[FrDavid96]

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

Certainly yes.

The Seal of the sacrament would not yet apply, though.

 

[DebChris]

OK. I finally figured out what I’m trying to get at.

A priest would not tell someone to go to communion and see him afterwards for confession unless he had a good reason, and that decision is well-thought out.

If the priest had any reason to believe that the person was in mortal sin, the priest would not make that decision to say “go to communion, see me afterwards”

If the person expressed “I need to confess a mortal sin” the priest would not do this (unless experience as that person’s confessor tells him that the definition of “mortal sin” is inappropriately expanded by the person, and the sin is probably not in fact mortal)

If the priest were not somehow pastorally aware of the overall state of the person, he would not do this.

The priest would not do this as a matter of course. In other words, to say every day “confessions end at 8:55 and anyone who hasn’t confessed yet, just see me afterwards”

A priest would not give that counsel if he believed or new that the person truly needed to confess a mortal sin. There. That’s what I’ve been trying to say for so long now, it just took me this long to realize it.

Now, let’s say that there is in fact a mortal sin. In that case, the responsibility is on the priest, and not on the penitent. The penitent is “safe” for following the directions of the confessor, and that’s why the sin of receiving unworthily woult not apply. At the same time, the penitent would have the obligation to follow the directions of the priest-confessor.

Plus within the Sacrament of the Eucharist, a person does receive forgiveness for venial sins. If we had to be in a perfect state of grace, none of us would be able to receive.
I like the words of Joan of Arc when asked whether or not she was in a state of grace. “I pray that I am and if I am not, I pray that God would put me in that state.”
We receive God’s grace through the Sacraments.

 

[DebChris]

Certainly yes.

The Seal of the sacrament would not yet apply, though.

Understood, as nothing has yet been confessed.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

OK. I finally figured out what I’m trying to get at.

Thank you for enduring my questions, and thank you for this clarification of your position.

A priest would not tell someone to go to communion and see him afterwards for confession unless he had a good reason, and that decision is well-thought out.

I would hope so. I *assume *so. I’m not sure I can *presume *so.

If the priest had any reason to believe that the person was in mortal sin, the priest would not make that decision to say “go to communion, see me afterwards”

My difficulty is that in the above scenario the penitent hasn’t communicated anything about their own state, except that they desire confession. Wouldn’t it be a safer course, then, given the possibility that the penitent is in mortal sin, not to counsel going to communion without further inquiry?

If the person expressed “I need to confess a mortal sin” the priest would not do this (unless experience as that person’s confessor tells him that the definition of “mortal sin” is inappropriately expanded by the person, and the sin is probably not in fact mortal)

I agree. I’m not sure if penitents usually mention what type of sins they want to confess before confessing, I do not know if it is common.

If the priest were not somehow pastorally aware of the overall state of the person, he would not do this.

This was my assumption throughout this thread. I took it as a safe assumption, since it seems to be the usual course of things. I don’t see how a priest under usual circumstances can be aware of the actual condition of a penitent (even one he knows) sufficiently to make the determination for the penitent that he or she is not in mortal sin, without first knowing what the penitent feels they have done.

I suppose there may be unusual cases where a well-known penitent is told beforehand by his spiritual director and confessor that he shouldn’t ever abstain from communion if he can’t get to confession because he is hyper-scrupulous and never has actual mortal sin due to some aggravating factors. However, in such cases that I am aware anecdotally, the penitent is directed to do so only in the case of certain sins which experience has shown do not rise to the level of mortal sin (e.g. due to habit, or lack of free consent of the will, etc).

My confusion with our conversation is it seemed to be presenting this awareness of the confessor as a normal or baseline situation. Thank you for helping me understand.

The priest would not do this as a matter of course. In other words, to say every day “confessions end at 8:55 and anyone who hasn’t confessed yet, just see me afterwards”

Thank you, that was what I was getting at. The normal and matter of course thing to do would be not* to counsel someone to just go to communion and confess afterwards.*

A priest would not give that counsel if he believed or new that the person truly needed to confess a mortal sin. There. That’s what I’ve been trying to say for so long now, it just took me this long to realize it.

Thank you! That helps me reconcile my difficulties. Unfortunately, I think it is possible that a priest might do so. I think there are forum members who have had a priest do so.

Ultimately, it seems to me, the penitent who is seeking confession must address the state of their own soul, and if they are morally certain they are in mortal sin, there is no possibility to go to confession, and their is no grave reason to go to communion, they seem to be required to abstain from receiving communion, over and above the recommendation of a priest. Can you help me see otherwise?

When I use the qualifier “morally certain” above (and in most of my above posts as well), it takes into account those exceptional cases where the priest knows that this penitent doesn’t really need to confess. In other words if the priest/penitent relationship is such that the priest would know this without auricular confession, then the penitent would know to abide by the priests determination.

Now, let’s say that there is in fact a mortal sin. In that case, the responsibility is on the priest, and not on the penitent. The penitent is “safe” for following the directions of the confessor, and that’s why the sin of receiving unworthily woult not apply.

I agree, if a penitent is innocently following the directions of a priest, and doesn’t know any better. See my posts #13 and #16 above. In such cases though, even if an innocent penitent follows a confessors erroneous advice and is not himself morally culpable, it seems that since the penitent is still not in the state of grace he would not receive sacramental grace from reception.

At the same time, the penitent would have the obligation to follow the directions of the priest-confessor.

I don’t follow here, please forgive me if I am just not getting it! If a penitent is morally certain they are in mortal sin, and if there is no grave reason to receive communion, why would a penitent be obligated to go?

In the first place, he seems to be under no obligation to go to communion (unless it is the Paschal season). In the second place under what principle does a layperson who knows he is in mortal sin, knows he doesn’t have a grave reason, and ***knows ***it is against the rule of the Church to do so, under obligation to follow the directions of a priest who, under ordinary circumstances doesn’t know the state of his soul nor whether or not there is a grave reason, and yet seemingly counsels him to disobey the law of the Church in this matter?

Thank you!
VC

 

[baltobetsy]

In the first place, he seems to be under no obligation to go to communion (unless it is the Paschal season). In the second place under what principle does a layperson who knows he is in mortal sin, knows he doesn’t have a grave reason, and ***knows ***it is against the rule of the Church to do so, under obligation to follow the directions of a priest who, under ordinary circumstances doesn’t know the state of his soul nor whether or not there is a grave reason, and yet seemingly counsels him to disobey the law of the Church in this matter?

VC, I’ve enjoyed your exchange with Fr. David. You ask wonderful clarifying questions.

What I see here is a difference in point of view of laity versus clergy. While the lay person is concerned with following the rules and staying out of trouble and sin, the priest appears to be more concerned about administering the amazing generosity of God. I think we sometimes forget that God is so amazingly in love with us that He wants nothing more than to lavish gifts and graces on us at the slightest provocation. The priest is the one charged with distributing many of these graces (i.e., the Sacraments) here on earth, and his concern is to make sure the flow of graces is not inhibited in any way.

This scenario reminds me of the story of the Prodigal Son. The wayward son had his little speech and modest request all ready, but the father was so thrilled to see him that he would hear none of it - he only wanted to enfold him in the family again and have a celebration. The OP had her confession all ready to go, and the priest apparently did not have the time to hear it, so, like the father in the story, and like God the Father, he brought her in to the celebration (Mass and Holy Communion). It was enough that she came back (shown by her request to confess), just as it was enough that the Prodigal Son came back. Now, we are living on earth, in the Church, so her confession still needs to be heard, and it will be, but in this case, not until after she is welcomed back to the feast. God has the right to do this, and the priest was acting in the place of God.

God is the lover of souls, and as such, often surprises us with generosity. He goes overboard, gives no thought to thrift in the expression of His boundless love. He is, in fact, liberal, in the best sense of that word. When we accuse a priest or bishop of being “liberal,” perhaps that is not as much of an insult as we thought. In addition to the obligation to follow the laws of the Church, the bishop and priest have the obligation to be the image of God in our midst, and that includes imaging His profligate love.

Just as in a human love relationship, we must not take undue advantage of this generosity of God, but when He offers it through the action of His priest, we can certainly accept it.

Betsy

 

[Verbum_Caro]

VC, I’ve enjoyed your exchange with Fr. David. You ask wonderful clarifying questions.

Thanks betsy.

I think you make excellent points about the different approaches. I think it is a good idea, like you say, to try to keep in mind the prodigious love that God has for us, and the point of the sacraments, which is to sanctify us and communicate that love.

I think some of the confusion arises when we try to apply general principles to specific cases. The OP is a specific case, likewise so for SimonArizona. In both cases they went to communion in good faith, based on the guidance of their priest. We can’t find any fault with that.

However, those who are aware of the Church’s rule, and who understand it to mean that when they are sure they are in mortal sin and are sure they don’t have a grave reason must not present themselves for communion prior to sacramental confession, and in fact they are morally certain of both, then it would seem that they can’t present themselves for communion – even if a priest gives them the ok. It would seem to me that a person would be bound by conscience to follow the rule as they know it, since they have a moral certainty that they are, in fact, in mortal sin. At the most a priest’s counsel to go to communion anyway (again, I am speaking of a person who is aware his own state and the rule), would only seem to cause a doubtful conscience. But since one is obliged to never act with a doubtful conscience, I think one would still be obligated to abstain from communion.

[Note: Recall that in this scenario there is no *necessity or grave reason for going to communion. You can simply go tomorrow. Or you can ask to receive communion outside of Mass, after your confession.]

The above, of course, is based on the premises that someone who is aware of the law is obliged to follow it, *and *that the law cannot be dispensed with by an individual priest.

What do you think?
VC

 

[baltobetsy]

What do you think?
VC

I think I’ll summarize your differences with Fr. David.

First, he contends that the good of souls is sufficient (grave) reason to permit the penitent to receive Holy Communion prior to completing the sacramental confession. You disagree that the good of souls constitutes sufficient reason on the basis that weekday Mass happens every day and confession is readily available in a relatively short time frame. Although I won’t presume to speak for Fr. David, when I follow his line of reasoning, I end up with God’s urgency to lavish gifts on us and to unite Himself to us in Holy Communion, and this is seen as “grave.”

Second, he says that the priest-penitent relationship is established as soon as the person asks to have a confession heard. At this point, the “magic” of obedience takes over. The saints have written about this, specifically St. Philip Neri. I don’t have the exact quote available at the moment, but what he said, in effect, was, when a person obeys a spiritual superior, he will not have to answer to God for his actions. As Fr. David said, the responsibility is transferred to the superior. In my opinion, the act of obedience and submission of one’s own judgment (an act of humility) is more pleasing to God than second-guessing and having a dubious conscience. IOW, the obligation not to act on a dubious conscience is abrogated by obedience. Love casts out fear.

What do YOU think?

Betsy

 

[FrDavid96]

(some text omitted simply for the sake of space)

In the first place, he seems to be under no obligation to go to communion (unless it is the Paschal season). In the second place under what principle does a layperson who knows he is in mortal sin, knows he doesn’t have a grave reason, and ***knows ***it is against the rule of the Church to do so, under obligation to follow the directions of a priest who, under ordinary circumstances doesn’t know the state of his soul nor whether or not there is a grave reason, and yet seemingly counsels him to disobey the law of the Church in this matter?

Thank you!
VC

VC:

Look to Canon 212.1
The Christian faithful, conscious of their own responsibilities, are bound by Christian obedience to follow what the sacred pastors, as representatives of Christ, declare as teachers of the faith or determine as leaders of the Church.

Now, let’s shift gears here and be practical rather than academic (though I’ve enjoyed the academic exercise nonetheless).

On these web forums, we are giving advice to Catholics who have questions about Confession. If we tell readers that they should not follow the advice of their confessors, we are giving them certainly bad advice. We are telling them to disregard canon 212, and the role of the confessor* in persona Christi*, and fostering a mistrust in the sacred relationship between penitent and confessor. That’s dangerous territory, as I’m sure you would agree.

What Catholics need to understand when they pose questions like “my confessor told me to do this, what should I do?” then the only counsel we can give is to say “obey your Father Confessor.” That’s why my original response to this thread was so brief, so direct, and so definitive.

As I’ve said (and you’ve generally concurred) a priest would not say “it’s ok, receive now, confess after Mass” unless the priest prudently judged that it is, in point of fact, ok.

And if that priest judged imprudently, that priest will have to answer to Christ for his own failings. That is an awesome responsibility, and every priest knows it. But the point here is that in this type of case, the penitent is not at fault, the priest is at fault, and the penitent is free of any guilt. That’s what our readers need to understand.

A priest who denies someone the opportunity to confess before Mass in order to receive communion is committing an injustice. The priest says to himself “it’s unjust for me to deny Communion to one who has presented himself for confession, but for practical reasons, I have to begin Mass now. Therefore, I will accept the responsibility for what I am about to say, I will assume that there is no mortal sin, and permit that person to receive Communion on the specific condition that he come to a proper confession immediately after Mass. Denying this person the graces of the Eucharist is a greater injustice than a technical violation of Canon 916,”

Let’s look at it another way, Canon Law must be interpreted according to the intentions of the law-giver (in all cases). Now, I’m not saying that we have that power to interpret, only the law-giver can offer such interpretation. Yet, common sense also prevails here. See canon 17 Ecclesiastical laws are to be understood in accord with the proper meaning of the words considered in their text and context. If the meaning remains doubtful and obscure, recourse is to be taken to parallel passages, if such exist, to the purpose and circumstances of the law, and to the mind of the legislator.

Let’s concentrate on the words “context” and “purpose and circumstances”

I do not believe that the intent of the law in canon 916 was meant to apply to a person who attempts to go to confession in sincerity of heart, but is denied that opportunity by the decision of the priest. Here’s why: The penitent has made a good-faith, outward attempt to confess, but has been specifically denied the sacrament of confession. In these particular circumstances the purpose of the law does not apply because the penitent has sincerely attempted to follow it. The purpose of the law is to prevent a person from receiving Communion unworthily. The person has made every effort to receive worthily, but the priest has denied that opportunity.

Look to our civil laws for an example. The law says that we must drive on the right side of the road. If the competent legal authority puts temporary barriers in the road (say for road construction) and a sign that says “lane shift left” that driver is not subject to a fine for driving on the left side of the road. The priest stands as the representative of the competent authority (canon 212). If he says “it’s ok to receive” then the person must follow that direction. If the priest is wrong, he will have to answer for his fault. The priest assumes that responsibility, and does not do so lightly.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Hi betsy,

I think I’ll summarize your differences with Fr. David.

Ok, but I’ll qualify my responses as response to your summary, and not to FrDavid96.

First, he contends that the good of souls is sufficient (grave) reason to permit the penitent to receive Holy Communion prior to completing the sacramental confession. You disagree that the good of souls constitutes sufficient reason on the basis that weekday Mass happens every day and confession is readily available in a relatively short time frame.

My contention is actually much stronger than that. I don’t base it on whether or not weekday masses happen every day or the short time frame for the next confession. Rather I base it on the notion that if we were to equate “grave reason” in Canon 916 with “good of souls” then we have effectively read out of the statute the clause “grave reason.” In other words it makes the requirement of “grave reason” nonsensical, since every person who wanted to receive communio would de facto have a grave reason *unless *their reason was not for the good of their own soul.

Second, he says that the priest-penitent relationship is established as soon as the person asks to have a confession heard. At this point, the “magic” of obedience takes over. . . .As Fr. David said, the responsibility is transferred to the superior. In my opinion, the act of obedience and submission of one’s own judgment (an act of humility) is more pleasing to God than second-guessing and having a dubious conscience. IOW, the obligation not to act on a dubious conscience is abrogated by obedience. Love casts out fear.

First let me say that I recognize the virtue of obedience, and also recognize that someone who is obeying a superior whom he legitimately believes is directing him to do something lawful, does not incur guilt if it turns out that that the superior commanded something unlawful.

That said, there are a couple of problematic issues, as I see it. The first is I am unsure how a priest can obligate someone to actually go to communion in the first place. There is no requirement to go to communion outside of necessity (such as danger of death, or during the Paschal season). So what is the act of obedience in this case? Is it to go to communion because the priest tells you to? Why would a priest tell someone, under obedience, that they must go to communion before they hear their confession? And especially if the priest is unsure of the penitent state of grace? (Recall, there has been no auricular confession yet!)

Secondly, lawful obedience is due to a superior or one who has authority only insofar as he does not contravene a higher authority. Fr. Hardon sums it up well in his catholic dictionary:**OBEDIENCE. **The moral virtue that inclines the will to comply with the will of another who has the right to command. Material obedience is merely to carry out the physical action commanded; formal obedience is to perform an action precisely because it is commanded by a legitimate superior. The extent of obedience is as wide as the authority of the person who commands. Thus obedience to God is without limit, whereas obedience to human beings is **limited by higher laws **that must not be transgressed, and by the competency or authority of the one who gives the orders. . .
So, in this case, I would argue that Canon Law, as the universal law of the Roman Rite is a higher law binding the individual *not *to take communion prior to confession if they are aware of mortal sin, and there is no urgent necessity. A priest, whether he be a confessor or not, does not seem to have the authority to contravene this law.

I think we can see this if you conduct a bit of a thought experiment: Fr. David has said that a priest would not tell a penitent to go to communion if the penitent has told the priest that they are in mortal sin. Why? Clearly because it would be telling a penitent to violate the law of the Church. By extension, I would surmise that Fr. David and yourself would also hold that, were a priest to do so after learning that the penitent was in mortal sin, that such advice should also be disregarded. Now a third case, which is the one at hand – why should a penitent be obligated to obey the advice of confessor who counsels the same material act (i.e. going to communion while in mortal sin absent of necessity)* just because* the priest is mistaken about the person’s soul? Again, I think that if a person innocently follows the advice they are not culpable. But that person is not aware of the law, to which they have a prior duty of obedience.

To sum up these three scenarios in order to see the problem:

1. Penitent sure he is in mortal sin, priest knows it, priest does not allow penitent to go to communion.
2. Penitent sure he is in mortal sin, priest knows it, priest tells penitent to go to communion anyway.
3. Penitent sure he is in mortal sin, priest tells penitent to go to communion anyway.
   It seems to methat in all three cases the penitent would be obliged not to go to communion.

Thoughts?
VC

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

I think I’ll summarize your differences with Fr. David.

First, he contends that the good of souls is sufficient (grave) reason to permit the penitent to receive Holy Communion prior to completing the sacramental confession. You disagree that the good of souls constitutes sufficient reason on the basis that weekday Mass happens every day and confession is readily available in a relatively short time frame. Although I won’t presume to speak for Fr. David, when I follow his line of reasoning, I end up with God’s urgency to lavish gifts on us and to unite Himself to us in Holy Communion, and this is seen as “grave.”

Second, he says that the priest-penitent relationship is established as soon as the person asks to have a confession heard. At this point, the “magic” of obedience takes over. The saints have written about this, specifically St. Philip Neri. I don’t have the exact quote available at the moment, but what he said, in effect, was, when a person obeys a spiritual superior, he will not have to answer to God for his actions. As Fr. David said, the responsibility is transferred to the superior. In my opinion, the act of obedience and submission of one’s own judgment (an act of humility) is more pleasing to God than second-guessing and having a dubious conscience. IOW, the obligation not to act on a dubious conscience is abrogated by obedience. Love casts out fear.

What do YOU think?

Betsy

A person who follows the advice of a pastor, even if the advice is flawed, is not guilty of anything. I believe that the root of the issue is catechesis. The Faithful should know that if they choose to commit Grave (mortal) sin, it has consequences. One of those consequences is that they will not be able to receive Holy Communion until after they have gone to Confession and received absolution. The faithful should also realize with the priest shortage, the availability of confession may be less, and it might mean that they will go without Holy Communion for a week or two. All the more reason to think twice before committing a mortal sin requiring Confession.

 

[burnside]

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?

In these circumstances,could the priest not just give General Absolution and then the penitent goes to confess in the usual way as soon as possible afterwards?

 

[FrDavid96]

Hi betsy,

To sum up these three scenarios in order to see the problem:

1. Penitent sure he is in mortal sin, priest knows it, priest does not allow penitent to go to communion.
2. Penitent sure he is in mortal sin, priest knows it, priest tells penitent to go to communion anyway.
3. Penitent sure he is in mortal sin, priest tells penitent to go to communion anyway.
   It seems to methat in all three cases the penitent would be obliged not to go to communion.

Thoughts?
VC

1. Yes. Precisely
2. Priest is in the wrong (probably, though not absolutely, depending on the circumstances and context), penitent is free of any guilt
3. In this case, the priest is ignorant of the mortal sin, so he’s not strictly speaking, intentionally giving permission for one in mortal sin to receive. The graces of the sacraments (both of them) supply what is lacking here. The priest cannot presume that there is mortal sin, he must know there is mortal sin.

 

[FrDavid96]

In these circumstances,could the priest not just give General Absolution and then the penitent goes to confess in the usual way as soon as possible afterwards?

Theoretically, that’s possible. But that would not be pastorally prudent, or wise. General absolution should not be given if a proper sacramental confession is imminent.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Fr. David,

While I understand that a penitent, as in the OP’s case has had this happen to them was free to go to confession, my point is that it is a different animal altogether to say that a penitent who knows the state of his own soul, and who knows the universal law of the Church should not go to communion prior to confession even if a priest tells them otherwise.

The title of this thread was “May I receive the Eucharist without confession with the priest’s permission” and not “Was it ok that I already received the Eucharist without confession with the priest’s permission” – although the latter was really the OP’s question.

But we are not now considering what a innocent penitent, and perhaps an innocent well-meaning priest has already done or may do – I am focusing on what a penitent who is morally certain they are in mortal sin should do if a priest tells them to go to confession anyway.

I must admit I am bit confused. What would you counsel a penitent who came to you and said, “A priest told me that I as long as I said I was sorry to God I didn’t have to confess my sin of X.” Would you counsel them to obey their prior confessor? Or would you tell them that their prior confessor was in error, and they should confess their sin, but that it wasn’t their fault since they innocently relied on their prior confessor, but that now knowing the real state of affairs they must confess their sin.

Thank you for being so patient, and entertaining our questions!
VC

 

[FrDavid96]

Fr. David,

While I understand that a penitent, as in the OP’s case has had this happen to them was free to go to confession, my point is that it is a different animal altogether to say that a penitent who knows the state of his own soul, and who knows the universal law of the Church should not go to communion prior to confession even if a priest tells them otherwise.

In the case of such a well-informed person, that same person would have the good sense to actually say “there’s a mortal sin involved” and that would settle the matter.

The title of this thread was “May I receive the Eucharist without confession with the priest’s permission” and not “Was it ok that I already received the Eucharist without confession with the priest’s permission” – although the latter was really the OP’s question.

But we are not now considering what a innocent penitent, and perhaps an innocent well-meaning priest has already done or may do – I am focusing on what a penitent who is morally certain they are in mortal sin should do if a priest tells them to go to confession anyway.

Relatively simple. Respond to the priest, “it’s a mortal sin” and then leave the rest to the judgement of the priest.

I must admit I am bit confused. What would you counsel a penitent who came to you and said, “A priest told me that I as long as I said I was sorry to God I didn’t have to confess my sin of X.” Would you counsel them to obey their prior confessor? Or would you tell them that their prior confessor was in error, and they should confess their sin, but that it wasn’t their fault since they innocently relied on their prior confessor, but that now knowing the real state of affairs they must confess their sin.

Thank you for being so patient, and entertaining our questions!
VC

That last paragraph is a horse of a different color because it’s only the first half of what we’ve been talking about. The other half “go to confession immediately after Mass” is an essential element of the conversation.

As a direct answer to the question: I would counsel that individual to rely on what the first confessor, in persona Christi, said. I don’t know the reasons for why it was said, and I cannot judge those reasons or the determination of that priest. I would be available to hear that person’s confession (which is not the same thing as saying that the first one was in error), but I would not ever question the judgement of that first priest. It’s entirely possible that the first priest had a good, sound, licit reason for saying what he did. I run the risk of doing more harm than good by second-guessing the judgement of the first priest.

Let’s make a medical analogy.
A patient comes to a doctor for a second opinion. The patient says “doc, I have this pain. My first doctor told me not to do anything about it, but I want a second opinion.” The 2nd doctor replies “well, the standard treatment for such and such is this drug, X. The first doctor must not know his medicine if he told you to do nothing. He was wrong. I’ll write you a prescription.”

A week later, the patient is dead. Turns out he had a very rare, yet severe alergic reaction to the medication of which the first doctor was aware, but the second one in his arogance and haste to show-up a colleague was not aware. Do you see the problem?

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Thank you for the discussion Fr.

It seems we are in agreement that, under normal circumstances, a penitent who

1. is aware they are in mortal sin, and
2. does not have grave reason for going to communion, and
3. is aware of the law which prohibits it,
4. should not go to communion prior to confession,
5. even if a priest tells him to, because
6. either the priest isn’t aware that the penitent is in mortal sin due to the penitent not saying so, or the priest is misguided about the requirements of Canon 916.

That about sum it up?

VC

 

[FrDavid96]

Thank you for the discussion Fr.

It seems we are in agreement that, under normal circumstances, a penitent who

1. is aware they are in mortal sin, and
2. does not have grave reason for going to communion, and
3. is aware of the law which prohibits it,
4. should not go to communion prior to confession,
5. even if a priest tells him to, because
6. either the priest isn’t aware that the penitent is in mortal sin due to the penitent not saying so, or the priest is misguided about the requirements of Canon 916.

That about sum it up?

VC

No. No. No. A thousand times No.

Catholics should always be advised to follow the advice and guidance of the Sacred Pastors. See your #5.

Advising someone to disregard the advice or instructions of one’s own confessor may be said to be interfering in the pastoral ministry of the priest. That is a serious offense.

Canon 1375 Those who impede the freedom of ecclesiastical ministry or election of power, or the legitimate use of sacred goods or other ecclesiastical goods, or who grossly intimidate an elector, or the elected, or the one who exercises ecclesiastical ministry or power, can be punished with a just penalty.

Counselling someone to go against the advice of a confessor would certainly be, in my humble estimation “impeding the freedom of ecclesiastical ministry” since such a one would be effectively saying “I know better than your Father-Confessor. Ignore him and listen to me.” and thereby placing an obstacle between the penitent and the confessor.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Catholics should always be advised to follow the advice and guidance of the Sacred Pastors. See your #5.

Fr., I think the natural question here is how far are we to take that statement? Do you hold this *regardless *of the advice given?

Advising someone to disregard the advice or instructions of one’s own confessor may be said to be interfering in the pastoral ministry of the priest. That is a serious offense.

I don’t believe that I have advised anyone of anything. Rather, I have been limiting this discussion, purposefully, to the generic and theoretical.

It seems to me that we haven’t been discussing contravening the advice, already given, of a confessor. I was speaking of the requirements of Canon 916, which I assume is binding on the faithful, in conscience. I know it binds me in conscience.

Perhaps what I am not seeing is how a priest can dispense with the requirement of Canon 916 on his own volition? Recall, I am not saying that priest might not determine that penitent is in fact not in mortal sin, or might not determine that the penitent does in fact have a grave reason. I am trying to work out what happens when a penitent is morally certain, in their own conscience, that they are in mortal sin, and is morally certain that they don’t have a grave reason* to go to communion, *and yet is advised by a priest to go to communion – regardless of the reason the priest does so (whether it be because the penitent did not mention he was in mortal sin, or if the priest misheard the penitent, or if the priest was under some other misapprehension.) What should I do in that situation? Should I obey the priest, contrary to the dictates of my own conscience? Even though I have no real necessity of taking communion in the first place?

As you can see, I’m a bit befuddled by the above. I hope you can help clear it up for me. Thank you for you time and patience.

VC

 

[hamburglar]

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.

Wait, what? Are you saying that when the priest said he or she could receive Communion, that was actually Christ?