Case LXV: When Does Contrition Suffice for Sacred Functions Instead of Confession?

Tullius, a priest, is often troubled by conscientious doubts and regrets having no confrater to whom he could make a confession before each celebration or administration of the Sacraments, when he is tormented by scruples. What advice should a careful confessor give him?

(1) As long as he is not morally certain that he is guilty of mortal sin, contrition alone, without the purpose of confession, suffices, even to allow him to say Mass.

(2) If he is only somewhat doubtful, he is not even strictly bound to make an act of contrition.

(3) If he doubts whether, in spite of earnest effort, he has succeeded in making a good act of contrition, he must not disturb himself. Contritio existimata, in conjunction with the reception of the Holy Sacrament, justifies him, and no sacred function would be a formal act of sacrilege, since he had a certitudo conjecturalis (which suffices) regarding the recovery of the state of grace that possibly he had lost.

(4) For administration of all the Sacraments contritio saltem existimata would be sufficient, even if there were a copia confessarii and his mortale were certain.

(5) No mortal sin is involved in discharging all the duties of a priest even in mortali, with the exception of celebration and administration of the Sacraments. There is a divergence of opinions regarding the things that involve a venial sin; for instance, recitation of the Divine Office, private bestowal of the priestly blessing, especially sine paramentis. A priest certainly does not sin grievously by performing the marriage service in this condition.

(6) It is not even a venial sin for a priest in a state of mortal sin to administer the Sacraments, such as baptism and Viaticum, in cases of urgent need, where there is no time for him to make an act of contrition. An opinion to the contrary cannot be maintained.

(7) It is regarded by St. Alphonsus, Gury, and Marc a grievous sin for a priest in mortali to give Holy Communion, but Lugo and others argue with great probability that it is only a venial sin, and we need not hesitate to follow them. A mere tractatio Sanctissimi, even immediata, is held by very many strict authorities to be veniale, and so there seems no reason why this should not be extended to the administration of Holy Communion. The administration of the other Sacraments in mortali is, strictly speaking, a grievous sin only because they are produced in mortali at the moment of their administration, but in the case of the Eucharist the transfiguration must be distinguished from the mere distribution.

(8) A celebrant should go to confession before saying Mass, if he is morally certain of having committed mortal sin. This, like the analogous rule requiring the laity to go to confession before communicating, is, according to the more correct view, not merely an ecclesiastical but a divine command. Only reasons of urgent necessity, such as confectio viatici, infamia, scandalum, sacrum die de praecepto, si sacerdos ad id tenetur, can justify him in celebrating with contritio (saltem existimata) where there is no copia confessarii. If a" priest is not bound vi muneris to say Mass, only the fear of infamia in case he omits to say it can justify his doing so; mere admiratio is no excuse, but it is almost invariably connected with infamia, sinistra locutio, even on ordinary days. Marc is right in not regarding paupertas sacerdotis as a sufficient excuse, unless " valde gravis " (Inst. mor., A, II. p. 102, n. 1550 in ed. XIII.). The fact of the existence of several fundata is not an excuse. If the priest, after beginning Mass, remembers some grievous sin committed since his last confession, it will scarcely ever be possible for him in praxi to break off before the consecration, or to make a confession to one of the priests who may be present, although, should exceptional circumstances render this feasible, it would be his duty to do so (cf. the Mass rubrics).

The presence of only a sacerdos juvenis affinis is not to be interpreted as equivalent to a want of copia confessarii, and therefore the priest in question is not excused on this ground from the obligation of confession. Whether an excuse is afforded by verecundia gravis, unconnected with the confession of a mortal sin and due to purely external causes, is a disputed point. Such verecundia might exist if an uncle had to confess to his nephew (cf. Noldin, Th. mor., III. no. 141). The more lenient view is probably correct. A similar case would occur if the only priest within reach were intoxicated, or very unwilling to hear his confrater's confession, or on such bad terms with him that it would be scarcely possible to insist upon confession, or if the penitent, by the very fact of going to confession to him (assuming that he could not do so secretly), would expose himself to infamia.

A confessor asked whether a priest who had sinned grievously could receive absolution, when he could not, at his confession, resolve firmly, in case of a relapsus, to confess to the only priest within his reach before celebrating Mass. The Penitentiary answered: " Dilata," thus probably indirectly admitting that exceptional reasons justifying his action might possibly occur.

(9) If absolute necessity forces Tullius to celebrate without confession, he is bound by the rules of the Council of Trent to supply the omission as soon as possible. This is generally taken to mean within three days. If he wishes to celebrate Mass again on the following day, he must not of course wait three days, but must go to confession before his next celebration. If in necessitate he has celebrated without contrition, St. Alphonsus and Marc consider him bound to go to confession as soon as he possibly can; others with more reason think this unnecessary, as the object of the command has been to a great extent frustrated. If he has said Mass in spite of there being no absolute necessity for his doing so, and so has plainly acted sacrilegiously, according to the Council of Trent, he is not positively bound to go to confession at once, provided he does not mean to celebrate Mass again.

(10) This command does not apply in analogous cases to laymen, who in case of necessity have communicated with or without contrition: they might, as far as they are concerned, wait until their next Easter confession, — probabilius; the rule of the Council of Trent applies only to priests who wish to say Mass.

(11) Finally, it is a matter of course that Tullius must not omit to say Mass because of sins that he has forgotten to confess. It depends upon the state of his conscience whether the rules laid down for scrupulous persons are applicable to him.

(12) It may further be pointed out that the rubrics in the missal forbid a priest " ad judicium confessarii " to say Mass on the day after committing certain sins that lead to a pollutio graviter culpabilis, such as would result ex nimia crapula, and the same would naturally apply to a copula. A transgression of this rule, without a dispensation from the confessor, would be only a venial sin, and in case of necessity permissible. What has been said may help Tullius to order the affairs of his conscience.