§ I. On the Dispositions of the Soul

I say. For receiving the sacrament of the Eucharist, not only is the state of grace required, but also that this state be obtained by the faithful through the sacrament of Penance, except, however, in a case of necessity: namely, when on the one hand supply of a confessor is lacking and on the other communion cannot be omitted without grave disgrace or suspicion, or when a priest must celebrate so that the faithful may assist at Mass on a feast day; for then perfect contrition suffices. The reason of the first is that the Eucharist is a sacrament of the living, and therefore, according to the Apostle, he who receives it unworthily eats and drinks judgment to himself. But the reason of the second is taken from a positive precept, which rests upon the excellent dignity of this sacrament. - Cf. Council of Trent, sess. 13, chap. 7. - St. Alphonsus, nn. 256 and following.

Let no one whom consciousness of mortal sin burdens, however much he may think himself contrite, approach holy communion without previous sacramental confession; but if necessity urges and supply of a confessor is lacking to him, let him first elicit an act of perfect contrition (Can. 856).

But concerning a priest, Canon 807 establishes thus:

Let a priest conscious to himself of mortal sin, however much he may think himself contrite, not dare to celebrate Mass without previous sacramental confession; but if, with supply of a confessor lacking and necessity urging, yet with an act of perfect contrition elicited, he shall have celebrated, let him confess as soon as possible.

Question 1. When is supply of a confessor judged to be lacking?

Resp. It is judged to be lacking 1st. if no confessor is present and, considering the circumstances of weakness, age, business, distance, weather, shortness of time, etc., an absent one cannot be approached without grave difficulty; 2nd. if no other confessor is present except one ignorant of the language, or lacking jurisdiction, or to whom you cannot confess without grave damage to yourself or to another. But supply of a confessor is not judged to be lacking if he to whom you are accustomed to confess is absent; rather, every approved confessor must be lacking. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 264.

Question 2. Is one who remembers a mortal sin which, from inculpable forgetfulness, he did not declare in confession, held to confess it before communion?

Resp. Negatively; and the reason is that a sin involuntarily omitted has certainly been remitted, although only indirectly, and therefore it in no way stands in the way of communion to be received. Nor should you say that the Tridentine precept of confessing before communion urges; for the penitent, since he has already been duly confessed and justified through the sacrament of Penance, is sufficiently proved even according to the mind of the Council of Trent. Nevertheless, in practice not only must a penitent of this kind be received kindly if he returns, and be absolved again, but it is also to be advised that he confess that sin at once, if he conveniently can. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 257; and Hom. Ap., n. 23. - Gousset, n. 249.

Question 3. Is a priest who has celebrated on account of urgent necessity, or a layman who has communicated conscious of mortal sin, with an act of contrition indeed having been premised, but without previous confession, held to confess as soon as possible?

Resp. Affirmatively as regards the priest, from the precept of Trent, sess. 13, chap. 7, where it is read: "But if, necessity urging, a priest shall have celebrated without previous confession, let him confess as soon as possible." - Cf. Can. 807. - Nor can the word let him confess be understood as if it were counsel, because prop. 38 was condemned by Alexander VII, which sounds thus: "The mandate of Trent, made to a priest sacrificing from necessity with mortal sin, of confessing as soon as possible, is counsel, not precept." - But as regards the layman one must respond negatively, because the Council speaks only of priests. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 262.

Question 4. How is that precept imposed upon priests of confessing as soon as possible to be understood?

Resp. More probably it suffices if the priest confesses within three days; because since this precept is only ecclesiastical, the word as soon as possible can be understood morally, as it is understood in other human laws, where that word or another similar one, by common interpretation, is extended to the space of three days. Nevertheless, the priest cannot celebrate again before he has confessed, because he was excused from confession only on account of pressing necessity. Hence if the same necessity of celebrating urges on the following day and he can confess, he cannot remit confession to another day. But if the same necessity of celebrating urges on the following day, indeed also on the third day or even the fourth, etc., and through those days themselves supply of a confessor is not present, the priest will be able to celebrate no otherwise than before. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 266. - Ballerini, note (a), p. 222.

Question 5. Is a priest celebrating after confession, in which he has inculpably forgotten some mortal sin, held to confess as soon as possible?

Resp. Negatively, whether he remembers the sin after celebration or before celebration, because in neither case can he properly be said to celebrate with consciousness of mortal sin. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 267.

Question 6. Is a priest celebrating sacrilegiously, when necessity is not urging, or if this urges, when supply of a confessor is not lacking, held to confess as soon as possible?

Resp. Negatively; and the reason is that the precept of the Council of Trent is ordered only to striking fear into those who, under pretext of necessity, defer confession, but not to those celebrating sacrilegiously, to whom a precept of this kind would very rarely be of use; for those who, with contempt of the divine precept, dare to celebrate sacrilegiously, would certainly more easily contemn the precept of the Church. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 266.