Is the contrition said at mass as good as going to confession


Ah well, you cut off the expressions of their context to support arguments that are in fact unreasonable


I cited the CCC passage in full, with emphasis on a particular point, because that point stands alone about the person’s right to a good name. So you cannot use the “out of context” argument because the entire context was quoted.

Explain your position against Canon 916’s “unless” clause. Because again, albeit limited, what I’m saying is allowed.

Do you even recognize that perfect contrition is being mentioned here as a prerequisite. I’m having trouble why you’re insisting we’re talking about people receiving in mortal sin, something we’ve never claimed or admitted to.


When we talk about human rights, it is a relative right and not an absolute right, that is a reasonable proposition that you reject.


I don’t really know or care what you’re talking about here.

Explain your position against the “unless” clause of canon 916.

No one is defending receiving Communion in a state of mortal sin.


by reading the entire paragraph we understand in what sense the author spoke of the right to reputation. He said it in order to condemn certain specific sin, and not in order to assert that the right to reputation would be an absolute right


It condemns a specific sin by affirming a theological truth, which is why I emphasized the theological truth.

But in any case, again, no one is arguing for receiving in a state of mortal sin, only the exceptional cases wherein one can make an act of perfect contrition, so drop that particular line of reasoning and again, address my demand that you explain yourself against the “unless” clause of the Church’s Code of Canon Law, canon 916.


If we realize that by taking communion we will commit a mortal sin, then even if we must lose our reputation, we must not taking communion…


What? What are you even talking about? How does canon 916’s “unless” clause even remotely resemble what you’re saying?

Specifically, I’m asking you to explain yourself against this: “…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.”

Why are you still talking about receiving in mortal sin? What part of “perfect contrition” are you missing, or are you just being argumentative?


the grave reason concerns especially the priests who are obliged to say the mass and who are in a state of mortal sin, or someone who is in danger of death whereas there is no priest available.


in general a situation is considered grave when either our salvation or the salvation of our neighbor is in real danger


So you admit to exceptions then.


The grave situation does not mean the loss of a terrestrial good, such as our reputation.


That is not for you or me to judge for any particular person or circumstance. That is between any individual person and his confessor or spiritual director. “Terrestrial good” is not as unimportant as you think it is, and it is possible for good name and reputation to be a grave enough reason. It is also possible that it is not. This is always judged on a per-case basis, never blanket. This is not the way the law is written or interpreted.


nothing justifies the commission of a mortal sin. If one realizes that by taking communion one commits a mortal sin, even if one has to lose one’s life, one must refuse to take communion, or one will certainly commit a mortal sin. One must love God more than any earthly good.


I really don’t get where you’re still thinking we justify the commission of a mortal sin or receiving in a state of mortal sin. We know that one is never allowed to commit a sin even so that good can come out of it. That’s a basic moral principle. Canon 916 clearly affirms that, and receiving Communion under the auspices of canon 916’s “unless” clause is NOT committing a mortal sin.

Anyway, I will let you have the last word here and leave.


Not trying to stir the pot here at all, but I was told that if we were in mortal sin, we could not receive, unless we dying, and for some reason could not make a confession. [loss of faculties or voice etc]

The only other possibility, even more rare, would be a battlefield absolution.

Otherwise, it is scandal or sacrilege. Perhaps we could get some input from a Priest or Deacon?


Exactly. It’s nobody’s business if I don’t receive on any particular Sunday . I punched somebody once for asking me about it. Guess that was a sin too.


Since you asked… :grin:

The usual position is that you shouldn’t receive if conscious of mortal sin without having been to confession. However, for a grave (that is, serious) reason, and where there is no opportunity for confession beforehand, a person can receive after making an act of perfect contrition (that is, expressing sorrow for their sins out of love of God) including the resolution to confess as soon as possible.

Essentially, this is meant as a stop-gap solution for those who would otherwise be placed in an awkward position if they had to abstain from receiving the Eucharist. The obvious example is a priest who has to celebrate mass for the faithful. It also applies to other situations where, serious embarrassment would come from abstaining . The idea is to protect people’s right to a good reputation (which itself flows from their inherent human dignity) for the good of the community. It isn’t just about embarrassment or being placed in an awkward position but again, it requires a serious reason although what counts as serious very much depends on the context (but that’s not to say that it’s entirely subjective in a “do what you feel like” sort of way).

All things being equal, if you’re conscious of mortal sin then you should abstain but if, for a serious reason, you can’t then making an act of perfect contrition is the next-best thing.


You are correct in everything you have said, Father.

I just forewarn you from my own experience, that you will find great arguments about that on this forum. They are, however, coming from people who are not priests, not theologians, and not canonists.


to prefer our earthly happiness to the honor of God is a grave sin
So our reputation can not be a valid reason for taking communion without confession

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit