As a general rule, in normal times, weekly confession is an excellent practice.  But during the current Great Apostasy, there are no uncompromising priests to confess to, at least in most places.  Priests who are objectively compromising are not an option and we should avoid them.  This situation – the world now being a “sacramental desert” – has lasted a long time already and might continue to last a long time.

 

Being completely without the Mass and sacraments, at least in most places, fits with the revelation given to Sister Lucy of Fatima, that:

 

God is giving two last remedies to the world.  These are the Holy Rosary and Devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.  These are the last two remedies which signify that there will be no others.[1]

 

Sister Lucy’s words show that, as of 1957 (shortly before Vatican II), God was giving these last two remedies, which continue to be the last two remedies in our time.  In these words, she seems to indicate that the Mass and sacraments will not be available to uncompromising Catholics at the present time, at least in most places. 

 

Because uncompromising Catholics refuse Masses and sacraments from a compromising or bad priest, God blesses those Catholics through other means instead.  God does not abandon them.  He merely changes His means of sanctifying them to fit the circumstances into which He lovingly put them.[2]  They should be perfectly content without the Mass and sacraments, as long as God wills that the Mass and sacraments are unavailable without compromise.[3]

 

When God wills that His dear children are without the Mass and sacraments for a time, He gives the incalculably precious gift of a great increase in Faith.  We see that illustrated in the love and devotion of the faithful Catholics living during the Masonic French Revolution, as recounted by Bishop Bruté, who lived through that period in France.  Here is how Bishop Bruté described this priceless increase in Faith among the French Catholics who were living without the Sacraments:

 

How strong and imperishable was [the Catholic Faith’s] hold upon thousands of hearts; how fervently did every true Christian family pledge its love and life to our blessed Lord; how constantly did Christian mothers require of their offspring, that, no matter what happened, they would never forget their duty to God.  With how much anxiety, and yet fidelity, did they endeavor, especially on Sundays, to supply the want of public exercises of Religion and sanctify the day in their family.[4]

 

Bishop Bruté referred to that period as “a time when all those virtues [viz., Faith, Hope and Charity] acquired additional merit, by the test they were put to.”  Id., p.171.  Throughout the world, we are now living in a comparable – and comparably glorious – time to fight for Christ and to sanctify our souls. 

 

Being unable to confess to an uncompromising priest, is it possible for Catholics to still make a final confession on their deathbed, without compromising?  As explained below, such a confession could be possible, because of the Catholic Church’s unique, broader permission given to a person on his deathbed to confess even to a compromise or bad priest.

 

 

The Church’s traditional law permits a dying person to confess, without compromising, to a compromise or bad priest.

 

In the 1917 Code of Canon Law, Canon §882 states, in pertinent part:

 

In danger of death, any priest, even one not otherwise approved[5] for hearing confessions, may validly and licitly absolve any penitent from whatever sins ….[6]

 

The Council of Trent established the permission in this form (viz., quoted immediately above), for a dying person to confess to a compromise or bad priest.[7]  However, this permission in some form, goes back long before the Council of Trent.  Id.

 

 

The meaning of the phrase “in danger of death”

 

What does “in danger of death” mean, as that phrase is used in Canon §882?  It appears to include not only a person being on his deathbed because of a very severe illness from which he will soon die, but also other perils from which imminent death is a serious danger.  Here is how one Traditional canon law commentator explained the phrase “in danger of death”:

 

[The] danger of death exists, not only in a very serious sickness, but also when there is danger to life from an external cause, for instance, before a battle, upon setting forth on a perilous voyage, before a difficult childbirth, etc.[8]

 

These examples have in common the understanding that death could occur soon due to a particular foreseen and significant danger.  By contrast, anyone could die at any time and everyone will die of something, at some time.  Poet and songwriter, Roger Whittaker, takes to an absurd (and amusing) extreme the idea that, in a way, we are all in danger of death.  Whittaker declares:

 

They say the moment that you’re born, is when you start to die.[9]

 

It would be an abuse of Canon §882 to interpret it to allow use of a compromise priest virtually anytime, rationalizing that we could die at any time.  Thus, using this abusive interpretation, any car ride places us in danger of death because it could result in a fatal accident.  Similarly, any sneeze could develop into death by pneumonia. 

 

These are clearly false interpretations of Canon §882.  Rather, this canon shows us that normally it is forbidden to confess to a compromise/bad priest except when we are in danger of an imminent death, that is, in significant danger of dying soon, from a foreseeable cause.  

 

 

The permission given in Canon §882 applies to valid priests, but apparently not to doubtfully-ordained (doubtfully-valid) “priests”.

 

This extraordinary permission to confess without compromising, to a compromise or bad priest, applies to any priest who is validly ordained.  One Traditional canon law commentator explained that this permission includes confession to:

 

any validly ordained priest, even though belonging to a heretical or schismatic sect, or apostatized or censured”.[10]

 

Thus, uncompromising Catholics in danger of death, could confess to any of the priests who were ordained by a bishop of the N-SSPX or Bishop Williamson’s group, because those priests are validly ordained, although they compromise Faith and morals.  Such priests include those sedevacantist priests who were originally ordained by Archbishop Lefebvre.

 

But this permission apparently does not extend to those (supposed) “priests” whose “ordinations” are doubtful, e.g., those “priests” who obtain their “ordinations” from:

 

❖ The Thuc line[11];

❖ The Mendez line;

 

❖ William (so-called “Ambrose”) Moran;

 

❖ Use of the new conciliar rite of “ordination”[12]; or

 

❖ A (supposed) “bishop” who was “consecrated” using the new conciliar “consescration” rite (including the supposed “priests” in the indult groups such as the Institute of Christ the King and the Fraternity of St. Peter)[13].

 

These doubtful “priests” are apparently not included in this permission because the “ordination” of a doubtful “priest” must be treated as invalid, not because we are sure he is not a priest, but because his “priesthood” is doubtful[14] and so he cannot be treated as “any validly ordained priest”[15].

 

To help you discern between certainly-valid priests and doubtful ones, you can use Catholic Candle’s List of Priests and Those Who claim to be Priests.[16]  This list contains our best information, cited to the sources.  We do not intend this list as the final word on every priest listed.  Rather, it is often a beginning of an uncompromising Catholic’s own investigation.

 

 

The permission to confess to a compromise or bad priest requires that no scandal be given to the faithful.

 

One of the conditions placed upon this permission for a dying person to confess to a compromise or bad priest, is that no scandal is caused by this confession.  Here is how the Vatican Holy Office warned in 1864, about the danger of scandal:

 

When answering the question “whether it is permitted to demand absolution of a schismatic priest [when the penitent is] in danger of death if no Catholic priest is at hand”, [the Holy Office answered as follows:] Yes, provided no scandal is given to the faithful. …”[17]

 

This question and answer were in the context of a validly-ordained schismatic priest.  However, the same reasoning and concern would equally apply to a heretical priest or other bad or compromise priest.

 

Scandal is giving the appearance of evil which makes another person more likely to sin.[18]  (In this case, the sin would be supporting or approving the bad or compromise priest.)  When a dying person (and his caregivers) arrange his deathbed confession to a compromising or bad priest, it is important to guard against people being misled into believing the dying man (or his caregivers) approve of, or condone, that priest.  This includes guarding against scandalizing that priest’s own parishioners since people are social creatures, and those parishioners would tend to more firmly accept their compromise priest, the more they see other people also accepting him.

 

 

The permission to confess to a compromise or bad priest requires that there be no danger of perverting the dying person.

 

Another condition placed upon this permission for dying persons to confess to a compromise or bad priest, is that even in their weakened condition there is no danger of being led into compromise by contact with the compromise or bad priest.  Here is how the Vatican Holy Office warned in 1864, about the danger of perversion:

 

When answering the question “whether it is permitted to demand absolution of a schismatic priest [when the penitent is] in danger of death if no Catholic priest is at hand”, [the Holy Office answered as follows:] Yes, provided … no danger of perversion threatens the sick person ….”[19]

 

This question and answer were in the context of a validly-ordained schismatic priest.  However, the same reasoning and concern would equally apply to a heretical priest or other bad or compromise priest.

 

In our present circumstances, it is foreseeable that some compromise or bad priests might pervert the dying person.  For example, an N-SSPX priest might try to convince the dying person that he should confess his (supposed) “sin” of not attending his local N-SSPX chapel, and that the dying person should consent to burial by the N-SSPX, etc.  Thus, by contact with such a priest, there might be a real danger of perverting an uncompromising Catholic who is in a weakened state, near death.

 

 

The permission to confess to a compromise or bad priest requires use of the Catholic Church’s correct, valid form of absolution.

 

A further condition placed upon this permission for a dying person to confess to a compromise or bad priest, is that the compromise or bad priest use the Catholic Church’s correct, valid form of absolution.  Here is how the Vatican Holy Office warned in 1864, about the required use of this valid form of absolution:

 

When answering the question “whether it is permitted to demand absolution of a schismatic priest [when the penitent is] in danger of death if no Catholic priest is at hand”, [the Holy Office answered as follows:] Yes, provided … that it may be reasonably presumed that the schismatic minister will absolve according to the rite of the Church ….”[20]

 

This question and answer were in the context of a validly-ordained schismatic priest.  However, the same reasoning and concern would equally apply to a heretical priest or other bad or compromise priest. 

 

It is probable that conciliar so-called “priests” (who should not be used because of their doubtful “ordinations”, as explained above) are the ones who would be most likely to use some new conciliar invalid form of “absolution”.

 

 

Even when a person is dying, he is not permitted to receive Extreme Unction or to receive the Blessed Sacrament from a compromising or bad priest.

 

Apparently, because a dying person’s confession is of greater importance to his salvation than receiving the Blessed Sacrament or Extreme Unction, the Traditional Catholic law (Canon §882) permits confessing to a compromise or bad priest but does not give an equivalent permission to a dying person to receive those other sacraments.

 

 

Although a dying person is permitted to confess to a compromising/bad priest, that does not mean that he will be able to find such a priest who is willing to hear his confession and absolve him.

 

A Catholic Candle reader recently informed us that she tried to receive confession from an N-SSPX priest based on the permission given in Canon §882.  Further, she told him she did not want to receive Communion from him.  The priest refused her absolution.

 

 

Although a person in danger of death is permitted to confess to a compromising or bad priest, is it better (and more pleasing to God) to do so?

 

The Catholic Church permits some things that She does not recommend.  For example, the Church permits marrying a non-Catholic, but never recommends it.

 

Because Canon §882 gives a person permission, when in danger of death, to confess to a compromising or bad priest, we know that it is not wrong to do so.  However, Canon §882 simply permits this confession.  The code does not go further and affirmatively recommend making such a confession.  Canon §882 does not strongly endorse such a confession, using language such as “whenever possible …” or “wherever a dying person is able …”.

 

Canon §882’s mere permission raises this question:

 

Could it be better, higher, and more noble to decline such a confession to a compromise/bad priest if the dying person does so out of love for God and for the Catholic Faith, in order to stay away from such a priest?

 

That is a very good question!  Here are three things to consider:

 

❖ A Catholic can make a perfect act of contrition, with the desire to receive the sacrament of Penance if it were available.  This perfect contrition restores a person to the state of grace when he is in mortal sin.[21]

 

❖ Perhaps any dying person who is conscious of mortal sin on his soul should confess under Canon §882, not trusting that his contrition is perfect.  Often a dying person, especially if he is in mortal sin, has more sorrow for his sins because he fears hell (imperfect contrition) than because he loves God (perfect contrition).

 

❖ Perhaps any dying person should confess under Canon §882 because the essential fruits of a sacrament do not depend on the state of soul of a priest, even a compromising or bad priest.

 

 

Examples to consider: the deaths of King Louis XVI of France, General Charette, and Queen Marie-Antoinette, all executed by the Masonic Revolutionaries of France 

 

During the French Revolution, the Masonic, anti-Catholic revolutionaries required that all priests swear an oath of loyalty to the new Masonic constitution.  Pope Pius VI declared those priests who swore this oath to be “heretical and schismatic”.[22]  Most priests swore this evil oath but some did not.

 

In 1793, after the French Masonic revolutionaries sentenced King Louis XVI to death, he asked to make a final confession to a priest of his choice.  The revolutionaries permitted this and the king confessed to a priest who had not sworn an oath of loyalty to the revolutionary constitution.[23] 

 

When the Masonic revolutionaries condemned to death the royalist, counter-revolutionary general, General Charette, he likewise asked to make his last confession to a priest who had not sworn an oath to the revolutionary constitution.  The revolutionaries refused Charette’s request and so he confessed to a priest who had taken the oath.[24]  Charette was permitted to do this under the conditions set out in the 1917 Canon Law §882 (and the Catholic Church’s predecessor law in the 18^th Century).

 

When the Masonic revolutionaries condemned Queen Marie-Antoinette to death, she likewise asked to make a last confession to a priest who had not sworn the oath.  The revolutionaries refused her request and offered her only a priest who had sworn the oath.  The queen refused him and she went to her death without confession.[25]

 

Did Queen Marie-Antoinette do the better, nobler thing and take the higher course?  The answer seems difficult to know.  Whether or not she did the better thing, we can admire her firmness of Faith, if that is the cause of her stalwart refusal to have any part with a bad and compromising priest.  For, as St. Paul teaches:

 

For what participation hath justice with injustice?  Or what fellowship hath light with darkness?  And what concord hath Christ with Belial?  Or what part hath the faithful with the unbeliever?

 

2 Corinthians, 6:14-15.

 

The queen refused the oath-swearing priest in the context of the heroic stand which had been taken by her people in the Vendee region of France, against the revolution.  In the Vendee, the Catholics were so hostile to the compromising priests that those oath-taking priests often needed armed guards to protect them from the people, and those compromising priests were hooted at, jeered, and even kicked when they appeared in public.[26]

 

The good Catholics of the Vendee were brave and noble soldiers of Christ indeed!  It is in this context that we perhaps see Queen Marie-Antoinette’s motive in refusing to confess to an oath-taking priest.  Possibly she took the higher, nobler, and better road than her general, Charette. 

 

It also seems that we Catholics now should take the Catholics of the Vendee as models of fighting for the Faith and opposing error – in their firmness of Faith unto death, although not in their physically attacking compromising priests!

 

 

Conclusion

 

When we are near death, Canon §882 allows us to confess to a compromising or bad priest, under certain conditions.  This confession:

 

v must not cause scandal;

 

v must not expose the dying person to perversion by the compromising priest;

 

v requires that the priest’s ordination be valid, without doubts; and

 

v requires that the priest use the Church’s valid form of absolution.  

 

If those conditions are met, then a dying person is permitted to make this confession.