By Rev. Father David Watt
No. 699 of St Faustina’s Diary, speaking of Divine Mercy Sunday, says ‘The soul that will go to Confession and receive Holy Communion shall obtain complete forgiveness of sins and punishment’. Interpretations vary widely.
Sometimes
the text is glossed as follows: ‘…Confession [beforehand] and receive
Holy Communion [on the actual day]...’. To say the least, this
explanation itself requires explanation. For there is an asymmetry in the
gloss which is not present in the literal text. As an example, what if
someone not conscious of mortal sin receives Communion and actually receives
absolution afterwards, all on Divine Mercy Sunday itself? To me, this
would be a fulfilment of Our Lord’s conditions. (I am, of course,
assuming that St Faustina has transmitted them correctly, though there is no
obligation to believe this, even in the case of a devotion such as Divine Mercy
which has been approved by the Church.)
On a
personal note - because of the shortage of priests on Divine Mercy Sunday, I
and other priests have sometimes heard Confessions from well before Mass, all
the way through. It is difficult to believe that penitents “missed
out” on Our Lord’s promise, simply by coming after Holy Communion.
Against
the “liberalism” of the gloss – often interpreted to mean the Confession can be
weeks prior - one might attempt a reductio ad absurdum – why not then
say, by parity of reasoning, that the Communion too can be weeks earlier?
For the text allows one as much – or as little – as the other.
There is
however a possible defence here – praxis. Experts in the field assure us
that in Poland, where the devotion originated, there was always this “liberal”
view of the time for Confession. Whereas it seems agreed on all sides
that the Communion needs to be on Divine Mercy Sunday itself (often
interpreted, I think rightly, as including reception at the Saturday vigil
Mass, since liturgically this is Sunday).
Why did
Our Lord not express Himself with greater precision? Perhaps He wished to
emphasize especially Confession being received on Divine Mercy Sunday itself
(some take Him as requiring this, for the promise to be fulfilled), and before
the Communion, which He mentions second. Ceteris paribus, the shorter the
interval between the two Sacraments, the greater the chance of maintaining the
state of
grace for
this time. However (on this hypothesis) Our Lord deliberately used a form
of words sufficiently vague as to allow His giving the same grace to a soul
confessing, say, three weeks prior to Divine Mercy Sunday, and then maintaining
the state of grace all the way through up to and including the receiving of
Communion on Divine Mercy Sunday itself. It would be surprising if He
“penalized” such a person, for even those with the strictest view of His words,
agree that a notorious sinner who makes a good Confession on Divine Mercy
Sunday itself, and then immediately receives Communion, if he dies there and
then, goes straight to Heaven without having to pass through Purgatory; whereas
the one who maintains the state of grace for three weeks before his Communion,
has actually done more.
Often it
is said the Confession may be up to 20 days after Divine Mercy Sunday
itself. Is there sometimes confusion here between the promise of Our Lord
– which will never be revoked – and something with the same effect: the
plenary indulgence associated with Divine Mercy Sunday, which the Church has
granted (29 June 2002) and therefore could also take away? For the
latter, it is indeed sufficient to make the Confession afterward, if it is sufficiently
close. For the plenary indulgence however – unlike Our Lord’s promise –
more than just Confession and Communion is required; one of several extra
conditions is freedom of attachment to sin – even venial sin. This
condition, though challenging, is not as hard as it may seem. The key
word is attachment, not attraction. The feelings may be strongly
attracted to sin, but the condition is still satisfied if sin is firmly
rejected by the will.
