C
Curious
Guest
Well so far I’ve seen at least two stories on this thread of priests giving absolution to non-catholics NOT in dire circumstances.
They weren’t supposed to? right?
They weren’t supposed to? right?
- Status
M
mgrfin
Guest
Non-Catholics can receive Penance, Communion and Extreme Unction under very limited circumstances as listed in Canon 844, Para 4 of the Code of Canon Law:
If the danger of death is present, or some other grave necessity urges it, Catholic ministers can licitly administer to other Christians not having full communion with the Catholic Church, who cannot approach a minister of their own accord, provided they manifest Catholic faith in respect to these sacraments and are properly disposed.
Since this canon extends a ‘favor’ it is to be interpreted broadly.
Obviously, since the sacraments work ‘ex opere operato’ the sacraments can be administered validly, but illicitly if the conditions are not present.
So, for example, you have a priest friend, and after a round of golf, you say you would like to go to him to confession, and he acceeds, the sacrament is administered validly, but illicitly (unless you got hit in the head with a golf ball, or some such).
Reception of the Eucharist is still reception of the Eucharist, even if the person doesn’t believe in the Real Presence. True of Penance. True of Extreme Unction if some over-zealous Chaplain anointed you on your way to the ER. It’s valid, but illicit.
Ordinarily, only members of the Mystical Body of Christ may received the Sacraments (excluding baptism), validly and licitly.
Always duck when you hear ‘fore’.
BTW, divorced Catholics are not ‘kicked out’ of the Church, meaning they are not excommunicated. And they are encouraged to continue practicing their faith to the best of their ability. The Church wants them back, and hopefully a day will arrive when that is possible for them. Maybe they can even get annulments of their previous bonds.
peace
M
Mannyfit75
Guest
[Can. 844 §1.§4. If the [COLOR=“Red”]danger of death is present or if, in the judgment of the diocesan bishop or conference of bishops, some other grave necessity urges it, Catholic ministers administer these same sacraments licitly also to other Christians not having full communion with the Catholic Church, who cannot approach a minister of their own community and who seek such on their own accord, provided that they manifest Catholic faith in respect to these sacraments and are properly disposed.
M
mgrfin
Guest
, Catholic ministers administer these same sacraments licitly also to other Christians not having full communion with the Catholic Church, who cannot approach a minister of their own community and who seek such on their own accord, provided that they manifest Catholic faith in respect to these sacraments and are properly disposed.
You are right, and I tentionally left out that bit about the bishop…etc. The local parish priest or hospital chaplain is not going to run off to ask his bishop to determine if an emergency exists. I’m from Brooklyn, and you know what kind of Canonists they were.
It is a favor; interprete it liberally, Father. When the Code grants a favor or permission, run with it.
peace
M
mgrfin
Guest
Generally, that is right. Other sections of 844 might apply, for example, Eastern Rite Catholics where their minister was not available. I am sure there are lots of canonists out there to object with other examples. Enjoy.
peace
L
LilyM
Guest
No, but remember in one of those the penitent didn’t reveal that they weren’t Catholic and unfortunately the priest, not being psychic, didn’t pick up on it.
As for the other one … were you at least baptised at the time, Bennie? Had you had any instruction as to the Sacrament of Confession?
There is some leeway with Confession, since First Confession normally is supposed to come between baptism and First Communion at any rate. And while it’s the ideal, it’s not strictly necessary, I guess, that you intended to have First Communion or be confirmed.
R
rpp
Guest
I was an atheist before my conversion. My conversion was sudden, dramatic and miraculous. (It only took a couple of seconds, it also took one evening and two weeks. All the time passed simultaneously in a way that is difficult to explain.)
Anyway… I knew I needed to talk to a priest. I kept trying to catch the priest either before or after Mass. I attended 3 consecutive Masses that first Sunday and still struck out. As I was leaving the Church, I asked someone how to make an appointment with the priest (parish phone number, etc.). They told me to come back later that day for “reconciliation”. I had no idea what “reconciliation” was and told them I needed to speak to a priest privately. That earned me a very interesting look from this poor confused person.
S a couple of hours later I came back for “reconciliation”. I sat where the person told me, at the front of the church near a hallway that leads behind the altar. I was alone in the church. Looking around, I saw the confessional booths at the back of church and concluded that “reconciliation” had nothing to do with confession.
A few minutes before the scheduled time, another person came into the church. Of all the places for this person to sit, she sat directly behind me. I mean the whole church is empty! A minute or so later the priest appeared, put a “scarf” around his neck and went into his “office”. I sat there waiting for the “reconciliation” thing (whatever that was) to be finished so I could talk to the priest.
After several minutes, the woman behind me asked me if I was going to “reconciliation”. I said, “No. I need to speak to the priest privately.” She just stared at me for a long time, not sure what to say. Then she asked if she could go ahead of me. “Of course,” I said.
A few minutes later she reappeared. She went to anther part of the church to pray. I remember thinking it seems better to pray before have talking to a priest. I would have been praying myself if I knew how. When she got up, she saw I was still sitting there. She came over and told me I could go talk to the priest.
Once I walked into the room, saw the screen and realized the priest was behind it, I knew that reconciliation and confession were the same thing. The first thing I was was tell the priest that I was an atheist who wanted to convert to the Catholic Church. We spoke for 45 minutes.
After 17 months in RCIA, I came into the Church at Easter Vigil service 2005.
Anyway… I knew I needed to talk to a priest. I kept trying to catch the priest either before or after Mass. I attended 3 consecutive Masses that first Sunday and still struck out. As I was leaving the Church, I asked someone how to make an appointment with the priest (parish phone number, etc.). They told me to come back later that day for “reconciliation”. I had no idea what “reconciliation” was and told them I needed to speak to a priest privately. That earned me a very interesting look from this poor confused person.
S a couple of hours later I came back for “reconciliation”. I sat where the person told me, at the front of the church near a hallway that leads behind the altar. I was alone in the church. Looking around, I saw the confessional booths at the back of church and concluded that “reconciliation” had nothing to do with confession.
A few minutes before the scheduled time, another person came into the church. Of all the places for this person to sit, she sat directly behind me. I mean the whole church is empty! A minute or so later the priest appeared, put a “scarf” around his neck and went into his “office”. I sat there waiting for the “reconciliation” thing (whatever that was) to be finished so I could talk to the priest.
After several minutes, the woman behind me asked me if I was going to “reconciliation”. I said, “No. I need to speak to the priest privately.” She just stared at me for a long time, not sure what to say. Then she asked if she could go ahead of me. “Of course,” I said.
A few minutes later she reappeared. She went to anther part of the church to pray. I remember thinking it seems better to pray before have talking to a priest. I would have been praying myself if I knew how. When she got up, she saw I was still sitting there. She came over and told me I could go talk to the priest.
Once I walked into the room, saw the screen and realized the priest was behind it, I knew that reconciliation and confession were the same thing. The first thing I was was tell the priest that I was an atheist who wanted to convert to the Catholic Church. We spoke for 45 minutes.
After 17 months in RCIA, I came into the Church at Easter Vigil service 2005.
M
mercygate
Guest
WOW! I would say that THAT is what confessionals are FOR!I was an atheist before my conversion. My conversion was sudden, dramatic and miraculous. (It only took a couple of seconds, it also took one evening and two weeks. All the time passed simultaneously in a way that is difficult to explain.)
Anyway… I knew I needed to talk to a priest. I kept trying to catch the priest either before or after Mass. I attended 3 consecutive Masses that first Sunday and still struck out. As I was leaving the Church, I asked someone how to make an appointment with the priest (parish phone number, etc.). They told me to come back later that day for “reconciliation”. I had no idea what “reconciliation” was and told them I needed to speak to a priest privately. That earned me a very interesting look from this poor confused person.
S a couple of hours later I came back for “reconciliation”. I sat where the person told me, at the front of the church near a hallway that leads behind the altar. I was alone in the church. Looking around, I saw the confessional booths at the back of church and concluded that “reconciliation” had nothing to do with confession.
A few minutes before the scheduled time, another person came into the church. Of all the places for this person to sit, she sat directly behind me. I mean the whole church is empty! A minute or so later the priest appeared, put a “scarf” around his neck and went into his “office”. I sat there waiting for the “reconciliation” thing (whatever that was) to be finished so I could talk to the priest.
After several minutes, the woman behind me asked me if I was going to “reconciliation”. I said, “No. I need to speak to the priest privately.” She just stared at me for a long time, not sure what to say. Then she asked if she could go ahead of me. “Of course,” I said.
A few minutes later she reappeared. She went to anther part of the church to pray. I remember thinking it seems better to pray before have talking to a priest. I would have been praying myself if I knew how. When she got up, she saw I was still sitting there. She came over and told me I could go talk to the priest.
Once I walked into the room, saw the screen and realized the priest was behind it, I knew that reconciliation and confession were the same thing. The first thing I was was tell the priest that I was an atheist who wanted to convert to the Catholic Church. We spoke for 45 minutes.
After 17 months in RCIA, I came into the Church at Easter Vigil service 2005.
M
mgrfin
Guest
What a wonderful story. Gold blessed you.I was an atheist before my conversion. My conversion was sudden, dramatic and miraculous. (It only took a couple of seconds, it also took one evening and two weeks. All the time passed simultaneously in a way that is difficult to explain.)
Anyway… I knew I needed to talk to a priest. I kept trying to catch the priest either before or after Mass. I attended 3 consecutive Masses that first Sunday and still struck out. As I was leaving the Church, I asked someone how to make an appointment with the priest (parish phone number, etc.). They told me to come back later that day for “reconciliation”. I had no idea what “reconciliation” was and told them I needed to speak to a priest privately. That earned me a very interesting look from this poor confused person.
S a couple of hours later I came back for “reconciliation”. I sat where the person told me, at the front of the church near a hallway that leads behind the altar. I was alone in the church. Looking around, I saw the confessional booths at the back of church and concluded that “reconciliation” had nothing to do with confession.
A few minutes before the scheduled time, another person came into the church. Of all the places for this person to sit, she sat directly behind me. I mean the whole church is empty! A minute or so later the priest appeared, put a “scarf” around his neck and went into his “office”. I sat there waiting for the “reconciliation” thing (whatever that was) to be finished so I could talk to the priest.
After several minutes, the woman behind me asked me if I was going to “reconciliation”. I said, “No. I need to speak to the priest privately.” She just stared at me for a long time, not sure what to say. Then she asked if she could go ahead of me. “Of course,” I said.
A few minutes later she reappeared. She went to anther part of the church to pray. I remember thinking it seems better to pray before have talking to a priest. I would have been praying myself if I knew how. When she got up, she saw I was still sitting there. She came over and told me I could go talk to the priest.
Once I walked into the room, saw the screen and realized the priest was behind it, I knew that reconciliation and confession were the same thing. The first thing I was was tell the priest that I was an atheist who wanted to convert to the Catholic Church. We spoke for 45 minutes.
After 17 months in RCIA, I came into the Church at Easter Vigil service 2005.
peace
M
mgrfin
Guest
The reason why divorced Catholics cannot receive the Eucharist is because it is presumed as married people they are having sex with people who are not their original spouses, which is mortal sin. (e.g. the woman at the well).
Now, if that presumption is not correct, that is they are not having sex, well then the obstacle to firm amendment is there, they can go to confession, and they can receive the Eucharist.
Protestants, even knowledgeable ones, seem to think that divorce results in excommunication, and it does not.
peace
L
Linnyo
Guest
Hey that’s exactly what happened to me.
M
mgrfin
Guest
6
Before a non-Catholic can receive absolution, there is a ‘price of admission’, that is, be received into the Church.
Then you get it all, Penance, Eucharist, Confirmation, etc.
peace
M
MariaG
Guest
Help! I can’t find the matches
M
mgrfin
Guest
It is not solely a question of illiceity, giving non-Catholics the advantage of receiving the sacraments without actual conversion.
The priest doesn’t know the disposition of the person receiving these sacraments. Repentance for penance, properly knowledgeable and disposed to receive the Eucharist.
If a person were properly disposed, then the question is to be asked, why weren’t they becoming Catholics.
The priest sinned gravely in his scandal, and not fuffilling his priestly responsibilities. He should be ashamed of himself for administering the sacraments in question outside the case of grave necessity.
peace
B
Bennie_P
Guest
I’m not a canon lawyer, but by reading the canon I think a priest can hear the confession and give absolution to any properly Baptised Christian, Catholic or non-Catholic. Just as I heard the priest mention on EWTN. Of course this doesn’t mean they can receive the Eucharist, not until the are accepted into full communion with the Church.
CHAPTER III.
THE PENITENT
Can. 987 To receive the salvific remedy of the sacrament of penance, a member of the Christian faithful must be disposed in such a way that, rejecting sins committed and having a purpose of amendment, the person is turned back to God.
Can. 988 §1. A member of the Christian faithful is obliged to confess in kind and number all grave sins committed after baptism and not yet remitted directly through the keys of the Church nor acknowledged in individual confession, of which the person has knowledge after diligent examination of conscience.
§2. It is recommended to the Christian faithful that they also confess venial sins.
Can. 989 After having reached the age of discretion, each member of the faithful is ob-liged to confess faithfully his or her grave sins at least once a year.
Can. 990 No one is prohibited from confessing through an interpreter as long as abuses and scandals are avoided and without prejudice to the prescript of ⇒ can. 983, §2.
Can. 991 Every member of the Christian faithful is free to confess sins to a legitimately approved confessor of his or her choice, even to one of another rite.
Can. 204 §1. The Christian faithful are those who, inasmuch as they have been incorporated in Christ through baptism, have been constituted as the people of God. For this reason, made sharers in their own way in Christ’s priestly, prophetic, and royal function, they are called to exercise the mission which God has entrusted to the Church to fulfill in the world, in accord with the condition proper to each.
Can. 980 If the confessor has no doubt about the disposition of the penitent, and the penitent seeks absolution, absolution is to be neither refused nor deferred.
CHAPTER III.
THE PENITENT
Can. 987 To receive the salvific remedy of the sacrament of penance, a member of the Christian faithful must be disposed in such a way that, rejecting sins committed and having a purpose of amendment, the person is turned back to God.
Can. 988 §1. A member of the Christian faithful is obliged to confess in kind and number all grave sins committed after baptism and not yet remitted directly through the keys of the Church nor acknowledged in individual confession, of which the person has knowledge after diligent examination of conscience.
§2. It is recommended to the Christian faithful that they also confess venial sins.
Can. 989 After having reached the age of discretion, each member of the faithful is ob-liged to confess faithfully his or her grave sins at least once a year.
Can. 990 No one is prohibited from confessing through an interpreter as long as abuses and scandals are avoided and without prejudice to the prescript of ⇒ can. 983, §2.
Can. 991 Every member of the Christian faithful is free to confess sins to a legitimately approved confessor of his or her choice, even to one of another rite.
Can. 204 §1. The Christian faithful are those who, inasmuch as they have been incorporated in Christ through baptism, have been constituted as the people of God. For this reason, made sharers in their own way in Christ’s priestly, prophetic, and royal function, they are called to exercise the mission which God has entrusted to the Church to fulfill in the world, in accord with the condition proper to each.
Can. 980 If the confessor has no doubt about the disposition of the penitent, and the penitent seeks absolution, absolution is to be neither refused nor deferred.
M
mgrfin
Guest
Sorry, the ruling Canon here is Canon 844 paragraph 4. Anything else is just wishing it were true.I’m not a canon lawyer, but by reading the canon I think a priest can hear the confession and give absolution to any properly Baptised Christian, Catholic or non-Catholic. Just as I heard the priest mention on EWTN. Of course this doesn’t mean they can receive the Eucharist, not until the are accepted into full communion with the Church.
CHAPTER III.
THE PENITENT
Can. 987 To receive the salvific remedy of the sacrament of penance, a member of the Christian faithful must be disposed in such a way that, rejecting sins committed and having a purpose of amendment, the person is turned back to God.
Can. 988 §1. A member of the Christian faithful is obliged to confess in kind and number all grave sins committed after baptism and not yet remitted directly through the keys of the Church nor acknowledged in individual confession, of which the person has knowledge after diligent examination of conscience.
§2. It is recommended to the Christian faithful that they also confess venial sins.
Can. 989 After having reached the age of discretion, each member of the faithful is ob-liged to confess faithfully his or her grave sins at least once a year.
Can. 990 No one is prohibited from confessing through an interpreter as long as abuses and scandals are avoided and without prejudice to the prescript of ⇒ can. 983, §2.
Can. 991 Every member of the Christian faithful is free to confess sins to a legitimately approved confessor of his or her choice, even to one of another rite.
Can. 204 §1. The Christian faithful are those who, inasmuch as they have been incorporated in Christ through baptism, have been constituted as the people of God. For this reason, made sharers in their own way in Christ’s priestly, prophetic, and royal function, they are called to exercise the mission which God has entrusted to the Church to fulfill in the world, in accord with the condition proper to each.
Can. 980 If the confessor has no doubt about the disposition of the penitent, and the penitent seeks absolution, absolution is to be neither refused nor deferred.
Administering the Sacraments to a non-Catholic require some grave emergency.
I am assuming there is none.
peace
B
Bennie_P
Guest
In 844 p 4 it is indicating when the three are given together, but does not seem to restrict the sacrement of pennence nor the annointing of the sick if given separate from the Eucahrist.
R
RevDrNorth
Guest
I have been to confession…but that was because I converted to Roman Catholicism (went through RCIA, etc). Went once.
RCIA was enjoyable but as I have mentioned here before, one of the devout Catholics teaching it told me when I expressed disbelief in Marian dogma…that it was not a problem and not to worry about it. Now of course I know that his answer was incorrect and that the correct response should have been to work that through before we went through the whole process,
As an aside, I once read an article by a Charismatic Episcopal Priest that decried the fact that so few RC clergy dress like clergy. He mentioned that he once went into a large church in a US city, and there was no Priest there to hear confession. One of the women came up to him and asked him to hear confession, which he did. Then an RC Preist came running along in civilian clothes and made an excuse and thanked him. I thought…hmmm…he might not be thanking you if he knew you were not a Roman Catholic Priest.
Rev North
RCIA was enjoyable but as I have mentioned here before, one of the devout Catholics teaching it told me when I expressed disbelief in Marian dogma…that it was not a problem and not to worry about it. Now of course I know that his answer was incorrect and that the correct response should have been to work that through before we went through the whole process,
As an aside, I once read an article by a Charismatic Episcopal Priest that decried the fact that so few RC clergy dress like clergy. He mentioned that he once went into a large church in a US city, and there was no Priest there to hear confession. One of the women came up to him and asked him to hear confession, which he did. Then an RC Preist came running along in civilian clothes and made an excuse and thanked him. I thought…hmmm…he might not be thanking you if he knew you were not a Roman Catholic Priest.
Rev North
M
mgrfin
Guest
Well, you were correct. If you had a problem with certain dogmas about Mary, the priest should have worked you through them. What? Mary’s Immaculate Conception? The Annuciation?, the Visitation?, The Nativity of Jesus and the Virgin Birth? Jesus at Cana? the Assumption?I have been to confession…but that was because I converted to Roman Catholicism (went through RCIA, etc). Went once.
RCIA was enjoyable but as I have mentioned here before, one of the devout Catholics teaching it told me when I expressed disbelief in Marian dogma…that it was not a problem and not to worry about it. Now of course I know that his answer was incorrect and that the correct response should have been to work that through before we went through the whole process,
As an aside, I once read an article by a Charismatic Episcopal Priest that decried the fact that so few RC clergy dress like clergy. He mentioned that he once went into a large church in a US city, and there was no Priest there to hear confession. One of the women came up to him and asked him to hear confession, which he did. Then an RC Preist came running along in civilian clothes and made an excuse and thanked him. I thought…hmmm…he might not be thanking you if he knew you were not a Roman Catholic Priest.
Rev North
Secondly, a priest without clerical garb, hearing confession. Something you read about? By a charismatic episcopal priest? How was he charismatic? He said he was charismatic in his story?
I don’t see that to be so scandalous. The catholic priest should have been castigated. and I don’t know why he should have been so obliging to some guy who just heard confessions in his stead. Most times, you can see from a person’s clerical garb that he is non-catholic (he is not wearing a Roman collar.) The priest should have been able to spot the guy was not wearing a Roman collar.
So those were the reasons for leaving the church after being through RCIA? Pretty meager. Were you a serious an inquirer?
The Assumption of Mary? and some story you read about - some priest who came to hear confessions in street garb?
peace
R
RevDrNorth
Guest
I am sorry I have confused you.
i) The Charismatic Episcopal Church is a denomination. It was one of their priests visiting a Roman catholic Church who heard the confession of a Roman Catholic parishioner because the RCC priest was no where to be found. He came running up later without any clerical collar, etc. This had nothing to do with my leaving the Catholic Church. It was an side to the confession thread. The CEC Priest likely should NOT have heard confessions of a ROman Catholic parishioner in a Roman Catholic Church. This guy probably felt like he was doing a good thing. The RCC priest likely thanked him because he had no idea he was a CEC Priest.
ii) I did not believe that Mary was conceived without sin, etc. The Priest did not know. It was the leader of the RCIA and he said it did not matter.
iii) I converted after marrying my wife in a Protestant church (my wife was RCC). I wanted some unity of faith in our family and had always been attracted to the Catholic Church. I attended a Catholic college for undergraduate work. I left the church because my wife never got an annulment from her previous marraige nor tried. That meant limited particpation in the Church. On top of that I was used to substantial exegetical sermons (history behind text, application, meaning of greek, etc) and the vast majority of Roman Catholics priests were very poor homilists. Their sermons were watered down pablum compared to what I had previoulsy experienced. So I went to church and was not being fed. Also, there was no Christian life in the Church. Most Protestant Churches have bible studies and many other acitivities that involve the whole family in learning God’s word and putting it into action. This was absent. As well, Catholics did not seem to take their faith serisouly. They came to church late and left early. Bascially warmed the pew for 45 minutes and never darkened the door of the church until the next weekend. Most of them did not even bother to sing the hymns (Glory and Praise music)…wheras you go to a Baptist Church and their is joy and everyone is singing. Some RC’s even tried to get ahead of the Priest out the door.
Rev North
- Status