Bishop's Absolution Required?

[CATHOLICTEX]

Has anyone heard of thiis befre?.

This is a true story.

Let’s say that a person goes to confession in a parish with 4 priests. The priest that is administering the sacrament refers the penitent to the priest in charge of the parish because of the seriousness of the sin. The priests in charge hears the confession and tells the penitent that only the bishop can give the absolution for that sin BUT he says that the bishop has given him authority to forgive that sin.

Is that something new?,… has anyone heard something similar?..
are there some sins that only a bishop can forgive???

I am having a hard time believing this…can anyone shed some light on this???.

 

[Caelicola]

Priests are representatives of their bishops, and can only act with the authority they are delegated. Therefore, it could be the case that a certain sin was committed that under normal circumstances the bishop held the sole right to absolve in his diocese. Normally there are formal rules regarding such sins. It is possible that a priest was delegated the specific authority by the bishop to forgive those sins though, just as certain priests are delegated the authority to administer Confirmation, even though this is a right normally held by the bishop alone.

So, I suppose this could happen, where at a certain parish only one of the priests would be able to give you absolution - though I’ve never heard of such a thing.

 

[Timidity]

CATHOLICTEX:

are there some sins that only a bishop can forgive???

The situation you describe is not atypical for lifting certain types of excommunication. One such example that springs to mind is abortion in the US. Abortion carries an automatic excommunication that is reserved for the local ordinary (which is just a fancy way of saying the local bishop). Because it is sadly so common in the US, though, most American bishops have authorized their priests to lift that excommunication.

I wouldn’t be surprised if it applied to some other circumstances, as well.

 

[CATHOLICTEX]

Thanks for your insight, I am here to learn and most of the time I only read the threads and rarely post, it is just that this is new to me and you certainly have a point that might well be true. After all the bishop has the authority to delegate certain powers and keep some for himself only if this is his prerogative but I had never heard a case where the bishop retains the authority to forgive some sins. Thanks again.

 

[John_Lilburne]

Monsignor Peter Elliott discusses something like this in Liturgical Question Box (Ignatius Press, 1998, ISBN 0-89870-677-7, page 140).

He considers the question “What should a confessor do when a penitent confesses that he has discarded the Host?”.

According to Canon 1367 of the Code of Canon Law " A person who throws away the consecrated species or who takes them or retains them for a sacrilegious purpose incurs an automatic (latae sententiae) excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See …" (Code of Canon Law, Canon Law Society of America, 1995, ISBN 0-943616-20-4, page 495).

So if someone takes the consecrated host their motive needs to be determined. If it is sacrilegious the are excommunicated. The absolution cannot be given unless the Apostolic See lifts the excommunication. The administration of this would be through the bishop.

Perhaps in this case the second priest may have been able to determine the situation more clearly and make a decision that the person is not excommunicated and could be absolved. For example, Monsignor Elliott wrote on page 142: “The priest may absolve a penitent who was forced to profane the Eucharist by another party (cf. Canons 1323, 3 and 1324.1,5). This may have been the case with the youth who stole Hosts for the satanists. He may have acted out of fear for his life.”

Perhaps it was this kind of process.

 

[thistle]

Timidity:

The situation you describe is not atypical for lifting certain types of excommunication. One such example that springs to mind is abortion in the US. Abortion carries an automatic excommunication that is reserved for the local ordinary (which is just a fancy way of saying the local bishop). Because it is sadly so common in the US, though, most American bishops have authorized their priests to lift that excommunication.

I wouldn’t be surprised if it applied to some other circumstances, as well.

That’s not actually the case anymore. This was previously asked to AAA and this was the reply.

**Dear Find,

This is no longer true. There was a time when abortion was considered a “reserved sin” and the person was referred to a bishop or some priest deputed to absolve such sins. Today all priests can absolve the sin of abortion.

Fr. Vincent Serpa, O.P.**

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

CATHOLICTEX:

Has anyone heard of thiis befre?.

This is a true story.

Let’s say that a person goes to confession in a parish with 4 priests. The priest that is administering the sacrament refers the penitent to the priest in charge of the parish because of the seriousness of the sin. The priests in charge hears the confession and tells the penitent that only the bishop can give the absolution for that sin BUT he says that the bishop has given him authority to forgive that sin.

Is that something new?,… has anyone heard something similar?..
are there some sins that only a bishop can forgive???

I am having a hard time believing this…can anyone shed some light on this???.

Yes there can be “Reserved” sins in other words a Bishop can “reserve” the absolution of certain sins to himself. There are also certain sins “reserved” to the pope.

 

[asquared]

CATHOLICTEX:

Has anyone heard of thiis befre?.

This is a true story.

Let’s say that a person goes to confession in a parish with 4 priests. The priest that is administering the sacrament refers the penitent to the priest in charge of the parish because of the seriousness of the sin. The priests in charge hears the confession and tells the penitent that only the bishop can give the absolution for that sin BUT he says that the bishop has given him authority to forgive that sin.

Is that something new?,… has anyone heard something similar?..
are there some sins that only a bishop can forgive???

I am having a hard time believing this…can anyone shed some light on this???.

yes, this is in order, for instance, abortion is a sin so grave that absolution is reserved but because it has become so common that pastors have been granted the authority to absolve it.

 

[mosher]

Just as a point of information there are certain sins that are reserved to the Holy Father himself - in essence only the Holy Father has the faculty to obsolve these particular sins.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

Our former pastor told of being the penitent in that situation. When he left Ireland some 60+ years ago some mixup required him to use his brother’s birth certificate on his application in order to keep the paper work in order. That is, it got started wrong and the only way out was to keep it going that way.

Technically then he committed perjury and perjury was, at that time in Ireland, reseved to the Bishop because it involved a false oath. Fortunately his pastor was able to resolve it for him, [when his pastor finished laughing].

 

[Cherub]

What kind(s) of sin can only the Pope absolve? Does anyone know?

 

[Catholic2003]

The old 1917 Code of Canon Law had the concept of “reserved sins” that only the Ordinary could absolve (c.f. 1917 CIC 893-900). The current 1983 Code no longer uses this system.

For example, under the old code, the Ordinary could reserve the sin of abortion to himself, so that priests could not absolve this sin. (This was so even if there was no excommunication involved, e.g., the sinner was under 18 years old.)

In the current code, the ability to lift centures, such as excommunication, is as follows:

Canon 1355 §1 Provided it is not reserved to the Apostolic See, a penalty which is established by law and has been imposed or declared, can be remitted by the following:

1° the Ordinary who initiated the judicial proceedings to impose or declare the penalty, or who by a decree, either personally or through another, imposed or declared it;

2° the Ordinary of the place where the offender actually is, after consulting the Ordinary mentioned in n. 1, unless because of extraordinary circumstances this is impossible.

§2 Provided it is not reserved to the Apostolic See, a latae sententiae penalty established by law but not yet declared, can be remitted by the Ordinary in respect of his subjects and of those actually in his territory or of those who committed the offence in his territory. Moreover, any Bishop can do this, but only in the course of sacramental confession.

Ordinaries can delegate this faculty to their priests, and this is often done in the case of a first excommunication due to abortion.

 

[Catholic2003]

Cherub:

What kind(s) of sin can only the Pope absolve? Does anyone know?

Excommunications reserved to the Holy See:

Canon 1367 One who throws away the consecrated species or, for a sacrilegious purpose, takes them away or keeps them, incurs a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See; a cleric, moreover, may be punished with some other penalty, not excluding dismissal from the clerical state.

Canon 1370 §1 A person who uses physical force against the Roman Pontiff incurs a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See; if the offender is a cleric, another penalty, not excluding dismissal from the clerical state, may be added according to the gravity of the crime.

Canon 1378 §1 A priest who acts against the prescription of Can. 977 incurs a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See.

Canon 977 The absolution of a partner in a sin against the sixth commandment of the Decalogue is invalid, except in danger of death.

Canon 1382 Both the Bishop who, without a pontifical mandate, consecrates a person a Bishop, and the one who receives the consecration from him, incur a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See.

Canon 1388 §1 A confessor who directly violates the sacramental seal, incurs a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See; he who does so only indirectly is to be punished according to the gravity of the offence.

 

[Timidity]

thistle:

That’s not actually the case anymore. This was previously asked to AAA and this was the reply.

As you see from another poster’s quotation of canon law, it is, indeed, still the case.

The AAA reply that you quoted is talking about absolution. My post talks about lifting an excommunication (like the one attached to an abortion under certain circumstances).

Two different things, but someone not familiar with the nuances might be confused if they were being shuffled from confessional to confessional.

 

[thistle]

Timidity:

As you see from another poster’s quotation of canon law, it is, indeed, still the case.

The AAA reply that you quoted is talking about absolution. My post talks about lifting an excommunication (like the one attached to an abortion under certain circumstances).

Two different things, but someone not familiar with the nuances might be confused if they were being shuffled from confessional to confessional.

How could someone be given absolution and still find themselves ex-communicated. Absolution allows to a person to receive Communion. Ex-Communication does not.

 

[Timidity]

thistle:

How could someone be given absolution and still find themselves ex-communicated. Absolution allows to a person to receive Communion. Ex-Communication does not.

They couldn’t. However, sticking with my previous example (which was just an example), not all abortions carry the sentence of excommunication; there are other conditions that must be fulfilled. Therefore it is reasonable that one could be sinfully involved in an abortion and not under the sentence of excommunication. In this case, one could gain absolution because they’re not excommunicated.

 

[thistle]

Timidity:

They couldn’t. However, sticking with my previous example (which was just an example), not all abortions carry the sentence of excommunication; there are other conditions that must be fulfilled. Therefore it is reasonable that one could be sinfully involved in an abortion and not under the sentence of excommunication. In this case, one could gain absolution because they’re not excommunicated.

So I guess at Confession the priest would ask questions to satisfy himself on that and it can then be assumed if he gives absolution that the person confessing had not fallen under automatic ex-communication in the first place. A priest would have to ask questions because I would venture to say that almost no Catholic who had an abortion would have any idea that it could mean ex-communication, although they would likely know it was a mortal sin.

 

[Brendan]

thistle:

How could someone be given absolution and still find themselves ex-communicated. Absolution allows to a person to receive Communion. Ex-Communication does not.

Generally speaking, except in danger of death, a priest cannot absolve a sin for which he has no authority over.

If, for example, a penitent came to confess that he used the Eucharist for Sacreligious purposes, that person is in the excommunicted state. The priest could not, without authority granted by the Holy See, either remove the excommunication or absolve the sin.

What the priest would do in that case is to immediatly fax the Apostolic Penitentiary, the Vatican "department’ that deals with the forgiveness of sin (Penitents), so no, it’s no the Vatican prison

The A.P. has the authority to act in the Pope’s name on these issues, and can then grant the priest the authority to absolve the person and lift the excommincation.

BTW, This is also the only Dicastery that retains it’s Authority even after a Pope dies.

The head of the Apostolic Penitentiary is the only Cardinal that can leave a Conclave without anyone asking ‘why’ or to question him about his absence.
This is because it’s his job to handle such emergencies of the soul in the name of the Pope.

 

[thistle]

Brendan:

Generally speaking, except in danger of death, a priest cannot absolve a sin for which he has no authority over.

If, for example, a penitent came to confess that he used the Eucharist for Sacreligious purposes, that person is in the excommunicted state. The priest could not, without authority granted by the Holy See, either remove the excommunication or absolve the sin.

What the priest would do in that case is to immediatly fax the Apostolic Penitentiary, the Vatican "department’ that deals with the forgiveness of sin (Penitents), so no, it’s no the Vatican prison

The A.P. has the authority to act in the Pope’s name on these issues, and can then grant the priest the authority to absolve the person and lift the excommincation.

BTW, This is also the only Dicastery that retains it’s Authority even after a Pope dies.

The head of the Apostolic Penitentiary is the only Cardinal that can leave a Conclave without anyone asking ‘why’ or to question him about his absence.
This is because it’s his job to handle such emergencies of the soul in the name of the Pope.

Let me understand this correctly what you are saying.

1. The priest will already have the authority to absolve a sin which had caused ex-communication

or

1. The priest will immediately request such authority

or

1. The priest will satisfy himself that there was no ex-communication in the first place.

Whichever is the case, the person confessing must assume that if the priest gives absolution then that absolution is valid. The person confessing will not ask if the priest has the authority to absolve.

Is my understanding correct?

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

thistle:

How could someone be given absolution and still find themselves ex-communicated. Absolution allows to a person to receive Communion. Ex-Communication does not.

Speaking of the cart before the horse. If one is Ex-communicated one does not have access to any of the Sacraments. (except in danger…) An Ex-communication would need to be lifted before one could go to Confession.