Can a transitional deacon say the Words of Absolution for comfort to a person

[Lapey]

Reading this thread, I’m kind of scratching my head in confusion. I understand the rules, but I don’t comprehend the logic. A deacon can’t do the absolution bit, but he can read the gospel? Women can administer the Eucharist? Women can administer the Precious Blood? Deacons can do the same? If a deacon has it bestowed upon him to make holy water, which is a sacramental used in renewing our baptism & washing away of sin, then how is absolution any different? If a deacon can make holy water, the means by which people are baptized, & original & all sin is washed away, how is absolution different? Lay people are handing out hosts, but a deacon can’t give absolution?

I mean I’ve always known that, but after reading this thread, I’m thinking, why not?! Because someone said so? I’m catholic, don’t get me wrong, I’m just trying to understand the logic. We have women handing out hosts. Lay people issuing the Eucharist. Today’s world… I just don’t get it.

Not sure why you are confused from this debate. A deacon is not authorized by the Church to confect the Eucharist or grant absolution, both actions would be administering a sacrament. The deacon’s ability through authority of the Church to bless holy water has absolutely nothing to do in this conversation. There are big differences in a sacramental and a sacrament. Furthermore, how is reading the gospel at Mass equivalent to absolving grave sin?

Women cannot “administer” the Holy Eucharist; neither can a deacon; however both can distribute Holy Communion, deacon as an ordinary minister of Holy Communion and the lay minister as an extraordinary minister of Holy Communion. Only the priest can administer, or preside over, or confect, the Eucharist. If in fact you meant to say distribute, then you can answer your own question, the authority to confect is given in priestly ordination, not diaconate ordination. The same holds true in absolution of grave sin.

The authority given to a deacon to be the minister of baptism for the forgiveness of original sin and forgiveness of grave personal sin is very different. First off, the deacon is only able to baptize in cases of the person being under the age of reason, under 7 years old. Why is this? Because a person is not culpable of personal sin until they reach the age of reason, therefore, a 12 year old child would be responsible for original and personal sin which is reserved to the priest or bishop, who is in fact a priest. A child under 7 is forgiven only from original sin in baptism because he or she has no personal sin. Anyone over the age of reason normally goes through RCIA and is baptized by the priest or bishop.

Can. 852 §1. The prescripts of the canons on adult baptism are to be applied to all those who, no longer infants, have attained the use of reason.
§2. A person who is not responsible for oneself (non sui compos) is also regarded as an infant with respect to baptism.

As far as your last statements, the logic which is used is not yours or mine; it is the Church’s logic. The logic that has stood tall and solid for the life of the Church; why is this important you ask? Because of canon 1752, the supreme law of the Latin Rite Catholic Church, “….the salvation of souls, which must always be the supreme law in the Church, is to be kept before one’s eyes….”

PS. As the good Brother David pointed out, transitional and permanent are adjectives we use to describe a deacons who are on different paths in ministry. In reality a deacon is a deacon is a deacon.

 

[LJN21]

NO

SSPX is not in communion with the pope so their priests aren’t a part of the Catholic Church meaning their sacraments are invalid.

I know that is not true.

Not being in communion with Rome means your sacraments are illicit, not invalid. The Orthodox Church’s and a few others have apostolic succession which is what necessary to be able to have valid sacraments.

jimmyakin.com/the-validity-of-the-eucharist-in-lutheran-and-anglican-churches

I’m pretty sure the vatican is the one who sets the standard about who can hear confession. A bishop doesn’t have the power to say to a 2nd year seminarian you can hear confessions and forgive sins.

That’s not what I said. I said the priest has to get the faculties to hear confessions and give absolution THROUGH the bishop of the diocese he is hearing confessions in, unless its an emergency. So on top of being ordained a priests you must have the faculties, its not as easy as just saying absolution.

 

[triumphguy]

I know that but I have always heard it as “horseshoes, hand grenades, and atom bombs”.

http://msnsmileys.net/k/smileys/Kolobok_Big_-Standard/scratch_one-s_head.gif Thought I said that. http://msnsmileys.net/k/smileys/Kolobok_Big-_Standard/scratch_one-s_head.gif

did you say that - I was responding to the other guy

 

[Lapey]

Again, I understand. I am simply speaking in terms of administering a sacrament. .

This is your confusion; no one can ADMINISTER anything unless they are authorized. Look at the word and its meaning. A principal at a school is the ADMINISTRATOR for the school; he or she has that authority to discipline all students. This authority is given by the school board. A parent can administer discipline to his or her child, but has no authority to discipline other children.

If you are simply considering distribution of Communion the same as administering absolution, then there in lies your dilemma. The two are not the same. Distribution of Holy Communion within or outside of the Mass is a continuation of the Mass by the authority of the Bishop, pastor/priest and carried out by the minister to the faithful.

 

[Lapey]

PEOPLE! PEOPLE! PEOPLE!

Did anyone even bother to read the OP? The Deacon wasn’t trying to give absolution. The OP clearly stated that the deacon is just using the words of absolution to give comfort, not to fool anyone into believing he was actually giving absolution.

I fully understand your point and I too would try my best to bring comfort; but there is no way I would use the words of absolution to bring that comfort. I would do all I can to get a priest there and/or use every thing in my prayer bag to comfort this person, but I would not cross that line into simulating a sacrement; which as has been stated, is grave matter.

 

[Cristiano]

PEOPLE! PEOPLE! PEOPLE!

Did anyone even bother to read the OP? The Deacon wasn’t trying to give absolution. The OP clearly stated that the deacon is just using the words of absolution to give comfort, not to fool anyone into believing he was actually giving absolution.

That sounds to me like giving a fake $100 bill to a person that is totally broke. Either you mock them or you lie to them, those are both sinful actions.

 

[sw85]

PEOPLE! PEOPLE! PEOPLE!

Did anyone even bother to read the OP? The Deacon wasn’t trying to give absolution. The OP clearly stated that the deacon is just using the words of absolution to give comfort, not to fool anyone into believing he was actually giving absolution.

Since the words are sacramentally efficacious only when spoken by a priest, they only give comfort when spoken by a priest. Which means in this case they would only give comfort to the extent they fooled someone into believing he was giving absolution.

In much the same way, priests are not to absolve in cases where the sinner is obviously unrepentant. It doesn’t matter that his words would not be efficacious even when he said them because of a lack of contrition on the sinner’s part – the mere saying of them might induce the sinner to false comfort.

 

[Deo_Gratias42]

i understand the consecration part. The point I’m making is that female lay people can administer the sacrament of the Eucharist. If a lay person can administer a sacrament (the highlight of the entire mass), why then can’t a deacon do so in a pinch? If he can make holy water, I wonder…I just wonder sometimes…it doesn’t make sense to me anymore.

It doesn’t make sense because you’re trying to rationalize things with your feelings, rather than logic and reason.

The highlight of the entire Mass is the consecration, NOT communion reception. The congregation doesn’t even have to receive communion, only the priest must in order to complete the sacrifice. In the 1962 Roman Missal there is actually a rubric in the hand missals stating “IF the congregation is to receive communion …]”. The congregation really isn’t that important. All that’s needed for Mass is the priest.

A transitional deacon cannot administer absolution because he doesn’t have the faculties to do so. During ordination the soul is changed and left with an indelible mark. The deaconite ordination does not bestow the power to absolve sins, only the priestly ordination. The deacon might be able to say the words of absolution and make all the right gestures, but NOTHING will happen. A deacon cannot pretend to give someone absolution to make them feel better. Not only will it make him irregular for ordination, but he would be also guilty of the grave sin of simulating a sacrament.

The moral of the story is, don’t commit mortal sins, and if you do, get to confession ASAP.

 

[Deo_Gratias42]

Doesn’t the power to administer absolution come though faculties given by the bishop of the diocese your in? Deacons would not have this, same way the priests of SSPX have no faculties to hear Confessions and give absolution.

Any priest, even one who has returned to the lay state can validly absolve in the case of emergency and death, but under normal circumstances, that is correct. A priest must also have jurisdiction from the bishop in the diocese to absolve sins.

 

[triumphguy]

Any priest, even one who has returned to the lay state can validly absolve in the case of emergency and death, but under normal circumstances, that is correct. A priest must also have jurisdiction from the bishop in the diocese to absolve sins.

Not only can, but must.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Not only can, but must.

Curious, where do you find the “must”?

From the Code of Canon Law;
Can. 976 Any priest, even though he lacks the faculty to hear confessions, can validly and lawfully absolve any penitents who are in danger of death, from any censures and sins, even if an approved priest is present.

Would add, it is “danger of death” not “emergency”.

 

[Gorgias]

Would add, it is “danger of death” not “emergency”.

Right, but that phrase ‘sounds’ like it’s talking about an immanent or certain situation, whereas it isn’t, really. As I recall, (in the context of discussions of the marriage canons,), ‘danger of death’ really speaks to a certain possibility, such as heading into serious surgery, or being deployed to a combat zone – neither of which need to carry with it a particular probability of death. I presume that the same phrase carries the same meaning here…

 

[triumphguy]

Curious, where do you find the “must”?

From the Code of Canon Law;
Can. 976 Any priest, even though he lacks the faculty to hear confessions, can validly and lawfully absolve any penitents who are in danger of death, from any censures and sins, even if an approved priest is present.

Would add, it is “danger of death” not “emergency”.

Can someone in Holy Orders deny confession to someone who is dying even if their clerical state is illicit, or they are laicized?

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Can someone in Holy Orders deny confession to someone who is dying even if their clerical state is illicit, or they are laicized?

So the “must” comes in when it is requested.

I believe that only Catholics may request the Sacraments. Other than that I think you are on a right track but it must be requested for the “must” part.

 

[triumphguy]

So the “must” comes in when it is requested.

I believe that only Catholics may request the Sacraments. Other than that I think you are on a right track but it must be requested for the “must” part.

Yep.

My own uncle is a laicized priest.

If I was croaking and he was there and if I asked he wouldn’t be able to refuse confession.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Yep.

My own uncle is a laicized priest.

If I was croaking and he was there and if I asked he wouldn’t be able to refuse confession.

Again, while he shouldn’t refuse, I do not see anything in the Canons that put such a thing upon a person.

Even an Orthodox priest can validly absolve a Catholic who is in danger of death but there is no must placed upon him.

But that is a topic for another thread I guess.

 

[Angel_Bradford]

Lay people do not have the authority of the priest. They do not act in persona Christi. They have not been ordained. “A pinch” doesn’t matter. The person’s soul is not going to be absolved in any case, so it does absolutely NO good for the deacon to pretend to be a priest.

This is not hard to understand at all. There is a very WIDE line between a lay minister and a priest.

A deacon is not a lay minister; he’s an ordained member of the clergy.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

A deacon is not a lay minister; he’s an ordained member of the clergy.

Yes but he is not a priest which I believe is the point that the poster was trying to make.

 

[Angel_Bradford]

Yes but he is not a priest which I believe is the point that the poster was trying to make.

I thought as much, but wanted to make the clarification.