Confessing via an Intermediary in view of an impending death- Valid?

  • Thread starter Thread starter lotsofchuckles
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
L

lotsofchuckles

Guest
In the classic Western, The Ox Bow Incident, a overly enraged posse erroneously traps two suspects and accuses them of a horse theft and a murder. One of the accused is obviously a devote Catholic. The posse decides to lynch the two without real evidence or trial. The accused Catholic seeing his end, asks one of the “pious members” of the posse to take his confession to a priest for absolution. The “pious man” agrees and the Catholic man gives his confession for conveyance to a priest (i.e., to be delivered after the Catholic man’s death).

Is this a valid mode of confessing, given the extreme situation. Over the years, I have seen inferences in Catholic teaching that this may indeed be valid; based in part on that it is permitted that an intermediary may translate or interpret a confession, and also that the intention to confess and be absolved was before death.

Any solid church teaching on this mysterious aspect in a fine movie?

Thank you.
 
Don’t expect to find sound theology or solid church teaching in popular entertainment, especially from Hollywood.
 
In the classic Western, The Ox Bow Incident, a overly enraged posse erroneously traps two suspects and accuses them of a horse theft and a murder. One of the accused is obviously a devote Catholic. The posse decides to lynch the two without real evidence or trial. The accused Catholic seeing his end, asks one of the “pious members” of the posse to take his confession to a priest for absolution. The “pious man” agrees and the Catholic man gives his confession for conveyance to a priest (i.e., to be delivered after the Catholic man’s death).

Is this a valid mode of confessing, given the extreme situation. Over the years, I have seen inferences in Catholic teaching that this may indeed be valid; based in part on that it is permitted that an intermediary may translate or interpret a confession, and also that the intention to confess and be absolved was before death.

Any solid church teaching on this mysterious aspect in a fine movie?

Thank you.
It’s probably invalid. An intermediary is allowed, but only a translator, and then they must be sworn to uphold the seal of the confessional, and the one absolved must be present with the priest.
 
Don’t expect to find sound theology or solid church teaching in popular entertainment, especially from Hollywood.
There is a lot of theology in many films and has been the case over many years. Theology is faith seeking understanding. So also, we consider the gift of revelation. There is no place where there is no divine invitation to life in Christ. Therefore. propagation of the faith, evangelisation and discovery of the seeds of the faith are possible, anywhere, in any environment.

Are you posting in cynicism, or are you posting tongue-in-cheek? I would wonder.

Consider:

In this case, in this film, the depiction of a sacramental confession after death is just that, a depiction, not a fact.

However distorted, it does portray a message that some people have faith.

The director saw fit to have that in the movie. Now, if the director had mocked this faith (and perhaps he is, having the character die before confessing) then you have the option to respond to that director and his mockery of the rites and sacraments of this communion.

Was that one of your considerations?

What would your response to the Director and Producer of this movie be?
 
My posting was a simple and sincere exploration question, with intense interest in a theological question. No “tongue in cheek” here. This situation just happened to have been portrayed in a well done movie (1943 movie based on a book published in 1940). The movie is considered “a masterpiece” (not germane to the question though). I am quite aware of Hollywood’s tendencies to do what they want, but this scene was in the book from a more respectful era (as an aside only, the Church gave high marks to the movie). Hollywood is not at issue here. Just the question.

Also, for what it is worth, I have posed this question to several (4) Catholic theologians over the last fifteen years or so. They have all paused to consider it and said essentially to a person - “I really don’t know for certain.” They were sincere. So, my query is for real and I am not certain that the answers here so far are fully considered and/or on totally correct. One of these Catholic theologans was a well known professor at the Angelicum in Rome, so I am not convinced either way, yet. Still exploring. Thanks for comments though.
 
I wasn’t mocking your original question, nor responding to any lack of integrity in your posting. I was more responding Cluny’s post, (which I quoted) which to me seemed a little flip.

As you know, many dioceses have film classifications and film advisors. There is the Pontifical Council for Social Communications which deals with film and the gospel message; then there is SIGNIS, the international Catholic body for film, radio, and television all of which say that film can be a vehicle for the divine message. 😃
 
I wasn’t mocking your original question, nor responding to any lack of integrity in your posting. I was more responding Cluny’s post, (which I quoted) which to me seemed a little flip.<<
I was not being flip. I was being honest.

Popular media–movies, books, and such–cannot be expected to be sources of accuracy about the praxis and faith of ANYBODY’S religion.

Consider how many people get their ideas about Catholic theology and beliefs from movies such as MONSIGNOR and DA VINCI CODE. They have even had a bad effect on not-very-well instructed Catholics.
 
I wasn’t mocking your original question, nor responding to any lack of integrity in your posting. I was more responding Cluny’s post, (which I quoted) which to me seemed a little flip.<<
I understand your focus is on Catholics who are well founded and well-formed and instructed in the particulars of the Faith. This is your focus, and this is accepted.

Thank you.
 
1 OF 2

I can’t figure out how these Catholic theologians each said, “I really don’t know for certain”, lotsofchuckles (nice username btw)… Unless they either wanted you to reflect on it more, or were weary of being quoted then misinterpreted ie – accused of putting limits on God’s Mercy. I’m convinced it would be invalid, but it would take a couple of posts to go through the basics so you’d have an idea where I’m coming from.

I like your question a lot though. It reminds me of one I asked a priest years ago (probably a few more years than I’d care to remember). I was about to go on tour on the road for several months and maybe 30 minutes before we left, I phoned our associate pastor of the parish. I asked him if it was possible to go to Confession over the phone. In his kind way, he replied that it just wasn’t “something we do”, but said ,“we could both pray together to ask God’s forgiveness” and that if I couldn’t find any way of going to Confession on the road he’d welcome me (in the confessional) when I got back.

Let’s start here : Each sacrament consists of two essentials: form and matter. In order for a sacrament to exist – to be valid, the correct form and matter must exist. For a beginning idea let’s see how it applies to the Sacrament of the Eucharist.

A priest couldn’t confect the Eucharist using cake or shortbread. The correct matter for the first element/species is unleavened bread made from wheaten flour and water alone. The correct form is the words of consecration/institution. Out of a truly grave necessity , it has been said that leavened bread could be consecrated, but it would truly have to be a grave necessity :

…“This quality (unleavened) of the bread, however, is not to be deemed so essential that, if it be wanting, the Sacrament cannot exist; for both kinds are called by the one name and have the true and proper nature of bread. No one, however, is at liberty on his own private authority, or rather presumption, to transgress the laudable rite of his Church. And such departure is the less warrantable in priests of the Latin Church, expressly obliged as they are by the Supreme Pontiffs, to consecrate the sacred mysteries with unleavened bread only.”
cmri.org/02-matterform-euch.html

When there is not grave necessity and changes are made by one’s own private authority, this happens:
… “The form, that is the words required for the Eucharist, are of course the words of institution. The matter is wheat bread (white or whole wheat) for the host, and natural wine (mixed with a very little water) for the chalice. Addition of a notable amount of other matter would make the material invalid.”
ewtn.com/faith/teachings/eucha1.htm

In the sacrament of Reconciliation, the form is the words of absolution the priest pronounces over the penitent while the proximate matter is the penitent’s acts – contrition, confession, satisfaction.

“According to St. Thomas (Summa Theologiæ III.74.2) “the acts of the penitent are the proximate matter of this sacrament”. This is also the teaching of Eugenius IV in the “Decretum pro Armenis” (Council of Florence, 1439) which calls the act’s “quasi materia” of penance and enumerates them as contrition, confession, and satisfaction (Denzinger-Bannwart, “Enchir.”, 699).
newadvent.org/cathen/11618c.htm

Also 1420-1470 of CCC as referred to here
ewtn.com/library/BISHOPS/PENANCE.HTM

Finally, when laying the groundwork, one must always be mindful of the potential for abuse. Setting precedents can provide a premise which some might use to substantiate or justify an abuse.

From INTRODUCING “REDEMTIONIS SACRAMENTUM” at
ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDWINTRS.HTM
  1. Is it important to pay attention to Abuses?
    An allied temptation which has to be resisted is that it is a waste of time to pay attention to liturgical abuses. Someone wrote that abuses always existed and always will exist, and that therefore we should just get on with positive liturgical formation and celebration.
    This objection, true in part, can be rather misleading. All abuses regarding the Holy Eucharist are not of the same weight. Some threaten to make the sacrament invalid. Some are manifestations of deficiency in Eucharistic faith. Others contribute to confusion among the people of God and to growing desacralization of Eucharistic celebrations. They are not banal…
In the same manner abuses of the sacrament of Reconciliation are not all of the same weight but need to be guarded against.

Now that we have an idea of the form and matter of the sacrament of Reconciliation, lets apply them.

Through the sacraments, the grace of the Redemption is communicated to us. All is eschatologically oriented to having us reach our Heavenly Homeland; to share unspeakable everlasting joy with Christ Our Lord, King and brother…to be in the Father’s warm embrace… to be flooded with the light of God the Holy Spirit and to be in the company of Our Blessed Mother and the entire heavenly host.

*(on to 2 OF 2)
 
2 OF 2
In the Communion of Saints, we the Church Militant, the Church Triumphant and the Church Suffering are all one. So the prayers of one member can benefit another. However, even though the sacraments have every eternal/heavenly implication for us, they are given to us for our pilgrimage here on earth…exclusively. Even in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass which is timeless, Our Blessed Lord in the Most Holy Sacrament of the altar, who is “eternally begotten of the Father”, bows down in His infinite humility becoming subject in space and time to the appearances of bread…out of love for us…to be with us.

Sacraments then are sense perceptible signs which effect what they signify; so we are bound by them here – in time and in space. While slight variations in correct form or matter due to special circumstances sometimes arise, in general if the correct form and matter of a sacrament are not present, then neither is the sacrament present.

A penitent not meeting with the priest is incongruent with the meaning of the sacrament within space; and absolution for sins being granted by a priest after the death of a no-show penitent is incongruent to the meaning of the sacrament within time.

Quite simply stated, the sacraments can only be administered to a person from the moment of birth, to the moment of death. So we may say with certainty that no priest can grant absolution to a dead person retroactively.

There are so many things (if you find the word “wrong” too strong) misguided in the scenario presented. It is backwards to the real world. The priest is brought to the one in danger of death … the sins aren’t “sent out” to the priest.

The priest and penitent must meet in person for this sacrament. In their 2006 The Sacrament of Reconciliation: A Theological and Pastoral Reflection for the Ministers of the Sacrament, the Canadian Conference of Catholic bishops, in article 33 emphasize that, “Thought should also be given to the actual place or space assigned for the celebration of the Sacrament of Reconciliation with an individual penitent….”
cccb.ca/site/content/view/2574/lang,eng/

All of this presupposes a personal meeting between the penitent and Christ represented by the priest.

Considering the scenario again, how could the priest be certain that the person about to be hung did not have hateful or vengeful thoughts towards his executioners after sending his “confession” to the priest?

How would the penitent, who is already dead, be able to perform the penance (satisfaction) recommended by the priest ? How could the priest make this known to him?

Again, **we are bound by the Sacraments **here, but we need to remember that God is not.

Did you know that at the approach of death, if a priest can not be present, a rightly disposed person can receive a plenary indulgence simply by desiring it ?..

pph’s 9&10 from this linkcatholic.com/thisrock/1994/9411fea1sb4.asp are identical to the Handbook of Indulgences Article 28.(Catholic Book Publishing Company, 1991)

Consider the sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick’s 4 major effects:

“The special grace of the sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick has as its effects: the uniting of the sick person to the passion of Christ, for his own good and that of the whole Church; the strengthening, peace, and courage to endure in a Christian manner the sufferings of illness or old age; the forgiveness of sins, if the sick person was not able to obtain it through the sacrament of penance; the restoration of health, if it is conducive to the salvation of his soul; the preparation for passing over to eternal life”
catholic.com/library/Anointing_of_the_Sick.asp
*(condensed from CCC 1520-1523).

So when in danger of death why settle for the forgiveness of sins alone, when we can additionally gain a special grace for what is to come and also have our sufferings take on a redemptive value being united more closely to the Passion of Our Lord. ?

Although the Ox Bow Incident may have been a great movie, the producer/director/writer really misses the boat on Confession. Pardon the colloquialism, but they surely were barking up the wrong sacrament on that one. The Anointing of the Sick provides much more abundantly for the faithful in those circumstances.

Sometimes questions can be a little too elaborate. This can cloud the issue making answers difficult to understand. Once the unnecessary props and glitter have been trimmed away, this is the question you’re asking, lotsofchuckles :

If one of the faithful, in danger of death and unable to see a priest, writes down what he/she considers to be their confession and sends it to a priest that they may be granted absolution by the priest after their death , is this a valid Confession ? The answer is no.

Could God, in His infinite Mercy, because of the admirable contrition manifested in a soul so disposed, grant that child of His equal or greater grace, blessings, remission (plenary indulgence) than those received in sacramental Confession ? Absolutely.

I pray that we don’t allow the sacramentally incorrect musings of a director or producer to hold too much sway in our minds which could prevent us from thinking “outside the box”.

It would appear, dear friend, lotsofchuckles that in order to prevent abuses, this “mail-order Confession” is going to have to be filed right beside my own “telephone-order Confession”… in the recycle bin.

God Bless 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top