Confessors delaying absolution

[Digitonomy]

In Ed Peters’ latest blog post, he cites a 70 year-old commentary:

“Though the priest may think that a delay of absolution would be of greater benefit to the penitent, he may not for that reason delay absolution without the free consent of the penitent.” Woywod, Practical Comm (1948) I: 495.

Certainly a lesser known aspect of the sacrament.

I imagine a priest saying, “John, as your spiritual counselor, I think it would be to your benefit to hold off on absolution, and you can labor under the heavy burden of unremitted sin for another week - but only if it’s alright with you. Come back next Saturday; we’ll go through this again and complete the sacrament.”

Is this a common practice?

 

[Vico]

In Ed Peters’ latest blog post, he cites a 70 year-old commentary:Certainly a lesser known aspect of the sacrament.

I imagine a priest saying, “John, as your spiritual counselor, I think it would be to your benefit to hold off on absolution, and you can labor under the heavy burden of unremitted sin for another week - but only if it’s alright with you. Come back next Saturday; we’ll go through this again and complete the sacrament.”

Is this a common practice?

Current Canon Law (CIC) shows that absolution can be refused nor deferred.

Can. 977 The absolution of an accomplice in a sin against the sixth commandment of the Decalogue is invalid except in danger of death.

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.

 

[PopePiusXIISupp]

If one has no contrition (perfect or imperfect) and/or no firm purpose of amendment absolution is invalid or denied. Canon Law goes in depth with it.

 

[Digitonomy]

Current Canon Law (CIC) shows that absolution can [not] be refused nor deferred.

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.

Yes, but that is still consistent with the statement, “he may not for that reason delay absolution without the free consent of the penitent”

If the penitent freely consents not to seek absolution at that time, Canon 980 appears to no longer apply.

 

[Digitonomy]

If one has no contrition (perfect or imperfect) and/or no firm purpose of amendment absolution is invalid or denied. Canon Law goes in depth with it.

That doesn’t really address the quote from the commentary.

I would think that if either condition you cite applies, the priest has no choice but to refuse absolution.

The commentary seems to envision cases where the priest might be inclined to refuse absolution, but has no choice but to grant it, unless the penitent consents to a delay.

 

[PaulfromIowa]

Yes, if a person has no contrition, the confessor may deny absolution. Example: “I am glad I killed the dirty rat. I would do it again!” I would think that, in practice, the confessor would talk to the person to try to elicit sorrow for sin.

 

[Vico]

Yes, but that is still consistent with the statement, “he may not for that reason delay absolution without the free consent of the penitent”

If the penitent freely consents not to seek absolution at that time, Canon 980 appears to no longer apply.

CCEO (eastern Canon Law) has a excellent definition of the sacrament of penance:

Canon 718
In the sacrament of penance, the Christian faithful who committed sins after baptism, internally led by the Holy Spirit, turn back to God, moved by the pain of sin, intent on entering a new life through the ministry of the priest, having themselves made a confession and accepted an appropriate penance, obtain forgiveness from God and at the same time are reconciled with the Church which they injured by sinning; by this sacrament they are brought to a greater fostering of the Christian life and are thus disposed for receiving the Divine Eucharist.

So if the person does not seek absolution, then no absolution occurs because there is no intention to receive it.

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.

Can. 843 §1. Sacred ministers cannot deny the sacraments to those who seek them at appropriate times, are properly disposed, and are not prohibited by law from receiving them.

Can. 982 Whoever confesses to have denounced falsely an innocent confessor to ecclesiastical authority concerning the crime of solicitation to sin against the sixth commandment of the Decalogue is not to be absolved unless the person has first formally retracted the false denunciation and is prepared to repair damages if there are any.

The priest, can’t absolve except per canon law. Eastern Catholic canon law has reserved sins, but even though the Latin does not, the priest can refuse absolution when there is “positive and serious doubt" which could be known if lacking these:

1. sorrow for sin
2. a firm purpose of amendment,
3. self-accusation before a confessor, (by self or interpreter)
4. acceptance of a lawful penance

See CIC 987 for actual reception of the sacrament.

If the one confessing lies about these to receive absolution, the absolution may be given, not no grace would be received.

But the failure to perform a penance does not invalidate it, but the Baltimore Catechism shows that confession will not be valid without contrition, (even it absolution is given):

Q. 782. What should one do who has only venial sins to confess?

A. One who has only venial sins to confess should tell also some sin already confessed in his past life for which he knows he is truly sorry; because it is not easy to be truly sorry for slight sins and imperfections, and yet we must be sorry for the sins confessed that our confession may be valid – hence we add some past sin for which we are truly sorry to those for which we may not be sufficiently sorry.

 

[Digitonomy]

Yes, if a person has no contrition, the confessor may deny absolution. Example: “I am glad I killed the dirty rat. I would do it again!” I would think that, in practice, the confessor would talk to the person to try to elicit sorrow for sin.

As I said in #5, that seems to be a different situation, where properly the confessor must refuse absolution.

 

[Digitonomy]

CCEO (eastern Canon Law) has a excellent definition of the sacrament of penance:
So if the person does not seek absolution, then no absolution occurs because there is no intention to receive it…

Yes, we seem to be in agreement.

My question is about the implication in the commentary that a priest may delay absolution (that he would otherwise be required to grant) with the consent of the penitent.

To my mind this suggests a confessor talking a penitent out of receiving absolution due him, because of the confessor’s judgment that this would be beneficial.

Sounds strange, and I’m curious how frequently this occurs and in what circumstances.

 

[Casilda]

Is this the same as, after hearing a confession, the priest stating he refuses to hear the confession and delays it for another time? If so, it happened to me. After repeatedly trying to make an appointment, I just went during normal confession time and was denied. I was told to make an appointment. I don’t think he knew at the time the futility of his suggestion was to me.

 

[Blessedwithfive]

I know for a fact that some confessors have delayed Absolution for people who are taking birth control and are not planning to stop. No firm purpose of change.

 

[CB_Catholic]

My parish priest says if someone has committed a crime such as murder, which was not reported to the authorities, he would stop the Confession right there, and tell the person they must turn themselves in before he would give absolution. I think that situation is pertinent to the question.

And he also said he has ever, in all his 30+ years as a priest, refused absolution twice. He didn’t say why. So it is not a common occurrence.

 

[Blessedwithfive]

My parish priest says if someone has committed a crime such as murder, which was not reported to the authorities, he would stop the Confession right there, and tell the person they must turn themselves in before he would give absolution. I think that situation is pertinent to the question.

And he also said he has ever, in all his 30+ years as a priest, refused absolution twice. He didn’t say why. So it is not a common occurrence.

Your priest can’t do that. He can encourage it but not require it. That would be a grave offense of the sacrament.

 

[casslean]

I’m not a canon lawyer, but I am a lawyer, and there’s a problem with the issue of consent in this example.

By appearing at Confession, the penitent is seeking absolution. For the penitent to then agree to accept a delayed absolution would require some influence on the part of the confessor, who is in an unequal position of influence. It makes obtaining consent problematic.

I’d be interested to hear a clerical perspective on this. Obviously delaying absolution is very different from denying absolution. Even where the priest refuses absolution because the pentitent is going to continue to use contraception, the absolution is not delayed - it is denied until such time as the penitent’s behaviour changes. A delay would be where absolution is assured at the later time with nothing having occurred other than the passage of time.

 

[Vico]

I’m not a canon lawyer, but I am a lawyer, and there’s a problem with the issue of consent in this example.

By appearing at Confession, the penitent is seeking absolution. For the penitent to then agree to accept a delayed absolution would require some influence on the part of the confessor, who is in an unequal position of influence. It makes obtaining consent problematic.

I’d be interested to hear a clerical perspective on this. Obviously delaying absolution is very different from denying absolution. Even where the priest refuses absolution because the pentitent is going to continue to use contraception, the absolution is not delayed - it is denied until such time as the penitent’s behaviour changes. A delay would be where absolution is assured at the later time with nothing having occurred other than the passage of time.

Msgr. Charles Pope:
osv.com/OSVNewsweekly/Perspectives/Columnists/Article/TabId/797/ArtMID/13632/ArticleID/21605/Refusing-absolution.aspx

 

[Vico]

Yes, we seem to be in agreement.

My question is about the implication in the commentary that a priest may delay absolution (that he would otherwise be required to grant) with the consent of the penitent.

To my mind this suggests a confessor talking a penitent out of receiving absolution due him, because of the confessor’s judgment that this would be beneficial.

Sounds strange, and I’m curious how frequently this occurs and in what circumstances.

Yes, I see, the original case is a recommended delay, where there is no “positive and serious doubt regarding the required dispositions".

 

[Casilda]

Msgr. Charles Pope:
osv.com/OSVNewsweekly/Perspectives/Columnists/Article/TabId/797/ArtMID/13632/ArticleID/21605/Refusing-absolution.aspx

The priest should do what he can to draw both sorrow and a firm purpose of amendment. But if there is no evidence of these, he should deny or delay absolution in a kind and fatherly manner, explaining the reason and also a way forward so that the penitent can return more properly disposed to receive the sacrament.

Generally, **the simple fact that a penitent has sought confession is a demonstration of contrition and amendment. **But there are rare times when during the confession something essential regarding contrition is found to be lacking. To simply overlook this does harm both to the sacrament and to the proper care of souls.

 

[InOmnemTerram]

I’ll say this again: Catholics in this internet age are too willing to speculate about things that they both lack the formation to analyze and which have absolutely nothing to do with their state in life.

 

[casslean]

Msgr. Charles Pope:
osv.com/OSVNewsweekly/Perspectives/Columnists/Article/TabId/797/ArtMID/13632/ArticleID/21605/Refusing-absolution.aspx

Thank you for this!

I wonder if this is simply a language issue, then. I see delay as meaning just that - delayed. It appears here that denied and delayed are used interchangeably, so as to make absolutely clear that no denial of absolution is ever final - it is only delayed until such time as whatever defect preventing absolution is resolved.

 

[Vico]

Casilda:
The Church has come a long way from the older practice of public absolution after exomologenesis. So glad.

It is therefore Catholic doctrine, first, that Christ did not prescribe public confession, salutary as it might be, nor did He forbid it; second, that secret confession, sacramental in character, has been the practice of the Church from the earliest days.

…

Three kinds of penance are to be distinguished canonical, prescribed by councils or bishops in the form of “canons” for graver offences. This might be either private, i.e., performed secretly or public i.e., performed in the presence of bishop, clergy and people. When accompanied by certain rites as prescribed in the Canons, it was solemn penance. The public penance was not necessarily canonical; it might be undertaken by the penitent of his own accord. Solemn penance, the most severe of all, was inflicted for the worst offences only, notably for adultery, murder, and idolatry, the “capital sins”.

…

Then followed, usually on Ash Wednesday, the imposition of public penance whereby the sinner was excluded for a longer or shorter period from the communion of the Church and in addition was obliged to perform certain penitential exercises, the exomologesis. This term, however, had various meanings: it designated sometimes the entire process of penance (Tertullian), or again the avowal of sin at the beginning or, finally, the public avowal which was made at the end — i.e., after the performance of the penitential exercises.

…

The exomologesis terminated with the reconciliation, a solemn function which took place on Holy Thursday just before Mass. The bishop presided, assisted by his priests and deacons. A consultation (concilium) was held to determine which of the penitents deserved readmission; the Penitential Psalms and the litanies were recited at the foot of the altar; the bishop in a brief address reminded the penitents of their obligation to lead henceforth an upright life; the penitents, lighted candles in hand, were then led into the church; prayers, antiphons and responses were said, and, finally, the public absolution was given.

Hanna, E. (1911). The Sacrament of Penance. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. newadvent.org/cathen/11618c.htm