Confessors delaying absolution

[esieffe]

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.

One of our priests said the exact same thing. Two people were not sorry for their sins, so he did not absolve.them.

I read in one of the books about Padre Pio, he did this several times. But in every case, I believe, the person came back in tears the next day, and were absolved.

 

[FrDavid96]

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?

First, one needs to read in full what Dr Ed P-----. Wrote.

Note the words immediately before that sentence that he quoted from the 70 year old commentary: **“the refusal of absolution is an extreme and odious measure…” ** In other words, he is using the commentary to illustrate that delaying absolution is extreme and odious.

As to your last question (it is common?) Think about it this way. Given that it’s described as extreme and odious, how common would one think it to be?

I will also add that most priests (in my opinion) would agree absolutely with Dr E.P. when he writes this:

In short, I see no canonical or sacramental support for the claim that a public self-disclosure of a penitent’s sins, at the time of or following confession, can be required for absolution.

Agreed, 100%.

 

[FrDavid96]

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

“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.

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?

As to what was printed in the commentary: Read the sentence very carefully.

The author was not recommending this practice. What the author was conveying is that such a thing (delaying) should not be done however, still leaving open the possibility that it might be done, but only if the penitent consents.

"Even though a priest thinks it’s a good idea, he may not do it" is the point of the sentence. The author is cautioning priests not to do something.

The qualifier at the end (if the penitent consents) is nothing more than a way of saying that this is the one rare condition that would make it possible, and keeping in mind that other likewise rare conditions would have to be present first.