First Reconciliation - Priest Denies Absolution to Many 2nd Graders (not just mine)

[pnewton]

Not at all. Priests are not free to take it upon themselves to determine what arbitrary requirements they will impose. …A priest may determine that someone who has not bothered to learn such key prayers is not mature enough to be considered at the age of discretion, but that sort of decision should be made well before a child is in the confessional.

Is this anywhere in some instruction you have seen, either of these points? I cannot find either in canon law, as per the quote above from the Vatican website. I am trying to differentiate what is opinion and conclusion, and what is actually Church teaching. If the priest behaved according to canon law, and everything I have read from the Church says he has, the last thing the first poster needs is to get all riled up at the priest. It would do little but discourage to go all the way up to the bishop only to be told that the priest acted within his authority.

FYI Here again is the link to canon law on this.

vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P3E.HTM

 

[Pax2u]

In the first post, there was no mention of him being obnoxious to the child, or even speaking to, much less insulting, the parents and the catechist.

I said I HOPED he was not obnoxious. Refusing absolution to a child whose parents and catechist felt they he/she was prepared, could very well be insulting.

 

[SamH]

Not at all. Priests are not free to take it upon themselves to determine what arbitrary requirements they will impose.

Source for this claim?

 

[underacloud]

Is this anywhere in some instruction you have seen, either of these points? I cannot find either in canon law, as per the quote above from the Vatican website. I am trying to differentiate what is opinion and conclusion, and what is actually Church teaching. If the priest behaved according to canon law, and everything I have read from the Church says he has, the last thing the first poster needs is to get all riled up at the priest. It would do little but discourage to go all the way up to the bishop only to be told that the priest acted within his authority.

FYI Here again is the link to canon law on this.

vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P3E.HTM

These (the isolated parts you quoted) are conclusions based on the actualy teachings of the Church, regarding what is required of the penitent. From the catechism:

1491 The sacrament of Penance is a whole consisting in three actions of the penitent and the priest’s absolution. The penitent’s acts are repentance, confession or disclosure of sins to the priest, and the intention to make reparation and do works of reparation.

If these three acts are properly met, the penitent is properly disposed. The section of canon law confirms these as the requirements. Knowing certain prayers is irrelevant.

And since all people above the age of discernment are required to confess serious sins, the only reason for turning someone away would be if they fail to meet the three requirements above, or if they are deemed to be not of that age yet.

Anyway, I think despite this conversation, which is going round in cirlces now, I am in broad agreement with you that we cannot infer that the priest has acted improperly and that this needs to be taken to the bishop at this stage. The priest, in place of Christ in the confessional, deserves respect. His reasons for withholding absolution may be just. Perhaps the children in question were not properly disposed for their confessions. It is a shame that one out of five priests seems to be at odds with the others and this would be frustrating and confusing for the children, but as others have pointed out, it may be that this one priest is in the right and the others have beena bit too loose with the children, Or it may be that this one priest has been too tough on these children. I think a meeting between the OP and her child with this priest is the first step in working through this issue.

 

[dans0622]

Just to clarify, those canons do not say that absolution should be granted. Here they are in their entirety.

While I do not defend this priest, I have to say canon law is on his side, so I will defend his authority. Whether he was wise or foolish, no one here is in any special position of knowledge to judge.

Hello,

If the penitent fulfills all that is required (as delineated in the canons referred to earlier), his/her disposition is to be considered appropriate and absolution is to be granted. It’s no different than other Sacraments (cf. c. 843.1). Besides, when a person shows up at a confessional, the presumption is that he/she is properly disposed and to deny absolution is severe and odious. That is what the commentaries on c. 980 and its precedent in the 1917 Code tend to say.

As far as whether or not canon law is on his side–I guess we must have studied canon law under different professors. Based on what is in the OP, I see no reason to say the law was on his side since I see no indication that the penitent did not meet the requirements of law. The recitation of certain prayers and thinking harder about sin are the priest’s requirements, not the Church’s.

Dan

 

[SamH]

If these three acts are properly met, the penitent is properly disposed. The section of canon law confirms these as the requirements. Knowing certain prayers is irrelevant.

And since all people above the age of discernment are required to confess serious sins, the only reason for turning someone away would be if they fail to meet the three requirements above, or if they are deemed to be not of that age yet…

So you agree the priest’s actions are in line with church teachings?

 

[underacloud]

Source for this claim?

The catechism lists the three…and only three…requirements of the penitent:

1491 The sacrament of Penance is a whole consisting in three actions of the penitent and the priest’s absolution. The penitent’s acts are repentance, confession or disclosure of sins to the priest, and the intention to make reparation and do works of reparation.

 

[SamH]

The catechism lists the three…and only three…requirements of the penitent:

I thought you were talking about the penance.

 

[underacloud]

So you agree the priest’s actions are in line with church teachings?

As I’ve said all along, I can’t say one way or the other. The priest should be respected in the first place, and effort made to understand why this has happened.

I certainly haven’t suggested reporting to the bishop or anything like this, until more effort is made to work through this with the priest in question, or the parish priest if this happened to be a visiting priest.

 

[shelby_sun]

Is this anywhere in some instruction you have seen, either of these points? I cannot find either in canon law, as per the quote above from the Vatican website. I am trying to differentiate what is opinion and conclusion, and what is actually Church teaching. If the priest behaved according to canon law, and everything I have read from the Church says he has, the last thing the first poster needs is to get all riled up at the priest. It would do little but discourage to go all the way up to the bishop only to be told that the priest acted within his authority.

FYI Here again is the link to canon law on this.

vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P3E.HTM

Maybe he did act within his authority, maybe, be what he told that child by doing what he did was that God he wasn’t good enough for God to for give him yet, which is terrible. This was a child who I am betting did the best he could in a very scary situation.

I suffered terrible social anxiety, so going to confession was brutal for me to get through growing up and when I was the age that I could make the choice to go or not, I stopped going for years. If a priest ever did that to me I would have never gone back again. In my opinion what the priest did was flat out wrong, canon law or not.

 

[underacloud]

I thought you were talking about the penance.

Ah, I see. Sorry for the confusion. I was just talking about withholding absolution based on criteria other than those provided by the Church.

The assignment of particular penance is a whole other matter, and yes priests have more freedom in this regard.

 

[SamH]

Ah, I see. Sorry for the confusion. I was just talking about withholding absolution based on criteria other than those provided by the Church.

The assignment of particular penance is a whole other matter, and yes priests have more freedom in this regard.

My mistake - after I reread your post I knew what you were talking about.

 

[pnewton]

If I may venture one more suggestion, the first poster may want to check the diocesan guidelines for first penance. I was searching and some specify requirements, like CCE and leave room for the priest to make a decision on readiness.

This search brings a whole slew of them.

google.com/#hl=en&output=search&sclient=psy-ab&q=diocese+guidelines+for+first+confession&oq=diocese+guidelines+for+first+confession&gs_l=hp.3…2359.13904.0.14466.39.36.0.2.2.0.203.3451.23j12j1.36.0…0.0…1c.1.7.psy-ab.fEThyWbnCO4&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&bvm=bv.44158598,d.b2U&fp=2bc80423f92fd6ae&biw=1024&bih=596&safe=active

 

[Orogeny]

In my opinion what the priest did was flat out wrong, canon law or not.

You don’t have any idea what the priest did or didn’t do. You only have second-hand (at best) knowledge of what actually happened. In fact, you don’t even know if the priest actually denied absolution.

Peace

Tim

 

[7armyrugrats]

I grew up going to Catholic school. We had daily Mass and confession twice a month. I loved going to confession. I knew all my prayers, knew the process, and I looked forward to going. I wrote the dates on calendar. In fifth grade, we had a visiting priest at our church and school on confession day. This wasn’t that unusual, it happened pretty frequently. But this priest was different I guess. Out of 22 in my class, 15 of us left the confessional in tears. I don’t know what happened to the other kids, but for me the priest just was NOT good with kids. He was rough and intimidating. He terrified me! I froze up, couldn’t confess, was rebuked for not being prepared and fir not knowing what to do in the confessional, then I was told that I would always be a sinner and there was no hope for me. I can’t be forgiven “like that.”

I would do everything in my power to miss school on confession days from that point on. And I never had a good confession again until I was 22 years old. I still panic at the thought of going to confession, I still avoid going until I HAVE TO go. I still freeze and cannot remember what to do. It’s funny, as an adult I have only had priests kindly walk me through the process. Why as a child was I humiliated?

Look, I have met many practicing Catholics who have had bad experiences in the confessional at one time or another. Most of them end up avoiding confession like I do, especially if it happened as a child. In all honesty, I have had less traumatic “bad confessions,” for instance a priest who got one thing stuck in his head incorrectly and wouldn’t let me correct him in his misunderstanding, and often I have been talked over so that I couldn’t even get my sins out (the priest just wouldn’t shutup), and even more often been cut off in the middle so I’m not finished confessing. These are things that would bug me normally, but since I have such a horrible anxiety as it is, it’s almost unbearable. It is supposed to be a sacrament of healing…for many of us it is far from healing

 

[Chantal25]

I just received a call from my parish education department that our new priest has determined that a number of the 2nd grade kids did not perform well enough at first reconciliation, so he did not grant them absolution. BTW…4 other priests were there (it’s a large parish) and NONE of the other priests refused absolution.

I was told it is because my son was not able to recite the Hail Mary and Our Father (which he recites very well at home) and because he didn’t appear to have thought hard enough about his sins. My son has attended all of the required classes, and we followed the at home instructions from the parish about self evaluation, procedure and memorizing prayers.

I’m shocked and completely heart broken. I’ve never heard of this. Has this ever happened to anyone else? I really feel like a call to the Diocese is in order, but I don’t know since there is nothing they can do about it now.

I am so so sorry. It must have been a awful experience for your child.

On the other hand, any way you could consult with your parish priest to see if he could say good word of encouragement for your child?

My daughter do have a good memory but many children struggle with this, maybe your priest will be able to help out to find a way to learn those prayers easily and effortless.

We have my brother Francis DVD’s at home, and many Catholic family. My daughter loves them and it was a great help for her. Doing the class at church isn’t enough. In my time, we had Catholic class every day and it was mandatory to learn many prayers. Today, the children don’t get to have as much practice, so we need to do this at home.

I think, it is important for you to stay calm and see it from the good side of it because your son will copy your emotions and he will struggle with this later in life. Pray God to help you to have peace and to make the best with this situation.

Hug to you and blessings to your family!

 

[St_Francis]

Hello,

If the penitent fulfills all that is required (as delineated in the canons referred to earlier), his/her disposition is to be considered appropriate and absolution is to be granted. It’s no different than other Sacraments (cf. c. 843.1). Besides, when a person shows up at a confessional, the presumption is that he/she is properly disposed and to deny absolution is severe and odious. That is what the commentaries on c. 980 and its precedent in the 1917 Code tend to say.

As far as whether or not canon law is on his side–I guess we must have studied canon law under different professors. Based on what is in the OP, I see no reason to say the law was on his side since I see no indication that the penitent did not meet the requirements of law. The recitation of certain prayers and thinking harder about sin are the priest’s requirements, not the Church’s.

Dan

This is not a matter only of canon law; it is also a question of catechesis. To teach well, you don’t suddenly spring requirements out without warning. At the beginning of the school year, it should have been made clear that the criteria was that the prayers needed to be memorized, and the testing would be *before *they showed up for their first confession. Moreover, if the priest expected to be doing the testing at their confessions, the he should have told the other priests that they too needed to be involved in the “testing.” As it is, only those children who saw this one priest were tested, and that is also unfair.

 

[pnewton]

As it is, only those children who saw this one priest were tested, and that is also unfair.

I think this may be the one thing that bothers me the most about this incident.

 

[SamH]

Moreover, if the priest expected to be doing the testing at their confessions, the he should have told the other priests that they too needed to be involved in the “testing.” As it is, only those children who saw this one priest were tested, and that is also unfair.

Who posted the information about “testing” ? I must have missed that one.

 

[dixieagle]

This is not a matter only of canon law; it is also a question of catechesis. To teach well, you don’t suddenly spring requirements out without warning. At the beginning of the school year, it should have been made clear that the criteria was that the prayers needed to be memorized, and the testing would be *before *they showed up for their first confession. Moreover, if the priest expected to be doing the testing at their confessions, the he should have told the other priests that they too needed to be involved in the “testing.” As it is, only those children who saw this one priest were tested, and that is also unfair.

Exactly! (If, indeed, the child was asked in the confessional to say the prayers.) As a very shy child, I wouldn’t have been able to remember my name if asked a question unexpectedly!