General absolution experience

[runningdude]

Thankfully, I have never encountered such a thing. But if I did, I would have done exactly as you did. That is frustrating.

Is general absolution valid when administered illicitly? I don’t know.

I don’t know that this crosses over into illicit yet.

The priest indicates he has attracted enough attention to warrant disapproval, yet has apparently not been censured. It would be a stretch to say that 12 congregants at a penance service would be an undo burden to offer individual confession. However, ambiguity is presumed to favor the “defendant”, and it would be up to the priest and his bishop to determine what would be an undo burden.

Even if illicit, those who were unaware would still be validly absolved due to supplied jurisdiction, though the priest himself would be in a serious state of sin.

 

[Windmill]

It’s illicit as described above.

wdtprs.com/blog/2012/04/quaeritur-too-many-people-for-confession-priest-gives-general-absolution/

 

[Vico]

I had my first, surprising experience of a communal reconciliation service with general absolution last night, and I thought I’d share what happened and see what people’s thoughts are on the topic…

I’d be interested in people’s thoughts on this whole episode, including whether you have experienced anything similar. In particular, I have questions about the double absolution.

Not knowing whether individual absolution or only confession of absolved sins would be offered afterwards, I intended the general absolution to apply to the sins I was about to confess. When I did confess those sins, it was only those I’d had in mind before, and I did not know whether another absolution would be given. In fact it was given, for sins that I assume were already forgiven. Is this standard practice after a penitent confesses sins already forgiven through general absolution? Might the second absolution even have been objectively sacrilegious, since it was not to absolve any new sin (the only new sin I was aware of was lack of due charity to the priest, and I could hardly confess that to him)? My intention during the second absolution was that it absolve me if for whatever reason the general absolution had been invalid. I can’t say what the priest’s intention was, of course.

The priest’s remark about public forum seems inconsistent with the standard terms.

**Modern Catholic Dictionary
**** FORUM. **The sphere within which the Church exercises her judicial authority. The external forum deals with matters that concern the public welfare of the Church and the people of God; the internal pertains to her jurisdiction in matters of conscience, notably the sacrament of penance, where sins are forgiven or retained and questions of morality are decided as to guilt, restitution, or responsibility.
In the USA, the USCCB has approved one month time period as sufficient. The Diocesan Bishop can decide what is acceptable, not the priest. In addition to contrition, individual cconfession later must be intended.

Canon 961, §1, 2° - General Absolution
Complementary Norm: The National Conference of Catholic Bishops interprets the meaning of diu of canon 961, §1, to to be “one month,” by which the diocesan bishop judges whether and when the conditions of grave necessity for general absolution are verified in his diocese.

**CIC ** Can. 961 §1. Absolution cannot be imparted in a general manner to many penitents at once without previous individual confession unless:
1/ danger of death is imminent and there is insufficient time for the priest or priests to hear the confessions of the individual penitents;
2/ there is grave necessity, that is, when in view of the number of penitents, there are not enough confessors available to hear the confessions of individuals properly within a suitable period of time in such a way that the penitents are forced to be deprived for a long while of sacramental grace or holy communion through no fault of their own. Sufficient necessity is not considered to exist when confessors cannot be present due only to the large number of penitents such as can occur on some great feast or pilgrimage.
§2. It belongs to the diocesan bishop to judge whether the conditions required according to the norm of §1, n. 2 are present. He can determine the cases of such necessity, attentive to the criteria agreed upon with the other members of the conference of bishops.

Can. 962 §1. For a member of the Christian faithful validly to receive sacramental absolution given to many at one time, it is required not only that the person is properly disposed but also at the same time intends to confess within a suitable period of time each grave sin which at the present time cannot be so confessed.
§2. Insofar as it can be done even on the occasion of the reception of general absolution, the Christian faithful are to be instructed about the requirements of the norm of §1. An exhortation that each person take care to make an act of contrition is to precede general absolution even in the case of danger of death, if there is time.

The canons are slightly different for Eastern Catholics.

 

[PJM]

=Aelred Minor;10155731]I had my first, surprising experience of a communal reconciliation service with general absolution last night, and I thought I’d share what happened and see what people’s thoughts are on the topic.

I arrived for my parish’s usual Advent reconciliation service last night, a little before the start of the service at 7pm. This would be the first such service since our regular priest was reassigned and not replaced, and the first time reconciliation was offered in any way since June (hence my strong desire to participate).

The regular number of people had arrived: about a dozen out of a parish of several hundred. A single priest had arrived, rather than the usual two or three, and he was dressed in a violet cope with an ornate clasp.

The priest walked in front of the alter and introduced himself, expressing his pleasure at the excellent turnout (I’m not making this stuff up; he must have had past experiences with worse turnouts elsewhere) and explaining that we would be celebrating a communal reconciliation service with a general absolution. He went on to give a history of the Sacrament of Reconciliation, “that we used to call the Sacrament of Penance”, which as far as I could tell was accurate but misleading. He then gave an apologia for the use of general absolution. His essential point was that one of the two circumstances in which the Church allows general absolution is in the case of a shortage of priests. Since we’ve been hearing that we have a shortage of priests since the 1970’s, he had been offering general absolution all this time. He mentioned that some fellow priests disapprove of what he does, to which he gives the reply “if the Church doesn’t like what I do, it should change the law.” He wrapped up this part by saying that if anyone had sins that they felt were so serious that they needed “to be brought into the public forum, so to speak” he would stay after the service to hear those individual confessions.

There’s no space to describe the rest of the service in detail. There was a homily of sorts on sin (better than I had expected, though it would have been improved by the use of such terms as “mortal” and “venial”), a long responsive reflection on different kinds of sins, a cheesy song played on a boom-box, an Our Father and Hail Mary, and part of a Compline service. Then, after enough time had probably past for all our individual confessions to have been heard, he asked if we were sorry for all the sins of our lives, and we responded “yes” or “I am” or something along those lines. Then he gave general absolution, followed by (not preceded by) an act of contrition that we were to say silently in our heads. No penance was given, though I perhaps that is typical of general absolution.

After this most people left, but I and three others stayed behind. I was going to get my individual confession if I could, especially since it’s unlikely I’ll have another chance until Lent. I thanked the priest for offering this, and he responded that he would not, of course, force any form of the sacrament on anyone. The rest of the confession proceeded as normal, except that at the end the priest said, with what I thought was a tone of sarcasm (I hope I imagined it), “so those are the sins you felt you needed to bring into the public forum?” I just said “yes”, and he gave me an individual absolution and a penance (do something nice for my family).

I’d be interested in people’s thoughts on this whole episode, including whether you have experienced anything similar. In particular, I have questions about the double absolution.

Not knowing whether individual absolution or only confession of absolved sins would be offered afterwards, I intended the general absolution to apply to the sins I was about to confess. When I did confess those sins, it was only those I’d had in mind before, and I did not know whether another absolution would be given. In fact it was given, for sins that I assume were already forgiven. Is this standard practice after a penitent confesses sins already forgiven through general absolution? Might the second absolution even have been objectively sacrilegious, since it was not to absolve any new sin (the only new sin I was aware of was lack of due charity to the priest, and I could hardly confess that to him)? My intention during the second absolution was that it absolve me if for whatever reason the general absolution had been invalid. I can’t say what the priest’s intention was, of course.

**Absolutely invalid and illicit

only in conditions of absolute danger of emenent death can “GA” be given and even then as soon as the danger passes a personal confession of the same and any additional mortal sins must be made!**

I humbly suggest you contact your Bishop about this and find a priest who WILL hear your Confession. Becaue the “GA” was NOT valid; your sins were NOT forgiven and must be reconfessed and explain the conditions to the Confessor.

 

[runningdude]

It’s illicit as described above.

wdtprs.com/blog/2012/04/quaeritur-too-many-people-for-confession-priest-gives-general-absolution/

**Absolutely invalid and illicit

only in conditions of absolute danger of emenent death can “GA” be given and even then as soon as the danger passes a personal confession of the same and any additional mortal sins must be made!**

I humbly suggest you contact your Bishop about this and find a priest who WILL hear your Confession. Becaue the “GA” was NOT valid; your sins were NOT forgiven and must be reconfessed and explain the conditions to the Confessor.

You are not the relevant diocesan bishop. It is not your judgement to make. The best you can do as a lay person is to encourage the OP to write his bishop, and make him aware. Any ambiguity in interpreting Canon Law is ruled in favor of the “defendant”.

And, as I already pointed out, “supplied jurisdiction” covers those who were unaware of any illicity. Absolution is never automatically invalid, unless the form or intent is defective. Lack of Jurisdiction only invalidates when the penitent knows he is participating in an illegal confession.

 

[Pug]

**Absolutely invalid and illicit

only in conditions of absolute danger of emenent death can “GA” be given**

Danger of death is not the only condition allowed in canon law. It is for the bishop to determine if it is met or not, but if confession will not be available to the people for a long time through no fault of the people, and there are too many penitents to be covered in the time by individual confession, then it could also be okay. They do not mean giant pilgrimage sites, but a priest-less parish in a remote location might qualify.

I am of the opinion that it is likely valid. But I could be wrong.

 

[PJM]

=Pug;10167696]Danger of death is not the only condition allowed in canon law. It is for the bishop to determine if it is met or not, but if confession will not be available to the people for a long time through no fault of the people, and there are too many penitents to be covered in the time by individual confession, then it could also be okay. They do not mean giant pilgrimage sites, but a priest-less parish in a remote location might qualify.

I am of the opinion that it is likely valid. But I could be wrong.

From the CURRENT Code of Canon Law:
CHAPTER I.

THE CELEBRATION OF THE SACRAMENT

Can. 960 Individual and integral confession and absolution constitute the only ordinary means by which a member of the faithful conscious of grave sin is reconciled with God and the Church. Only physical or moral impossibility excuses from confession of this type; in such a case reconciliation can be obtained by other means.

Can. 961 §1. Absolution cannot be imparted in a general manner to many penitents at once without previous individual confession unless:

1/ danger of death is imminent and there is insufficient time for the priest or priests to hear the confessions of the individual penitents;

2/ there is grave necessity, that is, when in view of the number of penitents, there are not enough confessors available to hear the confessions of individuals properly within a suitable period of time in such a way that the penitents are forced to be deprived for a long while of sacramental grace or holy communion through no fault of their own. Sufficient necessity is not considered to exist when confessors cannot be present due only to the large number of penitents such as can occur on some great feast or pilgrimage.

§2. It belongs to the diocesan bishop to judge whether the conditions required according to the norm of §1, n. 2 are present. He can determine the cases of such necessity, attentive to the criteria agreed upon with the other members of the conference of bishops.

God Bless,

pat

 

[Pug]

From the CURRENT Code of Canon Law:
CHAPTER I.

THE CELEBRATION OF THE SACRAMENT

Can. 960 Individual and integral confession and absolution constitute the only ordinary means by which a member of the faithful conscious of grave sin is reconciled with God and the Church. Only physical or moral impossibility excuses from confession of this type; in such a case reconciliation can be obtained by other means.

Can. 961 §1. Absolution cannot be imparted in a general manner to many penitents at once without previous individual confession unless:

1/ danger of death is imminent and there is insufficient time for the priest or priests to hear the confessions of the individual penitents;

2/ there is grave necessity, that is, when in view of the number of penitents, there are not enough confessors available to hear the confessions of individuals properly within a suitable period of time in such a way that the penitents are forced to be deprived for a long while of sacramental grace or holy communion through no fault of their own. Sufficient necessity is not considered to exist when confessors cannot be present due only to the large number of penitents such as can occur on some great feast or pilgrimage.

§2. It belongs to the diocesan bishop to judge whether the conditions required according to the norm of §1, n. 2 are present. He can determine the cases of such necessity, attentive to the criteria agreed upon with the other members of the conference of bishops.

God Bless,

pat

For clarity I added blue and green. My post had been in reference to blue and green.

I’m thinking that the confusion here lies in there being two cases under one section. Perhaps you are reading section one as saying that 1/ (red) and 2/ (blue) are criteria which both must be simultaneously met. I believe they are cases, either one case the immanent death case, or the other case the grave necessity case must be met. The second case does not require immanent death.

Here is another document that is treating them as cases:
With reference to the case of grave necessity, the following clarification is made:

a) It refers to situations which are objectively exceptional, such as can occur in mission territories or in isolated communities of the faithful, where the priest can visit only once or very few times a year, or when war or weather conditions or similar factors permit.

 

[benjohnson]

As a Lutheran, we are moving toward having personal confession again, and I feel it better.

I offer prayer that more vocations are filled, that you don’t have to go through what we’ve gone through for the last 80 years.

 

[PJM]

=Pug;10168542]For clarity I added blue and green. My post had been in reference to blue and green.

I’m thinking that the confusion here lies in there being two cases under one section. Perhaps you are reading section one as saying that 1/ (red) and 2/ (blue) are criteria which both must be simultaneously met. I believe they are cases, either one case the immanent death case, or the other case the grave necessity case must be met. The second case does not require immanent death.

Here is another document that is treating them as cases:
With reference to the case of grave necessity, the following clarification is made:

a) It refers to situations which are objectively exceptional, such as can occur in mission territories or in isolated communities of the faithful, where the priest can visit only once or very few times a year, or when war or weather conditions or similar factors permit.

Thank you!

I was aware of that. However in the original post “ONLY 12 people showed up” and if memory is right; nothing was mentioned about a Bishops approval.

God Bless,
Pat

 

[Vico]

Thank you!

I was aware of that. However in the original post “ONLY 12 people showed up” and if memory is right; nothing was mentioned about a Bishops approval.

God Bless,
Pat

I noticed that too. To quote the original post referring to a parish in New York State:His essential point was that one of the two circumstances in which the Church allows general absolution is in the case of a shortage of priests. Since we’ve been hearing that we have a shortage of priests since the 1970’s, he had been offering general absolution all this time. He mentioned that some fellow priests disapprove of what he does, to which he gives the reply “if the Church doesn’t like what I do, it should change the law.”
The priest refers to:Can. 961 §1 General absolution, without prior individual confession, cannot be given to a number of penitents together, unless:
…

2° there exists a grave necessity, that is, given the number of penitents, there are not enough confessors available properly to hear the individual confessions within an appropriate time, so that without fault of their own the penitents are deprived of the sacramental grace or of holy communion for a lengthy period of time. A sufficient necessity is not, however, considered to exist when confessors cannot be available merely because of a great gathering of penitents, such as can occur on some major feastday or pilgrimage.

The USCCB has a complimentary norm for the shortage of priests case (from 1988):Complementary Norm: The National Conference of Catholic Bishops interprets the meaning of diu of canon 961, §1, 2o to be “one month,” by which the diocesan bishop judges whether and when the conditions of grave necessity for general absolution are verified in his diocese.

usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/canon-law/complementary-norms/canon-961-1-2-general-reconciliation.cfm

 

[Pug]

Thank you!

I was aware of that. However in the original post “ONLY 12 people showed up” and if memory is right; nothing was mentioned about a Bishops approval.

God Bless,
Pat

I completely agree about only 12 people showed up. Clearly give them access to regular confession. I wasn’t remarking on if the priest was right. I was only remarking about immanent death is not a universal requirement.

Just think about if someone is guilty of murder and the only thing offered is general absolution. How awful that would be for the guilty one. They would probably feel so much more relieved with a typical individual confession. Care of souls seems to require thoughtful and dutiful providing of regular individual confession if at all possible. That’s why in my original post to this thread I remarked that I’d feel positively abandoned by my diocese having to go from June to December with no access to confession, and in this case they didn’t even give individual confession in December, well, not in any sort of inviting way.

 

[PJM]

=Pug;10169077]I completely agree about only 12 people showed up. Clearly give them access to regular confession. I wasn’t remarking on if the priest was right. I was only remarking about immanent death is not a universal requirement.

Just think about if someone is guilty of murder and the only thing offered is general absolution. How awful that would be for the guilty one. They would probably feel so much more relieved with a typical individual confession. Care of souls seems to require thoughtful and dutiful providing of regular individual confession if at all possible. That’s why in my original post to this thread I remarked that I’d feel positively abandoned by my diocese having to go from June to December with no access to confession, and in this case they didn’t even give individual confession in December, well, not in any sort of inviting way.

I’m curious…Where do you live that no priest could get to your parish?

I do agree with your sediments completely!

Have a Blessed Christmas my friend,

Pat

 

[Pug]

I’m curious…Where do you live that no priest could get to your parish?

I do agree with your sediments completely!

Have a Blessed Christmas my friend,

Pat

It’s not me, it was Aelred Minor who was in I’m guessing upstate or rural New York who didn’t have any priest from June to December and he didn’t have a car to drive to fix the issue. Around my neck of the woods the priests are fairly thick. I"m lucky. I hope I remain so forever.

Have a very joyous Christmas!

 

[PJM]

=Pug;10169620]It’s not me, it was Aelred Minor who was in I’m guessing upstate or rural New York who didn’t have any priest from June to December and he didn’t have a car to drive to fix the issue. Around my neck of the woods the priests are fairly thick. I"m lucky. I hope I remain so forever.

Have a very joyous Christmas!

THANKS,

Merry and a Blessed Christmas,

Pat