General absolution in my parish - should I act?

[benedictgal]

Not so obviously, as we only have your version of events. If someone chose to make a big stink out of nothing, and a lot of people had become upset because of one person’s antics, I can envision changes being made in order to try to placate someone’s implacable actions.

Again, the burning of papers with sins written on them after confession is not illicit.

If you think you could do better than this priest then become one yourself - they have enough to do already do without having to look over their shoulders for people eager to liturgically point accusing fingers at them or encouraging others to do so at the slightest whiff or hint or gossip of error.

.

The practice of writing down sins and burning them is ilicit. The Holy See has stated that this practice should not be done. Obviously, the Chancery agreed that this was also ilicit. This is not about merely placating someone. It is about nipping an abusive practice in the bud before it takes place. It is called a preventive measure.

Again, with all due respect, I do not believe that you quite understand what is licit and what is not, especially as far as the Sacrament of Penance is concerned. I would encourage you to read this document:

adoremus.org/6-72K.Penance.html

You might find it educating, enlightening and edifying.

 

[benedictgal]

I’d err on the side of caution and talk to the priest before the service occurs.

Worst case scenario is that this type of service is NOT valid and someone, believing their mortal sins have been forgiven, inadvertently profanes the Eucharist. Granted, that person’s culpability would be lessened by honest ignorance, but when there is a chance that the Eucharist could be even accidentally profaned, we have a responsibility as Christians to prevent or rectify the situation in any way we can.

If the OP was mistaken and this type of service will provide individual confession, or is in some way licit, then there’s no harm done by talking to the priest and/or seeking clarification from the bishop.

Howver, clarification has already been given by the Holy See. This service is not valid nor is it licit. The OP already stated that there will not be sacramental, individual confession. This is already the worse case scenario.

 

[wanner47]

Howver, clarification has already been given by the Holy See. This service is not valid nor is it licit. The OP already stated that there will not be sacramental, individual confession. This is already the worse case scenario.

Since I’m not omniscent, I’m allowing for the possibility that the OP misheard or misunderstood, or that the nature of the service itself was miscommunicated in the bulletin. The service as communicated does sound dubious, which is why I agree that inquiries should be started sooner rather than later.

 

[Stylites]

The practice of writing down sins and burning them is ilicit. The Holy See has stated that this practice should not be done. Obviously, the Chancery agreed that this was also ilicit. This is not about merely placating someone. It is about nipping an abusive practice in the bud before it takes place. It is called a preventive measure.

Again, with all due respect, I do not believe that you quite understand what is licit and what is not, especially as far as the Sacrament of Penance is concerned. I would encourage you to read this document:

adoremus.org/6-72K.Penance.html

You might find it educating, enlightening and edifying.

Indeed, but without any evidence supporting your unfounded contention that burning papers with sins written on them after confession is illicit.

.

 

[Stylites]

Oh, I agree.

With all due respect to some on this forum, they’d having us running to Rome for every little perceived irregularity.

Legalists are tiring to me. They get so caught up in the paperwork that they fail to see any sort of pastoral dimension. Either side can be taken to the extreme, no doubt, “Pharisee” bugs me personally more than the other extreme.

It is also troubling whenever anyone is so quick to spread doubts and worries in the minds of penitents as to whether their sins are validly forgiven or not. There’s an official “accuser” with that title, and he needs no help.

.

 

[benedictgal]

Indeed, but without any evidence supporting your unfounded contention that burning papers with sins written on them after confession is illicit.

.

It is ilicit. I have already provided sufficient citations from the documents, citations that you choose to ignore.

This disposition would exclude communal celebrations of the sacrament in which penitents are invited to present a written list of sins to the priest confessor. It should be noted that such innovations also risk compromising the inviolable seal of sacramental confession.

In the Cursillo case, the written sins were to be given to the Confessor. This is wrong. The Church has already stated that such a practice is to be excluded. Furthermore, even if one were to burn them, some fragments could still remain, thus compromising the seal of sacramental confession. Evidently, the bishop held that such activity was ilicit and not to be done, basing his decision on the norms that the Church requires to be followed.

Rather than reading the documents, you have, instead, only leveled insults and have demonstrated, as I read your posts, a misunderstanding of what constitutes an ilicit act.

 

[trials]

Whether this helps clarify, the priest explained that he and another priest will be standing on the altar as we queue up, in the same way they would be for Holy Communion, and that we are to queue in the same way. This is what makes me certain that this is not individual confessions we are talking about.

We’ve never had a service in the parish like this before, the priest has been with us 4 years now, but he said he used to have these ceremonies in previous parishes. He also introduced his talking on the subject by saying, “I asked a priest in the neighboring parish if this was ok, and he said he had no problem with it.” That just struck me as odd that he would go into defensive mode before even telling us what was involved. Add to that his negative view of confession which he did not hold back on during his sermon…

Anyway, if he clarifies to the congregation that this service will not absolve them from mortal sin, fine, that they would need to go to private confession for those sins - fine. I have no problem then.

If this priest wasn’t sick I wouldn’t think twice about asking him about this, but he’s under doctor’s orders, and he has specifically told us that beyond his basic duties in our small parish, any extra work or stress is out of the question. I’m torn between wanting to do the right thing by the parishioners and by him. He’s very feeble and I don’t want to push him over the edge.

 

[benedictgal]

Whether this helps clarify, the priest explained that he and another priest will be standing on the altar as we queue up, in the same way they would be for Holy Communion, and that we are to queue in the same way. This is what makes me certain that this is not individual confessions we are talking about.

We’ve never had a service in the parish like this before, the priest has been with us 4 years now, but he said he used to have these ceremonies in previous parishes. He also introduced his talking on the subject by saying, “I asked a priest in the neighboring parish if this was ok, and he said he had no problem with it.” That just struck me as odd that he would go into defensive mode before even telling us what was involved. Add to that his negative view of confession which he did not hold back on during his sermon…

Anyway, if he clarifies to the congregation that this service will not absolve them from mortal sin, fine, that they would need to go to private confession for those sins - fine. I have no problem then.

If this priest wasn’t sick I wouldn’t think twice about asking him about this, but he’s under doctor’s orders, and he has specifically told us that beyond his basic duties in our small parish, any extra work or stress is out of the question. I’m torn between wanting to do the right thing by the parishioners and by him. He’s very feeble and I don’t want to push him over the edge.

However, what he seeks to do is still ilicit. This is not the proper means of administering the Sacrament of Confession. The Circular letter adds this provision:

1. The Holy Father has pointed to the personal nature of sin, conversion, forgiveness and reconciliation 17 as the reason why the Rite of Reconciliation of several penitents with individual confession and absolution “demands the personal confession of sins and individual absolution”.18 Since individual and integral confession of sins is not only an obligation "but also an inviolable and inalienable right"19 of the faithful, any innovation which would interfere with their fulfillment of this obligation, such as when penitents are invited or otherwise encouraged to name just one sin or to name a representative sin, is to be eliminated.

1. As an aid to a more fruitful reception of the Sacrament of Penance and in the hope of fostering the spirit and virtue of penance among the faithful, the Rite of Penance includes material for “Penitential celebrations”, which are described as gatherings of the people of God to hear the proclamation of God’s word.20 “Care should be taken that the faithful do not confuse these celebrations with the celebration of the Sacrament of Penance”,21 in particular, by making clear to them that such celebrations are preparatory in nature and do not include the sacramental forgiveness of sins. It is to be borne in mind that such penitential celebrations may not make use of the sacramental formula of absolution, nor should they employ the concluding formula from the Penitential Rite at Mass, nor any other formula which could be misconstrued to be an absolution from sin.

If the priest in question is not in good health, what he could do is lead the service, but, individual confession still needs to be offered. He could reschedule and ask other priests to help out in the confessionals. If he is able, he could hear a handful of confessions. Nonetheless, individual confession needs to happen and not just a simple individual blessing. This is not licit.

Just because the priest has done it in other parishes, that does not legitimize the practice. It is still wrong. He needs to work within the scope of the norms and not invent things and amend them as he sees fit. Not even the CDWDS can change what is instituted, as the Circular letter notes:

1. The norms in force concerning the Sacrament of Penance are found in the Rite of Penance of the Roman Ritual and in the Code of Canon Law,3 and are based on divine law, the constant doctrine of the Church and her traditional practice. This Circular Letter recalls those very norms, and therefore, it does not constitute an innovation, nor a modification to the law in force. It does not revoke anything permitted by the dispositions of law in force concerning the Sacrament of Penance. Rather, it recalls those norms concerning the authentic discipline of the Sacrament of Penance which the Holy See, in the Rite of Penance, the Code of Canon Law and several discourses of the Holy Father has already repeatedly expressed. Therefore, it should be clearly stated that there may be no “graduality” in the application of the norm of law. The Congregation for Divine Worship itself has no faculty to deviate from the legislation in force; indeed, its responsibility is to safeguard and promote these norms and, additionally, to assist Bishops in the exercise of their pastoral ministry.

If he still insists on doing this, then the chancery needs to intervene. If he needs help from other priests, the diocese can certainly assist him with that.

 

[Michael_Vernon]

I appreciate the posts of those who have tried to introduce some divine sanity and beatific reason to counteract the legalistic hysteria in this thread. I am always astonished when “judaizers”, “pharisees”, and “doctors of the law” try to shape God into their own image: a bureaucrat.

 

[benedictgal]

I appreciate the posts of those who have tried to introduce some divine sanity and beatific reason to counteract the legalistic hysteria in this thread. I am always astonished when “judaizers”, “pharisees”, and “doctors of the law” try to shape God into their own image: a bureaucrat.

There is no need to level insults at people who are trying to provide information from the authoritative documents of the Church. The administration of the sacraments is not some free form exercise in creativity. The Church has established norms that need to be followed.

 

[Stylites]

The act of communally burning papers with sins written on them after generally-required oral confession is not illicit insofar as care is taken to ensure their destruction. Thanks for the clarification.

.

 

[benedictgal]

The act of communally burning papers with sins written on them after generally-required oral confession is not illicit insofar as care is taken to ensure their destruction. Thanks for the clarification.

.

It is still ilicit, Stylites, because you are not supposed to use these sheets of paper in the first place. Again, with all due respect, I would suggest that you educate yourself on the proper procedures for the Sacrament of Penance. As I stated before, the bishop intervened and stopped the whole thing from happening.

 

[wanner47]

Indeed, but without any evidence supporting your unfounded contention that burning papers with sins written on them after confession is illicit.

After a proper sacramental confession, it may not be illicit, although it probably exercises poor judgment given the risks it may pose to the sacramental seal of confession. However, it seems these activities took place instead of a proper sacramental confession, which is indeed illicit.

 

[SpaceNeedle]

Whether this helps clarify, the priest explained that he and another priest will be standing on the altar as we queue up, in the same way they would be for Holy Communion, and that we are to queue in the same way. This is what makes me certain that this is not individual confessions we are talking about.

You may make an individual confession at this time, if you so desire.

There is usually a greater distance at this time between you and the person behind you than, say, when you are receiving the Eucharist. Usually the “wait” spot is marked with a candle or something. So there is a measure of privacy. Kinda like the pharmacy.

 

[benedictgal]

You may make an individual confession at this time, if you so desire.

There is usually a greater distance at this time between you and the person behind you than, say, when you are receiving the Eucharist. Usually the “wait” spot is marked with a candle or something. So there is a measure of privacy. Kinda like the pharmacy.

I somehow don’t think that this is the case. The priest did say that he will not be having individual confession. He will simply be blessing the individual. That’s a huge difference.

 

[Stylites]

It is still ilicit, Stylites, because you are not supposed to use these sheets of paper in the first place.

I haven’t been to such a form of the sacrament of reconciliation but I’ve heard of its use before within my diocese, specifically at a retreat. Not to split hairs, but the inscription of sins upon paper is something often suggested to penitents so as to not neglect or forget them during confession, although the collection and burning of them afterwards is a different issue.

Back to this supposed ‘general absolution’ of the OP, I appreciate your good desire to preserve proper form, but would only counsel you that since you are not a party to any practices within the OP’s parish and have no direct knowledge of what might be transpiring that calling for the bishop to be informed right away lest something bad might happen was in bad form. Even so, I apologize that my words or tone offended you.

.

 

[kage_ar]

Yes, but it would behoove one to get all the fact straight first before ringing the Vatican’s doorbell.

.

BIG difference between the Chancery and the Vatican.

 

[benedictgal]

I haven’t been to such a form of the sacrament of reconciliation but I’ve heard of its use before within my diocese, specifically at a retreat. Not to split hairs, but the inscription of sins upon paper is something often suggested to penitents so as to not neglect or forget them during confession, although the collection and burning of them afterwards is a different issue.

Back to this supposed ‘general absolution’ of the OP, I appreciate your good desire to preserve proper form, but would only counsel you that since you are not a party to any practices within the OP’s parish and have no direct knowledge of what might be transpiring that calling for the bishop to be informed right away lest something bad might happen was in bad form. Even so, I apologize that my words or tone offended you.

.

Again, written pieces of paper are not to be used in the confessional. This is ilicit. Have you not read the document that I posted?

Furthermore, the form which the OP described is ilicit. It goes against the nature of the Sacrament of Penance. Even after the OP’s conversation with the priest in question, nothing really changed. What the priest intends to do is ilicit and the bishop needs to know about it.

The Communal Penance service needs to include individual, sacramental penance as its component. If not, then it is ilicit. The Holy See made that very clear in its document.

 

[kage_ar]

Again, written pieces of paper are not to be used in the confessional. This is ilicit. Have you not read the document that I posted?

I have heard many good and holy Priests, including Fr Serpa of CAF, reccomend writing a list of sins to bring into Confession. They are also very insistant that those papers be destroyed.

 

[benedictgal]

I have heard many good and holy Priests, including Fr Serpa of CAF, reccomend writing a list of sins to bring into Confession. They are also very insistant that those papers be destroyed.

However, please note what the Holy See said about papers:

This disposition would exclude communal celebrations of the sacrament in which penitents are invited to present a written list of sins to the priest confessor. It should be noted that such innovations also risk compromising the inviolable seal of sacramental confession.

That is where the problem lies. One can try as hard as one can to destroy the paper, but, sometimes, traces may be left that could compromise things. That is why the Holy See made that statement. Even though one could argue that the matter of the written sins can come into play in individual confession, there is still the problem of carelessness in destroying the sheet. When I was much younger (a college kid prior to 2000), I read my sins. My confessor snatched the paper from me and told me that I could not do that. He said that I needed to say them, not read them. He also told me that I could run the risk of having someone accidentally read them. He said that it is better to go in with nothing written. If I accidentally forgot something, I was still forgiven, but, he admonished me not to do this again. Mind you, this was some 11 years before the Circular Letter came out.

The document I have been referencing was promulgated back in 2000 at the request of Venerable Pope John Paul II. This was a result of some serious abuses that had been plaguing all of Australia insofar as the Sacrament of Penance was concerned. General Absolution was loosely applied, as were other innovations that had crept into the picture. John Paul had taken the whole bishops’ conference into the liturgical woodshed and ordered this document to be promulgated so that no one would be confused as to how the Sacrament was to be administered.

However, judging from what I have read on this thread, there still seems to be a lot of confusion and denial over what is and what is not licit. Mind you, it is sad that 10 years after the document was promulgated, confusion still reigns. That is what happens when folks, as well-intenioned as they may be, take it upon themselves to add things to the imparting of the sacraments that just do not belong there.