General absolution in my parish - should I act?

[Stylites]

Doing the right thing is not always easy. A couple of years ago, the local Cursillo group was going to have a penance service somewhat similar to what you described, although, this involved writing your sins down and handing them to the priest and then burning them. I reported this to the Chancery and the service got cancelled ASAP.

There is nothing at all wrong with that form of reconciliation to God, by the way. Whether sins are spoken or written, they are removed all the same, which is all that should be of importance to anyone. Keep in mind the Pharisees who were likewise aghast at all the miraculous cures happening on the Sabbath . . .

.

 

[PacoG]

A typical CAF exchange:
Q. My priest said he is going to offer a Black Mass for the intentions of Lucifer, with Twinkies and Jack Daniels instead of bread and wine. I don’t know very much about Catholicism, is this permitted? I saw him put some Twinkies in the tabernacle.
A1. You must book a flight to Rome immediately. PM me for Cardinal Arinze’s apartment number.
A2. Are you sure you understood the priest correctly? Maybe he said, “for the intentions of Lucy,” that could be a parishioner’s name, right? And some types of bread, even unleavened bread, can look thicker, maybe that’s what you saw in the tabernacle? You said yourself that you don’t know much about Catholicism, so charity demands that you not judge this priest until you have full facts and understanding. Why don’t you attend the Mass and report back on your observations?

You forgot A3…quoting every liturgical document imaginable (including the pope’s private diary).

…and A4…why the TLM is superior to everything else.

 

[benedictgal]

No, the prudent and charitable thing to do would be to assume the best. Unless you yourself were directly involved with communicating with this particular priest then you really have no business trying to escalate what is most likely a misunderstanding twice-removed into a big earth-shattering event. Priests are way too busy to have to be dealing with busy-bodies; they need our support and not our false-judgments.

.

With all due respect, I do not believe that you read the OP. The priest specifically stated that this would be General Absolution and that there would be no individual confession. This is a grave abuse, a highly serious matter. That is why it needs to be nipped in the bud before it happens.

If you read one of my replies in this thread, you would have seen where I had to take that same approach before the Cursillo penance service.

Please do not be insulting and refer to people as busy bodies. What the OP reported is a legitimate abuse and should not be trivialized by leveling insults at those of us who are urging him to report this matter to the Chancery.

 

[benedictgal]

There is nothing at all wrong with that form of reconciliation to God, by the way. Whether sins are spoken or written, they are removed all the same, which is all that should be of importance to anyone. Keep in mind the Pharisees who were likewise aghast at all the miraculous cures happening on the Sabbath . . .

.

Yes there is. Please read the Circular Letter on the Integrity of the Sacrament of Penance:

. In giving consideration to the authenitic discipline of the Church concerning “general absolution”, the recent interdicasterial meeting of the Roman Curia with a representation of Bishops of the Episcopal Conference of Australia noted that:

. . . communal celebrations have not infrequently occasioned an illegitimate use of general absolution. This illegitimate use, like other abuses in the administration of the Sacrament of Penance, is to be eliminated.

The teaching of the Church is reflected in precise terms in the requirements of the Code of Canon Law (cf. esp. canons 959-964). In particular it is clear that “A sufficient necessity is not … 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” (canon 961, § 1, 2°).

The bishops will exercise renewed vigilance on these matters for the future, aware that departures from the authentic tradition do great wrong to the Church and to individual Catholics.10

1. With respect to the administration of “general absolution”, the exclusive authority enjoyed by diocesan bishops to determine whether a grave necessity is truly present in a given case in their diocese 11 does not permit them "to change the required conditions, to substitute other conditions for those given, or to determine grave necessity according to their personal criteria however worthy."12 Indeed, the Diocesan Bishop makes "this judgment graviter onerata conscientia, and with full respect for the law and the practice of the Church."13

1. Local Ordinaries and priests, to the degree that it applies to them, have an obligation in conscience to ensure that penitents have regular and frequent scheduled opportunities for individual and integral confession of sins in all parish churches and insofar as possible in other pastoral centres.14 In addition, priests are called upon to be generous in making themselves available outside of those scheduled times to celebrate individual and integral confession whenever the faithful would reasonably ask for it.15 "Other works, for lack of time, may have to be postponed or even abandoned, but not the confessional."16

With all due respect, before making such statements, I suggest that you read the pertinent, authoritative documents of the Church.

Furthermore, the reference to the Phariseees is not germaine to this particular discussion. What you may not understand is that Jesus was never critical of the cultic sacrificial worship of Ancient Israel because His own Father dicated the mandates to be followed. Jesus was critical of the Pharisees for imposing priestly rituals on the Jewish faithful. One had nothing to do with the other.

 

[Stylites]

Yes there is. Please read the Circular Letter on the Integrity of the Sacrament of Penance . . .

With all due respect, before making such statements, I suggest that you read the pertinent, authoritative documents of the Church.

Thanks, but nothing you quoted referred to the inscriptions of sins upon paper, nor about the communal penance service commonly seen during Lent, which I suspect is the actual topic of discussion here by the OP.

.

 

[benedictgal]

Thanks, but nothing you quoted referred to the inscriptions of sins upon paper, nor about the communal penance service commonly seen during Lent, which I suspect is the actual topic of discussion here by the OP.

.

If you were to have carefully re-read what I posted, you will note that the document clearly states that:

communal celebrations have not infrequently occasioned an illegitimate use of general absolution. This illegitimate use, like other abuses in the administration of the Sacrament of Penance, is to be eliminated

This is directly applicable to the situation reported in the OP.

 

[Stylites]

If you were to have carefully re-read what I posted, you will note that the document clearly states that . . .

This is directly applicable to the situation reported in the OP.

Yes, I caught that the first time, but as I indicated previously, the OP is probably heading to a valid communal penance service rather than a general absolution. When he or she reports back what actually happens then we’ll know for sure. Even so, your quote still didn’t address the inscription of sins upon papers.

.

 

[benedictgal]

Yes, I caught that the first time, but as I indicated previously, the OP is probably heading to a valid communal penance service rather than a general absolution. When he or she reports back what actually happens then we’ll know for sure. Even so, your quote still didn’t address the inscription of sins upon papers.

.

Again, as I read your response, you did not carefully read the OP:

OK, so today at Mass our priest announced we have a General Absolution service on next weekend after Mass - in the bulletin it states we will be given a talk after Mass and can then go up to the priest in a queue “to receive absolution” from our sins. No private individual confession, no explanation that this is not to be considered a substitute - just a general absolution

This is wrong and violates the norms established by the Holy See for confession and absolution. This is why the OP needs to inform the Chancery. This is a grave offense.

Here are additional quotes from the document:

The bishops will exercise renewed vigilance on these matters for the future, aware that departures from the authentic tradition do great wrong to the Church and to individual Catholics.10

1. With respect to the administration of “general absolution”, the exclusive authority enjoyed by diocesan bishops to determine whether a grave necessity is truly present in a given case in their diocese 11 does not permit them "to change the required conditions, to substitute other conditions for those given, or to determine grave necessity according to their personal criteria however worthy."12 Indeed, the Diocesan Bishop makes "this judgment graviter onerata conscientia, and with full respect for the law and the practice of the Church."13

…6. 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.

Simply waiting around for this ilicit service to occur does no one any favors and will do more harm than good.

 

[Stylites]

Again, as I read your response, you did not carefully read the OP . . .

Yes, I saw that, too, but believe the OP is misinformed and the priest was misquoted. By all means raise holy hell over a probable misunderstanding if you think that it will do anyone any good.

.

 

[benedictgal]

Yes, I saw that, too, but believe the OP is misinformed and the priest was misquoted. By all means raise holy hell over a probable misunderstanding if you think that it will do anyone any good.

.

No. I do not think he misheard. Unfortunately, penance services are a hotbed for experimentation. This matter needs to be addressed to the chancery and the OP should not wait until after the fact.

 

[Newbie2]

A typical CAF exchange:
Q. My priest said he is going to offer a Black Mass for the intentions of Lucifer, with Twinkies and Jack Daniels instead of bread and wine. I don’t know very much about Catholicism, is this permitted? I saw him put some Twinkies in the tabernacle.
A1. You must book a flight to Rome immediately. PM me for Cardinal Arinze’s apartment number.
A2. Are you sure you understood the priest correctly? Maybe he said, “for the intentions of Lucy,” that could be a parishioner’s name, right? And some types of bread, even unleavened bread, can look thicker, maybe that’s what you saw in the tabernacle? You said yourself that you don’t know much about Catholicism, so charity demands that you not judge this priest until you have full facts and understanding. Why don’t you attend the Mass and report back on your observations?

“Twinkies and Jack Daniels”

 

[benedictgal]

Originally Posted by trials
I will be going because it’s going to be held at our usual Mass next week. I suppose I should just keep schtum.

I strongly urge you to do something before the actual date of the service. You could be sparing a lot of people a lot of damage. I realize that there are posters here who would rather not do anything and let sleeping dogs lie. However, something this serious needs to be addressed as soon as possible.

As I said in my previous response to you, doing the right thing is not easy. When the Cursillo movement proposed its ilicit version of the communal reconciliation service, I cautioned them against it and told them that it was wrong. They remained obstinate. I had no other choice but to inform the chancery. The service was cancelled and confessions went on in the usual manner. Yes, the Cursillistas were upset with me, but, it is better to have them upset than to have something ilicit and dangerous happening.

Simply waiting around until after the fact is not a good thing. In fact, as I see it, it is something uncharitable. A lot of unsuspecting souls could mistakenly think that such a service is suffice (especially those who might be in mortal sin). Inaction and delay does more harm than good.

 

[Newbie2]

This sort of brings up the general question of “when or if I should act” when there is a perceived abuse or irregularity, perhaps the making of a good thread.

 

[Stylites]

This sort of brings up the general question of “when or if I should act” when there is a perceived abuse or irregularity, perhaps the making of a good thread.

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

.

 

[Stylites]

I strongly urge you to do something before the actual date of the service. You could be sparing a lot of people a lot of damage. I realize that there are posters here who would rather not do anything and let sleeping dogs lie. However, something this serious needs to be addressed as soon as possible.

As I said in my previous response to you, doing the right thing is not easy. When the Cursillo movement proposed its ilicit version of the communal reconciliation service, I cautioned them against it and told them that it was wrong. They remained obstinate. I had no other choice but to inform the chancery. The service was cancelled and confessions went on in the usual manner. Yes, the Cursillistas were upset with me, but, it is better to have them upset than to have something ilicit and dangerous happening.

Simply waiting around until after the fact is not a good thing. In fact, as I see it, it is something uncharitable. A lot of unsuspecting souls could mistakenly think that such a service is suffice (especially those who might be in mortal sin). Inaction and delay does more harm than good.

Nothing you posted about the Cursillo communal reconciliation service was illicit. Please indicate where there was anything in error or illicit about it. It would be interesting to hear rebuttals of those whom you’ve upset by your actions, by the way.

.

 

[benedictgal]

Nothing you posted about the Cursillo communal reconciliation service was illicit. Please indicate where there was anything in error or illicit about it. It would be interesting to hear rebuttals of those whom you’ve upset by your actions, by the way.

.

It was ilicit. Writing down sins and then burning them is ilicit. With all due respect, you might want to familiarize yourself with what constitutes a valid imparting of the Sacrament of Penance.

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.

Obviously, the Chancery was in agreement because it had the service cancelled. Due to other instances of liturgical abuse, the spiritual director was eventually replaced. The rebuttals that you seek really are moot since they don’t really matter. When something is wrong, it’s wrong. Arguing in favor of something that is ilicit is not going to make it right.

 

[Stylites]

It was ilicit. Writing down sins and then burning them is ilicit. With all due respect, you might want to familiarize yourself with what constitutes a valid imparting of the Sacrament of Penance.

Obviously, the Chancery was in agreement because it had the service cancelled. Due to other instances of liturgical abuse, the spiritual director was eventually replaced. The rebuttals that you seek really are moot since they don’t really matter. When something is wrong, it’s wrong. Arguing in favor of something that is ilicit is not going to make it right.

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.

.

 

[Newbie2]

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

.

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.

 

[wanner47]

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.

 

[SpaceNeedle]

This sounds very similar to the very nice reconciliation service I just attended. Yes, folks queued up to speak to father after the service; these people quietly confessed their sins, were assigned a penance, and granted absolution.