General Absolution

[MikiBee]

This afternoon I went to confession, which is held at 3:30pm… 5pm Saturday night mass to follow.

The priest ran out of time to get to everyone before he had to get ready for mass, so he had us all (about 10 of us) go into the room and performed a general absolution for us. Do I still need to go to confession again to specifically say all of my sins? From what I could read online, I would. Just want to cover my bases.

 

[Usige]

Yes, you do.

It is unfortunate that the priest chose to do a general absolution as it doesn’t sound like the situation really meet the criteria (danger of death or that penitents would not be able to receive the sacrament for an undue length of time). Canon law makes it clear that simply having too many people without enough confessors does not in of itself justify general absolution.

Regardless if it was right for him to do a general absolution, he should have made it clear to everyone there that general absolution comes with the caveat that all present must still make individual confession as soon as possible. From the sounds of it, that step was left out and I would be suprised if everyone else was as diligent as you are to find out the obligations attached to general absolution.

 

[eamonnroma]

Of course all venial sins are forgiven when we receive Holy Communion. So unless you have something you consider mortal to confess, then certainly there would be need to go to confession.

 

[Corki]

Yes. Even when used in grave circumstances such as war or imminent disaster, general absolution always includes an obligation to got to individual Confession at the earliest opportunity.

 

[ProVobis]

Of course all venial sins are forgiven when we receive Holy Communion.

Actually a perfect act of contrition will forgive mortal and venial sins. But it’s not sacramental confession which, in the case of mortal sin, is required for sacramental communion.

As far as communion in itself forgiving venial sins, is that even possible if one is also in a state of unconfessed mortal sin? If anything, you’re just compounding your sins.

 

[paperwight66]

So the question is, were all those would-be penitents in a state of mortal sin?

If they had only been intending to confess venial sins, they were forgiven by receiving Holy Communion devoutly. So no need to go to confession.

If any of them had been intending to confess mortal sins, they WOULD need to go to confession at the earliest opportunity.

 

[ProVobis]

And how is one 100% sure all his sins have been venial?

 

[paperwight66]

And how is one 100% sure all his sins have been venial?

The 3 conditions?

 

[ProVobis]

The 3 conditions?

Too vague, subjective, abstract, and self-judgmental IMO. First of all, how does one determine the gravity of his transgressions? It may not be a big deal to steal a bicycle, for example, but ask the victim of the theft, you might get a different answer. At what point has gossip gone too far, where it causes a substantial amount of damage?

It is interesting to see how people manage to rationalize their evil behavior. I know of one case in IT where a programmer managed to slip fractions of a penny into his account. No one noticed. That’s venial, right? But in the end because it affected so many customers every day he would up with millions. Not so venial after all, is it?

 

[Padres1969]

So the question is, were all those would-be penitents in a state of mortal sin?

If they had only been intending to confess venial sins, they were forgiven by receiving Holy Communion devoutly. So no need to go to confession.

If any of them had been intending to confess mortal sins, they WOULD need to go to confession at the earliest opportunity.

Should they even have received communion in that case being that they had not been absolved of Mortal Sins?

 

[paperwight66]

Should they even have received communion in that case being that they had not been absolved of Mortal Sins?

Yes, because they had received general absolution, which involves understanding that anyone conscious of mortal sin would go to confession at the earliest opportunity but meanwhile, could receive.

 

[ProVobis]

Should they even have received communion in that case being that they had not been absolved of Mortal Sins?

I was told to make a spiritual communion, and, if possible, try to get the priest to hear your confession after Mass and receive sacramental communion then.

 

[MikiBee]

I did receive communion after my general absolution because mass was directly following the confession and I didn’t know better until I got home. In my heart I didn’t believe I commited a mortal sin by receiving communion because there was no intent on my part to sin, and at the time I didn’t know it was a sin. I did go to confession yesterday and told my priest what happened. He told me I did the right thing.

Thank you all for your support and advice.

Michelle

 

[FrDavid96]

I’m a bit concerned here…

People need to understand that absolution does remit both mortal and venial sins.

That’s true even if it is a general absolution.

I think that what is confusing people is this: if one receives a general (ie group) absolution, the obligation to confess mortal sins at the earliest opportunity still remains. I can see how people would misunderstand that. What remains is the obligation to confess the mortal sins—the sins themselves have still been absolved.

If a priest gives a general absolution before Mass, then anyone who received that general absolution is eligible to receive Holy Communion (presuming there are no other obstacles such as public scandal, etc.). Yes, anyone conscious of mortal sin has an obligation to confess that sin at the first opportunity—but that’s not the same thing as being ineligible to receive Communion.

 

[ProVobis]

If a priest gives a general absolution before Mass, then anyone who received that general absolution is eligible to receive Holy Communion (presuming there are no other obstacles such as public scandal, etc.). Yes, anyone conscious of mortal sin has an obligation to confess that sin at the first opportunity—but that’s not the same thing as being ineligible to receive Communion.

But if people know this ahead of time, wouldn’t that just encourage more people just to stand in the confession lines shortly before the priest has to say Mass? And they can continue to do this Sunday after Sunday without ever really going to confession?

 

[otjm]

But if people know this ahead of time, wouldn’t that just encourage more people just to stand in the confession lines shortly before the priest has to say Mass? And they can continue to do this Sunday after Sunday without ever really going to confession?

People don’t know it ahead of time, so that answers the question. And besides, if one is playing cat and mouse on the issue, one has a far deeper problem than the one in this thread.

 

[DavidFilmer]

The priest ran out of time to get to everyone before he had to get ready for mass, so he had us all (about 10 of us) go into the room and performed a general absolution for us.

This probably violates the conditions stipulated in the Code of Canon Law (CIC 1983), emphasis mine:

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.

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.

Can. 963 Without prejudice to the obligation mentioned in ⇒ can. 989, a person whose grave sins are remitted by general absolution is to approach individual confession as soon as possible, given the opportunity, before receiving another general absolution, unless a just cause intervenes.

Do I still need to go to confession again to specifically say all of my sins?

As others have said, and the Canon clearly indicates, you are obliged to attend “ordinary” Confession at your earliest reasonable opportunity. The provisions for “general absolution” apply only in extreme circumstances (bombs are falling), but EVEN THEN we are obliged to attend “ordinary” Confession if we survive.

The priest acted improperly, but the obligation to “ordinary” Confession remains.

 

[FrDavid96]

This probably violates the conditions stipulated in the Code of Canon Law (CIC 1983), emphasis mine:

CHAPTER I.

THE CELEBRATION OF THE SACRAMENT

As others have said, and the Canon clearly indicates, you are obliged to attend “ordinary” Confession at your earliest reasonable opportunity. The provisions for “general absolution” apply only in extreme circumstances (bombs are falling), but EVEN THEN we are obliged to attend “ordinary” Confession if we survive.

The priest acted improperly, but the obligation to “ordinary” Confession remains.

This does not seen to be an intentional situation.

I was not there, and may I remind you, neither were you.

If this were something planned ahead of time, then one could say that the priest acted improperly.

As the OP describes it, it seems that there was an out-of-the-ordinary situation. We hope that the priest told everyone to go to individual confession at the earliest (with emphasis there) opportunity.

If the OP had posted that this sort of thing happens all the time, and therefore the pastor should know better and should make a better effort at scheduling, that would be different.

If the OP had posted that the parish bulletin states “General Absolution every Saturday at 4:58 PM” then that would be different.

Neither of those happened, as far as anyone knows.

What we do see is that the parish has scheduled individual Confessions for a full hour and a half before the Saturday Mass. That tells me that the pastor is not likely to be one who manipulates the schedule to artificially bring about a need for general Absolution.

 

[FrDavid96]

But if people know this ahead of time, wouldn’t that just encourage more people just to stand in the confession lines shortly before the priest has to say Mass? And they can continue to do this Sunday after Sunday without ever really going to confession?

Well, frankly, yes. Something like that could happen.

We would hope that the pastor (who is the one responsible for scheduling Confessions even if he’s not the one who was there at that particular moment the OP describes) would recognize this and make the necessary adjustments. Really, the pastor would have to be truly a fool to allow himself to fall for such an obvious manipulation of the situation. Once, maybe, but he would catch on pretty quick.

It would also require a certain sort of “conspiracy” among the penitents. Can we imagine someone going around the parish asking for people to just go to the confessional lines and stand there with no intention of confessing, in order to “make” Father come out and give general Absolution?

Could it happen, yes. But I don’t think it’s very likely.

 

[DavidFilmer]

This does not seen to be an intentional situation.

I don’t know what you mean by “intentional.” It was obviously deliberate.

I was not there, and may I remind you, neither were you.

That’s true, and it’s why I said “probably violates” the Canon. It was my intent to also carry this “probably” into the paragraph that followed.

If this were something planned ahead of time, then one could say that the priest acted improperly.

I don’t think that premeditation is the sole criteria. Simply because a priest runs out of time to hear everyone in line does not justify a general absolution. The priest could hear more confessions after Mass or clear his calendar the next day, or refer the penitents to another priest.

The Canons make it very clear that a general absolution is a matter of absolute last resort in situations of grave necessity.

I’m assuming that the Bishop has delegated authority to perform general absolutions to the discretion of his priests, because, otherwise, a priest is not even allowed to do this.

As the OP describes it, it seems that there was an out-of-the-ordinary situation. We hope that the priest told everyone to go to individual confession at the earliest (with emphasis there) opportunity.

Well, if the priest told everyone (as he is required to do if at all possible, per Can. 962 §2) then the OP missed it.