If you've desecrated the Eucharist

[Kathrine]

What if you’ve willfully desecrated the Eucharist knowing it was the body of Christ and you would be excommunicated? Does the priest really have to go to the Bishop and ask permission to absolve the person of their sin and lift the excommunication? If so, why is this? How do they get around the seal of Confession? And more importantly, what if said person prefers to remain anonymous. (Behind the screen as it were)

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

What if you’ve willfully desecrated the Eucharist knowing full it was the body of Christ and you would be excommunicated? Does the priest really have to go to the Bishop and ask permission to absolve the person of their sin? If so, why is this? How do they get around the seal of Confession? And more importantly, what if said person prefers to remain anonymous. (Behind the screen as it were)

You would be Excommunicated instantly. The person might be told to go to the Bishop for Confession if the person prefers to remain anonymous…

 

[Kathrine]

One might think the Bishop would be a busy man, and fairly unavailable. Besides attempting to explain why one might need to confess to the Bishop, and not a priest, would defeat the purpose of remaining anonymous.

 

[Brendan]

Actually, the removal of that specific excommunication is reserved to the Holy See, even the bishop cannot pardon it without express approval from Rome.

Canon 1367: "

A person who throws away the consecrated species or who takes them or retains them for a sacrilegious purpose incurs an automatic (latae sententiae) excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See; if a cleric, he can be punished with another penalty including dismissal from the clerical state."

Anonymity is preserved in these cases, as the priest would hear the confession, but withhold absolution. He would contact the Chancellery office and inform them that he has a case that requires the attention of the Office of the Apostolic Penitentiary ( as in dealing with Penance, isn’t not the Vatican Prison )

The priest would call the Apostolic Penitentiary and arrange for the details of the case ( minus names) to be faxed ( never emailed) to the office. The Vatican would (hopefully) approve the absolution and the penitent is freed from the excommunication.

What is rather interesting is that the Cardinal in charge of the Apostolic Penitentiary is the only Cardinal permitted to leave a Conclave, specifically so he can deal with these type of cases.

 

[CapIV]

I am pretty sure that a priest can be given the power by a bishop to lift an excommunication.

 

[JesuXPIPassio]

Anonymity is preserved in these cases, as the priest would hear the confession, but withhold absolution.

I didn’t know absolution could be given without the person physically there. Or is this just a special allowance for cases like these?

If the Apostolic Penitentiary were to withold absolution, how would the penitent be informed? Presumably, the priest or the Chancellery couldn’t summon the person since it was all done anonymously.

I always wondered what could be so grave that would warrant letting the Major Penitentiary keep his post when the Pope dies. Thanks for posting that part up.

 

[Brendan]

I didn’t know absolution could be given without the person physically there. Or is this just a special allowance for cases like these?

The process is geared to be able to happen 24\7, it might involve the person waiting in the confessional for an hour or so, but it can happen. Remember, this process is geared to support potential deathbed conversions.

If the person could not wait, the priest could also agree with the person to return at a later time (the priest would confirm that he would be in the confessional at, say, 1:00pm next Tuesday)

If the Apostolic Penitentiary were to withold absolution, how would the penitent be informed? Presumably, the priest or the Chancellery couldn’t summon the person since it was all done anonymously.

When the priest returns to the confessional, or they agree to meet again.

I always wondered what could be so grave that would warrant letting the Major Penitentiary keep his post when the Pope dies. Thanks for posting that part up.

Yep, the potential salvation of a single soul is far more important that a Cardinal remaining in Conclave, and the Church fully recognizes that.

 

[Kathrine]

The priest would call the Apostolic Penitentiary and arrange for the details of the case ( minus names) to be faxed ( never emailed) to the office. The Vatican would (hopefully) approve the absolution and the penitent is freed from the excommunication.

Wouldn’t divulging the details of a confession, despite excluding the name, violate the Seal of Confession?

 

[MusicMan]

This would probably be considered an extension of the Seal, and thus all parties involved would be bound by the Seal (logically, the Priest would do the faxing, but any secretaries who saw the fax would be likewise bound by the Seal).

 

[Digitonomy]

JesuXPIPassio:

I didn’t know absolution could be given without the person physically there.

This hasn’t really been answered yet. Is this process essentially the priest applying for faculties normally reserved to the Vatican, or is the absolution itself coming from the Vatican? If the latter, are we saying that the requirement that a person be physically present with the priest is merely a discipline, and thus routine confession by phone or email is possible if the rules change?

 

[Brendan]

This would probably be considered an extension of the Seal, and thus all parties involved would be bound by the Seal (logically, the Priest would do the faxing, but any secretaries who saw the fax would be likewise bound by the Seal).

The seal allows a priest to investigate matters such as these with other parties bound by the seal.

This also comes into play when a priest is unsure on a particular point of Moral Theology and must do further research.

Part of the co-ordination with the Penitentary is to insure that a priest is at the fax machine to recieve it, and the information is not left unattended on the fax machine.

 

[porthos11]

I didn’t know absolution could be given without the person physically there. Or is this just a special allowance for cases like these?

I think we’re not dealing with absolution, but rather, with the lifting of excommunication. The priest is merely asking for the penalty to be lifted so that he can absolve the penitent, as excommunication render the penitent unable to validly receive the sacraments, including absolution.

Once the excommunication is lifted, the priest must absolve the penitent in person, as usual.

 

[MusicMan]

The seal allows a priest to investigate matters such as these with other parties bound by the seal.

This also comes into play when a priest is unsure on a particular point of Moral Theology and must do further research.

Part of the co-ordination with the Penitentary is to insure that a priest is at the fax machine to recieve it, and the information is not left unattended on the fax machine.

Agreed, although important to point out that anyone other than the penitent who came in contact with that fax would be bound by Seal, regardless of whether or not they be a priest, the parish secretary, or the custodian emptying the recylce bin (and yes, the priest would presumably shred those types of documents, but for the sake of legalism … ).

 

[rpp]

This is a fascinating thread. Thank you, Brendan for your explanations.

Kathrine, please do not let the details in how absolution is granted in this exceptional case make you concerned for the penitent. The important thing is that if someone has done this and they are now contrite, forgiveness, absolution and a return to full communion with the Church are available. God is giving that person the grace to realize the sin and seek forgiveness. It is a grace that should not be ignored or delayed.

 

[tee_eff_em]

[Not to de-rail an otherwise informative thread]

And more importantly, what if said person prefers to remain anonymous. (Behind the screen as it were)

Besides attempting to explain why one might need to confess to the Bishop, and not a priest, would defeat the purpose of remaining anonymous.

Though a penitent ought always have an opportunity to confess through a fixed grate, it is not my understanding that anonymity, per se, need always (or ever) be maintained.

tee

 

[Kathrine]

Though a penitent ought always have an opportunity to confess through a fixed grate, it is not my understanding that anonymity, per se, need always (or ever) be maintained.

I understand it is not a requirement, but what if the penitent strongly desires to remain anonymous? Also, the need to involve several people in an individual’s confession is a little disturbing.

How much of the circumstances surrounding this particular sin would have to be FAX’d to someone on the other side of the world?

 

[Brendan]

I understand it is not a requirement, but what if the penitent strongly desires to remain anonymous?

Anonyminty is still possible, but it would involve, as I mentioned some waiting or arrangements being made for an anonymous return.

Also, the need to involve several people in an individual’s confession is a little disturbing.

It’s not the confession per se, but rather the removal of the excommunication.

How much of the circumstances surrounding this particular sin would have to be FAX’d to someone on the other side of the world?

That would be a question for the priest to answer based on his own experiences and the response from the Chancellory office.

At the very least, it would involve the fact that the Eucharist was desecrated and that the penitent has expressed remorse and seeks reconcillaition with God and the Church.

 

[Kathrine]

Thank you for all of the replies!

 

[MusicMan]

But this is beyond a sin or a simple confession. This is about removing a specific ex communication, where the lifting is reserved to the Holy See. It’s very different than confessing that you skipped Mass last Sunday.

 

[AHapka]

The section on absolutions here might help:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostolic_Penitentiary