Is absolution valid without confession?

  • Thread starter Thread starter IrishDavid
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I

IrishDavid

Guest
I went to a parish church other than my own this morning as I know they normally have confession before Mass and I waited in line outside the confessional. However, there were quite a few people behind me in line, and by the time the priest came out there were less than 10 minutes to go until Mass, so he said that he didn’t have time hear my confession. Instead he asked me to confirm that I was sorry for my sins (I said I was) and he put his hands on my shoulders and pronounced the usual absolution - “through the ministry of the Church may God give you pardon and peace, and I absolve you from your sins in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit”. I answered “Amen”, and he said “say one for me”. He did this to all the people in the line behind me also. I additionally didn’t get a chance to make an act of contrition in his presence, but did so afterwards.

My question is, did this constitute valid absolution? I received the Blessed Sacrament at Mass afterwards, and I was likely not in a state of grace before this ‘absolution’, so does this mean that I committed the sin of sacrilege and that this must be confessed? Even if this was not sacrilege, should I go to confession again and confess the sins I committed before the ‘absolution’?

Thanks in advance!
 
That sounds like general absolution which is only done in emergencies like a boat sinking or a plane crashing. The requirement for confession is Matter (sins), Form(Ego te absolvo/I absolve you), Intent (firm purpose of amendment to not commit the mortal sin you had committed again or to work to rooting out a venial sin, and contrition perfect or imperfect) Minister (priest that has faculties to hear confession).

This is about general absolution. I would have determined that in this case general absolution wasn’t necessary. He could have told the rest of the people in the line that he would hear their confession after Mass. Make it confession another day. canonlawmadeeasy.com/2007/12/13/confession-and-general-absolution/

As for your other question I would presume you were unsure on whether you were absolved or not so I would say that full knowledge was lacking since you didn’t know if you were still in mortal sin or not. Confess it to be on the safe side along with the other sins you didn’t confess before absolution, as I said, to be safe.

I could be wrong so don’t take my words a gospel
 
No, general absolution is when a whole group is absolved at the same time, and there are very strict parameters for its usage.

What this sounds like is that there were more penitents than usual, and the priest making a decision to grant individual absolution to each.

OP, if a priest says the words of absolution, you are absolved. Period. Please be at peace.
If you have issues with what happened, discuss it with the priest.
 
Addressing your question in parts:

Was it valid?
It’s complicated.
This confession runs afoul of two pieces of canon law:
Can. 988 §1. A member of the Christian faithful is obliged to confess in kind and number all grave sins committed after baptism and not yet remitted directly through the keys of the Church nor acknowledged in individual confession, of which the person has knowledge after diligent examination of conscience.
Click to expand...
§2. It is recommended to the Christian faithful that they also confess venial sins.
Click to expand...
and
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.
Click to expand...
Can. 961 §1. Absolution cannot be imparted in a general manner to many penitents at once without previous individual confession unless:
Click to expand...
1/ danger of death is imminent and there is insufficient time for the priest or priests to hear the confessions of the individual penitents;
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
Penitents are required to make an individual (just you and the priest) and integral (telling all grave sins) to the priest. The actions of your priest fall into the category of “General Absolution”, even though it was done individually, since the situation does not fit Canon 960, presuming that that there are no bizarre circumstances that make it likely that people will die before the priest is able to return. Which clearly makes the sacrament ILLICIT.

That being said, the church does not declare the sacrament you received invalid or valid. Which is to say that your sins may have been forgiven. Or they might not have. Thus since we just do not know if it worked or not, and you would be required to make a full confession as soon as possible even if it had been licit, you had best make a full confession as soon as you are able.

I am not a canon lawyer myself, so if someone knows better than I, of course you should listen to them.

Now, your second problem is the reception of communion outside of the state of grace. Since you as the penitent were informed by a trustworthy authority (your confessor), you have every reason to assume that you are in a state of grace for the reception of communion. This means that any sin by your reception of communion was unintentional and thus a venial sin at most. As seen in Can. 988 §2, however, you should still confess this to the confessor with an explanation of the situation.

Hope this helps!
 
Setting aside the rather unusual event there…and the question …

It is important to note:

In any case - one must still confess any mortal sins.

(this is true too in the case of a valid general absolution in the case of an emergency…if they survive the still are to confess them)
 
fliesnow said:
Addressing your question in parts:

Was it valid?
It’s complicated.
This confession runs afoul of two pieces of canon law:

and

Penitents are required to make an individual (just you and the priest) and integral (telling all grave sins) to the priest. The actions of your priest fall into the category of “General Absolution”, even though it was done individually, since the situation does not fit Canon 960, presuming that that there are no bizarre circumstances that make it likely that people will die before the priest is able to return. Which clearly makes the sacrament ILLICIT.

That being said, the church does not declare the sacrament you received invalid or valid. Which is to say that your sins may have been forgiven. Or they might not have. Thus since we just do not know if it worked or not, and you would be required to make a full confession as soon as possible even if it had been licit, you had best make a full confession as soon as you are able.

I am not a canon lawyer myself, so if someone knows better than I, of course you should listen to them.

Now, your second problem is the reception of communion outside of the state of grace. Since you as the penitent were informed by a trustworthy authority (your confessor), you have every reason to assume that you are in a state of grace for the reception of communion. This means that any sin by your reception of communion was unintentional and thus a venial sin at most. As seen in Can. 988 §2, however, you should still confess this to the confessor with an explanation of the situation.

Hope this helps!
Click to expand...
No.

This is totally and completely incorrect.

Firstly, the underlying questions pertain to sacramental theology, which is where canon law looks in the formulation of legislation concerning or even just touching upon the sacraments.

Thus since we just do not know if it worked or not, and you would be required to make a full confession as soon as possible even if it had been licit, you had best make a full confession as soon as you are able.

You may not know “if it worked or not” but do not extend that to everyone by your use of “we”.

Yes, the absolution would have been valid and effective.

No, the person does not need to make a full confession “as soon as you are able” by any means. The matter, and any serious sins remembered that were covered by this absolution, can simply be mentioned at the next regular confession…since s/he is validly absolved.

There was no sin in approaching the Eucharist since the person was validly absolved.

In answer to the original question, yes one can be absolved, in various circumstances, without confession. The scenario in which I do this the most frequently is in hospital settings. There are other scenarios which allow it as well.

The act of contrition can be set aside by the minister of the sacrament provided he has moral certainty by another means that the person is, in fact, sorry for their sins and a firm resolution of amendment.
 
No.
Click to expand...
This is totally and completely incorrect.
Click to expand...
Firstly, the underlying questions pertain to sacramental theology, which is where canon law looks in the formulation of legislation concerning or even just touching upon the sacraments.
Thus since we just do not know if it worked or not, and you would be required to make a full confession as soon as possible even if it had been licit, you had best make a full confession as soon as you are able.
You may not know “if it worked or not” but do not extend that to everyone by your use of “we”.
Click to expand...
Yes, the absolution would have been valid and effective.
Click to expand...
No, the person does not need to make a full confession “as soon as you are able” by any means. The matter, and any serious sins remembered that were covered by this absolution, can simply be mentioned at the next regular confession…since s/he is validly absolved.
Click to expand...
There was no sin in approaching the Eucharist since the person was validly absolved.
Click to expand...
In answer to the original question, yes one can be absolved, in various circumstances, without confession. The scenario in which I do this the most frequently is in hospital settings. There are other scenarios which allow it as well.
Click to expand...
The act of contrition can be set aside by the minister of the sacrament provided he has moral certainty by another means that the person is, in fact, sorry for their sins and a firm resolution of amendment.
Click to expand...
Father, may I thank you, I hope on behalf of everyone, for your helpful clarification on this subject.
 
Oneofthewomen said:
No, general absolution is when a whole group is absolved at the same time, and there are very strict parameters for its usage.

What this sounds like is that there were more penitents than usual, and the priest making a decision to grant individual absolution to each.

OP, if a priest says the words of absolution, you are absolved. Period. Please be at peace.
If you have issues with what happened, discuss it with the priest.
Click to expand...
:amen
:

Trust your priest over people on the internet.
God Bless,

Mary.
 
MaryT777 said:
:amen
:

Trust your priest over people on the internet.
God Bless,

Mary.
Click to expand...
Amen.

And I would also add that God is a God of mercy. I cant imagine he’s so into technicalities that he is throwing us into hell because this T wasn’t crossed or that I was not dotted. Was the heart contrite? Did the priest have the faculties to absolve? The answer to both questions appears to be yes, so I wouldn’t worry about it in the least.

But I don’t think this is standard SOP. I went a few weeks ago and the lines were long and Mass was about to start and several people were apologetically told to come back Monday.
 
MaryT777 said:
:amen
:

Trust your priest over people on the internet.
God Bless,

Mary.
Click to expand...
Indeed.

I have found far too much emphasis in this forum on the laity with regard to the celebration of the sacrament of reconciliation. Almost as though the priest is there in a purely mechanistic and tangential way. Such concepts are highly disturbing, actually

The responsibility, when it comes to matters derived from the cura animarum, rests almost entirely with the priest in the exercise of cura animarum…it is he who determines, certainly according to the norm of law, if the sacrament is even to be conferred at all. It is he, as the celebrant of the sacrament, who determines how and with what adaptations the sacrament is to be celebrated.

The recipient is morally implicated only when there are issues touching upon matters related directly to their role of receiving the sacrament: did they deceive or coerce or act in a blatantly nefarious or sacrilegious way.

As oneofthewomen said, the question should go back to the priest himself. The matter could be queried of the Episcopal Vicar for Priests, the Director of Liturgy for the Diocese or the Vicar General. Most people are not in the position to answer, above all meaningfully and in an elaborated sense, since the answer is derived from sacramental theology.
 
IrishDavid said:
I went to a parish church other than my own this morning as I know they normally have confession before Mass and I waited in line outside the confessional. However, there were quite a few people behind me in line, and by the time the priest came out there were less than 10 minutes to go until Mass, so he said that he didn’t have time hear my confession. Instead he asked me to confirm that I was sorry for my sins (I said I was) and he put his hands on my shoulders and pronounced the usual absolution - “through the ministry of the Church may God give you pardon and peace, and I absolve you from your sins in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit”. I answered “Amen”, and he said “say one for me”. He did this to all the people in the line behind me also. I additionally didn’t get a chance to make an act of contrition in his presence, but did so afterwards.

My question is, did this constitute valid absolution? I received the Blessed Sacrament at Mass afterwards, and I was likely not in a state of grace before this ‘absolution’, so does this mean that I committed the sin of sacrilege and that this must be confessed? Even if this was not sacrilege, should I go to confession again and confess the sins I committed before the ‘absolution’?

Thanks in advance!
Click to expand...
Hello,

I’ll simply add that you did, in fact, make an act of contrition at an appropriate time–it just wasn’t what you usually say or what you planned to say (i.e.: “Are you sorry?” “Yes.”).

Dan
 
IrishDavid said:
…

My question is, did this constitute valid absolution?
Click to expand...
Yes.

Absolution is a* juridic act of the Church*. As long as the priest had faculties to absolve, and he pronounced the minimum formula (ego te absolvo…), with the intent to absolve, it was a valid absolution. I presume those conditions were present (no reason to think this priest was an imposter or suspended, etc).
I received the Blessed Sacrament at Mass afterwards, and I was likely not in a state of grace before this ‘absolution’, so does this mean that I committed the sin of sacrilege
Click to expand...
No. The word “sacrilege” is one of those words that gets thrown around too casually.
Nothing you describe even comes close.

One (who is conscious of mortal sin) should not approach for Communion without confession & absolution, unless that’s not possible. In this case, you certainly made a legitimate and honest attempt at sacramental confession. Even beyond that, the situation goes further and there was a valid absolution. The juridic act of the priest (ie absolution, even though in a shortened form) means that you could receive Communion. So there’s no problem here with anything you did.
and that this must be confessed?
Click to expand...
No.
Even if this was not sacrilege, should I go to confession again and confess the sins I committed before the ‘absolution’?
Click to expand...
Thanks in advance!
Click to expand...
That depends.
Please do not respond to this last part with an explanation. That depends on whether or not there were unconfessed mortal sins. If one is conscious of unconfessed mortal sins, then one must go to individual confession at the earliest opportunity. If those sins were venial, then there’s no need to do anything further. While it might be helpful to mention those sins in the next confession, it’s not strictly necessary. Again: please do not post about whether there were any mortal sins, as that’s not appropriate for a public forum.

PS–I usually do not participate in threads about individual confessions. Since this thread is more about the celebration of the sacrament as such, I’m posting.
 
FrDavid96 said:
Yes.

Absolution is a* juridic act of the Church*. As long as the priest had faculties to absolve, and he pronounced the minimum formula (ego te absolvo…), with the intent to absolve, it was a valid absolution. I presume those conditions were present (no reason to think this priest was an imposter or suspended, etc).

No. The word “sacrilege” is one of those words that gets thrown around too casually.
Nothing you describe even comes close.

One (who is conscious of mortal sin) should not approach for Communion without confession & absolution, unless that’s not possible. In this case, you certainly made a legitimate and honest attempt at sacramental confession. Even beyond that, the situation goes further and there was a valid absolution. The juridic act of the priest (ie absolution, even though in a shortened form) means that you could receive Communion. So there’s no problem here with anything you did.

No.

That depends.
Please do not respond to this last part with an explanation. That depends on whether or not there were unconfessed mortal sins. If one is conscious of unconfessed mortal sins, then one must go to individual confession at the earliest opportunity. If those sins were venial, then there’s no need to do anything further. While it might be helpful to mention those sins in the next confession, it’s not strictly necessary. Again: please do not post about whether there were any mortal sins, as that’s not appropriate for a public forum.

PS–I usually do not participate in threads about individual confessions. Since this thread is more about the celebration of the sacrament as such, I’m posting.
Click to expand...
Father, I am not accusing you of anything this is a genuine quesstion. When Jimmy Akin dealt with the topic of unconfessed mortal sins he seems to say you dont need to go as soon as possible (although he said maybe one should go before he forgets) and I think he also said somewhere you need to say mortal sins you forgot to say at earlier confession. Did i misunderstand wha you said .correct me if i said anything wrong

thanks

God Bless
 
rabbitdonkey said:
Father, I am not accusing you of anything this is a genuine quesstion. When Jimmy Akin dealt with the topic of unconfessed mortal sins he seems to say you dont need to go as soon as possible (although he said maybe one should go before he forgets) and I think he also said somewhere you need to say mortal sins you forgot to say at earlier confession. Did i misunderstand wha you said .correct me if i said anything wrong

thanks

God Bless
Click to expand...
Context.

General statements like the above only get us ‘so far’ in a conversation like this.

Here’s what I mean: what is meant by “unconfessed mortal sins”? Why were they unconfessed? One answer might be that the penitent genuinely forgot to mention the sin. Another answer might be that the penitent intentionally withheld mentioning it. Those 2 scenarios would result in 2 different answers to the original question about when one should confess the sin. Genuinely forgot: next opportunity. Intentional: make an effort to go soon.

In the context of what the OP was asking, one who finds himself in that situation should confess any mortal sins at the earliest opportunity and should make some effort to make that sooner rather than later.

In a different context, the answer might be different.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top