Laetae Sententiae

[Timothy_Capps]

Is a Catholic who joins an Orthodox Church excommunicated laetae sententiae as a “schismatic?” Is confession sufficient to lift the sanction and restore communion? The reason I’m asking is that as a practical matter it has been treated as a sin for which absolution may be granted by the parish priest. I am not getting the sense that anyone is having any greater concerns than that over the issue (well, except me, obviously).

 

[mardukm]

Is a Catholic who joins an Orthodox Church excommunicated laetae sententiae as a “schismatic?” Is confession sufficient to lift the sanction and restore communion? The reason I’m asking is that as a practical matter it has been treated as a sin for which absolution may be granted by the parish priest. I am not getting the sense that anyone is having any greater concerns than that over the issue (well, except me, obviously).

Yes. EO and OO are considered schismatics by the CC (OO and CC are considered heretics by the EO, however). Even if EO and OO are considered heretics by the CC (which they are not), confession would still be the proper way to return to the CC.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Aramis]

Is a Catholic who joins an Orthodox Church excommunicated laetae sententiae as a “schismatic?” Is confession sufficient to lift the sanction and restore communion? The reason I’m asking is that as a practical matter it has been treated as a sin for which absolution may be granted by the parish priest. I am not getting the sense that anyone is having any greater concerns than that over the issue (well, except me, obviously).

Note that it’s Church, as in conversion, rather than Parish.

A Catholic in an area without Catholic parishes but having Orthodox ones may register in those parishes without having committed schism.

Also note, accepting rebaptism or rechrismation, however, is a heretical act as well as schismatic.

 

[Timothy_Capps]

Note that it’s Church, as in conversion, rather than Parish.

A Catholic in an area without Catholic parishes but having Orthodox ones may register in those parishes without having committed schism.

Also note, accepting rebaptism or rechrismation, however, is a heretical act as well as schismatic.

Okay, so heretical as well as schismatic, but the question remains am I safe in relying on a confessor’s absolution and penance to return to full communion. I had visited this issue before prospectively. I am doing so again with the experience behind me of having returned to the Church and finding, as a practical matter, only a frank acknowledgement of error and sin was required for return to communion under my circumstances.

The proximate cause of my post was reading about sins that a parish priest is not empowered to provide absolution for. I was wondering if formal schism / heresy was one of those.

 

[mardukm]

Okay, so heretical as well as schismatic, but the question remains am I safe in relying on a confessor’s absolution and penance to return to full communion. I had visited this issue before prospectively. I am doing so again with the experience behind me of having returned to the Church and finding, as a practical matter, only a frank acknowledgement of error and sin was required for return to communion under my circumstances.

The proximate cause of my post was reading about sins that a parish priest is not empowered to provide absolution for. I was wondering if formal schism / heresy was one of those.

The only dispensation absolutely under papal prerogative is for a deposed priest to be dispensed from the obligation of clerical celibacy.

A confessor is canonically empowered through his bishop to absolve any sin whatsoever. I just read that in canon law today while I was investigating the canonical means by which a Pope can be deposed latae sententiae for heresy. But it would take too much time for me right now to go back and find the exact canon. Sorry. I know my word is not sufficient. If someone else has not done so, I will give you the canon by this weekend.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Timothy_Capps]

The only dispensation absolutely under papal prerogative is for a deposed priest to be dispensed from the obligation of clerical celibacy.

A confessor is canonically empowered through his bishop to absolve any sin whatsoever. I just read that in canon law today while I was investigating the canonical means by which a Pope can be deposed latae sententiae for heresy. But it would take too much time for me right now to go back and find the exact canon. Sorry. I know my word is not sufficient. If someone else has not done so, I will give you the canon by this weekend.

Blessings,
Marduk

Hi Marduk,

I was reading today about an office in Rome that hears cases a regular priest cannot forgive (like physically attacking the Pope… There were some less drastic examples but I don’t want to quote from memory.)

I have been starting on the way back starting just December 12 and am very happy.

 

[Aramis]

The only dispensation absolutely under papal prerogative is for a deposed priest to be dispensed from the obligation of clerical celibacy.

A confessor is canonically empowered through his bishop to absolve any sin whatsoever. I just read that in canon law today while I was investigating the canonical means by which a Pope can be deposed latae sententiae for heresy. But it would take too much time for me right now to go back and find the exact canon. Sorry. I know my word is not sufficient. If someone else has not done so, I will give you the canon by this weekend.

Blessings,
Marduk

Except that the excommunication must be lifted BEFORE absolution can be granted.

In the case of apostacy, ISTR that it is reserved to Bishops under the CIC, and isn’t much discussed in the CCEO.

 

[mardukm]

Hi Marduk,

I was reading today about an office in Rome that hears cases a regular priest cannot forgive (like physically attacking the Pope… There were some less drastic examples but I don’t want to quote from memory.)

I have been starting on the way back starting just December 12 and am very happy.

Oh I see what you mean. Since Orthodox are considered to be only in schism, then a regular priest can accept you back into the Catholic Church. A sin which acquires the sentence of a minor excommunication can be absolved by any priest. A sin which acquires the sentence of latae sententiae excommunication, such as schism, can be absolved by any priest, a special faculty normally granted by his bishop. A sin which acquires a sentence of anathema, on the other hand, requires the dispensation of the bishop. A sin which acquires the sentence of anathema Maranatha! can only be dispensed by the Pope. A sin which acquires the sentence of ferendae sententiae excommunication can only be absolved by the bishop who imposed the excommunication, or the Pope. In the Eastern and Oriental Catholic Churches, only the local bishop or the Metropolitan or the Patriarch can absolve from a ferendae sententiae excommunication. A layperson or priest can appeal that sentence to the Pope only with the permission of his Patriarch. Any Eastern or Oriental bishop can appeal a ferendae sententiae excommunication to the Pope directly.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Oh I see what you mean. Since Orthodox are considered to be only in schism, then a regular priest can accept you back into the Catholic Church. A sin which acquires the sentence of a minor excommunication can be absolved by any priest. A sin which acquires the sentence of latae sententiae excommunication, such as schism, can be absolved by any priest, a special faculty normally granted by his bishop. A sin which acquires a sentence of anathema, on the other hand, requires the dispensation of the bishop. A sin which acquires the sentence of anathema Maranatha! can only be dispensed by the Pope. A sin which acquires the sentence of ferendae sententiae excommunication can only be absolved by the bishop who imposed the excommunication, or the Pope. In the Eastern and Oriental Catholic Churches, only the local bishop or the Metropolitan or the Patriarch can absolve from a ferendae sententiae excommunication. A layperson or priest can appeal that sentence to the Pope only with the permission of his Patriarch. Any Eastern or Oriental bishop can appeal a ferendae sententiae excommunication to the Pope directly.

I wanted to clarify that what I wrote above for latae sententiae only applies if one is not a notorious sinner. If your sin moves into the exterior forum and affects the public, it is possible one would receive a ferendae sententiae excommunication, which could then only be absolved by the bishop.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Diak]

An Eastern Catholic may attend an Orthodox parish if one of his own particular ritual Church is not available without fear of schism or excommunication, since there is no willful intent for separation from the Church but rather the maintenance of a particular ritual, liturgical, and spiritual tradition.

But the Orthodox priest will almost surely not give Holy Communion in such a circumstance.

 

[JMJ_coder]

While I am not a canon lawyer, it appears that the Code of Canon Law states:

**Can. 1364 **
§1. Without prejudice to the prescript of ⇒ can. 194, §1, n. 2, an apostate from the faith, a heretic, or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication; in addition, a cleric can be punished with the penalties mentioned in ⇒ can. 1336, §1, nn. 1, 2, and 3.

**Can. 1354 **
§1. In addition to the persons listed in ⇒ cann. 1355-1356, all who can dispense from a law which includes a penalty or who can exempt from a precept which threatens a penalty can also remit that penalty.

§2. Moreover, a law or precept which establishes a penalty can also give the power of remission to others.

§3. If the Apostolic See has reserved the remission of a penalty to itself or to others, the reservation must be interpreted strictly.

**Can. 1355 **
§1. Provided that the penalty has not been reserved to the Apostolic See, the following can remit an imposed or declared penalty established by law:

1/ the ordinary who initiated the trial to impose or declare a penalty or who personally or through another imposed or declared it by decree;

2/ the ordinary of the place where the offender is present, after the ordinary mentioned under n. 1 has been consulted unless this is impossible because of extraordinary circumstances.

§2. If the penalty has not been reserved to the Apostolic See, an ordinary can remit a latae sententiae penalty established by law but not yet declared for his subjects and those who are present in his territory or who committed the offense there; any bishop can also do this in the act of sacramental confession.​

 

[dans0622]

Okay, so heretical as well as schismatic, but the question remains am I safe in relying on a confessor’s absolution and penance to return to full communion. I had visited this issue before prospectively. I am doing so again with the experience behind me of having returned to the Church and finding, as a practical matter, only a frank acknowledgement of error and sin was required for return to communion under my circumstances.

The proximate cause of my post was reading about sins that a parish priest is not empowered to provide absolution for. I was wondering if formal schism / heresy was one of those.

Hello Timothy_Capps,

It seems the most pertinent canon is this:

Can. 1357 §1. Without prejudice to the prescripts of cann. 508 and 976, a confessor can remit in the internal sacramental forum an undeclared latae sententiae censure of excommunication or interdict if it is burdensome for the penitent to remain in the state of grave sin during the time necessary for the competent superior to make provision.

§2. In granting the remission, the confessor is to impose on the penitent, under the penalty of reincidence, the obligation of making recourse within a month to the competent superior or to a priest endowed with the faculty and the obligation of obeying his mandates; in the meantime he is to impose a suitable penance and, insofar as it is demanded, reparation of any scandal and damage; however, recourse can also be made through the confessor, without mention of the name.

---

In other words, if a person actually does incur a “latae sententiae” censure, the confessor can remit the censure on the spot and absolve the penitent immediately, if the censure has not been declared. But, he or the penitent is then to go about taking care of the formalities mentioned in the canon above, if the confessor does not have the faculty to remit the penalty. If the confessor has that faculty, then nothing else has to be done.

If the confessor knows the whole story and gave absolution without telling the penitent to follow up on the situation with a priest who has the faculty, I think the penitent should rest assured that the situation is resolved.

Of course, this is all coming from a person who has not studied penal law yet… So, mine is not the final word. Just my own impression.

Dan

 

[Aramis]

An Eastern Catholic may attend an Orthodox parish if one of his own particular ritual Church is not available without fear of schism or excommunication, since there is no willful intent for separation from the Church but rather the maintenance of a particular ritual, liturgical, and spiritual tradition.

But the Orthodox priest will almost surely not give Holy Communion in such a circumstance.

Some will, some won’t. Depends on individual circumstances.

Village RO priests in Alaska very well might; ROOB’s almost certainly won’t. Antiochians may for Melkites. ACROD might for Ruthenians or Ukrainians.

 

[cameron_lansing]

. . .
It seems the most pertinent canon is this . . .Of course, this is all coming from a person who has not studied penal law yet… So, mine is not the final word. Just my own impression.

Dan

I drew that one for a paper in penal law. Ah the fond memories. I think I still have it in a folder somewhere. What a treat awaits you.

By the way, is the OP a Latin or Eastern Catholic? Was that question asked?

Then too, there are matters of evaluating imputability and mitigating circumstances.

Oh the possibilities.

Regards and prayer for the successful completion of your studies.

 

[JMJ_coder]

I drew that one for a paper in penal law. Ah the fond memories. I think I still have it in a folder somewhere. What a treat awaits you.

By the way, is the OP a Latin or Eastern Catholic? Was that question asked?

Then too, there are matters of evaluating imputability and mitigating circumstances.

Oh the possibilities.

Regards and prayer for the successful completion of your studies.

All the advice, more-or-less, has been assuming the Latin Code of Canons. The Eastern Code doesn’t use the terms laetae sententiae excommunication and such – they use minor excommunication and major excommunication and such.

 

[cameron_lansing]

All the advice, more-or-less, has been assuming the Latin Code of Canons. The Eastern Code doesn’t use the terms laetae sententiae excommunication and such – they use minor excommunication and major excommunication and such.

That’s quite true.

The first thing to do is to clarify the situation and not to assume it. After all, this is a forum on Eastern Catholicism.

 

[dans0622]

I drew that one for a paper in penal law. Ah the fond memories. I think I still have it in a folder somewhere. What a treat awaits you.

By the way, is the OP a Latin or Eastern Catholic? Was that question asked?

Then too, there are matters of evaluating imputability and mitigating circumstances.

Oh the possibilities.

Regards and prayer for the successful completion of your studies.

Thanks Deacon Cameron. I am very happy my professor in Eastern Law isn’t here to see this as I never even thought about the Eastern Code and if this person is actually not a Latin Catholic… Fortunately, my grade is already recorded. At least I will be less apt to make the same mistake again. Anyway, the question you raised wasn’t asked in this thread, it seems to me.

Dan

 

[Timothy_Capps]

The answer is Latin Catholic. Thanks for the answers. This has come up in more than one confessional context and the response has always been to treat it like something to be handled in cofession alone, but I also realize not all priests are necessarily up on their canon law and suspect that some might not be overly fussy about it anyway. Is one entitled to good faith reliance on one’s cofessor’s advice? I would think yes.

 

[cameron_lansing]

The answer is Latin Catholic. Thanks for the answers. This has come up in more than one confessional context and the response has always been to treat it like something to be handled in cofession alone, but I also realize not all priests are necessarily up on their canon law and suspect that some might not be overly fussy about it anyway. Is one entitled to good faith reliance on one’s cofessor’s advice? I would think yes.

Yes.

The remission of the latae sententiae excommunication mentioned in canon 1364 is not reserved to the Apostolic see and can be remitted by the means in canon 1355 or, if undeclared, by the canon penitentiary or another priest so appointed in canon 508. From that last canon, it seems that diocesan bishop could delegate the faculty broadly to the confessors of his diocese. This is already the widespread case because of the issue of completed, voluntary procured abortions (c. 1398).

A confessor would know if he had the faculty to remit from the censure of canon 1364 or not, or if further recourse were needed. He need only refer to his list of faculties. However, the confessor would also examine whether the grave imputability of canon 1321 existed and if any of the conditions in canon 1322-1324 would be applicable before determining the course of action.