Priests,bishops and sins?

[catholicgirl201]

Hi,
I was just wondering what sins can a Bishop absolve that a Priest cant and what sins can the Pope can absolve that a priest or Bishop cant?

 

[MarkThompson]

Hi,
I was just wondering what sins can a Bishop absolve that a Priest cant and what sins can the Pope can absolve that a priest or Bishop cant?

None.

The only difference has to do with remission of excommunications and other ecclesiastical sanctions. However, remitting an excommunication is entirely distinct from absolving a sin; the former is a juridical, not a sacramental, act. Let’s say a person attacks the Pope. He commits a sin by his violent assault. At the same time, as an ecclesiastical penalty he incurs an excommunication whose remission is reserved to the Apostolic See (i.e. the Pope), see Canon 1370 §1. It is the prerogative, therefore, of the Pope to remit the excommunication, while any priest may absolve the sin. (An excommunicated person is forbidden to receive any of the sacraments, including absolution, so the excommunication would have to be dealt with first. Even so, a penitent in danger of death can receive absolution; again, this can be done by any priest.)

I hope that both answers your question and explains the main issue that might cause confusion in this context.

 

[Oneofthewomen]

OK, Mark, that’s a great answer and really clarifies a couple of things for me.

Now maybe you can clarify something else-
it is my understand that there are 2 “types” of excommunication.
One that is “imposed” by a higher authority (as in the case of asssulting the Pope)
and one that one imposes on themselves by their behavior (i.e. "cohabitation).

I know there are Latin terms, but they escape me right now…

Is this indeed, true?
And does this make a difference as far as absolution and the lifting of the excommunication?

 

[ConstantineTG]

An excommunicated person is forbidden to receive any of the sacraments, including absolution

I thought that Confession is always available to the excommunicated because it usually is the path to regaining full communion.

 

[Leegal]

Excommunication latae sententiae – automatic which means you know the sin also bring an excommunciation.

Excommunication ferendae sententiae – imposed by an authority. For an authority today to now issue a public excommunication would be rare. Even the Vatican has refused to excommunicate by authority those who are pro-choice.

There are conditions. You must know that the mortal sin also carries the burden of excommunication. Abortion is one. Also, I was told in another thread that this excommunication latae sententiae applies to abortions from 1983 for example. So, the penitent would at least have to know that he or she would be automatically excommunicated and whether or not excommunication applied at the time the sin took place.

Before 1983, the excommunicant was either vitandus (shunned) or toleratus (tolerated). The 1983 Book of Canon law eliminated these definitions.

vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P57.HTM

Desecration of the Eucharist, apostasy, abortion are Excommunications latae sententiae. Pre-marital sex or cohabitation is a mortal (grave) sin but does not carry Excommunication latae sententiae The Excommunication latae sententiae is in addition to the mortal sin.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=618710

See the responses of JReducation and yablabo in the above thread.

 

[Leegal]

I thought that Confession is always available to the excommunicated because it usually is the path to regaining full communion.

So did I and it still is, but the case of abortion, apostasy and desecration of the Eucharist the Excommunication has to be lifted. The priest may have the authority to lift the Excommunication too. It depends upon where you live. In some countries, those cases are referred to the Bishop.

In the U.S., the consensus seems to be that most, if not all, priests can lift the Excommunication so that penance can be heard and the penitent absolved. In that case, the Bishops have conferred authority to his priests to lift Excommunications latae sententiae.

These Excommunciations are more serious – not just a mortal sin. It’s different than not being able to receive the Sacraments until you confess, however the lifting of the Excommunication and hearing of confession and absolution can be accomplished in one meeting – I can only speak for the U.S. My research seems to show that Poland for example refers these Excommunications to the Bishop. I don’t know if the penitent is sent to the Bishop or the priest, without violating the confessional, asks for permission to lift an Excommunication.

The purpose is not to keep people from not going to confession and coming back to the Church. No one who has been Excommunicated should feel that they cannot find their way back.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

I thought absolution for some sins, not just the removal of excommunications attached to those sins, was reserved to the Holy See (specifically, the Apostolic Penitentiary). This is a matter not of sacramental theology but Church discipline.

 

[JGMendes4049]

One that is “imposed” by a higher authority (as in the case of asssulting the Pope)

Imposed would be ferendæ sententiæ, although assaulting the Pope is actually the next kind:

and one that one imposes on themselves by their behavior (i.e. "cohabitation).

Latæ sententiæ. However, cohabiters are not excommunicated, but it is a sin.

 

[Leegal]

I thought absolution for some sins, not just the removal of excommunications attached to those sins, was reserved to the Holy See (specifically, the Apostolic Penitentiary). This is a matter not of sacramental theology but Church discipline.

Technically to the Bishops, at least in the U.S. and some other countries that I do know.

But in the U.S. the Bishops have conferred the right to lift these Excommunications to the priests. See the other thread;

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=618710

one woman described her lifting as a reading by the priest from the Roman Rite by the priest. Think about this, if they had to be referred to the Holy See you are leaving the penitent in a dubious place spiritually. They want to confess, they want absolution. The path back cannot be made impossible because that is not the purpose.

In the case I described in the thread, the Excommunication took place without knowledge of an Excommunication AND took place pre-1983 Canon Law.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I thought absolution for some sins, not just the removal of excommunications attached to those sins, was reserved to the Holy See (specifically, the Apostolic Penitentiary). This is a matter not of sacramental theology but Church discipline.

Depends on the offense on who can lift the excommunication, and the higher authority can always delegate to someone else. As for absolution, I believe its the first step. You can go to any priest and ask for absolution. But you are still not restored to full communion until the legal process is followed.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

All this concerns excommunications, which is not the OP’s question. What about sins whose absolution is reserved to the Holy See or a lower level of Church authority?

This Catholic Encyclopedia article talks about absolutions being reserved to the Pope in the past:

oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Roman_Curia

Also there is this about Reserved Cases:

Reserved Cases, a term used for sins whose absolution is not within the power of every confessor, but is reserved to himself by the superior of the confessor, or only specially granted to some other confessor by that superior. To reserve a case is then to refuse jurisdiction for the absolution of a certain sin. Christ gave power to the rulers of His Church to make such reservations: “Whose sins you shall retain they are retained” (John, xx, 23). The reservation of sins presupposes jurisdiction, and therefore the pope alone can make reservations for the whole Church; bishops can do the same for their dioceses only and certain regular prelates for their religious subjects. That a sin be reserved it must be mortal, external, and consummated. If a sin be reserved in one diocese, and a penitent, without the intention of evading the law, confess to a priest in another diocese where the sin is not reserved, the latter may absolve the reserved sin, Cases are reserved either (a) merely on account of the sin itself, that is without censure, or (b) on account of the censures attached to it. If a penitent be in danger of death, any priest can absolve him, both from reserved censures and reserved sins. In case of reserved censures, if he recovers, he must later present himself to the one having special power for reserved censures, unless the case was simply reserved to the pope. As to reserved sins, he need not, as a general rule, present himself again after convalescence. In a case of urgent necessity, when it is not possible to have recourse to the proper superior, an ordinary priest may absolve a penitent, directly from unreserved sins and indirectly from episcopal reserved cases, but the penitent must afterwards apply to the person having power to absolve from the reservation. If there were also papal reservations, either simple or special, the absolution is direct, but in case of special reservations to the pope a relation must be made to the Holy See that its mandates on the subject may be obtained. Ignorance of a censure prevents its being incurred, but moralists dispute whether ignorance of a reservation, with or without censure, excuses from its incurrence. If it be a case with censure reserved to the pope, all agree that ignorance does excuse from it; if reserved to a bishop, it is controverted. Some moralists hold that ignorance excuses from all reservations, whether with or without censure. It is certain, however, that a bishop has authority to declare that ignorance of a reservation does not prevent its incurrence in his diocese.

oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Reserved_Cases

This Wikipedia article does not focus on this but does seem to say the absolution (not just the removal of any excommunication) for some sins is reserved to the Apostolic Penitentiary:

Normally confessions of sins are handled at the local level by priests and their bishops and are not heard by the tribunal. However, its work involves those sins, e.g. defiling the Eucharist, which are reserved to the Holy See. In late 2006, then Major Penitentiary Cardinal Stafford said this offense is occurring with more and more frequency, by ordinary faithful who receive Communion and then remove the host from their mouths and spit it out or otherwise desecrate it[citation needed]. Other sins that are handled by the Penitentiary include a priest breaking the seal of the confessional by revealing the nature of the sin and the person who sought penance, or a priest who has sex with someone and then offered forgiveness for the act. These sins bring automatic excommunication from the Church. Once absolution is granted, the excommunication is then lifted. A fourth type of case that comes to the tribunal involves a man who has contributed towards facilitating an abortion — such as by paying for it — or directly so by performing one, who then seeks to become a priest or deacon.

Persons who wish to receive an absolution or dispensation reserved to the Holy See write a petition to the Penitentiary. Usually, this petition is written through their initial confessor. The petition must use pseudonyms when explaining the situation to avoid revealing the identity of the persons involved, and the tribunal itself acts in complete secrecy. The Major Penitentiary considers the matter himself, unless it is particularly important, in which case the whole of the tribunal considers the petition. The members of the tribunal only give advice regarding the petition; the Major Penitentiary has the ultimate decision on whether the dispensation or absolution should be granted. If the Major Penitentiary is uncertain as to whether he has authority in a given case, he submits the matter to the Pope. The impediment or act in question must not be public; otherwise, the impediment or act is a matter of the external forum and cannot be absolved or dispensed by the Penitentiary.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostolic_Penitentiary

Also I seem to recall a controversy over a recent document which added two sins to the list of those whose absolution (I think) is now reserved to the Holy See- the attempted ordination of women and the use of child pornography by priests (the controversy was over a supposed implication that the former is as bad as the latter, which I doubt was intended by the document).

Anyone have better sources, especially a current list of the sins whose absolution is reserved to the Holy See?

 

[Leegal]

All this concerns excommunications, which is not the OP’s question. What about sins whose absolution is reserved to the Holy See or a lower level of Church authority?

This Catholic Encyclopedia article talks about absolutions being reserved to the Pope in the past:

I did see that the OP did not mention Excommunication, however the #2 and #3 referred to it and they seemed to assume as I did.

I am woefully ignorant of the difference between Excommunication latae sententiae and those “reserved cases”, and I admit it. However, there is a qualifier in your link (as I read it) and that is that the authority can be designated to the confessor. It appears that there is at least some consensus that in the U.S. that is the case – at least for those sins that involve a woman having an abortion, or apostasy.

What led to my original posting on abortion/Excommunication was from this:

Fr. Serpa

I can see why reserved cases have to do with priests themselves (or those who later seek to become a deacon or priest) and would have to be referred to a higher authority. This I did not know.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

I did see that the OP did not mention Excommunication, however the #2 and #3 referred to it and they seemed to assume as I did.

I am woefully ignorant of the difference between Excommunication latae sententiae and those “reserved cases”, and I admit it. However, there is a qualifier in your link (as I read it) and that is that the authority can be designated to the confessor. It appears that there is at least some consensus that in the U.S. that is the case – at least for those sins that involve a woman having an abortion, or apostasy.

What led to my original posting on abortion/Excommunication was from this:

Fr. Serpa

I can see why reserved cases have to do with priests themselves (or those who later seek to become a deacon or priest) and would have to be referred to a higher authority. This I did not know.

I don’t think all the reserved cases have to do with priests themselves. For example I didn’t mention it but I’m pretty sure murdering one’s spouse in order to marry another person is or at least once was one of these reserved cases. Also the Catholic Encyclopedia article mentioned one of the first (or was it the first?) cases of this being the sin of striking a cleric. It does seem like a common thread tends to be some connection or other to the sacramental life of the Church, though.

 

[Oneofthewomen]

Imposed would be ferendæ sententiæ, although assaulting the Pope is actually the next kind:Latæ sententiæ. However, cohabiters are not excommunicated, but it is a sin.

OK, maybe “cohabitation” was a poor choice of words for what I actually meant.

If 2 Catholics (who are both non-practicing) get married outside the Church without the proper dispensation, it is my understanding that by the Church’s definition, they are “co-habitating” therefore they incur excommunication “Latae sententiae”.
Is this correct?
So, assuming the couple wants to return to the Church, which would have to come first- the lifting of the excommunication, or the confession & absolution?

 

[Aelred_Minor]

Well, I just found this, an article from Catholic News Service from January 2009 describing the Apostolic Penitentiary as it existed at that time.

Cardinal Stafford told reporters Jan. 13 that the penitentiary deals with five specific cases: a man who directly participated in an abortion and later wants to enter the priesthood; priests who have broken the seal of confession; priests who have offered sacramental absolution to their own sexual partner; desecrating the Eucharist; and making an attempt on the life of the pope.

The “very serious sin” of clerical sexual abuse is not one of the sins over which the penitentiary has competence, the cardinal said; those cases are handled by the doctrinal congregation.

Forgiveness of the five sins listed by Cardinal Stafford is what the church describes as “reserved” to the Holy See, so in order to receive absolution for them, it is not enough to go to one’s local priest for confession, said Bishop Gianfranco Girotti, regent of the Apostolic Penitentiary.

catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0900179.htm

This may actually still be the case, since what I’ve been able to find on the subject of “female ordination” and priests using child pornography makes it sound like those sins may have been added to a category (delicta graviora) distinct from this one.

Where’s JReducation when you need him?!

 

[Spirithound]

If 2 Catholics (who are both non-practicing) get married outside the Church without the proper dispensation, it is my understanding that by the Church’s definition, they are “co-habitating” therefore they incur excommunication “Latae sententiae”.
Is this correct?
So, assuming the couple wants to return to the Church, which would have to come first- the lifting of the excommunication, or the confession & absolution?

This is not an excommunication. An excommunication is a juridical penalty, either applied by the law itself (to a very limited number of offences), or by a judge after a trial.

In the scenario you present, there is no excommunication to lift. The couple must have their marriage convalidated in the Church for them to receive absolution, but this is merely a matter of ceasing their sin, not of any excommunication being lifted.