"reserved" sins

  • Thread starter Thread starter Monica4316
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Monica4316

Guest
I read that there are certain sins that an ordinary priest can’t absolve, without permission of the Bishop or the Pope… and that there are sins that only a Bishop can absolve…

what are these sins? :confused:
 
I did a little bit of research, and it seems the primary types of reserved sins seem to be ones that can result in excommunication. I would imagine the reason a Bishop would have to absolve them is that the priest cannot lift an excommunication or something.

Don’t quote me on this though. 😛
 
I think in countries outside the USA abortion is one of these ‘reserved’ sins. In America, though, regular priests have been granted the power to absolve the sin of abortion and let someone back into the Church 👍

I’m not 100% on that though.
 
Thank you! 🙂
what sins result in excommunication? (besides abortion)
 
You are looking for things like:

physically attacking the pope
a priest absolving his accomplice in sexual sin
a bishop ordaining a bishop without papal approval
a priest directly breaking the seal of confession
an offense like throwing away a sacred host

I’m going on my memory here, but I think these are “reserved” sins to the Apostolic See.

Heresy and the like are also automatic excommunications, but I don’t think those are reserved, but my memory is spotty.
 
Thanks! 🙂

I found this…

Excommunications reserved to the Holy See:

Canon 1367 One who throws away the consecrated species or, for a sacrilegious purpose, takes them away or keeps them, incurs a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See; a cleric, moreover, may be punished with some other penalty, not excluding dismissal from the clerical state.

Canon 1370 §1 A person who uses physical force against the Roman Pontiff incurs a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See; if the offender is a cleric, another penalty, not excluding dismissal from the clerical state, may be added according to the gravity of the crime.

Canon 1378 §1 A priest who acts against the prescription of Can. 977 incurs a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See.

Canon 977 The absolution of a partner in a sin against the sixth commandment of the Decalogue is invalid, except in danger of death.

Canon 1382 Both the Bishop who, without a pontifical mandate, consecrates a person a Bishop, and the one who receives the consecration from him, incur a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See.

Canon 1388 §1 A confessor who directly violates the sacramental seal, incurs a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See; he who does so only indirectly is to be punished according to the gravity of the offence.

I’m’ not sure what Canon 977 means…
 
I would venture to say that Canon 977 means that if a priest and another person kill someone, the priest can’t absolve the accomplice.

Another way of saying this would be if 2 priests kill a guy, they can’t absolve each other.

Not sure, though.
 
I have to assume that if one brought a reserved sin to the confessional the priest would refer him or her to the bishop rather than grant absolution.
 
Monica4316 said:
I’m’ not sure what Canon 977 means…
Click to expand...
That is where a priest has sexual relations with a parishioner and then tries to absolve the parishioner afterwards. He cannot do it.

However, **all **of these censures can be absolved by any ordinary priest if the penitent is about to die, dying, etc. That is what the danger of death thing is. This is so the sacraments are available to people in need.
 
coolduude said:
I would venture to say that Canon 977 means that if a priest and another person kill someone, the priest can’t absolve the accomplice.

Another way of saying this would be if 2 priests kill a guy, they can’t absolve each other.

Not sure, though.
Click to expand...
No, it’s that if a priest has sex with someone, he can’t absolve them of that sin.
 
coolduude said:
Thanks for the clarification.
Click to expand...
You’re welcome – I see Pug replied in between the time I opened a tab for this thread and the time I typed my reply, so I wasn’t trying to add to his otherwise thorough statement. But yes, the idea of this one is so that a priest cannot use “Hey, come on, don’t worry whether or not it’s a sin; if it is I’ll just absolve you” as a lure to proposition someone.
 
I’m learning about this Church so:

Lets say I rape someone - excommunicated?
Lets say I murder someone - excommunicated?
Lets say I give a nuclear bomb to terrorists and they use it against a large city
resulting in millions of deaths - excommunicated?

No plans to do these things except in my James Bond movie script I’m writing. 😃
 
TikiTokiguy said:
I’m learning about this Church so:

Lets say I rape someone - excommunicated?
Lets say I murder someone - excommunicated?
Lets say I give a nuclear bomb to terrorists and they use it against a large city
resulting in millions of deaths - excommunicated?

No plans to do these things except in my James Bond movie script I’m writing. 😃
Click to expand...
I don’t think literary sins count. 😛

Seriously, it is only very specific sins that carry what is called an ecclesiastical censure. Lots of sins, even very, very bad ones, do not carry this type of penalty on them. Canon law lists the ones that do. Canon law is like what you might call Church law about how they run things. It even includes stuff about trials.

Any mortal sin (that is a large sin that one does freely, deliberately, knowing what you are doing) makes it so a Catholic is not supposed to receive communion until they go to confession first. But that is not what is called excommunication. Only a few sins get a censure or excommunication penalty. Also, the penalty is not designed to punish, but to cause reform, so of course it can be lifted. The person who would feel it the most would be a priest, I imagine, since it means he cannot celebrate the mass anymore, or do the sacraments and public stuff that priests do (until he reforms). I suppose someone who has some type of position in the Church could be affected, too, like a canon lawyer, since they could lose their position.
 
Monica4316 said:
I read that there are certain sins that an ordinary priest can’t absolve, without permission of the Bishop or the Pope… and that there are sins that only a Bishop can absolve…

what are these sins? :confused:
Click to expand...
Hi Monica,

I think you’ve gotten an answer to your question but just to be precise (picky), there are no “reserved sins” in the Latin Church. The Eastern Churches do have them, strictly speaking.

Anyway, if a person has committed a sin that results in an excommunication, the excommunication prevents the person from receiving any sacraments. So, all of an excommunicated person’s sins are “reserved,” if you want to use that term.

As far as who can remit the excommunication, it gets complicated. You can look at canons 1355-1358 here vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P51.HTM

There might be unfamiliar terminology there but I hope it makes some sense.

Dan
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top