Return to General Absolution

[Tis_Bearself]

We already had a whole thread on how women can confess their sexual sins in 2 minutes without having to go into detail. I wouldn’t expect your average priest to think twice about hearing sexual sins, as I’m sure after you’ve heard everything about 100 times it becomes boring and un-sexy.

Besides, if every other priest these days is gay like some people claim, then the young ladies’ sins aren’t a problem.

 

[njlisa]

In a private meeting with a trusted priest, I made an extended confession. For reasons known only to him, he gave me an apostolic pardon. I was the under the impression it was reserved for the dying. But I have to tell you, it helped me move on in my spiritual life.

This may not be pertinent to our current discussion. But I attended Episcopal church for awhile. At any service where Communion is provided, the parishioners kneel and make a general act of contrition. The priest then pardons their sins. Confession is on the books, but their were no confessionals. Some people might have gone.

I appreciate private confession in the R.C. Church. It helps me to confront my sins, and the priest’s advice is always helpful. And. the absolution feels like a ton of bricks have been removed from me. It is a joyous occasion.

 

[njlisa]

Correct me if I am wrong, but shouldn’t any priest should take the penitent’s sins seriously? In the case of scrupulosity, I’m guessing the priest might take another tack. I have never confessed to a priest who seemed to be gay or straight. I don’t think about it. I just regard them as trusted priests who help me in my journey to holiness.

 

[Vico]

…

Thanks.

Do you have a translation of the 1917 Code for the corresponding canons?

I used to have a link to an online text of it, but can’t find it.

(One of these days, I’ll buy a hardcopy. Someday.)

It is worth mentioning that the 1973 Rite of Penance (Bl Paul VI) remains unchanged. St John Paul II made no changes (despite claims in the media). What is, in the present-day, reserved for emergencies, has been that way from the beginning.

I do not have Ed Peters translation, but the link to the Latin is here: Codes of Canon Law

There was a period from 1973 to 1981 when only R.P. was used which is not as strict in application as the 1983 canon law. There was Moto proprio Misericordia Dei issued in 2002, with clarification of *grave necessity.
http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-p...i_motu-proprio_20020502_misericordia-dei.html

Earlier general norms were created in 1972: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...doc_19720616_sacramentum-paenitentiae_en.html

 

[Tis_Bearself]

I was being a bit sarcastic.

We have already had priests on here discuss that the priest does not get excited about hearing people’s sins and in fact doesn’t even remember them, he hears so very many. The poster to whom I responded seemed to think young priests would be tempted by hearing young women confess sexual sins. I doubt very much that’s an issue, and certainly not a basis for justifying general absolution.

 

[njlisa]

Just a bit sarcastic? Thank you for the clarification. May God bless you always.

 

[FrDavid96]

I do not have Ed Peters translation, but the link to the Latin is here: Codes of Canon Law

There was a period from 1973 to 1981 when only R.P. was used which is not as strict in application as the 1983 canon law. There was Moto proprio Misericordia Dei issued in 2002, with clarification of *grave necessity.

Earlier general norms were created in 1972:

I’m looking at the 1973 Rite of Penance (a 1976 printing).

#31 In addition to cases involving danger of death, it is lawful to give [general absolution]…if there is grave need.

Therefore, I don’t see how the 1973 text is “less strict” than the later 1983 Code. I don’t have the Latin, but I’m pretty sure that “grave need” is no accident of translation. I’m sure it means the same thing as it does in other canonical contexts.

As I read it, the 83 code is less strict (not having the words “grave necessity”) and that would be why JP II needed to clarify things a few years later.

So John Paul II might have re-iterated the existing law, and clarified “grave need” (ie grave necessity) but he did not change anything.

I am curious why you’re saying that the 73 version was less strict than the 83 code. ???

 

[FrDavid96]

I do not have Ed Peters translation, but the link to the Latin is here: Codes of Canon Law

I think that site used to have an English translation of the 1917 code, but it’s been removed (I could be wrong).

I used to use such a site. Unfortunately, I never bookmarked it.

 

[Gorgias]

it is essential to have general absolution - 1) it saves a lot of priest time;

So… “saving time” is more important than “properly celebrating the sacraments”?!?

1. it protects the priest (particularly young ones) against temptations which could include listening for hours about “sexual exploits”, intimacies of young ladies, etc. 3) it saves ladies (especially girls) from confessing their intimacies to a man (who even if he is an Alter Christus) is still a man)

@Tis_Bearself already referenced the other thread. “Father, I sinned against the sixth commandment three times” suffices… and neither titillates the priest nor shames a woman.

Besides which, if the Church sees value in auricular confession – why are we proposing to “save” people from it?

, 4) actually, the Holy Mass begins with a penitential act - the Kyrie Eleison, and an absolution: "indulgentiam, absolutionem, et remissionem pecatorum nostrorum…). Should’t it be sufficient?

For venial sin? Yes. For mortal sin? The Church says ‘no’.

At the beginning of the Mass the priest says “agnoscamus peccata nostra” and gives a short time for us to remember what sins we have committed, which if we go to Mass every Sunday, they cannot be too many. It should suffice.

For venial sin, yes. Not for mortal.

So, I’m counting at least three strikes (and probably a foul ball among them), in your at-bat here…

 

[Vico]

…
I am curious why you’re saying that the 73 version was less strict than the 83 code. ???

This was removed when norms 31-34 were replace by canon law:

If, apart from the instances established by the local Ordinary, any other serious need arises for giving general absolution, a priest is bound first, whenever possible, to have recourse to the local Ordinary in order to give the general absolution. If this is not possible, he is to inform the same Ordinary as soon as possible of the need in question and of the fact of the absolution.

Canon 963 is more strict also, ASAP:

Can. 963 Without prejudice to the obligation mentioned in can. 989, a person whose grave sins are remitted by general absolution is to approach individual confession as soon as possible, given the opportunity, before receiving another general absolution, unless a just cause intervenes.

USCCB added a norm that of one month as the minimum time criteria for canon Can. 961 §1 2/.

 

[FrDavid96]

This was removed when norms 31-34 were replace by canon law:

If, apart from the instances established by the local Ordinary, any other serious need arises for giving general absolution, a priest is bound first, whenever possible, to have recourse to the local Ordinary in order to give the general absolution. If this is not possible, he is to inform the same Ordinary as soon as possible of the need in question and of the fact of the absolution.

Sorry. I’m just not seeing it.

Rite of Penance 31 required “grave necessity” (again, 1973 text, just to be clear)

The text continues, and says that the local ordinary is the one who judges whether or not there is indeed “grave necessity” (naturally). He cannot add a lower standard. He can only determine if there is grave necessity.

I still do not see how the 1983 Code raised that standard in any way.

I’m listening. Explain it to me. I honestly don’t see it.

The only difference I do see is in Rite of Penance 34, which speaks about making an individual confession within a year rather than as soon as possible.

 

[FrDavid96]

If, apart from the instances established by the local Ordinary, any other serious need arises for giving general absolution, a priest is bound first, whenever possible, to have recourse to the local Ordinary in order to give the general absolution. If this is not possible, he is to inform the same Ordinary as soon as possible of the need in question and of the fact of the absolution.

OK.

That’s from Rite of Penance #32.

Maybe I’m beginning to see it.

The words are “other serious need”

First, I’d want to see the Latin. Is the translator using “serious need” when it should have been “grave necessity”??

Second, I think it needs to be put into context. Even though serious need might seem to be a lesser standard, I don’t see that paragraph 32 effectively changes (lessens) what was already said in paragraph 31.

That’s the part I’m still not seeing. I don’t see how 32 in any way lessens the standard set in 31.

 

[Brendan_64]

I’m obedient to the Church insofar as (and as long as) She’s obedient to Christ. When She isn’t, and one’s conscience knows this to be so, disobedience becomes a duty and obedience becomes a sin.

And as an individual how are you qualified to determine if the Church is not being obedient to Christ?

The thing about conscience is that it is not independent and entirely individual. Conscience must be formed in line with Church teaching. If your conscience is at odds with Church teachings, then your conscience is not properly formed and cannot be relied upon in that instance.

 

[Vico]

…

That’s the part I’m still not seeing. I don’t see how 32 in any way lessens the standard set in 31.

This was removed when norms 31-34 were replace by canon law:

If, apart from the instances established by the local Ordinary, any other serious need arises for giving general absolution, a priest is bound first, whenever possible, to have recourse to the local Ordinary in order to give the general absolution. If this is not possible, he is to inform the same Ordinary as soon as possible of the need in question and of the fact of the absolution.

That is, the priest does not have prerogative to do and then inform.

 

[FrDavid96]

…

That is, the priest does not have prerogative to do and then inform.

OK then. Thanks for the direct answer. That’s what I was looking for.

I don’t see that as much of a significant change.

The standard is still “grave necessity.”

Whether it’s the priest who judges that, or the bishop, grave necessity is still required before there can be recourse to general absolution.

That hardly matches the narrative we hear/read from those who want to make general absolution the norm. They characterize the situation as if general absolution was merely one option out of three available options.

Even in the 70s and 80s when this was popular (in some places, at least) when the priest could make that decision himself, those priests were not applying they law. Instead, they were ignoring the criteria of “grave necessity.”

So that’s a long way of saying that the change was not very significant, and certainly doesn’t match the claim that people today are making (that JP2 took away an option).

 

[Vico]

…

Saint Pope John Paul II did make a change with his moto proprio Misericordia Dei. It is referred to by USCCB:

Canon 961, §1, 2° - General Absolution​

Complementary Norm: The National Conference of Catholic Bishops interprets the meaning of diu of canon 961, §1, 2o to be “one month,” by which the diocesan bishop judges whether and when the conditions of grave necessity for general absolution are verified in his diocese.
Approved: General Meeting, June 1988
Reviewed: Holy See (Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments) (oral communication) Since the action was not considered a decree (c. 455, §2) it did not require the recognitio of the Holy See.
Promulgated: Memorandum to All Bishops, December 15, 1989
Subsequent Action: No further action is required in light of the April 7, 2002 Apostolic Letter motu proprio, Misericordia Dei .

 

[glad2bhome]

Veering off topic a bit, but I struggle with this statement. “If your conscience is at odds with Church teachings, then your conscience is not properly formed and cannot be relied upon in that instance.” To me it’s stating if you have doubts, concerns, or questions about a tradition/teaching, then it’s because your not properly formed? Is it a believe and trust or leave no matter what that inner voice is saying?

 

[Gorgias]

Veering off topic a bit, but I struggle with this statement. “If your conscience is at odds with Church teachings, then your conscience is not properly formed and cannot be relied upon in that instance.” To me it’s stating if you have doubts, concerns, or questions about a tradition/teaching, then it’s because your not properly formed? Is it a believe and trust or leave no matter what that inner voice is saying?

No, that’s not what it’s saying.

Essentially, it boils down to this: if you look at a cliff and say “there’s no cliff here”, but the Church is saying, “no, there really is a cliff there, and if you step off it, you’ll fall and die”, how should you respond?

On one hand, you have every right to say to yourself, “I think there’s no cliff, and so I’m going for a walk.” On the other hand, (in this context) we’re saying that the Church is the authoritative teacher of what cliffs are and where they exist. So, you could say “it ain’t so”, if you want. However, if that’s your position, then it would be wise to ask yourself, “why do I think there’s no cliff, but the Church says there’s one? Should I trust my 20 years of experience, or the Church’s 2000 years of experience and its God-given role as expert cliff-identifier?”

The Church says that you must act according to your conscience… but that you must also form it properly.

If you have “doubts, concerns, or questions”, then by all means, ask! Discuss! Learn! If, however, you conclude the Church is wrong on a matter within its sphere of competency (faith and morals), I think it’s imperative to ask why you think the Church is wrong, and what the implication is of that belief…

 

[FrDavid96]

FrDavid96:

…

Saint Pope John Paul II did make a change with his moto proprio Misericordia Dei. It is referred to by USCCB:

Canon 961, §1, 2° - General Absolution​

Complementary Norm: The National Conference of Catholic Bishops interprets the meaning of diu of canon 961, §1, 2o to be “one month,” by which the diocesan bishop judges whether and when the conditions of grave necessity for general absolution are verified in his diocese.
Approved: General Meeting, June 1988
Reviewed: Holy See (Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments) (oral communication) Since the action was not considered a decree (c. 455, §2) it did not require the recognitio of the Holy See.
Promulgated: Memorandum to All Bishops, December 15, 1989
Subsequent Action: No further action is required in light of the April 7, 2002 Apostolic Letter motu proprio, Misericordia Dei .

No need to shout.

Putting the canon number in bold type doesn’t change anything.

The pre-condition is still “grave necessity.”

It was that in 1973, and remains that into the 1983 Code.

The change was not very significant.

It merely changes the procedure for determining whether-or-not a grave necessity exists.

 

[Vico]

…
The pre-condition is still “grave necessity.”

It was that in 1973, and remains that into the 1983 Code.

The change was not very significant.

It merely changes the procedure for determining whether-or-not a grave necessity exists.

I am explaining that that was a change and what it was. So what is the problem then?

• Priests not complying with the 1983 CIC.
• Not applying the one month criteria.