Return to General Absolution

[FrDavid96]

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.

The problem is that you’re making a big deal about something that hardly rises to that level, because in the end, it hardly means anything.

People (some of them priests) are today making a false claim that somehow general absolution was considered to be nothing more significant than one option out of three possible options. They claim that Pope John Pau II somehow “changed the law” and took away from them what they considered to be the normal practice.

When you chime-in, your write something that very much seems to support that idea. You keep insisting that JP2 made some change that abrogated the existing Rite of Penance.

I keep asking you to explain the change, but you won’t give me a direct answer. You just keep posting the same thing. The reason I could not notice the change was that it was so insignificant.

Then finally, I find out what is the “change” that actually mean. It turns out, it’s nothing more than part of the procedure for defining if “grave necessity” is truly present.

The first issue is that it does nothing really to affect the availability of general absolution. The criteria is, as it has been from the beginning, “grave necessity.”

The second issue is that the advocates of general absolution today (and likewise the priests who abused this practice in the 70s and 80) have absolutely no intention of telling anyone that this can only be done in cases of “grave necessity.” Much less do they care about asking the bishop to interpret “grave necessity.”

 

[Vico]

Vico:

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.

The problem is that you’re making a big deal about something that hardly rises to that level, because in the end, it hardly means anything.

People (some of them priests) are today making a false claim that somehow general absolution was considered to be nothing more significant than one option out of three possible options. They claim that Pope John Pau II somehow “changed the law” and took away from them what they considered to be the normal practice.

When you chime-in, your write something that very much seems to support that idea. You keep insisting that JP2 made some change that abrogated the existing Rite of Penance.

I keep asking you to explain the change, but you won’t give me a direct answer. You just keep posting the same thing. The reason I could not notice the change was that it was so insignificant.

Then finally, I find out what is the “change” that actually mean. It turns out, it’s nothing more than part of the procedure for defining if “grave necessity” is truly present.

The first issue is that it does nothing really to affect the availability of general absolution. The criteria is, as it has been from the beginning, “grave necessity.”

The second issue is that the advocates of general absolution today (and likewise the priests who abused this practice in the 70s and 80) have absolutely no intention of telling anyone that this can only be done in cases of “grave necessity.” Much less do they care about asking the bishop to interpret “grave necessity.”

Thank you for explaining that the problem is my making a big deal.

I don’t understand what you mean about a direct answer. I thought I gave you one.

I don’t know of anyone claiming what you say, false claims, but I will take your word for it. I read what the CDF wrote in NOTITIAE 2015/2 http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...cdds_notitiae-2015-quaderno-penitenza_en.html

At the distance of some decades, however, one notes that the Rite and formulas have not always been respected. Maybe, this is because some of the celebrative suggestions were judged inopportune or too excessive.

The change and clarification, since 1973 was threefold and both through St. Pope John Paul II: the 1983 canon law removing the priestly prerogative, and the clarification of the what defines grave “for a long time”, and to receive individual confession ASAP. It there was not a pastoral problem with it, then the USCCB would not have issued a complimentary norm. According to New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, p. 81, specifically gives the R.P. of 1973 as an example of tacit revocation (abrogation or derogation), through reordering a portion of it, norms 31-34 in the 1983 canon law.

 

[InThePew]

General absolution has a relatively short but interesting history. Long story short, there were more than a few priests (and the odd bishop or three) in the 1970’s who played fast and loose with the words “grave necessity” in some cases filling football stadiums. Paul VI had more than a bit to say to the US Bishops about this on their ad limina visits as did JPII to the Australian bishops.

Rite III has appeal amongst (some) priests and laity because it’s easy - it takes all of the awkwardness and anxiety out of the sacrament and makes people feel good about themselves. That is of course the problem - the sacrament is difficult because of a little thing called conscience and taking the struggle out of something isn’t actually as helpful as it might seem.

 

[FrDavid96]

I don’t know of anyone claiming what you say, false claims, but I will take your word for it. …

At the distance of some decades, however, one notes that the Rite and formulas have not always been respected. Maybe, this is because some of the celebrative suggestions were judged inopportune or too excessive.

As you posted, the CDF wrote “the Rite and formulas have not always been respected…”

The false claim, made both then and now, is that general absolution is merely an option (one of three, as I keep repeating). It is not that. It is not merely an option to be chosen, it is to be used only in cases of grave necessity.

There is an organization out there, which claims to represent US Catholic priests (I won’t name them). They make exactly the claim that the 1973 Rite of Penance allowed for general absolution under normal circumstances, ie as an optional replacement for individual confession.

The change and clarification, since 1973 was threefold and both through St. Pope John Paul II: the 1983 canon law removing the priestly prerogative, and the clarification of the what defines grave “for a long time”, and to receive individual confession ASAP. It there was not a pastoral problem with it, then the USCCB would not have issued a complimentary norm. According to New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, p. 81, specifically gives the R.P. of 1973 as an example of tacit revocation (abrogation or derogation), through reordering a portion of it, norms 31-34 in the 1983 canon law.

The changes were minutia (as far as the topic at hand is concerned).

There was no change (none) that in any way lessened the necessity that general absolution could only be done in times of grave necessity (which includes, not excludes, danger of death). Grave necessity was required in 1973. Grave necessity was required in 1983.

I understand your point that there was a change. Yes. I’ve said that repeatedly. But the change itself was not a significant one. Significant for a canonist or a scholar, yes (significant enough to warrant mention in the commentary); but not significant in practical terms. That’s my point. Insignificant in practical terms. (see PS)

When people are completely ignoring the criteria of “grave necessity” in the first place, what possible difference does it make that the phrase “a long time” is replaced with “a month.” ??? They are already ignoring the law overall.

P.S. The change about “one month” will make a difference to a priest who intends to faithfully follow the law. Only that’s not what we’re discussing here. We’re discussing the very real history that in the 70s and 80s certain priests were ignoring the law completely.

 

[Vico]

…

I see, so some claim that it is not only for grave necessity. Do those people know that there is no absolution granted without the intention to confess later individually (if physically and morally possible)?

 

[FrDavid96]

I see, so some claim that it is not only for grave necessity.

Yes. Exactly. That’s what I keep saying.
See the later part of my post.

Do those people know that there is no absolution granted without the intention to confess later individually (if physically and morally possible)?

I don’t know what is in their minds, unless they tell us, of course. When they express their opinions, I know what those opinions are.

As far as what they know, it’s safe to presume that the priests were taught this as part of their formation. They certainly should have read the relevant Church documents and teachings as part of their formation for this, or any other sacrament.

If a priest says “I’m cancelling confessions at this parish, and from now on, everyone will do general absolution” it’s self-evident that the same priest is not telling people they need to go to individual confession later. That holds whether a priest actually does it, or is just proposing doing it.

For example, read this paragraph. Read it carefully.

There’s also a communal form of the sacrament that offers forgiveness without the need for an individual meeting, referred to as the “third rite.” Its use was heavily restricted in 1984 by Pope John Paul II, who stressed the importance of the personal interaction with priests during the sacrament. He told bishops that general absolution could be used only “in cases of grave necessity.”
https://cruxnow.com/faith/2016/04/01/church-scrambles-to-save-endangered-sacrament-of-confession/

Some points to note

It says “without the need for individual [confession]” It doesn’t say individual confession comes later, but rather that it’s not needed.

It also says that JP2 “heavily restricted” the use of general absolution. The words certainly imply that JP2 added the requirement of “grave necessity” as if it were not there in the first place.

 

[Vico]

…

What was restricted was the norms especially 32 which is not in the 1983 CIC:

If a serious need arises of giving general sacramental absolution apart from the cases laid down by the local Ordinary, the priest is obliged, whenever it is possible, to have previous recourse to the local Ordinary in order to grant the absolution lawfully; if this is not possible, he is to inform the Ordinary as soon as possible of the need and of the granting of the absolution.

 

[FrDavid96]

FrDavid96:

…

What was restricted was the norms especially 32 which is not in the 1983 CIC:

If a serious need arises of giving general sacramental absolution apart from the cases laid down by the local Ordinary, the priest is obliged, whenever it is possible, to have previous recourse to the local Ordinary in order to grant the absolution lawfully; if this is not possible, he is to inform the Ordinary as soon as possible of the need and of the granting of the absolution.

Have you not read anything I’m trying to explain to you?

You are fixated on this notion of the 83 Code making some kind of change. Yes, it did. That change is INSIGNIFICANT. It has nothing to do with the actual topic. It’s a matter of minutia. The issue of informing the Ordinary has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

As I keep trying (trying very hard at that) to explain to you: The condition of “grave necessity” was present in the 1973 Rite of Penance, but that condition was IGNORED. After St John Paul II insisted that the condition be respected, people falsely claim that he added something which was not there earlier.

No one is talking about consulting the ordinary, or informing the ordinary. That’s not part of the conversation.

It’s relevant for canonists, liturgists, and certainly relevant for priests who are responsible for acting within the law. Yet, it has NOTHING (repeat: nothing) to do with the conversation that’s happening worldwide about replacing individual confession with general absolution (either in part or entirely).

 

[Vico]

…

I have understood about gravity from the very first post. Some priests would decide for themselves what was grave necessity.

 

[Start]

2 and 3 aren’t real problems and there is a simpler solution.

 

[FrDavid96]

I have understood about gravity from the very first post. Some priests would decide for themselves what was grave necessity.

Not quite.

“Grave necessity” is a particular phrase used in canon law.

It refers to times of the most serious difficulties such as war, persecution, natural disaster, etc.

Priests (no one else for that matter) can simply decide for themselves what grave necessity means. The law doesn’t work that way. Instead, someone (bishop, priest, whoever) decides IF a given situation is the equivalent of war, persecution, or natural disaster.

Someone might say that a complete breakdown of society, or a government coup, or a deadly flu epidemic could be grave necessity.

It does not mean a priest can say “I have grave necessity because my calendar is full this week” or “I have grave necessity because I get bored listening to people’s sins.”

It’s also clear when we look at the history of what actually happened in the past, and what some people today are claiming. They’re claiming that the criteria of “grave necessity” was something added by JP2. That it was never there in the 1973 Rite.

In the United States, in the 70s and 80s we simply did not have situations of “grave necessity.” We had no war (not on our own soil). We had no period of persecution. We had no period of famine. Yes, we had our share of natural disasters (tornadoes, hurricanes, floods, blizzards, etc); but those were all short-term events, and we do know from our own history and memories that by no means (none whatsoever) were those priests limiting their use of general absolution to times & places of natural disaster.

 

[Vico]

…

Grave necessity (serious need) was defined in the original Ordo as:

This means a case in which, given the number of penitents, not enough confessors are available to hear the individual confessions properly within a reasonable time, with the result that, through no fault of their own, the faithful would be forced to be for a long time without the grace of the sacrament or without communion. Such a situation may occur in mission lands particularly, but in other places as well and in groups of people to whom the serious need mentioned clearly applies. When confessors can be made available, however, the procedure is not lawful solely on the basis of a large number of penitents, for example, at some great festival or pilgrimage.

 

[FrDavid96]

FrDavid96:

…

Grave necessity (serious need) was defined in the original Ordo as:

This means a case in which, given the number of penitents, not enough confessors are available to hear the individual confessions properly within a reasonable time, with the result that, through no fault of their own, the faithful would be forced to be for a long time without the grace of the sacrament or without communion. Such a situation may occur in mission lands particularly, but in other places as well and in groups of people to whom the serious need mentioned clearly applies. When confessors can be made available, however, the procedure is not lawful solely on the basis of a large number of penitents, for example, at some great festival or pilgrimage.

No.

That is not the definition of grave necessity.

It is an example of how the criteria might be applied.

What you’re doing here is giving an example of what happens when someone tries to interpret the law without first having an understanding of what the law says and how the law works. You’re cutting-and-pasting quotes without having that foundational understanding.

As I keep trying to explain to you, grave necessity is a term used in canon law. One cannot simply sit back and say “well gee, I know what grave necessity means in English, so that’s what it means in canon law.” It does not work that way.

And again, as I keep trying to explain to you: priests were NOT EVEN ATTEMPTING to apply any standard of “grave necessity” they were applying a standard of mere convenience, or no standard at all (they used general absolution because they wanted to use it). The criteria of “Father Smith can’t be bothered to hear everyone’s individual confessions” does not meet the threshold of grave necessity. It doesn’t even come close.

 

[Vico]

…

No I make no claims about canon law, but I am quoting what the Ordo states for grave necessity (si accedat gravis necessitas) not the 1983 canon law. I have provided you the link below:

http://www.ldysinger.com/@magist/1978_SCDW-Rom_Rit/Ordo_Paenit/04_31-35_rite_c.htm

 

[FrDavid96]

No I make no claims about canon law, but I am quoting what the Ordo states for grave necessity (si accedat gravis necessitas) not the 1983 canon law. I have provided you the link below:

Which AGAIN has nothing to do with the actual topic, which is about priests completely ignoring the requirement of grave necessity in the past; and claiming, in the present, that no such requirement existed.

 

[Vico]

Vico:

No I make no claims about canon law, but I am quoting what the Ordo states for grave necessity (si accedat gravis necessitas) not the 1983 canon law. I have provided you the link below:

Which AGAIN has nothing to do with the actual topic, which is about priests completely ignoring the requirement of grave necessity in the past; and claiming, in the present, that no such requirement existed.

No suprise, since that is not the topic I have been responding on. There may be priests that ignore the laws of the Church but there are also those that follow them so saw that the 1983 canon law was removing something, which in the past posts you say is insignificant. It was not reported as insignificant for those that commented on it in 1984 and also knew that it was allowed only in the cases of serious need from the start in 1973. N 32 allowed a priest, apart from the instances established by the local Ordinary, that was unable to consult his bishop some discretion to decide by himself that a particular situation was a grave necessity thus allowing general absolution.

 

[GladTidings]

This might explain why the confession line is so short. I am convinced there are people in my parish who think they are absolved of any sin committed by simply going to mass.

 

[FrDavid96]

This might explain why the confession line is so short. I am convinced there are people in my parish who think they are absolved of any sin committed by simply going to mass.

That idea is certainly floating out there.

Also, many think they don’t need to be absolved. Now that so many places have replaced funerals with canonization Masses, many people think that everyone goes to heaven anyway.

 

[voltape1]

Jesus told the Apostles what sins you hold bound… etc. but he did not specify how. That is why I am thinking the penitential act at the start of the Mass should suffice. You are given a time to remember what transgressions you have made. Then the priest gives the absolution in God’s name (Indulgentiam, absolutiones… concedat te… etc. It’s your own responsibility if you omit a sin or try to whiten some ugly one. Ultimately God knows it. By the way, you could also cheat a priest into giving you the absolution and it would be null and void and you’d walk away with another sin more. I guess Jesus meant a public sinner or somebody publicly know to be bad. In this case, the priest could call him or her apart and admonish them to repent. If not, the priest could apart them from the faithfull

 

[tafan2]

Jesus told the Apostles what sins you hold bound… etc. but he did not specify how.

So it would seem that the “how” was left up to the Apostles, ie the Church hierarchy, not the sinner who seeks forgiveness. Which means the penitential rite at the beginning of mass only suffices for what the Church says.