Was this a general absolution service?

[willofgods]

Before Mass on New Year’s day I stood in line for confession, but Mass was about to start and the confessor was also the celebrant. He stepped out of the booth and saw the line of like 10 of us waiting for confession. He told the line to gather around him and asked if we were sorry for our sins and resolved to not commit sin anymore, we said yes, and he absolved us (I think he absolved us…I am easily confused/distracted and so as this was unexpected I kind of got caught up in my own thoughts).

Anyway, I was ok for mortal sins; I just had venial ones to confess, but I guess these are my questions:

• Was this one of those “prohibited general absolution services” or something else?
• Should I confess the sins I was going to confess at my next confession (consider that one priest suspecting I might be susceptible to scrupulosity told me to “make an effort not to dig up past sins; Trust in Christ’s Mercy”)?
• Is such an “absolution” as good at taking away my sins as a “full” confession in the booth?

If any has any other opinions/information/comments they would like to add that don’t fall under my questions then please feel free! Knowledge is Power!

 

[puzzleannie]

yes this was general absolution and you were free to receive communion after this
yes you must confess all mortal sins of which you are aware, but did not have a chance to confess, at the earliest opportunity.

 

[paperwight66]

yes this was general absolution and you were free to receive communion after this
yes you must confess all mortal sins of which you are aware, but did not have a chance to confess, at the earliest opportunity.

And confession of venial sins isn’t required (although recommended) so there is no need to keep fretting over confessing them.

 

[YoungTradCath]

Before Mass on New Year’s day I stood in line for confession, but Mass was about to start and the confessor was also the celebrant. He stepped out of the booth and saw the line of like 10 of us waiting for confession. He told the line to gather around him and asked if we were sorry for our sins and resolved to not commit sin anymore, we said yes, and he absolved us (I think he absolved us…I am easily confused/distracted and so as this was unexpected I kind of got caught up in my own thoughts).

Anyway, I was ok for mortal sins; I just had venial ones to confess, but I guess these are my questions:

• Was this one of those “prohibited general absolution services” or something else?
• Should I confess the sins I was going to confess at my next confession (consider that one priest suspecting I might be susceptible to scrupulosity told me to “make an effort not to dig up past sins; Trust in Christ’s Mercy”)?
• Is such an “absolution” as good at taking away my sins as a “full” confession in the booth?

If any has any other opinions/information/comments they would like to add that don’t fall under my questions then please feel free! Knowledge is Power!

Yes, it was a general absolution. And yes, it was extremely illicit unless there was a major emergency (natural disaster). And you must still go to confession.

 

[Mrs_Sally]

Yes, it was a general absolution. And yes, it was extremely illicit unless there was a major emergency (natural disaster). ** And you must still go to confession**.

Since the OP stated he had no mortal sins to confess, he does not need to go to confession. Even if hadn’t been planning to go to confession, his venial sins would have been absolved when he received communion.

He should certainly go whenever he next planned to go next anyway (after the Christmas visit) and of course go if commits a mortal sin, but he doesn’t have to rush out to confession tonight.

 

[Oneofthewomen]

Yes, it was a general absolution. And yes, it was extremely illicit unless there was a major emergency (natural disaster). And you must still go to confession.

YTC-
RE: the highlited portion above-
not so fast is saying this was "extremely illicit!

From the Code of Canon Law, (my emphasis added)

Can. 961 §1. Absolution cannot be imparted in a general manner to many penitents at once without previous individual confession unless:

1/ danger of death is imminent and there is insufficient time for the priest or priests to hear the confessions of the individual penitents;

2/ there is grave necessity, that is, when in view of the number of penitents, *there are not enough confessors available to hear the confessions of individuals properly within a suitable period of time in such a way that the penitents are forced to be deprived *for a long while of sacramental grace or holy communion through no fault of their own. Sufficient necessity is not considered to exist when confessors cannot be present due only to the large number of penitents such as can occur on some great feast or pilgrimage.

Now, based on how I read the OP, I would say that the priest had to make a pastoral judgement call here.
There were still 10 people in line, he was the only priest and needed to say Mass. The fact that they were in line shows contrition.
This priest, in this case, followed both the “letter” & the “spirit” of the law.
At least in IMHO!!

By the OP’s own admission they were distracted and did not know exactly what the priest said, so he very well could have explained what he was doing and why. We won’t ever know, because we were not there.

I know you are discerning the priesthood-
what would you do if you were faced with this situation?
And would you want someone to declare that you did something “extremely illicit” when you were acting out of the best intrest of the souls entrusted to your care?

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Now, based on how I read the OP, I would say that the priest had to make a pastoral judgement call here. There were still 10 people in line, he was the only priest and needed to say Mass. The fact that they were in line shows contrition.
This priest, in this case, followed both the “letter” & the “spirit” of the law.
At least in IMHO!!

Surely we would all agree that the priest was very well intentioned, dare I say creative, and I’m sure those who gathered round were very appreciative. We’ve all heard of far too many instances where people were simply turned away (and some never turned back).

That said, the cited Canon does potentially support the position that this was valid absolution. However, the caveat at the end was perhaps not well considered …

Can. 961 §1. Absolution cannot be imparted in a general manner to many penitents at once without previous individual confession unless:

1/ danger of death is imminent and there is insufficient time for the priest or priests to hear the confessions of the individual penitents;

2/ there is grave necessity, that is, when in view of the number of penitents, there are not enough confessors available to hear the confessions of individuals properly within a suitable period of time in such a way that the penitents are forced to be deprived for a long while of sacramental grace or holy communion through no fault of their own. Sufficient necessity is not considered to exist when confessors cannot be present due only to the large number of penitents such as can occur on some great feast or pilgrimage.

There are other canons in the section on penance that require confessions be heard in a confessional, etc.

There is probably still is a need for these individuals to confess in proper fashion, if they have committed mortal sin.

Peace!

 

[Oneofthewomen]

Surely we would all agree that the priest was very well intentioned, dare I say creative, and I’m sure those who gathered round were very appreciative. We’ve all heard of far too many instances where people were simply turned away (and some never turned back).

That said, the cited Canon does potentially support the position that this was valid absolution. However, the caveat at the end was perhaps not well considered …

Yes, I considered it, however, IMHO, based on my study and based on conversations I have had about Canon Law with my boss, who is a Canon Lawyer
I didn’t think that it was relevent in this particular situation.

There are other canons in the section on penance that require confessions be heard in a confessional, etc.

There is probably still is a need for these individuals to confess in proper fashion, if they have committed mortal sin.

Peace!

I do not disagree with you here, but again, we do not know what the priest said.

I guess I just have a problem calling something “extremely illicit” when I don’t know all the facts.
Was is out of the ordinary? Yes!
And again, IMHO, based on what the OP said, this priest was following both “letter & spirit” of the law!

 

[YoungTradCath]

By the OP’s own admission they were distracted and did not know exactly what the priest said, so he very well could have explained what he was doing and why. We won’t ever know, because we were not there.

I know you are discerning the priesthood-
what would you do if you were faced with this situation?
And would you want someone to declare that you did something “extremely illicit” when you were acting out of the best intrest of the souls entrusted to your care?

I would first of all make sure that I could hear confessions as often as possible, preferably every day, and I would expound upon the absolute need for regular confession. I would also never perform general absolutions unless it was absolutely necessary, that is, in case of a real emergency or natural disaster.

I do not believe it is in the best interest of the souls under my (hypothetical) care to perform general absolutions unless absolutely necessary, as above. In fact, I believe it is a detriment. If I did something extremely illicitly, I would want to be let known immediately so as to rectify it if possible and prevent it from happening ever again.

If I was hearing confessions and time was up, I’d get out of the confessional, tell everyone to come back another time, and move along. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with sticking to a schedule and not giving people the wrong impression. I don’t believe one day without available confession (most, if not all, priests will allow appointments) is a “long while” to go without sacramental grace.

 

[willofgods]

thanks for the (name removed by moderator)ut ladies & gentledudes.

Hopefully the other guys in line are soon guided back to the booth by the Holy Spirit to say what they need to say.

I’ll do my best not to fret over venial sin too, though my question was more academic in nature than scrupulous, i.e., I was curious to know so if it ever happens again and I happen to be in mortal sin, I’ll know whether receiving communion and confessing everything at the next time is required or just “good form”.