Who can administer the Sacrament of Reconcilliation?

[claymcdermott]

In emergencies in the past you hear of people administering the sacrament who are not priests. What is the justification for this? I understand that it is somehow lesser, but why do it then? Links or resources would be helpful.

 

[DCNBILL]

Only a priest can give absolution, so only a priest can validly hear confession.

It is true, however that a priest who has been liaised, in an emergency can hear a confession.

 

[Bonnie]

Only a priest can give absolution, so only a priest can validly hear confession.

It is true, however that a priest who has been liaised, in an emergency can hear a confession.

Correct - a laicized priest is still a priest. Some people aren’t aware of that.

 

[JerryZ]

Also it is important to understand that the priest is “Incardinated” by his Bishop to the Diocese.
The Bishop gives, authorizes the priests in his Diocese the faculties of the priests to dispense the Sacraments to the faithful.

Now if a priest is travelling outside of his Diocese and a life and death situation occurs and further there is no local priest available he can administer all the Sacraments needed: Confession/Absolution, Annointing of the sick, Extreme unction.

By the way the term “Incardination” is derived from the word “Cardini” which are the hinges of a door. The door without the hinges is not very useful. A relationship exists between the door and the door frame.

Now a Priest has been ordained with the imposition of hands and holy oils with the Sacrament of Holy Orders which has 3 levels, Deacon, Priest and Bishop.

…

 

[claymcdermott]

Should have done my own research rather than appeal to this site. And Deacon Jeff, one reads of it in histories of the Black Death and histories of wartime in the Middle Ages; you “hear” it in Medieval history class, but that’s only since you are reading about it so that might be confusing wording.

The case is slightly more complicated than any of you may know. The Catholic encyclopedia has an article on “Lay Confession”:

newadvent.org/cathen/09094a.htm

Presents some interesting reading and they have a good explanation of why it was permitted and what its limits were, with links to the many prominent figures who treated the practice.

 

[TheDoctor]

Should have done my own research rather than appeal to this site. And Deacon Jeff, one reads of it in histories of the Black Death and histories of wartime in the Middle Ages; you “hear” it in Medieval history class, but that’s only since you are reading about it so that might be confusing wording.

The case is slightly more complicated than any of you may know. The Catholic encyclopedia has an article on “Lay Confession”:

newadvent.org/cathen/09094a.htm

Presents some interesting reading and they have a good explanation of why it was permitted and what its limits were, with links to the many prominent figures who treated the practice.

Since the linked article includes this disclaimer right up front

“This article does not deal with confession by laymen but with that made to laymen, for the purpose of obtaining the remission of sins by God. It has no practical importance, and is treated merely from an historical point of view.”
​

I am confused as to why you cite it. Are you arguing that layman were in the past allowed to hear confessions and give absolution in lieu of priests or just that some people confessed to laymen thinking it was better than nothing? Your article seems to lend support to the latter and not the former. Just trying to be clear on what you are posting about.

 

[claymcdermott]

Yeah, it is a historical question; I am aware it’s a historical question, since I posed it as one in my OP. Why were things such in the past? That’s why it has “no practical purpose” now and is a historical question - because it’s not the past.

And the article decidedly does **not **suggest that this was some people mistakenly believing it was better than nothing; the article states that Thomas Aquinas, Albertus Magnus, the Venerable Bede, Duns Scotus, and Peter Lombard all thought that it had “some sacramental value.” Indeed, the author implies he agrees when he editorializes:

“The confession is not sacramental, if we may so speak, except on the part of the penitent”

I was wondering exactly what the sacramental value of such an emergency situation would be, and how we understand it, but the article links to enough sources that we can all research the question on our own.

 

[thistle]

In emergencies in the past you hear of people administering the sacrament who are not priests. What is the justification for this? I understand that it is somehow lesser, but why do it then? Links or resources would be helpful.

Canon Law:

Can. 965 Only a priest is the minister of the sacrament of penance.

Can. 976 Any priest, even though he lacks the faculty to hear confessions, can validly and lawfully absolve any penitents who are in danger of death, from any censures and sins, even if an approved priest is present.

 

[twf]

The historical practice cited seems to me not dissimilar to the Church’s current teaching that, when it is physically or morally impossible to seek a priest, firm intention to confess when possible, together with a perfect act of contrition, brings forgiveness of even mortal sins.

 

[FrDavid96]

Yeah, it is a historical question; I am aware it’s a historical question, since I posed it as one in my OP. Why were things such in the past? That’s why it has “no practical purpose” now and is a historical question - because it’s not the past.

And the article decidedly does **not **suggest that this was some people mistakenly believing it was better than nothing; the article states that Thomas Aquinas, Albertus Magnus, the Venerable Bede, Duns Scotus, and Peter Lombard all thought that it had “some sacramental value.” Indeed, the author implies he agrees when he editorializes:

“The confession is not sacramental, if we may so speak, except on the part of the penitent”

I was wondering exactly what the sacramental value of such an emergency situation would be, and how we understand it, but the article links to enough sources that we can all research the question on our own.

Here is the distinction:

Anyone can confess to anyone else.

Only a priest can impart absolution.

So, in an emergency, a layman may confess his sins to another layman. This may have some value (indeed, it probably will). However, the one hearing the “confession” (perhaps “admission of guilt” might be a less confusing term), cannot absolve.

Remember that God can and does forgive sins even without the sacrament of Confession. Therefore, “confessing” ones sins to a layman may have some spiritual value. So, we can have a non-sacramental confession-situation without absolution.

For the sacrament of Confession, a priest (and only a priest) can be the minister who imparts absolution.

 

[John_Lilburne]

The liturgical book, the Rite of Penance, includes (of course) the sacrament of penance. But it also includes a ceremonies that do not require a Priest: Penitential Services.

It has: “37. Care must be taken to ensure that the faithful do not confuse these celebrations with the celebration of the sacrament of penance.” And: “It is desirable to arrange them especially for these purposes: … - to help the faithful to prepare for individual confession that can be made later at a convenient time;” (The Rites Volume One, Liturgical Press, 1990, ISBN: 0-8146-6015-0, page 542).

Also in n. 37: “Penitential services, moreover, are very useful in places where no priest is available to give sacramental absolution.”

The structure is described in n. 36. To summarise this:
Introductory Rites: song, greeting, opening prayer.
One or more biblical readings with songs, psalms or periods of silence inserted between them.
Readings from the Fathers or other writers “that will help the community and each person to a true awareness of sin and heartfelt sorrow”. (These could be before the biblical readings).
Homily.
Prayer in a litany or some other way suited to general participation.
Lord’s Prayer
The minister who presides concludes with a prayer and the dismissal of the people.