General absolution. It has been notoriously abused. In the '70s and '80s youth groups and notoriously progressive parishes would employ a general absolution of sins in the place of proper, auricular Confessions. A nearby Mexican parish has an hour of Confessions daily and one priest, who at the end of the hour gives a [presumably invalid] general absolution to the remaining penitents before celebrating the evening Mass. But does abuse of something make it inherently illegitimate?
The other night I found myself at dinner with a genuine rad trad and discussing the theoretical situation of a crashing airplane (since a member of this blog was recently involved in crash) and the question arose: could a theoretical clerical passenger, if a plane was about to crash, simply stand up, tell any Catholics to be sorry for their sins, and give absolution? Canon 961 of the modern Code says yes. Conventionally, the only situations where general absolution would be given were in imminent danger of death or prior to battle in a war. The two priests travelling on the Titanic heard individual Confessions until the ship began its final plunge around 2:10AM, at which point they absolved the remaining penitents. Generally absolving belligerents in battle was common during the two World Wars, but predates the twentieth century considerably. In circumstances that do not permit individual Confession and which carry inherent danger of death, the Church seems to be generous in making the forgiveness of sins available.
Somehow our conversation shifted to whether one would want a FSSPX/FSSP type priest, a "Novus Ordo" priest (whatever the hell that means), or an Eastern rite priest in such a peril. I remarked I'd prefer whoever could get it over with the fastest. No, said the ubertrad. The FSSPX priest, unlike those others, would doubtless know that general absolution is probably always invalid because it is a dubious idea. Why absolve people who do not know to be sorry for their sins? God is not mocked, after all. "Theologians" apparently dispute that the general absolutions granted during the Wars of Religion, the World Wars, or on crashing planes, is valid; perhaps they might be valid for those who intended to go to individual, auricular Confessions and who could not due to time, but still, they probably did not receive forgiveness. It would be much better and less offensive to God for these people to attempt to make the de facto impossible perfection Act of Contrition and achieve total detachment from sin. If they were really sorry, they would not have been in mortal sin and in a perilous place to begin with.
Theoretically, Confessions need not be private. The most ancient form of absolution, attested in St. Cyprian of Carthage and in the Pontificale Romanum on Mandy Thursday, is for the bishop to forgive public sinners in the face of the assembled faithful. In such a case the penitents may not have made a total admission of their sins, but by their accusation and penance such an admission is understood. Would not an Act of Contrition accomplish much the same thing? In normal Confession, the Act of Contrition is really just a placebo, but in articulo mortis it takes the places of many key conditions of Confession: admission of sin, petition for forgiveness, and purpose of amendment.
The ubertrad insisted general absolution was invented by the Apostles due to language barriers—evidently they did not receive the Gift of Tongues—and that such circumstances do not exist anymore. Quibbling over its validity is much like quibbling over whether a priest can walk into a bakery, say hoc est corpus meum, and consecrate anything that is pure bread. Or is it? Does the Church intend to forgive these people, who might not otherwise be on their way to Confession? From more modern history and Canon Law, it seems the Church does do this.
Have I met an eccentric or is there a deeper Traditionalist hangup about this subject?
Not related, but I've recently come across the concept of conditional confirmation, especially among FSSPX attendees.
ReplyDeleteI was familiar with conditional baptism (my eldest was conditionally baptized when she was taken out of the font as it was the priest's first immersion and was unsure if he'd performed it properly), but can't grasp why so many people would get themselves conditionally confirmed. I can understand if it later comes out that the holy chrism was tampered with, but apart from that I'm stumped.
I believe that comes from the idea that Paul VI allowed for additional sorts of oil to be used for confirmation while also changing the formula of the Sacrament. Therefore, people who were confirmed with something other than olive oil in the new rite were "confirmed" with both the wrong matter and a new form.
DeleteI think that St. Thomas (whom your friend was probably vaguely invoking) said that the integral confession of mortal sins is the matter of the sacrament of penance. The implication is that without it, the confession is uncertain, though not impossible, since defects can be supplied for by the Church in general. The Council of Trent was tame in dogmatically defining these kinds of things, but importantly, they did say that one should neither despair that his confession was invalid, nor give absolute certainty to his state of grace. If a form of confession is sanctioned by the Church by ancient use, then one ought not to doubt it. I don't think there is a real distinction between the episcopal absolution on Maundy Thursday and modern private confession. Both ostensibly involved a full confession of sins (willing to bet that Christians confessed their sins way more in the first few centuries than later on).
ReplyDeleteThe odd one out is emergency general absolution, which is accompanied by no verbal confession at all. I don't think it's right to call it an innovation, but at the same time, it requires a lot more on the part of the penitent for it to work. Ordinarily, the penitent normally needs to desire to confess his sins directly for an emergency general absolution to absolve him. You can't quite draw a black line around these things, but neither can the priest say a few words and draw a cross over everyone and they all go to heaven/purgatory.
I think this whole discussion is rather theoretical. This is my reasoning:
ReplyDelete1. General absolutions in the context of prayer services are always invalid. The Church has a very clear idea on where to get absolution: After you have confessed your sins to a priest with the necessary faculties, after he has given you a penance. Then he will say a prayer and absolve the penitent from their sins. It is quite simple. Everything else is invalid.
2. There are differing traditions when it comes to other churches that stand in union with Rome (Eastern Catholic churches e. g.). But we are concerned with the Roman tradition which is the most noble anyway. I, as a Roman Catholic, am not very familiar with the Eastern praxis of confession, and thus I would not know whether any general absolution would be valid, if it has been granted by an Eastern Catholic priest (who might validly absolve everyone at a prayer service, or not if he is a Modernist).
3. In articulo mortis, a priest may absolve sins and grant a plenary indulgence even if the dying person can't make a confession anymore. What is lacking in the dying person's contrition, "Ecclesia supplet". If one dies in the state of perfect contrition, one is forgiven immediately. So I see no problem with a general absolution and the granting of a plenary indulgence when a plane is about to crash, or when the enemy is merely 100 feet away.
4. The Sacrament of Confession always presupposes that the penitent is sorry for their sins, and even if all the formulae were correct, the Sacrament would be invalid if the penitent did not have the correct disposition of at least some contrition for his sins. So a general absolution and the plenary indulgence would only be valid insofar the people who are about to die feel contrition for their sins. If not, then not. But this is not the priests issue anymore. He can only help prepare souls for the death of their bodies. If the Sacrament was invalid for 99 % of the people, then be it so. He still has done everything within his faculties. The rest must be left to the Supreme Judge of the Universe.
I know I'm going to regret opening this can of worms, but why is the Roman rite the noblest of all?
ReplyDeleteI think you are crazy! Forgive me or not...God is Love!!! People like you are scary!!!
ReplyDelete