| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
questions answered
by wm. b. smith
When is General Absolution valid?
Question: It has been my experience in talking to penitents who have received "general absolution" that they were not told nor instructed to confess in due time grave sins which cannot at present be confessed. One penitent told me he was "instructed" that apart from mortal sin just being present was enough for valid general absolution. Is this so?
Answer: I must admit, I had not heard that before. I also admit that this is not my question but that of another priest who did much more research and homework on it than I did.
Again, the precise point in the questionable instruction was in or for valid general absolution-those in mortal sin must be resolved to confess each grave sin in due time; but those in venial sin were told they don't have to confess at all.
The focus of concern and study here is Canon 962. A review of available commentaries in English did not address this novel instruction; e.g., the CLSA, Text And Commentary (1985) pp. 679-680; the more reliable Code of Canon Law Annotated (1993) pp. 612-613; and The Canon Law (1995) pp. 526-527 (respectively, the American (1985), the Navarra (1993) and the English-Irish (1995) commentaries).
As with the colleague who sent me the question, I consulted with several reliable priests who also could not find an authentic source that would provide a good answer.
Facing the same lacuna of sources, one colleague submitted the question as a dubium (re. cn. 962, #1) to the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts. The official response of that Pontifical Council (PN. #5043/96) was that the precise question does not refer to a "true dubium iuris" requiring an authentic interpretation from that Council. Rather, it is less a matter of the interpretation of law than its correct application, and for that reason the request was forwarded to the Congregation for Divine Worship and Sacraments.
The Congregation for Divine Worship and Sacraments also responded (PN #1313/96/L) that the question is more related to catechesis than to the interpretation of the Code of Canon Law.
This Congregation then responded: "The mere fact of being present in the assembly when General Absolution is given does not mean that absolution is automatically received. Canon 962, #1 states the requirements explicitly:
'. . . validly to receive sacramental absolution given to many at one time, it is required that (the individual) not only be suitably disposed but also at the same time intend to confess individually the serious sins which at present cannot be confessed.'
The requirement to be 'suitably disposed' also applies to one who may not have any serious sins to confess."
This authentic response corrects, and correctly answers I believe, the faulty and misleading "instruction" given in the instance of those in venial sin only.
My experience is limited, but my experience is that where general absolution is abused, it is the requirements for validity (cf. cn. 962) that are often not mentioned at all, especially the intention of making an individual confession of grave sin not yet submitted to the power of the keys of the Church (cn. 988).
Rosary in the Hand
Question: Recently, a priest of the diocese died. He was a man of great devotion to Mary and greatly promoted the rosary. When his body was prepared for the Wake, both his natural sisters and priest friends thought it appropriate to place a rosary in his clasped hands. This gesture was refused and an official of the diocese insisted it was "not liturgically appropriate." Is there such a liturgical requirement?
Answer: "Appropriate vs. Inappropriate" is the first hint that we are talking about tastes and customs rather than rules, regulations, rubrics or liturgical laws.
The Order of Christian Funerals (1989) has in its "Introduction" proper rubrics concerning ministers, family and friends, and liturgical elements: readings; intercessions; music; symbols (Easter candle and other candles); holy water; incense; liturgical colors (white, violet or black; n. 39); even ritual gestures and movements; cf. Ordo, nn. 14-42.
To my knowledge, there is no prohibiting rubric that forbids a rosary in the hands. The placement of a sacramental on or near a corpse does not register with me as a "liturgical" matter at all.
Even in the old rites when immense and minute rubrics governed the greatest and slightest detail, there was no prohibition against the rosary in the hands. Confer, e.g., Wuest-Mullaney-Barry, Matters Liturgical (1959) n. 428-e, re the burial or a priest-vested over the cassock in amice, alb, cincture, violet maniple, violet (crossed) stole, and violet chasuble; tonsured and wearing the biretta (p. 858). The only thing prohibited there is to place a picture of the deceased on the casket in church (n. 428-c).
Indeed, the present Order of Christian Funerals directs pastors and other ministers "to take into consideration the spiritual and psychological needs of the family and friends of the deceased" (n. 16) and indeed, "The family and friends of the deceased should not be excluded from taking part in the services sometimes provided by undertakers, for example, the preparation and laying out of the body" (n. 20).
Would this priest's two natural sisters and his priest friends lose whatever familial prerogatives they have simply because their dead brother was ordained? I think not.
Some liturgical officials overstep their limited competence and plain common sense when they mandate as "appropriate" customs and traditions they like, while forbidding legitimate customs and practices they don't happen to like.
I know of no law nor regulation that sanctions such arbitrariness. If I am mistaken, I would appreciate any reader sending me any authentic source that I have overlooked because I would truly prefer to correct any mistake of mine rather than continue it.
Par for the Clergy?
Question: Isn't it a scandal that so many priests play so much golf?
Answer: Yes, if they play poorly; no, if they play well. I have no idea how many play or how much. However, golf is very much like moral theology-the ball goes where you hit it. You can cry conscience, or impediments (ignorance, force, fear, concupiscence) but the ball still goes where you hit it.
Unlike a society drowning in moral relativism, when you hit the ball out-of-bounds, you are out-of-bounds and must pay penalty. Your fundamental option may be the middle of the fairway or the middle of the green, but even the most convinced fundamental opticians must hit it there not just wish it there.
You must also pay close attention to nature and reality. Measured yardage is always numerically the same-but an uphill green and a downhill one don't play the same way. You must also figure out which way the wind is blowing, it can help you or hurt you. Figuring out which way the wind is blowing is unfortunately a highly perfected skill for ambitious Church bureaucrats.
Social justice advocates will be glad to know that the handicap system was really the first and oldest affirmative action system. Unsteady golfers love it; steady golfers grin and bear it because they have to. Actually, a priest's handicap may answer your question. If his handicap is in the mid or upper 20s, he does not play enough; if the handicap is single digit (under 10), he plays too much golf. Traditionalists will also be glad to know that par is a Latin word.
Please address questions to Msgr. Wm. B. Smith, St. Joseph's Seminary, Dunwoodie, Yonkers, N.Y. 10704. n