Posted on 08/22/2020 4:09:25 PM PDT by ebb tide
Either you are in a state of grace or you aren’t. If those who have attempted confession with him and subsequently made confessions to other priests without realizing that the faux confession was in any way problematic needed to confess those sins, they would not have been in a state of grace since.
To state that the people “did not walk away without some measure of grace” while raising the possibility that they actually walked away with an illusion that they walked away with an illusion that amounts to a cruel prank seems to me an internal contradiction.
I see I didn’t post this line of thought earlier—I thought I had
If the CDF were issuing this as a pastoral norm, it might be worth parsing.
Detroit does have some good folks, and it is worth looking at how they deal with it, but I expect that in the trenches, the pastoral will prevail over strict logic in unclear situations, and rather than attempting to assert that one set of premises must prevail over another when one does not have sufficient grounds to do so conclusively, or alternatively, attempting to argue that one set of premises is superior and really ought to be followed by all (which I expect the casuists would do, but possibly include the caveat that one is free to follow the advice of any reputable authority), writing something that is as clear as is morally possible and hope that those who notice that it is not as clear as they would like will cut everyone a break is a good way of proceeding.
The Catholic Church is the finest Christian Bureaucracy in the world. “OOPS! Someone used the wrong word in your baptism now everything you did for the last 70 years is invalid. Those that died are all going to hell!”
You seem to miss the point that the Archdiocese is now publicly making these people aware that theirs were faux confessions and need to re-confess their mortal sins.
Now, if Joe Smith has since died, I csn understand. But once a person is made of aware of his faux confessions, I really don't see your logic in defending him from re-confessing.
You raally seem to be arguing that one, who once he realizes he has made faux confessions, commit the sin of omission in his next confession.
That’s not orthodox Catholicism. That’s modernism.
There are some who do more or less hold that position, though many would be a little more refined in how they stated it. While I would not condemn them as heretics, I at least am of the opinion that a contrary position is not only permissible, but more probable.
People are welcome to and encouraged to make confessions of devotion—wherein one confesses not unforgiven mortal sin, but in the absence of unforgiven mortal sin, venial sins and/or past mortal sins for which one is particularly contrite and/or in particular need of graces in dealing with recurrent temptation.
In this particular situation, I think that it would be a great thing. That said, provided that there has been a good faith confession subsequent to the faux confession, I would hold that it is only a confession of devotion.
Given that many people have no idea who they have gone to confession to (or attempted to go to confession to), things become further complicated.
That's not an orthodox position to hold and the archdiocese does not hold that position either.
The archdiocese does not hold a single consistent theological position, and does not condemn anyone.
Barring Conciliar, Papal, or CDF (and predecessors) statements to the contrary, I am very comfortable in holding that this is not something that has been defined and so that it is permissible to hold opinions on either side. I am also comfortable in stating that I believe that my position is the more probable one, though you are attempting to make a case that it is “ill sounding to pious ears.”
Do you have a copy of Ott?
I understand you're "very comfortable; just as I understand Pope Francis and James Martin, S.J. are comfortable in their own positions.
I also think that I have a fairly decent command of what has been defined and taught and approach it with a great deal of respect. If you are able to point out something that I am not respecting, I am more than happy to consider it with a very open mind. I do not necessarily think these others would be as open, but who am I to judge?
I had also thought you did; but I no longer do.
It is my understanding that a general confession with a certainly valid priest from the time of one's last valid absolution would cover all bases and be the safest bet (assuming same person was validly baptized; if not, then baptism is all that is necessary).
If one confesses all the grave sins that one has committed since one’s last putative confession, the faux confession will be covered if one was not aware that it was faux. Yes his present parishioners should be notified, but that will suffice.
(emphasis mine)
I think the key in the portion you posted is if the penitent is unaware that his/her previous confession was invalid.
Yes his present parishioners should be notified, but that will suffice.
I tend to agree with you then. Once a penitent knows their past confession is invalid, he/she must go to confession again to confess those sins. Now, if H can provide support for his assertion that he/she would not have to do that, I would be willing to review it (assuming it’s pre-Vatican II support). I think he mentioned Ott.
The most relevant authoritative material to me seems the 5th chapter of the decree on penance from the 14th session of Trent—an English translation can be found on pp. 309-310 of “The Church Teaches.” Ott interprets this on pages 432-433 (English translation—I don’t own the German) in a way favourable to my position. The most relevant articles in the Summa seem to me Supplement Q 9 art. 2 and Q. 10 art. 5.
Davis, (vol. III of his Moral and Pastoral Theology p. 384) in applying things in a variety of ways, comes closest to specifically addressing the case at hand when discussing a confessor who lacks jurisdiction, errors in the form of absolution, or forgets to give absolution, but he does not develop every single line of argument.
Tanquery is the only one I’ve consulted in the Latin, and I wouldn’t trust my casual Latin in something serious, and I don’t have the time to really delve in, but he seems a piece with everyone else.
If I were advising the chancery, and I understand the facts correctly, I’d have an announcement run in the bulletin for two consecutive weeks at the last two places he’s been stationed, explaining the circumstances and saying that if your last confession was to Father so and so, you should go to confession ASAP and mention not only everything since your last confession, but whatever you can recall from your confessions to Father so and so.
I would advise keeping the whole thing off the internet.
But that’s me, the chancery hasn’t asked my opinion, and, praise God, I am not only not a Bishop, I’m not the Bishop who has to deal with this mess.
And if there is anything really authoritative that is more specific, clear, or more authoritative than Trent, I’m all ears.
The Council of Trent especially stresses that secret sins and inward sins against the last two commandments of the Decalogue (sins of thought and desire) must be confessed. Physical or moral impossibility excuses from the material completeness of the confession of sins. When the confession is formally but not materially complete, forgotten grievous sins, or grievous sins, which owing to a state of necessity were not individually confessed, are indirectly remitted. But the duty, founded on the command of Christ, remains of explicitly submitting these sins at the next confession to the confessional tribunal of the Church, when and if the necessity ceases, and of accepting a corresponding penance by way of satisfaction for them.
This does not seem to be dealing with the same kind of situation. First of all, it is focusing on certain types of sin. It also sounds like an allowance in a very temporary, exceptional situation, but it still does not allow for grievous sins to go unconfessed indefinitely. The part I bolded makes it very clear that the penitent is mandated ("duty") to confess these sins at the next confession and to make satisfaction for them. There is no indication that once the "necessity" ceases that the penitent can choose not do so.
I have not checked the other source(s) you mentioned. If they are anything like this one, I do not see that they would support your view that these sins do not need to be confessed. If they relate something different, please copy and paste the relevant quotes (and provide a link as well) as it took a lot of time to find this one.
The question Trent dealt with explicitly was forgotten sins or sins not confessed “due to a state of necessity” (I don’t even want to go there—the most desirable topic under that heading is communal absolution). Even though the flaw is, to some extent, in the penitent—forgotten grievous sins—the sins are remitted. Because the penitent failed to submit them to the tribunal, albeit by accident, even though they are forgiven, he still needs to submit and receive a penance for what he failed to submit
As I said, Davis comes close to the situation at hand, where the flaw is the minister failing to administer properly—in the case at hand, the problem wasn’t in the minister’s execution, but an unknown defect in the minister. The penitent has, so far as he knows, submitted to the tribunal and accepted a penance. He wasn’t absolved, and when he next confesses to an actual priest, he mis-states the length of time since his last actual confession as well as the sins since his last actual confession, because he, through no fault of his own, is unaware that his faux confession was no confession. I think that the principles from Trent clearly point in the direction of the absolution being valid.
Remembering after leaving the box (or three weeks later) is a very different situation from finding out that a long time ago one did a reasonable examination of conscience, confessed, and didn’t actually receive absolution. Recalling what one forgot is not the same thing as trying to recall at a distant time what one may have remembered in the past.
All the subsequent confessions are valid, and following the logic of Trent, at most one needs to ask for penance for what one already thought one did penance for.
That said, I am picky about my acts of contrition, and my phrasing includes “for these sins, all my sins, and all my past sins, I am heartily sorry” and am thus asking for absolution, and penance, for the whole lot. I often insert, after past sins, “especially x and y” if there is an area of weakness for which I am seeking grace at the time and don’t want to get into an argument with a confessor who doesn’t know his stuff.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.