A More Open-minded Papacy |
Pope Francis’ recent pastoral directive extending
to all priests, even those of the semi-schismatic Society of Saint Pius X, the
faculty to absolve the sin of abortion has created a remarkable stir on several
levels.
I must admit that I am not sure quite why this was
seen to be such a huge step as, at least here in the United States and I presume
through much of the world, the reservation of absolution to the bishop or his
authorized confessor was largely bypassed for sound pastoral reasons. The minor flap associated with this “temporary
provision” for the upcoming Holy Year of Mercy is how many people didn’t know
that there are sins beyond the authority of the priest to absolve. I am going to use the word “absolve” here rather
than “forgive” to differentiate between God’s forgiveness of sins and the
Church’s authority to absolve sinners from their sin. God’s power to forgive is
not limited to the Church’s sacramental system which is not to say that we
should not avail ourselves of Sacramental absolution.
So much of the Second Vatican Council has been
overlooked and allowed to lie somewhat dormant and unexplored. One of these facets of our faith towards
which the Council took a radically different stance than had the theologians of
the previous four or five previous centuries is about the sacrament of Penance
or, as some call it today, Reconciliation. Due heavily to the work of Bartolomé
Xiberta, a Catalonian Carmelite professor of moral theology teaching in Rome
and a peritus at the Council, there
was a return to the Patristic understanding that the Sacrament of Penance
reconciles the sinner to the Church. The Church, that is the Christian
community itself through the ministry of the Bishop—and by extension the
ministry of the priests to whom he gives “faculties” for absolving the people
entrusted to his (the Bishop’s) care, forgives sin in the Name of Christ and
restores the penitent to the community of the Church from which the sin had
separated him (or her). The Church is
the Body of Christ and thus to be reconciled to Christ means also to be
reconciled to the Church. Perhaps even
more accurate is to say that in being reconciled to his Body, the Church, we
are reconciled to Christ. Christ and his Church cannot be separated; they are indissolubly
united. This puts the sacrament in a
whole different context than the popular ideas created by the good Father
Simplicius O’Finnegan when he came into Sister Mary Winged Seraph’s fifth grade
class at Our Lady of Perpetual Suffering Academy sixty some years ago and told
us of his various “magic powers.” The priest does not—and never did—“forgive” sins
in his own name or by his own authority but always as an extension of the
Bishop as chief pastor of the local Church.
When a bishop gives faculties to a priest to absolve
the faithful he can hold back certain cases to himself should there be good
reason. Historically it was seen wise
for the bishop to “reserve” such sins as abortion, renouncing the faith, or
going into schism to himself or to a priest whom he specifically named to deal
with more complicated cases. Frankly
this was done because no few priests were too ignorant to deal with the
complexity of these issues and the fear that they might be too harsh on the one
hand or too cavalier on the other.
In fact, many priests have always had the faculties
to absolve reserved sins. The Holy See
has granted priests of the Mendicant Orders and some other religious
communities known for their work in the confessional, in particular the
Jesuits, the faculties to absolve most of the sins reserved to the bishop,
including abortion. In addition, any
priest—sensing that the person might not return a second time for the
absolution from either him (once he had permission from the bishop to absolve
the penitent) or from a designated confessor, could presume the faculty so that
the sin would not go unabsolved. This really
is not such a big deal.
There are sins reserved to the Holy See, absolution
for which is not granted to priests but which must be referred to Rome for
special faculties of absolution. These are
mostly sins by priests: breaking the seal of the confessional or attempting to
absolve one’s accomplice in a sexual sin are two such examples. A bishop who consecrates another bishop
without the proper authorization from the Holy See or the bishop who receives
such an illicit consecration are other examples. Desecration of the Blessed Sacrament is also
a sin reserved to the Holy See. A physical
attack on the person of the Pope is still another. These sins have to be referred to Rome as
there is never permission granted to any priest, or even a bishop, to absolve
them except in danger of death of the penitent.
What might be more interesting then than this
extending a faculty already widely extended and even more widely presumed, is
that the Pope also gave this faculty to priests of the semi-schismatic Society
of Saint Pius X—the Lefebvre group that rejects the teachings of the Second
Vatican Council. This certainly makes it
easier for the faithful from that movement who have had or procured for another
an abortion to be given absolution. But
it also is an olive branch to the Society itself in the hopes of reconciling
them to the Church. It is, however, a
blind alley as Francis can’t integrate them back into the Church unless they
accept the teachings of the Church and that would require an acceptance of
certain doctrines—most notably those in the Vatican II Decrees Nostra Aetate and Unitatis Reintegratio and that is most unlikely. But where there is charity there is
hope.
Interesting how the SSPX has twisted the news of this generous indult to argue that this somehow proves they've had faculties all along. That said, the clear supernatural benefit of this is that the faithful who attend SSPX chapels will receive sacramental grace and forgiveness in the confessional for the first time in years, if not ever. Even if it's not ideal, it can't hurt.
ReplyDeleteSide note: I prefer to describe the SSPX as "dissident" or "disobedient" rather than schismatic, mainly because my head starts to hurt every time they begin to list the reasons that they are technically not schismatic. It's almost as bad as their whole "supplied jurisdiction" argument. But that's just me.