Fr. Z's Blog | Catholic commentary by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

ASK FATHER: I’m haunted. Was I not really absolved? Am I still excommunicated?

Posted on 4 June 2015 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Excommunication ceremony (British Library Royal, 6 E VI f216v)

Fathers and seminarians, pay attention!

From a reader…

The Pope is sending out special priests who can absolve abortion. Does this mean that priests are giving absolution for something they cannot? Is the absolution then invalid? What does that mean for reception of sacraments until valid absolution (once one knows that’s a possibility)? Thank you, Father. I confessed a very sinful past three years ago and reformed my life but it seems it’s back to haunt me.

We have to be careful when listening to the news these days. Many things are said in a slipshod manner without the least understanding of what is truly going on.

In many dioceses, in every diocese in these United States that I’m aware of (if someone has clear and documented evidence to the contrary, I would be interested), bishops have given to priests the authority to absolve from the automatic excommunication that occurs when someone culpably completes an abortion.

If you went to confession to a Latin Church priest in good standing in these United States, and if you confessed your sins freely and without reserve, and if the priest gave you absolution, you are absolved not only from the sin of abortion, but also the automatic excommunication you may have incurred.

I say “may have” because there are many situations and circumstances that might have lessened your culpability and therefore eliminated the possibility of an automatic excommunication (for example, being bullied into it).

What has been granted to priests in every diocese of these United States (and many elsewhere), that is, the ability to lift the penalty of abortion, is being granted to these “Missionaries of Mercy” designated by the Holy Father. They may be going to places where not all priests have been given this faculty.

Another thing, above, I wrote that “if the priest gave you absolution, you are absolved not only from the sin of abortion, but also the automatic excommunication you may have incurred.” Let’s drill into this a bit more.

Sins are one thing and censures (like excommunication) are another. The absolution of a sin and the absolution of a censure are different acts. If a person comes to a confessor (a priest with proper faculties) to have a censure lifted, the confessor uses a special formula (in the Ordinary Form, “By the power granted to me, I absolve you from the bond of excommunication (or suspension or interdict). In the name of the Father…”).

However, in keeping with the law, if a penitent comes to the confessor and the penitent confesses something that incurred a censure (such as the excommunication incurred through sinfully procuring an abortion), it is enough that the priest confessor intend also to absolve from the censure when he gives absolution for sins (“I absolve you from your sins, in the name of the Father…”. If the confessor chooses, before absolving the penitent’s sins, he could separately absolve from the censure (with that form I gave above) and then, after lifting the censure, absolve from the sins (with the usual form of absolution).

So, there are two ways the confessor can handle this situation. In the case of confession of sins that incurred censures, Father can simply intend to lift the censure and pronounce just the form of absolution for sins, or he can in two distinct stages first lift the censure and then absolve the sins.

It might seem as if I am going into the weeds with these details, but some people might be nervous that they didn’t hear the priest make any reference to the excommunication when he absolved the sins. He doesn’t always have to! It can be included in the absolution of sins.

I’ve been, so far, explaining the Ordinary, post-Conciliar way of doing this. If you go to a priest confessor who uses the older, traditional formulas of absolution, this is what he says (usually in Latin). Attend to the order of elements in this form:

May Almighty God have mercy on thee, forgive thee thy sins, and bring thee to everlasting life. Amen. [A wonderful prayer…]

May the almighty and merciful Lord grant thee pardon, absolution and remission of thy sins. [Another wonderful prayer…]

[And now we get down to business…] May Our Lord Jesus Christ absolve thee, and I by His authority do absolve thee [from what?] from every bond of excommunication, or interdict (or suspension) as far as I am able and thou art needful. [And, having lifted the censure(s)…] I absolve thee from thy sins in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.

[And now a wonderful prayer…] May the Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ, the merits of the Blessed Virgin Mary and of all the Saints, whatever good thou shalt have done or evil endured, be for thee unto the remission of thy sins, the increase of grace, and the reward of everlasting life. Amen.

As you can see, the same elements I explained above are present. The priest lifts any censures that need to be lifted to the extent that he is empowered to do by his faculties, and then he absolves the sins. According to the old form, the business about censures is always explicitly mentioned. If you don’t need any censure lifted, no harm no foul. But if you do, it is taken care of before you are absolved of your sins. The newer form accomplishes this too, but in a less explicit way unless the confessor opts for the two stage method.

In my opinion, the older form is more pastorally sensitive, in that it is always explicit in what it can accomplish.

Therefore, in my opinion, priest confessors who habitually use the newer form, once they discern that a censure they can lift has been incurred, should always use the two stage method, to make the lifting of the censure explicit for the sake of the penitent’s peace of mind.

And, Fathers, always always always use the proper formula without embellishments!

Finally…

GO TO CONFESSION!

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, ASK FATHER Question Box, Emanations from Penumbras, GO TO CONFESSION, Hard-Identity Catholicism, Liturgy Science Theatre 3000, Our Catholic Identity, Priests and Priesthood, Seminarians and Seminaries | Tagged abortion, absolution, censure, excommunication, Missionaries of Mercy
13 Comments

ASK FATHER: Husband had an affair, won’t go to confession

Posted on 4 June 2015 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

From a reader…

QUAERITUR:

Husband had a 2 yr+ affair all the while receiving The Eucharist each Sunday. He says he did nothing wrong; I say he has committed many mortal sins. He won’t go to confession. Your thoughts, please on what I can do besides pray.

We are, each of us, responsible for our own souls.

When we die and stand before that awesome Judgment Seat, we will not have the benefit of counsel. We will not be able to use others as an excuse for our wrongdoing. We will not be able to deceive the Just Judge. We will have to answer for our sins – each and every one of us – each and every sin.

While there are ways in which we can be held responsible for the sins of others, for example, through scandal (as we see often in the pages of the Fishwrap), we are generally not responsible for the sins of others which they choose to commit on their own without our help or irresponsible neglect. We are responsible if we do not caution those whose sins we are aware of. Ezechiel writes, “If you do warn the wicked man and he does not turn from his wickedness or evil ways, he will die for his sin; but you have saved yourself” (3:19). Once we have admonished the sinner (a spiritual work of mercy), he is responsible for his actions and inactions.

Other than prayer, there is not much else you can do. Be patient and loving, of course. Gently urge and give a good example. But don’t denigrate prayer!

More things are wrought by prayer
Than this world dreams of. Wherefore, let thy voice
Rise like a fountain for me night and day.
For what are men better than sheep or goats
That nourish a blind life within the brain,
If, knowing God, they lift not hands of prayer
Both for themselves and those who call them friend?
For so the whole round earth is every way
Bound by gold chains about the feet of God.

Tennyson, Morte d’Arthur, ll. 247-255

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, ASK FATHER Question Box, One Man & One Woman, Our Catholic Identity |
10 Comments

ASK FATHER: Masses in living rooms

Posted on 4 June 2015 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

From a reader…

QUAERITUR:

I have observed several Priests of my acquaintance celebrating Mass in various private residences for different occasions, the latest of which was Mother’s Day (the strangest being Christmas Midnight Mass). Most if not all of these private Masses have taken place in non-consecrated space, i.e. in normal living rooms. Are Priests allowed to do this for their families and friends, particularly when there is a church available (though perhaps not with the same measure of “privacy”)?

Canon 932 stipulates that Holy Mass should be offered in a sacred place, “unless in a particular case necessity requires otherwise, in such a case the celebration must be done in a decent place.”

The universal law leaves it up to the priest who will offer the Mass to determine if this is a case of necessity and also to determine what may be a “decent place.” The strong preference of the Church is for sacred actions to take place in sacred places.

Having Mass in Mom’s parlor when there’s a perfectly good church down the street would generally be contrary to the mind of the church. On the other hand, there may be a number of good reasons for saying Mass in Mom’s parlor, including Mom’s inability to get around very well, a nearby pastor who is adamantly opposed to a visiting priest saying Mass in his church (yes, such … creatures exist), a priest on an overdue vacation at home, not wanting to draw the attention which he knows saying Mass at the church down the street would occasion. There are all sorts of reasons.

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, ASK FATHER Question Box, Liturgy Science Theatre 3000, Priests and Priesthood | Tagged can. 932, living room
24 Comments

ASK FATHER: Father didn’t make Sign of the Cross at absolution

Posted on 3 June 2015 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Click

From a reader…

QUAERITUR:

I went to confession this morning preparation for Ascension Mass, the priest was wonderful, yet when it came to the absolution part, i could see through the holes of the screen that the priest didn’t make the sign of the cross over me while saying, “I absolve you In the name…” he dI’d say the full form “God the Father of mercies…” Is my confession valid and the absolution?

Ahhh Fathers, why do you trouble and confuse people so?

Say the black and do the red. It’s not hard.

The priest should have made the sign of the Cross at the time of absolution. The fact that he did not, however, does not invalidate the sacrament.

You have confessed, you’ve been absolved, your sins are forgiven.

Don’t worry about the priest. It is an incredibly rare thing for absolution to be invalid. So long as you confess your mortal sins in kind and number, sincerely, you’ll be okay.

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, ACTION ITEM!, GO TO CONFESSION, Liturgy Science Theatre 3000 | Tagged confession, reconciliation, sacrament of penance
4 Comments

ASK FATHER: Where is Father supposed to be during the Novus Ordo?

Posted on 3 June 2015 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

From a reader…

QUAERITUR:

When ‘presiding’ at the NO ‘facing the people’, is there anything that mandates that during things like the Collect, or the Kyrie, or the Gloria, or the Communion prayer, that the priest has to face the people? I help at parishes so I can’t change the general way things are done ….

The rubrics of the Ordinary Form are – as in many other matters – silent on the direction the priest is facing during those prayers you mentioned. In fact, the rubrics fail to mention the orientation of the priest everywhere except for the few times he is enjoined to “turn to the people and say…”. That presupposes, of course, that he is celebrating ad orientem. In other words, ad orientem is the default way to celebrate Mass in the Roman Rite.

Feasibly, as far as rubrics are concerned, for some parts of the Mass Father could be at the side of the altar, in front of the altar, behind the altar, suspended above the altar, or even hiding behind a pillar somewhere in the church.

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, ACTION ITEM!, Liturgy Science Theatre 3000 |
15 Comments

ASK FATHER: What to say in Roman Canon when in Territorial Abbey?

Posted on 3 June 2015 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

From a reader…

QUAERITUR:

What name is put in the Canon at ‘Antistite nostro N.’ when in the territory of a Territorial Abbey?

The General Instruction of the Roman Missal 149 provides us with a somewhat clear answer for the Novus Ordo Missae:

“The diocesan Bishop or anyone equivalent to him in law must be mentioned by means of this formula: una cum famulo tuo Papa nostro N. et Episcopo (or Vicario, Prelato, Praefecto, Abbate) (together with your servant N., our Pope, and N., our Bishop [or Vicar, Prelate, Prefect, Abbot]).”

The Roman Canon uses the term “Antistite” (Antistes…”overseer”) rather than “Episcopo” (Episcopus… “bishop”). I think it is appropriate, when using the Roman Canon, to refer to a territorial abbot, or another prelate equivalent to a bishop in a particular church, using the title “antistes“.

This would only occur for a territorial abbey, and not for an abbey lacking territorial jurisdiction.

Normally, and abbey has as its superior an abbot whose authority extends as far as the monastery’s limits and to the monks under his charge. However, there are also some abbot who exercise jurisdiction over a larger territory around the abbey. There rare ecclesial critters were called an abbot nullius diœceseos, “belonging to no diocese”, or for short “abbot nullius“. They were sort of like a bishop. As a matter of fact, in more recent times some abbots would be consecrated bishop and made also ordinary of the diocese. One of the founding bishops of the seminary I was in in Rome was one such, the Bishop Abbot of Subiaco, Stanislaus Andreotti, OSB (+2003). He was very kind to me once, in a moment of attempted public humiliation. But that’s one for the memoirs.

Sadly, the number of territorial abbeys has been reduced in recent years.

There are currently only ten territorial abbeys left: 5 in Italy (Monte Oliveto Maggiore, Montevergine, Grottaferrata, Santissima Trinità di Cava, and Subiaco), 2 in Switzerland (Einsiedeln and St. Maurice), Pannonhalma in Hungary, Wettingen-Mehrerau in Austria, and the sad case of Tokwon in North Korea (entirely evacuated, most of the monks martyred in the 1950’s).

The great Abbey of Montecassino lost its territory in 2014. Monserrate do Rio de Janeiro was suppressed in 2003. Claraval suppressed in 2002. Belmont Abbey in these USA was suppressed in 1977. The sad litany goes on.

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, ASK FATHER Question Box, Liturgy Science Theatre 3000, Pò sì jiù | Tagged abbot nullius, GIRM 149, territorial abbeys
10 Comments

St. Charles Lwanga, martyred by sexually deviant King

Posted on 3 June 2015 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Today we might contemplate the various ways in which the State is encroaches in our lives and tries to force us to do things that are repugnant to nature and to God’s laws.

Today is the feast day of a saint, who died as a martyrs especially because he resisted a sodomite king, who was furious that he and many children he would kill wouldn’t have homosexual sex with him.

St. Charles Lwanga and many other martyrs died between 1885 and 1887 in Uganda. They were beatified in 1920 and canonized by Pope Paul VI in 1964.

In 1879 the White Fathers were working successfully as missionaries in Uganda. They were, at first well received by King Mutesa.

Then there came a new pharaoh, as it were.

Mutesa died and his son, Mwanga, took over. He was a ritual pedophile.

Charles Lwanga, a 25 year old man who was a catechist, forcefully protected boys in his charge from the king’s sodomite advances.

The king had murdered an Anglican Bishop and tried to get his page, who was protected by Joseph Mukasa, later beheaded for his trouble. On the night of the martyrdom of Joseph Mukasa, Lwanga and other pages sought out the White Fathers for baptism. Some 100 catechumens were baptized.

A few months later, King Mwanga ordered all the pages to be questioned to find out if they were being catechized. 15 Christians 13 and 25 identified themselves. When the King asked them if they were willing to keep their faith, They answered in unison, “Until death!”

They were bound together and force marched for 2 days to Namugongo where they were to be burned at the stake. On the way, Matthias Kalemba, one of the eldest boys, exclaimed, “God will rescue me. But you will not see how he does it, because he will take my soul and leave you only my body.” He was cut to pieces and left him by the road.

When they reached Nanugongo, they were kept tied together for seven days while the executioners prepared the wood for the fire.

On 3 June 1886 (that year the Feast of the Ascension… therefore a Thursday), Charles Lwanga was separated from the others and burned at the stake. The executioners burnt his feet until only the charred stumps remained. He survived. His tormentors promised that they would let him go if he renounced his Faith. Charles refused saying, “You are burning me, but it is as if you are pouring water over my body.” They set him on fire. As flames engulfed him he said in a loud voice, “Katonda! – My God!”

His companions were also burned together the same day. They prayed and sang hymns.

Charles Lwanga and companions died for their Faith and because they resisted the intrinsically evil of homosexual sex.

It is probable that the African members of the Synod of Bishops coming up this October will be strong defenders of the Church’s teachings and practices against the bizarre innovations which may be proposed by certain other members.

Charles Lwanga, pray for us… pray for Ireland… pray for these United States.

Posted in Saints: Stories & Symbols | Tagged homosexuality, martyrdom, St. Charles Lwanga, Uganda
10 Comments

Nancy “the Theologian” Pelosi… words fail!

Posted on 3 June 2015 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Abortion Absolutist Democrat

Nancy “the Theologian” Pelosi… words fail!

From LifeSite:

Nancy Pelosi: Gay ‘marriage’ is ‘consistent’ with Catholic teaching

WASHINGTON, D.C., June 2, 2015 (LifeSiteNews.com) — House Minority Leader Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-CA, says that same-sex “marriage” is perfectly “consistent” with Catholic Christianity.

Pelosi brought her grandchildren to see her receive an award from the Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund, to show the young, impressionable children that “marriage equality is important.”

In an interview with Thomas Roberts on MSNBC, Pelosi said she took the children to the Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund gala because “it’s really important to see what the practice of our faith is.”

Pelosi, who described herself as a faithful Christian and “mainstream Catholic,” said her pre-adolescent grandchildren needed to see and be present at a gay and lesbian celebration in order “to give them the image that we have for all people,” meaning the image the Catholic Church has for all.

The House Minority Leader explained that same-sex marriage “is important,” and that her grandchildren “have been hearing this [message supporting gay ‘marriage’] their whole life” because “they go to Catholic school.”

In perhaps the most controversial of her statements, Pelosi said, matter-of-factly, that same-sex ‘marriage’ “is consistent with the dignity and worth we [Catholics] attribute to every person.”

[…]

Read the rest there.

click

[…]

BTW… Pelosi made is opposed to both the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act and the No Taxpayer Funding of Abortion and Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act. The former would prohibit the abortion of babies 20 weeks or later into gestation unless they were conceived in rape or incest, or if the life of the mother was at risk. The latter prohibits federal funding of abortion and stops federal Obamacare subsidies from going to insurance plans that cover abortion while not preventing people in subsidized Obamacare plans from buying supplemental abortion coverage–with their own money.

Canon 915!

Posted in 1983 CIC can. 915, Blatteroons, Emanations from Penumbras, Liberals, You must be joking! | Tagged abortion, can. 915, homosexuality, Nancy Pelosi, same-sex marriage
35 Comments

ACTION ITEM! Help a reader, an aspiring monk!

Posted on 2 June 2015 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

I can’t do many of these, but I can do this one.

ACTION ITEM!

From a reader…

I will stay brief, but I want to make sure and thank you for your
ministry. Your blog was a rock and a beacon for me as I struggled to escape sin and return to the Catholic faith I grew up with while surrounded by priests who told me not to worry about it. You helped get me to confession, thank you.

My question is about where I am going now. Last Fall I was accepted into the monastery at Norcia but my entrance date is contingent on how quickly I can resolve my student loans. [Not uncommon.] (You may remember me mentioning this to you when I introduced myself at St. Peter’s after Cardinal Burke’s Mass last October.) For the past five months I have been working with the Laboure Society to raise the money I need, but I still have quite a ways to go and only a month left until my deadline. [Okay, folks…!] Would you be willing to let your blog readers know about the Laboure Society, my vocation, and offer them the opportunity to help me? I’m not sure how well links come through in the question box, but my support page is

www.labouresociety.org/justin ? CLICK THAT!

Again, thank you for your work, Father, may God reward you for it. Be assured of my prayers. God bless!

I’ll keep the combox closed on this. Help if you can.

The Monks at Norcia are great!

As I post he has 26% of his goal.

Let’s go!

And the Monks new CD is out as of today!

Here is a spiffy video about the life of the monks.

A sample of the chant:

UPDATE 4 June: 00:51 GMT

36%

Posted in ACTION ITEM! | Tagged Norcia
16 Comments

2 June 1865: America Civil War officially ended (and more)

Posted on 2 June 2015 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

150 years ago today, the American Civil War officially ended.

From History:

In an event that is generally regarded as marking the end of the Civil War, Confederate General Edmund Kirby Smith, commander of Confederate forces west of the Mississippi, signs the surrender terms offered by Union negotiators. With Smith’s surrender, the last Confederate army ceased to exist, bringing a formal end to the bloodiest four years in U.S. history.

The American Civil War began on April 12, 1861, when Confederate shore batteries under General Pierre G.T. Beauregard opened fire on Union-held Fort Sumter in South Carolina’s Charleston Bay. During 34 hours, 50 Confederate guns and mortars launched more than 4,000 rounds at the poorly supplied fort, and on April 13 U.S. Major Robert Anderson, commander of the Union garrison, surrendered. Two days later, U.S. President Abraham Lincoln issued a proclamation calling for 75,000 volunteer soldiers to help quell the Southern “insurrection.” Four long years later, the Confederacy was defeated at the total cost of 620,000 Union and Confederate dead.

George Satayana wrote: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

I sometimes wonder if we are not headed in this direction again. So many people are so very ignorant of history … and what’s going on around them today!

Also, from History and also on this day in 1774:

Parliament completes the Coercive Acts with the Quartering Act

On this day in 1774, the British Parliament renews the Quartering Act, allowing Redcoats to stay in private American homes if necessary. The Quartering Act, in conjunction with the Massachusetts Government Act, the Administration of Justice Act and the Boston Port Act, were known as the Coercive Acts.

News of 342 chests of tea dumped into Boston Harbor on December 16, 1773, in what was dubbed the Boston Tea Party, reached Britain in January 1774. Disgusted by the colonists’ action against private property, the British Parliament quickly decided upon the Coercive Acts as a means of reasserting British control over the colonies and punishing Boston.

As of May 20, 1774, the Massachusetts Government Act curtailed democracy in Massachusetts by altering the colonial charter of 1691 to reduce the power of elective officials and to increase that of the royal governor. [I refer the readers to debate about federal influence/interference over local law enforcement agencies.] On the same day, the passing of the Administration of Justice Act ensured that royal officials charged with capital crimes would not be tried in the colonies, but in Britain. On June 1, 1774, the Boston Port Act demanded payment for the destroyed tea before the port could reopen for any imports but food.

On June 2, 1774, Parliament completed its punishment by expanding the Quartering Act to allow soldiers to board in occupied private homes. In its original incarnation, the Quartering Act of 1765 had merely demanded that colonists provide barracks for British soldiers. In Boston, those barracks were on an isolated island in Boston Harbor. In 1766, the act expanded to include the housing of soldiers in public houses (hotels) and empty buildings. With Boston in an uproar, the British now demanded the ability to house the military among civilians, if necessary, to maintain order.

In the evening I will something watch a movie or an episode of some TV series or other. Right now I am slowly working my way through the Netflix series Revolution. It is, in many respects, absurd because of plot gaps etc. (Just how many times can people be shot or beaten over the head with a pipe? Why don’t men ever have to shave and they remain relatively clean-shaven? Why do they seem to have a never-ending supply of whiskey 15 years after the obliteration of power and the collapse of society? Why is everything so damn dirty? Doesn’t anyone clean anything?) In any event, there are some points that are common to “prepper” lit, the dystopian TEOTWAWKI scenarios that inevitably involve bad government actors swooping on the defenseless.