Can Absolution Be Withheld?

It is known that St. Padre Pio withheld absolution.

‘One day Padre Pio didn’t give absolution to a penitent and he told him: “If you go to confess to another priest to have gain absolution you will go to hell together with him”.  He meant that the sacrament of confession is profaned by people that don’t want to change their lives. They are guilty in front of God.’  Source:  Padre Pio Webservices.

Below are discussions re priests withholding absolution:

“Third, the priest must grant absolution—and may in fact withhold it if he sees no contrition or intention to amend one’s life. For example, if someone confesses cohabitation before marriage without intending to change the situation, the priest certainly ought to withhold absolution. And so with any sin.”  Source:   Catholic Culture

“Looking at Canon Law:

Can. 980  If the confessor has no doubt about the disposition of the penitent, and the penitent seeks absolution, absolution is to be neither refused nor deferred.

The corollary, therefore, is that if there is doubt, absolution may be deferred or refused.  Further, canon law reserves several excommunication offenses to the bishop or even Rome.

So yes, absolution can be withheld for cause.”   SourceCatholic Answers Forum.

“Origen, Tertullian, and the followers of Novatian principles were unwilling to grant that the Church had a right to absolve from such sins as apostasy, murder, and adultery.

“In this matter, see Tertullian, “De Pudicitiâ”, which is simply a vehement protest against the action of the Pope, whom Tertullian accuses of presumption in daring to forgive sins, and especially the greater crimes of murder, idolatry, etc.  Tertullian himself, before becoming a Montanist, asserts in the clearest terms that the power to forgive sins is in the Church.”   SourceCatholic Encyclopedia

“In order that the minister of the Sacrament may know the dispositions of penitents with a view to granting or withholding  absolution . . . ”   SourceApostolic Letter Misericordia Dei.  Pope John Paul II.

Advertisements

‘Pregnancy is not a disease’: Bishops slam Planned Parenthood

‘Pregnancy is not a disease’: Bishops slam Planned Parenthood push for free birth control | LifeSiteNews.com

EXCERPTS

WASHINGTON, D.C., July 20, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) – After the Institute of Medicine (IOM) this week publicly backed government-mandated birth control coverage, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) is standing in the breach against what would prove a massive victory for abortion giant Planned Parenthood.

The birth control question has sparked a rare spectacle as the two most influential lobbies on sexual health forcefully butt heads over an issue many other interest groups consider secondary.

“Pregnancy is not a disease, and fertility is not a pathological condition to be suppressed by any means technically possible,” said Cardinal Daniel DiNardo, chairman of the Committee on Pro-Life Activities of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Tuesday.

Like other conservative leaders, the USCCB pro-life chairman noted that the mandate would violate the conscience rights of Americans morally opposed to birth control, and objected to coverage of “emergency contraception” such as ella, a chemical functionally identical to the abortion drug RU-486.

But the cardinal’s challenge did not stop there: DiNardo noted that the IOM report was so radical as to have indicated interest in recommending full abortion coverage as well. The report stated that, “despite the health and well-being benefits to some women,” abortion was outside of the project’s scope given federal legal restrictions.

Abortion May be the “Death Knell” for our Society: U.S. Bishop Doran

Abortion May be the “Death Knell” for our Society:   U.S. Bishop Doran

“As with other forms of wrongful activity sanctioned or winked at by the government, procured abortion is for the killers and those who support them, immensely profitable,” the bishop says.

“Abortuaries are gold mines for their operators.  Killer physicians and surgeons, disdaining the Hippocratic Oath, travel hundreds of miles to assassinate a few children, and you may be sure that that kind of doctor or nurse does not work for nothing.”

Read full article by clicking on the post title above.

New Anti-Death Penalty Campaign, What About Abortion?

Catholic Network Starts New Anti-Death Penalty Campaign, What About Abortion?

By Deal Hudson

Excerpts:

On January 29, the Catholic Mobilizing Network to End the Death Penalty (CMN) was launched. According to its executive director, Karen Clifton, the CMN was created “with the encouragement of the USCCB.”

. . . there’s no avoiding the fact that political arguments about the death penalty are going to play a role in the pro-life debate.

The “seamless garment” argument used by Clifton, of course, raises questions about what those connected with the Catholic Mobilizing Network will be saying about the pro-life position of politicians. As everyone knows too well, this version of Catholic social teaching has been used for more than four decades to provide cover for Catholic politicians who do not oppose abortion.

The stated purpose of Clifton’s organization is to “end the death penalty” by educating “the lay community through our courses on the Church’s teachings on the death penalty” and facilitating “respectful and informed discourse within the Catholic community and the community at large.”

These are all admirable goals, but the obvious caveat is how the effort of CMN will result in applying the pro-life label to politicians who support abortion but oppose the death penalty.

This kind of misapplied moral equivalency was the hallmark of the Catholic effort for Obama during the campaign.

Any arguments about the sanctity of life, after all, make no sense if they don’t arise from the obligation of protecting the not-yet-born.

Contraception—the Bitter Pill

Contraception—the Bitter Pill

by George Sim Johnston.  Crisis Magazine.  1996.

The Church’s insistence on the link between contraception and abortion occasionally gets support in surprising quarters. In Planned Parenthood v. Casey the U.S. Supreme Court, on its perennial search for the most plausible-sounding sophistries to uphold legalized abortion, stated:

For two decades of economic and social developments, people have organized intimate relationships and made choices that define their views of themselves and their places in society, in reliance on the availability of abortion in the event that contraception should fail.

In other words, we need abortion so that people can continue their contraceptive lifestyles.