_____News____Australia_______________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________

 General Absolutions Continue
Has Rome lost interest in the reform program?

By Michael Gilchrist

Despite the clear wishes of Pope John Paul II and several Vatican documents directed specifically at ending the practice in Australia, the Third Rite of Reconciliation—general absolution—continues to be celebrated on a regular basis in the Queensland Diocese of Toowoomba, bordering on the Archdiocese of Brisbane.

In the city of Toowoomba itself, for example, the Our Lady of Lourdes parish bulletin of March 24 informed local Catholics that “the 3rd Rite of Reconciliation will be held on Tuesday night 26th March at 7:00 pm.” The situation was similar in other city parishes, including the cathedral, which provided a Third Rite celebration on March 25.

Throughout much of the diocese, in fact, in the period leading up to Easter 2002, the Third Rite seemed a routine event—as it has been in the lead-ups to Christmas and Easter over at least the past three years.

This situation would surprise many Australian Catholics outside Toowoomba who thought the practice—licit only in very exceptional circumstances —had more or less disappeared since 1999, at the specific request of Rome, which ruled out its “illegitimate” use. (Under normal Australian conditions, any use at all might well be regarded as, by definition, “illegitimate.”)

However, when this writer contacted Bishop William Morris on this matter, the bishop referred particularly to Canon 960 of the Code of Canon Law regarding “physical and moral impossibility” as “basic grounds for permission to be granted” for general absolution in his diocese. In fact, the bishop has produced a set of guidelines on the Third Rite containing interpretations of Canon Law (960-962) that seek to justify continuation of general absolution, even though the rest of Australia’s bishops had officially ended the practice three years ago.

Rome has spoken—twice
Prior to the Synod of Oceania in December 1998, use of the Third Rite had reached almost epidemic proportions around Australia. But following a special meeting between a group of Australia’s bishops and senior Vatican cardinals in Rome, a strongly worded document—titled Statement of Conclusions—was released, containing a list of problem areas requiring urgent attention, among them “illegitimate use of general absolution.” This “illegitimate use,” it said, “was to be eliminated.”

Pope John Paul II, in his address on December 14, 1998, to all the Australian bishops gathered in Rome for the Synod of Oceania, lent further emphasis to this directive. Later, the Australian bishops at their conference in April 1999 indicated the Third Rite would be “kept strictly within the conditions laid down by canon law.”

Canon 960 states that “physical or moral impossibility alone excuses” a penitent from “individual and integral confession,” allowing “other means” for attaining reconciliation such as general absolution. Canon 961 directs that general absolution, without prior individual confession, “cannot be given to a number of penitents” except where “danger of death threatens” or “there exists a grave necessity,” as where there are too few confessors available, thus depriving penitents of “sacramental grace . . . for a lengthy period of time.” The Code of Canon Law explicitly adds that a “great gathering of penitents” at “some major feast day or pilgrimage” did not justify general absolution.

Canon 961 adds that “the diocesan bishop” is the one to judge whether the necessary conditions apply for general absolution in his diocese, while Canon 962 sets out the requirements for valid use of general absolution, noting the need for penitents to confess any grave sins individually “in due time.”

While the vast majority of Australia’s bishops halted general absolution in their dioceses—apparently convinced that a “strict” interpretation of canon law meant, in effect, allowing no use of the Third Rite at all—a few, notably including the former Archbishop of Adelaide, indicated they would continue with the practice for the time being.

This prompted a sternly worded document from the Vatican Congregation for Divine Worship, which reminded the bishops concerned that “the authorization given to diocesan bishops does not permit them ‘to change the required conditions, to substitute other conditions for those given, or to determine grave necessity according to their personal criteria however worthy.’” (The citation was from Pope Paul VI.) But while the Vatican’s intervention caused the practice officially to cease in Adelaide and elsewhere, it has continued since then in the Toowoomba diocese, particularly in the last days prior to Easter and Christmas.

A holdout diocese
This diocese, until the retirement of Bishop Edward Kelly, MSC, in 1993, had been regarded as the lone “conservative” see among Queensland’s five dioceses. But since the arrival of Bishop William Morris, Toowoomba has been rapidly overtaking its liberal neighbors. The local Catholic Education Office, for example, has been organizing Enneagram and Celtic Spirituality workshops, while the diocesan newspaper publishes liberal interpretations of the sacraments by a nun-liturgist in her regular column.

And in August 2001, the Toowoomba Diocesan Liturgical Commission released its plans for “renovation” of the cathedral. These plans bore an uncanny resemblance to those of Archbishop Rembert Weakland in Milwaukee, including removal of the existing high altar and tabernacle, and the location of an altar table halfway down the aisle of the cathedral—to be surrounded by moveable seats, without kneelers, arranged in a circular manner. The confessionals were also earmarked for removal.

The Liturgical Commission indicated that the cathedral needed to be multi-purpose, and not confined simply to worship. In justifying its radical plans, the Commission referred extensively to the US bishops’ document, Environment and Art in Catholic Worship, which Bishop Morris said (in response to this writer’s questioning) was “regarded by many as the standard text in this area.” The Toowoomba diocese seemed unaware that this American document carried no teaching authority, or that it was about to be superseded by another document approved by the US bishops.

Bishop Morris’ permissiveness regarding the Third Rite is therefore consistent with his liberal style in other areas of Church life. The bishop’s own approach to the issue is evident in his guidelines for use of the Third Rite, which first quote the Church’s official position, and then interpret it flexibly. Thus the “grave necessity” required by canon law is replaced by “genuine needs” or “serious necessity,” while “strict” is modified to a “strict but not restrictive” interpretation of the “canonical and liturgical norms of the Church.”

The bishop then outlines how Canon 960’s “physical or moral impossibility” could apply in his diocese:

Within this area of Church discipline some of the more pastorally sensitive issues that have made the celebration of general absolution a necessity in some contexts can be taken into consideration when decisions are made. Such issues can, in many cases, be rightly judged to be causes which excuse a less than strict adherence to the law because of situations which present moral and physical impossibility.

In this rural diocese, for example, the difficulty many people experience in maintaining their anonymity without having to travel excessive distances, or the breakdown of relationships that prevents a person from feeling able to approach a particular priest in a one-to-one situation, may be real grounds for claiming moral or physical impossibility. Negative experiences of the confessional, and even the reality of physical and sexual abuse, may also need to be taken into account when decisions about the use of this rite are made.

While one can appreciate the bishop’s concerns about certain difficult situations, such factors as “excessive distances” and “breakdown of relationships,” which he cites as instances of “physical or moral impossibility,” would hardly apply in the city of Toowoomba itself, where there are numerous parishes and confessors from which to choose. Yet these parishes have been announcing the general availability of the Third Rite.

On the other hand, if the Toowoomba approach is a defensible reading of canon law, should not the same logic apply throughout Australia, rather than in just one diocese—given that conditions in every diocese are virtually identical?

Meanwhile, a feature article in the liberal Brisbane archdiocesan Catholic Leader interpreted the Pope’s recent follow-up document to the Synod of Oceania—Ecclesia in Oceania—as correcting the “harsh” directives of the Statement of Conclusions. Ecclesia in Oceania had to accommodate a wide variety of situations among Oceania’s island nations, so its words were of necessity more generalized and circumspect than the terms of the Statement of Conclusions, which applied specifically to Australia.

Should the Holy See fail to clarify the position in Toowoomba, it could soon become obvious to other liberal dioceses that Rome has lost interest in the wider reform process in Australia, and the Statement of Conclusions would become effectively a dead letter.

Michael Gilchrist is managing editor of the Australian monthly AD2000.