Absolved Even If Priest Doesn't See Sin?

[Gethsemane]

+Praise be to Jesus through Mary+

I had a theoretical thought which occurred to me and thought to put it to the floor. What if you go to confess a sin, and the confessor doesn’t believe that you have sinned? This theory assumes that you actually have sinned. Would you be forgiven anyway when you’re absolved, or would it be withheld since Jesus said whose sins you forgive are forgiven and whose sins you retain are retained?

 

[roveau]

Of course you have been absolved.

You did what you needed to do (ie confess the sin). You did your duty. What the priest thought of that sin is his opinion. His opinion of that sin doesn’t null your intention to confess and have sought to be forgiven.

I’ve had this happen a few times, one time I accepted what the priest had to say, other times I just tell him that I felt it was a sin and that’s why I was confessing it.

The bottom line is what you confess and ask forgiveness for. The priest stands in for Christ, so it is really Christ you are ultimately confessing your sins to.

 

[littlestsouls2]

Of course you have been absolved.

You did what you needed to do (ie confess the sin). You did your duty. What the priest thought of that sin is his opinion. His opinion of that sin doesn’t null your intention to confess and have sought to be forgiven.

I’ve had this happen a few times, one time I accepted what the priest had to say, other times I just tell him that I felt it was a sin and that’s why I was confessing it.

The bottom line is what you confess and ask forgiveness for. The priest stands in for Christ, so it is really Christ you are ultimately confessing your sins to.

Obedience can never lead us astray.

 

[frangiuliano115]

+Praise be to Jesus through Mary+

I had a theoretical thought which occurred to me and thought to put it to the floor. What if you go to confess a sin, and the confessor doesn’t believe that you have sinned? This theory assumes that you actually have sinned. Would you be forgiven anyway when you’re absolved, or would it be withheld since Jesus said whose sins you forgive are forgiven and whose sins you retain are retained?

Jesus never withholds forgiveness if you’re sorry you sinned.

Absolution if for confessed sins and what you feel is a sin.

 

[GLam8833]

Confessing a “sin” and having absolution withheld b/c
the priest doesn’t see it as a sin is also a problem
I have, I see some foods as “unclean” and so I confessed
it after I ate, but the priest says he cannot grant absolution
b/c he doesn’t see it as a sin.

 

[frangiuliano115]

Confessing a “sin” and having absolution withheld b/c
the priest doesn’t see it as a sin is also a problem
I have, I see some foods as “unclean” and so I confessed
it after I ate, but the priest says he cannot grant absolution
b/c he doesn’t see it as a sin.

It’s not a problem. When a priest absolves you of sin, he doesn’t make a list of them and then absolve. He absolves of ALL sin. The catechism says that the only sin not forgiven is a mortal sin that is not openly confessed. But one that is forgotten IS also forgiven.

Fran

P.S. This whole question of what is sin is interesting to me. If you complain to your husand it is probably not a sin. But maybe if I complain to mine it is. Maybe he’s sick, maybe he can’t take it emotionally. A priest could advise you that something is not a sin but if you feel it is, it’s something between you and God. In any case, it is forgiven.

 

[Gorgias]

It’s not a problem. When a priest absolves you of sin, he doesn’t make a list of them and then absolve. He absolves of ALL sin.

Right, but what if the only ‘sins’ confessed were ones that the priest said were not sins at all; and therefore, to the confessor’s view, there is nothing to confess.
Gethsemene:

What if you go to confess a sin, and the confessor doesn’t believe that you have sinned? This theory assumes that you actually have sinned. Would you be forgiven anyway when you’re absolved, or would it be withheld since Jesus said whose sins you forgive are forgiven and whose sins you retain are retained?

In other words, you’re assuming that the priest is factually incorrect when he says “it’s not a sin”?

I would say “not a problem”, since the priest is not ‘retaining’ a sin – rather, he’s deferring to offer absolution for it. (As others have mentioned, however, when he absolves you, it’s for all your sins – whether he knows of them or not.)

 

[Deo_Gratias42]

Confessing a “sin” and having absolution withheld b/c
the priest doesn’t see it as a sin is also a problem
I have, I see some foods as “unclean” and so I confessed
it after I ate, but the priest says he cannot grant absolution
b/c he doesn’t see it as a sin.

If someone doesn’t confess any actual sin (ie: such as what you posted), he can’t give absolution because he has no matter to absolve. Some real sin (not what someone thinks is a sin, but is not actually a sin doesn’t suffice), whether current or past, must be confessed in order for the priest to grant absolution.

The best way to avoid all of this is to end your confession with, “for these and all the sins of my past life, especially those against X (ie: charity), I am humbly sorry and ask for penance and absolution.”

Saying that guarantees the priest has sufficient matter to grant absolution.

 

[frangiuliano115]

Right, but what if the only ‘sins’ confessed were ones that the priest said were not sins at all; and therefore, to the confessor’s view, there is nothing to confess.

In other words, you’re assuming that the priest is factually incorrect when he says “it’s not a sin”?

I would say “not a problem”, since the priest is not ‘retaining’ a sin – rather, he’s deferring to offer absolution for it. (As others have mentioned, however, when he absolves you, it’s for all your sins – whether he knows of them or not.)

Yes. I see what you mean. If it’s the ONLY sin at confession time and the priest is telling you it’s NOT a sin, you certainly cannot have a theological debate with him!

He may be factually CORRECT in saying that it’s not a sin. What I mean is that if to YOU it’s a sin, it does need to be handled somehow. A good way would be for the priest to just absolve you of ALL sin so you could go away happy and feeling like your sin (whether it really be one or not) is absolved.

Deo Gratias hit it on the nail with his 2nd pp - however that would assume there are other sins too!

When thinking of the priests I know pretty well because I’ve worked with them, I’d have to say that they would opt to just accept the confession and just absolve ALL sins. We have plenty of sin besides what we think we have, so it can’t hurt!

Fran

 

[Bookcat]

One would add something from the past that one was contrite and amended about - such as a past mortal sin. It can be said in general like “and all the sins of my life such as against chastity”. A good to add in general at the end of ones confession.

 

[XXI_4]

Well it couldn’t be a matter of grave sin if the priest doesn’t see it as a sin at all, right? So if that’s the case even if you still consider it a venial sin, that sin would be washed away during Mass.

Now if you consider it to be a mortal sin and the confessor doesn’t see it as a sin at all, so you don’t want to approach Communion… consult a different priest?

I personally wouldn’t give it a second thought if my confessor said that something was not a sin. I also like the advice of ending “for these and all the sins of my past…” to cover things you may have forgotten.

 

[frangiuliano115]

Well it couldn’t be a matter of grave sin if the priest doesn’t see it as a sin at all, right? So if that’s the case even if you still consider it a venial sin, that sin would be washed away during Mass.

Now if you consider it to be a mortal sin and the confessor doesn’t see it as a sin at all, so you don’t want to approach Communion… consult a different priest?

I personally wouldn’t give it a second thought if my confessor said that something was not a sin. I also like the advice of ending “for these and all the sins of my past…” to cover things you may have forgotten.

The first sentence of your 3rd pp is interesting.

Did you know that even if you do something wrong because a spiritual advisor so directs you, it is not counted as a sin for you? He takes the responsibility in God’s eyes. This was told to me by a spiritual advisor/director who also does adult catechism. So, yes, if the priest tells you something is not a sin, he should be heeded, but sometimes people are worried or they can’t get the “sin” out of their mind.

 

[buc_fan33]

Let me chime in here. A few things come to mind.

First, a priest needs actual sin to absolve. It really makes no difference what someone “feels” is a sin, to them. That philosophy has a name, and it’s called relativism. Normally, we think of relativism in these terms, “Well, maybe for you having sex outside of marriage is a sin, but it’s not for me.” We rightly criticize this viewpoint. However, what is being espoused here, as far as I can tell, is no less relativistic. Let’s use a real example rather than hypotheticals. Someone who is pious may feel very badly about missing Sunday Mass for any reason, even if there’s a blizzard, the person is 85, and is suffering from a cold. He/she may FEEL that missing Sunday Mass was a sin, but that doesn’t change the fact that in this case, it WASN’T a sin. This may sound harsh, but whether or not something is a sin is not defined by how it makes us feel. Indeed, many sinful things make us feel quite good (that’s why we go back to them), and many virtuous things can be quite painful.

Second, I would caution anyone against mentioning past sins. Again, the priest can’t absolve what has already been absolved. Just like you can’t rebaptize someone who is already baptized, you can’t reconfirm someone who is already confirmed, and you can’t reconsecrate hosts that are already consecrated, you can’t absolve sin that has already been absolved. If God has forgiven said sin and let it go, we should too. In fact, I can’t think of any scenario where it would be advisable to dwell on past sins. This sounds dangerously close to despair.

Third and finally, if someone TRULY can’t think of any sin, then there are two options. First, forego the sacrament of penance. It’s surprising for people to learn, but the Blessed Virgin couldn’t go to Confession. Leaving aside the historical development of the sacrament for a moment, it was literally impossible for her to celebrate the sacrament because she literally had no sin to confess. The second option is to find a better examination of conscience. I don’t mean for that to sound harsh. I mean it quite literally. Sadly, some of the examinations out there today are abysmal. They either only focus on the really big stuff, or they are so banal that they can’t possibly help anyone examine his or her conscience. “Have I failed to love others?” “Have I failed to see Christ in other people?” If you’re breathing (and you’re neither the Word Incarnate or the Blessed Virgin, then if we’re honest, the answer is YES!")

If you have a smart phone, there is a good app available called “I Confess.” It has an excellent examination of conscience based on the 10 Commandments, the Precepts of the Church, and a few other things. I recommend it wholeheartedly.

 

[frangiuliano115]

Let me chime in here. A few things come to mind.

First, a priest needs actual sin to absolve. It really makes no difference what someone “feels” is a sin, to them. That philosophy has a name, and it’s called relativism. Normally, we think of relativism in these terms, “Well, maybe for you having sex outside of marriage is a sin, but it’s not for me.” We rightly criticize this viewpoint. However, what is being espoused here, as far as I can tell, is no less relativistic. Let’s use a real example rather than hypotheticals. Someone who is pious may feel very badly about missing Sunday Mass for any reason, even if there’s a blizzard, the person is 85, and is suffering from a cold. He/she may FEEL that missing Sunday Mass was a sin, but that doesn’t change the fact that in this case, it WASN’T a sin. This may sound harsh, but whether or not something is a sin is not defined by how it makes us feel. Indeed, many sinful things make us feel quite good (that’s why we go back to them), and many virtuous things can be quite painful.

Second, I would caution anyone against mentioning past sins. Again, the priest can’t absolve what has already been absolved. Just like you can’t rebaptize someone who is already baptized, you can’t reconfirm someone who is already confirmed, and you can’t reconsecrate hosts that are already consecrated, you can’t absolve sin that has already been absolved. If God has forgiven said sin and let it go, we should too. In fact, I can’t think of any scenario where it would be advisable to dwell on past sins. This sounds dangerously close to despair.

Third and finally, if someone TRULY can’t think of any sin, then there are two options. First, forego the sacrament of penance. It’s surprising for people to learn, but the Blessed Virgin couldn’t go to Confession. Leaving aside the historical development of the sacrament for a moment, it was literally impossible for her to celebrate the sacrament because she literally had no sin to confess. The second option is to find a better examination of conscience. I don’t mean for that to sound harsh. I mean it quite literally. Sadly, some of the examinations out there today are abysmal. They either only focus on the really big stuff, or they are so banal that they can’t possibly help anyone examine his or her conscience. “Have I failed to love others?” “Have I failed to see Christ in other people?” If you’re breathing (and you’re neither the Word Incarnate or the Blessed Virgin, then if we’re honest, the answer is YES!")

If you have a smart phone, there is a good app available called “I Confess.” It has an excellent examination of conscience based on the 10 Commandments, the Precepts of the Church, and a few other things. I recommend it wholeheartedly.

I really dislike talking about confession and sin because it’s a personal situation between a priest and penitent, but you say a couple of things that are a bit cloudy.

A priest needs actual sin to absolve. There’s ALWAYS sin to absolve. You think you don’t sin every day?? You make a point that we all do. The penitent may not have a real sin on his mind, but there will be other sins that have been commited and a general absolution can be given - like in communal confessions.

BTW, that was a nice lesson on feelings! Very good adult catechism.

Mentioning past sins. Good on all you say except that if you remember a past mortal sin you are obligated to confess it once it comes to mind. Also any mortal sin for which there was a perfect contrition and then confession becomes possible.

All you said was very good. I gave an example of someone thinking something is sin when it’s not back at the beginning. Even though the action may NOT be a sin, it still has to be addressed by a confessor.

Just to clarify a bit more.

Fran

 

[Bookcat]

Also any mortal sin for which there was a perfect contrition

To clarify or readers -such would still need to be confessed.

 

[frangiuliano115]

To clarify or readers -such would still need to be confessed.

Correct. I did say and THEN confession becomes possible. If it never does again (war, death) the mortal sin is forgiven by God.

Fran

 

[Gorgias]

Mentioning past sins. Good on all you say except that if you remember a past mortal sin you are obligated to confess it once it comes to mind. Also any mortal sin for which there was a perfect contrition and then confession becomes possible.

I think what Bookcat was suggesting (and what buc_fan33 responded to) was the suggestion to re-confess something from the past that had already been forgiven. (Some suggest that bringing these up again – especially those forgiven sins for which we still feel sorrow – is laudable. Buc_fan33 is pointing out that there’s a fine line between ‘still sorry for my forgiven sins’ and ‘not having let go of the sin and accepting God’s forgiveness’.)

However, you’re right: if there’s a mortal sin that you forget in a past confession, it’s forgiven too – but you could always bring it up: “last year in confession, I forgot to mention that I murdered my husband for watching too many Pirates baseball games on TV.”

Moreover, if one commits a mortal sin and has perfect contrition (and that’s a topic for another day ), he is obligated to confess it at first opportunity. So, if that were the case, then this discussion wouldn’t be applicable – he’d absolutely have something to confess! (Of course, as buc_fan33 points out: if the ‘mortal sin’ was missing Sunday Mass on the day there was a blizzard and no way for an 80-year-old to get out of the house and to church safely, and that were the only sin, then there’d still be nothing to confess.)

 

[buc_fan33]

Let me just respond to a few things that you said.

A priest needs actual sin to absolve. There’s ALWAYS sin to absolve. You think you don’t sin every day?? You make a point that we all do. The penitent may not have a real sin on his mind, but there will be other sins that have been commited and a general absolution can be given - like in communal confessions.

Sorry, but you’re mistaken here. Yes. We do all sin. But to actually celebrate the sacrament of confession, actual sins need to be confessed. We can’t just say some generality like, “I’m sorry for all the sins of my past life.” That’s great. But the priest needs something concrete. Even if it’s the most minor transgression.

Mentioning past sins. Good on all you say except that if you remember a past mortal sin you are obligated to confess it once it comes to mind. Also any mortal sin for which there was a perfect contrition and then confession becomes possible.

Yes. This is absolutely true. But this isn’t really what we’re talking about, as I understand it. These are two different issues. On the one hand, if one makes a good confession and later remembers a mortal sin that was unconfessed (not intentionally omitting said sin from his/her confession, but actually forgetting it) then the penitent should mention it in his/her next confession but in the meantime should rest assured that he/she has been absolved.

On the other hand is someone who literally can’t think of any sin. The point I’m trying to make is that every sacrament has matter and form. “Sin” is the matter of the sacrament of reconciliation. St. Thomas called it “quasi-matter.” To celebrate the sacrament you need the matter, in this case, actual confessed sins.

All you said was very good. I gave an example of someone thinking something is sin when it’s not back at the beginning. Even though the action may NOT be a sin, it still has to be addressed by a confessor.

This is a question of conscience. And, you’re right. Conscience binds us, even if our conscience has been poorly formed. Let me give you an example. Suppose someone grew up thinking that eating tomatoes was a serious sin of the most grave degree. Now, we know that that isn’t true. But, this individual was formed in such a way as to erroneously THINK that eating tomatoes was a serious sin. So, let’s say that this person sat down and ate a tomato. He/she would be obliged to confess this at his/her next confession. But then, the priest should offer some spiritual counsel to help the person form his/her conscience to properly understand that eating tomatoes is not, in fact, sinful.

 

[buc_fan33]

However, you’re right: if there’s a mortal sin that you forget in a past confession, it’s forgiven too – but you could always bring it up: “last year in confession, I forgot to mention that I murdered my husband for watching too many Pirates baseball games on TV.”

Hey…watch it! I’d be dead 485 times over.