Are you still absolved when the priest doesn't think it's a sin?

[GlorytoJesus]

If a liberal priest disagrees that something you confess was sinful, are you still absolved from that sin when he grants absolution at the end?

 

[Tietjen]

If a liberal priest disagrees that something you confess was sinful, are you still absolved from that sin when he grants absolution at the end?

Yes, and perhaps if you have a question over whether something is sinful or not, you would speak to him about it. Maybe he is misunderstanding the details or perhaps you are being over scrupulous. Either way, it’s better to make sure. God bless.

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

If a liberal priest disagrees that something you confess was sinful, are you still absolved from that sin when he grants absolution at the end?

If you are absolved by a judge who does not believe in the system, will you get absolved? Anyhow, it is none of your business. Your businness is to confess, repent and change. God Bless You.

 

[Joan_M]

If a liberal priest disagrees that something you confess was sinful, are you still absolved from that sin when he grants absolution at the end?

When the priest says the absolution prayer he doesn’t absolve you from only sins that he thinks are sins, but from all your sins.

Thank God for the absolution and find a different priest for future confessions.

 

[arkwright]

You have confessed your sins .

You have been absolved from all your sins .

Be at peace now .

 

[thistle]

If a liberal priest disagrees that something you confess was sinful, are you still absolved from that sin when he grants absolution at the end?

Using the word “liberal” before priest does not seem very charitable as it implies something negative about the priest.

 

[Robertanthony]

If you are absolved by a judge who does not believe in the system, will you get absolved? Anyhow, it is none of your business. Your businness is to confess, repent and change. God Bless You.

We’re only talking about the state of his soul here, with possible implication with his ETERNAL destiny, so I know where you’re coming from saying it’s none of his business.

Secondly, if a priest openly says things that are against Catholic teachings in regards to people cohabitating for instance, saying it’s all right with God if they’re in a committed relationship, can we then qualify him as liberal or say “an otherwise holy priest with diverging views”, “a cafeteria priest” perhaps? What would be the appropriate formula? I think we all know OP was clear, that the confessor understood exactly what the deal was, but for some reason we play the game of “let’s pretend”. OP calls him “liberal”, I would think he does that because the priest has a history, is well-known for expressing personal view that are at odds with Catholic teachings, for calling things that are sinful not sins.

 

[Edmundus1581]

If a **liberal priest **disagrees that something you confess was sinful, are you still absolved from that sin when he grants absolution at the end?

Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.” John 6:68

 

[Robertanthony]

Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.” John 6:68

Peter said that after Jesus had asked if they,too, wanted to leave him. How does that tie in with “liberal priest”?

 

[Tarpeian_Rock]

We’re only talking about the state of his soul here, with possible implication with his ETERNAL destiny, so I know where you’re coming from saying it’s none of his business.

Secondly, if a priest openly says things that are against Catholic teachings in regards to people cohabitating for instance, saying it’s all right with God if they’re in a committed relationship, can we then qualify him as liberal or say “an otherwise holy priest with diverging views”, “a cafeteria priest” perhaps? What would be the appropriate formula? I think we all know OP was clear, that the confessor understood exactly what the deal was, but for some reason we play the game of “let’s pretend”. OP calls him “liberal”, I would think he does that because the priest has a history, is well-known for expressing personal view that are at odds with Catholic teachings, for calling things that are sinful not sins.

I guess I missed the part of the Catechism where the penitent gets to judge the priest and evaluate the state of the priest’s soul.

 

[TrueLight]

There do exist liberal priests.

That’s not judging the state of someone’s soul, but their outlook.

 

[odile53]

I don’t want to start a firestorm here. What do you mean by “liberal” priest?

There are some devotions, practices, and consecrations that people do privately, and can’t keep up. Sometimes that is because the practices are very old and we live in modern times which don’t lend themselves to carrying out the practice with any degree of ease. For example, I once committed myself to praying all of the Hours. The problem is that at my job, I couldn’t get away from my duties to pray the late morning, the mid-day, and the early afternoon hours. So I confessed this supposed “sin.” Father asked me if I had vowed solemnly to do this, and I hadn’t. Not a sin, said Father.

Sometimes people have to remove themselves from toxic family relationships as charitably as possible to avoid further damage to their mental health, and then think they are not “honoring their mother and their father.” Again, not a sin, as long as they are not acting in a cruel manner. Or they have to take responsibility for an elderly parent whose judgment isn’t the best any more: My mother was receiving an inordinate amount of junk mail that she guarded as if it was gold. I suspected that it was mostly solicitations for money, and one day went to her house (when she was living with me) and opened the junk mail. My suspicions were confirmed, and worse yet, she had been sending these people money. I threw away the junk mail and then felt bad about it, after all, it wasn’t my mail. I went to confession and confessed it. Again, Father said: “Not a sin, you’re trying to protect her from being exploited,” and then gave me a couple of ideas as to how to handle it more efficiently. I had gone to a traditional laundry list examination of conscience, since opening someone else’s mail is a violation of the law of the land, and thought it was a sin, which is the reason I confessed it.

Sometimes people misunderstand a church teaching and during an examination of conscience, accuse themselves of a violation of it. They go to confession to hear that they misunderstood the teaching, therefore, it wasn’t a sin. There are a lot of divorced (non-annulled, non-remarried) Catholics who erroneously think they are excommunicated, for example. They aren’t. Of course, if they married in the Church they’re still married, regardless of the location of their spouse, until the marriage has been examined for defect and a decree of nullity has been pronounced. But as long as they are living chastely they’re not sinning. I have a friend who had been granted a decree of nullity. She still went to confession and confessed her divorce, even though the divorce was sought out after her ex husband nearly killed her! Not a sin, said Father.

These are just a few examples where somebody isn’t being scrupulous and the priest isn’t being “lenient.” I think we have to be extremely careful and educate ourselves by studying the Bible, the catechism, and church teachings, train our consciences, cultivate our relationship with the Lord, and understand what is really a sin and what is not, before we go labeling these hardworking men who, in the confessional, sit in the place of Christ Himself, as “liberal.” Such priests are merely educating and providing direction, so souls don’t go torturing themselves with questionable dilemmas and can freely honor the Lord with joy in their hearts.

There are a lot of adult Catholics who still use an examination of conscience that they were taught back in CCD classes as school children, and there’s not much in terms of “continuing Catholic education” for adults coming from the pulpits or printed in the bulletins, which is where average Joe or Jane Catholic gets their information. There is also a lot of bad information floating around out there, particularly on what someone delightfully referred to as the “Internet Curia.” There’s a temptation to plead ignorance, but that doesn’t cut it, either. There is information on-line that has been posted by someone who is obviously neurotic or obviously has an agenda, and this isn’t true Catholic teaching, either. Figure it this way: A lot of adults get their news, form their opinions and make decisions based on information garnered from sound bytes. They do the same with their consciences as well. Obviously, the result is chaos.

We grown-ups need to grow up and update ourselves, nurture our conscience formation and re-calibrate our moral compasses so that they reflect the teachings of Jesus Christ and His Church accurately and with a sensitivity to the real moral confusion that pervades our society today so that we can cut through the fog and live out our lives in holiness without ignoring the realities that we face. That’s where God has placed us, and that is where our salvation is to be worked out and worked on. In my humble opinion, relying on something obscure that Sister said in the classroom forty five years ago and then branding a priest as “liberal” if he doesn’t agree is not being spiritually childlike. It’s being spiritually childish.

There’s a world of difference between childlike and childish, and the difference should be as plain as the nose on our faces if we’ve made the effort to do our studying and researching from good, holy, and Church-approved sources.

 

[TrueLight]

We grown-ups need to grow up and update ourselves, nurture our conscience formation and r**e-calibrate **our moral compasses so that they reflect the teachings of Jesus Christ and His Church accurately and with a sensitivity to the real moral confusion that pervades our society today. In my humble opinion, relying on something Sister said in the classroom forty five years ago and then branding a priest as “liberal” if he doesn’t agree is not being spiritually childlike. It’s being spiritually childish. There’s a world of difference.

It’s all this updating and recalibrating that has helped to cause the problems we have today.

For example, If the church says that ABC is wrong and one confesses use of it and the priest says, “Nah. Don’t worry about it. Use your conscience”, then “liberal priest” is putting it mildly.

God is the same today, yesterday and tomorrow. We don’t need to update ourselves like we update our fashion look.

 

[triumphguy]

**Ex opere operato **

If the priest says the words of absolution then you are forgiven. The priest’s views on sin, politics, the pope, contraception, humane vitae, or the state of the world have NO bearing on the absolution. The priest’s holiness, state of grace, mental state, or mental health have NO bearing on the absolution. Whether the priest thinks you sinned gravely or not has NO bearing on the absolution he administered. The priest’s opinion on what is gravely sinful has No bearing on the absolution he gave you. Whether the priest is “nice”, warm and caring, or cold distant and aloof has No bearing on the absolution he gave you. If the priest can’t speak English very well and doesn’t understand you, that has No bearing on the absolution he gave you.

So, the priest administering the sacrament of reconciliation

• can be in a state of mortal sin, and
• misunderstand the gravity of the sins you are confessing, and
• disagree with the Pope on Church teaching, and
• agree with one political party rather than another, and
• be deaf and not hear what you said very well, and
• not speak English well enough for you to understand the words of absolution and

yet you are still forgiven as if Pope Benedikt had just heard your confession.

Therefore we do not need to be discussing the priest.

 

[odile53]

As I said, I don’t wish to cause a firestorm. I’m not referring to the obvious violations of Church teachings. I’m referring to the attempt to use one specific teaching to judge whether a complex situation resulted in a sin, when it was not a sin at all.

Actually, if someone is frequently finding themselves in the position of confessing something that they think is sinful and being told that it isn’t, there’s a very good chance that they need either improved catechesis or spiritual direction. There are quite a few Catholics who had the advantage of RCIA classes because they entered the church as adults. Most “cradle” Catholics don’t get much in the way of ongoing formation or education, and what they heard thirty, forty, or fifty years ago has a way of getting muddled, or maybe it wasn’t even explained well in the first place. If you went to public school back in the day, you had one hour a week of religious education (they called it release-time instruction,) and these classes were really geared toward preparation for the sacraments. The Catholic school kids had about forty five minutes a few times a week for religious education, so they fared a little better, but not by much. This was the days of the baby boom, when classes were frequently large. A typical release time CCD class had upwards of thirty kids in it. It took time to get the kids to settle down (they had walked over from the nearby public school,) and start a lesson. I went to Catholic school, and recall that in sixth grade Sister spent one semester just teaching how the Bible was laid out!

So only the basics got covered, not critical ethical thinking, not necessarily even in Catholic high school.

Obviously, priests go through seminary, and learn philosophy, theology, ethics, Church teachings, and all of the rest of it, along with pastoral care and psychology. Basically, their education is equivalent to a doctoral program. Understanding that, I would tend to trust their judgment a lot more than random pieces of moral pronouncements from unknown and possibly uneducated sources.

Understanding this, I think you can see why we need to refine our consciences. It’s not making allowances for sin. It’s learning to make appropriate, adult, and holy choices according to Church teachings, and thus avoid sin.

 

[Edmundus1581]

I guess I missed the part of the Catechism where the penitent gets to judge the priest and evaluate the state of the priest’s soul.

Well said. End of question.

 

[Edmundus1581]

Peter said that after Jesus had asked if they,too, wanted to leave him. How does that tie in with “liberal priest”?

Thanks for following up

It doesn’t matter whether the priest is “liberal”, “orthodox”, whatever label you give him… he has “the words of eternal life”, ie. “I absolve you of your sins”. To whom else do we go?

 

[TrueLight]

As I said, I don’t wish to cause a firestorm. I’m not referring to the obvious violations of Church teachings. I’m referring to the attempt to use one specific teaching to judge whether a complex situation resulted in a sin, when it was not a sin at all.

Actually, if someone is frequently finding themselves in the position of confessing something that they think is sinful and being told that it isn’t, there’s a very good chance that they need either improved catechesis or spiritual direction. There are quite a few Catholics who had the advantage of RCIA classes because they entered the church as adults. Most “cradle” Catholics don’t get much in the way of ongoing formation or education, and what they heard thirty, forty, or fifty years ago has a way of getting muddled, or maybe it wasn’t even explained well in the first place. If you went to public school back in the day, you had one hour a week of religious education (they called it release-time instruction,) and these classes were really geared toward preparation for the sacraments. The Catholic school kids had about forty five minutes a few times a week for religious education, so they fared a little better, but not by much. This was the days of the baby boom, when classes were frequently large. A typical release time CCD class had upwards of thirty kids in it. It took time to get the kids to settle down (they had walked over from the nearby public school,) and start a lesson. I went to Catholic school, and recall that in sixth grade Sister spent one semester just teaching how the Bible was laid out!

So only the basics got covered, not critical ethical thinking, not necessarily even in Catholic high school.

Obviously, priests go through seminary, and learn philosophy, theology, ethics, Church teachings, and all of the rest of it, along with pastoral care and psychology. Basically, their education is equivalent to a doctoral program. Understanding that, I would tend to trust their judgment a lot more than random pieces of moral pronouncements from unknown and possibly uneducated sources.

Understanding this, I think you can see why we need to refine our consciences. It’s not making allowances for sin. It’s learning to make appropriate, adult, and holy choices according to Church teachings, and thus avoid sin.

I appreciate you sharing how things used to be back in the day. I really like those glimpses into the past.

 

[Mrs_Sally]

It’s all this updating and recalibrating that has helped to cause the problems we have today.

For example, If the church says that ABC is wrong and one confesses use of it and the priest says, “Nah. Don’t worry about it. Use your conscience”, then “liberal priest” is putting it mildly.

God is the same today, yesterday and tomorrow. We don’t need to update ourselves like we update our fashion look.

What I read the PP to be saying is that we need to have an adult understanding of church teachings. Similar to how you may study about plants in elementary school and then major in biology in college. What you learn in college is far different from just labeling plant parts, but the subject is the same.

As adults, we should be continually growing in the Spirit and in our faith. Priests can and do make mistakes, fall from grace, or develop an oversensitive need to meet people “where they are”. However, we do ourselves and others no favors by simply complaining and not really understanding how the sacrament of confession works.

Advice or counselling given in confession is not part of the sacrament. The penitent’s verbal confession of sin and the priest’s absolution make up the sacrament.

There are many very good examinations of conscience online. We all would do well to find one and prepare well for confession before we get there. Part of preparation is understanding what is sinful and what is temptation. What is venial and what is mortal. Then go into the confessional and state your mortal sins.

Yes, using ABC willfully is sinful. However, there are mitigating circumstances even for that. For example, if a husband understands the graveness of the sin, but the wife is determined to stay on the pill despite his concern, than it is NOT sinful for him to continue in martial relations. (This has been covered in the AAA forum and other places here). It doesn’t help then for the husband to try confess this as a sin, hear the priest tell him not to worry, and then say this priest is “liberal”. It is also not the husband’s job to confess the wife’s sins or make inferences about what the priest has told her in confession, or assume or ask her what she confessed. He should pray for her and make reparation instead.

 

[Robertanthony]

What I read the PP to be saying is that we need to have an adult understanding of church teachings. Similar to how you may study about plants in elementary school and then major in biology in college. What you learn in college is far different from just labeling plant parts, but the subject is the same.

As adults, we should be continually growing in the Spirit and in our faith. Priests can and do make mistakes, fall from grace, or develop an oversensitive need to meet people “where they are”. However, we do ourselves and others no favors by simply complaining and not really understanding how the sacrament of confession works.

Advice or counselling given in confession is not part of the sacrament. The penitent’s verbal confession of sin and the priest’s absolution make up the sacrament.

There are many very good examinations of conscience online. We all would do well to find one and prepare well for confession before we get there. Part of preparation is understanding what is sinful and what is temptation. What is venial and what is mortal. Then go into the confessional and state your mortal sins.

Yes, using ABC willfully is sinful. However, there are mitigating circumstances even for that. For example, if a husband understands the graveness of the sin, but the wife is determined to stay on the pill despite his concern, than it is NOT sinful for him to continue in martial relations. (This has been covered in the AAA forum and other places here). It doesn’t help then for the husband to try confess this as a sin, hear the priest tell him not to worry, and then say this priest is “liberal”. It is also not the husband’s job to confess the wife’s sins or make inferences about what the priest has told her in confession, or assume or ask her what she confessed. He should pray for her and make reparation instead.

Freudian slip? (just pulling your leg here)

Very good post. My initial concern really was the validity of the confession, if the absolution did indeed take place. I guess that places me in the scrupulous bunch, doesn’t it? I didn’t know there were examinations of conscience online, I marvel at the wealth of resources one can find online.