Being denied absolution

[Sbee0]

I know priests are required to deny absolution if the confessor does not appear to be penitent but what other circumstances would this happen (besides confession of a non sin)? Would it be a sin to go to another priest right away and re-confess? Would one have to mention the denial? Just wondering.

This doesn’t apply to me (hopefully never does) but I know of people who have been denied. An unnerving proposition especially when it comes to mortal sin…

 

[Elf01]

I know priests are required to deny absolution if the confessor does not appear to be penitent but what other circumstances would this happen (besides confession of a non sin)?

An example I can think of is a cohabiting couple who does not intend to stop having sex or someone having an affair who does not plan on ending it.

 

[Arwing]

Would it be a sin to go to another priest right away and re-confess? Would one have to mention the denial?

If the person has the requisite contrition and purpose of amendment, no. They should confess right away in that case, after making an act of perfect contrition if possible.

They would have to mention making an insincere confession if that’s what they did, but being denied absolution itself I don’t think so.

 

[Gabika50]

And of course then the question in the confessional is “then why are you here?” This differs from spiritual direction and counseling which can take place in another venue.

 

[Elf01]

And of course then the question in the confessional is “then why are you here?” This differs from spiritual direction and counseling which can take place in another venue.

Sadly some priests will absolve.

 

[Gabika50]

You are correct as some would rather be “popular” than spiritually challenging.

 

[Catholicwife32]

The idea that a priest would deny absolution is very disturbing to me. It infers that the priest can read the hearts of the penitent.

I went to confession once by a very good priest. I expressed that I felt I was losing my faith and that my contrition for my sins were such that I felt I could not fully repent of them in good conscience. Indeed repenting of them I was fairly certain was a sin. I was at this crossroads of believing in the Church’s teachings, not denying the authority of the Church and her teachings, but my conscience and the Church’s teachings were in such conflict, every choice before me seemed completely immoral. I could not find a moral path at all. Every road is sin.

He told me to consider that I was coming to confession, so that was a sign that I had not lost my faith and was not losing my faith. Indeed, I think I reached a spiritual place of acknowledging my full sinfulness, that the moral law is not something that can be fulfilled. Some people deny this by denying the authority of the Church. Some people deny this by denying the authority of their conscience. Some people deny this by embracing moral relativism.

But in fact, I can only say that I realize it is immoral to commit a graver sin to avoid a lesser sin. And rather than put on the heaviest weight and let my arms collapse under it’s weight (thus avoiding the full consent of the will), I must be mindful and deliberate with all my actions. I must not trick myself into believing letting myself slip into a graver sin is what God wants of me. I must be as holy as I am able. And that is where I come to the portion where I feel I can’t repent though I acknowledge the imperfection of my actions. I instead am starting to understand satisfaction theory, that Christ fills in the gap. I must lean the rest on his goodness.

A good confessor will help you on the road to holiness. You will be edified and feel a little clearer about things when leaving the confessional. A neutral confessor will absolve you and do nothing in the way of spiritual direction. A bad confessor will confuse your conscience. Indeed, better to not see the sin at all yet than to have a confessor who tells you to doubt what you can see.

 

[whichwaytogo47]

The idea that a priest would deny absolution is very disturbing to me. It infers that the priest can read the hearts of the penitent.

It disturbs me too but for a different reason(s). The church has the right to retain and forgive sins per Jesus. That said, a priest can have personality shortcomings where he is more legalistic whereas some priests can be too enabling or too lenient on sin. As long as a priest confers that he’s acting in persona christe and truly listens to someone’s confession with the Holy Spirit’s grace, he can make a good judgment to retain or absolve sins.

Judging the heart of the penitent is a hard one. Some people assume that because people continue to live in sin that it means they are automatically doing so willingly. The tough part is to know why someone is continuing in sin and not making steps to amend their behavior. For instance, some people may want something that God apparently cannot provide thru Church teachings. For instance, someone in a failed marriage where there is no chance of resolution may not want to seek an annulment or is denied an annulment but without pursuing an illegal marriage thru adultery cannot bear children. The mission is one’s agenda for procreation not lust even though sex is the manner of which to have children.

 

[Elf01]

For instance, someone in a failed marriage where there is no chance of resolution may not want to seek an annulment or is denied an annulment but without pursuing an illegal marriage thru adultery cannot bear children. The mission is one’s agenda for procreation not lust even though sex is the manner of which to have children.

The ends don’t justify the means.

 

[whichwaytogo47]

The ends don’t justify the means.

Agreed. They don’t. But I can see where someone could commit the sin of presumption hoping to repent of it later when the situation is more complicated. Of course, if they die in unrepentant sin, they risk going to Hell. But usually we sin because we’re tempted to have what we want when we want and what’s a better motive than the attempt to create life, even illegitimately. We don’t want to wait for God’s timing and/or to go without.

I definitely know in the secular world that people will do anything like IVF to have children despite it being inherently sinful if you don’t use or donate all the embryos besides it being apart from the marital covenant. Snowflake adoption is where someone can adopt embryos that would otherwise be killed.

 

[edward_george1]

So, let me put to rest two of the things that seem to bother people about the idea of denying absolution.

First off, it’s extremely rare that I actually deny anyone absolution. The principle of charity is operative whenever we administer the sacraments–we give people the benefit of the doubt. If someone is in my confessional and they confess their sins, I assume they are at the very least possessed of the requisite desire necessary for the validity of the sacrament. If not contrition, the dread of having offended God for God’s sake, then at least attrition, the desire to avoid hell. I can tell you that in a little over two years of priesthood, I’ve heard about 7000 confessions, and I’ve denied absolution less than a dozen times.

To do so does not require that I read anyone’s heart or mind, or somehow assess someone’s emotions. It is entirely a logical and legal consideration. If someone is manifestly in a state of sin for which they do not have firm purpose of amendment, I do not give them absolution, because it would simply have no effect. Let’s say someone came into my confessional and confessed that they were engaging in contraceptive behavior with their spouse. I would ask them if they intended to stop doing that. If they said yes, I would absolve them. They might be lying, they might intend it but go right back to what they were doing, but that’s not for me to worry about–that’s between them and God at that point. If they say no, they’re going to continue to contracept, I gently explain to them that I’m not going to give them absolution because it just won’t work. So think of it less of a denial and more of a situation where I will not perform a sacramental action that is a lie–the words and the action will not line up with reality, as no sacrament will take place. My soul will be imperiled and the sacrament shown great irreverence if I give absolution to someone for whom it would not be valid. But again, this is very rare that this happens–we are to assume the best, and only if someone manifestly presents some kind of situation wherein absolution would be impossible (contraception with no intention to quit being one example, also being in an irregular marriage or cohabitating with no intention to quit) do we withhold absolution.

As for the other concern, that it’s “too legalistic” to deny someone absolution, I would say it’s precisely legalistic enough. It’s a legal distinction that enables us to withhold absolution in the rare cases that we might, namely “is the fact pattern present that would render the sacrament invalid?” If the answer is yes, I cannot give absolution and I should not. if the answer is no, I may give absolution and I should. Things involving laws and rules actually are a help here, and they are freeing–I don’t have to read anyone’s heart or mind, I just have to look at the evidence in front of me. And if the evidence in front of me adds up to “don’t absolve,” I don’t absolve.

 

[edward_george1]

As a side note, another scenario where I don’t give absolution is if the person doesn’t actually confess any sins. I can’t absolve if no sins are mentioned. Usually, even when people are using confession to vent about family problems, at least one sin is mentioned. But in a handful of cases, I’ve had someone sit and talk to me for several minutes and never actually say they’ve committed a sin, and then when asked about it, they can’t think of any sins they’ve committed. I give them some advice, give them a blessing, and send them on their way.

-Fr ACEGC

 

[crenfro]

I like what St. John Vianney wrote in his sermons about absolution.

 

[Catholicwife32]

The church has the right to retain and forgive sins per Jesus. That said, a priest can have personality shortcomings where he is more legalistic whereas some priests can be too enabling or too lenient on sin.

Well, the issue is that most priests are not trained in spiritual direction. The priest I grew up with viewed the process as very legalistic. He absolutely gave no advice. He’d prepare us for confession by encouraging us to properly categorize our sins so that we would avoid going into detail. “Just name your sin and about how often you did it. It’s like going to the police station and turning yourself in.” I spent a lot of times trying to figure out what to categorize my sins as.

This categorization process veiled any moral misunderstandings I was developing. When I began blaming myself for abuse happening in my home, confession only cemented me into my self-blame.

Indeed, when I started going to therapy for anxiety and depression, I often quit because it felt like my therapists were always dealing with “Your religion is hurting you.” And I’d get mad at them for attacking my religion. And frankly, I know a number of people who leave Catholicism simply because they’re trying to be healthier. Their Catholic upbringing has hurt them. People need to be aware of this because it is a faith destroyer if we view sin and confession the wrong way.

More recently I’ve gone to a good Catholic therapist who is trained in spiritual direction. It’s been helpful. But as frustrating as it is to go to Mass or confession with priests who offer no substance, the important thing to appreciate is the graces always present in the sacraments. I would rather go to a dry mass with a bland homily and a confessor who absolved me no matter what I said than a priest who leads me down a path that seems righteous but is self-destructive.

 

[adamhovey1988]

I remember going to a confession, and being given a penance, but I don’t remember being absolved. I thought, that maybe, I had just forgotten that I was, but the next time I went to confession, I did mention it, and I was definitely absolved. either I forgot that he did give Absolution, or he legitimately thought he did, if you’re ever in that case, and you can’t see a reason why you’re being denied Absolution, tell the priest, because I think chances are, he may have legitimately forgotten.

 

[Gabika50]

Actually no, how can you expect a priest to absolve folks that confess to sainthood “I have done nothing wrong” or insist a sin is not a sin? Recinsilliation ain’t a firehose!

 

[whichwaytogo47]

If someone is manifestly in a state of sin for which they do not have firm purpose of amendment, I do not give them absolution, because it would simply have no effect.

First of all, thanks for your service Father. I wonder if people don’t seek an annulment because they think 1) their initial marriage is indeed valid, 2) they misunderstand an annulment, 3) they are just not willing to go thru the procedure of marriage nullity, 4) pride, presumption, or avoidance of dealing with some sin, or 5) they may have other reasons, such as not wanting to believe their children were born to a marriage that didn’t exist.

I know of a few people who became Protestant who were remarriages. I don’t know the reason why they didn’t seek an annulment. Maybe they wanted out of a prior marriage. Maybe they wanted a different spouse. But they unfortunately weren’t willing to accept the fact that they were still married. They didn’t want to accept that Jesus hated divorce and came up with a procedure for deciding whether or not the initial marriage was valid and thus shall not be broken as you’re still married.

Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut Father.

 

[edward_george1]

I don’t know what motivates people to avoid seeking an annulment, and I don’t like attempting to speculate on generalities. There could be as many reasons to avoid the annulment process as there are people in need of it. In any case, the thread is about confession and absolution being denied, and not annulments.

 

[Theprodigalson84j]

I’d say most sins are sins that both the priest and the confessor know will probably not be the last time they are confessing it. Most people spend their whole lives battling particular sins that are a major issue for them.
Many young men are constantly confessing impurity or viewing obscene things. Many guys will be in the confessional once a week maybe even more confessing it. Should the priest say no, I’m not absolving you because you don’t want to change? Obviously the guy wants to change but it’s an ongoing struggle. At least they try to battle it with confession.
A priest in today’s world would be really something if he denied absolution. 95% of parishioners at my church I have never seen at confession. It is pathetic and I’m afraid this along with people thinking they should go up for communion even in mortal sin is one of the greatest sacrileges I can think of.

 

[Catholicwife32]

Actually no, how can you expect a priest to absolve folks that confess to sainthood “I have done nothing wrong” or insist a sin is not a sin? Recinsilliation ain’t a firehose!

No one in the confessional is claiming to have done nothing wrong. You can only confess what sins you are aware of. No one is aware of all their sins. Nor do you need perfect contrition in the confessional. It can be enough to confess the sins you are aware of, to even admit your moral confusion, and then to end your confession with “For these and for all my sins, especially those I do not recall, I am truly sorry.”

The big thing with contrition is to express our orientation to Christ, our desire to be made holy and to continue on the spiritual path. Most people will actually be open to this if they understand the journey as one of being healed, as opening oneself to God’s healing power.