Confession Question Follow-up

[garysibio]

A while back I asked a hypothetical question here about confession. I asked what happened in the case of a man who made a sincere confession but the priest refused to pronounce absolution for some reason like a personal grudge or whatever. I also checked with other sources and the result was that everyone said that the man was not forgiven despite his sincerity because he received no absolution.

That scenario popped into my mind again today but, in thinking about it, I reversed it. Now we have a man who is not sincere in the least confessing and receiving absolution. According to the Catechism, he is not forgiven:

1450 “Penance requires . . . the sinner to endure all things willingly, be contrite of heart, confess with the lips, and practice complete humility and fruitful satisfaction.”

1451 Among the penitent’s acts contrition occupies first place. Contrition is “sorrow of the soul and detestation for the sin committed, together with the resolution not to sin again.”

In the previous thread it was the fact that absolution was not given that made all the difference, the penitent’s sincerity was irrelevant. In this scenario though, the fact that absolution was given was irrelevant. It is the sincerity of the “penitent” that makes the difference. This is contradictory. Can anyone explain?

 

[Alex246]

The sacrament requires both contrition and absolution. In neither case was either of those irrelevant. Remember, it is ultimately Jesus who is administering grace in the sacraments through the priest. If the priest does not give absolution, then Jesus has not worked through him to provide the penitent with that grace. If the person is not penitent, then even if the priest goes through the motions, Jesus knows the person’s heart and does not give him the grace of the sacrament. This is just my best guess, though.

 

[garysibio]

The sacrament requires both contrition and absolution. In neither case was either of those irrelevant. Remember, it is ultimately Jesus who is administering grace in the sacraments through the priest. If the priest does not give absolution, then Jesus has not worked through him to provide the penitent with that grace. If the person is not penitent, then even if the priest goes through the motions, Jesus knows the person’s heart and does not give him the grace of the sacrament. This is just my best guess, though.

Good point about both being required.

I understand that point about the priest needing to absolve the sinner but something about it still doesn’t sit right. Where is the justice and mercy in a truly penitent man being left in his sins because of the unrighteousness of another person? Can anyone defend that from the Bible or the ECFs?

 

[ValPal]

A while back I asked a hypothetical question here about confession. I asked what happened in the case of a man who made a sincere confession but the priest refused to pronounce absolution for some reason like a personal grudge or whatever. I also checked with other sources and the result was that everyone said that the man was not forgiven despite his sincerity because he received no absolution.

I think perfect contrition would apply in this case. The penitent was sincere and made the effect to receive the sacrament by actually going to confession. I assume from your wording that the priest refused to give absolution for an invalid reason, which means he wrongly withheld absolution. The penitent made every possible effort to receive the sacrament. I don’t think God would consider this person in a state of mortal sin.

Regardless, the penitent should see another priest and receive absolution.

 

[garysibio]

I think perfect contrition would apply in this case. The penitent was sincere and made the effect to receive the sacrament by actually going to confession. I assume from your wording that the priest refused to give absolution for an invalid reason, which means he wrongly withheld absolution. The penitent made every possible effort to receive the sacrament. I don’t think God would consider this person in a state of mortal sin.

Regardless, the penitent should see another priest and receive absolution.

That’s exactly my point but every Catholic I’ve asked, including priests, say he wouldn’t be forgiven.

 

[Bookcat]

That’s exactly my point but every Catholic I’ve asked, including priests, say he wouldn’t be forgiven.

God knows if the Priest was “unjust” and via the grace of perfect contrition (which includes the intention to confess validly) can forgive him.

 

[Bookcat]

By the way there is a story (I leave it to the experts as to if it is factual or legend) where a man keep confessing the same sin and the Priest got frustrated with him and withheld (not rightly) absolution – “I will not absolve you…” the man left the confessional and the hand of the figure of Christ on top of the confessional moved and a voice was heard

–“but** I** absolve you”

 

[garysibio]

By the way there is a story (I leave it to the experts as to if it is factual or legend) where a man keep confessing the same sin and the Priest got frustrated with him and withheld (not rightly) absolution – “I will not absolve you…” the man left the confessional and the hand of the figure of Christ on top of the confessional moved and a voice was heard

–“but** I** absolve you”

Interesting.

 

[ValPal]

That’s exactly my point but every Catholic I’ve asked, including priests, say he wouldn’t be forgiven.

“wouldn’t be forgiven” is the wrong wording and is incorrect. “Didn’t receive valid absolution” would be more correct. Receiving valid absolution requires certain things, and since the priest did not say the words of absolution, valid absolution was not received. That is entirely different from “being forgiven.”

God does not play “gotcha.” The penitent made every effort to receive the sacrament, by actually going to the confessional and confessing. The priest in your scenario wrongfully withheld absolution. That is not the penitent’s fault, and I don’t believe that if the penitent died immediately after leaving the confessional God is going to hold someone else wrongful action against the penitent.

That said, the penitent should simply see another priest for piece of mind. It is not likely that the second priest with also wrongfully withhold absolution.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

See John 20:22-23

22* And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23* If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”

He would do well to confess to another priest.