Holy Strippers?

[NeedImprovement]

I can agree with this part 100% :

. . . Strippers are, first and foremost, our sisters/brothers in Christ and children of God.

. . . but not really with this part.

. . . Their ACTIONS are occasions of sins.

Granted, there are some extremely sad stories about strippers lives ( I knew several of them who were victimized ) and how they can sometimes take a turn for the worse , but Fr. Hardon’s definitions are worth another look. His numerous accomplishments include writing *The Catholic Catechism 1975 *, " written at the request of His Holiness, Pope Paul VI, with whom Fr. Hardon had a close working relationship " , and serving as a consultant for the drafting of The Catechism of the Catholic Church

Biography, Fr. John Hardon, S.J.

Father Hardon doesn’t mention “actions” in his definition ; he specifies any “person, place or thing” ; “of its nature” , “or because of human frailty” is mentioned secondarily -

From Modern Catholic Dictionary , Fr. John Hardon, S.J.

**OCCASION OF SIN **
Any person, place, or thing that of its nature or because of human frailty can lead one to do wrong, thereby committing sin. If the danger is certain and probable, the occasion is proximate; if the danger is slight, the occasion becomes remote. It is voluntary if it can easily be avoided. There is no obligation to avoid a remote occasion unless there is probable danger of its becoming proximate. There is a positive obligation to avoid a voluntary proximate occasion of sin even though the occasion of evildoing is due only to human weakness.

Although it might sound a little harsh to some people, we can’t just

stop referring to/viewing strippers as “occasions of sin.”

And nobody’s modified version of charity even enters into it. It’s a question of the truth.

We have to define things properly , particularly where sin might be involved. When we say an “occasion of sin” we are initially referring to the sin of another party - that is to say, apart from any person who might be considered that occasion of sin - in this case the one who goes to view the stripper. If we refuse to refer to the stripper as an “occasion of sin” , it ultimately becomes self-contradictory because if the stripper is not an occasion of sin, then she cannot be objectified - which would then be expressing a logical fallacy , since it would leave us to subsequently conclude that her actions are what is being objectified.

Instead of jumping to conclusions , it is better to enhance our understanding of terms in order to avoid gaining false impressions.

Before continuing here, we only need to acknowledge that we are all sinners - that is enough.

Saying that someone is “an occasion of sin” is, in essence, not so dehumanizing at all. A woman in a short skirt or bikini can be an “occasion of sin”.

Actually, it could even be argued that Bathsheba was an occasion of sin - but the sin belonged to King David . Yet, whatever colour one may try to paint modern day strippers with, these still cannot lay claim to Bathsheba’s innocence.

An excerpt from an interesting reflection of Blessed John Paul II on the origin of King David’s sin , and where he refers to the woman as “the object of lust” in reference to Matthew 5:28 :

Taken from The Ethical and Anthropological Content of the Commandment: “You Shall Not Commit Adultery” ,
Pope John Paul II

. . . This desire, as an interior act, is expressed by means of the sense of sight, that is, with looks. This was the case of David and Bathsheba, to use an example taken from the Bible (cf. 2 Sm 11:2).(3) The connection of lust with the sense of sight has been highlighted especially in Christ’s words.

**Man’s interior act **

1. These words do not say clearly whether the woman—the object of lust—is the wife of another or whether simply she is not the wife of the man who looks at her in this way. She may be the wife of another, or even not bound by marriage. Rather, it is necessary to intuit it, especially on the basis of the expression which precisely defines as adultery what man has committed in his heart with his look.

 

[LaGatoTobey]

Someone who repeatedly has people tell them something without believing it is more than just curious. Tell me, what prompted the question really? Are you thinking of becoming a stripper yourself? Have you had a bunch of people telling you the opposite - that stripping IS holy? Or what?

Do you feel the need to question other things people tell you in this way? Are you the sort of person who wonders whether 2+2 really does equal 4 every single time? Or whether the sun really does rise in the east and set in the west every single day?

I don’t find your question disturbing, I do find it nonsensical.

Well first of all, no. I may be a attractive young woman but I have self-respect. Even if I was broke as a joke, stripping would never be an option. Now as far as this goes, I only asked this question to you people is because it’s often a question that gets brought up whenever I hang out with my friends. I just wanted to see what all of you thought.

 

[fastenatingguy]

Not “holy” but…a true story

My college friend (a very orthodox catholic his whole life) has a brother that moved to Alaska (he is a chemical engineer) for an oil job back in the late 80’s. While there he started to date a nice catholic girl. He was happy because there were a lot more guys than girls up there at that time. He eventually learned that she was a stripper. It was not a nude club, but she got down to her skivvies, that’s for sure.

They dated for awhile, but then the guy couldn’t take it (her job) anymore, and he broke off the relationship. She eventually stopped stripping a few months later. He moved back to the lower 48, she followed. They got engaged, married (in the RCC). They have five kids, married twenty years now.

They still have issues “explaining” how they met, but it doesn’t come up as often now. She said that she got into it for the $$$, and was blinded by that until after he left her, and she got our of it for love.

 

[atheistgirl]

“Why call me therefore good, there is no good but He who is in heaven above”

That sounds like a very fundamentalist twist on that statement - implying no one can be good or do good except God.

I agree totally with Debora123’s observations.

Sarah x

 

[OraLabora]

Around here many strippers have drug addiction issues and it’s well known that strip joints are also places to deal drugs.

A very ugly situation all around.

I tend to think of these poor women as victims rather than unholy. Christ forgave the adulteress. I’m sure he cries for these poor women.

They need help to get out of their vicious circle, not condemnation. We as a society should and can do better at helping these women out of their misery. I can’t imagine too many of them would stay in that hellhole of a lifestyle if they thought they had a choice.

 

[Debora123]

I can agree with this part 100% :

. . . but not really with this part.

Granted, there are some extremely sad stories about strippers lives ( I knew several of them who were victimized ) and how they can sometimes take a turn for the worse , but Fr. Hardon’s definitions are worth another look. His numerous accomplishments include writing *The Catholic Catechism 1975 *, " written at the request of His Holiness, Pope Paul VI, with whom Fr. Hardon had a close working relationship " , and serving as a consultant for the drafting of The Catechism of the Catholic Church

Biography, Fr. John Hardon, S.J.

Father Hardon doesn’t mention “actions” in his definition ; he specifies any “person, place or thing” ; “of its nature” , “or because of human frailty” is mentioned secondarily -

Although it might sound a little harsh to some people, we can’t just

And nobody’s modified version of charity even enters into it. It’s a question of the truth.

We have to define things properly , particularly where sin might be involved. When we say an “occasion of sin” we are initially referring to the sin of another party - that is to say, apart from any person who might be considered that occasion of sin - in this case the one who goes to view the stripper. If we refuse to refer to the stripper as an “occasion of sin” , it ultimately becomes self-contradictory because if the stripper is not an occasion of sin, then she cannot be objectified - which would then be expressing a logical fallacy , since it would leave us to subsequently conclude that her actions are what is being objectified.

Instead of jumping to conclusions , it is better to enhance our understanding of terms in order to avoid gaining false impressions.

Before continuing here, we only need to acknowledge that we are all sinners - that is enough.

Saying that someone is “an occasion of sin” is, in essence, not so dehumanizing at all. A woman in a short skirt or bikini can be an “occasion of sin”.

Actually, it could even be argued that Bathsheba was an occasion of sin - but the sin belonged to King David . Yet, whatever colour one may try to paint modern day strippers with, these still cannot lay claim to Bathsheba’s innocence.

An excerpt from an interesting reflection of Blessed John Paul II on the origin of King David’s sin , and where he refers to the woman as “the object of lust” in reference to Matthew 5:28 :

Taken from The Ethical and Anthropological Content of the Commandment: “You Shall Not Commit Adultery” ,
Pope John Paul II

I find it dehumanizing and uncharitable and would never refer to another person themselves as “occasions of sins.”

You, of course, are free to disagree.

(And to clear up a misunderstanding, when I said “their actions are occasions of sin” I meant their actions are occasions of sin to other people. What they are themselves doing, is of course, objectively sinful.)

 

[Debora123]

That sounds like a very fundamentalist twist on that statement - implying no one can be good or do good except God.

I agree totally with Debora123’s observations.

Sarah x

 

[TiggerS]

Originally Posted by atheistgirl forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
*That sounds like a very fundamentalist twist on that statement - implying no one can be good or do good except God. *

*I agree totally with Debora123’s observations. *

Sarah x

I agree also.

What this quotation “Luke 18:19 And Jesus said to him: Why dost thou call me good? None is good but God alone.” (Douay Rheims Catholic Bible) means for me -is that God alone is the first origin of all and any human goodness through Graces granted to his creatures.

John 15:5 “I am the vine: you the branches: he that abideth in me, and I in him, the same beareth much fruit: for without me you can do nothing.”

Catholic Catechism
**#2008 **The merit of man before God in the Christian life arises from the fact that God has freely chosen to associate man with the work of his grace. The fatherly action of God is first on his own initiative, and then follows man’s free acting through his collaboration, so that the merit of good works is to be attributed in the first place to the grace of God, then to the faithful. Man’s merit, moreover, itself is due to God, for his good actions proceed in Christ, from the predispositions and assistance given by the Holy Spirit.

#**2009 **Filial adoption, in making us partakers by grace in the divine nature, can bestow true merit on us as a result of God’s gratuitous justice. This is our right by grace, the full right of love, making us “co-heirs” with Christ and worthy of obtaining “the promised inheritance of eternal life.” The merits of our good works are gifts of the divine goodness. “Grace has gone before us; now we are given what is due. . . . Our merits are God’s gifts.”

 

[TiggerS]

Moral Law can be a minefield.

Moral wrong, grave matter(as the subject of a moral wrong) and sin all have their own unique definitions.
It is morally wrong to steal even five cents from a very rich person for example. It becomes sinful, if I fully realize that stealing is morally wrong and yet go ahead and steal whatever from whoever without any exterior pressure etc. to do so.

Murder for one example is grave matter.

Catholic Catechism:
**1858 **Grave matter is specified by the Ten Commandments, corresponding to the answer of Jesus to the rich young man: “Do not kill, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and your mother.” The gravity of sins is more or less great: murder is graver than theft. One must also take into account who is wronged: violence against parents is in itself graver than violence against a stranger.

**1761 **There are concrete acts that it is always wrong to choose, because their choice entails a disorder of the will, i.e., a moral evil. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.

**386 **Sin is present in human history; any attempt to ignore it or to give this dark reality other names would be futile. To try to understand what sin is, one must first recognize the profound relation of man to God, for only in this relationship is the evil of sin unmasked in its true identity as humanity’s rejection of God and opposition to him, even as it continues to weigh heavy on human life and history.

My comment: Though one may never perform an evil or morally wrongful act in order to bring about a ‘good’, the disposition and motivation and intention of the one who does a moral wrong of any kind and for whatever reason does determine if sin is present and to what degree.
And in the final analysis, only God alone can judge and He will. “Judge not that you may not be judged”…“Mercy will be granted to the merciful”.
We can make a personal assessment of an actual situation if one must, if it is necessary - and yet recognize that we do not know the absolute full situation, only God does. We recognize our human limitations and poverty and do not pass actual firm and final (spiritual) judgement on any person(s) involved. This is for God alone.

 

[TiggerS]

Potentially probably, any person, place or thing could be an occasion of sin but not necessarily a culpability on their part. An occasion of sin is a situation.

It becomes an occasion of sin when in the presence of a person place or thing, I am likely to succumb to temptation that I associate with that person place or thing who could at least in potential remain totally innocent. The culpability is mine since in order to be in “an occasion of sin” in the first place, I need recognize it as such. This is not any sort of guilt necessarily whatsoever on the part of “the occasion”, which is a situation - rather culpability on my part. And “an occasion” is a situation that may or may not involve fellow human beings. Whether “the occasion” or situation itself, those involved if any,( whatever it may be )are in any way morally wrong is a separate issue. I am putting myself in danger of sin by choosing to be in “an occasion of sin” situation for myself personally in the first place.

Doubtless if I choose to be in a situation (occasion) that is in any way morally wrongful, then potentially possibly I am placing myself in a potential occasion of sin. Police Officers etc. may have a duty and social need to enter such situations in order to avoid/curtail, whatever, a greater moral wrong. They can seek spiritual advice if they feel a need to do so.

If I innocently enter a situation that becomes a situation of sin for myself, then I can seek spiritual advice. If it was a morally wrongful situation involving another human being(s) then potentially the latter might be guilty of two sins: their own sin and creating/supporting a situation that leads another into sin. It all depends on disposition, motivation and intention. “Man judges appearances, but The Lord knows the heart” (Book of Samuel)

 

[NeedImprovement]

Potentially probably, any person, place or thing could be an occasion of sin but not necessarily a culpability on their part. An occasion of sin is a situation. . .

Nice level perspective TiggerS - “situation” . This piece from Catholic Encyclopedia on *Occasions of Sin * describes the “situation” part as ". . . external circumstances – whether of things or persons – which either because of their special nature or because of the frailty common to humanity or peculiar to some individual, incite or entice one to sin. "

Just my own limited opinion, but I wonder if why some disagree so adamantly about certain terminology particular to this thread might be because they believe that saying someone is an “occasion of sin” is the same as saying someone is the “cause of sin” ? Of course, they aren’t the same thing. That’s why my focus has been on the sin originating in the person who goes to see the stripper - not the stripper. And it does appear to fall in line with what that same Catholic Encyclopedia article has to offer next:

It is important to remember that there is a wide difference between the cause and the occasion of sin. The cause of sin in the last analysis is the perverse human will and is intrinsic to the human composite. The occasion is something extrinsic and, given the freedom of the will, cannot, properly speaking, stand in causal relation to the act or vicious habit which we call sin. There can be no doubt that in general the same obligation which binds us to refrain from sin requires us to shun its occasion. Qui tenetur ad finem, tenetur ad media (he who is bound to reach a certain end is bound to employ the means to attain it).

Personally , I could never call someone else the “cause” of my sin, because that wouldn’t be realistic at all - I would be denying my own guilt.

A bit of a puzzle though , how some could object so strongly to saying a person can be an “occasion of sin” yet, at the same time say that what a stripper does is “'objectively sinful” . Because , in the final analysis they are calling the stripper a “sinner”: What they are asserting is that the stripper is a sinner - to whatever degree culpability dictates ; they’re just using fancier words to say it.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[Debora123]

A bit of a puzzle though , how some could object so strongly to saying a person can be an “occasion of sin” yet, at the same time say that what a stripper does is “'objectively sinful” . Because , in the final analysis they are calling the stripper a “sinner”: What they are asserting is that the stripper is a sinner - to whatever degree culpability dictates ; they’re just using fancier words to say it.

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a135/smileyalbum8888/_confused__revised_by_Invader_Zero.gif

We are ALL sinners by our own flawed human nature. There is no need to point out and say “so and so is a sinner!” Because as human beings, we ALL are.

It’s like saying “so and so has a nose.” What’s the point?

 

[Gaber]

Do you have some sources for this, please?

(Note, of course, that I did not claim that only Jesus proclaimed this religious dogma. This was revealed, as I said, to the Jews, before Christ.)

Any statement from any teaching that is in the form of “Atman is Brahman” will do. Gnothi Seauton, "Knoe thySelf will get you there as well. The root of any of the four forms of the Goldien Rule are based on it and are independent of Catholicism.

I have no quarrel with the idea that such things are religious ideas. The occurrence of overlap and similarity only points, for me to the underlying reality of Sonship and its ramifications.

Good. Then you understand that it was inconsistent to say, “I believe in a religious tenet and that comes before any religious tenet.”

From your perspective, it seems so, as you seem to be somewhat legalistic in your interpretations. What I mean is that the fact of a dynamic as experience has primacy over its formulation and intellectualized use as a doctrine. The dynamic referred to by “made in the image and likeness of God” existed some very large space of time before either the Abrahamic religions, or English, for that matter.

I do love this question.

Religion, which comes from the Latin word religare for binding, is about binding ourselves to God. It is from whence we get the term “relationship”. Thus, religion is about a relationship with God.

Actually, it is about binding oneself to a belief system about God, as the root meaning of the word is not specific to any particular paradigm. Therefore religion isn’t itself relatationship with God, as it is thoughts about God. This is where the whole question of both the human mind needing to be right and the validity of the perception that one’s paradigm has a 1/1 relationship with Reality come into question.

And that is why, aside from simple faith, a rather large arsenal of disciplines can be brought to bear on what for most people is a taken-for-granted-and-grossly un or under examined within a much larger picture inculcation. It also matters hugely whether one makes that examination from within the framework of assumptions they already unconsciously have, or can actually step outside those for a moment and see what they, or any, assumptions are grounded on. That is possible to do. Then you can remain a Catholic if you wish, or not, and God won’t care ether way. But at least one then will have been responsible, and have made a consciously aware decision from a solid perspective.

 

[He_Man]

That’s a disgusting attitude. Just saying. You have no idea WHAT a [articular persons situation is! How do you KNOW they passed up another job or only wanted to take the easy way out? YOU DON’T.

If something is immoral (i.e., wrong), what does the motivation matter as to the legitimacy of the act? Selling drugs to nine year olds or engaging in sex-slave trade because you need to feed your family doesn’t change the tacit immorality of the actions. Culpability of the inididual may be another topic.
[/quote]

 

[He_Man]

Not necessarily. If you work as some sort of emergency personnel (EMT, Police Officer, fire fighter, etc etc) and you walk into a strip club due to an emergency, you’re not committing a sin.

Also, out of charity, we should stop referring to/viewing strippers as “occasions of sin.” Doing so is just as dehumanizing and objectifying as the profession itself. Strippers are, first and foremost, our sisters/brothers in Christ and children of God. Their ACTIONS are occasions of sins.

I’d say its the parading around naked for men to drool over part that is dehumanizing, but that’s me.

 

[PRmerger]

Any statement from any teaching that is in the form of “Atman is Brahman” will do. Gnothi Seauton, "Knoe thySelf will get you there as well. The root of any of the four forms of the Goldien Rule are based on it and are independent of Catholicism

That is a little close to the revolutionary concept that we are made in the image and likeness of God, Gaber.

But only as close this pagan mantra: “do good” is as close to the Christian concept of agape.

That is, not very close.

IOW: there is no religious concept of our being made in the image and likeness of God prior to God’s revealing this to the Jews.

I have no quarrel with the idea that such things are religious ideas.

I didn’t think you did.

But what you did propose was that One Idea superceded doctrine. (see asterisk below for reference)

Except that the One Idea (we are made in God’s image) is, well, a doctrine.

**

Yes, darned if even religious fanatics and bigots aren’t as well. You are right. Ain’t one of us who isn’t. And that comes, as far as I’m concerned, before any religious tenet or dogma. Thanks for your contribution.

 

[PRmerger]

The dynamic referred to by “made in the image and likeness of God” existed some very large space of time before either the Abrahamic religions,

It was hinted at, and foreshadowed by other religions.

But the revolution came when God revealed this to the Jews.

or English, for that matter.

Yep, Gaber. You are certainly right about this. The concept that we are made in the image and likeness of God existed before the English language.

Must. Stop. Self. From. Sarcastic. Comment. About. Stating. The. Obvious.

Actually, it is about binding oneself to a belief system about God, as the root meaning of the word is not specific to any particular paradigm.

Okay.

Therefore religion isn’t itself relatationship with God, as it is thoughts about God.

Your “therefore” does not follow from the above comment.

One cannot have a relationship without God unless one has knowledge of God.

Therefore a belief system about God is required to have a relationship with God.

As with most Catholic answers, it’s not either/or but both/and.

Religion is about a belief system AND a relationship with God.

One cannot have a relationship (religare) with God unless one has a religion (religare).

 

[PRmerger]

Then you can remain a Catholic if you wish, or not,** and God won’t care ether way**.

Here’s my response to that:

elisakreisinger.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/eyeroll.gif

Disclaimer: I rarely use sarcasm, for I believe it is the protest of the weak, but sometimes a post is just begging for a sarcastic response:

So Jesus’ passion, death and resurrection was just a little blip in the history of God. One can believe it. One can reject it. No matter. God is just happy that you’re you.

Sheesh.

 

[TiggerS]

A bit of a puzzle though , how some could object so strongly to saying a person can be an “occasion of sin” yet, at the same time say that what a stripper does is “'objectively sinful” . Because , in the final analysis they are calling the stripper a “sinner”: What they are asserting is that the stripper is a sinner - to whatever degree culpability dictates ; they’re just using fancier words to say it.

As I said before, moral law can be a minefield!

The Church would state that taking off one’s clothing in a public place of entertainment and as entertainment is morally wrong and possibly gravely morally wrong (grave matter - and a serious offence against chastity modesty,and purity) - and since it may lead others into sin further serious grave matter of scandal. Thus a ‘stripper’ is engaging in gravely morally wrongful behaviour and in danger of mortal sins. This is an objective determination of human behaviour and it will never change in The Church. It is a moral absolute.

However, when one states that a ‘stripper’ is a sinner, this is to sit in judgement on a person. We cannot know the full circumstances of the situation of a ‘stripper’ - perhaps she is being forced into it as can happen. Eastern European women, for one example only, are given passage to the West and then forced into prostitution and ‘stripping’ in places of "entertainment’ to repay their highly inflated and quite criminal fare costs, and if they refuse their relatives in Europe are threatened also. This is the ‘female sex slave trade’ as it is known. We just dont know the personal circumstances of a ‘stripper’ nor why they may be doing what they are doing. The full story is known to God alone “Man judges appearances, but The Lord KNOWS THE HEART” (Book of Samuel) and we can only assess circumstances by what appears to us. What we do know is that ‘stripping’ (as above) constitutes objectively grave matter, in fact extreme grave matter since it also may involve scandal and leading others into potentially serious morally wrong (grave matter) behaviour…to try to get my own terminology straight.

My thoughts only are that Catholics (in this instance for one) can get terminology mixed up and not comprehend the difference between sin (subjective), morally wrongful acts objectively and grave matter which is also an objective determination. I am not even sure of my own terminology and thinking in this minefield - and last night resorted to the Catholic Catechism (book edition) to do some research as well as the internet. Moral Law is a minefield. When a Catholic states that something is sinful, probably the correct terminology may be “morally wrongful” or “grave matter”. When they state that someone is a sinner, the correct terminology would be: “The person is engaging in morally wrongful acts and grave matter and in danger of serious (mortal) sins”.

As The Church has grown and needed to speak to very intelligent minds indeed (and challenged at times by same and on quite complex matters), so the teaching of The Church (along with precise definitions of terminology broken into various branches of theologies and thus expertise and primary focus of highly educated minds in their own particular field of theological science) has become more and more complex for the simple, everday Catholic and just a ‘face in the pew’ as it were

• of whom I am one.
  However I live alone under private vows and probably have far more time to do some researching than many. But even I am unsure of myself as I venture into the minefield of moral theology.
  It’s the same for Canon Law ( for one other highly educated special field of expertise in The Church today ) We have and we need highly educated Canon Lawyers to accurately interpret Canon Law for us.
  However, if we are going to evangelize effectively, we really do need to understand what The Church states and what the terminology and words that we use actually mean. This is concerning.

Just my thoughts in the veritable minefield

 

[TiggerS]

I am out of my timeframe to exit a post and wanted to comment on what I stated:

We just dont know the personal circumstances of a ‘stripper’ nor why they may be doing what they are doing. The full story is known to God alone “Man judges appearances, but The Lord KNOWS THE HEART” (Book of Samuel)

Because we can only assess what appears to us and know well that this is limited, we are asked to consider objectively the situation and then determine if that situation is morally right or wrongful to some degree or other. Scripture and The Church does ask us to refrain from passing moral judgement (and calling a person a “sinner” or “sinful” is a moral judgement of that person), as we are simply not in a position to know the full circumstances in their absolute fullness applying in any given situation (which only God can know). “Judge not, that you may not be judged” and calling a person a “sinner” or “sinful” is a judgement.

In Confession, we may need to confess something without really knowing whether it is a mortal sin or not. We explain full circumstances to Father in Confession and he may ask us further questions to determine if we are possibly in a state of mortal sin or not and offers his understanding to us as “mortal sin” or “venial sin” - or even in the case of scruples, not sinful at all. Father would be very well aware (I should think) that he is not passing judgement on the person, rather informing their conscience from his perspective and understanding only and he may need to do this in Confession and it is his duty as a priest and confessor to do so if necessary. Father is not infallible in Confession, while He does have the power through his ordination to forgive sins. If Father states that it is a “venial sin”, when the reality is that it is “mortal sin” this would be an error of judgement and Father not necessarily culpable (to my mind again) and the person would be fully forgiven in every way with that Confession, though misinformed (as I understand it in my mind)
Jesus is the one who does the forgiving, through the priest, in Confession - and Jesus is well aware that the confessor and the one confessing are limited and fallible human beings- and the most of us doing the very best that we can and know how to do, priest and all others, and may down the line be more enlightened than previously and hopefully so. Our Lord and Master is rich in Mercy and Understanding, Compassion and Love for His stumbling and mumbling, striving and trying beloved brothers and sisters.

Out of the minefield into quicksand!