Receiving "Conditional Absolution"

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deo_Gratias42
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Deo_Gratias42 said:
I did. He never answered.

The bishop will be at my school tomorrow. Perhaps if the opportunity arises, we can have this moral theological discussion.
Click to expand...
Privately of course

(remember a Priest cannot defend himself due to the seal…and one ought to address it with the Priest first – usually before running to the Bishop)
 
I had no intention of even mentioning my confessor. Hypothetical discussions as such are common, especially at university.
 
Deo_Gratias42 said:
I know. That’s why I don’t get this.
Click to expand...
He could have meant – you need to agree to the restitution --otherwise that part of your repentance will not be there for confession. Or otherwise you will be back in sin (by later rejecting restitution-keeping the stolen car in my fictional example).
 
Bookcat said:
He could have meant – you need to agree to the restitution --otherwise that part of your repentance will not be there for confession. Or otherwise you will be back in sin (by later rejecting restitution-keeping the stolen car in my fictional example).
Click to expand...
No. There was no misunderstanding. He used a specific Latin term starting with an S to give credibility to what he was doing. I can’t remember what it was.
 
Canon Law (at least) does not refer to any “conditional absolution”. Only about withholding absolution or deferring it or giving it. But does refer to the fact that the Priest cannot withhold absolution if he does not have doubt about the disposition of the person.

Can. 980 If the confessor has no doubt about the disposition of the penitent, and the penitent seeks absolution, absolution is to be neither refused nor deferred. (From vatican.va)
 
TheRealJuliane said:
Wait - was this a hypothetical discussion? You didn’t say such in your OP.
Click to expand...
No. I get the impression that he’ll present it as if it were hypothetical, since those sorts of discussions are common, and the question itself won’t raise any eyebrows…
 
Bookcat said:
He could have meant – you need to agree to the restitution --otherwise that part of your repentance will not be there for confession. Or otherwise you will be back in sin (by later rejecting restitution-keeping the stolen car in my fictional example).
Click to expand...
Gorgias said:
satisfacio?
Click to expand...
Possibly. I recall reading something from a book on ecclesiastical law and censures using the term. For the purposes of censures, it was doubtful conditional absolution could be given for satisfaction to be made in the future.
 
Deo_Gratias42 said:
Possibly. I recall reading something from a book on ecclesiastical law and censures using the term. For the purposes of censures, it was doubtful conditional absolution could be given for satisfaction to be made in the future.
Click to expand...
Not satisfaction - for satisfaction refers to penance --which is* usually *made in the future.
 
Deo_Gratias42 said:
Does anyone here know about the concept of receiving “conditional absolution” in which someone is absolved, but it’s on the condition they do X (ie: make restitution) by x date, and if they fail to meet that condition, the absolution is no longer any good and has no effect?

Supposedly, I was absolved conditionally. The priest told me he was absolving me “conditionally” and explained it as such as I have put.

I can’t find this concept of conditional absolution in any moral theology books I have that discuss confession and absolution. Furthermore, theologically it makes no sense. Jesus didn’t say what sins you forgive are forgiven, unless they fail to do something. Then they’ll be unforgiven. It sounds almost childish in how children “unforgive” someone because they don’t like that person before.

I’m starting to think my priest might have been using scare tactics to force restitution, which seems like something he would do.

Anyone familiar with this who can confirm or deny this? Preferably with credibility?
Click to expand...
The priest has the authority to set the pennance!

Let say I steal money and go to my priest and confess the sin and my priest says OK I will absolve you but you need to pray this and that AND return the money I stole.
In order for my absolution to be valid I have to comply with all the requirements, otherwise I am NOT absolved.
👍
 
JerryZ said:
The priest has the authority to set the pennance!

Let say I steal money and go to my priest and confess the sin and my priest says OK I will absolve you but you need to pray this and that AND return the money I stole.
In order for my absolution to be valid I have to comply with all the requirements, otherwise I am NOT absolved.
👍
Click to expand...
The intent to do the restitution is part of the very repentance.

But as to the penance the Priest cannot tell the Penitent to do anything that will give away his sin.
 
Gorgias said:
Once we agree to a penance, we’re obligated to perform it, however. (I couldn’t find any reference in the rite, though, to this obligation.)
Click to expand...
Perhaps you meant a different word than “agree?” 🤷 Penitents do not “agree” to a penance. There’s no negotiation or invitation involved. It’s simply assigned, according to the discretion of the priest. It is “obligated” or “required,” though, on the part of the penitent, in the sense that it is the practical extension of the penitent’s contrition, which he has affirmed, often in the phrase, “For these and for all the sins of the past I am truly sorry.” (and/or in the oral Act of Contrition)

The penance is the outward sign of the penitent’s contrition, but is not “essential” to the rite. For example, on one or two occasions in the last several years, I have forgotten the specific penance the priest gave me. I assure you that forgetting what it was, and even forgetting to complete it, did not invalidate my confession in the slightest.

There have also been posts in this forum, in whcih a penitent worried about 'a penance not assigned," and whether such non-assignment invalidated the confession. It did not in those cases, either.
🙂
 
Bookcat said:
Not satisfaction - for satisfaction refers to penance --which is* usually *made in the future.
Click to expand...
But absolution is not conditional upon penance being completed. I was given something else for penance anyways.

It would not make sense for undoable absolution. Such would mean that sins as scarlet become white as snow is false because they would have to become as scarlet again, this they weren’t made as white as snow. Perhaps pink, champagne, or ivory at best.

Penance is negotiable to a degree and a penititent is not obligated to perform a penance they can’t do.

That said, restitution wasn’t my penance. I was give something else. I was “ordered” to make restitution. I wasn’t even asked if I could. It had been making restitution until I ran out of money. When I went to make restitution when I finally got money, I couldn’t because they put a hold on my money. Then I just sorta kept putting off going to the bank to make restitution. Unfortunately, given my current situation, I couldn’t even do it anonymously. It’s done, but once the person reads their bank statements, I’m going to have some explaining to do.
 
Deo_Gratias42 said:
But absolution is not conditional upon penance being completed. I was given something else for penance anyways.

It would not make sense for undoable absolution. Such would mean that sins as scarlet become white as snow is false because they would have to become as scarlet again, this they weren’t made as white as snow. Perhaps pink, champagne, or ivory at best.
Click to expand...
Correct that is why I noted that “satisfaction” is not the correct term there (one cannot though reject it when given – one can ask for a different one though)

For that is a term used for penance.
Right it is not about so much a question about there being an “undoable absolution” hence my former answers…
 
What if the sin confessed were child abuse by, for example, a boy scout leader or sports coach? What if the priest gave absolution telling the penitent that he must leave the boy scouts or sports team and do everything possible to stay away from children? What if the penitent didn’t follow the priest’s instruction and resumed his former role, albeit intending to not sin again? Would that be a genuine resolve by the penitent to not sin again, or would it be lack of remorse by deliberately placing himself in what for him is an occasion of sin?

Is he absolved from his sin?
 
Deo_Gratias42 said:
That said, restitution wasn’t my penance. I was give something else. I was “ordered” to make restitution. I wasn’t even asked if I could. It had been making restitution until I ran out of money. When I went to make restitution when I finally got money, I couldn’t because they put a hold on my money. Then I just sorta kept putting off going to the bank to make restitution. Unfortunately, given my current situation, I couldn’t even do it anonymously. It’s done, but once the person reads their bank statements, I’m going to have some explaining to do.
Click to expand...
Restitution is part of the repentance…so I can see yes a confessor telling one they need to do it – and if it is impossible for some reason or other factors come into play that can be discussed with the confessor.

One must make restoration to the person that was injured if this is possible – but one does not have to do so in a way that reveals what one did (unless it is going to bring about a further injustice)

There are also other limits to restitution --such as physical or moral inability to do so --which can involve either a delay or even excuse from such restitution.

A confessor can guide one.
 
There can even be cases where one say does not know how to return the money – one does not say know who it is to be returned to etc.

In such cases one can give the money to -]me/-] a charity…a confessor can guide one.
 
"JerryZ:
The priest has the authority to set the pennance!

Let say I steal money and go to my priest and confess the sin and my priest says OK I will absolve you but you need to pray this and that AND return the money I stole.
In order for my absolution to be valid I have to comply with all the requirements, otherwise I am NOT absolved.
Click to expand...
Elizabeth502 said:
Perhaps you meant a different word than “agree?” 🤷 Penitents do not “agree” to a penance. There’s no negotiation or invitation involved. It’s simply assigned, according to the discretion of the priest.
Click to expand...
Actually, I was very deliberate in my choice of words! I thought the same thing that you did, and was quite surprised to learn that I was in error! From the Rite of Penance (#18):
[T]he priest imposes an act of penance or satisfaction on the penitent; this should serve not only to make up for the past but also to help him to begin a new life and provide him with an antidote to weakness.
Click to expand...
So, the confessor does have the authority to assign a penance. Does this imply that this authority is to be unilaterally exercised, without (name removed by moderator)ut from the penitent? No (cf Rite of Penance, #44):
The priest proposes an act of penance
Click to expand...
Note that it doesn’t say that the priest simply says “this is it” and the penitent has no recourse; rather, the priest merely proposes; if the penitent is unable to do the penance (our case here, if the confessor said “expose your sin to public scrutiny” is an extreme case; another might be the case of a person who stole a car, and the confessor proposes “ok – leave $15,000 at the doorstep of the car dealership”, and the penitent replies “I can’t! I don’t have $15,000!”), then it is legitimate to object to the proposal.

Of course, that doesn’t mean that the confessor gets one chance at a proposal and the penitent is off the hook if he says ‘no’:
The priest proposes an act of penance which the penitent accepts to make satisfaction for sin and to amend his life.
Click to expand...
So, there must be an accepted penance.

I would suggest that we are so used to being told “say prayers A, B, C” or “do X, Y, Z” and we say ‘ok’, that we’re unaware that this is a dialogue and not a command… 😉
The penance is the outward sign of the penitent’s contrition, but is not “essential” to the rite. For example, on one or two occasions in the last several years, I have forgotten the specific penance the priest gave me. I assure you that forgetting what it was, and even forgetting to complete it, did not invalidate my confession in the slightest.
Click to expand...
Absolutely – forgetting a penance is not equivalent to saying “I refuse to do this”; the former still implies contrition, while the latter seems to imply a lack of contrition (in the unwillingness to make satisfaction)…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top