Receiving "Conditional Absolution"

[Bookcat]

If I steal say $1000 and later see the errors of my ways and repent after gambling it away…

Left with only a bit of money to eat on – I am in a state of impossibility to do the restitution right now. So in my confession I intend to do it when I can --and am absolved.

This state goes on even for months for I cannot find a job and barely have enough to eat…

My absolution does not “reverse”…

Now if it was the same thing but later I came into money and refused to make restitution – again it is not that my absolution “disappears” --those sins are absolved. It is that I now have NEW sin.

Now if the situation was where I confessed and knew I had to do the restitution but did NOT intend to do so --well that is lack of repentance --hence they are not absolved in confession. Hopefully in time I will repent and find true life again…but until I repent …I cannot be absolved.

 

[Bookcat]

This doesn’t address the issue of conditions to be met in the future.

Right refers to that which is present (if your alive…if your not baptized…etc).

I do not think one CAN make absolution conditional on a future action…“if you make restitution”.

The fact that a person is not willing to make restitution …or ignores the need to do so…that can effect the absolution then and there. That is a different story.

 

[Bookcat]

If I steal say $1000 and later see the errors of my ways and repent after gambling it away…

Left with only a bit of money to eat on – I am in a state of impossibility to do the restitution right now. So in my confession I intend to do it when I can --and am absolved.

This state goes on even for months for I cannot find a job and barely have enough to eat…

My absolution does not “reverse”…

Now if it was the same thing but later I came into money and refused to make restitution – again it is not that my absolution “disappears” --those sins are absolved. It is that I now have NEW sin.

Now if the situation was where I confessed and knew I had to do the restitution but did NOT intend to do so --well that is lack of repentance --hence they are not absolved in confession. Hopefully in time I will repent and find true life again…but until I repent …I cannot be absolved…

 

[Bookcat]

Now if say Sam and Lisa are shacking up. Sam confesses …and the Priest says …now you know you need to move out…will you move out? Yes says Sam and Sam means it.

That is one thing.

It is another for the Priest to say “if you do not move out your sins will return” that is not the case. They do not revive.

However if over and over Sam comes back and confesses the same thing – then the Priest may say – it has been weeks but you have not moved out – so I do not believe you are repentant and so I cannot absolve you at this time.

That is refusing or at least deferring the absolution.

But he cannot not say I think – “If you do not move out the absolution will cease and your sins will be back”.

If he made a good confession and really intended to fix the situation – the absolution can have been perfectly valid.

Now if he say did not move on it at all after some time --such *could *be an sign that he was not really repentant even then …The question is – what was his disposition at the time of absolution. Someone might say “yes I will move out” but really not intend it …but think he is “fooling the Priest”…

 

[Bookcat]

There is a big difference between “repeated falls” and “not repenting” though…

 

[Bookcat]

I do not think that such can be the case.

The options for the Priest that I see are: “absolve the sins” “refuse absolution” or “defer absolution”.

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)

One can inquire further with the Chancery or the Apostolic Penitentiary in Rome if need be (though you likely should start on a lower level… usually the way to go)

 

[Bookcat]

So bottom line I do not think it can be that one can say “I absolve you if you make restitution”. Such is based on a “future” event that is not present then and there at absolution.

But of course if one is not disposed -if one say does not repent -knowingly does not intend to do the restitution --then that can thus yes effect if one is absolved at the time of the confession.

Though it there can be other things to note as I have above.

 

[edward_george]

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?

Absolution is not contingent upon the person performing some act after absolution has been rendered. The priest does not say or intend “I absolve you (but only if you have fulfilled this condition by such-and-such a date)…” If the priest says the formula of absolution, the sins are absolved. The absolution cannot be undone at a later time. The priest cannot make absolution contingent upon any action which would violate the seal of confession, i.e. the person cannot be required to do something which would reveal their sins. The priest can counsel a person to turn himself in for such a heinous crime, and can even withhold absolution if he thinks the person is not sincere in his contrition. But there is no such thing as conditional absolution. Either you’re absolved, or you’re not. Period.

-ACEGC

 

[PJM]

=Deo Gratias42;10628475]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?

The priest is absoutely 100% CORRECT.

In fact every Confession is “conditional” on fulfilling the penace:thumbsup:

If the sinful action can be “restored” the priest has a moral obligation himself to try to get it accomplished.

 

[Mariem2]

Absolution is not contingent upon the person performing some act after absolution has been rendered. The priest does not say or intend “I absolve you (but only if you have fulfilled this condition by such-and-such a date)…” If the priest says the formula of absolution, the sins are absolved. The absolution cannot be undone at a later time. The priest cannot make absolution contingent upon any action which would violate the seal of confession, i.e. the person cannot be required to do something which would reveal their sins. The priest can counsel a person to turn himself in for such a heinous crime, and can even withhold absolution if he thinks the person is not sincere in his contrition. But there is no such thing as conditional absolution. Either you’re absolved, or you’re not. Period.

-ACEGC

That’s clear enough but I was taught that the penance must be carried out for the sin to be absolved.

 

[edward_george]

The priest is absoutely 100% CORRECT.

In fact every Confession is “conditional” on fulfilling the penace:thumbsup:

If the sinful action can be “restored” the priest has a moral obligation himself to try to get it accomplished.

This is not true. If you are absolved, you are absolved. If the priest withholds absolution, you are not absolved. If you deliberately withhold mortal sins in confession, and are absolved by the priest, you have not validly confessed and thus do not receive absolution. But absolution happens in the moment it is given by the priest, it does not depend upon the fulfillment of the penance.

What do you mean “if the sinful action can be ‘restored’ the priest has a moral obligation himself to try to get it accomplished?” Are you saying that if restitution needs to be made the priest should do it? That would violate the seal of confession. Also, restitution cannot be assigned as penance, since that would compel the person to violate the seal of confession. If restitution of some sort needs to be made, the priest should counsel the person to do so, and if the person indicates an unwillingness to do so, the priest might withhold absolution because of a lack of contrition. But the absolution is not contingent upon the performance of penance, and the penance cannot be an action which would cause the penitent to reveal his sins.

-ACEGC

 

[Deo_Gratias42]

The priest is absoutely 100% CORRECT.

In fact every Confession is “conditional” on fulfilling the penace:thumbsup:

If the sinful action can be “restored” the priest has a moral obligation himself to try to get it accomplished.

This is completely wrong. Furthermore, restitution wasn’t my penance.

 

[Mariem2]

The priest is absoutely 100% CORRECT.

In fact every Confession is “conditional” on fulfilling the penace:thumbsup:

If the sinful action can be “restored” the priest has a moral obligation himself to try to get it accomplished.

I don’t know about the sin being “restored” but I was taught the absolution was conditional on the penance being fulfilled, which makes sense because what’s the point of penance if it isn’t required for absolution?

 

[Regina_Love]

All absolutions are conditional in the sense that if you are not sorry, willing to do restitution, and your penance then you are not forgiven! You are not forgiven until you complete the 'CONDITIONS" of your penance, and restitution! If these basic elements are missing IT IS NOT A VALID CONFESSION and your sins remain.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I don’t know about the sin being “restored” but I was taught the absolution was conditional on the penance being fulfilled, which makes sense because what’s the point of penance if it isn’t required for absolution?

You were taught incorrectly.

The point of penance is to carry out a formal act of recognition, given that it is assigned within the sacramental occasion. (So, we can be sorry before and during the sacrament, but the acknowledgement of that, on our part, can be said to be “full” when we submit to the direction of the priest, who is standing in for Christ Himself.) The penance has a value in the sense of the full activity of humility and submission, which is assumed by our very decision to go to confession (the “before”), assumed by our initiative in going to confession & revealing our sins (the “during”), but which we further acknowledge by completing our later instruction (the “after”) which was given within that confessional.

Note that the penance is after, not during. The absolution occurs, and is effective, before the penance is completed. If the absolution were contingent upon the penance being completed, the priest would be wasting his time (and/or possibly confusing or deceiving the penitent), if it were not valid until the penance was done.

Some extreme examples of this would be deathbed sacramental confessions, in which the penitent may have no opportunity to perform the penance, or be unable to because of state of mind.

Absolution is not dependent on the giving of a penance (some priests forget or choose not to), let alone on carrying out the penance. Now, the quality of the sacramental graces received depend on everything which comes from the penitent: depth of self-examination, thoroughness & honesty in reciting sins, awareness and attitude, submission to the priest’s counsel and penance, etc. Treat it like a hasty drive-thru? Expect a similarly superficial result.

 

[Mariem2]

You were taught incorrectly.

The point of penance is to carry out a formal act of recognition, given that it is assigned within the sacramental occasion. (So, we can be sorry before and during the sacrament, but the acknowledgement of that, on our part, can be said to be “full” when we submit to the direction of the priest, who is standing in for Christ Himself.) The penance has a value in the sense of the full activity of humility and submission, which is assumed by our very decision to go to confession (the “before”), assumed by our initiative in going to confession & revealing our sins (the “during”), but which we further acknowledge by completing our later instruction (the “after”) which was given within that confessional.

Note that the penance is after, not during. The absolution occurs, and is effective, before the penance is completed. If the absolution were contingent upon the penance being completed, the priest would be wasting his time (and/or possibly confusing or deceiving the penitent), if it were not valid until the penance was done.

Some extreme examples of this would be deathbed sacramental confessions, in which the penitent may have no opportunity to perform the penance, or be unable to because of state of mind.

Absolution is not dependent on the giving of a penance (some priests forget or choose not to), let alone on carrying out the penance. Now, the quality of the sacramental graces received depend on everything which comes from the penitent: depth of self-examination, thoroughness & honesty in reciting sins, awareness and attitude, submission to the priest’s counsel and penance, etc. Treat it like a hasty drive-thru? Expect a similarly superficial result.

I dunno…this doesn’t tie in with what I remember from my school days. My understanding was that if we died without the opportunity to complete the penance, we were ok but that we should do our penance before receiving communion and certainly before our next confession. I’m talking about instances where the priest actually gives penance…if no penance is given, then the situation of completing the penance doesn’t arise. Has there been a change in the rule?

 

[Elizabeth502]

I dunno…this doesn’t tie in with what I remember from my school days. My understanding was that if we died without the opportunity to complete the penance, we were ok but that we should do our penance before receiving communion and certainly before our next confession. I’m talking about instances where the priest actually gives penance…if no penance is given, then the situation of completing the penance doesn’t arise. Has there been a change in the rule?

Why are you changing my words? I never said or implied the opposite of this:

that we should do our penance before receiving communion and certainly before our next confession.

Of course we should! That’s what my post which you quoted specifically says!

Let’s put it another way. Those who were taught that absolution is dependent upon our sincerity, honesty, contrition, firm purpose of amendment, and submission to the priest, were taught correctly. But it’s highly illogical that someone who had all those elements would deliberately refuse to do his penance. It doesn’t compute. If you’re sincere, honest, contrite, and submissive, you will do your penance if you possibly can.

The situation in which a contrite person decides to be prideful and not do the penance is a contradiction in terms. If that’s his attitude, the problem is not whether he does or does not carry out the penance, it’s his attitude of non-contrition, and that in itself could invalidate his confession.

 

[LilyM]

If one is able to perform an assigned penance but chooses not to do so after receiving absolution, that choice is a fresh sin in and of itself, which needs to be confessed.

It does not mean that the sin for which the penance was assigned remains unabsolved, however, unless the penitent has already decided prior to absolution that they are not going to perform the penance.

 

[Elizabeth502]

If one is able to perform an assigned penance but chooses not to do so after receiving absolution, that choice is a fresh sin in and of itself, which needs to be confessed.

It does not mean that the sin for which the penance was assigned remains unabsolved, however, unless the penitent has already decided prior to absolution that they are not going to perform the penance.

… in which case, (the last part after the word “however”) the penitent lacks the conditions necessary to receive absolution, beause the penitent is insufficiently contrite. Contrition implies humility and awareness of the need for forgiveness, the need for penance, the superior authority of the priest, and the willingness to do everything (including penance) required by the Church and her ordained ministers.

 

[Mariem2]

Why are you changing my words? I never said or implied the opposite of this:

Of course we should! That’s what my post which you quoted specifically says!

Let’s put it another way. Those who were taught that absolution is dependent upon our sincerity, honesty, contrition, firm purpose of amendment, and submission to the priest, were taught correctly. But it’s highly illogical that someone who had all those elements would deliberately refuse to do his penance. It doesn’t compute. If you’re sincere, honest, contrite, and submissive, you will do your penance if you possibly can.

The situation in which a contrite person decides to be prideful and not do the penance is a contradiction in terms. If that’s his attitude, the problem is not whether he does or does not carry out the penance, it’s his attitude of non-contrition, and that in itself could invalidate his confession.

I’m not changing your words but it’s very late at night here and I’m too tired to organise my thoughts into a post so I’ll look at it again tomorrow. Goodnight.