Reconciliation validity in case of known dissent

[manygift1spirit]

I know someone who is in publically open dissent with the Church on certain clear matters. Furthermore, their parish priest is sympathetic to such dissent, although perhaps not as strongly.

I was wondering about this scenario. The person goes to Confession with this priest and does so without anonymity. The penitent does not confess the public support for dissent. The priest grants absolution.

So, is the absolution valid? For discussion feel free to hypothesize the degree of public knowledge of the penitent’s dissent. Anywhere from merely hearsay to the penitent and the priest both perform fundraising together for a notorius anti-Catholic dissenting organization.

 

[Stylites]

I know someone who is in publically open dissent with the Church on certain clear matters. Furthermore, their parish priest is sympathetic to such dissent, although perhaps not as strongly.

I was wondering about this scenario. The person goes to Confession with this priest and does so without anonymity. The penitent does not confess the public support for dissent. The priest grants absolution.

So, is the absolution valid? For discussion feel free to hypothesize the degree of public knowledge of the penitent’s dissent. Anywhere from merely hearsay to the penitent and the priest both perform fundraising together for a notorius anti-Catholic dissenting organization.

If the priest has valid faculties to grant absolution, and does grant absolution, then the absolution is valid. As for the issue of the dissension, which in itself is a grave matter breaching the unity which Christ enjoins, I imagine there would be degrees. Someone who dissents about married clergy, for example, is not the same as someone who dissents for women clergy, and the extreme would be someone who dissents against life issues.

But then you are speaking hypothetically, since the seal of confession means you yourself can only conjecture what the penitent confessed in private.

 

[Bookcat]

If the priest has valid faculties to grant absolution, and does grant absolution, then the absolution is valid.

Going to respond only in general and only to this line…the original question can have too many questions attached to give an answer easily in the abstract in a forum.

Actually there is more to confession. For example…if the needed contrition and purpose of amendment of a person is lacking…the absolution is not valid.

Like I murder someone and do not repent…do not have imperfect contrition or I do not reject the mortal sin …thus am willing to do it again…

Not a valid absolution.

 

[Stylites]

Going to respond only in general and only to this line…the original question can have too many questions attached to give an answer easily in the abstract in a forum.

Actually there is more to confession. For example…if the needed contrition and purpose of amendment of a person is lacking…the absolution is not valid.

Like I murder someone and do not repent…do not have imperfect contrition or I do not reject the mortal sin …thus am willing to do it again…

Not a valid absolution.

Excellent. Yes, contrition would be necessary. But what if, for the sake of argument, that the penitent honestly believed that participating in an alleged dissension was a good thing to do?

 

[Bookcat]

Excellent. Yes, contrition would be necessary. But what if, for the sake of argument, that the penitent honestly believed that participating in an alleged dissension was a good thing to do?

as noted above …

the original question can have too many questions attached to give an answer easily in the abstract in a forum.

Tis a matter for the Holy See

 

[LaSainte]

This is a good question actually that I have wondered about. I happen to struggle with the Church’s teaching on contraception. I submit to it out of obedience and am clear about that, but I will come to CA to debate the issue and discuss my opinions with others, although I would not suggest to anyone that they disobey this teaching. Of course, sometimes the discussion will get heated and I have sometimesexpressed bitterness or flippancy about this teaching. Is this a grave sin? Is debating the issue in a forum like this considered “dissent”?

 

[TheDoctor]

I was wondering about this scenario. The person goes to Confession with this priest and does so without anonymity. The penitent does not confess the public support for dissent. The priest grants absolution. So, is the absolution valid?

It depends. If the “public support for dissent” were such that it in and of itself was a mortal sin, and the person knows that it is and does not confess it, then the entire confession, including absolution, is invalid.

If the “public support for dissent” were only venial or if the person did not know their dissent were a mortal sin, absolution is valid.

So, let me read between the lines: What is really bothering you about this person and priest you know?

 

[Corki]

This is a good question actually that I have wondered about. I happen to struggle with the Church’s teaching on contraception. I submit to it out of obedience and am clear about that, but I will come to CA to debate the issue and discuss my opinions with others, although I would not suggest to anyone that they disobey this teaching. Of course, sometimes the discussion will get heated and I have sometimesexpressed bitterness or flippancy about this teaching. Is this a grave sin? Is debating the issue in a forum like this considered “dissent”?

Well it’s considered “dissent” to disagree with the Church. But dissent may or may not be sinful. For example, it’s dissent to disagree about married men being ordained but that’s a discipline so it is permitted dissent.

As for coming to CAF to dissent on Catholic teaching, that’s a tricky one. On the one hand, it’s not public but it does have the possibility of leading others astray on the other hand.

Interested in seeing what some others think about this.

 

[manygift1spirit]

It depends. If the “public support for dissent” were such that it in and of itself was a mortal sin, and the person knows that it is and does not confess it, then the entire confession, including absolution, is invalid.

If the “public support for dissent” were only venial or if the person did not know their dissent were a mortal sin, absolution is valid.

So, let me read between the lines: What is really bothering you about this person and priest you know?

Let me clarify. The penitent’s dissent is public. Analogous to Andrew Cuomo.

The priest’s sympathy is there, but I am allowing for different amounts because I do not know exactly . But I do know there is sympathy.

It could be as little as the priest is never heretical but punts when the opportunity comes to speak out on behalf of the Church, against the dissent. The worst case scenario is that they have worked together to undermine the Church in some way. My example was fundraising for an openly dissenting, anti-Catholic organization.

The thing that bothers me is that this person has just passed on, and his end-of-life ministry was done by this priest. So, I fear for their soul.

---

Your first sentence answers my concern pretty much. As you put it, the proper form of absolution includes the confessee, so even if naive to their full dissent, a well-meaning priest cannot validly absolve a non repentent sinner,

The only ambiguity left then is what does “the person knows it” mean? I fear that having had it pointed out that this is a mortal sin, but them not accepting it as such, does not constitute not knowing.

Please pray for an intention.

 

[Bookcat]

Well it’s considered “dissent” to disagree with the Church. But dissent may or may not be sinful. For example, it’s dissent to disagree about married men being ordained but that’s a discipline so it is permitted dissent.

As for coming to CAF to dissent on Catholic teaching, that’s a tricky one. On the one hand, it’s not public but it does have the possibility of leading others astray on the other hand.

Interested in seeing what some others think about this.

Actually it is quite Public…not only is it for member who are many many readers…but it is public all over the web via google etc…if you search for some catholic topic word…threads from this forum pop up.

Also I would not be distinguishing so much between public and private “dissent” …Catholics are in fact to assent…in various degrees (obedience of faith in many things…and religious submission of mind and will…in various other things).

In his pastoral letter on contraception Bishop Flavin quotes Bl. John Paul II stating:

"Pope John Paul II, in his address to the bishops of the United States gathered in Los Angeles, very pointedly declared: “It has also been noted that there is a tendency on the part of some Catholics to be selective in their adherence to the Church’s moral teachings. It is sometimes claimed that dissent from the Magisterium is totally compatible with being a ‘good Catholic’ and poses no obstacle to the reception of the Sacraments. This is a grave error…”

 

[Bookcat]

This is a good question actually that I have wondered about. I happen to struggle with the Church’s teaching on contraception. I submit to it out of obedience and am clear about that, but I will come to CA to debate the issue and discuss my opinions with others, although I would not suggest to anyone that they disobey this teaching. Of course, sometimes the discussion will get heated and I have sometimesexpressed bitterness or flippancy about this teaching. Is this a grave sin? Is debating the issue in a forum like this considered “dissent”?

It certainly is not something we should do…

Even if one does not admit that it calls for the “obedience of Faith”…

and sees it as calling instead for the “religious submission of intellect and will” …that includes well…the religious submission of the* mind* and the will…(not just the non use of contraception…or the willingness to be open to being wrong…) which would exclude among other things such activity as described.

Also one does not need to “suggest to anyone that they disobey this teaching” to sin gravely in ones words etc contrary to it…and in the scandal by which one even indirectly by ones words etc leads others into dissent or confirms their dissent.

Not only is their the real and actual likelihood of scandal here on the forum …and out there on the web…(for years to come) but there is even the cooperation in others sin which is another grave sin (mortal sin-same thing) one can be thus accountable for:

Catechism:

1868 Sin is a personal act. Moreover, we have a responsibility for the sins committed by others when we cooperate in them:

• by participating directly and voluntarily in them;
• by ordering, advising, praising, or approving them;
• by not disclosing or not hindering them when we have an obligation to do so;
• by protecting evil-doers.

also germane here is this from the Code of Canon Law:

Can. 209 §1. The Christian faithful, even in their own manner of acting, are always obliged to maintain communion with the Church.

 

[Bookcat]

Well it’s considered “dissent” to disagree with the Church. But dissent may or may not be sinful. For example, it’s dissent to disagree about married men being ordained but that’s a discipline so it is permitted dissent.

that would not be dissent against teaching…that is involving only a discipline. One may have that opinion without being in “dissent”.

 

[Bookcat]

This is a good question actually that I have wondered about. I happen to struggle with the Church’s teaching on contraception. I submit to it out of obedience and am clear about that, but I will come to CA to debate the issue and discuss my opinions with others, although I would not suggest to anyone that they disobey this teaching. Of course, sometimes the discussion will get heated and I have sometimesexpressed bitterness or flippancy about this teaching. Is this a grave sin? Is debating the issue in a forum like this considered “dissent”?

I will address this in general…as to the concepts brought up:

It certainly is not something we should do.

Even if one does not admit that it calls for the “obedience of Faith”…

and sees it as calling instead for the “religious submission of intellect and will” …that includes well…the religious submission of the* mind* and the will…(not just the non use of contraception…) which would exclude among other things such activity as described.

Also one does not need to “suggest to anyone that they disobey this teaching” to sin gravely in ones words etc contrary to it…and in the scandal by which one even indirectly by ones words etc …leads others into sin…even into dissent or confirms their dissent.

Not only can there be scandal here on the forum …and out there on the web…(for years to come) but there is even the cooperation in others sin which is another grave sin (mortal sin-same thing) one can be thus accountable for:

Catechism:

1868 Sin is a personal act. Moreover, we have a responsibility for the sins committed by others when we cooperate in them:

• by participating directly and voluntarily in them;
• by ordering, advising, praising, or approving them;
• by not disclosing or not hindering them when we have an obligation to do so;
• by protecting evil-doers.

also germane here is this from the Code of Canon Law:

Can. 209 §1. The Christian faithful, even in their own manner of acting, are always obliged to maintain communion with the Church.

So in our actions and thinking…both here and in the “real world” we need to very “circumspect” and avoid sin in its varied forms. We all need to examine ourselves and how we carry out our daily lives. Following Christ with joy

Now as to if one has committed mortal sin? We need to examine ourselves honestly before God and see if they had also the knowledge and deliberate consent needed for mortal sin.

One the one hand we can know that we should not do such and such. And on the other hand it can very well happen that we do something completely unknowingly and not realize it til later that it was not good.

 

[Corki]

that would not be dissent against teaching…that is involving only a discipline. One may have that opinion without being in “dissent”.

I think you are defining dissent theologically while I am using it as a regular English verb.

You can dissent against a disciplinary teaching. It’s permissible because assent is not required - only submission. You can even dissent as to whether the Church was right or wrong to do something such as change the translation to Mass. In matters of discipline sinful dissent comes in primarily when you dissent against the Church’s authority to make those disciplinary decisions.

Actually it is quite Public…not only is it for member who are many many readers…but it is public all over the web via google etc…

It’s public but anonymous (for the most part). I think there is some difference, at least in degree of gravity, between a person who posts an opinon anonymously and a person who uses his/her name or position attached to a dissident statement.

if you search for some catholic topic word…threads from this forum pop up

That’s for sure. The funniest being when I try to look up a quick fact and the very same thread in which I am posting comes up.

Also I would not be distinguishing so much between public and private “dissent” …Catholics are in fact to assent…in various degrees (obedience of faith in many things…and religious submission of mind and will…in various other things).

Agreed, but as you pointed out in another thread, sometimes a person is just confused or misinformed. If that person says effectively “I may be wrong but I disagree with this teaching of the Church. I am going to keep my mouth and keyboard shut until I figure it out.” That person is still not giving the required assent of faith and will but is not as culpable IMO as someone who publically says “I don’t care what the Church says. I don’t even care if I am sinning. And here are my reasons …” Not only is the second person culpable of sewing doubt and spreading dissent to others but they often spread wrong teaching by way of logical errors or persuasive personalities.

 

[Bookcat]

This is a good question actually that I have wondered about. I happen to struggle with the Church’s teaching on contraception. I submit to it out of obedience and am clear about that, but I will come to CA to debate the issue and discuss my opinions with others, although I would not suggest to anyone that they disobey this teaching. Of course, sometimes the discussion will get heated and I have sometimesexpressed bitterness or flippancy about this teaching. Is this a grave sin? Is debating the issue in a forum like this considered “dissent”?

I will try address this in general…as to the concepts brought up as well as other aspects readers may not have thought of that we all need to keep in mind:

Is this something we should do??

It certainly is not something we should do.

Even if one does not admit that it calls for the “obedience of Faith”…

and sees it as calling instead for the “religious submission of intellect and will” …such includes our *mind *and how we act on this issue (a person can not just “not use it” there is more involved) which would exclude among other things such activity as described.

Also one does not need to “suggest to anyone that they disobey this teaching” to actually sin gravely in what one says contrary to it…and in the scandal by which one even indirectly by ones words etc …leads others into sin…even into dissent or confirms their dissent.

Not only can there be scandal here on the forum …and out there on the web…(for years to come) but there is even the cooperation in others sin which is another grave sin (mortal sin-same thing) one can be thus accountable for:

Catechism:

1868 Sin is a personal act. Moreover, we have a responsibility for the sins committed by others when we cooperate in them:

• by participating directly and voluntarily in them;
• by ordering, advising, praising, or approving them;
• by not disclosing or not hindering them when we have an obligation to do so;
• by protecting evil-doers.

also germane here is this from the Code of Canon Law:

Can. 209 §1. The Christian faithful, even in their own manner of acting, are always obliged to maintain communion with the Church.

(of course one could prob find various other ways people can sin via this forum…other ways contrary to charity…justice…human dignity etc)

So in our actions and thinking…both here and in the “real world” we need to very “circumspect” and avoid sin in its varied forms. We all need to examine ourselves and how we carry out our daily lives. Following Christ with joy

Now as to if one has committed mortal sin if one has done such in the past? We need to examine ourselves honestly before God and see if they had also the knowledge and deliberate consent needed for mortal sin.

One the one hand we can know that we should not do such and such. And on the other hand it can very well happen that we do something completely unknowingly and not realize it til later that it was not good.

Taking of course into account mans ability to fool himself (or so my wife might suggest such to me at times…)…

So bottom line is all of us need to take care …and to do as our Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI noted here vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/messages/communications/documents/hf_ben-xvi_mes_20110124_45th-world-communications-day_en.html

An important read for us in this forum

 

[Bookcat]

It’s public but anonymous (for the most part). I think there is some difference, at least in degree of gravity, between a person who posts an opinon anonymously and a person who uses his/her name or position attached to a dissident statement.

I am taking in the sense of scandal…and support of dissent etc…not seeking to get into other aspects and questions. So yes the publicness of it is very problematic.

 

[Bookcat]

That’s for sure. The funniest being when I try to look up a quick fact and the very same thread in which I am posting comes up.
**
Yes!**

Agreed, but as you pointed out in another thread, sometimes a person is just confused or misinformed. If that person says effectively “I may be wrong but I disagree with this teaching of the Church. I am going to keep my mouth and keyboard shut until I figure it out.” That person is still not giving the required assent of faith and will but is not as culpable IMO as someone who publically says “I don’t care what the Church says. I don’t even care if I am sinning. And here are my reasons …” Not only is the second person culpable of sewing doubt and spreading dissent to others but they often spread wrong teaching by way of logical errors or persuasive personalities.

One must seek rather an attitude of “Faith seeking understanding”

A thousand difficulties does not = a single doubt.

or even “Help me understand what the Church is teaching” …

ones approach is key…and in our culture such is not always readily had …for we have so many influences to the contrary…

 

[Corki]

One must seek rather an attitude of “Faith seeking understanding”

A thousand difficulties does not = a single doubt.

or even “Help me understand what the Church is teaching” …

ones approach is key…and **in our culture such is not always readily had **…for we have so many influences to the contrary…

It’s not only a problem of influences. Everyone wants instant answers. If a question is raised and he/she isn’t given a 100% convincing answer in 10 minutes or less, he/she is disgruntled and doubtful.

Besides a humble search for understanding, it would be nice to see more people embracing patience. Some of the Church’s greatest saints took decades of searching in order to understand to a point of heartfelt belief some of the teachings of the Church.

 

[Bookcat]

This is a good question actually that I have wondered about. I happen to struggle with the Church’s teaching on contraception. I submit to it out of obedience and am clear about that, but I will come to CA to debate the issue and discuss my opinions with others, although I would not suggest to anyone that they disobey this teaching. Of course, sometimes the discussion will get heated and I have sometimesexpressed bitterness or flippancy about this teaching. Is this a grave sin? Is debating the issue in a forum like this considered “dissent”?

I will try address this in general…as to the concepts brought up as well as other aspects readers may not have thought of that we all need to keep in mind:

Is this something we should do??

It certainly is not something we should do.

Even if one does not admit that it calls for the “obedience of Faith”…

and sees it as calling instead for the “religious submission of intellect and will” …such includes our *mind *and how we act on this issue (a person can not just “not use it” there is more involved) which would exclude among other things such activity as described.

Also one does not need to “suggest to anyone that they disobey this teaching” to actually sin gravely in what one says contrary to it…and in the scandal by which one even indirectly by ones words etc …leads others into sin…even into dissent or confirms their dissent.

Not only can there be scandal here on the forum …and out there on the web…(for years to come) but there is even the cooperation in others sin which is another grave sin (mortal sin-same thing) one can be thus accountable for:

Catechism:

1868 Sin is a personal act. Moreover, we have a responsibility for the sins committed by others when we cooperate in them:

• by participating directly and voluntarily in them;
• by ordering, advising, praising, or approving them;
• by not disclosing or not hindering them when we have an obligation to do so;
• by protecting evil-doers.

also germane here is this from the Code of Canon Law:

Can. 209 §1. The Christian faithful, even in their own manner of acting, are always obliged to maintain communion with the Church.

(of course one could prob find various other ways people can sin via this forum…other ways contrary to charity…justice…human dignity etc)

So in our actions and thinking…both here and in the “real world” we need to very “circumspect” and avoid sin in its varied forms. We all need to examine ourselves and how we carry out our daily lives. Following Christ with joy

Now as to if one has committed mortal sin if one has done such in the past? We need to examine ourselves honestly before God and see if they had also the knowledge and deliberate consent needed for mortal sin.

One the one hand we can know that we should not do such and such. And on the other hand it can very well happen that we do something completely unknowingly and not realize it til later that it was not good.

Taking of course into account mans ability to fool himself (or so my wife might suggest such to me at times…)…

So bottom line is all of us need to take care …and to do as our Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI noted here vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/messages/communications/documents/hf_ben-xvi_mes_20110124_45th-world-communications-day_en.html

An important read for us in this forum

 

[Bookcat]

I will try address this in general…as to the concepts brought up as well as other aspects readers may not have thought of that we all need to keep in mind:

Is this something we should do??

It certainly is not something we should do.

Even if one does not admit that it calls for the “obedience of Faith”…

and sees it as calling instead for the “religious submission of intellect and will” …such includes our *mind *and how we act on this issue (a person can not just “not use it” there is more involved) which would exclude among other things such activity as described.

Also one does not need to “suggest to anyone that they disobey this teaching” to actually sin gravely in what one says contrary to it…and in the scandal by which one even indirectly by ones words etc …leads others into sin…even into dissent or confirms their dissent.

Not only can there be scandal here on the forum …and out there on the web…(for years to come) but there is even the cooperation in others sin which is another grave sin (mortal sin-same thing) one can be thus accountable for:

Catechism:

1868 Sin is a personal act. Moreover, we have a responsibility for the sins committed by others when we cooperate in them:

• by participating directly and voluntarily in them;
• by ordering, advising, praising, or approving them;
• by not disclosing or not hindering them when we have an obligation to do so;
• by protecting evil-doers.

also germane here is this from the Code of Canon Law:

Can. 209 §1. The Christian faithful, even in their own manner of acting, are always obliged to maintain communion with the Church.

(of course one could prob find various other ways people can sin via this forum…other ways contrary to charity…justice…human dignity etc)

So in our actions and thinking…both here and in the “real world” we need to very “circumspect” and avoid sin in its varied forms. We all need to examine ourselves and how we carry out our daily lives. Following Christ with joy

Now as to if one has committed mortal sin if one has done such in the past? We need to examine ourselves honestly before God and see if they had also the knowledge and deliberate consent needed for mortal sin.

One the one hand we can know that we should not do such and such. And on the other hand it can very well happen that we do something completely unknowingly and not realize it til later that it was not good.

Taking of course into account mans ability to fool himself (or so my wife might suggest such to me at times…)…

So bottom line is all of us need to take care …and to do as our Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI noted here vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/messages/communications/documents/hf_ben-xvi_mes_20110124_45th-world-communications-day_en.html

An important read for us in this forum

I would twique my line that says:

"Even if one does not admit that it calls for the “obedience of Faith”…

For it sounds as if I am stating that it is in that category per se (or that I per se think it is)…(there are other categories)

and I also was rather limited in giving the “categories”…as I just noted there are more…(even that are infallible!)

for detail see the document from the Holy See

(but do not skim…one must study it carefully)
ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFADTU.HTM