When you intend to persist on one sin, why can you not be absolved of your others?

[FiveLinden]

As I understand it someone seeking absolution for sins will be denied if they intend to keep committing one (or more) of the sins.

So someone who confessed to, say, lying, adultery, theft, blasphemy and sexual cohabitation outside marriage would be denied absolution if s/he had a genuine intent to not repeat any of the sins, except cohabitation.

I can see why intention not to sin again is necessary, but why cannot someone be absolved for the sins they do not intend to commit again?

 

[Margaret_Ann]

Think of it this way:

Either you’re single or you’re married. You can’t be half single and half married.

Also, WHY would you want to persist in sin?

 

[FiveLinden]

True, but if I were an alcoholic and a drug user and a tobacco smoker I am sure my counsellor would be delighted and encourage me to give up two, in the hope I would later give up all three.

 

[Usige]

Absolution restores us to grace and mortal sin kills grace. The two are not compatible. It doesn’t matter if you have 1 or 1000 unabsolved mortal sin as even one closes you off from sanctifying grace.

If someone has contrition and the resolve to stop committing certain sins while intending to knowingly continue in other sins, then God can give them graces to help them avoid those sins as well as to try to move them from the obstinance in persisting in other sins. This does not involve sanctifying grace though (e.g. making a person compatible with divine life with God).

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

They are encouraged to give up all their sins.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

I can see why intention not to sin again is necessary, but why cannot someone be absolved for the sins they do not intend to commit again?

Because there’s no such thing as a partial absolution. If you’re still planning to commit sins, any sins, going forward, then you’re not understanding the seriousness of sin in general or that every sin you commit hurts God. You’re not repentant. You can’t be absolved.

Absolution is also meant to be the restoration of the state of grace, and you can’t be partially in a state of grace; you’re either in a state of grace with all that entails, or you’re not in a state of grace. It’s a binary function.

 

[po18guy]

There is a legal doctrine called te “Fruit of the Poisonous Tree” In the spiritual realm, does not lack of repentance in one sin somehow affect the sincerity or completeness of repentance of the others?

 

[FiveLinden]

Absolution is also meant to be the restoration of the state of grace, and you can’t be partially in a state of grace; you’re either in a state of grace with all that entails, or you’re not in a state of grace. It’s a binary function.

I think this is begging the question is it not? You can’t be absolved of some sin because you can only be absolved of all sin? My question is: why? If each sin is a seperate sin that needs to be separately confessed, why can some not be forgiven while others are not? And did Jesus not forgive people’s specific sins (such as the woman caught in adultery) without addressing their other sins?

 

[Tis_Bearself]

And did Jesus not forgive people’s specific sins (such as the woman caught in adultery) without addressing their other sins?

No. Jesus told her to go and “Sin No More”. Not “don’t commit adultery any more, but it’s okay to commit gossip, gluttony and theft.”

Sin. No. More.

Jesus’ own words.

Also, your constant arguing this point is making me echo the comment somebody made earlier:
WHY would you want to persist in sin?

 

[Vico]

As I understand it someone seeking absolution for sins will be denied if they intend to keep committing one (or more) of the sins.

So someone who confessed to, say, lying, adultery, theft, blasphemy and sexual cohabitation outside marriage would be denied absolution if s/he had a genuine intent to not repeat any of the sins, except cohabitation.

I can see why intention not to sin again is necessary, but why cannot someone be absolved for the sins they do not intend to commit again?

Mortal sin is a loss of friendship with God, a loss of charity. Charity is restored only when all is forgiven.

Apocalypse 2

4 But I have somewhat against thee, because thou hast left thy first charity.
5 Be mindful therefore from whence thou art fallen: and do penance, and do the first works. Or else I come to thee, and will move thy candlestick out of its place, except thou do penance.

 

[FiveLinden]

WHY would you want to persist in sin?

Well to construct a possibility: someone might have become Catholic and as such be required to live without sex with the person to whom s/he has been married for 20 years. The other person doesn’t want to do this. So the Catholic might well want to maintain the relationship and ‘persist in sin’ in relation to that sin, but to commit to never committing any other sin. Not an unimaginable scenario surely?

 

[Tis_Bearself]

One would hope in that situation that the Catholic convert knew all the ramifications of the conversion, including the tricky relationship issue, before making the swim across the Tiber and that they would be fully committed to living a fully Catholic life with all that entails. It’s kind of ridiculous to go through a lot of trouble to convert to a faith and then not follow a major teaching of that faith, thus cutting yourself off from the “source and summit of Catholic life” (the Eucharist). It’s basically saying that sex and a relationship are more important than God.

But in any event, a partial absolution would do them no good as they continue to persist in grave, probably mortal sin.

It’s kind of like the guy who gets four life without parole sentences to be served concurrently. Even if three of the sentences get overturned or pardoned away, he’s still stuck with the fourth one and stays in prison. His only hope of freedom is to obtain a full and complete pardon from everything.

 

[Angannas]

If someone was already married when they became Catholic their pre-conversion marriage, even if carried out outside the Catholic faith, would still be valid (unless their spouse was already Catholic), so abstinence would not be required

 

[BartholomewB]

True, but if I were an alcoholic and a drug user and a tobacco smoker I am sure my counsellor would be delighted and encourage me to give up two, in the hope I would later give up all three.

I think you’ve put your finger on it here. That’s the way therapy works, but confession is not therapy and a priest is not a therapist.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

True, but if I were an alcoholic and a drug user and a tobacco smoker I am sure my counsellor would be delighted and encourage me to give up two, in the hope I would later give up all three.

I’m not even sure that’s how therapy would work. It would depend on the two things being given up. If the person gave up smoking and alcohol but continued with his daily opiate addiction, then nothing much has changed. He’s still an addict and he’s still ruining his life/ harming his health in a major way.

The underlying theme of this whole thread seems to be that some sins which the Catholic church calls “grave” are not as bad as others. They’re like smoking a cigarette, considered a legal activity for adults, vs. injecting heroin several times a day which everybody would agree is really bad. I doubt that the OP would have made such a thread thinking that if a sinner were committing fornication, theft, and serial murder on a regular basis, and went to the priest saying he planned to stop fornicating and thieving but wasn’t ready to give up serial murder just yet, then the priest should absolve him of fornication and theft, in hopes of encouraging him to come around on the serial murder point before too many more innocent victims die. Rather, the OP is likely thinking that certain types of sins, like the living together example he gave, aren’t so bad. We are called as Catholics to understand that a grave sin is a grave sin and all of them are very bad. Just because our society, including many non-religious people, approves of a particular grave sin, doesn’t make it somehow less important to repent from it.