| | Anger and insufficient repentance in confession | | | Q: Should a penitent’s angry response to queries about the number of sins confessed lead a confessor to conclude that he has an insincere desire for repentance and thus refuse absolution? Can you give some practical steps for dealing with inordinate anger in confession?
Ans: It is important today to emphasize again the requirement of the Council of Trent that all remembered mortal sins must be confessed in kind and number. So many of the Catholic laity have been taught in recent years that there should not be a “laundry list” of sins in confession, it is common now to have people coming to confession after many years of absence from the Sacrament who confess to “not being loving” or some other vague formula. This is because many have received insufficient catechesis as to both the nature of the Sacrament (they may have been told it is like a counselling session) and also many have not learned how to make an examination of conscience.
Erroneous theories of morality and ethics have confused many Catholics, providing them with little guidance to be able to judge the gravity of their actions, as well as morality or immorality. These are theories like the fundamental option, which teaches that there is no one human action that can so completely, existentially express the person so as to involve a fundamental option for or against God, and consequentialism, which holds that one can never morally evaluate an action as right or wrong until the intention and circumstances (consequences) are known. The first theory, of course, makes it impossible to commit a mortal sin. In fact, those who hold this theory distinguish between serious sins, which are deeds, and mortal sins, which must involve a complete life option. This theory defines mortal sin in such a way as to make it more like what tradition calls final impenitence. It also compromises the ability of both the penitent and the confessor to judge venial sin. One source defined a venial sin as “a refusal to grow”, which—though it is not exactly wrong—is so vague as to mean almost nothing.
Consequentialism is a sort of compromise theory that allows one to say that there are moral absolutes in theory but not in practice. So one can affirm that the teaching of the Church is correct in theory but then interpret almost any act away in practice so again there is no such thing as a deed that is always evil. Abortion is always wrong but in my circumstances other values may make it a necessity. Since one can never judge an act until the circumstances (consequences) and intention are known, |
| there may be acts that are considered evil by object, but which consequences and intention can render good in the context. Though it is true one cannot judge an act to be good until object, circumstances and intention are considered because good comes from an integral cause, one can judge an act to be evil by only knowing the object. One defect makes an act evil, and good consequences and intention cannot render it good. These theories render examination of conscience and confession more difficult and questions from the priest can be seen as a personal challenge.
Coupled with this difficulty is the fact that some people suffer from emotional issues, sometimes serious, which compromise their subjective ability to respond to questions that may be legitimate on the part of the confessor but that the penitent perceives as suggestive, or even worse, abusive. So, the questioner has to address the issue on two planes.
It is certainly acceptable for a confessor to ask questions for clarity and understanding, as well as to help the penitent understand what is being confessed. Often, introducing a question with the assurance that the priest is not prying and it is only “to make sure I understand you” can reduce the anxiety of a troubled penitent. If unclear as to the frequency of grave sin, for example, one could ask, “Was this a single occurrence or more often?” In asking questions, a confessor must be aware of the effect he is having on the penitent. The last thing one would want is for someone to walk away from the confessional and never return. Since the mercy of the Sacrament is imperative, if there is any chance that the resistance of the penitent is due to psychological issues, the confessor should presume he is sincerely repentant, as doubts should be interpreted for the best. Depending on his assessment of the penitent, the priest might gently suggest that the anger seems out of place and that perhaps some help other than can be provided by confession, such as counselling, might be beneficial. On the other hand, if it is manifest that the anger is a means to avoid the whole issue of responsibility for sin, the priest may come to the conclusion that there is insufficient repentance and deny absolution. One would pray that such a decision would be rare, indeed.
End of Article. | | |
|
