From a reader…
QUAERITUR:
If a priest explains away a mortal sin in confession in such away that neither the priest nor the penitent believes any more than the mortal sin is even a sin, is the confession still valid as long as the priest absolves with the required form?
So, objectively, it is a mortal sin. What is the subjective dimension?
Would the absolution be valid, as described above? Not necessarily.
The correct form of absolution alone does not guarantee a valid absolution. The penitent must have at least imperfect contrition (attrition – fear of Hell rather than more perfect sorrow for offending God) and a genuine purpose of amendment (according to the Council of Trent).
If a priest wrongly assures a penitent that an objectively grave sin is not sinful, two possibilities might be teased out.
First, the penitent acts in good faith, genuinely repents of other sins, and has a firm purpose of amendment. The absolution could still be valid despite the erroneous moral advice. (I’d hate to be that priest at judgment time.)
Second, the penitent – not really being wholly convinced but because of what the priest said knowingly doesn’t repent of the grave sin, intending to continue committing it – oh my. The necessary disposition is absent, and absolution is invalid.
NB: A priest cannot make a sin permissible by declaring it so. (Neither can a priest or a pope make something permissible into a sin by declaring that it is.) Father’s erroneous counsel does not automatically invalidate absolution, but neither can the correct formula compensate for a penitent’s deliberate refusal to repent.
As for a priest who deliberately explains away grave sin in the confessional, he has grotesquely misunderstood his office. The confessional is a tribunal of mercy for the guilty, not a white washing service. The confessor is charged with helping sinners obtain forgiveness, not persuading them that they have nothing to be forgiven for. Such a priest risks sending souls away falsely informed, malformed, in spiritual peril.
I am mindful of the dense and ever useful Act of Faith:
O my God, I firmly believe that Thou art one God in Three Divine Persons, Father, Son and Holy Ghost. I believe that Thy Divine Son became Man, and died for our sins, and that He will come to judge the living and the dead. I believe these and all the truths which the Holy Catholic Church teaches, because Thou hast revealed them, Who canst neither deceive nor be deceived.
God cannot be deceived! If a person has a doubt about whether or not what he is thinking about doing is a good thing to do, he shouldn’t do it.
Let’s spin that out a bit, because it is at the heart of this scenario.
We should not deliberately act while entertaining a genuine, unresolved practical doubt about whether the contemplated action is sinful. To do so is shows a willingness to offend God, even when one is uncertain whether the particular action actually violates His law. St. Paul gives us the scriptural foundation: Omne autem, quod non est ex fide, peccatum est….For all that is not of faith is sin.” (Romans 14:23) In context, Paul is discussing someone who doubts whether he may lawfully eat certain foods. The moral principle extends beyond dietary questions, of course. When conscience warns that an action may be sinful, one must resolve that practical doubt before proceeding.
St. Thomas Aquinas explains the binding character of conscience, including an erroneous conscience (STh I-II, q. 19, aa. 5–6). Someone who chooses to act against what he judges to be God’s law sins by that very choice, even if his understanding of the particular law is mistaken.
So, we mustn’t knowingly act with an unresolved practical doubt of conscience. Neither do we have to reach absolute certainty about every moral decision. Moral certainty, including that attained through sound moral principles and trustworthy counsel, suffices.
There is an important spiritual point here, especially if someone is tempted to shop around for a confessor who will give the desired answer. The question must be, “What does God require of me?”, rather than “Which priest will tell me that what I want to do is not a sin?”
A confessor who dispels genuine doubt by sound teaching serves the penitent well. One who merely silences the warning of conscience, without establishing the truth, risks becoming an accomplice in self-deception.
When there is a genuine reason to suspect that a contemplated action offends God, establish its moral lawfulness before doing it. That is ordinary, applied prudence, grounded in reverence for God and concern for one’s eternal salvation.
ROMAE, die XXX Octobris, A.D. MMXXVI.
Thank you, Lord, for this day. This is the 301st day of this calendar year.
It was 06:34 when Helios guided his fiery chariot above the horizon in the Roman east.
There is a lot of “Rome” in this photo. Nasone, sanpietrini, walled-up door, rione sign, mondezzaro sign… have a closer look…
and … closer…. 
hwriggles4 on RIP Patrick Stewart … my competitor!: “Fr. Z is saying a tribute to Capt. Picard: Make it so.”
