According to the Bible, there is only one sin that is unforgivable, and that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. But if someone commits another, lesser sin over and over again, and goes to confession every week, does a priest ever tell them they are not forgiven? Suppose a prostitute confesses her sin every week, then goes back to work, and sins some more. Will a priest ever deny her absolution, just because she knowingly and willingly commits the same sin every week?
IANA Catholic, but I suspect the argument will be that forgiveness requires true repentance; so if you go to confession wil the intention to just keep on sinning, you won’t be forgiven. You have to actually be sorry.
I would assume that if you truly have the intention to stop each time, but fail at it, you could theoretically continue to be forgiven for however long that goes on, as long as you do truly intend to give up whatever sin you’re comitting at the time of confession.
I thought suicide was an unforgivable sin?
Oh, and going to church and confession does not really absolve you of your sins. You have to be repentant in your heart. Or so I was led to believe. Else why not run about sinning your ass off in any way you see fit if all it took for absolution was a few minutes in a confession booth and a few Hail Marys and Our Fathers?
The train of thought went: Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is the only sin that cannot be forgiven => The Holy Spirit (a.k.a., the Paraclete–or advocate) always offers hope to the troubled => suicide is a denial of (the possibility of) hope (and is irrevocable, thus not permitting a change of heart): therefore, suicide, which is a denial of the very nature of God is an act of blasphemy.
That is not a universally held belief throughout Christianity. It had been a teaching of the RCC for years; I do not know whether the Orthodox held similar views. OTOH, a number of Fundamentalist goups held to a more literal definition, stating that only direct, verbal blasphemy against the Spirit was unforgivable.
Through the 20th century, the RCC moved toward a more psychology-influenced understanding of suicide and it is generally now seen as the result of emotional or psychological trauma rathrer than a defiant declaration that even God could not remedy the situation of one’s life. As a result, suicides are no longer denied either burial in Catholic cemetaries or funerals including the Mass of the Resurrection.
So blasphemy is unforgivable huh? Then I sure hope no one clicks on this .
Regarding the OP: if a person demonstrates to the priest that he or she is not repentant, then the priest is supposed to withhold absolution. Of course, that requires a bit of careful judgment. The guy in the movies who comes to confession declaring his intention to murder some SOB who truly needs killin’ is never granted absolution for the act that has not yet occurred and for which he is clearly not sorry. The guy who comes in and confesses every week that he yelled at his wife and kids is probably going to receive absolution–along with an effort by the priest to try to work with him to control his temper. The hit man who comes in for forgiveness after every hit should not be receiving absolution, but I am not privy to any such confessions, so I do not know how they really go. (The priest is also authorized to insist on a demonstration of good intention, so he could withhold absolution until the penitent made a confession to the police. Since I do not ever recall hearing that a murderer turned himself in at the urgings of his confessor, it seems unlikely that this scenario has played out very often.)
And, as Whack-a-Mole noted, absolution is not an automatic slate wiping. If a person confessed to a sin in a way that persuaded the priest he or she was repentant, but the person really felt no remorse, then the confession was not valid and not only was the priest’s absolution irrelevant but, strictly speaking, the person must now add a bad confession to the sins he or she confesses the next time they participate in the Sacrament of Reconciliation.
I agree with Revenant Threshold. The key issue is really whether the penitent has the correct disposition and is willing to repent of his sins. In such a situation the priest is required to give absolution:
This suggests that a priest who doubts a penitent’s disposition is entitled to refuse absolution.
If the priest comes to the conclusion that she is going out and exuberantly plying her trade, then I would guess that he would stop offering absolution. On the other hand, if he felt that she was desperate to make her rent payments and felt trapped into the life, then he might forgive her each week while urging her to find a way to quit turning tricks. Since each act of the Sacrament of Reconciliation is a deeply personal and private event, there is not really any way to know just what happens in the majority of cases.
The act of Confession requires genuine repentance. After you confess your sins, there is a general catch-all that covers the rest, usually things that you are too ashamed to admit to a fellow human being, priest or not.
Ultimately, it is an act between you and God. The priest is nothing more or less than a facilitator for the easement of your conscience. If you are a Catholic, you know that God knows, and omission out of shame is irrelevant, because God knows what you have done. It is essentially a admission of guilt to yourself.
I’m not sure whether that goes against Catholic catechism, but that’s my thoughts on the matter.
From my agnostic perspective that is the point right there.
For the sake of argument let’s assume God does not exist.
Would someone encouraging you to confess still be worthwhile? Sure!
God or no God if you feel genuinely contrite for whatever wrong you did then you are a better person for feeling so (because presumably you will not repeat that bad action or at least be less likely to).
Both society and you are better served.
What exactly is blasphemy against the holy spirit? Is it actually saying, or thinking “god is evil” or “god is weak” or “god doesnt exist” or something along those lines? Or is it something more of a personal, emotional rejection? I know I’ve commented on how much of an asshole god would be if he existed. Does this mean I can never be forgiven under Catholic doctrine?
Which is why I harbor no ill will towards agnostics or atheists. While I believe that I am right in that there is a God, your particular beliefs are your business, and if I am right you will be answerable in due time. If not, well, there’s nothing to answer to, is there?
Faith in and of itself hurts nobody. It’s when people inflict views upon others that it becomes a problem.
[nitpick]
Agnositc is not a lack of faith or refutation of God.
They just say “I do not know”.
In my case I believe in something bigger or more profound than me but I reject organized religions of all sorts.
To my post you responded to I categorically reject the notion I need a priest (or whatever) to grant me absolution. If absolution for sins exists then God knows your heart and no amount of genuflecting will help you.
[/nitpick]
I have a long version of this, but I won’t bore you. Just put it this way: if I deny my own divine nature, then I close the door to forgiveness. Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is the moral equivalent of tossing a gift in the trash. If I don’t want it, whatcha gonna do.
While this is not wrong, it is also… limited.
Blasphemy Against the Holy Spirit is more than just wasting a divine gift, which humans do frequently. it is knowingly and willingly denying Christ a place in your life. Ever.
Now, I’m not eve sure that we’re sure any human has ever actually comitted this sin; its something so bad that maybe only the Devils have ever done so. Humans may well lack the capacity.
Atheists do it. I do it. I know a fair amount about Christianity, both Protestant and Catholic, and I believe pretty strongly that if Jesus ever lived, he was a very good Jewish guy, nothing more. I believe with absolute certainty that there is no place in my life for Christ. If there turns out to be a Christ, I am so going to hell.
Exactly. Because I’m an atheist, it seems to me that I knowingly and willingly deny Christ a place in my life all day, every day. If it turns out that’s blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, then when I die I’m gonna be choking on Satan’s greasy cock in Hell all day, every day for the rest of eternity.
I have heard it argued that simply being an atheist isn’t truly denying Christ or the Holy Spirit in the sense of that particular sin because we atheists don’t have a true understanding of what and who they are; if we did, we’d be believers. It’s not as simple as saying “I don’t believe he exists”; you have to essentially believe in their existence, understand and accept that the “divine gift” is being offered, but choose to reject it. The difference between rejecting the gift and rejecting the idea that a gift is being offered.
Oh, like Lucifer. I gotcha.
Exactly my point.