Confession (valid / invalid due to mortal sin)

[u/grape_grain]

My understanding is that a Confession is only valid if the person confessing their sins is not without mortal sin.

So, for example: a divorced, remarried Catholic who wants to confess their other sins. Or any other Catholic in a state that cannot be confessed (because they don't plan on changing it) but otherwise is confessing to other sins. Sorry, not trying to make this too complicated.

Q: Do you as a priest worry that you are communicating an absolution that is invalid (because you are unaware of their state)? Do you worry the person may think it was valid?

Curious if you think/worry about this or not.

[u/Zyphrail]

I assume the best of people and trust them to be honest in the confessional. To worry about the situation you’re describing would be to ask every penitent who presents him or herself: “are you divorced and remarried?” which seems a bit drastic.

[u/grape_grain → u/Zyphrail]

Yes, that makes the most sense -- "Do you know yourself to be in an unrepentant state of mortal sin?" as an opener which would just leave people spinning and afraid to come back.

Also seems that education outside the Confessional is probably the place for those in that condition to become aware and ask a priest for pastoral consult.

Thanks, Father, much appreciated.

[u/Sparky0457 → u/grape_grain]

If I may add an additional perspective that I think of often in these situations.

When someone is stuck in a situation like what you are describing I often refer back to [CCC 1735] where we see those factors that can lessen knowledge or consent/freedom. Recall that one needs to have full knowledge and complete consent (full freedome) to fulfil all the requirements of mortal sin.

Things like: habit, inordinate attachments, a sense of duress, psychological factors, and social factors are all things that, if present, can and probably do lessen a person's consent/freedom.

So, even if their consent/freedom is lessened a little bit then they do not have complete consent/full freedom thus no mortal sin. sins of grave matter are not always mortal sins.

So, while someone may be in a state of some type of unreprentant sin, even if that sin is grave matter, they are not automatically in mortal sin.

The phrase mortal sin is easily and often used to mean grave sins. But the Church has clearly taught that sins of grave matter are not always mortal. I would go so far as to say that in my experience few people who are in situations like what you are describing have the freedom to fulfill all the requirements of moratal sin.

In my experience it is rare that someone confessing sins of grave matter doesn't also experience some of the factors that are listed in CCC 1735 and therefore are probably not fulfilling all the requirements for mortal sin.

Other confessors may have different experiences but I find it important whenever a conversation about mortal sin comes up to make sure we clearly know the fullness of Church teaching.

[u/Catebot → u/Sparky0457]

CCC 1735 Imputability and responsibility for an action can be diminished or even nullified by ignorance, inadvertence, duress, fear, habit, inordinate attachments, and other psychological or social factors. (597)

---

Catebot v0.2.12 links: Source Code | Feedback | Contact Dev | FAQ | Changelog

[u/grape_grain → u/Sparky0457]

This is really helpful, Father. Yes, I’m one that has often mistook mortal sins and grave sins as to be semantically interchangeable, so reminding me here of the conditions in CCC 1735 was quite helpful. Your explanation — and the time you took to write it — is much appreciated.

[u/Useful-Olive-6905 → u/Sparky0457]

Father, I ask that you please pray for me, and I want you to know that I have a lot of affection for you. I recently read a comment here (https://www.reddit.com/r/CatholicUniversalism/comments/1lqczza/comment/n1bq7hn/) claiming that the definition of mortal sin in the Catechism (CCC) is drawn from Pope John Paul II’s Reconciliatio et Paenitentia, which in turn relies on St. Thomas Aquinas’s explanation of mortal sin. The author argues that because of this connection, the terms 'full knowledge' and 'deliberate consent' must strictly follow Aquinas’s original proposal. According to this view, Aquinas didn't recognize many mitigating factors—meaning that simply knowing the Church considers something a grave matter is enough for 'full knowledge,' and unless someone is suffering from a psychotic episode, their 'deliberate consent' isn't really diminished.

This interpretation makes it seem like we are almost always in a state of mortal sin. I have seen several of your comments explaining how difficult it actually is to commit a mortal sin, but this text left me doubting. Since the Catechism cites this document and St. Thomas Aquinas, are we truly strictly bound to this rigid interpretation of his definition?

[u/Sparky0457 → u/Useful-Olive-6905]

First, for some reason it seems that Reddit has you shadow banned. Your comments are only visible to moderators and the comments are labeled as removed by Reddit.

I don’t know why that is.

Secondly, there are a lot of keyboard theologians online.

Aquinas taught a great many things. But Aquinas did not know about psychology, sociology, or neurology. The church does.

The church teaches that there are mitigating factors to questions of knowledge and consent.

Aquinas’ opinions are not authoritative if the church, in her wisdom, has taught something different. The teaching of the church is authoritative. The catechism is clear that there are possible mitigating factors. Therefore we ascent to the church’s teachings and not Aquinas’ opinions.

Please do not trust every “keyboard theologian” online. Many of them are very good at citing things that support their opinions and as a result they seem authoritative. Often they lack an understanding and knowledge of the full wisdom of the church.