MANIFOLD SINS AND WICKEDNESS

He's half-absolv'd who has confess'd. Prior

We ordinarily don't post the advice we give correspondents seeking guidance to cope with the malformed, terminally ignorant sede clergy who abuse the sacraments by turning them into blunt instruments of control. However, when we see an un-Catholic pattern developing, we head for the blogosphere.

The chief, abiding grievance seems to be the denial of absolution. Catholics tell us time and again how disgraceful sede-Trad confessors refuse absolution to rightly disposed penitents -- penitents who have made a declaration of their sorrow for the sins they confessed and who have professed a firm purpose of amendment. 

We've heard how sins never itemized in the penitent's self-accusation are broached by an intemperate confessor who thinks he's "Judge Judy." The newly introduced accusations then become the basis for the denial of absolution or for its postponement against the penitent's will. To some of these baffled souls, it seemed as if a villainous third party had fed the confessor the outré charges.

Just like all the sede-Trad clergy, we Readers are not theologians or canon lawyers. (These worthies don't exist any longer.) We cannot -- and will not --  presume to answer by our own lights. However, as we've said, we are, indeed,  R E A D E R S: we read and report what formally trained theologians and canonists from the past have opined. If the original is in Latin, we supply a scrupulously correct translation and an accurate transcription, unlike the unpardonable distortions of bumbling, incompetent Erroneous Antonius.

Today, though, we'll quote from a work written in English -- an extract of  E. J. Mitchell's 1965 Pontifical Lateran University thesis in canon law titled "The Obligation to Absolve According to Canon 886."* In Fr. Mitchell's opinion, the denial of absolution

to a disposed penitent is an outright act of injustice against that penitent and an offense against the common good of the ecclesial society. It is precisely to prevent this latter inversion of justice that the Church has promulgated canon 886: «If the confessor has no reason to doubt the proper disposition of the penitent who asks for absolution, he may neither deny nor defer absolution.» (Page 49, emphasis in the original.)

It's important to note that Fr. Mitchell, citing Cappello, cautioned that before issuing his denial, "the confessor must have certitude of the indispositions or incapability of the penitent. Probability or grave suspicion are [sic] not sufficient." (Page 47, emphasis ours.)

In a case of postponement, which is a common trick scandalously malformed clerical insects play, Mitchell concludes that 

the deferment of absolution to a disposed penitent against his will is no longer tenable and cannot be justified by an appeal to the purpose of canon 886, an implicit consent of the penitent, pre-Code solidarity, or a doubt of law. (Page 53.)

All this wouldn't help anybody with a stupid and/or malevolent confessor, even in the "good ol' days."  Mitchell frankly commented that although "[t]he penitent's right to absolution is both subjective and canonical...this right is not coercible through determined sanctions." (Page 53).

Basically, you were -- and, even more so today, are -- plain out of luck procedurally if your confessor is a scofflaw. (But, oh, that's right! For sede clericalist bottom-feeders, the law applies to the laity, not to the clergy, doesn't it?)

Fr. Mitchell did end with some practical advice, which everyone should follow: "The ultimate canonical protection of an individual penitent's right to absolution is found in his free choice of a confessor." (Page. 53).  Admittedly, that's tough to do in the current crisis, where there might not be another traditional priest in the area. Therefore, until you can get to another city to find priest with a conscience who respects the law's binding power on the clergy, there's always available perfect contrition to find your peace with Christ.

Now, for those out there who are sick of these scum clerics AND who are disposed to assert their rights, we do have a personal suggestion, grounded on Fr. Mitchell's study. If you find yourself having  confessed all your sins,  expressed your sorrow, declared your firm purpose of amendment, and  still the slimebag confessor demands, under threat of denial or postponement of absolution, that you confess and be contrite for sins of which you are innocent and with which you have never charged yourself:

1. Calmly but firmly give him notice that, as a rightly disposed penitent, you have a right to absolution and you are unwilling to defer absolution; inform him he has both a moral and juridic obligation to absolve. 

2. Let him know that you have thoroughly examined your conscience and brought before him a complete bill of self-accusations for his judgment.

3. Emphasize that you have unequivocally (a) demonstrated your sorrow and (b) made a firm purpose of amendment. Moreover, remind him that you have absolutely petitioned for absolution. (N.B. You must be so firm and directive that only a blithering idiot or a depraved control freak could not form a prudent and probable judgment concerning your right dispositions.)

4. Make it clear (a) that you will not suffer deferment of absolution and (b) that you are not asking for false mercy.

5. Assert in a forceful tone of voice your innocence of the sins he has illicitly introduced into the tribunal's proceedings and demand to know his source.** (N.B. Don't mistake wrongful pressure to force you to own a sin that isn't yours for a legitimate attempt to rightly dispose you.)

6. Finally, caution him regarding his own spiritual peril if he denies you absolution.

Without a doubt, the piece of sacerdotal filth will refuse, or the sick creep may ask for a postponement to "confer with another priest." At that point, loudly protest:

Father, before God, I assert my right to absolution. Canon 886 is a positive legislative guarantee to my right as a well-disposed penitent here and now to immediate absolution, and you are legally obligated to absolve me.

Don't expect compliance. Bear in mind that the majority of these cretinous priests operate under extreme educational and intellectual disabilities. (Most, if not all, are unfit to work as part-time bag boys at a slum discount store.) Consequently, when, with demon-hardened heart, the control-obsessed monster stubbornly refuses you again, declare him an outlaw and briskly walk out, never to return to his hell-hole of a chapel.

Tweet your friends to encourage them to leave, too.  And although the confessor's reprehensible behavior has alienated you from the sacrament of penance in your area, there's always available, as we said above, the act of perfect contrition until you find a worthy, genuinely Catholic priest to hear your confession and grant you, a sincerely repentant sinner, your right to forgiveness.

Certainly, not everyone has the pluck to defend his or her rights in the face of sinful priestly abuse. Lots of people want to avoid confrontation or they feel intimidated. (Although, we candidly ask, how could anyone be intimidated by these clerical gerbils?) One way to avoid a showdown is to steer clear of any priest who manifests cultist traits, notwithstanding hollow claims of independence.

As a general rule of thumb, a priest who has contact with sede kingpins -- even a casual relationship --  is ipso facto an unworthy priest and confessor, even if he has never denied you absolution. And it goes without saying that any priest ordained by "One-Hand Dan" may not be a valid priest at all.

If any of these these dregs of the priesthood had lived in your neighborhood when you were a child, your dad would have ordered to stay away from such riffraff, and your mom would've forbidden you to play in their trashy yard.

REMEMBER: A CHRISTIAN HAS A SUBJECTIVE RIGHT TO THE MEANS NECESSARY FOR SALVATION. DON'T TAKE NO FOR AN ANSWER FROM A TOXIC MANIPULATOR WHO HAS MADE THE SACRAMENT OF PENANCE ODIOUS.

*Although we don't believe the 1917 Code of Canon Law is in effect during the crisis, most U.S. sede clergy and those affiliated with them affirm it is, so the quotation and subsequent argument are apropos.

**In addition, insist on an explanation of why the confessor-introduced sin is mortal, if you think it isn't. These dopes are grossly ignorant and malformed, like Scut and the Skipper, who invent all sorts of new mortal sins.  (Here's a new example of what we mean: one of the completers once preached that it's a mortal sin not to attend the daily Mass offered at a cult chapel. LOL. Honestly, you can't make this stuff up!)