I’m not persuaded that your construction of validity of the Sacrament of Reconciliation squares with that of the church. If a priest could not grant absolution validly because he was deaf and thus could not understand the sins confessed by the penitent in order to provide effective counsel, the bishop would bear the obligation to suspend his faculty to grant absolution. For better or worse, the magisterium of the Catholic Church has never even remotely suggested this, and suspending faculties of priests who are deaf to hear confessions on that basis has never been the normative practice. And, to the counterpoint, I know more than a few priests who are quite willing to grant absolution to penitents who confess in languages that they don’t understand — Navajo, Swahili, or whatever — as a matter of normal pastoral practice.To which I replied,That said, there is a clear difference between what is sacramentally valid and what is spiritually most advantageous for the faithful. The fact that Option A may be spiritually more advantageous than Option B does not intrinsically make Option B in valid. I benefit spiritually from driving to a Benedictine abbey located about ten miles from my home, where the monks’ homilies consistently challenge me to grow in faith, for Sunday mass rather than going to any of the half dozen or so parishes that I pass en route where diocesan clergy parlay clear scriptural texts into sentences of vacillation and paragraphs of double speak devoid of spiritual content. Nevertheless, the masses celebrated in any of those parishes are just as valid as the mass celebrated at the abbey.
I’m not suggesting the bishop should suspend the priest’s faculties. As I said in the post, it’s a question of the recipient’s intention. Also, the visitor didn’t say if the confession was face to face, in which case even a deaf priest might read lips, and the students may not have understood this. But my understanding is also that going to an SSPX chapel for mass meets the Sunday obligation, but it’s much better if it’s because you’re traveling and have no other option. If you have a diocesan parish mass available at a convenient time but routinely go to the SSPX mass, that’s a different matter. By the same token, if your only option is to go to confession with a deaf priest – or a priest who doesn’t speak Vietnamese – that’s fine. But if you routinely avoid one who isn’t deaf or does speak Vietnamese in order not to have the priest hear what you say, that’s different and presumably goes to intention.But then I woke up last night reminded of our pastor's Sunday homily on the gospel reading, where he pointed to the example of St John Vianney.
When he began his priestly duties, Fr. Vianney realized many were either ignorant or indifferent to religion as a result of the French Revolution. Many danced and drank on Sundays or worked in their fields.While some priests do just get by, those who strive to do more can become saints. I still question why, with a surplus, Houston recruits more priests of at best the just-get-by variety.Fr. Vianney spent much time in confession and often delivered homilies against blasphemy and dancing. Finally, if parishioners did not give up dancing, he refused them absolution.
He spent 11 to twelve hours each day working to reconcile people with God. In the summer months, he often worked 16-hour days and refused to retire.
UPDATE: The visitor who told the story of the students adds,
I after reading today’s post I felt an obligation to reply to the discussion of the intentions of the high school penitents I wrote about. I think I did not make my point sufficiently clear. The students intended to make good confession, do their prescribed penance and had the resolution to sin no more, the conditions for valid confession. What the students had, but is not required for valid confession, was shame. Contrary to what most people outside the Church might think, shame or feeling bad for committing a sin is not required, only the knowledge that what was done was wrong and contrition. A person is not required to “feel bad” that they enjoyed any particular sin. Hey, that’s why we keep sinning, not just because we are weak but because we enjoy doing some of those sins! In the case of these students, the shame of their sins prompted them to go to Fr. Blacklege. My larger point was meant to be that given the choice between a VALID confession with limited pastoral benefit and a student NOT going to confession at all because they were ashamed, the choice is a no brainer.The same thing holds for the Ordinariates. I still believe even a marginal priest who brings someone to Christ through the sacraments is better than no priest/no sacraments at all. Of course, intention is critical to both scenarios. If the intentions of certain cradle Catholics are to hide inside a special “membership” and distance themselves from regular bishops, then God knows what is in their hearts and will judge them accordingly. Just like God will have little mercy (and a LOT of just punishment) for priests and clergy who knowingly lead any of the faithful astray for whatever reason or “intention” they may have. Because one thing is for sure, the road to Hell is paved with good “intentions”.
