Expanding his liberal teachings from Mass and Holy Communion, to the Sacrament of Confession, Bishop Williamson now tells his followers to go to confession to any priest who believes in sin. Here are his words:
[G]et regularly to Confession with any priest still willing to hear Confessions and who does not tell you that a sin is not a sin.1
There are eight reasons Bishop Williamson’s advice is evil:
Informed and faithful Catholics do not go to confession to a priest belonging to the conciliar church, because it is a different (and false) religion. Bishop Williamson advises going to confession to any priest who believes in sin, including even those priests who are (objectively) outside the true Catholic religion.
The Summa confirms the truth that an informed Catholic already knows: viz., don’t confess to a priest outside the true Catholic Religion, even if he believes in sin. Here is what the Summa says (following St. Augustine), in an article entitled: “Whether those who are schismatics, heretics, excommunicated, suspended or degraded have the use of the keys?”:
Augustine says (Tract. cxxi in Joan.) that the “charity of the Church forgives sins.” Now it is the charity of the Church which unites its members. Since therefore the above [viz., the schismatics, heretics, etc.] are disunited from the Church, it seems that they have not the use of the keys in remitting sins.
Further, no man is absolved from sin by sinning. Now it is a sin for anyone to seek absolution of his sins from the above [viz., schismatics, heretics, etc.],2 for he disobeys the Church in so doing [because the Church warns us to stay away from false religions]. Therefore, he cannot be absolved by them: and so the same conclusion follows.3
Lastly, Church law and Sacramental theology show us that Bishop Williamson’s advice is internally inconsistent. This is because a confession is invalid unless the priest has jurisdiction over the penitent. Confession is a court of justice; the priest is the judge; the penitent is the defendant (and prosecutor).
As is true of all courts (even secular courts), the court’s verdict is invalid if the judge does not have jurisdiction over the defendant. Thus, a confession is invalid unless the priest has jurisdiction over the penitent.9
There are two alternative, mutually-exclusive types of jurisdiction for a valid confession:
Again, this second type of jurisdiction is only present when there is an emergency (i.e., necessity) arising because there are no available priests with regular jurisdiction (i.e., the first type).
Bishop Williamson’s advice is internally inconsistent because he advises us to confess to any priest who believes in sin, whether he has regular jurisdiction or not.
But these types of jurisdiction are mutually exclusive at any given time and place. If we have a priest available to whom we can (in conscience) confess, who has regular jurisdiction, then we can’t validly confess to any priest without regular jurisdiction, because the Church would not supply emergency jurisdiction for our confession, at the time and place in which there is no emergency.
Thus, Bishop Williamson’s advice to go to any priest who believes in sin, is inconsistent with itself and is evil advice.11
Let us pray for Bishop Williamson and his blind followers who with him fall into the pit.12Home
Let them alone: they are blind, and leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both will fall into the pit.↑