How have Christians who affirm traditional sin doctrines handled 'pathological' guilt in their preaching?

Contemporary "theological liberals" have often argued that traditional doctrines about guilt and sin and repentance lead to feelings of guilt that can become pathology. This claim shouldn't be too hard to believe, because I believe it's the intended question behind a user's provocative question asked here not too long ago. >insistence on holding people to an impossible standard and then instilling guilt in their minds (sin / confess / repeat) causes psychological distress and prevents some people from reaching their potential in life Some of them have advocated this as a reason to jettison these doctrines outright. I have a strong memory of a seminary professor in ELCA Lutheranism explicitly making such a claim but couldn't find his web page, as perhaps he's now retired. I have often wondered to what extent when "extreme" guilt has happened, it can be said to be 1. The result of really bad (unorthodox, if "conservative") preaching? 2. The result of unrepentant hearts who insist on continuing the sin?, or 3. The neglect of great theological traditions in Christian theology? I am of the conviction that this question can be answered straightforwardly in terms of a non-Truth question, if it is **"How have Christians who affirm traditional sin doctrines handled 'pathological' guilt in their preaching or theological writings?"** (I'm not looking for medical diagnoses or answers of what is BEST. I am searching for what HAS BEEN SAID.)