A priest wouldn't let me confess past sins

[Danny_OC]

Danny, Let me be more specific.

In the original post, before anyone offered any comments, the original poster said the following: “**He seemed like a perfectly fine priest, wasn’t some lovey-dovey-liveandletlive type or anything **” Yet based on those and other words, you draw the conclusion “Sorrow for sin is a good thing. This priest, in common modern practice, seems to disagree (also using the common modern excuse that it is not “healthy,” often a dead giveaway that a person is not in line with true Catholicism)” The words of the original post completely contradict your conclusion.

It is hardly a “dead giveaway” that every priest who says “that’s not healthy” is some flaming modernist (in the current use of the word, not the 19th century use of the word). Might St. Padre Pio have ever said to someone who was being scrupulous “that’s not healthy?” I don’t know. He may have. It’s certainly possible. Granted, you said “often a dead giveaway.” How do you know this? Do you have some statistics for what priests say while under the Seal of Confession?

If that priest, in persona Christi, felt that what he had heard to that point was sufficient for a good confession, and said so, then it was sufficient. It’s not for you or me or anyone else here to judge that. Christ Himself will be the Judge of that priest. Has He asked your opinion?

You seem to forget that in persona Christi does not only mean that the priest has the power to absolve from sins, but also that when the priest is speaking in the Sacrament, it is Christ Who is in fact speaking. Given that, when you pass judgement on this anonymous priest, on Whom are you realy passing judgement?

The original poster asked our opinion/assessment of the situation. The only response we strangers can give is to say “trust your confessor.”

The OP bothered to include the words you quoted precisely because the following behavior of the priest contradicted his first impression.

Condemnations of my post like “God will be the judge of that…Do you have statistics…you weren’t there, you don’t know…etc. etc. etc.” could just as easily be made against the vast majority of posts on these online forums.

No, “trust your confessor” is not the only answer we can give. I know of too many, personally, who i KNOW preach blasphemy.

 

[FrDavid96]

The OP bothered to include the words you quoted precisely because the following behavior of the priest contradicted his first impression.

He did? I must be reading a corrupted version of the original post, because when I go back and re-read it, it seems to me he was saying quite the opposite.

Condemnations of my post like “God will be the judge of that…Do you have statistics…you weren’t there, you don’t know…etc. etc. etc.” could just as easily be made against the vast majority of posts on these online forums.

No, “trust your confessor” is not the only answer we can give. I know of too many, personally, who i KNOW preach blasphemy.

From the original post:

“He seemed like a perfectly fine priest, wasn’t some lovey-dovey-liveandletlive type or anything”

“I have to emphasize again that he wasn’t any modernist…”

“I have to emphasize again that he wasn’t any modernist” means that he thought the priest was some kind of modernist. Hmmm. Most interresting.

 

[Danny_OC]

Haha alright, fair enough, I didn’t read the edit. Perhaps it was put in after I first read the post. Regardless, a priest need not be a modernistic Native American spiritualist to be in error. And refusing to hear a confession of someone you are meeting the first time on the grounds that he is being “unhealthy” is certainly erroneous, ESPECIALLY if the sin is mortal.

Again, we must not immediately adhere to anything any priest says in the confessional. I will direct you to my campus priest, whose views on the innocence of homosexual behavior likely come with him into the confessional. If you were to advise someone who went to him, trying to confess a sin of sleeping with another man, to accept whatever the priest says (he will probably brush it aside), you would most certainly be giving horrible advice.

 

[FrDavid96]

Haha alright, fair enough, I didn’t read the edit. Perhaps it was put in after I first read the post. Regardless, a priest need not be a modernistic Native American spiritualist to be in error. And refusing to hear a confession of someone you are meeting the first time on the grounds that he is being “unhealthy” is certainly erroneous, ESPECIALLY if the sin is mortal.

Again, we must not immediately adhere to anything any priest says in the confessional. I will direct you to my campus priest, whose views on the innocence of homosexual behavior likely come with him into the confessional. If you were to advise someone who went to him, trying to confess a sin of sleeping with another man, to accept whatever the priest says (he will probably brush it aside), you would most certainly be giving horrible advice.

Dear Danny,

“And refusing to hear a confession of someone…” are your own words, not those of the original poster. From the original post, it’s clear that the priest did in fact hear his confession.

We don’t know what the sins were, but here’s what we know from the original post “a few of these were probably mortal sins…” the key phrase here is “probably mortal sins”. The original poster himself was not certain if the sins were mortal or not, therefore we cannot assume that they were mortal. We also know that the original poster now attends confession weekly (clearly stated in the original post). Given that fact, the likelihood that we’re talking about sins that are indeed “mortal” is very low.

The original poster’s words to the priest after he had confessed his “sins of the week” were “and now I have some sins that I committed before I rejoined the Church which I’ve recently remembered”

Now, look at it from the point of view of that priest. He knows that this particular penitent last confessed about a week ago. That’s an indication that he probably attends fairly regularly. Had he said “it’s been a year since my last confession” or “it’s been 5 years since my last confession” that priest MIGHT have done something differently. We don’t know; but that’s not what happened in any case.

The penitent said, “sins that I committed before I rejoined the Church.” Now, it’s the priest’s responsibility to assume that the penitent made a good confession before he re-joined the Church, if there’s no indication to the contrary, since the Church Herself requires as much.

Now let us imagine what the priest MIGHT have said to himself, in light of what we read in the original post. He might have said something like this:
This penitent has made a good confession. He sounds sincere and repentant. He’s done a good examination of conscience. He attends confession regularly, weekly at that. He’s not weak in his faith–he rejoined the Church after leaving It. He didn’t say that he had a mortal sin on is conscience, he merely said that he had “some sins.” He’s obviously trying very hard at this. I need to stop him here and remind him that venial sins which he tried to remember but could not have been forgiven. If I don’t stop him now, he’ll continue to try to remember sins from before his conversion. That’s not healthy. I’ll tell him such.

We can also just as easily imagine the opposite scenario, but given the facts that we have from the original post, that does not seem very likely in this particular case.

I agree with you that some priests mislead people by telling them that some acts which are certainly sinful are not. But the original poster’s careful comment of “I have to emphasize that he wasn’t any modernist” leads us to believe that this priest is not one of “those” priests.

Now do you see why we should not judge that priest by off-handedly saying “he was wrong”?

 

[Joannm]

Dear Danny,

“And refusing to hear a confession of someone…” are your own words, not those of the original poster. From the original post, it’s clear that the priest did in fact hear his confession.

We don’t know what the sins were, but here’s what we know from the original post “a few of these were probably mortal sins…” the key phrase here is “probably mortal sins”. The original poster himself was not certain if the sins were mortal or not, therefore we cannot assume that they were mortal. We also know that the original poster now attends confession weekly (clearly stated in the original post). Given that fact, the likelihood that we’re talking about sins that are indeed “mortal” is very low.

The original poster’s words to the priest after he had confessed his “sins of the week” were “and now I have some sins that I committed before I rejoined the Church which I’ve recently remembered”

Now, look at it from the point of view of that priest. He knows that this particular penitent last confessed about a week ago. That’s an indication that he probably attends fairly regularly. Had he said “it’s been a year since my last confession” or “it’s been 5 years since my last confession” that priest MIGHT have done something differently. We don’t know; but that’s not what happened in any case.

The penitent said, “sins that I committed before I rejoined the Church.” Now, it’s the priest’s responsibility to assume that the penitent made a good confession before he re-joined the Church, if there’s no indication to the contrary, since the Church Herself requires as much.

Now let us imagine what the priest MIGHT have said to himself, in light of what we read in the original post. He might have said something like this:
This penitent has made a good confession. He sounds sincere and repentant. He’s done a good examination of conscience. He attends confession regularly, weekly at that. He’s not weak in his faith–he rejoined the Church after leaving It. He didn’t say that he had a mortal sin on is conscience, he merely said that he had “some sins.” He’s obviously trying very hard at this. I need to stop him here and remind him that venial sins which he tried to remember but could not have been forgiven. If I don’t stop him now, he’ll continue to try to remember sins from before his conversion. That’s not healthy. I’ll tell him such.

We can also just as easily imagine the opposite scenario, but given the facts that we have from the original post, that does not seem very likely in this particular case.

I agree with you that some priests mislead people by telling them that some acts which are certainly sinful are not. But the original poster’s careful comment of “I have to emphasize that he wasn’t any modernist” leads us to believe that this priest is not one of “those” priests.

Now do you see why we should not judge that priest by off-handedly saying “he was wrong”?

FrDavid I really like your line of thought here. Very good explaination of what a priest might be thinking in this situation.

 

[Methodi]

Not every post has to be an essay. I wanted to throw in my 2 cents, and there’s nothing wrong with that. I had as many facts as anyone on the thread, thank you very much. If the OP asked for them, I would gladly produce them, but I am under no obligation to by default put them there every time I post so that people who my response was not even directed to can analyze my post to see if it meets their standards.

Anyone who disagrees with another is infact saying that “that person is wrong.” A fact frequently forgotten today. I just choose be more blunt than some others; this is a personality choice that, I’m sorry, I am not asking for advice on.

Since at this point I’ve entirely missed my initial goal of spending only a minute or two on the forums, I suppose I’ll carry on and provide more justification, as you request.

Every Tuesday and Friday when I pray the rosary, I recite the sorrowful mysteries. The first sorrowful mystery is the agony on the garden. The fruit of the mystery is sorrow for sin. Mortal sin is an outright attack on God; the worst thing a human can do, making us worthy of eternal damnation. For it to still be in one’s mind after confessing it once is not being scrupulous; it is right and reasonable.

Read the lives of the saints. They don’t just forget about their sin after they confess it as if its nothing. They rightfully so feel tremendous guilt for having so horribly disobeyed such a perfect and loving Father.

The modern world may not believe in sin or guilt, but such is NOT the Catholic position.

Once we make a confession, that sin is gone, God has forgotten it & so should we. The Lord doesnt want us to walk around all guilt riddenJesus frees us from sin so we can be happy

 

[JReducation]

Not every post has to be an essay. I wanted to throw in my 2 cents, and there’s nothing wrong with that. I had as many facts as anyone on the thread, thank you very much. If the OP asked for them, I would gladly produce them, but I am under no obligation to by default put them there every time I post so that people who my response was not even directed to can analyze my post to see if it meets their standards.

Anyone who disagrees with another is infact saying that “that person is wrong.” A fact frequently forgotten today. I just choose be more blunt than some others; this is a personality choice that, I’m sorry, I am not asking for advice on.

Since at this point I’ve entirely missed my initial goal of spending only a minute or two on the forums, I suppose I’ll carry on and provide more justification, as you request.

Every Tuesday and Friday when I pray the rosary, I recite the sorrowful mysteries. The first sorrowful mystery is the agony on the garden. The fruit of the mystery is sorrow for sin. Mortal sin is an outright attack on God; the worst thing a human can do, making us worthy of eternal damnation. For it to still be in one’s mind after confessing it once is not being scrupulous; it is right and reasonable.

Read the lives of the saints. They don’t just forget about their sin after they confess it as if its nothing. They rightfully so feel tremendous guilt for having so horribly disobeyed such a perfect and loving Father.

The modern world may not believe in sin or guilt, but such is NOT the Catholic position.

I do a lot of spiritual direction and retreat work and am well trained in Mystical Theology. I have to disagree with you here.

1. The saints did not agonize over their sins once they had confessed and received absolution. Such behaviour is contrary to sanctity. Sanctity is a heroic life of faith. This includes faith in the Church, her ordained ministers and her Sacraments. If you mean to say that the many saints performed great acts of penance for their sins and those of the world, that’s a different story. That does not imply that they agonized over their sins. These great acts of penance were acts of love. Even some of the gret saints went overboard on their acts of penance. They were human. Even a great penitent like Francis of Assisi could not die until he asked forgiveness of his body for having tortured it.
2. As I watch your exhchange with Father, I notice that you are unwilling to yield your point to a priest. This is also in conflict with good spirituality. One of the graces that saints had was the grace of hope. In matters of the confessional, the confessor is the final arbitre, not even the hierarchy. This is a singular event between the individual and Christ. When someone who is experienced in the area of confession speaks, it would be a greater virtue to show some wisdom. Wisdom tells us that we do not argue brain surger with a brain surgeon, unless we are one. As a spiritual director I do not argue with confessors. When my directees come to me and say that Father told them such and such in the confessional, I may disagree with Father. However, the relationship between penitent and confessor is a sacred one. I have no right to judge the priest and I always tell my directees, do whatever he tells you.
3. When a confessor or a spiritual director guides a soul, he assumes full moral responsibility for the guidance that he provides. The individual need not leave the confessional worried that the advise was moral or immoral. Of course the individual has the right to ask his spiritual director or another confessor about his doubts. Generally, it is not good pastoral practice to overrule or pass judgment on what was said by a confessor or a spiritual director as one does not know the mind of the confessor or the spiritual director.
4. In spiritual direction the rule regarding confession, if you’re not a confessor, is very simple. You guide the soul according the best practices in mystical theology and pastoral counseling without creating a split between the individual and the confessor. If I hear something that sounds unorthodox my usual response to the directee is, “I don’t agree, but I’m not your confessor.” If the person wants to know more they ask, in which case I suggest that they try another confessor. If they do not ask, I remain quiet. One never says to a penitent “the priest is wrong.” That’s called splitting.
5. Splitting is very poor pastoral practice and harmful to the penitent, because it puts doubt in the mind of the penitent. It is bad for the priest who is unsuspecting, because it calls his judgment into question without giving him the benefit of a defense. There is no way that a priest can defend what he said in confession, given the seal of confession. Therefore, if the penitent leaves my presence and maligns the priest’s reputation because of doubt or mistrust that I placed in his mind, the moral culpability lies at my doorstep.

My suggestion for everyone concerned is that matters of confession should not be discussed on these forums. Those of us who respond, always redirect the person back to the priest, unless the priest is abusing the person or placing him in danger. That is good practice in spiritual direction.

Many people don’t realize that when posters report their confessional experiences and other posters respond, it is a form of spiritual direction. Spiritual direction is a very delicate ministry best left for those who know the individual. Confession is even more delicate. Any direction regarding confession must be given with the utmost prudence and avoiding any kind of judgment of either priest or penitent.

Fraternally,

JR

 

[Danny_OC]

Once we make a confession, that sin is gone, God has forgotten it & so should we. The Lord doesnt want us to walk around all guilt riddenJesus frees us from sin so we can be happy

This is not true though. Where does Jesus condemn guilt?

 

[FrDavid96]

This is not true though. Where does Jesus condemn guilt?

There’s a word for it. It’s called despair.

 

[Danny_OC]

Dear Danny,

“And refusing to hear a confession of someone…” are your own words, not those of the original poster. From the original post, it’s clear that the priest did in fact hear his confession.

We don’t know what the sins were, but here’s what we know from the original post “a few of these were probably mortal sins…” the key phrase here is “probably mortal sins”. The original poster himself was not certain if the sins were mortal or not, therefore we cannot assume that they were mortal. We also know that the original poster now attends confession weekly (clearly stated in the original post). Given that fact, the likelihood that we’re talking about sins that are indeed “mortal” is very low.

The original poster’s words to the priest after he had confessed his “sins of the week” were “and now I have some sins that I committed before I rejoined the Church which I’ve recently remembered”

Now, look at it from the point of view of that priest. He knows that this particular penitent last confessed about a week ago. That’s an indication that he probably attends fairly regularly. Had he said “it’s been a year since my last confession” or “it’s been 5 years since my last confession” that priest MIGHT have done something differently. We don’t know; but that’s not what happened in any case.

The penitent said, “sins that I committed before I rejoined the Church.” Now, it’s the priest’s responsibility to assume that the penitent made a good confession before he re-joined the Church, if there’s no indication to the contrary, since the Church Herself requires as much.

Now let us imagine what the priest MIGHT have said to himself, in light of what we read in the original post. He might have said something like this:
This penitent has made a good confession. He sounds sincere and repentant. He’s done a good examination of conscience. He attends confession regularly, weekly at that. He’s not weak in his faith–he rejoined the Church after leaving It. He didn’t say that he had a mortal sin on is conscience, he merely said that he had “some sins.” He’s obviously trying very hard at this. I need to stop him here and remind him that venial sins which he tried to remember but could not have been forgiven. If I don’t stop him now, he’ll continue to try to remember sins from before his conversion. That’s not healthy. I’ll tell him such.

We can also just as easily imagine the opposite scenario, but given the facts that we have from the original post, that does not seem very likely in this particular case.

I agree with you that some priests mislead people by telling them that some acts which are certainly sinful are not. But the original poster’s careful comment of “I have to emphasize that he wasn’t any modernist” leads us to believe that this priest is not one of “those” priests.

Now do you see why we should not judge that priest by off-handedly saying “he was wrong”?

But if the sin was something committed before he rejoined the church (which I believe is what the OP said), couldn’t (as far as the priest can tell) it very easily be something that may very well be quite mortal?

Also, if he “just remembered” the sins, wouldn’t that seem to imply that his previous confessions of them perhaps could have either been A) non existent or B) inadequate?

I can see where the priest is coming from; but it seems he risks allowing the patient to go along with cancer because he fears a symptom of a mild cold, so to speak. Perhaps, possibly, there could be some unneeded guilt; but what if not? An unconfessed mortal sin… that could mean Hell.

 

[Danny_OC]

There’s a word for it. It’s called despair.

Despair is indeed a sin; but is not the same as sorrow for sin. Despair is the loss of hope. You can have much hope and much sorrow at the same time.

 

[Danny_OC]

JReducation:

I notice that you are unwilling to yield your point to a priest

I am willing, and pray I will have the humility to if that becomes the correct course of action; but right now I am having an important discussion about a point rarely discussed.

The individual need not leave the confessional worried that the advise was moral or immoral

I wish this were true, but by saying this you are simply demonstrating that you have not met many of the priests that I have.

Perhaps I should not have been so blunt as to put it “the priest was wrong,” and surely would not do so under other circumstances: but I do so for purely practical reasons. People glancing at a thread do not want to have to cipher through all the details of each post to be able to get a sense of how many people are on each side.

There is a 55 year old fellow knight in my local Knights of Columbus council. In talking to me, he argued that within our diocese (Albany, NY), you could easily find a priest that would brush aside just about any sin. For a couple I have met, these seems right on the ball. He has grown up in the area and has been a practicing Catholic the whole time as far as I know. He was even in the seminary for some time.

As far as sorrow for sin…what do you think is meant by this virtue? Do you really think it is supposed to vanish after absolution? Do you think that the person who confesses each sin as soon as he commits it is somehow exempt from this virtue?
Tell me, if you murdered a young couple’s infant son, and somehow obtained their forgiveness for this a week later; would you really feel no sorrow after that?

 

[FrDavid96]

But if the sin was something committed before he rejoined the church (which I believe is what the OP said), couldn’t (as far as the priest can tell) it very easily be something that may very well be quite mortal?

No. It is not “very easily” so, on the contrary, it is very unlikely so, given the totality of the circumstances.

Also, if he “just remembered” the sins, wouldn’t that seem to imply that his previous confessions of them perhaps could have either been A) non existent or B) inadequate?

When it comes right down to it, all confessions are inadequate. We are imperfect beings, and nothing we ever do can be perfect. That’s precisely why the Grace of the Sacrament supplies what is lacking due to our human imperfections.

I can see where the priest is coming from; but it seems he risks allowing the patient to go along with cancer because he fears a symptom of a mild cold, so to speak. Perhaps, possibly, there could be some unneeded guilt; but what if not? An unconfessed mortal sin… that could mean Hell.

One more time, we do not know what the sin was. In this circumstance, the person regularly attends Confession. There is no neglect here on the part of the priest, because he knows that this person has already been to confession on several occasions since his re-conversion, and is well-informed as to what constitutes sin. The very fact that the penitent waited until he was “finished” and added “sins since before I rejoined the Church” implies that they are NOT mortal sins. If they were mortal sins, the well-informed penitent would not add them as an afterthought.

 

[Danny_OC]

Also, JReducation: we need not ask forgiveness for mortification. It is, infact, our duty. Look at 1 Corinthians 9:27. Also realize that a life without suffering (yes, even physical) is not really in imitation of Christ. Of course, we all are given suffering at some point, but it is a good act of faith to willingly bring it on and endure it for His sake as well.

 

[JReducation]

JReducation:

right now I am having an important discussion about a point rarely discussed.

The impression that you’re giving is that you are debating with Father David on what a priest should and should not do in the confessional. This is not the role of anyone except the priest. Even bishops stay out of the confessional. The Church is concerned with faculties to hear confession and to grant absolution, form, and repentence. She leaves the internal affairs of the confessional to the priest. You are engaging in a debate on the “oughts” and “ought nots” of the priest, based on a brief description provided by the OP.

I get the same feeling as Father David does. The penitent had an afterthought. The priest has the right to decide if such afterthoughts need to be confessed or not. He has the right to make a judgment, as well as to forgive.

I wish this were true, but by saying this you are simply demonstrating that you have not met many of the priests that I have.

I probably have not. But I can tell you that I have met many priests and directed many souls since the mid 1970s.

Perhaps I should not have been so blunt as to put it “the priest was wrong,” and surely would not do so under other circumstances: but I do so for purely practical reasons. People glancing at a thread do not want to have to cipher through all the details of each post to be able to get a sense of how many people are on each side.

People glancing at these threads have a right to see the sacredness of the confessor-penitent relationship and how it is respected by all Catholics. What happens in the confessional is off limits to the general public.

within our diocese (Albany, NY), you could easily find a priest that would brush aside just about any sin. For a couple I have met, these seems right on the ball.

In this case there are two principals that apply. First, the grace of the Sacrament provides. Second, the responsibility lies with the priest, not the penitent. The penitent is not guilty of the errors of the confessor.

As far as sorrow for sin…what do you think is meant by this virtue? Do you really think it is supposed to vanish after absolution? Do you think that the person who confesses each sin as soon as he commits it is somehow exempt from this virtue?

The virtue of sorrow is part of a holy life. Perseveration is not. Sanctity is not achieved by obsessing over sins that have been forgiven. This is despair, which psychology calls guilt. A healthy spiritual life trusts God’s infinite mercy. Sorrow for sin is contrition, not obsession.

Tell me, if you murdered a young couple’s infant son, and somehow obtained their forgiveness for this a week later; would you really feel no sorrow after that?

Do not confuse sorrow with contrition. I have known such people and they live very peaceful and holy lives after they have received absolution and entered into a relationship with God. You may want to read about Brother Alessandro Saranelli who murdered Maria Goretti. Brother Alessandro lived a very holy life as a Capuchin Franciscan Brother. He was contrite and very devoted to St. Maria Goretti, but not “sorry” the rest of his life. Read the life and work of Brother James Townsend. Brother Jim killed his wife and unborn child. He too has lived a very holy life as a Capuchin Franciscan Friar. Like them we have had many contrite and joyful holy men and women in our four Orders.

americancatholic.org/Messenger/Jul2007/books.asp

Also, JReducation: we need not ask forgiveness for mortification. It is, infact, our duty. Look at 1 Corinthians 9:27. Also realize that a life without suffering (yes, even physical) is not really in imitation of Christ.

Francis of Assisi disagrees with your interpretation of Paul. He prohibits it in his rule to his four orders. Penance is not the same as doing harm to the body. Abusing the body can be a serious sin. In the spiritual life there is a theological difference between sacrifices that are made out of love and as acts of penance and acts that harm the body. Penance is always encouraged. Harm is never justifiable.

That being said, life sometimes hands us physical difficulties. We have a moral obligation to seek the proper care and relief of suffering. When paliative relief fails, acceptance of God’s will for us is a virtue. Observe the lives of John Paul II and Bl. Mother Teresa of Calcutta. Both received the best medical care available to them. Both lived with illness and suffering after having sought proper care and not experiencing healing. In other words, they accepted God’s will.

You may be confusing conversion with physical harm. St. Paul is speaking about detachment and acceptance of the will of God. He’s not encouraging the Church to harm itself or allow othes to harm themselves. Paulin spirituality involves physical, spiritual and psychological detachment and sacrifie. That’s a far cry from self-abuse.

You can have much hope and much sorrow at the same time.

I think the word that you’re looking for is contrition. This was paramount with the saints and should be with us. Obsession was not. This is the essence of good spiritual direction and good pastoral care. St. Paul himself celebrates the love that he received from Christ. His writings do not dwell on his sins against the apostles and the Church. The same is found in the writings of many other mystics.

I strongly suggest that we refrain from trying to give spiritual direction on these forums. The best advice to someone who has a concern about confession is to refer them back to the priest or to a trained spiritual director. We can do a great deal of harm if we drive a wedge between the person and the confessor by plnating doubt.

Fraternally,

JR

 

[Methodi]

There’s a word for it. It’s called despair.

Despair is the greatest sin, thinking that our sins are greater than God`s Mercy

 

[Danny_OC]

We must be more specific about physical harm. Indeed, it can be a sin; but I know of no one who is anywhere near that level. The devil loves to convince people, at a time when a certain virtue is so lacking in the world, to be overly wary of its corresponding vice of excess (that is why he compels many today to put so much emphasis on tolerance, and to feel so disgusted at mortification of flesh in an age where we pop pills at the slightest sight of discomfort). I have also never heard anyone say that we have a moral obligation to relieve suffering when we are handed it (edit: unless you mean the suffering of others, in which case I certainly agree). It is no vice to refrain from taking aspirin. The greatest people I have know have actively prayed for more suffering from God so that they may grow closer to Him. As our Holy Father points out: suffering is the inner side of love.

I do not believe in obsession either; perhaps this conversation is fruitless without something more concrete to go by. What I do want to get across, however, is that sorrow (most certainly a good thing in Catholicism) for sin (especially mortal) should not vanish at the first confession of it.

 

[Danny_OC]

Despair is the greatest sin, thinking that our sins are greater than God`s Mercy

I hate to be nitpicky… and despair is indeed horrible, but not the worst sin. As the Catholic Encyclopedia points out, direct hatred of God, heresy, apostasy, are worse. newadvent.org/cathen/04755a.htm

 

[Methodi]

I hate to be nitpicky… and despair is indeed horrible, but not the worst sin. As the Catholic Encyclopedia points out, direct hatred of God, heresy, apostasy, are worse. newadvent.org/cathen/04755a.htm

we are talking about confession & forgiveness here & despair is the greatest sin

 

[JReducation]

We must be more specific about physical harm. Indeed, it can be a sin; but I know of no one who is anywhere near that level. The devil loves to convince people, at a time when a certain virtue is so lacking in the world, to be overly wary of its corresponding vice of excess (that is why he compels many today to put so much emphasis on tolerance, and to feel so disgusted at mortification of flesh in an age where we pop pills at the slightest sight of discomfort). I** have also never heard anyone say that we have a moral obligation to relieve suffering when we are handed it **(edit: unless you mean the suffering of others, in which case I certainly agree). It is no vice to refrain from taking aspirin. The greatest people I have know have actively prayed for more suffering from God so that they may grow closer to Him. As our Holy Father points out: suffering is the inner side of love.

I do not believe in obsession either; perhaps this conversation is fruitless without something more concrete to go by. What I do want to get across, however, is that sorrow (most certainly a good thing in Catholicism) for sin (especially mortal) should not vanish at the first confession of it.

The bold is mine.

Paliative care is a moral obligation for anyone, self and others. You may not deny anyone medication, oxygen, food, water and ordinary medical care, even if it’s you. Check Pope John Paul’s writings on suffering. He makes a very clear distinction between ordinary care and extraordinary means.

He also makes a clear distinction between accepting suffering that cannot be remedied and the suffering that can and must be remedied either in the self or the other.

Fraternally,

JR