Absolution from Priest only?

[Montgomeryatty]

I have searched the posts and just can’t find an appropriate post to review for this answer. This is my number one confusion about Catholicism, and although I’ve pushed it aside to deal with more threshold issues, I keep returning to it.

I understand the fact that Christ conferred upon his apostles the power to hear confessions and absolve sins. But I just don’t understand this notion that if we commit a mortal sin, we cannot pray to God Himself for forgiveness? Its one thing to confer authority upon someone to perform an action in your stead, which is how I read Christ’s conferring of authority. It is/seems another thing entirely to give that person the exclusive authority to perform that action. Is this not saying that God, from a purely practical standpoint, isn’t listening to our prayers, or refuses to act upon those prayers?

Even so, the distinction would at least make sense were it not for the grand exception of Perfect Contrition. Ok, so God will forgive us, but only if we really experience the (I’d wager) extremely rare moment that contrition is really perfect.

Hypothetical: On Sunday afternoon after Mass, I commit a mortal sin, get on my knees, pray (with fervent but nonetheless imperfect contrition) for God’s mercy and forgiveness, resolve to not commit the sin ever again. I spend the entire week faithfully avoiding other mortal sin and powerfully resisting any temptation to sin. Saturday afternoon I’m driving to reconciliation (the only opportunity offered at our parish), and I’m hit by a truck and die instantly. If I understand the Church’s teaching correctly, I’m in Hell now, correct?

 

[dbacks5439]

I have searched the posts and just can’t find an appropriate post to review for this answer. This is my number one confusion about Catholicism, and although I’ve pushed it aside to deal with more threshold issues, I keep returning to it.

I understand the fact that Christ conferred upon his apostles the power to hear confessions and absolve sins. But I just don’t understand this notion that if we commit a mortal sin, we cannot pray to God Himself for forgiveness? Its one thing to confer authority upon someone to perform an action in your stead, which is how I read Christ’s conferring of authority. It is/seems another thing entirely to give that person the exclusive authority to perform that action. Is this not saying that God, from a purely practical standpoint, isn’t listening to our prayers, or refuses to act upon those prayers?

Even so, the distinction would at least make sense were it not for the grand exception of Perfect Contrition. Ok, so God will forgive us, but only if we really experience the (I’d wager) extremely rare moment that contrition is really perfect.

Hypothetical: On Sunday afternoon after Mass, I commit a mortal sin, get on my knees, pray (with fervent but nonetheless imperfect contrition) for God’s mercy and forgiveness, resolve to not commit the sin ever again. I spend the entire week faithfully avoiding other mortal sin and powerfully resisting any temptation to sin. Saturday afternoon I’m driving to reconciliation (the only opportunity offered at our parish), and I’m hit by a truck and die instantly. If I understand the Church’s teaching correctly, I’m in Hell now, correct?

Nope. Since you intended to receive absolution and you were avoiding sin, (which is an act of contrition), you will most likely go to Heaven.

 

[Montgomeryatty]

Hello dbacks, glad you could offer your thoughts after our valiant efforts the other night with a certain difficult-to-talk-to individual.

I’d like to agree with you, but to me, that sort of sounds like the “Absolution” version of Baptism of Intent. Maybe I’m misunderstanding Perfect Contrition, but I get the impression that its (a) rare and (b) primarily and overwhelmingly centered on one’s sorrow at having sinned against Almighty God. And I am making somewhat of a presumption that it would have to come fairly close in time to the act of mortal sin or that acts manifesting that contrition would have to be strongly linked with the mortal sin. In my hypothetical, if it matters, let me make it clear that the contrition was heartfelt, but not perfect.

 

[LilyM]

Perfect Contrition doesn’t so much refer to the magnitude of the feeling, rather to the nature and motivation. As you know, we Catholics aren’t much into using emotion as a guide to anything, so the ‘amount’ of sorrow isn’t as important as where it stems from.

‘Perfect’ Contrition is contrition that is motivated by love of God and sorrow at having offended Him, from seeing our sin from something of his perspective if you will, whereas ‘imperfect’ is when it’s related to, as the old Act of Contrition states, ‘dread (of) the loss of heaven and the pains of hell’ - in other words external carrots and sticks.

I was interested to hear, a couple of months ago, a talk by Fulton Sheen on the Sacrament of Penance in which he stated that in his experience as a confessor he, as far as he could judge such things, much more often saw perfect contrition than imperfect. Sounded quite promising.

But then one has to wonder whether those people who actually do go to confession are a representative sample of people in general in terms of their motivations.

 

[palmas85]

I have searched the posts and just can’t find an appropriate post to review for this answer. This is my number one confusion about Catholicism, and although I’ve pushed it aside to deal with more threshold issues, I keep returning to it.

I understand the fact that Christ conferred upon his apostles the power to hear confessions and absolve sins. But I just don’t understand this notion that if we commit a mortal sin, we cannot pray to God Himself for forgiveness? Its one thing to confer authority upon someone to perform an action in your stead, which is how I read Christ’s conferring of authority. It is/seems another thing entirely to give that person the exclusive authority to perform that action. Is this not saying that God, from a purely practical standpoint, isn’t listening to our prayers, or refuses to act upon those prayers?

Even so, the distinction would at least make sense were it not for the grand exception of Perfect Contrition. Ok, so God will forgive us, but only if we really experience the (I’d wager) extremely rare moment that contrition is really perfect.

Hypothetical: On Sunday afternoon after Mass, I commit a mortal sin, get on my knees, pray (with fervent but nonetheless imperfect contrition) for God’s mercy and forgiveness, resolve to not commit the sin ever again. I spend the entire week faithfully avoiding other mortal sin and powerfully resisting any temptation to sin. Saturday afternoon I’m driving to reconciliation (the only opportunity offered at our parish), and I’m hit by a truck and die instantly. If I understand the Church’s teaching correctly, I’m in Hell now, correct?

The best answer that I can give you was given to me in the 10th grade. It is very simple. God . for whatever reason, when dealing with man, since the fall of man, has dealt through intermediaries. He does not deal directly with men in general. He will pick certain people and go through them.

Why He does that who knows? I always figured it had something to do with the stain of Original Sin but I could be way off on that one.

Thus receiving the Sacraments, of which reconciliation is one, needs to be done through the intermediary action of a Priest.

Lets use Baptism as an example. Why can’t we just express belief in God, pour the water on ourself and be Baptized? It is the same exact concept. Or sacramental marriage, why not just express vows to each other and pledge our fidelity to God?.

No, God established the Priesthood to carry out these sacramental actions, thats all, just another step in His use of intermediaries throughout the ages.

 

[Montgomeryatty]

Lets use Baptism as an example. Why can’t we just express belief in God, pour the water on ourself and be Baptized? It is the same exact concept. Or sacramental marriage, why not just express vows to each other and pledge our fidelity to God?.

No, God established the Priesthood to carry out these sacramental actions, thats all, just another step in His use of intermediaries throughout the ages.

Well, the Sacrament of Marriage is important, but Baptism is a much more apt analogy to the need for absolution, and even it contains two vital exceptions. So if a non-Christian manifests his desire to enter the Church and be baptized (presumably this means by starting RCIA or some other such formal exploration of the Church), he is “protected” by the Church via the Baptism of Intent/Desire. I don’t know the rationale behind this teaching, but my gut tells me that it probably has something to do with the Church not wanting someone to suffer pain of Hell on account of the fact that they haven’t YET been baptized although they’re clearly intending to and would do just that if they lived long enough.

I fail to understand then, as a matter of logic, why the Church’s teaching would be any different with respect to absolution. A confession is necessary to restoring a right relationship with God, and a priest may and does offer complete and total absolution for any valid confession, even one accompanied by only imperfect contrition. So if a person sins mortally but firmly resolves to go to confession and confess, but his life is cut short prior to the day/time that a particular priest chooses to offer an opportunity for such confession, I cannot understand why the sinner would be denied God’s mercy. It seems that there SHOULD be a Baptism of Desire as dbacks seemed to allude to above, because ultimately a sinner’s (imperfectly contrite, admittedly) confession may only be offered, and his sins absolved, at intermittent times out of his control. And it thus again raises the issue why, given the procedural and/or temporal obstacles, God would require us to locate and confess to a priest when He is present, and when he is apparently willing the prayers of the perfectly contrite. I’m just really lost on this one . . .

 

[baltobetsy]

And it thus again raises the issue why, given the procedural and/or temporal obstacles, God would require us to locate and confess to a priest when He is present, and when he is apparently willing the prayers of the perfectly contrite. I’m just really lost on this one . . .

God has established the Sacrament of Penance (Reconciliation) as the **ordinary means **of forgiving mortal sins. We are bound to make use of it. God, on the other hand, is free to do whatever He wants.

Because He is a God of love, and has said in Scripture that he does not desire the death of a sinner (sorry, I’m not good on chapter/verse), I think it is fair to believe that He does not strike sinners dead on the way to Confession.

We use the Sacrament out of obedience, and because of the great graces available to us there. But the law binding us to use it does not bind God. He can forgive whomever He wishes to forgive, under whatever circumstances. So we commend to His mercy the ones who get hit by a truck on the way to Confession, just as we do the children who die without Baptism.

But we still baptize our children ASAP after they are born, and we still go to confession ASAP when we have sinned mortally. And we do those things because God has asked us to and offers tremendous graces to those who obey.

And it is sinful to disobey when it is in our power to do what God (through the Church) commands.

Betsy

 

[teachccd]

God has established the Sacrament of Penance (Reconciliation) as the **ordinary means **of forgiving mortal sins. We are bound to make use of it. God, on the other hand, is free to do whatever He wants.

Because He is a God of love, and has said in Scripture that he does not desire the death of a sinner (sorry, I’m not good on chapter/verse), I think it is fair to believe that He does not strike sinners dead on the way to Confession.

We use the Sacrament out of obedience, and because of the great graces available to us there. But the law binding us to use it does not bind God. He can forgive whomever He wishes to forgive, under whatever circumstances. So we commend to His mercy the ones who get hit by a truck on the way to Confession, just as we do the children who die without Baptism.

But we still baptize our children ASAP after they are born, and we still go to confession ASAP when we have sinned mortally. And we do those things because God has asked us to and offers tremendous graces to those who obey.

And it is sinful to disobey when it is in our power to do what God (through the Church) commands.

Betsy

baltobetsy, I could not agree with you more. While God did give us this wonderful gift to reconcile ourselves back to Him, I can’t see Him looking at someone who is truly sorry and dies before confession saying “too bad you missed the boat”. This could cross over into legalism which Christ spoke against. If I were to sin mortally, I would be truly sorrowful and intend to go to confession as soon as I can. That doesn’t seem like I intend to remain separated from God which is what mortal sin does and hell is a continuation of that separation. I am scrupulous by nature but I have to believe that God would do everything in His power to see that I’m not separated from Him even if He has to search the corners of my heart that I don’t even know exist… God Bless…

 

[Montgomeryatty]

So the Catechism is wrong?

1. The contrition called “imperfect” (or “attrition”) is also a gift of God, a prompting of the Holy Spirit. It is born of the consideration of sin’s ugliness or the fear of eternal damnation and the other penalties threatening the sinner (contrition of fear). Such a stirring of conscience can initiate an interior process which, under the prompting of grace, will be brought to completion by sacramental absolution. By itself however, imperfect contrition cannot obtain the forgiveness of grave sins, but it disposes one to obtain forgiveness in the sacrament of Penance.

From what I’ve read, the Church is quite careful to allow for possibilities where She discerns that there may be an exception to the rule. Compare the above language, without any stated exception, to the following situations:

1. The Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament.

1. For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament.

and

1. As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,"64 allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism.

and even this:

836 “All men are called to this catholic unity of the People of God. . . . And to it, in different ways, belong or are ordered: the Catholic faithful, others who believe in Christ, and finally all mankind, called by God’s grace to salvation.”

838 “The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter.” Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church."

Given statements like this, we must compare them to the Church’s explicit teaching rejecting any possibility of salvation upon death without Perfect Contrition or a confession accompanied by absolution. How then can we adopt this “Baptism of Desire” approach to confession/absolution??

 

[Jerry-Jet]

It is possible that God gives the grace for someone to be perfectly contrite. Maybe they really are perfectly contrite and don’t know it!

 

[baltobetsy]

As you quoted from the CCC, number 1261 above, God desires all men to be saved.

We walk a fine line between presumption and trust. If we have sinned mortally and can only muster imperfect contrition, we know that forgiveness is available in spite of our selfish motives, through the Sacrament of Penance. We dare not delay going to Confession, relying on God’s mercy - that would imply presumption. But I would say that we must trust God to take care of us if we are doing our best to get to Confession. The prodigal’s father scanned the horizon daily - and it wasn’t so he could alert the snipers to pick off his no-good son. It was so he could run out and meet his son and wrap him in his arms before he could even begin his little confession speech.

Perhaps it would help you to meditate on the parable of the Prodigal Son. Legalism only takes you a little way. Love carries you into the Father’s arms.

Betsy

 

[dbacks5439]

Another facet of Reconciliation is not only is it forgiveness from God, but also from Christ’s Body. Follow the logic here.

Church is Christ’s Body. We, as individuals, are the many parts that make up that Body. Since Jesus is holy and perfect, so must we be. However, we have inclination to sin. Once we do sin, whether mortal or venial, we are separated from the Body, for we are now imperfect and sinful.

Venial sins can be forgiven through Reconciliation or by receiving the Eucharist. By taking either sacrament, you are now, once again, part of Jesus' Body.

Mortal sins, however because of their grave natures, can only be forgiven through Reconciliation. God already forgives you, since you’re sorry for what you’ve done. The only thing left to do is go to reconciliation and be forgiven by the Body of Christ. When the priest absolves you of your sin, he is in a state called in persona christi where Christ is actually forgiving you, and welcoming you back into His Body.

There are several components to sin. Your intent and your outcome. If you intend to do good, but the outcome is bad, then what you did isn’t considered sinful cuz you wanted to glorify God, but somehow it went wrong. If you intend to do bad, but the outcome is good, you have sinned, because you intended to go against God. It’s pretty much all in the intent. Therefore, if you intend to receive Reconciliation and I rear-ended you and you die (sorry ), you go to Heaven because of your intent to be forgiven. God knows how you feel, and what you’re thinking.

I know this might be somewhat confusing, but it’s the best explanation I have of Reconciliation.

 

[Montgomeryatty]

Balto & dbacks,

Again I ask: So is the Catechism wrong?

Look, if we experience/perform/have Perfect Contrition, then per the Catechism, we must nevertheless resolve to confess at the first reasonable opportunity. If we die on the way to confession (which, by the way, I’ve never implied would result from God’s vengeful act of striking us down), our perfect contrition has afforded us salvation despite the fact that we were unable to actually confess & receive absolution. If imperfect contrition means anything, it must somehow be different from perfect contrition. The Catechism, which I understand to be the Church’s official pronouncement of doctrine through the invocation of its teaching authority, clearly draws a distinction with respect to the absolution/forgiveness of sins. It is not I that am pointing out the distinction, it is the Church herself. Either the Catechism is wrong, which I think we can rule out, or I’m misunderstanding something, or this really is the stark reality of how one must regain his baptismal grace.

 

[dbacks5439]

I just got done reading the Catechism on this matter.

Perfect contrition is pretty much giving your entire self to God in repentence. With your entire soul, you are truly, deeply sorry for what you’ve done. You then decide to go to reconciliation ASAP. Normally, you’d set up an appointment with a priest beforehand instead of waiting for the regular hours the sacrament is administered. You would have to feel as if as though you are nothing without being part of the Body of Christ. If you die on your way over, then you’d go to Heaven, for this contrition is perfect.

Imperfect contrition is when you feel like, “well, maybe what I did was seriously wrong.” Gradually, you come to understand that it was seriously wrong and by the grace of God, you seek Reconciliation. Because you weren’t sure at first and/or you were like, “eh, I’ll wait until the sacrament is made available.”, if you were to die while going to receive the sacrament, you will be sent to Hell, in my understanding.

Perfect contrition=Heaven
Imperfect contrition=Hell (sorry )

either way, I get jail time…somewhat dark humor if you don’t mind.

 

[Montgomeryatty]

Perfect contrition is pretty much giving your entire self to God in repentence. With your entire soul, you are truly, deeply sorry for what you’ve done. You then decide to go to reconciliation ASAP. Normally, you’d set up an appointment with a priest beforehand instead of waiting for the regular hours the sacrament is administered. You would have to feel as if as though you are nothing without being part of the Body of Christ. If you die on your way over, then you’d go to Heaven, for this contrition is perfect.

Imperfect contrition is when you feel like, “well, maybe what I did was seriously wrong.” Gradually, you come to understand that it was seriously wrong and by the grace of God, you seek Reconciliation. Because you weren’t sure at first and/or you were like, “eh, I’ll wait until the sacrament is made available.”, if you were to die while going to receive the sacrament, you will be sent to Hell, in my understanding.

dbacks, for what little my opinion is worth, I think you’re closer with this answer than any which has come before. But I still think you’ve got an awfully wide chasm separating perfect and imperfect contrition. Remember, I’m at least technically still a Protestant, so until a few months ago, I didn’t give overwhelming thought to my sins because I was operating under the once-saved-always-saved mindset. Since exploring Catholicism, though, I do give serious thought to my mortal sins. And when I commit what a Catholic would regard as a mortal sin, I’ll be honest, yes, I’m sorry for what I’ve done and for the reason that it has separated me from God. But as a “percentage” of my sorrow, I’d say it hovers around 50%. Another 50% is a mix of “I can’t believe I let myself do that, I’m better than that,” and “Does this mean I could go to Hell?” Sometimes I have experienced remorse to the point of tears for my actions, but again, my sorrow at upsetting my relationship with God comes in around dead even with other feelings. I have continued to reach out to God for forgiveness, both because that’s the only way of confession I’ve ever known and because the sacrament of confession is obviously unavailable to me.

And really, looking back to my original post, that remains my central question: Since we’re rarely going to experience Perfect Contrition (IMHO), and we’re rarely going to be so nonchalant about mortal sins, but most of the time fall somewhere between your two extremes, what are we to do? If most Catholics understood the ramifications of the doctrine, as I understand it, I’m not sure a priest would ever get any sleep getting calls for someone to come down and confess.

Why won’t God hear the confession of an imperfectly contrite sinner who loves God but nevertheless can’t keep his mind off eternal destiny as well?

 

[baltobetsy]

I have a different view. With respect to dbacks, it’s not about feelings and whether we make an appointment or wait till Saturday. It’s the motive behind our sorrow for sin that matters - either it’s God-centered (perfect) or self-centered (imperfect).

The catechism presents our acts and their results.

First is our act of perfect contrition. Mortal sin deprives the soul of charity. Perfect contrition, springing from love, restores charity and obtains forgiveness ***in and of itself ***and mends the rift between the soul and God. (God is love, and he who abides in love, abides in God, and God in him. It’s from St. John somewhere - again I don’t have chapter/verse)

The act of imperfect contrition is rooted more in self-interest (fear of hell, wounded pride, etc.) than love of God. Therefore it cannot, in and of itself, mend the rift between the soul and God and obtain forgiveness.

Neither of these places any restriction on God (how dare we) regarding actions He may or may not perform in addition to our act of contrition. The catechism is silent on this. Does this mean that God cannot choose to forgive anyway? Of course not. God can do whatever He pleases.

The catechism specifies that we must rely on that which we can control: our own act of contrition and our use of the Sacrament of Penance. We are bound under obedience to confess all our mortal sins, whether our contrition is perfect or imperfect. It is presumption to rely on God’s mercy and the possibility that He may forgive outside the rules if we don’t hold up our end of the bargain. Does it not, however, border on despair to believe that if we are prevented by circumstance from getting to Confession, despite our best effort, that God will condemn us?

With regard to the observation that all possible exceptions to sacramental Baptism are presented in the catechism, I believe that is because Baptism is presented as being absolutely necessary for salvation, and the Sacrament of Penance is not. For example, a person saved by Baptism of Desire cannot be expected to use the Sacrament of Penance.

To sum up, the catechism tells what we must do, but not what God may do. And I repeat my suggestion to meditate on the Prodigal Son. The parables of Jesus are as valuable a teaching tool as the catechism.

Betsy

 

[baltobetsy]

Why won’t God hear the confession of an imperfectly contrite sinner who loves God but nevertheless can’t keep his mind off eternal destiny as well?

He made you that way. He loves you infinitely and knows your heart better than you do. Fear not. Be at peace.

Your screen name seems to indicate that you are an attorney. The law of Love is different from human codes and statutes.

Betsy

 

[Belfarmer]

The Catholic Encyclopedia I think adds a lot to this disscussion.

First it defines from the Council of Trent perfect and imperfect contrition “attrition”.

The Council of Trent (Sess. XIV, Chap. iv) has defined contrition as “sorrow of soul, and a hatred of sin committed, with a firm purpose of not sinning in the future”. This hatred of sin may arise from various motives, may be prompted by various causes. The detestation of sin arise from the love of God, Who has been grievously offended, then contrition is termed perfect; if it arise from any other motive, such its loss of heaven, fear of hell, or the heinousness of guilt, then it is termed imperfect contrition, or attrition.

It goes on to say:

The Church not only regards the godliness of fear as a motive to repentance, but expressly defines that attrition, though it justifies not without the Sacrament of Penance, nevertheless disposes the sinner to receive grace in the sacrament itself (Sess. XIV, iv).

Thus it would appear that attrition or imperfect contrition does not gain back heaven without the Sacrament of Penance and perfect contrition requires repentence out of love of God not just sorrow due to the nature of the sin or due to the fear of punnishment.

I fear that a Catholic may need to be very mature in one’s Faith to aproach perfect contrition and that this disscussion really underscores the great gift of the Sacrament of Confession.

This quote from the CE also seems to confirm a literal reading of the CCC as quoted in an earlier post.

Read more at newadvent.org/cathen/02065a.htm

 

[YinYangMom]

Why won’t God hear the confession of an imperfectly contrite sinner who loves God but nevertheless can’t keep his mind off eternal destiny as well?

As an earlier poster already noted, God can do anything. But He came to earth Himself to establish certain practices designed for the sole purpose of bringing peace and salvation to mankind until He comes again.

Jesus was baptized by John with water even though he had no original sin, but apparently it was that important to him to get that message across - we must be baptized with water by someone in authority to do the baptizing - that he showed us by example.

As for confession, He said what He said, and the teachings of the apostles after that are quite clear about how the setup was to work. Remember that they received from the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost everything they needed to know in order to preserve mankind for God until Jesus came again. I’ve always figured this included the blueprint for how to go about spreading the gospel, setting up the heirarchy to divide the labor, as well as what to say and do (the sacraments), and glimpses into the future so that they could foresee how setting things up the way they did makes it possible for the church to remain standing upon His return. When you look at how simple and yet durable the structure of the Church is and how it has remained intact for over 2000 years just from the workings of 12 simple men from various walks of life how can one doubt the Holy Spirit was the author of all their works? Since it is so, then why would one reject this work of the Spirit?

Personally, my faith is strong but Satan has a way of casting doubts in my mind and heart. So while at one moment in my life I could be overwhelmed with a sense of sorrow for behaving in such a manner to hurt God, I could easily cry out to Him for mercy…probably feel His peace in my heart and walk away believing - at that time and for a short while after - that He heard my confession and absolved me. But then months pass and I get that nagging feeling again, so I begin to wonder…did I really get absolved or is the fact I’m still feeing this proof I was not??

Jesus knew we would go through this during His absence so while God certainly can forgive anyone at any time for whatever reason He chooses, He came to this earth and took the time to leave a gift with us - the gift of absolute peace - in knowing, without a doubt, our sins we confess are removed by Him (through the priest).

By accepting His gift we can always remind ourselves when we get those doubts that yes, we confessed to a priest and the sins were absolved - thus giving us the power to shut down Satan’s attempts to make us feel unworthy and cast aside.

How can we profess our trust in and love for Jesus while rejecting this gift and the gift of His church? Pride. It’s that simple.

Keep confessing to God directly, in the hopes that He has heard and absolved our sins, or know with absolute certainty that He has heard and absolved them? I choose the latter.

 

[Belfarmer]

On reflection I had a little to add to my earlier post.

Have I ever committed Mortal Sin? With great humility and sorrow I must answer yes. Yet the knowledge of the ordinary need for the Sacrament of Confession, and the realization of the danger in just the drive to a Priest to receive Confession, let alone the time between then and now, has been a great Grace in the avoidance of sin.

Without being scrupulous as to the requirements to commit a Mortal Sin, which I see is being wonderfully addressed in another thread, I would say that always one should take advantage of Confession after such a sin ASAP if not sooner.