Can a forgiven sin be unforgiven after it was already forgiven?

[Sir_Knight]

Was curious how something like this would work based on official Church teaching.

Suppose there is an individual who lives a very sinful life committing sins A-Z. Then has a conversion and returns to the faith and makes a sincere confession confessing all of the sins that they remember and are sincerely sorrowful for those sins.

For the sake of argument, let’s assume that the individual doesn’t remember all of their sins and confesses all of their sins leaving out sin Z.

Our faith teaches us that if a person confesses all of the sins that the remember not intentionally withholding any mortal sins and are sincerely sorry for those sins, then all of their sins are forgiven including their unconfessed forgotten sins.

Questions:

1. 
   *]Suppose the individual later on recalls mortal sin Z and is not sorry for it. Technically speaking, the sin was already forgiven when the person confessed all remembered sins and was sorrowful for them. But now that the person remembers this sin and is not sorry for it, does the sin remain forgiven?
   
   *]The Church teaches that even though forgiven, if mortal sins are later remembered, they should be confessed. What happens if this person doesn’t confess this sin since the individual is not sorrowful for it? Does the sin continue to remain forgiven?
   
   *] What happens with future mortal sins? We are required to confess all unconfessed mortal sins and be sorrowful for them in order for the confession to be valid? Would sin Z remain forgiven but future mortal sins remain unforgiven because of the lack of repentance over this already forgiven sin?

 

[Dicerning]

Was curious how something like this would work based on official Church teaching.

Suppose there is an individual who lives a very sinful life committing sins A-Z. Then has a conversion and returns to the faith and makes a sincere confession confessing all of the sins that they remember and are sincerely sorrowful for those sins.

For the sake of argument, let’s assume that the individual doesn’t remember all of their sins and confesses all of their sins leaving out sin Z.

Our faith teaches us that if a person confesses all of the sins that the remember not intentionally withholding any mortal sins and are sincerely sorry for those sins, then all of their sins are forgiven including their unconfessed forgotten sins.

Questions:

1. 
   *]Suppose the individual later on recalls mortal sin Z and is not sorry for it. Technically speaking, the sin was already forgiven when the person confessed all remembered sins and was sorrowful for them. But now that the person remembers this sin and is not sorry for it, does the sin remain forgiven?
   
   *]The Church teaches that even though forgiven, if mortal sins are later remembered, they should be confessed. What happens if this person doesn’t confess this sin since the individual is not sorrowful for it? Does the sin continue to remain forgiven?
   
   *] What happens with future mortal sins? We are required to confess all unconfessed mortal sins and be sorrowful for them in order for the confession to be valid? Would sin Z remain forgiven but future mortal sins remain unforgiven because of the lack of repentance over this already forgiven sin?

1. 
   Absolution is NEVER conditional and it is permanent. If a gives a good confession confessing all known mortal sins the bonds of eternal punishment are lifted for eternity at the moment of absolution…until of course in unfortunate instance when a soul decides to commit a new mortal sin.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Was curious how something like this would work based on official Church teaching.

Suppose there is an individual who lives a very sinful life committing sins A-Z. Then has a conversion and returns to the faith and makes a sincere confession confessing all of the sins that they remember and are sincerely sorrowful for those sins.

For the sake of argument, let’s assume that the individual doesn’t remember all of their sins and confesses all of their sins leaving out sin Z.

Our faith teaches us that if a person confesses all of the sins that the remember not intentionally withholding any mortal sins and are sincerely sorry for those sins, then all of their sins are forgiven including their unconfessed forgotten sins.

Questions:

1. 
   *]Suppose the individual later on recalls mortal sin Z and is not sorry for it. Technically speaking, the sin was already forgiven when the person confessed all remembered sins and was sorrowful for them. But now that the person remembers this sin and is not sorry for it, does the sin remain forgiven?
   *]The Church teaches that even though forgiven, if mortal sins are later remembered, they should be confessed. What happens if this person doesn’t confess this sin since the individual is not sorrowful for it? Does the sin continue to remain forgiven?
   *]What happens with future mortal sins? We are required to confess all unconfessed mortal sins and be sorrowful for them in order for the confession to be valid? Would sin Z remain forgiven but future mortal sins remain unforgiven because of the lack of repentance over this already forgiven sin?

1. 
   It would probably be best to discuss this with your Confessor in Confession next time.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Thankfully, this hasn’t happened to me (at least not yet anyway) but I’m sure that in our nearly 2,000 year history, something like this must happen from time to time and I was just curious what the official position of the church would be on this matter.

 

[passus]

Absolution is conditional on the penitent’s repentance. If one does not repent, then he cannot be absolved. One is only absolved of his forgotten mortal sins assuming he is repentant of them.

In this case, the heart of the penitent would be entrusted to God, who knows our hearts (1 John 3:20).

A person who later remembers a mortal sin he committed and decides he does not want to repent of it would be considered to be in a state of mortal sin anyway, as his denial to repent of that sin–as with any sin–would be just the same as if he had actually committed that sin (Matthew 5:28).

Considering that, whether or not he was actually absolved of the sin at this point would seem to be irrelevant.

 

[Lazerlike42]

1. If the original confession was valid, the sin remains forgiven. To understand this precisely it will be helpful to understand something about the natures of mortal and venial sin. Mortal sins are not simply “worse” sins then venial ones, as if they are on a scale from 1 to 10 or some such thing. Rather, mortal and venial sins are two different sorts of thing altogether. Venial sins are failures to love God and neighbor in varying degrees. Mortal sins are complete and total rejections of love. No matter how many venial sins you commit, it will never “add up” to a mortal sin, because a mortal sin is not simply a failure to love, but a rejection of it: it’s something entirely different.

Now consider this for a moment. With venial sins, there are any number of different things which may lead to the sin. A person may eat a bit too much for excessive interest in food, for example, or he may cut somebody off on the roadway because he is impatient. Ultimately, the underlying cause of all of these is a failure to love enough. On the other hand with mortal sins, while there are many different things which may constitute the actual act, there is an even greater underlying connection between all of them: a decision to reject love altogether, rather than, as in the case of venial sin, a failure to love in one degree or another. It is for this reason that the Church teaches (cf. sections on pennance from the Council of Trent, Catechism of Pius X, and Catechism of the Catholic Church) that if one mortal sin is deliberately withheld in confession, none are forgiven: the soul, in withholding the one sin, is still rejecting love altogether, and so even if it has decided to turn from some other mortal sins, it has not decided to turn from the one thing which is itself the essence of mortal sin that underlies them all: a rejection of love.

Therefore, if a person honestly forgets a mortal sin, but has truly repented of all of his others, then he has truly repented of a total rejection of love and is forgiven all his sins. Thus, the sin is forgiven even if he later remembers it and chooses not to confess it then. What happens in this case? Well, in that case:

1. the original instance of committing the sin remains forgiven, but the person is guilty of another sin, as he is bound to confess remembered mortal sins by the law of the Church. Now this is dependant upon his knowledge of the obligation to do so, for a man is not culpable for violating a law that is, if it be without fault of his own, unknown to him. The other thing about this is I am not sure if the Church currently obliges this, or if it is merely encouraged. I know that the Catechism of Pius X obliges it, as does the Baltimore Catechism. However, I do not recall whether the current catechism obliges it, nor do I recall whether there is any comment on this subject in recent encyclicals or legal documents.
2. If sin Z were ever forgiven, it remains forgiven. If it is remembered and then not confessed, then (assuming it is still obliged rather than simply encouraged to be confessed; if it is no longer an obligation, then the rest of this paragraph is irrelevant and all future confessions can be treated as if he confessed sin Z in the first place) it is another sin and, until such time as it is, no confessions are valid and any sins committed since the last valid confession must be repeated when sin Z is finally confessed. However, if at some other time sin Z is truly and honestly forgotten again, and the person truly repents of mortal sin - a rejection of love - then, so long as all the sins comitted since the last valid confession are mentioned, the person is forgiven.

Now it’s very important to understand something here about all of this forgetting, as it can easily sound like this is all very convoluted and based on technicalities rather than what we all know truly matters, the heart. It isn’t really as technical as it sounds; it comes across that way because we are discussing particular scenarios in detail for the sake of understanding. The important thing to realize, the key, is that forgetting is not some technicality that makes a sin be forgiven for no reason other than that it was forgotten. Remember, this all goes directly to the fact that all mortal sin has as a base to it the total rejection of love.

It is helpful to realize that that’s the underlying reality and to see the confessing or not confessing of the remembered sin as a symptom of that underlying cause. In other words, if a person forgets a sin and then repents of all mortal sin and makes a good confession, then that person would be confessing that forgotten sin if he remembered it. If the person actually *wouldn’t *confess it if it were remembered, that is because he has not embraced love and continues to reject it. Basically, if a person has embraced love, then he’ll confess any mortal sins he remembers. If he hasn’t, then he may hold one back.

God bless

 

[Pug]

Both question 1 and 2 state that the original confession was valid. Given that, the sins mentioned in it or genuinely forgotten in it were forgiven and remain forgiven. Those sins stay forgiven. It doesn’t matter what happens later on.

Question 3 brings other ideas into play, and maybe there is also a hint of it in question 2. Although it also indicates that the original confession was valid, Question 3 involves maybe two things, the validity of future confessions, and maybe the idea that there is a brand new sin that evolves in response to the remembered sin.

Let’s say the forgotten sin was the murder of someone. One day you see a photo and remember the person and your sin. Do you say in your heart, “I hate you. If only you would rise again so that I could strike you down once more?” or do you say, “It was wrong to kill you, but because that happened I moved to another state, married, and now I have a lovely child whom I can’t imagine not having?” I think the former could qualify as a brand new act of malice and hatred, one that you ought to confess if all conditions are met. The latter is probably more an expression of how life moved on and you love your child. Sometimes people confuse that with a lack of repentance. One need not unwish their child or something similar.

About future confessions, I think the issue might end up being if you have a brand new sin as described that you are unrepentant about. Lack of contrition for the new sin would be a problem.

There is an additional idea here that you, Sir Knight, may be wondering …does the Church mean by her requirement to mention forgotten sins at the next confession that deliberate failure to do so would invalidate that next confession?