Confessing a sin from long ago

[Don_Ruggero]

I have gone to confession pretty regularly through the years and even did a Divine Mercy indulgence of sins.

I have been told by a priest a while ago that you don’t have to confess sins that you may have forgotten in previous confessions … that all the sins are covered when you go to confession.

I recently remembered something that I did 15 years ago, and it is a mortal sin … however been to confession many times since then … do I have to go to confession to confess this sin? According to a priest I spoke to about a year ago about this kind of situation, I’m not supposed to keep confessing sins that were covered under previous confessions … but I never actually confessed this sin.

Can anyone tell me if a mortal sin that was not realized to be a mortal sin is covered under the general absolution of the confessional?

First, if you did not know at the time you committed the act that it involved serious matter, on that grounds alone, you did not acquire the subjective moral guilt of a mortal sin.

Therefore, there is no need to confess this. It was absolved, along with all your other sins, at the time of your general confession. You may mention it in your next regular confession, if you wish but there is no obligation to do so whatsoever.

The priest you spoke with is correct. One should not repeatedly bring to the sacrament of penance sins from the past.

Beyond that, the parallel principle in pastoral theology is that once you have made a general confession covering a span of years, you should not further dredge the conscience.

Certainly, it can happen that, with a confession of 50 years, let us say, one could forget something that comes to the mind later and the person simply mentions it nonchalantly the next time they go to confession. It is already absolved. There is no need to go to confession as soon as possible or anything of that sort.

It becomes another matter entirely when this pattern becomes habitual and not a one-time or two-time occurrence.

Going back to our 50 year confession…it is one thing for the penitent to tell the confessor subsequently that there was an affair in his early marriage when he was overseas, a one time encounter, over forty years ago that he had deliberately wanted to forget and had completely put out of his mind – and had forgotten it for his general confession.

It is quite another matter to have a stream of recovered memories where one recalls things put out of the mind from, let us say high school, forty years before over a span of weeks, months, and longer.

Pastoral theology would say: consign the past to the past at that point. You made the effort to examine your conscience. Some things do subsequently come to your mind from five decades ago as something not remembered because you haven’t thought of them in five decades; one can confess them in a given instance but one properly arrives at the point of dismissing these recovered memories because the sins have been forgiven and this process risks to become endless; that would be destructive to peace of soul and can engender other spiritually unhealthy issues. At times, a confessor will advise a penitent that they have arrived to that tipping point and that what they are doing is more harmful than helpful.

Thankfully today, the field of sacramental theology is seen along side and applied in tandem with the field of pastoral theology.

It can happen that one makes a general confession involving 10, 20, 30, 40 or more years. Such confessions properly unfold with the help and guidance of a confessor. It just doesn’t happen in confessions like those that a person will be able to articulate every individual sin – even every serious sin. The skilled confessor can resolve these in fairly short order.

I have been hearing confessions for decades. People will, literally, think a confession spanning so many years will take hours (and request an all morning appointment) when it is wrapped in a very very short period of time…to their surprise

This is an important factor, too, because of the categories the confessor actually uses, sins have been directly applied to the power of the keys without necessarily the penitent realising they have because of the methodology the confessor is using. Thus the penitent will think there are unconfessed sins when there are not.

It is extremely important, on issues like this, to speak to a confessor – not anonymous posters on the internet – and then follow his counsel. The issue of the internal forum is an area of our formation that is actually quite extensive in its breadth, in its depth and also in terms of examination and preparation regarding the grant of confession faculties.

There are a number of posts in this thread where what was written is simply wrong. In some cases, the person does not know theology or makes an error of fact. In other cases, they have articulated at least some bit correctly of the principle they are reaching for but misapply the principle in the concrete circumstance of the given case – and thus give a wrong answer.

Too many times, as a priest in this forum, I have encountered people who evidently wish to speak authoritatively – but they also just as evidently lack both sufficient knowledge as well as authority…in other words, they are not priests.

The solution is very simple. The person should be asked straight-forwardly if they are a priest or if they are a lay person.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Have you received the anointing of the sick since the sin in question?
If so, it’s been absolved already.
.

It would have been more theologically precise to have said that the sin would have been remitted through the sacrament of the sick as the terminology you used is a bit off.

As it is, the original poster has no need of even confessing the sin as it was covered by the previous absolution with no need to bring it to the sacrament again.

In terms of the remission of sin simply through the sacrament of the sick, I have too many times to say made the prudential judgment that such is the best – or even only – way to proceed, given the pastoral care situation. This is above all the case when the patient is unconscious/non-responsive, time is of the essence, and I am administering the sacraments in the midst of medical procedures/interventions simultaneously occurring.

I try to avoid that, if at all possible. Presuming the patient is conscious, I administer the sacrament of penance first – even if only by asking if they are sorry for all the sins of their entire life. The rite gives me the discretion to judge that any attempt at auricular confession is physically impossible (the patient is intubated or otherwise unable to physically communicate words) or morally impossible (we are in a ward situation among various other reasons I would make that judgment).

Absolution is followed by anointing and Eucharist, normally. (Viaticum/Apostolic Pardon if in my pastoral judgment, the patient is dying.) Pastorally, one may have to alter the order of administration because of the priorities prescribed by the rite. It can all be achieved in less than 90 seconds in a crisis situation…one vividly remembers those but not for happy reason.

There are a variety of permutations that result from granting absolution in this circumstance, if the patient recovers. The subsequent confessor, however, would know from pastoral theology what is required and what is not required and therefore how to resolve the issue and there is no need to go through all the various possible permutations here the way I would with a classroom of seminarians/or seminarians on practicum rotation.

 

[pianistclare]

It would have been more theologically precise to have said that the sin would have been remitted through the sacrament of the sick as the terminology you used is a bit off.

As it is, the original poster has no need of even confessing the sin as it was covered by the previous absolution with no need to bring it to the sacrament again.

In terms of the remission of sin simply through the sacrament of the sick, I have too many times to say made the prudential judgment that such is the best – or even only – way to proceed, given the pastoral care situation. This is above all the case when the patient is unconscious/non-responsive, time is of the essence, and I am administering the sacraments in the midst of medical procedures/interventions simultaneously occurring.

I try to avoid that, if at all possible. Presuming the patient is conscious, I administer the sacrament of penance first – even if only by asking if they are sorry for all the sins of their entire life. The rite gives me the discretion to judge that any attempt at auricular confession is physically impossible (the patient is intubated or otherwise unable to physically communicate words) or morally impossible (we are in a ward situation among various other reasons I would make that judgment).

Absolution is followed by anointing and Eucharist, normally. (Viaticum/Apostolic Pardon if in my pastoral judgment, the patient is dying.) Pastorally, one may have to alter the order of administration because of the priorities prescribed by the rite. It can all be achieved in less than 90 seconds in a crisis situation…one vividly remembers those but not for happy reason.

There are a variety of permutations that result from granting absolution in this circumstance, if the patient recovers. The subsequent confessor, however, would know from pastoral theology what is required and what is not required and therefore how to resolve the issue and there is no need to go through all the various possible permutations here the way I would with a classroom of seminarians/or seminarians on practicum rotation.

Thank you!

 

[Bookcat]

Well yes indeed, that is what I was wondering also … I guess the priest will be the best one to figure it all out for me.

I mentioned this more so because you seemed unsure if the forgotten sin was actually a mortal sin- so if confessed one would simply note that so the Priest knows what your meaning (that your unsure it was mortal). And yes the Priest can then further guide you.

You were quite right to question if a* forgotten mortal sin* that is later remembered needs to be confessed - we are *obliged *to do so. It is not optional.

(apart from certain exceptions- the Priest can direct one in such cases…for example a person who scruples about confession may need to be a “different boat” and can be directed in a particular way that other penitents are not).

But* that is when it was indeed a mortal sin*.

Not a venial sin -even if it was something that was grave matter but where there was not the needed knowledge or consent present at the time (hence a venial sin or no sin). Hence there is no need to confess it again if it is remembered later.

You do well though to simply lay it before your confessor as it were. Which might mean that you simply bring the matter to your regular confessor and he can direct you as to if you should confess it or not. He - knowing you - can advise you better anyone here.

 

[Katherine438]

I mentioned this more so because you seemed unsure if the forgotten sin was actually a mortal sin- so if confessed one would simply note that so the Priest knows what your meaning (that your unsure it was mortal). And yes the Priest can then further guide you.

You were quite right to question if a* forgotten mortal sin* that is later remembered needs to be confessed - we are *obliged *to do so. It is not optional.

(apart from certain exceptions- the Priest can direct one in such cases…for example a person who scruples about confession may need to be a “different boat” and can be directed in a particular way that other penitents are not).

But* that is when it was indeed a mortal sin*.

Not a venial sin -even if it was something that was grave matter but where there was not the needed knowledge or consent present at the time (hence a venial sin or no sin). Hence there is no need to confess it again if it is remembered later.

You do well though to simply lay it before your confessor as it were. Which might mean that you simply bring the matter to your regular confessor and he can direct you as to if you should confess it or not. He - knowing you - can advise you better anyone here.

I don’t have an issue with scrupulosity … as far as I know.

I simply never thought of this as a sin … and I’ve been doing some soul searching lately, and I have decided that I need to talk to my priest about it … thank you so much for all your help.

 

[Anna_jane]

Just be sure to mention that it was a long past sin, in case the priest worries he needs to offer advice now.

 

[Katherine438]

First, if you did not know at the time you committed the act that it involved serious matter, on that grounds alone, you did not acquire the subjective moral guilt of a mortal sin.

Therefore, there is no need to confess this. It was absolved, along with all your other sins, at the time of your general confession. You may mention it in your next regular confession, if you wish but there is no obligation to do so whatsoever.

The priest you spoke with is correct. One should not repeatedly bring to the sacrament of penance sins from the past.

Beyond that, the parallel principle in pastoral theology is that once you have made a general confession covering a span of years, you should not further dredge the conscience.

Certainly, it can happen that, with a confession of 50 years, let us say, one could forget something that comes to the mind later and the person simply mentions it nonchalantly the next time they go to confession. It is already absolved. There is no need to go to confession as soon as possible or anything of that sort.

It becomes another matter entirely when this pattern becomes habitual and not a one-time or two-time occurrence.

Going back to our 50 year confession…it is one thing for the penitent to tell the confessor subsequently that there was an affair in his early marriage when he was overseas, a one time encounter, over forty years ago that he had deliberately wanted to forget and had completely put out of his mind – and had forgotten it for his general confession.

It is quite another matter to have a stream of recovered memories where one recalls things put out of the mind from, let us say high school, forty years before over a span of weeks, months, and longer.

Pastoral theology would say: consign the past to the past at that point. You made the effort to examine your conscience. Some things do subsequently come to your mind from five decades ago as something not remembered because you haven’t thought of them in five decades; one can confess them in a given instance but one properly arrives at the point of dismissing these recovered memories because the sins have been forgiven and this process risks to become endless; that would be destructive to peace of soul and can engender other spiritually unhealthy issues. At times, a confessor will advise a penitent that they have arrived to that tipping point and that what they are doing is more harmful than helpful.

Thankfully today, the field of sacramental theology is seen along side and applied in tandem with the field of pastoral theology.

It can happen that one makes a general confession involving 10, 20, 30, 40 or more years. Such confessions properly unfold with the help and guidance of a confessor. It just doesn’t happen in confessions like those that a person will be able to articulate every individual sin – even every serious sin. The skilled confessor can resolve these in fairly short order.

I have been hearing confessions for decades. People will, literally, think a confession spanning so many years will take hours (and request an all morning appointment) when it is wrapped in a very very short period of time…to their surprise

This is an important factor, too, because of the categories the confessor actually uses, sins have been directly applied to the power of the keys without necessarily the penitent realising they have because of the methodology the confessor is using. Thus the penitent will think there are unconfessed sins when there are not.

It is extremely important, on issues like this, to speak to a confessor – not anonymous posters on the internet – and then follow his counsel. The issue of the internal forum is an area of our formation that is actually quite extensive in its breadth, in its depth and also in terms of examination and preparation regarding the grant of confession faculties.

There are a number of posts in this thread where what was written is simply wrong. In some cases, the person does not know theology or makes an error of fact. In other cases, they have articulated at least some bit correctly of the principle they are reaching for but misapply the principle in the concrete circumstance of the given case – and thus give a wrong answer.

Too many times, as a priest in this forum, I have encountered people who evidently wish to speak authoritatively – but they also just as evidently lack both sufficient knowledge as well as authority…in other words, they are not priests.

The solution is very simple. The person should be asked straight-forwardly if they are a priest or if they are a lay person.

Oh my … thank you so much for taking the time to help me out with this … it was so kind of you … I feel a lot better about the situation now … at the time this occurred it never entered my mind that I could be committing a sin … but I must admit that I was not being very faithful at the time … I have had many confessions since then and I never once thought about the situation … it just popped into my brain the other night while praying … so being it was after the weekend, I figured I could ask for some advice on this forum … and I want to thank you for taking the time to give it to me. God Bless

 

[Katherine438]

Just be sure to mention that it was a long past sin, in case the priest worries he needs to offer advice now.

After the advice I just read from a priest, I now feel pretty confident that it is not mortal … as I had not a clue that I was committing a sin at the time of the event … but I am going to pass it by my priest … after all this discussion, I do feel that I should … I think he’s going to have something to say about my first bringing it to a Catholic forum.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Oh my…thank you so much for taking the time to help me out with this…it was so kind of you…I feel a lot better about the situation now…at the time this occurred it never entered my mind that I could be committing a sin…but I must admit that I was not being very faithful at the time…I have had many confessions since then and I never once thought about the situation…it just popped into my brain the other night /…/ and I want to thank you for taking the time. God Bless

Thank you for your lovely note. It’s nice for me, now that the years of the lecture hall are behind me, to be able to use the many years of study to be an academic to help someone across the ether

Would you mind if I use what you wrote to further highlight a pastoral problem that confessors see? It may help you or even others

One may have a person making a general confession – either because they have been away from the Church or because they are a baptised Christian of another confession now entering into full communion as a convert to Catholicism

They will make a general confession, doing their best to examine their conscience, assisted by the confessor so as to make the best job of it possible

By the nature of the confession, if one is confessing a span of fifty years, let’s suppose, each and every individual sin can’t be confessed with perfect recall. We’d be talking about the events of over 18,000 days in life! Sacramental theology understands that – and above all pastoral theology accounts for that. This is the first point

The second point is that as a penitent goes forward in life, after confession, they’ll read more…they may even study authors of moral theology, for example. They’ll also have more time, even years, for reflection. Events in life can evoke long forgotten and even suppressed or repressed memories

But, as in your situation, the examination of moral guilt has to be based on what you knew then, at the time you committed (or omitted) the act that was grave matter…not the fact that there was a commission (or omission) of an act impinging grave matter

You do not acquire the subjective moral guilt for something that, yes, was grave matter but either you did not know that it was sinful or you did not fully consent or you did not sufficiently reflect

If anything, penitents of this variety actually over-confess, in that they often use one of the formulated examinations of consciences and when it asks if you did an act, they’ll just add it to their list if they had committed the act

A perfect illustration is one who is being received into full communion with the Church making a general confession and confessing they missed Sunday Mass for 40 years. The confessor asks, “Why would you confess that?” The penitent responds, “it was in the printed examination of conscience that it was a serious sin to miss Mass”

That’s when the confessor must explain that merely ecclesiastical law bind only Catholics…Canon 11. Until s/he is received into full communion with the Church, the Mass obligation doesn’t apply; there is no sin/has been no sin. There was also no knowledge…no reflection…no consent of will. This would be a non-sin on multiple grounds

Even with that said, frankly, the first examination of conscience done at the time of the general confession tends to be a more accurate snap shot of the state of the soul than what can result with latter reflections because the mind is using subsequently gained knowledge and retro-jecting it back to moral decisions made years before. The confessor is always aware of this phenomenon

In principle, there’s absolutely no harm in bringing an odd sin from the past or a distant memory of some act to the sacrament of penance, when the penitent is otherwise spiritually and psychologically healthy

But the confessor, who rightly is termed a physician of the soul, must always be on the alert for that penitent who turns too frequently to the past or begins to show signs of having a disordered approach to past sins

There are those who are in such an unhealthy place spiritually that the confessor must close the door permanently on them ever bringing another remembered past sin to the confessional – reminding them that their past sins have been absolved

Sins of the past are forgiven through the sacrament through various paths. Full stop

Beyond that, details as to what is required and when is the competence of the confessor, who is trained in moral theology, sacramental theology, canon law and pastoral theology

I’ve seen too often in this forum a mindset that thinks the primary person is the penitent and the confessor is a sort of passive receiver and granter of absolution

As the confessor, I am the minister of the sacrament. I am the one to determine, by my judgment, whether the ministration of it is even appropriate or not. Certainly not arbitrarily or capriciously. By the norms of law and by all the criteria with which I was taught and formed before, as an ordained priest, I was examined and found competent to have confession faculties

I’m also from the days when the little stool we sit upon in the confessional was called “the throne of judgement.” It was not facetious. The penitent presents the matter – but the decision, the judgement, is the confessor’s. He answers to God for it. I don’t take that lightly at all. But neither, when the path is clear, do I shrink from what my duty of state demands

One should always reject a non-priest saying that “X” must always be done because, actually, there is very very little that must always be done. There are even exceptions within exceptions – which is why there are theologians who spend many years to become such :yup:

God bless you, too, and give you always the abundance of His grace and peace

 

[Don_Ruggero]

After the advice I just read from a priest, I now feel pretty confident that it is not mortal … as I had not a clue that I was committing a sin at the time of the event … but I am going to pass it by my priest … after all this discussion, I do feel that I should … I think he’s going to have something to say about my first bringing it to a Catholic forum.

Maybe that is a detail better omitted.

On the other hand, I have to admit that things I read here have been quite an eye-opener for me.

Based on things I have read here, my American academic colleagues in the field of theology have great job security. They also have my prayers.

 

[pianistclare]

Maybe that is a detail better omitted.

On the other hand, I have to admit that things I read here have been quite an eye-opener for me.

Based on things I have read here, my American academic colleagues in the field of theology have great job security. They also have my prayers.

 

[crenfro]

It bothers you. Go and confess it already. It’s for your peace of mind, not people on a internet forum. Peace be with you.

This bears repeating. Thank you for your post.

 

[Katherine438]

This bears repeating. Thank you for your post.

I’m sorry if I bothered anyone … I truly thought this would be an okay question to ask in this forum.

 

[pianistclare]

I’m sorry if I bothered anyone … I truly thought this would be an okay question to ask in this forum.

No one is (or should be) bothered. That’s what the forum is for. Clarification.
Be well, be at peace,
Clare

 

[Katherine438]

No one is (or should be) bothered. That’s what the forum is for. Clarification.
Be well, be at peace,
Clare

You’re very kind … thank you.

 

[Bookcat]

Since many persons read these threads let me add some further responses from the Staff at Catholic Answers regarding the obligation to confess a forgotten mortal sin if remembered later.

This is not directed to the OP (they have been answered above) but for general knowledge of readers who come looking through threads or searching via a web browser for answers. And again this is about actual mortal sins - not venial sins or various doubtful matters.

Jimmy Akin - the Senior Apologist at Catholic Answers:

"A reader writes:

I am aware that if one goes to confession and supplies the requisite contrition, then all sins which the person committed are absolved–provided that the person does not intentionally conceal any mortal sins.

Correct.

You are forgiven if you meant to confess all your mortal sins and just forgot one. Having been forgiven of the one you forgot, you are still obligated to confess it the next time you go to confession. It’s not that your forgiveness of it is conditional on you adopting the intention to confess it next time. That sin has already been forgiven. It’s that you incur a new sin if you refuse to adopt the intention of confessing it."

Jimmy Akin

jimmyakin.com/2006/09/a_reader_writes_1.html
**
From the Catholic Answers Priest - “Ask an Apologist” section on this Catholic Answers Website:**

“You simply need to confess (sic) the mortal sin you had forgotten the next time you go to confession. You can continue to receive the Eucharist until you are able to go to confession. You did not fall out of grace, the sin was forgiven.”

Fr. Charles Grondin
Apologist

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=960288&highlight=forgotten+mortal+sins

“You are correct in stating that after making a good confession, all one’s sins of the past, including forgotten sins, are forgiven. Should we remember some of them later, we are obliged to mention them in Confession, not because they are not forgiven (They are!), but because we owe God our humble expression of sorrow, repentance and gratitude. Since it was through the sacrament that He has forgiven us, it is only right that we respond, as best we can, to such forgiveness there also.”

Fr. Vincent Serpa, O.P.
Apologist Catholic Answers

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=928374&highlight=forgotten+mortal+sins#post928374

“A person who has genuinely forgotten a mortal sin need not worry because s/he is not considered in a state of mortal sin. However the mortal sin does need to be confessed at the next reasonable opportunity.”

Fr. Charles Grondin
Apologist Catholic Answers

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=738084&highlight=forgotten+mortal+sins

And to add a little something further

Compendium issued by Pope Benedict XVI

1. Which sins must be confessed?

1456

All grave sins not yet confessed, which a careful examination of conscience brings to mind, must be brought to the sacrament of Penance.

vatican.va/archive/compendium_ccc/documents/archive_2005_compendium-ccc_en.html

(Let me add quickly though that - there can be exceptions - but these are exceptions -such as a person who scruples over confession may need to be directed in particular way by their confessor…etc Those with scruples should have a regular confessor to direct them–they can be in a “different boat” then others on various matters and need personal direction).

Ones confessor can be of great help to a penitent in if need be in making their confessor.