Confessing Mortal Sins

[Mt19_26]

Here’s something I’ve had heard different answers for. Let’s say you go to confession with a list of things you intend to confess but you either forget some of them during confession or the priest thinks you’re done and continues with the sacrament…cutting you off. I know the easiest thing to do is just to mention them next time you go to confession. However, technically, do they need to mentioned again? I’ve been told that because the intent was there they are forgiven. I’ve also heard others say that they are not forgiven and as soon as you remember you need to go back to confession.

 

[Genesis315]

Mt19:26:

Here’s something I’ve had heard different answers for. Let’s say you go to confession with a list of things you intend to confess but you either forget some of them during confession or the priest thinks you’re done and continues with the sacrament…cutting you off. I know the easiest thing to do is just to mention them next time you go to confession. However, technically, do they need to mentioned again? I’ve been told that because the intent was there they are forgiven. I’ve also heard others say that they are not forgiven and as soon as you remember you need to go back to confession.

I’ve heard that if you remember them you need to confess them. Anyway, even if you don’t need to, it can’t hurt.

 

[Pug]

If they were mortal, then technically you do need to mention them next time (assuming you ever manage to remember them). You are forgiven for the mortal sins that you forgot to mention. Its not like they aren’t forgiven on account of you having forgotten them. But you are required to mention them next time, if you recall them somehow.

If I had a big one on my conscience and the priest started to talk over me, I think I’d speak up and just say it right then and explain that it would bother me if I didn’t.

 

[Mt19_26]

Pug:

If they were mortal, then technically you do need to mention them next time (assuming you ever manage to remember them). You are forgiven for the mortal sins that you forgot to mention. Its not like they aren’t forgiven on account of you having forgotten them. But you are required to mention them next time, if you recall them somehow.

Since you said you are forgiven for the mortal sins that you forgot to mention what is the consequence of not mentioning them?

 

[Mickey]

Mt19:26:

Since you said you are forgiven for the mortal sins that you forgot to mention what is the consequence of not mentioning them?

If at one point in time you recalled the mortal since and repented to God with a contrite heart, but then you forget that mortal sin permanently, you are forgiven during the absolution because God knows your heart.

 

[Mt19_26]

I just remembered an incident that is pretty funny. My brother said he went to confession before Mass one day and then attended Mass afterwards. During Mass he realized that he forgot to mention a mortal sin. After the Mass the same priest was again hearing confessions. So my brother went back to confession. After he said, “Father, forgive me for I have sinned. My last confession was about an hour ago before, before Mass” the priest almost fell out of his chair and asked, “What possibly could you have done during Mass???” Since the priest sounded a bit upset my brother became a bit nervous and said, “Uh…nothing, I just forgot to mention something in confession earlier today”. The priest then explained that he was forgiven in the first confession and that he did not have to come back to confessin for what he forgot to mention.

 

[Pug]

Mt19:26:

Since you said you are forgiven for the mortal sins that you forgot to mention what is the consequence of not mentioning them?

Well, the consequence would not be that your forgiveness expires or anything like that. Rather, since it is a direct ordinance from the canon law that we confess these forgotten mortal sins that we remember later, I think the consequence would be that you would be in for a new sin, the sin of disobeying what the Church wants you to do.

Probably this is so that an appropriate remedy can be assigned by the priest and suitable advice given. It is also in keeping with the concept of submitting all the sins to the confessor. Here is the canon

Can. 988 §1. A member of the Christian faithful is obliged to confess in kind and number all grave sins committed after baptism and not yet remitted directly through the keys of the Church nor acknowledged in individual confession, of which the person has knowledge after diligent examination of conscience. §2. It is recommended to the Christian faithful that they also confess venial sins.

It is easy to miss in this, so I have highlighted the part in red.

I wouldn’t worry about it overly. If you remember when examining the conscience for the next confession, then add it to the list and say you forgot to say it last time. Confession is never about having lots of stress. That misses the point.

 

[km112482]

Mt19:26:

Here’s something I’ve had heard different answers for. Let’s say you go to confession with a list of things you intend to confess but you either forget some of them during confession or the priest thinks you’re done and continues with the sacrament…cutting you off. I know the easiest thing to do is just to mention them next time you go to confession. However, technically, do they need to mentioned again? I’ve been told that because the intent was there they are forgiven. I’ve also heard others say that they are not forgiven and as soon as you remember you need to go back to confession.

The same thing happened to me. I went back to confession a week later and told the priest I had forgotten a sin that was mortal when I confessed to him a week earlier. He said no need to say the sin because you have been forgiven. I asked a priest on ewtn.com if that was ok that he did that and he said that was fine, but that if it made me feel better I could mention it in my next confession, but that I have been forgiven.

GOD BLESS, KERRI

 

[JustSomeGuy]

i think the reason that some people say ‘yes’ and some people say ‘no’ on the re-confessing issue is because of a misreading of that canon which was quoted.

the priest that told the brother that all sins were forgiven in the frist confession was right. the sacrament of reconciliation restores us to the original purity of baptism. the only thing that impedes the sacrament is ‘withholding’. if you withhold a sin in the confessional, you are retaining that sin. the person is rejecting God mercy. the reason doesn’t matter, but it has to be an act of the will. forgetfulness doesn’t count.

the canon says ‘confess the sins you have knowledge of after diligent examination of conscience.’ if the brother would have told the priest that he really didn’t reflect much on it before hand, the priest would most likely said something different. the examination is part of the rite which the penitent may do outside the presence of the priest. if the person fails to properly do this part, and it is willful (negligant, etc.) then the person withheld the sin from the confessional. if the person would have remembered, had he/she diligently examined his/her conscience, then ‘forgeting’ counts. at that point, it is not really ‘forgetting’.

i have been told that this canon should be read differently than was implied. the part that was colored red is either/or not both. all that comes after “grave sins” qualifies what needs to be confessed 1) committed after the person is baptized 2) either the sin is not already forgiven or it has already been confessed and 3) the person has knowledge of the sin by means of the diligent examination of conscience. the logic of the conjunctions used in the sentence supports that reading.

the penitent’s role in the rite has four parts: examination, confession, act of contrition and act of penance. the priest’s role is absolution (and the assignment of the act of penance, measured against the sins confessed.)

we have to take into account that it is unimaginable that certain grave sins would be forgotten. btw, the priest should never cut anyone off. never tolerate that.

 

[Pug]

I have always been told to confess the mortal sins forgotten (and later remembered): this is the reason I have said you’re supposed to do it. Ask an Apologist on this site also routinely mentions that we should confess the forgotten mortal sins when we remember them, but I don’t recall reading the justification. I have been asuuming the reason is canon law since the Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Ludwig Ott cites canon law when it says we have the obligation (pg 433):

When the confession is formally but not materially complete, forgotten grevious sin, or grevious sins which owing to a state of necessity were not individually confessed, are indirectly remitted. But the duty, founded on the command of Christ, remains of explicitly submitting these sins at the next confession to the confessional tribunal of the Church, when and if the necessity ceases, and of accepting a corresponding pennance by way of satisfaction for them.

The citation Ott gives after what I have typed in is the CIC, but it is the older one, not the latest one, so I can’t really look it up. The canon I did find and mention from the newer CIC uses the words directly remitted, so I assumed it was relevant that a forgotten sin is indirectly remitted (what I put in red above). I guess I’m saying that these forgotten sins seem to be all of these four simultaneously A) grevious and after baptism B) only indirectly remitted C) not mentioned in individual confession D) they have been remembered this time when doing the examination. But I only thought the middle two relevant to highlight.

I am not a canon lawyer, however. It is true I may be misunderstanding it, but it is also true that I have been repeatedly told one is supposed to confess those sins.

See the Ask an Apologist: Fr Vincent Serpa

 

[JustSomeGuy]

Pug:

I have always been told to confess the mortal sins forgotten (and later remembered): this is the reason I have said you’re supposed to do it. Ask an Apologist on this site also routinely mentions that we should confess the forgotten mortal sins when we remember them, but I don’t recall reading the justification. I have been asuuming the reason is canon law since the Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Ludwig Ott cites canon law when it says we have the obligation (pg 433):

The citation Ott gives after what I have typed in is the CIC, but it is the older one, not the latest one, so I can’t really look it up. The canon I did find and mention from the newer CIC uses the words directly remitted, so I assumed it was relevant that a forgotten sin is indirectly remitted (what I put in red above). I guess I’m saying that these forgotten sins seem to be all of these four simultaneously A) grevious and after baptism B) only indirectly remitted C) not mentioned in individual confession D) they have been remembered this time when doing the examination. But I only thought the middle two relevant to highlight.

I am not a canon lawyer, however. It is true I may be misunderstanding it, but it is also true that I have been repeatedly told one is supposed to confess those sins.

See the Ask an Apologist: Fr Vincent Serpa

well, i see what you mean. i think we are finding out more about the reason we get different answers than we are about the answer itself. i don’t have that book, so i can’t really make any conclusion about it. but the 1917 Codex is no longer binding, it is just informative. if in 1983, they felt the need to include previous mandates, they would have. the law cannot negate or overlook doctrine. maybe you can find the 1917 version on one of the uber-catholic websites. since they reject Vatican II and everything after it, they may be useful after all.

one thing that i find curious in the quote though is “when and if the necessity ceases.” that qualifies the re-confession. i would tend to interpret that as meaning you have to mention sins that were omitted out of necessity, but not necessarily others. i have no idea what omitting because of necessity could possibly mean though, unless this is attempting to define ‘indirect remission’ and there was some kind of problem with time or access, and the ‘indirect remission’ was through general absolution of some type. the 1983 Codex deals with that kind of stuff directly in the canons covering general absolution. for example, if you survive the circumstances which warranted general absolution, you have to go and confess the sins remitted by that absolution, and you cannot receive general absolution twice in a row. if you were absolved generally once, you have to confess before it can happen again.

as for fr. vincent’s answer, it struck me as devotional but not instructive. i get what he’s saying, but if someone said that to me, i would not feel any sense of obligation. well, you know what i mean. i know i am obligated by debt, but i wouldn’t feel obligated by law.

anyhow, i am inclined to stick to my previous answer. it seems to me to be more in line with the theology of the sacrament and the effects the Church is explicit about. but better safe, than sorry. i mention things i forget now and then, just in case, especially if it is the same priest. i feel like he has the right to be fully apprised of what’s going on. (just in case he’d feel the need to tell me to get lost.) a false sense of salvation scares the hell out me. Jesus will clear up the details when we see him.

other than that, i have no idea of what’s going on.

john

 

[Fergal]

If the Priest cuts you off before you finish and you had the intent to list more sins then it is a case of ‘Ecclesia Suppla’. The Church supplies.

One good thing to always add to the end of your confession is the following “I ask God’s forgivness for the sins I have forgotten to bring to this Confession and for all the sins of my past life.”

Now ya got them all!!

And yes because the intent was there they are forgiven. TRUST IN THE MERCY OF GOD.

The only way you can invalidate your confession is if you deliberately conceal mortal sins.

 

[turboEDvo]

Fergal:

The only way you can invalidate your confession is if you deliberately conceal mortal sins.

Ooo, oo, what about lying to the priest? Would that invalidate the confession? Then I guess you could start over, “…It has been 10 seconds since my last confession…”

Eamon

 

[Fergal]

turboEDvo:

Ooo, oo, what about lying to the priest? Would that invalidate the confession? Then I guess you could start over, “…It has been 10 seconds since my last confession…”

Eamon

Dear Eamon,
Deliberately concealing mortal sins is lying. Is it not?

 

[turboEDvo]

Fergal:

Dear Eamon,
Deliberately concealing mortal sins is lying. Is it not?

Of course it is. I completely agree. I was thinking more along the lines of a priest asking you a question and you lying to him about it (though it is not regarding a mortal sin). Sorry if I was unclear.

Eamon

 

[Fergal]

Lying is always a sin. A lie is the deliberate telling of an untruth for the purpose of deception. It is intrinsically immoral no matter what its color.

Would it invalidate a confession? That depends on the seriousness of the lying involved.

Lying is the most direct offense against the truth. It is gravely sinful when it significantly degrades the truth. The gravity of this sin is measured by the truth it perverts, the circumstances, intentions of the liar and harm done to the victims (CCC 2484). Lying is a sin that originates from the devil, Satan, who is “the father of all lies” (John 8:44).

See ‘The Joy of Reconciliation’ By Father John Corapi

cwo.com/~pentrack/catholic/corapi/jc06.html

 

[tuopaolo]

JustSomeGuy:

i have no idea what omitting because of necessity could possibly mean though, unless this is attempting to define ‘indirect remission’ and there was some kind of problem with time or access, and the ‘indirect remission’ was through general absolution of some type.

When he talks about something being indirectly remitted, he just means that it is not explicitly mentioned to the priest in confession (due to not remembering or due to necessity, etc.) but still covered under Christ’s forgiveness ministered by the priest.

Not confessing sins out of necessity would be due to unusual situations like if confessing a particular sin would cause scandal (i.e. be for you or the priest an occasion of sin by provoking impure thoughts or something like that) or if the confession would be so long that others would conclude you have many grave sins to confess or if one is scrupulous or if one is dying, etc.

Those who are scrupulous need not worry about mentioning forgotten mortal sins. All they need to do is obey their confessor’s instructions. That’s the only way to deal with scrupulosity.

 

[JustSomeGuy]

Not confessing sins out of necessity would be due to unusual situations like if confessing a particular sin would cause scandal (i.e. be for you or the priest an occasion of sin by provoking impure thoughts or something like that) or if the confession would be so long that others would conclude you have many grave sins to confess or if one is scrupulous or if one is dying, etc.

out of the reasons you list here, the Church only considers the danger of death as valid. i don’t want to nit pick, but the others are incidental and cannot be allowed to impede the form of the sacrament.

 

[Pug]

Just for fun, here is the Latin (got it from the Web, so I can’t vouch for it) for the canon from the 1917 code that I was talking about. If you can read it, translate it if you’d like for us.

Can. 901. Qui post baptismum mortalia perpetravit, quae nondum per claves Ecclesiae directe remissa sunt, debet omnia quorum post diligentem sui discussionem conscientiam habeat, confiteri et circumstantias in confessione explicare, quae speciem peccati mutent.

The second clause looks like, “which are not yet directly remitted by the keys of the Church,” but that is just a vague notion, because I do not read Latin except enough to have a idea of what I am singing in traditional songs. However, it does seem to be the corresponding canon and does seem to mention the same direct remission thing.

As I mentioned before, this is not something I’d get overly concerned about. Just always be honest. I am curious, though, as to what the full scoop is here.

There was also a Denzinger number (1111), but I don’t know how to use the web to look that up.

 

[JustSomeGuy]

Can. 901. Qui post baptismum mortalia perpetravit, quae nondum per claves Ecclesiae directe remissa sunt, debet omnia quorum post diligentem sui discussionem conscientiam habeat, confiteri et circumstantias in confessione explicare, quae speciem peccati mutent.

it says:
can. 901 he, who after baptism (has) committed mortal [sins], which were not yet directly (simply, straightly) remitted through (by means of) the keys of the Church, must (has to) confess (disclose) all [the sins] of which, after the careful shaking (shattering) discussionem in late latin: probably common Church use for ‘an internal examination’] of himself, he may have (hold) knowledge (remorse), and explain the circumstances in confession, which change (modify) the kind of sin.

it is the teaching of the Church that the penitent is restored to the purity of baptism through confession. all the sins of the person’s life are removed. this canon needs to be interpretted in light of that. the only way for that to happen to any sin is to apply the “keys.” the first qualification of this canon is “which were not yet directly remitted…” this means ‘not absolved yet by the power of the Church.’ IMO, there is no such thing as indirect remission used here in the way we have been discussing it. i think it is saying ‘sins, not supposedly remitted in some other way.’

we have been saying that ‘direct’ means ‘confessed out loud’ and ‘indirect’ means ‘unspoken, but still forgiven’. i don’t think that this canon makes that distinction. however, i don’t know if the Church uses directe to mean ‘explicitly’ or if it is still used like classical latin to mean ‘directly, simply, straightforwardly’. it would be a lot easier to judge with an official translation, which might not even exist.

i don’t think any denzinger indexing is on the web. that’s probably a citing of something from the council of trent, which i bet would be more useful.

anyhow, that just goes to show you that few, if any, priests read this stuff, or they’d have cleared this up by now for us.