Confession and Forgetfulness

[Exsultet]

I have a few questions about Confession. But first, just a couple of little points I’d like to make.

• I will be consulting with a confessor about this, and I’m not asking anything from the perspective of scrupulosity. I would like some information in the meantime, mostly to help me prepare for my confession.
• Unless you happen to be a priest or a theologian, and are recognized as such on the forum, I would greatly appreciate citations for your opinion.

Now my questions!

Suppose someone confesses a mortal sin, but they only confess it in kind, and not in number. Let’s say the priest was in a bit of a rush, and this added a bit of pressure, and the penitent simply made a mistake. Would such a confession be invalid? Would a person have to re-confess those sins in the future? My understanding is that such a confession would be valid, and of course nothing what have to be repeated. But is this correct?

Also, if someone forgets to mention a mortal sin, do they absolutely have to confess it during their next confession? I’ve heard at least two opinions on this.

Finally, is it okay to simply mention forgotten mortal sins from previous confessions, or must the whole confession be repeated?

 

[fan312]

I have a few questions about Confession. But first, just a couple of little points I’d like to make.

• I will be consulting with a confessor about this, and I’m not asking anything from the perspective of scrupulosity. I would like some information in the meantime, mostly to help me prepare for my confession.
• Unless you happen to be a priest or a theologian, and are recognized as such on the forum, I would greatly appreciate citations for your opinion.

Now my questions!

Suppose someone confesses a mortal sin, but they only confess it in kind, and not in number. Let’s say the priest was in a bit of a rush, and this added a bit of pressure, and the penitent simply made a mistake. Would such a confession be invalid? Would a person have to re-confess those sins in the future? My understanding is that such a confession would be valid, and of course nothing what have to be repeated. But is this correct?

Also, if someone forgets to mention a mortal sin, do they absolutely have to confess it during their next confession? I’ve heard at least two opinions on this.

Finally, is it okay to simply mention forgotten mortal sins from previous confessions, or must the whole confession be repeated?

I’m not a total expert on this, but I know a little bit, and it might help.
For the first question, mortal sins must be confessed in kind and number, so I would assume that one would have to re-confess the sin. (someone may be free to correct me on that note)
If someone were to forget a mortal sin, yes, one would have to confess it once more. As I noted before, mortal sin must be confessed in kind and number, and if one accidentally leaves out a sin, it has not been absolved, and must be confessed.
No, since the other sins were absolved from the previous confession, they don’t have to be confessed once more because one mortal sin was accidentally forgotten. If the priest says the words of absolution, and you’ve confessed all mortal sins in kind and number, you’re fine!
(Again, someone can correct me, I’m no expert.)

 

[Vico]

I have a few questions about Confession. But first, just a couple of little points I’d like to make.

• I will be consulting with a confessor about this, and I’m not asking anything from the perspective of scrupulosity. I would like some information in the meantime, mostly to help me prepare for my confession.
• Unless you happen to be a priest or a theologian, and are recognized as such on the forum, I would greatly appreciate citations for your opinion.

Now my questions!

Suppose someone confesses a mortal sin, but they only confess it in kind, and not in number. Let’s say the priest was in a bit of a rush, and this added a bit of pressure, and the penitent simply made a mistake. Would such a confession be invalid? Would a person have to re-confess those sins in the future? My understanding is that such a confession would be valid, and of course nothing what have to be repeated. But is this correct?

Also, if someone forgets to mention a mortal sin, do they absolutely have to confess it during their next confession? I’ve heard at least two opinions on this.

Finally, is it okay to simply mention forgotten mortal sins from previous confessions, or must the whole confession be repeated?

If you knew the number of sins and only confessed one, but not to intentionally deceive, then the count should be told in the next confession if you remember that because they have not been confessed, but unintentionally omitted.

From the Baltimore Catechism:

Q. 792. What should we do if we cannot remember the number of our sins?

A. If we cannot remember the number of our sins, we should tell the number as nearly as possible, and say how often we may have sinned in a day, a week, or a month, and how long the habit or practice has lasted.

Q. 793. Is our Confession worthy if, without our fault, we forget to confess a mortal sin?

A. If without our fault we forget to confess a mortal sin, our Confession is worthy, and the sin is forgiven; but it must be told in Confession if it again comes to our mind.

Q. 794. May a person who has forgotten to tell a mortal sin in confession go to Holy Communion before going again to confession?

A. A person who has forgotten to tell a mortal sin in confession may go to communion before again going to confession, because the forgotten sin was forgiven with those confessed, and the confession was good and worthy.

Q. 795. Is it a grievous offense willfully to conceal a mortal sin in Confession?

A. It is a grievous offense willfully to conceal a mortal sin in Confession, because we thereby tell a lie to the Holy Ghost, and make our Confession worthless.

Q. 798. What must he do who has willfully concealed a mortal sin in Confession?

A. He who has willfully concealed a mortal sin in Confession must not only confess it, but must also repeat all the sins he has committed since his last worthy Confession.

Q. 799. Must one who has willfully concealed a mortal sin in confession do more than repeat the sins committed since his last worthy confession?

A. One who has willfully concealed a mortal sin in confession must, besides repeating all the sins he has committed since his last worthy confession, tell also how often he has unworthily received absolution and Holy Communion during the same time.

baltimore-catechism.com/lesson19.htm

 

[fan312]

If you knew the number of sins and only confessed one, but not to intentionally deceive, then the count should be told in the next confession if you remember that because they have not been confessed, but unintentionally omitted.

From the Baltimore Catechism:

Q. 792. What should we do if we cannot remember the number of our sins?

A. If we cannot remember the number of our sins, we should tell the number as nearly as possible, and say how often we may have sinned in a day, a week, or a month, and how long the habit or practice has lasted.

Q. 793. Is our Confession worthy if, without our fault, we forget to confess a mortal sin?

A. If without our fault we forget to confess a mortal sin, our Confession is worthy, and the sin is forgiven; but it must be told in Confession if it again comes to our mind.

Q. 794. May a person who has forgotten to tell a mortal sin in confession go to Holy Communion before going again to confession?

A. A person who has forgotten to tell a mortal sin in confession may go to communion before again going to confession, because the forgotten sin was forgiven with those confessed, and the confession was good and worthy.

Q. 795. Is it a grievous offense willfully to conceal a mortal sin in Confession?

A. It is a grievous offense willfully to conceal a mortal sin in Confession, because we thereby tell a lie to the Holy Ghost, and make our Confession worthless.

Q. 798. What must he do who has willfully concealed a mortal sin in Confession?

A. He who has willfully concealed a mortal sin in Confession must not only confess it, but must also repeat all the sins he has committed since his last worthy Confession.

Q. 799. Must one who has willfully concealed a mortal sin in confession do more than repeat the sins committed since his last worthy confession?

A. One who has willfully concealed a mortal sin in confession must, besides repeating all the sins he has committed since his last worthy confession, tell also how often he has unworthily received absolution and Holy Communion during the same time.

baltimore-catechism.com/lesson19.htm

Looks like I was wrong after all!

 

[Exsultet]

If you knew the number of sins and only confessed one, but not to intentionally deceive, then the count should be told in the next confession if you remember that because they have not been confessed, but unintentionally omitted.

Do you have a source for this? The Baltimore Catechism section you quoted doesn’t substantiate what you’re saying here.

 

[Vico]

Do you have a source for this? The Baltimore Catechism section you quoted doesn’t substantiate what you’re saying here.

vico:

If you knew the number of sins and only confessed one, but not to intentionally deceive, then the count should be told in the next confession if you remember that because they have not been confessed, but unintentionally omitted.

Each and every occurrence of a grave sin since baptism is to be confessed, if remembered.

Q. 785. Which are the chief qualities of a good Confession?

A. The chief qualities of a good Confession are three: it must be humble, sincere, and entire.

Q. 789. When is our Confession entire?

A. Our Confession is entire when we tell the number and kinds of our sins and the circumstances which change their nature.

Q. 793. Is our Confession worthy if, without our fault, we forget to confess a mortal sin?

A. If without our fault we forget to confess a mortal sin, our Confession is worthy, and the sin is forgiven; but it must be told in Confession if it again comes to our mind.

 

[Exsultet]

I appreciate your time, Vico. Forgive me, but my opinion continues to be that that particular catechism isn’t saying what you are. I see where you’re coming from, but there’s still several logical steps that separate your conclusions from your quoted source.

I would appreciate further information from anyone who is willing.

Edit: I should clarify, Vico, that the Baltimore Catechism doesn’t say what you are saying with regard to reconfessing mortal sin should a penitent have confessed such a sin by kind, but not by number. It does of course substantiate some of your other points.

 

[Vico]

I appreciate your time, Vico. Forgive me, but my opinion continues to be that that particular catechism isn’t saying what you are. I see where you’re coming from, but there’s still several logical steps that separate your conclusions from your quoted source.

I would appreciate further information from anyone who is willing.

Edit: I should clarify, Vico, that the Baltimore Catechism doesn’t say what you are saying with regard to reconfessing mortal sin should a penitent have confessed such a sin by kind, but not by number. It does of course substantiate some of your other points.

You are absolved if you meant to confess all your mortal sins, even if there exist forgotten mortal sins. It is a new sin if you refuse to adopt the intention of confessing a remembered but unconfessed sin.

Catechism of the Catholic Church
1456 Confession to a priest is an essential part of the sacrament of Penance: “All mortal sins of which penitents after a diligent self-examination are conscious must be recounted by them in confession, even if they are most secret and have been committed against the last two precepts of the Decalogue; for these sins sometimes wound the soul more grievously and are more dangerous than those which are committed openly.” 54 Council of Trent (1551): DS 1680 (ND 1626); cf. Ex 20:17; Mt 5:28.

When Christ’s faithful strive to confess all the sins that they can remember, they undoubtedly place all of them before the divine mercy for pardon. But those who fail to do so and knowingly withhold some, place nothing before the divine goodness for remission through the mediation of the priest, "for if the sick person is too ashamed to show his wound to the doctor, the medicine cannot heal what it does not know."55

CIC Canon Law
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.

When the faithful do not come forth with the remembered mortal sin, already resolved, they do not receive a penance for it. Another canon states that we are to receive a penence:

CIC
Can.981 The confessor is to impose salutary and appropriate penances, in proportion to the kind and number of sins confessed, taking into account, however, the condition of the penitent. The penitent is bound personally to fulfill these penances.

The Question and Answer Catholic Catechism
Must we confess grievous sins forgotten in a preceding confession? We must confess grave sins forgotten in a preceding confession because, according to divine law, every known mortal sin committed after baptism must be ‘submitted to the keys’ [cf. Matthew 16:18-19; 18:15-18], that is personally acknowledged in the sacrament of penance (no. 1373, p. 273).

The Question and Answer Catholic Catechism, New York: Image Books, 1981, by Fr. John Hardon, S.J.

Catechism of the Council of Trent (Pius V) from Turin edition of 1914.
Sins Forgotten
But should the confession seem defective, either because the penitent forgot some grievous sins, or because, although intent on confessing all his sins, he did not examine the recesses of his conscience with sufficient accuracy, he is not bound to repeat his confession. It will be sufficient, when he recollects the sins which he had forgotten, to confess them to a priest on a future occasion.
fordham.edu/halsall/mod/romancat.html

 

[Exsultet]

Vico, this isn’t answering the question!

None of those sources say:

If a penitent confesses a mortal sin, but forgets to confess how many times he or she committed it, and if they receive absolution after the confessor judges their confession as being worthy of said absolution, such a confession is valid, but the penitent must nonetheless go back to confession and re-confess those sins, this time by kind and by number.

 

[Edmundus1581]

Vico, this isn’t answering the question!

None of those sources say:

If a penitent confesses a mortal sin, but forgets to confess how many times he or she committed it, and if they receive absolution after the confessor judges their confession as being worthy of said absolution, such a confession is valid, but the penitent must nonetheless go back to confession and re-confess those sins, this time by kind and by number.

This very question has been debated at length in these forums from time to time, with some arguing strongly that the sins must be reconfessed by kind and number, and others (such as myself) arguing just as strongly that this is not required.

Neither side has ever found an authoritative reference for their position, ie. a Church statement or widely accepted author’s direct comment on the question. Both sides just argue from principles (as you have already keenly noticed!).

The lack of an authoritative statement is surprising because the situation seems to arise in practice quite frequently, particularly with Catholics who have been confessing for some time without knowing that “kind and number” were required, and wonder now if they have to reconfess those sins. However, there has never been any dispute that the sins are already absolved (they are) or that the penitent has to do any more than “mention” them in the next confession, as if they were a forgotten sin.

Several times I have got into this debate and have scoured the web extensively. I am 99.9% certain that, up until 2014 at least, there was no direct statement on the subject.

My advice to anyone in this position is, if you are uncertain, to just ask a priest directly in confession, because, even if such is not actually required, this will set your mind at ease. However, I personally wouldn’t, because I’m not uncertain.

 

[Vico]

Vico, this isn’t answering the question!

None of those sources say:

If a penitent confesses a mortal sin, but forgets to confess how many times he or she committed it, and if they receive absolution after the confessor judges their confession as being worthy of said absolution, such a confession is valid, but the penitent must nonetheless go back to confession and re-confess those sins, this time by kind and by number.

Neither has it been presented that way. You state “but the penitent must nonetheless go back to confession and re-confess those sins, this time by kind and by number”.

There is no re-confession required, unless the confession is invalid, which only occurs if there is intention to leave out sins.

What is to be done is to confess those that were not told, not the ones already told.

For example, I committed two instances of the same sin and only told one instance, but not intentionally. Then I become aware that I did not tell one instance, so I tell it later, so that my confession will be entire. I do not have to tell the first one again.

Individual (auricular) and integral confession is the only ordinary way (usual and preferred way) by which a member of the Christian faithful can receive absolution for serious sins.

 

[Edmundus1581]

Neither has it been presented that way. You state “but the penitent must nonetheless go back to confession and re-confess those sins, this time by kind and by number”.

There is no re-confession required, unless the confession is invalid, which only occurs if there is intention to leave out sins.

What is to be done is to confess those that were not told, not the ones already told.

For example, I committed two instances of the same sin and only told one instance, but not intentionally. Then I become aware that I did not tell one instance, so I tell it later, so that my confession will be entire. I do not have to tell the first one again.

Individual (auricular) and integral confession is the only ordinary way (usual and preferred way) by which a member of the Christian faithful can receive absolution for serious sins.

This is not about confessing “one” when there were more, but about confessing a sin without a number, eg. “sex with my girlfriend”, when there were more than one instances.

There is no rule which says that kind-without-number means “one”.

As you say, integral confession is required, however it is not our job to know canon law and the priest who heard the original confession has already adjudicated for the Church that the confession has met the requirements of the Church (ie. it is "integral). We must accept his judgement in obedience and only revisit it if we know that what we said (with the normal understandings of the words) is substantially different from what we did.

This and similar questions have appeared in CAF from time to time, with responses similar to yours and mine. No one has been able to find an authoritative reference which specifically addresses the issue.

If in doubt just ask a priest in confession - they are always ready for such questions. But only ask once.

 

[Vico]

This is not about confessing “one” when there were more, but about confessing a sin without a number, eg. “sex with my girlfriend”, when there were more than one instances.

There is no rule which says that kind-without-number means “one”.

As you say, integral confession is required, however it is not our job to know canon law and the priest who heard the original confession has already adjudicated for the Church that the confession has met the requirements of the Church (ie. it is "integral). We must accept his judgement in obedience and only revisit it if we know that what we said (with the normal understandings of the words) is substantially different from what we did.

This and similar questions have appeared in CAF from time to time, with responses similar to yours and mine. No one has been able to find an authoritative reference which specifically addresses the question.

That is illogical because each instance is an individual sin. The individual sins are to be confessed along with circumstances that affect the species of sin. (Council of Trent is the source for this.) Integral means complete so if you are aware of a sin is must be told to be complete. It is necessary in order for the priest to judge the situation, and give the appropriate penance, and help with conversion, and to give absolution.

*Catechism of the Catholic Church *
1456 When Christ’s faithful strive to confess all the sins that they can remember, they undoubtedly place all of them before the divine mercy for pardon. But those who fail to do so and knowingly withhold some, place nothing before the divine goodness for remission through the mediation of the priest, ‘for if the sick person is too ashamed to show his wound to the doctor, the medicine cannot heal what it does not know.

*Council of Trent: *
“all mortal sins of which they have knowledge after a careful self-examination must be enumerated in confession by the penitents…. While, therefore, the faithful of Christ strive to confess all sins which occur to their memory, they undoubtedly lay all of them before the divine mercy to be forgiven [can. 7]. While those who do otherwise and knowingly conceal certain sins, lay nothing before the divine bounty for forgiveness by the priest: ‘For if one who is ill is ashamed to make known his wound to the physician, the physician does not remedy what he does not know.’ [St. Jerome, In Eccl. comm… 10, 11] Furthermore … those circumstances must also be explained in confession, which alter the species of the sin [can. 7], because without them the sins themselves are neither honestly revealed by the penitents, nor are they known to the judges, and it would not be possible for them to judge rightly the gravity of the crimes and to impose the punishment which is proper to those penitents.” (Council of Trent, 14th Session, Chapter V, On Confession; Denzinger, 899.)

Council of Trent:
“If anyone says that in the sacrament of penance it is not necessary by divine law for the remission of sins to confess each and all mortal sins, of which one has remembrance after a due and diligent examination…. let him be anathema.” (Council of Trent, 14th Session, On the Most Holy Sacrament of Penance, Canon 7; Denzinger 917.)

 

[Bookcat]

Also, if someone forgets to mention a mortal sin, do they absolutely have to confess it during their next confession? I’ve heard at least two opinions on this.

Finally, is it okay to simply mention forgotten mortal sins from previous confessions, or must the whole confession be repeated?

1. Yes* forgotten* mortals sins are to be confessed.*

Jimmy Akin of Catholic Answers exlains: jimmyakin.com/2006/09/a_reader_writes_1.html

1. If one forgot a mortal sin - not hiding it but forgot it - the rest of the confession does not need to be repeated. It is more than ok to only mention that forgotten mortal sin (unless of course one has others that need to be confessed at the same time).

---

*(Some who struggle with scruples will need to discuss this with their regular confessor -for they may be in a different boat due to their particular scruples…they can fear the need to confess all sorts of things not needed etc)

 

[Edmundus1581]

That is illogical because each instance is an individual sin. The individual sins are to be confessed along with circumstances that affect the species of sin. (Council of Trent is the source for this.) Integral means complete so if you are aware of a sin is must be told to be complete. It is necessary in order for the priest to judge the situation, and give the appropriate penance, and help with conversion, and to give absolution.

With respect, we are already going round in circles. These Church teachings are principles which you have already stated and are agreed, but they do not address the question of ***PREVIOUS ***confessions which have been accepted by the Church.

I have been through this before in CAF.

I have nothing to add, unless you or someone else finds an authoritative document which directly addresses the question.

 

[Bookcat]

If a penitent confesses a mortal sin, but forgets to confess how many times he or she committed it, and if they receive absolution after the confessor judges their confession as being worthy of said absolution, such a confession is valid, but the penitent must nonetheless go back to confession and re-confess those sins, this time by kind and by number.

Yes if one forgets to confess the number or for some other excusing reason it was not possible to confess the number (…the person just had a heart attack etc)- then later that person would confess the forgotten number (if they survive!).

If one committed adultery 3 times and due to the stress of the confessing it - honestly forgot to say that and only said honestly “I …a a…committed adultery” -forgetting the number…and intending to make a good confession and was contrite etc - well that confession was* valid *- the other two acts of adultery were also absolved (indirectly as one could put it theologically)- but in their next confession they will need to confess those other two acts (unless of course they never realize their mistake).

All mortal sins must be confessed in number and kind…

Compendium issued by Pope Benedict XVI

**304. 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

(note --“grave sins = mortal sins = serious sins”)

By “confessed” the Church means “in number and kind”. For that is how mortal sins are to be confessed.

One is to make an integral confession of all mortal sins. And if one forgets one or forgets to give the number was 3 - then one would confess that which was forgotten in the next confession once one remembers or realizes this.

(sometimes of course one does not know the number and must approximate according to what one does know…that is fine and a different matter.)

(Some who struggle with scruples will need to discuss this with their regular confessor -for they may be in a different boat in these sorts of questions- due to their particular scruples…they can fear the need to confess all sorts of things not needed etc etc etc…they should discuss with their regular confessor their case…they might be told by their regular confessor for example only confess a forgotten mortal sin if one is certain it was mortal and certain it was not confessed…)

 

[Exsultet]

And if one forgets one or forgets to give the number was 3 - then one would confess that which was forgotten in the next confession once one remembers or realizes this.

This does appear to be your own interpretation of, as another poster noted, various principles for Confession. I see why you’re saying it, and it does make a certain amount of sense. But there’s just too much personal interpretation there for my own comfort.

Incidentally, my pastor, who is a former Prior of the Dominican House of Studies, and I assume someone qualified to address this question, disagrees with this sort of analysis.

 

[Vico]

With respect, we are already going round in circles. These Church teachings are principles which you have already stated and are agreed, but they do not address the question of ***PREVIOUS ***confessions which have been accepted by the Church.

I have been through this before in CAF.

I have nothing to add, unless you or someone else finds an authoritative document which directly addresses the question.

Yes, the authoritative teaching of the Church is that the confession be integral so it does address the question of ***PREVIOUS ***confessions which were accepted by the Church and were also incomplete. If you can complete them that it is to be done.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

This does appear to be your own interpretation of, as another poster noted, various principles for Confession. I see why you’re saying it, and it does make a certain amount of sense. But there’s just too much personal interpretation there for my own comfort.

Incidentally, my pastor, who is a former Prior of the Dominican House of Studies, and I assume someone qualified to address this question, disagrees with this sort of analysis.

forums.catholic-questions.org/images/smilies/blush.gif
If you have the great blessing of being counseled by a former prior of one of the Dominican Houses of Study, you are most fortunate and in very good hands, to be sure. My own academic formation rests heavily upon Dominican institutions…in ancient of days. Thanks be to God.

 

[Bookcat]

Yes, the authoritative teaching of the Church is that the confession be integral so it does address the question of ***PREVIOUS ***confessions which were accepted by the Church and were also incomplete. If you can complete them that it is to be done.

Correct.

Note too how the Compendium when answering what must be confessed - even uses the words “all grave sins” - followed by: “not yet confessed”

The “not yet” covers the forgotten mortal sins too.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=13889715&postcount=16