Confession and Forgetfulness

[Bookcat]

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.

I did not just pull it out of a hat or even out of my head that the hat sits on

Confession is to be integral (CIC 960) - all mortal sins in number and kind (CIC 988) and only impossibility (moral or physical) excuses from such a confession (CIC 960).

If Sam committed say adultery 3 times and goes to confession and due to the stress of admitting adultery - he stammers and just confesses “adultery” without giving the number - doing so innocently - intending to make a good confession and is contrite etc - he just due to the stress forgot to give the number - well since it is a grave sin he would yes need to confess that number if he realize this. It was valid and indirectly confessed. But the other two acts of adultery need to be confessed. For as the Church Teaches all mortal sins that have not yet been submitted to the keys in Confession and absolved are to be.

Now can it happen that he never realizes this? Sure. The sins remain forgiven of course.

Can there be various reasons where a person is excused from doing so? Yes as noted there can be other cases of moral or physical impossibility that excuse from such (as long at that impossibility continues)…such as for example some cases of scrupulosity, or some cases of OCD, extreme illness, ignorance, lack if time before imminent danger, or of a brain injury, or cannot remember etc etc

To look to a rather good commentary on the Code of Canon Law we then find:

“In all these cases (of moral or physical impossibility), it is binding on the penitents to supply the part omitted when the circumstance that gave rise to authorizing omission no longer exists”

~ Code of Canon Law Annotated (Wilson & Lafleur Itee 1992) (Pg 630 commentary on Canon 960)

Some cases cease - the person realizes they forgot a mortal sin. The person realizes that due to their nerves the forgot to give the number of times, the person recovers from their extreme illness, a person survives the danger.

Some cases of impossibility never cease. A person does not realize he did not confess all his mortal sins - never remembers them- a persons particular scrupulosity persists, a person dies, the persons ignorance never is remedied etc. etc.

Ones confessor can guide one in ones particular case.

 

[Bookcat]

Helpful too is the distinction between materially integral and formally integral: jimmyakin.com/2005/04/confession_vali.html

 

[Exsultet]

I did not just pull it out of a hat or even out of my head that the hat sits on

But the other two acts of adultery need to be confessed. For as the Church Teaches all mortal sins that have not yet been submitted to the keys in Confession and absolved are to be.

I very much so see the logic of this. I find it extremely reasonable, and perfectly in accordance with what I know about the nature of Confession.

But it is something that’s been inferred from certain principles.

And my main problem is that, in my own life, I asked someone whom I consider very qualified whether or not such an inference can be made. He said no.

Now, obviously, I didn’t ask Father in those exact words. But he did communicate rather strongly that one need not confess again mortal sins that one has forgotten to list by number, but which one did list by kind.

I don’t know why he said that, since confession is not the place for theology lectures.

But if I were to speculate, perhaps you’re mistaken in your assumption that mortal sins accidentally not listed by number are therefore not confessed, or “not submitted to the keys” as you and the Church put it.

We absolutely know that mortal sins not even mentioned have “not been submitted to the keys.” This is a clear fact.

But I don’t see enough evidence that a mortal sin mentioned by kind, but not by number, instantly qualifies to meet that criteria.

Moreover, I find it hard to believe that a priest could hear a mortal sin being confessed without a number, but yet somehow refuse to ask the penitent to make a correction, if what you’re saying is valid.

Would Father really somehow miss Sam confessing adultery without number? Would he let Sam do this and absolve him, all the while knowing Sam messed up? Would he furthermore decide to not tell Sam to go back to confession and rectify his mistake?

I find that unlikely.

So I don’t even see how your scenario can pan out in day-to-day life.

It would seem it could only happen if both confessor and penitent make a mistake.

 

[Exsultet]

To look to a rather good commentary on the Code of Canon Law we then find:

“In all these cases (of moral or physical impossibility), it is binding on the penitents to supply the part omitted when the circumstance that gave rise to authorizing omission no longer exists”

~ Code of Canon Law Annotated (Wilson & Lafleur Itee 1992) (Pg 630 commentary on Canon 960)

Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t this just evidence that forgotten mortal sins not even mentioned should be mentioned when one goes to confession the next time?

Edit: Since it’s a comment on canon 960, it would appear that “[giving] rise to authorizing omission” is actually alluding to a penitent who, for valid reasons, wasn’t able to go to individual confession in the first place, and who was reconciled to God through other, extraordinary means.

It’s hard to tell without more context.

 

[Exsultet]

Incidentally, I just got back from Confession, and I did bring up the question of accidentally confessing a serious sin by kind but not by number, and whether or not such a sin should be re-confessed.

Father was very clear that “no, that sin is already confessed,” or words to that effect.

So yes, perhaps people have a different interpretation of all of this, but I now have the opinions of two priests who seem very clear on what the answer is. I will grant that my anecdotal evidence doesn’t amount to much, but I’m certainly forming my conscience in accordance with the answers I’ve been given.

 

[Vico]

Incidentally, I just got back from Confession, and I did bring up the question of accidentally confessing a serious sin by kind but not by number, and whether or not such a sin should be re-confessed.

Father was very clear that “no, that sin is already confessed,” or words to that effect.

So yes, perhaps people have a different interpretation of all of this, but I now have the opinions of two priests who seem very clear on what the answer is. I will grant that my anecdotal evidence doesn’t amount to much, but I’m certainly forming my conscience in accordance with the answers I’ve been given.

That sin means one sin. It there were multiple sins, they were not confessed. The sin is not the generic kind but an instance of a kind. To confess only the kind (when there were five instances of it, with perhaps different circumstances) saying that the number was not remembered, and then later remembering the number, the rest should be confessed, so that there will be completeness.