Confession, Forgotten Sins, and Trent

[Bookcat]

Jimmy Akin the Senior Apologist at Catholic Answers explains here:

jimmyakin.com/2006/09/a_reader_writes_1.html

 

[Bookcat]

catholicreference.net/index.cfm?id=33610

 

[Bookcat]

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. The confession of serious sins is the only ordinary way to obtain forgiveness.

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

 

[SerraSemper]

I have made more general confessions than I can remember (I came into the Church a few years ago, so have a lifetime to confess). More than one priest has told me I do not have to confess a sin if I, without intent to so, forgot the sin during a previous confession. I do not know of any priest who has said otherwise.

I am not sure what to make of this seeing as the Roman/Trent Catechism says you should confess a forgotten sin, but the current Catechism remains rather silent on the issue and **almost **suggests you do not have to. Can these past practices be overruled (certainly confession has changed over the history of the Church)? Are they overruled?

Should one differ to the priests here?

Here is a link to the Roman Catechism too. It is much more stringent than teachings I have heard, but if it is required then it is certainly possible to do and good: LINK

I am confused here… are you talking about “general confessions” as in “confessions spanning my whole life until now” or are you talking about confession which is “confession of all grave remembered sins plus any venial sins I wish to confess spanning from my last confession to now”? Obviously it is easy to forget sins from long ago… that is one reason why general confessions are not made very frequently, and they are certainly not appropriate for scrupulous persons. Normal confessions shouldn’t be a problem. You examine your conscience. Any mortal sin you have not confessed that occured since your last confession you confess. Any mortal sin you had forgotten to confess in previous confessions that all of a sudden surface to consciousness you confess. Confessing venial sins is optional. With contrition and actual confession, you’re good to go! Simple as pie.

General confessions are an exercise of piety. They are often done before the most important moments of a Catholic’s life (getting ready for marriage, ordination, vows, or whatever). They are not required of anyone except converts who are already baptized for their first confession. After their first confession, they confess normally.

 

[Vico]

**In General:**Thank you all for the responses. I was baptised in a Protestant church as a baby so I do have to confess.

As for priest shopping, I have to move around since I am moving around lately. More than one priest has told me you do not have to confess forgotten sins as long as they were forgotten by the time you make a valid confession. I also am trying to move around there since I think the priests may be wrong on this most important of matters.To Vico****Vico, thank you in particular for your responses that have many sources. I would note, however, that for most of them I do acknowledge in the past this practice was more or less required (claiming it is a mortal sin, however, I am not sure was ever well acknowledged, but certainly a venial sin, though perhaps mortal by deliberate disobedience to Church orders). There seemed to be an idea that one needed to present it so that a penance could be administered and we could face down the sin (but that seemed to be the primary purpose since it was already forgiven).

My question was if the Church still requires this practice.

As to current Canon Law, you, Vico, do give a very good citation that indicates this but you do mis-quote a word:

Now you go on to mention a commentary on these cannons.

Two things with this: 1.) How authoritative is it? ** 2.) **It seems to render part of the text of cannon 988 redundant, and so seems a peculiar interpretation. This is because the cannon says “not yet directly remitted through the keys of the Church nor acknowledged in individual confession”. If ‘directly remitted’ means the same thing as ‘acknowledged in individual confession’, then why does cannon 988 put a disjunction between the two as if they are two different things? The commentary seems to render the plain text of 988 redundant, and so seems to be a strange interpretation (unless it is authoritative). When writing laws, one tends to leave out unescessary language.

However, to this second point, I have heard it said, in my few years as a Catholic, that sins are not directly remitted when not mentioned in confession through innocent forgetfulness, but I have heard many a thing stated as teaching…

As for the current Catechism, it does not seem to be of much help:

This could easily just mean that when we go to a particular confession, all sins that we remember, are not forgiven yet, and are mortal must never be witheld (everyone knows that is true). It does not say anything about sins forgotten after confession.

These seems to suggest that if one makes a diligent examination of conscience, confesses all they remember, and forget some, then those sins have been ‘placed before the divine mercy for pardon’. Indeed, this text, by itself, almost seems to suggest that those sins are done and forgiven. Only with more would we say ‘they are forgiven, but we must still confess them again anyhow’. Here, the Catechism does not seem to help much with that question, and I find it odd (and supportive to these priests’ position) that this is absent from the text. Such an important matter, if required, would seem to be something that would have been put in.

My priests may be wrong, but its hard to tell for sure. I slightly tend to agree with Vico, but, unless I see more, I think I should give my priests the benefit of the doubt (for it is perhaps a slight sin to do otherwise in my shoes). If I am wrong not to confess, I am sure God will understand or provide me with more reasons to think they are wrong. Certainly if I need to I shall confess them (God willing). I am kind of going crazy with general confessions at the moment anyhow.

Thank you for 988 errata. The book is: New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, edited by John P. Beal, James A. Coriden and Thomas J. Green, Paulist Press: New York/Mahwah, 2000.

It is “A very important resource in American, and international, canon law.” – Dr. Edward Peters.

You can read a comment on it here: canonlaw.info/ten_majorcommentaries.htm

You mentioned CCC 1456

“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.”

Absolution applies to all sins one is sorry for, even those not remembered. Of course the ones not remembered are not recounted yet, although absolved. Upon a subsequent examination of confession one remembers a mortal sin, then that one must be recounted according to CCC 1456 above.

What does it mean for a sin to be indirectly remitted?Indirect absolution

Closely allied to conditional is the absolution termed indirect. It obtains whenever absolution is granted for a fault that has not been submitted to the judgment of the minister in the tribunal of penance. Forgetfulness on the part of the penitent is responsible for most cases of indirect absolution, though sometimes reservation (see RESERVED CASES) may be.
Catholic Encyclopedia, newadvent.org/cathen/01061a.htm

 

[TheDoctor]

Thank you all for your sources and opinions. I have become more educated on what I thought was a black and white issue and sincerely appreciate the discussion and learning.

I love this place.

 

[mleonetti1991]

Reading this whole thing had become bothersome to me because I am scrupulous and have OCD. I have been scrupulous about my way of life ad a teenager, before I came back to the church, about sins that I didn’t invite at the were mortal, for mortal sins that I forgot unintentionally, and for the fact that two priests I went to in the past said,“any sins you forgot are forgiven.” Going to confession and checking writings of the church have become a compulsion for me, which priests and my psycholgist warned me about.

The priests who I have gone to have told me to trust in the divine mercy of God, and iconstantly fear about sin and hell, and going to confession again because of forgotten sin may forgive my sins again, but I believe it will be counterproductive in terms of trying to fight my scruples and OCD. I don’t want to be lead in to despair nor presuption because I want to be saved. I fear hell and I fear offending God…the main reason why I went to this site was to see if it was an obligation…and it only made me feel worse because it is a compulsion. Honestly typing this put tears in my eyes because I worry about any catechetical citation to much. Please someone reply to me soon.