Confession obligatory once a year?

[Sirach2]

Just to re-echo your post, here is the CCC’s #1457, which reads:

1457 According to the Church’s command, "after having attained the age of discretion, each of the faithful is bound by an obligation faithfully to confess serious sins at least once a year."56 Anyone who is aware of having committed a mortal sin must not receive Holy Communion, even if he experiences deep contrition, without having first received sacramental absolution, unless he has a grave reason for receiving Communion and there is no possibility of going to confession.

We find footnote 56 within this article, which states:

56 Cf. CIC, Can. 989; Council of Trent (1551): DS 1683; DS 1708.

Canon 989 All the faithful who have reached the age of discretion are bound faithfully to confess their grave sins at least once a year.

I don’t know how much clearer these can be, and I hope this puts the OP’s mind to rest regarding his question.

 

[Gorgias]

I’d like to know how we got away from the term “mortal sin” to begin with.

We didn’t. However, it implies a subjective judgment, which we (as humans) are unable to make. So, we can call it by a name that implies only the objective (and therefore discernable) dimension: grave sin.

Some object to calling anything a “mortal sin” because they say that implies judging. I don’t think it does. I know I have read, from time to time, in the 45 years I’ve been reading about the Catholic Faith, that “abortion is a mortal sin”, “adultery is a mortal sin”, and so on.

Then you’ve been reading things that are playing fast and loose with terminology. Abortion is a grave sin… so, sometimes it’s also mortal, but it can be venial as well. Same thing with adultery: grave sin, and can be either mortal or venial.

If any of these three conditions are lacking, then a mortal sin has not been committed… It’s not that complicated.

Sure. But are you capable of discerning whether another person had full knowledge and deliberate consent of the will?

It’s not “complicated”… but it is impossible for us to discern, regarding another.

 

[Canvas]

We don’t call it a mortal sin because we are not qualified to make that call. We can say it involves grave matter, which is defined by the teaching of the Church. For example, a grave offense against the first Commandment is idolatry. But, without knowing the state of a person’s awareness and degree and condition of consent, we cannot say without doubt that that person is in mortal sin. It is above our pay grade.

 

[paperwight]

I am pretty sure Catholics are supposed to receive the Eucharist and go to confession once a year. .

Even in the face of all the evidence provided in previous posts quoting Canon Law 989 and so on?

 

[HomeschoolDad]

Then you’ve been reading things that are playing fast and loose with terminology. Abortion is a grave sin … so, sometimes it’s also mortal, but it can be venial as well. Same thing with adultery: grave sin , and can be either mortal or venial.

Well, then, I guess “back in the day”, a lot of authors “played fast and loose with terminology”. Sometime in my down time, when I’m just at loose ends, I’ll try to dig up some old catechisms and other Catholic books, and see how prevalent it was to speak of something as being objectively a mortal sin. (How in the world did those books get imprimaturs?)

Just calling a spade a spade, I think people got away from speaking of mortal sin (using the euphemisms “grave” and “serious”) because they don’t want to speak clearly of going to hell for committing particular acts — especially acts that some people would prefer weren’t spoken of as being worthy of eternal punishment. How this trend got started, I could only speculate.

There are a few things that many people (to say the word “most” steps on the third rail and is somehow being “judgmental”, so I won’t say it) want to be able to do without having to be troubled that they might be severing their friendship with Almighty God and consigning themselves to hell. With that mindset, it doesn’t quite do to call them “mortal sins”.

 

[DBRANDT]

I’m certainly no saint, but I like to follow in the footsteps of the saints, who confessed sincerely and often in praise of a loving and merciful God. It just feels good and right to clear the junk out of my soul as often as I am able…and to clear the air with the Lord. Confession is indeed good for the soul.

 

[Gorgias]

Well, then, I guess “back in the day”, a lot of authors “played fast and loose with terminology”.

Maybe they did.

I’ll try to dig up some old catechisms and other Catholic books, and see how prevalent it was to speak of something as being objectively a mortal sin.

I’ll be interested in seeing what you turn up. The determination of a grave sin being ‘mortal’ or ‘venial’ hinges on a set of subjective criteria.

I think people got away from speaking of mortal sin (using the euphemisms “grave” and “serious”)

‘Grave’ and ‘serious’ aren’t “euphemisms” for ‘mortal’; they speak to the objective character of sin.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

I’ll try to dig up some old catechisms and other Catholic books, and see how prevalent it was to speak of something as being objectively a mortal sin.

OK, here’s one:

Sin and the means of grace

books.google.com

 

[1cthlctrth]

In my opinion, I don’t understand why Catholics would not desire to take advantage of the opportunity to receive the Sacrament of Reconciliation more than once a year. We’re blessed to have priests who are happy to offer it.

 

[Vico]

…A definitive statement from Rome one way or the other would be very, very welcome. Does anyone on CAF know how to make this happen?

The footnote on the Catechism 2042 refers to the canon laws:
83 Cf. ⇒ CIC, can. 989; CCEO, can. 719.

Also see: Reconciliatio et Paenitentia (December 2, 1984) | John Paul II

Considering sin from the point of view of its matter, the ideas of death, of radical rupture with God, the supreme good, of deviation from the path that leads to God or interruption of the journey toward him (which are all ways of defining mortal sin) are linked with the idea of the gravity of sin’s objective content. Hence, in the church’s doctrine and pastoral action, grave sin is in practice identified with mortal sin.
…
During the synod assembly some fathers proposed a threefold distinction of sins, classifying them as venial, grave and mortal. This threefold distinction might illustrate the fact that there is a scale of seriousness among grave sins. But it still remains true that the essential and decisive distinction is between sin which destroys charity and sin which does not kill the supernatural life: There is no middle way between life and death.

 

[Canvas]

Many of those older moral theology handbooks were written with Confessors as the intended audience. Most books written for laypeople are not as complicated. It was expected that the Priest could use the manual as a guide to not only make judgments but instruct lay persons. Also, scroll back to page 25 and read the last part.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

Many of those older moral theology handbooks were written with Confessors as the intended audience. Most books written for laypeople are not as complicated. It was expected that the Priest could use the manual as a guide to not only make judgments but instruct lay persons. Also, scroll back to page 25 and read the last part.

No, as I recall it, the books for laymen just labeled certain acts as mortal sins, period. The three things needed to make a sin mortal were just understood. Older works focused more on the act itself and, simply put, didn’t provide the “wiggle room” (the two other conditions) that, frankly, people have become accustomed to nowadays.

I took a look at Jone’s Moral Theology this afternoon, and Jone routinely refers to certain sins in and of themselves as “mortal sins” (adultery, fornication, and so on).

Perhaps the term we should be looking for here is peccatia mortalia ex toto genere suo, which to my mind corresponds to “objectively mortal sin”.

 

[Margaret_Ann]

If anyone can avoid mortal sin for a year then they’re on their way to canonization in my book.

I’m a sinner so I try to go at least once a week. St. Alphonsus Maria de Liguori said that anyone who is serious about saving his soul “…will go to confession often, at least once a week.” And he went every day!

 

[babochka]

He uses the term “objectively mortal sin”. Even in your example, mortal sin comes with a qualifier. Then he proceeds to explain, in the next several paragraphs, why a sin with the appropriate matter might not be a mortal sin. I think our current terminology clarifies matters a bit. We refer to grave matter as being one of three criteria for mortal sin. Certainly, the teaching of the church hasn’t changed and the idea of mortal sin has not disappeared. It is not possible for you or I to observe somebody from the outside and declare that individual to be in mortal sin.

You say that it was assumed that Catholics understood that there were several criteria that needed to be met in order for something to be a mortal sin, but I am not sure that that Catholics knew as much as you give them credit for.

It has been my experience with many people who were catechized in the 40s and 50s that catechesis was not as good then as nostalgia would have us believe.

I know plenty old people who honestly believed that the Sunday obligation applied unless they physically could not drag themselves out of bed to get to Mass. They believed that exceptions to the Sunday obligation were so rare as to be nonexistent for the average person. We do a better job of explaining that now. In the past, somebody who missed Mass because they were feeling under the weather, though could still get up and do things, might have felt compelled to go to confession because they believed they had committed a mortal sin in missing Mass.

I know that we have swung too far in the other direction, being able to justify almost any sin to ourselves. I have no idea how to find a better middle ground and catechesis.

My own approach is that I go to confession regularly. I tried to examine my conscience on an ongoing basis and if my conscience is troubling me about something, I’ll go sooner then I would have regularly plans to go.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

If anyone can avoid mortal sin for a year then they’re on their way to canonization in my book.

I’m a sinner so I try to go at least once a week. St. Alphonsus Maria de Liguori said that anyone who is serious about saving his soul “…will go to confession often, at least once a week.” And he went every day!

I would certainly hope that a faithful, orthodox, apostolic Catholic could stay out of mortal sin for an extended period of time. The only exception I can think of would be a faithful Catholic who is struggling with a besetting mortal sin, usually connected to difficult urges or addiction. These, too, can be conquered, with recourse to prayer, penance, the sacraments, and possibly spiritual or even psychological counseling.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

He uses the term “objectively mortal sin”. Even in your example, mortal sin comes with a qualifier. Then he proceeds to explain, in the next several paragraphs, why a sin with the appropriate matter might not be a mortal sin. I think our current terminology clarifies matters a bit. We refer to grave matter as being one of three criteria for mortal sin. Certainly, the teaching of the church hasn’t changed and the idea of mortal sin has not disappeared. It is not possible for you or I to observe somebody from the outside and declare that individual to be in mortal sin.

You say that it was assumed that Catholics understood that there were several criteria that needed to be met in order for something to be a mortal sin, but I am not sure that that Catholics knew as much as you give them credit for.

It has been my experience with many people who were catechized in the 40s and 50s that catechesis was not as good then as nostalgia would have us believe.

I know plenty old people who honestly believed that the Sunday obligation applied unless they physically could not drag themselves out of bed to get to Mass. They believed that exceptions to the Sunday obligation were so rare as to be nonexistent for the average person. We do a better job of explaining that now. In the past, somebody who missed Mass because they were feeling under the weather, though could still get up and do things, might have felt compelled to go to confession because they believed they had committed a mortal sin in missing Mass.

I know that we have swung too far in the other direction, being able to justify almost any sin to ourselves. I have no idea how to find a better middle ground and catechesis.

You capture exactly what I am getting at. Thank you.

Catholics in times past, if they had any sort of halfway decent catechetics, understood the three things that are required for a mortal sin. Even the lapsed Catholic George Carlin refers to this in one of his monologues. (He could be one very funny man, requiescat in pace.)

I strongly dislike the term “Sunday obligation”. It sounds like Catholics are being coerced to go to Mass, as though they would never go unless they had this hanging over their heads. If I were Pope, I would proclaim something like this:

The obligation to attend Mass on Sundays (and, by extension, holy days established by the Church) comes from the commandment itself, “keep holy the Lord’s Day”. Repeated failure to attend Mass could, over time, rise to the level of mortal sin. Those who fail to attend Mass on three consecutive Sundays or holy days, without excuse, or those who habitually fail to attend Mass, should refrain from receiving Holy Communion until they have availed themselves of the Sacrament of Penance. Exceptions should be dealt with in consultation with one’s confessor.

This closely parallels the Orthodox practice, though I wouldn’t use the word “excommunication”.

 

[babochka]

Catholics in times past, if they had any sort of halfway decent catechetics, understood the three things that are required for a mortal sin.

Catholics in present times, if they have had any sort of halfway decent catechesis, understand the three things that are required for a mortal sin.

Believe it or not, bad catechesis existed in the past. My dad had 12 years of Catholic school in the 1940s and 1950s. He was taught by sisters in grade school and brothers and priests in High School. He counts among his aunts, uncles and cousins 2 priests (one who spent 25 years as a religious brother before ordination), and 3 religious sisters. ( I’m assuming that branch of the family was better catechised than my dad’s family.) His knowledge of the faith was deplorable until he was in his 40s and started to educate himself. My mom converted to the faith as a young adult in 1963. She was given almost no formal catechesis. She was told that all a Catholic must believe is what is in the creed. She started to learn the faith when she was asked to teach it to children in CCD. What they both did have was a strong faith in the Eucharist.

We can look back on some Golden Age in which every Catholic knew, understood, and believed the faith or we can deal with the reality that what happened in the 1970s didn’t come out of a vacuum. The Golden Age didn’t exist in the 1950s and didn’t exist in the Middle Ages. Judging from the admonishment that St. Paul gives to the Church in his epistles, it didn’t even exist in biblical times.

The changing terminology, to me at least, better reflects the reality of mortal sin. It isn’t always so cut and dried.

I really enjoyed reading some of the book that you shared. In many ways, it doesn’t differ from a serious treatment of the subject that would be written today.

I strongly dislike the term “Sunday obligation”. It sounds like Catholics are being coerced to go to Mass, as though they would never go unless they had this hanging over their heads. If I were Pope, I would proclaim something like this:

The obligation to attend Mass on Sundays (and, by extension, holy days established by the Church) comes from the commandment itself, “keep holy the Lord’s Day”. Repeated failure to attend Mass could, over time, rise to the level of mortal sin. Those who fail to attend Mass on three consecutive Sundays or holy days, without excuse, or those who habitually fail to attend Mass, should refrain from receiving Holy Communion until they have availed themselves of the Sacrament of Penance. Exceptions should be dealt with in consultation with one’s confessor.

This closely parallels the Orthodox practice, though I wouldn’t use the word “excommunication”.

I really like this. I would use the term “excommunication”, however. If one is forbidden from receiving Holy Communion, it is an excommunication and there’s nothing wrong with calling it what it is. Perhaps such strong words would jolt people into realizing the seriousness of the situation.

 

[BT3241]

You can’t make people confess with a new rule - they have to want to confess its between them and Jesus . The Church is for sinner if all the sinners are removed the church has failed in its mission.

 

[Gorgias]

OK, here’s one:

From the book you cite:

an objectively mortal sin may become subjectively venial…

…strictly speaking, no mortal sin can become venial and no venial sin mortal, because of the essential difference existing between the two

So… yeah: “fast and loose”.

In that sense, then, I think that it actually clarifies things to use the term “grave sin”, rather than make “mortal sin” pull double duty (and in doing so, confuse the situation!).

Again from the document (p 25):

[T]his distinction [between mortal and venial sins] is not (or, at least, not entirely) based on the objective consequences of sin, … but primarily on the subjective tendency of the will.

So: the classification of “mortal” or “venial” isn’t objective, as you claim, but “primarily subjective”, according to the book you hold up as an authority.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

In that sense, then, I think that it actually clarifies things to use the term “grave sin”, rather than make “mortal sin” pull double duty (and in doing so, confuse the situation!).

Again from the document (p 25):

[T]his distinction [between mortal and venial sins] is not (or, at least, not entirely) based on the objective consequences of sin, … but primarily on the subjective tendency of the will.

Well, then, I don’t know what to tell you. I have been a Catholic for 44 years and I have read and heard of certain acts, in and of themselves, being referred to as “mortal sins” more times than I can remember. The three conditions that are needed for mortal sin are just a “given”. And I do have to note that, traditionally, sufficient reflection and full consent of the will were just assumed to have existed, unless proven to the contrary. To answer the questions “did you know it was a mortal [grave] sin, did you know what you were doing, and did you want to do it?” was not rocket science then, and it’s not rocket science now.

To be honest, I did lean, and do continue to lean, towards pre-Vatican II books and catechisms, because it wasn’t long until I found more contemporary works to be ambigious at best and heterodox at worst. (I am not calling V2 into doubt, I am just using a time frame.) For instance, I read one examination of conscience that said “am I faithful to the moral law in my married life?”. To the average reader, what in the world is that supposed to mean? Oh, I see now, they’re talking about contraception. Well, then, why not just say it? At the time (ca. 1980s), Humanae vitae wasn’t exactly received well by many, nor is it now. Older examinations of conscience were much better. I remember one in particular that was used in a parish where I grew up, old, hoary, dog-eared sheet of cardboard, pastor was about as unreconstructed of an old traditionalist codger as it was possible to be (said the Novus Ordo out of obedience), at the bottom it said “make this confession as though it were your last”. Good advice to have staring you in the face!

To paraphrase what William F Buckley Jr said about the Boston phone book and the Harvard faculty, I would rather organize my spiritual life out of the first 20 books in the TAN Books catalog (back in the day when Mr Nelson was still running it), than by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.

https://web.archive.org/web/19990222110137/http://www.tanbooks.com/
(note: this is not a current web page)

https://quoteinvestigator.com/2017/10/31/telegovern/