Confession -- Question from a Non-Catholic

[CThomas]

Now and then I drop by and post questions about Catholicism. I don’t ordinarily come by to argue with Catholics, but mostly just drop in when I have something about Catholic doctrine I want to understand better (although sometimes the things I’m curious about do have apologetic implications). So in that spirit of honest inquiry, here goes.

As suggested by the subject header above, this has to do with confession, and specifically the mechanism of this sacrament of penance under Catholic theology. Here’s the issue I’m curious about. I could understand if the idea was that in order for a sin to be forgiven, it needed to be confessed and appropriate penance performed. That is, the act of confession and performance of penance was the mechanism by which the stain of sin is removed. I could understand it, but it would be a very rigorous doctrine, as you would be out of luck if you missed going through these procedures with respect to any single post-conversion sin (if it rose to the level of being mortal). So if you failed to confess due to honestly neglecting or forgetting a mortal sin, you would be out of luck, or if you died after the commission of the mortal sin but before you were able to expiate it through confession and penance.

But my understanding is that Catholic doctrine does not hold to this strict rigorous view. My understanding (correct me if I’m wrong) is that if you intend to confess but fail to do so for innocent reasons (sincerely forgetting one or dying with the intent to confess but before it could be done, for instance), then you’re ok. It is certainly understandable why you would want exceptions like this. But my question is why these understandable exceptions do not undermine the mechanism by which the ordinary process is supposed to work. If you do not, in fact, need to actually confess and perform penance, and if the sincere intent to do so suffices, then how is the purported mechanism of the sacrament necessary even in the ordinary case? In other words, if the good-faith failure to engage in the sacrament means you can get expiated of the sin without engaging in it, in what sense can the sacrament be the necessary mechanism of expiation in other cases?

Curious to hear your thoughts.

CThomas

 

[Slaney]

There are 3 conditions for a sin to be mortal, the prodigal son turned back, (action) we turn back in confession, begging forgiveness, not remembering a sin won’t condemn us, even if it is mortal, although I would hardly think a person could forget a mortal sin, it’s what’s in our hearts that is important to God.

 

[CThomas]

thanks, Slaney. Feel free to focus on the second situation (death on the way to the confessional) if it provides a clearer example for purposes of this question.

CThonas

 

[DavidFilmer]

My understanding (correct me if I’m wrong) is that if you intend to confess but fail to do so for innocent reasons (sincerely forgetting one or dying with the intent to confess but before it could be done, for instance), then you’re ok.

Maybe. For the sake of this reply, I will suppose that we feel ourselves guilty of some mortal sin (not venial sin only, which is not such a big deal).

Per the Catechism:

1452 When it arises from a love by which God is loved above all else, contrition is called “perfect” (contrition of charity). Such contrition remits venial sins; it also obtains forgiveness of mortal sins if it includes the firm resolution to have recourse to sacramental confession as soon as possible.

Note that the Catechism specifies perfect contrition (sorrow for your sin because you have offended God), not imperfect contrition (sorrow because we fear just punishment). As the CCC also says:

1492 Repentance (also called contrition) must be inspired by motives that arise from faith. If repentance arises from love of charity for God, it is called “perfect” contrition; if it is founded on other motives, it is called “imperfect.”

So we may be saved as you said only if our contrition is pure. The trouble is, we cannot know for sure if even our own contrition is pure (this is known to God alone). Personally, I doubt I have ever had such contrition which was not tainted by just a bit of selfishness. Therefore, I would never personally put much hope in this “escape clause.”

My brother, Fr. Eric Filmer, posted some additional info in the Ask an Apologist Forum, here and here.

 

[Michael57]

Here’s a link that may help: Here.

And this one from Catholics Come Home: Here

Hope that helps.

 

[bzkoss236]

Also, forgiveness comes before penance is given. Actually doing the penance just affirms the contrition (like how good works affirms faith). One aspect of penance is to help bring the focus of the penitent back to the Lord to help keep them from sinning again (the latter part of repentance [the effort to try and not sin again]).

 

[po18guy]

God knows our hearts. If we repent and are filled with remorse for our sins, knowing that they are the nails that pierced Jesus’ Body, the Lord most certainly takes this into account. He is neither a vending machine or merciless sin-counter. Dismas on the cross is our example of hope. He very likely was not baptized. Yet, he recognized Jesus has a King; that His Kingdom was not of this world; that Jesus had power over sin, and Dismas repented of and confessed his sins. Dismas is held to be a Saint by the Catholic Church, and San Dimas, California is named in his honor.

Here’s a point: You do not hold to the doctrine of confession/penance. Perfectly fine. But, how is a Catholic who cannot confess and be absolved before death any different from a member of your congregation who also does not confess or receive absolution before death? Is there a practical difference? The merciful Lord judges in each case.

Consider thart, in each and every case in which Jesus forgave sin, He told the sinner that their sins were forgiven. Every time. Have you ever heard those words in confessing directly to the Lord? Neither have I. And, I do not want to presume forgiveness, if there has been none. God does not have to forgive any sin, let alone mortal sin. Yet, just as Paul forgave sins in the person of Christ (2 Cor 2:10 KJV), so do all Priests and Bishops. “He who hears you hears me” (Luke 10:16). And thus it is when we are absolved of sin - we who hear the Priest absolve us are, in truth, hearing Christ absolve us. I heard those words a little over three hours ago. They are the most comforting words we can hear, aside form the Gospel itself.

Your question also points to the next doctrine of a cleansing between death and entering heaven.

You are clearly a truth-seeker. This is very pleasing to the Lord.

 

[FooFee]

A person on the way to confession has almost certainly repented of his sins. God is not waiting to pounce on us for a technicality. Such a person could be saved.

 

[Steveabrous]

Now and then I drop by and post questions about Catholicism. I don’t ordinarily come by to argue with Catholics, but mostly just drop in when I have something about Catholic doctrine I want to understand better (although sometimes the things I’m curious about do have apologetic implications). So in that spirit of honest inquiry, here goes.

As suggested by the subject header above, this has to do with confession, and specifically the mechanism of this sacrament of penance under Catholic theology. Here’s the issue I’m curious about. I could understand if the idea was that in order for a sin to be forgiven, it needed to be confessed and appropriate penance performed. That is, the act of confession and performance of penance was the mechanism by which the stain of sin is removed. I could understand it, but it would be a very rigorous doctrine, as you would be out of luck if you missed going through these procedures with respect to any single post-conversion sin (if it rose to the level of being mortal). So if you failed to confess due to honestly neglecting or forgetting a mortal sin, you would be out of luck, or if you died after the commission of the mortal sin but before you were able to expiate it through confession and penance.

But my understanding is that Catholic doctrine does not hold to this strict rigorous view. My understanding (correct me if I’m wrong) is that if you intend to confess but fail to do so for innocent reasons (sincerely forgetting one or dying with the intent to confess but before it could be done, for instance), then you’re ok. It is certainly understandable why you would want exceptions like this. But my question is why these understandable exceptions do not undermine the mechanism by which the ordinary process is supposed to work. If you do not, in fact, need to actually confess and perform penance, and if the sincere intent to do so suffices, then how is the purported mechanism of the sacrament necessary even in the ordinary case? In other words, if the good-faith failure to engage in the sacrament means you can get expiated of the sin without engaging in it, in what sense can the sacrament be the necessary mechanism of expiation in other cases?

Curious to hear your thoughts.

CThomas

O.k. well, lets define a few things. First off- Sins are forgiven in confession, penance removes temporal punishment one would otherwise have to expiate in purgatory.

Forgiveness saves. expiating punishment gets you out of Purgatory.

One can go to confession and get forgiven, but if they never do penance then they still go to heaven but only after a stay in purgatory. What I’m trying to get across is Forgiveness and expiating the punishment are 2 seperate things.

Now to the meat of your question.

Confession is the normal way to get your sins forgiven if they are mortal. If someone dies without the opportunity to confess it is not held against them. Also, all sins are forgiven up to the confession even if you forget to confess them, so long as you are not purposefully holding them back.

Jesus established the sacrament of confession to get sins forgiven, but he is not bound to the sacrament he established.

 

[Slaney]

thanks, Slaney. Feel free to focus on the second situation (death on the way to the confessional) if it provides a clearer example for purposes of this question.

CThonas

DavidFilmer answered it in 1452…

 

[polytropos]

My understanding (correct me if I’m wrong) is that if you intend to confess but fail to do so for innocent reasons (sincerely forgetting one or dying with the intent to confess but before it could be done, for instance), then you’re ok. It is certainly understandable why you would want exceptions like this. But my question is why these understandable exceptions do not undermine the mechanism by which the ordinary process is supposed to work. If you do not, in fact, need to actually confess and perform penance, and if the sincere intent to do so suffices, then how is the purported mechanism of the sacrament necessary even in the ordinary case? In other words, if the good-faith failure to engage in the sacrament means you can get expiated of the sin without engaging in it, in what sense can the sacrament be the necessary mechanism of expiation in other cases?

We must confess our sins for them to be forgiven. That is really the bottom line. The caveat is that, although God is perfectly just, He is not unreasonable. So in cases where we genuinely intend to ask for forgiveness but are not able to, we are not faulted. That does not mean that asking for forgiveness is not necessary, just that we can only ask for forgiveness when it is possible to do so because God condemns no one who does not deserve it. If one were to not ask for forgiveness when one has the opportunity, then one does not genuinely intend to ask for forgiveness.

 

[CThomas]

Thank you for the interesting responses, and to Steveabrous for the doctrinal clarifications. The way I conceptualize the take-away from all of this is that on Catholic doctrine you have a baseline situation requiring “perfect” repentance – a stringent standard precluding any sort of mixed motive. What confession does for you is to lower that bar, so that when you confess to the priest, the sin can be removed on a lesser standard of repentance. So for instance if you have a real contrition but it is tainted by the self-interested motive of a fear of punishment for yourself along with a true Godly remorse, you’re okay if you confess it, but not if you simply repent without confession. This is the only way I’m seeing to understand the interrelationship between “bare” repentance and confession on Catholic theology. If I’m right about that, then it would in fact lead to quite harsh results in some cases. Despite what some have said in this discussion, it would mean that someone who dies on the way to the confessional following commission of a mortal sin would very likely go to hell, because few people (per DavidFilmer’s point) have the purity of motive to satisfy the standard for “perfect” repentance.

CThomas

 

[zz912]

Christ is bound by His promises that He has made regarding the sacraments, but He is NOT bound to deliver His grace ONLY through the sacraments. So if someone is on their way to confession, but dies on the way, God can and will confer that grace on the person.

If there is something impeding our way to Christ, He will reach out to us, as long as we are trying to get to Him. But if there is no impediment, Christ will want us to go through the normal channels He established of His sacraments.

 

[StudentMI]

Despite what some have said in this discussion, it would mean that someone who dies on the way to the confessional following commission of a mortal sin would very likely go to hell, because few people (per DavidFilmer’s point) have the purity of motive to satisfy the standard for “perfect” repentance.

Fr. Vincent Serpa made this post on the issue of perfect contrition.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=752177

An important thing to remember, as well, is that the Catechism states in #1257 that God “himself is not bound by his sacraments.” You also have private revelations like that of St. Faustina and St. Margaret Mary Alacoque which show God as merciful beyond imagination, craving our love.

God wants to save us. Remember the parable of the lost sheep. One single sheep.

 

[fred_conty]

In the spiritual life there are about 3 levels.

Level 1 a person is struggling with mortal sins and will fall into these from time to time, and sometimes quite frequently. This is the stage of the rough diamond, where larger chips are removed. Lots and lots of people are in this level and even stay there even to the end.

But in level 2, the christian has more or less established a prayer life and avoids mortal sins with God’s assistence. Although occassionally they may fall back. This is where they begin to live a life with God in a better fashion. They are leaving their own plans out and including God
's plans more and more in their life. They are growing into other Christ’s.

And of course level 3, is the best where one is immersed in God and primarily wants what God wants.

God never intended for his children(people) to stay at level 1 but rather to grow and become one with him in this life. This means that confession is not necessary for their mortal sins which they have given up. So as one grows in their life with God, confession plays an important role in their growth in God, but not to recapture God after serious sin which they are avoiding.

To someone who is ennamered with a certain serious sin on Level 1, then this all seems a bit too much to even dream of, to be in the state of Grace constantly. Their goal is to break a serious habit of sin, which to them seems impossible. So at this point, Confession can seem risky since the falls come frequently. But they must remember, thru prayer and self sacrifice, it will all come true for them. And noone wants it more than God, to grow in them.

That is the overview of confession to see it in the proper light of forgiveness and the risk.
Growth is important in the plan of God, and confession is the finger of God in this.

Just a thought.​

“Lift up your hearts to the Lord, praise God’s gracious mercy.” (hymn)

 

[TK421]

Thank you for the interesting responses, and to Steveabrous for the doctrinal clarifications. The way I conceptualize the take-away from all of this is that on Catholic doctrine you have a baseline situation requiring “perfect” repentance – a stringent standard precluding any sort of mixed motive. What confession does for you is to lower that bar, so that when you confess to the priest, the sin can be removed on a lesser standard of repentance. So for instance if you have a real contrition but it is tainted by the self-interested motive of a fear of punishment for yourself along with a true Godly remorse, you’re okay if you confess it, but not if you simply repent without confession. This is the only way I’m seeing to understand the interrelationship between “bare” repentance and confession on Catholic theology. If I’m right about that, then it would in fact lead to quite harsh results in some cases. Despite what some have said in this discussion, it would mean that someone who dies on the way to the confessional following commission of a mortal sin would very likely go to hell, because few people (per DavidFilmer’s point) have the purity of motive to satisfy the standard for “perfect” repentance.

CThomas

This is a frequent semantic misunderstanding, but “Perfect contrition” means that one is driven by a sorrow of the sin and a desire to please God. It is not perfect in the degree of it; meaning that one repents and then is so perfectly committed that they are incapable of ever falling into sin again. That is potentially a logical fallacy, because the only person that could repent perfectly in degree would be a perfect person, and a perfect person would never sin to begin with.

Adding to that point, repenting out of a fear of punishment in addition to being contrite does not mean that it is imperfect contrition. Any half-sane human being that believes in Hell is going to fear it, but if that is exclusively the reason for one’s repentance, then it isn’t repentance at all. The legion of demons in the story of the Demon Possessed Man were extremely subservient, fearful, and pleading towards Jesus, but they were not contrite (nor could they be, because their verdict has already been finalized).

 

[mgn2010]

Regarding your third paragraph…it would seem to imply that one would look to use the “fine print” to excuse the necessity of making the Sacrament of Penance on occasion of committing mortal sin, which naturally, would be deceiving to oneself and to God. It would seem correct to perceive this “intent of confessing” to be a purely true intention, not a probability in order for the posthumous forgiveness to take effect for that individual. In other words, our Lord’s words of thou art neither hot nor cold and therefore I shall spit thee from my mouth would suggest the analogy to best describe the use or misuse of the Sacraments He established for our well being. By the way, you certainly present your inquiry in a very thorough way!

 

[DavidFilmer]

Despite what some have said in this discussion, it would mean that someone who dies on the way to the confessional following commission of a mortal sin would very likely go to hell, because few people (per DavidFilmer’s point) have the purity of motive to satisfy the standard for “perfect” repentance.

I spoke only of my own perceptions of my own contrition (and I was quite deliberate in this particular point, having carefully edited my post several times before committing to remove any unintended possibility of such an association between myself and others), so I don’t appreciate that you apply my own perceptions to “most” (the opposite of “few”) others. I cannot speak for the contrition of anyone but myself (and not even THEN), and I certainly did not attempt to do so. So please do not say that I said things that I never said or implied.

I cited the Catechism. Is there something ***there ***that you wish to dispute?

 

[FrStevenJones]

Now and then I drop by and post questions about Catholicism. I don’t ordinarily come by to argue with Catholics, but mostly just drop in when I have something about Catholic doctrine I want to understand better (although sometimes the things I’m curious about do have apologetic implications). So in that spirit of honest inquiry, here goes.

As suggested by the subject header above, this has to do with confession, and specifically the mechanism of this sacrament of penance under Catholic theology. Here’s the issue I’m curious about. I could understand if the idea was that in order for a sin to be forgiven, it needed to be confessed and appropriate penance performed. That is, the act of confession and performance of penance was the mechanism by which the stain of sin is removed. I could understand it, but it would be a very rigorous doctrine, as you would be out of luck if you missed going through these procedures with respect to any single post-conversion sin (if it rose to the level of being mortal). So if you failed to confess due to honestly neglecting or forgetting a mortal sin, you would be out of luck, or if you died after the commission of the mortal sin but before you were able to expiate it through confession and penance.

But my understanding is that Catholic doctrine does not hold to this strict rigorous view. My understanding (correct me if I’m wrong) is that if you intend to confess but fail to do so for innocent reasons (sincerely forgetting one or dying with the intent to confess but before it could be done, for instance), then you’re ok. It is certainly understandable why you would want exceptions like this. But my question is why these understandable exceptions do not undermine the mechanism by which the ordinary process is supposed to work. If you do not, in fact, need to actually confess and perform penance, and if the sincere intent to do so suffices, then how is the purported mechanism of the sacrament necessary even in the ordinary case? In other words, if the good-faith failure to engage in the sacrament means you can get expiated of the sin without engaging in it, in what sense can the sacrament be the necessary mechanism of expiation in other cases?

Curious to hear your thoughts.

CThomas

Christ forgives the sin, not the “mechanism”. But He gave us the sacrament and commanded that it be used, and this sacrament is his instrument. So the sacrament is necessary, it’s the will of the Lord. Yet, he knows everything. So, per your example, he knows the man who died on the way to confession intended to do the Lord’s will, and thus his sins are forgiven.

 

[Michael_Allen]

Hi CThomas

It seems a shame to me that teaching on confession has become polarised so much.

On the one hand many protestants may miss out on the healing that can often come as we share our failings with another human being. I think it’s worth noting that Alcoholics Anonymous make this one of the twelve steps - they recognised how verbalising our failings to someone else can really help us face up to how we have harmed our relationship with others and with God*. Some evangelicals miss out on the encouragement to do that, and may miss the support and advice from someone experienced in the faith.

On the other hand the Catholic view does carry a risk of legalism - and a risk of seeing God’s loving grace and mercy as being unavailable apart from through a priest. I think there is a sadness there as well - that a priest is seen as being essential to receiving grace, rather than a priest being there to repeatedly point people to the grace of God. From my perspective I feel totally connected to the love and mercy of God, and I find the sacraments support that very much rather than being a legal requirement.

I do think the Anglicans found a good via media about confession with their phrase “All may, none must, some should”.

God bless +

*Step 4 Made a searching and fearless moral inventory of ourselves. Step 5: Admitted to God, to ourselves, and to another human being the exact nature of our wrongs.