Confession

[Olrac]

In confession how much detail should someone give about their sin to the priest? What would consider to be a vauge description of a sin?

 

[jcrichton]

In confession how much detail should someone give about their sin to the priest? What would consider to be a vauge description of a sin?

Hi!

The Sacrament of Confession is not a free session (psych/socio); keeping this in mind we are there to reject the sin and its hold on us and the act… asking for forgiveness is difficult because we truly must open up to God, through the Priest, and we must be truthful and sincere about our purpose. This, of course, does not mean that I have we have to paint a picture of our sins (this sometimes happens in revivals and other sorts where people go on stage and confess…); the reason why we must be careful is because we may again turn to the sin if we are merely boastful about our conquests, abilities, or enamored with the “got away with…” feeling (hollowoods takes in movies and shows–the pride in braking the rules, killing, torturing, deceiving, betraying…).

The Priest needs to know what we are Confessing and that we are truly and sincerely seeking absolution and a change of mind and heart by turning from sin back to God. So if he is not clear in what we are attempting to confess he will nudge us a little or direct us more fully towards what we need to express.

Never attempt to present an excuse for any sinful act (it is as though we really don’t want to accept responsibility.)

The Priest will not judge us so there’s no reason to hold back–keeping in mind that if I commit adultery or fornication I do not need to describe the act/s but the fact that I committed the offense and if it was “a” or “f.”

Also, general consensus does not mean that it is not a sin (as the ole president pretended not to know) and just because other people (Catholics and non-Catholics alike) ***do it ***and pretend that it is not a sin does not make it so!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[sirach2v4]

In confession how much detail should someone give about their sin to the priest? What would consider to be a vauge description of a sin?

I’m one of those Catholics who go to confession to priests who don’t know me (or at least I think that is so). So, that makes me uninhibited to just list the sins and get it over. There are no explanations necessary.

If you have access to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, there is paragraph 1735 which says that we may sin in an objectively “grave” fashion, but that we might not be fully or even partially culpable for that action.

I don’t know how to use this teaching of the church to filter out anything from confession. I can’t get an answer from any priest or bishop I’ve asked for an explanation of this Church teaching (which we must all accept).

If you are familiar with Fr. Mitch Pacwa on EWTN, he once said that the sacrament of confession is the only way the Church has for granting absolution for sins. But, there must be a larger context. Another priest on EWTN the other day (I am told) said that Fr. Damien who ministered to the lepers in Hawaii on the island of Molokai, was the only priest and he didn’t have any priest to confess to. So, we have to assume that there are curcumstances where we can assume that “God understands” our direct confession.

 

[pianistclare]

I’m one of those Catholics who go to confession to priests who don’t know me (or at least I think that is so). So, that makes me uninhibited to just list the sins and get it over. There are no explanations necessary.

If you have access to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, there is paragraph 1735 which says that we may sin in an objectively “grave” fashion, but that we might not be fully or even partially culpable for that action.

I don’t know how to use this teaching of the church to filter out anything from confession. I can’t get an answer from any priest or bishop I’ve asked for an explanation of this Church teaching (which we must all accept).

If you are familiar with Fr. Mitch Pacwa on EWTN, he once said that the sacrament of confession is the only way the Church has for granting absolution for sins. But, there must be a larger context. Another priest on EWTN the other day (I am told) said that Fr. Damien who ministered to the lepers in Hawaii on the island of Molokai, was the only priest and he didn’t have any priest to confess to. So, we have to assume that there are curcumstances where we can assume that “God understands” our direct confession.

Except all of us DO have access to a priest. I’ve never encountered a priest in confession that was shy about asking for details if necessary to give counsel.
People can and should ask if something is a sin when in doubt.
You have a captive audience. They expect us to talk to them, and we should expect them to answer.

 

[Jon_S_1]

In confession how much detail should someone give about their sin to the priest? What would consider to be a vauge description of a sin?

If its too vague the priest will tell you.

I would err on being more vague, I think most people go way to deep into it.

I lied one time
I was lustful four times.
I failed in bearing Christian witness at work 1 time.

I hit my brother twice

Etc…

 

[jcrichton]

I’m one of those Catholics who go to confession to priests who don’t know me (or at least I think that is so). So, that makes me uninhibited to just list the sins and get it over. There are no explanations necessary.

If you have access to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, there is paragraph 1735 which says that we may sin in an objectively “grave” fashion, but that we might not be fully or even partially culpable for that action.

I don’t know how to use this teaching of the church to filter out anything from confession. I can’t get an answer from any priest or bishop I’ve asked for an explanation of this Church teaching (which we must all accept).

If you are familiar with Fr. Mitch Pacwa on EWTN, he once said that the sacrament of confession is the only way the Church has for granting absolution for sins. But, there must be a larger context. Another priest on EWTN the other day (I am told) said that Fr. Damien who ministered to the lepers in Hawaii on the island of Molokai, was the only priest and he didn’t have any priest to confess to. So, we have to assume that there are curcumstances where we can assume that “God understands” our direct confession.

Hi!

Here’s what it states:

1735 Imputability and responsibility for an action can be diminished or even nullified by ignorance, inadvertence, duress, fear, habit, inordinate attachments, and other psychological or social factors. (scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c1a3.htm)

Though a sin may be grave, the responsibility for the action can be diminished (we are not held to its full rigor) if we lacked conscious knowledge of its gravity, or if it happened under duress, fear, habit or other psychological/social factors…

…my understanding is this… we know that the Commandment tells us not to kill… yet people do kill, wish that others would die, curse (which is a double sin) others to die/be killed, commit suicide, abort their babies or cause others to abort their babies or assist or coerce/force others to abort their babies, and we abuse drugs (inclusive of alcohol, prescriptions, recreational, and the use of tabaco products) which are known to cause death through one assault or another on our health. We may commit one or more of these acts without having full responsibility by the lack of knowledge or the lack of control at the time of the act.

However, we know that it is God to whom we are Confessing out sins so by feigning ignorance or just going along with others, or concluding that Christ already died for all past, present, and future sins… well, God is not deceived nor moved!

It is interesting, though, that 1735 follows:

Freedom makes man responsible for his acts to the extent that they are voluntary. Progress in virtue, knowledge of the good, and ascesis enhance the mastery of the will over its acts

.
Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Dodge_pursuit]

In confession, one is expected to state “number and kind” of sins to the best of his ability.

“I lost my temper once. I cheated on a test one time.”

We are urged not to tell “the story of the sin,” by setting the stage and making excuses. As a prior post stated, any priest will ask if he needs more detail.

Two excellent, short books on confession I highly recommend:

Seven Secrets of Confession by Vinny Flynn

The Light is On for You by Cardinal Donald Wuerl

Peace! Confession is awesome.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

In confession how much detail should someone give about their sin to the priest? What would consider to be a vauge description of a sin?

We used to say for serious sin: “species and number”. What was the sin and, if serious, how many times. If the sin is not serious, there is no need to mention any number. The number, when necessary, can always be approximated.

Saying “I violated the sixth commandment” is an example of being too vague. One may certainly use a circumlocution, if it conveys what is needing to be confessed…“I was intimate with my girlfriend twice” would tell me as a confessor what happened. “My girlfriend and I did something we shouldn’t have done” on the other hand would be too vague for me to know what is being confessed.

“Can the priest reasonably be expected to understand the sin I am confessing, if I say it this way” is a useful rule of thumb.

Details that change the nature of the sin or its culpability are to be mentioned. Stealing is one thing…stealing a chalice from a church alters the sin. Lying is a different sin from lying under oath. Killing when it is the direct taking of an innocent life is distinctly different from killing to defend yourself or an innocent person – and so forth.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

If you have access to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, there is paragraph 1735 which says that we may sin in an objectively “grave” fashion, but that we might not be fully or even partially culpable for that action.

I don’t know how to use this teaching of the church to filter out anything from confession. I can’t get an answer from any priest or bishop I’ve asked for an explanation of this Church teaching (which we must all accept).

This is a basic concept in moral theology.

For a person to be guilty of serious sin, three things must be present.

1. The matter itself must be serious.
2. The person must know that the matter is serious.
3. The person must, by a free and conscious choice, choose to do that which s/he knows is serious.

If the matter itself is serious, then the matter is objectively sinful.

If one does not know that the matter is sinful or one lacks the freedom to consent, the commission of what was objectively sinful does not result in the acquisition of subjective moral guilt of a serious sin.