Confessions after the Confessional revisited

[preyoflove]

Can anyone please clarify to me further this reply from an official CA apologist to a forum member?

“As for the penitent, he may feel the need to confess outside of the confessional in order to make amends for his wrongdoing; and such confession may or may not be prudentially sound. However, he is under no requirement to do so and must realize that whatever he confesses outside of the sacrament of penance is not protected by the sacramental seal.”

When is confessing your sins after confessing all of it in the confessional prudentially sound or unsound? Can you direct me to any online material that discusses this?

Also, what does it exactly mean when we are “under no requirement” to confess our sins after confessing it all to the confessional? Does this really mean that we are absolved of our sins even though we chose not to confess the sins we confessed in the confessional to the very person or persons we have wronged with such a sin or sins?

Thank you already and God bless.

 

[Trelow]

If it could cause more harm than good to the person you have wronged to confess to them then it would be morally unsound to do so.

Reasoning is simple: You would be simply doing so to make yourself feel better, at the expense of another.

Does this really mean that we are absolved of our sins even though we chose not to confess the sins we confessed in the confessional to the very person or persons we have wronged with such a sin or sins?

Yes. absolution is not something we earn, it’s something we are given. None of us are worthy of forgiveness according to our own merits. Only through the blood of Christ are we washed clean.

 

[preyoflove]

Thanks for your generous reply to my question Trelow! I’d like to be clarified further.

Trelow:

If it could cause more harm than good to the person you have wronged to confess to them then it would be morally unsound to do so.

Reasoning is simple: You would be simply doing so to make yourself feel better, at the expense of another.

How about a case where confessing it to the person or persons you have wronged would instead harm you rather than the person you have wronged or harm you even more than the one you have wronged?

I seem to suspect that the gravity of an offense would determine the soundness of confessing to the person you have wronged, like for example (God forbid!): murder. Surely, God demands that you confess such a sin to civil authorities, to your victim, if he or she somehow survived, and/or to his or her family, relatives and friends–after confessing it in the confessional, right? So how does the gravity of the offense affect all of this?

Again, thank you and God bless.

 

[Fizendell]

This intrigued me, and while I do not have any websites to suggest, I wanted to add my two cents worth.

It is my understanding that the Sacrament of Reconciliation is called such because we are reconciling our relationship to God through Christ. And while I may find great relief and grace in making a full confession, if I have wronged another, does not the Scripture say that I before making my offering (my confession) that I should first be reconciled to my brother and then come to make my offering?

I apologize for not having the reference for that, but it would seem that unless it would be gravely dangerous for one to confess to the person who was harmed, that one should do so. Otherwise, wouldn’t is just be a case of trying to avoid the consequences of one’s actions?

:ehh:

=)
Fiz

 

[asquared]

preyoflove:

CanWhen is confessing your sins after confessing all of it in the confessional prudentially sound or unsound? Can you direct me to any online material that discusses this?

Also, what does it exactly mean when we are “under no requirement” to confess our sins after confessing it all to the confessional? QUOTE]
you did not give the link so I can’t speculate as to what the answer meant. one might wish to confess the same sin outside the confessional to the priest or spiritual director in order to benefit from ongoing spiritual or other counselling about the underlying problem that resulted in the sin. One might wish to confess to the person who was hurt by the sin, and ask their forgiveness as part of a process of reparation and reconciliation. One might wish to confess to colleagues, friends or coworkers if the sin was something that hurt a lot of these people. the point is, if you are quoting the apologist’s answer correctly, is that you are not obliged to confess your sins to anyone, any time or any place except the priest in the confessional in order to be absolved and forgiven sacramentally. the additional confession is not a sacramental action, although it may (or may not) be healthy and helpful from a psychological or human relations point of view.

it might or might not be prudential to confess to other persons. for instance, there are pros and cons to a man who has been absolved of the sin of adultery of confessing that to his wife. he should probably get spiritual and marital counselling on this. either way, his sin was still absolved in sacramental confession. How he goes about dealing with the underlying marriage issues is a matter for counselling and good judgement.

 

[Trelow]

preyoflove:

Thanks for your generous reply to my question Trelow! I’d like to be clarified further.

How about a case where confessing it to the person or persons you have wronged would instead harm you rather than the person you have wronged or harm you even more than the one you have wronged?

I seem to suspect that the gravity of an offense would determine the soundness of confessing to the person you have wronged, like for example (God forbid!): murder. Surely, God demands that you confess such a sin to civil authorities, to your victim, if he or she somehow survived, and/or to his or her family, relatives and friends–after confessing it in the confessional, right? So how does the gravity of the offense affect all of this?

Again, thank you and God bless.

Your confessor should advise you at the time of your confession what further steps you should take, you are not obligated to do more than instructed to.

 

[preyoflove]

Fizendell:

This intrigued me, and while I do not have any websites to suggest, I wanted to add my two cents worth.

It is my understanding that the Sacrament of Reconciliation is called such because we are reconciling our relationship to God through Christ. And while I may find great relief and grace in making a full confession, if I have wronged another, does not the Scripture say that I before making my offering (my confession) that I should first be reconciled to my brother and then come to make my offering?

I apologize for not having the reference for that, but it would seem that unless it would be gravely dangerous for one to confess to the person who was harmed, that one should do so. Otherwise, wouldn’t is just be a case of trying to avoid the consequences of one’s actions?

:ehh:

=)
Fiz

I’m familiar with that Matthew 5:23-25 passage, Fizendell:* “*If therefore thou offer thy gift at the altar, and there thou remember that thy brother hath any thing against thee; Leave there thy offering before the altar, and go first to be reconciled to thy brother: and then coming thou shalt offer thy gift. Be at agreement with thy adversary betimes, whilst thou art in the way with him: lest perhaps the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison.” Don’t know why I forgot to bring that up.

So is trying to avoid the consequences of one’s action a sin? Would that make the sacramental confession invalid if so?

 

[Trelow]

I believe that passage would be better understood that we need to be reconciled in order to receive the Eucharist.