Crazy confession

  • Thread starter Thread starter YehoiakhinEx232
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Yes, but an eighteen year gap in confession isn’t the norm. And we shouldn’t be committing mortal sins since they are grave. The rules for confession aren’t built around assuming long absences or lack of repentance.

I am a convert and made a general confession covering forty years. I couldn’t remember a number for many sins. I phrased it as ‘had a habit of doing A maybe B times a C (week, month) over D years’. The priest was fine with this and I could not have provided any more accuracy in number. But we are to provide the most accurate accounting we can.
 
It’s worth not ever committing a grave sin or missing Confession for a long period of time again, just to not have to deal with the level of detail required when one comes back.

In any event, Confession is supposed to be for grave sinners and people who have been “away” also, so in that instance, the person presumably has not been studying up on canon law of confessions and is very reliant on the priest’s guidance to make a good confession. If the priest fails to guide properly I’d say it’s on him, not on the person who is trying to make it back to the Church after a long absence.

The last thing a repentant long-time sinner wants is to have to worry that their confession was not any good or that they didn’t dredge up enough bad stuff from their rusty memory banks. I routinely worry that I forgot something, and I’m not all that scrupulous. I can imagine what it would be like for a more scrupulous person than me. At some point we have to just say Lord I did my best, I put it in your hands.
 
Last edited:
Is my confession invalid if I didn’t state how many times I committed a mortal sin :cry:
 
No, your confession is not invalid.

Your priest confessor will tell you if he needs more information or not.

Do not let people on the internet make you fearful or doubt your priest.
 
It has been my experience that some priests take a very granular approach to the number of times. But they’re rare in Quebec. Most take a more holistic approach to sin, and are satisfied with “numerous times since the last confession”, “occasionally”, “rarely but recently”, “only once since my last confession”, or something along those lines.

Moreover for habitual sin they will often point out that it is not necessary to confess every time the sin occurs, the habit diminishes culpability; they seem willing to work with us to identify triggers, find a path to improvement, etc.

I prefer the holistic approach. I think the granular approach can be an issue with overly scrupulous people. In any event an absolution in proper form is valid.
 
If the priest had wanted information as to the number, he would have asked. The sins were confessed and the priest gave absolution. There is no need to go to the next confession and confess that one did not give the number of times the previous sins were committed. That advice borders on, if not engages, scrupulosity.

Take what you are saying: we are obliged to confess the number. By implication, you are saying, or agreeing with the poster I responded to, that if one does not go back the next time and confess the number, that one was not actually forgiven.

the priest knows Canon law and is eminently capable of asking “How often?” If he didn’t, then it was not an issue, and it is not an issue to be carried forward tot he next confession session.

I was not arguing with Canon law. I was specifically responding to the post which said the penitent needed to go to confession and tell about how many times the forgiven sin was committed.

He doesn’t. He is forgiven, It’s over. There is no obligation to go back to confession and “start over”.

And no, it doesn’t make it like a rushed general confession. The priest was eminently capable of asking for more information. There is no official document which says “If you don’t confess the number of times, you are not forgiven”. Canon law is the law. The application of the law is up to the priest. The priest applied the law when he forgave the penitent.

I am not advocating violating Canon law. I am advocating not encouraging scrupulosity, and there are any number of individuals who come to this forum with questions either which involve scrupulosity on their part, or with questions, and the answers given push that direction.

One should tell the number of times - not because it is Canon law (which doesn’t hurt the issue) but because it gives the priest information which may be helpful in directing the penitent. Obviously (it would seem) if the last confession was a week ago and the sin has been committed 12 times since then, the priest may react a bit differently than if it ws committed once; but the likelihood is he is going to forgive either scenario; he may have different (name removed by moderator)ut based on which situation.

But absent a showing that the penitent hid the number of times (as opposed to unintentionally not saying how often), the sins are absolved, and he does not have to go back and tell, in the next confession, the number he forgot to say.

God Doesn’t play “Gotcha!” through Canon law. Neither does the Church.
 
If you did not remember to, or think to say how many times and the priest did not inquire, then your confession is valid.

If you intentionally hid the number, you should speak to your confessor.
 
otjm said:
There is no need to go to the next confession and confess that one did not give the number of times the previous sins were committed. That advice borders on, if not engages, scrupulosity.
Click to expand...
Not if the confession was incomplete.
otjm said:
Take what you are saying: we are obliged to confess the number. By implication, you are saying, or agreeing with the poster I responded to, that if one does not go back the next time and confess the number, that one was not actually forgiven.
Click to expand...
No, the sins were forgiven. That isn’t in question. But if we don’t make a complete confession the next time then we have a new sin. It is just like if you forget a mortal sin. The prior confession would be valid but you have the obligation to confess it the next time.
otjm said:
the priest knows Canon law and is eminently capable of asking “How often?” If he didn’t, then it was not an issue, and it is not an issue to be carried forward tot he next confession session.
Click to expand...
The priest supposedly told the penitent to not say the number of times he committed a mortal sin. If he did so (and no relevant information was omitted) then he either doesn’t know the law or does and for some reason advises penitents to ignore it.
otjm said:
And no, it doesn’t make it like a rushed general confession. The priest was eminently capable of asking for more information. There is no official document which says “If you don’t confess the number of times, you are not forgiven”. Canon law is the law. The application of the law is up to the priest. The priest applied the law when he forgave the penitent.
Click to expand...
The problem was the priest said not to say the number of times a mortal sin was committed. That isn’t the same as not asking for more information. That is saying to ignore the requirements of a good confession. That is saying to ignore the rules of a good confession.

Unless there is more to this than revealed what else can you do but question the application of that sacrament? I would if it happened to me. And I would confess the sins from the previous confession. I’m not particularly scrupulous but making a good confession is rather straightforward. I know what it takes and if the rather simple rules are flaunted then what else can I do but question and doubt? The problem here isn’t with the penitent and doubting God’s mercy but doubting a straightforward sacrament due to instructions at odds with the rules.
 
No, it is not. The essence of what you are saying is that the priest did not absolve the individual. That is poppycock.
 
No, I am explicitly saying the priest did absolve the penitent.
 
YehoiakhinEx232 said:
You’ve been reading too many blogs, 😉
Click to expand...
🤣 Good call!
Joe1 said:
Wait we have to say how many times we committed a mortal sin!? 😮
Click to expand...
Similar questions to the OP have been coming up in the seven years I’ve been in CAF, that is, where the mortal sins were confessed, but without number, and sometimes at the direction of the priest. The responses usually agree the confession was valid, and then we get into a disagreement as to whether those mortal sins need to be re-confessed with number at another time.

As the discussion progresses, often someone joins in as you have and mentions that they have been confessing without number, unaware that the number is required.

The answer is, as others have mentioned, that yes, the number of mortal sins is required, as a matter of dogma (defined at the Council of Trent, BTW, and also in canon law). Please note that “number” can mean both a specific digit (“once”, “four times”, etc.) or just an honest approximation (“about twice a week”), or even “a few times”, “many times”. If the priest needs more specificity, he will ask. Obviously, “murder” would require a better approximation than sexual habits.

As to whether someone in this situation is now required to revisit previous confessions, then we get into the same disagreement as above.

Unfortunately, the two views on what is to be done about previous confessions (ie. must the omitted numbers now be confessed), has never been answered so well as to give an irrefutable direction.

However, my advise is practical. Once a person is in this quandary about previous confessions then they won’t be satisfied with an answer from the internet anyway, so I recommend they just take the question to the priest next time they are in confession. Priests are always happy to receive such questions - it’s part of the confessional. Put it at the start of the confession, and express it as directly as you can. eg. “In my previous confessions I have confessed mortal sins, but didn’t know that I was required to give the number. Do I have to re-confess those sins?”. Leave it with the priest, and be at peace.

@Cruciferi’s abacus sums up these discussions! 🤣 Brilliant!
 
Last edited:
Like the other users have said, I wouldn’t stress it. You’re fine.

CountrySteve
 
Then the penitent has absolutely no reason to bring any of that up again. They were absolved; issue ended.

what you are not answering is why you think they have to bring up the number; and don’t boot to Canon law; tell me what the consequences are for not bringing it up.

There are no consequences. Period. No consequences, no need, no purpose.
 
The number is not required by dogma; it is required by discipline. Slight difference.
 
exnihilo said:
You seem rather confident. Unfortunately I think your confidence is misplaced. For mortal sins we are obligated to confess those in number and kind. That apparently didn’t happen here. That would, it seems to me, make it like a general absolution made in haste due to necessity where one is absolved but one is still obligated to confess those sins and mortal (in number and kind) at the next confession. I could be wrong as I don’t claim to be an expert but absent official documents saying otherwise this is what you do when you have an incomplete confession.
  • This assumes nothing undisclosed like the OP is scrupulous and has different instructions.
Click to expand...
It is your confidence in yourself that is misplaced – and you have moreover grossly arrived to an incorrect conclusion.

Laity in this forum seem to have a recurring problem about the nature of the sacrament of penance and their connection to it

As a priest, I am the one in control of this sacrament’s celebration when I celebrate it – not the lay person receiving it – because of the mandate of my bishop and the faculties I receive from the Church, through him.
  • I decide if it is appropriate to celebrate the sacrament, guided by the norm of law and by sacramental theology as well as the pastoral need.
  • I decide the penance.
  • I decide whether the person can be absolved or if absolution needs to be deferred, again according to law and the theology of the sacrament.
The confessor told the penitent to cease something he was doing in his confession. I think I can surmise why…but it does not matter. The confessor’s judgement, as the celebrant of this sacrament, means the penitent was correct to comply with the confessor’s instructions and directive.

There is no need for this matter to be dissected by a subsequent confessor since the issues were resolved by the confessor’s judgement and his absolution.

The guidelines of the forum state:
Do not offer or solicit medical, psychiatric, or legal advice. Do not give advice that is contrary to civil law. Do not give advice to a minor that opposes the instruction of a parent or legal guardian. All such discussions should be directed to the proper authorities: parents, guardians, therapists, parish priests, or primary care providers.
Click to expand...
This frankly should be expanded. For sound reason, medical and psychiatric advise is to be given by licensed healthcare providers, legal advice is to be given by those licensed to practice law – and matters related to the specific administration and regulation of the sacraments should be referred to the competent cleric or, if there is an issue, a chancery official.

I spent more years studying for my degrees in theology as well as the mandates I have received from the Church than many health care professionals or lawyers.

Finally, you are wrong to assume what is known and what is not known. The confessor knows why he did what he did – and he knows the reason that he did it. He is the only one at this point who needs to know.
 
exnihilo said:
The problem was the priest said not to say the number of times a mortal sin was committed. That isn’t the same as not asking for more information. That is saying to ignore the requirements of a good confession. That is saying to ignore the rules of a good confession.

Unless there is more to this than revealed what else can you do but question the application of that sacrament? I would if it happened to me. And I would confess the sins from the previous confession. I’m not particularly scrupulous but making a good confession is rather straightforward. I know what it takes and if the rather simple rules are flaunted then what else can I do but question and doubt? The problem here isn’t with the penitent and doubting God’s mercy but doubting a straightforward sacrament due to instructions at odds with the rules.
Click to expand...
As a lay person, you are not the judge of a priest who has received the faculty to hear confessions.
  1. You do not have the academic education, the pastoral training or the experience to do so
  2. You do not have jurisdiction to do so, which is delineated by a proper process
In celebrating the sacrament of penance, I very well may decide to proceed in one way as opposed to another way for a reason based on the penitent and the content of their confession.

The penitent has no more need to have my knowledge of the sacrament, its theology or canon law when she is in the tribunal of my confessional than a person appearing in a civil court room need have the knowledge of the law and of the court’s specific powers and jurisdiction that the Judge himself well knows.

You speak of “questioning the application of that sacrament.” Every Catholic layperson is under the care and jurisdiction of her parish priest. The parish priest is appointed by the diocesan bishop. The diocesan bishop is assisted by the curia he appoints, with the responsibilities and mandates he provides them…up to and inclusive of the Vicar General. The laity follow the directive of those under whose jurisdiction they live out their lives of faith.

You say that you know what it takes to make a good confession and you speak of rather “simple rules” – but what you have demonstrated to me is a radical lack of understanding regarding the celebrant of the sacrament’s latitude that the Church gives him to deal precisely with the individual celebration of that sacrament and the penitent seeking it.
The priest supposedly told the penitent to not say the number of times he committed a mortal sin. If he did so (and no relevant information was omitted) then he either doesn’t know the law or does and for some reason advises penitents to ignore it.
Click to expand...
Those are not, in fact, the only options – and if you don’t know that, I do not understand why you would comment on this matter in a public forum where people can be misled by this error.
 
YehoiakhinEx232 said:
I’m assuming that I am forgiven of my sins and I’m going to trust in God’s mercy, but I want to check with anyone here to see if this confession was valid or not?
Click to expand...
The confession was valid. You were absolved.

The absence of the stole is not an issue for concern.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top