Does a penitent have to mention number of times sin was committed?

[Bookcat]

Dear Bookcat,

The model of the confessional is always Christ welcoming the repentant sinner, the Merciful Father welcoming the prodigal son. Christ never said “Your sins are forgiven, but you still must confess the numbers”, nor did the Merciful Father [Luke 15:17]. The interpretation of these scriptures remains with the Church, but it remains in the confessional. When the priest hears the confession and says “I absolve you” he does not add “but you must confess the number at another time”. No! He has welcomed the sinner as Christ did, and as the Merciful Father did. He has exercised his authority: “Whatever you bind on earth shall bound in heaven, whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven”. The confession is complete. The penitent may go in peace.

Yes the penitent can* go in peace *having made a good confession! Amen! If they realize that they forgot one of the mortal sins --that it was 2 murders not only one --then they just mention in in the next confession.

Yes – the interpretation and teachings remains with the Church —and the Church Teaches that yes one is obliged to confess all mortal sins in number and kind.

If one commits 3 murders and by mistake says only murder (not trying to hide it by an honest mistake) then if one realizes this one is obliged to confess those other two murders. Those other two murders have not yet been confessed directly.

This is not a matter open for opinion. And the Church Teaches this is not something she can change.

(Funny thing - I was just talking today with a Professor - Priest who teaches future Priests how to hear confessions in Seminary --and he said he makes sure his students are well aware of this very thing. He said that unfortunately there is still a bit of a “culture of ignorance” around and that this is one example of such that (well meaning) people do not realize.)

 

[Edmundus1581]

Yes the penitent can* go in peace *having made a good confession! Amen! If they realize that they forgot one of the mortal sins --that it was 2 murders not only one --then they just mention in in the next confession.

Yes. Amen!

Yes – the interpretation and teachings remains with the Church —and the Church Teaches that yes one is obliged to confess all mortal sins in number and kind.

We are only obliged to confess mortal sins which have not been previously confessed. When one makes a sincere confession of sins then they have been confessed, even if the number is not given. This is where the judgement of the priest comes in. The penitent may have said “acts of lust”, thus indicating more than one. If the priest decides that no more specific number is required then he has remitted all those sins.

One reason a priest may not insist on numbers is that he may judge that a person is not fully culpable for the sin. For example, acts of impurity are often habitual or committed with reduced consent. If the priest were to judge such then he may not ask the number of times (for it is not a mortal sin).

The priest may also decide that any indication of the numbers, eg. by using the plural form, or saying “habitually”, “sometimes”, etc… is sufficient. That’s his preregative and one does not need to return to the confessional with a better indication of the numbers.

There can be exceptions to this, but it is very hard to envision them in practice. If once just confessed “murder”, for three murders, and was being sincere and open, then yes, one should probably confess the number at another time. Similarly for confessing “adultery” when it was actually “adultery thirty times”. However there would be a very remote chance of being sincere and open, and actually confessing such sins with just one word.

So, how are we to know that our confession gave reasonable indication of the kind and number? In most cases, we should accept the verdict of the person who actually heard it, ie. the confessor, knowing that he is obliged to guide the penitent to a valid confession.

If we are quite sure that what we said was significantly different from the sins we actually committed, and that the priest did not have a reasonable chance to understand us, and that the sins were mortal (by all three conditions) then, yes, we should mention this at our next confession. But again, it is hard to see how this could happen in practice if one was being sincere and open.

I refer again to Fr Wilson.

If the priest is satisfied with you, then you ought to be satisfied, for remember that he is the judge, not you. Don’t usurp the confessor’s position and imply that Confession is worth next to nothing! Confession would be valueless if a quasi-infallible confessor were essential for its successful administration.

“But the priest may be mistaken!” Of course, he may. But remember this:

1. If the priest is fallible, he is certainly no more fallible than you. This desire to revise his judgments amounts to an unconscious usurping of his position. It is judging God’s appointed judge, and that is pride and want of faith and has no kinship whatever with zeal or tenderness of conscience. It is the self-opinionated attitude of private judgment.

1. Fallible or not, the priest is reductively infallible, because his judgment will be respected in heaven. “Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them. Whatsover you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in Heaven.” Your judgment isn’t guaranteed anything, so you will be wise to relinquish it and leave judgment to the priest.

If one commits 3 murders and by mistake says only murder (not trying to hide it by an honest mistake) then if one realizes this one is obliged to confess those other two murders. Those other two murders have not yet been confessed directly.

Yes, but that is an unlikely scenario. The OP for this thread has informed us that she used the plural “sins”, thus indication more than one.

This is not a matter open for opinion. And the Church Teaches this is not something she can change.

The application of the Church teaching to a particular situation is a matter of interpretation, not “opinion” - and the best person to interpret it is the priest who heard the confession.

You yourself remind us that the the scrupulous, in revisiting past confessions, are to follow the guidance of a regular confessor. So, you do admit that there is room for interpretation of the Church’s teaching for individual circumstance.

However, one can always mention any concerns about past confessions with a confessor.

 

[Edmundus1581]

Yes the penitent can* go in peace *having made a good confession! Amen! If they realize that they forgot one of the mortal sins --that it was 2 murders not only one --then they just mention in in the next confession.

Yes. Amen!

Yes – the interpretation and teachings remains with the Church —and the Church Teaches that yes one is obliged to confess all mortal sins in number and kind.

We are only obliged to confess mortal sins which have not been previously confessed. If we confessed them sincerely and openly, then, even if we did not confess them by “kind and number”, consciously, then they have been confessed . This is where the judgement of the priest comes in. Even though the penitent is unaware of the need to confess numbers, his or her words will usually indicate the numbers. For example, he may have said “acts of lust”, thus indicating more than one. If the priest decides that no more specific number is required then he has remitted all those sins.

One reason a priest may not insist on numbers is that he may judge that a person is not fully culpable for the sin. For example, acts of impurity are often habitual or committed with reduced consent. If the priest were to judge such then he may not ask the number of times (for it is not a mortal sin).

The priest may also decide that any indication of the numbers, eg. by using the plural form, or saying “habitually”, “sometimes”, etc… is sufficient. That’s his preregative and one does not need to return to the confessional with a more exact count.

There can be exceptions to this, but it is very hard to envision them in practice. If once just confessed “murder”, for three murders, and was being sincere and open, then yes, one should probably confess the number at another time. Similarly for confessing “adultery” when it was actually “adultery thirty times”. We are in some agreement, as I made a similar comment in my first post here: “if one had confessed “adultery”, but failed to mention that they had moved in with their lover and been committing adultery frequently and over a long time, then (probably) one should mention that next time.” However there would be a very remote chance of being sincere and open, and actually confessing such sins with just one word.

So, how are we to know that our confession gave reasonable indication of the kind and number? In most cases, we should accept the verdict of the person who actually heard it, ie. the confessor, knowing that he is obliged to guide the penitent to a valid confession.

If we are quite sure that what we said was significantly different from the sins we actually committed, and that the priest did not have a reasonable chance to understand us, and that the sins were mortal (by all three conditions) then, yes, we should mention this at our next confession. But again, it is hard to see how this could happen in practice if one was being sincere and open.

The cases we are dealing with can be within two extremes of validity. At one extreme, the person has made a good, but imperfect confession, of the numbers, eg. “I committed adultery frequently”, and, at the other end, has given no indication, eg. “adultery”. The confessor is the best judge of where, in between these extremes, a valid confession has been made.

I refer again to Fr Wilson.

If the priest is satisfied with you, then you ought to be satisfied, for remember that he is the judge, not you. Don’t usurp the confessor’s position and imply that Confession is worth next to nothing! Confession would be valueless if a quasi-infallible confessor were essential for its successful administration.

“But the priest may be mistaken!” Of course, he may. But remember this:

1. If the priest is fallible, he is certainly no more fallible than you. This desire to revise his judgments amounts to an unconscious usurping of his position. It is judging God’s appointed judge, and that is pride and want of faith and has no kinship whatever with zeal or tenderness of conscience. It is the self-opinionated attitude of private judgment.

1. Fallible or not, the priest is reductively infallible, because his judgment will be respected in heaven. “Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them. Whatsover you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in Heaven.” Your judgment isn’t guaranteed anything, so you will be wise to relinquish it and leave judgment to the priest.

If one commits 3 murders and by mistake says only murder (not trying to hide it by an honest mistake) then if one realizes this one is obliged to confess those other two murders. Those other two murders have not yet been confessed directly.

Yes, but that is an unlikely scenario. The OP for this thread has informed us that she used the plural “sins”, thus indication more than one.

This is not a matter open for opinion. And the Church Teaches this is not something she can change.

The application of the Church teaching to a particular situation is a matter of interpretation, not “opinion” - and, for confession, the best person to interpret the teaching is the priest who heard the confession.

You yourself remind us that the the scrupulous, in revisiting past confessions, are to follow the guidance of a regular confessor. So, you do admit that there is room for interpretation of the Church’s teaching for individual circumstance.

However, one can always mention any concerns about past confessions with a confessor.

 

[fred_conty]

Edmundus,
Pretend that you are the priest in the confessional and a person comes in for confession to you.

They begin by saying that their last confession was 11 months ago. Then they say “Father, I missed Mass. I committed adultery. I stole. I had bad arguments. I drove drunk.”

“For these and all my past sins of cursing I am sorry.”

Then would you give him absolution after assigning him penance?

May God our Father give you grace and peace.

 

[Bookcat]

We are only obliged to confess mortal sins which have not been previously confessed. If we confessed them sincerely and openly, then, even if we did not confess them by “kind and number”, consciously, then they have been confessed

They have NOT been previously confessed. They were omitted. If Jake committed adultery 3x and omits the 3x -such has not yet been confessed. They can have been indirectly absolved due to his making a good formally integral confession -but he if he realizes that he did not confess that it was 3x – he is still obliged to confess those sins.

I repeat --there is no question here - one is obliged to confess all mortal sins in number and kind. If one forgets or say had no clue that one is to do such --one is obliged still confess those that have not yet been confessed.

Can there be certain exceptions to this? Yes as I noted --but such are exceptions.

This is not a matter open to opinion.

If I commit 3 murders and I make a good confession but realize later that I did not say the 3x due by mistake – I yes am obliged to bring this up in the next confession. There is not question here.

We are** not** discussing cases where a penitent has* not* committed mortal sin, or the Penitent does not know the actual number, or the Penitent cannot remember the mortal sins, the Penitent is rather scrupulous about past sins or unnecessary details and needs the direction of a regular confessor, or the Penitent has to give an estimate of the number according to what they know…

(As to the OP -they can go sit down with a Priest and work things out. I am discussing what the obligation)

 

[Bookcat]

I refer again to Fr Wilson.

Same Father Wilson…

Fr. Alfred Wilson C.P. states in that same book:

(he is talking about previous confessions – about the penitent discovering that he did not give the number that was committed but that there were more of that particular mortal sin committed)

“If there was a question of mortal sins, the penitent must confess the surplus at his next confession”

 

[Bookcat]

General question:

Does a penitent have to mention number of times sin was committed?

Yes. If they were mortal sins.

Compendium issued by Pope Benedict XVI

1. Which sins must be confessed?

1456

All grave sins **not yet **confessed, which a careful examination of conscience brings to mind, must be brought to the sacrament of Penance. The confession of serious sins is the only ordinary way to obtain forgiveness.

vatican.va/archive/compendium_ccc/documents/archive_2005_compendium-ccc_en.html

 

[Bookcat]

Here from Catholic Answers Staff Apologist:

Question:

Is It Nessasary To Confess How Many Times One Has Sinned?

When in the confessional, do you have to confess how many times you have sinned? Because in my parish there is one priest who has asked once or twice the amount of times you have sinned, and there is another priest who doesn’t ask at all.

So to be forgiven, do you have to say the amount of times you have sinned?
**
Answer:**

To the best of your ability you should confess how many times you committed each grave sin. Code of Canon Law (988.1) is clear on this point:

Quote:

If you don’t know an exact number you can, to the best of your ability, estimate or provide and approximation (e.g., “several times”). If you forget to do this or later remember additional occurrences of grave sins your sins are still forgiven but you should remember to acknowledge those sins at your next confession.

Jim Blackburn
Apologist

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=813723&postcount=2

 

[Bookcat]

We are only obliged to confess mortal sins which have not been previously confessed. If we confessed them sincerely and openly, then, even if we did not confess them by “kind and number”, consciously, then they have been confessed

They have NOT been previously confessed (for there where 3 -not one). Some were omitted. If Jake committed adultery 3x and omits the 3x -such has not yet been confessed. They can have been indirectly absolved due to his making a good formally integral confession -but he if later he realizes that he did not confess that it was 3x – he is still obliged to confess those sins.

I repeat --there is no question here - one is obliged to confess all mortal sins in number and kind. If one forgets or say had no clue that one is to do such --one is obliged still confess those that have not yet been confessed.

Can there be certain exceptions to this? Yes as I noted --but such are exceptions.

Normally if I commit 3 murders and I make a good confession but realize later that I did not say the 3x due by mistake – I yes am obliged to bring this up in the next confession. There is no question here. Or I forget entirely a kind of mortal sin (and number). I am still obliged to confess it. Such has not yet been directly confessed.

We are** not** discussing cases where a penitent has* not* committed mortal sin, or the Penitent does not know the actual number, or the Penitent cannot remember the mortal sins, or the Penitent is rather scrupulous about past sins or unnecessary details and needs the direction of a* regular confessor*, or the Penitent has to give an estimate of the number according to what they know cause it was a long time ago…etc

Is one to confess all not yet confessed mortal sins in number and kind? Yes. Are there at times where such is not possible for one reason or another? Yes that too is true.

It is important to note that Confession is where we “confess” --where we accuse ourselves of our mortal sins in number and kind and any venial sins we want to confess - It a “confession” not an “interrogation” we are responsible to confess all our mortal sins in number and kind.–and wonderfully we are restored or renewed in true life in Christ.

 

[Bookcat]

Here from Catholic Answers Staff Apologist:

Question:

Is It Nessasary To Confess How Many Times One Has Sinned?

When in the confessional, do you have to confess how many times you have sinned? Because in my parish there is one priest who has asked once or twice the amount of times you have sinned, and there is another priest who doesn’t ask at all.

So to be forgiven, do you have to say the amount of times you have sinned?
**
Answer:**

To the best of your ability you should confess how many times you committed each grave sin. Code of Canon Law (988.1) is clear on this point:

Quote – see quote above

If you don’t know an exact number you can, to the best of your ability, estimate or provide and approximation (e.g., “several times”). If you forget to do this or later remember additional occurrences of grave sins your sins are still forgiven but you should remember to acknowledge those sins at your next confession.

Jim Blackburn
Apologist

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=813723&postcount=2

 

[blaskoman]

Book cat,

If I read you correctly, if the penitent says he/she has committed murder and was “absolved” but had not mentioned that it was 5 murders (for example), then that penitent was not in fact absolved. You state that this penitent should confess to the other 4 murders next time. So what are we to make of that first absolvement?

 

[blaskoman]

In the new testament, I do not believe that Jesus asked the individual how many times a particular sin was committed. If I recall, Jesus would state, " you are forgiven of your sins, go and sin no more".

 

[Bookcat]

Book cat,

If I read you correctly, if the penitent says he/she has committed murder and was “absolved” but had not mentioned that it was 5 murders (for example), then that penitent was not in fact absolved. You state that this penitent should confess to the other 4 murders next time. So what are we to make of that first absolvement?

If a person was contrite etc and meant to confess all their mortal sins -forgotten mortal sins are “indirectly absolved” (I am addressing the general aspects not a particular case here) but there still remains the obligation to confess the forgotten mortal sins --the mortal sins that where omitted in good faith as one can say. For they have not yet been “directly” submitted to the keys as Canon Law puts it – have not yet been confessed.

Similarly - a person who say is dying and has not time to confess --and is absolved --if they recover they are still obliged to confess their mortal sins. Or a plane full of passengers who are crashing with a Priest aboard…if they survive they still need to confess their mortal sins.

 

[Bookcat]

In the new testament, I do not believe that Jesus asked the individual how many times a particular sin was committed. If I recall, Jesus would state, " you are forgiven of your sins, go and sin no more".

Jesus was not referring to the Sacrament of Penance…such was his personal act here on earth…in a very different context.

He instituted the Sacrament of Confession later.

The Church is very clear that one must confess all mortal sins in number and kind *(those committed after baptism that is…)

A person who repents and believes in Jesus and is then baptized --he does not confess anything…for the baptism removes all…but that is a different matter.

Though if he later commits a mortal sin --they yes he will need to confess it in number and kind.

 

[Bookcat]

what are we to make of that first absolvement?

Jimmy Akin senior Apologist of Catholic Answers:

“You are forgiven if you *meant *to confess all your mortal sins and just forgot one. Having been forgiven of the one you forgot, you are still *obligated *to confess it the next time you go to confession. It’s not that your forgiveness of it is conditional on you adopting the intention to confess it next time. That sin has already been forgiven. It’s that you incur a new sin if you refuse to adopt the intention of confessing it.”

jimmyakin.com/2006/09/a_reader_writes_1.html

 

[Vico]

In the new testament, I do not believe that Jesus asked the individual how many times a particular sin was committed. If I recall, Jesus would state, " you are forgiven of your sins, go and sin no more".

The Church was given the power to decides the way that the Sacrament of Penance will be administered (the power to bind and loose sins) so is not using the methods of Christ. However, remember that he knew that the woman had five husbands, and living with another man, and she did not tell him that. Some things that are of divine law cannot be modified even by the Church.

 

[Edmundus1581]

My question is, why would a person not want to mention all 30 if they are truly sorry? Are they not truly sorry for the other 29 adulteries?

Edmundus,
Pretend that you are the priest in the confessional and a person comes in for confession to you.

They begin by saying that their last confession was 11 months ago. Then they say “Father, I missed Mass. I committed adultery. I stole. I had bad arguments. I drove drunk.”

“For these and all my past sins of cursing I am sorry.”

Then would you give him absolution after assigning him penance?

Thankyou, Fred.

Are we talking at cross-purposes?

I’ll blame that on my own verbosity and lack of clarity.

If I were the priest I would be very unlikely to accept that confession “as is”. I would first of all question his sincerity, and, if satisfied on that, ask the numbers of the sins. I hope that I haven’t given the impression that I am recommending that anyone confess like that. As everyone else has said, when we learn to confess mortal sins “by number” we should do so. My posts are addressing the issue of what is to be made of previous confessions where we did not know.

Your examples are actually perfect illustrations of one the points I have tried to make (albeit falteringly), which is that one has to contrive a pathological example to illustrate a case where a penitent has examined his conscience, confessed his sins to the best of his ability, and yet given no indication of the number. As you ask, “Why would a person not want to mention [all sins]?”. While the penitent may not know of the requirement to confess mortal sins by number, his sincere confession will give away some indication, even if it’s just “more than once”. If the priest needs to know more, then he will ask - that’s his job.

Of course, I’ve never heard a confession myself, but from my reading the way many confess is to, rather than naming sins by kind and number, state their sins along with some background information, little stories, mentions of their struggles, and so on. Which is all fine (so long as it doesn’t take half an hour!), and the priest infers the essential “kind and number” of any mortal sins from what he has heard.

There may be other reasons that a priest may not ask for numbers.

In the pathological examples you give, it is quite clear that the penitent has not stated the number. He has confessed “one or more”. If the priest accepts such then the penitent has, IMHO, actually confessed all instances. Still, these are pathological examples. My opinion is that the penitent would be wise to mention this in another confession. Whether he or not he is *obliged *to do so, I won’t guess.

In all cases one should trust the confessor who heard the original confession*.

May the Lord bless us one and all.

Amen!

• Unfortunately there are a small number of priests who are neglectful of Church teaching and sacraments. One would be unwise to accept their direction in confession - but that is another subject. This is about normal cases and priests - not the extremes.

 

[Edmundus1581]

Same Father Wilson…

Fr. Alfred Wilson C.P. states in that same book:

“If there was a question of mortal sins, the penitent must confess the surplus at his next confession”

There, Fr Wilson is saying what the penitent is to do when he discovers that he has given an incorrect answer to a direct question from the priest.

 

[Bookcat]

There, Fr Wilson is saying what the penitent is to do when he discovers that he has given an incorrect answer to a direct question from the priest.

It comes to the same thing – the penitent did not give the number for the mortal sin -so the Priest asked him and in that moment all he personally was able to do was to give an approximation --so Father says if he should later realize it was a greater number -he must confess such. He is your very same author…

And one can find the same in other works. It is not some personal idea.

See all my responses above.

 

[Bookcat]

Here from Catholic Answers Staff Apologist:

Question:

Is It Nessasary To Confess How Many Times One Has Sinned?

When in the confessional, do you have to confess how many times you have sinned? Because in my parish there is one priest who has asked once or twice the amount of times you have sinned, and there is another priest who doesn’t ask at all.

So to be forgiven, do you have to say the amount of times you have sinned?
**
Answer:**

To the best of your ability you should confess how many times you committed each grave sin. Code of Canon Law (988.1) is clear on this point

If you don’t know an exact number you can, to the best of your ability, estimate or provide and approximation (e.g., “several times”). If you forget to do this or later remember additional occurrences of grave sins your sins are still forgiven but you should remember to acknowledge those sins at your next confession.

Jim Blackburn
Apologist

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=813723&postcount=2

And let us remember -while a Priest can ask questions --and if he realizes the Penitent did the mortal sin more than one time he can ask him questions (to assist his confession) --let us remember it is “confession” where* we* confess all mortal sins in number and kind. It is not interrogation.