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

[Edmundus1581]

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.

I have never rejected any part of Father Wilson, or any other other works - but I disagree with your interpretation.

I was pointing out that your first precis of Father Wilson’s advice was quite misleading.

Firstly, it is not the same thing! We have been discussing what, if anything, the penitent is to do when he or she has not been asked the number of times. Here, Father is addressing, very specifically, the case of when the penitent has been asked. Father Wilson’s instruction does not apply, directly, to our case.

Secondly, your even your second precis of the advise, in the case of the penitent being asked, is slightly incorrect. You said that if the penitent should “later realize it was a greater number” -he must confess such. Father only applies his advise in the case of the penitent discovering that " that his guess was very wide of the mark and, possibly, a considerable understatement."

On the contrary, Father’s advice tends to support my case, by emphasizing that the priest is in charge of confession and can adjudicate on whether the penitent has satisfied the requirement to confess “numbers”. When the priest asked for an “approximation” then that is all that is required. If I approximated my instances of fornication at once per week, over three months, and later realize that in a few of those weeks there was twice, and in one it was four, I am not obliged to reconfess, because I have given a true answer to the priest’s question. Whereas, by your reasoning, namely that the priest only guides, but the obligation on the penitent remains to confess all mortal sins “by kind and number” then I must still confess the surplus.

FR Wilson (extract)…

The penitent has neglected to tell the number of times he has committed a certain sin, probably a venial sin. The confessor asks: “About how many times have you committed this sin?” The penitent is confused, his mind suddenly goes blank and he blurts out an answer, which is, of course, nothing more than an honest guess. On reflection, he realizes that his guess was very wide of the mark and, possibly, a considerable understatement. He is paralysed by fear that he has committed a sacrilege.

Sacrileges are not so easily committed. An indeliberate mis-statement or error is not a lie. An honest guess is not a lie. The priest knew that a considered answer was impossible and, therefore, to safeguard the penitent, asked for an approximate number, “about how many times?” An approximate number was all that could be given in the circumstances and all that was asked.

What is the penitent to do when he discovers his mistake?

1. Learn wisdom. If sins are worth confessing, they are worth confessing accurately.
2. If there was a question of mortal sins, the penitent must confess the surplus at his next confession, which he need not anticipate.
3. If there was question of venial sins, he need do no more about it except learn wisdom.

 

[Bookcat]

I think I have given enough above (reader can read posts above)- and at the moment the post there is too long to read etc. Let me simply say that that I have given the Churches Teachings on this matter – and that while there can be at times exceptions (one can see my posts above for some more on such) -it is the Teaching. I bid you a happy Friday and a very blessed Lords Day coming up!

 

[Bookcat]

The Good Father Wilson CP there from 1946 refers to “surplus” – that is the mortal sins where greater than what one confessed. An example would be Sam confessed “fornication” but forgot to give the number or said it was 2x but later realizes it was 3x. That “surplus” in mortal sins is to be confessed in the next confession (after he remembers). For they have yet to be directly confessed. As an older moralist (Jones) from around that period puts it: “If in indicating the number of sins (mortal sins) one erroneously minimizes, the mistake must be corrected in the following confessions”.
One is not though to be scrupulous about such.

Again there can be exceptions as I have noted. And we are not required to be Vulcans. …we proceed in modo humanae (in a human way) not in modo vulcana I am not saying one must do some extreme examine of the past. One is to be reasonable in making ones examine and confession here – not scrupulous. (*and again I would note the scrupulous are to have a regular confessor to assist them in their confessions and moral life).

(An example a confessor might direct a person who is scrupulous about their confessions not to confess past mortal sins unless they are both 1.* certain* it was mortal sin and 2. certain it was not confessed is it ought. That unless both are true they are not to directly mention it).

I refer reader to the various posts I have written above.

 

[Bookcat]

I

What he notes applies…even in various contexts.

The Good Father Wilson CP there from 1946 refers to “surplus” – that is the mortal sins where greater than what one confessed. An example would be Sam confessed “fornication” but forgot to give the number or said it was 2x but later realizes it was 3x. Or say needed to approximate and said it was “a few times” and then later* realized* it was quite a lot–that it was clearly “many times” though they do not know the number. That “surplus” in mortal sins is to be confessed in the next confession (after he remembers). For they have yet to be directly confessed. As an older moralist (Jones) from around that period puts it: “If in indicating the number of sins (mortal sins) one erroneously minimizes, the mistake must be corrected in the following confessions”. One is not though to be scrupulous about such.

Again there can be exceptions as I have noted. And we are not required to be Vulcans. …we proceed in modo humanae (in a human way) not in modo vulcana I am not saying one must do some extreme examine (and one should avoid becoming scrupulous). One is to be* reasonable *in making ones examine and confession here – not scrupulous. (*and again I would note the scrupulous are to have a regular confessor to assist them in their confessions and moral life)

(An example a confessor might direct a person who is scrupulous about their confessions not to confess past mortal sins unless they are both 1.* certain* it was mortal sin and 2. certain it was not confessed is it ought. That unless both are true they are not to directly mention it).

 

[Edmundus1581]

Again there can be exceptions as I have noted.

Agreed, somewhat.

Who is to decide what the exceptions are, and are not? If my priest makes an exception in my case, am I to double-check his advise against canon law, and all the authorities? And then, if in doubt, ask another confessor? (And, if I disagree with this one also, to keep reading, then ask another… etc…?*)

Or am I just to trust the confessor who heard my confession?

I return to my original position, which is that if a penitent has confessed mortal sins and not given a number because they did not know they were required to and the priest has not asked then the priest has made an exception, in that case, for the penitent, or he has in some other way judged the confession of those sins to be valid (ie. “formally integral”). The priest is both required to do that, and, as judge, he has ruled that it is so. Those sins I confessed have been directly remitted and I need never re-confess them.

I know what sins I confessed, God knows, and the priest has **ruled **that he knows well enough. Just because he doesn’t say “I know you haven’t given me a number, but I’ve inferred it and have made an exception in your case” doesn’t mean that we need to re-confess. His silence is that of a judge. As Fr Wilson said, if the priest hasn’t asked a necessary question, then it’s his funeral, not ours.

As you say, confession proceeds in modo humanae. A priest understands our words, our disposition in the confession, and our sins in their normal sense. He also knows the law as it applies to the sacrament. If he chooses not to ask for the numbers, then he has made an exception, as an informed decision.

As I’ve said from the beginning, we only need to re-confess if we know that what we confessed is very different from what we actually did, and that our words did not give the priest an adequate chance to understand us. My example being that if I confessed “adultery” when I had actually moved in with my girlfriend for a several months. However, it is hard to contrive an example where the penitent can confess sincerely without giving a good indication of the numbers, or leave it open for the priest to ask the number if necessary.

(Of course, if it is obvious to us that our priest is violating Church teaching in the sacrament then we should be cautious in accepting his advice, and maybe ask another confessor about previous confessions, but such is an exception. We are not to double-check our priest’s advise unless we know it to violate Church teaching).

• This is not as far-fetched as it sounds. I have had at least three occasions where I have made a good confession but did not confess all mortal sins by kind and number. For each occasion I have subsequently asked another priest about that confession and was told not to revisit it. They advised me that all the sins I brought into those confessions in any manner were absolved and should not be re-confessed. Am I to reject the advice of **three **different priests and now find another to re-confess to? And, btw, of those three priests I know two, in particular, to be meticulous, knowledgeable and formal about the sacrament, even “severe”.

 

[Bookcat]

I return to my original position, which is that if a penitent has confessed mortal sins and not given a number because they did not know they were required to and the priest has not asked then the priest has made an exception, in that case, for the penitent, or he has in some other way judged the confession of those sins to be valid (ie. “formally integral”). The priest is both required to do that, and, as judge, he has ruled that it is so. Those sins I confessed have been directly remitted and I need never re-confess them.

Not discussing the requirements of the Priest but of the Penitent.

All things being equal – while he may have made a formally integral confession at the time --he is still obliged to confess the unconfessed mortal sins.

If one forgets a mortal sin or say gives the number (in good faith) as 1x when it was really 3x --those other mortal sins are absolved indirectly and still need to be submitted (again there are some exceptions…such as never remembering them…etc) in confession.

*They are not re-confessing them * --they have yet to be confessed directly.

An example would be Sam confessed “fornication” but forgot to give the number or said it was 2x but later realizes it was 3x. Or say needed to approximate and said it was “a few times” and then later realized it was quite a lot–that it was clearly “many times” though they do not know the number. That “surplus” in mortal sins is to be confessed in the next confession (after he remembers). For they have yet to be directly confessed. As an older moralist (Jones) from around that period puts it: “If in indicating the number of sins (mortal sins) one erroneously minimizes, the mistake must be corrected in the following confessions”. One is not though to be scrupulous about such.

Again there can be exceptions as I have noted. And we are not required to be Vulcans. …we proceed in modo humanae (in a human way) not in modo vulcana I am not saying one must do some extreme examine (and one should avoid becoming scrupulous). One is to be reasonable in making ones examine and confession here – not scrupulous. (*and again I would note the scrupulous are to have a regular confessor to assist them in their confessions and moral life)

---

Now can it happen that a confessor judges that a particular penitent is in an “exception” - say they have some memory disorder that keeps bringing to mind all sorts of things that makes them unduly concerned that they have not confessed all their mortal sins --or they cannot remember the number and have to give an approximation or they are one their death bed and it is not really possible for them to confess their mortal sins in number and kind…etc.

Sure. Such can happen.

But such is an exception .

Normally if one forgets a mortal sin or forgets to give the number or realizes later --hey I said it was fornication 2x but really now I know it was 4x --they are to confess those mortal sins in the next confession.

Another example --a confessor might direct a person who is scrupulous about their confessions – not to confess past mortal sins unless they are both 1. certain it was mortal sin and 2. certain it was not confessed is it ought. That unless both are true they are not to directly mention it).

 

[Bookcat]

A

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

It has been my experience in the confessional that the priests usually let me confess uninterrupted without asking too many follow up questions and barely do they ask how many times I’ve committed a particular sin.

So do I have to mention that I committed so and so sin 4 times or just say I committed it and leave it at that?

Lets get back to the exact original question --I will break it down in parts:

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

A: Yes for mortal sins

Q: It has been my experience in the confessional that the priests usually let me confess uninterrupted without asking too many follow up questions and barely do they ask how many times I’ve committed a particular sin.

A: It is our responsibility to confess all mortal sins in both kind and number. It can be good for the Priest to ask questions but confession is where we “confess” not get interrogated. We are obliged to confess in kind and number our mortal sins.

Q: So do I have to mention that I committed so and so sin 4 times or just say I committed it and leave it at that?

A: Yes one is obliged to confess that a mortal sin was 4 times. We are not just to say we committed the kind and leave it at that. We are to give the number (or if needed approximate according to what we recall).

 

[Edmundus1581]

Lets get back to the exact original question --I will break it down in parts:

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

A: Yes for mortal sins

Q: It has been my experience in the confessional that the priests usually let me confess uninterrupted without asking too many follow up questions and barely do they ask how many times I’ve committed a particular sin.

A: It is our responsibility to confess all mortal sins in both kind and number. It can be good for the Priest to ask questions but confession is where we “confess” not get interrogated. We are obliged to confess in kind and number our mortal sins.

Q: So do I have to mention that I committed so and so sin 4 times or just say I committed it and leave it at that?

A: Yes one is obliged to confess that a mortal sin was 4 times. We are not just to say we committed the kind and leave it at that. We are to give the number (or if needed approximate according to what we recall).

Thanks for that Bookcat.

The priests who heard my confessions where I did not confess all mortal sins by kind and number must be wrong. (It was quite obvious, in the circumstances which I shall not bother with here, that I had not confessed all by kind and number).

The priests who, when I asked about those confessions, told me not to confess any sins which may have been omitted must be wrong.

As you say, it’s my responsibility to confess all mortal sins by kind and number, so I’ll find another priest and insist that he hear these unconfessed sins from 15, 20 and 30 years ago.

 

[Edmundus1581]

Bookcat, I am having trouble addressing your post as much of what you write we have previously agreed on, and yet you seem to be disputing my post which you have quoted:

I return to my original position, which is that if a penitent has confessed mortal sins and not given a number because they did not know they were required to and the priest has not asked then the priest has made an exception, in that case, for the penitent, or he has in some other way judged the confession of those sins to be valid (ie. “formally integral”). The priest is both required to do that, and, as judge, he has ruled that it is so. Those sins I confessed have been directly remitted and I need never re-confess them.

I will respond to your points as I understand them applying to my post:

Not discussing the requirements of the Priest but of the Penitent.

That (the requirements of the priest) is the the foundation of my argument!

On the subject is what must be done about previous confessions, then the priest’s responsibilities in those confessions are crucial, because we trust that he has fulfilled them. He represents the Church to us and he ensures that our confession meets the Church’s standards. We trust that he has has guided us to a good confession, practically speaking, and we trust his ruling, formally, because as judge he has said it is so.

Thus we do not review whether or not our previous confessions conformed to Church requirements. If the Church demands (a) and (b) then we have done (a) and (b), or have been exempted.

They are not re-confessing them --they have yet to be confessed directly.

This seems to be our fundamental disagreement. My opinion is that all sins I have mentioned in any way in confession have been confessed, whether they be mortal or venial, and with or without a number. When I confess a sin without giving a number then I am confessing all instances of that sin - one, a few, or many. My words and the behaviour are to be understood in their normal sense, and that is what the priest has remitted.

Such happens all the time. Let’s give a concrete example…

When I was new to the church I did not know of the “kind and number” requirement, so I confessed as follows: “Since my last confession the main problems have been <mortal sin a, without a number> and <mortal sin b, without a number>”. I usually gave some more information, but did not deliberately give a number, as I did not know it was required. The normal understanding would be that I am confessing one or more instances, and that I am confessing all instances. When I learned more I started to confess by kind number, but I did not revisit previous confessions (as you would say I was obliged to do) because I trusted that I had confessed sincerely and that my priests knew what was required.

Again there can be exceptions as I have noted.

Exceptions are made as often as a priest grants one. This will usually be done implicitly, by him just accepting a confession “as is” without asking for detail or numbers.

So, I will restate my position:

If a penitent has confessed mortal sins and not given a number because they did not know of the obligation and the priest has not asked then the priest has made an exception, in that case, or he has in some other way judged that the confession is good and conforms to Church standards. The priest is both required to do that, and, as judge, he has ruled that it is so. Those sins I mentioned in any way: (a) have been properly confessed; (b) have been directly remitted and (c) I need never re-confess them.

 

[Vico]

Sounds like a rewriting of CIC Can. 988 removing “and number”:

§1. A member of the Christian faithful is obliged to confess in kind and number all grave sins committed after baptism and not yet remitted directly through the keys of the Church nor acknowledged in individual confession, of which the person has knowledge after diligent examination of conscience.
§2. It is recommended to the Christian faithful that they also confess venial sins.

 

[Edmundus1581]

Sounds like a rewriting of CIC Can. 988 removing “and number”

It doesn’t sound like that to me.

 

[Bookcat]

Part I

That (the requirements of the priest) is the the foundation of my argument!

Again I am discussing the obligation of the Penitent.

The Priest may discover that the Penitent is say not able to confess in the exact number so he helps him approximate according to what he knows, or he comes upon a dying penitent who has no time, or a penitent who has various difficulties --they are scrupulous about confession or about old sins and may need to be told not look back at their past anymore and not to confess old sins the come to mind unless they are certain they were mortal and not confessed or they have a memory that keeps bringing up old sins but due to a memory disorder one cannot distinguish what was confessed or they have OCD in a way that interferes with their confession perhaps…etc etc-- so the Priest recognizes such and directs the Penitent accordingly. He recognizes the condition of the Penitent that is present.

On the subject is what must be done about previous confessions, then the priest’s responsibilities in those confessions are crucial, because we trust that he has fulfilled them. He represents the Church to us and he ensures that our confession meets the Church’s standards. We trust that he has has guided us to a good confession, practically speaking, and we trust his ruling, formally, because as judge he has said it is so.

It is not a question of some “ruling”…if I go to confession and confess I committed “Mortal sin Y” – 2x and later remember --oh it was 3x – then I need still to confess such. Now if I say suffer from some memory disorder etc that the Priest may need to guide me in a particular way.

Thus we do not review whether or not our previous confessions conformed to Church requirements. If the Church demands (a) and (b) then we have done (a) and (b), or have been exempted.

Depends.

Penitent realizes that he did not do (a) and has not be told by the Priest that he is in a different boat than others due to his case of (Y) then he is not to presume he is in a different boat necessarily. Ordinarily he is to do (a) still.

This seems to be our fundamental disagreement. My opinion is that all sins I have mentioned in any way in confession have been confessed, whether they be mortal or venial, and with or without a number. When I confess a sin without giving a number then I am confessing all instances of that sin - one, a few, or many. My words and the behaviour are to be understood in their normal sense, and that is what the priest has remitted.

I am not your regular confessor …I am do not know you. So I cannot comment on your confessions.

I speak to what the obligation is. One is obliged to confess all mortal sins in number and kind. Can there be exceptions? Yes as I have noted. But they are exceptions. And it not that a Penitent can just willie nillie say --oh Father did not ask so I need not confess -such would be quite incorrect.

Such happens all the time. Let’s give a concrete example…

When I was new to the church I did not know of the “kind and number” requirement, so I confessed as follows: “Since my last confession the main problems have been <mortal sin a, without a number> and <mortal sin b, without a number>”. I usually gave some more information, but did not deliberately give a number, as I did not know it was required. The normal understanding would be that I am confessing one or more instances, and that I am confessing all instances. When I learned more I started to confess by kind number, but I did not revisit previous confessions (as you would say I was obliged to do) because I trusted that I had confessed sincerely and that my priests knew what was required.

Yes I understand. I too did something like that at times after I was received years ago into the Church due to inexperience and honest misunderstanding. I then later learned more (and a Priest too had corrected me) and I have gone back and examined and confessed all the prior mortal sins I could remember- of course I could not remember usually the actual number from years ago-so I approximated according to my knowledge years after the fact. If I knew the number I confessed it as the number. But there were all kinds of approximations according to what I knew (and one ought not go crazy …rather a reasonable examine)

 

[Bookcat]

Part 2

Exceptions are made as often as a priest grants one. This will usually be done implicitly, by him just accepting a confession “as is” without asking for detail or numbers.

The Priest does not -“grant”- an exception. He recognizes the existence of such (say physical impossibility) and guides the penitent accordingly. He judges that such is the case here and assists the penitent.

Nancy your memory is playing tricks on you again - due to your problem you do not need to confess those old things – in fact I remember you confessed them last month…

or Jack your scrupulosity is what is leading you to fear that you have not confessed all those past mortal sins -but you know it is such and your not certain they were even mortal let alone not confessed -so do not confess anything from the past unless your certain it was mortal and certain you did not confess it --and it does you no good to go looking -so as do not go looking at the past --no digging.

or Sally your OCD is quite active and it is what is leading you to try to keep re-confessing the past …this is what you should do…

or John, it is fine that you do not remember how many mortal sins of Y you did over the years -just approximate according to what you know --and if need be even use wide indications like “many times”, or “a few times” …

etc etc

So, I will restate my position:

If a penitent has confessed mortal sins and not given a number because they did not know of the obligation and the priest has not asked then the priest has made an exception, in that case, or he has in some other way judged that the confession is good and conforms to Church standards. The priest is both required to do that, and, as judge, he has ruled that it is so. Those sins I mentioned in any way: (a) have been properly confessed; (b) have been directly remitted and (c) I need never re-confess them.

If a penitent has confessed mortal sins and not given the number because they were in good faith and did not realize that they had to confess in number and the Priest did not ask – and the Penitent later learns that he is obliged to confess all mortal sins in number and kind -that is what he is to do (being reasonable of course…we can not expect ourselves to be be Vulcans).

The Penitent is not to assume that his is the case of an “exception” - just because the Priest did not ask him for a number. Priests cannot normally read minds/hearts, they cannot know the penitent did the sin more than the one time he said -or that the Penitent knows how many etc. (And at times even one might encounter a Priest who had not the best formation at a particular place etc.)

Confession is where we are to “confess” all mortal sins in number and kind. It is *confession *not interrogation.

The omitted mortal sins have not been directly confessed and absolved -they have been “indirectly absolved” along with the others due to the penitent being contrite and meaning to confess all they they were to confess. And the obligation remains for them to now confess the innocently omitted mortal sins.

Now again – our memories are not that of Vulcans. So they may never remember things or they may have to approximate -even widely if need be. We are not expected to do the impossible for seek the inhuman…(and one is to avoid heading to scrupulosity…).

Or they may need to be directed otherwise by the Priest due to their particular circumstances (an exception) as noted and explained above.

 

[Bookcat]

Lets get back to the exact original question --I will break it down in parts:

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

A: Yes for mortal sins

Q: It has been my experience in the confessional that the priests usually let me confess uninterrupted without asking too many follow up questions and barely do they ask how many times I’ve committed a particular sin.

A: It is our responsibility to confess all mortal sins in both kind and number. It can be good for the Priest to ask questions but confession is where we “confess” not get interrogated. We are obliged to confess in kind and number our mortal sins.

Q: So do I have to mention that I committed so and so sin 4 times or just say I committed it and leave it at that?

A: Yes one is obliged to confess that a mortal sin was 4 times. We are not just to say we committed the kind and leave it at that. We are to give the number (or if needed approximate according to what we recall).

 

[RosslynV]

Received sacrament of reconciliation. Told priest that I recently learned that one needed to confess number and kind of sins. Asked if I needed to revisit all my confessions of last 15-20 years. Priest said no and left it at that.

I don’t think Jesus would disallow someone into Heaven based on a technicality. Jesus/god sees the heart. If I consistently confessed (name sin) and neglected kind and number, I’m sure God knows what I’m referring to. Nevertheless for the future I will mention kind and number…

 

[Bookcat]

on a technicality

I should note that confessing mortal sins in number and kind is not a technicality.

This is part of the Sacrament that Jesus gave us…

 

[Bookcat]

Looking at the original question --I will break it down in parts:

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

A: Yes for mortal sins

Q: It has been my experience in the confessional that the priests usually let me confess uninterrupted without asking too many follow up questions and barely do they ask how many times I’ve committed a particular sin.

A: It is our responsibility to confess all mortal sins in both kind and number. It can be good for the Priest to ask questions but confession is where we “confess” not get interrogated. We are obliged to confess in kind and number our mortal sins.

Q: So do I have to mention that I committed so and so sin 4 times or just say I committed it and leave it at that?

A: Yes one is obliged to confess that a mortal sin was 4 times. We are not just to say we committed the kind and leave it at that. We are to give the number (or if needed approximate according to what we recall).

and I will add:

Q: Can there be at times exceptions to this?

A: Yes but they are exceptions – for example a person is not able to remember the number -they may approximate according to what they recall in their examine, or at times in certain cases of scrupulosity where a regular confessor needs to direct a particular penitent according to their difficulties or persons who are say dying and cannot confess fully, a person forgets a mortal sin entirely but means to confess all but never remembers it …etc…

Q: If a person say did not realize that they where to confess mortal sins in number and kind and made a good confession in good faith (meaning to confess as they should and contrite etc) are they to confess the number and kind in confession if they realize this?

A: Yes. But they may not remember so well if it has been years --so it may not be fully possible. Or it may not be really possible at all for a particular person due to their particular circumstances.

 

[Vico]

It doesn’t sound like that to me.

With regard to grave sins, one is obligated to confess all those remembered in kind and number, (if there does not exist physical or moral impossibility) and there is no actual specification and enumeration where there is no* recall *of the gravity and number. *

** The Sacramental Mysteries of Healing* by The Very Reverend Francis J. Marini J.D., J.C.O.D. in Comparative Sacramental Discipline In The CCEO and CIC, Canon Law Society of America, 2003, p. 96, by by Francis J. Marinihysical impossibility completely excuses the penitent from confessing the sins, whereas moral impossibility excuses the penitent only from material integrity, i.e., the actual specification and enumeration of the sins, but not from the act of confession itself. [1]
[1] Cuschieri, p. 195 (The Sacrament of Reconciliation - A Theological and Canonical Treatise, New York, 1992.)

Here we are concerned with formal integrity not material integrity. The sins that are forgotten, which are not confessed, and therefore cannot be acknowledged, are indirectly forgiven. There remains the obligation to make good the defect afterwards.

A good reference is: Theory and practice of the confessional; a guide in the administration of the sacrament of penance (1905) – See particularly page 157 and after.

archive.org/details/theorypracticeof00schi

 

[Edmundus1581]

Received sacrament of reconciliation. Told priest that I recently learned that one needed to confess number and kind of sins. Asked if I needed to revisit all my confessions of last 15-20 years. Priest said no and left it at that.

I don’t think Jesus would disallow someone into Heaven based on a technicality. Jesus/god sees the heart. If I consistently confessed (name sin) and neglected kind and number, I’m sure God knows what I’m referring to. Nevertheless for the future I will mention kind and number…

Thankyou for returning to your thread and passing on your priest’s advice.

I trust that you have found this (your question, our responses, and your priest’s advice) all helpful.

 

[Bookcat]

Looking at the original question --I will break it down in parts:

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

A: Yes for mortal sins

Q: It has been my experience in the confessional that the priests usually let me confess uninterrupted without asking too many follow up questions and barely do they ask how many times I’ve committed a particular sin.

A: It is our responsibility to confess all mortal sins in both kind and number. It can be good for the Priest to ask questions but confession is where we “confess” not get interrogated. We are obliged to confess in kind and number our mortal sins.

Q: So do I have to mention that I committed so and so sin 4 times or just say I committed it and leave it at that?

A: Yes one is obliged to confess that a mortal sin was 4 times. We are not just to say we committed the kind and leave it at that. We are to give the number (or if needed approximate according to what we recall).

and I will add:

Q: Can there be at times exceptions to this?

A: Yes but they are exceptions – for example a person is not able to remember the number -they may approximate according to what they recall in their examine, or at times in certain cases of scrupulosity where a regular confessor needs to direct a particular penitent according to their difficulties or persons who are say dying and cannot confess fully, a person forgets a mortal sin entirely but means to confess all but never remembers it …etc…

Q: If a person say did not realize that they where to confess mortal sins in number and kind and made a good confession in good faith (meaning to confess as they should and contrite etc) are they to confess the number and kind in confession if they realize this?

A: Yes. But they may not remember so well if it has been years --so it may not be fully possible. Or it may not be really possible at all for a particular person due to their particular circumstances.

My summary for readers of a long thread.