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

[Bookcat]

Once again, we disagree on this issue (ie. of re-confessing past sins by kind and number).

Such is the Teaching of the Church. There is no question here. Not an matter open to opinion.

If I do forget to confess that it was two murders – I am* obliged *to confess in the next confession that it was two murders not just one.

If I hide that it was two murders -well that is an invalid confession and a further sin I need to confess when I confess those two murders.

The writer there is dealing with unnecessary details…not what we are obliged to confess.

It is confession -where we are to accuse ourselves of all mortal sins in number and kind -where we “confess” -it is not interrogation. We do not wait for the Priest to ask. We are to accuse ourselves.

From the very same BOOK pg 35 that you quoted–(tis in my library)

He states :

Jesus has obliged us to confess mortal sins according to their* kind and number*

 

[Vico]

Penance And Reconciliation *
From 1982, The International Theological Commission (A Pontifical Commission)
(approved by the Commission “in forma specifica”)2. In answer to these questions the Council of Trent taught the following points about sacramental confession:

a. It serves the spiritual good and salvation of man, and this without necessarily leading to the disturbance of conscience: on the contrary, the fruit of this sacrament is frequently peace of joy of conscience, and comfort of the soul (DS 1674, 1682).

b. Confession is a necessary part of the sacrament of penance, and it is not right to reduce the sacrament simply to announcing an unconditional promise of God’s forgiveness through the merits of Christ (DS 1679, 1706, 1709).

c. Confession must be clear and unambiguous where there is question of mortal sins; this obligation does not exist in the case where it is impossible to remember one’s sins (DS 1682, 1707).

d. The integral confession of mortal sins is required by God’s saving will (iure divino), in order that the Church can exercise through the sacred ministry the task of a judge, a physician, a director of souls, and that of reestablishing the order of creation disrupted by sin (DS 1679, 1680, 1685, 1692, 1707).
​

6. The integral confession of mortal sins, therefore, necessarily belongs to the sacrament of penance (iure divino),and thus it is not left to the judgment of the individual or to the decision of the Church. However, the Council of Trent does acknowledge the concept of a sacramental confession *in voto *(DS 1543). For this reason, in extraordinary emergency situations in which such an integral confession is not possible, the Church can allow the postponement of the confession and grant the absolution individually or in a group (general absolution), without previous confession. In such a situation the Church acts with the spiritual possibilities of the moment, but must see to it that mortal sins are confessed subsequently and must instruct the faithful about this obligation by appropriate means. The Council of Trent does not itself pronounce on the nature and extent of these emergency situations.
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_cti_1982_riconciliazione-penitenza_en.html

 

[GangGreen]

I try to ball park it at least. If you remember how many times you sinned then just say the amount. If you think you did it a few times, say a few… Several, dozens, whatever. Obviously an actual number is best, but we shouldn’t be doing math to figure out how many times we sinned.

 

[chimo]

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?

Thanks

I do not think it is necessary to commit to the counting of your sins or a particular sin since it is the acknowledgement of that sin that counts more than how many times you have committed it. A sense it is always better to come into some kind of acknowledgement when one goes to the confessional than it is by counting because one tends to commit the same sins over and over again. Here I am referring to those who tend to confession regularly and do not commit to any mortal sins. Generally a person who comes to know of their sins in time would have a better perspective of their weaknesses and would come to know they are committing these same sins so that this burden they give to the Lord would come more easily for them. A person who tends to count (I am referring here to venial sins) is too much centering on specifics that might make you think that you have missed something when in truth it is important that the Lord is not looking for specific numbers in general but more you are in need of His Grace to look after all these weaknesses of yours. I sense a better commitment towards this knowledge of your sins (rather than specifically numbering them) that God will cover all these multitude of sins as well. A person for instance may confess the same sin over and over again yet the person is not counting these sins as he did in the past but finds out he is talking more about why the sin was committed thus revealing to him the purpose where he can find help to improve in his weakness. This is what I mean when we can confess the same sin but not exactly the number of it. Our commitment to reveal our weaknesses in deeper reflection is much better to our own spiritual growth.

 

[Edmundus1581]

Such is the Teaching of the Church. There is no question here. Not an matter open to opinion.

There is no direct teaching of the Church on this matter. It is a question of how to apply several teachings of the Church to a particular situation. There is one teaching that we must confess mortal sins by kind and number, and there is another that the confessor acts as judge and physician.

If I do forget to confess that it was two murders – I am* obliged *to confess in the next confession that it was two murders not just one.

If I hide that it was two murders -well that is an invalid confession and a further sin I need to confess when I confess those two murders.

Yes, but those are not the questions we are discussing.

The writer there is dealing with unnecessary details…not what we are obliged to confess.

We have no disagreement about what one is obliged to confess. Our disagreement is about previous confessions - and that is what the writer is addressing.

It is confession -where we are to accuse ourselves of all mortal sins in number and kind -where we “confess” -it is not interrogation. We do not wait for the Priest to ask. We are to accuse ourselves.

Agreed. However, it is also the confessor’s duty to ensure an integral confession. We provide the sincere accusations from our examination of conscience, and he questions and judges on behalf of the Church. The penitent is no more obliged to be an expert on confession than the accused in court is obliged to be an expert on the Law. It’s up to the Judge to know the law and ask the necessary questions. And, after he has ruled, the prosecution doesn’t get a second chance.

 

[Vico]

By number and kind and revealing any necessary circumstances are what constitute integral (whole or complete). See CIC 988 and CCC 1456:
Canon 988 – §1. A member of the Christian faithful is obliged to confess in kind and number all serious sins committed after baptism and not yet directly remitted through the keys of the Church nor acknowledged in individual confession, for which one is conscious after diligent examination of conscience.
§2. It is to be recommended to the Christian faithful that venial sins also be confessed.
CCC
1456 Confession to a priest is an essential part of the sacrament of Penance: "All mortal sins of which penitents after a diligent self-examination are conscious must be recounted by them in confession, even if they are most secret and have been committed against the last two precepts of the Decalogue; for these sins sometimes wound the soul more grievously and are more dangerous than those which are committed openly."54

When Christ’s faithful strive to confess all the sins that they can remember, they undoubtedly place all of them before the divine mercy for pardon. But those who fail to do so and knowingly withhold some, place nothing before the divine goodness for remission through the mediation of the priest, "for if the sick person is too ashamed to show his wound to the doctor, the medicine cannot heal what it does not know."55​

 

[Bookcat]

There is no direct teaching of the Church on this matter

Yes there is. As I have noted.

One is obliged to confess all mortal sins in number and kind. While there can be some exceptions to this (for example one cannot remember the how many -one can approximate )- such is not a matter open to opinion.

 

[Bookcat]

Yes, but those are not the questions we are discussing.

.

I have given my answer above as the case in question. See above.

 

[Bookcat]

We have no disagreement about what one is obliged to confess. Our disagreement is about previous confessions - and that is what the writer is addressing.

Ok well if you ask the writer - he will reply…

He --the author – Fr. Alfred Wilson C.P. states in that book:

(he is talking 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

In other words he is saying that if he made a mistake and say it was 3 murders and later he realizes it was only two - he does not need to go and correct that mistake -but it if there was a “surplus” that is more in number -he realizes that he committed 4 murders not just three -they he must confess that in the next confession.

 

[Bookcat]

The penitent is no more obliged to be an expert on confession than the accused in court is obliged to be an expert on the Law. It’s up to the Judge to know the law and ask the necessary questions. And, after he has ruled, the prosecution doesn’t get a second chance.

It is not a question of his needing to be an expert on confession --but he is obliged to confess all his mortal sins in number and kind. And if he releases -hey it was 3 murders not 2 like I thought -he is to confess such.

(Now could there say be someone who due to scrupulosity wants to go back and confess all sorts of unneeded things? sure -that can happen -and they need a regular confessor to direct them -so as to work against such scrupulosity. That is a different matter. )

 

[Bookcat]

We have no disagreement about what one is obliged to confess. Our disagreement is about previous confessions - and that is what the writer is addressing.

Ok well if you ask the writer - he will reply…

He --the author – 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

In other words he is saying that if he made a mistake and say it was 3 murders and later he realizes it was only two - he does not need to go and correct that mistake -but it if there was a “surplus” that is more in number -he realizes that he committed 4 murders not just three -they he must confess that in the next confession.

 

[Bookcat]

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:

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.

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

 

[Vico]

Here is something else shown the significance of number and kind and circumstances. It shows how multiple venial sins of theft can coalesce into a mortal sin.
There is no doubt but that small pilferings perpetrated at different times, whether to the prejudice of one or of many owners, can eventually coalesce and reach a sum forbidden under pain of mortal sin. The contrary doctrine was condemned by Innocent XI. The reason, of course, is that the damage wrought is serious. This coalescence may be brought about by the specific intention of the thief in his petty stealing to ultimately arrive at a conspicuous amount. When several persons join forces to steal from another and the loss incurred is notable, then each one contracts the guilt of grievous sin, even though his own contribution to the wrong-doing has been but small. One who hoards the proceeds of his petty thefts is chargeable with mortal sin when the sum accumulated is grave. Even when he has disposed of his ill-gotten goods as fast as they were acquired, his thievings will still be held to coalesce unless there has been a considerable interval of time between them.

Delany, Joseph. “Theft.” The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 14. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1912. newadvent.org/cathen/14564b.htm

Ecclesiastical approbation. Nihil Obstat. July 1, 1912. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.

 

[Edmundus1581]

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.

 

[fred_conty]

" whatever you loose " means Father must know what he is loosing. If I say “I committed adultery Father”, and the person has committed it 30 times, my confession is not complete. I must say “I committed adultery 30 times Father” for the confession of my sins to be complete.

In special circumstances, someone may not be able to say much at all, which in that case is understandable. But in a normal confession all 30 adulteries must be confessed. 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?

May the Lord bless us one and all.

 

[glendab]

It occurs to me that if Catholics of today were to go to Confession as frequently as those of a few years ago, then they’d not forget a thing.

I was told that Catholics being raised in the sixties went to Confession every Friday if they were enrolled in a Catholic school. I had Catholic playmates when I was growing up and have vague remembrances of this going on in their lives as they’d talk about stuff when we were playing. They did go very often as did everyone in their families.

WHAT HAPPENED?

Glenda

 

[Lochias]

One examines ones conscience…if one knows then it is 12 times one is to say 12.

If one does not know then the actual number one may approximate according to what one knows…“about every day for the last 2 months”, around 5x, or even if need be “many times”…

Yup, that’s what I meant. It’s important that the priest has a good idea of how much a person is partaking in any given sin, so as to better advise them on how to fight it.

My point is that it is not necessary to remember each and every instance of what you’ve done if it’s a physical impossibility to do so. Any of the examples you show above would be sufficient in most cases, I’d think.

 

[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 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 one murder (not trying to hide it by an honest mistake) then if one realizes this one is obliged to confess those other two murders. 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 with a Priest who teaches 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” and that this is one example of such that (well meaning) people do not realize.

 

[Bookcat]

Yup, that’s what I meant. It’s important that the priest has a good idea of how much a person is partaking in any given sin, so as to better advise them on how to fight it.

My point is that it is not necessary to remember each and every instance of what you’ve done if it’s a physical impossibility to do so. Any of the examples you show above would be sufficient in most cases, I’d think.

In at least one example I gave it was invalid …others would need to be added to or not depending on the example.

It is yes good for the advising --but it is not just about the advising -it is important for the actual confessing - for the Sacrament - even if the Priest only says “now sin no more” as his advice. Part of the nature of the Sacrament.

But yes cases of physical impossibility or even moral impossibility are a different matter.