Theologians distinguish between the proximate and the remote occasion. They are not altogether at one as to the precise value to be attributed to the terms. De Lugo defines proximate occasion (De poenit. disp. 14, n. 149) as one in which men of like calibre for the most part fall into mortal sin, or one in which experience points to the same result from the special weakness of a particular person. The remote occasion lacks these elements. All theologians are agreed that there is no obligation to avoid the remote occasions of sin both because this would, practically speaking, be impossible and because they do not involve serious danger of sin.
If you are anxious about it then next time you go to confession mention it to him and just rely on his advice.As to the proximate occasion, it may be of the sort that is described as necessary, that is, such as a person cannot abandon or get rid of. Whether this impossibility be physical or moral does not matter for the determination of the principles hereinafter to be laid down. Or it may be voluntary, that is within the competency of one to remove. Moralists distinguish between a proximate occasion which is continuous and one which, whilst it is unquestionably proximate, yet confronts a person only at intervals. It is certain that one who is in the presence of a proximate occasion at once voluntary and continuous is bound to remove it. A refusal on the part of a penitent to do so would make it imperative for the confessor to deny absolution. It is not always necessary for the confessor to await the actual performance of this duty before giving absolution; he may be content with a sincere promise, which is the minimum to be required. Theologians agree that one is not obliged to shun the proximate but necessary occasions. Nemo tenetur ad impossibile (no one is bound to do what is impossible). There is no question here of freely casting oneself into the danger of sin. The assumption is that stress of unavoidable circumstances has imposed this unhappy situation. All that can then be required is the employment of such means as will make the peril of sin remote. The difficulty is to determine when a proximate occasion is to be regarded as not physically (that is plain enough) but morally necessary. Much has been written by theologians in the attempt to find a rule for the measurement of this moral necessity and a formula for its expression, but not successfully. It seems to be quite clear that a proximate occasion may be deemed necessary when it cannot be given up without grave scandal or loss of good name or without notable temporal or spiritual damage.
No, we do not "all’ know this because it simply isn’t true. Many, many people can have a drink or two and not have “more and more.” Many people can exercise the virtues of prudence and temperance just fine.We all know that having a few drinks often leads to having more and more.
That is a question for your confessor. If you honestly cannot be moderate in your drinking, then you have a compulsion, a drinking problem, and shouldn’t drink AT ALL.So if one were to confess say, over-doing it with alcohol on occasion, but that person still intended to go out for some drinks with the intent of moderation (knowing that the temptation would be there), does that invalidate the confession, since the Act of Contrition specifically calls for avoiding the near occasion of sin?
Temptation is not the same as near occasion of sin. A near occasion of sin is something that generally leads one to commit mortal sins… one needs to avoid such.We all know that having a few drinks often leads to having more and more. So if one were to confess say, over-doing it with alcohol on occasion, but that person still intended to go out for some drinks with the intent of moderation (knowing that the temptation would be there), does that invalidate the confession, since the Act of Contrition specifically calls for avoiding the near occasion of sin?
Thanks, Bookcat! I guess when I made the confession, I really thought the threshold for sinful “drunkenness” was much lower, and being honest with myself, I don’t think I was firmly resolved to avoid it at all costs because it didn’t make sense to me or I disagreed with said threshold. This is why I am nervous about the whole confession and the validity thereof.Temptation is not the same as near occasion of sin. A near occasion of sin is something that generally leads one to commit mortal sins… one needs to avoid such.
In regards to mortal sin…(ie.complete loss of reason OR drunk driving, OR drinking that is leading to various mortal sins) catholicreference.net/index.cfm?id=33231
One has to intend to avoid the near occasion of sin (that is what generally leads one into mortal sin) so if drinking a couple drinks is really a near occasion to mortal sin (generally leads one to this…to getting drunk mortally) then one must intend to avoid such. (all mortal sins must be of course be confessed and with contrition and a firm purpose of amendment…intending yes to avoid the near occasion to them)
In regards confession of just venial sins…(that is in a confession where we know we are only confessing venial sins at that time) some excess in eating and drinking -usually individual acts are usually venial…(which does not make them good of course) but there can be say medical reasons or other reasons that can make it grave due to circumstance)…one has to in ones confession be sorry …with firm purpose of amendment …for at least one confessed actually committed sin…for the confession to be valid…now the firm purpose of amendment etc does not have to be the same as in mortal sins…it can be the case say with more “regular” venial sins that one often falls into say…that one at least intends to work at making them fewer etc…of getting better as a Christian. (of course if one is not sorry for a venial sin…it does not get forgiven…so not something one should even bother confessing)
Of course let us seek to follow Christ and avoid sin in general…and what leads us to it…and seek virtue…to live temperance etc (which can be different in different occasions…like a kind of “celebration temperance” can be different than ordinary temperance…still though according to reason etc).
And of course we want to not lead others (approve, assist etc) to mortal sins etc either
Best thing to do is talk with the priest in confession…(best if same priest)…about your particular confession…he can help you know what you may need to do or not do in regards to that confession …they are trained in hearing confessions…Thanks, Bookcat! I guess when I made the confession, I really thought the threshold for sinful “drunkenness” was much lower, and being honest with myself, I don’t think I was firmly resolved to avoid it at all costs because it didn’t make sense to me or I disagreed with said threshold. This is why I am nervous about the whole confession and the validity thereof.
Yeah , we get it. You’re the best.No, we do not "all’ know this because it simply isn’t true. Many, many people can have a drink or two and not have “more and more.” Many people can exercise the virtues of prudence and temperance just fine.
If you’re not sorry for some venial sin that’s not going to affect the validity of your confession unless you only have venial sins on your soul; so as long as your sorry for all your mortal sins, your confession is valid. If this is an occasion of only venial sin, then it’s not even necessary to avoid it. Occasions of venial sin are all over the place; you can’t avoid them all.Thanks, Bookcat! I guess when I made the confession, I really thought the threshold for sinful “drunkenness” was much lower, and being honest with myself, I don’t think I was firmly resolved to avoid it at all costs because it didn’t make sense to me or I disagreed with said threshold. This is why I am nervous about the whole confession and the validity thereof.
Regarding confessions of only venial sins…one needs to be sorry etc for at least one.If you’re not sorry for some venial sin that’s not going to affect the validity of your confession unless you only have venial sins on your soul