How detailed should we be when confessing sins of sexual nature?

  • Thread starter Thread starter pinetree28
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
As you are assuming Fr Z., then yes it is what he believes is the correct and proper way to confess sins. Especially as the sins are to be confessed in kind and number.

Homosexual sex - sodomy - is vastly different to the usual sexual relations between a man and a woman.

I certainly wouldn’t be advising people to disguise their sin.

You are correct in that kind is what is to be confessed. The kind of sin is homosexual acts, not heterosexual acts. Different kinds of sexual relations, different sins.

I’m just as aware as you as to what the CCC states. Perhaps it is you who does not understand what ‘kind’ actually means. It doesn’t meant confessing in generalities . As in the difference between stealing $10 from a large well to do business compared to $10 from a homeless person. They are both cases of stealing. But as the detail as to whom one stole from affects the gravity, this detail should be confessed, as it changes the gravity. The same with confessing homosexual sins compared to heterosexual sins.
 
I am repeating what I have been told by at least a dozen priests. If your confessor prefers details, abide by his wishes.
 
That is true. But this is because it is rightly assumed that the person confessing is confessing fully the sin, and not deliberately disguising or hiding what it actually was.
 
Baltimore catechsim

Q. 790. What do you mean by the "kinds of sin?"

A. By the “kinds of sin,” we mean the particular division or class to which the sins belong; that is, whether they be sins of blasphemy, disobedience, anger, impurity, dishonesty, etc. We can determine the kind of sin by discovering the commandment or precept of the Church we have broken or the virtue against which we have acted.

Q. 791. What do we mean by "circumstances which change the nature of sins?"

A. By “circumstances which change the nature of sins” we mean anything that makes it another kind of sin. Thus to steal is a sin, but to steal from the Church makes our theft sacrilegious. Again, impure actions are sins, but a person must say whether they were committed alone or with others, with relatives or strangers, with persons married or single, etc., because these circumstances change them from one kind of impurity to another. (Bold emphasis in last part is mine). This includes homosexual sins as they are also a different type of impurity.
 
If I lived under the Archbishop of Boston in the time when this document was in force, it would be binding on me.
 
DeniseNY said:
I’m a priest. I hear confessions. And I can tell you, you don’t even need to go into detail in confession!! It’s better if you don’t. If you just say “I committed X sin Y times,” that suffices. And if I’m not clear on what you mean, I’ll ask! But detail has a danger, that we start explaining things to try to justify them. It’s better for our humility to just admit what we did and accept God’s forgiveness and get out! Be brief, be bold, be gone! -Fr ACEGC
Click to expand...
That’s what a priest told me when I went into confession for the first time. He said if he needed details he’d ask.

I think they want to make it as comfortable for you as well. Can you imagine some of the things they have to listen too and not react to what they hear. Remember they are human as well.
 
Last edited:
FWIW, the Sensus Fidelium talk on confession made it clear that while you should not go into unnecessary details, you should however mention specifics which change the gravity of the sin, such as CRV states above. This seems pretty logical to me.
 
Can we just ask the priest if we need to go into more detail. Or simply, “Is that specific enough?” Not that he needs the penitent to guide him through the process, but seems to me that if one particular sin is bothering us more than others then zeroing in on it by offering more detail is going to alert the confessor that this might be an area where we need a little extra help. I also try to save those for last and say outright that “this is something I’ve really been struggling with” or “it bothers me especially that I did this one again” One time I did this and it turned out the more serious stuff where I needed real work had been at the beginning of my list, but I didn’t realize that that was the real problem. By focusing on one area, he realized by lens was out of focus itself 🙂
 
Which you are entitled to do. I don’t agree with everything he writes either, but on this point he is correct.
 
edward_george1 said:
“I sinned against chastity” is not specific enough. The correct way to confess such a sin is simply to answer the question of “In what way did you sin against chastity?”
Click to expand...
Father, thanks for the interesting response. I very much understand what you are saying here and it makes sense that to say “I sinned against chastity” is not specific enough. However, don’t priests have some leeway in what details they ask for about the nature of a sin in confession? For example, one priest may ask for more details than another priest, but in either case there is a valid confession. Is that right?
 
The Catechism contains footnotes that direct us to doctrinal statements.

I have posted the Canon Law.

There exists no doctrinal statement that we are required to give the level of detail on which you insist. As I said, we ought each follow the advice of our Confessor, what he prefers.
 
@pinetree28

Confessing the kind of sin is necessary for your confession to be valid.

Council of Trent Session 14 Chapter V On Confession
"We gather furthermore, that those circumstances which change the species of the sin are also to be explained in confession, because that, without them, the sins themselves are neither entirely set forth by the penitents, nor are they known clearly to the judges; and it cannot be that they can estimate rightly the grievousness of the crimes, and impose on the penitents, the punishment which ought to be inflicted, on account of them. "

SACRED CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH Pastoral norms for the administration of general sacramental absolution 16 June 1972.
" The Council of Trent solemnly taught that for full and perfect forgiveness of sins three acts are required from the penitent as parts of the sacrament, these acts being contrition, confession and satisfaction. It also taught that absolution is given by the priest, who acts as judge, and that it is necessary by divine law to confess to a priest each and every mortal sin and the circumstances that alter the species of sins that are remembered after a careful examination of conscience (cf. Sess. XIV, Canones de Sacramento Paenitentiae 4, 6-9: DS 1704, 1706-1709).

Denzinger 1704 & 1706-1709
In particular 1707 " 1707 Dz 917 Can. 7. If anyone says that in the sacrament of penance it is not necessary by divine law for the remission of sins to confess each and all mortal sins, of which one has remembrance after a due and diligent examination, even secret ones and those which are against the two last precepts of the decalogue, and the circumstances which alter the nature of sin; but that this confession is useful only for the instruction and consolation of the penitent, and formerly was observed only for imposing a canonical satisfaction; or says, that they who desire to confess all their sins wish to leave nothing to be pardoned by divine mercy; or, finally, that it is not lawful to confess venial sins: let him be anathema [cf. n. 899-901 ]"
 
I think that this is perhaps the most confusing thread I’ve read here on CAF.
 
CRV said:
@pinetree28

Confessing the kind of sin is necessary for your confession to be valid.

(snipped)
Click to expand...
All this ^. That’s why “I sinned against the sixth commandment” is never sufficient, because it does not provide sufficient information as to the nature of the sin, or whether it’s altered. So a priest, in order to judge properly needs to know if the “sin against the sixth commandment” is:

Fornication: I am unmarried and had sex with an unmarried partner.
Adultery: I or my partner am married and we had sex.
Masturbation: I stimulated myself sexually by myself.
Homosexuality: I had sexual activity with a person of the same sex as myself (I do not dignify that activity with the word “intercourse.”)
etc.
etc.

These are all sins against the sixth commandment, but they are all different kinds of sins. A priest who receives a confession of “I sinned against the X commandment” without requiring the specific sins in kind and number is not doing his job.
 
Last edited:
porthos11 said:
These are all sins against the sixth commandment, but they are all different kinds of sins. A priest who receives a confession of “I sinned against the X commandment” without requiring the specific sins in kind and number is not doing his job.
Click to expand...
I’m not arguing with anyone nor do I believe I did a confession wrong. I’m not being defensive in that way. Wow though…This thread in general is confusing!

The thing is when I went through RCIA, I had literally no training or discussion on confession. I just sort of had to figure it out. People may literally go in to confession and in in good faith say “I sinned against the sixth commandment.”, and not be trying to hide the gravity of their sins. Isn’t it the priest’s job to ask them further questions and guide them in confession? If a priests does not do this, I don’t see how it is the penitent’s fault or that a confession was invalid.
 
Last edited:
It this is my experience too. I had to read up on what do though believe it or not.
 
I’m sorry this wasn’t covered in the RCIA you went through. It is up to the penitent to confess their sin/s fully.

So for example an individual if they only confessed to sinning against chastity, this could be many different sins - fornication (between two unmarried people), adultery (between one unmarried and one married or between two married people from different marriages ie from marriage 1 person A of that couple had marital relations with person B from marriage 2), incest, rape, sodomy, pedophilia and including impure touches and impure thoughts.

It is not the priests job to tease out our sins. If he isn’t sure what is being confessed then he can and most likely would ask for clarification. But he takes what is confessed as what the sin was. And this is necessary for the priest to judge the gravity of the sin and assign a fitting penance.

If a priest is aware that the person is new to the Faith, then yes, I am sure they would be helpful, as well as helping if you telll them you’re not sure how to confess what you did.

But it is up to us to form our consciences and to continue to study and learn the Faith, and keep up with any changes. It is a lifelong process.

We are the ones doing the confessing - not the priest. The responsibility is ours. In confession we are accusing ourselves of our wrongdoing, which is why we state what wrongs we did or failed to do.

The extra details which are unnecessary would be the mechanics of the sexual sin. One still has to state the name of it. wrt impure touches an unnecessary detail would be to say where the touches were, how many - so just confessing impure touches (plural) is all that is necessary.
 
Hence the advice I was given - “Just spit it out!” when I said I was having difficulty saying the sin.
 
pinetree28 said:
Or is, ‘I’ve indulged in impure thoughts/committed impure acts with another’ suffice?
Click to expand...
it is suffice. You are confessing to God, not to a psychologist/ human counsel. God knows and understands.

It does not matter if it is homosexual thoughts, or other impure thougts it is suffice to say ‘I have indulded in impure thoughts’
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top