How often do we have to confess

[Verbum_Caro]

Yes, I do believe that while “grave sin” and “mortal sin” are frequently used interchangeably in English and in Latin documentation, there are differences between them or else **one **of the criteria of being mortal – but not the **only **criteria – would not be it being “grave.”

IrishAm,

There is a difficulty in holding that the term “grave sin” in Canon 989 means grave matter. As was pointed out above, a mortal sin consists of grave matter, full consent, and sufficient knowledge. If any one of those is lacking, then its not a mortal sin, and it may be a venial sin. The reason I say “may” be a venial sin because if one *completely *lacks consent or knowledge than it can’t be a sin at all.

Therefore to say that one is required to confess “grave sins” and mean that to be “grave matter” doesn’t make too much sense, since there could be times when one’s acts involve grave matter but are not sinful, not even venially sinful. It doesn’t seem to me that the Church requires the faithful to confess things which weren’t sins.

In other words, because “grave sin” has the word “*sin” *in it, it means more than matter.

I think the Compendium to the Catechism could clear this up:

305. When is a person obliged to confess mortal sins?

Each of the faithful who has reached the age of discretion is bound to confess his or her mortal sins at least once a year. . .

The compendium cites to 1457 of the Catechism on this point, which in turn quotes from Canon 989. By the by, the Catechism translates the “grave sin” of the Canon as “serious sin”. So, you have three options of how to say it: grave sin = serious sin = mortal sin.

Note that I have only concerned myself in this discussion with the Canon Law that requires the faithful to confess their mortal sins once per year. I haven’t ventured my opinion on the Precepts of the Church.

What do you think?
VC

 

[itsjustdave1988]

You must confess before receiving the Holy Eucharist if you are conscious of grave sin which have not been remitted previously by sacramental confession. (cf. c. 916, 1983 Code of Canon Law).

Additionally, 1983 Code of Canon Law, Can. 989 states, “All the faithful who have reached the age of discretion are bound faithfully to confess their grave sins at least once a year.”

I believe “grave sins” in the above context is intended in the objective sense, that is, they are to include expressing “the circumstances which may change the species of the sin.” (Council of Trent, Sess. XIV, De Poenitentia, c.9.). This is part of the “in kind and number” requirement of canon 988, intended to give the minister sufficient knowledge to make his judgement on “the circumstances” referred to by the Council of Trent, which may change the “species of sin.”

So, the circumstances may be that you have a lifelong habit of the sin of lust, for example, which may diminish culpability, having changed the species of sin from mortal to venial, however, one is still obliged to confess such objectively grave sins.

However, why would anyone want to meet the minimum general law for piety? We are called to be saints, not merely meet the minimum standards. General law is written for the intention of protecting the “common good” of the community. However, in particular cases, general law may not be sufficient. That’s why we are called to listen to God and discern what he is calling us personally to do. If God is calling you to go beyond the minimum standard of the law, then I pray you say as our Blessed Mother did, “Let it be done to me according to your will.”

According to Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments:

Since “reconciliation in Christ is achieved in a pre-eminent way in the celebration of the Sacrament of Penance”, Diocesan Bishops are to recommend strongly the frequent reception of the Sacrament of Penance, even in those cases when, after a diligent examination of conscience, penitents remain unaware of any mortal sins, both by promoting this teaching themselves and by reminding confessors to counsel the faithful that "the regular confession of our venial sins helps us form our conscience, fight against evil tendencies, let ourselves be healed by Christ and progress in the life of the Spirit".
Circular Letter concerning the integrity of the Sacrament of Penance, Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, 20 March 2000]

 

[itsjustdave1988]

More on what is meant by “species” of a moral act and how it may change due to some imperfection of the act…

According to St. Thomas Aquinas:

… a sin which is generically mortal, can become venial by reason of the imperfection of the act, because then it does not completely fulfil the conditions of a moral act…This happens by a kind of subtraction, namely, of deliberate reason. And since a moral act takes its species from deliberate reason, the result is that by such a subtraction the species of the act is destroyed. (Summa Theologica, IIa, 88, 6)

The at least “once per year” requirement to confess derives from the norm introduced by the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215:

Each member of the faithful…is to confess individually all his or her sins at least once a year. (Constitutions, no. 21)

Notice that the original standard included “all sins.” I don’t believe the intent of the current norm of confession was to exclude, by one’s own judgment, those objectively grave sins which, due to some circumstance might change the species of the sin.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

I believe “grave sins” in the above context is intended in the objective sense. . .

Hi Dave,

What do you make of the Compendium passage that I quoted?

In regard to the Fourth Lateran Council, is it possible that this is the origin of the Precept that one must confess one’s sins once a year? Note that Canon 989 and the Precept may be saying distinct things: under the precept one is obligated to confess one’s sins once a year, with no distinction between mortal or venial; the Canon speaks to when one must confess one’s mortal sins, which is also once per year.

At first blush, these might seem redundant – but isn’t it possible that the Canon answers the question “If I fall in to mortal sin, when must I confess it?”

What do you think?
VC

 

[jmcrae]

Hi Dave,

What do you make of the Compendium passage that I quoted?

In regard to the Fourth Lateran Council, is it possible that this is the origin of the Precept that one must confess one’s sins once a year? Note that Canon 989 and the Precept may be saying distinct things: under the precept one is obligated to confess one’s sins once a year, with no distinction between mortal or venial; the Canon speaks to when one must confess one’s mortal sins, which is also once per year.

At first blush, these might seem redundant – but isn’t it possible that the Canon answers the question “If I fall in to mortal sin, when must I confess it?”

The answer to that question is, “As soon as you become aware of it, and before the next time you receive Holy Communion.” Surely, you don’t wait until next Lent to confess a mortal sin, if you committed it this week, right? You’d go at the earliest reasonable opportunity - typically, on a Saturday afternoon - this seems obvious.

Which makes me think that the Precept is referring to any sins. Obviously if you are the Immaculate Conception, or else if you don’t have the use of reason, you have an exemption - but the vast majority of us have at least venial sins that we can confess at least once a year. It certainly would do no harm.

What do you think?
VC

That’s what I think.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

The answer to that question is, “As soon as you become aware of it, and before the next time you receive Holy Communion.” Surely, you don’t wait until next Lent to confess a mortal sin, if you committed it this week, right? You’d go at the earliest reasonable opportunity - typically, on a Saturday afternoon - this seems obvious.

Hi jmcrae,

Yes it is obvious from the point of view of striving for Christian perfection, from prudence, and from common sense, but I don’t think it is obviously the mandated requirement of law.

Which makes me think that the Precept is referring to any sins. Obviously if you are the Immaculate Conception, or else if you don’t have the use of reason, you have an exemption - but the vast majority of us have at least venial sins that we can confess at least once a year. It certainly would do no harm.

Right, it wouldn’t do any harm. But, again, I am not speaking of the Precept, I am speaking solely of the provision in Canon Law. The question I was dealing with was whether or not the “grave sin” meant “mortal sin”.

VC

 

[jmcrae]

Hi jmcrae,

Yes it is obvious from the point of view of striving for Christian perfection, from prudence, and from common sense, but I don’t think it is obviously the mandated requirement of law.

Which makes me think that the Precept is referring to any sins. Obviously if you are the Immaculate Conception, or else if you don’t have the use of reason, you have an exemption - but the vast majority of us have at least venial sins that we can confess at least once a year. It certainly would do no harm.

Right, it wouldn’t do any harm. But, again, I am not speaking of the Precept, I am speaking solely of the provision in Canon Law. The question I was dealing with was whether or not the “grave sin” meant “mortal sin”.

VC

If it meant mortal sin, that term would have been used. It is elsewhere in the Catechism that we are instructed to confess our mortal sins at the earliest convenient opportunity; I don’t have the reference handy, but I know I read it just recently, since I am preparing to teach a class on the subject during the month of November.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

If it meant mortal sin, that term would have been used.

I’m not sure that the word mortal is used at all in the English translation of Canon Law. I am talking about Canon Law, not the precepts of the Church.

jmcrae:

It is elsewhere in the Catechism that we are instructed to confess our mortal sins at the earliest convenient opportunity; I don’t have the reference handy, but I know I read it just recently, since I am preparing to teach a class on the subject during the month of November.

I can’t find it. I’d be interested. Please, when you do locate it, come back to this thread and let us know. (Maybe before you teach your class!)

VC

 

[EasterJoy]

So does that mean if I confess in June 2008 that I would have to confess again by June 2009, or does that mean if I confess in June 2008, that is it for 2008, then I just have to do it again in 2009.

I understand that is being really nit picky, and I am not trying to cheat the system, just trying to understand the rule.

If you have committed a mortal sin, you must avail yourself in time to receive Holy Communion at least once during the Easter season. Other than that, I would think that the idea is not to let more than 12 months (more or less) elapse between trips.

It is a mistake to make one’s relationship with God less about care of one’s soul and more a matter of satisfying jurisprudence. The law is for man, not man for the law. That is particularly true of canon law…when satisfying it, always be certain to satisfy the spirit of it.

What I mean to say is that I would look at this less along the lines of satisfying IRS rules and more along the lines of how often you have a necessary annual cancer screening. The precept is for your own good, not merely to keep the priests in business.

 

[brigid12]

Yes, I do believe that while “grave sin” and “mortal sin” are frequently used interchangeably in English and in Latin documentation, there are differences between them or else **one **of the criteria of being mortal – but not the **only **criteria – would not be it being “grave.”

I also believe, as EasterJoy pointed out, in the precepts of the Church, being:

1. You shall attend Mass on Sundays and on holy days of obligation and remain free from work or activity that could impede the sanctification of such days.
   2. You shall confess your sins at least once a year.
2. You shall receive the sacrament of the Eucharist at least during the Easter season.
3. You shall observe the days of fasting and abstinence established by the Church.
4. You shall help to provide for the needs of the Church.

The precepts, which are not optional but obligatory, do not define any degree of your (and my) sinfulness, simply that you (and I) shall confess them at least once a year.

So that’s my $.02 worth! Brigid (perhaps another good Irishwoman :shamrock2: ) how about you??

IrishAm-
Well, I’m ScotsIrish and I will leave the judgement of “good” up to Him,:ehh: but thanks.

PeteZaHut-
I must admit that I get (all too easily ) impatient when someone tries to find out the minimum that they can get away with - as if the point of it all were to satisfy canon law and not to seek as much union with Him as possible (for that individual). Since I am not a canon lawyer, I will just say that I agree with IrishAm and EasterJoy, and leave it at that.

 

[notsmart]

How often do we have to confess if we are not in mortal sin

Get a father confessor. He will tell you all this stuff. I don’t have one yet, but I will soon.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Dave,** jmcrae** , IrishAm, Brigid, et al.,

As I mentioned above, I’m looking strictly at Canon 989, and the obligation to confess “grave sin” and whether or not that means “mortal sin” or something else.

I’m curious what to make of the Compendium to Catechism, 305:305. When is a person obliged to confess mortal sins?

Each of the faithful who has reached the age of discretion is bound to confess his or her mortal sins at least once a year. . . [emphasis added]
The compendium cites to CCC 1457, which in turn quotes from Canon 989. So it *seems *to me that the Compendium links 989 to the confession of mortal sins.

Any thoughts? Can you help me make sense of it?

Furthermore Heribert Jone’s *Moral Theology *has the following:§395
I. Confession. All the faithful who have reached the use of their reason must sincerely confess their sins at least once a year (C. 906).

1. 
   ]This confession need not be made during the Easter time, but because of the prescribed Easter Communion it is practical to make it at this time. Children who have the use of reason are also bound by this law even though they have not yet reached their seventh year. - Strictly speaking, however, only those are obliged by this precept who have committed a mortal sin. - One’s obligation is not fulfilled by a sacrilegious confession. (C. 907). - If one has not confessed within the year one must do so as soon as possible. By so doing he would satisfy the precept for both years. [emphasis added]
   The Canons Jone mentions are, of course, the older Canons, but nevertheless I think it highlights the question: does the Canon Law which obliges the faithful to confess sins once per year oblige only mortal sins, or “grave” sins (meaning grave matter)?
   
   Anyone have any thoughts how deal with the above two sources?
   
   VC
   
   *I should note that this is an English translation of Jone’s work. I don’t have the passage in the original language.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

As I mentioned above, I’m looking strictly at Canon 989, and the obligation to confess “grave sin” and whether or not that means “mortal sin” or something else.

I believe the Compendium, Catechism, precepts, and canon law all intend the same thing. So this is a matter of trying to rightly interpret what canon 989 means, in the light of Catholic custom. My opinion is influenced, I think, by what Pius XII stated, “the sin of the century is the loss of the sense of sin.” So, I’m pretty sure my opinion is one that takes the “safer course of action” in confessing all objectively grave sins in which at least partial voluntariness is present. While circumstances may diminish culpability of mortal sins to venial sin, we may be at risk of “rationalizing” away our mortal sins upon approaching the confessional.

According to John Paul II:

…some sins are intrinsically grave and mortal by reason of their matter. That is, there exist acts which, per se and in themselves, independently of circumstances, are ***always seriously wrong ***by reason of their object. These acts, if carried out with sufficient awareness and freedom, are always gravely sinful [Apostolic Exhortaiton, *Reconciliation and Penance

, December 2, 1984, no. 17]
The culpability for sins has to do with the degree of voluntariness of the sin. Objectively grave sins may have been accidental (no voluntariness), or may have been committed with “perfect” consent (full voluntariness). However, there are some sins which may have had some measure of partial voluntariness which is less than “perfect.” Are these latter sins required to be confessed if they are “grave,” objectively speaking? I think so.

Accidents (no voluntariness) are not even what St. Thomas calls “moral human acts” and so they wouldn’t require confession, even if such accidents had grave consequences. However, my concern is that some may consider “perfect consent” and “full advertence” to be so rare they they are hardly ever met, such that none of their objectively grave sins throughout the year need to be confessed.

For instance, let’s say that hypothetically, I’ve been having one adulterous relationship after another. I consider it an “addiction to sex” (in this hypothetical, I really have a psychological addiction) and so, due to “habit” my capacity to say “no” is diminished so that “perfect consent” is not present in my grave sinning. I continue to commit adultery frequently throughout the year out of habit, feeling sorrow about it after the fact, but I never confess the sin, because I consider such a sin “venial” due to lack of “perfect consent.” This may sound like a ridiculous hypothetical, however, I have “progressive” moral theology books written by Catholic priests which take this “lax” view on what constitutes “mortal sin.”

According to the Council of Trent:

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. [Sess. XIV, ch. 5]

I don’t think the Church intended that sins with mere partial voluntariness (less than “perfect” consent) be omitted from the obligation to confess objectively grave sins. I think instead that the priest is supposed to hear those sins too, as well as the circumstances which may change the species of sin. In this way, it is the priest, not the penitent, that determine any measure of diminished culpability for objectively grave sins due to the circumstances.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Hi Dave,

Thanks for the reply.

I understand, and share, your prudential concerns and the pastoral objective, as well as avoiding a minimalism when it comes to the Christian life.

However (you knew that was coming right? ), those things aside, is it *possible *that Canon 989 means “mortal sins”, i.e. the formal sin and not the material sin?

Do you find the compendium difficult to explain? I find it difficult because of the entire passage:

305. When is a person obliged to confess mortal sins?

Each of the faithful who has reached the age of discretion is bound to confess his or her mortal sins at least once a year and always before receiving Holy Communion.
Is it true, then, to say that one must confess one’s grave sins (in the sense you mean it) before communion?

Also, can you shed some light on Jone? It seems problematic to me, because it comes from such a highly respected Canonist. Unless, of course, the problem is in the translation.

Perhaps my difficulties stem from not fully comprehending the distinction between a mortal sin and a grave sin.

Thanks,
VC

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Just to add to my confusion, which I hope someone can help clear up, here is Fr. Hardon’s definitions of mortal sin and grave sin:**GRAVE SIN. **The transgression of a divine law in a grievous matter with full knowledge and consent. . .

---

MORTAL SIN. An actual sin that destroys sanctifying grace and causes the supernatural death of the soul. . .

** The terms mortal, deadly, grave, and serious applied to sin are synonyms**, each with a slightly different implication. Mortal and deadly focus on the effects in the sinner, namely deprivation of the state of friendship with God; grave and serious refer to the importance of the matter in which a person offends God. But the Church never distinguishes among these terms as though they represented different kinds of sins. There is only one recognized correlative to mortal sin, and that is venial sin, which offends against God but does not cause the loss of one’s state of grace.

Please let me know what you think.

VC

 

[jmcrae]

I mostly agree with Father Hardon’s definition, with one small nuance - my current understanding is that “grave matter” (which is what most people would understand by the term “grave sin”) is only one of the three elements necessary, for a sin to be mortal. The other two are full consent of the will, and full knowledge of the grave character of the act.

Lacking even one of these other two criteria, a person could commit a sin that is of grave character, without it being a mortal sin - for example, if he lacks full consent of the will, or if he lacks knowledge of its grave character. (A common example is disobedience to parents - a lot of kids think it’s “no big deal” to disobey their parents; most kids, if asked, wouldn’t characterize such behaviour as “sinful” - they see it as perfectly normal - yet, it is certainly a sin against the Ten Commandments, and one of the more obvious ones, at that.)

However, when he then goes to make his Lenten Confession, and sees the action he did listed on the Examen that is handed out in Church, he would certainly want to include it in his Confession.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

I mostly agree with Father Hardon’s definition, with one small nuance - my current understanding is that “grave matter” (which is what most people would understand by the term “grave sin”) is only one of the three elements necessary, for a sin to be mortal. The other two are full consent of the will, and full knowledge of the grave character of the act.

jmcrae,

You are of course right as to the three components of mortal sin. I think it safe to say that Fr. Hardon, is certainly aware of it as well, no? But here is the problem, as I pointed out in my earlier post: making “grave sin” equivalent to “grave matter” doesn’t quite work. This is because one’s action may involve grave matter, and yet one may only be committing a *venial *sin, for the very reason you point out.

Furthermore the word “grave” in the phrase “grave sin” *modifies *the word “sin”, not “matter”.

Note too that Fr. Hardon says in his definition of Mortal Sin thatThe terms mortal, deadly, grave, and serious applied to sin are synonyms. . . **the Church never distinguishes among these terms as though they represented different kinds of sins.

That is a pretty strong statement, isn’t it? That the Church never distinguishes among these terms?

In fact, isn’t the *inclusion *of this portion of the definition in Fr. Hardon’s dictionary illustrative in itself? Why include it unless there was a incorrect tendency to see a disjunction between the terms “grave sin” and “mortal sin”. That’s not conclusive, obviously, but it cause me to wonder.

What do you think?
VC

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Dave,

I just wanted to point out that in the *Circular Letter Concerning the Integrity of the Sacrament of Penance *that you quoted earlier we find more problematic wording:

1. The divine constitution of the Sacrament of Penance requires each penitent to confess to a priest all mortal sins, as well as any specifying moral circumstances that he remembers after a diligent examination of conscience. For this reason the Code of Canon Law states clearly that “individual and integral confession and absolution is the sole ordinary means by which a member of the faithful who is conscious of mortal sin is reconciled with God and with the Church. Physical or moral impossibility alone excuses from such confession”. In specifying this obligation, the Church has insistently reiterated that "all the faithful who have reached the age of discretion are bound faithfully to confess their mortal sins at least once a year".

But again, it could be a translation problem. Do you have access to the Latin version?

Thanks!
VC

 

[jmcrae]

jmcrae,

You are of course right as to the three components of mortal sin. I think it safe to say that Fr. Hardon, is certainly aware of it as well, no? But here is the problem, as I pointed out in my earlier post: making “grave sin” equivalent to “grave matter” doesn’t quite work. This is because one’s action may involve grave matter, and yet one may only be committing a *venial *sin, for the very reason you point out.

Furthermore the word “grave” in the phrase “grave sin” *modifies *the word “sin”, not “matter”.

Note too that Fr. Hardon says in his definition of Mortal Sin thatThe terms mortal, deadly, grave, and serious applied to sin are synonyms. . . **the Church never distinguishes among these terms as though they represented different kinds of sins.

That is a pretty strong statement, isn’t it? That the Church never distinguishes among these terms?

In fact, isn’t the *inclusion *of this portion of the definition in Fr. Hardon’s dictionary illustrative in itself? Why include it unless there was a incorrect tendency to see a disjunction between the terms “grave sin” and “mortal sin”. That’s not conclusive, obviously, but it cause me to wonder.

What do you think?
VC

It seems like a lot of academic hair-splitting, to me. Are you trying to get me to say that there could be someone who might not have to go to Confession at least once a year?

The Precept says, “go at least once a year,” so I say “go at least once a year” - even if all you can think of to confess are venial sins. The more often you go, the more sensitive your conscience will become, and the more you will have to confess.

 

[brigid12]

It seems like a lot of academic hair-splitting, to me. Are you trying to get me to say that there could be someone who might not have to go to Confession at least once a year?

The Precept says, “go at least once a year,” so I say “go at least once a year” - even if all you can think of to confess are venial sins. The more often you go, the more sensitive your conscience will become, and the more you will have to confess.

As usual, I thoroughly agree with your post!:yup: