How often do we have to confess

[RosalieM]

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:

Hear, hear! I am fortunate to live two blocks away from my parish church and try to go to confession once every two weeks or so. I will always have faults and venial sins to confess. In addition, I review an examination of conscience from ewtn.com/library/SPIRIT/EXAMCONS.TXT, which gives some really sensitive guidance for faith, hope and charity. I love and need the grace (and sometimes guidance) I receive from this sacrament which is so readily available to all of us. I believe it keeps me from more serious sin. Our world is so secular, we need all the divine help we can get.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

…is it *possible *that Canon 989 means “mortal sins”, i.e. the formal sin and not the material sin?

That’s certainly possible. In fact, I think most canon law commentaries and lawyers would interpret it that way, especially those more “progressive” minded, like the Canon Law Society of America.

However, in our lax times, I find it more prudent to confess all objectively grave sins no matter the circumstances which may (or may not) have diminished our voluntariness and therefore culpability.

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.

Not in light of the norm it is trying to summarize…

Can. 916 Anyone who is conscious of grave sin may not celebrate Mass or receive the Body of the Lord without previously having been to sacramental confession, unless there is a grave reason and there is no opportunity to confess; in this case the person is to remember the obligation to make an act of perfect contrition, which includes the resolve to go to confession as soon as possible.

The compendium reference presumes that one is “conscious of grave sin” that had not previously been remitted by baptism or sacramental confession.

Is it true, then, to say that one must confess one’s grave sins (in the sense you mean it) before communion?

Yes, unless already remitted by sacramental absolution or baptism.

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

I don’t believe there’s a distinction is intended by most of the references that have been cited. For me, it has more to do with the distinction between what John Paul II means by “sufficient awareness and freedom” as compared to “perfect” of “full” consent. Some may never be able convince themselves that they consented to any sin “pefectly,” and so they may see no need to ever go to confession.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Let me give an example of what I mean by “our lax times”…

Excerpt from a news article…“Repentance is difficult because today the sense of sin is disappearing from the conscience of Filipinos,” Archbishop Fernando Capalla of Davao said in an editorial in the bulletin of the episcopal conference, according to AsiaNews.

He cited an incident that occurred last November. At a parish, 32 couples who had cohabited for years were being prepared for marriage. The pastor told them they should go to confession before their marriage, a ceremony that would be celebrated by the archbishop. The couples answered: "Father, we have no sins to confess."

Such ignorance of sin happens because of their “indifferent and weak conscience, so hardened as to no longer hear the interior voice of God,” the archbishop said. The couples’ reply is common “to many in our country and in the Church of today,” he added.

While I think “grave” or “mortal” sin can be interpreted in the formal sense in canon law, it ought to be interpreted in the objective sense, and let the confessor tell you that due to the circumstances, the grave sin wasn’t “mortal.” It’s good for your soul to confess even venial sins.

With that said, it ought not to be ONLY once a year. Go at least once a month, or if struggling with sin (who isn’t?), go once a week. If you’re goal is to meet the minimum standard for entering heaven, you might be sorry when you find out on that day of judgment that you just missed the mark.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Dave,

Then would we be in agreement that the actual legal obligation expressed in Canon 989 is that those who who have reached the age of reason are obliged to confess their mortal sins once per year?

VC

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Hi jmcrae.

It seems like a lot of academic hair-splitting, to me.

Me too.

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?

Nope, I’m not trying to get you to say anything! I am trying to understand the teaching of the Church.

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.

If you review my prior posts in this thread you will see that I have avoided expressing an opinion on what the *precept *of the Church obliges. My contribution (a characterization that some might disagree with ) was confined to the discussion of **Canon 989.

**There may be those who view this thread who do not find the discussion edifying, which is fine. But I find that discussing the teaching of Church, even the subtle nuances a)forces me to learn more through research and b) gives me the opportunity to benefit from the knowledge and opinions of my fellow posters. I often attempt to ask clarifying questions in order to better refine my own understanding.

Furthermore, I find this particular type of discussion important. It seems to me that when we are dealing with law of any kind we should attempt to be clear what the law actually says or enforces. This is because although we may surely *choose to, and surely are encouraged to in this case, *surpass the bare minimum obligations of the law, it is quite a different thing to say that by law one is obliged to do so.

I think that it is important for all the faithful to ponder the laws of the Church, because it gives us insight into the mind of the Church. But, I also think that certain particular persons should be as clear as possible on what the Church actually obliges by law, because of their role in the Body of Christ – writers, catechists, teachers, parents – where their role may entail describing for others these obligations. It may be a disservice to others to inadvertently lay on them a greater burden than the Church herself does.

jmcrae, (and Dave!), I also will note, although I wish I didn’t have to, that I have not said in this thread what I believe someone *should *do. I am not promoting laxity when it comes to confession. But there is a difference between what one must do, and what one should do. This thread started when the OP asked how often we have to confess when not in mortal sin. I did not respond to that question, and I have not. I responded to an answer that said the obligation was in Canon Law (which I understood as Canon 989) to confess non-mortal sins once per year. I thought it was not written that way. The discussion than evolved into what the the words “grave sin” meant in this particular Canon.

What do you think about the above? How do you find my *apologia pro vita sua?

*VC

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Dave,

I asked: Is it true, then, to say that one must confess one’s grave sins (in the sense you mean it) before communion?

And you responded:

Yes, unless already remitted by sacramental absolution or baptism.

This is the point where I am having some difficulty. Do you mean to say that one must confess one’s *objectively *grave sins before going to communion, even if subjectively one did not commit a mortal sin?

Or am I misunderstanding (likely)?
Thanks!
VC

 

[jmcrae]

It seems to me that when we are dealing with law of any kind we should attempt to be clear what the law actually says or enforces. This is because although we may surely *choose to, and surely are encouraged to in this case, *surpass the bare minimum obligations of the law, it is quite a different thing to say that by law one is obliged to do so.

What practical difference does it make? How often other people go to Confession is none of my business (even, according to our Diocescan rules, if they are my students or even my own children); keeping my own house in order is my business, and in my case, when faced with an easier or a harder interpretation, I take the harder interpretation as my personal law.

What other people do is up to them.

All I can tell the kids is what it says in the Precepts of the Church - once a year. If they choose not to make a Confession because they find that they have nothing to confess, how would I even know, let alone impose anything on them? All I can do is make sure they make it to the Confessional door; once it closes, I have no way of knowing what’s going on in there.

As far as how the Precept is interpreted by the Church, the only way we’d ever find out is if by some chance they were to be enforced, and then we’d see by how it’s being enforced, what the interpretation of it is. But since Church law is not enforced, and following it is purely voluntary, it’s impossible to know with any exactness what the Church might mean by it, when it comes to these subtle distinctions.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Hi jmcrae,

I certainly sympathize with your desire for practicality and your wish to avoid undue theorizing. That’s ok. But I’ll respond to your questions as I see it.

What practical difference does it make? . . .I take the harder interpretation as my personal law.

Well, I don’t think you teach others your own personal law, do you? That is the practical difference, isn’t it? Shouldn’t we try to figure out what the *actual *law is?

All I can tell the kids is what it says in the Precepts of the Church - once a year. . .

What happens when one of your* kids or their parents bring in the Baltimore Catechism which states:
293. What is meant by the commandment to confess our sins at least once a year?

By the commandment to confess our sins at least once a year is meant that we are strictly obliged to make a good confession within the year, if we have a mortal sin to confess.

Do you shrug your shoulders? Or do you say the Baltimore Catechism is wrong (which is ok to do, by the way!)? Do you say, we can’t actual know what the law is?

My approach is to investigate this question and try to resolve some difficulties.

God bless,
VC

*When I say one of *your *kids, please don’t object that none of you kids would do so because they don’t look into these matters so deeply, or they are too young, or they are Canadian so the Baltimore Catechism doesn’t apply. I don’t mean actually *your *kids, I just mean what happens when someone brings up one of these discrepancies. It could be one of your kids someday.

 

[jmcrae]

Hi jmcrae,

I certainly sympathize with your desire for practicality and your wish to avoid undue theorizing. That’s ok. But I’ll respond to your questions as I see it.

Well, I don’t think you teach others your own personal law, do you? That is the practical difference, isn’t it? Shouldn’t we try to figure out what the *actual *law is?

What happens when one of your* kids or their parents bring in the Baltimore Catechism which states:
293. What is meant by the commandment to confess our sins at least once a year?

By the commandment to confess our sins at least once a year is meant that we are strictly obliged to make a good confession within the year, if we have a mortal sin to confess.

Do you shrug your shoulders? Or do you say the Baltimore Catechism is wrong (which is ok to do, by the way!)? Do you say, we can’t actual know what the law is?

My approach is to investigate this question and try to resolve some difficulties.

God bless,
VC

*When I say one of *your *kids, please don’t object that none of you kids would do so because they don’t look into these matters so deeply, or they are too young, or they are Canadian so the Baltimore Catechism doesn’t apply. I don’t mean actually *your *kids, I just mean what happens when someone brings up one of these discrepancies. It could be one of your kids someday.

No, I have kids who don’t think they have to go to Confession at all, after First Confession, and I suspect it has to do with thinking that they are incapable of committing mortal sin.

So, I just tell them, “The Church strongly recommends that we attend Confession at least once a year” (and I point them to the precept in the Compendium of the Catechism, which doesn’t say anything about what kind of sins to confess) and then I tell them, “But our Bishop recommends that we go once a month, in order to grow in holiness. The Saints often went weekly, and I understand that Pope John Paul II went daily. So, you mustn’t worry about going too often. There are people here in Calgary who go for Confession every day at St. Anthony’s - not because they commit mortal sins every day, but because they want to grow in holiness - and you can go on Saturdays before the 5:00 Mass at almost every parish here in town.”

After that, it’s up to their parents to take them, and up to them to actually do it.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Dave,

Then would we be in agreement that the actual legal obligation expressed in Canon 989 is that those who who have reached the age of reason are obliged to confess their mortal sins once per year?

VC

Once per year, or anytime before receipt of the Eucharist, if they are conscious of any mortal sin unremitted by prior baptism or sacramental confession.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Once per year, or anytime before receipt of the Eucharist, if they are conscious of any mortal sin unremitted by prior baptism or sacramental confession.

Thanks Dave.

Just a clarificaiton:
Does that second clause “if they are conscious of any mortal sin. . .” modify both “Once per year” and “anytime before receipt of the Eucharist”?

VC

 

[itsjustdave1988]

This is the point where I am having some difficulty. Do you mean to say that one must confess one’s *objectively *grave sins before going to communion, even if subjectively one did not commit a mortal sin?

Or am I misunderstanding (likely)?
Thanks!
VC

I believe, based upon the quote I provided by John Paul II, that there are some sins which are ALWAYS intrinsically grave and mortal by reason of their matter, so long as “sufficient awareness and freedom” is present. This seems to me somewhat different than “perfect”.or “full” consent, doesn’t it? Habit can diminish full consent, but can it change those sins which are ALWAYS intrinsically grave and mortal into “venial” sins? Based upon what John Paul II stated, I don’t think so.

So, three categories of sins should be considered:

1. Clearly venial.
2. Mortal, but can be venial based upon circumstances.
3. Always instrinsically mortal, no matter the circumstances.

I think what the Church is teaching is that you must ALWAYS confess category 3), no matter the circumstances. You *must *confess category 2), unless the circumstances diminish that which is objectively mortal to a venial sin. You are encouraged to confess even venial sins, category 1).

This opens up new questions. Which sins are “intrinsically” mortal, no matter the circumstances. What does “sufficient awareness and freedom” mean.

The Church teaches that “masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action.” (CCC 2352). I have heard clergy tell me that this sin need not be confessed, for those with a “habit” of doing it. I disagree, as have other clergy. However, I understand that due to a lack of consensus among theologians and also a lack of a clear magisterial decision on the matter, the teaching on this could be considered “doubtful.”.

While a “habit” may diminish culpability for intrinsically mortal sins, I don’t believe, given “sufficient awareness and freedom” that the circumstances are diminished such that an intrinsically and gravely disordered action is no longer ALWAYS “mortal.”

I certainly don’t want to promote scrupulosity among penitents, but I think the greater risk is that of laxism, and so “in doubtful matters one should always choose the safer course.” (St. Thomas Aquinas, *Summa Theologica, *supp., 43, 3).

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Thanks Dave.

Just a clarificaiton:
Does that second clause “if they are conscious of any mortal sin. . .” modify both “Once per year” and “anytime before receipt of the Eucharist”?

VC

Yes. If they are NOT conscious of mortal sin, they have no obligation to go to confession. However, they are encouraged to do so, as frequent confession serves to protect us against affection for all sin.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

What practical difference does it make?

For those uninterested in Catholic moral theology, none.

However, for those studying theology, it has much practical application. For instance, if one is maturbating out of “habit” are they obliged to confess this intrinsically grave sin? The answer to that question has practical importance. I read a book written by a Catholic priest which says that it is ok to fornicate with your betrothed prior to marriage, so long as you intend to marry her. A correct understanding of Catholic moral theology can equip the faithful to detect when some dissident priest claims that it is OK to do something morally illicit.

Moral theology books aren’t written just for kicks, but have better moral behavior as their goal. Traditional casuistry tends toward “meeting the minimum standard” in order not to go to hell. This approach has been heavily criticized among Catholic moral theologians, as it does not promote sainthood, but instead promotes an attitude of how much disobedience one can get away with before damnation kicks in.

I think the questions asked on this thread are worthy of discussion.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

I believe, based upon the quote I provided by John Paul II, that there are some sins which are ALWAYS intrinsically grave and mortal by reason of their matter, so long as “sufficient awareness and freedom” is present. This seems to me somewhat different than “perfect”.or “full” consent, doesn’t it?

Yes it seems different to me as well. And that’s fine. But even those types of sins would be mortal sins. So, Canon 989 still reads: We must confess our mortal sins once per year.

Now that we have established the basic legal obligation of Canon 989 (**mortal sins), **do you have a take on the precept?

VC

 

[Verbum_Caro]

I think the questions asked on this thread are worthy of discussion.

I agree Dave. I think it would be shame if we didn’t want to know what our own laws mean!

I also agree with you, and several other posters, that we shouldn’t aim at doing the minimum. When it comes to confession, especially, it’s obvious that the Church wishes us to avail ourselves of that sacrament often. My own personal recommendation is that every 2 weeks seems laudable and beneficial in most circumstances.

I’m glad that we can try to work out what the Canon is actually saying. For those of us who teach, it is especially important. Its one thing to say that the Church recommends frequent confession, but it is quite another thing entirely to say (evidently erroneously) that the Church commands under Canon Law that one go to confession minimally once a year even if you are not in mortal sin.

That would lay a burden on the faithful that Holy Mother Church herself does not. If we feel that the law should say otherwise, and mandate yearly confession for non-mortal sins, then we should take that project up when we become members of the Curia.

VC

 

[notsmart]

Its ironic that a person would spend more time and energy trying to see a reason why once a year confession could be skipped than spending the 4 minutes in confession (which is less time than was spent on all these postings BTW)

 

[jmcrae]

Its ironic that a person would spend more time and energy trying to see a reason why once a year confession could be skipped than spending the 4 minutes in confession (which is less time than was spent on all these postings BTW)

Exactly. Instead of nitpicking and rationalizing your way out of it, just do it.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Its ironic that a person would spend more time and energy trying to see a reason why once a year confession could be skipped than spending the 4 minutes in confession (which is less time than was spent on all these postings BTW)

Could you let us know who the person is who is trying to see a reason why once a year confession could be skipped?

Certainly not the OP? Were you referring to yourself?

VC

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Exactly. Instead of nitpicking and rationalizing your way out of it, just do it.

jmcrae,

Who are you talking about? Not the poor OP I hope. He had a legitimate question!

VC