I'm not sure if I made a good confession

[augustinefellow]

Good morning, I’ve been really bothered since I went to Confession this morning. Here’s what happened:

I’m a guy who struggles with SSA. I went to confession and confessed lust among other things, and was stumbling through my list of sins, and as the priest was briefly offering me encouragement, I realized that I hadn’t been specific in the fact that my lust involved SSA, which is something I normally mention in the confessional. But I didn’t say anything when I realized I hadn’t. I made my act of contrition and then received absolution, and then said my penance. But I felt guilty still.

I was told by a priest when I first became Catholic, that lusting after the same-sex added another dimension to the sin and was basically a different sin than lust since it is part of a separate disorder of the soul, and needed to be confessed as such.

So during the entire Mass I felt like I had withheld a major mortal sin in confession and just could not experience God’s mercy and peace. I did end up going up for Communion and now I wonder if I made a bad confession and desecrated the Eucharist. Am I just being scrupulous?

 

[Bookcat]

Bring the matter to the confessional.

 

[augustinefellow]

I feel like I understand the Sacrament of Confession pretty well in regards to the matter and the form as well as what to do with mortal sins that were unintentionally forgotten.

So I guess when I truly examine what is going on in my heart, my question comes down to this: is lust and lusting after the same sex different sins? Does saying “I lusted” without the qualifying statement “after men” not express the sin that was committed? That’s what I’m really trying to get at, whether or not it was necessary in that instant place that specific qualifier on there.

 

[Bookcat]

my question comes down to this: is lust and lusting after the same sex different sins? Does saying “I lusted” without the qualifying statement “after men” not express the sin that was committed? That’s what I’m really trying to get at, whether or not it was necessary in that instant place that specific qualifier on there.

I would tend to agree with the Priest you spoke to before. Yes I would say that such is a something that “changes the species” changes the kind and would need to be confessed. For normally “lust” would be presumed directed at the opposite gender.

One is obliged to confess all mortal sins in number and kind --and that which changes the kind (like it was a chalice from the Church that you stole and thus also sacrilege etc)

And of course one cannot say things too generally --one must get to the species --one cannot for example say “I sinned against the 6th commandment” one needs to say (though there are various ways to put it) I accuse myself of fornication 2x or Adultery 3x etc

 

[Bookcat]

jimmyakin.com/2007/03/specific_confes.html

 

[DexUK]

If you weren’t sure about something so you didn’t mention it, that means your confession was valid, since we only commit sin when we know what it is that we are doing is sinful.

I’m not sure that “in number and in kind” necessarily goes to the n’th degree.

Lust is lust. For you your natural state is to be tempted towards lust of the same-gender variety. It is of the same quality (or depravity) as lust of the opposite-gender variety of which you are not tempted as a result of your intrinsic nature because lust is essentially a temptation towards undue and improper self-satisfaction. Therefore same-gender lust is as non-creative as opposite-gender lust, since neither are open to the possibility of using the sexual function for the purpose for which it was designed.

I don’t think you have anything to worry about, but by all means check with a priest in the context of your next confession.

 

[Bookcat]

I
Lust is lust. For you your natural state is to be tempted towards lust of the same-gender variety. It is of the same quality (or depravity) as lust of the opposite-gender variety of which you are not tempted as a result of your intrinsic nature.

Disagree. One could then say homosexual acts are the same as hetrosexual acts and they are not. The need to be specified.

 

[DexUK]

Disagree. One could then say homosexual acts are the same as hetrosexual acts and they are not. The need to be specified.

Ah, but a thought is not an act, therefore the conclusion doesn’t stand.

[Edit]

It’s probably not the best place to argue the point though: that’s much more to do with philosophy, and I have said to check with a priest.

 

[Bookcat]

Ah, but a thought is not an act, therefore the conclusion doesn’t stand.

[Edit]

It’s probably not the best place to argue the point though: that’s much more to do with philosophy, and I have said to check with a priest.

Morally speaking --thoughts can yes be interior acts (some thoughts of course are just temptations and not human acts)

No mention of thought there (to be technical) hee hee…(and I do not agree even if it were thoughts) … I still agree with the Priest who advised him already.