Do you mean you have a doubt whether what you did was sinful? That shouldn’t effect it, as long as you confessed the doubtful sin. If it was a sin, you were absolved, if it wasn’t you didn’t need to be.That is, if I have a good reason to believe that it is doubtful did I receive absolution?
Another confession question that would help:
Is confession consummated if:
I don’t examine my conscience well enough?
Not exactly…or necessarily.As long as you confess all mortal sins of which you are aware (i.e. don’t deliberately hold back a sin), you are absolved of ALL your sins. If you later remember another sin, you need to mention it in your next confession, but you are absolved in the interim.
God Bless
Whether my sin existed is what I was doubting.Not exactly…or necessarily.
For example a person may not be sorry for a particular venial sin…such is not absolved.
As to remembering forgotten sins – yes if it is mortal one is to confess it in the next confession.
If one confesses a doubtful sin --one should mention it is doubtful in some manner. If one “forgets” to do so – that is well - forgetting to do so.Whether my sin existed is what I was doubting.
Does that affect the nature of the sin?
Agreed.A good rule that I learned about Confession, when I was a boy in a Jesuit Parochial School is: When in any doubt about a sin, whether Mortal or Venial, or even if it is a sin or not, confess it. The priest will determine its nature for you and will absolve you and assign a Penance as appropriate. One should never withold anything from confession because it is too easy for the evil one to lure you into self deception.
If it is doubtful -one is to note in some way that it is doubtful.A good rule that I learned about Confession, when I was a boy in a Jesuit Parochial School is: When in any doubt about a sin, whether Mortal or Venial, or even if it is a sin or not, confess it.
When I thought I should mention the doubt, I said (stupidly) that it was okay if I didn’t.If it is doubtful -one is to note in some way that it is doubtful.
How can you accidentally refuse? Refusing is a deliberate conscious act.When I thought I should mention the doubt, I said (stupidly) that it was okay if I didn’t.
But then, I realized how could I have really believed that, since it is so obviously stupid to not mention the doubt.
For the most part I’m pretty sure that I accidentally refused to express my doubts, but does that invalidate the confession? I don’t think so but I’ve been wrong.
For instance if I deliberately say “I’m not going to do x” even though I know that I should and objectively it is obvious that I should, and yet I’m momentarily unconscious of that; the knowledge is not actual but habitual. Thus, someone can accidentally say something that he totally intends to say because he would’ve said differently under normal conditions, but something happened that made him forget the obvious.How can you accidentally refuse? Refusing is a deliberate conscious act.
That makes absolutely no sense. You cannot accidentally refuse to do something.For instance if I deliberately say “I’m not going to do x” even though I know that I should and objectively it is obvious that I should, and yet I’m momentarily unconscious of that; the knowledge is not actual but habitual. Thus, someone can accidentally say something that he totally intends to say because he would’ve said differently under normal conditions, but something happened that made him forget the obvious.
Its the inverse of the phenomenon of habitual attitudes like “I like food”; you don’t consciously say you like food whenever you do (since you always like food) but you do affirm it nonetheless implicitly and potentially.
From the Summa:That makes absolutely no sense. You cannot accidentally refuse to do something.
Nothing you have said or quoted has anything to do with or supports your claim about “accidentally” refusing to do something.From the Summa:
"Again, it must be observed that nothing prevents a thing which is known habitually from not being considered actually: so that it is possible for a man to have correct knowledge not only in general but also in particular, and yet not to consider his knowledge actually: and in such a case it does not seem difficult for a man to act counter to what he does not actually consider. Now, that a man sometimes fails to consider in particular what he knows habitually, may happen through mere lack of attention: for instance, a man who knows geometry, may not attend to the consideration of geometrical conclusions, which he is ready to consider at any moment. Sometimes man fails to consider actually what he knows habitually, on account of some hindrance supervening, e.g. some external occupation, or some bodily infirmity; and, in this way, a man who is in a state of passion, fails to consider in particular what he knows in general, in so far as the passions hinder him from considering it. Now it hinders him in three ways. First, by way of distraction, as explained above (Article 1). Secondly, by way of opposition, because a passion often inclines to something contrary to what man knows in general. Thirdly, by way of bodily transmutation, the result of which is that the reason is somehow fettered so as not to exercise its act freely; even as sleep or drunkenness, on account of some change wrought on the body, fetters the use of reason. "
That’s what I mean.
Also consider someone who knows that a triangle is a three-sided figure. That doesn’t mean that he can’t in a fit of passion deliberately say that its a four-sided figure.
Now was I in a state of passion? I wouldn’t call it passion but I was very focused on what was happening in the confessional so I didn’t really consider or think it necessary to consider my doubts more carefully.
Thus insofar as there was a passion, there was an accident.
As I wrote, If by the interference of an emotion, one says something deliberately, what you say is accidental.Nothing you have said or quoted has anything to do with or supports your claim about “accidentally” refusing to do something.
I repeat. You cannot accidentally refuse to do something. Refusal is a conscious deliberate act!!
Again nothing to support your claim.As I wrote, If by the interference of an emotion, one says something deliberately, what you say is accidental.
For instance, if I say a triangle is a three-sided figure, but then because I don’t see the triangle in front of me clearly or due to a mistake in reason, I say it is a square I cannot be said to have deliberately said something false; for I “said” nothing except what I thought was right despite my obvious perception because I trusted in other premises at the time.
What’s your proof?Again nothing to support your claim.
You cannot accidentally refuse to do something.
That is usually the kind of sin one takes care to confess in his next confession.Not exactly…or necessarily.
For example a person may not be sorry for a particular venial sin…such is not absolved.
It is assumed here that the sinner is contrite. Read the question. He confessed to a sin, failed to mentioned that it was doubtful (not sure if it really was a sin), and asked if he received absolution, nonetheless.
As to remembering forgotten sins – yes if it is mortal one is to confess it in the next confession.
Proof?? Are you kidding?What’s your proof?
If you mean that it is simply contradictory to say that something purposeful cannot be accidental, I must say that in a sense they can; just as something can be known and yet not known at the same time and yet no contradiction ensues.