Is every Catholic obligated to confess once a year even if they donot have Mortal sin

[rinnie]

May I make an additional comment, rinnie? People who don’t believe in God or think about him much can still do a mortal sin. So, it doesn’t have to be at the top of their minds that they are offending God for it to be a mortal sin. Christians know sin is an offense to God, but some people haven’t been educated to immediately know the textbook definition of sin. They can still sin mortally, though. They know enough. Just because they don’t consciously relate their actions to God doesn’t mean they are off the hook.

I do know what you mean, though, that two people could do the same sin, and it would be mortal for one and venial for the other, based on invincible ignorance or some other consideration.

Not fair huh. But on the other hand they will spend more time in purgatory. Maybe? If they get there. But as Catholics we have the tools we just have to use them. And we know its better to do right here, and get to skip purgatory all together.

But thanks for you comment.

 

[rinnie]

Bottom line post 170 is the exact teaching. IMO GO. Be on the safe side. Why would you not want that extra grace from God.

Look at it as a way to spend extra time with God, and have him give you a extra clear conscience. Think of it as doing that spring cleaning in your closet. You know how you dread it but how good you feel after. Same thing only BETTER!

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Then why the concern over whether or not you “have to” go to Confession at least once a year, or not?

I’ve no concern over whether or not one has to go to Confession at least once a year. Neither did I ask a question regarding it. I already know what the Church teaches on the issue (both the minimum law and the exhortation to frequent confession).

My concern was simply to point out the the first few posters misstated the minimum obligation.

I also had a concern that some didn’t quite understand that “grave sin” and “mortal sin” are used interchangeably. You yourself seemed to have benefited from that discussion, and learned the truth regarding a point of Church teaching.

So, my concern, basically was to correct two erroneous statements regarding what the Church teaches: 1)That she says we must confess all sins once a year (that, by the way, would be an impossible burden as Aquinas says) and 2)That when she says we must confess any (unconfessed) serious sin that it means something other than mortal sin.

Both are misunderstandings of what the Church teaches.

jmcrae:

The question itself makes it sound like you think once a year is too frequent, and that you want to know if you can attend less often.

What question? I never asked a question about what the Church teaches, I only asked a questions to ascertain who, on this thread, understands what the Church teaches. If they don’t understand it, I’ll help them understand it. Instructing the ignorant is a spiritual work of mercy.

If you meant the original poster’s question itself made it seem that once a year was too frequent, well a)I’m not the original poster, so that wasn’t my question and b)if you read his post again you’ll see he was pointing out the the Lateran Council and Trent seem to contradict what Fr. Trijilio says. He thought the more broad (and erroneous) position was the correct one and that the Church obliges us to confess all our sins at least once a year.

That was wrong. I told him so. I told him what the real minimum obligation was, stressed that it was the minimum, and that Fr. Trigilio was correct. If you read the book he is reading you’ll also see that Fr. Trigilio states it is a minimum and urges all to frequent confession. The OP just needed some info that Fr. Trijilio was correct.

What’s the problem?

VC

 

[Verbum_Caro]

There are an awful lot of posts here in answer to a yes or no question.

Exactly dans. In my post #6 I answered “YES” Fr. Trijilio is correct, and gave the reasons why. That should have ended it. But others continued to misstate the Church.

dans0622:

It is also important to point out c. 902 which said “Sins committed after baptism, whether mortal (sins) already remitted directly by the power of the keys or venial (sins), are sufficient material, but not necessary, of the sacrament of penance.” . . .

In order to harmonize these canons, it seems we have to conclude that even the 1917 Code didn’t “oblige” us to confess, at least once a year, only venial sins. It seemed to intend that the obligation to confess at least once a year only meant to imply mortal sins.

You’ve got it Dans. (There is more that can be said about how Trent understood the Fourth Lateran Council, how Aquinas approached the issue, etc. . . but you’ve got the substance of the issue).

VC

 

[Pug]

I agree with the line of though that by definition of grave sin, it’s impossible for any one person to not commit grave sin within a year’s time.

I feel this statement gives opportunity to offer a clarification. With all the back and forth about “grave sin” on this thread, I can’t tell how the above snip might be interpreted by a reader in this context, so here is the clarification. It is Church teaching that the just are given enough grace to observe the commandments (stay out of mortal sin). We are given sufficient grace for that. I’m not saying we cooperate with it, correspond with it, or pay attention to it. But as Sons we are given it. This, to me, says it is possible to live a Christian life in charity. I don’t think we can stay out of venial sin. Our Lady is very Special!

If anyone says that the commandments of God are, even for one that is justified and constituted in grace, impossible to observe, let him be anathema.

Council of Trent sixth session canon 18.

I do not mean to imply that anyone, neither you, rcandap, nor anyone else might have meant this.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

I feel this statement gives opportunity to offer a clarification.

Nicely done Pug.

Pug:

I don’t think we can stay out of venial sin. Our Lady is very Special!

Read a little bit farther down in the Sixth Session of Trent and you’ve got your answer to that! :

CANON XXIII.-lf any one saith . . . that he is able, during his whole life, to avoid all sins, even those that are venial,-except by a special privilege from God, as the Church holds in regard of the Blessed Virgin; let him be anathema.

VC

 

[Mels]

Personally, if I only went once a year, I don’t know how I’d live with myself. I guess I’m more sinful than other people, lol.

Regardless, I’ve heard that saints go several times a week, or at least weekly - surely that is an example we fellow Christians should follow, especially since the saints are known to be saved and members of Church Triumphant.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Then why the concern over whether or not you “have to” go to Confession at least once a year, or not?

The question itself makes it sound like you think once a year is too frequent, and that you want to know if you can attend less often.

That’s the entire point, VC. Jmcrae just answered your question in 174, for me. It’s evident from the posts themselves.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

That’s the entire point, VC. Jmcrae just answered your question in 174, for me. It’s evident from the posts themselves.

So, when you read through this whole thread you find posters who show a a disdain for confession, and who want to only do the minimum?

That’s odd. When I read it I note, sincerely, that almost everyone says that we should go to confession frequently.

Can you show me where and who you think was “dancing around levels of sin” or who was making “rationalizations”? Can you show me where you discern that a poster might be making “half-hearted confessions” & “tepid examinations of conscience.”?

I think you are obliged to at least point it out. It kind of sounds like an allegation. I for one can tell you that it is absolutely false if you intend it about myself.

In fact, the only persons I see who may have danced around a bit or made any rationalizations are those who held that “grave sin” didn’t mean “mortal sin”. And I think those who did hold that have been shown convincingly otherwise.

Thanks, Elizabeth!
VC

 

[Pug]

An awful lot of dancing around levels of sin and “requirements” and rationalizations on this thread. Wow. No wonder priests get disgusted with half-hearted confessions & tepid examinations of conscience.

Real regret and penance is hard work. It results from gut-wrenching, difficult honesty.

I didn’t notice this thread was particularly full of rationalizations. People seem straightforward here, to me. I don’t have any reason to think people here are involved in half-hearted confessions. Also, although your post doesn’t mention it, I don’t think anyone here advocated confessing only once a year or less. I started on this thread to respond to OP, who was the one who asked the question. It wasn’t my question. The question is not very germane to my life, other than as an opportunity to interact with people and have some good motivation get me to re-read magisterial documents.

Confess early, Confess often! :thumbsup:

 

[Pug]

Nicely done Pug.

Read a little bit farther down in the Sixth Session of Trent and you’ve got your answer to that! :

VC

Thanks, VC, for the pat on the back. I was obliquely referencing that exact canon, but I was trying to contain my geek-y tendency to quote Trent. I have a long history of Trent quotes… :nerd:But I didn’t have to worry in your case that you’d ignore my post on account of multi-quoting. I remember you posted on the thread about super long posts that you write them yourself.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Pug, and VC,

It’s not that I have “proof” of rationalizations, etc., but merely the length and number of posts nitpicking about what is barely and not barely necessary, and implying (some earlier ones, esp.) that perhaps not that many people commit mortal sin (!) is enough evidence. It’s a tendency I see here, that’s all. This is about the 4th time I’ve explained it. When jmcrae or I come online to give examples, people argue with us about whether there’s serious sin or merely serious “matter.” The vast majority of people know darn well what they’re doing, actually. It may be some areas in which some people are truly uninformed, but even atheists have a conscience. That is exactly what is the reflection of the Holy Spirit: conscience. It is within every created person to sense, and to dread, the evil they’ve done. It should be esp. so among educated Catholics who presumably receive, and desire to receive, Sacraments, and whose perception about sin & instincts against, and knowledge of it, should be growing, not receding, as their spiritual lives mature.

Really, I’m done arguing here, (I think!), and I wish you all well. Clearly I’m not the only one who perceives as I describe here.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Ok, thanks Elizabeth.

Respectfully, I don’t think things aren’t quite how you perceive them. I’ve read this whole thread again and can only find two (2!) posts (each from a separate poster) that indicates that mortal sin might not be common.

The overwhelming majority of posts and posters on this thread don’t think mortal sin is uncommon.

The length of this thread seems due to a)those who thought the Church law was something other than it was, and they needed to be convinced they were wrong and b) those who thought “grave sin” was a separate category of sin and that it didn’t mean mortal sin.

You mentioned that people argued with jmcrae about what constitutes serious sin or merely serious matter. That is understandable and laudable because jmcrae (no offense!) didn’t quite understand the difference between them.

Is it possible that it is a sore spot with you and a issue of concern (legitimately so! I agree!), and that may have caused you to see laxity and rationalizations where there are none?

I maintain that if you go through this thread post by post you really will see the overwhelming (and I mean overwhelming) number of posts and posters don’t show any laxity or minimalism, or imply that mortal sin is rare, or engage in any rationalizations.

In fact, and I said this before, the only rationalization I can find is jmcrae and one other (again, please no offense intended) trying to rationalize the reading of “grave sin” as something different than “mortal sin”. It was an honest mistake, and it was corrected.

Really, I’m done arguing here, (I think!), and I wish you all well. Clearly I’m not the only one who perceives as I describe here.

Gotcha. I wish you well too. Please rejoin if you want to contribute though! You make excellent points and offer an insightful perspective.

And I echo your statement. . .but I apply it myself: Clearly I’m not the only one who perceives what I describe here.

Thank you for the conversation!
VC

 

[Pug]

It’s a tendency I see here, that’s all.

Elizabeth,

Thanks for the clarification. We all bring different wisdom and experience here. You, perhaps, pick up on what I do not, on account of your wisdom. I can be very incessant in my quest to get at a question from all angles, so I tend to assume that quest is in others, and I am quite familiar with having people question me (don’t try to guess my job ) and finding myself thinking they are doing this or that, but later realizing they are just determined to know, to work it all out in their head. So I could be blind to what you are seeing, based on my experiences. I have some habitual ways of interpreting things that work for me in my work environment, I’m sure. You could be seeing something valid that I am missing.

Anyway, I’ve enjoyed the thread and reading your posts.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Ok, thanks Elizabeth.

…
Is it possible that it is a sore spot with you and a issue of concern (legitimately so! I agree!), and that may have caused you to see laxity and rationalizations where there are none?

I’ll lift this away from my own perceptions and offer the perceptions of priests (many), who observe minuscule confession lines for most of the year, save Christmas and Easter. In my own parish it may be more frequent, as confessions are offered 7 days/week. (Bless these priests.) Naturally I have no idea as to how many are going for spiritual discipline vs. how many are going out of “necessity.” But clearly there’s an awareness of the frequency of sin, among such penitents. (At least a few are in line there on any given weekday before each Mass.)

But really, for the Christmas/Easter examples: one sins seriously only twice a year? (I wish!)

Other CAF posters on other threads have noticed the same disparities between communion lines and confession lines. So clearly it can’t be “a sore spot” with me as something unusual or unique.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Other CAF posters on other threads have noticed the same disparities between communion lines and confession lines. So clearly it can’t be “a sore spot” with me as something unusual or unique.

Yes of course. It’s a sore spot for me as well, and I don’t think you or I are unique in that we lament the lack of sense of sin, or that confession lines are short (although that, Deo Volente, may be turning around).

I didn’t mean to imply that you see something others don’t. What I meant was perhaps your zeal in this area caused you to see this laxity here on this thread. But it didn’t seem to be exhibited here. You know what I mean?

Along those lines, it seems to me somewhat that you and jmcrae obliquely implied that I might be lax or minimalist, or that I am legalistic and Pharisaical, or that I think going to confession once a year is too much. Perhaps I misapprehend both of you and neither of you directed these things at me. But if you did, I’d really appreciate an apology and retraction :tiphat:, because they are absolutely false, and I think my posts on this thread bear that out.

Thanks Elizabeth, and thanks for responding and clarifying.
VC

 

[ac_claire]

Yes, I think that EVERYONE is now ABSOLUTELY CLEAR about the very, very minimum requirements for confession in the Church’s offical law books.

I don’t care what you say-- this is not a courtroom. Certain poster’s seeming obsession with pounding this point home, to make sure that NOBODY MISUNDERSTANDS that there are in fact minimum requirements for confession…what possible good are you doing?

To clarify the misunderstanding in the OP? Ok, thanks for that. It’s been clarified, so let’s please move on. This is quickly turning into a wicked thread IMO and we all need to be aware of our responsibilities.

God bless

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Claire, it seemed like things were coming to an amicable conclusion.

As to the what good I am doing, I thought it was appropriate for me to point out what the Church actually says. Then the discussion unfortunately got a bit sidetracked regarding laxity and minimalism. But I thought it was appropriate for me to engage in that discussion too, since accuracy regarding Church teaching is not minimalism or legalism.

I suppose I could ask you what good your post above is doing?

I apologize if our discussion has offended or aggravated you in any way.
VC

 

[thistle]

thistle,

If I may, I’d suggest that this is a secondary consideration. More important, I think, it is necessary to be clear on what the Church actually teaches now.

It seems that Leonius may have been under a (perfectly understandable) misunderstanding that the current Church law requires the faithful to confess once a year regardless of whether or not they are in mortal sin.

But, I think I’ve shown that the current law of the Church limits the obligation to mortal sin. Leonius seems to have accepted that the law says this. I applaud his or her integrity.

Leonius certainly can be of opinion that it is a bad law. But, at least he or she recognizes what the law actually is.

What do you think? Maybe we should give Leonius some credit for accepting the data presented.

VC

I agree with that.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Yes, I think that EVERYONE is now ABSOLUTELY CLEAR about the very, very minimum requirements for confession in the Church’s offical law books.

– this is not a courtroom. Certain poster’s seeming obsession with pounding this point home, to make sure that NOBODY MISUNDERSTANDS that there are in fact minimum requirements for confession…what possible good are you doing?

VC, I want to use claire’s statement to provide a more general view. This is hardly the only thread on CAF focused on legalism. Just take a quick glance at the very thread titles on so many subforums purporting to discuss practice, not theory; righteousness, not formality. It’s astounding how much energy people put into asking these questions and providing these answers.

Hint: God cares not two figs what your physical posture is when praying. You could be slumped in your car for all he cares. He cares about the posture of your heart. He doesn’t care whether there’s a veil on your head; he cares about whether there’s a veil clouding your moral vision. And it’s not that people are asking for guidance about acceptable practice; those are legitimate questions. They’re asking about the moral implications of trivial matters. Judging from that alone, there’s a heck of a lot of veils clouding moral vision as to what’s important and what’s not important.

Here’s another hint: He died for us, on account of our sins. In the macro spectrum, what does it matter if we consider ourselves so holy that we’ve supposedly committed “only” venial sin in the last 12 months? It’s sin! You’re wondering if you “should” go to confession? or “have to” go to confession? Think about what “you” (generically) are saying. Think about the lack of gratitude that such questions imply – both that such questions are asked AND that lengthy, technical answers to such questions are entertained and indulged.

Some other religions don’t have such categories as mortal and venial. If you’ve ever attended a Yom Kippur service, or have any very close friends who are Jews and discuss their Judaism with you, you would know what a heck of an oral examination of conscience there is on Yom Kippur. It’s pretty darn thorough. It’s all considered serious. It’s all considered transgressions against God. There’s no “weighting” or “degrees” of sin. You did it. You’re a jerk. You admit it. Next question.

And remember that Jesus was a Jew and had such a mentality. Sin is sin. It all requires acknowledgment; it all requires forgiveness. He had very little time for people who had no consciousness that they were sinners, and sinners major. (i.e., “mortally”)

It appears to me, collectively from many posts even in my brief time on CAF, that many contributors to CAF operate from a sense of a continuum or evolution of moral law. Supposedly there was OT/Jewish Law that some people incorrectly think that Jesus did away with (not); then there’s the New Law that he instituted (“supplanting” Old Law); but thirdly, Church Law supplants what Jesus said! No! Who is offering this heretical catechesis? The canons of the RCC do NOT supplant, what The Master said, nor are they superior to his words. Nor are you allowed to limit your examination of conscience to church laws that were instituted long after Jesus’ life on earth.

Back to claire’s comment on the courtroom. Even in a courtroom, claire, there’s little mercy for criminals who claim they didn’t know what they were doing. Because if they didn’t, that’s called insanity, and you have to wage an insanity defense for that. In terms of CAF, I mostly blame responders to questioners who inquire about sin. In the vast majority of cases, these inquirers are not asking for a theological discourse in systematic or moral theology. They did something. They know they did it. They weren’t being tortured by Al Qaeda to do it. They want to know if something that they are conscious that they did, and did with the full consent of their will, is grave matter. They may phrase it as, “Did I commit a sin?” But they mean grave matter most of the time. Now, I agree that if they didn’t know it was grave matter, (but the other 2 elements are present), they then did not commit grave sin. However, surely the next time they do that act they will know it’s grave matter as well.

But human nature being what it is, and the conscience being a strong force even in atheists, most people are most likely asking these questions from a practical, not a theoretical perspective, sensing already that they probably knew it was serious, and certainly weren’t being forced.

Even in criminal law, it takes practically no proof to establish premeditation. For both a crime and a sin, premeditation (i.e., full consent of the will) is a flash of an instant. It does not mean planning, deliberating. Full consent of the will just means that (1) you were not coerced, (2) it was not an accident, (3) you were not mentally impaired (and thus not in control of your faculties). Number three can include diagnosable mental illness and/or chemical impairment, but note that the latter does not necessarily remove guilt – either for the crime or for the sin, as you’d have to confess that by drinking or using drugs, you caused great (mortal) harm to self or others if a crime or evil resulted.

VC, none of this is an evaluation of your own personal sense of sin, etc. I wouldn’t know that. I just wish there were fewer conversations on CAF about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. I kind of wish the mods were start some subforums under apologetics so that people can ask and answer technical questions on systematics and on sacramental and moral theology.

End of rant. (Sorry)