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

[Indyann]

Ah such wonderful compassion! Why don’t you comfort me and answer the question, if you can!

I am so sorry that you took my suggestion as not compassionate. It was merely a suggestion.
I certainly did not mean it as a flip retort.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I will repeat that the entire premise of the thread tends toward irrelevancy as a practical matter for the vast majority of sinners, which we all are. It is virtually immaterial – the part about “even if they don’t have Mortal sin” – because probably 98% of Catholics engage in grave matter once a year minimum, but apparently there are an awful lot of people who just don’t know that. So technically I suppose they can be removed from the mortal “sin” category due to lack of knowledge. But wow, what a lame excuse.

Let’s see: You’re not aware that there’s a laundry list of sins against charity (that most people regularly commit in some form) that are definitely mortal in matter, yet you’re quite aware that abortion, illicit sex, and missing Sunday Mass are mortal matter? Again, I will refer you to the Gospel of Matthew. Do not take my word for it. We’re supposed to follow Jesus’ words. I don’t care how many church laws there are and embellishments and interpretations to the 10 commandments (that’s 10, not 2 or 3). Those church laws may add requirements but they never, ever supplant the words of Jesus. When Jesus says, When you call your brother ‘Raca,’ it’s the equivalent of murdering him, he means it. Get it? That’s mortal. When he says you have to cleanse your heart, not just your external or technical actions, he means it. When he says that when the heart fantasizes murder, injury, revenge, or lust toward another, it’s the same as committing that act, he means it.

The area of greatest difficulty, when it comes to sanctity, is our relationships with others. That’s why even priests and nuns sin, because they live with others; they’re tempted by others, they’re irritated by others, they can retaliate when their egos are offended by others, they can lie to those others to save face, they sometimes do hurtful things to those others, they occasionally engage in egotistical power plays with each other, etc. And we, not priests and nuns, we don’t? (Please.)

Anger (not a sin in itself) is a natural human emotion. If you never have anger, I wonder if you’re alive. And the point is, that very few people are able merely to contain or funnel their anger into the proper channels, not ever in a retaliatory fashion, or to submerge or repress their anger to avoid sin.

It’s also natural (and part of self-survival) to have egos. An ego is a good or at least a neutral thing, but because of original sin, we have a tendency to glorify our own egos, resulting in self-idolatry (versus God) and in injury to other persons in the promotion and elevation of our own egos. (We have to compete with others if our ego is to remain “on top.”) There are all kinds of ways we commit mortal sin in the service of ego.

For most people, it’s also natural to want to acquire things, if you have the means to acquire things. But we live in an extremely materialistic society, driven by avarice for its own sake. Among the immense crowds of driven shoppers who have absolutely no sense of proportion when it comes to purchasing goods versus their relationship with intimate others, with God, with their civic duties, and with their responsibilities to work, are thousands of practicing Catholics putting avarice first and everything else last. Nobody here has ever lost their sense of proportion and made unholy choices? Or maybe they just “weren’t aware” and thus it was grave matter but not grave sin? (Materialism is one of the Modern Sins, just to remind you.)

Must I continue? Or do we just have a collection of The Elect on CAF? Perhaps there is one or maybe 2 posters are on this thread who considers herself or himself now beyond the reach of mortal sin. I wouldn’t have such private insight. But because most people are not “there” yet, we should consider ourselves likely candidates for mortal sins and make our examinations of conscience accordingly. I’m not talking about scrupulosity or manufacturing things to say in confession. I’m talking about thoroughness, self-searching, and honesty.

 

[rcandap]

The Baltimore Catechism #3:

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.

Yikes. Within the year? If I have a mortal sin on my conscience, I’m not waiting 11.5 months to go to reconciliation!

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. There’s no laundry list of what makes sin “mortal,” like murder is, but breaking traffic laws isn’t. If you know something is wrong and you do it anyway, seems to qualify as putting space between you and God.
​

​

 

[rcandap]

This isn’t addressing the exact topic, but just in general I think it needs to be said that it might not be the healthiest thing in the world to be focused on loopholes to get us out of going to frequent Confession.

If frequent confession was right for JP2 and Mother Teresa, I don’t think any of us should be concerned with getting out of going only once per year!

 

[rcandap]

One can know with a moral certainty if one is in mortal sin or not. Otherwise, how do you approach communion?

I disagree. Mother Teresa said that frequent confession made her more attune to what offends God. Along with many other things it helps develop the conscience. To say it does not is to assume we all come with a perfectly developed conscience, and require little else.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Folks,

Take a look at the 3 items I listed in post #110. Pay particular attention to point #3. I don’t really see how anyone on this thread advocates a minimalist approach to confession.

But here’s the issue. The original poster discovered that Fr. Trugilio says that strictly speaking the precept and law to go to confession once a year applies only to those in mortal sin. The original poster called that into question.

You would also have to call into question Fr. Hardon, the Baltimore Catechism, The Compendium to the Catechism of the Catholic Church (Pope Benedict!), Karl Keating (our patron here at Catholic Answers Forums), This Rock Magazine, etc. etc.

These folks know their stuff, don’t they?

So.

Do we just dismiss it? Or do we try to figure out what the Church really says?

And what the Church really says in post #110. She says a)the absolute minimum obligation is confession once a year for those in mortal sin, AND she also says, by way of encouragement that everyone should go much more often regardless of whether one is in mortal sin.

VC

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Yikes. Within the year? If I have a mortal sin on my conscience, I’m not waiting 11.5 months to go to reconciliation!.

Neither would I. Who do you know who would advocate such?

VC

 

[jmcrae]

And what the Church really says in post #110. She says a)the absolute minimum obligation is confession once a year for those in mortal sin, AND she also says, by way of encouragement that everyone should go much more often regardless of whether one is in mortal sin.

But, of what relevance is it? To whom could this possibly apply, in real life?

 

[Verbum_Caro]

I disagree.

With what? That you can have a moral certitude (but not absolute certitude) that you are in the state of grace and may worthily receive communion?

If you can’t then you must go to confession before every time you approach communion OR any other sacrament besides confession.

VC

 

[Elizabeth502]

But, of what relevance is it? To whom could this possibly apply, in real life?

Bingo. (See my post #120)

 

[Verbum_Caro]

But, of what relevance is it? To whom could this possibly apply, in real life?

If you mean of what relevance is knowing the actual law of the Church, then it has relevance for all of us. We don’t want to just willy-nilly state things in opposition to the law, and in so doing contradict the Fr. Hardon, the Baltimore Catechism, the Compendium to the Catholic Church.

Why would Fr. Hardon, the Baltimore Catechism, and the Compendium feel the need to state the law of the Church? Possibly because that is the law.

But, I think you are asking what is the practical relevance to an individual sinner? Well, I don’t know. Pug has a theory (I think a good one) that the affirmative obligation of a positive precept goads those who may be putting off Confession unduly. Aquinas points out that although a man is not bound to confess at once, it is dangerous to delay.

But, can’t you bring the same objection against the rule as it is has been misstated? Let’s say that we say (erroneously) that the Church law requires one to go to confession once a year, period. What relevance is this? To whom could it possibly apply in real life? We *should *be going to confession much more than once a year.

Do you see what I mean?

VC

 

[Leonius]

A note about mortal sin and ignorance.

Only inculpable ignorance would keep a sin from been mortal, culpable ignorance, ie. ignorance of things it is their duty to know is an extra mortal sin not a get out of jail free card. Saint Thomas among others covers culpable sin.

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa, I-II, q. 76, a. 1, a. 3, Whether ignorance can be the cause of sin?: “It is clear that not every kind of ignorance is the cause of a sin, but that alone which removes the knowledge which would prevent the sinful act. …This may happen on the part of the ignorance itself, because, to wit, this ignorance is voluntary, either directly, as when a man wishes of set purpose to be ignorant of certain things that he may sin the more freely; or indirectly, as when a man, through stress of work or other occupations, neglects to acquire the knowledge which would restrain him from sin. For such like negligence renders the ignorance itself voluntary and sinful, provided it be about matters one is bound and able to know.”

Catholics are bound (required) to learn and know their Faith.

A sin against faith (often caused by willful ignorance) is the gravest of all sins according to St. Thomas Aquinas.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Bingo. (See my post #120)

See my post above. Your criticism should be leveled at both the actual law and the misstated law, shouldn’t it?

VC

 

[jmcrae]

If you mean of what relevance is knowing the actual law of the Church, then it has relevance for all of us. We don’t want to just willy-nilly state things in opposition to the law, and in so doing contradict the Fr. Hardon, the Baltimore Catechism, the Compendium to the Catholic Church.

It would be simpler and less confusing simply to say, “If you did something you knew was wrong, on purpose, you need to go to Confession before the next time you receive Holy Communion.”

That isn’t “contrary” to any law, and doesn’t muddy the waters with some pie-in-the-sky idea that it is possible for a functional adult to go a whole year without mortal sin, who is also avoiding to go to Confession. (Because I am betting that the reason Little Therese never committed mortal sin was because she was in the Confessional every Saturday from the moment she could speak in full sentences.)

Why would Fr. Hardon, the Baltimore Catechism, and the Compendium feel the need to state the law of the Church? Possibly because that is the law.

Yes, but it doesn’t need to be brought up as the first information to beginners who still don’t even know what “sin” is.

All they would hear is, “You don’t have to go to Confession at all, unless you think you need to,” and from then on, they would tune out any nuances that you might have been adding, such as how to tell if you have sinned.

 

[rcandap]

With what? That you can have a moral certitude (but not absolute certitude) that you are in the state of grace and may worthily receive communion?

If you can’t then you must go to confession before every time you approach communion OR any other sacrament besides confession.

VC

I guess therein lies the need for frequent reconciliation. I can have a moral certitude that allows me to receive communion, but its very subjective, isn’t it? To say that I have only committed grave sin if I feel I have. “I” and “feel” are very problematic. I’d like to think that we all continually mature in our faith to the point where sometimes we look back and realize that what we would not have considered a grave offense at one time was in fact, just that.

And where does that leave us on matters of not bothering to inform ourselves? If I give to a charity that somewhere down the line supports abortion, but didn’t bother digging that deep, does that excuse my offense? Not “knowing better” may allow me to have a moral certitude, but hopefully I’m going to confession enough to be cleansed of this and more hopefully yet will again continue to grow and learn better.

 

[Elizabeth502]

See my post above. Your criticism should be leveled at both the actual law and the misstated law, shouldn’t it? VC

No. My “criticism” is not really criticism but incredulity, which merely expands with the piling on of legalistic posts. What is this: a Talmudic exercise? Btw, that’s the equivalent of what the religious authorities in Jesus’ time were challenging him with: legalistic splitting of hairs. His response was, ’ It’s immaterial; you’re sinners, aren’t you? Why don’t you know that yet? Here, let me help you by describing what sin is.’

Oy vey.

 

[Leonius]

You have misquoted the Baltimore Catechism. The Catechism actually says:

"397 Q. What is meant by the command of confessing at least once a year?
A. By the command of confessing at least once a year is meant that we
are obliged, under pain of mortal sin, to go to confession within the
year.

“Within the year”–that is, the time between your confessions must never
be longer than a year, or, at least not longer than the period between
the beginning of one Eastertime and the end of the next. All persons who
have attained the age of reason are bound to comply with this precept,
and parents should remind their children of it.

Under pain of mortal sin means it is a mortal sin not to go at least once a year just in case that is confusing anyone.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

It would be simpler and less confusing simply to say, “If you did something you knew was wrong, on purpose, you need to go to Confession before the next time you receive Holy Communion.”

Yes. All of the sources I mentioned also say that. It is another law. But there are two distinct laws.

That isn’t “contrary” to any law, and doesn’t muddy the waters with some pie-in-the-sky idea that it is possible for a functional adult to go a whole year without mortal sin, who is also avoiding to go to Confession.

Well, I don’t know. I doubt the Church has a “pie-in-the-sky” idea that adults in general go a whole year without mortal sin. She made the rules. She communicates them to us. We could write the Holy Father or one of the congregations and ask them to please take another look at Church law and the catechism if we disagree with their approach.

Yes, but it doesn’t need to be brought up as the first information to beginners who still don’t even know what “sin” is.

I agree. I’ve never known anyone who has. Fr. Trujillo (EWTN priest – you like him, right?) also brings up in his book and stresses the need to go to confession regularly and often. But, since he is committed to teaching what the Church teaches, he states the actual minimum law as well.

jmcrae:

All they would hear is, “You don’t have to go to Confession at all, unless you think you need to,” and from then on, they would tune out any nuances that you might have been adding, such as how to tell if you have sinned.

Quite possible. That’s why I wouldn’t lead with it, or bring it up in order to get someone to go to confession. But if I was writing a Catechism, or if I was engaging adults on a discussion board about what the law actually says, I would state it. (Along with the caveat that it is a minimum, etc. etc.) We can handle it. The Church seems to think we can handle it too.

VC

 

[Indyann]

No. My “criticism” is not really criticism but incredulity, which merely expands with the piling on of legalistic posts. What is this: a Talmudic exercise? Btw, that’s the equivalent of what the religious authorities in Jesus’ time were challenging him with: legalistic splitting of hairs. His response was, ’ It’s immaterial; you’re sinners, aren’t you? Why don’t you know that yet?’ Here, let me help you by describing what sin is.’

Oy vey.

I do think it is our resposibility if we see teachings that are not in accord with the teachings of the Church, we are bound to state the correct teaching. Call it “legalistic” , if you like, we are still responsible to know the teachings.

 

[jmcrae]

I do think it is our resposibility if we see teachings that are not in accord with the teachings of the Church, we are bound to state the correct teaching. Call it “legalistic” , if you like, we are still responsible to know the teachings.

Just as long as you are careful to never say anything that gives the impression that Confession is in some way “optional.” Right? And make sure that people understand, when you are talking about minimums, that it’s an academic discussion - that real live people need to be “maximalists” - not minimalists.

It’s much better to go to Confession even if you don’t think you need to go, than to scrupulize about whether or not it’s been a whole year yet, and whether all those angry outbursts, lustful thoughts, exchanges of gossip, etc., were “mortal” or not.

Just confess 'em anyway. The sooner, the better.