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

[thistle]

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)

What has your rant got to do with the thread topic:

“Is every Catholic obligated to confess once a year even if they do not have mortal sin?”

The answer is NO.

 

[jmcrae]

What has your rant got to do with the thread topic:

“Is every Catholic obligated to confess once a year even if they do not have mortal sin?”

The answer is NO.

And also, “There is no such person. Or if there is, it most likely isn’t you. Don’t forget to schedule some time tomorrow afternoon to go to Confession.”

I agree with Elizabeth - it is a lot of time and energy to determine a fact that doesn’t actually apply to living persons.

Is it possible to get through life without ever committing serious sin? Certainly! Those people are in the line for Confession nearly every single Saturday, gaining the graces that it takes to live out the day-to-day of their holy lives.

But there is no one who goes a whole year without sinning, who also goes a whole year without going to Confession. That person does not exist.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Hi Elizabeth,

It takes a certain amount of spiritual maturity to try to see the world from another’s point of view. I’ve attempted to do so while reading your posts, especially your most recent. I hope you’ll give me the same consideration.

This is hardly the only thread on CAF focused on legalism.

Here’s my (equally valid as yours) point of view.

I understand your distaste for legalism. Another term would be Rubricism. Its certainly a danger to avoid.

I think, though, we have to understand that CAF has threads where people ask questions about specific points of doctrine or practice. There are also threads about spirituality and the cultivation of virtue. I understand if you feel that there too many threads about one or the other. Perhaps you feel dissatisfied with the tenor here on the forum.

I don’t really have an opinion on whether or not CAF posters are too legalistic or too trivial. I just don’t feel its my place to make that kind of sweeping judgment.

The other difficulty I have is your characterization of this thread as legalistic. The original poster asked about a point of doctrine and law. I think when someone brings up Trent and the Fourth Lateran Council it’s safe to say that they are looking for a discussion on doctrine and not really a discussion on spirituality.

• There simply was no question about how often one should go to confession*. The question was what does the Church teach in its precept regarding the minimum obligation to go to confession. These precepts, to use the Church’s language are meant to guarantee the **“indispensable minimum”. **They are not intended to describe, whatsoever, the heights to which we are all called.

Could I ask you and others who may be upset about the discussion on the precept of the Church to try this thought experiment, please? Imagine a poster who starts a thread, like this one, and puts forth the thesis that Church requires us to go to confession at least once a year. Now imagine another poster comes along and says that this is incorrect and the Church actually requires us to go to confession at least twice a year, once anytime during the year and once during Easter Season.

Would any of you try to correct the second poster? Why? And if they refused to accept your explanation (saying, perhaps that the precept is for anytime during the year, but that the “Easter duty” also requires confession on top of that during Easter) what would you do?

My guess is that many of the same people who complain about “legalism” would go to great lengths to try to persuade the poster who was in error. But why? Surely thinking that the Church requires going to confession twice a year is better than thinking that the Church requires going to confession once a year, isn’t it? Or is it?

No, it’s not better. Perhaps you would point out (as I did) that you should exceed the minimum, but the minimum is once a year.

So, in a thread that I perceived as asking a question about doctrine, I answered with what the Church actually teaches. **Puzzleannie **did as well. Then she was contradicted. I continued to try to defend the Church’s actual discipline. Again someone put forth an incorrect position. Again I correct. Again someone put forth and incorrect position, this time perhaps that “grave sin” doesn’t mean “mortal sin”. I correct – because that sort of thing is important for Catholics to know.

The fact that there is a distinction between what the Church says we “have to” and when she says “we should” does **NOT **mean that those who wish to know what the Church actually says and why, have ANY tendency towards minimalism or lack of gratitude. Respectfully, I think you need to examine how it is that you feel entitled to make spiritual judgments about the hearts of others because they care to discuss this topic.

When someone alleges that discussion about the Church’s teaching regarding confession once a year shows some sort of character flaw or spiritual blindness, they should ask themselves why the Church proposes the “once a year” rule on the faithful in the first place.

Your point about CAF posters asking about specific sins, etc, is well taken. But this thread wasn’t one of them. It seems to me that you imposed your own prior concerns on this thread and then used this thread as an opportunity to make your points about why you are dissatisfied with CAF posters in general.

I also note that some *few *(not necessarily you) have a tendency to correct others without qualm when they are wrong on a small point, but when they themselves are corrected they retreat into the objection of “what practical difference does it make!” or “don’t be so legalistic!” And since this has turned into a spirituality thread. . . perhaps we can use that in our examination of conscience and do some gut-wrenching soul searching about how well we take correction.

Elizabeth, I have respect for you and for your desire to walk in the fullness of Christ’s teaching. I hope you can see that I have the same desire, a burning desire, to do so.

Thanks, Köszi,
VC

 

[Rafaela]

The answer, which you can check from the REAL Catechism of the Catholic Church, is YES. You must once a year do the following (at least) go for Confession, receive the Eucharist and take part in a mass at Easter time. It is also advised by the church that one would go to Confession at least once in a month, though many people are afraid or for whatever reason do not have chance, or are unwilling to do so, that is why this once a year at least came about.

I would also say that one who thinks that he has not committed any mortal sin against God in one years time, is actually in danger of thinking that he does not need the church or her sacraments, hence this thought in the first place is driven from pride, the source of other sins. :newidea:

 

[Pug]

The answer, which you can check from the REAL Catechism of the Catholic Church, is YES. You must once a year do the following (at least) go for Confession, receive the Eucharist and take part in a mass at Easter time.

I think the CCC itself tells us we ought not read one paragraph and think we have the whole story. We need to read those paragraph cross-reference things to begin to get the whole, organic picture.

My point?

The relevant cross-reference paragraph to the precept in question reads as follows:

**1457 **According to the Church’s command, "after having attained the age of discretion, each of the faithful is bound by an obligation faithfully to confess serious sins at least once a year… (emphasis added)

Nobody is trying to avoid the sense of the REAL CCC on this thread. To me, this is the most irksome part of this whole thing: we are all trying to faithfully read it, and it is apparently unsuccessful in communicating something as basic as our legal obligation, something that really ought to be clear.

 

[rinnie]

Look at it this way, we all have serious sins. There is alot of things we do in a year. We may not see it, but I am sure others do. So again why not just go, and forget about it. If you are a true Catholic and really understand the faith you know that some how some way you have offended God. Maybe by not helping someone when you really could have. I could go on and on and on. But be safe go AT LEAST ONCE A YEAR. Keep that soul in good shape. Even if it is a venial sin, you should confess venial at least once a year anyway.

 

[Rafaela]

I think the CCC itself tells us we ought not read one paragraph and think we have the whole story. We need to read those paragraph cross-reference things to begin to get the whole, organic picture.

I am also not reading one paragraph, and I am referring to catechesis that our bishop kept to us, and in case he is wrong then I understand ur anger. Otherwise when the original question was based on reading, mind u, of ‘catechism for dummies’ I think its right point to add that one should also not rely on so unreliable sources. I do know all what u wrote above, so if that was ment as torn I am sorry, u missed me. Dear pug, I must also personally say that storming for everybody about perfectly clear things is sort of time wasting. And I do not think that u shd refer to Confession as ‘legal obligation’ (pharisees were following those) it makes it sound like it is some horrible duty we have once a year.

 

[thistle]

And also, "There is no such person. Or if there is, it most likely isn’t you. Don’t forget to schedule some time tomorrow afternoon to go to Confession."

I agree with Elizabeth - it is a lot of time and energy to determine a fact that doesn’t actually apply to living persons.

Is it possible to get through life without ever committing serious sin? Certainly! Those people are in the line for Confession nearly every single Saturday, gaining the graces that it takes to live out the day-to-day of their holy lives.

But there is no one who goes a whole year without sinning, who also goes a whole year without going to Confession. That person does not exist.

Wow! And I thought only God knew that. It seems you have promoted yourself! You are being arrogant and judgemental.

The thread is not about whether there are people who go for more than a year without a mortal sin or not. If you want to debate that then open a new thread.
This thread is about what the Church requires. It does not require a person who has not committed a mortal sin to go to Confession once a year.

 

[Pug]

I am also not reading one paragraph, and I am referring to catechesis that our bishop kept to us, and in case he is wrong then I understand ur anger. Otherwise when the original question was based on reading, mind u, of ‘catechism for dummies’ I think its right point to add that one should also not rely on so unreliable sources. I do know all what u wrote above, so if that was ment as torn I am sorry, u missed me. Dear pug, I must also personally say that storming for everybody about perfectly clear things is sort of time wasting. And I do not think that u shd refer to Confession as ‘legal obligation’ (pharisees were following those) it makes it sound like it is some horrible duty we have once a year.

I’m sorry, I didn’t mean to imply that you only read one paragraph. Now that you respond this way, though, I see why you thought I might have meant that. I meant about what was going on in all the thread. Our Catechism is designed to be read in a particular way, with lots of flipping about and not in a simple manner of question, answer, like many other catechisms. I think the people on this thread are trying to harmonize several things at once, especially things like the verse I gave as an example, so I don’t think the problem for this thread is non-authorized sources. If a person reads one place in the Catechism they get one impression, and if they read the other place, they get another impression, so I think this makes for a little confusion on this thread, even though all are faithful to the Catechism as they read it.

It is possible that the original poster was given the Dummies catechism in a RCIA class or heard it recommended by EWTN, since it carries an imprimatur and nihil obstat and has someone from EWTN as the author. I don’t have a copy of it, but I am told this is so. Also, Amazon will display the page with the approvals on it if you search inside the book. We ought to use a catechism with approvals on it, I agree. The title of that particular catechism sounds awful, though, doesn’t it?

I chose the phrase legal obligation because it is a matter of canon law. I also used obligation because the CCC quote uses “obligation”. I meant no offense by the phrase. You are right, though, that sometimes the word “obligation” can make a person think of the word “duty” and duties are viewed as a “drag” in modern lingo. I don’t see confession as a drag, though.

I didn’t mean to storm at you. Rather, I just wish the CCC were more clear. It is precisely because it is a simple matter of Church law that I am irked that it is not more easy for a lay person to get the right answer on this point. If it were easy, there would not be so many decent folk on this thread who read the law oppositely. There ought to be a law against unclear laws. :whacky: (Although, I personally think canon law is clear concerning our topic, obviously the way the law is written or promulgated causes confusion amongst sincere people.) Hope that clarifies.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Respectfully, I think you need to examine how it is that you feel entitled to make spiritual judgments about the hearts of others because they care to discuss this topic.

…

Elizabeth, I have respect for you and for your desire to walk in the fullness of Christ’s teaching. I hope you can see that I have the same desire, a burning desire, to do so.

Thanks, Köszi,
VC

Your reply does not sound respectful to me, but both inaccurate and judgmental. I never made “sweeping judgments” or “spiritual judgments” about specific individuals. I noticed a tendency on CAF, which anyone could do on any particular day with any particular search, and discover, if that searcher was being honest, a large percentage of thread openers which deal in the picayune, and/or minimalism, and/or legalism. Perhaps these are new converts, hopeful RCIA’ers, or confused/forgetful reverts. It doesn’t matter. They may sincerely be looking for answers. So rather than give these questioners full answers (which extend beyond legalism into spirituality), responders too often magnify the legalism until either (1) the OP is thoroughly confused, or (2) the OP gets the picture that Catholic Christianity is really about legalism after all.

I charitably assume that educated Catholics who are NOT new to Catholicism have in fact more spirituality than that. (Which is the opposite of what you assume I thought.) That assumption of mine extends to educated, practicing Catholics on this thread. Therefore, such responders have an obligation to educate (from the Latin, ducere = “lead to”), rather than to respond like technicians and experts in minutiae, who then begin to compete with each other over who is more technically accurate. I’m not impressed with anybody’s so-called expertise about minutiae. I can match those people educationally, and so can a number of other posters on CAF. But I’m never interested in engaging in such fruitless one-up-manship.

Some of the responsibility for the origins of such questions lies squarely with the RCC, and I am hardly the only poster who has lamented the quality of catechesis (and the virtual absence of meaningful adult catechesis) in the church. The sheer number of legally-oriented threads reveals in itself that Jesus’ message is too often being perceived as secondary to church law, a fact which in itself is scandalous. The words of any Pope are never more important than the words of Jesus. Never. To believe anything else is heresy.

I think some repliers have mischaracterized jmcrae’s message. He also does not seem to be making judgments about individuals, but rather to be making logical assumptions about human nature, which anyone not born yesterday can reasonably make. Those judgments would be backed by (1) any priest who has heard more than one confession, (2) any Catholic who has had even one eye-opening examination of conscience (i.e., revealing how much, how often, how widely **each **of us sin), (3) any person who has read both Hebrew and Christian scriptures even once, (4) anyone who has read a handful of biographies of saints.

Fr. Dwight Longnecker, who was featured a month or two ago on Journey Home has a blog. I found it when I was searching for something else, which led me to some blog posts about confession before I got to his blog as well, which includes a forum area about confession. Confession itself illuminates. In itself it provides moral vision about the extent of our pride which is the prime motivator for mortal sin. Going to confession frequently deepens, broadens, makes more honest, our examinations of conscience – not just because it encourages frequent introspection, but because it sensitizes us to our shortcomings. The original blog I found (that I referred to), talks about the very thing that happens to me sometimes after confession: a more profound sense of my own sin. I think the author used the word mourning or melancholy, which describes it well. Just note that this would not include judging the spirituality of CAF posters as one of my “sins.” (My sins are much worse.) I intellectually judge the words of posters, only, as implying a message, whether or not those posters are living or even believe such a message. Therefore, if a different message is meant, please say what you mean, not what you don’t mean.

Thus, “Dear OP: Your question is a technical one. Technically, one need/need not comply in the following manner, but as a practical matter, our perceptions of what we barely need are most often clouded if we design in the first place to do the minimum. The devil is a clever deceiver, dwelling within our pride and manipulating that pride by comforting us that we have nothing, or little, to confess.”

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Your reply does not sound respectful to me, but both inaccurate and judgmental.

Elizabeth, I apologize for that. I didn’t intend it as judgmental (although I can see how it may have come across that way), and, naturally, I did not intentional try to be inaccurate. I was trying to be respectful, and obviously failed in conveying it.

I never made “sweeping judgments” or “spiritual judgments” about specific individuals.

Elizabeth, you’re right. You didn’t make any judgments about individuals. But, you’ll forgive me, I hope, that I mistakenly thought that you were making a sweeping judgment (not judgment in a bad way. . . just an intellectual assessment) about the a large number of forum members here when you said

Elizabeth502:

. . 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.

That was what I was referring to when I mentioned “spiritual judgments”, as I took your comment about veils clouding moral vision to be a bit more suggestive than simply saying there seems to be a lot of concern on the boards about small points. I hope you can see where I might have falsely attributed to you that you were making a spiritual judgment about posters. But, since I falsely attributed that you, I sincerely apologize. I hope you can respond, though, and in good faith to accept my apology (and perhaps acknowledge that it wasn’t absurd that I could have gotten the wrong idea).

As for the rest, I agree substantially with what you said in your last post. I’ve never disagreed with it.

And I stand by everything I’ve said in this thread, except for my false accusation that you made a spiritual judgment.

If anyone reads through my posts on this thread, you will see that I consistently have done just as Elizabeth advocates:I stated the law, and corrected those who misstated it

AND

I consistently pointed out that it was the bare minimum and that we were all called to go to confession frequently (and even offered the goal of “every two weeks”.)
But, it became a bit aggravating because even though I did both, it seemed like there would inevitably be a response which essentially was “who only needs confession once a year!?” or “how does this apply to any real person?!” Of course it applies to real people, it applies to every Catholic. Again, I would say: this is the minimum rule, and we are called to exceed it. How does that not apply to everyone? These responses only make sense if someone reads my posts and singles out that I cared to state the correct rule, and ignores that I say it is a minimum that we are called to exceed.

Elizabeth, please, can you not see from a review of my posts why that might be frustrating? Our desire to go to confession as much as possible doesn’t take away what the Church requires as an absolute minimum. And pointing out BOTH the minimum obligation AND that we should exceed it doesn’t seem to me to call for the number of posts on this thread that speak about being blind to sin, being a minimalist, being legalistic, elevating oneself over the saints, etc.

So I’m left scratching my head a bit. Hardly anyone (only 2 people!!!) on this thread mentioned that mortal sin was infrequent. Seemingly scores of people mentioned we are called to go to confession frequently. I myself continuously gave the full answer which was the actual minimum **and **the exhortation to exceed it and go quickly, frequently, consistently. PLUS, because of your contributions which I joined in with you, and amplified, I thought it was clear to any reader what the whole picture was. We covered it from every angle.

And yet, still there were posts complaining about only “wanting” to go once a year, or people trying “to get out of going” to confession. Boy, howdy, is that frustrating. It just didn’t seem like this thread showed evidence of people wanting to only do the minimum and get out of going to confession and focusing on the rule only.

Please, please tell me you see what I mean?

Apologies again for offense I gave,
VC

 

[catechumen]

When I first asked this question; I asked it to gain information to an argument I was having with a friend.

The reason I posted here was to get the Church’s position on this because I had gotten conflicting information from some reliable sources. I first read in a very good catechism “This is the Faith” by Cannon Francis Ripley. Somewhere around chapter 20 the subject of once a year confession is discussed with a reference to the eight cannon of the council of Trent with a reference to the Fourth Lateran council in the twenty first cannon.

I have since been given the current church position, which is that it is only necessary to confess mortal sin.

The 1917 code of canon law, the first codification of Church law, abrogated prior disciplinary laws which conflict with the code (it also completely abrogated prior penal laws); however, when it is doubtful whether a law of the new Code differs from the old law, the code also says that one must not deviate from the old law. Did the 1917 code conflict with a (presumed) law (from Lateran IV) that one must confess venial sins once a year? Simply to say that one is bound to confess mortal sins once a year, is not to say that one is not bound to confess venial sins once a year. To be a conflict, the code must say that one is ONLY obligated to confess mortal sins once a year. The 1917 code does not say that when adopting the precept of Lateran, but it does say: “Mortal sins committed after Baptism and already properly confessed and directly absolved, and venial sins committed after Baptism, are sufficient but not necessary matter for the Sacrament of Penance.” (Canon 902, 1917 code) Thus, the commentator Woywod concluded: “The Canon demanding confession once a year must be understood of the confession of mortal sins…For one Canon of the Code cannot contradict another, and, as we saw, Canon 902 stated the confession of venial sins is entirely optional. The Fourth Lateran Council from which the Code takes this law is interpreted by the Council of Trent to the effect that the obligation of the Divine law to confess one’s sins was determined by that Council to be complied with at least once a year. Now, by the Divine law, mortal sins only have to be confessed.” (Practical Commentary, V2, 451)

William

 

[Pug]

I have since been given the current church position, which is that it is only necessary to confess mortal sin.

Glad you’ve got your answer!

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Glad you’ve got your answer!

Me too!

And it looks like you got it William! I’m a bit relieved, too, that you seem to have been approaching this from an academic point of view (or so I thought). Hope I helped.

VC

 

[catechumen]

Yes, everyone helped in one since or another.

I could not believe how this simple question took on a life of it’s own.

I thank everyone for their time.

William

 

[Verbum_Caro]

William (catechumen),

There is more to the story though. It sounds to me that you understand that the current teaching of the Church (i.e. the precept and the way it is codified in Canon law) is not in conflict with Lateran IV or Trent, am I right?

But it is equally important (no, more important) to note that the Church also teaches that one should not wait to go to confession when one is in mortal sin. She also teaches that sometimes one is obligated to go confession without delay. And She also teaches that one should confess regularly, even (especially?) one’s venial sins.

What do you think William?

I want to point out to everyone reading this thread a really, really, excellent remark by jmcrae that was easy to miss with all the back and forth going on:

Is it possible to get through life without ever committing serious sin? Certainly! Those people are in the line for Confession nearly every single Saturday, gaining the graces that it takes to live out the day-to-day of their holy lives.

Without frequent confession (i.e. much more that “once a year if in grave sin”) it is highly likely that one will find oneself in mortal sin much more often. In other words if we mistakenly take the Church’s precept as a counsel about what we should do (and not the bare minimum as is intended) then we most likely will fall into mortal sin frequently, at the peril of our souls.

Any thoughts William?
VC

 

[catechumen]

William (catechumen),

There is more to the story though. It sounds to me that you understand that the current teaching of the Church (i.e. the precept and the way it is codified in Canon law) is not in conflict with Lateran IV or Trent, am I right?

But it is equally important (no, more important) to note that the Church also teaches that one should not wait to go to confession when one is in mortal sin. She also teaches that sometimes one is obligated to go confession without delay. And She also teaches that one should confess regularly, even (especially?) one’s venial sins.

What do you think William?

I want to point out to everyone reading this thread a really, really, excellent remark by jmcrae that was easy to miss with all the back and forth going on:

Without frequent confession (i.e. much more that “once a year if in grave sin”) it is highly likely that one will find oneself in mortal sin much more often. In other words if we mistakenly take the Church’s precept as a counsel about what we should do (and not the bare minimum as is intended) then we most likely will fall into mortal sin frequently, at the peril of our souls.

Any thoughts William?
VC

You nailed it. Confession is the sacrament of mercy.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

You nailed it. Confession is the sacrament of mercy.

Thanks, William. Sooooooooo. . . . you’re going to go lots, right? Not just once a year?

:nunchuk:

VC

 

[srgibbons]

catechumen,

A. If the book you have is Idiot’s Guide to Catholicism – throw it out. It’s horrible. I think it should be subtitled “A Dissenter’s Field Guide”

B. If it’s Catholicism for Dummies written by Fr. Trugilio (the priest on EWTN), that’s a different story – it’s a pretty good book!

I’m the lone poster so far on this thread who agrees with Fr. Trugilio. Here’s why:

It *seems *to me that Canon 989 and the precept of the Church regarding confession both require the faithful, at a minimum, to confess mortal sins once per year.

The precept, as related in the Catechism, doesn’t qualify the requirement to only mortals sins, but that seems to be the proper understanding given the requirements of the canonical law (or else one seems faced with a contradiction and redundancy).

There has been a question as to whether the phrase “grave sin” used in Canon 989, means something other than “mortal sin” as we traditionally understand it. There doesn’t seem to be a difference.

In support of this position:

1. Fr. Hardon’s Modern Catholic Dictionary, on Mortal Sin:
   The terms mortal, deadly, grave, and serious applied to sin are synonyms. . . the Church never distinguishes among these terms as though they represented different kinds of sins.
2. The Compendium to the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
3. 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. . .

1. The National Directory for Catechesis, 36, B, 1:
   Diocese and parishes should present catechesis for the Sacrament of Penance and Reconciliation that. . .calls attention to the obligation to celebrate the sacrament whenever one has committed mortal sin, at least once a year.
2. The Baltimore Catechism #3:
3. 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.
5. Heribert Jone’s Moral Theology:
§395. All the faithful who have reached the use of their reason must sincerely confess their sins at least once a year. . .Strictly speaking, however, only those are obliged by this precept who have committed a** mortal sin.**
6. Fr. John Hardon’s *Moral Theology *(Ch. 3):
The annual Confession is self-explanatory. It need not be made at Easter time, and strictly speaking it does not oblige those who (although they have not been to confession for a year) are not conscious of having during that time committed a mortal sin.
What do you (and my fellow poster’s) think?

VC

 

[srgibbons]

I think you are absolutely correct. My background is pretty good, and this agrees with all that I have learned over the years.