Is it necessary to confess one's mortal sins in number?

  • Thread starter Thread starter PermanentMarker
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Luvtosew said:
Bookcat,
can you list what are venial sins for me please?🙂
Click to expand...
Compendium of the Catechism

Issued by Pope Benedict XVI
  1. Is there a variety of sins?
1852-1853
1873

There are a great many kinds of sins. They can be distinguished according to their object or according to the virtues or commandments which they violate. They can directly concern God, neighbor, or ourselves. They can also be divided into sins of thought, of word, of deed, or of omission.
  1. How are sins distinguished according to their gravity?
1854

A distinction is made between mortal and venial sin.
  1. When does one commit a mortal sin?
1855-1861
1874

One commits a mortal sin when there are simultaneously present: grave matter, full knowledge, and deliberate consent. This sin destroys charity in us, deprives us of sanctifying grace, and, if unrepented, leads us to the eternal death of hell. It can be forgiven in the ordinary way by means of the sacraments of Baptism and of Penance or Reconciliation.
  1. When does one commit a venial sin?
1862-1864
1875

One commits a venial sin, which is essentially different from a mortal sin, when the matter involved is less serious or, even if it is grave, when full knowledge or complete consent are absent. Venial sin does not break the covenant with God but it weakens charity and manifests a disordered affection for created goods. It impedes the progress of a soul in the exercise of the virtues and in the practice of moral good. It merits temporal punishment which purifies.

vatican.va/archive/compendium_ccc/documents/archive_2005_compendium-ccc_en.html
 
Perhaps if the Reconciliation schedule at many parishes wasn’t pared down to almost nothing, and priests didn’t feel pressured to keep confessions down to a minute or less, confessions might be more comprehensive. Who hasn’t gone into the booth and forgotten to confess something that was on their mental list, or gotten tongue tied, or felt the need to rush out of consideration for the 8 others waiting outside, when there are only 10 minutes left before the priest has to go and serve Mass?

I thought it was a luxury when I visited a small parish church yesterday and there were three priests hearing confession. This was just two weeks after I visited Our Lady of Angels in downtown LA (a large Cathedral), waited in line until I was second to next, only to have the priest pulled away to serve Mass because he was the only one there that day, the others being on Christmas vacation.

And, a quote from the blog linked by Deo Gratias (thanks!):
“Sometimes it will happen that your memory is not clear about the number of times you committed a sin. Just do your best, in that case. Even when your memory is faulty, if you do your best the sins you don’t remember or confess (through no fault of your own) are also indirectly remitted.”
 
Elizabeth502, I am quite sympathetic to your suggestion that there are other things to keep in mind when confessing one’s sins. I also agree that complaining to the bishop about this is excessive - at least right now, anyway. The truth remains, however, that the Church requires her children to confess their mortal sins in kind AND number, and Catholics who know better ought to do just that.
 
PermanentMarker said:
Elizabeth502, I am quite sympathetic to your suggestion that there are other things to keep in mind when confessing one’s sins. I also agree that complaining to the bishop about this is excessive - at least right now, anyway. The truth remains, however, that the Church requires her children to confess their mortal sins in kind AND number, and Catholics who know better ought to do just that.
Click to expand...
In which case nothing prevents you or anybody else from going elsewhere for confession. 🙂 The priest has the experience that goes beyond Canon Law to understand what God seeks in the penitent, and what brings the penitent back for repeat experiences. Again, as I’ve said on other threads, ask any priest whether he would prefer to hear a confession routinely recited, but quantitatively accurate, or a confession done in a heartfelt manner but without all the “numbers,” and I know what his answer will be, because I’ve heard it repeatedly. He doesn’t want a list. (And God has the “list,” by the way, with precise accuracy.)

It’s necessary to indicate to the priest if a mortal sin is a more-than-once occasion, and certainly if there’s an ongoing (long-lasting, or chronic) pattern, but precise number is far less important than any other aspect of the sacrament: such as identifying the sin, being very clear about its gravity, expressing sorrow/remorse, expressing firm purpose of amendment. In general, the priest doesn’t care, God doesn’t care, if it’s 2 vs. 3, or 12 vs.18.

If numerical accuracy (or the lack thereof) makes any particular penitent uncomfortable, then the penitent can and should go elsewhere. Not in a million years could anyone, including any bishop, accuse my confessor of violating his office, or even of being careless about the way he administers the sacrament. And most every priest will ask number (or general frequency) if that’s indicated by (for example) length of time since last confession, or various other clues which raise red flags to those far more knowledgeable about hearing confessions than those using book knowledge (Canon Law). Canon Law defines the technicality. It’s the priest, who, in persona Christi, has the charism and the authority to interpret that Law relative to the situation of the penitent as he hears that in real time.

The sacrament is for the penitent, to experience God’s mercy. It’s not “for” the priest, for canon lawyers, for Popes who write apostolic letters & encyclicals – be those Popes beatified or canonized.
🙂
 
We are* obliged *to confess any mortal sins in number and kind (and circumstance that changes it…such as it was your brother you murdered). Such is the obligation as the Church has made it known.

This is by Divine Law which no Priest can change. Though of course there are exceptions that the Church notes to such and the Priest hearing the confession can know if any such are present. (and of course forgetfulness is just that…but if one remembers later one is to mention it in the next confession…and as I noted before all sorts of things can make our memory not like that of Mr. Spock…which ought to give no worries…sometimes we forget and sometimes we need to approximate…and at times according to ones knowledge and sinful past it may need to be a very big approximation like “many many times”).

In the case of the OP the Priest was presented to the forum as having stated that such is not required. That somehow since the Second Vatican Council this has changed. If such is is his position(as noted something could have been misunderstood) he is mistaken. Such a position is at odds with the Catholic Church (including Canon Law) and the Divine Law. If he does hold such a position (which he really may not…but rather something was misunderstood…as can happen in a quick conversation in a confessional) it may have been that he got this idea honestly (it is obviously an idea that others have held or similar --hence the Magisterium of the Church has sought to correct such over the years). None the less --an misinformed idea that needs to draw its last breath and be replaced by that of the living breath of the Church.
 
Huh…another thing I would have never known if all I did was attend Mass on Sundays and Holy days of obligation.

Seriously, after completing CDD, are we expected to look near and far all these caveats that were never discussed in CCD or spoken of in mass?

It’s really hard to do when you have no idea that there maybe a caveat to this or that situation.

I’m sorry, but I get frustrated that during 41 years of being an active Catholic that I’m still learning what is a sin and what isn’t.

It’s like why didn’t somebody tell me?
 
Bookcat said:
We are* obliged *to confess any mortal sins in number and kind.

This is by Divine Law which no Priest can change.
Click to expand...
Most priests (I assume) are not trying to “change” Canon Law. As NewEnglandPriest admitted, if the confessor made a blanket statement that mortal sins “need not” be confessed in number, that confessor is in error. Of course, that also is a big “if.” We are obliged in charity not to assume, as third party “hearers,” that the confessor actually did say that. That is not to say that the OP misspoke or is not telling the truth, but that he may have understood incorrectly, or even that the confessor in question spoke too hastily (himself misspoke without clarifying). The least indicated response would be to “contact the bishop,” since – as said both by the above priest and by me – no bishop would have a way of verifying what that confessor who was “reported” to him did or did not say; it, like all confessions, is a sealed confession.

The most indicated response is to go to a different confessor. People do this all the time. Among traditional priests who know the rubric in their sleep (follow it faithfully), the styles and approaches to the sacrament vary. The same confessor I respect so much has worked in a parish which includes a different confessor with a markedly different style that doesn’t help me personally (nearly as much) in my growth. So it’s very simple: I don’t go to him; I don’t feel comfortable.

There’s also a middle way – one which many posters on CAF have been advised by others to do, or have decided on their own to do: have an adult-to-adult conversation with that same confessor, preferably in the next confession. (“What did you mean by that, Father? I was taught differently in CCD/RCIA, etc.”) That’s the way most people handle confusion or disagreement – going directly to the first party, instead of indirectly around that party to a superior – an action which is less efficient and may not resolve the situation whatsoever.
Though of course there are exceptions that the Church notes to such and the Priest hearing the confession can know if any such are present.
Click to expand...
Precisely. You weren’t there. I wasn’t there. That’s why it’s no more prescriptive to follow blanket advice to run to a bishop, than it is accurate for a confessor to have stated that the requirements of the sacrament have changed since Vatican 2: If he did state that, and that is a big If.

There’s actually quite a bit of variation in how the sacrament is administered, as I mentioned earlier. But even very legitimate variations (ones not the subject here) can result in any penitent feeling uncomfortable about any particular confessor. As confirmed adults, it’s our responsibility to seek out the confessor(s) who benefit us spiritually, and/or to avoid those who do not benefit us.
 
I responded as needed to his post as he posed the question.

Have wonderful last day of Christmas all!
 
I believe I responded as needed to his post as he posed the question.

A wonderful last day of Christmas to all!
 
Bookcat said:
I responded as needed to his post as he posed the question.
Click to expand...
As did I. Our solutions differ.

Here’s another positive possible benefit from the OP (or anyone like him) speaking directly to a confessor who confuses: The confessor may beneift from realizing that an offhand or too-general remark by him has resulted in more distress than the confessor realized would occur. When given a chance to clarify or correct himself, the confessor may benefit. This is the same thing that happens in any job: we get too narrowly focused on our own assumptions & tasks, that we may not realize how we are being perceived or understood, or misunderstood, by others. Feedback corrects those distortions.

But again, we were not there, in that confessional, hearing both parties. Perhaps this was one of the “exceptions,” in that this Confessor may have been assuming (correctly or incorrectly) that the penitent was too focused on numbers, and insufficiently focused on content & motivation. (Quantity vs. quality) A few years ago, a priest misunderstood what I was saying in confession; I had to clarify, and even then, I perceived that our relationship was a mismatch, due to his overall (in his case, hasty) assumptions.

Priests working in parishes hear lots and lots of confessions. I trust most of them to know their trade and to be skilled enough to make judgments & discernments that are beyond third parties, especially lay people, to make determinations about. And we can take it to the bank that bishops assume the same, as a starting point. (IOW, the confessor’s word, if it got that far to a “report” about him, would be from the starting gate to be assumed to be the accurate version, by the bishop, in that either the confessor did not violate Canon Law, or that the situation was a valid exception to the “law.”)
 
Bookcat said:
I believe I responded as needed to his post as he posed the question.

A wonderful last day of Christmas to all!
Click to expand...
I personally do not see a need to continue discussing this at further length for my part (got things to do as they say). I feel I explained what I needed to explain in the above posts.

Have a great evening all!
 
To be honest, I was never taught to confess number or kind. Once, when confessing something that I didn’t realize was a mortal sin, the priest persisted in asking me how many times and specific details regarding my actions, which I had described very broadly. Not knowing that’s what one was supposed to do, I felt uncomfortable that I was being scolded like a child and did not return to him for confession. As time passed, I was set straight and now know better, and feel more comfortable with how to confess properly.
 
ScaredyKat said:
To be honest, I was never taught to confess number or kind. Once, when confessing something that I didn’t realize was a mortal sin, the priest persisted in asking me how many times and specific details regarding my actions, which I had described very broadly. Not knowing that’s what one was supposed to do, I felt uncomfortable that I was being scolded like a child and did not return to him for confession. As time passed, I was set straight and now know better, and feel more comfortable with how to confess properly.
Click to expand...
And poor catechesis, particularly regarding the mass and confession, is at least partially why attendance at both is so poor. We’ve ridden the 1970s waves for too long, and we need to start being serious again.
 
Cbus said:
Huh…another thing I would have never known if all I did was attend Mass on Sundays and Holy days of obligation.

Seriously, after completing CDD, are we expected to look near and far all these caveats that were never discussed in CCD or spoken of in mass?

It’s really hard to do when you have no idea that there maybe a caveat to this or that situation.

I’m sorry, but I get frustrated that during 41 years of being an active Catholic that I’m still learning what is a sin and what isn’t.

It’s like why didn’t somebody tell me?
Click to expand...
I’m with you.

I think it’s a shame that Catholicism is so confusing – and by confusing, I mean you ask one question and you get 100 answers from both the laity and priests. That can be very frustrating.

One shouldn’t have to get a Master’s thesis to understand basic tenets of the faith or spend hours on the computer doing research to know that one needs to confess both sin and number. Granted, I was taught that but obviously are lot of people are not. :mad:
 
Elizabeth502 said:
In which case nothing prevents you or anybody else from going elsewhere for confession. 🙂 The priest has the experience that goes beyond Canon Law to understand what God seeks in the penitent, and what brings the penitent back for repeat experiences. Again, as I’ve said on other threads, ask any priest whether he would prefer to hear a confession routinely recited, but quantitatively accurate, or a confession done in a heartfelt manner but without all the “numbers,” and I know what his answer will be, because I’ve heard it repeatedly. He doesn’t want a list. (And God has the “list,” by the way, with precise accuracy.)

It’s necessary to indicate to the priest if a mortal sin is a more-than-once occasion, and certainly if there’s an ongoing (long-lasting, or chronic) pattern, but precise number is far less important than any other aspect of the sacrament: such as identifying the sin, being very clear about its gravity, expressing sorrow/remorse, expressing firm purpose of amendment. In general, the priest doesn’t care, God doesn’t care, if it’s 2 vs. 3, or 12 vs.18.

If numerical accuracy (or the lack thereof) makes any particular penitent uncomfortable, then the penitent can and should go elsewhere. Not in a million years could anyone, including any bishop, accuse my confessor of violating his office, or even of being careless about the way he administers the sacrament. And most every priest will ask number (or general frequency) if that’s indicated by (for example) length of time since last confession, or various other clues which raise red flags to those far more knowledgeable about hearing confessions than those using book knowledge (Canon Law). Canon Law defines the technicality. It’s the priest, who, in persona Christi, has the charism and the authority to interpret that Law relative to the situation of the penitent as he hears that in real time.

The sacrament is for the penitent, to experience God’s mercy. It’s not “for” the priest, for canon lawyers, for Popes who write apostolic letters & encyclicals – be those Popes beatified or canonized.
🙂
Click to expand...
This is also how my confessor, also an orthodox, well-trained priest has explained it. Certainly we should be able to remember how many times we’ve murdered, but for other mortal sins - in particular sexual sins, including masturbation - it may be more difficult to have a precise number. For the most part, those people involved in repeated mortal sins are not usually also frequent confessors, unless those sins are of that nature, in which case a “number” like 2 or 3 times a day is acceptable.

For someone coming back to confession after a long time away, and exact accounting may not be possible. In that case, a “number” like “I’ve had two different live-in lovers for 3 years each” may be acceptable. You don’t have to figure out 52X3X6-180 and then worry that it is still not accurate and that your confession is invalid.

Always keep in mind that a good confessor will ask for whatever other information he needs.Yes, we need to be prepared, but wedon’t need to have a perfect accounting so much as deep contrition.

To the OP, probably better for you to go to confession to a different priest. And better not to discuss your confessions with anyone but your confessor.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top