Absolutely false.
Not only is it in Canon Law…but Pope John Paul II’s document on Confession…and various other documents from the Holy See including from Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
( One is obliged to do so…though there can be “exceptions” at times).
Maybe he meant in terms of venial sins?..for one is not obliged to even confess such and they can be confessed in a rather general way without any numbers.
If he clearly meant mortal sins --they I would consider contacting the Bishop.
[edited]
Canon Law is one thing. Canon Law says lots of things which
traditional priests today need sometimes to subordinate to the pastoral reality of administering the sacraments. The fact is that the most important elements, on the penitent’s part, in this sacrament, are these:
~genuine understanding of the gravity of each serious sin committed
~genuine sorrow for those sins
~sincere intent to avoid them in the future, to make amends for those wrongs committed.
~full disclosure of the every known serious sin committed. That would include not deliberately hiding a repetition of the same sin, and certainly not lying if the priest asks you if this is once or more than once.
Yes, it’s “important” to relate the “number” of mortal sins, but more so as those sins are repetitious, and/or differ in their impact relative to the number of occasions. (Thus, perjury repeated, murder repeated, abortion repeated, theft repeated: this is important to report as a repetition – even generally, such as “several.”)
However, here’s what’s more important, pastorally – in practice:
The priest cares, and should care, much more about the quality of repentance and the oral acknowledgement about the severity of each reported sin, than about the total tally of each of those sins. The heart of the sacrament is repentence. A good confessor is not a technician, and Our Lord is not an accountant, but a merciful judge to those who express sincere sorrow.
My confessor for the last several years has been an ultra-traditional priest, faithful meticulously to his office. I have gone to him expressly because he has been so thorough at each confession, making sure no stone is left unturned. Confession is not a “chat” to him, and he is pre-V2 oriented. Yet at no time has he demanded “number of times.” Why? Because the above essential elements are there. He wants much more to hear the acknowledgement in my voice, than to have me repeat my sins casually, but be exact as to their number.
“Contacting the Bishop” is not an appropriate response, i.m.o. Why? Not because every Bishop doesn’t care about Canon Law, but because every bishop has been a priest and understands the pastoral nature of the sacrament. Bishops do not step in and make remote judgments on whether a confession they have not heard has been administered properly.
Confession is extremely personal. That means that if you do not like how it’s being administered, don’t go to that confessor. Go to a different one. But it should be on account of whether the relationship is working for you or not working. If you cannot develop a rapport with your confessor, or if you feel you cannot trust him because he is not being “technical” enough for your tastes, it is your privilege to seek a different confessor. Going to the bishop will be of extremely little help.
