Length of Confession and Understanding

[CradleJourney]

I’ve been reading various posts here regarding confession and - whether it’s my understanding or my background, I’m at a point where I’m feeling confused.

Basically, I understand that all mortal sins must be confessed to a priest during the sacrament of reconciliation. While venial sins may be confessed but are not required to be.

I feel though that in the matter of mortal sins, that some discussion - including context and repentance should be included during the sacrament, but what I’ve read here is that there a simple kind and number listing is sufficient. But this, well, feels wrong to me? I could understand if someone went to the same priest regularly and they knew them. But that situation doesn’t apply to me.

I mean let’s take what I will assume is a fairly common mortal sin - missing mass. So I pop into the confessional, follow the steps of the rite, say I’ve missed mass 82 times, and follow it up with a prayer of contrition, receive absolution, and that’s it? Shouldn’t some attempt be made by the priest to determine if either a) I’m truly contrite or b) perhaps whether it was truly a mortal sin? (Perhaps I was at sea for 18mths).
(Note - only using this as an example.)

Life and guilt are both fairly complex. I know I have sinned (perhaps not mortally) but definitely sinned and had a priest shrug off my confession as “nothing to be forgiven”.

I have read things on here that are identified by posters/respondents as sins when no matter how hard I try, I can’t see anything wrong with them.

I’m not saying every confession should take an hour!

But if it’s just about quickly listing what you’ve done and the priest automatically grants absolution no matter what, then why bother to go to confession instead of just saying a prayer asking for forgiveness (which I usually do very first thing anyway before I’m even able to plan out when I can go to confession).

Anyway - I guess I’m perceiving two different views of the sacrament, which, due to a horrid lack of proper catholic teaching as a child, I probably am misunderstanding a bit anyway.

Can anyone help me better understand?

Maybe that’s my question - is it my responsibility to make sure the priest understands any surrounding facts (positive or negative) - or is it up to him to ask if he wants to know (assuming I’m not deliberately trying to hide the seriousness of an act)?

I always assumed the burden would be on me to make sure he has a clear picture?
FWIW, I’m not scrupulous … but I can have a unique way of looking at things and almost never see anything as “black or white”.

 

[1ke]

I feel though that in the matter of mortal sins, that some discussion - including context and repentance should be included during the sacrament,

Examination and repentance takes place before confession. Counseling takes place outside the confessional.

but what I’ve read here is that there a simple kind and number listing is sufficient.

These are the essential elements of confessing the sins. The act of contrition affirms repentance.

Shouldn’t some attempt be made by the priest to determine if either a) I’m truly contrite or b) perhaps whether it was truly a mortal sin?

If the priest needs more information, he will ask.

But if it’s just about quickly listing what you’ve done and the priest automatically grants absolution no matter what,

That isn’t an accurate representation of what the Church teaches. Of course the priest can delay absolution if he discerns an issue during a confession. Again, if the priest needs more information he will ask for it.

Maybe that’s my question - is it my responsibility to make sure the priest understands any surrounding facts (positive or negative) - or is it up to him to ask if he wants to know (assuming I’m not deliberately trying to hide the seriousness of an act)?

Generally it is up to him to ask. But, if you think something is really important by all means tell him. If you frequently have such a need to explain things extensively, seek counsel outside the confessional because perhaps its a conscience formation problem.

Some with scrupulosity go on endlessly about their supposed sins, which are usually not sins, and cannot discern that they need not tell a 5 minute back story for why this is supposedly a sin.

I always assumed the burden would be on me to make sure he has a clear picture?

What are examples of a confession that contains sins that are unclear when listed in number and kind?

 

[CradleJourney]

What are examples of a confession that contains sins that are unclear when listed in number and kind?

First - thank you for your response.

As to your question, let me ask this - I thought the priest was the representative of Christ and as such, would be like a judge - and need to know all the facts and whether something was mortal or venial.

So let’s say I confessed that “I told three lies.”

Background 1: I told my sister I liked her dress when I really didn’t. I told my mom I was too busy to go to the store for her. I told my boss I was sick, when I really could have come into work since it was just allergies but I wanted to stay home.

vs

Background 2: I told the police I didn’t hear any gun shots. I told them I didn’t know anything about the robbery. I told them I didn’t see anyone running away down the street.

In my examples - (to me) both are three lies. The first set though, I could argue with myself for hours about whether they were truly lies or exaggerations or partly true/partly not, or even truth but said so as to convey more emphasis than my actual situation intended. (IRL, I’d just confess 3 lies and be covered.)

The second set, lying about a crime, knowing who committed it, and helping to conceal their participation - esp. if someone ended up dying - would be of a different degree than the first set. Perhaps to the level of mortal sin rather than venial, I’m unsure.

And I guess that’s why I’m asking. Maybe it’s that I’ve never known anyone to go to a priest for counseling. Never could fathom doing it myself. Never knew a priest well enough to discuss such things outside a confessional?

And, may I take it from your post that the preparation - examination of conscience, reflection, prayer - are actually part of the sacrament? Like the marriage vows are the finale of all the preparation leading to the union? Now that makes more sense to me.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

I’ve been reading various posts here regarding confession and /…/ I’m at a point where I’m feeling confused.

I understand all mortal sins must be confessed to a priest /…/ While venial sins may be confessed but are not required.

I feel that in the matter of mortal sins, that discussion - including context and repentance should be included during the sacrament, but what I’ve read here is that there a simple kind and number listing is sufficient. But this, well, feels wrong to me? I could understand if someone went to the same priest regularly.

A confessor is to presume a penitent is in fact repentant by her presence in the confessional, making a confession, and expressing an act of contrition – unless there is positive evidence to the contrary. In the absence of something that clearly and manifestly says the penitent is not repentant, presumption favours penitence, not impenitence.

Context is crucial if it changes the nature of the sin. Stealing normally is a sin. Stealing from the church poor box changes what needs to be confessed. (A sin of sacrilege is involved.) Stealing by holding the priest at gun point to rob the parish while threatening the priest with death further alters what is to be confessed. (The sin of sacrilege is compounded since the action is against the Church & against a consecrated person.) In other situations, the circumstances (stealing from an employer or stealing from a neighbor) are extraneous. You have to examine your conscience to assess whether the sin has been compounded.

Let’s take what I will assume is a fairly common mortal sin - missing mass. So I pop into the confessional, follow the steps of the rite, say I’ve missed mass 82 times, and follow it up with a prayer of contrition, receive absolution, and that’s it? Shouldn’t some attempt be made by the priest to determine if either a) I’m truly contrite or b) perhaps whether it was truly a mortal sin? (Perhaps I was at sea for 18mths)

This is part of the examination of conscience. Missing a Mass of obligation maybe a sin. It also may not be a sin. It also may be a duty of obligation to miss Mass and the failure to do so would be a sin.

If you are confessing missing Mass 82 times but, in fact, you were on military deployment and it was impossible to attend Mass because of your duty assignment or because no Mass was available, then you’ve misled the confessor by confessing something as a sin when, in fact, no sin was committed. It was impossible to fulfil the obligation & the law does not oblige the impossible.

If you & your mother are going together to Sunday Mass and, in the process of getting into the car, she falls unconscious with a stroke…you care for her until the ambulance comes and take her to hospital, providing her medical history to the medical personnel, and answering their questions as they try to save her life…in this you have done your duty. But in such circumstance, abandoning your mother on the pretext of an obligation to hear Mass would be a sin as, unconscious, she cannot explain herself.

Life and guilt are both fairly complex. I know I have sinned (perhaps not mortally) but definitely sinned and had a priest shrug off my confession as “nothing to be forgiven”.

Confessors contend with situations when a penitent confesses something that, from the perspective of moral theology, is not a sin.

If one is sincerely unsure if one has committed sin in light of the matter, its gravity, your consent, or the attending circumstances, then by all means you should ask the priest. That is not an issue of “counseling” or spiritual direction. Such a question goes to the heart of the integrity of the confession itself. It would become problematic if this is encountered with each thing you are confessing, requiring the priest to analyze each point to arrive at a moral judgment about it.

I’m not saying every confession should take an hour!

But if it’s just about quickly listing what you’ve done and the priest automatically grants absolution no matter what, then why bother to go to confession instead of just saying a prayer asking for forgiveness (which I usually do very first thing anyway before I’m even able to plan out when I can go to confession)

The sacrament of penance can only be confected by a bishop or a priest and in favour of a baptised person who has a sin to be absolved. Saying an act of contrition is salutary but it is not a sacrament. The sacrament requires the priest or bishop on the one hand and the penitent (with a sin) on the other.

Anyway - I guess I’m perceiving two different views of the sacrament, which, due to a horrid lack of proper catholic teaching as a child, I probably am misunderstanding a bit anyway.

Can anyone help me better understand?

Maybe that’s my question - is it my responsibility to make sure the priest understands any surrounding facts (positive or negative) - or is it up to him to ask if he wants to know (assuming I’m not deliberately trying to hide the seriousness of an act)?

I always assumed the burden would be on me to make sure he has a clear picture?
FWIW, I’m not scrupulous…but I can have a unique way of looking at things and almost never see anything as “black or white”.

A confessor asks questions when in doubt as to what, actually, he is asked to absolve. The words used by the penitent should convey the scope and extent of the sin confessed. The person must not obfuscate what needs absolving either. If a person confesses to lying, one presumes they mean lying. If they actually need to confess that they lied under oath, then they have to confess perjury. I cannot be expected to get from lying to perjury on my own, unless the penitent says that. On the other hand, I am not going to assume as a confessor that “I lied” really means “I committed perjury” in the absence of a rational basis to do so.

 

[Edmundus1581]

Just on your example of missing Mass. If you were unable to attend Mass then there is no sin, and nothing to be confessed.

One does not say: “I missed Mass, but I was in bed with pnemonia”. Rather, one simply doesn’t confess it (or feel guilty about it).

Most priests will listen to your confession and not necessarily correct any sins which didn’t need to be confessed. If you are unsure about whether something needs to be confessed, then say so, and take his advice.

Within confession is the best place to ask about how to improve your examination of conscience and confession. I did it frequently in my first few years as a Catholic, and will still ask from time-to-time. The priest has always been happy to listen and advise.

If a sin is one which can be mortal or venial, such as the “lying” examples you give, then a few words only are necessary to explain the gravity. Rather than “I lied to my mother about my homework. I said that I’d done two hours, when I’d only done one”, you just say “I have lied to my mother about how much homework I did”. This would be assumed to be venial. If you think that the circumstances are mortal, then you need to indicate it, but again, with only a few words. “I lied to my mother, causing grave harm”.

 

[Edmundus1581]

Just on your example of missing Mass. If you were unable to attend Mass then there is no sin, and nothing to be confessed.

One does not say: “I missed Mass, but I was in bed with pnemonia”. Rather, one simply doesn’t confess it (or feel guilty about it).

Most priests will listen to your confession and not necessarily correct any sins which didn’t need to be confessed. If you are unsure about whether something needs to be confessed, then say so, and take his advice.

Within confession is the best place to ask about how to improve your examination of conscience and confession. I did it frequently in my first few years as a Catholic, and will still ask from time-to-time. The priest has always been happy to listen and advise.

If a sin is one which can be mortal or venial, such as the “lying” examples you give, then a few words only are necessary to explain the gravity. Rather than “I lied to my mother about my homework. I said that I’d done two hours, when I’d only done one”, you just say “I have lied to my mother about how much homework I did” (or, even less). This would be assumed to be venial. If you think that the circumstances are mortal, then you need to indicate it, but again, with only a few words. “I lied to my mother, causing grave harm”.

 

[CradleJourney]

Within confession is the best place to ask about how to improve your examination of conscience and confession. I did it frequently in my first few years as a Catholic, and will still ask from time-to-time. The priest has always been happy to listen and advise.

If a sin is one which can be mortal or venial, such as the “lying” examples you give, then a few words only are necessary to explain the gravity. Rather than “I lied to my mother about my homework. I said that I’d done two hours, when I’d only done one”, you just say “I have lied to my mother about how much homework I did”. This would be assumed to be venial. If you think that the circumstances are mortal, then you need to indicate it, but again, with only a few words. “I lied to my mother, causing grave harm”.

Thank you this helps. I’m starting to gather a better understanding.

 

[CradleJourney]

On the other hand, I am not going to assume as a confessor that “I lied” really means “I committed perjury” in the absence of a rational basis to do so.

But what if one is not so sufficiently educated to understand the proper terminology, what if they meant “perjury” - but didn’t understand that it was a different sin/different wording required. There have been times I know I did wrong, but couldn’t find a “sin” that fit the situation - and that is the sort of situation that bothers me.

So I would attempt to explain but the priest would assume I meant something different and dismiss my concern.

If someone is making a sincere attempt, then are they absolved even if the priest didn’t understand their meaning?

 

[chaplainmom]

The priest does not want to understand or get to know you or act as a counselor in each confession. The priest is simply the instrument of God’s grace to flow through him and into the person seeking forgiveness. It is not the responsibility of the person seeking reconciliation to make sure the priest understands what they are really saying. The idea is that God knows what the person is confessing and the person confessing knows. The priest probably does not remember what was said in previous confessions and cannot recall impromptu the details of each person’s life.

If a lay person wants to develop a relationship with someone who remembers them, they need to see a Christian counselor or spiritual director. This is the appropriate context where venial sins and further spiritual growth can be discussed. Things get to be dysfunctional when a priest gets overly involved in directing people’s lives through the confessional. On the other hand priests SHOULD serve in this deeper capacity for each other as spiritual directors and confessors.

 

[Edmundus1581]

But what if one is not so sufficiently educated to understand the proper terminology, what if they meant “perjury” - but didn’t understand that it was a different sin/different wording required. There have been times I know I did wrong, but couldn’t find a “sin” that fit the situation - and that is the sort of situation that bothers me.

So I would attempt to explain but the priest would assume I meant something different and dismiss my concern.

If someone is making a sincere attempt, then are they absolved even if the priest didn’t understand their meaning?

The last question first. Absolutely! That is all that is really required for confession - that you make a sincere attempt to confess your sins. If you have done that, then you are validly absolved.

As to not knowing the words for different kinds of sins, that’s fine also. In your examination of conscience try to work it out as well as you can, so that you can confess briefly if possible, eg. “I lied about some minor matters”, but if you really aren’t sure, then by all means just tell it to the priest in your own words. I have had a few occasions where I really didn’t know what I was confessing, so began with “I’ll just have to tell you the whole story”, and then did that. I told the whole story, with the background. It took maybe five minutes.

Afterwards, you might want to ask the priest: “If that happens again, how should I confess it”.

We all tend to have the same sins to confess regularly, so we can improve our confession by confessing these better.

You are doing fine!

 

[AKDee]

In most cases I confess only in kind and number (including my venial sins) without explaining the circumstances because in most cases it would sound more like an excuse than anything else. I was reading recently about a priest who said he saw 87 people for confession one day and not a single one admitted to having sinned- meaning they all made excuses for what they did. Occasionally I will explain the circumstances surrounding a sin, if it might make a difference in the seriousness of the sin and if there truly were mitigating circumstances involved. But I also feel a bit of a requirement to keep things brief as there is always a line behind me. I try to do a very complete examination of conscience before each confession and pray for true sorrow for my sins. As to whether or not Father knows for sure I am truly sorry I don’t know, but my understanding is that if I’m not truly sorry then my confession is invalid anyway due to my own impenitence and even if he says the words of absolution my lack of sorrow for my sins would nullify it. That’s how I understand it anyway.

 

[peter26]

Generally, I just list my sins: I did x 3 times, y twice, an z once.

Sometimes you have to add some background, especially if its a “grey area”. For instance, attending Mass. If you are really ill, you do not have to attend. But what if you have a bit of a cold, and maybe the weather isn’t great and you don’t want to make it worse. That might make a difference. Its fine to add a detail or two if you think it affects the severity, but what you should avoid is a narrative “It was Sunday morning and I got in my car and I drove for a bit and then I got a flat tyre and I called the AA but they took ages” and so on and so on. That’s not needed. There might be the odd time a narrative is needed. When I made by lifetime confession prior to converting, there were one or two things I found it hard to categorise and just had to explain. It happens occasionally but should not be the norm. For a routine confession (not a general confession) if you are there for more than 5 minutes tops (and its not because the priest is very chatty), you are probably adding too much detail.

 

[Bookcat]

The Catechism has a very good discussion of this Sacrament and the different parts. I recommend a reading of it. It displays the splendor of the Sacrament.

scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s2c2a4.htm

 

[Bookcat]

due to a horrid lack of proper catholic teaching as a child, I probably am misunderstanding a bit anyway.
.

The Catechism has a very good discussion of this Sacrament and the different parts. I recommend a reading of it. It displays the splendor of the Sacrament.

scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s2c2a4.htm

 

[CradleJourney]

Thank you for all the replies. I’m definitely feeling less confused and will be using all this to help improve my understanding.