Mortal Sins and Confession

[Matt_Collins]

Fr. Mark Kirby, of the Vultus Christi blog, has a link to a wonderful pamphlet on scrupulosity, written by Fr. Willie Doyle, S.J., apparently in the early 1900’s.

The whole pamphlet is a great read. But one quote I found especially interesting, and I thought it would be good to post it here for discussion. Here it is:

According to the Council of Trent and the surest theology, one is only obliged to confess sins which one is certain are mortal, that is to say, the grave guilt of which is as certain as it is that two and two make four.

Sins, mortal in themselves, but which are committed in doubt, are not necessary matter for confession.

Thoughts, anyone?

 

[ahs]

In other words, “Mortal sin” is that which is grave/mortal matter, and is committed with knowledge of the gravity of the sin, and consent of the will.

Someone explained to me once in this way:

Mortal sin, Serious sin, Grave sin

The Church uses these terms in two senses (and objective if you will and a subjective). And in both senses the terms grave sin, mortal sin, and serious sin are interchangeable.

Here are the two senses:

1. Objective sense

Murder is a grave sin.
Murder is a serious sin.
Murder is a mortal sin.

(all three mean the same)

this is one way the Church use the term. Talking about the ‘moral object’ of the act or the ‘objective kind of sin’. Referring to the object itself. Like if I said…do not commit murder for that is a mortal sin.

Then there is this way…

1. Subjective sense…

I committed the grave sin of Murder
I committed the serious sin of Murder
I committed the mortal sin of Murder

(all three mean the same)

This is speaking of when the thing I committed is grave matter …done with full knowledge and deliberate (complete) consent.

Both are true. Both are ways the terms get used in Church documents

 

[ahs]

In other words, I think what is being relayed from that quote is that mortal sins (in the subjective sense, as in “I committed a grave sin with full knowledge and consent of the will”) must be confessed to a Priest…

…but mortal sins (in the objective sense…grave by their nature, their seriousness) are not always “mortal sin” subjectively speaking, if they were not committed with full knowledge/consent.

For example…someone murders another human…but it was not on purpose…there was not consent of the will. The murder is objectively a mortal sin, but subjectively, the person is not guilty of “mortal sin” because he did not have consent of the will.

 

[R_C]

It depends a lot on how well-formed is our conscience.

Part of St. Ignatius’ “Spiritual Exercises” dedicated to scruples states:

Fourth Note.
The fourth: The enemy looks much if a soul is gross or delicate, and if it is delicate, he tries to make it more delicate in the extreme, to disturb and embarrass it more. For instance, if he sees that a soul does not consent to either mortal sin or venial or any appearance of deliberate sin, then the enemy, when he cannot make it fall into a thing that appears sin, aims at making it make out sin where there is not sin, as in a word or very small thought.

If the soul is gross, the enemy tries to make it more gross; for instance, if before it made no account of venial sins, he will try to have it make little account of mortal sins, and if before it made some account, he will try to have it now make much less or none.

We sometimes see the Sacrament of Reconciliation with servile fear…I’ve offended my master, now I need to apologize, but only about the big things, I don’t need to tell Him about the little faults…but that does not seem to be the healthy encounter of a children of God with Christ…this Sacrament must be about love…about talking to the Beloved, and opening our heart to Him…confessing everything we need to confess to Him…mortal sins, venial sins, imperfections, temptations, vices…Christ is there for us, to listen to us, forgive us, strengthen us, confirm us in the faith…

We should talk to him with filial fear, knowing that He loves us unconditionally - nothing we could ever possibly do could make Him stop loving us…else we would cease to exist, and we know that even the damned souls will resurrect, for a resurrection of condemnation.

 

[George_Stegmeir]

Confession is not supposed to be easy. It is there to give us the chance admit to the responsibility for our transgressions and to apologize to Gd for offending him, The priest acting in place of Gd.
There is a lesson that I learned about 70 years ago at age 6 when I was preparing to make my First Communion: when in doubt that something may or may not be a mortal sin, confess it.
It was good advice then, and I do believe it holds true today.

 

[underacloud]

There is a lesson that I learned about 70 years ago at age 6 when I was preparing to make my First Communion: when in doubt that something may or may not be a mortal sin, confess it.
It was good advice then, and I do believe it holds true today.

This is good advice for the great majority of Catholics, but for those struggling with scruples, it is a road to misery. Such people need to be under the guidance of a regular confessor and to obey their confessor (as outlined clearly in the article linked to).

 

[Matt_Collins]

There is a lesson that I learned about 70 years ago at age 6 when I was preparing to make my First Communion: when in doubt that something may or may not be a mortal sin, confess it.
It was good advice then, and I do believe it holds true today.

Certainly this holds true today for most people, as well as in the past, because neither the Truth nor human nature change. And that’s the way I’ve always approached the matter.

I thought, however, that the doctrine was that all mortal sins MUST be confessed. What I learned from the pamphlet (which, to my reading, has all the marks of orthodoxy), is that you must confess only those mortal sins which you are absolutely certain you committed with all three components - serious matter, full knowledge, full consent. Of course, it is necessary to be sorry for them and to have the firm purpose not to commit them again.

Of course, for most people, it is wise to confess even suspected mortal sins. But by my reading, no one is strictly bound to do so unless they are absolutely certain they have sinned mortally. I can see where this understanding would help the scrupulous.

I also think it would not be wise to adopt such an easy attitude without being “diagnosed” by a confessor, and prescribed the treatment outlined in the pamphlet.

But it’s good for all of us to understand the doctrine and practical therapy for the scrupulous so that we can help guide those who might be scrupulous to a competent confessor, to support them in their struggle, and also to avoid becoming scrupulous ourselves.

 

[ahs]

Certainly this holds true today for most people, as well as in the past, because neither the Truth nor human nature change. And that’s the way I’ve always approached the matter.

I thought, however, that the doctrine was that all mortal sins MUST be confessed. What I learned from the pamphlet (which, to my reading, has all the marks of orthodoxy), is that you must confess only those mortal sins which you are absolutely certain you committed with all three components - serious matter, full knowledge, full consent. Of course, it is necessary to be sorry for them and to have the firm purpose not to commit them again.

Of course, for most people, it is wise to confess even suspected mortal sins. But by my reading, no one is strictly bound to do so unless they are absolutely certain they have sinned mortally. I can see where this understanding would help the scrupulous.

I also think it would not be wise to adopt such an easy attitude without being “diagnosed” by a confessor, and prescribed the treatment outlined in the pamphlet.

But it’s good for all of us to understand the doctrine and practical therapy for the scrupulous so that we can help guide those who might be scrupulous to a competent confessor, to support them in their struggle, and also to avoid becoming scrupulous ourselves.

You are correct, and so is the pamphlet. All sins where the person has “sinned mortally” must be confessed. To “sin mortally”, in this case, one must commit grave sin (which is synonymous with mortal sin) AND have knowledge and consent.

When it speaks of mortal sin that one is not certain of…it is speaking in the objective sense. A sin that is objectively “mortal” is a sin that is of “grave matter”. But if such a sin is committed without knowledge or consent of the will, then the person, though he has committed a sin that is objectively mortal, has not “sinned mortally” in the subjective sense.

 

[ahs]

To put it another way, let’s say that all grave matter sins are “brown sins”.
When they are done with ful consent and knowledge, one is guilty of sinning “brownily”

Non-grave sins are “blue sins” When these sins are committed one sins “blueily”. Also, if one commits a “brown sin” without knowledge or consent, one also sins “blueily”.

So, when a person commits a “brown sin” with full consent and knowledge, he is guilty of sinning “brownily”. Such must be confessed to a Priest.

However, when a person commits a “brown sin” without full consent or knowledge, he is not guilty of sinning “brownily”, but he still committed a “brown sin”. He is guilty of a “brown sin”, but has only sinned “blueily”.

 

[Bookcat]

“According to the Council of Trent and the surest theology, one is only obliged to confess sins which one is certain are mortal, that is to say, the grave guilt of which is as certain as it is that two and two make four.”

Thoughts, anyone?

The language “as certain as is two and two make four” is using language that was in use I believe in particular in terms of say a confessor directing a scrupulous penitent (the nature of the booklet mentioned). (I would not personally recommend those of ordinary conscience or lax conscience to use that as a way of making such a determination-- their confessor can guide them)

Such could be discussed by a person with scruples with their confessor as to their particular guidance.

As for the obligation – one is yes obliged to confess all mortal sins one is conscious of…

As to “doubtful”- mortal sins: there is not a strict obligation to confess such.

Those who struggle with scruples are often recommended not to confess them directly. Their regular confessor can guide them.

Those who are lax can be very much urged to confess them (noting there is doubt).

Others are recommended to confess them (noting there is doubt).

A good rule for the later two is if one thinks one may have committed a mortal sin (but if one is not sure) – confess it noting there is doubt.

 

[Bookcat]

I thought, however, that the doctrine was that all mortal sins MUST be confessed. What I learned from the pamphlet (which, to my reading, has all the marks of orthodoxy), is that you must confess only those mortal sins which you are absolutely certain you committed with all three components - serious matter, full knowledge, full consent.

See my last post there.

Those who are scrupulous are often directed by their regular confessor in ways others are not. For those with scruples can be in a very different boat.

 

[Matt_Collins]

I understand the difference between an objective mortal sin (grave matter) and sinning mortally (all three conditions simultaneously present). What I’m surprised at is the level of certainty that is required to obligate you to confess it. It seems that if there is ANY significant doubt that you sinned mortally, then you are not obligated to do so, although for most people (the non-scrupulous) it is beneficial to do so.

 

[Bookcat]

I understand the difference between an objective mortal sin (grave matter) and sinning mortally (all three conditions simultaneously present). What I’m surprised at is the level of certainty that is required to obligate you to confess it. It seems that if there is ANY significant doubt that you sinned mortally, then you are not obligated to do so, although for most people (the non-scrupulous) it is beneficial to do so.

See above…

 

[Bookcat]

What may be the direction of a confessor to his penitent with scruples can often not be what is for others.

 

[Bookcat]

But by my reading, no one is strictly bound to do so unless they are absolutely certain they have sinned mortally. I can see where this understanding would help the scrupulous.
.

Such is language (or similar) as I noted that was often used by confessors with their scrupulous penitents.

---

One is obliged to confess all mortal sins one is conscious of… (one examines ones conscience…)

As to “doubtful”- mortal sins: there is not a strict obligation to confess such.

So a person say who honestly doubts he gave complete consent to some temptation to a bad thought is not thus obliged to confess the thought.

Those who struggle with scruples are often recommended not to confess them directly. Their regular confessor can guide them.

Those who are lax can be very much urged to confess them (noting there is doubt).

Others are recommended to confess them (noting there is doubt).

A good rule for the later two is if one thinks one may have committed a mortal sin (but if one is not sure) – confess it noting there is doubt.

 

[Matt_Collins]

Such is language (or similar) as I noted that was often used by confessors with their scrupulous penitents.

---

One is obliged to confess all mortal sins one is conscious of… (one examines ones conscience…)

As to “doubtful”- mortal sins: there is not a strict obligation to confess such.

So a person say who honestly doubts he gave complete consent to some temptation to a bad thought is not thus obliged to confess the thought.

Those who struggle with scruples are often recommended not to confess them directly. Their regular confessor can guide them.

Those who are lax can be very much urged to confess them (noting there is doubt).

Others are recommended to confess them (noting there is doubt).

A good rule for the later two is if one thinks one may have committed a mortal sin (but if one is not sure) – confess it noting there is doubt.

What surprised me was that, scrupulous or lax, no one is obligated to confess a sin if they are not certain that it was mortal.

Clearly, though, what is recommended for the lax is not what is recommended for the scrupulous.

 

[Bookcat]

What surprised me was that, scrupulous or lax, no one is obligated to confess a sin if they are not certain that it was mortal.

It was written with an eye to those who are scrupulous.

One does not find the Church using the language of “absolute certainty” etc in general regarding the obligation.

Yes one is not strictly obligated to confess a doubtful mortal sin…(if a person is not certain of having committed a mortal sin -they need not confess it) ,.but the language used there was that which has been used in works regarding the scrupulous.

Those who are scrupulous need a regular confessor who can direct them and give them particular principles etc to follow --they can be “in a different boat” due to their scruples.

(More is above in summary for readers.)

 

[underacloud]

What surprised me was that, scrupulous or lax, no one is obligated to confess a sin if they are not certain that it was mortal.

However, this technical obligation to confess or not may have no bearing on whether one is in a state of mortal sin. One could be certain at the time, but forget over the passing or time.

One could commit a mortal sin, thereby removing sanctifying grace. But let’s say with the passing of time one forgets the spcifics of the moment and doubts whether the sin really was mortal: was that a sin of grave matter? did I really have full knowledge? did I really give complete consent? While there is perhaps no technical obligation to confess this doubtful sin, if this person dies in such a state, without being reconciled to God, they will go to hell. Who would risk such a thing based on doubt?

We should remember what St Joan said in her trials, when asked the following question:

Question: Do you know whether or not you are in God’s grace?
Joan: If I am not, may God put me there; and if I am, may God so keep me. I should be the saddest creature in the world if I knew I were not in His grace."

The ordinary means available to Catholics to allow God to put us in His graces (if we are not in them) is through confession.

 

[LaFleurDeLis]

I’ve found that confession, whether it be of mortal sins or just venial sins, is very helpful to my spiritual well being. For example, right now I’m thinking about how I talked badly about a co-worker today, pointing out his faults to my supervisors. Also how I can be so judgmental in my mind about other people, etc. While I realize what I’ve done while doing it or immiediatley afterwards I feel a great need to take this to the confessional.

Both of these sins of course I’m not sure whether they are deemed mortal or venial. Either way I plan on going to confession before mass. To me, going to confession before mass helps me to focus on the mass better. But that’s just me!

 

[Bookcat]

One could commit a mortal sin, thereby removing sanctifying grace. But let’s say with the passing of time one forgets the spcifics of the moment and doubts whether the sin really was mortal: was that a sin of grave matter? did I really have full knowledge? did I really give complete consent? While there is perhaps no technical obligation to confess this doubtful sin, if this person dies in such a state, without being reconciled to God, they will go to hell. Who would risk such a thing based on doubt?

Without getting into the happening there described above…

It is important to note that …what if a person makes a mistake and judges that such and such is doubtful in terms of mortal sin …and so in good faith omits it in their confession …the person can be said to have made a formally integral confession confessing all mortal sins they are conscious of from their examine…and being contrite --especially for any mortal sin…even though they omitted honestly this mortal sin (not thinking it to have been mortal or judging it to be doubtful). That omitted mortal sin would be “indirectly absolved” in that confession. And of course it is possible for the person with their mistaken judgment about the mortal sin …be restored by God to grace prior to even such a confession. (of course if they later realize the gravity of that sin --they would need to bring it to confession then).

But as I noted above – ordinarily one is recommended to confess “doubtful mortal sins” (noting the presence of doubt).