Just to be clear, since we have a non-Catholic with questions about confession: This is not true. Absolution does not come with strings attached. If you are truly sorry, then you are forgiven. As a matter of morals you should try to make the restituution or the Priest may suggest restitution as penance, however it is never a requirement for absolution.
Actually, the penitent is lacking the necessary disposition (contrition and also firm purpose of amendment it seems) if he is unwilling to make restitution. If he does not intend to make the restitution, he is never forgiven, for he lacks the proper disposition for the Sacrament. If he intended to make restitution at the time of absolution but never actually does it, he was validly absolved (because of his intention) but then commits a mortal sin of retaining the possessions (in other words, he is guilty of stealing them again, basically). This is why it is best to make restitution as soon as possible (even before confession, if it is convenient, e.g., if you steal $100 from a stranger’s purse on a train and then repent of your sin, you must return it immediately lest you are unable to find the person in the future; in such a case, you would have an obligation to give the money to the poor). Generally speaking, of course, it is most important to go to confession as soon as possible after any mortal sin.
The parish where they do the 2- year RCIA process is the one more likely to be following the Vatican’s guidelines on other things, as well, since it is from the Vatican that they are telling us to start using the 2-year form of the process.
It’s through participation in the Sacraments, which is why RCIA is such a big deal (it is a process of spiritual preparation for the Sacraments and for the Catholic lifestyle) and why it is essential to attend Mass every Sunday, and the Sacrament of Reconciliation (Confession) on a regular basis, and certainly whenever it is necessary. The RCIA process will prepare you for both of these, and also for your Confirmation and for the other Sacraments, as well.
If you break your relationship with God entirely by means of a mortal sin, then attending Confession is the only normal way to get back into communication with God.
Really? That’s sad. I also heard recently of a parish in South Carolina that is requiring a FULL YEAR (???) before allowing a couple to marry. It is a shame that Catholics and those wishing to be united to the only barque of salvation are being denied the sacraments. It is typical of modern man (and especially Americans, which is why the Vatican’s two-year program is quite the surprise–I could see this from the USCCB) to create a “program” and bunch everyone into with “without exception”! It is just ridiculous. I wouldn’t mind it as much if parishes were not so dogmatic about the arbitrary number chosen by whom I do not know. I do know dozens of people who know the faith better than most priests. There is no need to require them to wait months (and certainly not a year) to receive the sacrament of matrimony. Have these people ever heard of occasions of sin? They probably are unfamiliar with the teachings of moral theologians who traditionally said to court or date someone for more than six months could not be excused from mortal sin because of the unnecessary occasion of sin it required for the couple. (That being said–just as St. Pius X’s judgment on temporary vows for religious did–there could be a longer period of courtship as a concession to modern man’s indecision, but there really is no cause to extend the entire relationship, including engagement, more than a year. The nearly universal 6-month engagement period makes this nearly impossible.) My comments apply equally to those who desire to be received into the Church and have the knowledge and convictions necessary after a short period of time.The parish where they do the 2- year RCIA process is the one more likely to be following the Vatican’s guidelines on other things, as well, since it is from the Vatican that they are telling us to start using the 2-year form of the process.
Sorry, my brother, I have to respectfully disagree here, that is not the way I see it or the way it has been taught to me. Let me explain:
Not a problem at all, my friend, and no need to apologize. I gathered that from your first response, but I studied this in seminary, so you can trust that I learned what the Church authentically teaches about this issue. In fact, if you have the time, I encourage you to consider any of the innumerable manuals of moral theology that are available (many, alas, out of print–though still available at your local Catholic university, I would think). They all will address this principle very clearly.
This is not correct. Even if a priest is certain (as far as is possible) that a penitent has the appropriate dispositions, he may still refuse absolution if he judges that this would be better for the penitent (especially for relapsing sinners, in order to show them the gravity of their sin and to encourage them to make greater efforts at amending their lives–but even this circumstance is not necessary; the priest is judge in the confessional and must make the judgment he sees best for the penitent). Furthermore, what is required to be properly disposed may or may not be in Canon Law. I’m not sure if it is exhausted by the new code because I haven’t read that particular section, but properly disposed refers to fulfilling all the duties of the penitent: contrition, firm purpose of amendment, sufficient examination of conscience, accounting the sins to the priest (insofar as it is possible), intention to do (and eventual completion of) the penance imposed. This constitutes the matter of the Sacrament (most specifically, sin is the matter, though all these things are necessary dispositions for the matter to be “presented” properly. A form without matter is not a Sacrament. St. Alphonsus Liguori (simply to take the most illustrious example, for he is the Doctor of Moral Theology, the greatest moral theologian in the history of the Church) explains all of what I just said in depth in his Theologia Moralis (5 volumes).
The necessary restitution that is absolutely required for every sin against justice (if mortal, it binds under pain of mortal sin, if venial, under pain of venial sin), also falls under the penance required by the penitent, whether not the priest specifically mentions this in the confessional. Not to be repay what one has taken unjustly is a sure sign that the penitent is not disposed and, de facto, makes the penitent unworthy and unable to receive absolution for his sins if the sin against justice be mortal.
It absolutely is. I highly recommend picking up an introductory moral theology manual. In fact, I believe one is available from TAN Books, but I couldn’t find it on their website. Hopefully, it didn’t go out of print, too.
Restitution is only required insofar as it is possible. If someone steals $1M and spends it all, he can’t very well pay it back, but he has a strict obligation in justice sub gravi to pay back whatever he possibly can (within reason and the direction of his confessor). Likewise, as I mentioned in my first comment, no one has an obligation to ruin his good name (turn himself in), though he must find another way to make restitution. The simplest way is to send his very confessor (or another priest) with the necessary funds to repay the debt. The priest would never give any circumstances but simply tell the one against whom the penitent sinned that he should take the money, and that’s all he can say or that someone said to give him the money. I know multiple priests who have done this very thing on several occasions. It is actually not uncommon at all.
This isn’t “head knowledge” - you already know in your head that you are supposed to pray in the mornings and in the evenings, and at meal times, and to attend Mass every Sunday and Holy Day of Obligation.
This is very hard to define. It’s the je ne sais quoi of a Catholic. I can almost always recognize a cradle Catholic from a convert (with some exceptions, usually among intellectuals). Most people who have grown up Catholic in a Catholic country would concur about that. In America, it’s not as true because Catholics act a lot more like Protestants because of society. I believe it was Chesterton who said that it takes three generations to make a Catholic (that is, a Catholic with the je ne sais quoi of Catholic life). He would know, being a convert himself. All I can say is that the more time you spend with good, large Catholic families, the better off you will be in this respect. If you read about the cultural history of Italy, France, Spain, etc., you will also be able to pick up a lot of this. Above all, work against any Calvinistic or Puritanical tendencies you may have. I’ve found these to be quite common among (especially Protestant) converts in the US. For those who have a lax conscience, the precise opposite is usually the case, but I haven’t met as many of them. I would guess it’d be even more important for them to adapt than for the Puritans.
What are Calvinistic and Puritanical tendencies?
It’s hard to explain.