Question on the realization of past sin and need for reconciliation

[cpileri]

Dear Learned Sirs and Ma’ams,
Please forgive my long letter.

My name is Carl and i have been seeking insight…no, a definitive answer if one exists… to a question. I am actually very familiar with the text of the encyclical, Theology of The Body, as well as Naked Without Shame by Christopher West and several other works (i.e Fr. Corapi, etc) That touch on, but don’t nail down, the subject. My knowledge is admittedly incomplete, however. So, I have been struggling with this one.

I am hoping others, that is you all, who are more versed than myself in Catholic moral writings and teachings; can help me.

If at all possible, I sure would appreciate it if you include some strong theological and or scriptural references or quotes that “back up” the answer. My audience will not easily accept something that appears, for lack of references, to by just my opinion.

Q:
If, a person in ignorance/
BEFORE one knows the Word of God and teachings of the Church, has sex before marriage (or commits any other sin for that matter) and later, after becoming aware that these past acts were sinful; does that person need to seek the sacrament of Reconciliation?

If I may impose further on you, and explain some background on the question. When I read the words, 'Father, forgive them for they know not what they do!" i draw and accept several things as true. Please correct me if I am mistaken.
Assumptions:

1. those who crucified Christ did in fact commit an objective sin, even though they were ignorant of it.
   1-A: a sin, in short, is any act on our part that differs from God’s Intent for the Act. That is, insofar as we veer away from God’s plan for sex, for tithing, for anything else; we sin. In this case, killing an innocent man is not God’s intent for the action of the soldiers. (The Divine Plan for Salvation and necessity for Jesus’ Cricifixion being another subject)
2. These sinners needed the Father’s forgiveness for their acts. After all, Christ implored God The father for just that. Notwithstanding their ignorance, Christ affirms that, not only did they in fact sin, but they still need forgiveness.
3. the Catechism states that it is a lesser degree of CULPABILITY when one is ignorant of God’s Intent versus the blame that can be assigned to the very same act committed by a person with full knowledge and understanding of The Word- a venial sin for one, a mortal sin for the other. So, OK, you can’t be too harsh on the guys who crucified an innocent person- but they still objectively sinned.

I can think of other scripture passages but this is enough. My conclusion therefore is that as i relfect on my life, for example, and realize now, perhaps years later, that i have sinned even though ignorant… well, i am NOT ignorant anymore. So i should and have repented my past acts and followed the command of “Go and sin no more”. And i will do so again if i realize down the road that my sins were even greater than i do now. But is this practice theologically sound?

Furthermore, do I need Reconciliation if i **revisit **a sin I have **ALREADY CONFESSED **sacramentally and then later realize the sin was much greater than i had previouslt believed? Do i need to seek even more forgiveness for the same, previously absolved, sin?
Similarly, I believe the answer is yes. If I realize even after a sincere penance/reconciliation/absolution that not only did I sin, but man I sure botched it BIG TIME; I should seek forgiveness *anew *since my knowledge and understanding has grown.

Sirs and Ma’ams, I work alot with teenage and young adult issues and this question addresses two very real, very REAL LIFE, scenarios that i have NEVER heard addressed SPECIFICALLY in any format:

1. a “cradle Catholic” who has heard the Word all his/her life, is waiting for marriage before having sex. He meets a woman and after courtship, becomes engaged. They decide that they are “going to get married anyway so its not a big deal” and begin their sexual union a bit before their wedding day. He confesses his sin, since he knows it is a sin, before the wedding and moves on. After being married for some time, he realizes that this sin is actually a much bigger difference than what would be God’ Intent for their sexual union. He now is “more sorry”. Should he seek “more” reconciliation again, even though absolved from the sin in the past?

or,

1. a Non-Christian man has unmarried sex. He later gets married and converts to Catholiscism. FOR THE FIRST TIME he hears- and believes- that premarital sex is a sin. Though he was ignorant at the time, he now realizes his sin. Does he need to seek Reconciliation for his past, ignorant, acts which were done, in ignorance (but were they done in “innocence?”) before he was ‘subject’ to the God’s Desire? were his past acts a sin for him at all?

Again, I beleive, as God’s Law is Eternal and immutable, regardless of a human’s understanding or state in life, that the adult convert does need reconciliation. Admittedly, the degree of sin is lesser for the non-christian in example 2. But he still did sin, and once he realizes that fact, he needs God’s forgiving Love. PLEASE, PLEASE address this point with as much strong reference material as possible.

So, Sir or Ma’am, the value of your answer and references and comments will be enormous to me–especially if I can present the references to an audience very VERY learned in Catholic Catechism!

Thank you most sincerely for your time and expertise!

Blessings,
Carl Pileri

 

[aime111]

Carl:
Your questions should be presented to an expert apologist or a priest. Even though I am not an “expert” or a priest, I am a cradle Catholic and have studied the teaching of my Church all my life, and I feel compelled to tell you a few things regarding your myriad of questions. I will take them in the order in which they were presented.

1. Christ’s crucifiers received a very absolution. This is the foundation of reconciliation.
   1-A. Anything that moves away from Christ is sinful. Soldiers, on the other hand do not kill innocent men. If they do, they are court-martialed for the act in this country. Regardless, that is a sin. It is a violation of one of the big ten.
2. Right.
3. OK
4. Is it theologically sound to make a confession and then make your best human effort to never sin again? From a Catholic to Catholic, of course! You understand that the Catechism of the Catholic Church is based on scripture and tradition (the important factor that sets us apart from the protestants). There are numerous examples throughout scripture that support the Catholic stance. Healing occurred through forgiveness of sins. In Matt 9:2-8 [9:1-8] the sinner is healed. We know it was reconciliation because it states that Jesus knew what the scribes were thinking. Therefore, unlike apostles, priests, etc., Jesus knew his thoughts and, therefore, he did not have to speak his sins for them to be forgiven. There are other scriptural examples of the same thing, as in Mark 2:12 & Luke 5:17-26. Scripturally we see that if we sin, we suffer. Once you truly know Christ the definition of sin becomes abundantly clear. Therefore, theologically, it is also clear that if we sin we will suffer once more. So, to say, “Go and sin no more” is theologically correct.
5. If a sin has been confessed in its full and true form, and you receive absolution, then the sin is gone. However, if you feel you misrepresented the true seriousness of the sin, then confess it completely. Your confessor will tell you that if you forget to confess something that it can be confessed at your next reconciliation. There is no need to nit pick, but if it causes you concern, confess it!
6. He has already been forgiven for that sin and received absolution. It is good that he realizes the full impact of his sin, no matter how long it took him.
7. In order to become a Catholic as an adult this man had to go through RCIA classes. He had to be baptized, receive his first reconciliation, his first communion and confirmation, probably all at the same time. Now, his RCIA classes should have taught him what constitutes a sin, how to examine his conscience and what to expect during confession. You hinted to the answer to this question in your question no. 3.

You see, whether he was a Christian or not, he sinned. He may have been ignorant to the errors in his way, but that doesn’t mean he didn’t err. If a tree fall in the woods…
The reason we work to spread Christianity is to save souls, not just so other people can think like us. See, we have the truth. We know that without Christ we are doomed to an eternity of suffering. So, we spread His word in order to save the souls of the ignorant.

You have all the strong reference material you need in the New Testament every time Jesus absolved someone of their sin!
Rhonda

 

[cpileri]

Dear Mrs. aime111,
Thank you for the kind reply. I appreciate you taking the time to address it in some length, rather than a useless, short answer.

Your answers do reaffirm what I think i know about the catechism on the issue(s). That is: Yes, a person can, though is **not **obliged to, re-confess a sin if he realizes -after absolution- that the sin was even greater than once believed.
And,
Yes, the person ignorant of God’s Law has still committed a sin. The ignorant person is not as *accountable *for it as a person with full(er) knowledge of the sin, but it was a sin nonetheless and if, later in life, the person realizes it was a sin, he must still confess it- even though the penance will be much less severe than the same sin comitted by a fully-understanding Catholic.

But those are just my conclusions based on my life’s research and prayer on the subject. I would love to hear what a recognized authority thinks!

The most useful advice you gave was to address the question to a theologian scholar or apologist. I haven’t been on the forums that long- maybe a few weeks of lurking before i signed up. So i am unfamiliar with the people who frequent the forum- except Mr. Phil Lenahan, who’s book on financial advice I have already read and am using to guide my financial decisions.

Do you know of any theologians/scholars/or otherwise ‘experts’ in the field that are on the forum whom I can ask?

BTW: regarding the soldiers, i was referring specifically the Roman soldiers and the roman and jewish persons involved in getting Christ crucified- i.e. those for whom Jesus implored God for forgiveness. As for modern soldiers being court-martialed for murder, i am pretty familiar with that as I just finished 12 years in the Army myself. But that’s a minor, minor criticism of your answer.

I must apologize again for the length of my question(s). I believe Thomas Jefferson said to a friend, “Forgive me for writing such a long letter as I did not have time to write a short one.” Which implies that a concise, well-structured letter would be shorter but would require more thought and time to write than just rambling on- which is what I did.

I can clarify what is most important to me in the 2 main situations.

In the situation where a Catholic, and I use myself as an example, has sins for which i have previously confessed and received absolution. I am given to reflection, though, and as my understanding of the faith grows I realize that some of my past sins, though already absolved, were actually much greater than I thought. I never forgot to confess anything, and always gave a full account- as I then understood it- of my sin during confession. But now, I realize my ‘full account’ was not so full. I now see more and larger aspects of that same sin. So I am wondering if there is any theological basis for re-confessing a sin for which i have already made an “in good faith” confession???

In the situation of the sin of sex before marriage for the non-believer, which i am NOT- being a ‘cradle Catholic’ myself, I ask specifically for a friend who has in fact converted to Catholiscism (yay!) and has confessed to the sin of premarital sex with the person to whom (s)he is now married; but does not believe (s)he needs to confess any prior lover(s) since (s)he believes (s)he was not “bound” nor subject to God’s Law at the time.

Now there are 2 facets to my friend’s resistance, perhaps ( I am speculating but i do know this person pretty well). They are;

1. my friend honestly believes that (s)he was not “bound” by God’s Law at the time of the sin, and therefore is not in need of confession. Is my friend correct about not needing confession for the reasons specified? what authoritative reference can i find that answers wether or not my friend is in need of confession for this sin or not?
   or,
2. my friend is simply not sorry, not penitent/contrite, of the sin. In which case, I can only pray that either (s)he is correct and is not guilty of any sin so has nothing to confess anyway; or, that in God’s Mercy the veil will someday be lifted and my friend will see clearly the sin, become contrite, seek forgiveness, do penance, be forgiven and receive absolution- and, of course, go and sin no more! (*)

I have tried the “God’s Law is Eternal and Immmutable whether you think so or not” routine to no avail. I have tried to point out the inconsistency of admitting premarital sex with the future spouse (and before conversion to Catholiscism) IS a sin, but somehow the premarital sex with anyone before was not- no success there either. My friend is quite stubborn, by nature and doesn’t take criticism well; especially from me.

And sorry for the parentheticals -i.e. (s)he, etc. I am trying to protect my friend’s privacy as best i can. Besides, i bet this question is of interest to alot of people so why bother making it gender specific?

I hope that this question catches the eye of an authority on the matter! I hope there is one, in fact, who posts on the forum!

But i do appreciate your response, just the same. Thank you VERY sincerely.

C-

(*) As an uplifitng aside, my friend is not sinning in this regard anymore, and is by all discernable accounts a faithful and loving spouse who is loved very much, in turn, by his/her spouse.