Remembering long forgotten sins

[Sir_Knight]

If I recall long forgotten sins from my youth (30 years ago, 40 years ago, etc.) which I never confessed (things like cheating on a grammer school test, etc.) because I eiher did nor recognize their sinfulness or out of fear and then forgot about them, would I be required to confess them or would that be considered being too scrupulous?

 

[otjm]

Considering that what you mentione seems to sound in the level of a venial sin, you may be pushing the envelope a bit. The fact that you considered it then, or consider it now to have then been a serious sin does not necessarily make it so.

While it is true that we can be our own worst enemies in terms of truthfulness about sin (that is, all too easily making a serious sin “not so serious, jut a little pecadillo”), it is also true that we can make something which is not a serious matter into a horrible offense against God.

It is somewhat along the lines of taking some paper, or pencisl/pens from our place of work. That is theft, but it is not a mortal sin. Stealing a minor amount from someone who is rich is still stealing, but not a mortal sin; while stealing $5 from someone, say, who is on welfare and needs that to live on is a serious sin.

And that is not to suggest that stealing is ok; it is not; but many have trouble distinguishing a venial sin from a mortal sin.

Your post suggests that you might need some work distinguishing between the two.

 

[Lux_et_veritas]

We are required to confess long-forgotten mortal sins that were never confessed, or thought not to be confessed as they are remembered.

Lets look at it this way. The Holy Spirit enlightens us as to our sinfulness and we always pray for his guidance before going into a confessional so that we do remember what we need to confess.

When we recall mortal sins from our “past life”, who is to say it is not the Holy Spirit resurfacing those things so that we may repent of them, seek God’s forgiveness and mercy through confession? Ultimately, confession is the only thing that makes it “go away” and not keep coming back.

What if we aren’t sure if it would be considered mortal or venial? When in doubt, mention it during another regular confession. We are permitted to confess even venial sins. Let the priest decide if the context makes it venial or mortal. If you are sorry for something, mention it.

One thing we need to examine our conscience on when it comes to past sins, is did we purposely omit a sin out of fear or shame when it was on our mind during a past confession? If so, that confession was invalid. If we go into the box with three mortal sins and only tell the priest two of them because we are too shameful to tell the third, we walk out of the box having four mortal sins - the three original and one that was added for not being truthful in confession. It amounts to trying to trick the Holy Spirit, who cannot be deceived. In that case, the priest needs to know that you omitted that sin in a confession long ago.

What if the sin was indeed venial, but a person thought it was mortal at the time and omitted it out of shame? It still goes back to intent to hide something, which can be considered mortal. Truly forgetting is not sinful.

I have been where you are at on this one. I speak more about it here on this post made on my blog about Confession.

 

[Morning_Star15]

If I recall long forgotten sins from my youth (30 years ago, 40 years ago, etc.) which I never confessed (things like cheating on a grammer school test, etc.) because I eiher did nor recognize their sinfulness or out of fear and then forgot about them, would I be required to confess them or would that be considered being too scrupulous?

You could just do what I did and make a General Confession, which is basically going through all of your sins, confessed or not, from First Communion onwards. I found it to be a wonderful and healing experience.

 

[Sir_Knight]

I’ve been doing the “15 Prayers revealed by Our Lord to Saint Bridget of Sweden in the Church of Saint Paul at Rome” novena (approved by Pope Pius IX)" for the past several weeks and one of the promises made by our Lord to those that do this novena is “a perfect knowledge and a deep contrition for all of our sins (promise #6)” and lately I’ve been recalling a lot of sins from the past that I never originally confessed for one reason or another.

 

[Lux_et_veritas]

I’ve been doing the “15 Prayers revealed by Our Lord to Saint Bridget of Sweden in the Church of Saint Paul at Rome” novena (approved by Pope Pius IX)" for the past several weeks and one of the promises made by our Lord to those that do this novena is “a perfect knowledge and a deep contrition for all of our sins (promise #6)” and lately I’ve been recalling a lot of sins from the past that I never originally confessed for one reason or another.

Brings back memories of when I consecrated myself to Jesus through Mary according to deMontfort. The Blessed Mother’s first order of business is to “clean house”. People warned me that that it would happen.

I was very greatful for the Sacrament of Penance because the guilt was so deep the only way I could find relief was in confession. Interestingly, God - in his mercy - only revealed what I could handle at one time. As a result, I was going back every two weeks for only a few days relief.

What happens is that not only do our past, forgotten sins become visible, but our current sinful nature becomes visible to us whereas before, we were in darkness. This is the cross we must carry daily.

 

[Orionthehunter]

We are required to confess long-forgotten mortal sins that were never confessed, or thought not to be confessed as they are remembered.

This is not my understanding. Please provide support. I disagree it is “required.” In fact, I don’t think it is even good to do so.

If I go to confession, confess all my mortal sins for which I can recall honestly and diligently, and make a sincere act of contrition, when I recieve absolution, I recieve absolution for all my sins (mortal and venial). For the purpose of making myself “right with God”, I can go forward with total confidence that I have a clean heart and able to recieve the Eucharist.

The idea that if we recall a sin that was forgotten would “make us dirty” is contrary to the absolution we recieved. The Priest doesn’t say “I resolve you of hte sins you just confessed.” He says “I resolve you of all your sins.”

The reason we should not dredge up long forgotten sins for the purpose of confession is that it implies a lack of confidence in the Sacrament and Prayer of Absolution. Such an act of unbelief is in and of itself a sin and may be a grave sin.

Satan can use this to attack us and doubt everything. For instance, I go to confession and on the drive home, Satan reminds me of a sin. Ooops. Gotta run back to confession so I can go to Communion tomorrow.

When does Satan most aggressively attack most of us (at least this is the consensus among my semi-monthly mens lunch group)? Right after Confession.

Believing that we have to confess what we honestly forgot give Satan a powerful tool to attack us.

 

[Sir_Knight]

This is not my understanding. Please provide support. I disagree it is “required.” In fact, I don’t think it is even good to do so.

If I go to confession, confess all my mortal sins for which I can recall honestly and diligently, and make a sincere act of contrition, when I recieve absolution, I recieve absolution for all my sins (mortal and venial). For the purpose of making myself “right with God”, I can go forward with total confidence that I have a clean heart and able to recieve the Eucharist.

The idea that if we recall a sin that was forgotten would “make us dirty” is contrary to the absolution we recieved. The Priest doesn’t say “I resolve you of hte sins you just confessed.” He says “I resolve you of all your sins.”

The reason we should not dredge up long forgotten sins for the purpose of confession is that it implies a lack of confidence in the Sacrament and Prayer of Absolution. Such an act of unbelief is in and of itself a sin and may be a grave sin.

Satan can use this to attack us and doubt everything. For instance, I go to confession and on the drive home, Satan reminds me of a sin. Ooops. Gotta run back to confession so I can go to Communion tomorrow.

When does Satan most aggressively attack most of us (at least this is the consensus among my semi-monthly mens lunch group)? Right after Confession.

Believing that we have to confess what we honestly forgot give Satan a powerful tool to attack us.

Further, no man profits by neglect. Now a man cannot forget a mortal sin without neglect, before it is forgiven him. Therefore he does not profit by his forgetfulness so that the sin is forgiven him without special mention thereof in confession. Moreover he is bound to confess the sin when he calls it to mind. – “The Summa Theologica”.

Also, from the The Baltimore Catechism … “If you should forget a mortal sin in confession and remember it the same day or evening, or while you are still in the church, it will not be necessary to wait and go to confession again. It is forgiven already, because it was included in your forgotten sins; but you must tell it the next time you go to confession, saying before your regular confession: In my last confession I forgot this sin.”

 

[Orionthehunter]

Part 2. See above for Part 1

Now to your quotes.

Summa: St. Thomas is speaking about how it is unlikely that one “forgets” a mortal sin. If I committed adultery, he is exactly correct. And if I were to “forget” such a sin, it is likely that I allowed myself to hide it or justify it as not being sinful. In this specific quote, St. Thomas is talking about “neglect” which to me is referring to an incomplete, half-hearted, hurried examination of conscience. All along, I’ve stated that a good confession depends upon a sincere and honest examination of conscience. With that caveat, a penitent did not commit “neglect.”

Baltimore Catechism: The catechism is accurately talking about the good that comes from verbal expressing of our sins as it reinforces our “looking squarely at our sinfulness”. I don’t deny that. In fact I embrace it. But it is not saying that is a requirement from the standpoint of recieving absolution. In fact, it specifically mentions that those sins have already been forgiven.

Sir Knight, you are the original poster. Your original post said:
“If I recall long forgotten sins from my youth (30 years ago, 40 years ago, etc.) which I never confessed (things like cheating on a grammer school test, etc.) because I eiher did nor recognize their sinfulness or out of fear and then forgot about them, would I be required to confess them or would that be considered being too scrupulous?”

Since your example are things that go back to a period where your conscience was less developed, it is unlikely that your sins were mortal. Secondly, the sincerity of your subsequent confessions captured them.

Finally, to some degree, asking the question appears to me (at least from the prism of my experience of how Satan attacks me) that it can be the work of Satan. The Church promises that when we make a good confession, all of our sins are forgiven. We can move forward in confidence we are reconciled to God. To question that these sins are still on our soul brings into question your confidence in the Prayer of Absolution.

Such a question is not the promise of God but the doubt that Satan desires to sow in our hearts. To think that we have to list everything to have complete forgiveness is to understate the power and mercy of our great and awesome Lord and Savior. To think of “requirements” or “limits” on God are obstacles to knowing, loving and serving God. Remember what Jesus said to Peter in Mt. 16:23: “Get behind me, Satan! You are an obstacle to me. You are thinking not as God does, but as human beings do.”

 

[Orionthehunter]

From Sir Knight: Further, no man profits by neglect. Now a man cannot forget a mortal sin without neglect, before it is forgiven him. Therefore he does not profit by his forgetfulness so that the sin is forgiven him without special mention thereof in confession. Moreover he is bound to confess the sin when he calls it to mind. – “The Summa Theologica”.

Also, from the The Baltimore Catechism … “If you should forget a mortal sin in confession and remember it the same day or evening, or while you are still in the church, it will not be necessary to wait and go to confession again. It is forgiven already, because it was included in your forgotten sins; but you must tell it the next time you go to confession, saying before your regular confession: In my last confession I forgot this sin.”

I appreciate these sources.

The Church stresses today the Healing nature of the sacrament to repair our relationship with God and an instrument of conversion. If we make a sincere and honest examination of conscience asking the Holy Spirit to open our eyes to our sinful nature and sins, we are to present (confess) those sins to the Priest completely and accurately.

Some components of our sinfulness are easy to isolate and quantify (i.e. I stole $50 from my mother). Others are root sins that are harder to quantify and isolate. How many times were you prideful in a grave way since your last confession is hard. But we can describe our manifestation of pride in representative ways (ie I have a large ego and can be arrogant leading me to inflate myself into a demigod. For example, I sometimes will drive fast and aggressively becuase I feel that my priorities override the rights and safety of others.) While it is impossible to list all the times that sinful trait manifests itself in our life, it makes us no less obligated to face this trait at its root. The greater sin was not that we drove fast and aggressive but the attitude behind it.

Or if our sinful trait is related to gossip. Who can recall all the times that they gossiped? But this is a very serious sin that needs to be confessed. So in the confessional we tell some representative examples in the context that we do it often and sometimes with malice.

The point of the confession is to face our sinfulness (1455 . . . look “squarely at the sins his is guilty of, takes responsibility for them. . . .”) through a “diligent self-examination” (1456) we “undoubtedly place all of them before the divine mercy for pardon.”

We know if we have come to the sacrament with sincere contrition for our sins against God as it is a component of our desire for conversion of heart. I don’t think this is the thrust of the Original Post so I won’t spend any more time on it.

But assuming we have not “knowingly withheld” some sins, with sincere confession and sincere contrition, we have brought to the sacrament what we are called to do. The rest is in God’s hand- Absolution. When we have sincerely brought confession and contrition to the sacrament, we are promised by the Church our sins have been forgiven. All of them. Completely. Absolutely. And, we can go forward confident that we are reconciled with God.

See below for Part 2

 

[Lux_et_veritas]

This is not my understanding. Please provide support. I disagree it is “required.” In fact, I don’t think it is even good to do so.

I clipped the rest of your post to shorten it, but will address what you have said.

Your thoughts on the matter, mirrored mine, before I was instructed by the priests at my parish that this is an error.

You are correct in that the forgotten sin - not confessed - was absolved, but we have an obligation to confess any forgotten mortal sins the next time we go to confession. We do not have to abstain from Holy Communion when such sins come to light, but there is a reason the Holy Spirit resurfaces these things.

Jimmy Akin speaks on this matter in this post on his blog.

What I felt was deep remorse with the realization that I had done these things, waited so long in between confessions that I could not possibly recall them, that it felt right to acknowledge them before God and my confessor.

In one case, my confessor almost had me make a correction to something I had done, but determined it was no longer practical given the time that had gone by.

If in doubt with what Jimmy says (and he is part of Catholic Answers), by all means use the Ask an Apologist forum and see what they say.

 

[Orionthehunter]

Your thoughts on the matter, mirrored mine, before I was instructed by the priests at my parish that this is an error.

You are correct in that the forgotten sin - not confessed - was absolved, but we have an obligation to confess any forgotten mortal sins the next time we go to confession. We do not have to abstain from Holy Communion when such sins come to light, but there is a reason the Holy Spirit resurfaces these things.

What I felt was deep remorse with the realization that I had done these things, waited so long in between confessions that I could not possibly recall them, that it felt right to acknowledge them before God and my confessor.

Jimmy makes two points:

1. He talks about the risk of scrupulousity through revisiting previously forgiven sins. This is a very real danger that becomes an obstacle for some to enjoying the full fruits of forginess from our Redeemer and Saviour.
2. “If you remember a mortal sin that your forgot to confess then you have an obligation to confess it, even though it has already been forgiven.” We are “required” to confess unforgiven sins.

I think what he is referring to is his later discussion about the merits of a General Confession (and it applies to sins that we may never have directly confessed as they had been forgotten) and the merits of “facing directly our sinfulness” which I discussed. But the reason for a scrupulous person and a person experiencing a new and deeper conversion to have a General Confession are different.

I agree that there are great merits that even forgiven sins can be obstacles when the person has never fully embraced the awesomeness of God’s Mercy in the Sacrament preventing some from enjoying the full fruits of the Sacrament.

But these are related to our growing in faith and understanding of how we offend God in our sins. This is a good and holy evidence of mystagogia. I endorse it. However, it should be presented using words that present it as it is- "a free gift of giving back to God what is His, letting God be God (God is the One who IS and we are not), and expressing our Love for Him who loves us perfectly.

It isn’t a “requirement” and that is why I’ve continued to participate in this thread. Too often words used in a previous time do not appropriately describe what is effective today. The Church dealt with a faithful that was significantly less educated so explaining the merits was difficult. So, instead they invoked their leadership authority (small a) so people would do what was good for most(not required) and to aid them to fulfill their Divine Call to Holiness.

Today, if they use the word “required” when not appropriate it causes confusion and can inadvertently do harm. Up until 50 years ago, virtually all teaching was recieved from the Pastor. Today via forums such as CAF, we recieve teaching from a myriad of sources. Some of which while technically correct fails to take into account the unique pastoral needs of certain individuals.

• A scrupulous person thinks it is absolutely necessary so they are always going to Confession and never enjoying the fruits of the Divine Mercy.
• Or a scrupulous person may come to think that the examination has to be so quantitatively complete that they come to believe they can never make a good confession and end up forgoing the effort altogether.
• A person who was taught correctly that if one makes a good examination, confession and contrition, their sins are absolutely and completely forgiven comes to question the correct teaching because they come to think incorrectly that there is a loophole in Absolution that isn’t there. This advice shouldn’t be given to one who has the gift and capacity to go to Confession and move on especially if this gift carries through to those who sin against her.

Lux, your Pastor deemed you were sufficiently and properly grounded in the Sacrament and counceled that you should confess forgotten and forgiven sins because it forces you to verbalize your sinful challenges even if they are not currently challenges today. This verbalization speaks to how it forces us to come "face to face with our sins and how they are obstacles to our growth in love for God, increasing capacity to experience the Love of God, and help us dedicate our will and intellect to overcome our sinful nature (in cooperation with the graces of Absolution we have already recieved and recieve every day by the Holy Spirit).

But the interpretation of direction we have individually recieved from our Spiritual Director or Confessor or even that Jimmy has given to a specific person must be very carefully presented to not have it interpreted that it should be applied universally or is a “requirement” of the Church.

In short, the subject of this thread is really one that should be handled personally and individually.

 

[Konstantin1]

I don’t think you have to confess on sins like cheating in school with tests!=)))

 

[fix]

An interesting thread.

What about this?:

You are forgiven if you meant to confess all your mortal sins and just forgot one. Having been forgiven of the one you forgot, you are still obligated to confess it the next time you go to confession. It’s not that your forgiveness of it is conditional on you adopting the intention to confess it next time. That sin has already been forgiven. It’s that you incur a new sin if you refuse to adopt the intention of confessing it.

Forgotten & Forgiven Mortal Sins

jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_fidei/2006/09/a_reader_writes_1.html

 

[Orionthehunter]

An interesting thread.

What about this?:

See Posts 7, 9, 10 and 12. Context, Context, Context. This post of Jimmy’s is in direct conflict with another of his posts that this doesn’t apply to the scrupulous. If you go back to the original post gives indication that scrupulousity may be an issue to be dealt with in Spiritual Direction or direct with the Confessor.

Furthermore, it is not appropriate for the penitant who made a complete and sincere examination, complete confession, and expressed deep contrition and needs the consolation from Divine Mercy that the sins of the past are gone completely and abolutely as they move forward in their walk with Christ.

Finally, I would like to see from a greater authority that it is a sin to not confess previously forgotten sins forgiven in previous good confession. The quotes of St. Thomas and Baltimore Catechism specifically don’t mention it. St. Thomas mentions it in the case of “neglect” or confessions where the examination or confession or contrition may not have been complete and sincere. The Baltimore Catechism mentions it in regard to the merits and graces one gets in a greater facing of our sins to aid in overcoming them.

But to extrapolate those quotes to being universal grave matter is a stretch.

 

[fix]

See Posts 7, 9, 10 and 12. Context, Context, Context. This post of Jimmy’s is in direct conflict with another of his posts that this doesn’t apply to the scrupulous. If you go back to the original post gives indication that scrupulousity may be an issue to be dealt with in Spiritual Direction or direct with the Confessor.

Furthermore, it is not appropriate for the penitant who made a complete and sincere examination, complete confession, and expressed deep contrition and needs the consolation from Divine Mercy that the sins of the past are gone completely and abolutely as they move forward in their walk with Christ.

Finally, I would like to see from a greater authority that it is a sin to not confess previously forgotten sins forgiven in previous good confession. The quotes of St. Thomas and Baltimore Catechism specifically don’t mention it. St. Thomas mentions it in the case of “neglect” or confessions where the examination or confession or contrition may not have been complete and sincere. The Baltimore Catechism mentions it in regard to the merits and graces one gets in a greater facing of our sins to aid in overcoming them.

But to extrapolate those quotes to being universal grave matter is a stretch.

I agree scrupulosity is a separate issue. Certainly if one has a spiritual, and perhaps psychological, malady that is a special case wich would not apply to general prescriptions.

My interest is academic here. Do you think Mr. Akin was referring to a particular canon law or some such provision?

 

[Orionthehunter]

I agree scrupulosity is a separate issue. Certainly if one has a spiritual, and perhaps psychological, malady that is a special case wich would not apply to general prescriptions.

My interest is academic here. Do you think Mr. Akin was referring to a particular canon law or some such provision?

This thread is about “Liturgy and Sacraments” and not conducive to such a discussion especially if we try to adhere to the spirit and specifics of the original post.

This being said, Jimmy says that his admonition isn’t required of the scrupulous, Jimmy says it is “required” in the context of a long discussion that includes the merits of a General Confession which is not required. In an of itself, these two conflicts at least show that Jimmy doesn’t believe it is “required” for all. It is critical to fully understand what Jimmy is saying in full context.

More importantly, Pope John Paul II says at the beginning of the Catechism says “it is a sure norm for teaching the faith” and “a sure and authentic reference text” to understand Catholic doctrine. In reading the entire section regarding the Sacrament of Penance, there is no mention of confessing previously forgiven sins.

But it does say that we must confess all mortal sins for which we are conscious “after a diligent self-examination”. It goes onto say that we are not to recieve communion without having had first a good confession. And, it says that the sacrament’s forgiveness “brings reconciliation with God (and) also with the Church.”

In short, a good confession “consists in restoring us to God’s grace and joining us with Him in an intimate friendship.” The reconciliation is complete, thus the word “absolution.” There is no qualification or hidden teaching.

This all being said, when in our diligent self-examination, the Holy Spirit brings to our awareness long forgotten sins, we should (and are required to as we are required to respond to the whispering of the Holy Spirit in our conscience) confess them.

It may be that He recognizes that the past sin continues to be an obstacle in our efforts to grow in greater communion with him. Or it may be that He now wants to reopen our eyes to a previously forgotten sin for which we consciously or unconciously withheld from a previous confession. The why is not important. What is important is that we respond to Him in the Sacrament.

Also, when the Holy Spirit reminds us of a long-forgotten sin outside of the preparation for or in the Sacrament of Reconciliation, especially when we are confident we have been forgiven, we should look for a potential different message than a requirement to confess it. Read the sections 1459 and 1460 on satisfaction.

Although our penance given by the Confessor helps reconfigure ourselves to Christ and is our prayer that the harms caused by our sin are remedied by God in His providence, it doesn’t speak to expiation.

Maybe the reminder outside of Confession is a call by the Holy Spirit for the penitant to directly or indirectly take an action to “remedy” the past harm. It might be a direct apology. Or it might be taking them a dozen cookies in gratitude for their friendship. Or it might be just taking some flowers home to our spouse and saying “I love you.”

In all things, we Catholics have to try to keep in mind the big picture and not lose ourselves in the regimen (while important). Christ died to repair broken relationships caused by sin. This Sacrament is to repair our broken relationship with God. And, know and trust that the Holy Spirit is there to aid, counsel and comfort us.

At the same time, don’t give Satan opportunities for us to deny, forget, or diminish in our mind the saving power of Jesus Christ- His absolution is complete. Satan doesn’t desire us because of our value or he wants our personal company in Hell. He desires us because he hates Christ. Christ “thirsts” for us. Satan only seeks to gain our soul because of the hurt it causes Christ. Jesus only referred to His enemy as the liar. Satan will use any lie he can if he thinks it will change how we know God.

I say all this about Satan as he will place greater emphasis on us when we are growing in Holiness and when are we most Holy? After confession and after Eucharist. But after communion, we are usually more aware of certain graces that he despises. He wants to drive them out of us. Don’t let him.

 

[fix]

This thread is about “Liturgy and Sacraments” and not conducive to such a discussion especially if we try to adhere to the spirit and specifics of the original post.

I am on topic I think. The OP asked about the necessity to confess unintentionally forgotten mortal sins. I have read time amd again we are required to mention them even though they are forgiven.

If one is scrupulous thay ought to follow what their confessor says, that does not mean we ought to deny accurate information.

This being said, Jimmy says that his admonition isn’t required of the scrupulous, Jimmy says it is “required” in the context of a long discussion that includes the merits of a General Confession which is not required. In an of itself, these two conflicts at least show that Jimmy doesn’t believe it is “required” for all. It is critical to fully understand what Jimmy is saying in full context.

In context he says it is required to confess them when they are remembered. And I believe that is required of us.

More importantly, Pope John Paul II says at the beginning of the Catechism says “it is a sure norm for teaching the faith” and “a sure and authentic reference text” to understand Catholic doctrine. In reading the entire section regarding the Sacrament of Penance, there is no mention of confessing previously forgiven sins.

The CCC is not a complete text on moral theology and does not cover every possible circumstance.

In short, a good confession “consists in restoring us to God’s grace and joining us with Him in an intimate friendship.” The reconciliation is complete, thus the word “absolution.” There is no qualification or hidden teaching.

It is not about any hidden teaching.

Also, when the Holy Spirit reminds us of a long-forgotten sin outside of the preparation for or in the Sacrament of Reconciliation, especially when we are confident we have been forgiven, we should look for a potential different message than a requirement to confess it. Read the sections 1459 and 1460 on satisfaction.

I have read them. That is why I am interested in determining why the Church asks us to mention them when they are recalled.

 

[fix]

I found this:

After Confession
Give thanks to God for forgiving you again. If you recall some serious sin you forgot to tell, rest assured that it has been forgiven with the others, but be sure to confess it in your next Confession.

Imprimatur
Justin Rigali
Archbishop of St. Louis
August 15, 1999

And this:

All mortal sins committed since your last confession must be confessed by both * type and number*, i.e., the kind or “name” of the sin and how many times or frequency it was done. If there is a mortal sin from the past that was forgotten and has not been confessed, once remembered it should be confessed at your very next confession.
catholic.org/frz/examen/examen_mortal.htm

 

[Orionthehunter]

From Fix: If one is scrupulous thay ought to follow what their confessor says, that does not mean we ought to deny accurate information.

This has been my point all along. It is not a universal requirement.

From Fix: In context he says it is required to confess them when they are remembered. And I believe that is required of us.

So, if one remembers it on the way home from confession, they should go back to confession?

No. The context is related to remembered during our diligent examination of conscience prior to confession. The implication I’ve been trying to make clear is that somehow a truly forgotten sin doesn’t impair the efficacy and absolute nature of the forgiveness in absolution in a good confession.

From Fix: The CCC is not a complete text on moral theology and does not cover every possible circumstance.

But it is useful and to be relied upon. It is clear that we should confess all mortal sins that we have not confessed that we recall during our examination of conscience. I’ve said this repeatedly. But these constant requoting of items by Church officials needs to be taken in context so as not to become an obstacle to Holiness or create confusion about the absolute nature of forgiveness after a good confession.

If one has made a good, diligent Sacrament of Penance, all of their sins are forgiven absolutely. We are in communion with God and His Church. This is the Church’s teaching. What I fear about all these quotes is the in advertent implication that somehow remembering long forgotten potentially unconfessed sins outside preparation for or in the confessional might be interpreted by the faithful, especially people who struggle with scrupulousity, that previous confessions were not sacramental and they are not in communion.

The Church is quite cleared that knowingly not confessing serious sins is grave sin and it most likely invalidates the entire confession (1456).

I believe that I need to stress myself. If one recalls a forgotten sin during their preparation and examination for confession, they are required to confess it. (“All mortal sins of which penitents after diligent self-examination are conscious must be recounted by them in confession”).

But with regard to the recollection of a long forgotten sin (which may have been previously confessed but we have forgotten that it was confessed) outside of the preparation of confession may be a call by the Holy Spirit for us to make satisfaction to the one we have wronged.

To restate again, I believe it is important not to overstate the good instruction to confess long forgotten sins for purposes of

• avoiding scrupulousity,
• seeing other alternative calls from teh Holy Spirit when remembered outside of preparation for confession,
• not questioning the completeness of prior absolution and doubting the power of the Sacrament itself,
• and focusing on long ago sins such that insufficient attention on current sins.

From Fix: I have read them. That is why I am interested in determining why the Church asks us to mention them when they are recalled.

I’ve tried to answer that many times. If you have a different idea, post it.

To avoid confusion, I will restate

1. We should confess forgotten and forgiven sins because it forces us to verbalize sinful challenges even if they are not currently challenges today. This verbalization speaks to how we are to come "face to face with our sins and how they are obstacles to our growth in love for God, increasing capacity to experience the Love of God, and help us dedicate our will and intellect to overcome our sinful nature (in cooperation with the graces of Absolution we have already recieved and recieve every day by the Holy Spirit).
2. When in our diligent self-examination, the Holy Spirit brings to our awareness long forgotten sins, we are required to confess them because we are required to respond to the whispering of the Holy Spirit in our conscience always. It is not because they were not forgiven, that we are not in communion, and are still “dirty.”