Remembering long forgotten sins

[fix]

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

That is my question. From reading several things it seems as it is a requirement. A scrupulous person would not be capable of discerning properly. They are a separate case.

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

No, not at all. They would be required to mention it in the next confession if they remembered it. It was forgiven.

No. The context is related to remembered during our diligent examination of conscience prior to confession.

No, I do not think that is the point. An example would be when a person is leaving the confessional and suddenly remembers a sin that they forgot about.

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.

I agree. So why is it required to mention it in the next confession?

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.

But those quotes exist. Why?

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.

I agree this needs to be properly understood. The scrupulous need a confessor to rely on. That does not mean Church teaching and understanding cannot be discussed and understood.

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

That is a separate issue.

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.

I think we are talking about unconfessed sins that one remembers after confession.

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).

1. 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.”

I have no argument with any of that. I simply ask for some authoritative source?

 

[setter]

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.

IOW, the more educated and sophisticated that we become as a society, the less need for the requirement to confess past sins? By way of abstraction, those third world Catholics are not just less educated, but also less intelligent.

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.

The use of the directive “required” does tend to ruffle the pride feathers of us educated, self-determining, self-actualizing, western society Catholics.

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.

Why must the need to confess past unconfessed sin “be very carefully presented …” …if in doubt, confess the darn sin and get on with unencumbered daily discipleship walk with Jesus Christ. I always wonder why some folks put impediments to receiving the fullness of God’s love and grace with personal pontificating.

 

[Orionthehunter]

From Fix: That is my question. From reading several things it seems as it is a requirement. A scrupulous person would not be capable of discerning properly. They are a separate case.

I’ll try to make one more stab at this.

Without quoting an authoritive source can we agree on the following:

1. After a sincere and diligent examination of conscience and complete confession of all mortal sins uncovered during the self-examination with sincere contrition, upon absolution, the penitant recieves full forgiveness for all mortal and venial sins and have been returned to full communion with God and Church.
2. In addition to repairing the relationship with God and Church broken by mortal sin, the Sacrament is given to us to recieve graces from God to aid us in our recently confessed conversion and contrition to go forward to avoid future sinfulness.
3. Because a person suffering in scrupulosity “is a separate case”, it isn’t a universal requirement.
4. During our examination of conscience, great dwelling on previously forgiven sins committed during a period of sinful life long since past can be a distraction from facing the current sins in our life. (This statement is less about a specific teaching but an acknowledgement of basic human nature. If you disagree with this point, it isn’t important to the main thrust even if it is applicable to many individuals but not to others)

If the above are not matters of disagreement without posting an authoritive source, I will move on to your questions regarding the instruction that we are to confess previously forgiven sins.

From Fix: So why is it required to mention it in the next confession? But those quotes exist. Why? I simply ask for some authoritative source?

It goes the issues specifically covered in the Catechism. In short, it relates to the merits of verbalization of both our sins and our contrition. Mistakenly, I excerpted relevant points from the Catechism incorporated into my thoughts. I should have known it would not be authoritative enough for some. I should have given the entire section which I will do now so you have an authoritive source. I underlined things that I had previously referenced or provide additional illumination to why I believe we are to confess forgotten sins.

1455 The confession (or disclosure) of sins, even from a simply human point of view, frees us and facilitates our reconciliation with others. Through such an admission man looks squarely at the sins he is guilty of, takes responsibility for them, and thereby opens himself again to God and to the communion of the Church in order to make a new future possible.

1456-1457 are not included because they are about why we are required to go to Confession and not directly the matter at hand.

1458 Without being strictly necessary, confession of everyday faults (venial sins) is nevertheless strongly recommended by the Church. Indeed the regular confession of our venial sins helps us form our conscience, fight against evil tendencies, let ourselves be healed by Christ and progress in the life of the Spirit. By receiving more frequently through this sacrament the gift of the Father’s mercy, we are spurred to be merciful as he is merciful.

Whoever confesses his sins . . . is already working with God. God indicts your sins; if you also indict them, you are joined with God. Man and sinner are, so to speak, two realities: when you hear “man”—this is what God has made; when you hear “sinner”—this is what man himself has made. Destroy what you have made, so that God may save what he has made. . . . When you begin to abhor what you have made, it is then that your good works are beginning, since you are accusing yourself of your evil works. The beginning of good works is the confession of evil works. You do the truth and come to the light. (St. Augustine)

You will note that the Church teaches that we are only “required” to go to confession annually and to only confess our mortal sins. However, while not strictly necessary, we are to go more often and confess venial sins. When I read everything in whole with regard to the matter we are discussing, I believe the reason for the requirement is related to the same reason discussed in 1458 for the confessing of venial sins, the reason that we are required to verbalize both our sins and our contrition, and the reason we are to go more often. So we might more fully recieve the graces to overcome sin in the future.

If there is an authoritive source which outlines additional reasons or why these reasons are incorrect, I’m most open to seeing them. I just can’t find them and so far, neither has anyone else.

 

[fix]

Orion,

I am sorry but we seem to be talking past each other here. From what I am reading it seems there is a universal requirement to confess unintentionally forgotten and then remembered mortal sins.

Those sins are forgiven, but once recalled need to be mentioned during the next confession…at least that is what I have seen written several times. Why? I think because failing to do so constitutes another sin. Why? I do not know.

As to your references to the CC and your personal commentary I think that is nice, but it does not address my question. When I asked for an authoritative source I was meaning a source to show why one is required to mention these forgiven, but unconfessed sins.

As to scrupulous folks I did not mean they are exempt. I mean they may not be able to discern properly. That goes for all sins. That does not mean they are “exempt” from any law. It means they may not be responsible because they have a type of illness.

 

[fix]

To beat a dead horse:

]http://www.ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage.asp?number=499373&Pg=Forum6&Pgnu=1&recnu=4

 

[Orionthehunter]

IOW, the more educated and sophisticated that we become as a society, the less need for the requirement to confess past sins? By way of abstraction, those third world Catholics are not just less educated, but also less intelligent.

The use of the directive “required” does tend to ruffle the pride feathers of us educated, self-determining, self-actualizing, western society Catholics.

Why must the need to confess past unconfessed sin “be very carefully presented …” …if in doubt, confess the darn sin and get on with unencumbered daily discipleship walk with Jesus Christ. I always wonder why some folks put impediments to receiving the fullness of God’s love and grace with personal pontificating.

I apologize that you saw it as personal pontificating. I was trying to explain what I believe the Church teaches regarding the confessing of long forgotten sins. My motive was to prevent an inadvertent misunderstanding of this specific teaching that could lead to greater harm to both understanding of one of our great gifts from Christ and the ability of certain people to full gain the benefits of the Sacrament.

Too often I sense matters are approached from a legalistic point of view. Go to Mass, confess my sins, tithe, volunteer to help the downtrodden and one is a good Catholic Christian. We stress the what we are to do and sometimes even probe the why. But all these things, as good and valuable as they are, are the means and not the end.

The end is to follow our call to love, know and serve our Lord. Christ via the Church gave us all these gifts out of love and to aid us follow our call. In faith, we need to accept these gifts as they come from the One who loves us perfectly and unconditionally.

While we are to do all the Church teaches, it is ultimately meaningful only to teh extent we allow it to achieve “interior repentance.”

1431 Interior repentance is a radical reorientation of our whole life, a return, a conversion to God with all our heart, an end of sin, a turning away from evil, with repugnance toward the evil actions we have committed. At the same time it entails the desire and resolution to change one’s life, with hope in God’s mercy and trust in the help of his grace. This conversion of heart is accompanied by a salutary pain and sadness which the Fathers called animi cruciatus (affliction of spirit) and compunctio cordis (repentance of heart). (Council of Trent)

 

[Orionthehunter]

Orion,

I am sorry but we seem to be talking past each other here. From what I am reading it seems there is a universal requirement to confess unintentionally forgotten and then remembered mortal sins.

Those sins are forgiven, but once recalled need to be mentioned during the next confession…at least that is what I have seen written several times. Why? I think because failing to do so constitutes another sin. Why? I do not know.

As to your references to the CC and your personal commentary I think that is nice, but it does not address my question. When I asked for an authoritative source I was meaning a source to show why one is required to mention these forgiven, but unconfessed sins.

As to scrupulous folks I did not mean they are exempt. I mean they may not be able to discern properly. That goes for all sins. That does not mean they are “exempt” from any law. It means they may not be responsible because they have a type of illness.

For the “why”, I can give you no other source and it is a more than adequate explanation at least to me than “1455 The confession (or disclosure) of sins, even from a simply human point of view, frees us and facilitates our reconciliation with others. Through such an admission man looks squarely at the sins he is guilty of, takes responsibility for them, and thereby opens himself again to God and to the communion of the Church in order to make a new future possible.”

With regard to confessing non-confessed mortal sins uncovered during the process of a sincere examination of conscience, I agree it is grave matter to withhold them.

With regard to your supposition that it is a sin to not confess a previously forgotten sin but now remembered, I see nothing that would indicate that directly or by implication. The CCC is clear that we are called to confess and be contrite about all sins we can recall during our self-examination. To expect more, doesn’t make sense. What I remember when invoking the aid of the Holy Spirit is obviously critical. What I remember spontaneously away from such prayer may be a call to make temporal satisfaction or just to thank Christ for His Passion and Death, the font of all forgiveness.

 

[setter]

I apologize that you saw it as personal pontificating. I was trying to explain what I believe the Church teaches regarding the confessing of long forgotten sins. My motive was to prevent an inadvertent misunderstanding of this specific teaching that could lead to greater harm to both understanding of one of our great gifts from Christ and the ability of certain people to full gain the benefits of the Sacrament.

Too often I sense matters are approached from a legalistic point of view. Go to Mass, confess my sins, tithe, volunteer to help the downtrodden and one is a good Catholic Christian. We stress the what we are to do and sometimes even probe the why. But all these things, as good and valuable as they are, are the means and not the end.

The end is to follow our call to love, know and serve our Lord. Christ via the Church gave us all these gifts out of love and to aid us follow our call. In faith, we need to accept these gifts as they come from the One who loves us perfectly and unconditionally.

While we are to do all the Church teaches, it is ultimately meaningful only to teh extent we allow it to achieve “interior repentance.”

So long as one does not throw out the letter of the law in pursuit of the spirit of the law. It seems apparent from various citations from fellow posters that what you believe that the Church teaches regarding confessing past sins is at ends with what the Church actually teaches – it teaches that all uncofessed sin needs to be confessed for the good of the soul. What harm can possibly come from that simple explication?

1431 Interior repentance is a radical reorientation of our whole life, a return, a conversion to God with all our heart, an end of sin, a turning away from evil, with repugnance toward the evil actions we have committed. At the same time it entails the desire and resolution to change one’s life, with hope in God’s mercy and trust in the help of his grace. This conversion of heart is accompanied by a salutary pain and sadness which the Fathers called animi cruciatus (affliction of spirit) and compunctio cordis (repentance of heart). (Council of Trent)

In service of “interior repentance” and “conversion of heart”, Jesus Christ entrusted to Peter and his successors the “pastoral care. commissioning him and the other apostles to extetend and rule it [Church]”.

816 “The sole Church of Christ [is that] which our Savior, after his Resurrection, entrusted to Peter’s pastoral care, commissioning him and the other apostles to extend and rule it. . . . This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in (subsistit in) the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the bishops in communion with him.”

The Second Vatican Council’s *Decree on Ecumenism *explains: “For it is through Christ’s Catholic Church alone, which is the universal help toward salvation, that the fullness of the means of salvation can be obtained. It was to the apostolic college alone, of which Peter is the head, that we believe that our Lord entrusted all the blessings of the New Covenant, in order to establish on earth the one Body of Christ into which all those should be fully incorporated who belong in any way to the People of God.” (CCC)

 

[fix]

With regard to your supposition that it is a sin to not confess a previously forgotten sin but now remembered, I see nothing that would indicate that directly or by implication. The CCC is clear that we are called to confess and be contrite about all sins we can recall during our self-examination. To expect more, doesn’t make sense. What I remember when invoking the aid of the Holy Spirit is obviously critical. What I remember spontaneously away from such prayer may be a call to make temporal satisfaction or just to thank Christ for His Passion and Death, the font of all forgiveness.

I may be very wrong. I welcome all information.

 

[Orionthehunter]

It seems apparent from various citations from fellow posters that what you believe that the Church teaches regarding confessing past sins is at ends with what the Church actually teaches – it teaches that all uncofessed sin needs to be confessed for the good of the soul. What harm can possibly come from that simple explication?

With regard to the harm in just a simple statement of the teaching (noting also that you disagreed that the teaching should be presented carefully), I earlier said the following:

"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.

Rather than making inferences that I somehow think this instruction is contrary to the greater teaching on the sacrament, why don’t you just read what I’ve said. I’m not quite sure if I got all of them. When I kept repeating myself, I thought to do so could be insulting. I am gratified that the repitition was necessary.

“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.”

"(The CCC) does say that we must confess all mortal sins for which we are conscious “after a diligent self-examination” "

"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. "

"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.” "

“The Church is quite clear 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”).”

“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.”

"With regard to confessing non-confessed mortal sins uncovered during the process of a sincere examination of conscience, I agree it is grave matter to withhold them. "

 

[hopefull]

In a specific case that I know of, the person made a General Confession while on a retreat. The priest was careful to assess whether the penitent was holding any past remembered sin back and they weren’t. The priest gave, as a penance, that if ANY past sin committed before that confession were to later be remembered that the penitent was NOT to confess it, and that all had been forgiven. Perhaps this is an antidote for scrupulosity; I don’t know. But was this a sin by the priest if the church teaches differently (somehow, I don’t think so.) Was it a sin for the penitent to agree to this penance? Would it now be a mortal sin for the penitent to violate the conditions of his past penance (and giving his word in agreement to that penance) by confessing a once-forgotten, now-remembered sin from before that confession? It seems like a catch-22. And it isn’t a penance from a parish priest that could be easily checked out…it was a penance from a priest at a retreat center some distance away. What do you think?

 

[InLight247]

In a specific case that I know of, the person made a General Confession while on a retreat. The priest was careful to assess whether the penitent was holding any past remembered sin back and they weren’t. The priest gave, as a penance, that if ANY past sin committed before that confession were to later be remembered that the penitent was NOT to confess it, and that all had been forgiven.

I think the priest is right on. He gave the penance based on the following facts:

1. The person, with his best ability at the time, was making a sincere general confession.
2. The careful assessment concluded that the penitent was not holding back any remembered sin in confession.
3. Based on the above 2 facts, once the absolution is given, all sins, remembered or forgotten at the time, are forgiven.

Therefore, the penitent should trust in God’s mercy and not confess any sin before that general confession. The priest is in line with the Church teachings.

 

[fix]

From the old CE:

If, however, the sin be omitted, not through any fault of the penitent, but through forgetfulness, it is forgiven indirectly; but it must be declared at the next confession and thus submitted to the power of the keys.

newadvent.org/cathen/11618c.htm

 

[setter]

Rather than making inferences that I somehow think this instruction is contrary to the greater teaching on the sacrament, why don’t you just read what I’ve said. I’m not quite sure if I got all of them. When I kept repeating myself, I thought to do so could be insulting. I am gratified that the repitition was necessary.

"If we make a sincere and honest examination … "

"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. "

"To avoid confusion, I will restate

1. We should confess forgotten and forgiven sins …
2. When in our diligent self-examination, the Holy Spirit brings to our awareness long forgotten sins, we are required to confess them …

"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 …

“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.”

"With regard to confessing non-confessed mortal sins uncovered during the process of a sincere examination of conscience, I agree it is grave matter to withhold them. "

You appear to alternate between willing reference to the action of the Holy Spirit and Church teaching and cautionary questioning of following the letter of the law to the detriment of distorting/excluding the intent of the law. Which is it? Or are they one in the same that requires orthodox and tactful pastoral application?

Originally Posted by Orionthehunter
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.

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.

But the interpretation of direction we have individually recieved from our Spiritual Director or Confessor or even that Jimmy [Akin] 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.

 

[Orionthehunter]

You appear to alternate between willing reference to the action of the Holy Spirit and Church teaching and cautionary questioning of following the letter of the law to the detriment of distorting/excluding the intent of the law. Which is it? Or are they one in the same that requires orthodox and tactful pastoral application?

Setter, read the post that I talked about dredge up sins in the context of the original post which referred to sins that were 30-40 years old back to before the OP was an adult and were matters which probably aren’t mortal sins. It was in the context of a potential scrupulosity. In such a case, a person suffering from scrupulousity never gains the full fruits of the Sacrament because every time they recall an old sin not confessed, they feel they are still “dirty.”

There are two very serious consequences when such a person feels they have to confess each and every sin ever committed:

1. They never feel the love of Jesus Christ because they keep placing impediments everytime they recall a sin not confessed regardless of its gravity.
2. They give up going to confession as they come to believe they can never make a good confession.

Would you quit making charges that I’m trying to subvert the Church teaching? Not once have I ever said that any person shouldn’t confess an unconfessed sin brought to their conscience during their self-examination and not once have I ever said that it shouldn’t be done diligently and honestly. This is what the Church teaches. It is the letter of the teaching.

I’ve tried to make the point that one shouldn’t despair over long forgotten sins recalled outside of confession and not recalled in a future self-examination. My reasons are:

1. The Holy Spirit could be bringing these past sins to their attention outside of confession as an aid to prevent future sin or as a call to make temporal satisfaction. To conveniently place it in a list for their next confession could cause them to miss the message of the Holy Spirit.
2. Such a recollection could be an act of Satan to have them doubt the power of the Sacrament to fully repair their relationship with God and His Church. During a mission by a Redemptorist (certainly not softies when it comes to confession), Father spent a great deal of time talking about how Satan hates this Sacrament possibly more than any other because of its great power to restore the mortally fallen back to God. Except when combined with extreme unction, this reparation is not gained from the Eucharist.
3. I don’t want people to ever reach an inaccurate conclusion and not understand and believe that ALL sins are forgiven after a good Sacrament of Penance (diligent self-examination, honest and complete confession, and sincere contrition). We have been returned to a state of Grace and the graces that come with it are abundant. It is from this sacrament that we can then go and particate in the ultimate gift, the Eucharist, and gain its graces.
4. They should trust that if it was a matter in need of confessing that the Holy Spirit will remind them of it during their self-examination prior to their confession.
5. It could be a manifestation of scrupulousity. Once I heard a conference on the Sacrament of Penance by a Priest who said that a person with new found faith often brings scrupulousity to their conversion out of zeal. While appearing to be meritorious, inappropriate zeal can be harmful down the road when the person keeps failing leading them to give up. In this talk, he said he believes that the most effective weapon of Satan and detriment to a person growing closer to God is related to anxiety regarding Confession. If we saw the Sacrament for what it is, a gift from Christ to allow us to come before the One who loves us perfectly and relieve us of our sins vs. an admonition for our fallen nature, more people would avail themselves to the gift more often and with a greater awareness of God’s love and desires for us.

 

[nahbios]

I just want to say thank you to Orion for his long, detailed and comforting replies…I suffer from scrupulousity too and am going through a bad period.

 

[otjm]

Setter, read the post that I talked about dredge up sins in the context of the original post which referred to sins that were 30-40 years old back to before the OP was an adult and were matters which probably aren’t mortal sins. It was in the context of a potential scrupulosity. In such a case, a person suffering from scrupulousity never gains the full fruits of the Sacrament because every time they recall an old sin not confessed, they feel they are still “dirty.”

There are two very serious consequences when such a person feels they have to confess each and every sin ever committed:

1. They never feel the love of Jesus Christ because they keep placing impediments everytime they recall a sin not confessed regardless of its gravity.
2. They give up going to confession as they come to believe they can never make a good confession.

Would you quit making charges that I’m trying to subvert the Church teaching? Not once have I ever said that any person shouldn’t confess an unconfessed sin brought to their conscience during their self-examination and not once have I ever said that it shouldn’t be done diligently and honestly. This is what the Church teaches. It is the letter of the teaching.

I’ve tried to make the point that one shouldn’t despair over long forgotten sins recalled outside of confession and not recalled in a future self-examination. My reasons are:

1. The Holy Spirit could be bringing these past sins to their attention outside of confession as an aid to prevent future sin or as a call to make temporal satisfaction. To conveniently place it in a list for their next confession could cause them to miss the message of the Holy Spirit.
2. Such a recollection could be an act of Satan to have them doubt the power of the Sacrament to fully repair their relationship with God and His Church. During a mission by a Redemptorist (certainly not softies when it comes to confession), Father spent a great deal of time talking about how Satan hates this Sacrament possibly more than any other because of its great power to restore the mortally fallen back to God. Except when combined with extreme unction, this reparation is not gained from the Eucharist.
3. I don’t want people to ever reach an inaccurate conclusion and not understand and believe that ALL sins are forgiven after a good Sacrament of Penance (diligent self-examination, honest and complete confession, and sincere contrition). We have been returned to a state of Grace and the graces that come with it are abundant. It is from this sacrament that we can then go and particate in the ultimate gift, the Eucharist, and gain its graces.
4. They should trust that if it was a matter in need of confessing that the Holy Spirit will remind them of it during their self-examination prior to their confession.
5. It could be a manifestation of scrupulousity. Once I heard a conference on the Sacrament of Penance by a Priest who said that a person with new found faith often brings scrupulousity to their conversion out of zeal. While appearing to be meritorious, inappropriate zeal can be harmful down the road when the person keeps failing leading them to give up. In this talk, he said he believes that the most effective weapon of Satan and detriment to a person growing closer to God is related to anxiety regarding Confession. If we saw the Sacrament for what it is, a gift from Christ to allow us to come before the One who loves us perfectly and relieve us of our sins vs. an admonition for our fallen nature, more people would avail themselves to the gift more often and with a greater awareness of God’s love and desires for us.

To which I might add a minor footnote: for sins from long ago, one often has no true recollection if the sin was actually confessed. Something pops into mind that occured a year ago, three years agor, tne, fifteen or more. and if one lands on the slippery slope of scrupulosity, one is going to be tormented beyond belief. somewhere you need to make a general confession and then let it go. God doe3sn’t play “Gotcha!”. If you suffer from scrupulosity, you need to get a confessor who understands the problem and then you need to follow exactly what he says. Exactly. God is both God of justice and of mercy. He has never required perfection from us, and scrupulosity is a twisted path seeking perfection.

 

[Methodi]

In a specific case that I know of, the person made a General Confession while on a retreat. The priest was careful to assess whether the penitent was holding any past remembered sin back and they weren’t. The priest gave, as a penance, that if ANY past sin committed before that confession were to later be remembered that the penitent was NOT to confess it, and that all had been forgiven. Perhaps this is an antidote for scrupulosity; I don’t know. But was this a sin by the priest if the church teaches differently (somehow, I don’t think so.) Was it a sin for the penitent to agree to this penance? Would it now be a mortal sin for the penitent to violate the conditions of his past penance (and giving his word in agreement to that penance) by confessing a once-forgotten, now-remembered sin from before that confession? It seems like a catch-22. And it isn’t a penance from a parish priest that could be easily checked out…it was a penance from a priest at a retreat center some distance away. What do you think?

Let it go, It`s forgiven!