Remembering mortal sins that have been forgotten

[james_neville]

I consider myself a scrupulous person when it comes to confession hence i am reading a book called “understanding scrupulosity” which goes through common problems which the people experience.

One such advice which has been clear by multiple priests in this book (which is recommended by catholic answers) states that if a person remembers a sin after they have confessed that they should not worry about confessing it the next time in confession as your sins have been forgiven and that is all if we have done the best of our ability.

I find the churches stance that if we remember one after we have confessed that this forgiveness is conditional on us re-confessing it again… this very much causes scrupulosity and i dont see how people when jesus was around coming up to him saying forgive me for X and then going away and thinking of i forgot Y… Jesus forgave them and go and sin no more.

So my question is, why is it that on this forum that a large proportion of people believe that if you forget something that would have ben confessed if remembered, why are we OBLIGATED to confess it?
Since a lot of priests seem to think that stressing about this really misses the point of confession and reconciliation.

 

[Joan_M]

I consider myself a scrupulous person when it comes to confession hence i am reading a book called “understanding scrupulosity” which goes through common problems which the people experience.

One such advice which has been clear by multiple priests in this book (which is recommended by catholic answers) states that if a person remembers a sin after they have confessed that they should not worry about confessing it the next time in confession as your sins have been forgiven and that is all if we have done the best of our ability.

I find the churches stance that if we remember one after we have confessed that this forgiveness is conditional on us re-confessing it again… this very much causes scrupulosity and i dont see how people when jesus was around coming up to him saying forgive me for X and then going away and thinking of i forgot Y… Jesus forgave them and go and sin no more.

So my question is, why is it that on this forum that a large proportion of people believe that if you forget something that would have ben confessed if remembered, why are we OBLIGATED to confess it?
Since a lot of priests seem to think that stressing about this really misses the point of confession and reconciliation.

The rules for people with scrupulosity are different, since they have OCD and need to closely follow what their confessor tells them to do.

For the rest of us (which is by far the majority):

Why are we required to mention mortal sins that were forgotten, but now remembered? Because we are required to confess them. It’s as simple as that. It is not something to stress about. Recently I remembered a serious sin that I had committed years and years ago and was fairly sure I had not confessed. At my next confession I told the priest exactly that (and, of course, included what the sin had been). I knew that if I did not, I would scruple over it, and that could lead to my trying to rationalize it, so the absolute best thing was to say it to the priest in confession and get rid of the worry.

Any priest who tells you not to bring forgotten sins to confession is doing you a grave disservice, since the church requires that we do mention them. Isn’t it far better for you to know that you did, actually, confess them and they are gone? You don’t start searching your conscience for forgotten sins, or asking yourself “did I really confess that one?”. That would be scrupulousness. But, there may be times that a long forgotten sin surfaces and you either know that you never confessed that one, or cannot remember doing so. In this case, confess it at the next confession, mentioning that it was committed long ago and forgotten.

It certainly does not miss the point of confession and reconciliation. Quite the opposite.

 

[Batfink]

So my question is, why is it that on this forum that a large proportion of people believe that if you forget something that would have ben confessed if remembered, why are we OBLIGATED to confess it?
Since a lot of priests seem to think that stressing about this really misses the point of confession and reconciliation.

I don’t think we are OBLIGATED to confess it, on pain of sin. The past sin has already been absolved (assuming it was genuinely forgotten, not concealed).

We confess past sins in order to better express our sorrow for them, to encourage us in a relationship of humility and openness before the Lord and to demonstrate (at least to ourselves) that we desire complete union with Him.

On this level, we are required to confess past sins for our own good, we are not required to do so for any kind of technical/juridicial validation of the confession(s).

 

[james_neville]

I did not know the rules were different for those who are scrupulous.

But for a person who is scrupulous i can tell you that remembering forgotten sins is a nightmare, thinking have i or havent i confessed the sin, and if something isn’t confessed properly, that something (which may have already been confessed is re-confessed because they forgot they confessed it) people with OCD seek reassurance all the time so bringing forgotton sins to confession just leads to a furthering of the problem. i don’t see why the church wouldn’t let the past be the past and move on with the knowledge that God is merciful and forgiving.

This Book i’m reading which is for those with scrupulosity is stating that it is better for a person to not to bring up old sins which causes them excessive anxiety and fear (which is the case for me). I scruple over these i.e. what if i forget the sin yet again and so on.

What are the differences for people with scrupulosity? i would really appreciate an answer to this as it is a really hard cross which i bear!