Sins forgotten in Confession

[Bookcat]

I was told in my catechism that as long as a person is honest and tells all he sins he can remember, he is absolved. It was explained to me like this: “God doesn’t send people to hell on a technicality.”

I think it is generally advised to tell the sin the next time you go to confession, but it isn’t necessary to run out immediately to confession, or to refrain from the eucharist. You are indeed in a state of grace. I think the reason it is recommended to confess at your next confession (whenever that may be) is both to formally relieve your conscience and possibly to obtain guidance/counsel from the priest.

Yes it is not a question of if the the forgotten mortal sins where absolved when one sought to confess all ones mortal sins with repentance…

It is an obligation (ordinarily) though – not something “advised”. It is not just recommended.

One is to submit those mortal sins in confession in number and kind (they have not yet been confessed directly–only indirectly absolved) -in the next confession (and yes one does not need to run off to confession right away)

Jimmy Akin Senior Apologist at Catholic Answers explains:

jimmyakin.com/2006/09/a_reader_writes_1.html

(I will note for those readers with scruples --have a regular confessor to assist one. For those with that difficulty can start to want to confess all sorts of unneeded things and need special direction)

 

[jc1969]

There is an apparent internal contradiction here…if no on else sees it ill show you how i’m seeing it…you are forgiven if you forget it but if you remember it you must confess it or you are not forgiven? is that correct? thern how can you have ever been forgiven of it in the first place if it is conditional that you must confess it once rtemembered to have it forgiven… so it is forgiven if forgotten but not if remembered… is that the case? please explain…some will say ‘no it is still forgiven but it needs to be confessed’…huh? so if you dont confess it once remembered it is still forgiven and at the same time not forgiven?

 

[jc1969]

I am just having a problem with the logic here… i’m sorry but if you are forgiven if you genuinely forget it…then you are genuinely forgiven…but if you remember it you a are still forgiven UNLESS you confess it on your next confession…so your forgiveness in confession always remains conditional…as i see it, any mortal sin you forget to tell potentially is not forgiven until you die with that sin truly ‘forgotten’ correct? Or am i getting it wrong somewhere here?

 

[Mount_Carmel]

I find that after confessing those sins you remember, that to add, “and also for those sins I cannot as of now remember, I am truly sorry” - best covers the situation.

If I later remember something and it bugs and nags at me, then clearly it is still an issue to be addressed in the confessional - as has already been said, it is then up to the priest to adjudicate, inspired [it is hoped] by the Holy Spirit.

 

[Joan_M]

I am just having a problem with the logic here… i’m sorry but if you are forgiven if you genuinely forget it…then you are genuinely forgiven…but if you remember it you a are still forgiven UNLESS you confess it on your next confession…so your forgiveness in confession always remains conditional…as i see it, any mortal sin you forget to tell potentially is not forgiven until you die with that sin truly ‘forgotten’ correct? Or am i getting it wrong somewhere here?

Yes, you are absolved of forgotten sins. And, yes, if you remember you forgot to confess a mortal sin, you must confess it at your next confession. Why? Well, if you had remembered it you would have confessed it. If, after you remember the sin, now you refuse to confess it what does that really say about you and your sins? We need to confess all our mortal sins. It is very easy to say “Father, at my last confession, I forgot to confess xxxxxx.” How hard is that?

Being human and wounded by Original Sin, it is very easy for us to start to wonder, later, if we could still go to Hell because we forgot to confess one sin. We could start to wonder how forgetful we really were, and if it was, in fact, forgetfulness. Whether or not the Church requires us to confess forgotten sins, once we remember them (and she does), it is very good for our peace of mind to bring them to confession and mention them.

Why get into whys and wherefores. Just do it. It is wonderful for your conscience!

 

[klm120861]

If I were to say, for example, that I sinned against the 5th commandment alot of times, that would cover every time I mortally sinned against the 5th commandment (also, it my case, I would make sure the priest an I were both thinking of the same 5th commandment. I originally learned the commandments according to the Prot. way of numbering, not the Catholic way, so the Prot 5th isn’t the same as the Catholic 5th.) If I remembered a specific incident, I would not need to go back and re-confess it, as it was covered in the “a lot”. And let’s face it, if you are making your first general confession, or confessing after being away from the Church for a long time, or it’s been forever since your last confession, phrases like, “a lot” or “some” or “occasionally” are good choices, as it is unlikely you are going to remember if it was 5 times or 7 times or whatever.

Also, for those who are concerned about being told by the priest they didn’t need to confess “old sins”, the priest is the one who knows the gravity of the sin. He knows you. And when it comes to confession, if he cuts you off and says “don’t go there” he has a reason for it and he really means, “don’t go there”.

Maybe he sees the potential for you to slip into scrupulosity or doubting God’s mercy and he doesn’t want you obsessing over past sins that have been covered. If it was an old sin that he felt needed to be confessed, trust me, he’s let you confess it.
Kris

 

[JordanRogers]

Your absolution is valid but, you should still confess the sins you forgot to show sorrow for them.

 

[jc1969]

Im sorry if i sound harsh because im not trying to be, so please forgive me if it sounds so… Where im stuck is the at the part where it is said ‘if you forget to confess a mortal sin in confession you are still forgiven, but you need to confess it a your next confession’…If a person is forgiven if he/she truly forgets to confess then its a done deal…yes? forgiveness unconditional upon the merits of Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross… but what i don’t understand is… if it is forgiven, it does not need to be confessed ‘if’ truly forgotten yet remembered later on…(and God knows your heart obviously and whether your honest with it), then there logically is not a necessary need to confess it once remembered… or is the forgiveness real or just a ‘legal’ fiction dependant upon it later being confessed? Please i need some elaboration on this…

 

[jc1969]

Also… is it a mortal sin not to confess past forgotten but forgiven mortal sins then? This is the soil and fertilizer for scrupulocity i would definitely think if so…

 

[Bookcat]

If I were to say, for example, that I sinned against the 5th commandment alot of times, that would cover every time I mortally sinned against the 5th commandment (also, it my case, I would make sure the priest an I were both thinking of the same 5th commandment. I originally learned the commandments according to the Prot. way of numbering, not the Catholic way, so the Prot 5th isn’t the same as the Catholic 5th.)

Mortal sins need normally to be confessed not just in genius --such as “5th commandment” (5th commandment --and if one is confessing say venial sins that way --one should use the Catholic numbering for the Priest to know what one you mean).

They need rather to be confessed in “species” that is the kind.

Murder 2x. Adultery 2x masturbation 2x, Missed Mass 2x etc.

 

[Bookcat]

I am just having a problem with the logic here… i’m sorry but if you are forgiven if you genuinely forget it…then you are genuinely forgiven…but if you remember it you a are still forgiven UNLESS you confess it on your next confession…so your forgiveness in confession always remains conditional…as i see it, any mortal sin you forget to tell potentially is not forgiven until you die with that sin truly ‘forgotten’ correct? Or am i getting it wrong somewhere here?

Im sorry if i sound harsh because im not trying to be, so please forgive me if it sounds so… Where im stuck is the at the part where it is said ‘if you forget to confess a mortal sin in confession you are still forgiven, but you need to confess it a your next confession’…If a person is forgiven if he/she truly forgets to confess then its a done deal…yes? forgiveness unconditional upon the merits of Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross… but what i don’t understand is… if it is forgiven, it does not need to be confessed ‘if’ truly forgotten yet remembered later on…(and God knows your heart obviously and whether your honest with it), then there logically is not a necessary need to confess it once remembered… or is the forgiveness real or just a ‘legal’ fiction dependant upon it later being confessed? Please i need some elaboration on this…

Contradiction or problem with logic is only apparent.

They can be forgiven – but still need to be confessed (if remembered)

But the obligation to confess mortal sins still remains. They still --if one remembers them -submit them directly to the keys.

If one was repentant and meant to confess all ones mortal sins --but just forgot one (or more) – then they are “indirectly absolved”. They are absolved. Gone.

They do not “become unabsolved” if one later remembers and refuses to confess them.

Absolved sins cannot “revive” (bad term of course since one is not dealing with life but it will do)

One though can commit a *new *sin. By refusing to confess them.

Jimmy Akin of Catholic Answers (senior apologist)

jimmyakin.com/2006/09/a_reader_writes_1.html

(one should not scruple here-- and those who are scrupulous should have a regular confessor to guide them – for they can start to want to confess all sorts of unneeded things… or unduly stress over confession etc …they need a regular confessor to guide them and may be in “a different boat” then others in various ways–depending on their scruples)

 

[Bookcat]

Now remember we are human persons --not vulcans (14.2356 times captain!). We proceed in *humano modo *(human way) not vulcano modo

Our memories can fail us…

God and the Church understand very well.

But if I go to confession and seek to confess my mortal sins and repent --but say forget one – well if I later remember it I confess it in the next confession.

Jesus is the Good Shepherd – he love us and gives us true life -even if we are forgetful at times

 

[bsroufek]

The very same thing happened to me recently—about my now remembered past–and the Monsignor in Reconciliation told me, after confessing “most” of the sins I now remembered, to tear up the list and forget the past.

Christ only demands our best. And, He forgets our past if we have fundamentally changed our lives to conform with His Grace.

 

[Bookcat]

Now remember we are human persons --not vulcans (14.2356 times captain!). We proceed in *humano modo *(human way) not vulcano modo

Our memories can fail us…

God and the Church understand very well.

But if I go to confession and seek to confess my mortal sins and repent --but say forget one – well if I later remember it I am to confess it in the next confession.

Jesus is the Good Shepherd – he love us and gives us true life -even if we are forgetful at times

 

[jc1969]

I hope it does not sound like im trying to be combative …Thanks for the info Bookcat…you are definitely on the ball! But I feel a contradiction that is apparent if honestly sought. One has submitted to the keys in any confession and it would seem indirect absolution is just as valid as direct absolution if done in all honesty by the penitent…its the power of the keys that absolves in both circumstances I understand…but to say one is committing a new sin because he does not now confess it once remembered is to put an unnecessary addition to something that had been dealt with already completely…in other words the ‘blood’ need not be applied twice (submitted to the keys) to remedy the same sin…it’s saying, yes it’s done deal, but not really a done deal at the same time.
I understand your saying it is really forgiven and does not become undone…but there is a conundrum going on there imho if honestly looked at …next reply with an analogy

 

[JamesB99]

As long as you confess them as soon as you realise then you are doing the right thing and cannot be faulted.
My memory is terrible so I make a list beforehand

 

[jc1969]

An analogy among many that could be stated, although not perfect, would be with baptism in another denomination being valid even if not done in a Catholic church…I would be like the church saying ‘yes your baptism is valid, but you still need to be baptised in the Catholic church once you realize that it was not done there even though your original baptism is valid it isn’t ‘valid’ valid’. Well we know thats not true…as a matter of fact it would actually be false teaching and a sin to do so knowing that your baptism was indeed fully valid… so why so in confession…if it is valid…it is valid… and there should be no sin involved when there is not the need to redo something already done…yes?
Forgive me..for I know it is taught that the sin does not 'resurface' if not confessed but the problem here is stating it is a sin not to confess it once remembered when it is indeed forgiven and validly absolved (the 'keys' have been approached)..the full effects of the sacrament have been applied and there is nothing wanting in it...if there was, it would not be valid.. right? But it indeed is..as with the analogy in baptism..although not a perfect one i'll agree...Just trying to be logically consistent here...

 

[Bookcat]

I hope it does not sound like im trying to be combative …Thanks for the info Bookcat…you are definitely on the ball! But I feel a contradiction that is apparent if honestly sought. One has submitted to the keys in any confession

This has been the long teaching, understanding and practice of the Church.

catholicreference.net/index.cfm?id=33610

(and also one confesses them in the next confession after they are remembered)

There is no doubt here.

One has not yet submitted the keys “directly” via confession of the sin.

But if you wish to discuss this further please pm me – for a protracted discussion here may not be good for some members.

 

[Bookcat]

An analogy among many that could be stated, although not perfect, would be with baptism in another denomination being valid even if not done in a Catholic church…I would be like the church saying ‘yes your baptism is valid, but you still need to be baptised in the Catholic church once you realize that it was not done there even though your original baptism is valid it isn’t ‘valid’ valid’. Well we know thats not true…as a matter of fact it would actually be false teaching and a sin to do so knowing that your baptism was indeed fully valid… so why so in confession…if it is valid…it is valid… and there should be no sin involved when there is not the need to redo something already done…yes? .

Such does not follow. Two different Sacraments.

 

[Bookcat]

I hope it does not sound like im trying to be combative …Thanks for the info Bookcat…you are definitely on the ball! But I feel a contradiction that is apparent if honestly sought. One has submitted to the keys in any confession

This has been the long teaching, understanding and practice of the Church.

catholicreference.net/index.cfm?id=33610

(and also one confesses them in the next confession after they are remembered)

There is no doubt here.

One has not yet submitted them to keys “directly” via confession of the mortal sins in question.

But if you wish to discuss this further please pm me – for a protracted discussion here may not be good for some members…