Sorrow for all venial sins in confession?

Status
Not open for further replies.
HomeschoolDad

HomeschoolDad

Moderator
Staff member
I read recently in the Baltimore Catechism (using this to teach my son religion in homeschool) that it is possible to make a confession without being sorry for, or resolving to cease, at least one venial sin. Especially since the priest absolves of “your sins”, or as some say, “all your sins”, how can this be?

I’m trying to think of a scenario where this could come up. Some people, while living overall virtuous lives and staying out of mortal sin, tell small lies as a matter of course, they are aware they are lying, and they have no intention of stopping. I know one person for whom this is practically a way of life — if she gets in a situation where she sees a lie as expedient, she just goes ahead and lies, and makes no bones about it.

I find this grotesque. How can someone be forgiven of their sins when they fully intend to go on committing certain venial sins?
 
acanonlawyer said:
I read recently in the Baltimore Catechism…
Click to expand...
407. What purpose of amendment must a person have if he has only venial sins to confess?

If a person has only venial sins to confess, he must have the purpose of avoiding at least one of them. He should want to avoid all of them, but he must have the purpose of avoiding at least one of them or his confession is worthless.
Click to expand...
 
HomeschoolDad said:
407. What purpose of amendment must a person have if he has only venial sins to confess?

If a person has only venial sins to confess, he must have the purpose of avoiding at least one of them. He should want to avoid all of them, but he must have the purpose of avoiding at least one of them or his confession is worthless.
Click to expand...
It also says:
“Q. 782. What should one do who has only venial sins to confess?
A. One who has only venial sins to confess should tell also some sin already confessed in his past life for which he knows he is truly sorry; because it is not easy to be truly sorry for slight sins and imperfections, and yet we must be sorry for the sins confessed that our confession may be valid–hence we add some past sin for which we are truly sorry to those for which we may not be sufficiently sorry.”
Click to expand...
 
An article that I usually recommend for the scrupulous actually deals directly with this issue: https://fatherdoyle.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/scruples-and-their-treatment.pdf

For a confession to be valid, contrition need only extend to mortal sins, so long as the venial sins for which there is no contrition are NOT confessed. If one confesses a venial sin which he intends to commit again, he has committed sacrilege, but if he leaves it out he has committed no further sin. Obviously this is not ideal, and it is likely that less grace is derived from such a situation, but the forgiveness of mortal sins has been obtained.

This teaching is also implied in the conditions for a plenary indulgence, which include among other things being free from attachment to sin and making a sacramental confession. Failure to meet all requirements results in a partial indulgence. If one can make a sacramental confession without being free from attachment to sin, that implies that mortal sins can be forgiven without forgiveness of all venial sins.
 
Perhaps the point is not to completely disregard venial sins. Sin is sin and, as we see here, there are those who do not have a clear sense of the line between venial and mortal. It is held that patterns of venial sin may lead to mortal sin, although that must be judged on a case-by-case basis.

As to lying, those who consistently or compulsively lie may very well suffer from a psychological problem. If so, their culpability may be decreased, as they are not in full control of their wills. Pathological liars, of which there are relatively few, have a condition that is similar to sociopathy, in which treatment or correction is quite difficult.

Will have to dig out my copy of Fr. John Hardon’s Pocket Catechism and see how he dealt with it.
 
po18guy said:
As to lying, those who consistently or compulsively lie may very well suffer from a psychological problem. If so, their culpability may be decreased, as they are not in full control of their wills. Pathological liars, of which there are relatively few, have a condition that is similar to sociopathy, in which treatment or correction is quite difficult.
Click to expand...
I have known a couple of pathological liars. They were, let’s just say, interesting people.

If I had to guess, the friend to whom I referred appears to have been brought up that way, to think that the well-placed little lie here and there makes your life run more smoothly. It gets around misunderstandings and helps you get what you want.

I can do without the things in my life that venial sin would make easier and more pleasant.
 
HomeschoolDad said:
I read recently in the Baltimore Catechism (using this to teach my son religion in homeschool) that it is possible to make a confession without being sorry for, or resolving to cease, at least one venial sin. Especially since the priest absolves of “your sins”, or as some say, “all your sins”, how can this be?

I’m trying to think of a scenario where this could come up. Some people, while living overall virtuous lives and staying out of mortal sin, tell small lies as a matter of course, they are aware they are lying, and they have no intention of stopping. I know one person for whom this is practically a way of life — if she gets in a situation where she sees a lie as expedient, she just goes ahead and lies, and makes no bones about it.

I find this grotesque. How can someone be forgiven of their sins when they fully intend to go on committing certain venial sins?
Click to expand...
Because venial sins do not deprive one of sanctifying grace, and as such, it is possible in one’s human imperfection to be less than fully sorry or not fully sorry at all for this. It is ideal for one to be sorry for all sins and to be completely detached from them (this is needed to obtain a plenary indulgence). This does not cause any serious harm because while venial sins need to be atoned for in this life or in purgatory, they don’t send anyone to hell.

This is why the older manuals suggest that if one has only venial sins to confess, also include a previously confessed mortal sin to ensure the priest has valid matter to absolve, because one may not be fully sorry for venial sin, and contrition is needed for the sin to be valid matter.

If you have been given the grace to resist venial sin, then praise the Lord and good for you. That does not give you the right to turn your nose up at those who have not overcome the attachment to venial sin. Fortunately, what you find “grotesque” the Church deals with mercifully, knowing full well the frail nature of her children.
 
porthos11 said:
This does not cause any serious harm because while venial sins need to be atoned for in this life or in purgatory, they don’t send anyone to hell.
Click to expand...
Depends on how you define “serious harm”. I like what one priest told me, when I asked him the difference between serious and mortal sin. He said “well, any sin is serious”. I do not see how transgressing the will of God in any matter, however slight, could be trivialized (not saying that you are trivializing). And if, as some saints have said, the greatest pain on earth is less than the least pain of purgatory, why would someone want to incur that?
porthos11 said:
If you have been given the grace to resist venial sin, then praise the Lord and good for you. That does not give you the right to turn your nose up at those who have not overcome the attachment to venial sin. Fortunately, what you find “grotesque” the Church deals with mercifully, knowing full well the frail nature of her children.
Click to expand...
I am not “turning up my nose” at anyone. I will be the first to acknowledge that I sin venially all the time. Even the just man falls seven times a day. However, I do not have a “pet venial sin” that I have no intention of repudiating, and I don’t think anyone else should either. I am sorry for any venial sin I commit, as soon as I have committed it.
 
Remember, the Baltimore Catechism was written for a specific group of people at a specific point in time. It is not infallible. I would use it with children as one reference but not as an all inclusive document.
 
HomeschoolDad said:
I read recently in the Baltimore Catechism (using this to teach my son religion in homeschool) that it is possible to make a confession without being sorry for, or resolving to cease, at least one venial sin.
Click to expand...
Even in confessions of devotion, there has to be one venial sin the individual is truly repentant of for the confession to be valid. As you’d probably know, confession is necessary for mortal sin, and praiseworthy and spiritually strengthening still for venial sins. So as all sins are placed before God when we go to confession and is included by the priest when the absolution is given, he is not a mind reader or reader of souls (unlike St. Padre Pio who could read souls), so as the individual is there to seek forgiveness the priest would rightly assume the penitent is truly sorry for all sins and firmly resolved to sin no more. But God isn’t fooled and so He can’t forgive the sin that’s not repentanted of - because the person doesn’t want His forgiveness for that sin.
HomeschoolDad said:
How can someone be forgiven of their sins when they fully intend to go on committing certain venial sins?
Click to expand...
They can’t. That’s why part of it is to have a firm purpose of amendment at the time of confession. Because some of us realize that there have been times where not long after confession we’ve committed the same sin again. Which whilst we know that in all probability we will sin again, does not invalidate our confession “back then”.

As @Fauken already said, it is a good practice to add at the end of our confession of sins to say something like “for these and for all the sins of my past life especially those against charity or the 6th and 9th commandment, I am truly sorry”.
HomeschoolDad said:
I do not see how transgressing the will of God in any matter, however slight, could be trivialized
Click to expand...
Correct. All sin is abhorrent to God. 1 John 5:17 “All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin that is not deadly.” (Bold is mine).
 
Last edited:
HomeschoolDad said:
Depends on how you define “serious harm”. I like what one priest told me, when I asked him the difference between serious and mortal sin. He said “well, any sin is serious”. I do not see how transgressing the will of God in any matter, however slight, could be trivialized (not saying that you are trivializing). And if, as some saints have said, the greatest pain on earth is less than the least pain of purgatory, why would someone want to incur that?
Click to expand...
It seems to me the allowance explained in the Baltimore Catechism is more about God’s mercy than it is about understating the seriousness of even venial sin. I remember hearing during a Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius class that if we could see sin as God does, we would sooner give up everything we have and even die before committing even one venial sin.

Still, if we couldn’t make a valid confession until we could honestly say that we were 100 percent resolved to never sin again, even venially, I suspect most of us would never get there. It seems to me that the terms described in the Baltimore Catechism, once we have received absolution for mortal sin and are in a state of grace, we can continue to grow in holiness by repenting of our venial sins more gradually.
 
TheLittleLady said:
Remember, the Baltimore Catechism was written for a specific group of people at a specific point in time. It is not infallible. I would use it with children as one reference but not as an all inclusive document.
Click to expand...
Yes, but for what it is, it’s pretty complete in a fairly small amount of space.

The illustrations in the Father Bennet children’s edition are kind of dated. The children are dressed as though they are in the 1950s, there is no racial diversity (all white ☹️), and there are references to “Catholic Action” and hungry children in Europe (after WWII).

I don’t like the lack of diversity, but something being “dated” is not a problem for me at all 🦕🦖
 
Whilst I have the book by Fr Alfred Wilson CP called Pardon and Peace, written in 1946, I have read it cover to cover and personally found it very insightful and helpful. PARDON AND PEACE: Bogeys , scroll down to the section titled " The Old Old Story" and the following section “The Same Again”.
 
HomeschoolDad said:
However, I do not have a “pet venial sin” that I have no intention of repudiating, and I don’t think anyone else should either
Click to expand...
It’s their business, not yours, unless perhaps you are their parent or otherwise responsible for their formation. They may not see their behavior as sinful, they may have a psychological disorder, and you might even be wrong in your opinion of when you think they’ve sinned.

As for the Baltimore Catechism, there is definitely stuff in it that is questionable according to the teachings of today, which is why we have a fine, new, more complete and official catechism to follow.
 
Last edited:
Tis_Bearself said:
However, I do not have a “pet venial sin” that I have no intention of repudiating, and I don’t think anyone else should either
Click to expand...
I am in no position, unless I actually see them doing something venially sinful (e.g., saying something that I know is a small lie, stealing a small item from a grocery store), to know whether an objectively venial sin has been committed or not. Even then, as you correctly point out, I cannot judge whether they have subjective culpability or not. I dislike sin being committed by anyone, and least of all by myself. And as I noted elsewhere in this forum, when we go to “reconciliation” to be reconciled not only with God, but with the community as well, do not my sins, then, become in some way “everybody else’s business”? Does not sin injure the Mystical Body of Christ? I know I sin; others may as well. I pray daily for “the conversion of poor sinners, of whom I am the chief”.
Tis_Bearself said:
As for the Baltimore Catechism, there is definitely stuff in it that is questionable according to the teachings of today, which is why we have a fine, new, more complete and official catechism to follow.
Click to expand...
What would be some examples of “questionable stuff”?

The BC was helpful to me, even as a young student — one of the books “I got a hold of” — and I seek to share the same with my son. Deeper understanding of these truths can come later; study lasts a lifetime.

(And no, I don’t have him memorize the catechism. That wouldn’t work for us.)
Click to expand...
 
My conjecture is that this is connected to the fact that the confession of venial sins is not strictly necessary for the validity of confession. If it is not necessary to confess all venial sins, then it would follow that sorrow for all of them would not be necessary.
 
ioannes_pius said:
If it is not necessary to confess all venial sins, then it would follow that sorrow for all of them would not be necessary.
Click to expand...
As a practical matter, when I go to confession, I end by saying “…and I am also sorry for all of my sins, mortal and venial, known and unknown, for all of my life unto the present day, especially [whatever sin or sins, whether from past confessions or not, for which I feel I need special repentance and forgiveness]…”
 
Very good. That gives the priest sufficient evidence that you have sorrow for all your mortal sins.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top