Sorrow for all venial sins in confession?

[rosejmj]

You can’t be absolved of a venial sin if you are not sorry. It means you are still attached to the sin. You must be sorry for all mortal sins for Confession to be valid, but you do not need to be sorry for all venial sins. Also often a general sorrow over sin is enough for absolution and you do not need to try to cultivate contrition for each specific sin

 

[thistle]

I find this grotesque. How can someone be forgiven of their sins when they fully intend to go on committing certain venial sins?

Venial sins do not require Confession or forgiveness. They do not separate us from God.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

I find this grotesque. How can someone be forgiven of their sins when they fully intend to go on committing certain venial sins?

I see what you are saying. Since venial sins do not separate us from God, it logically follows that one can die in unrepented venial sin and not lose heaven as a result. Still, though, they require satisfaction in purgatory, and if we are to believe the writings of the saints and others, that will be far more difficult and arduous than repenting of them in this life and making temporal satisfaction for them in the here and now. I think I’ll choose to get rid of them, to the extent I can, now rather than later.

 

[thistle]

I see what you are saying. Since venial sins do not separate us from God, it logically follows that one can die in unrepented venial sin and not lose heaven as a result. Still, though, they require satisfaction in purgatory, and if we are to believe the writings of the saints and others, that will be far more difficult and arduous than repenting of them in this life and making temporal satisfaction for them in the here and now. I think I’ll choose to get rid of them, to the extent I can, now rather than later.

If I die and find myself in Purgatory I will be happy knowing that after purifying my next destination is Heaven.

 

[acanonlawyer]

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.

Thanks for giving the quotation. I would note that this statement is not equivalent to what you said earlier:

they fully intend to go on committing certain venial sins

In other words, there is a clear distinction between lacking a firm purpose of amendment regarding each venial sin and, on the other hand, a full intention to continue to commit a particular sin.

As the catechism says, we “should want to avoid all of them” but if it happens that we, at the moment of confession, don’t have a purpose of avoiding all of them, we can still receive a valid absolution. This is a minimal requirement that recognizes our imperfection.

Dan

 

[HomeschoolDad]

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.

Maybe I’m just obtuse about this, but are you saying that there is a difference between “I’ll try not to commit that sin again, but if it comes down to it, I may choose to sin rather than not sin” (purpose of amendment, but not a firm one) and “I am not even going to try to avoid that sin, I intend to commit it”? (full intention to continue to commit a personal sin). In my mind, there is a difference.

And more often than not, when I go to confession, the priest absolves by saying “I absolve you from all your sins in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit”. The word “all” is not part of the rubrics of the sacrament (ego te absolvo a peccatis tuis in nomine Patris, et Filii, + et Spiritus Sancti, not ego te absolvo ab omnibus peccatis tuis).

Is the priest saying “all” in acknowledgement of my having specified that I am sorry for all of my sins, mortal and venial? And if not, if these are the words that this priest uses for all of his penitents, is he not in the position of absolving sins that are not repented (in the case of those who have withheld venial sins that they intend to go on committing)? In other words, is Almighty God forgiving venial sins even if the penitent is not sorry for them?

As a mortal man in the wayfaring state, I forgive those who have offended me, whether they ask for it or not, and whether they intend to continue offending me or not. I have no demands of justice — I just forgive unconditionally. But I am not God. He does have demands of perfect justice as well as perfect mercy.

 

[acanonlawyer]

Maybe I’m just obtuse about this, but are you saying that there is a difference between “I’ll try not to commit that sin again, but if it comes down to it, I may choose to sin rather than not sin” (purpose of amendment, but not a firm one) and “I am not even going to try to avoid that sin, I intend to commit it”? (full intention to continue to commit a personal sin). In my mind, there is a difference.

Yes, I agree that there is a difference. Not actively desiring something (the purpose of amendment regarding some sin) does not mean we necessarily, actively desire the opposite (to continue in that sin).

Here is how an old manual for confessors, from a priest in the USA in 1905, discusses the issue:

The purpose of amendment, as we have said, must extend at
least to all mortal sins. With regard to venial sins it must be
constant and efficacious, but not necessarily universal; for,
since venial sin is consistent with the friendship and grace of
God in the soul, one is not obliged to resolve on avoiding all of
them : indeed no one sine speciali privilegio gratiae can avoid all
venial sins, and no one is called upon to resolve to accomplish
the impossible; still there is an obligation to resolve to avoid
them as much as possible, or at least to diminish their number.

Dan