Was this ok?

[QNDNNDQDCE]

Venial sins are forgiven during the Penitential rite, during communion, etc.
Surely he doesn’t believe that children have willfully committed mortal sins.

My understanding is that venial sins are forgiven differently through sacramentals and through the sacraments. St. Thomas says this:

All these things [viz., sacramentals], so far as they are concerned, conduce to the remission of all venial sins: but the remission may be hindered as regards certain venial sins, to which the mind is still actually attached, even as insincerity sometimes impedes the effect of Baptism.
(ST III q. 87, a. 2, ad 2)

On the other hand, he says earlier, “by the Eucharist, Extreme Unction, and by all the sacraments of the New Law without exception, wherein grace is conferred, venial sins are remitted.” This seems to be consistent with the teaching of the CCC (1670): “Sacramentals do not confer the grace of the Holy Spirit in the way that the sacraments do, but by the Church’s prayer, they prepare us to receive grace and dispose us to cooperate with it.”

 

[sw85]

It is interesting to me that everyone is scolding the OP, a self-described cradle Catholic, for failing to recognize the Penitential Rite when he sees one.

Obviously he knows what a Penitential Rite is. Obviously what he saw was not the Penitential Rite as it is prescribed in the Missal. Obviously he is concerned that something else may have been intended to happen.

He recalls hearing the word “absolve.” Obviously, the form of the sacrament of penance is “I absolve you.” As a normative rule, confession is to be done in the confessional, but there are circumstances in which a priest can absolve a large group of people without hearing their confessions, a so-called general absolution (imagine a priest on an airplane that is in the process of crashing). Among more liberal sectors of the Church (and those sectors are certainly present in Ireland), abuse of general absolution is common, because confession is seen as fixated on a pre-conciliar theology of judgmentalism and guilt. So it is very possible that what happened was a general absolution, even if we can’t be sure since the OP cannot recall what happened exactly and does not know the priest’s intentions.

If you are concerned, OP, please ask the priest what happened.

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

What my thought is, at any rate, that the priest may have prayed something along the lines “may God absolve you” rather than “I absolve you.” It is best to first assume that the OP misheard or misunderstood the words of the priest rather than that the priest was improperly saying everyone’s sins were forgiven without sufficient reason. If the priest had intended a general confession, he would have been wrong because the efficacy of general absolution is contingent upon the penitent’s intention to confess his sins individually prior to the general absolution and his actually following through with it afterwards. Secondly, because neither a special back-to-school mass or the Feast of St. Augustine are cases of grave necessity.

In case of grave necessity recourse may be had to a communal celebration of reconciliation with general confession and general absolution. Grave necessity of this sort can arise when there is imminent danger of death without sufficient time for the priest or priests to hear each penitent’s confession. Grave necessity can also exist when, given the number of penitents, there are not enough confessors to hear individual confessions properly in a reasonable time, so that the penitents through no fault of their own would be deprived of sacramental grace or Holy Communion for a long time. In this case, for the absolution to be valid the faithful must have the intention of individually confessing their grave sins in the time required. The diocesan bishop is the judge of whether or not the conditions required for general absolution exist. A large gathering of the faithful on the occasion of major feasts or pilgrimages does not constitute a case of grave necessity.
(CCC 1483)

As you said, if OP wants to be sure what the priest meant, he would need to ask the priest. In the meantime, it would be best not to condemn the priest, especially when OP says his memory of the priest’s words is not exact.

 

[felsguy]

You’re right about that. But then the more conscientious person is labelled as scrupulous by someone. That always raises a red-flag with me. As we have our salvation at risk, shouldn’t we err on the side of confessing as though our sins were mortal? Personally I don’t have the time nor find it profitable to go against what I’ve been taught. If it’s a grave sin for a 7-yr old to state a lie (or even the truth or even participate in a conversation) which hurts someone, then I don’t see how it can be venial for someone older. I think the Orthodox and others who find communion without confession to be a decadent practice have a good point.

When I was 7 I believed as I has been taught that there was an Easter Bunny and a tooth fairy but I stopped hunting for eggs and putting teeth under my pillow long ago. Why? Because as I grew older by using the intelligence God gave me to use I came to discover the truth about these things and" the truth did set me free" from such notions.

Similarly when it come to the beliefs which guide our lives as followers of Jesus, are we not to constantly seek the truth so indeed it will set us free? Saying that “it’s a grave sin for a 7-yr old to state a lie (or even the truth or even participate in a conversation) which hurts someone,” does not conform to the Church’s teaching about sin, not now and not 65 years ago, no matter what some good-intentioned by ill-informed nuns may have taught.

So “shouldn’t we err on the side of confessing as though our sins were mortal?” It’s not for me to say what you should or should not do in this matter. I can only say that this line of thinking is not required of us, that in my opinion it could add unnecessary and unhealthy stress to someone’s spiritual life, and that it seems to run contrary to Jesus’s promise of “an easy yoke and a light burden.”

As for someone being labeled scrupulous, my goodness, labels like scrupulous, lax, traditional, modern, conservative, progressive, and what-have-you are thrown around more readily than Johnny scattered his apple seeds. A conscientious person is not accurately described as scrupulous. A well-formed conscience is something we are all to strive for (and I posit that this is not something completed by the age of 7).

For a proper understanding of scrupulosity I quote here just a paragraph from Father Santa, CSSR’s article* Scrupulosity And How To Overcome It.* (I recommend the whole article but can’t find the link at the moment. I’m sure it can be googled.)

“In Catholic moral teaching, scrupulosity defines the spiritual and psychological state of a person who erroneously believes he is guilty of mortal sin and is therefore seldom in a state of grace. A scrupulous person has difficulty making choices and decisions even though he desires above all else to please God and to follow God’s law. For a scrupulous person, it isn’t that he doesn’t “carefully attend to the sacred and certain teaching of the Church” (as the Catechism teaches), but that he becomes overwhelmed with the details and nuances that may be present in the decision.”

Finally, in a lighter vein, I suggest that an old dog can indeed learn new tricks…especially once he comes to appreciate the benefits that follow.

 

[ProVobis]

Similarly when it come to the beliefs which guide our lives as followers of Jesus, are we not to constantly seek the truth so indeed it will set us free? Saying that “**it’s a grave sin for a 7-yr old to state a lie (or even the truth or even participate in a conversation) which hurts someone,” does not conform to the Church’s teaching about sin, ** not now and not 65 years ago, no matter what some good-intentioned by ill-informed nuns may have taught.

Who told you this? Male teachers in the UK and Polish priests taught this (among others.) So did the handmissals which guided you through an examination of conscience. In fact, if anything, it was the Americans nuns, or at least the ones I had as teachers, who did most of the rationalizing which I brought up, just to push communion at every opportunity. One nun even had all the non-communicants line up Monday morning to give a reason for their abstinence. I’ll never forget the evil look she gave one guy who said he hadn’t gone to confession. I don’t know but maybe because they were the ones who had baked the hosts had something to do with pushing communion to the extremes they did?

As I’ve stated a few times here, maybe ignorance does give you a better chance at salvation.

 

[thistle]

It is interesting to me that everyone is scolding the OP, a self-described cradle Catholic, for failing to recognize the Penitential Rite when he sees one.

Obviously he knows what a Penitential Rite is. Obviously what he saw was not the Penitential Rite as it is prescribed in the Missal. Obviously he is concerned that something else may have been intended to happen.

He recalls hearing the word “absolve.” Obviously, the form of the sacrament of penance is “I absolve you.” As a normative rule, confession is to be done in the confessional, but there are circumstances in which a priest can absolve a large group of people without hearing their confessions, a so-called general absolution (imagine a priest on an airplane that is in the process of crashing). Among more liberal sectors of the Church (and those sectors are certainly present in Ireland), abuse of general absolution is common, because confession is seen as fixated on a pre-conciliar theology of judgmentalism and guilt. So it is very possible that what happened was a general absolution, even if we can’t be sure since the OP cannot recall what happened exactly and does not know the priest’s intentions.

If you are concerned, OP, please ask the priest what happened.

It is correct that a General Absolution may be given to a large group in emergency situations where death threatens but it is conditional upon those people going to individual Confession as soon as possible after the danger has gone and they have survived.

I lived in Hong Kong at the time of SARS. Because it was dangerous to gather in groups Mass and Confession was suspended for several weeks until the SARS crisis was over and a General Absolution was given to all Catholics. It was made clear that once the danger was over we had to go to individual Confession to confess the sins we had at the time of the General Absolution.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Venial sins are forgiven during the Penitential rite, during communion, etc.
Surely he doesn’t believe that children have willfully committed mortal sins.

I have a wonderful 9 year old who commits mortal sins and asks me when she can go to confession…

Should I just tell her, nah, just say you are sorry at Mass, that is good enough…?

Now, The Church commands all within the age of reason to confess at least once a year. That means that the Church thinks that an 8 year old, EVERY 8 year old needs to go to confession at least once a year. Or else risk further sin.

It is funny, when I am in line in confession it is the large homeschooling families who’s children are all in line to go to confession. So I wonder, why do they sin more than others.

 

[felsguy]

Similarly when it come to the beliefs which guide our lives as followers of Jesus, are we not to constantly seek the truth so indeed it will set us free? Saying that “it’s a grave sin for a 7-yr old to state a lie (or even the truth or even participate in a conversation) which hurts someone,” does not conform to the Church’s teaching about sin, not now and not 65 years ago, no matter what some good-intentioned by ill-informed nuns may have taught.

Who told you this? Male teachers in the UK and Polish priests taught this (among others.) So did the handmissals which guided you through an examination of conscience. In fact, if anything, it was the Americans nuns, or at least the ones I had as teachers, who did most of the rationalizing which I brought up, just to push communion at every opportunity. One nun even had all the non-communicants line up Monday morning to give a reason for their abstinence. I’ll never forget the evil look she gave one guy who said he hadn’t gone to confession. I don’t know but maybe because they were the ones who had baked the hosts had something to do with pushing communion to the extremes they did?

As I’ve stated a few times here, maybe ignorance does give you a better chance at salvation.

My apology to nuns in general. I had forgotten your background and just assumed it was nuns who taught you this. Let me rephrase my statement. Saying that “it’s a grave sin for a 7-yr old to state a lie (or even the truth or even participate in a conversation) which hurts someone,” does not conform to the Church’s teaching about sin, not now and not 65 years ago, no matter what some good-intentioned but ill-informed male teachers in the UK and Polish priests may have taught.

As for nuns “pushing communion” (I must say the term makes me wince) perhaps it was a marketing scheme to keep them “rolling in the dough” or perhaps they fell under the spell of the writings of that former Cardinal and Patriarch of Venice, what was his name again, oh yeh, St. Pope Pius X.

Look, I realize we’re not to come to any agreement here. Confess as you see fit. Other readers here will have to weigh these opinions for themselves and likewise confess as they see fit.

 

[felsguy]

Now, The Church commands all within the age of reason to confess at least once a year. That means that the Church thinks that an 8 year old, EVERY 8 year old needs to go to confession at least once a year. Or else risk further sin.

Surely you must have read enough threads here on CAF by now to know that this requirement applies only to grave (i.e. mortal) sins. As stated above it is not completely accurate and could be misleading for some readers.

Here again is the applicable canon in its complete form:

Can. 989 After having reached the age of discretion, each member of the faithful is obliged to confess faithfully his or her grave sins at least once a year. (emphasis added)

 

[ProVobis]

It is funny, when I am in line in confession it is the large homeschooling families who’s children are all in line to go to confession. So I wonder, why do they sin more than others.

That’s probably because they don’t really teach moral theology in schools. In all my years of schooling the closest I came to moral teaching was in a graduate ethics in business course.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Surely you must have read enough threads here on CAF by now to know that this requirement applies only to grave (i.e. mortal) sins. As stated above it is not completely accurate and could be misleading for some readers.

Here again is the applicable canon in its complete form:

Can. 989 After having reached the age of discretion, each member of the faithful is obliged to confess faithfully his or her grave sins at least once a year. (emphasis added)

I think you are reading that wrong.

So if I am in mortal sin. Or “grave” are you telling me that I have a year to confess it?

No.

The Church requires you to go to confession once a year.

And I find it odd that many feel as if mortal sin is so rare that this would not apply to them.

I guess since confession used to be more attended that we are just a holier society than the past few millinia.

 

[felsguy]

I think you are reading that wrong.

So if I am in mortal sin. Or “grave” are you telling me that I have a year to confess it?

No.

The Church requires you to go to confession once a year.

And I find it odd that many feel as if mortal sin is so rare that this would not apply to them.

I guess since confession used to be more attended that we are just a holier society than the past few millinia.

No, I am saying that the requirement imposed by the Code of Canon Law and affirmed by the Catechism of the Catholic Church to go to confession at least once a year applies only to those who have committed grave/serious/mortal sin. This is not the same as but is often confused with the obligation to receive the Eucharist at least once a year (during the Easter Season) which applies to all the faithful.

I’m speaking here about what the Church requires, not what the Church recommends nor what you or I might advocate. To say “the Church requires you (as in everyone) to go to confession once a year” is not accurate in that it is not complete and therefore can be misleading.

catholic.com/quickquestions/what-is-the-requirement-regarding-yearly-confession

 

[sw85]

It is correct that a General Absolution may be given to a large group in emergency situations where death threatens but it is conditional upon those people going to individual Confession as soon as possible after the danger has gone and they have survived.

I lived in Hong Kong at the time of SARS. Because it was dangerous to gather in groups Mass and Confession was suspended for several weeks until the SARS crisis was over and a General Absolution was given to all Catholics. It was made clear that once the danger was over we had to go to individual Confession to confess the sins we had at the time of the General Absolution.

Yes, I know the conditions under which general absolution may/may not be used. I’m not commenting favorably on the practice, which is an abuse that ought to be stamped out wherever it occurs.

I think you are reading that wrong.

So if I am in mortal sin. Or “grave” are you telling me that I have a year to confess it?

No.

The Church requires you to go to confession once a year.

And I find it odd that many feel as if mortal sin is so rare that this would not apply to them.

I guess since confession used to be more attended that we are just a holier society than the past few millinia.

No, felsguy’s analysis is correct. We are obligated to confess mortal sins at least once a year. If you go a year without sinning mortally, you aren’t canonically obligated to go to confession.

 

[ProVobis]

No, felsguy’s analysis is correct. We are obligated to confess mortal sins at least once a year. If you go a year without sinning mortally, you aren’t canonically obligated to go to confession.

Technically that’s true according to ewtn.com/library/liturgy/zlitur304.htm

But do note here:

The idea that the annual canonical obligation to confess obliges only in the case of serious sins is fine on paper, but the experience of many directors of souls is that it is rare for someone to avoid any serious sin over a period of one or more years.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

I am confused. So If I say, cheat on my wife tonight. Then, I have to go to confession within a year? That does not sound right. I would think I should go to confession at the earliest possible time. Not within a 365 day window? It just does not make sense. If you are in mortal sin you need to confess once a year but if not then no? Weird. And it does not seem to jive with the whole idea of dying within a state of grace. Why does the Church have a clock on this, why is it a year? And why then do priest seem to like it when a penitent comes to confession after 20 years. Isn’t that against what the Church commands. Once a year?

Something about this does not seem to pass the smell test for us amateur cannonists…

II. THE PRECEPTS OF THE CHURCH

2041 The precepts of the Church are set in the context of a moral life bound to and nourished by liturgical life. The obligatory character of these positive laws decreed by the pastoral authorities is meant to guarantee to the faithful the very necessary minimum in the spirit of prayer and moral effort, in the growth in love of God and neighbor:

2042 The first precept (“You shall attend Mass on Sundays and holy days of obligation and rest from servile labor”) requires the faithful to sanctify the day commemorating the Resurrection of the Lord as well as the principal liturgical feasts honoring the mysteries of the Lord, the Blessed Virgin Mary, and the saints; in the first place, by participating in the Eucharistic celebration, in which the Christian community is gathered, and by resting from those works and activities which could impede such a sanctification of these days.82

The second precept (“You shall confess your sins at least once a year”) ensures preparation for the Eucharist by the reception of the sacrament of reconciliation, which continues Baptism’s work of conversion and forgiveness.83

The third precept (“You shall receive the sacrament of the Eucharist at least during the Easter season”) guarantees as a minimum the reception of the Lord’s Body and Blood in connection with the Paschal feasts, the origin and center of the Christian liturgy.84

2043 The fourth precept (“You shall observe the days of fasting and abstinence established by the Church”) ensures the times of ascesis and penance which prepare us for the liturgical feasts and help us acquire mastery over our instincts and freedom of heart.85

The fifth precept (“You shall help to provide for the needs of the Church”) means that the faithful are obliged to assist with the material needs of the Church, each according to his own ability.86

The faithful also have the duty of providing for the material needs of the Church, each according to his own abilities.87

Now I have seen where some commentary (Ed Peters) says what is being argued. That it applies only to grave sins. But the CCC, a guide for all of us, makes no such distinction.

It does not make logical sense that there is a clock on mortal sins of one year…

 

[ProVobis]

It does not make logical sense that there is a clock on mortal sins of one year…

I agree, the year qualification/limitation/allowance makes no sense if one is in mortal sin. It might as well not be included, from a logic standpoint.