What are some good manuals for confession?
- Thread starter xqr768
- Start date
A manual of moral theology might not be the best resource for preparing to go to confession. They are primarily intended for priests who hear confessions, though with increased literacy and education among the laity (not to mention the crisis of faith in the Church in our times, where orthodox guidance might not be readily available), there is no reason not to read them. That said, though, such manuals often delve into the nitty-gritty at a level not necessary for the typical layperson.
The examination of conscience in the relevant portion of the Lasance missal (Traditional Latin Mass) is very good, not too detailed, not too superficial. A free online copy can be found here, beginning at page 1793:
https://archive.org/details/new-roman-missal-lasance/page/1793/mode/2up
Do yourself a favor and download this book for easy reference.
The examination of conscience in the relevant portion of the Lasance missal (Traditional Latin Mass) is very good, not too detailed, not too superficial. A free online copy can be found here, beginning at page 1793:
https://archive.org/details/new-roman-missal-lasance/page/1793/mode/2up
Do yourself a favor and download this book for easy reference.
If you want to dig that deeply, there is the McHugh and Callan text:
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/35354/35354-h/35354-h.html
There is also Jone's Moral Theology, but it suffers from some problems, among these, it is a translation from German and some passages read kind of strangely. He also has some troubling statements on things such as rape (he says "rape is not so common", which seems quite dismissive and tone-deaf) and certain kinds of marital intimacy. Keep in mind that he was writing in the 1920s, and that it was a manual intended for priests. McHugh and Callan is a better cultural fit for Americans, and is of more recent provenance (1950s). I am not clear on the extent to which priests rely upon moral theology manuals anymore. (They probably should.)
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/35354/35354-h/35354-h.html
There is also Jone's Moral Theology, but it suffers from some problems, among these, it is a translation from German and some passages read kind of strangely. He also has some troubling statements on things such as rape (he says "rape is not so common", which seems quite dismissive and tone-deaf) and certain kinds of marital intimacy. Keep in mind that he was writing in the 1920s, and that it was a manual intended for priests. McHugh and Callan is a better cultural fit for Americans, and is of more recent provenance (1950s). I am not clear on the extent to which priests rely upon moral theology manuals anymore. (They probably should.)
po18guy
Well-known member
How detailed do you desire to be? An excellent Examination of Conscience is all one really needs. One of the best is by Fr. Robert Altier. It gives excellent guidance on what constitutes mortal and venial sins, as well as helping to identify "imperfections" which are not sins at all, being inherent to our broken human nature and not conscious sin. Imperfections are frequently confessed, but are really only an admission that we are human. Catholics do not want to lapse into scrupulosity - and it is a substantial problem today.
I mention all of this as 1 in 5 Westerners suffers from some form of anxiety, of which scrupulosity is one manifestation.
I mention all of this as 1 in 5 Westerners suffers from some form of anxiety, of which scrupulosity is one manifestation.
I had begun to think that scrupulosity was kind of dying out, with the relaxed approach to sin that emerged after the Vatican II era (as I always say, not necessarily assigning causality, just establishing a time frame), but it seems to be making a comeback from what I see on Catholic online forums. I have to think that it comes largely from people who have never been taught how to think about sin correctly, and when they "get religion", they don't know how to handle Catholic morality and they start seeing sin where sin doesn't exist.
One pernicious error I see bubbling up in recent years is the idea that grave matter abounds (it really doesn't, it's pretty cut-and-dried, for average people much of it comes from the Sixth and Ninth Commandments, because human nature inclines to seeking liberty in such matters), one idea that has gained currency is that any sin against one of the Ten Commandments constitutes grave matter. It does not. The concept of parvity of matter is something else that has been lost today, again, this was once part of a Catholic's vest-pocket knowledge.
Another error, and I've seen this coming for almost fifty years now, is the reluctance to speak of mortal sin. More to the point, there seems to be a notion afoot that you can commit a sin involving grave matter, with sufficient reflection and full consent of the will (you know it is grave matter and you do it without any coercion or internal compulsion), yet your salvation is not in danger, such that a wedge category is introduced between venial sin and mortal sin, and "mortal sin" is something that is so horrible that only very evil people do it ("not Hitler = heaven"). You could think of it as pushing the Overton Window as to where mortal sin, sin that is so bad that you could go to hell for it, becomes something very rare. This, too, is a modern error. Mortal sin can be, and is, indulged in very easily by those who seek liberty in matters of the flesh, and then by its nature it becomes addictive, such that one cannot easily break with it once indulged.
Last edited:
po18guy
Well-known member
Over more than a decade on various cancer forums, I have noticed that the most terrified members do not have cancer. They have anxiety. Recurrent and repetitive contact with such persons lead me to dig into the prevalence of anxiety. It is estimated that 64 million Americans suffer from some form of anxiety, which includes scrupulosity. Such persons are more motivated than average to express their fears. The more readily one admits to scrupulosity tends to be a positive indicator that they will seek help.
God cannot forgive imaginary sins, but He can forgive any sin involved in imagining them.
God cannot forgive imaginary sins, but He can forgive any sin involved in imagining them.
Scrupulosity is a subset of anxiety, but just stating the obvious, not all anxiety is scrupulosity, least of all about moral matters. Many people have anxiety about life in general, but do not worry about the morality of their actions (or better put, may be more or less decent people, but go on the assumption that they do not sin). The mindset of modern society is that ordinary people really cannot sin, at least not grievously enough to lose their salvation. It is just taken for granted that everyone goes straight to heaven when they die.
Last edited:
po18guy
Well-known member
Sainthood via cardiac arrest.