Fr. Scott Bailey, C.Ss.R.

If by partial absolution you mean that a priest absolves from some sins that were confessed and not others, this is not possible because just as the confession itself must be integral, so must the absolution be integral. By integral is meant whole and entire.

Now, keep in mind that the only sins we are obliged to confess are mortal sins. If one confesses three mortal sins and was only absolved of two, they would still be in a state of sin because of the one that was not absolved. The only way to return to the state of grace is for all three to be absolved. It is like a person who goes to the doctor with three cancerous tumors. If the doctor removes two of the tumors and leaves one the person still has cancer. So, there is no point in removing two tumors if the goal is to free the person from cancer. In the same way it makes no sense to absolve a person from some sins and not others since the goal of absolution is to return the penitant to a state of grace.

So, partial absolution is impossible because it does not fulfill the end of absolution which is to return the penitant to the state of grace.

I hope this has been helpful.

Fr. Scott Bailey, C.Ss.R.

Thank you for your thorough explanations. I have never heard of Reserved sins before. It is so reassuring to discover a priest both well-informed and devoted to the priestly ministry.

Can you elaborate on the reason why partial absolution is impossible?

Pax Christi

I have one great resource on this called the “Examination of Conscience for Adults” by Father Donald F. Miller, C.SS.R., written in the 50s I think. There are twelve virtues it concentrates on: one for each month. Of course much of it overlaps. Basically each section starts with a few paragraphs on that specific virtue, then lists some questions, that if answered yes, would then be mortal sins. Then it has a list of questions for venial sins, which I find particularly enlightening, as I sometimes think some of those should be considered mortal. At the end of each section there is a prayer concerning that virtue. I’ve only had it a few weeks, but it seems to be very thorough. Just thought I’d recommend it to any needy souls.

It seems then we’ve come to the end of the dialogue. Thank you Johnboy316 for giving me the opportunity to think about this subject in detail. It was a great refresher and helped me clarify.

It would be helpful to me if anyone who has read what I have written would critique it. Could I have been clearer? more succinct? more logical? How could I have been more helpful in my responses? Your input is important and welcome as it will help me in teaching and preaching.

If you would rather contact me directly feel free to do so at jscottbaileycssr@aol.com. However, since this has been a public exchange, public criticism is, I believe, appropriate.

In Jesus and Mary,
Fr. Scott Bailey, C.Ss.R.

“Yes,” says the Dean’s wife and suddenly as being enlightened, “Oh! you must be the Reserved Sin.”

Lest this appear as a jab at the ladies, let me say what a great blessing it was for many to have in school nuns who taught us how to make a good and proper Confession beginning with the very first

The reason I wrote see Trent Session 14, Ch. 8 is because that is the basis for what I wrote in that last paragraph, but it is not specifically there. The Canons of Trent deals very little with venial sin. One must go to the moralists to get into the real specifics. Unfortunately I don’t have ready access to them now. I wish I did. I’m getting to a point where I have to pull from memory and while that’s okay for me, I don’t like doing that in teaching or explaining things. I don’t want to lead anyone astray.

Perhaps this will help to clarify. Impatience which comes under the fifth commandment is less serious than idolatry which comes under the first commandment. If you confessed you broke the first commandment and the fifth commandment without being specific the priest could rightly think you are confessing to superstition and murder. He would need to take the time to question you about everything to determine exactly what you are confessing so he would know what penance to impose, what council to give, and what restitution or actions you may or may not be obliged to make.

Let’s take another example. Say you physically attacked the person of the pope. This would come under the fifth commandment. If you confessed to breaking the fifth commandment and the priest gave you absolution you would not be absolved. Such a sin is reserved, that is a priest cannot absolve from it without special faculties. It also incurs an ipso facto (by the very fact the deed has been done) excommunication. How would he know he needs the faculty to absolve this sin and excommunication if it is not specifically stated?

You may be unaware that priest cannot absolve from every sin. Some sins are “reserved” either to the ordinary of the diocese or the Holy See. An example is abortion. In most US dioceses the faculty to absolve from the sin of abortion (fifth commandment) is generally given but not in all. What sins are reserved are a matter of general and particular law so it isn’t the same everywhere. So not being specific can mean that the absolution is invalid because a reserved sin was committed. The fact that the priest did not know a reserved sin was committed does not negate the invalid absolution.

God bless,
Fr. Scott, C.Ss.R.

But to be that little thorn producing issue monger — is there an authentic interpretation of the quote you post from the Council of Trent? For instance — when it states confess in general and not specific — could they merely refer to generalized “I sinned” confessions? I could make the claim that each sin against the Ten Commandments are specific and each are distilled enough to discern the proper penance as you see fit (why? because each of the Ten Commandments are not equally grievous). And also, I never really had a problem with the penance or satisfaction for sin issue as relates mortal versus venial sin (but your remark seems to support that such satisfaction can be observed by just saying the Ten Commandments at Confession) as Trent seems to state (according to your footnote) that it is the type of sin and not the gravity (in this context I assume mortal vs venial) per se. But I went to check out the actual text of Trent Session 14, Ch. 8 and did not find anything that relates to your remark. But I did find the Canons on Confession and I will check them out.

The Canons of the Council of Trent are clear on this and gives the reason why as well: From the institution of the sacrament of Penance as already explained, the universal Church has always understood, that the entire confession of sins was also instituted by the Lord, and is of divine right necessary for all who have fallen after baptism; because that our Lord Jesus Christ, when about to ascend from earth to heaven, left priests His own vicars, as presidents and judges, unto whom all the mortal crimes, into which the faithful of Christ may have fallen, should be carried, in order that, in accordance with the power of the keys, they may pronounce the sentence of forgiveness or retention of sins. For it is manifest, that priests could not have exercised this judgment without knowledge of the cause; neither indeed could they have observed equity in enjoining punishments, if the said faithful should have declared their sins in general only, and not rather specifically, and one by one. (Session 14, Chap. 5) We must remember that this is in regard to mortal sins. As for venial sins, the Church, by not giving any instruction as to how they should be confessed if they are, intends that they be confessed in the same way as mortal sins. Why? For the same reasons as she gives us as to the manner of confessing mortal sins.

One might say that since we are not obliged to confess venial sins we need not be specific in confessing them. However, when confessing venial sins we are asking the priest to give a penance for them. How can he do so without knowing what the sin is specifically? It should be remembered that penances (satisfactions for sin) are based on the sin committed, not whether or not they are mortal or venial (See Trent, Session 14, Chap. 8).

In Christ the Redeemer,
Fr. Scott Bailey, C.Ss.R.

My comments were under the supposition that it was sufficient to just state the applicable Commandment I failed at (and of course number if mortally sinful) whether confessing mortal sins or venial sins. Of course, such action was also under the context that Clara points out — that being getting into a griping match over what is a sin and what isn’t with a priest — which is why it’d be very idiotic for a priest to contend that a Commandment isn’t a sin (keeping things simple). Perhaps the additional explicit description of the circumstances and nature is fruitful for getting spiritual help — which is essentially what the Roman Catechism states — however, my original comment realized the fact that I personally obtain spiritual help without asking it explicitly when I confess in that sort of matter. I did not realize that the degree of a greivous sin must be made explicit (however, note that the Roman Catechism states “should” and in practice “must”). Not sure if the Roman Catechism is merely a reflection of Church teaching per se or if that portion is more or less disciplinary in lieu of theological. Perhaps Trent may help? I am no expert.

I think there’s a point to focusing on the Ten Commandments (because they comprise all sins) which perhaps is what Fr. Corapi intended. I admit it was a difficult little discussion.

In defense of Johnboy, I think that you may have misconstrued his point in section #3. He did not mean that the penitent would withhold his venial sins. He meant that the penitent would *specify* that those sins were venial so that the priest would not think that they were mortal. So the penitent would still confess to those venial sins, but he would note that they were just that — venial.

1) The Ten Commandments are objectively and fundamentally serious sins (CCC par. 2081).

RESPONSE: This is absolutely true. What this means is that they always fulfill the first condition for mortal sin: that it be grave matter. Some other things may or may not be grave matter (pride, envy, gluttony, et alii) depending on the circumstances.

2) It is only necessary to distinguish mortal sins.

RESPONSE: It is only necessary to CONFESS mortal sins. For valid absolution the confession of actual sin is necessary. One need not tell the priest “this is a mortal sin, that is a venial sin” unless he should ask. It might be a way that was taught by some to be sure people confessed mortal sins but such distinction is not necessary in the actual confession.

3) On a practical note most people who commit a venial sin against a Commandment would naturally wish to make that known rather than be perceived as committing a mortal sin.

RESPONSE: And hopefully they would also add to their confession the sin of pride. While this does express human nature, it doesn’t make sense. They have just revealed the secrets of their soul by confessing their mortal sins and suddenly they are ashamed to mention their venial sins? Additionally this is spiritually extremely dangerous for it will eventually lead to a malaise about sin. By specific confession of even venial sins one becomes more aware of occasions of sin and can thus avoid them.

4) One is forgiven in Confession if the sin is actually venial but the priest thinks it is mortal (I might add that the Confession may still be valid even if the priest didn’t hear everything the individual confessed).

RESPONSE: The priest need not think anything about the sin other than the fact that it has been confessed and repented of for one to be absolved.

5) One only has to state what sin one has committed; and not the gravity unless it is mortal (couple with point #1).

RESPONSE: As far as only stating what sin one has committed, not true. See previous post and quote from the Roman Catechism as well as the references cited in the decrees of the Council of Trent. Keep in mind that those decrees are binding on all Catholics. It is often supposed that they have been “abrogated” or or no longer valid or binding which is not the case. As far as not stating the gravity (whether it is mortal or venial) absolutely correct. One need not state whether a sin is mortal or venial (it’s gravity) but one is obliged to confess circumstances and number.

Again, I hope this makes the Church’s teaching clearer. I am not presinting my point of view. I am presenting the teaching of the Church.

I would like to add that there is a danger inherent in catechisms in that they are often taken as “the” reference work on Catholic teaching. They are not. They are thorough overviews and explanations, but they do not nor could they possibly contain all the Church’s theology and teaching. The Roman Catechism and the Catechism of the Catholic Church are tools given by the Church to her teachers to assist them in explaining the faith. They are not fully “fleshed out.” So, when using them, always use them with other sources. Both have footnotes that will direct to these sources.

This is an important exchange taking place. Johnboy316 has brought up some good points and I have tried to respond by presenting the Church’s teaching. There is a lot of confusion and misunderstanding about confession not only among the laity but among priests as well. Because it is so important to priestly ministry I spent many hours studying the Sacrament of Penance and it’s practice. The most important thing there is to be said is: use it… often.

In Christ the Redeemer,
Fr. Scott Bailey, C.Ss.R.