Loading ...
Actually, the title is something of a misnomer, I’m afraid, because I’m going to say less about good confessors and more about difficult ones. You’ll have to forgive my negativity (no pun intended); actually, I’ve been blessed to receive many excellent insights and pieces of spiritual advice in the confessional at various times. But it’s really quite a curious thing, is it not, going to confession? Here you are, giving extremely personal information to a person who you might not even know, and accepting advice and correction from him. Now, in an ideal situation, the confessor will be someone who knows you, and you will respect him and trust his advice. However, that sometimes is not possible. If you want to confess regularly (as Pope Benedict, among others, has advised us to do), you may have to settle for whatever opportunities present themselves. That may sometimes mean confessing to complete strangers, or (which is often worse) to priests you do know but don’t especially like. Where else in life do we do anything like this?
Of course, it would be nice to say that it doesn’t matter at all which priest is in the confessional, and in some sense that’s true. All are there in persona Christi, and all have the power to absolve from sin, and on one level this really is all that matters. A person who really needs to confess certainly should not be dissuaded by the personality of the priest. At the same time, it’s impossible to be indifferent regarding confessors. Anyone would prefer to reveal extremely personal information to somebody he trusts and respects, just as he’d prefer to be operated on by a surgeon he knows to be skilled. Trusting all priests equally regardless of their behavior would be simply irrational. It’s (hopefully!) safe to assume that virtually any priest can be trusted not to repeat your confession to others, but in other respects, priests will vary in character just like any group of people, and it’s hard to be indifferent about them when you, as the penitent, are quite literally putting yourself at their mercy.
Before I go further, I should specify that I was thinking about confession today not because I was feeling disgruntled, but because I was feeling grateful for the goodness of the priest in charge of our indult community here. With the whole indult community (in addition to his own parish!) under his charge, hearing all our confessions must be a fairly considerable responsibility, and yet he never fails to give each one all due attention. He makes every endeavor to hear all confessions before or after Mass each week, but if he really has to go before they’re finished, he’ll cheerfully arrange to meet before daily Mass at his own parish sometime during the week. And he never, ever makes us feel that hearing our confessions is burdensome to him, though Heaven knows he has plenty else to do! I haven’t always had it this good with regards to confessions, so I deeply appreciate having such a dedicated pastor. But in this post I wanted to discuss a few more problematic situations in which many Catholics might find themselves. I’ll give a few solutions I found to difficulties, and a few problems that I never managed to solve. As always, others may add their own thoughts if they wish.
The Lax Confessor
Non-Catholics always tend to assume that the job of a confessor is to make the penitent feel really guilty for whatever he did. I expect most of us have more often had the opposite experience, which is also quite demoralizing, though in a different way. Here’s the classic scenario: you’re wracked with guilt for something you’ve done; the more you reflect about it the more ashamed you feel. You go to confession, and when you’re finished, the confessor says cheerfully, “Well, don’t beat yourself up about it, anyone can see you’re plenty sorry,” or “Oh, whatever, I’ve heard so much worse than that,” or worst of all, “Are you sure that’s even a sin?” though you found it clearly listed as one in your (traditional) missal.
Why do some confessors seem to feel that it is their God-given duty to extinguish contrition? Probably some of them fall into the trap of comparing each penitent primarily to the others he’s heard that day or that month, in which case people like me, who normally confess every few weeks or so, probably sound pretty tame next to someone who hasn’t been to confession for five years. But what’s that got to do with anything? The fact that somebody else sins more than me certainly doesn’t make me virtuous. God alone knows what can reasonably be expected from each of us given our particular circumstances; however, that said, a brief glance through the lives of the saints is sufficient to convince me that excessive sorrow for sin is not a problem that I have. I don’t care to know where I stand on the bell-curve of their parish as a whole.
Getting a “ho-hum” reaction from a priest you’ve never seen before and will never see again isn’t so upsetting. The important thing was to make the confession and to be absolved, and you can still take your sins seriously even if the priest didn’t. It becomes harder, though, if you have to confess to the same lax priest repeatedly. It’s very uncomfortable to confess to something you’ve already been told isn’t a problem, and at the same time, you don’t want to leave things out if you really think that they’re sins. (One priest I used to know, for example, seemed to think that outright fornication or adultery were the only possible sins of impurity, and if you confessed to anything less, you would be told that you had not sinned. If you confessed to inattention during Mass or prayers, he would laugh and say, “Well, at least you came to Mass!” And so forth.) At times I’ve really wanted to ask the priest just please to absolve me without saying anything, but of course that would not be an appropriate request to make.
In the above instance, I succeeded in finding a satisfactory solution. Since circumstances compelled me to continue confessing to the same lax priest, I discovered in time that he was very fond of discussing sins relating to personal relationships (i.e. being unkind to someone, judging others harshly, taking undue interest in others’ sins, etc.) If I ended my confession with something like this, he would invariably talk about that one and ignore everything else I had said. It’s never very hard to think of a sin of that nature of which I am genuinely guilty, so I would always put that at the end, and then I could freely confess whatever else I deemed appropriate without getting into quarrels about what was and wasn’t sinful. I wasn’t about to ask this priest to be my spiritual director, but I was grateful at least to be able to get to confession with some regularity.
The Over-harsh Priest
This is a creature so rare that for a long time I wasn’t sure it still existed. Some may contend that it isn’t possible since, as I already observed, it’s difficult to feel excessive sorrow for sin. At one time, that was more or less my feeling on the subject. I discovered, though, that contrition is a complicated thing. It won’t necessarily increase in proportion with the harshness of the confessor’s tone. Most people, hopefully, come to confession expecting to be chastised, but if they leave feeling they have been subjected to brutal attack, they are likely to be more resentful than contrite. Now, obviously, confessors can’t be bending over backwards to spare people’s feelings when they’re supposed to be diagnosing and treating their spiritual sicknesses. But if a good doctor needs a compassionate “bedside manner” for dealing with those in pain, how much more the good confessor, who is trusted with more serious and more personal matters?
Though I admittedly haven’t been a Catholic for all that long, I’ve still confessed to quite a number of priests, and I can say that, in my experience, most traditional priests have been excellent confessors. They don’t try to sugar-coat things, but at the same time most seem both concerned and compassionate, and many have given me sound pieces of practical advice. Only one time have I ever had a bad experience going to confession – but unfortunately, that occasion was probably made somewhat more painful given the trust I somewhat instinctively invest in any traditional priest who is hearing my confession. Obviously I wouldn’t post all the details of any particular confession on the internet, but I might perhaps sketch on an abstract level some of the things that made it so upsetting.
To begin with, the priest in this case seemed completely oblivious to my discomfort, which was considerable, given that, in the first place, the setting was less private than one would normally wish for a confession. This was not his fault; it just related to the circumstances. But it seemed to me like a poor time to ask extensive, specific questions, demanding much more graphic and detailed descriptions of my sins than any other priest has ever cared to hear; I could not imagine how some of these details could possibly be relevant to assessing my spiritual state. It may be, of course, that I’m not a good judge of what is and isn’t relevant… but in that case, it would at least have been kinder to lower his voice, which if anything seemed to get louder as he ploughed on. I had not the smallest doubt that several people could hear us; very likely it was my imagination that he was enjoying making our conversation into a public display, but that’s certainly how it seemed to me at the time.
Having completed his interrogation, he then switched into the mode of a lecturer. Here he seemed more to be expounding on some theories of his own than addressing my sins in particular, though he would refer back to them occasionally as illustrative examples for the points he was making. Now my embarrassment was compounded by irritation of a different kind, because I was actually reasonably well-read concerning the topics he was addressing (Catholic moral philosophy is quite relevant to my academic work) and many of the things he was saying seemed to me disputable or even plain wrong. If we’d been discussing the matter over lunch I would have taken his explanation as a good starting point for friendly philosophical debate. That hardly seemed appropriate in this capacity, though, so I simply had to wait for him to finish. But it was hard not to feel resentful when I had the distinct impression that he was using my confession as a forum for working out the details of pet theories of his own.
The third unfortunate aspect of this confession was that, while the confessor (as I’ve already said) demanded incredibly detailed descriptions of the actual events in question, he showed no interest at all in my circumstances more generally. Rather, he just made assumptions about me, many of which were wrong and some of which were insulting. He made references to ideas I might have picked up from popular teenage culture, though I was in my mid-twenties and hadn’t shown much interest in that sort of thing even ten years earlier when I had been a teen. He seemed to assume that I lived with my parents (I haven’t for several years now) and that they were Catholic (which they aren’t.) I walked away with the overall impression that he didn’t much care about me personally, but just wanted a chance to pontificate, using me as a negative example. I finished that confession feeling both used and humiliated, and I firmly resolved that I would never, save in dire emergency, confess to that particular priest again. I was furious with myself for even saying the act of contrition at the end given how manifestly insincere it was under the circumstances (but how else do you end a confession? Can you just excuse yourself and leave, if you’re not now feeling properly contrite?) I did not receive the Blessed Sacrament again until I had confessed, not only the sins from that last confession, but also the confession itself, to another priest. (As it happened, he was also a traditional priest, but I admit that it took me a couple of weeks to summon the courage to go to confession again after that somewhat traumatic experience. Seeing how upset I was about the last confession, that priest was extremely kind, and successfully prevented me from developing a fear of confessionals generally.)
Now, I acknowledge that a better person than I would perhaps have been able to rejoice in the humiliation of this rather extraordinary confession. (In case any catechumens or non-Catholics are reading this, I should stress that this is an extremely anomalous experience; none of my other confessions have been remotely like that, and if you make your first confession to a priest with whom you are already acquainted, there is virtually no chance of something like this happening to you.) But it was too much for me, and my resolution not to confess to that priest again was less an act of defiance or “punishment” (I never told him, and I don’t expect he’s especially eager to see me again anyway) and more a frank acknowledgement of what I am and am not capable of doing. Just thinking about entering his confessional made me feel so defensive and argumentative that contrition was quite out of the question. But it was a lesson to me, because I always thought I was in favor of straight-talk concerning sin, and I never liked laxness of the variety I mentioned earlier. I think I used to be mildly contemptuous of people who refused to confess to Father X because they thought he was too mean to them… but apparently I’m not above being offended, either.
I think the bottom line is that, in confession, the penitent puts himself in quite a vulnerable position. This is one forum in which it’s no use suggesting that you go in with a stiff upper lip, or that you resolve not to take things personally. Such an attitude would make a good confession virtually impossible, because confession is, in fact, intensely personal. I don’t think priests need to turn every confession into a deep, searching conversation; sometimes it’s best just to offer a quick word of advice or encouragement, a penance, and absolution. I only suggest that, if you do want to talk to penitents at length, try to be mindful of the pitiable position they are in, and show some compassion.
We can’t expect perfection from priests who, although they act in persona Christi in absolving us, won’t always be able to find the words that Our Lord himself would have chosen for any given occasion. Above all we need to be grateful for their efforts, and especially grateful for those who, like our parish priest here, take the trouble to do this important task thoroughly and well.
St. Louis-Marie de Montfort,
Pope St. Pius X,
St. Joseph,
St. Ambrose of Milan,
St. Thomas Aquinas,
St. Francis (and St. Clare),
St. Catherine of Siena,
St. Alphonsus Ligouri,
St. John Chrysostom,
What do you think of the practice of confessing face-to-face? I used to do this as a child because it was encouraged at my (very Novus) school; but lately I cannot bring myself to do it. I’m not sure I would feel proper contrition when I’m not kneeling.
Yeah I hate when priests in the confessional say something like “don’t be so hard on yourself”. There’s a red flag that tells you that you need to get another confessor.
Also I’ve wondered in the past whether having the same priest as a confessor and as a spiritual director is the wisest thing for a Catholic. I don’t know the exact Church rules on that though, or what the tradition is. But I do remember reading something where having the two in one was actually a bad thing, yet I don’t know why.
I had a strange confession experience this weekend. I won’t go into details, but the priest expressed a level of “concern” that seemed inappropriate. It’s interesting that you brought this up today.
I really love this blog. You guys truly enhance my life as a Catholic. Thanks.
I was furious with myself for even saying the act of contrition at the end given how manifestly insincere it was under the circumstances (but how else do you end a confession? Can you just excuse yourself and leave, if you’re not now feeling properly contrite?)
Dear Clara,
A Cornell friend told me back in 2000 that he’d gone to one of our CCC priests for Confession (I forget which one). He’d done XYZ but was convinced that it wasn’t a sin, so he discussed it with the priest. Priest said yes, XYZ is a sin, and explained why.
So my friend said that he still wasn’t convinced. Fr. said well then, I cannot absolve you because you are not contrite, go away and think about this some more. I absolve you of everything else.
It seems to me that if one says the Act of Contrition without being contrite, that is another form of bearing false witness. But yes, yours was a very difficult position to be in. I am glad that you were able to make another Confession soon after.
God bless!
“Now, in an ideal situation, the confessor will be someone who knows you, and you will respect him and trust his advice.”
Good advice here in this post. However, one of the points I’ve always liked about Confession is that it can be anonymous. There are many personal problems I’d rather address “clinically” with a perfect stranger than with someone who knows me. I think that’s part of the difference between a confessor and a spiritual director — the latter needs to know you, the former not so much.
“Anyone would prefer to reveal extremely personal information to somebody he trusts and respects, just as he’d prefer to be operated on by a surgeon he knows to be skilled. ”
Not necessarily, many people would prefer to reveal extremely personal info to a priest they don’t know to protect themselves and the priest from embarrassment of seeing each other later. Now the question about this can be if it is better for humility and potential contrition to have to face the said priest especially if they are a friend.
On your post on the whole, I think it was good. Thanks for bringing this up. It is definitely advisable to go to a priest that is a good confessor and will help us grow in the spiritual life. But on bad confessors, harsh or lax, it is good to one learn humility and two help the priest. Just think of the many souls that could be driven away or numbed by him. It is an extremely conscience forming moment and especially for those Catholics who are not as well read. I would make some attempt to, as tactfully as possible, guide his approach. Example, I would tell the lax priest that something is a sin according to the Church.. etc. very nicely, now he will most likely disagree, but it could be something the Holy Spirit has him dwell on later. For the harsh priest, I would tell him that he doesn’t need those details, just number and kind and maybe a tad of circumstance (but not excuse). He may get angry, but just put up the wall. Don’t argue, just repeat the sin and give a tad of circumstance (ie gossip, with a friend of the person) never names. He should back off.
Either way, I have had the same happen and it is tough to go through. But if it happens again, you will be ready and not phased. God Bless.
Peace be with you.
I love this article.
Additionally, I wanted to respond in part to Tobias’ comment.
I regularly enter into Confession with a priest whom I know and communicate and socialize on a fairly regular basis with such personal information. It may be the particular holiness of this priest and his extreme humility that allows this to be possible, but he is my first choice as Confessor.
May God bless you.
Holy Mary protect you.
-Christopher
To EM:
Re: “I absolve you of everything else…”
This isn’t a criticism of what you had to say, merely a comment for the benefit of people who find themselves in such a situation: there is no such thing as partial absolution. If a priest cannot absolve someone for EVERY sin they’ve committed, they cannot absolve them at all. Confession must be integral (complete) to be valid, and this requires sufficient contrition for every sin. The priest cannot pick and choose what sins he absolves from.
A fair number of otherwise-decent priests don’t know this themselves (thanks to the woeful state of seminary education), but should a confessor tell you (you meaning anyone, not just you) that you’re receiving “partial absolution,” then you need to go again elsewhere, at least if you are confessing something mortal.
Thanks to everyone for their comments. As per my remark about having a regular confessor: certainly it can be more comfortable confessing to a stranger in that you tend to care less what strangers think of you, and you might think (as Tobias Petrus seems to be implying) that a stranger will be more objective and perhaps more honest in what he says. That’s possible, and I think it’s good to have as an open option.
I guess my thought is that, if you have a regular confessor, he will begin to know something of you and your character, and he will have some idea of what sins are particularly troublesome for you. That might enable him to give you better advice. He might also be able to give more appropriate penances, because he will have a better sense of whether a particular confession represents “progress”, if you will, or a serious backsliding from whatever you were working on before. Also, I find that, once I’ve been absolved of a particular sin, I feel especially motivated to avoid it afterwards if I know I’ll be confessing to the same priest. When I feel tempted towards something, I’ll think, “But how awful it would be to have to go back and confess that again!”
If, God forbid, I had something extremely grave to confess (i.e. murdering someone or marital infidelity) I suppose I might prefer that my pastor not know about it, though, by the same token, the absolution of a complete stranger would probably not help as much spiritually. In cases where the hurt you’ve done to others is particularly great, it seems to me that it might be that much more valuable to talk to someone who knows your situation well enough to advise you.
For most of my confessions, I guess I normally figure, “Well, it’s somewhat embarassing, but then again, it’s pretty hard to shock a priest. He knows all about human weakness so I don’t think he’ll despise me.”
In response to Matt’s comment about face-to-face confession: confessing face-to-face is, I think, awkward. As any good salesman or diplomat knows, eye contact tends to make people feel more on the spot. I also agree that it’s optimal to confess on your knees, but if you insist on that too stringently, you lose some opportunities to go to confession. On the night before my wedding, for example, I had a bit of a dilemma, because I obviously wanted to confess before receiving the Sacrament of Matrimony, but, for various logistical reasons, I wasn’t likely to get a chance on the day itself. We were all at my parents’ house for the rehearsal dinner (the priest included) and of course my parents don’t have a confessional handy for such occasions, so my fiance had an idea: his car was parked on a dark street a short distance from the house, so Father sat in the front seat of the car, and I sat in the back. It was kind of amusing since a similar strategy is so often used in mafia movies for much more nefarious purposes, but in the end I thought it worked. I wasn’t worried about being overheard, and even though it obviously wasn’t really anonymous, the darkness and the fact that nobody was looking at me made it fairly comfortable. Sometimes you just have to improvise.
To Hammerbrecher — I think you may be right that it would probably be good, in some instances, to offer priests some humble advice regarding the things they say in confession. Otherwise, as you point out, they may be hurting other people without realizing it, and how will they know without feedback? But it’s extremely hard to argue with a priest in the middle of your own confession. Probably some people could do it — people more mature and holier than myself — but at my present stage I don’t think I’d trust myself to attempt it. My argumentative side, once awoken, is not easily tamed, and the results of letting it out in the confessional might be unhappy for all concerned. This is not, I realize, to my credit… perhaps someday in the future I’ll be able to work out a measured response that gets the point across without destroying the contrition proper to the penitent.
Also, to Aaron: thank you so much for the lovely compliment. Truly, you made my day.
Dear Clara,
You wrote: “I was furious with myself for even saying the act of contrition at the end given how manifestly insincere it was under the circumstances (but how else do you end a confession? Can you just excuse yourself and leave, if you’re not now feeling properly contrite?)”
Please remember there is a difference between feeling contrite and being contrite. One need not “feel” contrite to be contrite. Contrition is an act of the will whereby one is sorry for one’s sins because one has offended God. Contrition is not a feeling. One may “feel” contrite, even weep over one’s sins and not be at all contrite. Don’t get caught in the feeling trap. It is disasterous. It’s the reason so many marriages end in divorce…people don’t “feel” loved. You cannont feel love. Love is an act of the will. You can feel the effects of someone’s love, but even if you don’t, that doesn’t mean they don’t love you. It’s the same with contrition. The act of contrition need not be felt, but it must be sincere. If you were sincerely contrite when you confessed, that is before the priest questioned and lectured, then you were contrite at absolution. How you felt after he spoke was a response to him, not a withdrawal of contrition. You were, in fact, absolved and had no obligation to confess those sins again, however you were not wrong to do so.
I would also like to add that JJ’s comment to EM is absolutely correct. One is absolved of all of one’s sins or one is not absolved of any of them. There is no such thing as “partial absolution.” Given the situation the EM writes about, one must be careful to remember the three conditions necessary for mortal sin. 1) It must be grave matter; 2) One must know it is sinful; and 3) One must give full consent of the will. If one of these conditions is lacking or if there is any doubt, the sin is venial, but it is still a sin. Whether one believes or is convinced that something is a sin is not relevent to it’s being sinful, only to whether it is mortal or venial. For absolution to be refused one must be impenitant, that is, not be contrite. Not being convinced that something is a sin does not show someone is not contrite. They are two different subjects. The priest did not make the best choice given the situation as presented.
If one is in doubt about whether or not something is a sin or whether or not one has, in fact, committed a sin, it is always best to be sorry for it and confess it and express the doubt to the priest. If he tells you it is a sin, humbly accept his judgement. That’s what he’s there for. If you still think it’s not a sin, don’t debate it in the confessional. It’s neither the place nor the time. But do be sure to clear up the doubt withing a reasonable time since there is a moral obligation to do so.
I hope my comments have been helpful.
In Our Mother of Perpetual Help,
Fr. Scott Bailey, C.Ss.R.
Fr. Bailey,
Thanks so much for those comments. I must admit (though as a philosopher-in-training I’m supposed to know something about this) that the relationship between feelings and acts of will has never been transparent to me. Certain feelings properly attend certain acts of will; if we try to divorce the two too strictly we end up in the bizarre position of not being sure what we ourselves will. Feelings do surely have some moral significance. (Anyway, Aristotle thought they did, and Catholic moral philosophy seems to have developed along similar lines.) But as you point out, identifying them too closely is problematic in many ways. This is a very complex subject which, as I’ve said, I don’t claim to understand very clearly.
I guess it seems right that, provided I made my original confession in good faith, nothing that was said in the few minutes afterwards should be able to destroy that contrition. If you routinely found yourself confessing without any attendant feelings of guilt, you might legitimately be worried, but in this case there was a somewhat particular reason for the change in my emotional state, which wouldn’t necessarily indicate a general lack of contrition. At the same time, if the primary thought going through your mind as you say the Act of Contrition is “how fast can I say this in order to escape?” then you have to worry that your intention was perhaps a little misdirected.
Anyway, thanks again, Father, for your helpful remarks.
Peace be with you.
Concerning face-to-face Confessional practices:
I think, truly, the ideal is kneeling, but I prefer face-to-face. I often choose the kneeler with screen because it has the kneeler. More pointedly, there is a ritual to “reconciliation” that we ought to consider in this matter.
Re (again) Con (with) Cilia (small hairs) -ation (to be made or done). In being reconciled we are “again able to join the lashes of the eyes,” i.e. look at one another. In western culture (as opposed to far eastern) and Mediterranean cultures when one is shamed they use downcast eyes. (In the far east, it is disgraceful to not make eye contact, just as in the west, so in practice those in the eat are disciplined facing their prosecutor). In the Confession of Sins, we ought to be of downcast eyes, but in being absolved, we ought to be able, once again, to look eye-to-eye with out Confessor ( as if we can again be owrhty to see God Face to Face).
May God bless you.
Holy Mary protect you.
-Christopher
Christopher, thanks for the explanation of the etymology of the word “reconciliation,” but I don’t think the Church herself places any symbolic value on that etymology. There is a reason why the Church has decreed that Confession may be anonymous. The point of penance is not so much to be reconciled with that individual priest, but with God. When you are reconciled with the God you formerly offended, you enter the state of grace, so you can see Him face to face in heaven. You also can look again at your neighbor and yourself (in the mirror). But as far as I know, the Church has never put any signficance on the etymology of the word “reconciliation,” certainly not so far as to place symbolic value upon the act of looking the confessor in the eye. (Please correct me if I am mistaken.)
By all means, confess face-to-face if you so wish and that better represents the meaning of reconciliation for you. In Rome, the confessionals usually are so constructed that you can both kneel and look at the priest — which I’m sure you would prefer.
Christopher, I have checked my Lewis ahd Short, probably the best Latin dictionary. The “-cil-” in “reconciliation” does not come from “cilium.” The prefix “re-” does mean “again.” The verb “concilio” means “to unite in thought or feeling,” and it comes from “concilium.” “Concilium” means “a gathering or assembly,” and it derives from “con-”=”cum” (with, together) and “-cal-”, meaning call. A concilium, or gathering, is “a calling-together.” So “reconciliatio” means “a re-summoning together.” That is the true etymology.
The Greek word for Church, the “ekklesia” comes from “ek-kaleo,” “to summon forth.” “Concilium” and “ekklesia” can both mean an assembly of citizens. For whatever that’s worth.
Okay, so now that we have the real etymology, yes, the Church does place real value on it. The reconciled sinner is once again called to unity with the God and the rest of the Church via the other sacraments, the virtue of charity, etc.
Peace be with you.
Interesting, Thank you for the correct etymology. I particularly enjoy the similarity it bears with ekklesia, in terms of a calling together!
As a side, I usually imagine the ekklesia to offer more of a “carving out of” nuance, like a relief from the world, with the preposition “ek.”
May God bless you.
Holy Mary protect you.
-Christopher
“As a side, I usually imagine the ekklesia to offer more of a “carving out of” nuance, like a relief from the world, with the preposition “ek.””
Unfortunately, I do not thing that this is so. But I shall check the LSJ dictionary.
From the looks of it, the original meaning of the “ekkaleo” in this context is “call out/summon.” When a person went to the assembly (ekklesia), he was duly summoned from (i.e. out of) his house to the assembly area. That is more likely than your suggestion. One can play around with etymologies and find new meanings, but it is best to recognize that these are just that — new. Peace be with you.
As for the interpretation of “ekklesia” as “carving out,” I think you are using a Latin root when the word is Greek.
Father Bailey,
On the Feast of Saint Alphonsus, it is encouraging to see a member of his Congregation offering sound advice on Confession. Stories abound of Redemptorist Missions and long lines at the Confessionals. Now that permission has come from the Pope, I can imagine that you are eager to offer the same Mass as your founder. Reportedly, the Saint claimed that the omission of a word in the Canon was serious matter and that to do so deliberately was a mortal sin. What would he say today, when priests like to ad-lib! Can you tell us if many of your confreres in religion will be offering the Traditional Mass?
Dear Discipulus,
Thank you for your kind words. The advice is not mine, really. It is that of St. Alphonsus from his Praxis Confessarii. In my opinion, every priest who hears confessions ought to be well schooled in this little work and always keep it close to hand.
Yes, I am very eager to offer the same Mass as St. Alphonsus. For a time I helped out at a parish where the older rite was used and, with my provincial’s permission, was learning the Latin and rubrics. I was, however, transferred before I actually celebrated the traditional Mass. St. Alphonsus did say that to omit one word of the Canon is serious matter and to do so deliberately is a mortal sin. He said to add or omit any word or rubric is serious matter. He also said that no priest could properly celebrate a low Mass in less than half an hour without committing at least venial sin. But at the same time he understood that rubrics were not for rubrics’ sake, but to free the priest to enter more deeply into the mystery of Christ’s Passion and Death. This is so integral to St. Alphonsus’ moral theology: that, in this matter, the purpose of the rubrics is to enable right action, that is, to give one’s self completely over to Christ in offering the Holy Sacrifice without worrying about the details. If all we priests would only understand rubrics and liturgical law in this way! (Of course that would mean Christ would be the focus of the Mass and not the “presider” and then no one would notice father’s new haircut, etc.)
In my estimation there will be few confreres in my province who will be offering the Traditional Mass of their own accord. Of course, pastors will have to provide for their people who ask for it so some will offer it because of pastoral need. Many of the older priests scorn the Traditional Mass and have done so publically. We younger priests have been taught at the Washington Theological Union which is, in my opinion, thoroughly protestant and heterodox. As most have bought into what was taught there I see few of my generation offering the older rite. But there are a few who will do so, either because they never lost their love and understanding of it, or because they seek to fulfill a longing that is within them.
May our Mother of Perpetual Help ever watch over you.
Thank you very much, Father. I appreciate your response and explanation…and blessing. Our Mother of Perpetual Help is one of my favorites. We will pray for you and for more priests like you. Te, cum Prole Pia, benedicat Virgo Maria.
One way to make the most of confession and to perhaps effect the priest in a good way is to be blunt and to the point. That is first of all humble, and second of all in your face spiritual warfare — I think I read somewhere that the devil hates that kind of stuff. It’s also good to mention these are my main “sins” because it helps reorient the Confession to what it should be — a Sacrament of Forgiveness — and not a per se secular counseling session or psychological therapy. Perhaps an easy way to practice this is to simply state which of the Ten Commandments one has failed to follow — since this is blunt and also covers the venial and mortal. If you need spiritual assistance then wait until after the priest speaks to you about your sins. I find that this technique results in some very interesting comments from the priest — no matter who they are — which often touch upon something directly related to my spiritual need or question. Not sure if you do this but it may help.
Dear Johnboy316,
While it is important to be, as you put it, blunt and to the point in confessing one’s sins, it is not sufficient to simply state which of the commandments one has failed to follow. All mortal sins must be confessed in kind and number. That is, they must be explicitely stated. Additionally, one must confess, as nearly as possible, how many times the sin was committed. One must also confess anything which changes the seriousness or nature of the sin. For example, to confess, “I lied,” is not always sufficient. The person to whom one lied and the matter of the lie can change the sin. Also, the effect of the lie on self or others can compound the sin. To lie about having a previous engagement so as to not have to spend time with an acquantance is very different from lying about being sick to miss a day’s work which causes problems for others, which in turn is different from lying about whether or not one’s financial means so as not to have to care for an elderly or sick parent. If simply confessing “I lied” is a means of not looking quite so bad to the priest (or one’s self) or is an attempt at not confessing something directly then one is committing the sin of sacrilege and the confession is invalid.
What is unfortunate is that many priests today are not qualified to hear confessions either because they were never taught how or don’t have the moral fiber… they want to be everyone’s friend rather than their priest. Most of the faithful have not been instructed properly in how to confess since at least the 1960s and many who knew how to do so have been dis-instructed by erroneous teaching.
Find a good priest and confess with integrity. Be honest and direct. Don’t hold anything back out of fear. If the priest is in any way abusive or unkind, don’t go back. He is unworthy to hear your confession. It is a great honor and privilege for a priest to hear confessions. In so doing he is truly acting “in persona Christi.” And if he does not act as Christ would act, with love and compassion, then he is not worthy of the honor.
If you are seeking a good confessor, then pray to Saint Alphonsus Liguori (the Patron of Confessors) and to Saint Francis Xavier (powerfull intercessor in spiritual needs).
Jesus and Mary be with you,
Fr. Scott Bailey, C.Ss.R.
I do agree the number of mortal sins must be confessed. However, I don’t believe there should be much additional detailing unless it is to clarify that one’s sin was venial (although this reminds me of Bishop Sheen who apparently was asked by a confessor if his sin was mortal and he said something like “what does it matter, it’s all sin” and left it at that). In any case I would suspect most people (myself included) would be ready to explain that the sin was venial if it was just so they are not percieved as committing a mortal sin (case in point Commandment #6). Since the Catechism states that the “Ten Commandments, in their fundamental content, state grave obligations” (par. 2081) and that venial sins are “less serious matter” or serious matter “without full knowledge or without complete consent” (par. 1862) it would seem appropriate to assume as a priest that penitent has committed a mortal sin unless stated otherwise. And we are required to confess mortal sins and not venial per se so by default if there is a concern that it is mortal all you need to do as a priest is ask if it was mortal. I’ve heard Father Corapi say that the Ten Commandments are sufficient because we are not supposed to go into details and that is what I tried to say. Maybe you have a point, but I don’t truly think it applies exactly. Maybe you could explain some more. Thanks for the response.
In my previous comment where I spoke of Bishop Sheen I should have said his confessor asked if his sin was *venial*, not mortal.
Johnboy316, I really don’t think that a priest assumes that sins are mortal unless they are explicitly described as venial. I have never heard such a thing. If anything, they assume the opposite. We all give others the benefit of the doubt. If I am guilty of a mortal sin, I usually either state what the specific sin was (in case that sin is always grave) or specify that the failing (such as being inconsiderate) was serious on this occasion. Remember, while we are required to confess only mortal sins, we are strongly encouraged to confess venial ones too. So the priest cannot guess the gravity of the sins confessed unless he is told.
Dear Johnboy316,
Thank you for your response to my last post. It is good to be having this exchange. I hope it is as helpful to readers as it is for me.
In hearing confessions a priest should never assume anything. That was one of the problems that brought about Clara’s original post. Not to be confusing, but for the purpose of absolution it doesn’t matter whether or not the sin is mortal or venial. Now you might ask, then why differentiate? The reason is that the penitent must know as it is his or her soul that is in danger of being lost. The confessor needs to know which sins are mortal and which venial to assess the state of the penitent’s soul and offer guidence. But again, for the purpose of absolution and a valid confession, the distinction matters little. What does matter is that details can change the nature of the sin. It is not true that a lie is a lie is a lie. I tried to give examples that illustrated that. To exaggerate, one can confess to having lied, but if that lie led to the death of another, then one must also confess to causing the death of another. To confess to having lied, while knowing that another died because of it and not confessing that outcome, is a sacrilege. It is the same for lesser effects.
It is true that detals should be ommitted from confession. Now, by details are meant names, locations, times… those things that are not necessary to the confession and/or do not change the nature of the sin confessed. For example one never reveals the name of an accomplice in sin as in the partner in adultery or fornication or tells when or where this took place. It has no bearing on the nature of the sin. To tell where or when could expose the identity of the accomplice or of yourself. However, in this particular instance, if the accomplice is related within a certain degree, then there is also the sin of incest. So here is a perfect example of where simply confessing to adultery or fornication is insufficient. Once must confess to adultery or fornication with a family member or confess to both adultery or fornication AND incest.
I can understand why you would think that the priest would assume that the sins confessed are mortal, given that one is only required to confess mortal sins. However there are many people who, understanding the sacrament of penance as a means of grace to overcome sin in their lives, confess weekly or even more often or without having committed mortal sin. Some holy souls might only be confessing faults, neither mortal nor venial sins. Some might be confessing sins already absolved in order to receive the grace of absolution (which cannot be given without the confession of actual sin). Thus a priest can assume nothing when he hears confessions for he has no idea who is on the other side of the screen or what burden the carry.
I hope this has helped to make things clearer.
Jesus and Mary be with you,
Fr. Scott Bailey, C.Ss.R.
Well, Tobias, and Father, my point was not that a priest should automatically assume all sins are mortal but rather that it is sufficient to state the particular Commandment broken without giving additional details (and of course the number of times broken). I also gave several supporting points:
1) The Ten Commandments are objectively and fundamentally serious sins (CCC par. 2081).
2) It is only necessary to distinguish mortal sins.
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.
I’ll add two more:
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).
5) One only has to state what sin one has committed; and not the gravity unless it is mortal (couple with point #1).
I should clarify the first sentence of my last post. Where I put in parenthesis “and of course the number of times broken” was not a good spot. It should have been after the “it is sufficient to state the particular Commandment broken.”
I guess what it all boils down to is the one side (myself) who says confessing the sin by stating the Commandment broken (and number of times) versus the other view that additional information must be given so the priest fully appreciates whether a sin is mortal or venial. Of course, my response to that — in light of just using the Commandments per se in Confession — was that if there was some doubt then the priest should just simply ask — was it mortal?
Perhaps I have been unclear. The giving of additional information is not to determine whether or not the sin is mortal or venial or even no sin at all. The giving of additional information is to determine the nature of the sin committed. We are obliged to confess those circumstances which change the nature of the sin, or increase the number. The Roman Catechism tells us:
“In confession we should employ all that care and exactness which we usually bestow upon worldly concerns of great moment, and all our efforts should be directed to the cure of our soul’s wounds and to the destruction of the roots of sin. ***We should not be satisfied with the bare enumeration of our mortal sins, but should mention such circumstances as considerably aggravate or extenuate their malice. Some circumstances are so serious as of themselves to constitute mortal guilt. On no account whatever, therefore, are such circumstances to be omitted.*** Thus if one man has killed another, he must state whether his victim was a layman or an ecclesiastic. Or, if he has had sinful relations with a woman, he must state whether the female was unmarried or married, a relative or a person consecrated to God by vow. These circumstances change the nature of the sins; so that the first kind of unlawful intercourse is called by theologians simple fornication, the second adultery, the third incest, and the fourth sacrilege. Again, theft is numbered in the catalogue of sins. But if a person has stolen one golden coin, his sin is less grievous than if he had stolen a hundred or two hundred, or an immense sum; and if the stolen money belonged to the Church, the sin would be still more grievous. The same rule applies to the circumstances of time and place, but’ the examples are too well known from many books to require mention here. Circumstances such as these are, therefore, to be mentioned; but those which do not considerably aggravate the malice of the sin may be lawfully omitted (The Sacrament of Penance: Confession Should Be Entire). See also the Council of Trent, the Fourteenth Session: On the Most Holy Sacraments of Penance and Extreme Unction: Chapter V. On Confession
So it is not a question of sides or views. It is a question of what the Church teaches in her official pronouncements. It is absolutely clear that it is not sufficient to state the particular commandment broken.
(Continued next post)
Now I will respond to your five points.
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.
Thank you, Father, for your diligent response to our queries here. I think I can speak safely for my fellow bloggers here that the sort of clarification occurrin on this thread is exactly the sort of enlightenment we aspire to on our blog.
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.
Dear Fr. Bailey: I would like to say ‘thank you’ for so patiently explaining the teaching of the Church. Your words are appreciated and I hope that many are able to read them.
Actually Tobias what I meant was if I was to confess venial sins and just said — I acted against Commandment #X — that would be sufficient. However, Fr. Bailey said some folks might use that as a guise to mask mortal sins. I just don’t think so (as I mentioned most people in practice would rather make the sin evidently venial by giving additional information so they aren’t percieved as falling into mortal sin).
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.
Of course — that quote doesn’t really say describing the circumstances is merely “fruitful for getting spiritual help” as I say but rather important because the mortal sin could be the circumstance itself — for instance near occasions of sin. Certainly, however, it would appear that that would be fundamentally a sin against the applicable Commandment it is disordered to and of course a reason to confess it. But still — is it even sufficient to simply state I failed, for instance 2 times against Commandment X if I know that one of the times was the circumstance and the other was the act? Would that satisfy the thing? Perhaps?
Unfortunately the response to this is that it would not satisfy the requirement for confession of sins to say that I failed twice against the tenth commandment knowing that one failure was the act and the other was the circumstance. I say unfortunately because it would be so much easier to go to confession if we could confess in this way. I myself would much rather be able to say “I sinned against the fifth commandment three times, the fourth commandment once” and the like. I find it very painful and humiliating to confess my sins explicitely to a brother priest. (Yet this does give me an occasion to “offer it up” as it were.)
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.
Well — I certainly appreciate your comments. It’s nice to at least have some more expert-type opinion on this blog — hehe. Ok — all righty then…
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.
I never found that apparent reference Father.
Where I said “why? because each of the Ten Commandments are not equally grievous” I also should indicate and each are not of the same nature. This seems to correspond to the CCC par. 1460 (which is also a reflection of your Trent quotes).
I LOVE “thorn producing issue mongers”… they make people think. You’re making me think. Keep at it. This is truly immensely helpful to me. I don’t often get to have this kind of exchange and I love it!
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.
I also came across in Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma regarding confession of serious sins — we are “obliged” to state them in kind and number as well as the circumstances that alter the nature of the sin. When I refer to nature in my last response I think I really meant “kind” and not “nature.” If anyone commits a mortal sin they should not only confess the sin and the number of times committed but also the circumstances if it affects the “nature” of the sin as you state.
Or presumably the circumstances must always be given as you state…
Well — I guess I was mistaken up until recently and fortunately have not to my knowledge made a poor confession. But this was good and a reason the Church needed to proclaim it a Dogma.
The story goes that the wife of an Anglican Clergyman was outside her home tending the flowers along the front walkway when a lady appeared at the gate and asked, “Is the Dean in?”
“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
Ott is a very good resource. One of the best manuals of dogmatic theology, in my opinion.
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.
Father, I think there are many Catholics who are just not very well taught on how to make a good examination of conscience, or they’re just not good at it.
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.
Fr. Bailey,
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 think the thing to remember is that a confession may be good formally (which really is what matters) even if materially one has not confessed perfectly (we all have limited memories and are not perfect). However, if one has become aware of a non-confessed serious sin after the fact they are obliged (according to Ott’s interpretation and others) to confess them at the next Confession. However, I don’t think it’s good to get worried about whether you made a good confession or not after the fact (unless you knowingly withheld a serious sin, for example).
Raindear, it depends exactly what you mean when you say partial absolution. If (as Johnboy316 states) it is a formally good confession, that is, one has confessed all the mortal sins one is aware of, then they are absolved, even if a sin were to be forgotten. If a mortal sin is remembered after confession, it is simply confessed in the next confession, but one acts as if it has been absolved, which indeed it has been. A remembered sin that was not deliberately witheld does not prohibit one from receiving communion or any other sacrament since it would have been confessed it if there was awareness of it. However, even though the sin was absolved, there is still the obligation to confess it in the next confession. But again as Johnboy316 says, don’t worry about it.
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.
Another way to think of it is that every mortal sin builds a wall between the person and God. By commiting three mortal sins one builds three separate walls. Absolution is the means by which the walls are torn down. If only two walls are torn down, one remains and there is still a wall between the person and God. Thus partial absolution has accomplished nothing as one wall remains and it only takes one wall to separate us from the life of grace.
Fr. Scott Bailey, C.Ss.R.