Properly catechized Catholics know that, when we have committed mortal sins, we are obliged to confess them, how many times we committed them, and any circumstances that affect the moral species of the act (e.g., stealing from a church is different than ordinary stealing because of the element of sacrilege is involved, ditto for lying after having taken an oath before God as opposed to ordinary lying, adultery vs. fornication, etc. Note that these distinctions all involve the kind of sin being committed, not the degree of sinfulness; the Church has not required that we confess circumstances that affect the degree of sinfulness, only the kind).
Often times it is difficult for one reason or another to make this kind of confession, and if you read older moral and pastoral theology manuals they offer extensive discussions of the situations in which penitents are excused from making this type of confession.
Recently I received an email inquiry about how this fact relates to the 1983 Code of Canon Law’s statement that:
Can. 960 Individual and integral confession and absolution constitute the only ordinary means by which a member of the faithful conscious of grave sin is reconciled with God and the Church. Only physical or moral impossibility excuses from confession of this type; in such a case reconciliation can be obtained by other means.
Individual confession and absolution is the kind of sacramental confession we normally make: One person (an individual) talking to a priest, who absolves him. This is opposed, for example, to a priest offering a general absolution to a bunch of people at once in a grave circumstance (e.g., they’re all in an airplane that is about to crash and there is no time for individual confession). This latter is allowed in rare and grave circumstances. By nature it is an extraordinary situation, as opposed to individual confession and absolution being the “only ordinary means” of reconciliation.
The term “integral” confession is less familiar. What “integral” means is “complete.” In other words, the kind of confession we talked about at the top of the post, where for all your mortal sins, you say what each sin was, how many times it was committed, and anything that affected the species or kind of sin it was.
Why my correspondent was wondering was—since Canon 960 says that “only physical or moral impossibility excuses from confession of this type,” does the 1983 Code of Canon Law override all of the treatments given in older works of moral and pastoral theology about when one is excused from integral or “complete” confession.
The basic answer is no. The 1983 Code is not trying to change prior Catholic practice on this point. It had been the common teaching of Catholic theologians long before the 1983 Code that only physical or moral impossibility excused from making an integral confession. The Code is recognizing and incorporating this common teaching and thus giving canonical expression to what was already the traditional view. It thus does not override prior moral and pastoral thought on when one is excused from an integral confession. Whatever the older manuals said about this subject, to the extent it was sound then, is sound now. The 1983 Code didn’t change anything.
Of course, readers will wonder what some of these principles were, so let’s talk about that (which will allow me to answer some related queries sent by my correspondent).
The first concept we need to mention is physical impossibility. What’s that? Pretty much what it says. If, for example, you are in a crashing plane and there is no time to make a complete confession, you’re excused from doing so and can be absolved anyway. If you’ve had a stroke and are unable to communicate, you are similarly excused on grounds of physical impossibility.
What about moral impossibility? This category is meant to cover situations where it is physically possible to make an integral confession but there is some other factor that makes it very difficult to do so. Where the precise line on the next obvious question—“Just how difficult are we talking about?”—is a question that requires a judgment call, and it is here that the old moral/pastoral theology manuals play a useful role. This is exactly the kind of question they explore, using examples and principles to sketch out the answer.
For example, to take a very common example, let’s suppose you have forgotten how many times you committed a particular sin. Theoretically, you might be able to think harder and longer on the question and maybe come up with the exact number, but maybe that wouldn’t happen. Maybe you’d never get the exact number—or know with confidence that you had gotten it—and waiting to go to confession in that case would deprive you of the grace of the sacrament indefinitely, which is itself a grave thing. It could also send you tumbling off into the pits of scrupulosity—also a grave thing. Consequently, sound moral and pastoral theologians down through the ages have judged that one should only make reasonable efforts to determine the number of times one has committed a sin. If you’ve made a reasonable effort (i.e., what a normal faithful Catholic, not a living saint, would do) and can’t name the exact number, you are excused from doing so. You should, to the extent possible say things like, “I did this at least once” or “I did it a few times” or “I did it a lot of times,” but you are not bound to name any specific number.
Another situation—again very common—that excuses from an integral confession is scrupulosity. People suffering from this condition often get in destructive patterns of confession where they repeatedly confess sins over and over, go into agonizing and unnecessary amounts of detail, confess numerous sins of a venial nature because they can’t tell whether they were mortal, etc. Sound confessors have, down through the ages, developed rules for helping penitents fight such scrupulosity, such as telling (or even ordering) the penitent not to confess a sin unless he is absolutely sure it was mortal and that it was committed since the penitent’s last confession. If there is doubt about either of these points, the penitent should not confess it. (Note: This is the opposite of the advice given to people who don’t have scrupulosity, in which case a “confess it just to be safe” rule applies; it is the condition of scrupulosity that makes the difference in what is appropriate for the penitent to do).
Another common example—closely linked with scrupulosity—is obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). Sufferers of this condition have painful and distressing thoughts, and the more they dwell on these thoughts, the worse they become. They need, to the best of their ability, to ignore them, relax, and move on. Thus if a penitent with OCD (or anyone, for that matter) is having compulsive sexual thoughts or disturbing religious thoughts or similar things and if confessing them would tend to stir up these thoughts, it is very easy to justify a non-integral confession regarding them. First, if they are compulsive then the person is not fully consenting to them and they are not moral. Even if the person has consented to them, if mentioning the details in confession would stir them up then the penitent should not go into detail. If he can get away with saying, “I’ve had impure thought” or “I’ve had bad thoughts” with out stirring them up then he should do that, but in principle even that can be omitted if the danger of stirring them up is significant enough.
rom an integral confession. If the tendencies are strong then there may well be.
For people who have conditions like this, I recommend that they discuss the matter with their priest or spiritual director and ask the question directly, “Should I confess this kind of material.” That way, if they are later confessing to a new or unfamiliar priest and he says, “What kind of bad thoughts are you talking about?” they can reply, “I have scrupulosity/OCD and my priest/spiritual director has told me not to go into detail on this because it will only stir up the thoughts.” That will satisfy almost any confessor (actually, it will satisfy any confessor who is exercising sound judgment).
My correspondent asked about the situation of a penitent with “tendencies toward scrupulosity” but not full-blown scruples or OCD. Here there is a judgment call that must be made by the penitent and his confessor or spiritual director. If the tendencies are only mild then there may not be an excuse from integral confession. If the tendencies are strong then the penitent may well be excused.
Of course, the penitent should always maintain the attitude that he would confess the sins, with number and species-changing circumstance, if there wasn’t a situation preventing this (e.g., if I remembered, if it wouldn’t stir up these thoughts). If he has the attitude that he willfully would not confess a particular mortal sin no matter what then he is deliberately withholding something from confession that must be confessed. That would invalidate the sacrament. But as long as he has the will to confess everything he is supposed to then the confession will be valid, even though there are reasons that excuse him from confessing certain things.
There is a lot more that can be said on this subject. Indeed, there are whole chapters in the older moral and pastoral theology manuals. But I hope this much brings comfort to those who find themselves in such situations.
Comments
Post a Comment
This topic brings to mind the confession of “doubtful” mortal sins. I think the most common element with these is the doubt as to whether one has given full consent. I also think the common wisdom is that the scrupulous should not even consider confessing these and the lax should confess them. Yet, I wonder if the very fact that one—no matter his state of mind—does not immediately say, “I have sinned mortally” with no doubt, is a clear indicator that one has not sinned mortally and as such whether “doubtful” mortal sins is a category with no meaning and should never have appeared in the manuals. Set me straight.
“Of course, the penitent should always maintain the attitude that he would confess the sins, with number and species-changing circumstance, if there wasn’t a situation preventing this (e.g., if I remembered, if it wouldn’t stir up these thoughts).”
So it’s like couples who can’t have kids but are open to life?
“This topic brings to mind the confession of “doubtful” mortal sins. I think the most common element with these is the doubt as to whether one has given full consent. I also think the common wisdom is that the scrupulous should not even consider confessing these and the lax should confess them. Yet, I wonder if the very fact that one—no matter his state of mind—does not immediately say, “I have sinned mortally” with no doubt, is a clear indicator that one has not sinned mortally and as such whether “doubtful” mortal sins is a category with no meaning and should never have appeared in the manuals. Set me straight.”
As someone with scruples, I have found it helpful to confess, “I think such-and-such is a mortal sin, but am not sure. I have scruples, so I’m confessing it as a mortal sin.” That way I can (a) learn more, (b) not skip a chance to confess, and (c) give everything over to Jesus Christ. But that is just my reasoning.
‘It is of divine precept to confess all mortal sins committed after Baptism. This follows from the words by which Christ instituted the Sacrament; by them He gave the Sacrament a judicial character. So teaches the Council of Trent. . . For a complete confession it is necessary to state clearly and precisely not only all mortal sins, but their number and species and the circumstances which change the species. . .
The penitent must give the number of his mortal sins so far as he can ; if he knows exactly how often he has fallen into a mortal sin, he must state that number of times, neither increasing nor diminishing; if, despite careful examination and reflection he cannot arrive at the real number, he must give it as near as possible, adding the words “about” or “at least”; in so doing he fulfills his obligation, for he has done what he could, which is sufficient to enable a judgment to be pronounced humano modo. Should the penitent, after having thus confessed in all good faith, discover later on a more accurate number than that confessed, he is not obliged to make an other confession to supply this number; nor should he disquiet himself, for the round numbers given in the first confession included everything; it is only when the newly discovered number is considerably greater than the vague estimate of his first confession that he is obliged to confess again, because the number, and, in consequence, the sin, was not perfectly confessed, since a far greater number cannot be considered as included in his former round estimate.’
- Theory and Practice of the Confessional, Casper E. Schieler
‘Moreover, it is advisable, instead of using high numbers, to state how often the sin has been committed in the course of a week or a month, etc., especially with regard to frequent or interior sins. Indeed with habitual sinners it suffices to state how long they have indulged the evil habit, and that they have given willful consent more or less daily whenever occasion offered; this is enough, when the actual number of sins is so doubtful that there would always be a grave risk of a mistake in trying to determine it. “The confessor, when he knows the period over which the accusation extends, may easily and safely form his opinion in the case of a penitent whose will is habitually inclined to sin, that the penitent has sinned as often as there were necessary interruptions to his sin.’
- Theory and Practice of the Confessional, Casper E. Schieler
As a convert, one thing I worry about is the confession I made shortly after I was confirmed (not before - crazy California parish never mentioned it and it didn’t occur to me until afterwards) - I confessed all the biggies I could remember, but I am worried it wasn’t really integral. I’m sure now I missed some out, but at the time I was so nervous that I certainly didn’t mean to omit anything. Since then, I typically go to Confession every couple of weeks, but I’ve never gone back and done a more fleshed out confession of my pre-Catholic years. Do I need to?
If you forgot something that was both mortal and way different from the other stuff you confessed (like, say, you confessed shoplifting but forgot about the time you ‘killed a man in Reno just to watch him die’), then you might want to confess that. Or if, say, you only just now realized that you had a whole category of sinful stuff you didn’t confess (if initially didn’t think that you had to confess the year when you were a drug dealer, but now you realize that selling meth to preschoolers was wrong), then that might be a good idea to confess.
But usually, if it was just more of the same old sins you mentioned to the priest already (and if it wasn’t that you said you did it three times and forgot you’d done it a thousand times, as Jimmy mentions), you should just regard stuff you forgot as being absolved already. Confession’s not a quiz game or a memory test. If you honestly thought you were telling it all, you’re usually covered. Talk to a priest if it worries you, though.
Thanks Maureen. I’ll keep that in mind.
This is not so much a comment for publication, but an observation on a confusing typographical error. In the fifth to last paragraph, in the sentence “First, if they are compulsive then the person is not fully consenting to them and they are not moral” the last word should be “mortal.” If possible to make the correction in the text online and in print, Jimmy would appreciate it!!
Please reflect on catechism #1776-1802 in reference to the moral conscience in relation to God’s Salvation : Law and grace catechism # 1949-1986. The doctrinal documents of the catholic church : The Second Vatican General Concil in 1963 “Constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium” and Pope Leo xIII , Encyclical letter Divinum ILLud in 1897 in reference to The Life Of Grace.
Biblical theology scriptural passages in reference to The sin offerings fir Sins of Ignorance . in the old testament scriptural passages ,The Sin Offerings for Sins of Ignorance of one of the common people ( leviticus 4:27-35), ( Num 15:27-29)
Reflection on the commentary on scriptural passage Numbers 15:27-29. The Navrarre Bible commentary On this scriptural passage : ” what is said here about offerings to atone for sins committed unwittingly ( by the community or by an individual ) needs to be complemented by Leviticus 4-5, It is worth noting the importance that awareness of a sin has when it comes to deciding it’s gravity. if a sin is committed unwittingly, remission can be obtained by making the prescribed offerings ; but if the action is a deliberate one, ritual offerings are incapable of bringing about forgiveness ,and anyone who commits such a son is excluded from the community. Sonethong which the New Testament will make clear is already being implied here- that not all sobs are of equal gravity. Thus, the catechism of the Catholic Church distinguishes moral from venial sins: ” mortal sin destroys charity in the heart of man by a grave violation of God’s law ; it turns man away from God , who is his ultimate end and his beatitude ,by preferring an inferior good to him. Venial sin allows charity to subsist, even though it offends and wounds it” ( catechism#1855) . It also establishes that ” For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent ( Reconciliatio et poenitentia ,17)” ( number 1837) ; whereas , ” one commits venial sin when, in a less serious matter ,one does not observe the standard prescribed by the moral law,or when one disobeys the moral law in a grave matter ,but without full knowledge or without complete consent ( number 1862)
Peace to all for this Lenten Season !!
According to Fr. Chad Ripberger, FSSP. gave a recommendation in one of his many talks on the “Sensus Traditions” website. He said we are to properly confess everything that is on our conscience mortally, and then confess everything that is conscience venially. The peninent can then ask for the grace to continue fighting against and not fall back into previous patterns of behavoir and sinfulness. In this regard it is analogous asking the priest to e.g. place you in the protection of the Immaculate Heart of Mary so that she can also beg for mercy on your behalf during the Prayer of Absolution.
+++
I’m having a slight difficulty understanding confessing a difference in species (required) vs a difference in how bad a sin was (not required) - I don’t understand the difference. Don’t they go hand in hand?
E.g. adultery vs fornication must be confessed.
What about a single person vs a married person confessing viewing pornography? Lustful thoughts or even glances? Are we talking about differences in species or gravity for the married vs non married here?
What if a single person entertains a lustful thought toward a married vs unmarried woman?
In each of these cases, must one confess the general sin (they are the same species, different gravity) or be more specific (different species and gravity)?
The difference b/w adultery and fornication seem to have to do with one’s state in life - at what point does this cease? Where is the line between species and gravity? It seems that every sin can be affected by this - e.g. a policeman or judge thieving vs a bricklayer.
—-
Furthermore, if one has failed to confess according to species - e.g “I had sex outside of marriage” vs specifically fornication or adultery and was not aware of the need to make the distinction (and was not asked by the confessor), I wonder if the confession was valid.
Eliza, In addition to the good advice Maureen gave, I would add that if it is niggling your conscience, go a head and confess it. One year on Divine Mercy Sunday, I confessed a whole slew of stuff I wasn’t sure I had ever confessed, mostly because at the time that I committed them I didn’t realize (or had convinced myself) that they weren’t sins. Even though I had long since regretted my actions, it was much better after confessing them.
Eliza!
Dear sister, please reply if you read this so I know you did and won’t worry. Same situation here: converts in today’s world, esp. liberal zones, are not introduced properly to the forgotten Sacrament, one wherein the sinner meets the savior directly (rather glorious, no?). Your sensus fidelium has told you that truly.
But please remember, to put your mind at ease, that your conversion was not begun by you but was rather a call from our Lord that you answered, and answered, by the way, not because of your own strength and will, but by further actual grace that He gave you in order to even be able to answer him. You were (are) like a 100% paralytic lying on a bed. He raised your head and gave you a drink. You didn’t even have the muscles to swallow, so he carefully ran the water down your throat in a trickle. This is the nature of both actual and sanctifying graces. Everything comes from Him. We are totally unable to do anything on our own without him working in us. That is spiritual poverty, to hang on him for every breath.
But that said, please remember that your initial confession, belated and imprecise as it objectively was and now seems, is done. He literally ransomed you, converted you, and brought you to him into that booth. He was there, literally, in the corporeal form of his priest. He knew ahead of time (outside of time) that you would be late, nervous, all those things. He knew what you skipped or forgot even as you were talking. He is God. I know this is obvious, but we forget it! He is God. He knows all: before, during, and after. Knowing all, he arranged your conversion as pleased him and guided the entire process exactly per his tastes regarding you. A sparrow falls from the sky and he knows. He brought you to the booth, gave you the words to say, and dismissed you afterward as it pleased him.
This is spiritual poverty as discussed in the sermon on the mount. Go to confession every two weeks for the rest of your life. As St. Teresa of Avila would advise, confess the venial sins, the ones that “destroy you” by their seeming smallness. Pray for the priest on the other side and for the conversion of souls while the priest is absolving you. I know that you will win massive victories for Christ throughout your life by doing so. At your particular judgment He will show you just how so.
If this comment has helped you, please say a Hail Mary for me in reparation for all my offenses against the Holy Trinity.
Maureen,
I would not put it quite that way.
If Eliza forgot to confess certain mortal sins in number and kind (etc) then she will need to confess it in the next confession after she realizes this..they do not have to be “way different from the other stuff confessed”.
Yip,
“adultery” and “fornication” are two different “species” or kinds. So they need to be confessed as such or in a way that means the same like “I had sexual relations with a married woman and I am single” etc.
Such would be required. For they change the kind of sin.
If you have more questions…go to the Catholic Answers Forum and post a question there.
Yip,
You asked: “if one has failed to confess according to species - e.g “I had sex outside of marriage” vs specifically fornication or adultery and was not aware of the need to make the distinction (and was not asked by the confessor), I wonder if the confession was valid.”—- it would depend on if one was seeking to confess all their mortal sins..or if they were hiding them etc.. If the person was trying to make an honest confession and include all their mortal sins..and did not know they had to say that it was actually “adultery” but thought that that was all they had to honestly say…(did not know should know something else!)...then it can be valid…but they would need to confess it as they can remember in the next confession after they realize this…
(fornication is sex outside marriage by the way…one does not have to use the technical term per se..though it is good to) Also we are to “confess” mortal sins in number and kind etc ...the fact that the priest did not ask for more does not figure in here in this case for “we” are to “confess” such..
I am a new convert and am starting to realize I might be scrupulous. As a Protestant, I never questioned that my sins were “covered” by Christ when I confessed in a general way in prayer, now that I know sins are only forgiven in the confessional, I am constantly wondering if I am in a state of grace or not. “did I forget anything?” and that kind of thinking. I was baptized as a teen years ago and I find myself wondering about some sins commited before that baptism even. Those are gone from the baptism right? When Jesus says “if you even look at a woman with lust you have commited adultery” does that mean I have commited a mortal sin and killed God’s life in me? It sure sounds like it! If so, can men even go to heaven? I feel the fire licking at my heels here.
Man with no name…
See A Priest and seek his guidance…yes looking lustfully at a woman is grave matter for mortal sin…but one must distinguish between noticing a beautiful woman and lusting…etc..as for Sins prior to baptism..they no longer exist.
Is it true that if my previous case was the mortal sin of adultery, and if I had done that sin X number of times since my last confession two weeks ago, but I said an act of contrition just now with at least imperfect contrition if not perfect, and I intend to go to confession on Saturday, then if I die in the car today with those mortal sins not confessed, will the act of contrition at least get me to Purgatory or am I hosed?
Man with no name:
your baptism excused all sins prior to it. The Holy Trinity knew what they were and accepted you with them. The demon is only torturing you regarding that. Just ignore him.
Regarding your post-baptismal sins, or suspected sins, do not fall into scrupulosity, brother! That is a pit. It leads to what itself is a mortal sin, called acedia, which is not talked about much anymore, alas. Acedia is a failure to trust in the wisdom and mercy, both, of God, especially regarding the second person of the Trinity, who is wisdom and mercy personified, or shall we say deified. A man with acedia doubts heaven and falls into despair. It becomes a state of perpetual despair, a despair which offends God by its refusal to acknowledge his goodness and even existence. Do not offend God. He knows all and likes you. He likes you! He was pleased to suffer and die for you. And he knows what it is like to be a man. Nothing you do or think or say surprises him. When you were having a given lustful thought he was aware of it in real time and ahead of time! You are not giving him a heart attack. Certain great saints, the mightiest ones, even female ones, had admitted-to thoughts of very sexual natures when looking at statues of the Virgin and Christ in churches. This is what original sin has done to us.
Go to confession when you need to. Do not despair. When you are troubled, say “Lord, I believe, help my unbelief. I hope, help my doubt and despair. I love, help my uncharity.” He will straighten you out while saying that.
“…but one must distinguish between noticing a beautiful woman and lusting”
Thats the trick right there. In my experience the line between those two is rarely black and white, but a perfect grey. Quite frustrating. Especially at mass just before recieving communion. Take note ladies, modesty at mass please. Souls are at stake.
Thx Brad, that is helpful!
Jimmy Akin on seeing Beautiful women…
http://www.jimmyakin.org/2009/01/appreciating-beauty-vs-concupiscence.html
Thank you for this article! As the mother of a 15-year-old son with OCD who is being raised Catholic, I have always been on the lookout for the possibility that my son might develop scrupulosity. I have not seen this topic addressed before and am pleased to see that not only are clergy aware of how OCD can interfere with a person’s faith, but that there are prescribed methods for dealing with this condition when it surfaces during reconciliation.
M+ I was an Army Airborne Chaplain in Viet Nam. I would invite the troops who were about to go out on a mission (30-90 days) to make an act of contrition and would then give a general absolution. At the same time when possible I would still hear individual confessions Even baptized Protestant soldiers asked me to hear their confession. The senior Protestant Chaplain asked me to administer the Sacraments to his Protestant troops. In time, almost 50 troops converted. Just on Sunday I celebrated 8-10 Masses…. In a combat situation, there are exceptions to the genera rule.
Very helpful article—thank you! Be sure to edit this sentence, “First, if they are compulsive then the person is not fully consenting to them and they are not moral.” I think it should be “mortal” instead of “moral”.
God bless!
Thank you for this article! It was very helpful and timely. It was nice to see these ideas cogently addressed.
Brad and Kevin, thank you both. I’m happy to mention everything I remember in a general confession; I guess my worry is that I converted at the age of 21, so I had a good few years without any knowledge of the sacrament, and I’m concerned I will not be able to accurately remember all the mortal sins I committed, especially since I didn’t know/understand mortal sin and didn’t realize many of the things I did were wrong.
Eliza, do not worry about that now. Christ has told us that we are responsible for only what we know, which sometimes is nothing more than the natural law written on all hearts. Else, how could an amazonian indian who lived 5000 years ago ever have any recourse to God? Once the soul is introduced to the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and then to Christ, the Holy Spirit, the Virgin, the magisterial teachings of His Church, and the soul comprehends what is expected of her, only from those points is she held to ever higher levels of comportment. Your catechists have cause to worry. The warning about the millstone is very severe. Be sure to pray for them, very specifically.
To whom it may concern : Used to like your show mr. Aiken , actually thinking of getting your book . Never mind now , you blew it ! This morning , April 1st around 4:00am. , Having a problem sleeping , turned on your show unfortunately. I have a BA in religious studies from NIAGARA UNIVERSITY With a couple of AA’S . I also have EPILEPSY !Hate to say it but, no wonder why people still treat me with such distain ; because of people like you. EPILEPSY IS NOT CAUSED BY DEMONS , YOU JERK ! You hurt me deeply. you never explained it either . Believe me the seizures aren’t half as bad as the misunderstandings i receive from people , even within the church. Epilepsy is a medical condition . The brain is in constant motion, with electrial currents. When misfires occur a seizure happens .Has nothing to do with Demons !An appology would be nice but since you probably think you did nothing wrong….as so many others do…. I will keep praying for you !
Mr. Akin did not make such a simple blanket statement. I heard that show, too. May God bless you, Mary. With a name like yours, you are surely blessed.
I seriously doubt that Jimmy said that epilepsy was demonic possession; and my mother has had non-epileptic seizures for quite a while, in case you think I’m being blase about this.
The fact of the matter is that, while the ancient world and ancient Judaism believed that most cases of most physical and mental diseases had natural causes (parents’ health, patient diet and habits, etc.), they also believed that some symptoms in some cases came from supernatural interference.
You actually get some bits of stuff in the Gospels which point out to the reader how the specific demoniac cases weren’t much like someone with normal seizures or normal mental illness, other than having seizures or mental illness involved. There are also examples in the Bible of demonic possession that doesn’t involve any sort of seizure or mental illness. (Judas with “the devil came into him”, in fact.) We don’t see that easily, because we don’t have the same worldview; but it’s there.
It would seem logical that, even if normal epilepsy and other seizure conditions are normally the result of natural causes, that doesn’t mean that they can’t also be triggered by demonic oppression in certain unusual cases. Heck, normally pigs don’t jump over cliffs and the Devil doesn’t come to chat with you about world domination and making bread out of rocks, either. If anybody accuses you of suffering from demonic possession when you’re not, or if anybody thinks that every single epileptic ever was directly controlled by demons (and so is every single piggy pig pig), they’re idiots with bad judgment. But the concept that demons can do weird things to people’s health in certain cases isn’t any weirder than the devil turning into a snake and encouraging humans to steal fruit.
Now, whether you believe that Jesus knew who was just sick and who was possessed, and whether you think the Evangelists faithfully reported in the Gospels just what happened and who was who, that depends on whether you think Jesus had miraculous authority and knowledge and that the Gospels are true. But not every Biblical connection of seizures with demonic possession is some kind of prejudice against epileptics; and anybody who believes the Bible is bound to take seriously the Biblical comments about demons, especially ones from Jesus (who should know). I love pork, and clearly not all pigs are demonically possessed; but why would I not believe it was possession in the case of the pig herd that jumped over the cliff? Strange stuff happens, particularly in the Bible.
There must be different views held by differnt priest’s that’s all I can say..
I know that some of the questions posed by what now appears from this article, “over zealous” confessors when private issues between husband and wife requires an honest answer and I need not go into the probabilities of that.
The concept that “these men are only human” if/when curcumstances involving them come to light, to my way of thinking is unhealthy to say the least.
It also places the woman in particular in a very vulnerable position,
especially when “special counseling” comes into the equation an we all know about that.
As for the number of a serious sins another approach would be to say, for example, it has been 3 years and I usually got drunk once a week on most weekends, or I was having sex with my girlfriend about twice a week and we weren’t married. That is to give some idea of the time since my last and the common frequency. I work with alcoholics and addicts and my usual approach is to ask how often a person is using over a given period of time. Math is not required but I still get a good idea of how much the person is using.
Another benefit of this approach is that it gives a person, assuming they are coming to confession regularly, an idea of their progress in overcoming a sin. For example, am I yelling at my wife less than I used to, or do I drink less often and now only when I am angry or frustrated, which would point to progress being made in overcoming a sinful pattern, and then I could begin to look at what causes me to relapse into sins and I could than look at some deeper issues, resulting from my lack of trust in God, pride, self sufficiency, anger, boredom, etc which I need to address in my life.
Bob, I want you to read my comment and tell me another benefit of how this sin can be confessed and whether in your view it becomes a mortal one:
I have put my hand on my heart prior to writing it so you will believe me and I want to say I had the highest regard for this now Prince of the Church.
Archbishop Gerge Pell counselled a Melbourne woman who fell pregnant to a priest when she was 15years old. A year after the meeting, the woman signed a compensation ageement with the church which stipulated she not divulge information about her ordeal. She had 2 children to the priest, who was a Catholic Chaplain in a major Melbourne hospital.
He was never ever reported to the police or child protection authorities.
I should say this particular story is on the public record and the Prince of the Church retains his crown.
As for sin in the church, as 1 Peter ch 4 vs 17 says that judgment must come to the house of God first…
So, just as Jesus had His Judas, our church has it’s share of Judases who God will purify and cleanse the church of in His own time. As for the topic of confession here I must pray for the grace to see myself and my sins as God Himself sees them, which is difficult at times to be sure. And when I do see my sins I must have the courage to confess and repent of them and to ask Him for the grace to be free of them.
Lynne, I wasn’t quite sure of your question but I hope that helps.
I suppose sometimes we just have to see it that way.
“Your Father who sees in a secret place” as in Matthew 6;1-6. if one flips the coin, would alo be an appropiate opposite anology.
Like so many in the heirarchy today when you see their face with some moral virtue proceeding from their mouths, it certainly make you turn away.
I have one question, if we forget how many times we did something, but know the range, like 40-50 times do we have to say that or is it enough to say a lot of times?
I was wondering if the phrase “older moral and pastoral theology manuals” could be aided by examples of such works…
If the church went back to the days of publc confession there would be less need to have private ones.
The faithful, [in particular clergy who seem to believe they are above the law, supported by their “father bishops”], would be less inclined to sin due to the pulic humilation and forced repentance to be welomed back into the body of Christ.
To Karen, I would say to give the confessor the best idea of the number of my sins I could and if it had been awhile and there was a range of sins weekly, for example, I would give him that range so he could best understand the frequency and pattern of my sins.
To Lynne I would say please be careful. I have heard for a year on 2 occasions your concerns about sin in the church, esp among clergy. yes we must pray that God brings these sins to light but I do believe a trick of the Evil One is to try to create a spirit of resentment in our hearts. As Paul reminds us in Ephesians ch 4 vs 26 and 27 to be angry but to not sin and to not let the sun go down on our anger lest the devil have a chance to work on us, and as we pray in the Lord’s prayer, forgive us us our sins as we forgive those who sin against us, so I guess you can see the danger and why Jesus tells us to pray for those who offend us, etc. As for me if I pray for someone I am angry at it is hard to hole onto my silly resentments.
Not into the devil bit Bob, but respect your wariness. The God I grew up with expects us to take responsability for our own actions as mature adults.
Even Rabbi’s believe that much.
As far as my concerns about sins in the church and clergy, stay where you are on that thought.
With prelates et al continuosly referring to the smoke of satan in the Vatican, someone has to be right.
Philadelphia must be receiving plenty of smoke signals at this time, catch up with what’s going on there, if not to my own comment on same.
As for Satan and demons, Jesus and the church have clarified this doctrine of their reality and we mature adults are still responsible for our choices but as our faith teaches the world, or own flesh and the demons can pressure us to make wrong choices. As for resentments, for example, an evil spirit could easily take our just anger over real wrongdoing and sins and cause us to feed on and to ruminate on our anger until it becomes a poison within us and destroys our peace and our trust in God. Our own flesh could have a tendency to easily become and to hold onto our anger and the world as for example, SNAP: which had a place in bringing these evils to the light, is now largely an organ of fostering seething hatred and resentment toward the church. But I am still responsible for my choices so I should being my anger and resentments to the cross of Jesus in my prayer and ask Him for the grace to have His mind, as opposed to my own towards these things.
Good for you John.
Sorry…. Bob.
In regards to moral impossibility, would insuperable embarrassment ever excuse one from making a formal integral confession? Such as in the case of your regular parish priest who knows you fairly well and you are afraid that if he learns you committed a particularly unusual and shameful sin, you would lose your good reputation in his sight. Would the penitent ever be allowed to omit from his/her confession this particular sin as long as it is perfectly understood that it must be confessed as soon as one has recourse to a different confessor?
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.