is it a mortal sin if i do not go to confession in a year albeit i did not commit any mortal sin to confess, but i have venial sins though.

-- (louievincent@hotmail.com), September 13, 2003

Answers

you gotta go at least once per year IF you have mortal sins to confess; but if you are that rare and strange being that can go a whole year without committing a mortal sin, then you need not go. of course the Church encourages confession in any event even though it is not strictly necessary for the forgiveness of a venial sin.

you must tell me how you do it.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), September 13, 2003.

Probably yes.

The sin here is to ignore one of the six commandments of the Church. The act is known to you and it is a grave matter. So get off to confession and take care of it.

-- Pat Delaney (pat@patdelaney.net), September 13, 2003.

The precept of the Church is that we must confess our sins at least once a year, regardless of whether we have committed mortal sins or not. If we have committed mortal sins, then it would be foolish indeed to wait a year to confess. But confession once a year is the absolute minimum requirement for all Catholics, just like attendance at Mass once a week is the minimum requirement. Failing to do so is a sin of disobedience to Church authority, which means disobedience to divine authority. God told the Church "He who hears you hears Me; he who rejects you rejects Me". Whether such an omission is a mortal sin depends on the three standard criteria for mortal sin - grave matter, full knowledge, and full consent of the will.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), September 13, 2003.

It is my understanding that there is an obligation to confess once a year and that this is for serious sins only. From Canon 989 in the 1983 Code of Canon Law: " After having attained the age of discretion, each of the faithful is bound by an obligation faithfully to confess serious sins at least once a year."

but also from canon law :

7b. 'The frequent and careful celebration of this sacrament is also very useful as a remedy for venial sins. This is not a mere ritual repetition or psychological exercise, but a serious striving to perfect the grace of baptism so that, as we bear in our body the death of Jesus Christ, his life may be seen in us ever more clearly (see 2 Cor 4:10). In confession of this kind, penitents who accuse themselves of venial faults should try to be more closely conformed to Christ and to follow the voice of the Spirit more attentively.'

Generally, it is considered to be good practice to go to the sacrament regularly, even if there is only venial sin present.

There is so much written on these message boards about sin - venial and mortal - that one hesitates to add to it, especially since it usually provokes a long argument that cannot be easily resolved through electronic medium , ie. without prayerful and kind personal discussion. I have recently read a wonderful book about the sacrament of reconcilliation which has interesting and informative sections on types of sin as well as frequency of confession. May I recommend it here? It is written by a Catholic priest and has the nihil obstat and imprimatur markings showing that it contains nothing contrary to Catholic teaching.

Yours in Christ, Adrian

-- Adrian Lowe (adrianmlowe@yahoo.com), September 13, 2003.

Jmj

Yes, Adrian. Of course you may recommend that book!

You and Ian are correct. Yearly confession is required only if one has committed a mortal sin. This has been stated and made clear numerous times, by various priests (and I believe by one bishop) on EWTN. The customary wording of the Church precept (quoted by Paul) is shorthand (omitting the word "mortal"), and is not intended to contradict Canon Law.

Why does the law requiring confession pertain to mortal sin and not venial? I believe that the reason is that venial sin can be remitted in several ways (e.g., personal penance, Penitential Rite at Mass, receiving Holy Communion, etc.), whereas mortal sin can be remitted only in Confession (or by an act of perfect contrition).

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), September 13, 2003.

The required time frame for confession when one has committed a mortal sin is "as soon as possible", not "during the next year"! Advising someone in a state of mortal sin to confess "sometime during the next year" is equivalent to advising someone with a brain tumor to see a doctor "sometime during the next year". Such advice, in either case, is certain to be fatal for some individuals - in the case of postponed confession, spiritually and eternally fatal. The reason we are required to confess at least once a year is to ensure that we do not completely neglect the sacrament, which is not only the means of forgiveness for serious sins committed, but is also a source of special graces for resisting temptation and avoiding sin. It is analygous to having your yearly physical, just to ensure that you don't neglect seeing your doctor indefinitely. In the same way, we are required to receive the Eucharist at least once a year, during the Easter season.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), September 13, 2003.

Hello,

The book that I mentioned is called 'Pardon and Peace a Sinner's Guide to Confession'. It is by Father Francis Randolph, published by Ignatius Press and the ISBN is 089870832X. I hope that anyone reading it finds it as useful as I did.

Paul, do you have to be so aggressive? Your answers on these message boards fequently lash out and there is no need for it, you know. I did not say that anyone in a state of mortal sin should confess 'sometime in the next year' as you put it. The question which I answered was: 'Is it a mortal sin if I do not go to confession in a year albeit I did not commit any mortal sin to confess, but i have venial sins though.' The answer is no and I quoted canon law. Earlier statements on this page claimed that confession once per year is mandatory regardless of wheher the sins are mortal or venial. I was also careful to begin by saying 'It is my understanding . . .'

I believe that we should all try to be polite, respectful and Christ- like in our postings on here; it gives terrible witness to do anything else and is not a good advertisement for anyone considering the Faith.

Yours, Adrian

-- Adrian Lowe (adrianmlowe@yahoo.com), September 14, 2003.

Paul was being agressive? I never felt so. It is always good to give a little more knowledge to a person than a simple yes or no. You never know when it is going to prove good. It also gives information to those who simply read some sections, like me. In this case he was tried to avoid causing one to make excuses for not going to confession, by stating the law. It is okay as per law, but isn't it better to go one step further? It could onlt bring good. He has a rather professional way of writing things, but I wouldn't say it as agressive :)

-- Abraham T (lijothengil@yahoo.com), September 14, 2003.

Dear Adrian,

I do try to present the truth in a straightforward, uncompromising manner. The Church today is plagued with preachers and teachers who compromise the truth, waffle on essential issues, and introduce shades of gray where none exist. I try not to be one of them. If that comes across as "aggressive", I regret that it does; but I would be unfaithful to my ministry if I watered down the truth in order to avoid such impressions. As for being "impolite", or "disrespectful", I see nothing in my posts that warrants such a charge, but everyone has a right to his own impressions.

Regarding the specific question you raised - Canon Law, which is universally binding on the Church, does direct that serious sins be confessed at least one a year. However, within the general context of Canon Law, the bishops of individual countries are authorized to implement specific precepts, or "church laws", binding on the congregations within their pastoral jurisdiction, that is the Catholics of the specified nation. The Third Plenary Council of Baltimore (1886) prescribed for the United States six binding precepts, none of which has subsequently been rescinded. The second precept is "you shall confess your sins at least once a year" (see CCC 2042). This precept does not conflict with Canon Law, since it fully incorporates the requirement set forth therein. However, it expands upon that requirement, obligating ALL Catholics in the United States to confess at least once a year, surely a wise pastoral decision given the abundant sacramental graces available through the Sacrament of Reconciliation, and the tendency among many Catholics to rationalize and minimize the gravity of their personal sin.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), September 14, 2003.

Jmj

Paul, you wrote:
"The required time frame for confession when one has committed a mortal sin is 'as soon as possible,' not 'during the next year!'

Agreed, but why did you mention it -- and with an exclamation point -- when no one had denied it? Perhaps wounded after being corrected by your perceived "lessers," you misread what Adrian and I wrote -- and our intent?

You continued:
"Advising someone in a state of mortal sin to confess 'sometime during the next year' is equivalent to advising someone with a brain tumor to see a doctor 'sometime during the next year.'"

Again, agreed, but why mention it?
NOBODY "advis[ed]" anyone against confessing without delay. Why did you assume that Adrian and I, who pointed out your mistake, would "advis[e]" people to do something foolish?

Paul, your comments were very offensive. Adrian understated it in pointing out that you are "agressive." Being agressive can be good, but falsely implying that others are stupid goes far beyond "agressiveness." You have been going around lately with an even bigger than usual "chip on your shoulder" -- and as sour as though you were perpetually sucking on a lemon. (Since we are discussing Confession, maybe you can remember these things, the next time you are in the "box.")

Adrian, you are right in saying that Paul is "agressive" and sometimes "lashes out." He is also (almost always) cold and impersonal, tries to be humorous about once a year, never shows gratitude for compliments, never bestows compliments, and is never humble enough to admit when he is wrong. [By the way, this is the second time that he is hearing these things from me -- the first time, privately.] In his year(+) at the forum, he has always been this way, and I have come to realize that probably nothing can be done about it (short of something supernatural). Lately, I have been silently tolerating the bad things that Paul does, because he overcompensates for them by doing some very good things -- especially cleaning out trashy posts (thus dissuading troublemakers from hanging around) and writing many phenomenally eloquent and informative answers. However, Adrian, your comments to Paul and his unacceptable, self-defending response have caused me to speak up publicly.

I too have been criticized for one or two of the above-mentioned character flaws (and some others, to be sure). The only thing I can say in my defense is that I am unpredictable. I never intend to do harm, and I want to be kind and friendly. When I am not, it is usually accidental (due to temporary weakness) -- but occasionally intentional (to reprimand and chase away trouble-makers). I probably mix in at least nineteen posts that have a pleasant side ... with every one post that has a brutal side. By contrast, Paul is consistently as sharp and cold as a knight's sword!!! Oh, well. It is tough for long-in-the-tooth tigers like Paul and me to change our stripes and become the politically correct milquetoasts that some want us to be at all times. My theory is that he and I were exposed, in an earlier era (1940s/50s) to stern, no-nonsense people (parents/teachers/pastors), and we are now more stern than our younger friends, who grew up in a milder age (1970s thru 1990s), listening to a lot of soft-spoken, gentler folks (sometimes too gentle for the world's good).

Coming back to you, Paul ...
I firmly reject what you have stated in your last message (concerning the Council of Baltimore, etc.). First of all, no one on this thread asked about particular law for the United States. The first sentence you wrote on this thread was, "The precept of the Church is that we must confess our sins at least once a year, regardless of whether we have committed mortal sins or not."
This is simply wrong, as Adrian and I explained. In reply to "louievincent" in that way, you ascribed to the universal Church that which you now claim is a law for the U.S.. Please have to courage to admit that you were wrong, and say that you are sorry for treating us shabbily!

Going a step further, I believe that you have erred in another way. In 1886, there was no Code of Canon Law for the U.S. bishops to adapt for their nation. They were simply listing the Church's universal precepts in the commonly used language, not adapting them. You yourself reveal that you are mistaken ... by pointing out that Catechism article #2042 states, for the universal church, the same kind of words that the U.S. bishops had written in 1886: "You shall confess your sins at least once a year." The CCC, follows those words by citing Canon #989. And when we look to that canon, we find that "sins" means "mortal sins."

By the way, the reason for the precept is not, as you said, "to ensure that we do not completely neglect the sacrament." Rather, says the CCC, the reason for the precept is that it "ensures [our] preparation for the Eucharist". The key "preparation for the Eucharist" is the removal of mortal sins.
I am not downplaying the sacrament of Penance nor encouraging folks to go infrequently. I am just seeking to provide an accurate answer to the opening question -- from "louievincent."

God bless you.
John PS to Paul: You wrote: "I would be unfaithful to my ministry if I watered down the truth ...". May I ask what is your "ministry." You have said that you are a permanent deacon. Are you assigned to service in a parish? Or are you now retired from parish work? Or do you have a special, non-parish assignment (e.g., in a hospital)?

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), September 14, 2003.

Dear John,

You ask: "The required time frame for confession when one has committed a mortal sin is 'as soon as possible,' not 'during the next year!' Agreed, but why did you mention it?"

A: I mentioned it because you inaccurately stated that "Yearly confession is required only if one has committed a mortal sin", which is not only incorrect, but really makes no sense at all. I suppose it might make sense if everyone committed exactly one mortal sin per year; but the fact is many people commit numerous mortal sins in a year's time, while other people commit none at all. So, in the first case, which would you advise - that such people "save up" all their mortal sins for their "yearly" confession, risking eternal damnation if they should die in the meantime? Or - that they go to confession as soon as possible after every serious sin, as the Church teaches, in which case the term "yearly" obviously has no application? "Yearly" confession - the required minimum - makes sense only when a person has NO mortal sins to confess. Otherwise, more frequent confession would be the only advisable course of action.

You state: "Being agressive can be good, but falsely implying that others are stupid goes far beyond "agressiveness."

A: Agreed, but why did you mention it? I don't recall suggesting that anyone is "stupid", unless you think that offering information presupposes that those you offer it to are lacking in intelligence?

In reference to your amateur analysis of my character and personality, you state: [By the way, this is the second time that he is hearing these things from me -- the first time, privately.]

A: That's right; and I extended the courtesy of responding to you privately, as I do with many people on matters that are private, on this forum and otherwise. Your decision to air your pop psychology publicly does not impress me as a reason to bother going through it all again.

You note: "First of all, no one on this thread asked about particular law for the United States"

A: Well obviously that is true. Excuse me for being American. When someone asks "what's the national food?" I admit I am more likely to blurt out "hotdogs" than "sushi". I guess I need to keep in mind the global scope of internet communications. However, the obligation to participate in the Sacrament of Reconciliation at least once a year is certainly not uniquely American. It is included among the Church Precepts in most parts of the world (perhaps all - I'm not sure) with minor variations. For example, in many (all?) South American countries, Catholics are required not only to confess at least once a year, but to do so during the Easter Season, in similar fashion to our Eucharistic requirement. (I wonder if they commit all their mortal sins during the Easter Season??)

You state: "In 1886, there was no Code of Canon Law for the U.S. bishops to adapt for their nation. They were simply listing the Church's universal precepts in the commonly used language, not adapting them."

A: That is incorrect. There was never a universal list of Church Precepts, and still is not today.

"You yourself reveal that you are mistaken ... by pointing out that Catechism article #2042 states, for the universal church, the same kind of words that the U.S. bishops had written in 1886: "You shall confess your sins at least once a year." The CCC, follows those words by citing Canon #989. And when we look to that canon, we find that "sins" means "mortal sins."

A: And what is the purpose of the Catechism if an ordinary Catholic cannot discover current Church teaching by simply reading it, but must refer to the footnotes and then do research in canon law, simply to discover why the straightforward instruction presented to him in the Catechism is WRONG? Come on John, you're really stretching now. The Catechism plainly states what Catholics of today are expected to know and to do. That is its purpose; and the Catechism (United States Version!!!) instructs every Catholic reader that he/she is obliged to confess his sins at least once a year. The references to other contributory sources are interesting and helpful if deeper research is your objective, but for purposes of instructing the faithful, what it says is what it says, and convoluted efforts to demonstrate that it really doesn't mean what it says are totally inappropriate.

You ask: May I ask what is your "ministry." You have said that you are a permanent deacon. Are you assigned to service in a parish? Or are you now retired from parish work? Or do you have a special, non- parish assignment (e.g., in a hospital)?

A: When I referred to "my ministry" above, I simply meant that of an ordained minister of the Church, nothing more specific. But to answer your question, I am attached to a parish, and nearly all of my ministry takes place in that setting.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), September 14, 2003.

Dear all,

Thank you, John, for your support, I was starting to feel paranoid! Personal conflicts aside, we do not seem to have resolved the question of whether confession is required once a year if mortal sin is not present. I am in the UK and not aware of the The Third Plenary Council of Baltimore that Paul mentions. The question has not really been an issue for me personally because I attend confession frequently; however, I did hear a fellow-parishioner ask a member of the clergy if they needed to go to confession every year if not in a state of mortal sin. He replied in the negative and was abundantly clear about it.

I trawled through the Catechism but cannot find anything that suggests that yearly confession is necessary for venial sins. I found this in the Catechism on the Vatican website:

1457 According to the Church's command, "after having attained the age of discretion, each of the faithful is bound by an obligation faithfully to confess serious sins at least once a year."

Paul is, of course quite correct to advocate frequent confession. If a husband kisses his wife just once a year - out of duty on their wedding anniversary - then something must surely have gone wrong with his love. It must be the same for only wanting to confess once a year and then under obligation! I do question the idea of the faithful committing mortal sin as easily as the last posting describes since mortal sins are surely quite rare among people actively practising the faith and trying to please God. That is, however, another argument for another message board. I am all for trying to bring people back to this 'cinderella of sacraments' but would like to know the definitive answer.

Can anyone shed any light further light on the question of yearly confession, please?

God bless you all,

Adrian

-- Adrian Lowe (adrianmlowe@yahoo.com), September 15, 2003.

Dear Adrian,

Just to clarify ... Confession is never necessary "for venial sins". That is not the point. The Precepts of the Church, as defined by the bishops of the United States, simply require Confession a minimum of once a year, not "for the forgiveness of venial sins", but rather, regardless of the nature or even the presence, of sin. As such, they emphasize that the sacrament is not simply a means of "damage control" for the occasional spiritual crisis, but a normal, intrinsic aspect of the Christian life and a source of abundant grace which no Catholic should totally neglect. I do not know the exact format of the Precepts as defined by the bishops of the UK, but the decisions of the U.S. bishops, including those of the Council of Baltimore, of course do not affect you.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), September 15, 2003.

"Is it a mortal sin-if you don't go to Confession in a year,abeit, I did not commit any mortal sins, to confess, but I have venial sins though."

Louie, it would have to be a person that doesn't take their Catholicism seriously. Who in their right mind would approach the Holy Eucharist without going to Confession in a year? This could be a sin of pride too. Maybe one would have toadjust there barometer as what a grave sin is?

Very few people are capable of saying they haven't committed a grave sin of some sort in the past year? You must be a living saint?

But you still should confess one of you're most serious sin of the past for which you are truly sorry, especially a fault that is the same species as the venial sins you deplore. The practise of confession carried out like this with the cleansing power of absolution, and the advice of the confessor will be a effectual means of disentalgling yourself from the meshes of sin and advancing in virtue.

Get your but to the Confessional! :-)And don't be that high on yourself, that you don't need to go to Confession for 12 months.

-- . (David@excite.com), September 16, 2003.

Adrian,

Are you the person that asked the question to start this thread?

Just asking?

-- . (David@excite.com), September 16, 2003.

Hi David,

No, it is not my original question. I totally agree that confession should be a regular feature of the spiritual life and I go at least monthly, that is why the answer to this thread's question has eluded me!

Blessings,

Adrian

-- Adrian Lowe (adrianmlowe@yahoo.com), September 16, 2003.

Jmj
Paul, I finally had a chance to get back to this thread, three days after you replied to me. I must say that I am shocked at what you wrote. Some people never seem to learn to drop out of a conversation when their past statements have been shown to be factually wrong. I guess that you are a "debating addict," who MUST try to win every argument, no matter how long it takes and no matter how foolish they may make themselves look in the process. I hope that some day you will be cured of this, Paul, because fighting with people who interminably insist on demanding that others accept errors is one of my least favorite things to do in life.

JFG (last time): The required time frame for confession when one has committed a mortal sin is 'as soon as possible,' not 'during the next year!' Agreed, but why did you mention it?

Paul (responding): I mentioned it because you inaccurately stated that "Yearly confession is required only if one has committed a mortal sin", which is not only incorrect, but really makes no sense at all.

JFG (this time): Of course it makes sense -- IF one takes the time to think about it and understand my words as they were intended. Sheesh! Since I said, "Agreed," that should have been a clue to you that you must have misunderstood what I said the previous time. So, you erred on the first reading, and then, after I had objected, you, instead of trying again to understand me correctly, you came right back and insulted me [saying "inaccurately ... incorrect ... makes no sense at all"].

Paul, how can you want people to converse with you, if you won't even make the necessary effort to understand them? Someone making such an effort would have realized that my words were a paraphrase of the quotation from canon 989. You have known me for a year and ought to realize that I know the facts on this subject and would not advise anyone foolishly. But instead of stopping to realize that I would not blunder, you decided to post some mocking, sarcastic snipes, such as: "... would you advise ... that such people 'save up' all their mortal sins for their 'yearly' confession, risking eternal damnation if they should die in the meantime?"
Please try harder in future.

JFG (last time): Being agressive can be good, but falsely implying that others are stupid goes far beyond "agressiveness."

Paul (responding): Agreed, but why did you mention it? I don't recall suggesting that anyone is "stupid", unless you think that offering information presupposes that those you offer it to are lacking in intelligence?"

JFG (this time): I didn't say "suggesting." I said "falsely implying" stupidity. That is what you did to Adrian and me. You didn't just "offer information." You intentionally tried to make us look foolish. Now you make things worse by denying it! [Dear Lord, how could anyone bear such mistreatment, if your crucifix were not nearby to help us bear it?]
If, at this point, Paul, you can't go back and see how you falsely implied that we are stupid, then I all I can do is throw up my hands and despair of ever being able to communicate with you.

Paul, you then wrote: "In reference to your amateur analysis of my character and personality, you state: '[By the way, this is the second time that he is hearing these things from me -- the first time, privately.]'
That's right; and I extended the courtesy of responding to you privately, as I do with many people on matters that are private, on this forum and otherwise. Your decision to air your pop psychology publicly does not impress me as a reason to bother going through it all again."

JFG (responding): What I wrote previously was not "amateur analysis of [your] character and personality". Nor was it "pop psychology." Instead, it was a recitation of observed facts! I mentioned several bad things that you have done and some required things that you have failed to do. But because you appear to think that you are perfect and incapable of doing wrong, you admitted nothing and failed to apologize. Most sickening of all is that you tried to turn the whole thing around and make it seem that I did something wrong! It is so typical of big sinners to try to deflect attention from them. It's a shameful defense mechanism, unworthy even of a layman, not to mention an ordained man like yourself.

You acknowledge that we had a private exchange about some of these things, and now you imply that I should have stayed private with my comments. No. It doesn't work that way in Christianity. Your misbehavior was public to start with and continues to be public. I followed Matthew 18:15-17 in bringing your sins to your attention privately. Your response to my fraternal correction was to reject it both privately and in subsequent public behavior. Because of this, Jesus tells us to take a further step -- joining with at least one other person in bringing the charges. That is what I did when I saw that Adrian had similar objections to mine. [Even before Adrian, I recently saw a third person making similar complaints against you on another thread.] Since you STILL resist correction, Paul, we are now within our rights (according to Matthew 18) to bring this matter "to the Church" (i.e., to your bishop -- and I do know where you live). Please think this over very carefully and resolve to confess these sins and amend your life accordingly.

JFG (last time): "In 1886, there was no Code of Canon Law for the U.S. bishops to adapt for their nation. They were simply listing the Church's universal precepts in the commonly used language, not adapting them."

Paul (responding): That is incorrect. There was never a universal list of Church Precepts, and still is not today.

JFG (this time): Paul, you are doubly wrong!
First, I did not say that there was "a universal list." I said that the U.S. bishops "were ... listing the Church's universal precepts." I hope that, having read my words carefully this time, you see the difference. The Church's precepts may not have been collected into a convenient list prior to 1886, but they existed nonetheless.
Second, there IS a Vatican-published "universal list of Church precepts ... today." You will find the list in CCC 2041-2042-2043. (Please don't try to say that it is not a "universal list" simply because it is subject to local modification -- e.g., the holy days of obligation. It is a "universal list" nonetheless.)

JFG (last time): You yourself reveal that you are mistaken ... by pointing out that Catechism article #2042 states, for the universal church, the same kind of words that the U.S. bishops had written in 1886: "You shall confess your sins at least once a year." The CCC, follows those words by citing Canon #989. And when we look to that canon, we find that "sins" means "mortal sins."

Paul (responding): ... the Catechism ... instructs every Catholic reader that he/she is obliged to confess his sins at least once a year. The references to other contributory sources are interesting and helpful if deeper research is your objective, but for purposes of instructing the faithful, what it says is what it says, and convoluted efforts to demonstrate that it really doesn't mean what it says are totally inappropriate.

JFG (this time): What we find is that you, Paul, have made "convoluted efforts" to avoid acknowledging what the CCC says -- and your efforts "are totally inappropriate." Here's what I mean:
CCC 2042 says, "You shall confess your sins at least once a year.'"
CCC 1457 says, "... 'after having attained the age of discretion, each of the faithful is bound by an obligation faithfully to confess serious sins at least once a year.'"
Thus, #1457 lets us properly understand 2042. We don't need to use "contributory sources" or to do "deeper research." The whole thing is staring right at us, but you need to read and acknowledge it, instead of repeating what you heard as a kid -- that yearly confession is absolutely required of everyone. [I repeat that I am not recommending infrequent confession. By no means. Instead, my two purposes in correcting you about this are: (1) to get you to read more carefully and accurately, and (2) to keep any lurker here who has NOT confessed for more than a year from thinking that he has thereby committed a sin.]

At this point I want to reiterate that, even if the U.S. bishops intended to require yearly confession by people who had not committed a mortal sin, that amended precept must no longer be in force (contrary to what you said). For, if it were in force, then I would not have heard the opposite stated repeatedly on EWTN, including by at least one U.S. bishop, as well as by Fr. John Corapi (in his long series on the CCC). [It is true that none of the various priests and bishops I have heard is infallible, but I will trust their word over yours without a moment's hesitation.]

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), September 17, 2003.

Does any one of you catually think you could go a year withough commiting a mortal sin?

The law of the Church sets an absolute, bare-bones minimum, not a goal. How anyone could even consider going months or a year without confessing is beyond me.

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), September 17, 2003.

Jake,

Wait until you know someone who has had their confession violated and sees that it does not matter to the Church what the consequences of that violation are. Then you will begin to understand. Church teaching and Canon Laws are arbitrarily regarded. This is a fact.

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), September 17, 2003.

Jmj
Hi, Jake. You wrote:
"The law of the Church sets an absolute, bare-bones minimum, not a goal. How anyone could even consider going months or a year without confessing is beyond me."

No one said that it was a "goal." And I agree with you that waiting so long is very unwise. However, the Church permits it, and that is what we have been fighting about, not whether it is wise or foolish.

You also wrote: "Does any one of you actually think you could go a year withough commiting a mortal sin?"

That is not really the question to ask. No one here has claimed such an ability. The real question to ask is if anyone can continue for a year in a state of sanctifying grace.

The Church does not say that it is impossible, and I do not mind saying that I believe that it has been done -- and continues to be done by thousands, if not millions, of holy and hidden souls around the world. Although most of them, I believe, are consecrated men and women religious, there are also saintly lay people (especially the elderly) who probably go for years without committing mortal sins. I can recall reading that one saint (perhaps the Little Flower) is said to have NEVER committed a single mortal sin in her whole life, according to her own writings. So I recommend that you not think it impossible for a person to avoid mortal sin for more than a year.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), September 17, 2003.

Most people who are truly living the Christian life commit mortal sins rarely if ever. God knows I am lightyears away from sainthood, yet even I can say that I certainly have not committed a mortal sin in years, even though I sin every day. A mortal sin is not something that "just happens". It is a deliberate, conscious choice of grave evil over the will of God, and one who is at all close to God is not likely to make such choices. If it is not willful, or not fully conscious, or not gravely evil, it is not mortal sin. Most people who are trying to live the Christian life, but who claim to be falling into mortal sin regularly, are actually just overscrupulous, or do not understand just what mortal sin is. I am very sure there are some Catholics who were well brought up in the faith and who developed "the practice of the presence of God" early in life, who never commit a mortal sin during their entire lifetime - a minority surely, but perhaps more common than you might think. This doesn't mean they are perfect people, or even "nice" people. They may have dozens of unpleasant habits, be insecure, impatient, picky, obstinate, suspicious, loud, and smell bad too - but none of those are mortal sins.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), September 17, 2003.

If you follow the heart and spirit of the matter, the law will automatically be fulfilled.

Go to confession frequently, and if you are in serious sin, you make a sincere act of contrition and go at the first opportunity.

If someone ignores the above, they won't make it.

You get the gist of that by reading things like the following from Alphonsus Liguori's Preparation for Death, Consideration XII. It's a long read but it's well worth it; in fact, the whole book is well worth it:

Salvation is our own most important Affair.

The business of eternal salvation is to us the most important of all affairs; but it is also the most neglected by Christians. They are diligent, and lose no time in seeking to gain a lawsuit, or a situation of emolument. How many measures taken to attain these objects ? How many means adopted ? They neither eat nor sleep. And what efforts do they make to secure their eternal salvation ? How do they live ? To save their souls, the greater number of Christians do nothing; on the contrary, they do everything to bring their souls to perdition; they live as if death, judgment, hell, heaven, and eternity were not truths of faith, but fables invented by the poets. If a person lose a lawsuit, or a harvest crop, how great is his pain and distress of mind? With what zeal does he labor to repair the loss ? If worldlings lose a horse, or a dog, with what diligence do they seek after it ? But if they lose the grace of God, they sleep, and jest, and laugh. All blush at being told that they neglect their worldly affairs, but how few are ashamed to neglect the business of eternity, which is the most important of all. The worldling says that the Saints were truly wise, because they sought only the salvation of their souls; and still he attends to all worldly business, but utterly neglects the concerns of the soul. Brethren, says St. Paul, let the great business of your eternal salvation be the sole object of all your care. This is to you the most important of all affairs. Let us then be persuaded that eternal salvation is for us the most important affair,—the only affair,— and that if once neglected it is an irreparable affair if we ever make a mistake.

It is the most important affair, because if the soul be lost, all is lost. We ought to set a higher value on the soul than on all the goods of the earth. " The soul," says St. Chrysostom, “is more precious than the whole world!” (In 1 Cor. hom. 3). To be convinced of this truth, it is enough to know that God himself has condemned his Son to death in order to save our souls. The Eternal Word has not refused to purchase them with his own blood.

St. Philip Neri with reason could say that he who does not attend to the salvation of his soul is a fool. Were there on this earth two classes of men, one mortal and the other immortal, and were the former to see the latter seeking after the things of this world, its honors, goods, and amusements, they should certainly exclaim: O fools that you are ! you have it in your power to acquire eternal riches, and do you fix your thoughts on those miserable and transitory things ? Will you, for these, condemn yourselves, to an eternity of torments in the next life ? Leave us, for whom all shall end at death, to seek after these earthly goods. But no; we are all immortal. How then does it happen that so many lose their souls for the miserable pleasures of this life? How does it come to pass, says Salvian, that Christians believe in judgment, hell, and eternity, and still live as if they feared them not?

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), September 18, 2003.

I can say that I certainly have not committed a mortal sin in years, even though I sin every day

Wow.

I mean.

Wow.

Please forget I posted in this thread. In fact, please delete it.

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), September 18, 2003.

"Confession is the soul's bath. You must go at least once a week. I do not want souls to stay away from confession more than a week. Even a clean and unoccupied room gathers dust; return after a week and you will see that it needs dusting again!"

St. Padre Pio

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), September 18, 2003.

Jmj

Paul, you wrote:
"I can say that I certainly have not committed a mortal sin in years, even though I sin every day."

You have correctly stated this fact: "If it is not willful, or not fully conscious, or not gravely evil, it is not mortal sin."

I will take your word for this. I know that you would not lie.
However, the only problem is this ... I know (from a thread on which we had a battle royale maybe six months ago) that you wrongly identify a certain class of sins as "not gravely evil." And therefore, this "misidentification" could be making it much easier for you to be able to say that you have not committed any mortal sin for "years." Let me explain ...

I regret that I never got around to returning to that thread to finish persuading you that you are wrong. I recall that you sincerely, but wrongly, believe that some violations of #6 and #9 are "light matter" -- not gravely evil. I held, and still hold (with all that I have ever read and heard from churchmen across 50+ years [and, I think, with the Baltimore Catechism]), that ALL violations of #6 and #9 are "grave matter."

Do you see where this is leading, Paul (and Jake)? Perhaps, Paul, during this period of "years," you have sinned a few, or dozens, or even hundreds, of times against #6 and/or #9, but brushed each sin off (sincerely, but wrongly) as just a "venial sin." Conclusions:
If you ever have sinned against #6 and/or #9 -- willfully and consciously -- the only way that you could have incurred only venial guilt is by reason of your ignorance of the sins' gravity.
If you have so sinned, and if you had known that those sins were always of grave matter, then you would have sinned mortally and could not have told us, "I certainly have not committed a mortal sin in years."

I would never ask you now to reveal if you have sinned against #6 and/or #9 during the period of "years" that you mentioned. And I don't want to start that old debate up again with you. [I won't respond if you defend the "light matter" claim.] I just want to tell you that, if you still doubt me, you need to talk to an unquestionably orthodox bishop (e.g., Myers, O'Malley, Bruskewitz) about this. I am sure that they will tell you the same thing I have told you: #6 and #9 = always grave matter. It is important for you to get this right, because, if you have been sinning against those commandments, you have (objectively) been offending God gravely, and you may even have some seriously bad habits to overcome.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), September 18, 2003.

I apologize to anyone who couldn't understand what I meant by "#6 or #9". I accidentally left out the word "Commandment." So, in other words, I was referring to the Sixth and Ninth Commandments [according to the customary Catholic numbering].
JFG

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), September 18, 2003.

Dear John.

You say you don't want to rekindle an old debate, yet you once again offer this groundless opinion of yours that all sins against the 6th and 9th commandments are automatically objectively grave matter. This is a completely false assumption, and preaching it can lead many souls into needless agonizing and even eventual despair over their inability to avoid what you, but not the Church, classify as grave sin. As I stated back when we first discussed this, there is NO commandment which can be violated ONLY in a grave way. Every commandment can be violated in ways which range from objectively extremely grave to objectively extremely minor. There is NO Church teaching which states otherwise. Flipping through an unsavory magazine on a news stand or wearing jeans that are too tight may indeed constitute violations of these commandments, but such actions do not in any way compare in objective gravity to fornication, adultery, molestation, and other actions which actually ARE objectively grave matters. We've been through this once, so I'll just stop here. The fact should be sufficiently self-evident to anyone who gives it a little thought.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), September 18, 2003.

Q. 1281. What is the sixth Commandment? A. The sixth Commandment is: Thou shalt not commit adultery.

Q. 1282. What are we commanded by the sixth Commandment?

A. We are commanded by the sixth Commandment to be pure in thought and modest in all our looks, words, and actions.

Q. 1283. It is a sin to listen to immodest conversation, songs or jokes? A. It is a sin to listen to immodest conversation, songs or jokes when we can avoid it, or to show in any way that we take pleasure in such things.

Q. 1284. What is forbidden by the sixth Commandment? A. The sixth Commandment forbids all unchaste freedom with another's wife or husband; also all immodesty with ourselves or others in looks, dress, words, and actions.

Q. 1285. Why are sins of impurity the most dangerous?

A. Sins of impurity are the most dangerous:

(1) Because they have the most numerous temptations;

(2) Because, if deliberate, they are always mortal, and (3) Because, more than other sins, they lead to the loss of faith.

Q. 1286. Does the sixth Commandment forbid the reading of bad and immodest books and newspapers?

A. The sixth Commandment does forbid the reading of bad and immodest books and newspapers.

Q. 1287. What should be done with immodest book and newspapers? A. Immodest books and newspapers should be destroyed as soon as possible, and if we cannot destroy them ourselves we should induce their owners to do so.

Q. 1288. What books does the Church consider bad? A. The Church considers bad all books containing teaching contrary to faith or morals, or that willfully misrepresent Catholic doctrine and practice.

Q. 1289. What places are dangerous to the virtue of purity? A. Indecent theaters and similar places of amusement are dangerous to the virtue of purity, because their entertainments are frequently intended to suggest immodest things.

Q. 1315. What is the ninth Commandment? A. The ninth Commandment is: Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife.

Q. 1316. What are we commanded by the ninth Commandment?

A. We are commanded by the ninth Commandment to keep ourselves pure in thought and desire.

Q. 1317. What is forbidden by the ninth Commandment? A. The ninth Commandment forbids unchaste thoughts, desires of another's wife or husband, and all other unlawful impure thoughts and desires.

Q. 1318. Are impure thoughts and desires always sins? A. Impure thoughts and desires are always sins, unless they displease us and we try to banish them.

You tapdance. I'll make popcorn.

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), September 19, 2003.

Jmj

Thanks very much, Jake. Your contribution is enormously helpful.

Paul, your vehement response leads me to say (with apologies to the Bard of Avon), "Methinks thou dost protest too much."

You wrote: "You [John] say you don't want to rekindle an old debate, yet you once again ..."

Paul, it would have never occurred to me to "rekindle" anything if you had not said that you haven't committed a mortal sin for "years"? Not many people can say such a thing. Your saying it reminded me of that old thread. In a sense, then, you "rekindle[d]" this.
I didn't respond in the way I did in order to "rekindle an old debate" -- but to keep God from being (objectively) offended, and to protect you spiritually. Please try to realize that I am here to serve you and others, not to harm you.

You continued: "... yet you [John] once again offer this groundless opinion of yours that all sins against the 6th and 9th commandments are automatically objectively grave matter."

Paul, why is it so hard for you to remember and to read? That is, to "remember" a crucial thing that I told you in the past thread and to "read" what I recommended, above. And how can you dash off a heated reply to me without first consulting one of the orthodox bishops I mentioned? Could the answer be pride? I think so.

Paul, this has nothing to do with my "opinion" -- much less anyone's "groundless" opinion. I am talking facts -- not "opinions" -- here.
You should have remembered that I previously told you that, in my 50+ years -- from first grade in Catholic school to middle age -- every Catholic "teacher" I have ever encountered has passed along the Church's teaching, which I gave you on that old thread and reiterated here. I'm talking about every religious sister, every parish priest, every writer in orthodox books and magazines, every priest talking on Catholic radio and TV, etc.. If you want to think that what these dozens of good Catholics told me was "groundless opinion," and if you want to treat them too with disrespect, I can't stop you. I can only ask that you not do it.

In addition to what I have just stated about what I have learned all my life, how can you speak of my "groundless opinion," when I just told you that I believed the Baltimore Catechism's teaching to be in agreement with mine? The BC does not contain "groundless opinion." I think that someone quoted the BC even on that old thread, but you apparently missed his post or considered your personal beliefs to be infallible (and better than the BC). Now Jake has kindly quoted it again. I hope that your failure to respond to him indicates that you, at long last, realize you have been wrong (rather than that you haven't seen his post yet).

Paul, you continued: "This is a completely false assumption, and preaching it can lead many souls into needless agonizing and even eventual despair over their inability to avoid what you, but not the Church, classify as grave sin."

How many errors can you squeeze into one sentence, Paul? Six, I think.
1. With help from Jake, I have already made clear that there is nothing "false" about it.
2. There is no "assumption" involved.
3. I am not "preaching."
4. It is not I, but the God and his Church, that "classif[ies this] as grave" matter. [I was careful not to call it "grave sin."]
5. The teaching I have relayed should not "lead many souls into needless agonizing." If pastors teach the truth correctly -- including the three-part requirement for mortal sin -- people will be at peace.
6. There will not be "eventual despair over their inability to avoid ... grave sin." Again: teach the truth correctly, and all will be well. (Besides, we do suffer from "inability to avoid grave sin" -- if we rely on our own strength, without grace.)

Again, Paul, I don't want you to make any personal revelations, but I have to say that the level of your anger about this provides a stong hint that you have committed some [maybe even many] sins against #6 and/or #9 -- but that you have considered them to be venial sins, not because of insufficient consent/reflection, but because you mistakenly think that some violations of #6 and #9 are per se "light matter."

I mention this again because you expressed concern for "many souls [people]" in errors 5 and 6, above -- but I suspect that the most prominent one of those "souls" that you want to keep from "agonizing" is you. Maybe you also don't want to face the embarrassment of confessing these sins. That's understandable, but not exculpatory.

Paul, you continued: "As I stated back when we first discussed this, there is NO commandment which can be violated ONLY in a grave way. Every commandment can be violated in ways which range from objectively extremely grave to objectively extremely minor. There is NO Church teaching which states otherwise."

You are mistaken. This has never been about whether #6 and #9 can be violated in a venial manner -- but whether or not there is only grave matter in #6 and #9. You were wrong "when we first discussed this," and you are wrong again. There is no "light matter." I hope that the materials and arguments presented to you by Jake and me (and especially what you learn from one of the orthodox bishops I mentioned) helps you to realize this.

You continued: "Flipping through an unsavory magazine on a news stand or wearing jeans that are too tight may indeed constitute violations of these commandments, but such actions do not in any way compare in objective gravity to fornication, adultery, molestation, and other actions which actually are objectively grave matters."

First of all, it is not clear from your few words whether the "flipping" and "wearing," in your examples, were done (1) accidentally or (2) deliberately (to bring about sexual stimulation in oneself or another).
If accidental, there is no "matter" at all (light or grave). But if done deliberately, there is grave matter.
It does not matter whether it seems to you that the actions "in any way compare in ... gravity to" the more obvious sins that you listed. Why? Because the "flipping" and "wearing" (done deliberately, for an illicit end) are actually forms of what Jesus condemned as "committing adultery ... in [one's] heart." That's why they constitute "grave matter."

Paul, you concluded by saying: "We've been through this once, so I'll just stop here. The fact should be sufficiently self-evident to anyone who gives it a little thought."

The problem, Paul, is that you have obviously given it too "little thought" -- and none of the necessary research. The truth about Catholic morality is not determined by what seems "self-evident" -- nor by "a little thought." It is determined by listening to the Church teach and/or reading what the Church teaches. That's what Jake and I have done. "Go thou and do likewise," please.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), September 21, 2003.

To summarize my point:

I suppose even I could say that I have not sinned mortally in years.

All it would require would be my changing the definition of what a mortal sin is(as I "understand" it), and then to convince myself that I haven't been giulty of it. I'm reminded of the shameful period of recent U.S. history when a sitting Presisent looked the American people in the eye and tried to split hairs between what did and did not constitute "sexual relations" and even over the definitions of the words "alone," and, (bizzarely enough) "is," all of which was, of course a sham to hide the fact that he was/is guilty of adultery/perversion.

Fortuantely, the Church has defined for us what mortal sin is. Hence, the need for objectivity and trying to jam square pegs into round holes in these matters is eliminated, and we are all but spoonfed the answers on what's what. It's an open-book test. A good, thorough examination of conscience should shake us down enough to realize that we often grade ourselves on a pretty generous curve. If we lower the pass-fail bar enough, we're all doing pretty well.

...or are we?

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), September 22, 2003.