|
|
 |
Anonymous Valentine wrote: |
|
Hi, guys —
Greetings,
I remember reading in the St. Pius X Catechism that the firm purpose of amendment in one's Confession, at the very least extends to mortal sins. Also, the Baltimore Catechism mentions that the universal aspect of contrition extends to mortal sins.
- Does that mean that if I am not ready to give up a venial sin, I can still get my Confession to be valid provided that I feel sorry for all of my mortal sins?
- Furthermore, if one were to plan to commit a venial sin at the time of his Confession but had contrition (a firm purpose of amendment) for all of his mortal sins, would his Confession be valid in light of the previous passages?
Thank you.
Valentine
|
| { Based on these Catholic documents, under what criteria will venial and mortal sins be forgiven? } |
Bob replied:
|
Dear Valentine,
The validity of Confession requires firm purpose of amendment for all sin; sometimes that is motivated by imperfect contrition (fear of punishment only) but it is applicable to all sin, both venial and mortal sins. Foreknowledge that one is likely to fail in sin is not equivalent to “purposefully” sinning. The former is acceptable, the latter not.
Be careful not to become mired in legalism that only weighs sin by strict rules. We must aim to leave all sin behind and become saints, that means never sinning on purpose.
Peace,
Bob Kirby
|
Valentine replied:
|
Dear Mr. Kirby,
Thank you for your reply.
I'd like to state at first that this is the last time I will be sending a reply because my goal here is not to be argumentative. So, in order to prevent the impression that I am trying to win a "debate" or something of that sort, I shall do as I said.
Secondly, I respect your opinion and my goal here is not to doubt your authority on these matters since I know that you are a theologian yourself. What I am interested is in how that view (validity requires purpose of amendment for all sins) can be reconciled with certain passages. While of course I recognize that a Christian ought to denounce all sin, my question was not about what type of attitude pertaining to sin should a Christian adopt.
My question was:
- What would the bare minimum be for the sacrament of Reconciliation to be valid.
Consider these passages:
| Baltimore Catechism |
Q. 759. What do you mean by saying that our sorrow should be universal?
A. When I say that our sorrow should be universal, I mean that we should be sorry for all our mortal sins without exception.
|
Q. 770. What do you mean by a firm purpose of sinning no more?
A. By a firm purpose of sinning no more I mean a fixed resolve not only to avoid all mortal sin, but also its near occasions. |
Here I make a simple observation.
- If the purpose of amendment must definitely extend to all sins, why was not that highlighted in the previous passages?
| St. Pius X Catechism |
63 Q. What is meant by a universal resolution?
A. It means that we should avoid all mortal sins, both those already committed as well as
those which we can possibly commit. |
Also :
| Catechism of Rodez, p.449. |
On Contrition.
Absolution can remit the mortal sins, although at the same time you have no contrition for the venial sins. |
Also consider perhaps a bit more of an obscure passage by Fr. Willie Doyle (his case has been opened for canonization):
- Is it necessary to have the firm purpose of avoiding all venial sin?
No attention to venial sin is necessary for contrition. Strictly speaking, every mortal sin might be forgiven without the pardon of a single venial sin. To obtain pardon of venial sin there must, of course, be sorrow for them, but venial sins for which we have either contrition or attrition may be forgiven without pardon being granted for those for which we have no sorrow.
All in all, my question is this.
- How can the view on your behalf be reconciled with the aforementioned passages?
I have yet to make my mind up on the question that I originally asked and while I appreciate your response, I would have liked, if possible, your insight on these previous passages.
Thank you for your time.
Valentine
|
Bob replied:
|
Dear Valentine
Thanks for the clarifying texts, I hadn't seen the Catechism of Rodez before, or Fr. Willie Doyle for that matter.
You are correct, and I’m sorry if I was not clear. The separation of mortal and venial sins is an important point, inasmuch as mortal sins can cost you eternal life. The venial sins, while they do not have the gravity of mortal sins, do keep us from experiencing Heaven directly and we must be purged of them in Purgatory, if not already done here. The penitential rite at mass provides for forgiveness for venial sins every time, and even the act of contrition. However, a venial sin for which there is no contrition or attrition, (such as a venial sin that is "planned") is not forgiven, even when the mortal sins in the same Confession are forgiven. The person is not damned, but he will have to develop contrition in Purgatory before he is released. So the Confession is not as efficacious as it would have been had there been contrition for all sin. In other words, the Confession is valid for the mortal sins confessed, but not the venial sin for which there is no sorrow for sin. When I first answered I was considering the basic elements of Confession as described by Ludwig Ott, expounding on the Council of Trent (1551) (sorrow, Confession of sins, atonement, (or desire for atonement). These elements are the basic parts of the forgiveness of sins or penance.
Basically, it is easier to explain to people that we should regret all sin when we go to Confession, that way we hold nothing back from God’s grace. (But in the case of the validity of absolution for mortal sins, it holds just the same.)
Peace,
Bob Kirby |
|
|
|
