Question
Dear father,
I’d like to ask a question about an aspect of Confession. I am referring to the fact that we must mention how many times a specific mortal sin has been committed, according to canon 988 of the Code of Canon Law. I have talked to several priests about this aspect and all of them, except one, have told me that in truth saying the exact number of times a sin has been committed is useless. Moreover, every time I went to confession I was never asked how many times a certain sin was committed… in short, if it was really important, the confessors would have asked me. I would really like to know how things are, I mean, if it is really necessary to say it or not, also because according to my personal point of view it would be a useless burden to examine ourselves in such a meticulous way, since it could be a source of anxiety and scruples. Lastly, I would like to know, even if it is not my case, if a person who perfectly remembered the number of times he has committed a sin and did not say it, would make a sacrilegious confession.
Thank you for your attention
Answer from the priest:
Dear friend,
1. you are not the only one with this issue and for this reason I would like to give a public answer.
First of all, I quote canon 988 in full:
§ 1. A member of the Christian faithful is obliged to confess in kind and number all grave sins committed after baptism and not yet remitted directly through the keys of the Church nor acknowledged in individual confession, of which the person has knowledge after diligent examination of conscience.
§ 2. The faithful are also recommended to confess venial sins.
2. The reason why it is a requirement that the confession of serious sins should also be integral in number must be clarified.
The sacrament of Penance or confession has a double nature: medicinal and judicial.
As regards the medicinal or therapeutic nature of this sacrament which was defined by Saint Augustine as “medicine of salvation” (Medicina salutis), the priest is required to know the moral situation of the penitent. For example, with regard to the sanctification of feasts: it is one thing to say that Mass was skipped once since the last confession and another thing is to skip it regularly.
Just as the treatment that a doctor will give to those who tell him of having had a severe illness once would be different from those who tell him to have suffered from the same severe illness repeatedly.
3. The same thing also applies to the judicial nature of the sacrament which emerges clearly from the words with which the Lord instituted this sacrament: “Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained” (Jn 20:23).
The priest must know what he’s absolving: whether he’s absolving a mortal sin, multiple mortal sins, or only venial sins.
4. All this is not an imposition of the Church, but it emerges from the very nature of the sacrament as determined by the Lord.
For this reason John Paul II in a message to the Penitentiary (22.3.1996) reiterated that “confession must be integral, in the sense that it must enunciate all mortal sins, omnia peccata mortalia” (cf. Trent, sess. XIV, chap. 5) and that this need is not “a simple disciplinary prescription of the Church”, but “of divine law, because it is in the very institution of the sacrament that the Lord has established”.
5. The Pope then continues: “Unfortunately today some faithful approaching the sacrament of penance do not make the full disclosure of mortal sins, as mentioned by the Council of Trent and, sometimes, they react to the priest confessor, who dutifully questions about the necessary completeness, as if he allowed himself to be intrusive into the shrine of conscience.
I hope and pray that these poorly enlightened faithful will remain convinced, also by virtue of this present teaching, that the norm for which specific and numerical completeness is required, as far as the memory allows us to know when honestly questioned, is not a burden imposed on them arbitrarily, but a means of liberation and serenity ”(Ib.).
6. Having said this, it should be added that the priest already knows that in several cases one cannot have the mathematical knowledge of the number of serious sins.
As far as blasphemy is concerned, for some it is such a deep-rooted vice that even after talking for one hour they don’t know how many they have said. Unfortunately it is a very bad habit.
The priest already knows that there is a habit in them and understands the situation.
For those who have a more formed conscience, a single blasphemy weighs like a stone and knows exactly how many times they have cursed, even after some time: once or twice or a few times.
7. For this reason, the Council of Trent says: “Indeed, it is clear that in the Church nothing is required of penitents except that, after each one has diligently examined himself and has explored all the corners and folds of his conscience, he confesses those sins with which he remembers to have mortally offended his Lord and his God; all other sins that do not come to the memory of those who have diligently reflected, are understood to be included in the same confession as a whole; for them we say with the Prophet: “Cleanse me from my inadvertent sins” (Ps 19:13) (DS 1682).
Therefore, whoever does not remember the exact number of serious sins does not make a sacrilegious confession because there is no desire in him to alter the accusation or confession of the sins committed.
8. Coming now to your case, if you have told your serious sins, after having stated how long you didn’t go to confession, you will say that that particular sin has happened to you once, twice, a few times, or, unfortunately, frequently or often.
With this, without torturing your conscience, you have said everything and the priest will understand and will not ask you any questions to integrate the confession.
I wish you well, I remind you to the Lord and I bless you.
Father Angelo
