Questo articolo è disponibile anche in: Italian English

Reverend father,

I am an assiduous reader of your digital apostolate: may your great merit be recognized afore the Lord! My question concerns the sacrament of Penance: very often and in the context of more than one parish, the priest interrupts my accusation of sins, saying that “God intends to absolve me of all sins, and the not remembered ones as well”; or, in the end, they ask me to “enlarge the pain also for those I have not remembered” in order to be forgiven. While this haste can be justified at least when I confess during mass (it would be my care to do it at more suitable times when I can dedicate more time), this case recurred also in other moments, so I think that the confessors are convinced in good faith that this relatively widespread formula is effectual; maybe they think I’m too reticent. Since I always manage to accuse serious sins, I have always considered myself absolved and taken Communion; however, I do not hide the fact of leaving the confessional sometimes really dissatisfied. So, I ask your opinion about this practice and about the validity of the received absolution. Besides, a penance is often assigned to do at home: can I serenely receive the Eucharist in the meanwhile? I will try to remember you in my prayers, in the hope of being so in yours; I thank and greet you in advance,

Dear,

1. yes, what you have told me is a fairly common expression by many priests.

I can assure you that they do it when they see that the confession is taking a bit longer and when they think that what was grave has already been said.

In fact, to give some order to the confession, clearly one must grieve for serious sins. And those must be said first.

2. To keep the accusation of serious sins until the end, after having confessed trifles and having gone ahead with a profusion of words, is even incorrect for the confession itself.

In this case the priest – so deceived by the penitent – rightly cuts short at a certain moment, because the confession of venial sins must be succinct, without particular verbiage.

3. About confession, St. Thomas relates and comments the essential requisites at that time recited. First is simplicity, intended as a synonym for brevity. He says about that: “the manifestation can be hindered by the use of too many words, and against this defect the confession is to be ‘simple’,( brief) so as not to be wrapped up in vague words; thirdly, by ‘multiplicity’ of words, in which respect it is said to be ‘simple’ indicating that the penitent should relate only such matters as affect the gravity of the sin” (Supplement to the Summa Theologiae, 9.4).

4. The great Dominican moral theologian D. Prümmer said that the confessor must avoid unnecessary speeches by the penitent during confession. Also, the confessor himself must avoid useless speeches or questions.

He recalled as well that St. Antonino taught that penitents may ask for consolation because of tribulations, or advice for doubts, only after the accusation of sins and after receiving absolution.

That is because mixing their pains with the accusation of sins may endanger the strength of repentance, and diminish the contrition (rf. Handbook of Moral Theology, n. 665, 696).

5. A French commentator of The Summa Theologiae wrote: “simplicity is often recommended to certain devout people, always ready to tell a long story about the occasion of venial sins, which they should directly accuse instead of trying to excuse telling the most insignificant circumstances in their own way” ([tr.], HUGUENY H., La penitence, t. I, p. 412).

6. For your case you can be calm.

Your Confession is valid, all the more so since you have the concern to accuse first the serious sins if there were any.

7. Between absolution and the completion of penance you can receive the Eucharist because you have already received the sacramental grace.

I wish you every good and I bless you.

Father Angelo