What is the use of knowing whether few or many are saved? Saint Peter says to us, "Strive by good works to make your election sure." When Saint Thomas Aquinas's sister asked him what she must do to go to heaven, he said, "You will be saved if you want to be." I say the same thing to you, and here is proof of my declaration. No one is damned unless he commits mortal sin: that is of faith. And no one commits mortal sin unless he wants to: that is an undeniable theological proposition. Therefore, no one goes to hell unless he wants to; the consequence is obvious. Does that not suffice to comfort you? Weep over past sins, make a good confession, sin no more in the future, and you will all be saved. Why torment yourself so? For it is certain that you have to commit mortal sin to go to hell, and that to commit mortal sin you must want to, and that consequently no one goes to hell unless he wants to. That is not just an opinion, it is an undeniable and very comforting truth; may God give you to understand it, and may He bless you. Amen.

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), March 04, 2003

Answers

There is a weakness with that argument Ed. There's plenty of people who wouldn't want to go to hell, but don't do anything about it.

-- Oliver Fischer (spicenut@excite.com), March 04, 2003.

There's plenty of people who wouldn't want to go to hell, but don't do anything about it.

If you "don't do anything about it, you want to go to Hell.

-- jake (jake1@pngusa.net), March 04, 2003.

Dear Ed,

That is analogous to saying "no-one commits a crime unless he wants to go to jail". Not so. People commit crimes/sins either because they believe they will escape punishment (even if that is unrealistic), or because they are so intent on what they are doing that punishment simply does not occur to them at the time - not because they "want" to be punished.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), March 04, 2003.

You are right in some way but overly simplistic in another.

Most serious sin is a matter not of focusing on eternal hellfire and choosing it, but a matter of willingly choosing a lesser good rather than a greater one - for example, an infrahuman value rather than a spiritual or moral one.

When Adam and Eve sinned, they didn't think about hell or choose eternal separation from God or the Garden. They just wanted to do what they wanted to do...despite all warnings and their own conscience forboding...

Why this is so is puzzeling as they did not suffer from concupiscence... but then again, willful evil is irrational. Yet humans are capable of such irrationality on a daily basis. We can easily fool ourselves, distract ourselves, and hide from ourselves...alienating ourselves to the point where willful sin and a new identity is possible.

So while on a simple level you are right about the free will - moral culpability requires the use of our free will... on another level life is far more complex than simple "either/or" choices.

The man who chooses to commit adultery is seeking happiness - but his choice is a wrong one and while human companionship or even pleasure are real goods, they are not as good as human fidelity and love and being true to one's given word....

The mortal sin involved is a matter of a change of identity from being the loyal Christian and faithful husband to that of being the breaker of a solemn vow and cheat...from being oriented towards another's good out of love to being oriented only towards his own "good" out of lust.

Apart from whatever exterior suffering, Hell really is to be cut off from others for eternity. To turn in on one's self, to be self- absorbed rather than self emptying.

God is not an arbitrary monster making nonsense rules just to trip people up or giving people simple either/or options (who would sanely choose to burn rather than to obey and thrive?). Human perfection is totally about self-emptying and self-sacrifice = love. Human corruption is the necessary result of the pursuit of one's own desires and whims rather than the good revealed to us.

Peace be upon you all.

-- Joe Stong (joestong@yahoo.com), March 04, 2003.

Mortal Sin 1) Serious Matter 2) Full Consent 3) Full Knowledge

You should explain all three aspects of what entails a mortal sin. If one of the three is lacking, then it is a venial sin only, and a person cannot suffer hell as a result, but will suffer purgatory, if they did not offer sufficient penance here on earth.

> "If I believed in such a god, I would rather burn in his hell than have anything to do with such a monster."

That's a form of judgement against God, and many people go to hell because of this, because they think they are better than God. The sin of pride.

-- Gordon (gvink@yahoo.com), March 04, 2003.

Mortal Sin 1) Serious Matter 2) Full Consent 3) Full Knowledge

I think this explanation of mortal sin is too often used as a scapegoat for serious sin. I would consider pornography, fornication, adultery, abortion, murder, etc., to always be mortal sins, regardless if the individual realizes it or not. I mean think about it, the full knowledge of mortal sin comes with searching for the truth, and those that do not search for the truth do so of their own free will, therefore it is their own fault if they commit mortal sin, because they never bothered finding the truth.

Besides the fact that the most common mortal sins, such as impurity, is against the law of nature. Therefore, most know good and well, that they are doing something serious, even if they do not have the full knowledge of what exactly mortal sin is.

-- Isabel (isabel@yahoo.com), March 04, 2003.

There is no action which by its very nature is always a mortal sin. Mortal sin has one objective criterion - serious matter, and two subjective criteria - knowledge and consent. We can have objective information about the objective seriousness of a particular action, but we can never have objective information about the subjective state of the person who commits the act. Therefore we can never say that a given act committed by a given person in a given situation is objectively a mortal sin. God is the only qualified judge of that. Many factors can influence the ability to give full rational consent of the will. Certainly many women who seek abortions are under intense pressure both from within and without. That doesn't change the objectively serious nature of what she is doing, but it certainly can influence her ability to think clearly and rationally about what she is doing, and to give FULL consent of her will.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), March 04, 2003.

woah, where is Jesus in all this. You can commit any sin but one and still go to be with God. Remember the verse...no man comes to the father except through me? Well you can do all the acts under the sun and still not be with God. What about the sheep and the goats also? God said that some will come to him and will have cast out demons, healed the sick, basically seen all the benefits of the spirit, but still have eternal damnation because they chose not to accept God.

-- Emily (emilystepney@hotmail.com), March 04, 2003.

Sorry, Paul, I don't agree with you. I believe that a woman having an abortion, whether she knows it or not, commits a mortal sin. There are so many things that are just completely against nature (ie. abortion, homosexuality, adultery, murder) that if one truly thinks it is no big deal to commit these acts, then it is because they have already closed their hearts and minds to God.

-- Isabel (isabel@yahoo.com), March 04, 2003.

> "Besides the fact that the most common mortal sins, such as impurity, is against the law of nature. Therefore, most know good and well, that they are doing something serious, even if they do not have the full knowledge of what exactly mortal sin is."

I agree Isabel, that the law of God is written in each man's heart, but this is still not automatically guaranteed for each person, for every instance. God who sees into each person's heart will decide.

-- Gordon (gvink@yahoo.com), March 04, 2003.

If you are Catholic, what you "believe" on moral or doctrinal issues is not valid unless it is in line with the infallible teaching of the Church. The teaching of the Church is that you cannot commit a mortal sin unknowingly. Knowledge of the fact is an absolute requirement for mortal sin, as is full consent of the will.

What do you mean by "mortal sins such as impurity"? Like every other area of morality, there are venial sins against purity and mortal sins against purity. There is no specific action that always constitutes mortal sin. Some actions are objectively serious, but that does not automatically make them mortal sins, for objective seriousness is only one of three criteria which must ALL be present for mortal sin to occur. It always depends on circumstances, specifically the circumstances of adequate knowledge and full consent of the will. This is the teaching of the Church.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), March 04, 2003.

> If you are Catholic, what you "believe" on moral or doctrinal issues is not valid unless it is in line with the infallible teaching of the Church.

But Paul doesnt church doctrine also hold that the final arbitrator of moral decisons is mans own conscience. I thought the churchs teachings on this were clear... man is obligied to follow his conscience even if church teachings say otherwise.

While the church can provide guidelines, is not God the only one who can say whether our beliefs are "valid" or not?

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), March 04, 2003.

God HAS said whether our beliefs are valid or not when He told the Church "whatsoever you bind on earth is bound in heaven", and "he who hears you hears Me". While we are bound to act in accord with our conscience, we are also bound to form our conscience in accord with the objective truth, which means the teaching of the Church. A poorly formed conscience is not a reliable moral guide, and if we have simply not bothered to form our consciences properly we cannot plead ignorance when we make poor moral decisions. The Church does not provide "guidelines". It provides the truth. And we are morally bound to form our consciences in accord with that truth.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), March 05, 2003.

Paul, my question is then what determines objective truth to each person- are you telling me that the folowing passage only holds true when the Church decides what is objectively true or has God given man the free will to decide himself?

"that it is not lawful to act with a doubtful conscience, that he who performs an action without being firmly convinced of its being allowed, commits sin in the sight of God>; secondly, that a law, above all the Divine law, obliges us to take cognizance of it and that, therefore, whenever doubts arise about the probable existence of an obligation we must apply sufficient care in order to arrive at certainty, so that a frivolous disregard of reasonable doubts is in itself a sin against the submission due to God. In spite of all this, it may happen that all our pains and inquiries do not lead us to certainty, that solid reasons are found both for and against the existence of an obligation: under these circumstances, a conscientious man will naturally ask whether he must consider himself bound by the law or whether he can, by further reflections -- reflex principles, as they are called -- come to the plain conclusion that there is no obligation either to do or to omit the act in question. Were we obliged to consider ourselves bound in every doubt, the result, obviously, would be an intolerable severity."

Catholic encylopedia

Blessings

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), March 05, 2003.

Paul, you've made some excellent points here about the subjective/objective question of sin.

-- Ed Lauzon (grader@accglobal.net), March 05, 2003.

Dear Kiwi,

Yes! It is the responsibility of the Church to define objective doctrinal and moral truth. And it is the responsibility of the individual to form his/her personal conscience in full accord with that objective truth.

Acting with a doubtful conscience means "I don't know if this action is objectively moral or objectively immoral, but I'll go ahead and do it anyway, and find out later". Such an action is always morally unacceptable because it demonstrates a willingness to do what is immoral, or at least a lack of commitment to moral behavior. The classic example presented in classes on both moral law and civil law is the hunter who sees something moving in the bushes, but isn't sure what it is. Can he shoot? Of course not! If he does shoot, and it turns out to be another hunter, then he is guilty of that person's death, both morally and legally, even though he didn't "intend to kill or harm anyone". When faced with such a situation, we are morally obliged to refrain from acting, until we can ascertain the objective truth of the matter - which in moral decisions means the Church's teaching on the matter. As the passage you offered indicates, there may be particular situations which are not specifically covered by the teaching of the Church, that is, the Church has made no definitive statement regarding the specific course of action. In such cases, as the passage also indicates, we should not become needlessly bogged down in a morass of paranoia and hyperscrupulosity. In such cases we simply conclude that we are not morally bound one way or the other, and we go ahead and make our own decision. But this result is valid only after we have made a sincere and thorough effort to discover the objective truth. Honesty is required.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), March 05, 2003.

If you never go against your conscience, you can never go to hell! Also, if anyone on this planet asks God for forgiveness, and is unable to see a priest in the confessional, for lack of ability or because of ignorance, his sins will be forgiven, for God has given that to us!

Going to confession is an ordinary means of reconcilation, and asking God away from the confessional for forgiveness, because of not being able to go, or ignorance, is an extra-ordinary means of reconciliation.

By the way, the good priest at our local Church explained that a few weeks ago to us during his homily.

-- Gordon (gvink@yahoo.com), March 05, 2003.

I don't agree that "if you never go against your conscience, you can never go to hell". If you have formed your conscience in an ungodly way that permits you to do ungodly things without suffering guilt, God will still hold you responsible for the evil you have done. I doubt very much that Osama Bin Laden has done anything that is against his conscience.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), March 05, 2003.

> "I don't agree that "if you never go against your conscience, you can never go to hell". If you have formed your conscience in an ungodly way that permits you to do ungodly things without suffering guilt, God will still hold you responsible for the evil you have done. I doubt very much that Osama Bin Laden has done anything that is against his conscience."

Well if you form your conscience in a ungodly way, one could argue that you are committing a mortal sin right there, that the person would be aware of.

God knows the heart of Osama Bin Laden, and he will judge him fairly. If God for whatever reason decided to not condemn him to hell, would you then judge God?

> "God will still hold you responsible for the evil you have done."

All sin is accounted for, but whether it is mortal or not, is not determined only by the seriousness of the sin, but whether you are aware of it's seriousness. The accountability of serious venial sins is purgatory.

-- Gordon (gvink@yahoo.com), March 05, 2003.

>Well if you form your conscience in a ungodly way, one could argue that you are committing a mortal sin right there, that the person would be aware of>

Yes, deliberate resistance to the truth is sinful in and of itself. Whether or not it is mortal would of course depend on circumstances, which we seem to agree about.

>God knows the heart of Osama Bin Laden, and he will judge him fairly. If God for whatever reason decided to not condemn him to hell, would you then judge God?>

I did not say that Bin laden would go to hell. I merely used him as an obvious example of the fact that following your conscience does not mean doing right unless you have a right conscience to follow.

I would take that a step further - not only by its seriousness, and not only by your awareness of its seriousness, but also by the extent to which you have sincerely sought to become aware of the moral nature of the act. If you have intentionally avoided finding out about the seriousness of the act, then you may be just as culpable as one who actually knows of the seriousness.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), March 05, 2003.

> "If you have intentionally avoided finding out about the seriousness of the act, then you may be just as culpable as one who actually knows of the seriousness."

Paul, I agree. We all have a duty to find out the truth, depending on our abilities, the advice we get, and the circumstances of our lives.

Also God's law is written into each man's heart, so interior reflection is an important of this.

-- Gordon (gvink@yahoo.com), March 05, 2003.

This question is about mortal sin. This question is not meant to be facetious, but am I in the same boat as Osama Bin Ladin with regard to salvation, as a result of missing mass and not going to confession? I was taught that missing Mass (with no good reason) was a mortal sin. A mortal sin means condemnation. This has always bothered me as I have known good people who were Catholic, who have died, and who missed Mass from time to time. I could be next. Jim

-- James F. Furst (furst@flash.net), March 05, 2003.

If Heaven has many mansions, I would suppose that hell had many thermostats. Possibly hell might run from a kind of this world existance to deep, deep. fire. All mortal sins will keep one from the beatific vision, but otherwise, there must be many variations.At least, that's my opinion.

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), March 05, 2003.

Paul thankyou yet again.

Hi Jim I dont know what authorities like Deacon Paul or the Church teach on this issue but even if you broke EVERY church rule and law intentionaly you can still not be condemended to hell by your fellow man. God and only God not man can only do that. In regard to your specific question IMHO the idea of burning in hell for missing a single mortal sin is a nonsense. I prefer to consider a balance sheet approach!

Remember that eating meat on a Friday used to be a mortal sin, imagine if you would, 50 years ago.... a "Mother Tereaesa" like Catholic person had spent their entire life helping and loving people (and had never broke a Church rule before this) BUT they had eaten meat on Friday and died that night. Would they go to hell? Of course not, its absurd. It goes against both common sense and our own moral sensibilities. The same thing with missing Mass, I dont understand the idea behind mortal sin but I always relate such a mindset(fear, control, unquestioning/unthinking obedience, guilt, hell fire and brimstone etc) with the Pharisees, and we all know what Jesus and God thinks of them. God Bless

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), March 06, 2003.

Hell is absolute and eternal separation from God. There are not varying degrees of "absolute separation". Either you are separated from the beatific vision, or you are not. No-one in hell will get occasional peeks at the beatific vision. The fact of eternal separation from God (which necessarily means eternal separation from all virtue and goodness) is so indescribably horrible that varying degrees of anything else under those circumstances would be superfluous and insignificant. Some theologians believe that there may be varying degrees of experience in heaven, according to the capacity of an individual to experience joy and peace. This idea is represented as some coming with a small cup, others with a larger cup. Everyone's cup will be filled to capacity, so no-one will experience any lack of joy and peace, or feel deprived or incomplete in any way. That sounds reasonable, since God alone is the infinite expression of peace, joy, and every virtue, and our expression of such virtues is only a reflection of His. But hell is the complete exclusion of everything that might be experienced in heaven. It has nothing to do with an individual's "capacity to experience exclusion". Nothing is nothing, any way you cut it.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), March 06, 2003.

Paul,

If you have intentionally avoided finding out about the seriousness of the act, then you may be just as culpable as one who actually knows of the seriousness.

That is pretty much what I was trying to say earlier, with the example of abortion. That one who commits and abortion (or other obviously serious sin) has obviously not tried to find out about the seriousness of the act, or has not tried to form their conscience in line with God's laws, and are, therefore, still culpable for the seriousness of that act, whether they 'knew' they were committing a mortal sin or not.

Kiwi,

a "Mother Tereaesa" like Catholic person had spent their entire life helping and loving people (and had never broke a Church rule before this) BUT they had eaten meat on Friday and died that night. Would they go to hell? Of course not,...

There you are wrong. The Church law can change (such as eating meat on Fridays) but we are still obliged to follow the current Church law. (And if I am not mistaken, even now, if you decide to eat meat on Fridays, you must still make a sacrifice of some other sort.) My point is, that it only takes one mortal sin to send us to hell. Only one! God is merciful enough that He gives most of us many more chances than we deserve to get on the straight and narrow path, but to die with a mortal sin on your soul would take you to hell. Even if it was only one mortal sin.

-- Isabel (isabel@yahoo.com), March 06, 2003.

Hi Isabel I understand the discipline has changed today I was I was merely using an old example of a mortal sin to illustrate more clearly how absurd it is to me that we will go to hell for missing mass and not confessing. You say the Chrch says I am wrong... Ill take your word on it but I dont agree with it.

Blessings

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), March 06, 2003.

I am not prowd of the fact that I miss Mass. I'm not trying to grand stand. I'm new to this discussion media and have never before contributed to an internet forum. I respect those who follow the law with regard to the Sunday obligation. When I asked the question about salvation , mortal sin, and missing Mass, I was not looking for a way out. I understand that I'm in the state of mortal sin as a result of missing mass. I am the product of 16 years of Catholic education and still love and respect the Church. I still go to Mass as a rule,... more so than not. I'm not the best representation of a Catholic especially as compared to standards I've read on this forum. I'm probably similar to many other marginal Catholics. Again nothing to be prowd of. However, in light of (in my opinion)some of the reasonable answers given to my question, isn't it possible that the Lord is just as reasonable? Again, I'm not recommending that we miss Mass, and not suggesting we can know the reasonableness of God. But, we were given this ability ie. (reason). We somehow have it,... many of us. Is reasonableness a gift, or a path away from salvation? Best to all, Jim.

-- James F. Furst (furst@flash.net), March 06, 2003.

What reasonableness can there be disobeying the law of God and His Church? Don't get me wrong, there are times. Such as when one's kids are sick, you are sick, an ice storm prevents you from getting out (which recently happened to me-I do not drive anywhere on pure ice, not even work), car breaks down on the way, etc. But missing Mass for no other reason than wanting to sleep in, or because you had too much to drink the night before, or whatever the case may be, is not reasonable. God is just, before He is reasonable. And He would not have laid down these laws if He did not expect us to follow them.

I will keep you in my prayers, Jim. Hope to hear you have become a regular Mass-goer soon.

-- Isabel (isabel@yahoo.com), March 06, 2003.

While reading yesterday's paper I came across an article concerning Mel Gibson. It seems that he and his father are sedevacantists. While not going that far, I do believe that they have some valid points. Here is a bit of it.

In an interview with Noxon, the elder Gibson is quoted as saying that Vatican II was "a Masonic plot backed by the Jews." Sources who know the actor say that he and his father have many differences of opinion.

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), March 07, 2003.

I'm not that well versed in the sedevacantist point of view, other than not fully accepting the authority of the pope as a result of Vatican II, and suggesting that the Mass has been compromised. Would they think that those of us attending Mass regularly aren't really fulfilling the obligation since its no longer truely an acceptable Mass? Is even a regular Church goers salvation at risk as a result of Vatican II in the eyes of a sedevacantist? Just curious about their orientation. Jim

-- James F. Furst (furst@flash.net), March 08, 2003.

Sedevacantists believe that the last four popes either lost their office because of manifest and notorius heresy, or never held office in the first place because of heresy preceeding office. From what I understand they also believe that Vatican 2 was a robber council,and not a dogmatic or pastoral council, because Paul VI signed off on documents before the close of the council on 12-8-65. Sometime in 1966,Paul VI introduced the notion of a pastoral council.They believe that the type of council needs to be declared while it is ongoing.They also believe with Vatican 2 came a new religion, but continued to call themselves Catholics.Sedevacantists,as Saint Athanasius believed, "they have the building ,but we have the Faith".They believe that not only is "the Novus Ordo" invalid, but ordinations,Consecrations of Bishops,and the Sacraments (with the possible exeptions of Baptism and Holy Matrimony) have been drastically changed. These Sacraments are doubtful at best,and they feel are to be avoided.They believe that without the sacraments,valid priests and bishops,salvation becomes a very big question,because they believe,"extra ecclessium nulla salus"(outside the church no salvation).

-- Jenny (Jenny@pacbell.com), March 08, 2003.

salvation.

In one of his oldest Admonitiones [" Admonitions"] to the Brothers in his Order, Saint Francis said the following regarding those who do not accept Catholic truth:

"All, who have seen Jesus in the flesh, but have not seen Him after the Spirit, and in His Divinity and have not believed that He was really the Son of God, are doomed. Also those are doomed who see the Sacrament of the Body of Christ, which is consecrated with the words of the Lord on the altar, and by the hand of the priest, in the form of bread and wine, but do not see it in the Spirit and Divinity and have not believed that it really is Our Lord Jesus Christ's most holy Body and Blood." [6]

Thus, those who try to portray Saint Francis of Assisi an apostle of Vatican II's new brand of dialogue and ecumenism are simply not telling the truth. Especially since today's ecumenism, of which the "Spirit of Assisi" is the most radical element, does not seek the conversion of non-Catholics to the one true religion, but only seeks to work together with all religions in a "reconciled diversity" for the "betterment of the human family." [7]

There is no sharper contrast to this new, effeminate ecumenism than Saint Francis' encounter with the Sultan, and his Friars' missionary zeal among the Muslims.

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), March 13, 2003.

"Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? For ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you" (2 Corinthians 6:14-17).

This is what St. Paul said about Assissi.

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), March 13, 2003.

(7) One example among many, Cardinal Walter Kasper, appointed by Pope John Paul II as the Prefect of the Vatican’s Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, recently said, “Today we no longer understand ecumenism in the sense of a return, by which the others would ‘be converted’ and ‘return to being Catholics.’ This was expressly abandoned at Vatican II” (Adisti, February 26, 2001). English translation quoted from “Where Have They Hidden the Body,” by Christopher Ferrara. See also Iota Unum, chap. 35, where Romano Amerio demonstrates that converting non-Catholics to the one true Church is not the aim of today’s practice of ecumenism

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), March 13, 2003.

falling as i do into the Jim camp (ie "marginal Catholic") -- but desparately, desparately tyring to set the record straight with the Church and get backon the wagon. However, confession is a real stumbling block.

i have always found it hard to confess to a sin (when i was younger and a frequent confessor) even though i was truly sorry for it.

is it enough to tell the priest that you have committed mortal sin and are sorry -- or do you have to present the gory details? i am not looking to get round the rules, just looking for some guidance so that when the inevitable comes (i will be confessing soon) i am prepared.

also, thus might sound odd, but what if you have forgotten the sin as it has been so long since you went to confession? i do not mean (oh, i murdered someone 10 years ago but can't remember" - i mean that in the normal course of things, when one drifts away from the Church, you stop remembering the sins and they just seem to disappear. the fact that i have not been to confession in years is most likely a mortal sin itself.

would really appreciate a bit of good guidance.

-- Good Guidance Needed (please.nospam@thanks.com), March 13, 2003.

My best advice for you is to get a good examination of conscience. You could probably print one off the internet. Make sure it includes, not only sins against the Ten Commandments, but sins against the laws of the Church, the seven deadly sins, sins against the Theological and Cardinal Virtues, as well. Spend days, if you have to, going over this list and making your examination of conscience. Say a prayer to the Holy Ghost to enlighten you. If you have never done so, it would not hurt to make a general confession for you whole life. If you do the best you can, then your sins are forgiven. (If you have made a general confession before, you only go back as far as your last general confession.)

I was also given advice once by a priest, that once you make a huge general confession of your whole life (which I did for the first time at age 17) do not go back over and over again to try and remember more sins. This can make one scrupulous (sp?). (Of course if you should just happen to remember a mortal sin that you forgot at the time, you should confess it next time. But chances are that if you are sincere, spend proper time in preparation, and invoke the help of the Holy Spirit, that you will not leave out any mortal sins. Then it is best to move on, do penance, and do not dwell on the past.)

Hope this helps!

-- Isabel (isabel@yahoo.com), March 13, 2003.

Isabel,

it most certainly helps. but what is a general confession? sorry to bother you, but i am very anxious to move forward. i am desparately keen to get back on line.

many thanks, again.

-- Good Guidance Needed (please.nospam@thanks.com), March 13, 2003.

Dear "Good",

Confession is not easy. But it is necessary and beneficial. Think of it as spiritual surgery. Surgery is unpleasant, difficult, painful. But when it needs to be done we do it, because it is the only means back to health. Without it we just keep getting sicker. But when the disease is removed, we can begin again new and fresh.

You not have to go into "the gory details", but you do have to tell the priest what you did. A priest cannot forgive unknown sins. There are other advantages to confessing what you did. The priest has had a lot of practical experience as well as professional training, and can often offer a few words of advice which may help you avoid the sin in the future. Also, he may tell you that what you have done is not a mortal sin, which is a good thing to know. Many people have strange ideas about what constitutes mortal sin. Someone once told me that every sin against the 6th commandment is a mortal sin. That simply isn't true.

Sins which are honestly forgotten after making a sincere effort to recall your sins are forgiven. It is not necessary to confess them later, if you later remember them, though it may be spiritually beneficial to doing so.

The fact that you have not been to confession in a long time almost certainly is not a mortal sin. But it is a situation you need to correct. It doesn't actually have to be confessed as a sin, since we always should say how long it has been since our last confession, before we even begin mentioning our sins.

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

Good Guidance,

A general confession is where you confess all the sins of your past life in one confession. Even those that have been confessed before. It is not necessary, but when I made my first general confession, it was the first time I felt the grace of Perfect Contrition. The enormity of my sins was shown in a new light when I confessed all I have ever done. It can be very beneficial, especially since awareness of sin deepens as one gets older and/or gains more knowledge. But once you have made a general confession you never want to go back and confess them again (unless you commit those same sins again.) If 10 years down the road you should desire to make another general confession, you would only go back as far as your previous one. I have made my general confessions, usually while on a spiritual retreat.

Do you still remember the proper form for confession?

Paul,

The fact that you have not been to confession in a long time almost certainly is not a mortal sin

It could be a mortal sin depending on the circumstances. If one fails to confess and receive Communion during the Easter season then it is a mortal sin against the laws of the Church.

It is not necessary to confess them later, if you later remember them,

If one has left out a mortal sin, inadvertantly, it is always necessary to confess it the next time one goes to confession.

Are these not still the teachings of the Church on confession?

-- Isabel (isabel@yahoo.com), March 13, 2003.

Dear Isabel,

If one fails to receive Communion during the Easter season or to confess one's sins at least once a year then it is a sin against the laws of the Church. Whether it is a mortal sin depends on several factors. First, the act itself must be "an objectively grave evil". It is doubtful that failing to receive Communion during the Easter season is comparable to other objectively grave acts like murder, adultery, rape, or abortion. Even if it was an equally grave act, it would still not constitute mortal sin unless the person who failed to receive Communion was fully aware of the gravely evil nature of that omission, and still gave his full consent to doing it. This is still the teaching of the Church regarding mortal sin.

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

Dear Good Guidance Neede, For your benefit and for the benefit of others who may have been away from confession for awhile, I have started a new thread called, "Confession - Making a Good Confession". Hope it helps you and others to refresh the memory.

-- Ed Lauzon (grader@accglobal.net), March 14, 2003.

this, and the new thread, have been brilliant sources of knowledge and hope. thank you all. i will be "biting the bullet" very soon, i guess.

thanks

-- Good Guidance Needed (please.nospam@thanks.com), March 14, 2003.

Good Guidance Needed, keep us posted. We'll be rooting (praying) for you! It's always a joy when someone comes back to the Church. Heaven is rejoicing this day!

-- Ed Lauzon (grader@accglobal.net), March 14, 2003.

Jmj
Hello, folks.

"Good Guidance Needed" [GGN] said this:
"the fact that i have not been to confession in years is most likely a mortal sin itself."

GGN, your instincts are good. If one has committed a mortal sin [and I think that you admitted such], then failing to confess within a year would itself be a sin of "grave matter" -- i.e., would constitute a mortal sin if the other elements mentioned by Paul were present (your awareness of the graveness and your full consent to commit the sin anyway).

Paul, you wrote:
"The fact that you have not been to confession in a long time almost certainly is not a mortal sin. ... It is doubtful that failing to receive Communion during the Easter season is comparable to other objectively grave acts like murder, adultery, rape, or abortion."
"It doesn't actually have to be confessed as a sin, since we always should say how long it has been since our last confession, before we even begin mentioning our sins."

I believe that you are mistaken on both points, Paul. The requirement to confess mortal sins at least once a year is one of the "precepts" of the Church. It is mentioned in the Code of Canon Law. To obey these few major precepts is a very serious matter indeed, so to disobey them would be "grave matter" (potentially mortal sin).

Whether or not a forbidden action is "grave matter" is not determined by comparing it to "murder, adultery, rape, or abortion." After all, stealing a sum that would seriously harm the owner is "grave matter" -- yet it (like failing to confess mortal sin) bears little resemblance to "murder [etc.]"

And so, failure to confess mortal sins within a year must itself be confessed as a specific sin (including the number of times [number of years]) committed. This lets the priest know that the penitent is aware of the grave obligation and is specifically sorry for having disobeyed the precept.

Isabel, you wrote: "It could be a mortal sin depending on the circumstances. If one fails to confess and receive Communion during the Easter season then it is a mortal sin against the laws of the Church."

This is not correct, because the confession does not have to occur during the Easter season, but at any time during the year. Moreover, if one does not commit a mortal sin during a given year, then going to confession is not required. [Paul was wrong about this too.] The precept says merely that mortal sins must be confessed once a year. Naturally, though, the Church recommends frequent confession even for people who do not commit mortal sins. Not availing oneself of confession for an extended period of time is a great spiritual self-deprivation.

Isabel, you also wrote: "If one has left out a mortal sin, inadvertently, it is always necessary to confess it the next time one goes to confession."
Assuming one later remembers that mortal sin, you are correct.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), March 15, 2003.