12 Claims Every Catholic Should Be Able to Answer

Catholic Educators ^ | Deal Hudson

[phatus maximus]

Greetings...a respectful observation...if one is behind a screen I fail to see the "difficulty" in confessing one's sins? To me speaking anonymously to a priest would be much easier than to ask the Lord God Almighty directly in prayer for forgiveness. I can't hide anything from him, but in a confessional I can speak to whatever I want to (Granted I would know that I am hiding sins from God--see the effect here?). Ultimately in both cases it is God who I am confessing to and to try to hide anything from him is unwise...Clearly the most important tenet is to confess of the sins we commit and do our absolute best to avoid sinful behavior in the future.

Blessings in Christ!

[x5452]

ROCOR churches seem to average 20-50 people. It is definitly easier to control.

Actually despite the beauty that seems a distinct disadvantage of great Cathedrals (that and the line for communion must be absolutly immense).

One other thing I noticed was that not everyone goes for communion (I'm not sure why), a lot of folks didn't, I'm not sure if that is a regular thing I've only been to ROCOR parishes a handful of times. Partly because we are quite good freinds with a lot of folks at the OCA parish we attend and partly I'll admit because I sometimes find myself lazy to attend between the standing and quite long liturgy. (Still it's nice to see they don't skip ANYTHING and some things they go through twice once slavonic once english)

[Desdemona]

if one is behind a screen I fail to see the "difficulty" in confessing one's sins?

Depending on the sin, it's harder than you might think. Sinful habits are hard to break. Putting it into words helps the beginning of breaking the cycle.

To me speaking anonymously to a priest would be much easier than to ask the Lord God Almighty directly in prayer for forgiveness.

That's part of the point.

Ultimately in both cases it is God who I am confessing to and to try to hide anything from him is unwise...

Which is why purposefully omitted sins are not forgiven until they are said - as well as the sin of omitting them. If you forget, that's different, it was not a willful omition.

Clearly the most important tenet is to confess of the sins we commit and do our absolute best to avoid sinful behavior in the future.

And to be sorrowful for our sins. That's a little tidbit people tend to forget.

[Desdemona]

If you were really as conservative as your handle indicates, you would disavow the title of Catholic and not set foot in that church until it comes clean with its members.

That is putting faith in men, not God, and that is NOT what the church is about. Besides, if all the "conservatives" were to abandon ship, who would be around to do God's will and purge the barque of the current plague? Those who are passionate about the true teaching of the church stay and do His will without thought for self or any material means. It's a truly thankless job. Some call us "conservative", but the word passionate fits better.

[Desdemona]

You guys should have had those Cardinals removed and jailed instead of performing Mass at JPII's funeral.

The Church is not a democracy.

And Mass is said, not performed.

[mike182d]

Greetings...in your view, what kinds of sins would you speculate might be retained? 2nd question...if a sin is retained is salvation then denied by default? Respectfully in Christ...

With Christ's command to the Apostles, it seems that the type of sin is irrelevant - in so far as it is not against the Spirit (the unforgivable sin). It seems more dependent upon the Apostle's ability - or, rather, Christ through the Apostles - to retain them.

So, I guess the sins that are retained might be the one's we do not seek forgiveness for through the means given to us by Jesus Christ Himself.

However, far be it from me to say which sins in particular can not be forgiven of a person as God's mercy is infinite. I'm just basing this on what Christ instructed.

[mike182d]

Greetings...a respectful observation...if one is behind a screen I fail to see the "difficulty" in confessing one's sins? To me speaking anonymously to a priest would be much easier than to ask the Lord God Almighty directly in prayer for forgiveness.

If the screen bothers you, you can always sit across from the priest and confess face to face. In fact, if you do that enough, the priest will get to know you, removing your anonymity and increasing your culpability.

Confession is what you make it. :-)

Personally, if people think its easier to confess their sins to Almighty God, Lord of heaven and earth - the omnipotent Being who they have directly offended without just cause - instead of confessing to a fallible, mortal man, I seriously question their understaning of the nature of their sin, its gravity, or even their understanding of God's Being. If I had killed a king's son, I would find it much easier to tell one of his servants than the king himself. Unless of course I was either a) not afraid of the king's power or b) didn't think my sin was that bad.

[mike182d]

Everything. Confess your sins to one another does not, repeat not, mean confess your sins to the clergy and the clergy keeps its sins from the laity.

"Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone."

If what is required of confessing sins to each other is that the one hearing the confession is without sin, you're going to have a very difficult time finding any human being to confess your sins to.

[magisterium]

If the priest is doing his job properly, he will be asking questions to try and get the circumstances of the sins clear in his mind. This is both to be in a position to offer spiritual advice and counselling to combat the problem, to make sure that the sins are adequately confessed (the penitent isn't deliberately holding back or concealing any serious sins or their relevant circumstances), and to make an attempt to see if the penitent is contrite for the sins and will attempt to avoid them in the future. The priest should do this in a way that is neither too probing and intimate on the one hand, nor too disconnected or lenient on the other. Propriety reigns here.

Anyway, if, in the course of the confession, the priest determines that the penitent isn't even the least bit sorry for the sins committed, or has no intention of avoiding them in the future (has no "firm purpose of amendment"), he is certainly within his rights to deny absolution. The penitent will not have the sins forgiven. Further, upon such time that the penitent may have a change of attitude, he or she is obligated to tell the priest that absolution was previously denied, and start the confession with all of then sins from that previous confession. Only then will absolution be given.

You might be wondering: Well, the person could just go to someone else, either immediately or later, and just go through the same motions as before, neglecting to mention the denial of absolution. This is true. But the person cannot fool God. It is God who actually forgives the sins through the actions of the priest, after all. The retention of the sins will be upheld by God here. So what would be the point in making yet another sacrilegious confession? Any Catholic should know this, so the likelihood is slim that such a thing would go on more than rarely. After all, no one "likes" going to confession in the first place, so why would a person continue to go under such circumstances and only succeed in digging a bigger hole?

Your second question is already answered above, but I'll be more explicit about it. Yes, if a person has had mortal sins "retained" in confession, and dies before being able to sincerely rectify the situation, then he or she is objectively in a state of mortal sin, and will be judged by God accordingly.

A lot of people play games with confession these days, usually in the sense of not going at all while they know they are in a state of mortal sin, and then going to communion regardless. A few go to confession thinking they can put one over on the priest. Frankly, I don't understand the mentality, but it is occasionally done, regardless. But none of these people will get away with mocking God in the process.

I hope this helps.

[magisterium]

"There are great Catholics in public life like Limbaugh, OReilly, Hannity, Justices Roberts, Alito, and Scalia. But then Kennedy, Pelosi, Kerry, and Biden get to call themselves Catholic, too. How can one church encompass both opposites? I read that the Vatican supported the proposed gun ban in Brazil last year, too? What about somebody floating the idea of forgiving Judas? Just what the hell is the Roman Catholic Church about?"

Have you never read the Parable of the Wheat and the Tares? (Matthew 13:24-30) Hypocritical Catholics will always be sowed within the Church. We ALL need the mercy of God, so it's a matter of degree and not kind. The hypocrites you cite and a host of others aren't fooling God, I assure you. As for the priests and bishops, well, the Church is being chastised by God at this time for those publicly scnadalous sins within the ranks of the clergy, although such men are still a small minority of the total. I know. I life at Ground Zero for the mess here in the US: Boston. Nevertheless, we are not Donatists. To labor under the delusion of clerical perfectionism is a pointless exercise. These men are sinners. All of them. WHo denies it? THEY have to confess their sins, too. Failure on their part to do so will be dealt with by God accordingly. Nevertheless, Jesus meant what He said when He endowed the apostles - all of them sinful men, too - with the power to forgive sins or retain them (John 20:23). In order to forgive or retain any man's sins, the apostles, their successor bishops, and their helper priests, MUST know what those sins are. There is no getting around it.

I don't know *anyone* who "likes" confession as an exercise. The penitents don't like it because it's potentially embarrassing and too introspective for a lot of people's comfort zone; the priests don't like it because it is similarly uncomfortable for them sometimes and can take on the character of a chore if that tendency isn';t actively controlled. Yet we Catholics and Orthodox *do* this anyway. It is Jesus' command. He knows our hearts far better than we know them ourselves. He knows that going through the process of confessing sins to another man, being uncomfortable, is far more likely to spur avoidance of sin than merely looking skyward and saying "sorry!" to God directly (though that should be done, too, of course, even before hitting the confessional, as repentance starts interiorly BEFORE one is motivated to go to confession).

At any rate, the plain words of Christ Himself mandate the need for this Sacrament. His own words make this process "normative" for the forgiveness of sins. I'd be very uncomfortable indeed reading John 20:23 if I were in your shoes.

[kerryusama04]

I want to thank you guys for the thoughtful, tactul, Christian responses. After re-reading my posts here, it spaks volumes regading your charachter.

I don't think that your responses jive with the first of the 12 points in the article regarding "absolute truth".

Peace be with you.

[magisterium]

Thank you! Peace be upon you and yours, as well.

[phatus maximus]

Greetings in Christ...thanks for your reply, I appreciate your perspective...I did lose you though in this statement:

"Personally, if people think its easier to confess their sins to Almighty God, Lord of heaven and earth - the omnipotent Being who they have directly offended without just cause - instead of confessing to a fallible, mortal man, I seriously question their understaning of the nature of their sin, its gravity, or even their understanding of God's Being. If I had killed a king's son, I would find it much easier to tell one of his servants than the king himself. Unless of course I was either a) not afraid of the king's power or b) didn't think my sin was that bad"

I would contend this example is backwards in that confessing to a servant to the king is the equivalent of confessing to a priest/pastor/minister...You noted it's more difficult to confess to the king (God) which is true. So if it's easier to confess to a servant (priest), than king (God) I don't understand why you would question the understanding of the nature of their sin of those who would confess of their actions to the king? I, like many others who confess to God in private petitions, know the gravity of what I have done. I know I have failed to do what i am to do and have done what I should not. I know I deserve eternal punishment for my transgressions. I know that in your example the king would likely call for justice and my death in return. But I also know that God loves mankind so much that he has promised to forgive me for his Son's sake...that is not to say I think God's power is mute, quite the opposite...I confess and ask for forgiveness because of his power.

Please clarify what you meant by your statement...thanks!

Blessings to you and yours...

[mike182d]

Hmm...you're right. Some clarification of my muddled statement is needed indeed.

I am making a parallel to the priest as servant and the king as God, so we are in agreement over that part of it.

My point is that I question the authenticity of people who say they confess their sins privately to God, but refuse to confess it to another person. Following the analogy I've given, if, after killing the king's son, I did have the courage to confess to the King, then it would be absolutely no problem for me to confess to the servant as well. But such is not the case for most people opposed to confession. They are afraid, or reject vehemently, the idea of telling a priest but have absolutely no problem telling God. Something about his doesn't make sense and I think it is a way of rationalizing their way out of confession because their actions don't reflect a "true" understanding of confessing their sins to God.

I think the root of it is, we can't see God but we can see a priest. When we confess to the priest we can see the eyes of another human being looking at us, the ears of another human being hearing our words, and the mind of another human being associating our sin with us. For many people, that brings the matter too close to home. But God? Well, we can't see Him. He's invisible, doesn't talk to me the same way a human does, doesn't look at me, and doesn't respond - at least in a physically manifest way - to my confession. Which do you think is the path of least resistance?

Great saints who did understand the gravity of their sin made no secret of their sinful nature. There were saints who would walk around with their sins written on their clothing, a saint who rode a donkey through town laying backwards with his face towards the donkey's rear, saints who wear sackcloth or habits, fast, and do a multitude of penance both publicly and in private, etc. Compare this to your average Christian who present the appearance of being perfect or spotless and shudder at the thought of someone knowing their sin.

That is why I'm skeptical of Christians who say they would rather confess their sins to God instead of another man. If you have the true courage and sincerity to tell the King that you've killed his son, you should have no problem telling the servant. But such is not the case. Christians are more afraid of human, accusing eyes and find solace in telling in secret their sins to a God they cannot see, does not respond to them in the same way a human does, and provides a sense of comfortable secrecy in no one knowing what you've done. This raises a red flag in my mind.

If I have strength in Christ, then I am afraid of no man. If I have forgiveness in Christ, I am afraid of the judgement of no man.

Please understand that this is not a direct criticism of you as I do not know your heart and for all I know you could very well be on the path to sainthood, as so many other faithful men and women. However, one has to ask themself: "Why can't I tell another human being my sin, but be so willing to tell the all-powerful Lord and God to whom I've done the worst injustice?" Christians need to search their heart and make sure that their pseudo-Scriptural or theological objections are not a cover for a deeper misunderstanding of the nature of God or the gravity of their own sin.

Peace, brother.

[phatus maximus]

thanks...much clearer...i can see your point o' view...i'm not at all oppossed to cofession to a priest/pastor etc, i see value in contrite cofession to God or man...

Blessings in Christ to you.

[Coleus]

Yes, I know thanks. But do so many Catholics think that by saying the sentence below at mass think it's a free pass to NOT go to confession and what is meant by and why do we say this sentence before we receive communion?


"Lord, I am not worthy to receive you, but only say the word and I shall be healed."