In the Catholic Church there are ways of hearing Confessions that are not "face to face" and are even very anonymous. Canon law 964 in the Latin Church states: > §1. The proper place to hear sacramental confessions is a church or oratory. > > §2. The conference of bishops is to establish norms regarding the confessional; it is to take care, however, that there are always confessionals with a fixed grate between the penitent and the confessor in an open place so that the faithful who wish to can use them freely. > > §3. Confessions are not to be heard outside a confessional without a just cause. Many people go to Confession behind a a fixed grate in a confessional and without going to a specific Confessor one has. I have always found that weird, ie the idea of not going to a Confessor for the Sacrament of Confession. "§3. Confessions are not to be heard outside a confessional without a just cause." sounds a bit strange to me as I always thought that one should try to go to a specific Confessor and perhaps even confess after session with spiritual direction. Now, it seems that the norm is not like that at all. **What does the Catholic Church actually say about the idea that we should have a specific Confessor?**

In confession do you have to state that you committed a mortal sin on a Sunday? Is this analogous to saying that you stole from a church rather than just stealing?

Yet 1 John 1:9 is widely taught as conditional forgiveness for the Christian when the passage of 1 John 1 is directed as an invitation to Gnostic Jews to become believers.

Considering the language of 1 John 1, this passage is clearly not addressed to believers, yet is widely mistaught in Christendom. 1 John 1:9 KJV >If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

Would it be an invalid confession if the penitent brings a written list of sins for the priest to read, instead of speaking himself? (This is assuming there are no extenuating circumstances like the person being unable to speak)

How does one confess adulation? If you said *"I committed adulation 5 times"* that would probably just be the genus, right? So what are the species of adulation?

I know that if you commit a mortal sin against your parents you have to state that in confession. >"Sins opposed to piety are specifically distinct sins from those which offend against charity or justice. Therefore, they must be given distinct mention in confession; thus, for example, to strike one's own father and to strike another man are specifically distinct sins. Any offense contrary to piety between those who are **distantly** related to each other... does not change the moral species of the sin." (Handbook of Moral Theology by Dominic Prummer) But is there a specific limit to how far out the sin of impiety reaches so that you would have to state it?

Is "blasphemy" really specific enough for confession so that one could just say *"blasphemy 10 times"* etc.? I wouldn't think so but then I read in the *Summa Theologiae*, >"Properly speaking, the sin of blasphemy is not in this way divided into three species: since to affirm unfitting things, or to deny fitting things of God, differ merely as affirmation and negation. For this diversity does not cause distinct species of habits, since the falsehood of affirmations and negations is made known by the same knowledge, and it is the same ignorance which errs in either way, since negatives are proved by affirmatives, according to *Poster. i*, 25. Again to ascribe to creatures things that are proper to God, seems to amount to the same as affirming something unfitting of Him, since whatever is proper to God is God Himself: and to ascribe to a creature, that which is proper to God, is to assert that God is the same as a creature" (II-II.13.1.3) But you can also commit blasphemy against creatures such as the saints (see CCC 2148), so is this just for blasphemy against God?

If a friend tells me something he said in confession, does that bind me to [*The Seal of the Confession*](https://catholiceducation.org/en/religion-and-philosophy/the-seal-of-the-confessional.html) ? > The standard of secrecy protecting a confession outweighs any form of professional confidentiality or secrecy. When a person unburdens his soul and confesses his sins to a priest in the Sacrament of Penance, a very sacred trust is formed. The priest must maintain absolute secrecy about anything that a person confesses.

This might seem strange for a Lutheran, but I have been thinking about confession as a formalized interaction with an ordained minister. It is my understanding that in Martin Luther's day, Lutheran churches would set aside time on Saturdays so that congregants could come and confess their sins before taking part in Communion on Sunday. It was not a requirement, but the opportunity was typically provided. I get that many Lutherans still have a thing about the traditions we inherited from the Catholic Church, but this is one that might be worth continuing. I know that in the U.S., the ELCA and the LCMS do not require that people attend a one-on-one confession with a pastor before Communion, but I know there exist other smaller denominations and am curious if any Lutherans in the U.S. or anywhere else still practice this formally. I realize that in most Lutheran churches, a member would merely need to make an appointment with the pastor and could speak to the cleric about whatever was troubling them. But perhaps there is value in a church setting aside a specific time for personal confessions, as is done in Catholic churches. I would probably avail myself of personal confession if it was provided in such a way that anyone could show up and confess to a pastor at a certain time. This would not make it like a "special request" which could get the sewing circle chatting about why someone made a special appointment to confess to their pastor. If it was just something anyone could show up and do on a certain day, there would be nothing remarkable about it and privacy could be maintained. I think it would encourage people to confess specific sins or regrets that might be on their mind, and provide an opportunity for pastors to offer personal spiritual and practical guidance to people who are struggling with sin. And everyone is struggling with sin. It just seems more effective than reciting the order of confession from memory every week, but I could be wrong so I am curious to know if there are any Lutheran churches that still practice this.

How does one confess being an occasion of sin for others? If you said *"I created an occasion of sin for others 5 times"* I can't imagine that's really a species and not just the genus. So what are the species? Are they the 9 ways of sharing in sin? So could you say *"I praised people for committing sins 5 times and commanded people to commit sins 5 times."* Or is the species also what sin it was? So you would have to say *"I praised people for schism 5 times and I concealed someone's theft 5 times."*

Let's set some ground rules. There is no doubt in a given instance that this is voluntary and that survival is not feasible, and the decision must be taken quickly. Perhaps a platoon of soldiers in a war where one of them receives a wound that is impossible to survive, though not fatal instantly, or where there is an essentially 0% chance of survival even with medical care or medical care is inaccessible. They already know among the platoon of the intention of being part of this pact. Perhaps one of the soldiers after the war has carried it out, and this along with the general trauma of the war makes them turn to a religion, in this case Catholicism. There is an amnesty in the peace terms so civil prosecution is not possible. Sins are normal, in fact, something that all the humans besides Jesus (and Mary to Catholics), have done, and penance is necessary for all Catholics. Priests deal with common sins all the time, but getting this kind of confession and request for a penance prescription would be quite atypical.

Can a confession be spread over multiple sessions, if for example it's not feasible to do it at once due to time constraints? If so, would this be allowed for anonymous confessions or would they have to be face-to-face? Update: I asked a priest from the FSSP and he said yes; it can be.

Let's say someone was going to confession over multiple days and they confessed a sin but then committed it again in the interim. And let's also assume they enumerated it as "numerous" or "countless" times so that there wouldn't have been any difference other than the day they confessed it. Would that be a valid confession or would they have to say it again?

The priest acts as a judge in the confessional. Civil judges must recuse themselves if they think they cannot judge a case fairly (because, e.g., they have conflicting interests, lack the requisite knowledge to judge a particular case correctly, etc.). Must a priest, who otherwise has faculties to hear confessions, recuse himself if he cannot judge a penitent's sins impartially? I am not asking if a priest can deny someone absolution or refuse to hear confession (because, e.g., of improper time and place). My question is more along the lines of 1983 CIC 977 , but not restricted to cases that involve sins against the 6th and 9th Commandments.

I was reading [this question](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/104812/do-you-have-to-be-in-a-state-of-grace-to-be-invested-with-the-brown-scapular) about the Brown Scapular, which got me thinking. If you can go to confession within 7 days of some indulgences and the ordinary parts of an indulgence include receiving communion and going to confession (not in that order if you have mortal sins), can you start the process (i.e. make a pilgrimage) and then go to confession, or do you need to go to confession first?

Is it obligated in Catholic or Orthodox churches to strike one's breast while making confession, during Mass and/or sacrament of Confession? How old is this tradition? When is its earliest documented practice? This picture shows an example of what I mean (notice the fist over the heart): There is also [a short Instagram video](https://www.instagram.com/cardinaltimothymdolan/reel/CxnhHpeL1SZ/) (of Cardinal Timothy Dolan), showing the meaning and how it is done.

Currently, the common practice of confession in the U.S. is... A person completes an examination of conscience, tells the priest how long it has been since their last confession, and then makes their confession, whereupon the priest absolves their sins and gives them a penance, usually to say a few Hail Marys or Our Fathers. In texts written by Catholic Saints, at times they talk about confession. Specifically St. Therese of Liseaux and [St. Gemma](http://www.stgemmagalgani.com/2010/08/similarities-between-st-therese-st.html) both mention their confessor in their autobiographies. Implying that they usually confessed to one specific priest, which is not a practice currently taught in U.S catholic schools. St. Francis de Sales also talks about making a general confession in his Introduction to the Devout Life, which he describes as confessing all of one's sins, from their entire life, to one confessor. Then keeping the same confessor, for subsequent confessions. He also describes a very detailed way of making a confession, including stating motives behind sins, etc... A detailed description of his writing on everyday confession can be found in this article: [On Confession](http://www.ccel.org/d/desales/devout_life.iv.xix.html) . Currently, Catholic Schools do not teach to go to one confessor. In fact they do not even mention the term "confessor", but rather "priest." Also, Catholic Schools do not teach to state one's motives, or to make a general confession, if switching confessors. It seems to me that, based on reading the texts of Saints, that Catholic confession has changed somewhat throughout the centuries. If it has not changed then these saints must be describing optional ways of confessing. My specific question is, has confession changed throughout the centuries, specifically since the 16th century, and if so how?

We hear Jesus saying in Jn 14:15: >If you love Me, keep My commandments. Elsewhere, we see Jesus telling the rich man, in Mtt 19:17,before naming some of the Ten Commandments: >..if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches about two types of contrition under the Sacrament of Reconciliation : (i)Perfect contrition – An act made out of love for God, and.. (ii) Imperfect contrition – An act made for some other motive such as fear of Hell. The Catechism further explains that either type of contrition is sufficient in order to make a confession and have our sins forgiven. Now, read Jn 14:15 in the reverse order and we have : "If you keep My commandments, you love me ; if you do not keep my commandments, you do not love me ." Doesn't that put a limitation on Imperfect Contrition which does not examine the breach of love for Jesus ? My question therefore, is : How is Imperfect Contrition of Catholic Catechism justified with reference to Jn 14:15 ?

Let's imagine a gay man which tries to be a good Catholic and who is trying to develop all the virtues except for 6th Commandment virtues that are related to his fate. And even then - he tries to adhere to the 6th Commandment as much as it possible, e.g. by committing to loving and monogamous relationships. We can also assume that he has read some theological articles which suggest discernment and care for his situation (there are some in the Catholic academic journal which I will not link here, because they can be offending and divisive for the general audience and which is just theology in the development, no surprises). My question is - can this man go to the confession and acknoweldge all the sins and be ready to do penance for all of them, except that he is not giving promise not to sin again in the matters of 6th Commandment. Can priest give at least a partial absolution to his man and nurture at least all the other spheres of his spiritual growth? Of course, partial absolution may be not much worth - i.e. - it still won't allow to participate in the Communion. But - from the other side - this can be step in the right direction and least partial holiness can be achieved. And the Salvator will take care of the remaining. What can the attitudes of priest can be? Of course, this man will have long life in parish and he will go to the Confession each month and again and again the priest will have to listen that there is part that is not being corrected and improved stubbornly and the absolution can not be given again. But still - maybe that is possible?