Talk:Confession (religion)

Untitled
In the examples of mortal sins Catholics are required to confess are listed just murder, blasphemy, and adultery. This may create an impression that no confession is needed for other sins. In reality, voluntary immoral thoughts, lustful looking at a woman by a man, missing a mass on Sunday without a valid reson, and countless other sins may prevent person from receiving Eucharist and require a confession. --Vox Veritatae  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.12.8.34 (talk) 07:00, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

World View
Some information on confession in non-Christian religions would be great, if anybody has it. -- 84.57.26.161 18:58, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

--I know some Buddhist monks confess transgressions, but it's more like the Christian monastic "chapter of faults" than confession. Something on Yom Kippur maybe?--Samuel J. Howard 01:58, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)

Yom Kippur is not a day to confess sin. It is a day of atonement for sin. DaveTroy ) Dec 2005


 * Since the article appears to have been updated, I suggest we remove the header that was placed here, marking it as not representing a world view. Mkubica (talk) 01:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Confession
This sacrament was formerly called confession, and many Catholics still use this term, however, it is now doctrinally incorrect.

I have reinserted this statement; it is doctrinally correct and particularly informative, considering that most non-Catholics (and many Catholics) are not aware that the sacrament is no longer called "confession." The proper name for the sacrament is reconciliation. (Pennance is also acceptable.) Please offer a rationale here before removing the statement. -- Essjay ·  Talk 02:18, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, no the Sacrament is legally and liturgically called The Sacrament of Penance. Reconcilliation is an accurate discription, but not the legal name. Sharp eyed readers will also notice a couple of tother changes. One is the priests role - he is judge and healer. The Canonical court system follow Roman (think empire)law which had no jury. Also, it is worth noting the present Rite of Penance was modified after Vatican II. What is refered to as Rite One, the one most people are familiar with, was formalized at the Council of Trent. Also, there needs to be either a link or greater explination of mortal sin. While it is true mortal sin always deals with grave matter, to be mortal also requiers a full act of will and intellect.Davescj 20:26, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * It is incorrect that (do you mean: after the Second Vatican Council? or when else?) the name of the Sacrament was changed. That's Anointing of the Sick, where this (more or less, Sacrosanctum Concilium has a "may better be called"...) happened. The name of the Sacrament has always been Sacrament of Penance. Reconciliation is unofficial; confession is not the Sacrament itself but a part of it, but taken colloquial for the Sacrament as a whole. In Germany, where I come from, there are two words for "confession": Beichte and Bekenntnis; "Bekenntnis" is the normal German word, and is taken for the confession part, whereas "Beichte" meant the same in Older German, and now stands exclusively for the Sacrament as a whole, except within humourous allusions of course. --77.4.66.158 (talk) 21:17, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

"Confession"
This is false; what is meant by the expression "doctrinally incorrect"? I have met many bishops and cardinals, and they all use the word "confession." Most books I have read about the subject frequently refer to this sacrament as "confession." Doctrinally incorrect? No, maybe a few liberal priests and Catholics say that the sacrament is "no longer called" confession, but this is not true. This statement is false.

Again, strictly speaking this was not the name of the sacrament, but rather what people called it. I, personally, think it unforunate as it focuses only on one part of the sacrament and the part people fear the most. Dave 8 dec 2005

Indeed, the Sacrament of Penance (now commonly called Reconciliation) includes the act of Confession, and is often informally called "Confession". Confession is not, however, the sacrament, but merely an integral part of it. The entirety of the sacrament would include Confession, Penance and Absolution. I think that's right... Cravenmonket 00:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Reconciliation
Wrong. The sacrament is often called "confession" but confession is only one aspect of the sacrament. It has been renamed to emphasize that there other aspects of the sacrament; it is a reconciliation with God. I offer the following examples:


 * The Catechism of the Catholic Church, Section 1210: Christ instituted the sacraments of the new law. There are seven: Baptism, Confirmation (or Chrismation), the Eucharist, Penance, the Anointing of the Sick, Holy Orders and Matrimony.


 * The Catechism of the Catholic Church, Article 4: THE SACRAMENT OF PENANCE AND RECONCILIATION


 * The Code of Canon Law: Title IV. The Sacrament of Penance


 * Can. 987 To receive the salvific remedy of the sacrament of penance, a member of the Christian faithful must be disposed in such a way that, rejecting sins committed and having a purpose of amendment, the person is turned back to God.


 * "I wrote in my Apostolic Letter Novo Millennio Ineunte: “I am asking for renewed pastoral courage in ensuring that the day-to-day teaching of Christian communities persuasively and effectively presents the practice of the Sacrament of Reconciliation." -Pope John Paul II, Apostolic Letter in the Form of Motu Proprio Misericordia Dei on Certain Aspects of the Celebration of the Sacrament of Penance.


 * "Through a mysterious sharing in the victory of our Lord Jesus Christ on the Cross, the Sacrament of Penance overcomes the division between man and God caused by sin." -Congregation  for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, Circular Letter concerning the integrity of the Sacrament of Penance.

Unless you consider Pope John Paul II and Francis Cardinal Arinze of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, the Vatican's chief official in the area of the sacraments, to be "a few liberal priests," you're among those who aren't aware of the change. It's a very common mistake. The sacrament's official name is penance or reconciliation, or both, never "confession." One may still "go to confession," hear "confessions," and "confess thier sins," but you cannot receive the "sacrament of confession." The name of the sacrament is "Penance and Reconciliation," properly shortened to "Penance" or "Reconciliation."

If you'd like to start an RfC on the matter, I'd be happy to offer the community my evidence; I have, after all, been declared "one of Wikipedia's foremost experts on Catholicism." -- Essjay ·  Talk 04:10, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Priests hide murderers
About two years there was a big scandal in the US where a man was falsely imprisoned for 19 years for a serious crime he did not commit at all. The actual criminal confessed to a catholic priest more than 15 years ago but the cleric did not tell anybody that the guy in prison was innocent. He only came forward with this information after many many years, when he learned that the actual criminal has died.

This scandal should be discussed in this article. I would be most interested to know if the wronged guy managed to sue or settle for many millions USD$ with the catholic church over this matter? I mean a quarter of his life was taken away by the catcholic church! If he went on to kill that priest I would acquit him, because he was so wronged as to justify even such extreme measures!

In a constitutionally secular country the practice of confession should be banned, unless the church accepts that reconciliation cannot be administered unless the sinner gives proof beyond doubt that he has notified the authorities of any codified serious crime he wishes to confess and violation results in priests being imprisoned to the same extent that the criminal they hid gets.

This is especially relevant and unavoidable in case of murder. In a developed cuntry the life expectancy of people is very high, 77 to 84 years. Thus murder becomes one of the greatest threat to the population in the general absence of famine, diseases and natural disasters. Then it is totally unacceptable that murderers remain at large and be able to kill again. If the church refuses to recognize the UN mandated sanctity of life as superior to the sanctitiy of their proprietary confession, that church has no place in countries that are members to the UN. 195.70.48.242 09:19, 15 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't know of the case you refer to. However, the 1st amendment also protects religion.  In the case of the Sacramental seal, it is inviolatable by Divine Law.  As a priest, it does not matter what I hear.  If I hear it under the seal, I have no right in any circumstance to reveal what I heard.  If I were ordered by a judge, I would respectfully say that the court has overstepped its bounds both Constiutionally and violated Divine Law, hence not law but a perversion of law.Davescj 20:32, 8 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The right for life and search of happiness is stronger than the right for religion, because it is embedded in the declaration of independence and the Constitution itself, not just the amendments. Murder victims are violated in their right for life and search of happiness since they are dead and cannot do anything any more. Plus murderers murder no just one person, but will commit crimes against life again if they remain at large. The catholic religion should be banned as long as the Pope gives a binding declaration that confessions on homicide and capital arson cannot be heard, must be reported to authorities immediately and the confessor must never be given alleviation of sins until the final verdict of the court has been delivered. The constitutional right for life and search of happiness gives the congress the right to ban catholicism as long as their practice of first amendment liberties threatens the life of citizens. Your freedoms only extend as far as not hurting others' rights and the catholic practice of hiding murderers contravenes that. Priests who refuse to yield homicide should be imprisoned for life without parole.


 * As for your divine law, it does not exist, since there can be no proof that God actually exists, which is a matter of pure faith. Therefore you cannot argue about divine seal and divine law in the courts and parliaments of secular countries. The fact that priests hide confessed murderers threatens the life of atheists and their right for the seach of happiness. Atheists are people for whom God does not exist. 195.70.32.136 09:21, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * It sounds to me like a quarter of his life was taken away by legal court that accused and sentenced him. 2600:6C44:74F0:80F0:C96E:898F:248F:DF1C (talk) 14:58, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

This is irrelevant. Spousal privilege, doctor privilege, lawyer privilege, all exist just as clergy privilege does. Your anti-Catholic bigotry ("catholic practice of hiding murderers") is not appropriate here. Go to a debate forum if you feel the need to complain about this. JG of Borg 13:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Most Priests would withhold absolution for a man who allowed another man to be jailed for any crime. In the case of petty theft a man may be told to make a donation, but in this case the true murderer would have been denied absolution unless he made things right. Part of contrition, being "sorry" in simple terms, is the desire to make things right. Part of this Sacrament is some form of contrition, if not "perfect" contrition. Dominick (TALK) 13:49, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * How can you prove divine law does not exist? Further, the decleration of Indepence posits that rights flow from the Creator -- Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  By its nature, liberty must be inclusive of religious liberty.  Therefore, as asserted in the 1st amendment,people have the right to practice their religion.  No where does the constitution allow for the NON right of religious actions.  DaveTroy 17:42, 1 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Further, you will note, that the consitution NEVER affirms a right to life. If it did, capital punishment would be illegal.  As would other actions of the state involved in taking a life.  DaveTroy
 * Also, let's not forget that in addition to the "spousal privilege, doctor privilege, lawyer privilege" mentioned above, the fifth amendment would grant the priest to say nothing at all anyway, even if he had been called to the stand. He would only have broken the law if he falsely said (under oath) that he had heard no confession. In terms of running a civilization, this basically makes sense.
 * One other point for those trying to follow the arguments here: the idea that "murder becomes one of the greatest threat to the population" due to a high life expectency is a false logic predicated on the idea that diease has been eradicated in circumstances where it has instead been "postponed" to later life. But I digress.—Lenoxus 21:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

location and when received
According to the current norm from the Holy See, children MUST receive 1st Penance before 1st commuion (not Confirmation as was stated in the article, further receiving Confirmation presupposed an active Catholic life, so a seperate requirement would be redundent).

As to the where of the taped confession, it was in Portland, OR. Shortly afterward, Arbp. George was moved to Chicago, and is not Arbp there. DaveTroy

Removed external links
I removed a bunch of external links to "post your secrets" sites since they are unrelated to confession as practiced in religion. flowersofnight (talk) 19:27, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you!! I couldn't agree more!!DaveTroy 20:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Arrogance
I don't like this article at all. As in many other articles, there is a so-called "orthodox" user here that presents a particulary use as a general one within the Orth Church. Many nowadays orth European theologians say even the opposite of what is said here.

And Anglicans and other episcopals are just forsaken. Nice job!?! - Waelsch 04:23, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Eternal Damnation?
What you say may indeed be what some individual Catholics believe, but it's not the teaching of the Church. Unfortunately, many teachers and theologians and even priests mislead people about what the Church teaches.

Concerning contraception, whether it's a mortal sin or not may be a POV. Is the Church right or wrong? However, according to the official teaching of the Catholic Church, the deliberate use of artificial contraception is a mortal sin. Of course, many theologians dissent. Many married (and unmarried) couples ignore the teaching. But the general argument then is "the Church is wrong", not "the Church doesn't say that."

Here are some extracts from Casti Connubii, with emphasis added by me:


 * 54. But no reason, however grave, may be put forward by which anything intrinsically against nature may become conformable to nature and morally good. Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural power and purpose sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious.


 * 55. Small wonder, therefore, if Holy Writ bears witness that the Divine Majesty regards with greatest detestation this horrible crime and at times has punished it with death. As St. Augustine notes, "Intercourse even with one's legitimate wife is unlawful and wicked where the conception of the offspring is prevented. Onan, the son of Juda, did this and the Lord killed him for it."


 * 56. Since, therefore, openly departing from the uninterrupted Christian tradition some recently have judged it possible solemnly to declare another doctrine regarding this question, the Catholic Church, to whom God has entrusted the defense of the integrity and purity of morals, standing erect in the midst of the moral ruin which surrounds her, in order that she may preserve the chastity of the nuptial union from being defiled by this foul stain, raises her voice in token of her divine ambassadorship and through Our mouth proclaims anew: any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin.


 * 57. We admonish, therefore, priests who hear confessions and others who have the care of souls, in virtue of Our supreme authority and in Our solicitude for the salvation of souls, not to allow the faithful entrusted to them to err regarding this most grave law of God; much more, that they keep themselves immune from such false opinions, in no way conniving in them. If any confessor or pastor of souls, which may God forbid, lead the faithful entrusted to him into these errors or should at least confirm them by approval or by guilty silence, let him be mindful of the fact that he must render a strict account to God, the Supreme Judge, for the betrayal of his sacred trust, and let him take to himself the words of Christ: "They are blind and leaders of the blind: and if the blind lead the blind, both fall into the pit.

Regarding unconfessed mortal sin and Purgatory, Origen's theory of the apocatastasis has been condemned by the Church. Purgatory, according to the Catholic Church, will purify from venial sin, and from repented mortal sin. People who die with unrepented mortal sin, according to the Church, will go to hell, regardless of whether or not they were baptized. Absolution removes guilt and eternal punishment (though it may leave temporal punishment); perfect contrition does the same thing, although it is a logical contradiction to assume that someone who knew that confession was instituted by Christ could have perfect contrition without the intention of confessing.

You are correct in saying that "all souls undergoing purgation, according to the Catholic Church, will eventually be fully accepted into Heaven." However, not all souls can undergo purification. If there is no will to turn back to God, the soul cannot be purified. If the soul does not consent to purification, it cannot be purified. I'm not sure, but I think it was St. Augustine who said that God made us without our cooperation, but that He will not save us without our cooperation. Yes, we are saved by the undeserved grace of Jesus Christ, but only if we accept that grace through repentance.

I'm not posting this for agreement, but just to say that that is what the Catholic Church teaches. Contraception is a mortal sin. Mortal sins committed after baptism can only be forgiven through absolution or perfect contrition. Purgatory can not cleanse the soul of unrepented mortal sin. Hope that helps. AnnH ♫ 17:32, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

My compliments to 213.48.80.90
Good job on that edit. You should sign up for Wikipedia, whoever your are, 213.48.80.90

Internal link
So do we link to Confession (legal) in "The meaning is essentially the same as the criminal one – to admit one's own guilt" since it is the first occurance in the body of the article or leave it unlinked as it is linked to directly above in the disambiguation notice? Hyacinth 08:15, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Redundant phrases
Surely one of these can be removed?

In Catholic teaching, the Catholic sacrament of Reconciliation (commonly called confession or penance) is the method ...

( This sacrament is known by many names, including penance, reconciliation, and confession (Catechism of the Catholic Church, Sections 1423-1442).

Indigohjones 08:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Worldview
Article is HEAVILY biased to christianity. Actually it's HEAVILY biased to a Roman Catholic worldview. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.60.33 (talk) 21:07, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Protestant AND Catholic?
Under the "Protestant" section one reads:

"Protestant churches believe that no intermediary is necessary between the Christian and God in order to be absolved from sins. Protestants, however, confess their sins in private prayer before God, believing this suffices to gain God's pardon."

During a mass sometime in the 1980s I distinctly remember a Catholic priest saying that, ever since Vatican II, Catholics could validly confess directly to God. Did I perhaps misunderstand what he was saying? Was he perhaps saying that, under certain special circumstances (and only under these circumstances), such a direct form of confession could be valid? Or is clerical mediation in fact no longer required for Catholic confession? Can anyone help me out here?


 * Many Catholic clergy and those in religious orders have, since Vatican II, been fond of proclaiming from the pulpit what the RCC would consider heresy. No where in the Vatican II documents would one find anything concerning that Catholic may go directly to God for the forgiveness of sins instead of confession.  In fact, Vatican II really did not change any doctrines, nor add any new ones.  Instead it's primary purpose was to explain and reaffirm preexisting Catholic doctrines. Guldenat 19:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * As a protestant, I'm not sure that I fully agree with the quoted section from the article above. Don't protestants believe that Jesus Christ is the mediator between the sinner and God the Father (cf John 14:6, Romans 8:34)?  Don't protestants pray  to God for the forgiveness of sins (as well as for other matters), or in fact do anything, in the name of Jesus Christ, their mediator (cf Hebrew 13:15, Colossions 3:17, Ephesians 5:20)?


 * I'd propose changing the above (I haven't checked if the article has changed since this talk section was started) to "Protestants believe that apart from Jesus Christ, no intermediary is necessary between a person and God, for that person to be absolved from sins. Protestants believe that if a person acknowledges the Lordship of Jesus Chirst, and believes in their heart that God raised him from the dead, then that person will gain God's pardon. This acknowledgement is usually made first in private, and then in public. Protestants do not belive that each sin needs to be individually confessed to be forgiven."


 * Please provide comments on this redefinition of the protestant view. Bernard S. Jansen 23:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Protestants believe a lot of things
I don't think you can make a blanket statement that "Protestants believe" something on this issue. I am a Protestant and I don't agree with the statement, which seems to imply that, say, the members of the Spanish Inquisition or pre-Civil War slave traders were automatically pardoned for their atrocities if they believed the proper doctrine. The best you can say is that "The Protestant denominations' official position is that..." and even then I doubt if all of the denominations agree. CharlesTheBold (talk) 02:48, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

History
This doesn't cover how this practice developed, which is a huge gap (and the reason I looked at the article was to find out how it originated). Dougweller (talk) 06:14, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Lutheran view of penance
Please note that the reference provided in the article supports the statement that Lutherans reject "those who teach that forgiveness of sin is not obtained through faith but through the satisfactions made by man."

See, the reference (the page linked above) is actually an encyclopedia entry describing penance, and most of the entry refers to Roman Catholic beliefs. The entire page should not be confused with a statement of what Lutherans believe regarding penance. The last paragraph of the entry, however, is taken directly from the Augsburg Confession, and thus, it is a statement of what Lutherans believe regarding penance. --Hamitr (talk) 00:06, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Introduction needs to be cleaned up
The introduction is misleading or confusing. It starts with a statement that seems out of place ("confession is similar to a criminal confession—an admission of guilt". Then it goes on to explain the Catholic/Orthodox/Anglican practice (neglecting the other religious understanding of "confession"). Then there is this sentence--- "confession of a person's sins, or at least of sinfulness, is seen by some churches as a pre-requisite for becoming a Christian"--- which will leave a lot of Christians scratching their heads. Isn't that the role of Baptism? Then it concludes with "the advice given by the minister..." --- What advice? (*I* know the priest or minister can give an advice to the penitent within confession, but the reader of the article doesn't necessarily know that yet).

I think the article would be better without that introduction. I'm pasting this introduction below for further review; But I will remove it for now to see how it looks like.

[Removed] "In some Christian traditions, confession is similar to a criminal confession—an admission of guilt.[citation needed] The practice is conducted between a confessor and a priest, sometimes within a confessional box or booth. Confession of a person's sins, or at least of sinfulness, is seen by some churches as a pre-requisite for becoming a Christian. The advice given by the minister to the penitent, however, is not the same as pastoral counseling, as confession has as its specific purpose the forgiveness of sins." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benz74 (talk • contribs) 03:07, 23 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with your removal of that paragraph. --Hamitr (talk) 04:02, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

--Benz74 (talk) 04:36, 23 October 2010 (UTC) I have made a number of additional edits within the "Catholicism" section. Among other minor edits, I have added the 3 acts of the penitent, according to official Catholic doctrine. Based on the (removed) introduction above, I added the venue of confession (confessional box). Finally, I've changed the first line of the article to take into account the "Worldview" criticism (above in the discussion page).

Islam "confession of faith" vs "confession"
The section on Islam speaks of one of the pillars of Islam, the "confession of faith"; but this -- like the "confession of faith" in Christianity (i.e., Credo or creed)-- is not the topic of this article. The second part of the paragraph -- I think-- is what we're looking for. ("The act of seeking forgiveness from God is called Istighfar. Like Judaism, confession of sins is made directly to God and not through man (except in asking for forgiveness of the victim of the sin)."

Perhaps add an article of "Confession of faith (Islam)" in the Confession (disambiguation) page; or in this page's "See also" section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benz74 (talk • contribs) 04:52, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

External link to consider.
Hi, I am running an anonymous confessions site and would really like to have it added to your external links section under confession keyword. Site is http://www.fnlife.com

93.182.147.8 (talk) 02:33, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * There are major notability issues with adding "personal" confession sites. Also read WP:LINKFARMMarauder40 (talk) 12:52, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Although it is not manditory
This sentance appears in the section "Catholic" and preceeds mention of where confessing to a priest is allowed to take place. But it is clumsy. It is open to the interpretation that confession is not manditory when, in fact, it is if one wants their sins forgiven. I realize that what it wants to convey is WHERE the confession takes place is not manditory. But it can be easily mis-read as to misunderstand the importance and sacramnetal level of Confession within the Catholic Church. I mis-read it and I am knowledgeable about Catholic Traditions. Someone unfamiliar with them could easily be confused and mis-informed. If there is no protest, I will do a rewite tomorrow. ```Buster Seven   Talk  07:25, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Main article
With all due respect to other religions, this ought to be the main article on Christian confession. No other religion has this theme as a mian emphasis; everyone looking up "confession" wants to find out about the Christian view.

Respect, 91.176.161.116 (talk) 20:35, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

First sentence seems to have either been vandalized or perhaps to just be nonsensical!
It is stated as this: Confession is the acknowledgment of sin (or one's sinfulness) or wrongs. It is a religious practice in a number of faith traditions. The link to "sinfulness" goes to the Atheism page. I suspect that must be vandalism. Further, it seems to add "or one's sinfulness" is being a little... i cannot remember the world. Unnecessary basically.75.73.114.111 (talk) 23:03, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I looked at the history and the last edit that was done was someone adding in that to a redirect. I reverted it (still think the "or one's sinfulness" is a waste of space though)75.73.114.111 (talk) 23:05, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Anglicans are Protestant
Anglicanism is a protestant sect - this section should be under Protestantism.Gymnophoria (talk) 19:53, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Confession (religion). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110508024346/http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P3H.HTM to http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P3H.HTM
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140428010514/http://www.interpretermagazine.org/interior_print.asp?ptid=43&mid=11021&pagemode=print to http://www.interpretermagazine.org/interior_print.asp?ptid=43&mid=11021&pagemode=print

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:21, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Confession (religion). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140428000914/http://rethinkbishop.com/tag/the-united-methodist-church/ to http://rethinkbishop.com/tag/the-united-methodist-church/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:13, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

mickey is God — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:8689:10F0:24C0:C07A:705C:2E11 (talk) 20:31, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Bias
Hi all! Although this article is generally excellent, the section specifically entitled Catholicism fails to maintain a neutral perspective and is, in many cases, written similarly to a guidebook or manual. Whereas the rest of this article maintains a purely-informative tone, the section Catholicism has the tone of how-to, not what. It's filled with unnecessary uses of the words "must," "perfect," and so forth; it references a variety of Catholic texts, declarations, and treatises without any mention of how they're relevant to the context; it throws in quotes from sources without any further analysis (especially the uninterrupted chunk of quotations that starts with "According to [...]" and ends six lines down with absolutely zero elaboration); and it does little in the way of introducing/defining the religious vocabulary it employs.

As such, I'm adding a maintenance template to that specific section and will make edits when I can. Please also go through the same section to eliminate biased phrasing and reduce textbook-esque terminology, as well as review the section's incorporation of quotes.

Thanks! Via.Polytropos (talk) 05:21, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

It would be good if you are more clear on what, specifically, you think needs to be changed. All paragraphs in the section in question lead with phrases like “for the Catholic Church,” “for practicing Catholics,” etc. - they are explicitly NOT presenting catholic doctrine as fact or obligatory but are (correctly, I assume, though I’m not a catholic so I could be wrong) describing what is doctrine or obligatory for catholics. This is not non-neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8802:511D:BE00:85FA:275A:DC32:3009 (talk) 02:05, 13 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I have to agree; it's been a year since these templates were placed on the section, and whatever issues there were, I can't see them any longer. I don't think it reads as particularly non-neutral myself. I've clarified on the section that a 'perfect act of contrition' is a religious phrase, and I've rolled in a few more explanations taken from the articles absolution and sub rosa, along with refs. If there were lengthy quotes in this section, there aren't any longer. I'm going to remove these templates as having been resolved.—Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) (&#123;&#123;ping&#125;&#125; me!) 16:39, 24 April 2024 (UTC)