Talk:Sacrament of Penance

Validity and frequency
I added a couple of footnotes to validity. As to frequency, I deleted the NPOV comment about whether or not people do/don't go frequently enough and whether or not it is ignored. The problem is not only does the Church not address this by saying "YOU" need to go to confession, but it misrepresents the doctrine. The requirement is to go to communion once per year -- confession is only required if during that last year a person committed a mortal sin. Further, the doctrine would call for them to go sooner rather than later.DaveTroy 17:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * As to required frequency, the Church acutally does require confession once a year. See CCC 2042 or the second precept of the Church. --Entoaggie09 03:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Only applies to Roman Catholics though. Eastern Catholics aren't bound by that. InfernoXV 04:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * So something to that effect could be added as long as it specifies that it is used by the Latin rite, correct? --Entoaggie09 05:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I would find that eminently acceptable. InfernoXV 06:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Entoaggie, remember that the 2nd Precept is also presuming a mortal sin. The purpose of the sacrament was (is) to allow communion, the more important act of union with the Church, which the Sacrament of Penance heals.  Therefore if there is no mortal sin, there is no objective "need" to go to Penance prior to receiving sacramental communion.DaveTroy 15:34, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * CCC 2042, to which Entoaggie09 refers, has a footnote referencing the Code of Canon Law. Canon 989 reads: "After having reached the age of discretion, each member of the faithful is obliged to confess faithfully his or her grave sins at least once a year."  Canon 988.2 reads: "It is recommended to the Christian faithful that they also confess venial sins."  (The emphasis is mine.) --Faylei 19:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I know as an Eastern Catholic, we are bound to confess - my priest recommended that the sin should not reach its first anniversary (i.e. not let a year pass after the sin)Tourskin (talk) 20:51, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It would be odd if Wikipedia implied that Roman Catholics regularly attend confession when the reality is that the practice has very largely disappeared compared to its universal practice up to the 60's. I have therefore added referenced information on this. Haldraper (talk) 16:16, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Emphasis of the article
It seems to me to be a pretty glaring omission that an article on the sacrament of penance doesn't mention the actual penance (that is, the penance the priest gives the penitent at the end of the sacrament). And I don't think the section on mortal sin belongs in the article- there's already an article on mortal sin. If people want to know more about it, they can click on the link to the mortal sin article.Wldcat (talk) 19:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I removed the section on mortal sin, as there were no objections.Wldcat (talk) 23:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

"Form of the sacrament" section
It seems to me that this section should discuss only the form of the sacrament- (something like "The penitent makes the sign of the cross and says 'Bless me father for I have sinned...'"), describing the act of confessing, the giving of the penance, the act of contrition, and absolution, etc. I think the other material in the section should go somewhere else. For example, the most of the first paragraph, especially the scriptural proof of the sacrament, should go in the overview section. It doesn't have much to do with the form of the sacrament.Wldcat (talk) 23:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

"Doing penance"
I was raised Catholic, and went to confession numerous times as a youth. Every reconciliation included a task of penance to perform (aka "doing penance"), usually to recite a number of prayers (e.g. "four Hail Marys and two Our Fathers"), and sometimes other tasks (e.g. writing your sins on a piece of paper, then tearing it up as a sign of renewal; or agreeing to make amends with or apologize to whoever you transgressed, etc.), usually to agree to perform after you leave the booth (gotta keep the line moving :) ).

Anyway, I bring this up because I don't see it mentioned; I don't know how common or official it is. - Keith D. Tyler &para; 19:04, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not Catholic, but I read the article looking for reference to the "recite a number of prayers" requirement, and didn't find anything about that. What can or should be added about that? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:22, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That's something that should be put into the article! The Sacrament consists of some essential parts. In Germany, we remember them as the four (or five) B's: Besinnen (searching one's conscience for sins committed), bereuen (regretting them, having contrition or at least attrition), beichten (confessing them), büßen (doing penance) [and bessern: improving oneself; but that's, though necessary in itself, not essential to the Sacrament as such but as an aim]. Your four Hail Marys and two Our Fathers form the "penance" or, better, satisfaction (Genugtuung to who's interested). --84.154.81.1 (talk) 15:07, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Origin
Neither article says how this practice originated. Dougweller (talk) 06:17, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Seal of confession
The first 2 paragraphs contain a lot of 'facts' without a single reference...? Ride the Hurricane (talk) 17:26, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

rites of confession
There are at least three forms of the Rite of Reconciliation, interesting that this is not mentioned anywhere. Unless I missed it, or unless reconciliation is not the Sacrament of Penance (Catholic Church)?

I   Rite for indiv. penitents II  Rite for several penitents with indiv. confession + absolution III Rite for several penitents with general confession + absolution

These were described by Pope Paul VI. I will include it soon if no comments GerixAu (talk) 21:54, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The full name appears to be "Sacrament of Penance and Reconciliation." I say "appears" because even the Vatican uses the full name in the title of the subsection and then says only "penance" in the explanation. Student7 (talk) 16:31, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Good to see someone is reading this page GerixAu  (talk) 04:41, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

NPOV Fixes
Kxmccallum (talk) 10:39, 4 January 2011 (UTC) The article should conform to Wikipedia's neutral point of view (NPOV) as described under "Explanation of the neutral point of view."


 * Avoid stating opinions as facts: "the famous 'Omnis utriusque sexus'" certainly cannot be famous, especially since Latin is not a common language today, and origin of the phrase dating back to 1215 would make it obscure to the modern era, not famous.
 * To say that Pope John Paul "began a program of fostering and renewing the focus on this sacrament" is an opinion, and "opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as 'widespread views', etc." (See "Impartial View".)


 * Accurately indicate the relative prominence of opposing views: there should be an indication or acknowledgment in the article's introduction of the widespread, sharp, and long-running disagreement between Roman Catholic churches and non-Roman churches over this sacrament and the Vatican's authority to make such pronouncements. Protestants teach forgiveness of sins requires no rituals, including the ritual of baptism, which is raised without reference to its controversy.


 * Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts: there are no logical or apparent connections established between the sacrament ritual and the biblical quotation "that Jesus was born to 'save his people from their sins,'" with the "fervent and energetic summons with which Saint John the Baptist called for repentance," with the biblical citation that "Salvation is therefore and above all redemption from sin, which hinders friendship with God," nor with the biblical citation, "Repent, and believe in the Gospel."


 * Prefer non-judgmental language: to claim the sacrament ritual is taught "in the very words with which Jesus began his preaching" lacks objectivity and sounds authoritarian.

Finally, the point is repeated three times in the introduction that the official Roman Catholic term is "Sacrament of Penance" and the common (or layperson) terms are "Confession, Reconciliation or Penance." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kxmccallum (talk • contribs) 10:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Is that what is referred to by the "factual inaccuracy is disputed" tag? I am going to swap the tag to an NPOV one. Belegdal (talk) 14:12, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Perfect Contrition

 * ) Happy Pentecost !

Please change the following :

It is generally held to be true that even if a person has unconfessed mortal sins remaining when he or she dies, they may still hope to be forgiven if before they died, they expressed true contrition (sorrow) for each of their mortal sins and if, having done so, they expressed a desire (even if not possible) to go to sacramental confession and do proper penance and restitution.

- The Church does not teach this. Perfect Contrition is required by God.

in accordance with this :

“Q. 766 Perfect contrition will obtain pardon for mortal sin without the Sacrament of Penance when we cannot go to confession, but with the perfect contrition we must have the intention of going to confession as soon as possible, if we again have the opportunity.”

“765 Perfect contrition is that which fills us with sorrow and hatred for sin, because it offends God, who is infinitely good in Himself and worthy of all love.”

This is from the Baltimore Catechism #3, which was Imprimatured and Nihil Obstated.

It may be found online here, although online copies of such documents should be used as references in finding and verifying the existence of such a quote in an actual printed book, using Interlibrary Loan or inquiry and driving. :)

I suggest this replacement be made :

The Church teaches, "Perfect contrition will obtain pardon for mortal sin without the Sacrament of Penance when we cannot go to confession, but with the perfect contrition we must have the intention of going to confession as soon as possible, if we again have the opportunity (766 referenced)," clarifying that, "Perfect contrition is that which fills us with sorrow and hatred for sin, because it offends God, who is infinitely good in Himself and worthy of all love (765 referenced)." However, if possible, a Catholic priest must be called for. The above works for non-Catholics, who must first sincerely tell God that they will become Catholic if they are allowed to live (which is done by finding a Good Catholic Priest), then pray for the Grace to apologize with perfect contrition, and then do so. However, if the non-Catholic can, they must call for a Catholic priest ASAP. People like Voltaire should explain the situation to God (he was physically restrained and imprisoned in the country against seeing a Priest) and proceed with the above. May Mary ask God to save those who do not know the above in the hour of their death, if knowing it they would use it. Such is the Church's intention. However, the Church teaches that those who die in the State of Mortal Sin, Catholic or Non-Catholic, are then judged by God and punished eternally in the level of Hell corresponding to their wickedness, as is described in the Church-approved Revelations of St. Bridget and Item 8. A Soul in Hell: The Story of Annette from Sicut in Caelo. Org ( http://www.sicutincaelo.org/booklets.html ). It is also the teaching of the Church and Saints that most sinners "die as they lived" and do not get or make use of the chance of "death-bed Confession", as St. John Vianney makes clear in these extracts from his Sermons : http://www.freecatholicebooks.com/page2.html (bottom row)

It's a bit long, but in Catholicism and in Truth, it is a matter of the highest order of importance.

I think some of these addendums I add may be found in Sources of Catholic Dogma by Denzinger.

For a quick proof of the Truth of Catholicism, see the article "The Inscription of Abercius", the named being of great antiquity and though written in obscure language, is nonetheless consistent with Early Catholic writings of an obscure (Apocalypse) and un-obscure (Justin Martyr and Tertullian) nature. :) The claims of the world's religions individually, but especially of Catholicism, are of such gravity, if true, that there is no other task so important in this life than the definitive discovery and spreading of the Truth regarding them.  A half-hearted effort in this matter is inexcusable, for on every side we are surrounded with phenomena suggesting a Creator who would make the effort to contact us and offer us the End of Pain, a clear evil.

112.207.142.213 (talk) 11:14, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


 * There is a new catechism for all Catholics. The Baltimore catechism was a 19th century rendition for Americans only (or mostly).
 * The quote you gave above seems "close enough" to the truth for an encyclopedia. We're not trying to indoctrinate new Catholics; we are "merely" trying to inform people with an interest in the topic. If the explanation is too long, they may lose interest fairly quickly. The average reader (when I last looked) spent one minute on a Wikipedia article. Articles need to be terse IMO. While inaccuracies should not be tolerated, I think there comes a time when "close enough" should prevail. But that is just me. Student7 (talk) 20:49, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * When a Roman Catholic cannot go to Confession, every Roman Catholic knows that they can say an "Act of Contrition" prayer and, if they die before going to Confession, their sins are forgiven. It would be nice if more Roman Catholics were the editors on this article.  There would be much less confusion.  That is not to say a non-Roman Catholic editor cannot "find" them, but they can sometimes lead to paragraphs which are difficult and confusing and sometimes inaccurate. Mugginsx (talk) 20:58, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

explaining pr the Template
I added a paragraph which simply defines what exactly the Sacrament of Penance is and how it is ulitized through Confession that I hope all will understand.

I went to Catholic school and found the article, though well done, difficult to understand so I thought the simple paragraph would satisfy the template request. Mugginsx (talk) 17:29, 16 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Purgatory is not taught to adults as a place (the Protestants are correct). Please see 1031 which describes the process of purification. Perhaps too deep for children. Student7 (talk) 18:24, 21 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The teachings are the same for children and adults. Anyone who is a Roman Catholic knows that. Mugginsx (talk) 14:12, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Synods
I would rather use "synod" where that term is more accurate than use "church council." I agree that synods can be rolled up with ecumenical councils into "Church councils" when categorizing. Unfortunately we sometimes have to make a choice when linking.

Given "Mathematics", "Math 101", and "Tensor Calculus", I would rather link Mathematics to Math 101 to avoid confusion, rather than link it to "Tensor Calculus."

For the same reason, I would rather link "Church council" to "Ecumenical council" than "synod" to avoid confusion. I would rather use the term "synod" here where appropriate. It demonstrates that there was not broad support (yet) for that position. Student7 (talk) 21:37, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * There are very numerous non-ecumenical church councils that are not customarily called synods. although in origin "council" and "synod" are synonymous, the first coming from the Latin term for them (concilium), the second from the Greek term for the same reality (σύνοδος). Take plenary council, plenary council (Catholicism), Plenary Councils of Baltimore, Council of Jerusalem, Councils of Aquileia, Councils of Carthage, Councils of Orange, Councils of Constantinople ...  So "church council" should certainly not be redirected to ecumenical council, since the vast majority of church councils are not ecumenical.
 * Ecumenical councils are also called ecumenical or general synods, as the article on synod remarks. The same article states that in modern usage the word "synod" often refers to the governing body of a particular church, whether its members are meeting or not.  This holds also for the Synod of Bishops (Catholic), which holds month-long assemblies only every few years.  Such church bodies are not customarily called councils, although the word "council", as in Council of Europe, is used of something analogous in the political sphere.  Esoglou (talk) 22:13, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected. See also Catholic Encyclopedia. Student7 (talk) 22:02, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Missing discussion of disagreement over sacrament?
The lede has the following sentence: "Since the Reformation there has been long-running disagreement between the Catholic Church and Protestantism over this sacrament, including the church's authority to absolve sins." As far as I can tell, this disagreement is not elaborated on elsewhere in the article, or in the "parent" article Confession (religion). This seems like an important point that merits at least a section (if not a whole article). (In fact, I came to this article mainly looking for information about that issue.) Maybe this discussion does exist in another article somewhere, but it wasn't easy for me to find since it's not linked. In addition to seeming like a big hole in the present article, it's also a problem with the guidelines at WP:LEDE, which stipulate that facts mentioned in the intro section should be elaborated on within the article.

I know next to nothing on this topic, so I'm afraid I cannot help much. I just wanted to bring it up to whoever is active at this page. r ʨ anaɢ (talk) 01:20, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that out. I've moved the "summary" to its own section and requested development. Once that happens, it can be "summarized" in the lead. The Orthodox position is much the same as Catholic. And maybe Episcopal/Anglican. Student7 (talk) 21:56, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks! r ʨ anaɢ (talk) 17:14, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

satisfaction
I don't think the component of satisfaction is sufficiently explained. (i.e. I don't understand what it is trying to say.) RJFJR (talk) 21:27, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I added a short note to the section that fully explains satisfaction, but calls it by its other name, which is "penance". Elizium23 (talk) 21:44, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with RJFJR, satisfaction is not explained well. I find the sentence "The satisfaction required of the penitent is not an essential part of the sacrament, because the primary effect of remission of guilt and eternal punishment is obtained without it; but it is an integral part, because it is required for obtaining the secondary effect of this purification or remission of temporal punishment." confusing since the terms essential and integral are not defined or linked to explain the sense of meaning in this context. I think the more contemporary language explains it better. For example, in 1984 Pope John Paul II wrote, in Reconciliatio et paenitentia, that"Satisfaction is [...] In some countries the act which the forgiven and absolved penitent agrees to perform after receiving absolution is called precisely the penance. [...] the meaning of this satisfaction that one makes or the penance that one performs [...] is not a price that one pays for the sin absolved and for the forgiveness obtained: No human price can match what is obtained, which is the fruit of Christ's precious blood. Acts of satisfaction-[...]-mean a number of [...] things: [...] sign of the personal commitment that the Christian has made to God in the sacrament to begin a new life (and therefore they should not be reduced to mere formulas to be recited, but should consist of acts of worship, charity, mercy or reparation). [...] idea that the pardoned sinner is able to join his own physical and spiritual mortification-[...]-to the passion of Jesus, who has obtained the forgiveness for him. [...] remind us that even after absolution there remains in the Christian a dark area due to the wound of sin, to the imperfection of love in repentance, to the weakening of the spiritual faculties. It is an area in which there still operates an infectious source of sin which must always be fought with mortification and penance. This is the meaning of the humble but sincere act of satisfaction. (n31§III)"


 * In 2005, Cardinal James Stafford said that"Dante expressed the best of the Catholic penitential tradition when writing of these double waters: the first, the experience of the forgetting of sin by the sinner; the second, the forgiveness of past sinful events through the ecclesial acceptance by the sinner of God's mercy in the expiatory death of Christ. Passage through both rivers is necessary for forgiveness. Simply to forget past sins is not enough. The uniquely Christian element in this process, articulated in the coinage of new words with their unheard of prefixes - forgive, perdonare, vergeben, perdonnar, etc. The emphatic, never-seen-before prefixes, pre- for-, emphasize the divine gift to the undeserving. Embodied, concrete acts by the penitent are necessary for God's such forgiveness. God finally transforms the sinner by the sinner's specific, active acceptance of the divine mercy when performing satisfaction for sin. The penitent is then blessed by the remembrance of that divine transformation together with his or her participation in it. ("Address to the Catenian Association")"


 * Maybe there should be a section about satisfaction? –BoBoMisiu (talk) 18:56, 27 October 2015 (UTC)


 * We find that to be a most satisfactory suggestion. (Keith and Mick) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.32.163.173 (talk) 11:40, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 25 September 2015

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: moved. Good arguments made that the proposed title is the common name and also restoring the long-term status quo from an undiscussed move. Jenks24 (talk) 08:05, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Sacrament of Penance & Reconciliation (Catholic Church) → Sacrament of Penance (Catholic Church) – Page was moved without consensus. The new title violates WP:CONCISE, not to mention WP:V: this sacrament has three common names, and very few sources combine them in this manner. The formal, official name from the Catechism of the Catholic Church is "Sacrament of Penance". This article is already widely linked from elsewhere under this formal name. Additional verbiage only serves as title clutter and an inconvenience to editors. Elizium23 (talk) 19:19, 25 September 2015 (UTC) --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 07:16, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Move – The name used in the 1983 Code of Canon Law is "The Sacrament of Penance" as the section title (n959) and in the Catechism of the Catholic Church is "The Sacrament of Penance and Reconciliation" as the section title (n1422) but the Catechism also states "The forgiveness of sins committed after Baptism is conferred by a particular sacrament called the sacrament of conversion, confession, penance, or reconciliation" (n1486). It also should have redirects from Sacrament of Confession (Catholic Church), Sacrament of Reconciliation (Catholic Church) and Sacrament of Conversion (Catholic Church).
 * Google Ngram shows "Sacrament of Penance" is twice larger than "Sacrament of Reconciliation" and orders of magnitude larger than "Sacrament of Penance and Reconciliation". –BoBoMisiu (talk) 21:38, 25 September 2015 (UTC); modified 19:02, 8 October 2015 (UTC); and 12:50, 17 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Support Sacrament of Reconciliation (Catholic Church), "reconciliation" being the most used and recognized term for many decades, "penance" being old, tending as medieval as the formal or official canon law. WP:COMMONNAME supports "reconciliation", disambiguated as is required.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:42, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * see updated Ngram above. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 12:50, 17 October 2015 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Refusal
This: "He can refuse to hear the confession if he knows about the matter before the person begins his or her confession (if the matter is especially serious and repulsive and the person has shown little or no inclination to change), though the Holy See has discouraged this." was and removed.

A person is forbidden to receive the sacraments if they are excommunicated (CIC 1331 §1 n2, CCC 1463). If the priest knows this is the case then he is bound by canon law to deny the sacraments to the excommunicated person. Unless the excommunicated person is in danger of death (CIC 976, CCC 1463).

If excommunication is not the case, "[p]riests must encourage the faithful to come to the sacrament [...] and must make themselves available to celebrate this sacrament each time Christians reasonably ask for it" (CCC 1464). And, it is a fundamental right that "[e]very member of the Christian faithful is free to confess sins to a legitimately approved confessor of his or her choice" (CIC 991). "If the confessor has no doubt about the disposition of the penitent, and the penitent seeks absolution, absolution is to be neither refused nor deferred" (CIC 980) – that is explictly something that happens during the sacrament. And the penitent obtains absolution when he or she is repentant and "intend[s] to reform themselves" (CIC 959). But, the penitent "must be disposed in such a way that, reject[s] sins committed and ha[s] a purpose of amendment"(CIC 987) and the confessor "is to adhere faithfully to the doctrine of the magisterium and the norms issued by competent authority" (CIC 978 §2).

An example of a norm issued by a competent authority is a 1997 Pontifical council for the family vademecum which states that "relapse into sins [... is not] a motive for denying absolution; absolution cannot be imparted, [...] in the absence of sufficient repentance or of the resolution not to fall again into sin" (3.5). It also states that the sacrament requires that the penitent has "sincere sorrow, a formally complete accusation of mortal sins, and the resolution, with the help of God, not to fall into sin again. [...] it is not necessary [...] to investigate [...] sins committed in invincible ignorance of their evil, or due to an inculpable error of judgment. Although these sins are not imputable, they do not cease, [...] to be an evil and a disorder." (3.7).

I wonder, is there are norms about refusing penitents who "reasonably ask for it" and are not excommunicated? Or if norms for confessors are only about absolution? –BoBoMisiu (talk) 22:20, 27 October 2015 (UTC); modified 15:58, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Lamentabili sane exitu source
The passage under "Individual Confessions" reading thus:

Although the issue of the institution of this sacrament by Jesus himself had been debated since the Council of Trent, the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office in 1907 "condemned and proscribed" as heretical the proposition that:"The words of the Lord, "Receive the holy Spirit; whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained", in no way refer to the Sacrament of Penance, no matter what the Fathers of Trent were pleased to assert."

previously made it seem that  "Lamentabili sane exitu" DENIED that John 20:22-23 is an institution narrative for the Sacrament of Reconciliation, whereas it actually condemned such denial as error. I fixed that part of it. But the lead-in is still troubling, making it seem that there is some conflict within the Church teaching on this issue, when in fact that could not be farther from the truth. Any suggestions on fixing the lead-in? (By "lead-in", I mean the clause: "Although the issue of the institution of this sacrament by Jesus himself had been debated since the Council of Trent, the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office in 1907 "condemned and proscribed" as heretical the proposition that") Crusadestudent (talk) 22:36, 4 May 2016 (UTC)


 * yes, I agree. I had a brain freeze: thinking condemnation but not typing it.
 * Bechard (2002 p. 186) skips the other important condemned proposition from Lamentabili sane, n. 46: "In the primitive Church the concept of the Christian sinner reconciled by the authority of the Church did not exist . Only very slowly did the Church accustom herself to the concept. As a matter of fact, even after penance was recognized as an institution of the Church, it was not called a sacrament since it would be held as a disgraceful sacrament." (DH 3446) Denzinger would be better to cite. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 22:41, 4 May 2016 (UTC); modified 22:58, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

History Improvements
The history section of this article needs improvement to describe more clearly what was new in various centuries, etc. For now, I offer the following quote from a not-authoritative source: "The practice of private confession developed in monasteries in Ireland in the 6th century and quickly spread." Sondra.kinsey (talk) 21:23, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Rewrite needed?
After checking this whole article for grammar and spelling, I would describe it as quite repetitive and not encyclopedic in style. It reads more like a guide for Catholics, with numerous exhortations, than a concise summary of the major points on the topic including salient points in the history. If those who are greatly involved in this area agree, I would be willing to trim the article to encyclopedic proportions, or I encourage someone else to do the same. Ping me if the need seems obvious to you. Jzsj (talk) 21:53, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

(In the ordinary course, most penitents assume that the confessor purporting to exercise this faculty is entitled to do so. In an instance where that belief is legitimately misplaced, the Church supplies that jurisdiction under canon 144 "to protect the 'innocent' faithful".)

This niggle absolutely does not belong in the lead. Certainly some degree of rewrite is necessary here, and for the reason above. &mdash; MaxEnt 19:37, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

I've gone ahead with this, in light of the complexity of the topic and a perceived need for organization and focus. The article I encountered was quite wordy and repetitive, and largely synthesis based on selective use of primary sources. I have saved the sections I redid should you want any of them restored. Or you can specify what you want reintegrated into my somewhat changed outline of the topic. Jzsj (talk) 14:21, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

I do not understand
I do not understand this sentence in the lede: While in current practice reconciliation services may be used to bring out the communal nature of sacraments, grave sins "must" be confessed and venial sins "may" be confessed for devotional reasons. The second half does not follow from the first half, they are basically non-sequitirs. I also do not understand the usage of double-quotes in this case. Elizium23 (talk) 04:01, 26 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I think is better "While in current practice reconciliation services may be used to bring out the communal nature of sacraments, all mortal sins must be confessed, while without being strictly necessary, confession of venial sins is nevertheless strongly recommended by the Church."--Rafaelosornio (talk) 04:32, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * That is still a non-sequitir. What does the type of sins being confessed have to do with a communal celebration (versus, I assume, a one-on-one private celebration as is the norm)? Elizium23 (talk) 04:33, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * This may well need expansion. My point was that after a communal penance service, as they exist today, one must still confess mortal, but not venial, sins. As to the double quotes, you got in before I copy edited my work. I changed to italics first chance I got. Jzsj (talk) 04:44, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * My (anecdotal, limited) experience has been uniform: communal penance liturgies are celebrated once or twice a year during Lent and Advent, and they involve a celebration of the Word, a communal Confiteor, the Lord's Prayer, and then an extended period of individual auricular confessions. If you are referring to something such as a "general absolution" style of communal penance with no individual confessions involved, then yes, I can see how this line makes sense in that mortal sins still need individual confession plus absolution. But, as I said, that is far outside the norm of what I am aware of. What is the use of "general absolution" outside of imminent danger of death, and who even uses it that way? Is it not gravely illicit and moreover, confusing to the faithful, who have just been "absolved" but still must confess it all? Elizium23 (talk) 04:50, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * General absolution may be used when there are too few priests to handle all the penitents (CCC 1483). General absolution is given with the understanding that individual confession of mortal sins will follow at the earliest opportunity. Also, the complex history of the sacrament and the many outstanding questions suggest that the revision of the rite called for by Vatican II is still in process. What does it mean to absolve from a venial sin? If mortal sins are not as common as we used to think and if venial sins are better handled in a communal way, what might be the most effective means to foster Christian growth through this community sign or sacrament? Jzsj (talk) 06:06, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I really don't know; I am not competent to answer those questions and we have no business discussing them here on this talk page. Could we perhaps adjust the phrases in question so as to shed better light on the general topic from the lede paragraph? Elizium23 (talk) 06:15, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * When I wrote the above I was giving background for my use of "current practice" and "discipline of the Church" in the lede. I'm still above Tariff penance in my effort to improve the article. I suggest that the wording of the lede may depend on the result of current editing. Jzsj (talk) 06:29, 26 September 2019 (UTC)


 * What do you think about "mortal sins must be confessed and confession of venial sins is recommended but not required." or something like that.Rafaelosornio (talk) 17:55, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * That's clearly stated in its proper place, under "Necessity and frequency" and is also in the lede. If we keep repeating the same ideas then this will sound more like a religion class than an encyclopedic article. Jzsj (talk) 18:17, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

A few more things
Regarding my edits tonight: (1) Canon Law does not "teach" doctrine so it should not typically be referenced to expound upon doctrine. Canon Law is rooted in doctrine and reflects the Magisterial interpretation thereof, and in certain places, the Lawgiver cites a particular doctrine in support of the legislation. (2) "Current Church teaching" is a weird turn of phrase for a Church whose doctrines do not change in substance, no matter whether Joseph Martos calls some of them "outdated". (3) Joseph Martos of Ligouri Press (whoever he is - surprsingly, not a Jesuit?) and the National Catholic Reporter is quite vicious with the Trent Council Fathers! He's removed from them by 500 years — how's he know they're ignorant of Scriptural studies? I have attributed his strong opinions to Martos rather than Wikipedia. (4) Poschmann has come to a strange conclusion. I wrapped it in "clarify" because his assertion seems to fly in the face of Church teaching about Purgatory's temporal punishment in the afterlife. Could we get a little segue here from what Poschmann believes to what the Church believes and back again? There must be some reason Jzsj decided to pop that plot twist in there at that final point (although it's now been moved around a bit.) Thanks, folks! Elizium23 (talk) 04:42, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Proposed change in name to "Sacrament of Reconciliation"
I propose that was correct above in stating that the proper name for the sacrament should be the Sacrament of Reconciliation. The present history section explains the confusion that arose, and still persists, over the relationship of penance to reconciliation. Reconciliation is the purpose of the sacrament, for which amendment is more important than the penance itself. Please advance good arguments against or for the move if you have them. For those still searching for Sacrament of Penance, their search would be directed to the Sacrament of Reconciliation. Jzsj (talk) 04:48, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * What do WP:RS say? Does not the CCC call it "Penance"? Elizium23 (talk) 04:51, 26 September 2019 (UTC)


 * The ngram above, adjusted for more years, here, shows than "penance" was the term in 1700, and suggests the "reconciliation" appeared and is strong, but not dominant, in recent decades. To go further requires a careful analysis of the best quality sources.  In favour of the status quo, it works.  It is easily recognized.  WP:TITLECHANGES applies.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:10, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * As regards WP:TITLECHANGES, Vaquero100 originated the article here, calling it Sacrament of Reconciliation and giving a very intelligent emphasis on reconciliation, at the start. Jzsj (talk) 18:35, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * That may be a good point. If you wish to argue that previous moves shouldn't have happened, and the title should go back to the first non-stub version, TITLECHANGES is not a good counterargument to that.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:00, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Rfc: Proposal to change name to "Sacrament of Reconciliation"
The proposal is to change the name of this article to "Sacrament of Reconciliation", the name which was given it by its original author and which agrees much better with the history of the sacrament as detailed in the article. Jzsj (talk) 07:35, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes. The purpose of the sacrament has always been to reconcile church members with their neighbors, with their Christian community, and with God. Penance is a means more or less present in such reconciliations, but not the essential focus of the sacrament. Jzsj (talk) 07:35, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: Here's the history of the name of this article:
 * June 16, 2006 (original): Sacrament of Penance and Reconciliation (Catholic Church)
 * Aug 19, 2006: Sacrament of Penance (Catholic Church)
 * Dec 28, 2009: Sacrament of Penance (Roman Catholic Church)
 * Jan 31, 2010: Sacrament of Penance (Catholic Church)
 * Multiple redirects to this page are in place. – Archer1234 (talk) 10:50, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I find rather this as the original lede (18:35, 16 June 2006‎), with only capitalizations added by the original author and before anyone else had touched it: In Catholic teaching, the Catholic Sacrament of Reconciliation (commonly called Confession or Penance) is ... known by many names, including penance, reconciliation, and confession (Catechism of the Catholic Church, Sections 1423-1442). However, because confession is only one aspect of the sacrament, it is no longer officially called "confession." Official Church publications always refer to the sacrament as "Penance and Reconciliation," or shorten it to "penance" or "reconciliation." However, most lay Catholics continue to use the term "confession" in reference to the sacrament. In addition, Traditional Catholics tend to dislike the term "sacrament of reconciliation". I would promptly change all the redirects if the name is changed. Jzsj (talk) 12:24, 27 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose The proposal is in my eyes incorrect. Canon Law is speaking about THE SACRAMENT OF PENANCE AND RECONCILIATION. In my opinion that should be the name. The Banner  talk 12:37, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Why is this an RfC matter? See WP:RFCNOT, last bullet - this should be handled at WP:RM. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 13:10, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Change to either "Penance and Reconciliation" or just "Reconciliation". But it should not have been called an RFC & should have been done at WP:RM.  Suggest re-proposing with these alternatives. Johnbod (talk) 13:13, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for helping me with this (my first Rfc or RM). I assume this remains only as background then as the matter is taken up below. Jzsj (talk) 05:19, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 28 September 2019

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: Not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover)  SITH   (talk)   14:50, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Sacrament of Penance → ? – As is clear from the article, the purpose of the sacrament has always been to reconcile church members with their neighbors, with their Christian community, and with God. Penance is a means more or less present in such reconciliations, but not the essential focus of the sacrament. In these times of transition and renewal in the Catholic church, should this article be renamed Sacrament of Reconciliation? ... or Sacrament of Penance and Reconciliation? Jzsj (talk) 05:19, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. https://www.catholic.org/prayers/sacrament.php?id=4  The Catholic Church still uses “penance”, even if they now talk more about reconciliation. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:25, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. No substiantial reason to change from the status quo. I find it intriguing that Jzsj has undertaken a massive overhaul of the article to apparently slant it a particular way and now proposes a name change to bring it into line with that new slant? Elizium23 (talk) 06:32, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose As the proposal is incomplete without a new name proposed. The Banner  talk 07:27, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It is permitted, see Template:Requested move. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 07:38, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Sacrament of Reconciliation is the intention, see section above. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:44, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It is not the first time that Jzsj comes with rather vague proposals/arguments showing a Jesuit-centred view. That is why I am in fact asking for a crystal clear proposal. The Banner  talk 07:59, 28 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose - I am unsure what this ambiguous phrase 'transition and renewal' that is being used as a preposition for the proposed move is, but be it as it may, titles are chosen based upon the policies laid out in WP:TITLE, not individual editors' original interpretations of the article's contents or emphases. Epistulae ad Familiares (talk) 07:41, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - The nominator says, "In these times of transition and renewal in the Catholic church, should this article be renamed...?" No, it is not our job as Wikipedia editors to "lead the charge" in "transition and renewal" by renaming an article to something we like better. Wikipedia article titles should follow current and official usage. Granted, this sacrament has many names, the most common being: Penance; Reconciliation; Confession. Any of these are valid. But since we must pick one of them (for the sake of being concise), we should look to official Catholic sources to help us choose. The highest authority on such matters would be the Catholic Church's Code of Canon Law, which calls it the Sacrament of Penance. Therefore, the name of the article should stay as-is, with the other names being mentioned in the body, as they are now. Jdcompguy (talk) 08:13, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. In the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Article 4 is entitled "THE SACRAMENT OF PENANCE AND RECONCILIATION ". Then in the first section on "What is the sacrament called?", it substantiates with references (from the New Testament) only the term sacrament of Reconciliation (two quotes) and sacrament of forgiveness (one quote), as well as "sacrament of conversion" (referenced to the absolution formula). The following section's title refers to it as "SACRAMENT OF RECONCILIATION". Section 6 is entitled "THE SACRAMENT OF PENANCE AND RECONCILIATION". The reason for the more frequent use of the term "penance" in Article 4 is that it focuses mainly on the current administration of the sacrament, not on its whole history and meaning which is the topic of this article in Wikipedia. Still, the term "reconciliation" is used 33 times in Article 4. I note also that the Code of Canon Law came out a decade before the newest version of the Church's catechism, and focuses more on past practice than on current understanding. I suggest also that the search for "Confession (Catholic Church)", as in the article on Confession (religion), should redirect to "2.1 Rite" here, not to the whole article. Jzsj (talk) 12:45, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Since you are the nominator, your "Support" vote is presumed. (According to WP:RMCOMMENT: "Nomination already implies that the nominator supports the name change, and nominators should refrain from repeating this recommendation on a separate bulleted line.") You can feel free to edit what you said above and mark it as a "Comment" instead. Jdcompguy (talk) 12:33, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, done. But since the proposal has two possibilities and I wanted to leave them open for discussion, do I ever get to vote for my preference? Jzsj (talk) 12:45, 28 September 2019 (UTC)Jzsj (talk) 12:45, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * If you've come to a conclusion that you didn't have when you initiated the RM, then yes, it would be appropriate to add that. Jdcompguy (talk) 13:21, 28 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment I think is better "Sacrament of Penance and Reconciliation" as the Catechism says.Rafaelosornio (talk) 21:04, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * So... why do you think it is better than the status quo? Elizium23 (talk) 22:01, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support change to "Sacrament of Penance and Reconciliation", as Jdcompguy (above) says I may add this. I wanted to hear from the community before deciding on the name, and with that said, I suggest that "Sacrament of Penance" describes only the current rite. If the name of the article remains "Sacrament of Penance" then we should move material on the long history of the rite to another article called most appropriately "Sacrament of Reconciliation". Again, I come to this conclusion from the helpful comments above. Jzsj (talk) 00:18, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Splitting the article would not be appropriate. It's still the same sacrament before and after Vatican II. Jdcompguy (talk) 16:19, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Change to either "Penance and Reconciliation" or just "Reconciliation" (as above), but don't split the article. Johnbod (talk) 04:06, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * why did you decide against the status quo? Elizium23 (talk) 04:26, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * ?? Johnbod (talk) 14:25, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I think Elizium23 is just asking you to elaborate on your reasons for voting for the change. Jdcompguy (talk) 16:19, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now. USCCB article is entitled "Penance"; the links are to "the Sacrament of Penance and Reconciliation..."; one of which is the USCCA which chapter 18 is entitled "Sacrament of Penance and Reconciliation" and states "We will refer to the Sacrament both as Penance and Reconciliation, using the terms interchangeably." (?!) I can live with "Penance and Reconciliation", but think the term "penance" should be retained as I'm not sure that any but clergy and catechists call it "Reconciliation" (and suspect those who still participate simply call it "confession")…Also, article needs to be cleaned up, not split. Manannan67 (talk) 05:59, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Really? In the UK, I'm much more used to hearing "Reconciliation" alone, or of course "confession" with older people. Johnbod (talk) 14:25, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Since the sacrament has multiple names, it's to be expected that different names will predominate in different areas. (In my part of the English-speaking world, "Confession" by far the most common.) But Canon Law uses "Penance" and the Catechism uses "Penance and Reconciliation". WP:CONCISE says "The goal of conciseness is to balance brevity with sufficient information to identify the topic to a person familiar with the subject area." The phrase "Sacrament of Penance" is concise and is sufficient to convey the topic of the article. Jdcompguy (talk) 16:19, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * That's my main point, that "Penance" very poorly conveys the topic of the article, unless this is an article just on Confession, currently called "Penance". This article discusses both the current rite and the long history of the sacrament, which has always recognized the purpose of the sacrament as reconciliation, not as penance. Jzsj (talk) 15:21, 1 October 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

New Advent as a source here
What the Catholic church teaches today is that at the Council of Trent, "Even though manuscripts in the Vatican Library provided material for the emendation of some expressions, they by no means made it possible to inquire into 'ancient and approved authors' farther back than the liturgical commentaries of the Middle Ages." Only with modern historical studies was the early history of the sacraments recaptured. New Advent bases its article on sources from 1911, before Poschmann'c classic study quoted in this Wiki article, and before modern Catholic theology of Scripture became accepted by the Catholic magisterium. Forgiveness of sin in documents like the Didache was not the origin of the Sacrament of Reconciliation as it developed from the second century onward. Beginning the history section with this matter from New Advent would only underscore the unreliability of New Advent as a source in this instance. Jzsj (talk) 04:36, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Potentially Unreliable History and Church Authority to Forgive Sins
After reading through the History section, I was concerned that the history provided is potentially misleading or even incorrect, based on writings from the Early Church Fathers before Cyprian. The authority to forgive sins in one manner or another seems to have been understood (argued below). I petition that information with regard to this be added. Additionally, I'm concerned about the claims of "misinterpreting" Jn 20:21-23, Mt 16:19, and Mt 18:18 and providing an unsubstantiated alternative "correct" interpretation.

It seems to have been understood that to be entirely forgiven of your sin, you had to be both reconciled to God and the Bishop. At ChurchFathers.org, please see citations from Hippolytus, Ignatius of Antioch, and Tertullian among others, who wrote before Cyprian. They note this exact fact and Hippolytus (Apostolic Tradition 3 [A.D. 215]) proclaimed that Bishops directly have authority to forgive sin. Though they are not proof for the current form and development of the Sacrament, they reinforce the assertion that authority of forgiveness of sins was bestowed upon the Church in some manner by Christ. Therefore, I petition that information related to these Church Fathers be added to the History section.

In terms of the biblical interpretations, is there convincing evidence to show that those of the likes of St. Augustine and St. Thomas actually misinterpreted Jn 20:21-23, Mt 16:19, and Mt 18:18, with proof of the alleged "correct" interpretation? I do not have access to Source #3 and the claims in the article are entirely unsupported. Although we can agree it is not men that forgive sin, but God through a charism/gift of the Holy Spirit given to the priest who acts in persona Christi (2 Cor 2:10, 2 Cor 5:20, 18)...as asserted before, the full forgiveness seems to have been indeed contingent upon reconciliation with the Bishop. Further, I would argue that there is no baptismal context for Jn 20:21-23. Mt 16:18-19 speaks of the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven and therefore doesn't likely apply merely to the earthly community. Since Mt 16:18-19 is an allusion to an office in the earthly OT Davidic Kingdom in Isaiah 22:20-22, and the NT is a spiritual counterpart to the OT, I would argue the fact that the section pertains to the Heavenly Kingdom (and therefore things that pertain to inclusion in the heavenly kingdom, namely sin). This is not to mention both Mt 16:19 and 18:18 apply explicitly to binding and loosing in heaven.

As an aside... It is worth noting that the reliability of Source #3 (Doors to the Sacred by Joseph Martos) is considered questionable among certain groups within the Catholic community. See here: https://www.catholic.com/qa/is-doors-to-the-sacred-reliable

—Patriotic524 (talk) 01:51, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Can the line on John 20:23 please be removed? As he said above there is no source provided for it and it's clearly just an anti-Catholic interpretation, there is no source giving showing that Catholics 'interpret' John 20:23 incorrectly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BitBillBit (talk • contribs) 15:58, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * That portion of the "History" section is decidedly under-sourced. I am not sure of the point other than a polemic to underscore how the Sacrament is a rupture with tradition? Elizium23 (talk) 16:03, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

The History section is obviously pro-Protestant and anti-Catholic presenting subjective views of the Bible. It also says that Penance was born later by a misinterpretation of St. Augustine of Hippo of John 20:21-23 and in a legal Roman mindset. Furthermore it asserts that according to Catholicism it is not God that forgives but the disciple, while Catholicism believes that it is only God that forgives through the Priest. We could say that the Roman mindset favored a more "public" way of Confession, but not that the Sacrament was originated from that.

Ricky N.03 (talk) 22:58, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Jzsj, can you do something about the perceived neutrality problems of this section?  The Banner  talk 23:25, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * User:The Banner, I'm mainly concerned about where we end up, in this section. I don't agree that a source like this is as scholarly as Bernard Poschmann and Martos (who has coauthored two books with Richard Rohr). Jzsj (talk) 01:03, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I humbly admit that you are way better versed in the theological side of that than I am! The Banner  <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 09:46, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Use of "liberal theologian"
See: -  - ("‎Early practice: Fixed 2 unsubstantiated generalizations")

I'm admittedly not well versed in theology, but I can't see how a theologian's political leanings would be relevant here, other than to cast doubt/aspersions on their conclusions, let alone the verifiability of the theologian's supposed "liberal" leanings. — FenrisAureus ▲ (she/they)   ( talk ) 07:21, 17 August 2023 (UTC)


 * the term "liberal" can also be used in theological contexts; see Religious liberalism Sawyer-mcdonell (talk) 04:29, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

NPOV/encyclopedic tone in eastern christianity section?
"Confession and penance in the rite of the Eastern Orthodox Church, even to our own day, preserve the character of liberation and healing rather than of judgment . Ruling and healing are seen as the same charism, as in early Christian times . Remission of sin is granted on the basis of sincere repentance and confession. Absolution proclaims God's forgiveness of the sin. "

while this may not be inaccurate necessarily, i think this could fall under NPOV & encyclopedic tone, partially for this section pretty much only citing eastern orthodox sources (Eastern Catholics also take the eastern approach to confession!). let me know if i'm off base here. Sawyer-mcdonell (talk) 04:45, 19 September 2023 (UTC)