Yes, I fully agree. That is certainly how it has worked for me, and I still have a long way to go. :) I confess things now that were just blow offs several years ago.
But "I'm planning on doing it again in about three hours," that makes an invalid sacrament.
Yes, that is what I would have expected. How does it work with public sins? I'm thinking of politicians, who, say, actively campaign for greater abortion rights or whatever. The priest would know that. Can he come in and confess OTHER things and be absolved, even if the priest knows he is still actively sinning without repentance? IOW, is a "partial" confession kosher if the other sins are known and obvious? I could understand a pass being given if a sin goes unconfessed because the person is not yet mature enough to understand it.
Of course the good jokes depend on penance being thought of as "punishment".
What is the correct way to think of penance as practiced in the Latin Church? I just realized I don't know how to answer that. :)
I think the POINT of the Inferno is not likely to be appreciated by a 9th grader. Sin is its own punishment. Every one in Dante's Hell just does more clearly what they did that got them there.
No doubt, I barely remember it. :) I think I will put the whole thing on my reading list.
I'm gonna ask 'cause I don't know.
As to [b] yes, you confess the sins you know of and I think it's assumed there are plenty of sins you don't know of, but as long as there is contrition, I think [JUST my guess here] the sacrament is valid.
I've read in the little pamphlets about "how to make a confession" that if you remember a homper stomper sin, it's a good idea to bring it up in your next confession even if it's technically "put away" and already taken care of. I don't know, that sounds like an opinion to me, not hard and fast.
But in [a] I think the politician is gaming God and gaming the sacrament, and he is in deep doo doo, having just piled gaming the sacrament and God onto his other sins.
As an aside, this is a fine example of the organic nature of sin and punishment. The politician has held what (to judge by his professed religions affiliation) a wrong opinion. Now he is treating this wonderful stream of forgiveness and strength as a kind of tit-for-tat getting ticket punched exercise as though God were a vending machine. Such a God has to be viewed as a capricious and stupid tyrant, whom no free man would worship. So in this cynical abuse of the sacrament that politician is fracturing his own integrity. (Integrity? Politician? What am I saying?) He's not so much losing il ben dell'intelleto as throwing it away.
But the real question is what if the confessor KNOWS full well that the penitent is committing a humongo open sin (and there's no question that it's a sin and no question that the polly is committing it) and he comes to confession and confesses everything but.
First this would be the kind of thing that I would hope would happen to the priest in the next phone booth and not me, if I were a priest. The Mad Dawg translation of the next to last petition of the Lord's prayer is, "Keep me outta trouble!"
Also, you don't come into the phone booth (if you choose the anonymity option) and say who you are. So the priest officially doesn't know who he's hearing and therefore doesn't know what other stuff is not being confessed.
But the polly knows. And he knows that God knows. And so it would seem his contrition would be defective.
Assume for the sake of argument, that smoking is a sin. So say I smoke and I confess it. At that time I really want to quit and mean to quit, even though I"m no fool and realize that I might make it a couple of hours before I crumple and light up again. THAT, I think, is real contrition even though there's a good ch ance the sin will be repeated.
If I come into the phone booth and on my list of things to do is stop by the store for a pack of cigarettes, we don't have contrition. But in the case we're contemplating it's more like the penitent comes into the booth smoking AND savoring the taste of the smoke.
Yep, he's in trouble.
I'll ask this question (unless you want to refine it): Say I'm a politician, for example the senior senator from a state in New England. Say my schedule for the day has been published and at 2:30 I'm giving a talk at NARAL, and my pro-choice position is well-known. And say I come in for a face-to-face confession and none of the things I confess has anything to do with NARAL. "Whatcha gonna do NOW, Father?"
Does that cover it?