A priest wouldn't let me confess past sins

[Tsuwano]

I agree with the priest in this situation. Once you have received absolution, you are forgiven for all your past sins, including those you may not have remembered to confess. If you willfully neglect to mention a sin during confession because you are ashamed or feel it is unforgivable, then you should mention that sin and perhaps explain to the priest why you failed to mention it during a previous confession. The danger in rehashing your sins over and over again is that it leads one to believe that you think you are not really forgiven when you receive absolution. This, of course, denies the very purpose and grace of the sacrament. Perhaps the question you pose here on this site is one you should ask your confessor about. At any rate, focusing on past sins without realizing the present love and forgiveness of God, as the priest in this situation suggested, is not healthy and it is best not to remember what God himself has so generously forgotten.

 

[Danny_OC]

Therein lies the problem. You did not have enough information, yet you still took it upon yourself to make a judgement about the priest. When you made the statement “The priest was wrong” you were pronouncing a judgement on him. You came to a conclusion without having the facts.

If you had explained the teachings of the Church, and the relevant principles of Confession, I would have taken no issue with what you said. That’s what these forums are all about.

When you said “the priest was wrong”, that crossed the line.

Not every post has to be an essay. I wanted to throw in my 2 cents, and there’s nothing wrong with that. I had as many facts as anyone on the thread, thank you very much. If the OP asked for them, I would gladly produce them, but I am under no obligation to by default put them there every time I post so that people who my response was not even directed to can analyze my post to see if it meets their standards.

Anyone who disagrees with another is infact saying that “that person is wrong.” A fact frequently forgotten today. I just choose be more blunt than some others; this is a personality choice that, I’m sorry, I am not asking for advice on.

Since at this point I’ve entirely missed my initial goal of spending only a minute or two on the forums, I suppose I’ll carry on and provide more justification, as you request.

Every Tuesday and Friday when I pray the rosary, I recite the sorrowful mysteries. The first sorrowful mystery is the agony on the garden. The fruit of the mystery is sorrow for sin. Mortal sin is an outright attack on God; the worst thing a human can do, making us worthy of eternal damnation. For it to still be in one’s mind after confessing it once is not being scrupulous; it is right and reasonable.

Read the lives of the saints. They don’t just forget about their sin after they confess it as if its nothing. They rightfully so feel tremendous guilt for having so horribly disobeyed such a perfect and loving Father.

The modern world may not believe in sin or guilt, but such is NOT the Catholic position.

 

[I_Believe]

I had a somewhat similar situation last week. A priest I had not confessed to before cut me short and didn’t allow me to say my Act of Contrition. I’d never encountered that before. He did, however, grant me Absolution. And gave me my Penance.

I had noticed others in line ahead of me were in and out quite fast, so it must be his way of hearing confession.

But was it a valid confession ?

 

[FrDavid96]

Not every post has to be an essay. I wanted to throw in my 2 cents, and there’s nothing wrong with that. I had as many facts as anyone on the thread, thank you very much. If the OP asked for them, I would gladly produce them, but I am under no obligation to by default put them there every time I post so that people who my response was not even directed to can analyze my post to see if it meets their standards.

Anyone who disagrees with another is infact saying that “that person is wrong.” A fact frequently forgotten today. I just choose be more blunt than some others; this is a personality choice that, I’m sorry, I am not asking for advice on.

Since at this point I’ve entirely missed my initial goal of spending only a minute or two on the forums, I suppose I’ll carry on and provide more justification, as you request.

Every Tuesday and Friday when I pray the rosary, I recite the sorrowful mysteries. The first sorrowful mystery is the agony on the garden. The fruit of the mystery is sorrow for sin. Mortal sin is an outright attack on God; the worst thing a human can do, making us worthy of eternal damnation. For it to still be in one’s mind after confessing it once is not being scrupulous; it is right and reasonable.

Read the lives of the saints. They don’t just forget about their sin after they confess it as if its nothing. They rightfully so feel tremendous guilt for having so horribly disobeyed such a perfect and loving Father.

The modern world may not believe in sin or guilt, but such is NOT the Catholic position.

Yes, you did have as many facts as anyone else on this thread. And those facts were scant little. You don’t know what the sin-in-question is. You don’t know what the penitent said. You don’t know what the priest said. You don’t know the priest’s own experiences, nor his own personal theological leanings.

Yet, in spite of such an absence of facts, you took it upon yourself to to draw the conclusion “the priest was wrong.”

I cannot understand how you came to that conclusion. Please explain it to me.

 

[I_Believe]

I had a somewhat similar situation last week. A priest I had not confessed to before cut me short and didn’t allow me to say my Act of Contrition. I’d never encountered that before. He did, however, grant me Absolution. And gave me my Penance.

I had noticed others in line ahead of me were in and out quite fast, so it must be his way of hearing confession.

But was it a valid confession ?

After thinking about it, yes, my confession was valid. My question should be, did I truly receive the Sacrament ?

 

[FrDavid96]

I had a somewhat similar situation last week. A priest I had not confessed to before cut me short and didn’t allow me to say my Act of Contrition. I’d never encountered that before. He did, however, grant me Absolution. And gave me my Penance.

I had noticed others in line ahead of me were in and out quite fast, so it must be his way of hearing confession.

But was it a valid confession ?

If you confessed your sins personally to the priest, and he pronounced the absolution, then yes it was a valid confession.

Whether or not the priest acted licitly is a different matter, though. There are different options which the Church outlines for confession of several penitents at the same service. If that’s not the case here, and you were making a completely individual confession, then the priest did not act licitly when he “didn’t allow” you to make some act of contrition. But that does not affect the validity of the Sacrament. Yes, you did truly receive the Sacrament.

If the minister of the Sacrament acts validly, even though illicitly, the recipient still receives the Sacrament. To put it another way, the Church says that you are not deprived of the graces of the Sacrament because the minister acts illicitly. You are not held responsible for his mistake.

 

[I_Believe]

If you confessed your sins personally to the priest, and he pronounced the absolution, then yes it was a valid confession.

Whether or not the priest acted licitly is a different matter, though. There are different options which the Church outlines for confession of several penitents at the same service. If that’s not the case here, and you were making a completely individual confession, then the priest did not act licitly when he “didn’t allow” you to make some act of contrition. But that does not affect the validity of the Sacrament. Yes, you did truly receive the Sacrament.

Ok, Thank you Fr. As I said, I had not experienced that before. I simply thanked him and said it silently on the way to the pew. (it was before Mass)

And especially thank you for your Vocation and service to the Church

 

[jheii]

In Mystical Theology the rule regarding confession and spiritual direction is very clear, OBEDIENCE. If the confessor or the spiritual director tells you what to do and what not to do, you obey. This is what makes saints. They learn to obey.

I agree with this wholeheartedly. Without going into too many details, I had a similar experience upon re-entering the Church. That first confession is always big, and you never really know what is mortal and what is not. The way I see it, recognizing mortal sin requires a well-formed conscience, something quite difficult to have while one is rejecting Christ and his Church! I followed the advice of my confessor and did my best to remember my serious sins, but haven’t looked back since then. like JR said, obedience is key. Especially in the Sacrament of Reconciliation, I strongly believe that when a priest says “jump,” you should ask “how high?”

 

[I_Believe]

Ok Fr., I noted your added text. He may have allowed me to say it if I had asked to, but he was moving right along and ended with " have a good day", so it wasn’t as if I hesitated and he assumed I wasn’t going to say it.

No big deal though. I’m not going to make waves about it. If he has been doing this awhile, I’m sure someone has notified his superior. And I’m not hunting witches

Thanks again.

 

[FrDavid96]

Ok Fr., I noted your added text. He may have allowed me to say it if I had asked to, but he was moving right along and ended with " have a good day", so it wasn’t as if I hesitated and he assumed I wasn’t going to say it.

No big deal though. I’m not going to make waves about it. If he has been doing this awhile, I’m sure someone has notified his superior. And I’m not hunting witches

Thanks again.

Two things:

1. I’ve noticed that especially in large parishes, one of the forms for reconcilliation of several penitents is often used. It’s an acceptable option here for a corporate act of contrition. Perhaps the priest simply forgot himself and did what he was accustomed to doing. That’s one possibility.
2. You can always pray an act of contrition silently (as I’m sure you know, but for the benefit of other readers).

 

[Joannm]

That first confession is always big, and you never really know what is mortal and what is not. The way I see it, recognizing mortal sin requires a well-formed conscience, something quite difficult to have while one is rejecting Christ and his Church! I followed the advice of my confessor and did my best to remember my serious sins, but haven’t looked back since then. "

To commit a mortal sin you have to KNOW it is a mortal sin and do it anyway. While someone who has been away from the Church or is entering into Full COmmunion, they may have committeed objectivly evil acts but if they did not know they were doing so then they are not totally morally culpable for them. So to continue to confess individual sins that at the time they didn’t know was a sin can become a bit scrupulous.

 

[Danny_OC]

Yes, you did have as many facts as anyone else on this thread. And those facts were scant little. You don’t know what the sin-in-question is. You don’t know what the penitent said. You don’t know what the priest said. You don’t know the priest’s own experiences, nor his own personal theological leanings.

Yet, in spite of such an absence of facts, you took it upon yourself to to draw the conclusion “the priest was wrong.”

I cannot understand how you came to that conclusion. Please explain it to me.

I have explained: Sorrow for sin is a good thing. This priest, in common modern practice, seems to disagree (also using the common modern excuse that it is not “healthy,” often a dead giveaway that a person is not in line with true Catholicism). Being that we disagree, that necessarily means I am saying he is wrong.

 

[Apologist78]

It must be remembered that Catholic Priests are a lot like doctors. Doctors know medicine and must make judgement calls about how to apply medical facts to individual cases. Sometimes they make not bad judgements, but ones that are not very helpful.

Priests are the same way. My recommendation is just as when a doctor and a patient do not agree on the best form of treatment, the patient will seek a second, even a third opinion. Perhaps people can do this too with their priests. If they feel that what the priest has said is not helpful, or they are not connecting, I think it appropriate for them to seek a second opinion, even a third.

Now, please understand- DO NOT seek other opinions just to get someone to tell you what you want to hear. People do that- and that is wrong. Eventually you will always find a priest who will tell you what you want to hear. That is NOT the purpose of finding a second opinion.

 

[Danny_OC]

It must be remembered that Catholic Priests are a lot like doctors. Doctors know medicine and must make judgement calls about how to apply medical facts to individual cases. Sometimes they make not bad judgements, but ones that are not very helpful.

Priests are the same way. My recommendation is just as when a doctor and a patient do not agree on the best form of treatment, the patient will seek a second, even a third opinion. Perhaps people can do this too with their priests. If they feel that what the priest has said is not helpful, or they are not connecting, I think it appropriate for them to seek a second opinion, even a third.

Now, please understand- DO NOT seek other opinions just to get someone to tell you what you want to hear. People do that- and that is wrong. Eventually you will always find a priest who will tell you what you want to hear. That is NOT the purpose of finding a second opinion.

I agree.

Patients get second opinions from doctors because they place a high value on the health of their body. Catholics too then should not fear seeking a second opinion for the sake of something much more important, their souls.

You are also right that you can find a priest somewhere that will tell you what you want to hear. A sad fact today. That is why it is so important to talk to other priests if you think one is being too soft on you.

 

[baltobetsy]

I agree.

Patients get second opinions from doctors because they place a high value on the health of their body. Catholics too then should not fear seeking a second opinion for the sake of something much more important, their souls.

You are also right that you can find a priest somewhere that will tell you what you want to hear. A sad fact today. That is why it is so important to talk to other priests if you think one is being too soft on you.

The second opinion thing cuts both ways. People could keep getting opinions until some priest tells them that their sins are not sins, and that’s what you are referring to when you say some priest will tell you what you want to hear. But there are also people who will seek a second opinion to hear something more rigorous. Either way, it’s still shopping until they hear what they want to hear.

I believe the Holy Spirit is very active in the confessional, and even the most theologically suspect priest can, under the Holy Spirit’s influence, tell the penitent exactly what he needs to hear. And therefore, I agree with the previous poster (JREducation, I believe) who praised obedience as the solution.

Betsy

 

[hilde_the_dog]

FatherDavid96 and I_believe I have run across priests that will tell youto say a prayer of contrition after your penance due to the fact that daily mass is soon to begin and/or the line for confession is long and the priest desires to hear as many confessions as possible before mass.

 

[FrDavid96]

I have explained: Sorrow for sin is a good thing. This priest, in common modern practice, seems to disagree (also using the common modern excuse that it is not “healthy,” often a dead giveaway that a person is not in line with true Catholicism). Being that we disagree, that necessarily means I am saying he is wrong.

Danny, Let me be more specific.

In the original post, before anyone offered any comments, the original poster said the following: “**He seemed like a perfectly fine priest, wasn’t some lovey-dovey-liveandletlive type or anything **” Yet based on those and other words, you draw the conclusion “Sorrow for sin is a good thing. This priest, in common modern practice, seems to disagree (also using the common modern excuse that it is not “healthy,” often a dead giveaway that a person is not in line with true Catholicism)” The words of the original post completely contradict your conclusion.

It is hardly a “dead giveaway” that every priest who says “that’s not healthy” is some flaming modernist (in the current use of the word, not the 19th century use of the word). Might St. Padre Pio have ever said to someone who was being scrupulous “that’s not healthy?” I don’t know. He may have. It’s certainly possible. Granted, you said “often a dead giveaway.” How do you know this? Do you have some statistics for what priests say while under the Seal of Confession?

If that priest, in persona Christi, felt that what he had heard to that point was sufficient for a good confession, and said so, then it was sufficient. It’s not for you or me or anyone else here to judge that. Christ Himself will be the Judge of that priest. Has He asked your opinion?

You seem to forget that in persona Christi does not only mean that the priest has the power to absolve from sins, but also that when the priest is speaking in the Sacrament, it is Christ Who is in fact speaking. Given that, when you pass judgement on this anonymous priest, on Whom are you realy passing judgement?

The original poster asked our opinion/assessment of the situation. The only response we strangers can give is to say “trust your confessor.”

 

[Apologist78]

The second opinion thing cuts both ways. People could keep getting opinions until some priest tells them that their sins are not sins, and that’s what you are referring to when you say some priest will tell you what you want to hear. But there are also people who will seek a second opinion to hear something more rigorous. Either way, it’s still shopping until they hear what they want to hear.

I believe the Holy Spirit is very active in the confessional, and even the most theologically suspect priest can, under the Holy Spirit’s influence, tell the penitent exactly what he needs to hear. And therefore, I agree with the previous poster (JREducation, I believe) who praised obedience as the solution.

Betsy

I think you are right, but it is important to note that the Spiritual Life is a two way street. It involves both the priest and the penitent. Priest’s do not know everything, sometimes they can be wrong.

Then again, there is something to be said for second guessing the priest in this case.

 

[I_Believe]

FatherDavid96 and I_believe I have run across priests that will tell youto say a prayer of contrition after your penance due to the fact that daily mass is soon to begin and/or the line for confession is long and the priest desires to hear as many confessions as possible before mass.

Hi htd, well, you know, the Act of Contrition takes seconds, not minutes, and it has been determined by the Church that it is to be said. IMO, there is no wiggle room , for the reason Fr. David explained.

But, I don’t think we should drag the priest out of the confessional and stone him lol. If there are long lines then perhaps he’s doing something right while on the Pulpit

 

[adstrinity]

So I’ve returned to the Church after a few years away a little while ago, and have been going to weekly confession. I confessed most of my past sins which were undoubtedly mortal at my first confession, but I still remember some, and I like confessing them. Whether I have to or not, it just seems good to me: I don’t get obsessive about it (though I do sometimes jot down notes on a piece of paper so I won’t forget), I just think it fosters a closer relationship between me and my confessor.

However, last week my regular priest wasn’t in, and instead it was someone else. He seemed like a perfectly fine priest, wasn’t some lovey-dovey-liveandletlive type or anything After I’d confessed the sins of the week, I said “and now I have some sins that I committed before I rejoined the Church which I’ve recently remembered”; a few of these were probably mortal sins, a few were borderline (i.e. very frequent sexual fantasies when bored in class, things like that).

He wouldn’t let me confess them though. He just said “that’s not healthy; God’s already forgiven you.” I said “Okay, but since I already have them here is it okay if I confess them?” and he just said “No.” I didn’t push it any further since I figured that’d be disrespectful, but I am wondering whether he was right or not.

I always thought that, while not necessarily necessary (I get different answers from different places), confessing past sins is a good practice. Is it unhealthy instead?

Edit: One minor thing, too: the priest told me to do a “prayer of forgiveness” and I said “Oh so can I just do an Act of Contrition?” and he told me to just “pray from the heart”. Is this okay too? I have to emphasize again that he wasn’t any modernist, so it’s not like he was having me say some prayers borrowed from “Native American spirituality” or anything He just seems generally to not particularly like prescribed prayers, judging from other experiences I have had with him.

Alright, it’s like this, IF this was a new sin, let’s say you didn’t confess fantasizing before, though you were forgiven, because you didn’t remember it, I think it was a good thing to confess because you did remember it now. IF you have confessed fantasizing in general about such things before but didn’t remember THIS SPECIFIC FANTASY or in THIS SPECIFIC INSTANCE, you already confessed it let it go. IF you still have such fantasies and that is what brought these things to the forefront of your memories, by all means, confess those to the priest as often as needed AND ask specifically about what you can do about it (Ask, “God help me,” pray the Hail Mary…)

I am a new Catholic, coming from the Baptist Church and there were things in the past that I had did, I confessed to the priest when I became Catholic, I confessed anything that I thought would be helpful in getting me absolutions as long as I was sorry for those things.

Absolution:

Absolution is the remission of sin, or of the punishment due to sin, granted by the Church. (For remission of punishment due to sin, see CENSURE, EXCOMMUNICATION, INDULGENCE.) Absolution proper is that act of the priest whereby, in the Sacrament of Penance, he frees man from sin. It presupposes on the part of the penitent, contrition, confession, and promise at least of satisfaction; on the part of the minister, valid reception of the Order of Priesthood and jurisdiction, granted by competent authority, over the person receiving the sacrament.
newadvent.org/cathen/01061a.htm

YOU WILL RECEIVE ABSOLUTION REGARDLESS. There is nothing you can do in any given Confession that will not get you absolution (save your confessor is a mystic and can see your soul) and you do not recieve multiple absolutions in one Confession.

You do not confess to get absolution (which will be given anyway), you confess to God Almighty and the priest to recieve graces from God to overcome these sins/vices and to get practical advice on how to go about doing this.

Concerning Mortal Sin. Just yesterday I went to the Sacrament of Reconcilliation and was told that for a sin to be mortal it has to be grave matter. I was told this after I went back to Confession 20 minutes later after I had delibrately not confessed something. I was asked why didn’t I confess it and I told the confessor it was because he was giving me advice and then asked me to say my Act of Contrition. I had this other sin (forgotten until almost the end) on my mind but I didn’t say it because I didn’t want to say, “and another thing…” He told me that if I thought it was mortal, he’d give me absolution, and we talked about it, and he told me it did not consist of grave matter. He wanted to save me from being scrupulous (and he told me so.)