Am I absolved?

[marthagreys]

My parkish offers reconciliation only once a week - at a time when I always have to work. Desparately needing confession, I made an appointment with my priest only to have him not show up. He managed to keep the second appointment, but it was quite possibly the worst confession experience I had ever had. I was meeting with him in his office, only to be interupted three times - once by a person needing him to sign a paper (he took the time to sign it), and twice by telephone (he answered both calls explaining that he was expectng an important call). After I had been in there about 10min, but had only had the opportunity to speak roughly 30sec due to the interruptions, he said that he had a meeting to be at, so we would just include all of my sins without me stating them, and then he absolved me. I hadn’t even had the opportunity to name the serious sin that landed me in the confessional to begin with. So, was this a valid confession? Am I absolved? What do I do now?

 

[Cristiano]

You did your best, it was clear to him that you were there for confession. Did he mention the words of absolution? If yes, then you have been absolved.

I would suggest to bring up the same sins during next confession. It is a good spiritual practice that it is also mandated in the case of sins that you forget to mention during confession.

 

[marthagreys]

Yes, he did give me absolution, and yes, the appointment clearly was for confession. All the same, I feel like most of the necesary components were in place - except the actually confession, an importatnt part.

 

[PhilotheaZ]

I respectfully disagree with Cristiano. Serious sins must be verbally confessed in order for a confession to be valid.

If I were you, I would go to a different priest and re-make the confession completely.

Yes, you did your best — the fault seems to be with the priest — but that’s my advice.

Maybe what you experienced is one of the reasons it is better to meet the priest in the confessional rather than in his office.

 

[sancte_joseph]

I think you were ablsolved because if anyone is at fault its the priest so you can receive communion…but mention those mortal sins in your next confession not to remake your confession but its like remembering a sin after confessing you know its forgiven because you forgot but you mention it the next time

 

[Walking_Home]

Something you may want to consider —call your neighboring parishes to see when confessions are offered. It may be to your benefit to find another parish for confession.

 

[grandfather]

My parkish offers reconciliation only once a week - at a time when I always have to work. Desparately needing confession, I made an appointment with my priest only to have him not show up. He managed to keep the second appointment, but it was quite possibly the worst confession experience I had ever had. I was meeting with him in his office, only to be interupted three times - once by a person needing him to sign a paper (he took the time to sign it), and twice by telephone (he answered both calls explaining that he was expectng an important call). After I had been in there about 10min, but had only had the opportunity to speak roughly 30sec due to the interruptions, he said that he had a meeting to be at, so we would just include all of my sins without me stating them, and then he absolved me. I hadn’t even had the opportunity to name the serious sin that landed me in the confessional to begin with. So, was this a valid confession? Am I absolved? What do I do now?

In order to find peace of mind why not go to confession again and tell the priest your sins?

If this experience happened to me I would never go to that priest again for confession. One of the most important things a priest does is hear confessions. Some are better at it than others. Some have amazing gifts and some are not good confessors at all. Finding a good confessor, one that can help you is important. A priest who would treat a penitent and a confession as you described obviously does not qualify as a top confessor.

Allowing phone calls and signing papers to interfere with a sacrament is outrageous. If he were on the altar saying Mass and the phone rang would he answer it? This indicates the man is not spiritually well as a priest. It is unfortunate, but not rare.

 

[thistle]

I respectfully disagree with Cristiano. Serious sins must be verbally confessed in order for a confession to be valid.

If I were you, I would go to a different priest and re-make the confession completely.

Yes, you did your best — the fault seems to be with the priest — but that’s my advice.

Maybe what you experienced is one of the reasons it is better to meet the priest in the confessional rather than in his office.

That’s not correct. For example, a mortal sin that was forgotten to be confessed would not invalidate absolution given at Confession. In this case the person was not allowed to detail them. That does not invaildate the absolution. In both cases they should be brought up at the next Confession but they are forgiven in the Confession mentioned by the OP.

 

[EvelynEVF]

I am fortunate to have had an incredible confessor for my first nine months in the Church, and then discovered how blessed I was when he got transferred

Anyway, I had to confess to a substitute guy a couple weeks ago, and was terribly disappointed, because he mostly seemed to want to tell me it was no big deal, when he didn’t know the back story. So I got absolution from him, and then I went to my spiritual director for direction.

So I would suggest that not only do you need to find a different confessor, but if you don’t find one who is good with direction, find someone to be your spiritual director. That way you can hash out all the finer points once a month for an hour or so with him/her and then go to confession for absolution without wishing for direction, too.

If your conscience tells you that you have more work to do, follow that prompting of the Spirit!

 

[bpbasilphx]

I would suggest to bring up the same sins during next confession. It is a good spiritual practice that it is also mandated in the case of sins that you forget to mention during confession.

Only sins forgotten should be mentioned in a new confession.

OId sins previously confessed should be left alone; to do otherwise is to doubt efficacy of absolution.

 

[Cristiano]

I would suggest to bring up the same sins during next confession. It is a good spiritual practice that it is also mandated in the case of sins that you forget to mention during confession.

Only sins forgotten should be mentioned in a new confession.

OId sins previously confessed should be left alone; to do otherwise is to doubt efficacy of absolution.

This is not about the validity of the confession and absolution, even all the forgotten sins are absolved. The point is that in this case she did not get to confess her sins at all. How does she know which one she would have forgotten at the time and which ones she would have remembered given the rush she was in.

 

[Fuerza]

I would suggest to bring up the same sins during next confession. It is a good spiritual practice that it is also mandated in the case of sins that you forget to mention during confession.

Only sins forgotten should be mentioned in a new confession.

OId sins previously confessed should be left alone; to do otherwise is to doubt efficacy of absolution.

I should point out that the Catholic Church does allow for re-confession of previously absolved sins.

newadvent.org/cathen/11618c.htm

Look under the category, “What sins are to be confessed”, 2nd paragraph. It mentions that reconfessing, while not necessary, can have value in that the shame involved is a form of penance. I would not recommend this for scrupulous people though (like myself).