Another "was this a valid confession" question

[Timidity]

One goes to confession, and makes what she believes to be a full and complete confession. But during the “spiritual couselling” portion of the confession (after the confessinng the sins, but before the absolution), the Priest says something that gives the indication that he didn’t fully understand one of the sins. He gives the impression that he assumes there was a mitigating factor that wasn’t there. The penitent, full of guilt and shame, doesn’t correct him.

Was it a valid confession? Or were her actions withholding sins?

 

[Dr.Bombay]

When in doubt, bring it up in your next confession. That’s your safest course.

You’re likely to get all sorts of responses to this question from, “It’s okay. You didn’t do anything wrong” to, “Sounds like a bad confession to me.”

The point is, nobody on the internet can really tell you. Most priests genuinely want to help people like you who may have doubts. And there’s nothing you can confess that they probably haven’t heard before. The important thing to remember is Jesus is always there, in the confessional, waiting for you.

 

[JimG]

I’m a firm believer in not obsessing over confessions.

The sacrament was given for reconciliation and peace; we should not obsess over it.

 

[Dr.Colossus]

An intentional withholding of a mortal sin would be a problem, but it doesn’t sound like this was the case. Resolve to mention it at your next confession, and until then trust in the Mercy of God.

 

[Brendan]

The priest is not obligated to understand the sin, and if he assumes there are mitigating factors that were not there, that in no way effects the Validity of the Sacrament.

The Sacrament requires

1. Contrition on the part of the penitent. The sorrow of having commited the sin and a desire to avoid the sin in the future.
2. A Validly Ordained Bishop, or Priest with Authority from the Bishop.
3. That the words of Absolution be spoken.

All three seem to be present, so the Sacrament is Valid.

Mention it again on the next confession, this in no way implies that the first Confession was not valid, only as a clarification.

 

[space_ghost]

…scrupulosity will get you… Martin Luther’s defection was in large part due to just that, doubting the absolution…

agree with the Dr B, if it gives you great concern, revisit at your next opportunity for confession…

Peace… and i mean that…Peace:thumbsup:

 

[Fortiterinre]

Mention in your next confession that you withheld a little in the last one. It certainly is valid, but withholding on a confessor is like withholding on a physician–each helps more when the “patient” is thorough.

 

[tuopaolo]

Timidity:

One goes to confession, and makes what she believes to be a full and complete confession. But during the “spiritual couselling” portion of the confession (after the confessinng the sins, but before the absolution), the Priest says something that gives the indication that he didn’t fully understand one of the sins. He gives the impression that he assumes there was a mitigating factor that wasn’t there. The penitent, full of guilt and shame, doesn’t correct him.

Was it a valid confession? Or were her actions withholding sins?

It would only be invalid if the person believed that not correcting the priest was a mortal sin, was conscious of that belief, and didn’t chose, so consciously believing, to not correct the priest. A confession is only invalid if in the process of confession you commit a mortal sin (because that would mean that you aren’t sorry for all your mortal sins).

Objectively speaking, if the priest assumes there was a mitigating factor, there is no need to correct him. If you make an integral confession by saying: “I committed fornication” and the priest assumes that you did so in the heat of passion when really you didn’t do it in the heat of passion but sought after it, there is no need to correct his assumption. You can do so if you want, but that it’s not necessary to do so for the confession to be materially and formally integral.

OTOH, if it wasn’t that you made an integral confession but rather that you left out some important detail – like for example if you confess: “I stole something from the store” and the priest assumes that you stole a candy bar when actually you stole 100,000 dollars from the safe, then your confession wasn’t really materially integral in the first place and you would need to mention that it wasn’t a candy bar but something of much greater value.

So, to summarize, aspects of the sin which are objectively grave need to be mentioned, but psychological factors or any other kind of factors that would subjectively change your culpability need not be mentioned to the priest though you can if you want.