Convert Confession Confusion

[Drewa]

I am a convert, received into the church at Easter 2004. In 1979 I made a confession to an Anglican priest, during which I had to confess a very grave sin, which was incredibly hard to do. At the time, though, I felt the priest “minimised” it, by suggesting that the final outcome of my actions may not have been as a direct result of them. However, he did give me absolution, and at the time, as I considered him a validly ordained priest, I did feel that I was forgiven by God.

When I mentioned this during my RCIA, the priest said that as that had been the situation, it would not be necessary for me to confess it again (in what would be my first Catholic confession), and I have to admit I was relieved! However, recently it has been on my mind again. I have a very good spiritual director/confessor and I did say something briefly (that there was something, but not its nature) to him last time we met, and he said that if it still bothered me, perhaps we should talk about it next time.

That will be very difficult for me, but, if there is any possibility that I am still in a state of mortal sin because of this, it must be put right. However, another worry is that what I did might have been a criminal act, for which, of course, I never got caught. I know about the secrecy of the confessional, but I’m not sure how that stands with regard to crimes. Would my priest have to report it to the relevant authorities? It did not involve a child, it was very specific to a particular situation and could not happen again, and the results of my action cannot be changed now, whether I am “punished” in this world or not.

So that is the main question. Another subsidiary one, is that at the time of that 1979 confession I had done something else which at the time I did not think was “wrong” though I now know it is contrary to the Church teachings. My understanding from reading is that I do not have to confess sins retrospectively if I was not aware that it was sinful when I did it. So should I confess that now too? This “retrospective” argument does not apply, I have to say, in respect of the grave sin I mentioned at the beginning - I didn’t think of it as “sinful” (I was an atheist at the time it happened), but most definitely I did know it was morally “wrong” when I did it.

I hope this all makes sense and would be grateful for any advice. Thank you, Drewa

 

[Servus_Pio_XII]

Let me be the [number]rd to congratulate you on your acceptance into the Church.

About the confessional: A confession is even valid by a scismatic group if:

1. The person confessing was truly repentant
2. The person confessing believed in the validity of the absolution.

It is the priest’s sin if he misleads one into believing he is who he is not, and your confession was perfectly valid. A confession does not include immediate “feel-goodness”, esp. for grave sin, and guilt may still come. It does not matter, these feelings, the important thing is the confession and the absolution.

About the second: You are only required to confess if it is a mortal sin, or inherently an evil act. Any venial sin is made mortal by fully consenting to defy God, and any mortal sin is made venial by having no knowledge or full consent.

Since you had no knowledge, you do not need to confess this, though it couldn’t hurt, eh?

God bless you, and may He guide you further along the path to Him.
-Servus Pio XII

 

[Drewa]

Many thanks for that Servus Pius Xll. It does seem to agree with my own understanding, and I have done a great deal of reading/investigation into this, and indeed into to whole Sacrament of Reconciliation, which I felt I needed to understand if my confessions were to be “good”.

And yes, without a doubt I was repentant, and without a doubt I thought the priest could give me a valid absolution. I did discuss this with a friend of mine who is a Catholic priest just before my first confession, and he asked “Do you think God has forgiven you?” and I said “Yes, but I don’t think I have”!! Quite a telling remark, and one I was considering in the light of this fairly sudden urge to confess it again – is it a way of beating myself up about it yet again because I feel I haven’t been punished enough? Or, and this has even occurred to me, is it a way of “testing” my spiritual director. He has not had an easy ride with me the past 18 months and has really taught me a great deal of God’s forgiveness and tenacity by his own, but I do have problems trusting people, so maybe, deep down, I thought “I’ll tell him this and then see if he rejects me”, which, I absolutely 100% know he wouldn’t anyway, so why test him?

What you said re the second one is also my understanding of the situation. Again, I have read quite a lot about “mortal” and “venial” sin – at one time my director said not to worry about classifying them but I thought I should, so I wouldn’t receive Holy Communion if I shouldn’t. I think I have a tendency to be on the scrupulous side, and one of the best things I ever read, which referred to any type of sin is “If you are in any doubt as to whether it was a (mortal or venial) sin, then it wasn’t” and I am even beginning to come round to thinking, as I believe some people in the church do, that it’s almost impossible to meet fully all the conditions which make a sin “mortal”. How could anyone ever want to knowingly cut himself or herself off from a relationship, or the possibility of a relationship, with God for all eternity?

Bless you,
Drewa

 

[Chatter163]

A good rule is: If in doubt, confess it, regardless. If going to your regular confessor presents a problem in this situation, then go to another priest in this instance. This way you may have piece of mind.

 

[JimG]

As to the seal of the confesional: A priest is forbidden to reveal the contents of a penitents confession to anyone, not to the authorites, not to anyone. Even if he were required to do so by law, he must refuse.

 

[Drewa]

Chatter163:

A good rule is: If in doubt, confess it, regardless. If going to your regular confessor presents a problem in this situation, then go to another priest in this instance. This way you may have piece of mind.

My regular confessor also made this point - that I could always go to someone else anonymously - but (and I think this was a valid point) he said that it might be more helpful to me to confess to him if it was something I could benefit from also discussing at more length in our “spiritual direction” sessions

 

[Servus_Pio_XII]

The definition of “full consent of the will” has always puzzled me until now. I believe that the quote “If you are in doubt if it was a mortal sin, it wasn’t” answered a lot.

Full consent must therefore be defined as a willingness to break the relationship with God, to sin for the sake of sinning. Not any internal debaccle whatsoever.

 

[Drewa]

Servus Pio XII:

The definition of “full consent of the will” has always puzzled me until now. I believe that the quote “If you are in doubt if it was a mortal sin, it wasn’t” answered a lot.

Full consent must therefore be defined as a willingness to break the relationship with God, to sin for the sake of sinning. Not any internal debaccle whatsoever.

I agree Servus. That too was my understanding i.e. one has to have made a conscious fully knowing decision that one wants to end the relationship with God PERMANENTLY for a sin to be considered “mortal”. At one time, during my RCIA period and just after I was received, I was having a great many temptations to commit what might generally thought of as a “mortal” sin. I often succumbed to these temptations, went to my spiritual director and said I could not see how I could make my confession knowing that although I had every desire to never “fall” again, and was full of contrition, I probably would. Each time, by the end of the session, he had managed to bring me to a point where I could confess and receive absolution with integrity. This went on for some months, but eventually the battle was won, and I am sure this was because I was able to receive the “grace” of sacramental confession. Like I said, my spiritual director has had a rough ride with me, and at one point in all this (and remembering I was very new in the faith and that at the time there was a question of whether it was actually a “mortal” sin, or, maybe, being “habitual” or “addictive” in nature, was not) I said to him “It seems daft that the one time you really need to receive Holy Communion you are barred from doing so”. I don’t think he really answered that one! The Blessed Sacrament has always been of the utmost importance to me, and I could not bear to go to Mass and be unable to receive. Another time I said “Does the decision to cut oneself off from God mean just for the time you are doing whatever it is, or for all eternity?” and after a minutes (I don’t think he’d ever thought of it before in that way) he said “For all eternity” and I said, most emphatically “Well, I certainly do not want that!”.
Additionally, I have a disorder called “Bi Polar Type ll” which is a less serious form of what was called “manic depression” and at times experience periods of being “high” and do things which are normally completely out of character for me. So how can that be measured against sin? Should a person still be held completely responsible for their actions in this case? And if not, how much can they be held responsible? Not at all? 50%??? Over to you!
Drewa