Do you need to specifically identify in Confession who you wronged if is a priest instead of a layperson?

[newbie9]

I posted this under Mortal Theology, but I was thinking it might actually be more appropriate here.

As an example, let’s say you were judgmental or critical of someone. Now you shouldn’t be judgmental or critical and you want to confess it. If you were doing this towards a priest, does it increase the severity of the sin to the point that the “critical of whom” needs to be specifically mentioned? If it does and that that priest is actually your Confessor at the time, does it have to go even more specifically to say something like “I was critical of you”?

My thinking is that the answer is no to both, but I was curious what others thought.
Reply With Quote

 

[Mrs_Sally]

No, you don’t have to say who the person was unless it materially changed the gravity of the sin. In the example you give it wouldn’t necessarily matter that you were critical of a priest, or even that you were critical of the priest who was hearing your confession. As part of your repentance for your sins, you should do what is possible to make reparation. So you would want to apologize the the person. Or correct any negative views you gave others about that person. But your apology isn’t part of your confession and would be better if it happened outside of confession.

 

[GwenL]

Well, it depends on the sin.

I agree with Mrs Sally on this example. I don’t think that the clerical state of a person about whom you are judgmental or critical changes the gravity of the sin. It might change the gravity of the sin of calumny, however.

At the far extreme, the gravity of a sin against the sixth or tenth commandment certainly is made worse if the object or accomplice is a priest. A priest cannot absolve a partner or accomplice in a sin against the sixth or tenth commandment, except in danger of death.

 

[Thankfulness]

I think I would say “I criticized and spoke/thought judgementally about a priest”, as he does have a sacred position.

“The priest has been taken out of humankind and appointed to act for men in their relations with God, to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins; and so he can sympathise with those who are ignorant or uncertain because he too lives in the limitations of weakness. That is why he has to make sin offerings for himself as well as for the people. No one takes this honour on himself, but each one is called by God.” [Hebrews 5:1-4]

However I would carefully not say which priest! even though:

“A servant of the Lord is not to engage in quarrels, but has to be kind to everyone, a good teacher, and patient. He has to be gentle when he corrects people who dispute what he says, never forgetting that God may give them a change of mind so that they recognise the truth.” [2Timothy 2:24-26]

So even if he guesses it was you, he should be good about it!

“Be shepherds of the flock of God that is entrusted to you: watch over it, not simply as a duty, but gladly, because God wants it…Never be a dictator over any group that is put in your charge, but be an example the whole flock can follow. When the chief shepherd appears, you will be given a crown of unfading glory.” [1Peter 5:2-4]

 

[newbie9]

There seemed to be mixed opinions on this so I just decided to mention that priests were included when I was being judgmental . Not specifically mentioning whether the Confessor was or was not one of them since it appeared to not matter. That was the intent of what I was trying to Confess when going into the Confessional. In the nerves of Confession, I added the word “other” making it I guess seem that the priests did not include my Confessor even though it had. Does this affect the nature of what I confessed? I don’t think I meant to mislead, but maybe I did since I was so nervous about that specific topic. I didn’t go back and correct it and just moved along my most likely unnecessarily long list.

Is my Confession still valid? Should I go back next week and correct that saying basically that I meant to Confess it one way and intentionally or not confessed it in a way that maybe made it seem less severe or at least so that it excluded my Confessor? Should I reconfess everything I confessed this week?

I have been so upset since I did it and I just don’t know how to address it. I think I may be being scrupulous, but it’s being unsure of whether I was trying to mislead or whether I was just being nervous and mixing up my words. One of my problems with scrupulosity that the priest I talk to about it thinks I do (and I agree) is that I basically look for ways that any situation can be sinful almost a self-punishment. So when looking back at situations, I look for any way it could possibly have been sinful and/or seriously sinful. In this instance, I know I didn’t give sufficient thought to actually adding “other,” but I did start thinking that maybe I was now lying in my Confession and I didn’t go back to correct it.

 

[puzzleannie]

I posted this under Mortal Theology, but I was thinking it might actually be more appropriate here.

As an example, let’s say you were judgmental or critical of someone. Now you shouldn’t be judgmental or critical and you want to confess it. If you were doing this towards a priest, does it increase the severity of the sin to the point that the “critical of whom” needs to be specifically mentioned? If it does and that that priest is actually your Confessor at the time, does it have to go even more specifically to say something like “I was critical of you”?

My thinking is that the answer is no to both, but I was curious what others thought.
Reply With Quote

first caveat, it is not always a sin to be judgemental and critical. If it were to the point of damaging gossip, detraction etc. it could be, so let the confessor be the judge of that. If it is material that the object of your judgment was a priest, mention that also, but not by his name. For instance, you badmouthed the pastor to other parish council members causing damage and fricition, that could very well be sinful, and it is material to the situation that it was the priest you were criticizing. I would certainly not go to the same priest if I could avoid it.

 

[Sirach2]

Hello, Newbie9,

When you reflect that your confession was made to God for your sins, as HE saw them and judges them, sometimes it is not prudent to go into details. But since the priest has Jesus’ power to forgive sins, he needs to have an idea of what the matter of your sin is, so he can judge it properly as to whether or not he may absolve it.

In your case, it is an absolvable sin, being culpable only as God alone views it with regard to its severity; i.e., mortal or venial. Providing you were truly repentent and wanted God’s forgiveness, your confession was valid, even without naming the clergy you judged harshly.

Another consideration is whether or not you were fully aware of being judgmental and did nothing to curb your thoughts, tongue, gossip, whatever, and the length of time you willfully entertained it. For instance, if you told someone that you were peeved that Father X was nasty to you or another and it ticked you off that he did such-and-so, the listener may not be swayed by your detraction whatsoever. This “gossip,” while detracting the reverence due him for his priesthood, is not grievous matter to make it a mortal sin.

OTOH, if you told numerous people that Father X misappropriated the parish funds or you saw him drunk at a local pub, etc., that veers into an area that becomes more serious. Do you see the difference?

In either case, when you confess, it is perfectly ok to say, "I was judgmental of another person and committed detraction against him.

I hope this helps you sort out your conscience. Many people have difficulty with this sin, and I think it is probably the most confessed of all since we are in a society where people will rub us the wrong way constantly. Pray for patience and draw the rose from the thorn by praying for those who are difficult to love.

God bless you!