First confession- is this OK?

[brad90956]

Originally Posted by babochka View Post
Many years ago, I returned to the sacrament of Confession after about 10 years away. It was my first confession since my mid-teens, and I had a lot to confess. I had such a difficult time and there were more tears than words coming from me. The priest was kind and patient, but I definitely did not confess my sins in the detail that would generally be considered necessary. Some I did not confess at all, though I intended to. At one point, as I could not stop crying. The priest stopped me and told me that my tears were sufficient and gave me absolution. I continued from that point with regular confession, never looking back, until I came upon CAF. Imagine when I learned that my returning confession had been insufficient! Upon hearing that it was necessary to confess all of those long-put-in-my-past mortal sins, I made an appointment for confession. I explained the situation to him and he assured me that I did NOT need to bring those sins up at that point, but told me that I was welcome to confess them if I desired it. He likened my confession at that time to the story of the Prodigal Son - the son is coming to his father with a practiced narrative, “Father, I have sinned against you and against God”, but his father cuts him off and doesn’t allow the script. My regular confessor at the time was a priest of Opus Dei; he was certainly not someone to take the sacrament lightly or give advice that would put one’s soul in jeopardy. I have peace, and since that time I have learned to take what I read on Catholic Answers with a grain of salt. If I am in doubt, I simply ask a trusted priest, preferably one that I know personally.

Thank you for this post. I was in a very similar situation a couple years ago. It always bothered me that I did not confess correctly. I won’t go into details but I did do a through examination of my conscience and was completely open and honest with my priest about my sins.

Your post puts me at ease and at peace. I know now (but not at the time of that confession) that God was with me in that confessional. He knew what was in my heart. He knew of the preparation that I made in examining my conscience. He knew I did the very best that I could with the knowledge that I had at the time.

I know I was forgiven of all my sins…and it was a wonderful feeling. A feeling I get to experience every time I go to confession because I know He loves me and wants what is best for me.

Thanks again.

 

[Bookcat]

It always bothered me that I did not confess correctly. I won’t go into details but I did do a through examination of my conscience and was completely open and honest with my priest about my sins… He knew I did the very best that I could with the knowledge that I had at the time.

I know I was forgiven of all my sins…and it was a wonderful feeling.

Yes one can make a good confession according to what one examined at the time and later realize one forgot a mortal sin. If that happens - oh I forgot such and such and it was yes a mortal sin - in that case – one simply is to mention it in the next confession.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Yes! We must have confidence in our priests, that they know how to administer the sacraments, that they seek the good of our souls. If we find a particular confession to be less than satisfying, we can always try another confessor next time and seek his advice. I just hate to see our confidence in priests undermined by black-and-white thinking that cannot take into account individual circumstances, yet purports to give advice to individuals.

This is a very critical point. The priest, in hearing confessions, is drawing on his background in moral theology, his knowledge vis-a-vis the sacrament of penance from sacramental theology and is guided by the principles of pastoral theology in the application of norms to particular cases.

This is disturbing to me: A priest in good standing who has years of experience, education, and training and multiple degrees has given the answer from the standpoint of the Church, yet people seem to be ignoring what he says. Why is this?

Listen to the priest. He is qualified to answer. Questions like this require a priest, not a group of anonymous laypeople.

As a priest, I would say: Thank you.

I have been a confessor for many years. I have, over the years, had occasions with various penitents to resolve a previous confession with another confessor. When I have concluded that the confessor made an error, it was normally not in the area of penances imposed, which I had to commute…or, frankly, when he exceeded what the law actually demands.

From my perspective and experience, it is absurd for anyone who is not a priest to set themselves up as a self-appointed judge of the orthodoxy of priests, least of all with regard to the sacrament of penance. It is presumptuous in the extreme. That question lies with the bishop of the diocese or with the Holy See.

 

[brad90956]

Yes one can make a good confession according to what one examined at the time and later realize one forgot a mortal sin. If that happens - oh I forgot such and such and it was yes a mortal sin - in that case – one simply is to mention it in the next confession.

Yes. And I have done that before. I didn’t go back and intentionally rehash the past, it just popped into my head from out of nowhere so I confessed it at my next confession.

 

[Bookcat]

Yes. And I have done that before. I didn’t go back and intentionally rehash the past, it just popped into my head from out of nowhere so I confessed it at my next confession.

Ya it not about “intentionally rehashing the past” in terms of mortal sins that have all been repented of and all *already *confessed and absolved.

But if say Bob makes returns to the Church after some years and goes to confession - confession and it was a good confession - but later he realizes that he did not examine about such and such commandment - and that he mistakenly omitted mortal sins x, y and z. Well is he to just say - “oh I do not need to confess those”?-- he* is* to confess them. Bob is not scrupulous - he is not trying to re-confess things out of some misguided fear or feeling…but he just realizes that they were not confessed and were mortal. So he confesses them (as he is obliged to).