For future reference: is this confession valid?

[marylg]

First off, I have plans to discuss my specific situation with a priest soon. For now, I’m just curious if others have experienced this/what their thoughts are on the subject.

I once attended a retreat at a Jesuit Retreat House. The retreat was beautiful I must say, but confession there confused me very much. The priest there instructed us all to pray about the one thing that causes us to sin, confess that one thing only, and receive absolution. I had doubts about doing this as I thought this would make my confession incomplete since it would not explicitly name all mortal sins. So - can this be done?

Unfortunately, I did confess this way and regretted it afterwards. The priest there was so kind and I cannot see him intentionally trying to mislead us, which is why I wonder about the validity. I would like to attend a retreat here again, but now have doubts because of this and because of all the stress it has caused me since that time.

 

[Edward_H]

Who knows what the Jesuits will do next.

His point was probably “root sin” focused and simplicity, minimizing the retreatants’ possible tendency to over-complicate matters and turn “a love affair with Christ” into a list…but it sounds sort of Jesuit wacky like.

Jesuits often talk about the root sin or dispostion…pride? vanity? sensuality?

That sort of thing.

 

[phil19034]

I general, you should not do this in the future. You should list all sins you remember. Though we are forgiven for sins we FORGET during absolution.

Perhaps the priest was trying to make the confession line move fast?

Anyway, my GUESS, is that you are absolved because you were following the priest’s instructions. However, talk to your priest, like you plan on doing.

God bless

 

[marylg]

Yes, that was his point. Sorry - didn’t quite know how to phrase that. It made sense, though it was the first time I was introduced to the concept and not how it had ever been explained to me before.

 

[Edward_H]

Then it’s not so bad.

One useful practice is to make one resolution in one area of your life…or a virtue…and then focus only on that, with evening examination (2 minutes).

God has a way of “multiplying the loaves”…so for instance I am working on patience these weeks…and I am not working on that long list of things that I also should be focusing on (!), but God has a way of drawing out more good in other areas, by my simply working with him on patience.

So improving in patience, helps me with order in my work, with cheerfulness, with generosity, etc.

God does the multiplying

 

[acanonlawyer]

A penitent should always be free to confess all mortal sins (and not be limited, beforehand, to one sin). Sometimes, of course, it’s not possible to confess everything, either due to forgetfulness or the priest needing to finish the confession, or some other reason.

I’d say that it is invalid only if your contrition was not sufficient. In other words, you purposefully/consciously did not confess mortal sins you had committed.

Dan

 

[marylg]

So it would then be invalid? I did purposefully not confess all mortal sins by solely following the instructions. I don’t think I didn’t have the contrition. One of the main reasons I went on this retreat was to reflect on my sins and prepare for a good confession. However, when he announced this is how we were to proceed, I proceeded as directed because confession was not an opportunity I felt comfortable missing at that time.

I have a feeling I’ll get conflicting opinions on this so maybe I should just consult my pastor. It’s tough though because there’s no way for me to know his advice is the “correct” advice if that makes sense so I didn’t know if there was an official teaching that would explain concretely the outcome (forgiven or not, etc.) of a similar experience.

 

[acanonlawyer]

Perhaps I should have used the word “freely.” My sense was that you wanted to make an “integral” confession but were unable to do so due to external circumstances. In that case, I wouldn’t say that the confession/absolution was invalid.

I don’t have the Catechism references handy but my response is based on what is said there about the confession of sins, which, in turn, is based on the Council of Trent.

Of course, the one who can provide a meaningful answer with authority is your own pastor/future confessor.

Dan

 

[Elf01]

Yes, we are forgiven of any venial sins that we might forget to confess, but not the mortal ones.

Incorrect. We would not be forgiven for intentionally omitting a mortal sin (the OP’s case being a possible exception) but you are forgiven if you genuinely forget.

While you do need to confess it in your next confession you don’t need to run to confession and may receive Holy Communion in the interim.

Provided that you did the penance afterward. If you didn’t do the penance, you were not even forgiven of the sin you confessed.

Completion of the penance is not usually required for forgiveness.

Therefore, you were indeed forgiven of the sin you confessed, but not other mortal sins, if any, that were not confessed.

The circumstances are unusual so I’m not sure, but the general understanding is intentional omitting of sins invalidates the confession (i.e. you are not forgiven, even of the sins you confessed and have committed another sin in addition to it).

 

[exnihilo]

So it would then be invalid? I did purposefully not confess all mortal sins by solely following the instructions. I don’t think I didn’t have the contrition. One of the main reasons I went on this retreat was to reflect on my sins and prepare for a good confession. However, when he announced this is how we were to proceed, I proceeded as directed because confession was not an opportunity I felt comfortable missing at that time.

It seems to me you’d want to talk to a priest. I think you probably know this but the only sins we have to confess all of are mortal sins. So it would only be an issue if you didn’t confess a mortal sin. A priest can sort this out for you.

 

[FrDavid96]

So it would then be invalid? I did purposefully not confess all mortal sins by solely following the instructions. I don’t think I didn’t have the contrition. One of the main reasons I went on this retreat was to reflect on my sins and prepare for a good confession. However, when he announced this is how we were to proceed, I proceeded as directed because confession was not an opportunity I felt comfortable missing at that time.

I have a feeling I’ll get conflicting opinions on this so maybe I should just consult my pastor. It’s tough though because there’s no way for me to know his advice is the “correct” advice if that makes sense so I didn’t know if there was an official teaching that would explain concretely the outcome (forgiven or not, etc.) of a similar experience.

Absolution is a juridic act of the Church.

It was not your fault that the priest acted wrongly (and indeed, the Church has made it clear that priests are forbidden to do what this priest did). You did not hold back any sins. Instead, the priest wrongly prevented you from confessing those sins which you tried to confess. You did your part. You are not held accountable for his failure to do his part.

As a juridic act of the Church, so long as the priest had faculties (presumed) and so long as he said at a minimum “I absolve you” (presumed) then you were absolved.

That part is done. Absolution happened.

Since you did not have the opportunity to mention certain mortal sins in that last confession, you should mention them in your next confession. That doesn’t invalidate the first absolution. It simply means that you should mention them the next time you confess.

 

[marylg]

I was not given a penance so I’m not sure what that means. I am not currently receiving communion until I go back to confession so that’s not an issue. I did however receive for some time after this experience which is why I was curious for future reference as I’m not sure if that incurs a new sin. Thanks for your help in the meantime.

 

[marylg]

Ok I think this resolves most of what I was looking for. Thanks for your help!