Instructed by priest to with-hold sins during confession

  • Thread starter Thread starter Sir_Knight
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I agree with Easter Joy. Wrong place to get personal spiritual advice unless we have a
well educated Priest on board who is willng to commit to giving that kind of advice on the
internet. Although, I don`t see why not. The Holy Father stated we must make greater use
of the new tools we have available to us. There is a Dominican Priest on the home page
I would ask him. Again it is personal and gose directly to what is in your heart and only
you and God know that. We are after all human beings and none of us are perfect and you did
the best you could under the circumstances, I believe you are forgiven and I believe you
can recieve till the next opportunity comes up to go to confession at which time you can
put your mind at ease. Peace be to your heart.:knight2::knight1:
 
I was appaalled by your email.
It comprises two equally essential elements: on the one hand, the acts of man who undegoes conversion through the action of the HS; namely., contrition,confession, and satisfaction; on the other hand, God’s intervention of the CHurch.

All mortal sins which penitents after a diligent self-examination are conscious must be recounted by them in confession, even if they are the most secret and have been committed against the precepts of the Decalogue.

I would say your confession is invalid and illicit.

Anyone who is aware of having committed mortal sins must not receive Holy Communion.

Your confessions was invalid and illicit. If this priest told you to with-hold your sins and you go to communion, you are committing a sacreligious act; which simploy means that by receiving Communion in the state of sin, is you are not really receiving Christ.

I feel very sorry for you because this priest knows what to do in Confesson.

I definetly would see a priest because you could have sins and by receiving communion, they become sacreligious.

Please see a priest.

God love you,

–Jim Roberts
 
Jim_Roberts said:
I was appaalled by your email.
Click to expand...
What e-mail?
Jim_Roberts said:
It comprises two equally essential elements: on the one hand, the acts of man who undegoes conversion through the action of the HS; namely., contrition,confession, and satisfaction; on the other hand, God’s intervention of the CHurch.

All mortal sins which penitents after a diligent self-examination are conscious must be recounted by them in confession, even if they are the most secret and have been committed against the precepts of the Decalogue.

I would say your confession is invalid and illicit.

Anyone who is aware of having committed mortal sins must not receive Holy Communion.

Your confessions was invalid and illicit. If this priest told you to with-hold your sins and you go to communion, you are committing a sacreligious act; which simploy means that by receiving Communion in the state of sin, is you are not really receiving Christ.

I feel very sorry for you because this priest knows what to do in Confesson.

I definetly would see a priest because you could have sins and by receiving communion, they become sacreligious.

Please see a priest.

God love you,

–Jim Roberts
Click to expand...
Let me see if I understand this. Jesus promised that Church that whose ever sins they forgive, will be forgiven. So even though the priest said that he absolved me of ALL of my sins, he really didn’t?
 
Sir_Knight said:
He wasn’t “counseling” me at all. He didn’t even know who I was because I was behind the screen and before I even spoke, he said that he was short staffed and in order to get in as many people as he could before morning mass, I was to confess only 1 or 2 sins. I “trusted” his instructions and intentionally withheld a couple of sins which I believe might have been mortal.

Since I intentionally withheld them, does that invalidate the confession or is it valid because it was done at the instruction of the priest?
Click to expand...
It was a valid confession. Just mention those sins specifically next time.If it is a regular occurrence that confession is rushed then either schedule an appointment or go elsewhere.
 
Sir_Knight said:
He wasn’t “counseling” me at all. He didn’t even know who I was because I was behind the screen and before I even spoke, he said that he was short staffed and in order to get in as many people as he could before morning mass, I was to confess only 1 or 2 sins. I “trusted” his instructions and intentionally withheld a couple of sins which I believe might have been mortal.

Since I intentionally withheld them, does that invalidate the confession or is it valid because it was done at the instruction of the priest?
Click to expand...
This is serious, and you should write to the Bishop about it. Or tell another (faithful) priest in confession, and ask him what you should do about it.
 
Sir_Knight said:
He wasn’t “counseling” me at all. He didn’t even know who I was because I was behind the screen and before I even spoke, he said that he was short staffed and in order to get in as many people as he could before morning mass, I was to confess only 1 or 2 sins. I “trusted” his instructions and intentionally withheld a couple of sins which I believe might have been mortal.

Since I intentionally withheld them, does that invalidate the confession or is it valid because it was done at the instruction of the priest?
Click to expand...
I asume that when the priest told you to confess only one or two sins, he perhaps thought that you only had venial sins to confess. He was just trying to give you a hint to keep it short. All mortal sins must be confessed but it not necessary to confess all venial sins. It takes very little time to mention several sins if one is prepared for what they are going to say and you get to the point without beating around the bush and making excuses. I’m sure that the priest would not be upset that you confessed what you believed to be more than two mortal sins. One should always confess their most serious sins first. It would not have been wise to confess two venial sins and withhold the mortal sins after the priest asked you to limit how many sins you confess. I am just trying to offer my thoughts and share some advice that I have learned. I am not making any judgements on what you did or what you understood at the time.
 
I am not a canon lawyer.

I would love to hear the opinion of a canon lawyer, or priest, on this one.

Here is a snippet from canon law:
Can. 978 §1 In hearing confessions the priest is to remember that he is at once both judge and healer, and that he is constituted by God as a minister of both divine justice and divine mercy, so that he may contribute to the honor of God and the salvation of souls.

I’m reading a book called “The Sacraments and Their Celebration” by Nicholas Halligan, OP. It has two “Nihil Obstat” and two “Imprimatur.” The section on penance talks about the priest as judge and healer, and says that as a judge, the priest must know and understand the penitent’s case, and question those things necessary to form a prudent judgement. He has to make a choice between absolving you, defering absolution, or denying absolution.

Also, there are several sins from which a priest who is not your ordinary cannot absolve you. There are also sins that only the Apostolic See can absolve.

From this, I think that the priest has to understand your sin before he can absolve you. I think that the only thing that obviates this is if you honestly forget to confess a sin, are repentant, and confess that sin ASAP in sacramental confession.

If this were me, I would go to confession again ASAP, and certainly before receiving Holy Communion. That’s my opinion only. It’s also my opinion that you will sleep much easier if you do this!
 
GwenL said:
I am not a canon lawyer.

I would love to hear the opinion of a canon lawyer, or priest, on this one.

Here is a snippet from canon law:
Can. 978 §1 In hearing confessions the priest is to remember that he is at once both judge and healer, and that he is constituted by God as a minister of both divine justice and divine mercy, so that he may contribute to the honor of God and the salvation of souls.

I’m reading a book called “The Sacraments and Their Celebration” by Nicholas Halligan, OP. It has two “Nihil Obstat” and two “Imprimatur.” The section on penance talks about the priest as judge and healer, and says that as a judge, the priest must know and understand the penitent’s case, and question those things necessary to form a prudent judgement. He has to make a choice between absolving you, defering absolution, or denying absolution.

Also, there are several sins from which a priest who is not your ordinary cannot absolve you. There are also sins that only the Apostolic See can absolve.

From this, I think that the priest has to understand your sin before he can absolve you. I think that the only thing that obviates this is if you honestly forget to confess a sin, are repentant, and confess that sin ASAP in sacramental confession.

If this were me, I would go to confession again ASAP, and certainly before receiving Holy Communion. That’s my opinion only. It’s also my opinion that you will sleep much easier if you do this!
Click to expand...
I am studying canon law right now, so far everything you have said is in concert with canon law. Kudos.

And I would have to agree with the advice given above. Go to Confession and confess the sins that you believe are to be mortal. The peace that will come makes it worth it.

God bless.
 
Since we are going to turn a man`s sincere and well intentioned question into a canon law
discussion and some find themselves appalled that a humble well meaning man would dare to ask such a question in public,(sort of reminds me of the scribes and pharisees) allow me
to quote canon code 1983 CIC 916 which pretty much follows the advice given here.

" A person who is concious of grave sin is not to celebrate Mass or recieve the body
of the Lord without previous sacramental confession unless there is grave reason
and there is no oppotunity to confess; in this case the person is to remember the
obligation to make an act of perfect contrition which includes the resolution of confessing
as soon as possible."

I believe Sir Knight did`nt have the opportunity, which he stated and he made a perfect act of
contrition before he left the confessional and he has the resolution to confess his sins as
soon as possible. So no; he did not commit another sin by going to communion and God
help us for our lack of charity and mercy.
 
tjt3 said:
Since we are going to turn a man`s sincere and well intentioned question into a canon law
discussion and some find themselves appalled that a humble well meaning man would dare to ask such a question in public,(sort of reminds me of the scribes and pharisees) allow me
to quote canon code 1983 CIC 916 which pretty much follows the advice given here.

" A person who is concious of grave sin is not to celebrate Mass or recieve the body
of the Lord without previous sacramental confession unless there is grave reason
and there is no oppotunity to confess; in this case the person is to remember the
obligation to make an act of perfect contrition which includes the resolution of confessing
as soon as possible."

I believe Sir Knight did`nt have the opportunity, which he stated and he made a perfect act of
contrition before he left the confessional and he has the resolution to confess his sins as
soon as possible. So no; he did not commit another sin by going to communion and God
help us for our lack of charity and mercy.
Click to expand...
If you are implying that he did not have the opportunity to confess, I believe you are mistaken. Not having the opportunity to confess generally means that there is no priest available to hear confessions. The priest was available and the penitent had the opportunity to confess all of his mortal sins, no matter how many there were.
 
tjt3 said:
Since we are going to turn a man`s sincere and well intentioned question into a canon law
discussion and some find themselves appalled that a humble well meaning man would dare to ask such a question in public,(sort of reminds me of the scribes and pharisees) …

So no; he did not commit another sin by going to communion and God
help us for our lack of charity and mercy.
Click to expand...
Wow. You seem to be quite offended and angry.

Sir Knight posted a problem troubling him greatly. He got opinions. He got other peoples’ experiences. I quoted canon law. Canon law guides the ministers of the Church in this matter. Is there something else I should have quoted? Perhaps the New York Times?

What did you expect on an internet forum, other than opinions, experiences, and references to the teachings and laws guiding this particular case?

Read more carefully, please. The poster who was “appalled” was clearly upset at the situation that Sir Knight found himself in, not at Sir Knight himself.

You are very quick to attack other people (calling them “scribes and Pharisees” and accusing others of lack of charity and mercy) rather than attacking arguments and opinions.

Please reread my final opinion. You might care to comment on the opinion, without accusing me personally of being a scribe, Pharisee, or without charity or mercy.
 
I am not angry or offended and I am certainly not attacking anyone and I am definetly not going to argue with a canon lawyer. If I came off that way I apologize. I also am opinionated
and I simply felt very bad for the man he seems to tormented by his situation and I believe
we have to be very careful when we start handing out spiritual advice to others on such a personal nature. I realize he asked. I believe we shouldnt crush the spirit by the law and thats all I meant by the scribes and pharisees remarks. By the way Gwen, talk about angry and offended? Pax
 
tjt3 said:
I am not angry or offended and I am certainly not attacking anyone and I am definetly not going to argue with a canon lawyer. If I came off that way I apologize. I also am opinionated
and I simply felt very bad for the man he seems to tormented by his situation and I believe
we have to be very careful when we start handing out spiritual advice to others on such a personal nature. I realize he asked. I believe we shouldnt crush the spirit by the law and thats all I meant by the scribes and pharisees remarks. By the way Gwen, talk about angry and offended? Pax
Click to expand...
And you started off so well…
 
zab said:
If you are implying that he did not have the opportunity to confess, I believe you are mistaken. Not having the opportunity to confess generally means that there is no priest available to hear confessions. The priest was available and the penitent had the opportunity to confess all of his mortal sins, no matter how many there were.
Click to expand...
We will have to let Sir Knight clarify that for us. As I read it, he said he was told to rush
and the priest said he did`nt want to hear ‘all the sins.’ The way he explained it,‘he was
told to withhold,’ which would eliminate the opportunity. At least in my courtroom. He
was in other words accomodating his confessor. Pax
 
tjt3 said:
We will have to let Sir Knight clarify that for us. As I read it, he said he was told to rush
and the priest said he did`nt want to hear ‘all the sins.’ The way he explained it,‘he was
told to withhold,’ which would eliminate the opportunity. At least in my courtroom. He
was in other words accomodating his confessor. Pax
Click to expand...
I do not need Sir Knight to clarify anything for me. It’s not my courtroom.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top