Is there a priest who can help w/this confession problem?

[fakename]

I am wondering to what degree an absolution is made invalid if the penitent intends to deceive a priest, with the further conditions that 1) the penitent doesn’t think such deception is wrong, 2)this deception isn’t lying 3) the deception is really just an omission of unnecessary details (but believed by the penitent to be deception). Does this deception damage the validity of the confession?

Thanks

 

[smichhertz]

If you are referring to deliberately omitting a venial sin, then its fine. Deliberately omitting a mortal sin would not only render the confession invalid, but would be a mortal sin in of itself.

Your question is a little vague, if that doesn’t answer it, could you clarify it a little?

 

[fakename]

If you are referring to deliberately omitting a venial sin, then its fine. Deliberately omitting a mortal sin would not only render the confession invalid, but would be a mortal sin in of itself.

Your question is a little vague, if that doesn’t answer it, could you clarify it a little?

That is to say, the guy omitted inessential stuff (so he didn’t omit a mortal sin, not the relevant circumstances nor nature of the sin). But he classes omission with deception and so intended to deceive. Is this intend a sin or capable of invalidating a confession?

 

[InternetWoman]

To summarize:

The penitent went with the intention of deceiving the priest.

The penitent believes the information withheld was intentional deceit.

So even if the actual information withheld is minor the INTENT is to deceived. Sounds serious to me. I’d go back and tell the ENTIRE truth, including the fact that information was deliberately withheld at the last confession.

 

[WorkerPriest]

I pressume that your intent is for a Roman Catholic priest to answer your question, so just to ensure I don’t confuse you, I am a Lutheran priest.

However, the principles are very similar with Holy Confession and Absolution in our communions. Both understand a necessity of contrition for sin to accompany the actual confession, before Absolution may be effectually given and received. If there is no real confession, nor contrition, there is reason to doubt whether one has really received absolution.

It’s the element of doubt that I would encourage such a person to alleviate. When the priest hears and speaks, he does so in the person and authority of Christ. Why attempt to deceive or evade Christ? He sends His priests to give gifts of immeasurable value, that are received in their fulness by faith. Let the penitent come without guile or purpose of evasion, and receive from Christ the gift He sends through His servant, the priest.

Peace be with you.

I am wondering to what degree an absolution is made invalid if the penitent intends to deceive a priest, with the further conditions that 1) the penitent doesn’t think such deception is wrong, 2)this deception isn’t lying 3) the deception is really just an omission of unnecessary details (but believed by the penitent to be deception). Does this deception damage the validity of the confession?

Thanks

 

[Carlan]

That is to say, the guy omitted inessential stuff (so he didn’t omit a mortal sin, not the relevant circumstances nor nature of the sin). But he classes omission with deception and so intended to deceive. Is this intend a sin or capable of invalidating a confession?

If you are confessing Mortal sin, as example-a specific homosexual act, that is what you state not the details, if you commit adultery that is what you say not the sordid details, if you commit murder or abortion, you simply say exactly that, no ifs or buts, If your confessor needs more he will ask you. Peace, Carlan