Validity of Confession - Do I need to reconfess?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Colin_of_Mary
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Colin_of_Mary

Guest
Hello fellow Catholic brethren,
I made an account just to ask this question.
Back in August 2017, by the grace of God I returned to my Catholic Faith and decided it was time to confess my sins of roughly 4 years. I wrote a list of all my sins, confessed them but was so ashamed of one mortal sin that in an act of foolish pride, I willfully omitted the sin. I felt so guilty for not confessing the sin, I returned a few days later and told the priest that I willfully withheld this mortal sin. I confessed and received absolution. Just the other day I heard that if a mortal sin is withheld with full knowledge, that confession is invalid. I just asked my priest today and he said that I do not need to reconfess the sins from my first confession. Is this true? If possible, I would greatly appreciate quotes from the Catechism of Canon Law or any authoritative text if possible. Thanks!

Colin
JMJ
 
Trust your Confessor on this one. Some other people will argue this, but this is a judgment that can be made by the Confessor.

Any questions about this should be directed to your Confessor. He is able to do it that way. Remember, he went to school for this and has probably been dealing with Confessions for years.

Don’t second guess him based on what someone says on the internet. Your Confessor knew what he was doing. If he told you not to reconfess, then you should follow his instructions.
 
Thank you for the reply. I originally heard about this the other day when I was listening to a priests sermon on the Sensus Fidelium YouTube page. I asked another priest yesterday if I should reconfess these sins and he said yes. I trust the priest who told me that I’m good but the two priests contradicting each other has me questioning this.
 
Colin_of_Mary said:
Hello fellow Catholic brethren,
I made an account just to ask this question.
Back in August 2017, by the grace of God I returned to my Catholic Faith and decided it was time to confess my sins of roughly 4 years. I wrote a list of all my sins, confessed them but was so ashamed of one mortal sin that in an act of foolish pride, I willfully omitted the sin. I felt so guilty for not confessing the sin, I returned a few days later and told the priest that I willfully withheld this mortal sin. I confessed and received absolution. Just the other day I heard that if a mortal sin is withheld with full knowledge, that confession is invalid. I just asked my priest today and he said that I do not need to reconfess the sins from my first confession. Is this true? If possible, I would greatly appreciate quotes from the Catechism of Canon Law or any authoritative text if possible. Thanks!

Colin
JMJ
Click to expand...
Because it’s your first post, I will assume you are NOT scrupulous, and will answer with this assumption.

Taking what you wrote at face value, and assuming no other details were missed, unfortunately, Father is wrong. The willful omission of a mortal sin invalidates the entire confession, incurs the mortal sin of sacrilege and none of the other confessed mortal sins are remitted. You need to confess all of those again.

NEVER, EVER, withhold a mortal sin especially for something as lame as shame. The priest has heard everything and he cannot tell anyone.

Your course of action is to go back to confession and tell what you said here. Mention that you made a bad confession, withheld the sin of (whatever), and during that bad confession, you also confessed this-and-that mortal sin n. times. That takes care of everything.

Because you went and confessed the withheld sin without re-confessing the others from the bad confession, this makes the second confession also questionable at the least. Tell Father this and don’t be afraid to ask for his help. That’s what he’s there for. But get all those sins from the first confession out in the open, as well as the withheld sin, and you’re all good.
 
Colin_of_Mary said:
Thank you for the reply. I originally heard about this the other day when I was listening to a priests sermon on the Sensus Fidelium YouTube page. I asked another priest yesterday if I should reconfess these sins and he said yes. I trust the priest who told me that I’m good but the two priests contradicting each other has me questioning this.
Click to expand...
Best reference: Baltimore Catechism Q795-Q799 here.

http://www.baltimore-catechism.com/lesson19.htm

The sins from the bad confession need to be re-confessed.
 
With all due respect, the original Priest was not wrong. It is his call on how to handle the situation.

He already told the Priest what he did wrong and the Priest made a call that was his to make.
 
I would also probably err on the side of caution here, and in any case the other mortal sins would need to be remitted directly.

Although, I was thinking that since the OP seems to imply he was unaware those other mortal sins that he initially confessed were not forgiven in that confession, they would be absolved when he confessed to withholding the sin the next time (i.e. it would still be a good confession).

By which I mean if he genuinely did not know they needed to be re-confessed and would have confessed them had he known, wouldn’t they be forgiven in the second confession?

Again, in any case they still do need to be directly remitted in a valid confession, but it would be a difference of ASAP vs. at the next regular confession.
 
Last edited:
Canvas said:
With all due respect, the original Priest was not wrong. It is his call on how to handle the situation.

He already told the Priest what he did wrong and the Priest made a call that was his to make.
Click to expand...
No. Very, very, VERY strongly disagree.

If it were our friend ZX asking this, I would be singing a very different tune. But for the first-timer, I will assume a normal conscience, and with this assumption, I have no issue pointing out that a priest is wrong. Even dangerously so.
 
Last edited:
Arwing said:
I would also err on the side of caution here, and in any case the other mortal sins would need to be remitted directly.

Although, I was thinking that since the OP seems to imply he was unaware those other mortal sins that he initially confessed were not forgiven in that confession, they would be absolved when he confessed to withholding the sin the next time (i.e. it would still be a good confession).

By which I mean if he genuinely did not know they needed to be re-confessed and would have confessed them had he known, wouldn’t they be forgiven in the second confession?

Again, in any case they still do need to be directly remitted in a valid confession, but it would be a difference of ASAP vs. at the next regular confession. To play it safe though I would go with the former and not receive Communion until confession has been made.
Click to expand...
Yes, the argument can be made that they would have been forgiven in the second confession, but not directly remitted. Which is why a third confession is necessary with these sins mentioned. But in the meantime, he would be worthy to receive Communion after the second confession, and as you said, next regular confession, not ASAP.
 
Last edited:
Also, I need to be clear. If you’ve made more confessions in good faith since your second confession, this does NOT result in a chain reaction or vicious cycle. Only the first confession was bad. Subsequent confessions after the second one done in good faith are valid, for as long as you’ve not omitted any further mortal sin. You only need to re-confess the sin you omitted and the sins that were not forgiven during the bad confession.
 
Last edited:
Don Ruggero, a Priest that used to post here and taught theology said this when members were questioning a Confessors judgment:

Laity in this forum seem to have a recurring problem about the nature of the sacrament of penance and their connection to it

As a priest, I am the one in control of this sacrament’s celebration when I celebrate it – not the lay person receiving it – because of the mandate of my bishop and the faculties I receive from the Church, through him.
  • I decide if it is appropriate to celebrate the sacrament, guided by the norm of law and by sacramental theology as well as the pastoral need.
  • I decide the penance.
  • I decide whether the person can be absolved or if absolution needs to be deferred, again according to law and the theology of the sacrament.
The confessor told the penitent to cease something he was doing in his confession. I think I can surmise why…but it does not matter. The confessor’s judgement, as the celebrant of this sacrament, means the penitent was correct to comply with the confessor’s instructions and directive.

There is no need for this matter to be dissected by a subsequent confessor since the issues were resolved by the confessor’s judgement and his absolution.
 
Last edited:
Big help here thanks a lot. I’m defintely gonna trust the Baltimore Catechism on this one. Couldn’t even find anything on this on the Vatican’s new Catechism. Urgg.
To clarify.
Am I in a state of mortal sin or grace?
Should I get to confession ASAP or next available confession?
Should I reconfess the original confession and the sin omitted?
 
Canvas said:
There is no need for this matter to be dissected by a subsequent confessor since the issues were resolved by the confessor’s judgement and his absolution.
Click to expand...
This is how I also understand it, despite the fact that @porthos11 is also correct in that deliberately withholding a sin during confession invalidates the entire confession.

Consider this: the actual enumeration of sins is not strictly speaking required for the validity of the Sacrament. Theoretically a penitent could go to a confessor and express contrition for a generic “all the evil I’ve done” without mentioning a single mortal sin by name, and should the confessor be satisfied by that contrition he can grant absolution and the penitent would be unconditionally absolved. From here it’s not that large of a leap for a penitent to say “Father, during my last confession two days ago which was my first one in months and months away from the Faith I deliberately withheld a sin. That sin was X, and I did it Y number of times. For this and all the other sins I mentioned in that last confession I ask pardon, penance, and absolution.” The confessor could just as validly choose to absolve the penitent despite not hearing those same prior sins repeated.
 
Exactly. The Priest who heard the Confessions first made a judgment that he is allowed to make when acting In Persona Christi, in the Confessional. You should always do what the Confessor tells you.

This is not an unusual situation. And what the Priest did was not unusual at all in the situation described.
 
Last edited:
Hm. Also a very good point. I came back to confession and told him I omitted a sin, confessed the sin and he gave me absolution. I just spoke with him 2 hours ago and he said I’m fine. I do want to trust him because he is a holy man and he brought me back to the Faith, but the Baltimore Catechism says differently, I would say. Is this up to his personal judgment?
 
Fr Ruggero held opinions that were not always in confirmity with proper Catechesis and I had no qualms disagreeing with him even if he is a priest. A lot of nonsense comes from priests which is why knowledgeable laity, which he decries, are absolutely necessary these days. It is essential to recognize when a priest is in error.

Fr. Ruggero looked down on even knowledgeable laity and kept invoking his credentials often as a club to beat non clerical members here. But many times he too was wrong.

The OP confessor was in error assuming the OP left out no material detail in his post.

Confession must be integral and remembered mortal sins must be directly remitted by the Keys. This is basic Catholic teaching.
 
I guess it boils down to whether it’s up to his personal judgement (possibly a lack of catechesis) or whether I should follow the Baltimore Catechism. In which case I would rather play it safe and follow the rules that have been declared by Fathers gone before us.
 
Colin_of_Mary said:
Hm. Also a very good point. I came back to confession and told him I omitted a sin, confessed the sin and he gave me absolution. I just spoke with him 2 hours ago and he said I’m fine. I do want to trust him because he is a holy man and he brought me back to the Faith, but the Baltimore Catechism says differently, I would say. Is this up to his personal judgment?
Click to expand...
You still need to confess the other sins from the first confession. Just do it when you get the chance. You already have been given the authoritative teaching. Unless there is some detail you’re not telling us.
 
Nope, not hiding anything. And with all due respect, I trust the Baltimore Catechism more. I just want to clarify: am I in a state of mortal sin?
 
Q. 798. What must he do who has willfully concealed a mortal sin in Confession?

A. He who has willfully concealed a mortal sin in Confession must not only confess it, but must also repeat all the sins he has committed since his last worthy Confession.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top