Your case is different as you have scrupulous tendencies. I cannot yet make that assumption of the OP So he must be advised as one with a normal conscience.
- Status
That we cannot answer. Your first confession was definitely bad. So you had your original bunch of sins, plus the sin you omitted, plus the sacrilege incurred.
Then you went to your second confession to mention the omitted sin, but at the time you did not know you had to reconfess everything. This probably places those in the same category as “forgotten” sins. Forgiven, but not yet remitted. That second confession would be valid.
Now between that and now, perhaps you have made subsequent good confessions. Those are all good, and likely do not need to be reconfessed.
But now that you know you still have some sins to confess, just mention them the next time you go to Confession. Now that you’re conscious of them, they have to be confessed integrally (i.e. kind and number). It’s not because they revive (they would have been forgiven in the second confession) but the Church requires that they be directly remitted (i.e. mentioned and absolved).
So it’s probably unlikely that you’re in mortal sin, if my description here is correct. But I don’t know what your sequence of Confessions have been since August 2017.
Last edited:
A
AlbertDerGrosse
Guest
I tend to agree with you on Fr. Ruggero. He was quick to lord his expertise and his official position as a Roman Rite priest over the other posters of CAF, and sometimes he was downright rude, but that doesn’t make him wrong.
Insisting that a penitent who deliberately withheld a sin in confession must re-confess every single sin he mentioned before (in number and kind) even if the current confessor who is in the position to remediate this entire issue by a fresh confession insists that he will go ahead and grant absolution without such details, seems to me, to add another element to Sacramental validity that the Church does not require.
Valid confessions are those that involve a penitent who demonstrates remorse/contrition for his sins, who desires the Sacrament as the Church understands it, and a priest with the competent faculties to hear that penitent’s confession uttering the words of absolution. That’s it. Everything else (including enumeration of sins) is a discipline of the Church that is not strictly speaking necessary for the Sacrament. If a priest with proper faculties can hear my simple confession “I’m so sorry for the evil life I’ve lived” on my deathbed and grant me valid absolution, why couldn’t he do so after my equally simple confession “I’m so sorry for lying in the confessional earlier. I’m so sorry for the evil life I’ve lived”?
Insisting that a penitent who deliberately withheld a sin in confession must re-confess every single sin he mentioned before (in number and kind) even if the current confessor who is in the position to remediate this entire issue by a fresh confession insists that he will go ahead and grant absolution without such details, seems to me, to add another element to Sacramental validity that the Church does not require.
Valid confessions are those that involve a penitent who demonstrates remorse/contrition for his sins, who desires the Sacrament as the Church understands it, and a priest with the competent faculties to hear that penitent’s confession uttering the words of absolution. That’s it. Everything else (including enumeration of sins) is a discipline of the Church that is not strictly speaking necessary for the Sacrament. If a priest with proper faculties can hear my simple confession “I’m so sorry for the evil life I’ve lived” on my deathbed and grant me valid absolution, why couldn’t he do so after my equally simple confession “I’m so sorry for lying in the confessional earlier. I’m so sorry for the evil life I’ve lived”?
C
Canvas
Guest
It wasn’t just scrupulosity. This is very common, and an accepted practice. Some Priests do things differently, but they are allowed to decide what measures needed to be taken to correct the problem.
I asked about the reasoning behind it, and the Priest was very good at explaining this. Fr. Ruggero was not wrong. He might have been arrogant, but he is right that the Confessor can decide what needs to be confessed.
I went to multiple confessions with multiple Priests and was never told to re-confess. I got so nervous over this I went into the confessional with one Priest determined to reconfess and he would not let me.
I asked about the reasoning behind it, and the Priest was very good at explaining this. Fr. Ruggero was not wrong. He might have been arrogant, but he is right that the Confessor can decide what needs to be confessed.
I went to multiple confessions with multiple Priests and was never told to re-confess. I got so nervous over this I went into the confessional with one Priest determined to reconfess and he would not let me.
C
Canvas
Guest
You are absolutely right. Sacramental theology and training is much more in depth than a line in the Baltimore Catechism.
Last edited:
The Church is clear: mortal sins must be confessed integrally. This means, a blanket “I’m sorry for all my sins” do not cut it. Ordinarily (that’s a key word). That’s also why forgotten sins, while forgiven but subsequently remembered, must be confessed. Integral means kind and number and any circumstances that change the species of the sin.
This is the Catechism and has been the Church’s perennial teaching. Therefore on this basis, we CAN and sometimes MUST call out priests as wrong. Not necessarily to their face, but in cases like these, to fellow laity.
I’m really sorry to say this, but in this day and age, I cannot trust priests merely because they are priests. We have priests like Fr. Mitch Pacwa, and we have priests like Fr. James Martin and we have priests like Fr. Richard McBrien. Unfortunately, and I wish it wasn’t so, but these days, priests have to earn my trust, just like everybody else. That’s why Fr. Ruggero’s favourite catch phrase “As a priest…and professor…” did not fly with me.
Now, I said: ordinarily. Deathbed is completely different. The Church has in fact accounted for this in her laws. But we’re not talking about a person in danger of death, so the ordinary processes hold here.
Last edited:
C
Canvas
Guest
But although some Priests are wrong, Fr. Ruggero was right. I have talked to Priests about this in real life.
I believe you, and assume your priest’s judgement was the correct one.
I cannot assume the same for the OP. His situation appears completely out of line and for HIM, re-confession is necessary.
A
AlbertDerGrosse
Guest
I get the feeling that you’ve indirectly agreed with me about validity, so now we just need to determine what’s “Ordinary”. I’d assume that the actual confessor, the very person with the faculty to do the absolving is the person best equipped with making that determination.
Just to be clear, you agree that strictly speaking enumeration of sins is not necessary for a valid confession, yes?
Last edited:
C
Canvas
Guest
Since I am not the Confessor nor the Penitent, I will leave it up to them how to handle the issue.
I have to get to bed.
Anyway, nice intellectual discussion, btw.
I have to get to bed.
Anyway, nice intellectual discussion, btw.
A
AlbertDerGrosse
Guest
By the way, I’ve actually been in this exact same predicament, also with one priest telling me I’m good and another telling me I should re-confess sins.
I, too, spent a long time away from the Church a couple years after my conversion. My first confession back was terrifying! It was also incredibly daunting. “How many times did I commit that sin? Was it 28 times or 62 times? I don’t freaking know!” I got incredibly lucky and stepped into the confessional of a good priest who stopped me and broke it down for me commandment by commandment. His very first question to me was: “I take it you’ve violated all 10 of them except for murder, right?” Yup, padre! We spent the next 15 minutes going over each commandment but not spending too much time fleshing out my individual sins. When we got to the issue of fornication I was too embarrassed to admit that there were homosexual things I needed to confess. He assumed I was a straight man… and I let him carry on with that assumption without correcting him. Technically I withheld details of mortal sin that mitigated (or exacerbated) my culpability.
I brought this to his attention during my next confession the following week. I told him I wasn’t 100% truthful with my last confession and he assured me all’s well and all’s forgiven. I, too, brought up the requirement that penitents repeat the sins confessed in the prior invalid confession and his response was something along the lines of “I don’t need to hear them again to know that you’re contrite.”. He did grill me hardcore to make sure there wasn’t anything else about that last confession I withheld, but this otherwise very orthodox priest didn’t want to hear the litany of my awful deeds all over again.
I, too, was concerned about validity even though this priest assured me all’s well. I ended up confessing them all over again to another priest who took more to @porthos11 's sensibilities. With all this said, I’d reiterate that I honestly do not believe you need to re-confess all those sins after your second absolution. But since you’ve found a priest, in person, whom you’ve presumably given the full story to and agrees with you that you ought to re-confess it all, why not hedge your bets and do so?
I, too, spent a long time away from the Church a couple years after my conversion. My first confession back was terrifying! It was also incredibly daunting. “How many times did I commit that sin? Was it 28 times or 62 times? I don’t freaking know!” I got incredibly lucky and stepped into the confessional of a good priest who stopped me and broke it down for me commandment by commandment. His very first question to me was: “I take it you’ve violated all 10 of them except for murder, right?” Yup, padre! We spent the next 15 minutes going over each commandment but not spending too much time fleshing out my individual sins. When we got to the issue of fornication I was too embarrassed to admit that there were homosexual things I needed to confess. He assumed I was a straight man… and I let him carry on with that assumption without correcting him. Technically I withheld details of mortal sin that mitigated (or exacerbated) my culpability.
I brought this to his attention during my next confession the following week. I told him I wasn’t 100% truthful with my last confession and he assured me all’s well and all’s forgiven. I, too, brought up the requirement that penitents repeat the sins confessed in the prior invalid confession and his response was something along the lines of “I don’t need to hear them again to know that you’re contrite.”. He did grill me hardcore to make sure there wasn’t anything else about that last confession I withheld, but this otherwise very orthodox priest didn’t want to hear the litany of my awful deeds all over again.
I, too, was concerned about validity even though this priest assured me all’s well. I ended up confessing them all over again to another priest who took more to @porthos11 's sensibilities. With all this said, I’d reiterate that I honestly do not believe you need to re-confess all those sins after your second absolution. But since you’ve found a priest, in person, whom you’ve presumably given the full story to and agrees with you that you ought to re-confess it all, why not hedge your bets and do so?
po18guy
Well-known member
To willfully omit a sin negates the entire confession. God will neither be deceived nor mocked. Mention this at your next confession - and soon. A suggestion: Our Lord advised that if someone demands you to go a mile with them, go two miles (Matthew 5:41). I apply this principle to my penance. I do twice what the Priest assigns. It is a good faith showing of a heart that is trying to be willing and submissive.
Ordinary means pretty much normal circumstances.
And yes i do mean mentioning the sins such that the kind and number are clear is necessary under ordinary circumstances. Extraordinary circumstances may include emergencies, disasters, or even extremely severe scrupulousity if the confessor so judges…
None of these apply to the o p so the law requiring integral confession stands.
And yes i do mean mentioning the sins such that the kind and number are clear is necessary under ordinary circumstances. Extraordinary circumstances may include emergencies, disasters, or even extremely severe scrupulousity if the confessor so judges…
None of these apply to the o p so the law requiring integral confession stands.
T
TheOldColonel
Guest
Test your confessor. He’s a priest.
A
AlbertDerGrosse
Guest
You seem to be dancing around my posts. Either enumeration of sins is strictly speaking necessary for validity or it isn’t. It doesn’t matter what’s ideal for certain circumstances; validity cannot be changed due to circumstance. Wheat bread and grape wine are necessary for the Sacrament of the Eucharist. Even danger of death does not mitigate this necessity. If there is no wheat bread and no grape wine there is no Sacrament. Period. Similarly, a contrite penitent and a priest with faculties (along with the words of absolution) are all that is necessary for the validity of the Sacrament of Reconciliation. We see this sufficiency in the very dispensations from standard discipline (i.e. what’s allowed in various grave circumstances). The bare minimum for the validity of a Sacrament cannot be dispensed with but anything else superfluous can be and by that very nature we can determine them to be superfluous.
The Church indeed allows for the valid absolution of sins in any case without explicit enumeration of those sins. It might not be normative, it might not be ideal, but it’s valid.
The Church indeed allows for the valid absolution of sins in any case without explicit enumeration of those sins. It might not be normative, it might not be ideal, but it’s valid.
Fine. We’ll turn to the law, and put to rest this notion.
There’s that word “ordinary” again. And further, this law covers Confession. It is clear that confession must be integral. Integral means that every mortal sin of which the penitent is aware must be enumerated in kind and number, and that is to include any circumstances that change the species or gravity of the sin. And to ensure you know this definition of “integral” is not of my own making, here’s a canon lawyer right here. Google the term “integral confession” and you will find the same definition all over the place. http://canonlawmadeeasy.com/2007/12/13/confession-and-general-absolution/
It must be individual. In other words, outside of what’s permitted by law (war, disaster, crashing plane, sinking ship), general absolution is not permitted. And then, only with the intent to go for an individual, integral confession if one survives the extraordinary circumstance.
Not even mere danger of death excuses the requirement for integral, individual confession, unless this danger now constitutes a physical or moral impossibility. The person can’t speak, death is coming in minutes (i.e. “imminent danger of death”), there is no time for the full ritual. In which case, it IS sufficient for the priest to obtain an indication of repentance before absolving. But if this danger of death is, say, due to illness, and death is foreseen, but is still a day or two away, and the penitent is conscious the ordinary law still remains and the penitent is still required to enumerate his mortal sins. This is the case because no one is bound to the impossible, and the law states as much. That’s why the law explicitly mentions physical or moral impossibility. Outside of the impossibility, canon 960 imposes the requirement of integral confession.
Your analogy with regards to the Eucharist is faulty because unlike the Eucharist, whose validity is determined only by form, matter, minister, and intent. If a suspended priest says Mass, he does so illicitly, but validly. Confession also requires the power of governance because it is a juridic act of the Church. That is to say, Church law, and not merely divine law, also is a factor in whether Confession is valid. Canon 960 makes integral confession a requirement.
So yes, unless you are on a crashing plane or choking in your own blood and will be dead in five minutes, a full enumeration of any unconfessed mortal sins is required. This is the law of the Church. And on the catechetical side, it is clear over and over, from the Baltimore Catechism onward, that intentionally concealing a mortal sin invalidates the entire confession and incurs an additional sin of sacrilege.
Last edited:
E
exnihilo
Guest
Based on my understanding from the Baltimore Catechism you need to confess all your mortal sins from your last good confession. I think that includes all the sins after your confession where you omitted a mortal sin. You also need to include confessing to withholding a mortal sin.
What I would do is schedule a time to do a general confession. I’d confess all my mortal sins for my entire life. The reason I would is it will make you more humble. If pride led you to omit a mortal sin then you need humiliation, the good kind.
What I would do is schedule a time to do a general confession. I’d confess all my mortal sins for my entire life. The reason I would is it will make you more humble. If pride led you to omit a mortal sin then you need humiliation, the good kind.
M
Mtdobbs
Guest
By the grace of God you have returned! Beautiful! You omitted a sin out of guilt or shame, no doubt. God understands that we can be afraid to approach Him, especially if it has been a while since we’ve gone to the sacrament of reconciliation. You had the humility to return to confess the sin you omitted! Again, beautiful. I would trust your priest and his discernment here. Try not to omit sins in the future and welcome back !
B
BridgetN
Guest
Catechism says that if one willfully conceals a mortal sin in confession, they must not only confess the sin, but must also repeat all the sins since their last worthy confession. Hard, but true.
Tis_Bearself
Patron
Persons who are not priests do not have training or expertise on this matter of personalized confession.
Moreover, posts such as this one you made foster a general distrust of the clergy which is not helpful to the Church at all.
I think this person should either trust his priest, or if he is really bothered he should go to confession to a different priest, and tell this whole story, including the fact that he made an Internet post and got told by some member of the laity that the priest was “wrong” according to the Baltimore Catechism. Which, by the way, was replaced by the current catechisms in use.
- Status