Was my absolution valid?

[2cats]

I converted to Catholicism at age 41. About mid-way through RCIA, I made my first confession, because there were some serious things I needed to confess before I felt I could go forward. The priest told me not to deliberately withhold anything. Nevertheless, I did. I confessed to using birth control pills but deliberately withheld also using condoms, because I didn’t truly believe condom use was wrong and didn’t think I was sufficiently repentant. (I didn’t know about imperfect contrition.) I also withheld the sin of “personal impurity” (we all know what that’s a euphemism for), basically out of embarrassment, but I rationalized to myself that I didn’t really know it was wrong.

Anyway, I later went back to confession and told the priest (a different one, this time) that I had made an invalid confession, what sins I had withheld, and what new sins I had committed. I asked him if I needed to go back and confess all the stuff I confessed the first time. I thought the answer would be yes, but he said no and absolved me. Should I have argued the point with him? Was my absolution valid?

 

[choy]

I converted to Catholicism at age 41. About mid-way through RCIA, I made my first confession, because there were some serious things I needed to confess before I felt I could go forward. The priest told me not to deliberately withhold anything. Nevertheless, I did. I confessed to using birth control pills but deliberately withheld also using condoms, because I didn’t truly believe condom use was wrong and didn’t think I was sufficiently repentant. (I didn’t know about imperfect contrition.) I also withheld the sin of “personal impurity” (we all know what that’s a euphemism for), basically out of embarrassment, but I rationalized to myself that I didn’t really know it was wrong.

Anyway, I later went back to confession and told the priest (a different one, this time) that I had made an invalid confession, what sins I had withheld, and what new sins I had committed. I asked him if I needed to go back and confess all the stuff I confessed the first time. I thought the answer would be yes, but he said no and absolved me. Should I have argued the point with him? Was my absolution valid?

confessions are not invalidated because you withheld information. many people leave out information unintentionally and that doesn’t invalidate their confessions. once a priest absolves you of your sins, all your sins are absolved.

now, i’m not sure if you need to mention on your next confession about wilfully withholding on some sins, if that in itself would be an issue. hopefully someone will be able to answer this issue

 

[puzzleannie]

yes both times
no you did not deliberately withhold a sin the first time because you did not have full knowledge and consent of the will with deliberate intent to sin.
When you grew in knowledge you confessed again to the best of your ability, including areas of doubt and concern, and you were absolved. Don’t second guess your confessions. ONly when you know you have deliberately been dishonest with yourself and God do you need to confess that.

As you grow in the knowledge and practice of the faith it is quite likely you will be from time to time convicted of past actions which you did not know or acknowledge were wrong, and feel the emotion of compunction, a kind of intensified contrition and remorse for those past sins. It is quite all right to confess them when those feelings arise, and simply explain this happened in the past before I was Catholic and since then a feeling of contrition has arisen regarding them I feel the need to confess them. Whether or not it is absolutely necessary it will still be beneficial simply from a “mental health” standpoint to acknowledge and pray from that compunction, which is a gift of the Holy Spirit, through this sacrament.

Welcome Home!

 

[pigtown]

Yes, your absolution is valid. You have confessed to a priest. Don’t get stressed out about it. Move forward and try not to repeat your past sins. They are in the past and have been confessed and forgiven. Move forward. And, Welcome!

 

[beckycmarie]

confessions are not invalidated because you withheld information. many people leave out information unintentionally and that doesn’t invalidate their confessions. once a priest absolves you of your sins, all your sins are absolved.

Just for clarification, a confession is invalid when someone deliberately withholds a grave sin.

 

[Bookcat]

confessions are not invalidated because you withheld information. many people leave out information unintentionally and that doesn’t invalidate their confessions. once a priest absolves you of your sins, all your sins are absolved.

now, i’m not sure if you need to mention on your next confession about wilfully withholding on some sins, if that in itself would be an issue. hopefully someone will be able to answer this issue

This is NOT the case…

if one intentionally withholds a mortal sin then this invalidates the confession.

We are not talking about those with scruples…scrupling over things…we are talking about intentionally withholding a mortal sin.

That one did this needs to be confessed …and the mortal sins withheld…and the mortal sins that were otherwise confessed.

(Again those with scruples…follow your confessors and do not scruple about anything…)

Though of course the poster here seems to have been in very good faith when they went the second time…wanting to do what is right…(and not their fault perhaps …for the pressure of the the Priest being “in charge” at the moment in the sacrament the second time…when he absolved the person)

but it seems to me that one would need to confess any mortal sins together with the with-held sins and say that the sins were withheld…but again the poster is a new Catholic and did not have much experience…and there can be perhaps other things that go into this…so if I were the person I would go again to another priest and explain things…in confession…and confess all the mortal sins…and what happened…

(and then live in Christwith great joy!)

these can be of help from the Chief Apologist at Catholic Answers:

www.jimmyakin.org/2010/…/adults-preparing-for-first-confession.html

jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_fidei/2006/02/first_confessio.html

I have not read it lately …but i guess it will have some good things to say

 

[Bookcat]

again…go see a good priest whom you can sit down with…or meet off schedule in a confessional …and explain what happened (in confession)…for we do not know you…and he can ask questions etc…especially since it was your first confession …a priest can help you in confession…

(of particular concern too was that you say you were not contrite enough about contraception…i assume you are now…but that needs to be mentioned…which comes down to talking with the priest in confession…but then again maybe there is more to all this then meets the eye…)

but know that Jesus of course loves you! and soon this will all be distant memory

 

[Bookcat]

Anyway, I later went back to confession and told the priest (a different one, this time) that I had made an invalid confession, what sins I had withheld, and what new sins I had committed. I asked him if I needed to go back and confess all the stuff I confessed the first time. I thought the answer would be yes, but he said no and absolved me. Should I have argued the point with him? Was my absolution valid?

an absolution can be valid…but one may still need to go and confess again …(just like when one forgets a mortal sin…)

 

[LilyM]

an absolution can be valid…but one may still need to go and confess again …(just like when one forgets a mortal sin…)

But in this case it seems the absolution was INvalid because things were knowingly left out.

A moral to this story - human will being what it is, it’s often better not to get too specific with your sins.

I, for example, would simply have said ‘I used artificial contraception’. Adding the type is unnecessary detail, it doesn’t change the nature of the sin one iota. And IMHO leaves you open to this sort of situation, where you mention one type but don’t mention another.

 

[Bookcat]

But in this case it seems the absolution was INvalid because things were knowingly left out.

A moral to this story - human will being what it is, it’s often better not to get too specific with your sins.

I, for example, would simply have said ‘I used artificial contraception’. Adding the type is unnecessary detail, it doesn’t change the nature of the sin one iota. And IMHO leaves you open to this sort of situation, where you mention one type but don’t mention another.

I was referring in that post to the second absolution…the person was it seems repentant of all mortal sins and asked the priest if they needed to confess the other ones…he said no and gave absolution …so even if the priest made an error in judgment…the absolution can thus still be valid …the person was trying to confess all the mortal sins that time and was new etc…even if later they now still need to confess…

 

[LilyM]

I was referring in that post to the second absolution…the person was it seems repentant of all mortal sins and asked the priest if they needed to confess the other ones…he said no and gave absolution …so even if the priest made an error in judgment…the absolution can thus still be valid …the person was trying to confess all the mortal sins that time and was new etc…even if later they now still need to confess…

The fact that the priest erred in his judgement, of course, doesn’t mean the OP gets an automatic free pass, however. Priests can well and truly be wrong, even in the confessional, and can wrongly claim to give absolution when in reality no such absolution occurs.

For example, in the first confession of the OP the priest claimed to give absolution. In reality, as we all correctly surmised, the OP would not actually have been absolved of her sins, since she knowingly withheld some.

In the second confession, it seems the OP also knew better, and knew that one is obliged to reconfess ALL mortal sins mentioned in an invalid confession. Her statement ‘I thought his answer would be yes’ shows that.

So it would seem she wasn’t entirely ignorantly or innocently asking the question, but already possibly knew the correct position, hence her surprise at the priest saying ‘no’. His error doesn’t remove her obligation to do what she knew to be correct.

 

[Bookcat]

In the second confession, it seems the OP also knew better, and knew that one is obliged to reconfess ALL mortal sins mentioned in an invalid confession. Her statement ‘I thought his answer would be yes’ shows that.

So it would seem she wasn’t entirely ignorantly or innocently asking the question, but already possibly knew the correct position, hence her surprise at the priest saying ‘no’. His error doesn’t remove her obligation to do what she knew to be correct.

Remember this person is a NEW Catholic who has not made many confessions…and not much experience etc…and the person came it seems ready to confess all the mortal sins of their life…(second confession) thus was not intending to “conceal” any mortal sins…but it seems be sorry for them all and confess them all…thus it would seem the person was in ‘good faith’…and even though they thought they would have to confess everything…the priest told them not to and right away gave absolution. Thus it seems the person was not intentionally trying to conceal anything …and thus was trying to make an honest confession…thus would be akin to a person who forgot a mortal sin…and thus was absolved but still needs to tell that mortal sin later…

And the very "priest -penitent’ relationship can make it problematic for a person to stop the priest and discuss things with him at that point…read jimmy on this:

jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_fidei/2005/04/confession_vali.html

hence the second absolution at least can have valid. but the person can still need to make a further confession as noted above…

so I would suggest the person go see a priest…perhaps even the first priest…for it will make it easier to do…and tell him what happened in confession…to get things sorted out fully.

 

[puzzleannie]

Just for clarification, a confession is invalid when someone deliberately withholds a grave sin.

which OP says he did not do, which he asked the priest about, and the priest reassured him, that is why he should accept the grace he was given in the absolution of this great sacrament. My point is that we here have no right to go back into the confessional with the poster and the priest, the priest is the minister of the sacrament, and the penitent should assume the priest knows his job and is administering a valid sacrament. But as a new Catholic, poster also needs to be aware that sometimes part of the healing and ongoing conversion is growth in knowledge, understanding of, and contrition for, past sins, and those may properly be brought up in future confessions not because the were not absolved in the first general confession, but to aid in that ongoing conversion and awareness.