Was my confession valid???

[MrsMeganMc]

I went to confession for the first time in 6 years today.

I was very nervous…and when I sat down I told the priest how long it had been and that I wasn’t sure where to start.

He asked me why I had left the church - and when/why I came back. He then gave me some guidance, talked about sins (in general), the prodigal son, etc. And then had me say my Act of Contrition - and he absolved me.

He never had me actually confess my specific sins out loud.

I was not expecting my confession to go quite like that - I was wondering if it was still a valid confession?

Thank you!

 

[LilyM]

I’m afraid not - Canon 988 of the Code of Canon Law gives the requirements:

‘Can. 988 §1. A member of the Christian faithful is obliged to confess ***in kind and number ***all grave sins committed after baptism and not yet remitted directly through the keys of the Church nor acknowledged in individual confession, of which the person has knowledge after diligent examination of conscience.’

‘In kind’ means the ‘kind’ (type) of sin must be specified. ‘Number’ means you must give at least a rough estimate of how many times you’ve committed each type of sin.

Just hope the priest was tired or something and doesn’t make a habit of conducting confessions that way!

 

[Danuska]

You didn’t hide your sins, you answered his questions, you were just too confused and frightened - that is my impression - so it was valid.
Just next time you go for confession you tell the priest what happened last time and confess your sins that you didn’t confess that time.
Welcome back to Church! There is great rejoicing in Heaven because of you

 

[DJgang]

Please God, send us very conservative holy Priests, who know that need for us to feel God’s grace through the Sacrament of Reconcilation.

 

[LilyM]

You didn’t hide your sins, you answered his questions, you were just too confused and frightened - that is my impression - so it was valid.
Just next time you go for confession you tell the priest what happened last time and confess your sins that you didn’t confess that time.
Welcome back to Church! There is great rejoicing in Heaven because of you

It doesn’t work that way.

Confession, as any other sacrament, depends on the right ‘matter’ and ‘form’ being present as well as the intent to administer the sacrament (in this case the intent to absolve).

The right ‘matter’ in this case IS the specific sins of the penitent. If the matter is not present (ie if there is no confession of the specific sins) it means that no sacrament has taken place.

It’s like a priest attempting to consecrate choc-chip cookies and Coke instead of bread and wine - lack of proper matter invalidates the sacrament (meaning that no sacrament at all has taken place).

 

[Danuska]

Please God, send us very conservative holy Priests, who know that need for us to feel God’s grace through the Sacrament of Reconcilation.

The two do not have to go together.

There was one guy, around 71 years of age, very active on one other Catholic forum - he had a great knowledge of Catholicisms, regularily published his meditations on the scripture. A living example for many people, I bet.
One day, he shared his return to the Church - he walked into a church after having not attended it for years, and tried to confess, he was blocked and frightened. The priest saw it, spoke a few things about football, about this and that. After years of being with the Lord, he remembered that confesssion with nostalgia. The time for real, general confession came later, but he had a chance to experience what it was like a prodigal son.Btw, that happened in Poland, which is quite conservative compared to other countries.

The same goes for the author of this post, the mercy and gentleness of that one priest might encourage her to go for confession regularily and prepare for it better next time. I do not know why she was outside of the church, was her faith too shallow? Was it the fault of some other priest? Was it her fellow believers who are so often so quick to judge - judge not only the fellow believers but priests.

I do not know that. The thing is that she is back. She has questions about her confession - whether it was valid or not - that shows that she is very serious about the sacrament. And maybe there is something more behind that - could Jesus just forgive me like that and take me back? Yes He could! As He told St Faustina, the greatest sinners have the right to His mercy before others.

Anyway, your confession is valid. The priest used the power bestowed on him by Jesus - and even if he used it wrongly. Which I do not think was the case - the priest have their own directives, they might treat a returning son or daughter of the church differently from those who regularity confesses and attends the Mass. Just like Jesus didn’t stick strictly to the Law.

 

[Danuska]

It doesn’t work that way.

Confession, as any other sacrament, depends on the right ‘matter’ and ‘form’ being present as well as the intent to administer the sacrament (in this case the intent to absolve).

The right ‘matter’ in this case IS the specific sins of the penitent. If the matter is not present (ie if there is no confession of the specific sins) it means that no sacrament has taken place.

It’s like a priest attempting to consecrate choc-chip cookies and Coke instead of bread and wine - lack of proper matter invalidates the sacrament (meaning that no sacrament at all has taken place).

Even then, it is the priest is at fault, not her. He used the authority to absolve the sins and he had that authority.

 

[LilyM]

Even then, it is the priest is at fault, not her. He used the authority to absolve the sins and he had that authority.

Invalid means invalid - it means of no effect. Doesn’t matter who was or wasn’t at fault. If a doctor gives you a useless sugar pill with both you and he thinking it was an antibiotic, all the wishing in the world isn’t going to make that pill into an antibiotic, or make it able to cure your infection, is it?

See the priest HAS no authority or ability to administer a sacrament UNLESS he does so using the proper ‘form’ and ‘matter’ as well as the proper intent. A priest’s authority in regard to the sacraments is not totally unlimited.

If a priest, for example, tries to ‘marry’ a man to another man, or to a six-year-old girl, or to marry two dogs - it ISN’T a sacramental marriage! NO SACRAMENT OF MARRIAGE HAS TAKEN PLACE, even if all the proper words are said, because the proper MATTER for the sacrament (a couple consisting of one adult man and one adult woman) isn’t there.

And no amount of wishing on anyone’s part will make that marriage a sacrament!

 

[DJgang]

I think that the original poster doesn’t think the confession was valid or she wouldn’t have posted the question.

I know how it feels to have a sense that you are not forgiven.

It is best to list and name and number (if you can remember) your sins, otherwise, why would Canon Law specify it and why would the Holy See not just say…walk in, say I’m sorry and be done?

There is merit and valid reasons to make confession this way and one is definitley being about to receive and feel God’s grace through the Sacrament.

I do understand what you are saying, completely.

But right now, I am more concerned for the poster to feel and be at peace. The Priest will have to answer to God for tending to his flock. God may be OK with it all, He may not…

And I did not say that the confession was valid or invalid…I have never experienced a priest to act this way. But I know that if I had any concern, I would consult another Priest.

I would share a personal story, but this thread is not about me. But I’ve had an invalid confession. And this post is my opinion and suggestion to poster.

I will say a prayer for you Meagan, I know that it took a lot of courage to go to confession to begin with. God bless you! And I pray for peace…

I’m out of this thread…

Dana

 

[MrsMeganMc]

Thanks for all of your responses.

As I was trying to fall asleep last night - I did recall something that the priest did ask me - he asked what I felt was my worse offense during this time.

I responded to that question.

But I didn’t share the rest of my mortal sins.

(Sorry that I forgot to include that - when I get nervous/excited - I tend to completely lose focus and have a hard time remembering exactly what went on)

I think the lack of a clear answer on this is telling me that I need to try this again. I will make an individual appt with another priest, and give him fair warning that it may be lengthy. I just want to make sure that I can get this behind me. Maybe my sins have been forgiven? But maybe not…

I am eagar to put my past life behind me - and to continue my journey with Christ without this weight pulling at me.

Thanks again for your responses and for your prayers.

 

[Timothysis]

MrsMeganMc,

There is no profit in worrying whether your confession was valid or invalid. What happened to you is not an abuse of the sacrament; you and the priest were both acting in good faith. Those who say it was invalid have no right to say so, regardless of how many statutes of canon law they can quote. The priest is the one who confers the sacraments.

I remember once reading that Jesus told a saint (can’t recall which one ) that the faintest glimmer of hope in Him is enough to achieve salvation. He also told St. Faustina that He freely gives His mercy to everyone but most especially to those who need it most. Does not a priest act in the person of Christ? If Christ Himself can dispense mercy so easily then why not the person who acts as His priest? Yes, it would have been best had your confession gone according to traditional methods but don’t worry about. The next time you go to confession specifically mention those things that you would like to get off of your chest. People often forget that the Church is bound by Christ but Christ is not bound by the Church.

BTW, the reason that the priest may not have dug into details is that there is often a time factor. If 30 people are in line for confession in the one hour before Mass, that only leaves 2 minutes per confession.

Anyway, isn’t Jesus truly merciful?!?!?

 

[Cristiano]

I went to confession for the first time in 6 years today.

I was very nervous…and when I sat down I told the priest how long it had been and that I wasn’t sure where to start.

He asked me why I had left the church - and when/why I came back. He then gave me some guidance, talked about sins (in general), the prodigal son, etc. And then had me say my Act of Contrition - and he absolved me.

He never had me actually confess my specific sins out loud.

I was not expecting my confession to go quite like that - I was wondering if it was still a valid confession?

Thank you!

The priest spoke “In Persona Christi” when he absolved you. The form and intent for the sacrament where applied. You have been absolved. You have to learn to trust your priest more the posters of this board.

 

[RichT]

My understanding is that if you omit a sin by accident, and unintentionaly, but intended to confess it, you are still absolved. Now, if you left a big laundry list out, then maybe the best thing to do is simply go to confession again. Then there is no question. Perhaps you can call and make an appointment for a confession with the priest in his office, or simply wait until confession this next weekend and go. Make a list on paper so you don’t forget it. Just make sure you destroy the list afterwards.

 

[MrsMeganMc]

The priest spoke “In Persona Christi” when he absolved you. The form and intent for the sacrament where applied. You have been absolved. You have to learn to trust your priest more the posters of this board.

Well, that was a bit harsh. I would truly love to trust him and to think that my sins have been truly forgiven!

But what else am I supposed to do? I was confused about what happened during my confession and did not feel that it was right to question my priest after my confession.

I have made an appointment with the other priest at my church for an individual confession next week, and I can discuss what happened at that point - if the sins do not need to be confessed - then great! I am sure I will have other sins to discuss at that point anyway…

 

[itsjustdave1988]

I went to confession for the first time in 6 years today.

I was very nervous…and when I sat down I told the priest how long it had been and that I wasn’t sure where to start.

He asked me why I had left the church - and when/why I came back. He then gave me some guidance, talked about sins (in general), the prodigal son, etc. And then had me say my Act of Contrition - and he absolved me.

He never had me actually confess my specific sins out loud.

I was not expecting my confession to go quite like that - I was wondering if it was still a valid confession?

Thank you!

Validity of the sacrament depends upon valid matter, form, and intention (of the minister).

For the sacrament of Confession, the essential elements are:

Contrition, Confession, Satisfaction, Absolution.

You confessed the grave sin of leaving the Church, however, you may have wanted to confess more than that sin. If you did not intentionally withold confession of grave sin, then the sacrament is valid, given that the other elements were valid (contrition, satisfaction, absolution).

 

[itsjustdave1988]

I’m afraid not - Canon 988 of the Code of Canon Law gives the requirements

The Church does not specify that confession must be “in kind and number” as an essential element for sacramental validity. If the penitent fully intended to fulfill his obligation according to Church norms, but the priest in some way thwarted that full intention, the sacrament is still valid, so long as the other essential elements were present (contrition, satisfaction, absolution).

 

[TheDoctor]

I went to confession for the first time in 6 years today.

I was very nervous…and when I sat down I told the priest how long it had been and that I wasn’t sure where to start.

He asked me why I had left the church - and when/why I came back. He then gave me some guidance, talked about sins (in general), the prodigal son, etc. And then had me say my Act of Contrition - and he absolved me.

He never had me actually confess my specific sins out loud.

I was not expecting my confession to go quite like that - I was wondering if it was still a valid confession?

Thank you!

Welcome back home! It must have taken a great act of courage to walk into that confessional - YOU are my hero today!!

As you have read, opinions vary as to the technical validity of your confession, however Father absolved you so at least he thought the confession was valid and that should be good enough for now.

What I would humbly suggest going forward is:

• Make an appointment (if you had not) with a priest so that there is no time issue (which I was not sure of by reading your original post).
• Grab a good examination of conscience and write down your sins.
• Bring the list with you and explain to Father that you are unsure if you have confessed these so you would like to confess them now.
• Get absolution, burn the list, go forward in joy knowing that God’ s love and mercy are more than the justice we poor sinners deserve.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Confession, as any other sacrament, depends on the right ‘matter’ and ‘form’ being present as well as the intent to administer the sacrament (in this case the intent to absolve).

The right ‘matter’ in this case IS the specific sins of the penitent.

At least one sin confessed is part of the valid “matter” of the sacrament (e.g. leaving the Church), so long as the penitent did not intentionally omit any other grave sins. So, if I “forgot” a grave sin, does that invalidate the sacrament? No. In this case, all sins are remitted by sacramental absolution, even those not explicitly confessed. Same with the case described by the OP.

See more here: Is a sin forgotten during confession forgiven?
and Isn’t it best to leave forgotten sins in the past?

 

[Digitonomy]

I’m afraid not - Canon 988 of the Code of Canon Law gives the requirements:

‘Can. 988 §1. A member of the Christian faithful is obliged to confess ***in kind and number ***all grave sins committed after baptism and not yet remitted directly through the keys of the Church nor acknowledged in individual confession, of which the person has knowledge after diligent examination of conscience.’

‘In kind’ means the ‘kind’ (type) of sin must be specified. ‘Number’ means you must give at least a rough estimate of how many times you’ve committed each type of sin.

I have to disagree. The canon is not a minimum checklist for validity of the sacrament. It is simply what it says - an explanation of the obligations of any Christian under canon law. IMO, neither the inclusion of that canon in the code nor its wording affects requirements for validity.

You are correct that form, matter, and intent are required. In this case, your quibble is with proper matter. If we agree that sins are proper matter, then even before the OP updated her explanation in post #10, we knew she had confessed to leaving the Church. I question whether even you believe your implication that validity is lacking unless the penitent quantifies each and every type of sin. The confessor has wide latitude to truncate the details of a confession as circumstances require, and I fail to see a problem with it in this case.

Update: Now I see that while I composed this, itsjustdave1988 repeatedly explained the same thing with more clarity than I mustered.

 

[LilyM]

I have to disagree. The canon is not a minimum checklist for validity of the sacrament. It is simply what it says - an explanation of the obligations of any Christian under canon law. IMO, neither the inclusion of that canon in the code nor its wording affects requirements for validity.

You are correct that form, matter, and intent are required. In this case, your quibble is with proper matter. If we agree that sins are proper matter, then even before the OP updated her explanation in post #10, we knew she had confessed to leaving the Church. I question whether even you believe your implication that validity is lacking unless the penitent quantifies each and every type of sin. The confessor has wide latitude to truncate the details of a confession as circumstances require, and I fail to see a problem with it in this case.

Update: Now I see that while I composed this, itsjustdave1988 repeatedly explained the same thing with more clarity than I mustered.

We’re not required to confess EVERY sin, only mortal sins, but we are required by Canon Law to confess those in kind and number. Not just one or two of them. Canon Law, while perhaps not the last word on sacramental validity, certainly doesn’t exist for no reason, and IS a binding obligation upon us! It may well be a fresh sin in itself to fail to adhere to its requirements.

Now justdave is referring to articles about FORGETTING to mention a sin, which is an entirely different matter altogether to deliberately omitting a sin, either because the priest doesn’t give you sufficient time prior to absolution or for any other reason.

Now whether matter is sufficient is something that is OBJECTIVELY determined. Not dependent on the subjective intent or actions of the priest. If he consecrates corn bread believing it wrongly to be wheat bread, the matter is still invalid and the sacrament is still invalid.

And if the sufficiency of matter is objectively determined, then those objective criteria that determine validity and sufficiency apply equally to all people concerned, surely.

In other words the criteria are such that a penitent can render a confession invalid by knowingly omitting a mortal sin. That being the case, surely that obligation exists, and the invalidity is present, whether the knowing omision occurs because of act of the priest or act of the penitent.

There aren’t two different sets of criteria, one for celebrant and another for recipient, in regard to any sacrament’s matter being valid. If validity requires confession of ALL known mortal sins, then surely it requires it under ALL circumstances, apart from the built-in exceptions under Canon Law such as general absolution.

Just as wheat bread, by way of analogy, is required for a valid Eucharist in ALL circumstances, and not just when it’s the laity supplying the bread as opposed to the priest making it with his own hands.