Was my confession valid???

[FrDavid96]

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!

Your confession was valid!
Your confession was valid!
Your confession was valid!

Unfortunately, there seems to be a trend where people tell other posters here that their confessions were not valid, when those posters have no idea whatsoever what they are writing about. (If such posters have a degree in Canon Law, you might want to add those initials to your handle as that would clarify things considerably)

I am glad to hear that if you had a question about your confession, you are going to talk to A priest (any priest, whether that be the one to whom you confessed, or another priest with whom you are comfortable). That is absolutely the right thing to do.

Do not be swayed by postings quoting canon law by people who obviously do not understand the Sacred Canons. Your priest-confessor understands them. Your “own” priest understands them. Many people who post on internet forums do not understand them.

I understand that your question has to do with just how much you are required to confess your specific sins out load (in “kind and number” as others have correctly stated). The answer is that as imperfect beings, we can never perfectly remember our sins in “kind and number”, we merely do as best we are able. At the same time, if we intentionally withhold a sin, that does invalidate a confession, but there is a world of difference between the penitent intentionally withholding a sin on the one hand and the priest deciding that what has been said is enough on the other hand. Please do not allow others to cause you to confuse the two, or erroneously believe that they amount to the same thing.

One of the roles of the priest-confessor in the Sacrament of Confession is to be a judge. That means that it is up to the judge in your confession to make the decision as to at-what-point your confession has been sufficient. That is not for ANYONE else to question. I understand that you came here for advice and opinions. It is good to know that you want to deepen your understanding of the Sacrament. There’s nothing wrong with your question, my issue is with the responses that have been posted here.

As you have already (apparently) decided: TALK TO A PRIEST.
Thanks.

PS IGNORE the advice and canonical interpretations of everyone else, talk to a priest, and do it in person!

 

[LilyM]

Your confession was valid!
Your confession was valid!
Your confession was valid!

Unfortunately, there seems to be a trend where people tell other posters here that their confessions were not valid, when those posters have no idea whatsoever what they are writing about. (If such posters have a degree in Canon Law, you might want to add those initials to your handle as that would clarify things considerably)

I am glad to hear that if you had a question about your confession, you are going to talk to A priest (any priest, whether that be the one to whom you confessed, or another priest with whom you are comfortable).

Do not be swayed by postings quoting canon law by people who obviously do not understand the Sacred Canons. Your priest-confessor understands them. Your “own” priest understands them.

I understand that your question has to do with just how much you are required to confess your specific sins out load (in “kind and number”). The answer is that as imperfect beings, we can never perfectly remember our sins in “kind and number”, we merely do as best we are able. At the same time, if we intentionally withhold a sin, that does invalidate a confession, but there is a world of difference between the penitent intentionally withholding a sin on the one hand and the priest deciding that what has been said is enough on the other hand. Please do not confuse the two.

One of the roles of the priest-confessor in the Sacrament of Confession is to be a judge. That means that it is up to the judge in your confession to make the decision as to at-what-point your confession has been sufficient. That is not for ANYONE else to question. I understand that you came here for advice and opinions. It is good to know that you want to deepen your understanding of the Sacrament. There’s nothing wrong with your question, my issue is with the responses that have been posted here.

Fr David, always glad to be corrected by an expert, and to bow to expertise that well and truly exceeds mine. :tiphat:

Respectfully, though, you’re being a little harsh. People who come onto this part of CAF understand (or reasonably should understand) that they are not getting advice from trained experts, rather opinion from enthusiastic amateurs, based on the best evidence and documents that the writer has to hand, which with the best will can be misunderstood.

If the original poster had gone onto an internet medical forum asking a question, surely it would be on the understanding that such fora are open to people of all levels of education and expertise and that the information given should be taken with a grain of salt … that is unless the forum itself, or a given poster, specifically indicates or claims a certain level of expertise.

This much should be especially obvious with CAF, given the fact that there is a separate clearly labelled subforum called ‘ask an Apologist’ where advice can be sought from PROFESSIONAL apologists (aka experts). From that it should reasonably be crystal clear that most of us are not even professional apologists, let alone canon lawyers.

Pax et bonum

Lily

 

[FrDavid96]

Fr David, always glad to be corrected by an expert, and to bow to expertise that well and truly exceeds mine. :tiphat:

I’m not claiming expertise in that particular case. I am deferring to the expertise of the priest who heard that confession and who granted absolution. I am in no position to judge him.

Respectfully, though, you’re being a little harsh. People who come onto this part of CAF understand (or reasonably should understand) that they are not getting advice from trained experts, rather opinion from enthusiastic amateurs, based on the best evidence and documents that the writer has to hand, which with the best will can be misunderstood.

They don’t always understand that distinction, and quoting Canon Law often lends an appearance of implied authority which is simply not there.

If the original poster had gone onto an internet medical forum asking a question, surely it would be on the understanding that such fora are open to people of all levels of education and expertise and that the information given should be taken with a grain of salt … that is unless the forum itself, or a given poster, specifically indicates or claims a certain level of expertise.

And what would happen if someone follows such faulty medical advice and causes himself serious injury in the process?

There are legal safeguards in place in most countries which prohibit practicing healthcare without a license. If someone on a medical forum suggests that I take a certain medication, and that advice turns out to be fatal, what happens? Frankly, the person asking the question would not be able to get the medication because that would require a trip to the doctor and pharmacist, so there are safeguards to keep bad advice from becoming fatal advice.

The Church likely has safeguards to prevent bad advice, and that safeguard is ministry of the priest (first bishops, and presbyters). Telling a person to disregard the decision of the priest (by declaring online that a person’s confession was invalid) is the spiritual equivalent of altering a doctor’s prescription because someone who is not a doctor feels that the doctor was wrong. Try that one and you’ll have a nice career making license plates.

This much should be especially obvious with CAF, given the fact that there is a separate clearly labelled subforum called ‘ask an Apologist’ where advice can be sought from PROFESSIONAL apologists (aka experts). From that it should reasonably be crystal clear that most of us are not even professional apologists, let alone canon lawyers.

Pax et bonum

Lily

Then I simply ask that people who are not canon lawyers (or properly formed priests or spiritual directors) refrain from giving the appearance that they are canon lawyers.

I’ve been reading a lot of posts on these forums about Confession where people are issuing judgements about the priest in particular circumstances.
If you are not absolutely morally certain about your answer, then it should be presented that way. Discuss the matter here by all means. That’s what these forums are about. But there is a huge difference between on the one hand discussing them, offering an interpretation, and asking questions, and on the other hand issuing definitive-sounding statements that only cause Catholics to question the competence of their confessors. If you are not morally certain that what a priest did was invalid, then please do not say that what the priest did was invalid.

Confession is a most serious, subtle, and personal matter. If someone on these threads offers an incorrect interpretation of dogma or doctrine or praxis, that misunderstanding can work itself out over time, and hopefully it will. But issuing judgements about what particular priest-confessors did in particular confessions can seriously jeopardize the spiritual well-being of the person asking the question.

 

[promethius]

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!

Not to be offensive, LilyM, but you are quite incorrect in this matter. There are actually THREE “levels” of sacramental completion: licit, illicit, and invalid.

Because the error was in good faith and a matter of innocent omission, and the omission was not necessarily in and of itself grave in nature, the completion of the sacrament WAS in fact VALID, though it was probably not licit. An illicit use of the sacrament, however, still conveys the grace of the sacrament anyway. The same thing applies to the Eucharist. If the host has salt in it, but under the exceptable threshold, the sacrament is illicit but valid. Above the acceptable threshold and the sacrament becomes invalid… two TOTALLY different states of being.

To the original poster: yes, your sacrament would have been valid. If you have doubts, though, make a list and include those sins on your next confession. It never hurts to be thorough.

 

[FrDavid96]

Your confession was valid!
…

As you have already (apparently) decided: TALK TO A PRIEST.
Thanks.

PS IGNORE the advice and canonical interpretations of everyone else, talk to a priest, and do it in person!

I would like to add something to my latest post for clarification:

Please understand that while your confession was valid, that’s not the same thing as saying that you do not have a need to confess those sins (nor is it saying that you do have a need). That decision can only be made by your own priest-confessor.

There are 2 questions here.

1. Was the confession valid?
   Yes. Since you did not intentionally hold back anything, and the priest pronounced the absolution, it was a valid confession.
2. Do I still need to confess those sins that I wanted to mention, but did not? (that wasn’t your question, but it was certainly implied).
   That question can only be answered by a priest in the sacrament of Confession, or by a priest advising you (who will then hear your confession if necessary), or your spiritual director who will refer you to a priest for confession.

 

[FrDavid96]

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.

Yes. You are correct. But you missed something.

You forgot to bold-type the words “grave sins” (ie “mortal sins”).

Since you don’t know what the sins were, how can you make the determination that the sins were grave?

You quote #1 which talks about grave sins, but you do not quote #2 which says “it is recommended to the Christian faithful that venial sins also be confessed.”

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

I just hope that you were tired or something and don’t make a habit of declaring someone else’s confession invalid.

For future reference, what makes a confession invalid is the intention of the penitent to knowingly and willingly refrain from articulating a sin. When the priest-confessor tells a penitent not to confess the sins, the penitent no longer has “full consent of the will” to withhold them. The penitent is acting out of obedience to the confessor and the intention is thereby lacking. Does that clear things up?

 

[promethius]

If the host has salt in it, but under the exceptable threshold, the sacrament is illicit but valid.

*Acceptable.

That will teach me not to proof read…

 

[Apologist78]

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!

I am happy to hear that you came back to confession, and back to the Church. I hope you do not get discouraged to hear that what you experienced was not a Confession. It was more akin to “Spiritual Direction” then “Confession.”

In order for a valid Confession to take place one must confess all known sins- which is to say any sin that the person can remember. Otherwise why go? That is the whole point of the Sacrament. We enter and speak our sins, admitting we failed, and that we are in need of a redeemer. That on our own accord we do not have the power to save ourselves from sin. It takes an act of God, and God alone. Only God can make that decisive act. Through the priest, one experiences God’s judgment on sin, then God’s forgiveness and mercy. Through the penance we make some small act to show God we are truly sorry. The penance puts our words into action. It gives our sorrow concrete form.

I am not sure why this priest did not allow you to perform a Confession, but suffice it to say I suggest you find another priest- and one that you can connect with.

On a final note, above someone made reference to “Mortal” and “Venial Sin.” Remember that it is only technically “necessary” (I hate to be a legalist here) to confess “Mortal” Sin. Hence if you have no known “Mortal” Sins to confess, Confession is not technically your obligation. However it is certainly recommened for “Venial” Sin.

The person also wrote above about the fact that if the pennitent has the intention to proclaim their sins, but the priest does not allow it, the penitent is bound under obedience to the priest, and hence the Confession is valid. This is not true. We are to obey our priests and bishops- but not when they command something which is against Revealed Truth. If someone comes to Confession, and knows that part of the sacrament is the actual confession of sins, but the priest says they don’t have to, that person (if they know of a Mortal Sin) is to find another priest. The priest who would not allow the person to speak their sins will answer to God for that- if he is intentionally distorting the nature and meaning of the Sacrament.

 

[FrDavid96]

I am happy to hear that you came back to confession, and back to the Church. I hope you do not get discouraged to hear that what you experienced was not a Confession. It was more akin to “Spiritual Direction” then “Confession.”

In order for a valid Confession to take place one must confess all known sins- which is to say any sin that the person can remember. Otherwise why go? That is the whole point of the Sacrament. We enter and speak our sins, admitting we failed, and that we are in need of a redeemer. That on our own accord we do not have the power to save ourselves from sin. It takes an act of God, and God alone. Only God can make that decisive act. Through the priest, one experiences God’s judgment on sin, then God’s forgiveness and mercy. Through the penance we make some small act to show God we are truly sorry. The penance puts our words into action. It gives our sorrow concrete form.

I am not sure why this priest did not allow you to perform a Confession, but suffice it to say I suggest you find another priest- and one that you can connect with.

On a final note, above someone made reference to “Mortal” and “Venial Sin.” Remember that it is only technically “necessary” (I hate to be a legalist here) to confess “Mortal” Sin. Hence if you have no known “Mortal” Sins to confess, Confession is not technically your obligation. However it is certainly recommened for “Venial” Sin.

The person also wrote above about the fact that if the pennitent has the intention to proclaim their sins, but the priest does not allow it, the penitent is bound under obedience to the priest, and hence the Confession is valid. This is not true. We are to obey our priests and bishops- but not when they command something which is against Revealed Truth. If someone comes to Confession, and knows that part of the sacrament is the actual confession of sins, but the priest says they don’t have to, that person (if they know of a Mortal Sin) is to find another priest. The priest who would not allow the person to speak their sins will answer to God for that- if he is intentionally distorting the nature and meaning of the Sacrament.

You could not be more wrong on that.

What we see described on this post was a valid Confession.

In the Sacrament, the priest, in persona Christi, is the judge.

Since the judge made the determination that what the penitent had said was sufficient, then it was sufficient for a valid sacrament.

It is not up to someone on a web forum to over-rule the ruling of the judge in the Sacrament of Confession
(why do people not understand that???)

Now, to say that the confession was valid is not the same thing as saying that there may (and I stress may) be other sins wihch the penitent should (or even must) confess. That is a different issue, but it does not mean that the Confession was invalid.

 

[Digitonomy]

It is not up to someone on a web forum to over-rule the ruling of the judge in the Sacrament of Confession

(why do people not understand that???)There are cases where a priest is so grossly negligent in administering the sacraments that such “sacraments” are not in fact valid. In such a case, someone on a web forum would be correct in pointing it out, and the judge would have ruled incorrectly. Admittedly, such instances are pretty rare, and giving the priest the benefit of the doubt is usually in order, but there is benefit for all in discussing these issues, unless people put too much faith in forum posts to the detriment of their relationships with their parish and its priests.

And, while we’re discussing the issue of what makes the Sacrament of Penance valid, I’ll restate a question I had from awhile back - a friend approached his priest, who knew him well, after some afternoon event to set up a time for confession. The priest absolved him of his sins on the spot, without an actual confession, and said he could receive communion, but instructed him to go to a “full” confession at some point in the next several days. Which, that week at least, he didn’t manage to do.

At first I thought the remission of sins was invalid, since he didn’t fulfill the conditions of his penance. After discussing it here, I realize the validity of a sacrament is not conditioned on post facto events. So now I tend to think that the sacrament was valid, although obviously illicit in light of the canon LilyM cited. There was the intent by my friend, the form of the words of absolution, and I would say the matter of the sins, which the priest could likely have surmised based on his familiarity. The only thing missing was the actual stating of the sins.

Assuming my account of the event is correct, do you think the absolution was valid?

 

[Apologist78]

You could not be more wrong on that.

What we see described on this post was a valid Confession.

In the Sacrament, the priest, in persona Christi, is the judge.

Since the judge made the determination that what the penitent had said was sufficient, then it was sufficient for a valid sacrament.

It is not up to someone on a web forum to over-rule the ruling of the judge in the Sacrament of Confession
(why do people not understand that???)

Now, to say that the confession was valid is not the same thing as saying that there may (and I stress may) be other sins wihch the penitent should (or even must) confess. That is a different issue, but it does not mean that the Confession was invalid.

Sir, I don’t know what your problem is or where you are getting your information, or why you are posting this but it is egreiously inaccurate.

The actual “confession” or “telling” of known mortal (or venial) sins is necessary for the Sacrament to be celebrated. Without this “telling” of known mortal sins (or venial) there is no sacrament. Whatever took place was not a celebration of Confession. I do not deny it was useful, or that it was serious Spiritual Direction, or conversation, etc, but it was not a celebration of Confession.

Now, according to the penitent he or she claims that the priest did not allow any sins to be confessed. I am only going on what the penitent claims. If there is more to this then what is posted, fine- I am just going on what was posted, and I understand the poster to mean that no actual sins were confessed. As I said in order for their to be a celebration of the Sacrament, actual sins must be confessed- venial opitionally, mortal most definately.

I should know sir, trust me.

 

[MrsMeganMc]

Sir, I don’t know what your problem is or where you are getting your information, or why you are posting this but it is egreiously inaccurate.

The actual “confession” or “telling” of known mortal sins is necessary for the Sacrament to be celebrated. Without this “telling” of known mortal sins, there is no sacrament. Whatever took place was not a celebration of Confession. I do not deny it was useful, or that it was serious Spiritual Direction, or conversation, etc, but it was not a celebration of Confession.

Now, according to the penitent he or she claims that the priest did not allow any sins to be confessed. I am only going on what the penitent claims. If there is more to this then what is posted, fine- I am just going on what was posted, and I understand the poster to mean that no sins were confessed.

I should know sir, I am a priest.

There has been a lot of back and forth here and as a result - I have been left very confused.

I have already made an appt for confession on Monday evening - this was the earliest time of convenience for my priest (different that then priest who I saw originally).

Would I be able to receive the Eucharist on Sunday?

 

[MrsMeganMc]

Sir, I don’t know what your problem is or where you are getting your information, or why you are posting this but it is egreiously inaccurate.

The actual “confession” or “telling” of known mortal (or venial) sins is necessary for the Sacrament to be celebrated. Without this “telling” of known mortal sins (or venial) there is no sacrament. Whatever took place was not a celebration of Confession. I do not deny it was useful, or that it was serious Spiritual Direction, or conversation, etc, but it was not a celebration of Confession.

Now, according to the penitent he or she claims that the priest did not allow any sins to be confessed. I am only going on what the penitent claims. If there is more to this then what is posted, fine- I am just going on what was posted, and I understand the poster to mean that no actual sins were confessed. As I said in order for their to be a celebration of the Sacrament, actual sins must be confessed- venial opitionally, mortal most definately.

I should know sir, trust me.

Oh yes, also - I did correct myself - the priest asked me what I felt was my greatest sin during this time - which I responded to.

 

[Apologist78]

There has been a lot of back and forth here and as a result - I have been left very confused.

I have already made an appt for confession on Monday evening - this was the earliest time of convenience for my priest (different that then priest who I saw originally).

Would I be able to receive the Eucharist on Sunday?

I am sorry for the confusion. Such is the nature of websites, where anyone can post and express their views.

It is good you made another appointment for confession- and again I am sorry you had to do so, My own opinion is that while your confession was not technically “valid” (again I hate to be legalist) the problem lies with the person who according to you did not allow sin to be confessed. I believe he is at fault not you, but since you now feel confused it is probably best to make another confession- just so you can feel better.

Can you recieve the Eucharist on Sunday? That is up to you. My own thoughts are (and there may be some who would disagree) since you intend to go to Confession on Monday, it would be alright. However if you feel uncomfortable with my answer, and feel you should not go, fine. I am just saying I don’t see a problem with going given your intention to go to Confession Monday.

 

[FrDavid96]

Sir, I don’t know what your problem is or where you are getting your information, or why you are posting this but it is egreiously inaccurate.

The actual “confession” or “telling” of known mortal (or venial) sins is necessary for the Sacrament to be celebrated. Without this “telling” of known mortal sins (or venial) there is no sacrament. Whatever took place was not a celebration of Confession. I do not deny it was useful, or that it was serious Spiritual Direction, or conversation, etc, but it was not a celebration of Confession.

Now, according to the penitent he or she claims that the priest did not allow any sins to be confessed. I am only going on what the penitent claims. If there is more to this then what is posted, fine- I am just going on what was posted, and I understand the poster to mean that no actual sins were confessed. As I said in order for their to be a celebration of the Sacrament, actual sins must be confessed- venial opitionally, mortal most definately.

I should know sir, trust me.

A question:

Since we know that at least one sin was confessed, can we then say that the particular sin that was confessed has been absolved?

If not, why?

Perhaps the penitent needs to go to confession again. I’m not questioning that possibility, but referring the person to her own confessor (or other priest) to guide her in that.

 

[Apologist78]

Oh yes, also - I did correct myself - the priest asked me what I felt was my greatest sin during this time - which I responded to.

The priest was wrong to do so. Confession is not just saying what is “the greatest sin” or “name one sin you struggle with and that suffices for the rest.”

When one goes to Confession one must “Confess” all known mortal sins. If one wishes to confess venial sins one may do so, but there is no obligation to do so. It is recommended however.

Again, I am so sorry for the confusion, and I also say that the problem lies with the priest who gave you this misinformation, not you. I commend you on your willingness to seek out further clarification, and again I am so sorry for the confusion.

 

[MrsMeganMc]

The priest was wrong to do so. Confession is not just saying what is “the greatest sin” or “name one sin you struggle with and that suffices for the rest.”

When one goes to Confession one must “Confess” all known mortal sins. If one wishes to confess venial sins one may do so, but there is no obligation to do so. It is recommended however.

Again, I am so sorry for the confusion, and I also say that the problem lies with the priest who gave you this misinformation, not you.

Oh yes - I do understand this - which is why I left confused and posted my question.

I am not angry or upset with the priest - I am just going to look at it as more of a practice round, and come Monday evening I will feel a little less scared going into it.

I do want to sincerely thank you for taking the time to respond.

 

[Apologist78]

A question:

Since we know that at least one sin was confessed, can we then say that the particular sin that was confessed has been absolved?

If not, why?

No, becasue the proper matter and form of the sacrament is lacking. Part of the matter and form is the confession of all known mortal sins. If one either intentionally does not confess a known mortal sin (as opposed to unintentionally) one did celebrate the Sacrament. Now, of course if one accidently forgets to name a sin- that is different. In that case one DID validly recieve the sacrament.

The priest was wrong to either tell or imply that all one need confess is one sin that is the “most troublesome” or “most grevious.” I note that this is common practice in some places and it is wrong. Many people are being lead astray becasue it is causing confusion.

Perhaps the penitent needs to go to confession again. I’m not questioning that possibility, but referring the person to her own confessor (or other priest) to guide her in that.

Good idea, though I would not use that same priest again.

 

[Apologist78]

Oh yes - I do understand this - which is why I left confused and posted my question.

I am not angry or upset with the priest - I am just going to look at it as more of a practice round, and come Monday evening I will feel a little less scared going into it.

I do want to sincerely thank you for taking the time to respond.

God Bless you for your willingness to go back to confession. For some, this might be enough to drive them away.

 

[FrDavid96]

No, becasue the proper matter and form of the sacrament is lacking. Part of the matter and form is the confession of all known mortal sins. If one either intentionally does not confess a known mortal sin (as opposed to unintentionally) one did celebrate the Sacrament.

The priest was wrong to either tell or imply that all one need confess is one sin that is the “most troublesome” or “most grevious.” I note that this is common practice in some places and it is wrong. Many people are being lead astray becasue it is causing confusion.

Good idea, though I would not use that same priest again.

Aye there’s the rub. Since the priest did not allow the penitent to confess further, does that not mean that the penitent did not intentionally hold back a sin?