Was my confession valid???

[Apologist78]

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?

Good point, however, the penitent is aware that this is not common practice, hence their post. This would indicate that the person knows what took place was not correct.

Since that is the case, one cannot claim “invincible ignorance” hence the penitent should go to confession again.

I would grant your argument only if the penitent was not aware of any issues. I fail to see how you could argue that given what the penitent has said in his or her post.

 

[FrDavid96]

Good point, however, the penitent is aware that this is not common practice, hence their post. This would indicate that the person knows what took place was not correct.

Since that is the case, one cannot claim “invincible ignorance” hence the penitent should go to confession again.

Ok. Let’s take it as a given that the penitent should go to confession again, but is that the same thing as saying that the one sin that was confessed was not absolved?

 

[FrDavid96]

Good point, however, the penitent is aware that this is not common practice, hence their post. This would indicate that the person knows what took place was not correct.

Since that is the case, one cannot claim “invincible ignorance” hence the penitent should go to confession again.

I would grant your argument only if the penitent was not aware of any issues. I fail to see how you could argue that given what the penitent has said in his or her post.

I’m not arguing that the penitent “was not aware”, rather I’m arguing that the penitent did not have full consent of the will to withhold a sin, because she was acting out of obedience to her confessor.

 

[Apologist78]

Ok. Let’s take it as a given that the penitent should go to confession again, but is that the same thing as saying that the one sin that was confessed was not absolved?

Good question. I don’t know if I can answer that adequately.

Here are my thoughts: If we assume there was no sacrament which took place, then I fail to see how the sin could have been absolved. Absolution is a characteristic of a valid celebration of the Sacrament of Confession. If no valid Celebration takes place, then how could absolution take place? This answer is based on the objective evidence, and only the objective evidence.

That being said, we know God binds us to the Sacraments, but He Himself is not bound by the Sacraments. It is entirely posible given the penitent’s contrition and sorrow that God absolved the sin, especially since it was not their fault there was no valid Sacrament celebrated, but the priest’s.

But, since the penitent is aware that what took place was not according to proper Church teaching, I think it best if the penitent just presumes they must make another confession.

I have to go. I will return.

 

[EasterJoy]

If you become aware that you neglected to confess a serious sin and want to confess it, I don’t know of a priest who won’t hear it. He may object that it has already been wiped away, but if you replied, “Yes, I understand that, but it would be healing for me to say it to you out loud”, it would be hard for him to argue with you. I’m sure a priest can be found out there who would do nearly anything, but I’ve never gotten an impression like that from any confessor I actually know.

Now, if you start arguing whether those sins were actually absolved the last time you were in confession, that might be a different story. Many priests will stick to their guns on that point. Many will refuse to act in any way that would perpetuate misinformation about the sacrament.

I have been told bluntly by a priest that if a priest will not extend mercy, you are fully within your rights to find another confessor, without apologies or explanations.

If you need to confess more, find a priest who will hear what you need to say.

Having said that, not every incorrect or wrong act is sinful. Absolution absolves you of all sins committed up to that time that you did not knowing withhold. You cannot be guilty of the sin of withholding a sin in confession unless you intended to do that. No intent, no sin. Period.

As far as the priest’s sins, those are his business, and God’s to judge. A priest cannot break the seal of confession. It is uncharitable to criticize someone who could not bring evidence to his defense, were he given the opportunity to do so. I don’t mean that we can’t discuss the general principles, only that we cannot pass judgment on a particular priest.

 

[FrDavid96]

Good question. I don’t know if I can answer that adequately.

Here are my thoughts: If we assume there was no sacrament which took place, then I fail to see how the sin could have been absolved. Absolution is a characteristic of a valid celebration of the Sacrament of Confession. If no valid Celebration takes place, then how could absolution take place? This answer is based on the objective evidence, and only the objective evidence.

Of course, I agree absolutely. If no sacrament took place, then absolution did not take place (forgiveness perhaps, but not the juridical absolution)

That being said, we know God binds us to the Sacraments, but He Himself is not bound by the Sacraments. It is entirely posible given the penitent’s contrition and sorrow that God absolved the sin, especially since it was not their fault there was no valid Sacrament celebrated, but the priest’s.

Of course, I agree here too. No question about it. However, I’m not yet willing to concede the point that no valid Sacrament was celebrated.

But, since the penitent is aware that what took place was not according to proper Church teaching, I think it best if the penitent just presumes they must make another confession.

This one is very subtle. That’s why I keep trying to refer the penitent to her own proper pastor for counsel in this instead of that of internet forums. I’m sure we agree here.
I would further presume that her proper pastor will either hear her confession or refer her to another priest.
I’m going to say that I likewise “think” it best for her to make another confession, but I simply feel (and very strongly at that) that she should be told as much by her proper pastor, and not by strangers on the internet. For that reason alone, I’ve avoided outright telling her to go to confession again. If it comes from me, it means nothing. If it comes from her pastor, it means a great deal.

I have to go. I will return.

I look forward to it. Thanks.

 

[Apologist78]

Of course, I agree absolutely. If no sacrament took place, then absolution did not take place (forgiveness perhaps, but not the juridical absolution)

Of course, I agree here too. No question about it. However, I’m not yet willing to concede the point that no valid Sacrament was celebrated.

What would constitute evidence to suggest no valid sacrament took place? In order for a valid Confession to take place the following are needed:

1. Sorrow and intention with God’s Grace to avoid the sin in the future. This does not entail you will not fall to the sin, only that at the time of confession you have no intention to comit the sin again.
2. Confession of known mortal sins, venial if the person wishes
3. Absolution
4. Some form of penence- the person makes ammends.

In this case the only way I could think the confession might possibly be valid is if the penitent had no known mortal sins to confess. Only the penitent knows that and God of course, and on an internet forum it is no one’s business but the penitent’s and God’s.

This one is very subtle. That’s why I keep trying to refer the penitent to her own proper pastor for counsel in this instead of that of internet forums. I’m sure we agree here.
I would further presume that her proper pastor will either hear her confession or refer her to another priest.
I’m going to say that I likewise “think” it best for her to make another confession, but I simply feel (and very strongly at that) that she should be told as much by her proper pastor, and not by strangers on the internet. For that reason alone, I’ve avoided outright telling her to go to confession again. If it comes from me, it means nothing. If it comes from her pastor, it means a great deal.

Yes I would agree with you.

I am simply saying that while God can and does forgive Sin outside the Sacrament of Confession, the only way to have absolute certainty and peace of forgiveness is to recieve the Sacrament. Hence if the penitent wants peace and certainty I think another Confession will not hurt. Beyond that it is likely the person recieved forgiveness, but not certain. Certainly his or her pastor should council the person if the person wishes.

 

[FrDavid96]

What would constitute evidence to suggest no valid sacrament took place? In order for a valid Confession to take place the following are needed:

1. Sorrow and intention with God’s Grace to avoid the sin in the future. This does not entail you will not fall to the sin, only that at the time of confession you have no intention to comit the sin again.
2. Confession of known mortal sins, venial if the person wishes
3. Absolution
4. Some form of penence- the person makes ammends.

In this case the only way I could think the confession might possibly be valid is if the penitent had no known mortal sins to confess. Only the penitent knows that and God of course, and on an internet forum it is no one’s business but the penitent’s and God’s.

Yes I would agree with you.

I am simply saying that while God can and does forgive Sin outside the Sacrament of Confession, the only way to have absolute certainty and peace of forgiveness is to recieve the Sacrament. Hence if the penitent wants peace and certainty I think another Confession will not hurt. Beyond that it is likely the person recieved forgiveness, but not certain. Certainly his or her pastor should council the person if the person wishes.

1. Sorrow. We (and I do mean we here and now) have to assume that the sorrow was there. After all, the confessor himself is bound to presume that sorrow is sincere unless he has reason to doubt (c. 980). If the confessor has to presume that, then certainly we on the internet have to make the same presumption.
2. Confession of known sins. That’s the one we’re discussing, so let’s put that aside simply for the moment.
3. Absolution. The poster did say that the priest pronounced absolution, so that’s a given (again, from our point of view).
4. Penance. Does the penance go to validity? I’m speaking of a very strict interpretation here. Does it absolutely go to validity that the priest himself must assign a penance (as opposed to the penitent performing a penance if the priest does not assign one)?

 

[FrDavid96]

Good question. I don’t know if I can answer that adequately.

Here are my thoughts: If we assume there was no sacrament which took place, then I fail to see how the sin could have been absolved. Absolution is a characteristic of a valid celebration of the Sacrament of Confession. If no valid Celebration takes place, then how could absolution take place? This answer is based on the objective evidence, and only the objective evidence.

That being said, we know God binds us to the Sacraments, but He Himself is not bound by the Sacraments. It is entirely posible given the penitent’s contrition and sorrow that God absolved the sin, especially since it was not their fault there was no valid Sacrament celebrated, but the priest’s.

But, since the penitent is aware that what took place was not according to proper Church teaching, I think it best if the penitent just presumes they must make another confession.

I have to go. I will return.

Here’s the bone that I keep chewing on.

The priest at the very least discouraged the penitent from confessing any further sins (but one sin had been confessed), and possibly went so far as to disallow the penitent from confessing further. The penitent therefore was acting (at least minimally) out of obedience to the confessor.

That means (in my opinion) that the penitent lacked full consent of the will (full consent) to withhold a sin.

Am I wrong in that? If so, how?

From there, I would argue that if the withholding of the sin was not done with full consent of the will, such a holding back does not itself invalidate the absolution which was given for at least the one sin that was articulated.

How say you?

 

[Methodi]

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!

Yes,It definitely was a valid confession.
The Priest does not have to know every detail of your sins.I was away from the church for many years,alotmore than 6 & I just made a general confession along with the coaching of the priest.He did not ask me the detailsof my sins

 

[Apologist78]

1. Sorrow. We (and I do mean we here and now) have to assume that the sorrow was there. After all, the confessor himself is bound to presume that sorrow is sincere unless he has reason to doubt (c. 980). If the confessor has to presume that, then certainly we on the internet have to make the same presumption.
2. Confession of known sins. That’s the one we’re discussing, so let’s put that aside simply for the moment.
3. Absolution. The poster did say that the priest pronounced absolution, so that’s a given (again, from our point of view).
4. Penance. Does the penance go to validity? I’m speaking of a very strict interpretation here. Does it absolutely go to validity that the priest himself must assign a penance (as opposed to the penitent performing a penance if the priest does not assign one)?

Yes, Penance goes to validity- that is to say intention to perform the assigned penance. If the person forgets, that is alright, but the intention to perform the penance must be present. If the priest does not assign one or forgets, the person I suppose may do something of their choosing. That is what I have done if the priest has forgotten to give me a penance, and I forgot to ask for one.

If there is no intention to perform the penance the sacrament is not celebrated. Penance embodies the person’s sorrow, it makes concrete their intention not to comit sin in the future. It gives some concrete act which shows their distain for sin. Hence if this intention is lacking, then this affects true sorrow.

 

[Apologist78]

Here’s the bone that I keep chewing on.

The priest at the very least discouraged the penitent from confessing any further sins (but one sin had been confessed), and possibly went so far as to disallow the penitent from confessing further. The penitent therefore was acting (at least minimally) out of obedience to the confessor.

This as I said would be quite true, BUT the person knew something was amiss and has sought further clarification on this site. Given the new information the person has, they now have the duty to act upon it. The person cannot claim ignorance anymore. That is what I am saying.

That means (in my opinion) that the penitent lacked full consent of the will (full consent) to withhold a sin.

Am I wrong in that? If so, how?

This is true, but as I said the person knew something as amiss and has sought clarification. Now the person has the duty to act upon the information given in the clarification and can no longer claim ignorance.

From there, I would argue that if the withholding of the sin was not done with full consent of the will, such a holding back does not itself invalidate the absolution which was given for at least the one sin that was articulated.

How say you?

I think the issue is that the sacrament is either celebrated or it is not. There is no inbetween. It is not like a “well a pseudo-sacrament was celebrated.” There is not a part way confession whereby this sin is absolved but not that sin. If the sacrament was not celebrated (which is what is meant by invalid) This is not to deny the possibility that forgiveness of sin took place, only to say that if the person is not at peace with what took place, and is in doubt, going to confession again will give the peace of mind and clear the doubt.

 

[Apologist78]

Yes,It definitely was a valid confession.

I do not agree that what took place was a validly celebrated sacrament, since it did not involve the correct matter or form. This is not to deny that God may have forgiven the sins of the person, only to say that from an objective standpoint since the proper matter and form were lacking we cannot be objectively certain.

The Priest does not have to know every detail of your sins.

No, the priest does not have to know every detail, but he does have to know what the known sins are. The person has to confess the sins they are aware of

I was away from the church for many years,alotmore than 6 & I just made a general confession along with the coaching of the priest.He did not ask me the detailsof my sins

Fine, but it sounds like you at least confessed the sins you were aware of. The case the poster cites is different from yours.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

I should know sir, trust me.

Hi Apologist78,

Could you give us more info to go on in relation to this above statement? It sounds as if you are claiming some sort of authority, perhaps as a canon lawyer, spiritual director, priest, theologian, professional apologist, etc. Perhaps you meant that you have experience dealing with these types of issues in your own life.

In any case, I think clarification might be welcome.

Thanks!
VC

 

[Apologist78]

Hi Apologist78,

Could you give us anymore info to go on in relation to this above statement? It sounds as if you are claiming some sort of authority, perhaps as a canon lawyer, spiritual director, priest, theologian, professional apologist, etc. Perhaps you meant that you have experience dealing with these types of issues in your own life.

In any case, I think clarification might be welcome.

Thanks!
VC

Actually I am a newly ordained priest. Indeed I have experience in this, but also quite a bit of seminary behind me. I had originally said that in place of “trust me” but then I went in an edited it becasue I thought what I said should stand on its own accord. However someone had already quoted the original which contained “I should know, I am a priest.”

So what I am saying is that while I am a priest, I believe what I say should speak for itself. I am also not this person’s pastor, nor do I know the person from “Adam.” Hence I hesitate to offer any kind of advice over the internet. But as I said I do not think another Confession would hurt at all. It would only help. I believe I am at least safe in saying that. Of course that is for the person to discern with his or her own pastor or Spiritual Director.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Actually I am a newly ordained priest. Indeed I have experience in this, but also quite a bit of seminary behind me. I had originally said that in place of “trust me” but then I went in an edited it becasue I thought what I said should stand on its own accord. However someone had already quoted the original which contained “I should know, I am a priest.”

So what I am saying is that while I am a priest, I believe what I say should speak for itself.

Thank you Father. I missed the prior post before it was redacted, and I didn’t see the quote you mentioned.

VC

 

[Apologist78]

Thank you Father. I missed the prior post before it was redacted, and I didn’t see the quote you mentioned.

VC

Your quite welcome, God Bless.

 

[FrDavid96]

This as I said would be quite true, BUT the person knew something was amiss and has sought further clarification on this site. Given the new information the person has, they now have the duty to act upon it. The person cannot claim ignorance anymore. That is what I am saying.

And that’s the problem. You keep saying that I’m claiming that there was ignorance. I am not claiming that there was ignorance. I am saying that because of obedience, there was no free and full consent of the will.

This is true, but as I said the person knew something as amiss and has sought clarification. Now the person has the duty to act upon the information given in the clarification and can no longer claim ignorance.

Likewise, it’s not a matter of ignorance.

I think the issue is that the sacrament is either celebrated or it is not. There is no inbetween. It is not like a “well a pseudo-sacrament was celebrated.” There is not a part way confession whereby this sin is absolved but not that sin. If the sacrament was not celebrated (which is what is meant by invalid) This is not to deny the possibility that forgiveness of sin took place, only to say that if the person is not at peace with what took place, and is in doubt, going to confession again will give the peace of mind and clear the doubt.

Yes. Precisely. There is no in-between.
At least one specific sin was confessed. Perhaps more. Since the poster said that the priest asked her “why did you leave the Church?” there may have been other sins that were mentioned when that question was answered. Leaving the Church might very well have been another sin that was confessed (depending on the circumstances). Not attending Mass on Sundays was also another sin that was very likely confessed. Have you even thought about that part?

Since at least one sin was confessed aloud and absolution was given, then there was a valid sacrament.

As for the penance, in imminent danger of death, it suffices for the priest to say the short form of the words of absolution. Would anyone say that no Sacrament takes place here? Of course no. Therefore the assignment of penance by the confessor does not in the most strict absolute sense go to validity. My original question was rhetorical.

Let us also look at what the poster said. She said that she specifically confessed her “worst offense.” Now, if the sin confessed was not a mortal sin, and the priest knew it (not in the judgment of the penitent, but of the priest) then the priest knew that whatever else might be confessed would be of a lesser degree than that one sin, or to put it another way, venial. We don’t know (and don’t want to know). Did you consider this before you said that it was invalid?

Sins were confessed, sins were absolved. The Sacrament took place and it was valid. That was the question.

Was it a licit celebration of the Sacrament? I say that it is not for us on the internet to judge that. Given the nature of Confession and the fact that we do not and cannot have all the details, we cannot say. It’s not like something in the external forum like a Mass or other service.

Are there other sins that need to be confessed in future confessions? Based on the posters own words, the answer is most likely yes. But that was not the question (she already knew the answer to that).

 

[FrDavid96]

Actually I am a newly ordained priest. Indeed I have experience in this, but also quite a bit of seminary behind me. I had originally said that in place of “trust me” but then I went in an edited it becasue I thought what I said should stand on its own accord. However someone had already quoted the original which contained “I should know, I am a priest.”

So what I am saying is that while I am a priest, I believe what I say should speak for itself. I am also not this person’s pastor, nor do I know the person from “Adam.” Hence I hesitate to offer any kind of advice over the internet. But as I said I do not think another Confession would hurt at all. It would only help. I believe I am at least safe in saying that. Of course that is for the person to discern with his or her own pastor or Spiritual Director.

Father, ask yourself a question please. Let’s say that you have a regular penitent in confession. You are trying to provide pastoral care to this penitent. The penitent is misguided about something, and stubbornly so. You try very hard to gently correct this person, but to no avail. The penitent says to you in confession “you’re wrong Father, I should know because I’ve discussed this on web forums. I learned on web forums that priests are often wrong in the confession, and we should trust our web advisors more than our priests.”

How difficult would your situation be? If nothing else, please think about that.

 

[Methodi]

I do not agree that what took place was a validly celebrated sacrament, since it did not involve the correct matter or form. This is not to deny that God may have forgiven the sins of the person, only to say that from an objective standpoint since the proper matter and form were lacking we cannot be objectively certain.

No, the priest does not have to know every detail, but he does have to know what the known sins are. The person has to confess the sins they are aware of

Fine, but it sounds like you at least confessed the sins you were aware of. The case the poster cites is different from yours.

I believe that if I take myself to confession,& tell the priest my sins, & I say an act of contrition while in the confessional,because I confessed my sins through the Priest I believe I am forgiven.All this nit pickin about everything in the church is nutty.All priests are different,thats why we have certain priests we want to go to confession to.After I confess my sins,I say I am sorry for these sins and all other sins I may have committed,The priest says I absolve You of all your sins.