Was my confession valid???

[Apologist78]

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.

Likewise, it’s not a matter of ignorance.

But are we to obey Church leaders if they are clearly in the wrong, and we either suspect such and seek further clarification as this poster did, or we fully know them to be in the wrong?

It is true the poster obeyed, but what I am saying is that the poster seems to indicate a certain understanding that the priest in question was not entirely correct.

Everything you are saying is correct. It is very difficult to judge a matter of confession given the seal, and its very private and personal nature. My judgement is not based on “what iff’s” which I grant may have been present, which would indeed change the circumstances. My judgement is based strictly on the data given in the post.

All I know is that the particular poster claims that he or she has been away from the Church, went to confession, began to confess sins but the priest stopped him or her. He or she then clarified their original position by stating that the priest asked for one specific sin, which he or she confessed. Hence as far as I know, from the objective data one sin was confessed, there were more, but the priest stopped the person. Now, unless the poster chooses to offer additional clarification, and or I have missed something in the original post which you would point out, all I have is the data given, and it is based on that objective data I base my judgement. I am not saying there are other factors which I am not aware of, etc. I am simply basing my judgement on the clear data not the possibilities which may have been present, or the “what iffs.”

Yes. Precisely. There is no in-between.

At least one specific sin was confessed. Perhaps more.

Perhpas, but the poster did not say that. The poster said “one sin.” To say more were confessed is an assumption, and unless the poster clarifies that more were indeed confessed, all we know is what the original information given says. The original information suggests one sin, after that the poster had more, but the priest stopped him or her.

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?

Indeed! The issue is that in the original post, the poster says nothing of this, nor indicates this. In fact unless I am missing something, the poster seems to indicate exactely the oppisite. Again, you may be correct, I am not saying you are wrong, I am simply saying the objective data does not point in that direction, and hence everything you write seems to be an assumption not suggested by the data.

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

But is it not true that a valid confession requires the confession of all known mortal sins, venial sins if the person wishes? If the person had more mortal sins to confess, but was stopped how was the sacrament valid?

I grant the poster stopped in obedience to the priest, hence he or she bears no responsiblity, since the poster at the time seemed unaware that the priest might be in the wrong. If the priest was incorrect, (intentionally so) then he bears responsibility. This is a practice in some places— that is to say priests tell their penitents to only confess one sin, and that takes care of everything. This is wrong.

I will return I have to go.

 

[Ag_not]

Actually I am a newly ordained priest. .

Are you a newly ordained roman catholic priest? I ask because I think it’s a problem that both you and Frdavid 96 appear to be giving conflicting advice and interpretation of the situation. FrDavid stated categorically to the poster it was a valid confession. You appear to be stating that this is not the case. Two roman catholic priests contradicting each other is not helpful.

I think the best advice given was for the OP to go back to confession, either to the same priest, or another priest STAT !!

 

[Apologist78]

Are you a newly ordained roman catholic priest? I ask because I think it’s a problem that both you and Frdavid 96 appear to be giving conflicting advice and interpretation of the situation. FrDavid stated categorically to the poster it was a valid confession. You appear to be stating that this is not the case. Two roman catholic priests contradicting each other is not helpful.

I think the best advice given was for the OP to go back to confession, either to the same priest, or another priest STAT !!

Actually I am not sure we are condradicting each other. We are still in “debate” or “dialogue” right now. He and I as I see it are trying to clarify our positions. Once we clarify our positions, or are finished doing so, we can see truly what each of us are trying to say.

I think his main issue has to do with the fact that it is difficult to enter a judgement on whether a confession was valid over the internet given the very private and personal nature of the sacrament. He does not like as a result to simply judge. I don’t disagree with him on that issue. We also both agree that the penitent bears no fault or responsibility, and we agree that God can work outside the Sacrament. We also both agree that it is difficult to answer the question over the internet and hesitate to give advice over the internet. We both agree (at least it appears so) that it would only help to go to confession again, and we both agree that this is a matter in which the person if they wish should consult their pastor on.

The way I see it, (maybe he sees it differently- you would have to ask him) at this point centers in my mind more on an academic issue of what constitues a “valid” and “licit” confession. He seems to be saying it is enough for validity for only one sin to be confessed, I am denying that, claiming that all known sins must be confessed if they are mortal, or thought to be mortal. Venial’s are optional. And we go from there.

He also seems to be saying that since the penitent under obedience did not confess the rest of their sins, a valid confession was celebrated. My contention is that we are not called to obey our leaders if we know them to be in the wrong. In this case it appears the penitent knew something was not quite right, and sought clarification.

One analogy I like to give though is that priest’s are like doctors. Doctors do not always agree with each other on the best course of treatment for someone. This is why on more complext cases either a team of doctors will be called in for a consult and they try to reach consensus, or a second even a third opinion may be called for. It is the same as I see it with priests. However in this case he and I do not disagree on the best course of treatment. We are debating more a theological issue then a “treatment” issue as I see it.

However both of us agree that another confession on the part of the penitent would only help. Our disagreement on this point does not have to do with that, but over what constitutes a valid confession- at least as I see it.

 

[Ag_not]

Actually I am not sure we are condradicting each other. We are still in “debate” or “dialogue” right now. .

OK. This is what gave me that impression:

Fr. David: Your confession was valid!
Your confession was valid!
Your confession was valid!

You said: I hope you do not get discouraged to hear that what you experienced **was not **a Confession.

Fr. David: You could not be more wrong on that.

You: 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.

You can see whay I think you guys are contradicting each other, which if you are both trained roman catholic priests, I find a bit confusing and odd.

You said you are a newly ordained priest: I’ll ask you again - are you a newly ordained roman catholic priest?

 

[Apologist78]

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

But the rest of the sins were not confessed, and confession of all known mortal sins is necessary for a valid celebration. (Presuming there were more. If not, then I can grant a valid celebration of the sacrament, since Venial Sins are not required to be confessed.)

I understand your obedience point- but that does not change validity. The proper matter and form were lacking- obedience has nothing to do with proper matter and form in this case. If the priest was incorrect with the matter and form, there was not a valid celebration of the sacrament.

Tell me: If someone comes to me in confession, and I know they have a multitude of sins to confess, becasue they say so, but I tell them under obedience to me to confess only one, then give them absolution, etc, was there a valid celebration of Confession? I say “No, since confession of all mortal sins is necessary for a valid celebration. I do not possess the authority to change the proper matter and form of the sacrament, which I would have done in the senerio I provided.”

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.

Of course in danger of death the “norms” are slackened somewhat, and absolutely you are correct. However we do not build doctrine on exceptions, or exceptional circumstances. What I am saying applies under the ordinary circumstances surrounding confession, not the extra-ordinary.

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?

I am not so sure we have the authority to tell a penitent (presuming normal circumstances, and presuming the person has full use of their faculties, and presuming them not to be “overly legaistic”) what is and is not a mortal sin. In fact they taught me in seminary that telling someone “Oh, that is not a mortal sin don’t worry” is the height of clericalism. Not cassocks, lacy surplices, pontiff 300 collars, but that." My thoughts are if the penitent feels it is a mortal sin and they need to confess it, then as far as I am concerned it is a mortal sin. I am not about to silence them, even if in my view it was not a mortal sin. In fact in confession I don’t think we even need to worry about that distinction, since if the person brings it up, they obviously feel it is sinful enough to bring to the sacrament.

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

No, the penitent said “Sin” was confessed. What “sins” were confessed? The penitent did not indicate a plurality of sins, only one sin. The poster seems to be saying there were others, but the priest stopped him or her. Hence “sin” was confessed, but the penitent had “sins” (plural) to confess and was stopped.

Granted under obedience, but that does not effect the necessity of having the proper matter and form, which requires that all known mortal sins be confessed.

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.

First, in what sense are you using “licit?” The term “Licit” refers to the “legal requirements” for the celebration of a sacrament, not the matter or form. For example, If I baptize a baby by pouring water over its head, and saying “I baptize you in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit” but this Baptism takes place within the context of a liturgical celebration whereby an anointing takes place, Christmation, etc, I have performed a valid Baptism, but did so illicitly. (An emergeny is of course different) In other words the sacrament took place, but I did not follow all the “rules.”

Validitly refers to whether or not an actual sacrament took place. While a sacrament can be celebrated illicitly, an “invalid sacrament” is an oxymoron. For example: If I baptize a baby using the Trinitarian formula, but pour cofee on its head, no sacrament was celebrated becasue I did not use the proper matter. In this case not only was the sacrament celebrated illicitly, but invalidly as well.

You seem to be using the term “Illicit” as synonamous for “Invalid” Perhaps you did not mean it that way, but that is the way I am understanding it. So I just ask for a clarification.

Are there other sins that need to be confessed in future confessions? Based on the posters own words, the answer is most likely yes.

Right- but those sins would have been confessed in what was supposed to be the poster’s confession the first time. The reason the poster did not had to do with the priest stopping him or her. I am saying it appears in that instance the priest changed the matter and form of the sacrament, becasue he did not permit the penitent to finsh confessing his or her sins, and that is part of the matter and form of the sacrament. Hence part of the proper matter and form was missing- no sacrament took place.

 

[Apologist78]

OK. This is what gave me that impression:

Fr. David: Your confession was valid!
Your confession was valid!
Your confession was valid!

You said: I hope you do not get discouraged to hear that what you experienced **was not **a Confession.

Fr. David: You could not be more wrong on that.

You: 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.

You can see whay I think you guys are contradicting each other, which if you are both trained roman catholic priests, I find a bit confusing and odd.

You said you are a newly ordained priest: I’ll ask you again - are you a newly ordained roman catholic priest?

No, I am a newly ordained “Hindu Priest.” debating Roman Catholic Sacramentology

Of course I am a “Roman Catholic” priest.

First, I did not realize the poster was a priest when I harshly criticized him. I presume a priest on this cite knows what he is talking about, so I would have approached the matter differently. Yes, his name bears “Fr” but on an internet cite that does not necessarily mean anything.

Seconldy as our “debate” goes on, you may see us clarifying our positions. We do not disagree on the best course of action for the penitent. We are in full agreement on that.

The essence of our disagreement lies in what exactely constitues a valid celebration of the sacrament of confession. It is my contention that the sacrament was invalid becasue the proper matter and form were lacking. I await his response to that. We seem to be speaking past each other, becasue he is focusing on the “obedience” aspect, which would not impact the matter and form in this case, the way I see it.

As for disagreements among priests, see my doctor analogy. I think it quite alright for priests to have friendly disagreements. In this case as I said we both agree very much on the best course of action for the penitent, hence the penitent is not really impacted by our friendly debate.

 

[Ag_not]

No, I am a newly ordained “Hindu Priest.”

Of course I am a “Roman Catholic” priest.

Well, all you said was you were a newly ordained priest. It could have been in any denomination. Thanks for clarifying.

As for disagreements among priests, see my doctor analogy.

I appreciate and understand this. BUT my concern is not the body but the soul. To me, the priest is much more important than a doctor. The body will die anyhow, no matter what we do. The salvation of the soul is paramount. And if one priest is saying you sins are forgiven, go in peace, and another is saying, whoa, no sacrament took place, ie, if you die now you MAY go to hell - well I find that really really troubling.

I should add here, maybe Im just working out my own understanding and insecurities of the sacrament as Im not yet baptised or confirmed and have not made a confession to a priest.

Bruxilda.

 

[Apologist78]

I appreciate and understand this. BUT my concern is not the body but the soul. To me, the priest is much more important than a doctor. The body will die anyhow, no matter what we do. The salvation of the soul is paramount. And if one priest is saying you sins are forgiven, go in peace, and another is saying, whoa, no sacrament took place, ie, if you die now you MAY go to hell - well I find that really really troubling.

But if you read further back, you will find I do not mean to deny that sins were forgiven. I admit and grant that possibility. As I said if a person believes they recieved a sacrament in good Faith, even if the sacrament is invalid, the Lord certainly can and still does work. At this point I am simply saying that if the person does not feel at peace, and would like more “obectivity” and “peace” then another confession would not at all hurt, but only help. How would the penitent be harmed by going to confession again? Neither the other priest nor myself disagree on any of these points.

Given the poster’s thread, it would appear that he or she was not certain a valid sacrament took place. In this case, it does not hurt to go again, and be certain. Both of us priests are saying that. We just disagree on whether or not a valid sacrament took place.

So I am not denying the possibility that the sins were forgiven, I am denying that the juridical “absolution” was invalid and no sacrament took place given the lack of the proper matter and form.

 

[Digitonomy]

confession of all known mortal sins is necessary for a valid celebration.

Is this necessarily true? In the varied forms that the sacrament has taken since the early Church, I’m not sure that this was always the case (I expect your knowledge of the history is a bit more rigorous than mine). If the sacrament was validly celebrated in the past without confession of every mortal sin, it stands to reason that it would be valid today as well.

Unless we are more concerned about the extent of faculties given to the priest - in that case a bishop might be able to grant valid absolution without following today’s rules, but a priest’s faculties might be limited to celebrating the sacrament according to current law.

 

[Apologist78]

Is this necessarily true? In the varied forms that the sacrament has taken since the early Church, I’m not sure that this was always the case (I expect your knowledge of the history is a bit more rigorous than mine). If the sacrament was validly celebrated in the past without confession of every mortal sin, it stands to reason that it would be valid today as well.

First of all the early Church did not have as well developed theology of Confession as we do today, and the distinction though present between mortal and venial sin was not as refined. Penance was much more public in the early Church, and much more stingent, and legtheny. The early Church was also expecting the immanent return of Christ. For this reason Penance was only usually celebrated once in a person’s lifetime for sins commited after baptism. In fact in the early Church the sacrament was seen as a “Second Baptism.”

From about the 400-1200 things began to change. Penance became more private and personal, especially due to the Irish monks. Penance also became less stringent and more and more people began to seek it out as a result. Since Christ had not yet returned and the Church began to realize that they are in this “for the duration” the notion developed that the sacrament can be recieved more then once.

Finally after 1200 it took the modern form we know of today. We have to be careful we do not read back into the early Church concepts that are fully refined and developed today, and try to make it fit snugly.

Unless we are more concerned about the extent of faculties given to the priest - in that case a bishop might be able to grant valid absolution without following today’s rules, but a priest’s faculties might be limited to celebrating the sacrament according to current law.

Indeed, the “Form” of the Sacrament was very different in the early Chuch then it is today, BUT the matter was always the same, and its essence is the same, namely: that Sin must be confessed, and that it belongs to the Church, specifically the bishop or his priest (as time drew on) to bind and loose sin.

Whether or not confession of ALL known sins was necessary in the beginning or not I can’t say. However today it is, hence it is necessary for validitly. The Church has no power over the “matter” of the sacrament, but it does have a certain amount of authority of the “Form” the sacrament takes. The Form can to some degree change due to culture needs, etc, as we cleary see with this and all the other sacraments. The mass is the perfect example of a form which was changed. The matter- namely bread and wine has NEVER changed and will NEVER change, but the form (that is the prayers, rites, etc) has changed over time.

 

[Coder]

Somehow I don’t think that these (too frequent IMHO) situations of sincere penitents worrying about the need to “go back” are what Jesus intends when He offers us forgiveness. I suggest to the Magisterium to look at this whole situation and allow people to attain peace more easily. If a priest misguides regarding contraception or asking sins, or does not absolve properly, etc. this is not the fault of the sincere repentant.

 

[Apologist78]

Well, all you said was you were a newly ordained priest. It could have been in any denomination. Thanks for clarifying.

I appreciate and understand this. BUT my concern is not the body but the soul. To me, the priest is much more important than a doctor. The body will die anyhow, no matter what we do. The salvation of the soul is paramount. And if one priest is saying you sins are forgiven, go in peace, and another is saying, whoa, no sacrament took place, ie, if you die now you MAY go to hell - well I find that really really troubling.

I should add here, maybe Im just working out my own understanding and insecurities of the sacrament as Im not yet baptised or confirmed and have not made a confession to a priest.

Bruxilda.

You indicate you are going through R.C.I.A-- I need to caution you that my discussion with the other priest presupposes years of theological training which really need not concern you at this juncture. What you are reading between myself and him, would be analogous to me as a freshmen in college opening a medical textbook and trying to understand it. Much of what I am saying to the other priest presupposes an already existing foundation in theology which you would lack. For instance the terms “Matter and Form” probably mean nothing to you.

Though I encourage your process, and my prayers are with you. May God who has begun his good work in you bring it to fulfillment at Easter.

 

[Apologist78]

Somehow I don’t think that these (too frequent IMHO) situations of sincere penitents worrying about the need to “go back” are what Jesus intends when He offers us forgiveness. I suggest to the Magisterium to look at this whole situation and allow people to attain peace more easily. If a priest misguides regarding contraception or asking sins, or does not absolve properly, etc. this is not the fault of the sincere repentant.

And that I absolutely agree with. That was my initial concern in this whole debate- that someone would take it the wrong way. That is not the question and has never been the question in my discussion.

My discussion at this juncture is theological in nature, not pastoral. It is as I see it a discussion between two students of theology, a friendly debate.

But I absolutely agree with you.

 

[FrDavid96]

…

Everything you are saying is correct. It is very difficult to judge a matter of confession given the seal, and its very private and personal nature. My judgement is not based on “what iff’s” which I grant may have been present, which would indeed change the circumstances. My judgement is based strictly on the data given in the post.

…

.

This right here is the heart of my objection.

Since it is so difficult to make a judgment on the internet, why did you take it upon yourself to make such a judgment? The priest who heard that confession felt that it was a valid confession (since absolution was pronounced). How can we question the actions of that priest, and to go so far as to declare that what he did was invalid in the internal forum of the confessional?

You cannot say that you are making an “objective” decision about what happened, because you don’t have all of the relevant facts to make it, and indeed you are basing your decision on supposition.

Here’s a few facts that you can easily verify by re-reading the posts.

Oct. 30 post #10 the poster clearly stated that she did confess at least one sin.

A full 24 hours later, you said in post #28 "I hope you do not get discouraged to hear that what you experienced was not a Confession. "

A day and a half after post #10, in your post #30 you state “Now, according to the penitent he or she claims that the priest did not allow any sins to be confessed”

Clearly, you made that statement without being aware of the information that was already posted, that at least one sin had been confessed.

Therefore you were making your judgment based on at best a lack of information, on your own suppositions, and at worst information that is clearly contradicted by what had been posted more than a full day before you gave your response.

In the very first post, the person said that the priest asked her why she had been away from the church. Common sense says that that means she told him as much. Common sense also says that in so doing, that was an outward admission of the sins of missing Sunday Mass (at least that much).
You also are not taking into account the fact that the one sin that was certainly confessed aloud was the “worse offense”
Let’s give the priest the benefit of the doubt and say that the worst offense was not a mortal sin, therefore the other sins were venial. We give him the benefit of the doubt because we have to trust his judgment in the matter.

While a penitent has the obligation to confess all known serious sins, what would make the confession invalid is the intentional holding back of the sins, and not the mere fact that they were held back. To illustrate this, a sin which one genuinely forgets might be omitted, but this would not be intentional.
Because she was in obedience to the confessor (at least minimally) that means that she did not have full intention. Neither God nor the Church punish people for failing to do a thing if there is a genuine obstacle placed in the way of doing that thing. Obedience is that obstacle.

**Declaring that an individual priest in an individual confession acted invalidly is a most serious charge **(even if that priest is unknown, and indeed moreso because he is unknown).
That is the point I keep trying to make. You are making a serious accusation, but you don’t have all the facts.

When you said that the confession was invalid, you were basing your judgment on the fact that because the necessary elements of the Sacrament were not specifically articulated in the first post (though they were in the later post), you can thereby assume that the elements were absent.
This is called an “argument from silence.”

 

[FrDavid96]

Somehow I don’t think that these (too frequent IMHO) situations of sincere penitents worrying about the need to “go back” are what Jesus intends when He offers us forgiveness. I suggest to the Magisterium to look at this whole situation and allow people to attain peace more easily. If a priest misguides regarding contraception or asking sins, or does not absolve properly, etc. this is not the fault of the sincere repentant.

Coder,
It may not seem so from reading this thread, but the Magisterium is very concerned (always has been). The Church certainly does not hold an individual responsible for the shortcomings of the priest. I could bore you with quotes from canon law, liturgical law, precedent, Conciliar documents, Papal documents, etc. etc. etc. (Be thankful I have some restraint not to!) But be assured that what you wish for is already in place.

Thanks.

 

[Adonia]

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

All your posts on this matter seem to “a little harsh”. Lighten up! The person obviously wanted to confess their sins and the priest was trying to make her comfortable. Lets leave the whole matter up to God as to whether her sins were forgiven or not.

 

[Through_Him]

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!

Mrs. Megan, my confessions started out like that and I was away from the sacrament for longer. You were porbably nervous like me and you will remember more next time. The important thing is you keep goiing and don’t take so long once a year is suppose to be the max. God bless you for returning and he will guide you to be faithful.

 

[Methodi]

Somehow I don’t think that these (too frequent IMHO) situations of sincere penitents worrying about the need to “go back” are what Jesus intends when He offers us forgiveness. I suggest to the Magisterium to look at this whole situation and allow people to attain peace more easily. If a priest misguides regarding contraception or asking sins, or does not absolve properly, etc. this is not the fault of the sincere repentant.

Now somebody is talking sense:thumbsup:

 

[Apologist78]

This right here is the heart of my objection.

Since it is so difficult to make a judgment on the internet, why did you take it upon yourself to make such a judgment? The priest who heard that confession felt that it was a valid confession (since absolution was pronounced). How can we question the actions of that priest, and to go so far as to declare that what he did was invalid in the internal forum of the confessional?

You cannot say that you are making an “objective” decision about what happened, because you don’t have all of the relevant facts to make it, and indeed you are basing your decision on supposition.

Here’s a few facts that you can easily verify by re-reading the posts.

Oct. 30 post #10 the poster clearly stated that she did confess at least one sin.

A full 24 hours later, you said in post #28 "I hope you do not get discouraged to hear that what you experienced was not a Confession. "

A day and a half after post #10, in your post #30 you state “Now, according to the penitent he or she claims that the priest did not allow any sins to be confessed”

Clearly, you made that statement without being aware of the information that was already posted, that at least one sin had been confessed.

Therefore you were making your judgment based on at best a lack of information, on your own suppositions, and at worst information that is clearly contradicted by what had been posted more than a full day before you gave your response.

In the very first post, the person said that the priest asked her why she had been away from the church. Common sense says that that means she told him as much. Common sense also says that in so doing, that was an outward admission of the sins of missing Sunday Mass (at least that much).
You also are not taking into account the fact that the one sin that was certainly confessed aloud was the “worse offense”
Let’s give the priest the benefit of the doubt and say that the worst offense was not a mortal sin, therefore the other sins were venial. We give him the benefit of the doubt because we have to trust his judgment in the matter.

While a penitent has the obligation to confess all known serious sins, what would make the confession invalid is the intentional holding back of the sins, and not the mere fact that they were held back. To illustrate this, a sin which one genuinely forgets might be omitted, but this would not be intentional.
Because she was in obedience to the confessor (at least minimally) that means that she did not have full intention. Neither God nor the Church punish people for failing to do a thing if there is a genuine obstacle placed in the way of doing that thing. Obedience is that obstacle.

**Declaring that an individual priest in an individual confession acted invalidly is a most serious charge **(even if that priest is unknown, and indeed moreso because he is unknown).
That is the point I keep trying to make. You are making a serious accusation, but you don’t have all the facts.

When you said that the confession was invalid, you were basing your judgment on the fact that because the necessary elements of the Sacrament were not specifically articulated in the first post (though they were in the later post), you can thereby assume that the elements were absent.
This is called an “argument from silence.”

I spoke with my pastor on this very question and sought his opinion. He seems to take more your side, he said the same thing- the person intended to confess, and that from his view means the penitent is in the clear.

Your post also is it seems going on implicit data. For example “I was away from Church” well, in that it is implied the person has been missing mass.

So, here is the long and short of it: upon further reflection I think we must presume the validity of the sacrament. In fact in all sacramental celebrations validity is presumed. The burden of proof falls on the person claming a non-valid celebration.

The reason I jumped all over this was becasue I feared the priest was falling into the custom of “Just confess the most serious sin, and that takes care of everything.” or “You don’t have to confess anything. Just reflect on God’s mercy, etc.” Such does happen in some places, and that is not proper Church teaching. I do not think that happened here. Initially I feared it did. It would seem that was not what happened.

When I read the data I was looking for explicit rather then implicit data. You have brought out the implicit data which I did miss.

In any case the penitent is free to go again if they wish, and it would only help. Now I am sorry for my confusion. I think you are correct- in the first post it did not appear that all of the matter and form were in place and I went from there.

If I had this to do over again, I would not make the charge of invalidity, but merely explain what constituted confession, then invite the person if they still feel uncomfortable to seek out confesion. I would refrain from the charge of invalidity.

So you will be happy to see that I changed my mind.

 

[FrDavid96]

…

So you will be happy to see that I changed my mind.

No…

I am happy to see that you are maturing in your sacred ministry as a priest of Christ. I am happy to see that you are trying your best to be a priest who honestly and accurately presents the teachings of God and His Church. I am happy to see that you sought the counsel of your pastor. I am happy to see that you are dispensing the Sacraments validly and licitly as the Church requires. But I couldn’t care less whether you changed your mind on some silly internet post.