Were my sins forgiven?

[James924]

I’m deployed to the middle-east right now and finally got a chance for Reconciliation when I landed after a sortie on Sunday.
The Chaplain was a Captain who was welcoming and well mannered, though he seemed to be in a hurry and seemed sort of distant throughout the whole thing.
I came to him for one main issue and spent a minute or so talking about that, then paused and before I could continue to confess some of my “less important” sins he began to counsel me and tell me about deployment stress (which it had nothing to do with) then had me say my act of contrition. It didn’t occur to me to stop him and tell him I had more sins to confess so I sort of just rolled with it, said my act of contrition and bowed my head as he went through his absolution checklist.
I thanked him, said goodbye and stuck around in our little sanctuary for a few moments with the blessed sacrament. On the way back to the compound I realized he hadn’t assigned me a penance.
I figured I might as well assign my own and spent some time kneeling in the gravel a few minutes way from the compound reciting the whole day’s Divine Office readings (couldn’t do the first two on the jet) but it still didn’t feel quite right.

All in all, several sins withheld, no penence assigned by the priest…was this a valid confession?

Thanks in advance and feel free to bump this thread if I put it in the wrong section.

 

[Cristiano]

You went there the make a complete confession. He made a pastoral decision. If he used the proper formula of absolution then all your sins have been absolved. Next time you that go to confession, it would be good for you to bring up the mortal sins that you did not have the opportunity to explicitly confess, even if you have been absolved.

 

[passus]

You have not been absolved of mortal sins that you did not confess and now remember, even if they were un-intentionally withheld.

Sometimes a priest does not assign a penance (because he either forgets or for whatever reason choose not to assign one) and that does not affect the validity of the absolution.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

You have not been absolved of mortal sins that you did not confess and now remember, even if they were un-intentionally withheld.

Hi passus,
I’m not sure what you are trying to say here, could you elaborate? If you mean to say that forgotten mortal sins are not forgiven then I think you may be incorrect.

But it might be off topic anyway, since the original poster isn’t speaking of forgotten sins.

VC

 

[passus]

Hi passus,
I’m not sure what you are trying to say here, could you elaborate? If you mean to say that forgotten mortal sins are not forgiven then I think you may be incorrect.

But it might be off topic anyway, since the original poster isn’t speaking of forgotten sins.

VC

Right, and I don’t disagree with you. However, since the mortal sins (if there actually were any) were not forgotten and, although the intent to confess them was inherent, they were never confessed, I do not think we can say that they were actually absolved.

Saying that they should simply be mentioned at the next confession would be pointless because to do so would be to presume them unforgiven at the first confession–in which case they should be confessed as soon as possible.

 

[ishii]

I don’t think the OP was talking about not confessing any mortal sins, but rather the priest started the absolution before the penitent could list the “less important” sins. I gather those would be venial sins? Sounds like a valid confession to me.

Ishii

 

[Verbum_Caro]

passus,

Then, just to be clear, you were not speaking of sins that were unconfessed because they had been forgotten, but rather sins that were unconfessed because of some other reason (such as the one in the original post), correct?

VC

 

[Cristiano]

You have not been absolved of mortal sins that you did not confess and now remember, even if they were un-intentionally withheld.

Sometimes a priest does not assign a penance (because he either forgets or for whatever reason choose not to assign one) and that does not affect the validity of the absolution.

Wrong!! Or you are absolved of all your sins or it is an invalid confession and none of them is absolved.

Right, and I don’t disagree with you. However, since the mortal sins (if there actually were any) were not forgotten and, although the intent to confess them was inherent, they were never confessed, I do not think we can say that they were actually absolved.

Saying that they should simply be mentioned at the next confession would be pointless because to do so would be to presume them unforgiven at the first confession–in which case they should be confessed as soon as possible.

Can you please refer to Church documents to support your statements. I also suggest that you do a search on these forums and that you refer to the Catechism of Trent:

*Sins Forgotten

But should the confession seem defective, either because the penitent forgot some grievous sins, or because, although intent on confessing all his sins, he did not examine the recesses of his conscience with sufficient accuracy, he is not bound to repeat his confession. It will be sufficient, when he recollects the sins which he had forgotten, to confess them to a priest on a future occasion.

It should be noted, however, that we are not to examine our consciences with careless indifference, or to be so negligent in recalling our sins as to seem as if unwilling to remember them. Should this have been the case, the confession must by all means be made over again.*

 

[Verbum_Caro]

passus,

Please see my post #7. Am I misunderstanding you?

VC

 

[AJV]

I’m deployed to the middle-east right now and finally got a chance for Reconciliation when I landed after a sortie on Sunday.
The Chaplain was a Captain who was welcoming and well mannered, though he seemed to be in a hurry and seemed sort of distant throughout the whole thing.
I came to him for one main issue and spent a minute or so talking about that, then paused and before I could continue to confess some of my “less important” sins he began to counsel me and tell me about deployment stress (which it had nothing to do with) then had me say my act of contrition. It didn’t occur to me to stop him and tell him I had more sins to confess so I sort of just rolled with it, said my act of contrition and bowed my head as he went through his absolution checklist.
I thanked him, said goodbye and stuck around in our little sanctuary for a few moments with the blessed sacrament. On the way back to the compound I realized he hadn’t assigned me a penance.
I figured I might as well assign my own and spent some time kneeling in the gravel a few minutes way from the compound reciting the whole day’s Divine Office readings (couldn’t do the first two on the jet) but it still didn’t feel quite right.

All in all, several sins withheld, no penence assigned by the priest…was this a valid confession?

Thanks in advance and feel free to bump this thread if I put it in the wrong section.

I don’t know where exactly in the Middle East you are, but (in future, if this troubles you) you might want to go to one of the Catholic churches (if there is one and it is not too far and you are allowed).
In the Gulf countries almost all the Catholic churches that are there have times for confessions daily. This is usually before/during Mass (with more opportunities on weekends). Almost all the priests understand English, even if some may not speak it perfectly.

 

[Lujack]

Right, and I don’t disagree with you. However, since the mortal sins (if there actually were any) were not forgotten and, although the intent to confess them was inherent, they were never confessed, I do not think we can say that they were actually absolved.

Saying that they should simply be mentioned at the next confession would be pointless because to do so would be to presume them unforgiven at the first confession–in which case they should be confessed as soon as possible.

That’s incorrect. If the confession is valid (the proper formula for absolution used and no sins intentionally withheld), all sins committed prior to that confession are forgiven. One is still supposed to confess those sins at the next opportunity for confession, but as long as they were not intentionally withheld, they are indeed absolved.

 

[passus]

passus,
Then, just to be clear, you were not speaking of sins that were unconfessed because they had been forgotten, but rather sins that were unconfessed because of some other reason (such as the one in the original post), correct?

VC

Yes, I think we are in understanding.

Wrong!! Or you are absolved of all your sins or it is an invalid confession and none of them is absolved.

Uhh, why don’t you tell me which document you got *that *from?

Can you please refer to Church documents to support your statements. I also suggest that you do a search on these forums and that you refer to the Catechism of Trent:

*Sins Forgotten

But should the confession seem defective, either because the penitent forgot some grievous sins, or because, although intent on confessing all his sins, he did not examine the recesses of his conscience with sufficient accuracy, he is not bound to repeat his confession. It will be sufficient, when he recollects the sins which he had forgotten, to confess them to a priest on a future occasion.

It should be noted, however, that we are not to examine our consciences with careless indifference, or to be so negligent in recalling our sins as to seem as if unwilling to remember them. Should this have been the case, the confession must by all means be made over again.*

I don’t disagree with anything you have said here and I have no issue with the Roman Catechism. However, everything you have said deals with “sins forgotten.”

Neither this thread, nor the OP’s question, however, is about sins forgotten but rather, sins withheld.

That’s incorrect. If the confession is valid (the proper formula for absolution used and no sins intentionally withheld), all sins committed prior to that confession are forgiven. One is still supposed to confess those sins at the next opportunity for confession, but as long as they were not intentionally withheld, they are indeed absolved.

My understanding of the OP’s explanation of the situation would constitute sins intentionally withheld in his failing to interrupt the priest to say that he had more sins. In fact, the OP even says, “All in all, several sins withheld…”

One is still supposed to confess those sins at the next opportunity for confession, but as long as they were not intentionally withheld, they are indeed absolved.

Then, you would need to explain the necessity to repeat sins one has supposedly been absolved of.

Either way, the sins we’re talking about were intentionally withheld.

 

[Spirithound]

Either way, the sins we’re talking about were intentionally withheld.

I don’t think we’re dealing with sins intentionally withheld. The OP indicates that it didn’t occur to him to interrupt the priest.

 

[Cristiano]

Uhh, why don’t you tell me which document you got *that *from?..

Turning the table around does not work! First provide documentation of your assertion, then we will move on with the discussion.