What to do when one withholds a mortal sin during confession

[ChristIsTheWay]

Hi all. Years ago, I committed a particularly embarrassing mortal sin and shortly afterwards went to see my regular confessor to confess my sins. I omitted that sin. I immediately regretted it and about a week later, while on vacation in another city, I went to confession with a priest there and confessed my omission of that particular mortal sin. I asked him if I should confess everything I had confessed during my previous confession (the one where I omitted the mortal sin in question) but he said no, I did not need to do that and that I just needed to confess the omitted sin along with the admission that I had withheld it at my last confession. Well, I have now happened upon some articles on the web that said I needed to confess all the sins from that invalid confession, too. So, do I need to confess all this at my next confession? Does all this leave me in a state of mortal sin over the years? I am really, deeply concerned right now. Thanks.

 

[babochka]

Hi all. Years ago, I committed a particularly embarrassing mortal sin and shortly afterwards went to see my regular confessor to confess my sins. I omitted that sin. I immediately regretted it and about a week later, while on vacation in another city, I went to confession with a priest there and confessed my omission of that particular mortal sin. I asked him if I should confess everything I had confessed during my previous confession (the one where I omitted the mortal sin in question) but he said no, I did not need to do that and that I just needed to confess the omitted sin along with the admission that I had withheld it at my last confession. Well, I have now happened upon some articles on the web that said I needed to confess all the sins from that invalid confession, too. So, do I need to confess all this at my next confession? Does all this leave me in a state of mortal sin over the years? I am really, deeply concerned right now. Thanks.

Trust the priest who heard your confession. He determined what was necessary in your case.

 

[porthos11]

Hi all. Years ago, I committed a particularly embarrassing mortal sin and shortly afterwards went to see my regular confessor to confess my sins. I omitted that sin. I immediately regretted it and about a week later, while on vacation in another city, I went to confession with a priest there and confessed my omission of that particular mortal sin. I asked him if I should confess everything I had confessed during my previous confession (the one where I omitted the mortal sin in question) but he said no, I did not need to do that and that I just needed to confess the omitted sin along with the admission that I had withheld it at my last confession. Well, I have now happened upon some articles on the web that said I needed to confess all the sins from that invalid confession, too. So, do I need to confess all this at my next confession? Does all this leave me in a state of mortal sin over the years? I am really, deeply concerned right now. Thanks.

It’s not just articles on the Web but the Catholic faith itself that teaches that ALL mortal sins must be confessed in kind and number and if one intentionally withholds that sin, none of the sins confessed are forgiven and an additional mortal sin of sacrilege is incurred. Hence, for the next good confession, the omission must be mentioned as well as all the sins previously confessed from the bad confession.

I don’t know why the second confessor did not tell you this, but objectively speaking, you should have repeated the whole bad confession during your vacation confession.

Since you said this was years ago, we also do not know what your confessions were since then. You may have likely made your intervening confessions in good faith (and therefore were valid), so you may only need to reconfess the withheld sin and the sins from the first bad confession, much like we confess previously forgotten and remembered mortal sins.

But as with all cases involving confession, this is a bad place to ask. We’re only hearing one side of the story, and we don’t know what your second (vacation) confessor might have heard from you. If it bothers you, just tell your confessor the next time you go to confession what happened and follow his instructions.

 

[Crusaderbear]

The priest is trained and ordained. Listen to him…He advised you in good faith, and you received that advice in good faith. To ease your mind, ask another priest!

 

[Catholic1954]

Hi all. Years ago, I committed a particularly embarrassing mortal sin and shortly afterwards went to see my regular confessor to confess my sins. I omitted that sin. I immediately regretted it and about a week later, while on vacation in another city, I went to confession with a priest there and confessed my omission of that particular mortal sin. I asked him if I should confess everything I had confessed during my previous confession (the one where I omitted the mortal sin in question) but he said no, I did not need to do that and that I just needed to confess the omitted sin along with the admission that I had withheld it at my last confession. Well, I have now happened upon some articles on the web that said I needed to confess all the sins from that invalid confession, too. So, do I need to confess all this at my next confession? Does all this leave me in a state of mortal sin over the years? I am really, deeply concerned right now. Thanks.

The second priest who heard your confession has the last word; if he says no you do not have to repeat your confession, then you do not have to repeat the original confession.

 

[Bookcat]

Hence, for the next good confession, the omission must be mentioned as well as all the sins previously confessed from the bad confession.

For clarity…all *mortal *sins.

If the invalid confession contained venial sins - those venial sins from that confession would not “need” to be re-confessed (since one is not obliged to confess them -though it can be good to).

 

[Bookcat]

Bring the matter to your Priest in Confession…he can guide you.

(note too that if they were just venial sins that were the “rest of the sins” from the other confession - they did not need to be confessed in the first place so did not required to be confessed in the second confession. - Also a person can be in good faith as another person here noted - that is intending to make a complete confession and be contrite and believe he confessed all he needed to - even though he missed a mortal sin -thus making a formally integral confession not realizing the mistake.)

---

About the subject:

Here is from the Catholic Answers Staff- Priest Apologists:

Fr Serpa OP:

(about both with-held mortal sins…and also forgotten ones - two different matters)

catholic.com/qa/can-you-answer-some-questions-about-confession

and

Fr. Grondin - Catholic Answers Apologist: Is it necessary to re-confess sins from your last confession if it was invalid? (withheld mortal sins).

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=963432

(such of course is about mortal sins…not venial).

---

Catechism on Confession (some pieces):

Confession of mortal sins: scborromeo.org/ccc/para/1456.htm

Confession of venial sins (not required): scborromeo.org/ccc/para/1458.htm

(note too some readers may scruple about confession - in their case they should have a regular confessor to guide them - and they may be in a different boat than others.)

 

[babochka]

Bring the matter to your Priest in Confession…he can guide you.

Please note that he has already brought the matter to a priest in Confession. The priest guided him in the matter and told him that those sins did not need to be confessed again.

 

[Bookcat]

Please note that he has already brought the matter to a priest in Confession. The priest guided him in the matter and told him that those sins did not need to be confessed again.

See the Second Catholic Answers Staff -Apologist Priest’s (above in my post) answer to that same kind of question (note that there too one Priest said he did not need to and the other said he did…to which the Catholic Answers Priest responded…).

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Hi all. Years ago, I committed a particularly embarrassing mortal sin and shortly afterwards went to see my regular confessor to confess my sins. I omitted that sin. I immediately regretted it and about a week later, while on vacation in another city, I went to confession with a priest there and confessed my omission of that particular mortal sin. I asked him if I should confess everything I had confessed during my previous confession (the one where I omitted the mortal sin in question) but he said no, I did not need to do that and that I just needed to confess the omitted sin along with the admission that I had withheld it at my last confession. Well, I have now happened upon some articles on the web that said I needed to confess all the sins from that invalid confession, too. So, do I need to confess all this at my next confession? Does all this leave me in a state of mortal sin over the years? I am really, deeply concerned right now. Thanks.

I can imagine that you are indeed deeply concerned.

Unfortunately, you have brought this deep concern to a place singularly ill suited to resolving your concern but, rather, you have brought it to a place inhabited by very few priests; it is inhabited by many people with thoughts that do not come from either a place of having earned an advanced degree in theology or having been a confessor for many years.

Having been a professor that taught liturgy and sacraments…and dealt with this sacrament in the confessional across the decades, I can think of several reasons off the top of my head as to why the subsequent confessor chose the course of action that he did…rightly and properly.

You laid the matter before the confessor and he made his judgment…years ago. It is not something needing to be re-visited at this point. You should be at peace that the matter was resolved.

If you continue to be inwardly disturbed, you should speak to your present confessor.

I would counsel you, above all, not to seek relief for such a matter in this sort of public forum. The determinations that some people make are, truly, breath-taking in how wrong they can be.

 

[johnnyc176]

Hi all. Years ago, I committed a particularly embarrassing mortal sin and shortly afterwards went to see my regular confessor to confess my sins. I omitted that sin. I immediately regretted it and about a week later, while on vacation in another city, I went to confession with a priest there and confessed my omission of that particular mortal sin. I asked him if I should confess everything I had confessed during my previous confession (the one where I omitted the mortal sin in question) but he said no, I did not need to do that and that I just needed to confess the omitted sin along with the admission that I had withheld it at my last confession. Well, I have now happened upon some articles on the web that said I needed to confess all the sins from that invalid confession, too. So, do I need to confess all this at my next confession? Does all this leave me in a state of mortal sin over the years? I am really, deeply concerned right now. Thanks.

This was posted today by Fr Z (Fr. John Zuhlsdorf ) in answer to a question that is somewhat related to yours and helps with how to state it…

wdtprs.com/blog/2017/03/ask-father-telling-a-lie-during-confession/

How does one confess such a thing?

“Bless me Father, I have sinned. My last confession was yesterday. During my last confession I lied about something. In doing so, I also committed the sin of sacrilege. I deeply regret so mistreating the Sacrament of Penance. I lied about X. Before that my last confession was two weeks ago. The sins I confessed yesterday were these: A two times, B once, and C three times. For these and any sins I cannot now remember, I am sorry. I ask a penance and your absolution. My Jesus, mercy.”

 

[babochka]

See the Second Catholic Answers Staff -Apologist Priest’s (above in my post) answer to that same kind of question (note that there too one Priest said he did not need to and the other said he did…to which the Catholic Answers Priest responded…).

So, do you recommend that this person priest-shop until he finds one who agrees with you?

He told a priest - in confession - what had happened and asked the priest, who had the opportunity to ask any necessary clarifying questions, if he should re-confess those sins. That priest, who actually has responsibility for this person’s soul, told him that such was unnecessary in his particular circumstances. Why on earth would you encourage this person to second-guess this? Can’t you see how this could breed unnecessary confusion and uncertainty, not only in this person’s case but in the case of everybody who reads this?

We need to trust our priests. We need to recognize the value of their formation and ministry and not constantly double-check to make sure they’re doing everything right. He recognized the problem. He asked his confessor about it and received and answer suited to his situation. It seems disrespectful to that priest to continue to ask around, looking for a different answer.

 

[johnnyc176]

So, do you recommend that this person priest-shop until he finds one who agrees with you?

He told a priest - in confession - what had happened and asked the priest, who had the opportunity to ask any necessary clarifying questions, if he should re-confess those sins. That priest, who actually has responsibility for this person’s soul, told him that such was unnecessary in his particular circumstances. Why on earth would you encourage this person to second-guess this? Can’t you see how this could breed unnecessary confusion and uncertainty, not only in this person’s case but in the case of everybody who reads this?

I’m not sure what the problem is. Bookcat posted comments from priests one of which referenced the Baltimore Catechism which is still valid in teaching the Faith.

The forum is associated with Catholic Answers so why dissuade someone from seeking answers here just because you don’t like the answer. If the op had asked their question on the Ask An Apologist page they would have received the same answers that Bookcat posted.

 

[Bookcat]

He asked his confessor about it .

No he did not ask him (missed part of the story…I sometimes read too fast as well - too many threads on these forums). He was away on vacation years ago and asked a Priest there. I referred him to go see his Priest who knows him.

So, do you recommend that this person priest-shop until he finds one who agrees with you?

.

No Priest shopping was suggested. I provided information from the Catholic Answers Apologists on the matter (this is Catholic Answers right?) and referred the person to* his Priest** who knows him.*…to see him.

. If the op had asked their question on the Ask An Apologist page they would have received the same answers that Bookcat posted.

Actually that is where the two answers I posted came* from the Catholic Answers Ask an Apologist page* and the New Catholic Answers Apologist feature on the new version of the site. From the Priests of Catholic Answers…

 

[johnnyc176]

Actually that is where the two answers I posted came* from the Catholic Answers Ask an Apologist page* and the New Catholic Answers Apologist feature on the new version of the site. From the Priests of Catholic Answers…

I understand. I was just reiterating that point.

 

[Bookcat]

I understand. I was just reiterating that point.

So was I

 

[Don_Ruggero]

So, do you recommend that this person priest-shop until he finds one who agrees with you?

He told a priest - in confession - what had happened and asked the priest, who had the opportunity to ask any necessary clarifying questions, if he should re-confess those sins. That priest, who actually has responsibility for this person’s soul, told him that such was unnecessary in his particular circumstances. Why on earth would you encourage this person to second-guess this? Can’t you see how this could breed unnecessary confusion and uncertainty, not only in this person’s case but in the case of everybody who reads this?

We need to trust our priests. We need to recognize the value of their formation and ministry and not constantly double-check to make sure they’re doing everything right. He recognized the problem. He asked his confessor about it and received and answer suited to his situation. It seems disrespectful to that priest to continue to ask around, looking for a different answer.

You are exactly correct.

 

[babochka]

I’m not sure what the problem is. Bookcat posted comments from priests one of which referenced the Baltimore Catechism which is still valid in teaching the Faith.

The forum is associated with Catholic Answers so why dissuade someone from seeking answers here just because you don’t like the answer. If the op had asked their question on the Ask An Apologist page they would have received the same answers that Bookcat posted.

Here’s the problem: This person has been to a priest, who heard his confession and was given relevant information about his past withholding of a mortal sin. This priest, who certainly knows all of the information that Bookcat posted, made a determination that it was not necessary for this man to repeat his previous confession. Some years later, the man reads some information and starts to worry so he asks a bunch of strangers who know little or nothing about his situation what he should do. They quote the catechism, canon law, and various general (not specific to his situation) answers from staff apologists and recommend that he goes to his priest and asks the question again, years after the fact. The thing is, he already did that. So let’s say he goes to the confessor that he has now and Father tells him the same thing - that it is not necessary, given his particular circumstances, to confess again. What then? Should he find another priest? Then another? At what point is the answer from a priest enough? Is it only when it agrees with a particular outcome? He laid out the situation to the priest *who was hearing his confession.*and asked if he should re-confess. He was given an answer. Why isn’t that enough? Sure, if he wants reassurance he can go ahead and seek it, but it is unnecessary.

 

[johnnyc176]

Sure, if he wants reassurance he can go ahead and seek it, but it is unnecessary.

Well to you it is unnecessary. But of course, as has been shown, others say it is necessary.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Here’s the problem: This person has been to a priest, who heard his confession and was given relevant information about his past withholding of a mortal sin. This priest, who certainly knows all of the information that Bookcat posted, made a determination that it was not necessary for this man to repeat his previous confession. Some years later, the man reads some information and starts to worry so he asks a bunch of strangers who know little or nothing about his situation what he should do. They quote the catechism, canon law, and various general (not specific to his situation) answers from staff apologists and recommend that he goes to his priest and asks the question again, years after the fact. The thing is, he already did that. So let’s say he goes to the confessor that he has now and Father tells him the same thing - that it is not necessary, given his particular circumstances, to confess again. What then? Should he find another priest? Then another? At what point is the answer from a priest enough? Is it only when it agrees with a particular outcome? He laid out the situation to the priest *who was hearing his confession.*and asked if he should re-confess. He was given an answer. Why isn’t that enough? Sure, if he wants reassurance he can go ahead and seek it, but it is unnecessary.

You are correct.

I would take the matter a step further than you do. “Why are you asking anonymous lay people, who are also not theologians, for a resolution to a matter than first was answered for you – years ago – by a priest with the faculties to hear confessions and that is properly and best put to a priest, or at least a sacramental theologian now, if you have been seized by concern or apprehension. Over an event from years ago. Resolved by a confessor.”

There are a number of reasons for which the confessor chose the path he did. If this were a seminary lecture hall, I would delineate them since it would benefit the seminarians. It’s frankly not worth my time to do so in this context.

If such a person continues to be troubled, that is the issue needing to be addressed.