A reader writes:
Prior to my Confirmation a year ago, I had not attended mass regularly until about 2 months before Confirmation. On the Saturday morning prior to Confirmation, I made my first confession in about 8 years. I was very nervous, and not entirely sure what I was doing, but I told the priest the sins that I remembered. After finishing my mental list, I ended with the word’s "And I am sorry."
Right after saying those words, I remembered another mortal sin that I had not listed, but the priest began to speak and I simply remained silent and let him talk. After hearing his advice, praying the Act of Contrition, and hearing him say the words of absolution, I left the confessional without mentioning what had come to mind. Based on your blog, you seem to know Canon law extremely well. Please tell me if this confession was valid.
Based on what you have said, it sounds as if it was.
What is required for the validity of confession is that we make what is known as a "formally complete" or "formally integral" confession. This means that we made a good faith effort to be complete and did not deliberately hold back something that we knew that we should confess.
Ideally, we also want to make a "materially complete" or "materially integral" confession, but often this is not possible due to one or a number of reasons, such as forgetfulness or uncertainty about what needs to be confessed.
There also are situations in which the standard moral theologians would recognize that an excusing cause from making a materially integral confession due to the interpersonal dynamic between the confessor and the penitent.
Once the confessor has taken control of the exchange there is psychological pressure on the penitent to keep his mouth shut and let the confessor talk. That’s part of the turn-taking behavior humans use to have conversations with each other (as opposed to monologue-ing), and it is reinforced in the confessional by the authority of the priest and the sacredness of the moment, and the feelings of humility and vulnerablity that the penitent has just generated in himself by confessing.
As a result, once the priest has started doing his thing, it can take extraordinary strength of resolve to interrupt him, stop him, and mention something that one has just remembered. The human thing to do is to simply let him finish.
Now here’s the deal: We are only called to participate in the sacraments "in a human manner" or in modo humano. We are not called upon (in non-emergency circumstances) to do anything extraordinary. The ordinary human thing is sufficient.
Therefore, if the priest has already taken control of the exchange and you suddenly remember something, there is not an obligation to confess it at that moment in order for the sacrament to be valid. If the priest gives you an opening, by all means do, of course, but if he does not then you have still made a formally integral confession in that you made a good faith effort to confess what you were supposed to, even though circumstances (your memory lapse couple with his taking control of the exchange) prevented you from making a materially integral one.
The thing to do is simply let him proceed and mention the unconfessed sin in your next confession–or the next one where you remember it and know you are obligated to confess it, at any rate.
Since you mention that this confession was preparatory for your confirmation, let me take a moment to reassure you about something else you may be wondering: Whether this confession was valid or not, your confirmation was valid. Being in a state of grace is needed for a confirmation to be licit (celebrated in conformity with the law) but it is not necessary for it to be valid (for it to imprint your soul, etc.). Therefore, even your confession had been invalid, your confirmation would still be valid.
It sound to me, though, that you made a good faith effort, based on what you knew and felt at the time, to confess what you were supposed to, and thus your confession would be valid.
20
Hmmm. I am not aware of an interpretation school or line that links “humano modo” with “ordinary” manner. I have not seen humano modo language associated with the conferral of any sacrament, though one does see it in regard to consummation of marriage (re indissoluability, not conferral). have i missed something in the literature. quite possible, of course.
Being in a state of grace, while not necessary for the validity of a Sacrament, is necessary to gain the graces of the Sacrament.