I read in a confessors manual that when confessing extremely shameful and embarrassing sins, the confession is perfectly valid if the penitent writes these types of sins on a piece of paper and lets the priest read it.  The penitent then must say "I accuse myself" of this or these sins.  

Yesterday I made general confession of the sins of my entire life.  I began with the above  practice.  Some sins of mine were so shameful that I would have had a very hard time verbalizing them and the last thing I wanted to do was commit a sacrilege.  However since I had four full pages of sins to confess, the priest rather hastily grabbed hold of the papers and said that since he was a speed reader it would be better if he just read all my sins and that if anything needed clarification he would ask questions.  The only thing that registered on my brain at that moment was a confession in which the priest asks questions and the penitent gives honest answers.  It did not occur to me until afterwards that this particular confession was most likely invalid.  From my understanding, the only time this practice is allowed if if the person is mute and I'm not mute.  I have no speech impediments at all.

I have to confess that I have suffered from terrible bouts of scrupulosity (I didn't decide this on my own, three priests have told me this) as well as OCD. All but a few of these sins have already been confessed and absolved.  My sole reason for even making this general confession was to correct any errors regarding material integrity that might have occurred with previous confessions so that I could enjoy compete peace of mind knowing that I had confessed everything to the best of my ability.

I'm wondering now if I should find another priest and do the whole confession over or just confess those sins that I'm certain were never confessed before.  I wonder too that since technically it is permissible to let a priest read your shameful sins if that part of the confession is valid.

Here is a link to the Confessors manual which was published in 1905. There is no question that it is perfectly legitimate to write shameful sins on paper and let the priest read it.

http://www.ebooksread.com/authors-eng/caspar-erich-schieler/theory-and-practice-of-the-confessional--a-guide-in-the-administration-of-the-s-hci/1-theory-and-practice-of-the-confessional--a-guide-in-the-administration-of-the-s-hci.shtml

Another Confession question: If a priest tells you, I forgive these sins, and any others you may have forgotten about" do you have to confess again if you remember one?

A priest has answered this same question for me in the affirmative; your confession is still valid, and you are still in the state of grace; but you must make an effort to bring the forgotten sins up in your next confession.

I've decided I'm just going to mention this whole incident to my regular confessor this Saturday and see what he says.

I've decided I'm just going to mention this whole incident to my regular confessor this Saturday and see what he says.

Why in the world would anyone down thumb a post like this.

That seems a wise approach to me.  Talking to an actual priest, I mean.  Not a bunch of people on a website.

Quote from: rowsofvoices9

I've decided I'm just going to mention this whole incident to my regular confessor this Saturday and see what he says.

Why in the world would anyone down thumb a post like this.

This has happened to a lot of my posts and doesn't bother me in the least.  I've come the conclusion that someone on this board just doesn't like. No matter what the content of my posts he/she gives me a thumbs down.  If you notice, the same thing happens with a lot of Roscoe's posts too.  His contribution can be very reasonable and even valuable but he'll still get a bunch of thumbs down.  Extremely immature on the part of whoever does this.

I don't fathom how priests can listen to all of those horrible things and not be absolutely repulsed by their parishioners. You know that 90% of the time they know who is on the other side of the screen. It seems contrary to human nature to hear such things and then sit next to the person at a potluck and be friendly.

I don't fathom how priests can listen to all of those horrible things and not be absolutely repulsed by their parishioners. You know that 90% of the time they know who is on the other side of the screen. It seems contrary to human nature to hear such things and then sit next to the person at a potluck and be friendly.

They go to confession too, and they understand.

Quote from: rowsofvoices9

The more I think about what happened the angrier I'm becoming.

Don't get angry. Pray for the priest and resign yourself to another confession. Consider it a form of penance and offer it up. As it stands now, I think you made a good confession so -- hopefully -- the absolution should be valid (you were contrite and intended to do what our Lord requires). But I also understand why you need this to be cleanly resolved.  

You're right, thanks for reminding me to offer it up as a penance.  I decided it's best to just pray for this priest.