Bishop says "I will go to jail before I will obey," as California proposes law requiring priests to report to police what they heard in confession

[Tis_Bearself]

Is there a priest in the house to best explain to this guy why he’s wrong? @edward_george @InthePew

 

[tafan2]

As I have stated before, this should be obvious, but I do not have any expectations the courts will support this view over the long term.

The Church should started mandating anonymous confessions now. It us likely the only long term defense against this movement. If the local Churches wait until a law becomes a reality in their diocese, I would not be surprised if it is persecuted for that.

 

[Glennon_P]

The Church should started mandating anonymous confessions now.

I recently attempted to go to face-to-face Confession in my parish. The priest asked that I go behind the screen, saying the Bishop had asked priests to avoid face-to-face. I don’t know the reason - I assumed it had something to do with the priest abuse cases, but perhaps it was a way for priests to avoid knowledge of the penitent as you suggested be done in California. (I’m not in California, by the way).

 

[tafan2]

I would guess at this time it is seen as a way to protect priests from false accusations, which is another reason to mandate it now.

 

[Gorgias]

Those inclined to confess this will leave the state to do so.

You realize that persons in any state would see that as a victory for their communities, right? “Let them abuse somewhere else”, sadly enough, wouldn’t be an uncommon or unpopular thought…

Why wouldn’t my priest require me - as an act of true contrition and penance - to go confess my crime to the store owner, pay for the sandwich, and perhaps expose myself to criminal charges? Could the priest require me to do this? Why wouldn’t he?

No, he couldn’t. He wouldn’t because canon law forbids it.

Of course it’s just one–until “just one more exception” is proposed. Just “just one more”.

Precisely.
(And even one is sufficient to turn people away from the sacrament.)

Exactly. If this actually passes, I imagine it will get shot down by the Supreme Court eventually.

I think we’re missing the likely reason for attempting to pass this in the first place. The “win” isn’t getting it to stick – the “win” is getting it to pass. Then, when it gets struck down on constitutional grounds, “progressive” lawmakers will get to wring their hands and wail, “look what they did! I tried to help, but they shut me down!”…

Would not an act of true remorse be to confess to authorities? Said another way - is it possible to be truly remorseful without subjecting yourself to the secular authorities?

Yes. The sacrament brings divine justice, not civil justice. Subjecting yourself to secular justice does not show contrition (nor does refusing to do so show a lack of contrition).

I am open to correction on that, but I have heard priests say that they can recommend disclosure.

Right. They can recommend it, but not make it a condition of receiving absolution.

it is highly doubtful that people confess child sexual abuse in the confessional in any event, because they don’t regard it as a sin and are in denial that they even did anything wrong, and also don’t want anyone else to know, not even a priest in confession.

I’m not sure I’d say I agree with that. You can make that claim about any serious sin – and I think that would be a weak claim to make.

it is the confession is to God and it is God who absolves.

Priests absolve; God forgives.

 

[Gorgias]

How would a priest telling someone go to the police as part of their penance prevent that priest granting absolution and completing the sacrament as normal?

Nope. Can’t do that, either. You’re still making self-incrimination part of the sacrament, and that’s not permitted.

How is that any different from some other act of contrition which the priest might suggest ?

Because any other penance wouldn’t include the requirement to incriminate oneself publicly.

how is it ok for a priest to tell me to say 10 Hail Marys as an act of contrition as if my absolution were conditional unless I did so?

Absolution isn’t conditional on penance. However, it is required when assigned and agreed to by the penitent. So, yeah – a priest does “mandate” when he sets the penance. Therefore, he cannot mandate – even in penance – that one turns oneself in to the authorities. Ever.

Is there a priest in the house to best explain to this guy why he’s wrong?

If he refuses to believe it when Church law is quoted to him by many people, I somehow doubt that having an internet poster who presents himself as a priest is gonna change his mind.

 

[TradViolin]

The username of the first priest is incorrect. His username is @edward_george1, not @edward_george.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Thanks for the correction!

 

[TradViolin]

No problem!

 

[TULIPed]

Subjecting yourself to secular justice does not show contrition (nor does refusing to do so show a lack of contrition).

True this. It is possible for a believer to turn himself in for a crime he’s committed and also be un-remorseful for it. Seems to me like it would be highly unlikely though, no?

And yet…we’re supposed to obey the law and subject ourselves to secular authority as Paul sets forth in Romans 13 (and elsewhere). If I break the law, I clearly haven’t submitted - and rightly need to confess (to God certainly). It seems to me that if I then don’t confess to breaking the law, I’ve compounded my problem, no?

Look - I can see the practical ramifications of the canon law. If priests could require submission to authorities in return for absolution, it would likely put a damper on confession. I mean we’re focusing on big crimes - take this example. I confess to my priest that I did 75 in a 65. The priest tells me to go pay the fine, come back with the receipt, and he’ll absolve me. If that happened every time I confessed, I’d be (a) un-insurable; and (b) destitute.

 

[bquinnan]

Yes. The sacrament brings divine justice , not civil justice . Subjecting yourself to secular justice does not show contrition (nor does refusing to do so show a lack of contrition).

What about a hypothetical situation in which the penitent knows that someone else is in prison for a crime he committed? Wouldn’t he have a moral obligation to do what he could to correct this injustice?

 

[njlisa]

All Catholic know that the seal of the confessional is inviolable.

Catechism of the Catholic Church 1467

Given the delicacy and greatness of this ministry and the respect due to persons, the Church declares that every priest who hears confessions is bound under very severe penalties to keep absolute secrecy regarding the sins that his penitents have confessed to him. He can make no use of knowledge that confession gives him about penitents’ lives. This secret, which admits of no exceptions, is called the “sacramental seal,” because what the penitent has made known to the priest remains “sealed” by the sacrament.

There is no way California could compel priests (or those who overhear confessions) to reveal information. Is state of California were to going wiretape confessionals? This law is a shameless violation of religious freedom.

 

[bquinnan]

I can think of two scenarios: One would be someone who fits the parameters of the law, goes to confession, is caught some other way, is facing charges and negotiates a plea bargain for turning in the priest to whom he confessed. The priest’s action would be hard to prove, but on the other hand, he would be unable to refute the accusation under canon law.

A second way would be if an investigator goes in and makes a false confession while pretending to be a priest, and then has the priest arrested when no report is made. I don’t know if that would be considered entrapment or not.

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

Lion_IRC:

Yes, I know it is a recurring thread topic on CAF. (I wonder why that is?)
But…
How would a priest telling someone go to the police as part of their penance prevent that priest granting absolution and completing the sacrament as normal?
How is that any different from some other act of contrition which the priest might suggest ?

Because it requires the priest to mandate the penitent to break the seal, and priests are forbidden from using the knowledge they have to break it, which they are doing when they mandate it of a penitent. He’s also forbidden by canon law from using the knowledge to the detriment of the penitent.

1. The priest isn’t required
2. The penitent isn’t mandated
3. A supposed abuser going to the police doesn’t logically entail any violation of the seal.
4. There is no detriment to anyone.

Please answer my question - how is it ok for a priest to tell me to say 10 Hail Marys as an act of contrition as if my absolution were conditional unless I did so?

ETA - I predict you will tell me my absolution isn’t conditional. (And I agree.) Therefore, a priest isn’t mandating anything when they say …please go and submit to secular authorities.

The priest cannot tell the penitent to violate the seal.

 

[0Scarlett_nidiyilii]

This law is just a symbolic gesture, the State trying to assert itself as dominant over the Church.

I mean, does anybody really think that pedophiles are rushing to the confessionals by the truckloads?

 

[TMC]

This law is just a symbolic gesture, the State trying to assert itself as dominant over the Church.

I mean, does anybody really think that pedophiles are rushing to the confessionals by the truckloads?

The law is specifically aimed at abusive priests. Priests are already mandated reporters of child abuse in California (like many other states). There is an exception if the priest learns of the abuse in confession. The proposed law would remove the confessional exception, but only as to abuse committed by other priests or employees of the facility where the confessor works. So it is not merely symbolic. It is intended to get at the problem of priests covering up for other priests. (I say this merely to explain what the proposed law says, not to take a position on it one way or the other.)

 

[InThePew]

Absolution cannot be conditional - it’s what’s called a performative utterance. So, in simple terms, when I say “…I absolve you” the person is absolved.

This assumes however that the requirements are satisfied. One of those requirements is contrition (the person has to be truly sorry for their sins) and this can usually shown simply by the fact that they’re there! More relevant though is the requirement of a firm purpose of amendment - basically a desire to do differently next time. Granted, for pretty much all of us, chances are we will end up sinning again often in the same way. What matter though is the desire to do differently - something particularly important when the sin in question involves direct and serious harm to others and especially if it’s ongoing. In such cases, this advisory opinion argues that absolution could be delayed or even denied if the penitent was unwilling to take steps (such as seeing a psychologist) which showed they had a sincere purpose of amendment. However, their confession would still protected by the seal. Note though, that this opinion is just that - persuasive but unofficial.

 

[0Scarlett_nidiyilii]

It is intended to get at the problem of priests covering up for other priests.

I call baloney.

It’s a power grab from the government.

If they really cared about kids, they would be investigating the high rates of mental health issues in child stars.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

I mean, does anybody really think that pedophiles are rushing to the confessionals by the truckloads?

I’m pretty sure that many non-Catholics who don’t have a clue in heck about confession may very well think that these priests are all going out and committing sins and then running into confession and confessing and absolving each other and doing it again the next day. I have met Protestants who have this sort of concept of Catholic confession.

In any event, that’s not happening, and no priest who wants to stay a priest is going to be breaking the seal.

 

[TMC]

I call baloney.

It’s a power grab from the government.

If they really cared about kids, they would be investigating the high rates of mental health issues in child stars.

I think it is well meaning, which is not the same as saying that it is the right thing to do. Abuse by priests is a real problem. Just because the state is not working on some other problem, does not mean it should not work on this problem.