M
maryjk
Guest
Or in other words, to those that have said, ask a priest, what they really mean is, “Ask another priest.”
- Status
O
oneofmany
Guest
Unless you are joined at the hip I think there would be ways for an anxious person to go to confession with their care taker right outside the door or on the other side of the room. One can whisper. How about writing it down in front of the priest than having the priest shred it after confession or burn it unless you don’t trust the priest.
What I mean is… The only person who’s answer has any actual meaning for the penitent is the priest she plans on confessing to. In the end, his answer determines what happens. You’ll notice that I always said, “Ask the priest.”Or in other words, to those that have said, ask a priest, what they really mean is, “Ask another priest.”
Z
zab
Guest
According to one of the pages in the Vatican document that you gave a link for earlier , no one is prohibited from using an interpreter as long as abuses and scandals are avoided and that they are obliged to observe the secrecy of the confession. But the OP’s question was not in reference to the need of a “translator”. So if we are not talking about an interpreter, there is still the reference to " and all otherswho may have any knowledge of sins from confession are also obliged to observe secrecy". I’m thinking of the person on the other side of the old type confessionals. These are still in use in our parish. However, our pastor only lets us use one side and the other side remains empty. Also there are those people who choose to sit or kneel in the pew right next to the confessional while confessions are being heard. These are a couple of examples when confessed sins could be overheard.What I mean is… The only person who’s answer has any actual meaning for the penitent is the priest she plans on confessing to. In the end, his answer determines what happens. You’ll notice that I always said, “Ask the priest.”
Even though a priest may not object to allowing, for example small children, to accompany a parent, that doesn’t mean that it is proper. Having had ten children I can think of a few reasons why this would not always be a good idea. And finally, in response to the example given by the OP, I would think that a person with such a high anxiety disorder would be even more reluctant to be completely honest in the (Reconcilliation Room) with another person present. It is not easy for most of us going to confession. But we have to learn to get used to it. This is just my opinion and that’s all that I’m going to say about it. I like Fr. David’s plain and simple “No” .
A simple no requires a source. The stuff I quoted was to show that canon law doesn’t even give a no. I would like Father to give us a source for his answer. He doesn’t even give a comment just “no”. Father could be very well correct but no one can provide actual verification of his answer. Different priests vary in opinion on all sorts of things. This is a pastoral case and should be dealt with pastorally by the pastor with recourse to his bishop. Ultimately, the penitent’s priest has the final word. Canon Law itself can be violated at times when a proper dispensation is granted.
I do not know the answer to this problem but the first place to start is with one’s pastor.
I do not know the answer to this problem but the first place to start is with one’s pastor.
S
seaton2005
Guest
I’m really trying not to draw this simple question out much longer, but let me re-phrase my question. If you advise “no” - then why? Is this your opinion or personal practice? Or is there a church policy or protocol in place that addresses this?
S
suko
Guest
"all others who in any way have knowledge of sins from confession" could just mean those that weren’t present inside the confessional, but still know of the sins, due to accidentally overhearing the confession, since the confessional door was not closed all the way, and people could hear, or the penitent just speaks so loud during confession that everybody could hear this person’s sins… Also, maybe it could also mean if a penitent discussed their confession (including the sins they mentioned) with another person outside of the confessional.
~ These are just some theories, I have no idea if they apply to this particular canon law.
Also OP, I just noticed in this sub-forum, there’s a sticky thread about a new Canon Law center that appears to offer some kinds of free services such as answering Canonical questions.
Here’s the site’s Contact page if interested.
O
oneofmany
Guest
If one has such a strong disability they can’t make it to confession, I think the answer is God understands. Like a priest told me—“God understands more than any of us do.” Be at peace.
L
Last_Things
Guest
You have no provided any reason for claiming such.
Canon law exists for the salvation of souls, not for the purpose of creating needless burdens to salvation. The fact remains that confession was originally public, thus a confession in the presence of someone other than a priest would go against the established norms of confession over the last 1200 years, not the fundamental theology of the Church.
A definite “no” could only be given if it went against the theology of the Church, which it does not.
B
Brendan
Guest
Fr David, I normally agree with you, but this time I don’t.
Zekariya has referenced the Canons that allow for an interpreter.
And then there is the case of a care giver.
Could you really expect a mother to leave her infant child outside the confessional? The infant is certainly another person.
B
Brendan
Guest
FYI, Canon 960 is in reference to individual vs general confession. In the case of troops going into battle, or a sinking ship, it is permissible for a priest to give general a general absolution.
Note the reference in ‘Form 3’ of this diocesan website
dioceseofbmt.org/resources/resources/sacrament-celebration/reconciliation.html#generalabsolution
C
catholictiger
Guest
interpreter would be the only exception.
F
FrDavid96
Guest
The answer to the question which the OP actually asked is still “no.”
C
catholictiger
Guest
Can. 990 No one is prohibited from confessing through an interpreter as long as abuses and scandals are avoided and without prejudice to the prescript of ⇒ can. 983, §2.
C
catholictiger
Guest
you are correct about the OP but you should have made that clear in the beginning.
F
FrDavid96
Guest
I did.
F
FrDavid96
Guest
And the OP specifically wrote “I’m not talking about a translator.”
C
catholictiger
Guest
you are correct my bad.
I think some people didn’t read the entire OP that is what caused confusion.
Father, I would appreciate a source if only for my own learning. I do not see this addressed either way in canon law. Why do say no? Is this a bishops’ conference thing? Is this a personal interpretation? Is there no source for your answer?
- Status