Canon 977 - absolution for the Sixth Commandment is invalid

[MarkThompson]

I’m curious about Canon 977 of the Code of Canon Law, dealing with the sacrament of penance, which says,
977. The absolution of an accomplice in a sin against the sixth commandment of the Decalogue is invalid except in danger of death.
Huh? First of all, are we talking about murder or adultery here? And second . . . huh? Not just “is reserved to the Apostolic See,” but “is invalid”?

(You’ll all be glad to know I ask out of pure curiosity, and not for any personal motivation!)

 

[Phemie]

e

I’m curious about Canon 977 of the Code of Canon Law, dealing with the sacrament of penance, which says,977. The absolution of an accomplice in a sin against the sixth commandment of the Decalogue is invalid except in danger of death.Huh? First of all, are we talking about murder or adultery here? And second . . . huh? Not just “is reserved to the Apostolic See,” but “is invalid”?

(You’ll all be glad to know I ask out of pure curiosity, and not for any personal motivation!)

That would be adultery. The priest cannot absolve the person with whom he is having sex of that same sin.

 

[MarkThompson]

e
That would be adultery. The priest cannot absolve the person with whom he is having sex of that same sin.

Ah! So “of an accomplice in a sin” means “of an accomplice of the priest’s in a sin.” That makes sense, and maybe in the Latin this line is clearer. I had read it such that if a penitent went in and said, “Gee, Father, I helped my friend cheat on his wife, and I feel really bad about it,” he would be without recourse.

 

[joandarc2008]

Now here is a question - albeit not on the same question - but my dh and I were discussing it. We witnessed someone get disrespectful to our Priest. Would it be wise for same person to go to same priest for confession if that person felt they had committed a sin in that and could that priest take that confession and if for some reason that priest did not feel they repetent - say the person was a child and the parent was making them go would the priest have to give them absolution - somewhat an apologetics/humanist/hom much is a priest a priest and how much is a priest a man discussion.

 

[bnbkaine]

The priest acts In persona Christi - a Latin phrase meaning “in the person of Christ.” Because of this, we aren’t actually confessing to the man who is a priest but instead to Christ.

While going through RCIA I asked our priest how much he remembers about people and their sins after Confession. (At that parish, they only did face to face.) He said that he doesn’t remember much if anything and I think he said it was a grace of God. I can’t imagine a priest putting himself in judgement of whether a person was truly repentant or not.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

. . . say the person was a child and the parent was making them go . . .

this comes up in RCIA. It is wrong to force anyone to go to Confession or to confess to a certain priest. One can give suggestions and make recommendations, but everyone, including children, have complete freedom of choice in both cases.

On the other hand, I might force my child to go into the confessional and tell the priest that his father forced him to come in, but he doesn’t want to confess. I suspect that that is cutting things a little close, but I can imagine cases where I might resort to it. Fortunately the matter never got to that.

 

[PacoG]

He said that he doesn’t remember much if anything and I think he said it was a grace of God. I can’t imagine a priest putting himself in judgement of whether a person was truly repentant or not.

It is really hard to fathom how much people can forget things easily unless you are dealing with people who have to remember.

I have practiced criminal law for 15 years. Police officers always have to refer to their reports and notes, and they are for the most part professional witnesses. Testifying in trials and other proceedings is part of their jobs. However, when you think about how many arrests they make in a day multiplied over weeks and months, it’s a lot to remember.

A few months ago, I was called to testify at a writ hearing for a client I represented 12 years ago. He was trying to get his conviction overturned because he no longer wanted to register as a sex offender. Even after I was given the opportunity to review the court’s file (my file was destroyed in accordance with state bar rules so I couldn’t refer to it), I couldn’t remember anything from 12 years ago.

Afterwards, I discussed my lack of memory with an older colleague. He said (and it’s pretty much true) that after a while, all cases and clients (except the more memorable ones) merge into one big blurry case and client. And it’s true.

My point, it’s hard for people to remember when it is their business to remember; therefore, it is must be hard for priests to remember when they are making the effort to forget. If that makes sense.

 

[tee_eff_em]

Ah! So “of an accomplice in a sin” means “of an accomplice of the priest’s in a sin.” That makes sense, and maybe in the Latin this line is clearer.

Nope.

*Can. 977 — Absolutio

complicis

in peccato contra sextum Decalogi praeceptum invalida est, praeterquam in periculo mortis.*

tee

 

[Spirithound]

1. The absolution of an accomplice in a sin against the sixth commandment of the Decalogue is invalid except in danger of death.

Can. 977 — Absolutio complicis in peccato contra sextum Decalogi praeceptum invalida est, praeterquam in periculo mortis.

Tee is right in his short analysis. The Latin is not any grammatically clearer, as there is no pronoun specifying whose accomplice cannot be absolved. I think we must just use a little reasoning though. You reacted correctly to your original parsing of the sentence; it makes no sense that “somebody’s” accomplice cannot be absolved, since we know that any sin can be repented of, and more to the point, the adulterer himself can be absolved.
So, it’s good we got this straightened out

 

[Pug]

And second . . . huh? Not just “is reserved to the Apostolic See,” but “is invalid”?

The priest cannot be having sex with his secretary and then absolve her of that sin. However, if she goes to a different priest, she can be absolved, assuming of course that she repents. That is what the “invalid” thing is about. That particular priest does not have the power to absolve her. Even if he says the words, it is still “invalid”. Sometimes priests do not have the faculties to absolve people of sins. Other times they do. If the penitent is in danger of death, all validly ordained priests have the faculty to absolve sins. Furthermore, in danger of death there are no censures that cannot be removed/lifted. The “reserved to whomever” does not apply then.

 

[MarkThompson]

The priest cannot be having sex with his secretary and then absolve her of that sin. However, if she goes to a different priest, she can be absolved, assuming of course that she repents. That is what the “invalid” thing is about. That particular priest does not have the power to absolve her. Even if he says the words, it is still “invalid”. Sometimes priests do not have the faculties to absolve people of sins. Other times they do. If the penitent is in danger of death, all validly ordained priests have the faculty to absolve sins. Furthermore, in danger of death there are no censures that cannot be removed/lifted. The “reserved to whomever” does not apply then.

Yes, I’ve got it now. I had parsed the text differently, to say, basically, “Absolution of being an accomplice in a sin against the sixth commandment of the Decalogue is invalid except in danger of death.” Textually, it actually is ambiguous (thanks for finding the Latin, tee_eff_em), but when it’s parsed differently it makes perfect sense.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

I think this recently came up recently in the case of a priest who was abusing boys and assuring them that he would absolve them.

 

[Catholic]

I recently posed this question to the Ask an Apologist forum. Canon 977 seems to imply certain sins, but does not specifically identify them. Suppose a priest made a little bit of an off-color, impure joke during a homily or just an informal conversation, and a person subsequently laughed. Would that person be an accomplice to the priest in a sin against the Sixth commandment and thus be unable to go to him for confession?

 

[malphono]

I recently posed this question to the Ask an Apologist forum. Canon 977 seems to imply certain sins, but does not specifically identify them. Suppose a priest made a little bit of an off-color, impure joke during a homily or just an informal conversation, and a person subsequently laughed. Would that person be an accomplice to the priest in a sin against the Sixth commandment and thus be unable to go to him for confession?

No.

 

[MarkThompson]

I recently posed this question to the Ask an Apologist forum. Canon 977 seems to imply certain sins, but does not specifically identify them. Suppose a priest made a little bit of an off-color, impure joke during a homily or just an informal conversation, and a person subsequently laughed. Would that person be an accomplice to the priest in a sin against the Sixth commandment and thus be unable to go to him for confession?

Canon 977 actually does specify the sin: “The absolution of an accomplice in a sin against the sixth commandment of the Decalogue is invalid except in danger of death.” The Sixth Commandment is “You shall not commit adultery,” so off-color jokes are not covered. As explained in posts #2 and 3 above, what this canon means is that you cannot have sexual relations with a priest and then be absolved by him for it.

 

[Catholic]

Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut. Please do not think I am being confrontational if I clarify my thinking - I kind of fall into the situation I described in my earlier post, and so I was wondering about my confession options.

The canon confused me a little bit, because it seems that the commandments encompass more than just the specific sin they identify. Examinations of conscience are sometimes organized by commandment (like the Catechism of the Catholic Church) and include various secondary sins that fall under each one, much like when Jesus said that “Thou Shalt Not Kill” forbids us even to call someone a derogatory name. And If a priest engaged in sexual relations with an unmarried woman, it would not technically be adultery, but fornication, yet it seems that Canon 977 would still apply. That’s why I wondered about whether a dirty joke would fall under the same category, since it seems to be a sin against the 6th commandment from what I have read.

Again, please do not take this as a challenge to your previous post - I am just interested in putting this to rest and welcome any comments that might correct my reasoning.

 

[laszlo]

I’m curious about Canon 977 of the Code of Canon Law, dealing with the sacrament of penance, which says,
977. The absolution of an accomplice in a sin against the sixth commandment of the Decalogue is invalid except in danger of death.
Huh? First of all, are we talking about murder or adultery here? And second . . . huh? Not just “is reserved to the Apostolic See,” but “is invalid”?

(You’ll all be glad to know I ask out of pure curiosity, and not for any personal motivation!)

This means only that the priest cannot absolve his concubine or accidental accomplice in sex. If he attempts it, that involves reserved excommunication

Gigolos or others who sell girls or boys can be absolved if they repent.

 

[Spirithound]

The canon confused me a little bit, because it seems that the commandments encompass more than just the specific sin they identify. If a priest engaged in sexual relations with an unmarried woman, it would not technically be adultery, but fornication, yet it seems that Canon 977 would still apply. That’s why I wondered about whether a dirty joke would fall under the same category, since it seems to be a sin against the 6th commandment from what I have read.

Again, please do not take this as a challenge to your previous post - I am just interested in putting this to rest and welcome any comments that might correct my reasoning.

I understand your concern, and I think it bears defining a couple terms more clearly.

First, “accomplice”. Without looking at a dictionary, it seems to me that accomplices must collaborate, meaning they have to plan their act, and express mutual consent. You didn’t know that he was going to tell that joke beforehand, and so he did not have your previous consent, and so you were not acting together. I think that an accomplice relationship involving a dirty joke would have to be one of you imposing on the other to tell a dirty joke. Following from this point, it is entirely possible that there are two separate sins here, but not an accomplice relationship.

Secondly, the types of sins that are covered under Canon 977 are mortal sins, since these are the only sins that require sacramental confession. Laughing is subconscious, and so does not meet the criteria of full knowledge or full consent of the will. So, if you sinned at all, it was a venial sin.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

This means only that the priest cannot absolve his concubine or accidental accomplice in sex.

Perhaps I’m a bit out of touch, but how exactly could someone be an “accidental accomplice in sex”?

 

[joanofarc2008]

@NewEnglandPries - I was thinking the same thing. The only thing I can think of is perhaps say husband A tells friend B to tell wife A that he is going at work because he is really out birthday shopping for her and does not want her to know and friend B does this. However husband A is really having an affair. Hey, what can I say - I had one of those marriages. Any other examples I know of involve one spouse being away for a long period of time.

The other thing I can see depending on how you parse this is it could also say that an accomplice to say a crime such as abortion cannot be absolved by a priest. I could be way off - as those faculties are reserved for the Bishop and certain Orders of Penance.