Confessing crimes

[Corki]

Thanks. The first link here is very useful because it suggests concrete ways in which reparation can be acheived while anonymity is retained.

But is this always possible? And if not, what then? This remains a difficult issue. Like I said, a potential catch-22.

The link also notes that “The priest also may encourage the penitent to turn himself in to authorities”. Which is not very different from what I said: “it might be said that the person ought to hand themselves over to police”.

It’s not always possible. But if it is not possible to do it anonymously, the seal overrides everything else. It’s very different to say that the person “ought” to turn himself in and to suggest that absolution might be withheld if he does not or that be conditioned on his revealing himself.

 

[underacloud]

It’s not always possible. But if it is not possible to do it anonymously, the seal overrides everything else.

The seal does not override the need for reparation. The intent to make reparation is required for absolution. But as I said, what exactly that reparation/penance consists of is another matter.

It’s very different to say that the person “ought” to turn himself in and to suggest that absolution might be withheld if he does not or that be conditioned on his revealing himself.

I have not said this. You’ve put 2 and 2 together to get there yourself. Like I said, it’s a catch-22.

The penitent must have the intent to make reparation. For some serious sins, it’s hard to see how reparation can be sufficient without the person handing themselves in. But priests tend to work around this by applying another penance, and thereby meeting the requirements to grant absolution. This doesn’t change the fact that the person “ought” to turn themselves in.

 

[Cricket2]

No. He can only suggest you do so. Honestly if the crimes you committed are of a serious enough nature that he would suggest that, maybe the most honest thing you can do is turn yourself in.

Go to confession and seek forgiveness. There may be other things the priest can suggest in terms of your making amends for what you have done. But remember, that the state of your soul and your relationship with God is the most important thing to worry about. If that meant jail time for some reason, or probation, do you not think that would be better than risking your salvation?

Part of truly facing up to wrong doing is accepting the consequences.

 

[St_Francis]

From the catechism for starters:

and

This is rather vague and not necessarily related to what you have been saying. For example, when you say:
I “imply” it because I do accept it is an area for legitimate disagreement. But some make the strong case that for such crimes (eg murder, rape) the reparation required - to restore as much as possible the wellbeing of the victim (including eg familes of those murdered) - would be that the guilty person comes forward. The closure, and apparent temporal justice, that this affords the victims is perhaps the only real reparation that can be offered.

But it is a matter for legitimate disagreement.

who are those “some who make the strong case…”?

Absolution can be withheld if the penitent is insincere–usually taken to mean planning to continue in some sin.

Since absolution is given before the penance is done, the absolution is not dependent on the penance.

If a person were to continue to possess an item he or she had stolen, then that would be continuing in the sin, and absolution could be withheld on that ground, but I don’t think that a full reparation can be required for absolution because that would either leave some people unable to receive the sacrament at all, or the conflicting position of those who had committed lesser sins with a higher requirement.

 

[Corki]

The seal does not override the need for reparation. The intent to make reparation is required for absolution. But as I said, what exactly that reparation/penance consists of is another matter.

Actually, the need to make reparation is not required for Absolution. Contrition and the intent to amend one’s life are the requirements. Just as failure to do penance does not invalidate absolution, failure to make reparation does not either.

 

[mikekle]

No. He can only suggest you do so. Honestly if the crimes you committed are of a serious enough nature that he would suggest that, maybe the most honest thing you can do is turn yourself in.

What could the secular law enforcement agents do that the OPs priest could not? Remember Gods laws are much more important than mans laws.

I would take the advice of the others on here to go to confession, Ive never heard of a priest telling someone to turn themselves into secular authorities…that is just nonsense imo.

 

[underacloud]

Actually, the need to make reparation is not required for Absolution. Contrition and the intent to amend one’s life are the requirements. Just as failure to do penance does not invalidate absolution, failure to make reparation does not either.

Failure to do penance does not invalidate absolution. But a lack of intent to do penance (make reparation) does invalidate absolution. The intent, at the time, is required of the penitent. Of course, the priest may or may not know what the penitent intends; they merely judge their apparent contrition. A discussion may ensue, and if the priest finds that the penitent does not intend to do penance (make reparation), then they would presumably withhold absolution.

On a practical level, a priest will assume contrition (unless they have good reason to doubt it) and grant absolution, and then assign penance. The requirement to intend to make reparation is more an internal matter for the penitent.

 

[underacloud]

Since absolution is given before the penance is done, the absolution is not dependent on the penance.

If a person were to continue to possess an item he or she had stolen, then that would be continuing in the sin, and absolution could be withheld on that ground, but I don’t think that a full reparation can be required for absolution because that would either leave some people unable to receive the sacrament at all, or the conflicting position of those who had committed lesser sins with a higher requirement.

As I’ve said, absolution is dependant only on the penitents *intent *to do penance, not on their actually doing it.

So a person who stole something should intend to return it, and such an intent would be sufficient for their abolution. As you say, if they continue to possess it afterwards, that would constitue sin, but a new sin.

And as you say, full reparation cannot be required, since clearly it is not possible in many cases. Which is why we usually receive prayer as penance for sins that we can’t really undo in any practical way. But if I stole $1000, and I still have $1000, then I return that $1000. That example is pretty basic. Others are difficult to work through.

 

[UpUpAndAway]

I have heard different people say different things about this. How do you know?

Because of Can. 983 §1 and Can. 984 §1.

I did just notice, however, that you are Greek Orthodox. The canons mentioned pertain to the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church. I cannot speak for confession in Orthodoxy because I am completely unfamiliar with Orthodox canon law. Perhaps someone else can elucidate this matter.

 

[Cricket2]

Requiring the person turn himself into the authorities would break the seal of confession. A penitent can only do this if it is purely his/her choice - not because the priest directs him to do so or withholds absolution as a form of blackmail unless he does.

I think most of us know this. What we are saying is the priest can only recommend that he turn himself in. He can also refuse to grant absolution, but not “as a form of blackmail.” He could do this if he truly feels the penitent is truly not sorry or has no intention of mending his ways/stopping the sinful behavior. Though, I doubt any priest would take this approach with a first time confession over the matter in question.