No, absolutely not! The confessor cannot impose any such conditions on the grant of absolution. Likewise, before it might even be asked: there are absolutely no circumstances whatsoever where the confessor can ever disclose to the civil authorities, or anyone else, that which has been confessed to him.I am wondering whether the granting of forgiveness for a sin which breaches a serious criminal law should require the penitent to surrender himself/herself to the civil authorities. For example, if a penitent confesses to a serious crime, such as a murder or child sex abuse, should the priest require the penitent to surrender to the police as a precondition to receiving absolution?
No. This cannot be done. The confessor cannot require the penitent to reveal themselves in any way. That violates the seal of confession.I am wondering whether the granting of forgiveness for a sin which breaches a serious criminal law should require the penitent to surrender himself/herself to the civil authorities. For example, if a penitent confesses to a serious crime, such as a murder or child sex abuse, should the priest require the penitent to surrender to the police as a precondition to receiving absolution?
How would the seal be broken? The priest would tell the penitent that they must accept as penance the judgement of the civil authorities. How could a penitent object to that, yet still expect absolution?No. This cannot be done. The confessor cannot require the penitent to reveal themselves in any way. That violates the seal of confession.
Whatever a penitent confesses is protected by the seal of the confession. If I confess sin X to my confessor that remains absolutely secret between me and him. I can tell other people that I have committed sin X if I want to do that. I’ve seen people post threads here on CAF saying they’ve committed this or that sin.How would the seal be broken? The priest would tell the penitent that they must accept as penance the judgement of the civil authorities. How could a penitent object to that, yet still expect absolution?
What led me to ask the initial question was hearing a Cardinal state that he would not hear the confession of a priest if he knew that priest was coming to confess child sex abuse. That struck me as wrong, and my suggestion of hearing the confession but requiring the penitent to surrender to the authorities in order to have absolution made far more sense, before God and State. [Perhaps what the Cardinal was implying was that the first step the priest needs to take is to admit his crime to the civil authorities, after which a good confession is possible?]
I suggest that the priest is NOT forcing the penitent to do anything. He is challenging the penitent to decide whether he is truly ready to make a proper confession. If, by this standard, he is not, then he can go about his life his secret intact. But he has not secured absolution [my view, in this scenario].Whatever a penitent confesses is protected by the seal of the confession. If I confess sin X to my confessor that remains absolutely secret between me and him. I can tell other people that I have committed sin X if I want to do that. I’ve seen people post threads here on CAF saying they’ve committed this or that sin.
If the confessor forced you into revealing the sin against your will breaks the seal of the confession.
I have to assume you heard the cardinal correctly. I’m sure a cardinal’s knowledge of sacramental law and theology is far greater than mine. I cannot, though, think of any reason why the cardinal you mention or any confessor should refuse to hear a confession. Why should he refuse God’s mercy to anyone?
“Tell the police what you have done or I will withold absolution” is coercion. It is not permitted.I suggest that the priest is NOT forcing the penitent to do anything.
He can discern whether to withold absolution. He cannot however give absolution on the grounds the penitent reveals his sins. He cannot do that. The Church forbids it.He is challenging the penitent to decide whether he is truly ready to make a proper confession.
That’s not a decison for us to make.But he has not secured absolution [my view, in this scenario].
It might through doubt on his contrition. That’s not the question. The question is can a priest coerce a penitent to reveal his sins as a condition for being granted absolution? The answer is no.I do ask the question - just how contrite is the person who does not allow closure to their victims and families?
This much we certainly agree on. I guess my question is - would he?He can discern whether to withold absolution.
Nevertheless it happens. Absolution is not a personal favour to be granted or withheld as the confessor pleases. If he’s in no doubt about the penitent’s dispositions and is asked for absolution, he must give it and not deny or defer it.Mount Carmel - you make the point far more colourfully than I could!
It also occurs to me that the spectre of the Catholic Church enabling a (Catholic) child sex abuser to enjoy a perfectly fine relationship with God, despite the individual remaining free from obligation to confess to the community, would be - in my view - appalling.
Mount Carmel - you make the point far more colourfully than I could!
It also occurs to me that the spectre of the Catholic Church enabling a (Catholic) child sex abuser to enjoy a perfectly fine relationship with God, despite the individual remaining free from obligation to confess to the community, would be - in my view - appalling.
However, it isn’t the Church’s view. It’s about the penitent’s disposition. If satisfied that the penitent is contrite the confessor must absolve. He can’t make absolution conditional on revealing his sins to any other party. Similarly, he couldn’t impose revealing his crimes to the authorities as his penance.This much we certainly agree on. I guess my question is - would he?
I struggle to understand how, in the circumstances I’ve described, the priest could conclude “OK, I absolve you”, when the penitent has so far chosen to keep his heinous crime secret, and is free to continue to do so. And in the case of crimes such as child sex abuse, there is the real possibility that the crime will be repeated. For the penitent to keep secret is like a continuation of the sin, in my view.
OK, I think I can agree with that too. But the nub of the question is this: * Is it reasonable to “be in no doubt about the penitent’s disposition”, when said penitent has not, and does not intend to, report to the civil authorities?*Nevertheless it happens. Absolution is not a personal favour to be granted or withheld as the confessor pleases. If he’s in no doubt about the penitent’s dispositions and is asked for absolution, he must give it and not deny or defer it.
OK - our posts crossed in the night…your last paragraph (above) is the key point. And I take your point about the reduced chance of a person in this situation actually going to confession.It is a separate question: would the circumstances you describe mean that the penitent isn’t truly contrite. I believe that is a far more difficult question to answer. I also wonder whether such a person would approach a priest for confession anyway.
I suspect that this is because the Cardinal would not want to have the seal of confession conflicting with his duties to handle the crimes. Maybe one could argue that he could try to work only with data received from a source other than confession, but that would be very… delicate. I’m not even sure if it’s allowed.What led me to ask the initial question was hearing a Cardinal state that he would not hear the confession of a priest if he knew that priest was coming to confess child sex abuse…
This exactly. It may be that the penitents refusal to go to the authorities stems from lack of contrition.However, it isn’t the Church’s view. It’s about the penitent’s disposition. If satisfied that the penitent is contrite the confessor must absolve. He can’t make absolution conditional on revealing his sins to any other party. Similarly, he couldn’t impose revealing his crimes to the authorities as his penance.
It would seem to me that in the scenario you paint, the sin, or perhaps a different sin - continues.This exactly. It may be that the penitents refusal to go to the authorities stems from lack of contrition.
But the operative word is “may.” It could be that the penitent is contrite, but is so fearful of the consequences that he can’t bring himself to turn himself in. This isn’t good. It isn’t justified. But it isn’t grounds for refusing absolution either.
Possibly, yes. I simply do not know if it would be a sin to not turn oneself in. But even if it is, then it would be definitely be a different sin, and not one that affects the ability to grant absolution to the first.It would seem to me that in the scenario you paint, the sin, or perhaps a different sin - continues.
This cannot be given as a penance.There’s a very simple answer - acceptance of responsibility through handing oneself over to the authorities would likely form part of the penance given.
This crime isn’t.There are also some sins where absolution is reserved to the local bishop or the the Holy See.
Have you studied the sacrament of Penance yet?… my seminary …