Confession of Crime

[BubbaGump]

Theoretical question:

The confessional is ‘sealed’ – I know the priest is not allowed to reveal any sins confesed…but can he require the pennetant to do so?

In other words, can a priest require an individual that commits a crime and confesses it to turn him/herself in as a condition of forgiveness?

 

[Dauphin]

As I understand it, the priest has no power to put conditions on forgiveness. If you show true contrition for your sins, he is compelled to absolve you.

If he asked you to turn yourself in as penance, you are still absolved even if you don’t follow through.

 

[BubbaGump]

If he asked you to turn yourself in as penance, you are still absolved even if you don’t follow through.

I believe you are incorrect on this. I recently was watching an EWTN "Catholicism 101’ and the requirement was that the penance be performed as part of the sacrament. Failure to perform the penance would invalidate the sacrament.

 

[THurifer2]

I"Catholicism 101’ and the requirement was that the penance be performed as part of the sacrament. Failure to perform the penance would invalidate the sacrament.

I have heard differently. My understanding is that once absolution is given it is good “forever”. Not performing penance is an additional sin. I may be mistaken but only the church has the power and authority to bind and loose…not us as individuals. I believe a good example would be if the the penitent was given a penance and died or became incapacitated before the penance was complete. Perhaps some could help us on this one. I was taught that not performing penance had no bearing on the previous confession but was simply a comssion of a new post confession sin… anyone care to elaborate on this?

 

[thistle]

I believe you are incorrect on this. I recently was watching an EWTN "Catholicism 101’ and the requirement was that the penance be performed as part of the sacrament. Failure to perform the penance would invalidate the sacrament.

That is not correct. Absolution is not conditional. If you do not carry out the penance you are still absolved.

 

[THurifer2]

That is not correct. Absolution is not conditional. If you do not carry out the penance you are still absolved.

THistle,
would it be safe to assume that not carrying out penance is however, an additional sin?

Thank you in advance. (unconditionally of course ); )

 

[JimG]

Failing to complete the assigned penance would be a sin in itself.

Absolution, however, is always immediate. There is no delay in the application of the absolution pending the completion of the penance.

 

[LilyM]

Precisely as has been pointed out - deliberate failure to perform the penance is a separate sin in itself (and I think failure to perform the penance for a grave/mortal sin would be a grave/mortal one), but the previous sin has been absolved when the priest pronounces the words of absolution.

Put it this way, a priest can never force a penitent to reveal the nature of their sin or their identity as perpetrator of a sin or crime to anyone outside the confessional. That’s part of the seal as well.

They can strongly advise it, they can withhold absolution if they feel that failure to fess up indicates lack of true contrition, but they can’t directly force anyone in that way.

What they may also do is organise anonymous restitution - say monetary support for the victim of the crime, but which is handled indirectly via the priest rather than in any way that can directly be traced back to the penitent.

 

[johntkd]

I believe you are incorrect on this. I recently was watching an EWTN "Catholicism 101’ and the requirement was that the penance be performed as part of the sacrament. Failure to perform the penance would invalidate the sacrament.

I was told by a priest and also a deacon that if you cannot accept the penance you may tell the person giving it and ask for one that is able to be done… anyone else heard this??/

 

[Sir_Knight]

Theoretical question:

The confessional is ‘sealed’ – I know the priest is not allowed to reveal any sins confesed…but can he require the pennetant to do so?

In other words, can a priest require an individual that commits a crime and confesses it to turn him/herself in as a condition of forgiveness?

The priest can assign ANY penance that he feels is appropriate INCLUDING for someone to turn themselves in for a crime that they committed. However, it can NOT be a condition for receiving absolution. When a person walks out of the confessional, their sins are either forgiven or retained. Absolution can NEVER be conditional.

the requirement was that the penance be performed as part of the sacrament. Failure to perform the penance would invalidate the sacrament.

That is incorrect. Forgiveness can NEVER be conditional.

That is not correct. Absolution is not conditional. If you do not carry out the penance you are still absolved.

Yes, this is true.

Not performing penance is an additional sin.

would it be safe to assume that not carrying out penance is however, an additional sin?

Failing to complete the assigned penance would be a sin in itself.

That is not true. It is NOT a sin if one fails to perform the penance given to them.

Any penance that a person fails to perform in this life will be performed in purgatory and it has been revealed to us that we will be able to pay our debt here on earth with pennies on the dollar. So no matter how difficult a penance is in this life (physically, emotionally, etc.), it will be numerous times worse in purgatory in all of those areas.

So, it is really foolish not to perform even the most harsh penance here on earth because in purgatory it will be countless times more difficult.

I think the exact quote was that in this life we will be able to pay our debt with pennies while in purgatory it will cost dollars – signifying how much more intense the penance will be in terms of time, and physical & emotional difficulty.

 

[porthos11]

No matter, a priest cannot require a penitent to turn himself in or do anything that would constitute a revelation of the contents of the confession.

This means a priest cannot impose a penance of the penitent turning himself in.

 

[Sir_Knight]

No matter, a priest cannot require a penitent to turn himself in or do anything that would constitute a revelation of the contents of the confession.

This means a priest cannot impose a penance of the penitent turning himself in.

I disagree. Canon law binds the priest but not the person confessing …

**Can. 984 §1 The confessor is wholly forbidden to use knowledge acquired in confession to the detriment of the penitent, even when all danger of disclosure is excluded.

§2 A person who is in authority may not in any way, for the purpose of external governance, use knowledge about sins which has at any time come to him from the hearing of confession. **

 

[porthos11]

I disagree. Canon law binds the priest but not the person confessing …

**Can. 984 §1 The confessor is wholly forbidden to use knowledge acquired in confession to the detriment of the penitent, even when all danger of disclosure is excluded.

§2 A person who is in authority may not in any way, for the purpose of external governance, use knowledge about sins which has at any time come to him from the hearing of confession. **

This canon concerns matters of governance and administration; i.e. a priest cannot use his knowledge of the confession in any decision-making in, say, parish administration duties concerning an employee of the parish (e.g. he can’t fire him because he had an affair with another employee, and no one else knows).

Nevertheless, while the penitent is not bound by the seal (this is true), the priest has the responsibility of keeping the seal, and he fails in this if he binds the penitent to reveal the confession.

The CIC specifically states that it is absolutely forbidden for the confessor to betray the penitent in any way whatsoever. Now to bind a penitent to turn himself in (such is penance) forces the penitent to reveal the contents of the confession, even though he wouldn’t want to. This makes it the priest’s responsibility because he used his sacramental authority to have the Confession divulged.

The priest can only encourage him to turn himself in, but never make absolution conditional on turning himself in or imposing it as a penance on pain of sin. These binding things compromise the Sacrament’s secrecy.

A penitent is always free to divulge the Confession. But he can never be compelled to do so.

 

[Sir_Knight]

I clearly said that absolution can NEVER be CONDITIONAL on a penance being performed. Thus, the priest CAN make, as part of the penance, the requirement that a criminal turn themselves in for crimes committed. The priest will in no way be violating canon law and himself revealing ANYTHING about the confession but requiring the penitent to do so – who, is not bound by the seal.

Failure to perform the penance as given will NOT invalidate the absolution but will result in the penitent having to pay his debt for those sins in purgatory where the punishment will be much greater than anything he would have encountered in this life. As I said above, various saints have revealed that in this life we will be able to pay our debt with pennies on the dollar – signifying how much more intense the penance will be in terms of time, and physical & emotional difficulty.

 

[down_under]

A penitent is always free to divulge the Confession. But he can never be compelled to do so.

I agree with this but of course this is to remember that any third party that happens to (accenditly or on purpose) hear any portion of a confession is also bound by the seal of the confessional no to reveal anything he has heard of the confession.

 

[Sir_Knight]

This is true.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Theoretical question:

The confessional is ‘sealed’ – I know the priest is not allowed to reveal any sins confesed…but can he require the pennetant to do so?

In other words, can a priest require an individual that commits a crime and confesses it to turn him/herself in as a condition of forgiveness?

I don’t think the priest can compel the penitent to reveal the sins he has confessed, so I don’t believe he can make it part of his penance to do so. He can ask him to do so, but cannot compel it. This was the answer a priest gave at a retreat to the same question you asked.

Nonetheless, I’m trying to find a reference.

 

[revejj2000]

It has also been said that a penitent can ask for another penance if the one first offered is to hard or the person cannot do it if it will put them in danger.

 

[dylanschrader]

A priest may not directly or indirectly betray the penitent whose confession he has heard. He may not require that a penitent turn himself in; he may not make absolution contingent on this.

What is necessary for validity is the intention to make satisfaction, that is, to do penance and whatever is necessary to “make up” for the sin insofar as possible. If I don’t do the penance later, it doesn’t invalidate my confession as long as at the time I did intend to do it. It would be an additional sin, however.

For example, if I stole five dollars from someone and then went to confession. I have to intend to restore that five dollars insofar as possible. I can probably do this without revealing my identity.

One thing that can invalidate a confession is if I don’t have firm purpose of amendment.

For example, If I confess stealing five dollars but plan to steal five dollars in the future or don’t intend to make reparations (as far as possible) for that sin, then my confession is invalid.

 

[Sir_Knight]

If I confess stealing five dollars but plan to steal five dollars in the future or don’t intend to make reparations (as far as possible) for that sin, then my confession is invalid.

If someone commits a crime and is truly sorry for their sins, then they would want to pay their debt to society and turn themselves in. Failure to do so would be a sign that they do not intend to make reparations for their crimes. Thus, invalidating the confession.