Confession Question from my Boys

  • Thread starter Thread starter SisterSnowflake
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
FrDavid96 said:
As for the part about the priest doing nothing to stop the future sin, that’s an opportunity to remind the teens that the person is confessing to Christ, not to the person of the priest, and that the priest cannot even reveal to himself what he learned in Confession.
Click to expand...
Ohhhhhh…I get it now…thank you:)
 
Wow! Thanks, Father! So, the old “a bad guy put poison in the communion wine” scenario means that everyone at Mass (who receives the Blood of Christ) will die? Yikes!

Thanks again for all of the information…it is my sixth hour class that is asking, so this is very helpful.

God bless!

Sister H.
 
SisterSnowflake said:
Wow! Thanks, Father! So, the old “a bad guy put poison in the communion wine” scenario means that everyone at Mass (who receives the Blood of Christ) will die? Yikes!

Thanks again for all of the information…it is my sixth hour class that is asking, so this is very helpful.

God bless!

Sister H.
Click to expand...
Even though that might sound harsh and uncaring, the answer quite frankly is yes. One more time, keep in mind that the teens are asking about themselves and their own sins. This is an opportunity to reassure them that the seal cannot be violated. That’s the whole point of the conversation–even though the teens themselves won’t admit it. Saying that there is even one example of a priest violating the seal (no matter how extreme or unlikely, or wildly imaginative) will open the door to their own misgivings and they will be less likely to make complete and honest confessions of their own sins.
 
FrDavid96 said:
Just for clarity here, a priest can never compel someone to “turn himself in” as part of the penance. That violates the seal.

A priest is forbidden to give a public penance (one which would reveal the sinner’s identity or guilt), unless the sin itself is already a public one (in other words, the person’s guilt is already known).
Click to expand...
Wow. So my priest is in error for what he is saying to me. Either that or I misunderstood him… either way thanks for the clarification.
 
how about this, one guy confesses that he is ABOUT to kill someone or blow something up

since he hasn’t done it yet, its not yet a sin. since its not yet a sin, its not a confession, so the priest can tell the police 🤷
 
choy said:
how about this, one guy confesses that he is ABOUT to kill someone or blow something up

since he hasn’t done it yet, its not yet a sin. since its not yet a sin, its not a confession, so the priest can tell the police 🤷
Click to expand...
One more time, the seal of the Sacrament of Confession is absolute and cannot be violated.
 
Susan_Calvin said:
Wow. So my priest is in error for what he is saying to me. Either that or I misunderstood him… either way thanks for the clarification.
Click to expand...
Well, I quoted what the Church has to say on the matter. See #22 from the rules for Penance. “He must not impose a public penance for sins that are secret, no matter what their enormity.”
 
FrDavid96 said:
Just for clarity here, a priest can never compel someone to “turn himself in” as part of the penance. That violates the seal.

A priest is forbidden to give a public penance (one which would reveal the sinner’s identity or guilt), unless the sin itself is already a public one (in other words, the person’s guilt is already known). %between%
Click to expand...
My understanding (based on events which I’d rather not get into) is that the PRIEST can not use any information learned during confession outside of the confessional but nowhere does it say anything about the person using that information outside of the confessional.

If a person commits a murder – a public act since the death is made public or a robbery or any other crime … why can’t the priest give, as part of the penance, to turn oneself in?

Recognizing that the absolution can never be conditional on performing the penance but still, why can’t such a penance be given? As long as the priest doesn’t do anything with the information outside of the confessional.

Can you please clarify?
 
SisterSnowflake said:
OK, my tenth graders have another question!

We all know that a priest can’t reveal anything from a Sacramental Confession, even if threatened with death or execution.

Here’s the question:

If someone, during the Sacrament, confesses that he/she will kill someone/many people, or will complete some other terrible crime, is the priest able to do anything to stop it?

I can’t find an answer and knew somebody out there could help.

THANKS and God bless!

Sister H.
Click to expand...
I asked a priest friend a similar sort of question. His answer was that he couldn’t act on anything said in Confession. However, he could and would encourage the person to tell him outside of Confession. Since they’re confessing it at all they probably want to be stopped from taking the action. He would encourage them to tell him in a way that he wouldn’t be bound by the seal.
 
SisterSnowflake said:
Here’s the question:

If someone, during the Sacrament, confesses that he/she will kill someone/many people, or will complete some other terrible crime, is the priest able to do anything to stop it?

I can’t find an answer and knew somebody out there could help…
Click to expand...
Can I ask a silly question?

Why would someone confess a sin they haven’t committed, yet? The purpose of the Sacrament of Reconciliation is to receive forgiveness for sins that have been committed, and the person who confesses their sins is supposed to be sorry they did it.

The question is illogical for an adult, but I do understand that a child asked it. Perhaps, it would be best to help them understand the illogical nature of the question.

Anyone who would commit a crime, after admitting they were going to do it (at confession), would only be doing so because they were either mentally ill, taunting the priest, or possibly suffering from scrupulosity. In any case, it would not be a true confession and the person could not receive absolution (if they were going to commit a sin after they confessed it). It just not supposed to work that way.

It’s not likely that the priest would encounter such an occurrence, unless something was very wrong to begin with.

Keep in mind…
  1. A person commits a sinful action.
  2. The person acknowledges the sin, and that it was wrong.
  3. The person is sorry for the sin.
  4. The person has a firm purpose of amendment to not commit that sin again, and take the steps necessary to prevent it from happening again.
  5. They confess their sin
  6. They receive absolution for the sin.
  7. The do penance to make up for the sin.
 
Thanks, everyone!

The boys had a great discussion over this question.

I’m going to sign off of this thread now.

God bless!

👍
 
Sir_Knight said:
My understanding (based on events which I’d rather not get into) is that the PRIEST can not use any information learned during confession outside of the confessional but nowhere does it say anything about the person using that information outside of the confessional.

If a person commits a murder – a public act since the death is made public or a robbery or any other crime … why can’t the priest give, as part of the penance, to turn oneself in?

Recognizing that the absolution can never be conditional on performing the penance but still, why can’t such a penance be given? As long as the priest doesn’t do anything with the information outside of the confessional.

Can you please clarify?
Click to expand...
OK. The priest can never give as a penance anything which would cause the penitent outright harm. The priest can impost some self-sacrifice (for example, fasting for one who confesses glutony), and even restitution (stole money, give it back). The priest can’t compel the penitent to reveal his sin. Again, let’s look at the rules for Penance #22. If the sin is not public, then the penance cannot be public, no matter how great the sin.

Yes, the confidentiality belongs to the penitent, who is free to reveal his own sins. But in the case of a priest assigning a penance which causes him to reveal it, the penitent isn’t acting freely, but instead it’s the priest who’s deciding to reveal it, and the penitent is acting out of obedience–that’s the difference.

To directly answer the question, if the murderer is unknown to the authorities, the priest can’t compel the penitent to “make public” his guilt by turning himself in.

We have to keep in mind the reasoning behind this. If people knew that if they confess a sin, they might have to reveal their guilt, they would be less likely to confess in the first place, and this would be a barrier to the Sacrament. Ideally, the murderer would be truly contrite and would realize (perhaps even at the counsel of the priest) that for the sake of justice, he should turn himself into the authorities–that’s true, so don’t misunderstand me here. But to compel the penitent to reveal his guilt is something the priest simply can’t do.

Remember that this thread is about teenagers asking about the seal of the confession. Teens need to understand that the seal is absolute. It’s not hard to imagine teens following this thread and saying to themselves the following:

A priest can compel a penitent who confesses murder to turn himself in.
Last weekend, I “borrowed” the car and put a dent in it. Mom and dad can’t figure out how it happened. If I confess that, the priest might give me a penance to admit to my parents that I did it, therefore I won’t confess it.

Now, of course, the priest should counsel the teen that it would be the right thing to do to tell them how the dent got there, and do so strongly, but not as an outright penance.
 
Sonic said:
Can I ask a silly question?

Why would someone confess a sin they haven’t committed, yet? The purpose of the Sacrament of Reconciliation is to receive forgiveness for sins that have been committed, and the person who confesses their sins is supposed to be sorry they did it.

The question is illogical for an adult, but I do understand that a child asked it. Perhaps, it would be best to help them understand the illogical nature of the question.

Anyone who would commit a crime, after admitting they were going to do it (at confession), would only be doing so because they were either mentally ill, taunting the priest, or possibly suffering from scrupulosity. In any case, it would not be a true confession and the person could not receive absolution (if they were going to commit a sin after they confessed it). It just not supposed to work that way.

It’s not likely that the priest would encounter such an occurrence, unless something was very wrong to begin with.

Keep in mind…
  1. A person commits a sinful action.
  2. The person acknowledges the sin, and that it was wrong.
  3. The person is sorry for the sin.
  4. The person has a firm purpose of amendment to not commit that sin again, and take the steps necessary to prevent it from happening again.
  5. They confess their sin
  6. They receive absolution for the sin.
  7. The do penance to make up for the sin.
Click to expand...
True. Sins are things of the past, not of the future. However, sometimes a “future sin” can be itself sinful. Look at our civil law for example. One can be convicted of “conspiracy to commit murder” even though the murder itself is a future act, and won’t even occur now that the conspiracy has become known.
It comes down to this: is the planning or anticipation of the sin itself sinful? That’s one of those “sometimes yes, sometimes no” things. Planning to rob a bank isn’t the sin of stealing, but it is the sin of greed and coveting.

Yes, it is very unlikely that anyone would confess the intention to comit a sin, without having first resolved not to do it–but it’s not outright impossible. And of course, we can’t be absolved from future sins. We can only truly confess past sins.

Yet still, even in the unlikely event that someone admits to a “future sin” the seal of the confession would still apply.

Again, let’s make this a little more concrete. Let’s say someone “confesses” an intent to suicide–employing the (admitedly twisted) logic that if I confess it first, I’ll die in a state of grace. That’s a much more likely scenario than an intent to commit murder or rob a bank. The seal would still apply. If the person knows (or rather thinks) that the seal doesn’t apply, then such a person might not attempt to confess in the first place, and then the last opportunity to prevent this from happening (ie the counsel of the priest) wouldn’t happen.
 
FrDavid96 said:
Yet still, even in the unlikely event that someone admits to a “future sin” the seal of the confession would still apply.

Again, let’s make this a little more concrete. Let’s say someone “confesses” an intent to suicide–employing the (admitedly twisted) logic that if I confess it first, I’ll die in a state of grace. That’s a much more likely scenario than an intent to commit murder or rob a bank. The seal would still apply. If the person knows (or rather thinks) that the seal doesn’t apply, then such a person might not attempt to confess in the first place, and then the last opportunity to prevent this from happening (ie the counsel of the priest) wouldn’t happen.
Click to expand...
I wasn’t suggesting that the seal of the confessional didn’t apply. I hope I didn’t give that impression. You are correct, conspiracy (or desire) to commit a crime is still a sin and should be confessed. That would be a valid confession if the person intended not to go through with it and prevent it from happening (especially if others are involved). Unfortunately, I didn’t get that impression from the original scenario.

I do like the examples you have given, and they provide us with a better sense of what sort of scenarios can happen.

If others are involved in a conspiracy to commit a crime, then I would assume that turning the conspirators in could be given as penance (even if the person that confessed life was placed in danger). Am I right?
 
Sonic said:
I wasn’t suggesting that the seal of the confessional didn’t apply. I hope I didn’t give that impression. You are correct, conspiracy (or desire) to commit a crime is still a sin and should be confessed. That would be a valid confession if the person intended not to go through with it and prevent it from happening (especially if others are involved). Unfortunately, I didn’t get that impression from the original scenario.

I do like the examples you have given, and they provide us with a better sense of what sort of scenarios can happen.

If others are involved in a conspiracy to commit a crime, then I would assume that turning the conspirators in could be given as penance (even if the person that confessed life was placed in danger). Am I right?
Click to expand...
I realize here that you’re trying to understand how the seal applies to Confession, so I apologize if my posts are getting redundant, but even here, that would be a violation of the seal.

The priest can never require the penitent to violate the seal, no matter how severe the sin. Even requiring someone to turn-in someone else would be a violation. After all, who knows about a conspiracy other than fellow conspirators? Would doing so not also reveal the guilt of the penitent? If there are 5 of them, and 4 get arrested, how long will it take the 4 to realize what happened? How long before 1 of the 4 says “you’re missing someone…”

It doesn’t matter what kind of scenio or example is given, or what the circumstances might be, a priest can never (again, never) assign a penance that will reveal the guilt of the penitent–even if the revelation is indirect. If the sin is public, the priest can (and sometimes even should) assign a public penance. But if the sin (or the guilty party) is not already known to others, the priest cannot assign a penance that would result in the guilt of the penitent becoming known.

If the scenario says “the priest can give a penance of revealing…” that’s violating the seal.
 
FrDavid96 said:
I realize here that you’re trying to understand how the seal applies to Confession, so I apologize if my posts are getting redundant, but even here, that would be a violation of the seal.

The priest can never require the penitent to violate the seal, no matter how severe the sin. Even requiring someone to turn-in someone else would be a violation. After all, who knows about a conspiracy other than fellow conspirators? Would doing so not also reveal the guilt of the penitent? If there are 5 of them, and 4 get arrested, how long will it take the 4 to realize what happened? How long before 1 of the 4 says “you’re missing someone…”

It doesn’t matter what kind of scenio or example is given, or what the circumstances might be, a priest can never (again, never) assign a penance that will reveal the guilt of the penitent–even if the revelation is indirect. If the sin is public, the priest can (and sometimes even should) assign a public penance. But if the sin (or the guilty party) is not already known to others, the priest cannot assign a penance that would result in the guilt of the penitent becoming known.

If the scenario says “the priest can give a penance of revealing…” that’s violating the seal.
Click to expand...
Okay… I understand now. 🙂

Sorry that you had to repeat this, I just noticed you posted the same answer earlier in the topic. I didn’t see it. I really should have read all the posts.

takes foot out of mouth :rotfl:
 
We have to know that what passes between us and our priest in the confessional stays there. I also agree that few would actually confess a sin if they were planning on carrying it out. Most likely, someone who would do that would be out for kicks to upset a man of God.
 
I want to thank all of you for your comments. I learned a great deal and I am no teenager 😉 🙂

When I went thru RCIA so much of this was kind of glossed over. 😊

Thank to all. 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top