Defending the Seal of the Confession

[Blue_Horizon]

No priest can ever compel a penitent to reveal the sin to civil authorities

Of course not.

However neither can a confessor be compelled to absolve a penitent he judges to lack sufficient contrition. A recidivist seriously criminal offender may well fit into that category.

Is refusal to absolve a form of compelling? I suppose some could construe this saving disciplining to be such. Excommunication more clearly seems to be a valid form of compelling a sinner for the same salutary public and spiritual end

Priests do not and can not withhold absolution based on a lack of informing authorities.

I don’t believe anyone here denies this.

 

[Lion_IRC]

How would a penitent who received absolution think the priest was making the absolution conditional?

If your confessor priest asks …*have you sought professional therapy for your (sinful) disordered sexual preference for children because I think you should, in order that you might go and sin no more, * surely such a person would join the dots so to speak.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

a Priest may withhold absolution to a serious criminal who needs to be locked up but who isn’t penitent enough to go along with that.

That’s a somewhat selective and flawed appreciation of what I actually wrote.
Clearly “who needs to be locked up” simply describes the gravity of the situation as judged by the priest (and indeed such a dire situation is implied by the case put up by the original poster).
“who isn’t penitent enough to go along with that” equally clearly describes his valid reason for declining absolution - lack of contrition."

It seems a prudential judgement and wise confessors may well come to different judgements on the same person.

Aquinas’s dictum to theologians appears apposite here:
"Seldom affirm, never deny, always distinguish."

 

[Blue_Horizon]

One can have contrition towards God but still be unwilling/scared to deal with the human justice/legal system, which is not always in line with God’s justice.

And often it is, therefore the contrition may be quite imperfect and a priest may judge it wise to withhold absolution to signal to the penitent they need to think and pray more deeply on the matter.

As Padre Pio would say, “the good ones always return.”

 

[St_Francis]

Never underestimate the human ability to get confused.

You have a point there…

If your confessor priest asks …*have you sought professional therapy for your (sinful) disordered sexual preference for children because I think you should, in order that you might go and sin no more, * surely such a person would join the dots so to speak.

If the priest is deliberately trying to confuse the penitent, that seems like a bad thing, doesn’t it?

If he is not, then there are no dots to join, are there?

The reality is that priests are supposed to do what is right, and not what is wrong. Confusing or tricking penitents into doing something which the priest is not permitted or able to do otherwise would suggest that the priest is doing something wrong, no?

 

[buc_fan33]

And often it is, therefore the contrition may be quite imperfect and a priest may judge it wise to withhold absolution to signal to the penitent they need to think and pray more deeply on the matter.

As Padre Pio would say, “the good ones always return.”

Sorry…but no. Like Fr. David, I too am a ministerial priest. Imperfect contrition is quite sufficient for the valid celebration of the sacrament. We might say that is precisely why the Lord instituted the sacrament in the Gospel we are invited to meditate on this Sunday, because He knew that we rarely have perfect contrition, and even if we do, it’s impossible to know that with anything beyond a moral certitude. So, voila, He gives us a sacrament in order that imperfect contrition (i.e. fear of the loss of one’s salvation) is sufficient for absolution.

With all due respect, and I mean this in all charity, please refrain from commenting upon topics of such gravity of which you lack the requisite knowledge. Many a penitent are harmed because of what they erroneously read on websites and forae such as this.

It’s really quite simple…

1. A penitent comes to confession and confesses his/her sins
2. The priest absolves the penitent
3. The priest may not share what he has heard with anyone else, and may not impose a requirement upon the penitent to share it with anyone else either.

Said absolution is not contingent upon A) completion of a penance, B) turning oneself over to civil authorities, or C) anything else. Imperfect contrition is sufficient for absolution, and imperfect contrition is reasonably demonstrated in 999,999 cases out of a million by virtue of the fact that the penitent is in line in the first place.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Sorry…but no. Like Fr. David, I too am a ministerial priest. Imperfect contrition is quite sufficient for the valid celebration of the sacrament. .

Fr. no one denies this.

However while imperfect contrition may be a **sufficient condition **for absolution that does not, so far as my Dominican training in master’s level sacramental theology leads me to believe, make it a **necessary condition **for absolution.
The confessor may decline to absolve imperfectly contrite penitents for a serious reason if he so chooses.

I disagree somewhat that the mere presence of a penitent in the confessional always suggests a good degree of contrition in the first place. I suggest significant numbers of penitents also have varying degrees of mental illness and sometimes present due to authoritarian based compulsions or external scrupulosity rather than interior contrition. The chances of this are higher for penitents involved in uncontrolled recidivist criminal behaviour that endangers the innocent. Sometimes leveraging off their religious compulsion is the only way to initiate a change of thinking or reformative behaviour.

Confessors are not sacramental robots but have some freedom to make prudential judgements in the confessional for the good not only of the penitent but also of the community.

Padre Pio (and my close Priest friends whom I did my B & M.Theol with back in the 1970s) take this pastoral practice for granted.

May I ask what year you were ordained?

 

[WilliamE]

Not really.

It depends on the rules of that particular religion.

If the religious laws do not protect confidentiality, then neither do the courts. In Catholic ecclesial law, the Seal of Confession is absolute. In other religions, the confidentiality of communication between a member and the clergy varies greatly.

Actually, it depends more on the rules of the particular state. For example, in my state:

*…[C]onfessions and confidences made to a clergyman or other minister are privileged and cannot be used as evidence.
*

If the person speaking to the minister believes he is speaking in confidence, what he confides will not be admissible in court.

 

[buc_fan33]

However while imperfect contrition may be a **sufficient condition **for absolution that does not, so far as my Dominican training in master’s level sacramental theology leads me to believe, make it a **necessary condition **for absolution.

I’m not sure I follow what you’re saying here. Logically, sufficiency comes AFTER necessity. Take the example of electric light. To produce electric light, electricity is necessary, but it is not sufficient. You also need a conduit, a light bulb, a power source, etc. Likewise, a massive power generator is sufficient to produce electric light, but not necessary. You can do it just fine with a small battery.

Back on topic, if imperfect contrition is sufficient for absolution, it would seem to me that by definition it would likewise be necessary. Regardless, we can argue semantics all day long. What is really at issue is if someone has imperfect contrition, why would that person be denied absolution?

The confessor may decline to absolve imperfectly contrite penitents for a serious reason if he so chooses.

I would disagree. Baptized Catholics have a right to receive the sacraments. Now, to be sure, other things can enter into the situation that make absolution impossible. For instance, if two people are cohabiting, and have no intention of either separating or living as brother and sister, than one cannot absolve in that situation, because there is no contrition, even imperfect. If there were, the individual would have at least SOME desire to change his/her situation.

I disagree somewhat that the mere presence of a penitent in the confessional always suggests a good degree of contrition in the first place.

But it’s not a matter of reaching some arbitrary threshold of a degree of contrition. For the life of me, I can’t imagine why an individual would be in line for confession in the first place if there was NO contrition, as in none. Why waste your time?

I suggest significant numbers of penitents also have varying degrees of mental illness and sometimes present due to authoritarian based compulsions or external scrupulosity rather than interior contrition.

This is assuredly true.

The chances of this are higher for penitents involved in uncontrolled recidivist criminal behaviour that endangers the innocent. Sometimes leveraging off their religious compulsion is the only way to initiate a change of thinking or reformative behaviour.

I have no idea. This sounds more like an area for a psychologist or criminologist to comment on than a priest. For my part, if someone comes into my confessional and has even a modicum of remorse, which, again, the very fact that the person is in line is evidence of it, I absolve the person.

Confessors are not sacramental robots but have some freedom to make prudential judgements in the confessional for the good not only of the penitent but also of the community.

Agreed.

Padre Pio (and my close Priest friends whom I did my B & M.Theol with back in the 1970s) take this pastoral practice for granted.

I love Padre Pio…I would like to read more about his approach to these matters. I’ve never known a priest to deny absolution, other than in the strict cases I outlined above, where the individual clearly has NO intention of changing his or her lifestyle, and makes it expressly clear that this is the case.

I can only speak for myself, but when I was ordained, and even in seminary, I decided I would far rather render an account before the Almighty at my own judgment for having given the sacraments too freely and absolved or anointed someone whom I should not have, than answer to the Almighty on that same judgment day for having refused sacramental grace to someone who was disposed, and ready to receive it.

May I ask what year you were ordained?

I’d rather not say, exactly. No offense…just don’t like having too much personal information out on the web.

 

[Rau]

However while imperfect contrition may be a **sufficient condition **for absolution that does not, so far as my Dominican training in master’s level sacramental theology leads me to believe, make it a **necessary condition **for absolution.

I’m sure you mean that the other way around - imperfect contrition might not be sufficient for absolution. In fact, you are questioning whether what is claimed as “imperfect contrition” - by virtue of confessing - is truly that.

The confessor may decline to absolve imperfectly contrite penitents for a serious reason if he so chooses.

Not in debate.

I disagree somewhat that the mere presence of a penitent in the confessional always suggests a good degree of contrition in the first place

Agreed. Eg. one can’t be contrite if one also proposes to repeat the sin.

I suggest significant numbers of penitents also have varying degrees of mental illness and sometimes present due to authoritarian based compulsions or external scrupulosity rather than interior contrition. The chances of this are higher for penitents involved in uncontrolled recidivist criminal behaviour that endangers the innocent. Sometimes leveraging off their religious compulsion is the only way to initiate a change of thinking or reformative behaviour.

These circumstances may make a repeat offence more likely, but IMHO can’t be held against an assessment that the penitent is contrite. I don’t think you’ve made any case that a priest may:

1. Require a presentation of the penitent to the police to “demonstrate” his contrition;
2. Use withholding of absolution as a means to “reform” a penitent (judged in the moment to be contrite) with a poor track record (of recidivism).

I imagine it behooves priests to give the benefit of the doubt to the penitent (as the Fr. also suggested). By all means he will counsel and suggest courses of action to assist individuals to break recidivist behaviours.

Confessors are not sacramental robots but have some freedom to make prudential judgements in the confessional for the good not only of the penitent but also of the community.

The first part - for sure. The 2nd part - I don’t think you’ve made that case.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I’m sure you mean that the other way around - imperfect contrition might not be sufficient for absolution. In fact, you are questioning whether what is claimed as “imperfect contrition” - by virtue of confessing - is truly that.

Thanks for noticing that.
Yes, contrition is usually considered a necessary condition for absolution.
There is surely a continuum of dispositions between non-contrite and fully contrite.

Canon 980 implies that some forms of “contrition” are so imperfect as to not reach the dispositive bar required to merit absolution.
If a priest has any doubt then absolution must be withheld.

It is interesting that 980 talks about the priest judging a penitent’s “disposition” rather than “contrition”. That’s a much wider brief and reasonably so. The priest in confession is also a judge. Those whose sins you retain…

It appears difficult to assert that unwillingness to hand oneself over to civil authority can never be indicative of insufficient disposition/contrition.
The more so when we are talking about a seriously out of control recidivist criminal behaviour that needs to be removed from the streets.

Confessors are not sacramental robots but have some freedom to make prudential judgements in the confessional for the good not only of the penitent but also of the community.

The first part - for sure. The 2nd part - I don’t think you’ve made that case.

I believe the ancient concepts/practices of “reserved sins”, Communion prohibitions and excommunication is precisely about the relationship between individual sins, the community and the role of absolution in regulating that “homeostasis”.

 

[Lion_IRC]

If the priest is deliberately trying to confuse the penitent, that seems like a bad thing, doesn’t it?

If he is not, then there are no dots to join, are there?

The reality is that priests are supposed to do what is right, and not what is wrong. Confusing or tricking penitents into doing something which the priest is not permitted or able to do otherwise would suggest that the priest is doing something wrong, no?

I should think the priest’s intent was to facilitate repentance and remediation.
Christ forgave and He said go and sin no more.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I’m not sure I follow what you’re saying here. Logically, sufficiency comes AFTER necessity. Take the example of electric light. To produce electric light, electricity is necessary, but it is not sufficient. You also need a conduit, a light bulb, a power source, etc. Likewise, a massive power generator is sufficient to produce electric light, but not necessary. You can do it just fine with a small battery.

Back on topic, if imperfect contrition is sufficient for absolution, it would seem to me that by definition it would likewise be necessary. Regardless, we can argue semantics all day long. What is really at issue is if someone has imperfect contrition, why would that person be denied absolution?

I would disagree. Baptized Catholics have a right to receive the sacraments. Now, to be sure, other things can enter into the situation that make absolution impossible. For instance, if two people are cohabiting, and have no intention of either separating or living as brother and sister, than one cannot absolve in that situation, because there is no contrition, even imperfect. If there were, the individual would have at least SOME desire to change his/her situation.

I love Padre Pio…I would like to read more about his approach to these matters. I’ve never known a priest to deny absolution, other than in the strict cases I outlined above, where the individual clearly has NO intention of changing his or her lifestyle, and makes it expressly clear that this is the case.

But it’s not a matter of reaching some arbitrary threshold of a degree of contrition. For the life of me, I can’t imagine why an individual would be in line for confession in the first place if there was NO contrition, as in none. Why waste your time?

I have no idea. This sounds more like an area for a psychologist or criminologist to comment on than a priest. For my part, if someone comes into my confessional and has even a modicum of remorse, which, again, the very fact that the person is in line is evidence of it, I absolve the person.

Our differing judgements seem to boil down to a significant difference in age, pastoral, and counselling experience, training and understanding of human nature.

I’d rather not say, exactly. No offense…just don’t like having too much personal information out on the web.

Its your choice of course. Though this reason for declining does ring a little hollow which suggests my above observation is perhaps the basis for our differing views on these matters of prudential judgement, self knowledge and life experience.

I can only speak for myself, but when I was ordained, and even in seminary, I decided I would far rather render an account before the Almighty at my own judgment for having given the sacraments too freely and absolved or anointed someone whom I should not have, than answer to the Almighty on that same judgment day for having refused sacramental grace to someone who was disposed, and ready to receive it.

I would not like to account to God for not attempting to challenge a dangerous pyschopath or mentally ill person who needs to be in institutional care before he damages more innocents. He whose sins you retain…

Grace operates regardless of absolution for the well disposed despite whether or not a priest withholds absolution. Even the CCC implicitly recognises this.

Canon 980 seems to err on the side of less rather than more when it comes to judging a penitent’s disposition:

"If the confessor is in no doubt about the penitent’s disposition…it is not to be denied…".
Now that means if there is any doubt … you fill in the blanks.

 

[Rau]

…I would not like to account to God for not attempting to challenge a dangerous pyschopath or mentally ill person who needs to be in institutional care before he damages more innocents. He whose sins you retain…

How is the role of priest as confessor to be turned to the objective of institutionalising a psychopath/mentally ill person? I think the priest must first be confessor. If the person’s disposition is appropriate, absolution must follow. And mental illness seriously confuses the situation (is the penitent even capable of the relevant sin in the first place?)

Canon 980 seems to err on the side of less rather than more when it comes to judging a penitent’s disposition:

"If the confessor is in no doubt about the penitent’s disposition…it is not to be denied…".
Now that means if there is any doubt … you fill in the blanks.

No, it does not err in that manner! What you appear to be implying does not follow. The statement you quote just means that the priest has no discretion in one case, (and we know he does have discretion in all others). It certainly does not say that if there is any doubt, absolution must be withheld!

 

[St_Francis]

…Its your choice of course. Though this reason for declining does ring a little hollow which suggests my above observation is perhaps the basis for our differing views on these matters of prudential judgement, self knowledge and life experience.

OTOH, there are plenty of people who believe that the education of the 1970s was, shall we say, lacking in rigor? A little too open to “the Spirit of Vatican II”? or whatever.

Our differing judgements seem to boil down to a significant difference in age, pastoral, and counselling experience, training and understanding of human nature.

The question is not one of judgement; the question is one of permissibility. Moreover, one’s age or experience is certainly no guarantee that one is correct in areas such as understanding of human nature or how priests are supposed to do things.

 

[St_Francis]

I should think the priest’s intent was to facilitate repentance and remediation.

It is not the priest’s to *ensure *a person does not sin again.

Christ forgave and He said go and sin no more.
As does the priest. It is ironic that one of the times Christ said that, He had just helped someone *escape *from the police of the time…

 

[St_Francis]

…I would not like to account to God for not attempting to challenge a dangerous pyschopath or mentally ill person who needs to be in institutional care before he damages more innocents.

That is a tough one… kinda like the hypothetical situation of a person who is held captive and told to kill one (usually vulnerable) person to keep his captor from bombing a million (usually distant) people. It still works out that one can not do the wrong thing in order that good may come about.

He whose sins you retain…

He whose sins you retain… What does that mean, in light of what you say later? Either the priest’s words are the operation by which the penitent is absolved, or not. Christ instituted Confession for a reason, not just as decoration.

The priest is in the confessional for one reason and one reason only: to assess whether penitence and corresponding intention to amend one’s actions exists *at that moment. *If the priest is sure, as CL980 says, he may *not *deny absolution.

Grace operates regardless of absolution for the well disposed despite whether or not a priest withholds absolution. Even the CCC implicitly recognises this.

Your implied conclusion that it therefore doesn’t matter whether the priest absolves or not differs from saying that God *can *step in and “fix” a problem when He chooses, as in baptism of desire. But God has given us rules which *we *must follow; we cannot rely on God’s “fixing” a situation in order to mess up what we are supposed to be doing. Doing so would seem akin to the sin of presumption.

Canon 980 seems to err on the side of less rather than more when it comes to judging a penitent’s disposition:

"If the confessor is in no doubt about the penitent’s disposition…it is not to be denied…".
Now that means if there is any doubt … you fill in the blanks.

IOW, if the priest is sure the penitent is contrite, he *must *absolve his sins. The priest cannot 1. be sure the penitent is contrite and 2. withhold absolution anyway.

 

[FrDavid96]

OK So a priest cannot or will not withhold absolution, conditional upon the penitent handing themself into the police.

And neither will a priest divulge sins disclosed under the seal of confession.

But surely the priest can recommend or ‘suggest’ that notwithstanding that it isn’t formally necessary for absolution.

Eg…*I suggest you go talk to a psychiatrist and get professional help in order that you may “go and sin no more.” *

That wouldn’t constitute a requirement necessary for absolution/contrition.

And whether or not the penitent mistakenly thinks it is, would be no different than any other penitent who selectively or mistakenly interprets their act of contrition.

I find that suggesting truly disturbing.

When I am hearing Confessions, I am in persona Christi.

Even the suggestion that a priest would deceive a penitent by causing that penitent to “mistakenly” think that the priest means one thing when he says something different yet similar is offensive*

“Would Christ deceive a penitent?” for a priest in confession, the words “what would Jesus do” are not a mere slogan for a bumper sticker or a piece of junk jewelry. The priest is Christ at that moment. For a priest in confession, the question is not “what would He do?” but “what is He doing right now?” I cannot fathom how deceiving a penitent into revealing his sin can be reconciled with the ministry of being in persona Christi.

Can a priest recommend or suggest such action? Maybe. It’s possible, but since we’re dealing in hypotheticals here, we must say that it might be the case sometimes. But such a suggestion must be an honest and straightforward one.

To make a penitent think that I am saying one thing when I am intending something else is just unthinkable. I could not do that. I cannot imagine any priest doing that.

---

• I do not mean that in the sense of “against forum rules.” I am not offended by the poster but by the idea of a priest being deceptive.

 

[FrDavid96]

That’s a somewhat selective and flawed appreciation of what I actually wrote.
Clearly “who needs to be locked up” simply describes the gravity of the situation as judged by the priest (and indeed such a dire situation is implied by the case put up by the original poster).
“who isn’t penitent enough to go along with that” equally clearly describes his valid reason for declining absolution - lack of contrition."

It seems a prudential judgement and wise confessors may well come to different judgements on the same person.

Aquinas’s dictum to theologians appears apposite here:
"Seldom affirm, never deny, always distinguish."

No.

You are still trying to equate a willingness to reveal the sin to civil authorities with contrition. That is not the case.

That is not a valid reason for declining absolution.

No matter how you phrase it, or how you nuance it, or how much you repeat the notion: it is not a valid reason for denying or delaying absolution.

This is not about prudential judgement. The Church is quite clear on this. The priest is absolutely forbidden to compel a penitent to reveal the sin. He cannot make such revelation a condition for absolution.

Nothing you post will change that.

 

[FrDavid96]

Fr. no one denies this.

However while imperfect contrition may be a **sufficient condition **for absolution that does not, so far as my Dominican training in master’s level sacramental theology leads me to believe, make it a **necessary condition **for absolution.
The confessor may decline to absolve imperfectly contrite penitents for a serious reason if he so chooses.

No, he may not.

If the penitent is contrite, the priest must absolve. He is obligated to absolve. He is required to absolve, insofar as the penitent has need and the priest is empowered.

I disagree somewhat that the mere presence of a penitent in the confessional always suggests a good degree of contrition in the first place. I suggest significant numbers of penitents also have varying degrees of mental illness and sometimes present due to authoritarian based compulsions or external scrupulosity rather than interior contrition.

Based on what? Do you have any empirical evidence to support this? Any surveys or studies done on the subject?
Frankly, how many confessions have you heard that you feel you can make such a statement?

The chances of this are higher for penitents involved in uncontrolled recidivist criminal behaviour that endangers the innocent. Sometimes leveraging off their religious compulsion is the only way to initiate a change of thinking or reformative behaviour.

Confessors are not sacramental robots but have some freedom to make prudential judgements in the confessional for the good not only of the penitent but also of the community.

Padre Pio (and my close Priest friends whom I did my B & M.Theol with back in the 1970s) take this pastoral practice for granted.

May I ask what year you were ordained?

No, priest-confessors do not make judgements about absolution “for the good of the community” not in the sense you’re trying to make here. The priest judges whether or not the penitent is sincere, and whether or not there is a sin and to what degree. The priest does not judge whether withholding or delaying absolution (or attaching conditions) would be for the good of the community.

Every sin hurts the community; and every priest must protect that good. But not in the sense that you’re writing in this particular thread.