Defending the Seal of the Confession

[Blue_Horizon]

Why would you say something like this? first, it does not make sense: a priori autism? Second, it is demeaning to people who actually suffer from autism.

The phrase “a kniwn fact” usually indicates something which is widely accepted as true, as in, It is a known fact that leaded gasoline negatively affects the brain development of those who are repeatedly exposed to it. Not, what my close friends have told me in person.

This might have been a good way to open your *original *remark: Close priest friends of mine have told me that they…

This actually has nothing to do with Canon Law; it is simply a fact that a priest can not require something like this be done before giving absolution. Canon Law *reflects *what the Church teaches; it does not *establish *it.

That being said, Fr Grodin of CA suggests that CL does indeed touch on this point: Can. 980 If the confessor has no doubt about the disposition of the penitent, and the penitent seeks absolution, absolution is to be neither refused nor deferred.

IOW, the only thing the priest can require is contrition.

This does not indicate that a priest withheld absolution until the person had given himself up to the police.

ETChange: Turning oneself in to the police is not the only way to manifest contrition.

Yes, Padre Pio did have an extraordinary gift of discernment of contrition. Since absolution doesn’t “stick” if the person is that lacking in contrition, it is not a gift that every priest needs anyway. And shouting someone out of the confessional is not the same thing as requiring that they turn themselves in to the police to receive absolution.

Actually, I would suggest that the above: Can. 980 If the confessor has no doubt about the disposition of the penitent, and the penitent seeks absolution, absolution is to be neither refused nor deferred, does imply just that.

Was it Aquinas who said that when we find someone’s arguments ambiguous we should always assume the most worthy interpretation?

 

[St_Francis]

Was it Aquinas who said that when we find someone’s arguments ambiguous we should always assume the most worthy interpretation?

Do you think this is ambiguous?

In practise a priest is likely to withhold absolution with a crime that needs to be reported to the authorities immediately (or make it conditional on allowing the priest to report the offence).

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Blue - reading your post #2, you suggest that it would be well within standard priestly practice to require the penitent to self-report to the authorities in order to be absolved. Your later statement that “it happens” walks this back some way.

Now let’s agree it might happen. But is it acceptable priestly practice? The weight of evidence presented suggests it is not.

Disappointed to see the aggression you displayed towards 1ke.

Yes you are right, Post #2 was quick and dirty with a little hyperbole (exaggeration for the sake of effect as my English teacher Fr. P B Roberts was want to say) to get the point across. Hence the more nuanced post I followed up with.

Apologies if the tone towards 1ke came across as aggressive rather than mildly exasperated risability. It takes highly subjective thinking to baldly deny somebody’s stated factual experience purely on the basis of one’s own highly idealised view of the world.

Such strong subjective thinking is typically described as autistic.
psychcentral.com/encyclopedia/autistic-thinking/

No personal insult was intended, just as there isn’t had I stated someone’s comments were erroneous, binary, chauvinist, baseless, ill conceived, sexist, racist or even aggressive.

 

[Rau]

Yes you are right, Post #2 was quick and dirty with a little hyperbole (exaggeration for the sake of effect as my English teacher Fr. P B Roberts was want to say) to get the point across. Hence the more nuanced post I followed up with.

Are you spinning your own post Blue? Post #2 appears to reveal that you believed a priest may act in a certain way…that he may not.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Are you spinning your own post Blue? Post #2 appears to reveal that you believed a priest may act in a certain way…that he may not.

Rau this is uncharacteristicly pedantic. I ceded your remonstration and even before you made it had already better rephrased my point.

 

[St_Francis]

Yes you are right, Post #2 was quick and dirty with a little hyperbole (exaggeration for the sake of effect as my English teacher Fr. P B Roberts was want to say) to get the point across. Hence the more nuanced post I followed up with.

Was wOnt to say…

Which of your posts was “the more nuanced one”? The one where you suggested “his logical structures supported [only] a private view of reality”? Based on the number of people who responded in the same way to your original posts and the paucity of his comments, I have no idea how you came to that particular conclusion.

Apologies if the tone towards 1ke came across as aggressive rather than mildly exasperated risability. It takes highly subjective thinking to baldly deny somebody’s stated factual experience purely on the basis of one’s own highly idealised view of the world.

Srsly?!?!? First, neither post to which he responded “stated factual experience,” only a conclusion.

Second, your later explanation in no way upheld the conclusion you originally stated. His response, and the response of others to what you wrote, was in no way a “subjective” denial of anything other than your poorly stated—oh, excuse me, *hyperbolic— *statement.

Such strong subjective thinking is typically described as autistic.
psychcentral.com/encyclopedia/autistic-thinking/

I and others had the same response to your post: are you saying all of us are thinking subjectively to the point of incapacity to communicate?

No personal insult was intended, just as there isn’t had I stated someone’s comments were erroneous, binary, chauvinist, baseless, ill conceived, sexist, racist or even aggressive.

Rather than use a commonly understood term such as one of the above, you chose to use a word descriptive of people with a disability in a way which is not commonly understood. Wow, I don’t think there’s a word or phrase to describe how off the mark your comments have been.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Was wOnt to say…

Which of your posts was “the more nuanced one”? The one where you suggested “his logical structures supported [only] a private view of reality”? Based on the number of people who responded in the same way to your original posts and the paucity of his comments, I have no idea how you came to that particular conclusion.

Srsly?!?!? First, neither post to which he responded “stated factual experience,” only a conclusion.

Second, your later explanation in no way upheld the conclusion you originally stated. His response, and the response of others to what you wrote, was in no way a “subjective” denial of anything other than your poorly stated—oh, excuse me, *hyperbolic— *statement.

I and others had the same response to your post: are you saying all of us are thinking subjectively to the point of incapacity to communicate?

Rather than use a commonly understood term such as one of the above, you chose to use a word descriptive of people with a disability in a way which is not commonly understood. Wow, I don’t think there’s a word or phrase to describe how off the mark your comments have been.

Francis I usually know when OCD or pedantic tendencies are kicking in but I am not sure you do. Getting back on topic, if you have an argument against priests withholding absolution when judging lack of penitent contrition do present it.

 

[St_Francis]

Francis I usually know when OCD or pedantic tendencies are kicking in but I am not sure you do. Getting back on topic, if you have an argument against priests withholding absolution when judging lack of penitent contrition do present it.

Why would I present such an argument? Priests are supposed to withhold absolution if they believe the person confessing is not contrite, just as it says in the CL I posted.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Why would I present such an argument? Priests are supposed to withhold absolution if they believe the person confessing is not contrite, just as it says in the CL I posted.

Great , we are agreed that 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.

 

[mVitus]

Great , we are agreed that 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.

Being willing to be locked up for it, while it could be an indicator of contrition, isn’t the only way to tell there is contrition. Let’s imagine a murderer in a place where that gets the death penalty. Would you, were you a priest, say to that person, “Unless you’re willing to die, I won’t absolve you.”? Like Rau and St Francis have pointed out, the confessional is concerned with God’s justice, not man’s.

 

[CB_Catholic]

You are mistaken.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7064710&postcount=9

jimmyakin.com/2005/11/can_a_priest_fo.html

Actually it is done. I personally heard a priest say that he had done this twice in his years as a priest, because he felt that the penitents were not sincere in their contrition by refusing to turn themselves in. Of course, he did not name them, and did not elaborate on how he made that determination…

 

[FrDavid96]

In practise a priest is likely to withhold absolution with a crime that needs to be reported to the authorities immediately (or make it conditional on allowing the priest to report the offence).

Not true. Just not true.

If Priest’s were required to report such confessed crimes then why would anyone want to confess to them in the first place.

 

[FrDavid96]

In practise a priest is likely to withhold absolution with a crime that needs to be reported to the authorities immediately (or make it conditional on allowing the priest to report the offence).

…

How do you know this?

I am going to answer that one.

I am a priest and I do know the answer.

It’s not the case. No priest can ever compel a penitent to reveal the sin to civil authorities (or anyone else, except perhaps to another priest-confessor if the first one does not have proper faculties).

Priests do not and can not withhold absolution based on a lack of informing authorities. A priest can withhold absolution if he feels the penitent is not sincere (that’s always true) but if the penitent is sincere, he cannot withhold absolution.

 

[FrDavid96]

A non-Catholic chaplain is no more likely to “drop a dime” on someone for what was discussed in confidence than a Catholic priest would be. And if he (or she) did, it would likely not be admissible at trial.

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.

 

[FrDavid96]

Great , we are agreed that 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.

No!

Absolutely no.

A willingness to be “locked up” is in no way whatsoever equivalent to proper contrition.

 

[1ke]

Actually it is done.

Look, I’ve been attacked and called names on this thread so let me just say in reply to you, since you were not the one who did so, that if “it is done” it is “done” in violation of the seal.

See Fr David’s explanation on the prior thread I linked to and now on this thread.

 

[acarlson]

No!

Absolutely no.

A willingness to be “locked up” is in no way whatsoever equivalent to proper contrition.

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.

 

[Lion_IRC]

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.

 

[St_Francis]

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.

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

 

[mVitus]

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

Never underestimate the human ability to get confused.