But the priest is not using that information outside of the confessional – that is the key! He is using it INSIDE of the confessional where he is free to do so. Only the penitent is using that information.Of course the priest is using the information in the above case. The information directly determines the course of action is that the priest wants the penitent to take.
What about a priest saying that a student’s penance for cheating on a test was to tell the teacher of the cheating?There’s a very good reason why many priests will only ever give prayers for penance - it’s because people around you can’t figure out what sin you confessed if your penance is just prayer. For the same reason if a priest were to suggest some sort of reparation to the victim of someone’s sin he must arrange for it to be done anonymously, so the sinner doesn’t have to reveal the nature of their sin (in other words reveal the contents of their confession)
If you walk out of the confessional and then proceed to another spot in the church to pull a bomb that no-one else knew was there and defuse it, well of course people will figure out that you planted that bomb and confessed to it, no???
No, because he’s deciding what will happen outside the confessional - in such a way that, as I explained, it will betray the nature of the penitent’s sin to people outside the confessional.But the priest is not using that information outside of the confessional – that is the key! He is using it INSIDE of the confessional where he is free to do so. Only the penitent is using that information.
No. Telling a penitent to betray themselves is no different to the priest betraying them himself. A priest cannot coerce a penitent into revealing their sins to anyone but God. There are other penances he can choose from that would be adequate restitution, that one isn’t an option.What about a priest saying that a student’s penance for cheating on a test was to tell the teacher of the cheating?
It’s not, if you understand why the seal of confession exists it’s easy. And none of it is complicated for the penitent anyway, which is as it should be.Is the forgiveness of sins supposed to be this complicated?
If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness.
Perhaps you didn’t read all of the posts, but this topic deals with more than forgiveness of sin.Is the forgiveness of sins supposed to be this complicated?
If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness.
Of course it wouldn’t. Advice is a totally different thing to giving a penance, and that’s some extremely sound advice right there.If knowledge can not be used, and coercion can not be used, can the priest explain the reality to an individual since I’m sure God would do the same.
For example:
Confessor: " I put arsenic in the wine"
Priest: "I can absolve you for this sin but since there is still time to fix the situation and remove the arsenic or find a way to prevent its consumption, you have not yet committed the full sin. Therefore, an additional sin might be committed if you choose to do nothing upon leaving the confessional.
Now, although you can again receive absolution again for this potential additional sin should you do nothing, I fear for your soul since this might be presuming God’s mercy which would be a sin of its own and could effect your absolution. I will let you make the decision on what you need to do and the important thing is that you are sorry and seek forgiveness, but you need to do what you think is best for your soul and if you are truly sorry and seel forgiveness you will act accordingly."
Example 2:
Confessor: “I plan to kill the priest on his way home today”
Priest: The same tactic can be used here as well with the additional insight of informing the persoin that the priest is going to continue his normal path and the confessor should do what he feels is right.
Would this be wrong?
About four decades ago I was a brand new altar server around ten years of age. Back then, incense was used more readily than today during services. I often observed the older altar boys prepare the charcoal by holding it over a candle flame and blowing on it. As they did this, the charcoal would turn bright orange and orange sparks would fly off of it.No, because he’s deciding what will happen outside the confessional - in such a way that, as I explained, it will betray the nature of the penitent’s sin to people outside the confessional.
No. Telling a penitent to betray themselves is no different to the priest betraying them himself. A priest cannot coerce a penitent into revealing their sins to anyone but God. There are other penances he can choose from that would be adequate restitution, that one isn’t an option.
See the right of anonymity isn’t just about the priest, it’s actually about protecting the penitent’s privacy full stop. That’s why someone who overhears the confession cannot reveal it either. That right to anonymity is absolute in all circumstances, and so a priest cannot even indirectly coerce a penitent into making their sins public.
I’m glad you felt better but you know that how you felt means nothing in terms of whether your confessor had the right to order that penance. That sort of confession to the victim is for you to choose to do for yourself, I believe, and not appropriate for a priest to order you to do as a penance.About four decades ago I was a brand new altar server around ten years of age. Back then, incense was used more readily than today during services. I often observed the older altar boys prepare the charcoal by holding it over a candle flame and blowing on it. As they did this, the charcoal would turn bright orange and orange sparks would fly off of it.
Curious about this, one day I decided to try it for myself. I arrived early and copied their actions by holding the charcoal over the flame and blowing on it. After a few minutes, it occurred to me that I shouldn’t be doing what I was doing and that I might get in trouble. So I stopped and to conceal what I did, I decided to hide the charcoal in the middle of the box – not knowing that the hot charcoal would cause the other charcoals to smolder.
After about an hour, the entire box was smoking. Besides the church filling up with smoke, fortunately nothing else happened.
When the priest asked us who knew anything about this, out of fear and from HONESTLY thinking that my actions didn’t cause that to happen, I lied and said that I didn’t know anything about it.
Don’t know if the action itself was a sin, but lying to the priest certainly was. Some time later (a few months or a couple of years), I came to the knowledge that is was mostlikely my actions which caused the thing to smoke.
Again, out of fear, I failed to confess this sin. It was ultimately forgotten for about 35+ years until one day a few years ago memory of it resurfaced.
Even thought the sin was mostlikely forgiven during subsequent confessions where I felt a deep sorrow for all of my sins, the CCC tells us that forgotten sins should be confessed if remembered and so I confessed these actions.
My penance was to find out if this priest that I had lied to was still alive and if so, to go and confess my sins to him.
I found the priest, He was a pastor at some other parish. Scheduled a meeting with him and confessed these actions to him. The old saying that confession is good for the soul is very true because during the confession I actual broke down and cried.
My penance from him was to donate to the parish where this happened the amount of money which would cover the cost of two boxes of charcoal (one for the original box that I ruined and the second one to cover the inflation of things over 35+ years).
Are you saying that the first priest gave me an improper penance by having me confess to the original priest? I can honestly tell you that I felt a huge weight lifted from me by performing this penance – more so than if I was given a penance of saying 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 hail Marys in aramaic. forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cag/viewpost.gif
You told him that the first priest ordered you to confess? Nice.If it was improper, wouldn’t have the second priest / original priest have said something?
Oh that clears it up - it didn’t occur to me that you would confess sacramentally the second time, since your sin was already absolved the first time you brought it to the confessional.Yep. I said that my last confession was X-days ago and as part of my penance I was told to come to him and confess my sins.
At first he looked very perplexed since I wasn’t a member of his parish nor did he remember me from 35+ years ago, but afterwards it bcame clearer to him.
I ran your post past a canon lawyer today. The priest broke the seal of confession in your case. As minor and innocent as the EXTREMELY old sin you confessed is he used coercion in the form of penance to reveal your sins to someone other than GOD.If it was improper, wouldn’t have the second priest / original priest have said something?
Lawyers now? Was the forgiveness of sins and Christianity ever supposed to be this complicated?I ran your post past a canon lawyer today.
No my friend the forgiveness of sins part is quite simple and straightforward. If you have been paying attention to the topic of this thread you will notice we are not discussing the actual act of forgiving the sin but the confidence of keeping the sin between God and the sinner. Forgiveness of confessed sins has nothing to do with the seal of confession. Its all about ensuring privacy and reinforcing the fact that actual confession involves an individual and God.Lawyers now? Was the forgiveness of sins and Christianity ever supposed to be this complicated?
However, in his defence, the first priest didn’t order you to reveal your sins to anyone OTHER than God. He ordered you to make another confession, under the sacramental seal.I ran your post past a canon lawyer today. The priest broke the seal of confession in your case. As minor and innocent as the EXTREMELY old sin you confessed is he used coercion in the form of penance to reveal your sins to someone other than GOD.
WITH THAT IN MIND…you were no longer guilty of this sin unless you haven’t been to confession since your charcoal incident. Absolution is absolution…YOU DIDN’T NEED TO CONFESS THIS SIN…unless you haven’t been to confession in 40 years. Of course there is nothing wrong with confessing it though.
The recieving priest is not in violation because he didn’t hear your sin.
Both priests could easily be improperly informed on the seal of confession…but I doubt that.
The priest gave you a penance under the fact of coercion. Which is the violation of the seal of confession. He can give you advice. BUT HE CANNOT GIVE YOU PENANCE to reveal your sins.
So you are saying confessing the same sin…twice?Why shouldn’t the priest give a penance that involves receiving the Sacrament of Reconciliation again. If the sin is already forgiven, then all that remains is the grace of the sacrament, and the priest is basically saying, receive the grace of the sacrament again, through the mediation of this priest. Where’s the problem?
So he didn’t specify the charcoal incident then right?Yep. I said that my last confession was X-days ago and as part of my penance** I was told to come to him and confess** my sins****.
Which can be done behind a screen anonymouslyThe first penance was to perform the penace given by the second / original priest – thus, requiring the sin to be confessed a second time.