If someone confessed to murder

[Aeden]

As everyone said above, a priest could not force a person to reveal what is said in confession, regardless of circumstances. They can’t act on it in any way. Basically, whatever they hear gets the ctrl+shift+delete treatment and doesn’t even go through the recycle bin. Even if a priest was told that a person was a serial embezzler in confession, he couldn’t deny that person the position of handling the parish’s money because of it.

 

[NickD]

It’s appropriately entitled,* I Confess*.

I watched that movie recently…I loved it

 

[exdob]

Actually, it is even recommended to not even suggest the murderer to turn himself in. This does not mean that the priest does not believe in justice but anything said in the confessional cannot be made public knowledge, which includes a sin that may be a crime. The seal is to protect anything that was said in the confessional

 

[DMC12]

as far as i know yes he can suggest, i would even think he must do it, after all, just like when you comit theft you must pay, you must pay to society.

 

[exdob]

The ideal would be for the murderer or thief to turn themselves in, but the seal protects everything that is heard in the confessional; which cannot be made known either directly or indirectly. If the priest suggests for the penitent to turn himself in for a murder or a robbery, burglary, etc. then the priest is risking the seal to be broken because what he heard in the confession could become public knowledge. The issue is not whether the priest or the Church believes in justice but that the seal is to protect what was learned in the confessional.

 

[mdgspencer]

I have a new question for this informative thread.
This is now in the news in Europe. A non-Catholic girl went to confession, believing that the priest could not tell anyone what she said there. The girl, who is underage, said that she was having relations with a man. The priest told this to the police. The priest claims that since the girl was a non-Catholic he could tell the police what she said in the confessional. The man involved with the girl was arrested and now all this is coming out in court.
I am quite bewildered by this news. Can anyone throw light on this?

 

[april32010]

I have a new question for this informative thread.
This is now in the news in Germany. A non-Catholic girl went to confession, believing that the priest could not tell anyone what she said there. The girl, who is underage, said that she was having relations with a man. The priest told this to the police. The priest claims that since the girl was a non-Catholic he could tell the police what she said in the confessional. The man involved with the girl was arrested and now all this is coming out in court.
I am quite bewildered by this news. Can anyone throw light on this?

source ?

 

[exdob]

I asked about a similar scenario while in the seminary. According to the priest, any baptized Christian can go to the confessional and still, the priest is bound to keep the seal. Although the girl is not a Catholic, she went to the confessional with it’s Catholic understanding and again whatever is said in the confessional is subject to the seal. If the priest wanted to make a distinction then he should have informed the penitent that he would not be hearing her confession. It would have also helped if the priest had prudently asked her to set up an appointment to discuss her issues. However, the priest heard the girl’s confession which she took as her opportunity to speak with God and confess her sins. If all of the above did occur, then she may have a case to ask for canonical penalties upon the priest, which an intentional breaking of the seal would be automatic excommunication. However, it would also depend on how the diocesan bishop and tribunal interpret the case.

 

[Aeden]

I asked about a similar scenario while in the seminary. According to the priest, any baptized Christian can go to the confessional and still, the priest is bound to keep the seal. Although the girl is not a Catholic, she went to the confessional with it’s Catholic understanding and again whatever is said in the confessional is subject to the seal. If the priest wanted to make a distinction then he should have informed the penitent that he would not be hearing her confession. It would have also helped if the priest had prudently asked her to set up an appointment to discuss her issues. However, the priest heard the girl’s confession which she took as her opportunity to speak with God and confess her sins. If all of the above did occur, then she may have a case to ask for canonical penalties upon the priest, which an intentional breaking of the seal would be automatic excommunication. However, it would also depend on how the diocesan bishop and tribunal interpret the case.

Your priest was right:

Can. 844 §1. Catholic ministers administer the sacraments licitly to Catholic members of the Christian faithful alone, who likewise receive them licitly from Catholic ministers alone, without prejudice to the prescripts of §§2, 3, and 4 of this canon, and ⇒ can. 861, §2.

§2. Whenever necessity requires it or true spiritual advantage suggests it, and provided that danger of error or of indifferentism is avoided, the Christian faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister are permitted to receive the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick from non-

Catholic ministers in whose Churches these sacraments are valid.

§3. Catholic ministers administer the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick licitly to members of Eastern Churches which do not have full communion with the Catholic Church if they seek such on their own accord and are properly disposed. This is also valid for members of other Churches which in the judgment of the Apostolic See are in the same condition in regard to the sacraments as these Eastern Churches.

§4. If the danger of death is present or if, in the judgment of the diocesan bishop or conference of bishops, some other grave necessity urges it, Catholic ministers administer these same sacraments licitly also to other Christians not having full communion with the Catholic Church, who cannot approach a minister of their own community and who seek such on their own accord, provided that they manifest Catholic faith in respect to these sacraments and are properly disposed.

§5. For the cases mentioned in §§2, 3, and 4, the diocesan bishop or conference of bishops is not to issue general norms except after consultation at least with the local competent authority of the interested non-Catholic Church or community.

The confession would still be valid, it seems, just illicit. The question is whether the illicitness of the confession invalidated the seal of the confession. I would think not (kind of like illicit baptism being still valid baptism) since there’s no mention of licitness in the section on the seal.

Can. 983 §1. The sacramental seal is inviolable; therefore it is absolutely forbidden for a confessor to betray in any way a penitent in words or in any manner and for any reason.

I would want to see the article on the priest and hear his side, too, since media LOVES making the Church and priests look bad.

 

[Gorgias]

As everyone said above, a priest could not force a person to reveal what is said in confession, regardless of circumstances. They can’t act on it in any way. Basically, whatever they hear gets the ctrl+shift+delete treatment and doesn’t even go through the recycle bin. Even if a priest was told that a person was a serial embezzler in confession, he couldn’t deny that person the position of handling the parish’s money because of it.

This is why pastors might choose to recommend to their parish staff that they go elsewhere to confession, so that these sorts of situations never occur…

 

[Brendan_64]

If one was truly contrite and sought out a good confession, he/she would likely not need urging by the priest because turning oneself in to the civil authorities would be a manifestation of a contrite heart.

The judgement about whether or not a person is contrite is not yours, mine, the priest’s or anyone else’s judgement to make. We cannot assume that, if a person doesn’t wish to hand themselves in, they are not contrite. That is between the offender and God. Civil authorities should not be seen as a sort of intermediary between God and Man, punishing sinners on God’s behalf. There may be many reasons for a contrite person not wishing to hand himself in for a sin that he has committed, which also happens to be a crime. We cannot assume that this is related to not being contrite.

 

[Viki63]

I have been under the impression that if one confessed a murder, the priest could refuse absolution until the person had made restitution by turning himself in to the police.
That would not violate the seal, since it would be the person turning himself in, the priest would have nothing to do with it.
If this were not the case, it sounds like no priest could refuse absolution to anyone, for any reason, which we know not to be the case.

 

[Brendan_64]

as far as i know yes he can suggest, i would even think he must do it, after all, just like when you comit theft you must pay, you must pay to society.

No. If you commit theft and confess it, you are recommended to (if reasonably possible) make reparations with the individual you stole from, not make reparations to society. When we sin it is between ourselves, God, the person we sinned against and the Church. Civil authorities are not included in the equation, nor are punishments under civil (and criminal) law included as part of the equation.

The Church places no obligation on the priest to reccomend that a person turns themselves in to the civil authorities for a sin that also happens to be a crime. The Church is not there to help enforce civil and criminal law.

 

[Gorgias]

I have been under the impression that if one confessed a murder, the priest could refuse absolution until the person had made restitution by turning himself in to the police.
That would not violate the seal, since it would be the person turning himself in, the priest would have nothing to do with it.
If this were not the case, it sounds like no priest could refuse absolution to anyone, for any reason, which we know not to be the case.

No, that is not the case. If the person presents himself for reconciliation, and priest believes the person to be contrite, then the priest must forgive him. In doing so, the priest cannot place any conditions on the person that would cause him to incriminate himself.

The confessor, however, can refuse absolution, on the other hand, to a person who is not contrite. (Not being willing to turn oneself in to the authorities, however, is not a sign of a lack of contrition.)

For example, if I was in the middle of an affair, and I went to confession, and the priest asks, “do you intend to break off your adultery?” and I responded, “no”, then that would be a sign that I was not contrite, and a priest might be willing to withhold absolution until I had a firm intent to reform my life. If, on the other hand, I confess to robbing a bank, and he says, “do you intend to continue a life of crime? do you intend to benefit from the robbery?” and I reply “no, I can’t do that again; and I intend to donate the money to the poor”, then the priest might see that as sufficient sign that I have repented and intend to amend my life, and therefore, grant me absolution.

 

[Hope_Philomena]

These were some interesting responses! Thank you for your answers

 

[twf]

I understand that the priest can’t require the penitent to reveal his sins to others outside of the confessional, and thus can’t force him to turn himself in…but it seems absolutely absurd to me that the priest can’t withhold absolution. Everyone on this thread seems to be forgetting that in order to receive absolution validly, one must have firm intention to “sin no more”. Disobeying the law of the land is a SIN! A murderer who repents of his murder but refuses to turn himself in is telling the priest in the confessional “I fully intent to commit the mortal sin of gravely disobeying the civil authorities.” How can the priest absolve him of murder when he fully intends to commit another mortal sin? Since when are Catholics not bound by civil law? Someone needs to provide commentary from a recognized canon lawyer because all I’m seeing here are opinions.

Of course the priest can’t act on the knowledge, but he can withhold absolution. A person who is truly contrite will follow all of the Church’s teachings including obeying the civil authorities and will turn himself in.

Contrition for the sin confessed is required, but so is firm intention to sin NO MORE. The Church teaches that to disobey the civil authorities is sinful (unless the law is unjust). The priest can’t require the penitent to turn himself in, but for the penitent not to do so of his own volition would be another sin. If I go to the confessional and I say “Father, I was impure with myself three times, and I truly repent of this sin - I will never do it again…but by the way, I still plan to be impure with my girlfriend…” will the priest give me absolution?

 

[exdob]

I disagree with your comment that “Everyone on this thread seems to be forgetting that in order to receive absolution validly.” With all due respect, I advise you carefully read each post before you make a generalized statement. In addition, a question was asked and people gave their answers. Whether they are theological commentators would depend on who is posting. You probably will not find a commentary in the strictest sense here.

 

[Brendan_64]

I understand that the priest can’t require the penitent to reveal his sins to others outside of the confessional, and thus can’t force him to turn himself in…but it seems absolutely absurd to me that the priest can’t withhold absolution. Everyone on this thread seems to be forgetting that in order to receive absolution validly, one must have firm intention to “sin no more”. Disobeying the law of the land is a SIN! A murderer who repents of his murder but refuses to turn himself in is telling the priest in the confessional “I fully intent to commit the mortal sin of gravely disobeying the civil authorities.”

No he’s not. He’s already committed the sin. Just because a murderer doesn’t wish to turn himself in to the law for his crime, it doesn’t mean that this means he wishes to murder again.

The priest cannot refuse to give absolution for a sin already committed because of a future sin that the offender may or may not commit.

If someone stole a small amount would the priest be right to withhold absolution unless the person turned himself in?

How can the priest absolve him of murder when he fully intends to commit another mortal sin?

On what grounds do you hold that a person not turning himself over to the law is a MORTAL sin?

It is not the breaking of the law itself that is mortally sinful (although it is probably a sin) but the act the person commits (e.g. murder) that is the mortal sin.

Since when are Catholics not bound by civil law? Someone needs to provide commentary from a recognized canon lawyer because all I’m seeing here are opinions.

That doesn’t mean that the fact that a law is broken is a mortal sin in itself.

The Church teaches that to disobey the civil authorities is sinful (unless the law is unjust).

The Church does not however say that to disobey civil authorities is mortally sinful.

The priest can’t require the penitent to turn himself in, but for the penitent not to do so of his own volition would be another sin. If I go to the confessional and I say “Father, I was impure with myself three times, and I truly repent of this sin - I will never do it again…but by the way, I still plan to be impure with my girlfriend…” will the priest give me absolution?

That is quite different as you would not be sorry for the sin you have committed as you plan to repeat that sin. A murder who went into the confessional and said, “I am truly sorry for having murdered someone… but by the way I plan to murder another guy next week” would clearly not be granted absolution. That is very different from a priest requiring a murderer to hand himself in before he granted absolution.

 

[Gorgias]

Disobeying the law of the land is a SIN! A murderer who repents of his murder but refuses to turn himself in is telling the priest in the confessional “I fully intent to commit the mortal sin of gravely disobeying the civil authorities.” How can the priest absolve him of murder when he fully intends to commit another mortal sin? Since when are Catholics not bound by civil law?

That’s an interesting perspective. Are you claiming that there’s a civil law that asserts that, when a person commits a crime, he’s bound by the law to turn himself in? I’d sure like to see a commentary on that…!

 

[Brendan_64]

That’s an interesting perspective. Are you claiming that there’s a civil law that asserts that, when a person commits a crime, he’s bound by the law to turn himself in? I’d sure like to see a commentary on that…!

Has anyone ever been convicted of the crime of ‘not turning themselves in’? And if there was such a crime would it be considered a felony or a misdemeanor?