There is no such crime because there is no such law. Even if one were guilty, democracies such as Canada and the United States grant rights against self-incrimination. This does include the objectively guilty. So, constitutionally, no criminal is required to turn himself in.
- Status
E
exdob
Guest
Here is a link about the confessor divulging what he eard from a non Catholic girl’s confession. also, the girl was involved with a priest.
newsinenglish.no/2014/01/08/sex-priest-didnt-know-girl-was-underage/
newsinenglish.no/2014/01/08/sex-priest-didnt-know-girl-was-underage/
R
runningdude
Guest
Confession releases eternal damnation. One must still accept purification for his sins, whether in jail on earth, or in purgatory before heaven. Nothing impure (stained by sin) will enter the Kingdom.
G
Gorgias
Guest
Exactly. Therefore, twf’s assertions do not hold up: one does not commit sin by failing to incriminate oneself to the civil authorities.
R
regression
Guest
How specific or general is the seal of confession for the priest? For example, let’s say a priest says: “When I was hearing confession, I heard someone say that they robbed a bank”. Is that allowed as long as the priest doesn’t say who said it. Or, is the priest not even supposed to mention the sin (either in general terms or specific terms)?
T
twf
Guest
Is this true in all countries and all time periods? Matters of Catholic morality aren’t limited to contemporary United States or Canada. Though I would still argue that the notion of a truly contrite Catholic who refuses to turn himself in, as a simple matter of justice, is very difficult for me to swallow. I find it hard to understand that true contrition would not compell on to turn oneself in.Exactly. Therefore, twf’s assertions do not hold up: one does not commit sin by failing to incriminate oneself to the civil authorities.
As an aside, while this is irrelevant to the present discussion, the early Church did not have any notion of a seal of confession - penance for such grave sins as murder, abortion, or adultery was a very public affair. A murderer would likely have been assigned many years of public penance before he was readmitted to the Eucharistic table. The Church has the power of binding and loosing and thus the canonical realities that govern the sacrament of penance have and could again change.
T
twf
Guest
No, in the scenario I outlined the individual does not plan to repeat the same sin. The individual has firmly and sincerely resolved to never masturbate ever again…but still intends to be impure in other ways (eg. fornication). In such a scenario even though the individual has truly repented of one sin, he still plans to sin in general and thus cannot receive absolution. My argument was that if the individual has resolved never to murder again, but intents to commit the new sin of not turning himself in, he cannot receive absolution. That being said, others on the thread have since informed me that Catholics are not expected to satisfy their debt to society and there is no sin in not turning oneself in. I am not fully convinced, but I am open to correction.
B
Brendan_64
Guest
No, but if you are arguing that Catholics are obliged to obey the laws of the land, then if such a law does not exist in that land then your argument falls flat.
But it is about a person being contrite, it isn’t about bringing legal ‘justice’.
And who are we, or the priest, to be state categorically that a person is not contrite, simply because he hasn’t handed himself in?
S
stephe1987
Guest
No, they cannot tell who sinned or what the sin was. They can talk about something in general during a homily (I’ve heard this done before) but no names and nothing specific. The closest thing would be talking about a person who confessed the sin of theft. But who it was or what the specific sin was (robbed such-and-such bank yesterday afternoon), any details that could lead to the person are a no-no.
V
Verbum
Guest
Hi po,
<
Here are the pertinent canons. You will notice that the emphasis is on the protection of the penitent. The confessor cannot do anything that might go against that protection. You will also notice that the priest cannot use his knowledge in exercising any authority he may have. For example, he could not fire someone for what he heard in confession.
<
Here are the pertinent canons. You will notice that the emphasis is on the protection of the penitent. The confessor cannot do anything that might go against that protection. You will also notice that the priest cannot use his knowledge in exercising any authority he may have. For example, he could not fire someone for what he heard in confession.
Verbum
M
Millie123
Guest
No, that would be gravely wrong and violate the seal of confession…
Imagine if you performed a serious crime such as robbing a bank…And went to confess it to your priest, and a few weeks later you have to sit through a priests homily where he starts talking about… “In confession someone confessed to me that they robbed a bank.” As the penitent How would that feel sitting there knowing that (even vaguely) the priest is discussing your sins. Wouldn’t that make you feel violated? Wouldn’t that make the penitent hesitant to attend confession again knowing that their sins can be discussed by the priest? The priest can not discuss the sins that they have heard in confession.
The most I’ve ever heard from my priest discussing about the sins he has heard in confession was during one of his homilies, he said something along the lines of “During confession people ask me if something they’re doing is sinful. And then after discussing it with them, I’ll usually tell them yes it is”
Imagine if you performed a serious crime such as robbing a bank…And went to confess it to your priest, and a few weeks later you have to sit through a priests homily where he starts talking about… “In confession someone confessed to me that they robbed a bank.” As the penitent How would that feel sitting there knowing that (even vaguely) the priest is discussing your sins. Wouldn’t that make you feel violated? Wouldn’t that make the penitent hesitant to attend confession again knowing that their sins can be discussed by the priest? The priest can not discuss the sins that they have heard in confession.
The most I’ve ever heard from my priest discussing about the sins he has heard in confession was during one of his homilies, he said something along the lines of “During confession people ask me if something they’re doing is sinful. And then after discussing it with them, I’ll usually tell them yes it is”
M
mdgspencer
Guest
He can’t say someone confessed they robbed a bank.
Furthermore, it would be very foolish to say this, even going this far was allowable. The priest could be expected to be picked up by the police and closely questioned about this confession, and if he has any clues about who said this. They would ask many questions he could not answer without being excommunicated. This could also all come out in the press, making him a byword in the media.
Furthermore, it would be very foolish to say this, even going this far was allowable. The priest could be expected to be picked up by the police and closely questioned about this confession, and if he has any clues about who said this. They would ask many questions he could not answer without being excommunicated. This could also all come out in the press, making him a byword in the media.
F
FrDavid96
Guest
The seal is absolute. The priest is absolutely forbidden to say or do anything which might betray the penitent.
I understand what you’re trying to ask here, however the issue with “for example” questions is that they don’t often address all the possibilities.
- Yesterday, a bank was robbed. Today, the detectives received a tip that the suspect might be somewhere in the neighborhood of St Mary’s church. Knock on the rectory door. Priest says exactly what you typed. That’s violating the seal.
- A 80 year old retired priest visits the RCIA class. He’s spent his whole life as a missionary, and lived in 14 different countries around the world. In response to some kind of question, the priest says that sometime in his 55 years as a priest, somewhere, someone confessed to robbing a bank. That would probably not be violating the seal…
I think that the general point of your question is to ask if a priest can say speak about things that he heard in confession as long as that doesn’t reveal the penitent.
Yes, he may; however that’s always under the absolute condition that there is no chance whatsoever, no matter how remote, that anyone could know who he’s talking about. And, this isn’t something to be taken lightly. Priests cannot stretch that definition of not-betraying the penitent. Even the slightest revelation is absolutely forbidden.
The seal does not stop the priest from speaking about sins in general terms. Any priest can certainly make a statement like “more people confess to missing Mass on a holy day than confess to patricide.”
R
regression
Guest
Thank you for all your replies
The reason I raised the question was a post made on Facebook by a priest writing a short exchange that happened during first reconciliation for some children. He wrote a couple humorous questions asked.
Now, if I were the priest, I would never post such a thing because even if I weren’t breaking the seal of confession, I wouldn’t want to give any hint or idea that what I would repeat what was said in confession. I was away from the sacrament fro A LONG time and one of the things that comforted me was knowing what I said wouldn’t be repeated.
If I had seen this post on Facebook before I started to go back, that could have planted a seed of doubt that some priests might not take it as serious as others.
The reason I raised the question was a post made on Facebook by a priest writing a short exchange that happened during first reconciliation for some children. He wrote a couple humorous questions asked.
Now, if I were the priest, I would never post such a thing because even if I weren’t breaking the seal of confession, I wouldn’t want to give any hint or idea that what I would repeat what was said in confession. I was away from the sacrament fro A LONG time and one of the things that comforted me was knowing what I said wouldn’t be repeated.
If I had seen this post on Facebook before I started to go back, that could have planted a seed of doubt that some priests might not take it as serious as others.
B
Boy_Wonder
Guest
Its’ called “I confess” and the priest ends up accused of the murder. He does not break the seal and comes close to being convicted and hanged for the murder.There’s an Alfred Hitchcock movie which takes this as its basic premise. I think it stars Jimmy Stuart. Can’t remember the name off the top of my head…
H
Hoosier_Daddy
Guest
I think we must separate God’s justice from our justice. The confessional is about God’s justice. It is why Jesus died on the Cross. He even died for those who murdered him.
One way to look at it is that if I sinned and committed murder and was contrite, spiritually, it may not be advisable for me to turn myself in because to do so might bring about further pain. Depriving my kids of a father, etc. Now, it would even get dicier in death penalty states. Bottom line is there must be a separation between church and state. This has to apply for murder as well as speeding.
One way to look at it is that if I sinned and committed murder and was contrite, spiritually, it may not be advisable for me to turn myself in because to do so might bring about further pain. Depriving my kids of a father, etc. Now, it would even get dicier in death penalty states. Bottom line is there must be a separation between church and state. This has to apply for murder as well as speeding.
- Status