If you killed someone would you have to tell the authorities to recieve absolution?

[NFrancis]

I was watching House today and there was a scene of a person in confession. The doctor killed his patient. The patient was a crazy genocidal dictator. Would the person have to tell the authorities or would he just have to accept what he did was wrong. I know he has t make up for what he did and fix it, but how would telling the authorities make up for it.

 

[Brenda_V]

It would be the restitution for killing the man. Chase , the fictional doctor who did it, or in this case faked a test result so the man would get the wrong treatment. I don’t know if absolution could have been denied though but I am about 90% sure part of penance can include turning oneself in.

Brenda V.

 

[redrosetea]

You would have to repent to receive absolution…To be remorseful isn’t enough…I think a priest would not give absolution without a person admitting their act to the authorities

But this is just my way of thinking I am not sure I am right

 

[acadian]

Absolution can not be dependent on one turning one’s self into the authorities. Neither can it be part of the penance, from what I’ve been lead to understand. But it might be part of the [non-binding] pastoral advice that the confessor gives to the penitent.

 

[Angel_Face]

I would believe the Pastoral would provide the confessor with absolution, but at the same time tell the confessor he should turn himself in to the authorities.

 

[flyingfish]

I’m pretty sure that confessors cannot require you to reveal your sin as part of absolution.

If you are truly repentant you are truly repentant. Another kind of penance may be given depending on why you killed someone.

Killing a crazy, genocidal dictator might not even be sinful because it could be viewed as killing to save the lives of innocent people.

 

[Imryl]

I love House, it’s a great show!

 

[kristie_m]

lol…I watched last night too. DH and I were just wondering how many people were going to be turned away from the confessional because some show portrayed something that isn’t gonna happen. Absolution is not dependant upon facing the temporal consequences of one’s sin. Now…the priest COULD have said, “You’re obviously not sorry for what you did, therefore I can’t absolve you.” But he wouldn’t say…“if you were really sorry you’d turn yourself in.” That would be like a priest telling someone who committed adultery, “I’m not going to absolve you until you tell your spouse that you cheated.” How many of us would go to confession if that’s the response we could expect?

I love HOUSE, but that scene bugged me.

 

[TheDoctor]

lol…I watched last night too. DH and I were just wondering how many people were going to be turned away from the confessional because some show portrayed something that isn’t gonna happen.

My wife and I were discussing it as well. My opinion is that if they were not going to confession now this doesn’t matter one way or the other. I think the greater harm is the image it portrays to our non-Catholic brothers and sisters. On a positive note, it was a great teaching example for the family as we discussed absolution and repentence and sorrow and the seal of the confessional.

 

[TheDoctor]

You would have to repent to receive absolution…To be remorseful isn’t enough…I think a priest would not give absolution without a person admitting their act to the authorities

But this is just my way of thinking I am not sure I am right

The priest can only withhold absolution if the penitent is not sorry for their sins and does not have firm purpose of amendment (i.e. they can’t be absolved if they say “I killed, I liked it, and I will kill again”). Sorrow does not have to include turning yourself in. The code of canon law speaks to this clearly:

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.

 

[TheDoctor]

I was watching House today and there was a scene of a person in confession. The doctor killed his patient. The patient was a crazy genocidal dictator. Would the person have to tell the authorities or would he just have to accept what he did was wrong. I know he has t make up for what he did and fix it, but how would telling the authorities make up for it.

Beat me to it. I was going to start a thread on this topic as my family and I saw the show also.

As was explained to me by a couple of priests, to require a penitent to reveal to anyone outside of the confessional what they did in order to receive absolution is forbidden because it violates the seal of the confessional:

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.

 

[Brenda_V]

Great discussion and thanks for the canonical references. I was wrong as to what part of the penance could include but I don’t see this as going away.

Keeping in mind that this was all fictional the following problem arises:

Did the treatment actually kill the dictator? The body was whisked away before the team could do an autopsy so, maybe something else killed him.

Now does that change Chase’s actual guilt? He is only guilty of falsifying test results with the result that the treatment given could have been what killed him, did he purposely falsify the results to insure the death of the dictator or did he do it in the hopes that the treatment would work? This show is very convoluted in leaves a lot open to discussion on these issues.

I don’t think we have seen the last of Chase at confession and I would sure like to know who they consulted for the scene!

Brenda V.

 

[choy]

i had a preist tell me before that he cannot absolve me of my sins unless i am absolutely sure i will never ever do them again

freaked me out and i never returned to that parish. good thing another church was close by

is it not absolutely up to the priest to deny or give absolution for any reason?

 

[kristie_m]

Great discussion and thanks for the canonical references. I was wrong as to what part of the penance could include but I don’t see this as going away.

Keeping in mind that this was all fictional the following problem arises:

Did the treatment actually kill the dictator? The body was whisked away before the team could do an autopsy so, maybe something else killed him.

Now does that change Chase’s actual guilt? He is only guilty of falsifying test results with the result that the treatment given could have been what killed him, did he purposely falsify the results to insure the death of the dictator or did he do it in the hopes that the treatment would work? This show is very convoluted in leaves a lot open to discussion on these issues.

I don’t think we have seen the last of Chase at confession and **I would sure like to know who they consulted for the scene! **
Brenda V.

I second that part, especially!

 

[TheDoctor]

is it not absolutely up to the priest to deny or give absolution for any reason?

The only reasons, I believe, that a priest may refuse absolution is (1) the penitent is not sorry for their sins (e.g. “I just came in to make my wife happy, I am really OK with what I did”), (2) the penitent has no firm purpose of amendment, that is, at the time of confession they have no plans to not do the sin again (e.g. “can you hurry it up Father, I have to rob another liquor store at 3:30”).

If the priest has no firm reason to believe either is true, absolution must be given.

 

[RockyTSquirrel8]

I’m pretty sure that confessors cannot require you to reveal your sin as part of absolution.

If you are truly repentant you are truly repentant. Another kind of penance may be given depending on why you killed someone.

Killing a crazy, genocidal dictator might not even be sinful because it could be viewed as killing to save the lives of innocent people.

Killing is killing, no matter what the circumstances are. The fact that the victim might be a crazy, genocidal dictator will only change your culpability. The EVIL of murder still occurs.

 

[NFrancis]

Thank you everyone for answering. Whenever I see a scene of the confessional on TV they always seem to mess something up.

 

[kooldood]

The only reasons, I believe, that a priest may refuse absolution is (1) the penitent is not sorry for their sins (e.g. “I just came in to make my wife happy, I am really OK with what I did”), (2) the penitent has no firm purpose of amendment, that is, at the time of confession they have no plans to not do the sin again (e.g. “can you hurry it up Father, I have to rob another liquor store at 3:30”).

If the priest has no firm reason to believe either is true, absolution must be given.

hey guys, start a new thread on that.

 

[choy]

The only reasons, I believe, that a priest may refuse absolution is (1) the penitent is not sorry for their sins (e.g. “I just came in to make my wife happy, I am really OK with what I did”), (2) the penitent has no firm purpose of amendment, that is, at the time of confession they have no plans to not do the sin again (e.g. “can you hurry it up Father, I have to rob another liquor store at 3:30”).

If the priest has no firm reason to believe either is true, absolution must be given.

so maybe the priest feels that if Chase is trully sorry in his heart, then he’ll do the right thing and turn himself in

perhaps the priest feels that if he’s not willing to turn himself in then he’s not really sorry for what he did and is just asking for forgiveness from the priest for the sake of it. just so it might psychologically make him feel better

 

[kristie_m]

so maybe the priest feels that if Chase is trully sorry in his heart, then he’ll do the right thing and turn himself in

perhaps the priest feels that if he’s not willing to turn himself in then he’s not really sorry for what he did and is just asking for forgiveness from the priest for the sake of it. just so it might psychologically make him feel better

If that were the case, then the priest would be justified in witholding absolution. However, the priest would have to do some serious discernment to determine if that were really the case. Saying that he had to turn himself in as a CONDITION of absolution makes it seem as if the sacrament is for sale, and that’s a big no no.

How does one person ever really know what’s in the heart of another? Maybe he should have confessed to Padre Pio!