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

[thirdn6]

The bible says there is no law against charity and sin is the strength of the law. There are laws of the land because there are crimes. Criminal acts are sins. Killing is a crime.

The bible also tells us to obey and respect the authorities of the land, it’s government. Also, to reconcile with the person we are indebted with before “going to the church”.

Now, imo, a person who knowingly committed a crime may not go to the confession and ask for absolution until he turns himself in first to the authorities and then he may ask to see a priest. What would you think of a hit and run driver who just killed a person on the road?

For the priest, it would mean a red flag to have somebody in front of him confessing about a killing and yet is free. I think the priest should explain to the person that he is responsible of what he did… to the government and its laws and to the society he belongs to. He must defer giving absolution.

In response to post #8, I’d say, if a priest is going to tell a confessor (who committed adultery, for example) to go and tell his wife (assuming that the wife know nothing about it) before coming to confession I am sure it is the right thing to do. Truth before peace not peace before truth. The person may be able to maintain peace with his wife for a while because he is concealing the truth but the moment the wife finds out it will be war and chaos. Telling the truth to the person whom crime or sin was committed meant expressing sincere repentance. Peace follows.

Second commandment says, “Love your neighbor as you love yourself”. It’s not only between you and God. We are accountable to others.

For…“How can you love God Who you do not see if you can not love the person who you can see?”

Peace. But Truth is more important…

 

[TheDoctor]

In response to post #8, I’d say, if a priest is going to tell a confessor (who committed adultery, for example) to go and tell his wife (assuming that the wife know nothing about it) before coming to confession I am sure it is the right thing to do. Truth before peace not peace before truth. The person may be able to maintain peace with his wife for a while because he is concealing the truth but the moment the wife finds out it will be war and chaos. Telling the truth to the person whom crime or sin was committed meant expressing sincere repentance. Peace follows.

It is not the right thing to do nor can the Priest do it. To force a penitent to reveal their sins outside of the confessional violates the seal. Additonally, absolution *cannot *be contigent.

Now, imo, a person who knowingly committed a crime may not go to the confession and ask for absolution until he turns himself in first to the authorities and then he may ask to see a priest. What would you think of a hit and run driver who just killed a person on the road?

Be careful about what you ask for. Have you ever taken something that was not yours or “borrowed” something and not returned it. You are guilty of petty theft. Did you confess these sins and seek absolution or did you first turn yourself into the police?

If confession was conditional then very few would go, and those souls would be lost for eternity. Yes, it would be great if the pain of the crime on their conscience forced the guilty to step up and take responsibility for their crimes, but we don’t come to the confessional for God’s justice, we come to it for His forgiveness.

God’s justice we face at judgement day.

 

[kristie_m]

It is not the right thing to do nor can the Priest do it. To force a penitent to reveal their sins outside of the confessional violates the seal. Additonally, absolution *cannot *be contigent.

If confession was conditional then very few would go, and those souls would be lost for eternity. Yes, it would be great if the pain of the crime on their conscience forced the guilty to step up and take responsibility for their crimes, but we don’t come to the confessional for God’s justice, we come to it for His forgiveness.

Agreed. Our PV basically said the same thing. Making absolution contingent on turning one’s self in, would violate the seal. It can’t be done.

 

[thirdn6]

It is not the right thing to do nor can the Priest do it. To force a penitent to reveal their sins outside of the confessional violates the seal. Additonally, absolution *cannot *be contigent.

Be careful about what you ask for. Have you ever taken something that was not yours or “borrowed” something and not returned it. You are guilty of petty theft. Did you confess these sins and seek absolution or did you first turn yourself into the police?

If confession was conditional then very few would go, and those souls would be lost for eternity. Yes, it would be great if the pain of the crime on their conscience forced the guilty to step up and take responsibility for their crimes, but we don’t come to the confessional for God’s justice, we come to it for His forgiveness.

God’s justice we face at judgement day.

To force a penitent to reveal his sins to anybody is not right and is not the same as telling him to surrender to the authorities if he committed a heinous crime such as killing.

As I understand, maybe I’m wrong, the seal of confession is only broken if the priest reveals to anybody what was confessed to him.

Punishment is commensurate to the gravity of the offense made. A petty sin is not to be compared to killing as venial sins to mortal sins. I would be stupid if I present myself to the police if my offense is merely forgetting to return a borrowed item from somebody.

What would you do if somebody showed up at your door saying he just killed someone but you don’t have to worry because he already went to the priest and obtained absolution? Would you call a police? I’m sure you would.

Peace. But Truth is more important…

 

[123rock]

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

I know huh, I was thinking the exact same thing reading the posts. I remember one show, forgot which one, may have been the X-files, where the priest finally “gives up” due to a guilty conscience and tells the police the identity of the “penitent” (he was a really wanted murderer). I was thinking how ridiculous it was to do that.

 

[123rock]

The bible says there is no law against charity and sin is the strength of the law. There are laws of the land because there are crimes. Criminal acts are sins. Killing is a crime.

The bible also tells us to obey and respect the authorities of the land, it’s government. Also, to reconcile with the person we are indebted with before “going to the church”.

Now, imo, a person who knowingly committed a crime may not go to the confession and ask for absolution until he turns himself in first to the authorities and then he may ask to see a priest. What would you think of a hit and run driver who just killed a person on the road?

For the priest, it would mean a red flag to have somebody in front of him confessing about a killing and yet is free. I think the priest should explain to the person that he is responsible of what he did… to the government and its laws and to the society he belongs to. He must defer giving absolution.

In response to post #8, I’d say, if a priest is going to tell a confessor (who committed adultery, for example) to go and tell his wife (assuming that the wife know nothing about it) before coming to confession I am sure it is the right thing to do. Truth before peace not peace before truth. The person may be able to maintain peace with his wife for a while because he is concealing the truth but the moment the wife finds out it will be war and chaos. Telling the truth to the person whom crime or sin was committed meant expressing sincere repentance. Peace follows.

Second commandment says, “Love your neighbor as you love yourself”. It’s not only between you and God. We are accountable to others.

For…“How can you love God Who you do not see if you can not love the person who you can see?”

Peace. But Truth is more important…

That opinion is incorrect. Wanting to avoid physical consequences does not mean you don’t love your neighbor. You’re not relegating truth to the background in the sinful sense you’re implying by not telling the authorities/your wife. Absolution imo must be given.

 

[TheDoctor]

To force a penitent to reveal his sins to anybody is not right and is not the same as telling him to surrender to the authorities if he committed a heinous crime such as killing.

You are correct here in that *forcing *someone to reveal a sin is not the same as telling or advising someone to confess however in your original post you are advocating making absolution contingent on confessing to the authorities, and that is now forcing them to reveal a sin.

As I understand, maybe I’m wrong, the seal of confession is only broken if the priest reveals to anybody what was confessed to him.

You are wrong. It is not only telling someone, it is making use of that information as well. For example, if I go to confession and reveal that I am on the parish financial council and I have been stealing from the Chruch for 10 years, Father cannot just remove me from the financial council, even if he tells no one the reason. Using the information breaks the seal.

Punishment is commensurate to the gravity of the offense made. A petty sin is not to be compared to killing as venial sins to mortal sins. I would be stupid if I present myself to the police if my offense is merely forgetting to return a borrowed item from somebody.

Slippery slope my dear friend. A crime is a crime is a crime. You were advocating no absolution without turning yourself in first. So, if petty theft is OK, how about grand theft auto? Public nudity? Obsecene acts? Where do we draw the line in your thinking?

What would you do if somebody showed up at your door saying he just killed someone but you don’t have to worry because he already went to the priest and obtained absolution? Would you call a police? I’m sure you would.

If he said he just killed someone, I would call the police and let them take it from there. Apples and oranges my friend. One (secular - calling the cops) has nothing to do with the religioius (I would pray for him and thank God). Perhaps his absolution led him to come to me to then confess???

 

[thirdn6]

In dealing with adultery, I think it doesn’t really matter whether you go to the priest first or telling your wife/husband. And I agree, absolution must be given to the penitent. But truth still must be said to the offended party (not just saying one hail mary and you’re good). (Can you receive holy communion with a clear conscience knowing that you’re hiding something from your wife/husband?). If you sense that physical harm is consequent in doing so, the Church advises us to get a mediator (a close relative or a friend) to help us.

Not like a murder or a killing that there is an immediate threat to anybody. A loose criminal is seeking refuge in the confessional by not surrendering himself to the authorities is, still in my opinion, must not be granted absolution forthright. Accompanying him to go to the police is, I believe, doesn’t break the confessional seal (whether given absolution or not) as long as the priest is mum about anything that was confessed to him. How much more of asking him to just simply turn himself in to the police and seek confession to a priest later when he is in prison, if he is to be imprisoned?

How would the priest know if the criminal is sincerely repentant? What if he absolved him of that sin (killing) then the guy changed his mind and kill again and then go to another priest and seek absolution and gets what he wanted and then the dilemma goes on and on? I mean, if he can go to the priest why can’t he go to the police first and surrender himself if he is truly repentant? From there he can call his lawyers, or priests, or even the president and then make his confessions.

Consider this…cbsnews.com/stories/2009/10/21/ap/strange/main5405536.shtml

A crime is a crime is a crime, I agree. Likewise a sin is a sin and will still be a sin. But there is a minor crime and a major crime. Likewise a venial sin and a mortal sin. The weight of punishment varies.

Peace. But Truth is more important…

 

[choy]

I know huh, I was thinking the exact same thing reading the posts. I remember one show, forgot which one, may have been the X-files, where the priest finally “gives up” due to a guilty conscience and tells the police the identity of the “penitent” (he was a really wanted murderer). I was thinking how ridiculous it was to do that.

i don’t think its completely ridiculous. priests are human after all. i think its a burden to them knowing that someone is a murderer and yet they have to keep that fact a secret

although another truth to the matter is, i’m not sure a confession to a priest would qualify as court evidence