Is a Confession Valid if the Priest Doesn't Know Your Language?

[dans0622]

From whence/whom does the obligation come? Such can be said to be iure divino (by divine law) for such is the case with the requirement to confess mortal sins and what is what we are referring to. …

But when that impossibility ceases - then the obligation to confess all mortal sins remains.

The “divine law” obligation refers to a complete/integral confession on the part of the penitent (Trent, Session 14). In our situation, there is no question that the penitent has made a complete confession of mortal sins.

The divine law requirement does not refer to a complete understanding on the part of the confessor. If we start saying an absolution does not quite “stick” unless the confessor comprehended each mortal sin…that would lead to much uncertainty.

Practically, I also wonder how a penitent would ever know that the confessor didn’t understand anything of what was said.

Dan

 

[buc_fan33]

HoosierDaddy, I appreciate your perspective, even if I don’t fully agree.

Let me offer some situations to hopefully explain what I’m talking about. These situations are tangentially related, because they deal with making an “integral” confession. Obviously, while none of the priests posting here can get into specifics of the sacrament, perhaps these generalities will help convey what I mean.

Scenario 1: a young man (say mid 20s) comes into confession. “Bless me Father, for I have sinned. It’s been about a year since my last confession. I get angry with my wife, I’ve seen pornography, I take God’s name in vain. That’s about it.”

What do you as the priest do?

Scenario 2: an elderly woman comes into confession. “Bless me Father, for I have sinned. It’s been two weeks since my last confession. I missed my morning and evening prayers about 15 times. I gossiped about 15 times. I failed in charity about 15 times.”

What do you do?

Scenario 3: a middle aged woman comes into confession. “Bless me Father, for I have sinned. It’s been 35 years since my last confession. I don’t really have any sins to confess, but I just want to receive God’s blessing.”

What do you do?

Scenario 4: (most related to the topic at hand) a middle aged man comes into confession. “Bless me Father, for I have sinned. It’s been about a month since my last confession. I don’t really have any sins to confess right now, but I’m still feeling guilty for past sins against purity that I’ve confessed.”

What do you do?

These are all things that priests deal with on a regular basis when celebrating the sacrament of reconciliation. We would be given similar scenarios in our confession practicum classes in seminary. And, needless to say, practicing them in class is quite a bit different from dealing with them in the confessional for real.

On the current topic, FWIW, Cardinal Timothy Dolan in his book Priests for the Third Millenium writes,

We often say more by how we listen than how we speak.

The first time I heard confessions in Italian taught me that. I perhaps understood half of what the penitent was saying, but I listened intently, maybe even harder, since I was trying so much to comprehend. When it was time for me to respond, Lord knows I could hardly say much, probably in very childlike language, then the words of absolution. But the penitent was crying and kissing my hands! I guess I was successful in showing compassion or maybe I had let an ax murderer off with three “Hail Marys”!

Priests for the Third Millennium, pg. 245

 

[Bookcat]

I do not want to get into long debates on a subject that does not come up much and is not normally an issue. Especially for English speakers. How often really does one have a mortal sin that needs to be confessed to a Priest who does not understand your language and your not able to confess to him what it was? Hopefully a rare situation. The Confession of Venial sins is not of issue - they do not need to be submitted to the keys.

The issue is when case of a person who goes to a Priest who does not know his language - who does not have clue if the person is confessing murder or the theft of a pencil. That can be a case of “impossibility” and can excuse (the need to use an interpreter is an example of physical impossibility). But when that impossibility ceases - then that mortal sin should be confessed.

Similarly when general absolution happens - the penitent must (if they survive the emergency) confess all their mortal sins - indeed in this case as soon as possible.

Confession is not baptism - it has a juridical aspect.

Thankfully it will not be a normal happening that one will both have a mortal sin to confess - and the confessor does not know your language enough to hear your confession.

---

Here again for readers is commentary from another Priest who is also a Canon Lawyer and Judicial Vicar in his Diocese. I agree with him and he too is a Priest who hears confessions.

Question:

What possibilities are there for a penitent to confess in his own foreign language if he is unable to express himself in the language of the confessor, and presuming that there is no confessor available who speaks the penitent’s language and that no one is available to interpret?

Answer by Rev. Mark J. Gantley, JCL:

Greater effort needs to be made to find a priest who speaks the language or an interpreter. (It is permitted to use an interpreter for confession, and such an interpreted is bound to secrecy by canon 983.2). Otherwise, if absolution is given and the sins are forgiven, the person would still be bound to confess the grave sins in kind and number during a future confession.

(Copyright EWTN - “Used with Permission”.)

ewtn.com/v/experts/showresult.asp?RecNum=432692&Forums=0&Experts=106&Days=2001&Author=&Keyword=interpreter&pgnu=1&groupnum=0&record_bookmark=4

 

[FrDavid96]

Yes, but the question is if it is valid to absolve someone in the first place when the priest has no idea what the penitent is saying.
…

Yes.

The word “valid” has a very specific meaning in Catholic sacramental theology. I know that it gets thrown-around on CAF (and other similar places) quite casually, indeed too casually.

In order for a sacrament (any one) to be valid, the situation must meet the criteria established by the Church (by Revelation, of course). Likewise, the criteria for invalid is defined by the Church.

There is no requirement that for a confession (and subsequent absolution) to be valid the priest must understand the language of the penitent. As I’ve said earlier, it is preferred, desired, beneficial, and all sorts of other things, but it is not a requirement for validity.

Again, there is no requirement of language attached to the validity of Confession.

A priest can validly absolve someone who is completely unable to speak due to illness or age or injury. A person can whisper or mumble the sins if that is all he is able to do at that moment. A stroke victim can do his best to speak his sins. The fact that the priest cannot understand him does not render the sacrament invalid because the penitent has indeed spoken his sins; he spoke them as best he could.

The Church determines what is valid and what is an invalid attempt. Nowhere does the Church require a common language as a condition for a valid sacrament of Confession.

 

[FrDavid96]

I’ve never seen a canon regarding this at any point in Church history,

I have seen such canons:

Can. 959 In the sacrament of penance the faithful who confess their sins to a legitimate minister, are sorry for them, and intend to reform themselves obtain from God through the absolution imparted by the same minister forgiveness for the sins they have committed after baptism and, at the same, time are reconciled with the Church which they have wounded by sinning.

Can. 966 §1. The valid absolution of sins requires that the minister have, in addition to the power of orders, the faculty of exercising it for the faithful to whom he imparts absolution.

Note that nowhere does it say that a common language is a requirement for validity, nor does it say that lack of a common language renders it invalid.

Search the rest of the Code. Search the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It is clear that once sins have been confessed in kind and number and a priest has validly absolved, it is over. Finished. There is no turning back. There is no obligation to repeat the same sins to another confessor. Indeed, any requirement to repeat sins that have already been absolved is in direct conflict with the Church’s understanding of God’s mercy and forgiveness.

(though that’s not saying much,) and I’ve never seen any real document addressing this (EWTN does not count, though it raises suspicions on the matter)… and since the burden of proof remains on the one whose position is that one must re-confess, I still withhold my judgment (but would in practice refrain from recommending re-confessing). Both positions seem reasonable.

canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2015/09/01/pope-francis-on-reconciliation-for-abortion/

I disagree. It is not “reasonable” to say that a valid absolution requires a do-over.

The constant teaching of the Church on this matter is quite clear. Once the confession is finished (even if we take into account long periods of penance in the early Church), it is over.

 

[Lormar]

Maybe one of the priests here can settle this definitely for me.

When I used to go to the SSPX, it was a practice to say in confession as follows:

For these and all the sins of my past life, especially [fill in here a mortal sin of the past], I am very sorry.

When I later returned to the Church and made my confession to a priest in this manner, he became livid and accused me of making a mockery of the sacrament and God’s mercy.

My question: is necessary to add a particular mortal sin after saying “For these and all of the sins of my past life…”?

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

It is interesting when you take this concept out to other sacraments. In baptism no direct communication is required between the person baptizing and the baptisee. Hence, infant baptism. But in the Roman rite marriage is a sacrament done by not the priest, but rather the two becoming one. Imagine s wedding where neither person could understand the other. I’m sure validity would be in question.
Likewise confession or reconcilliation needs communication.
I think the absolution offered would be closer to a general absolution anyway and the person would then need to mention the sons again.

Bookcat nailed it.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

This is the problem of those offering theological or canonical commentary who are, in fact, neither theologians nor canonists. Your premises are wrong as are your conclusions.

What is the point of dialogue if it ends up with two people just saying the other is wrong?

 

[buc_fan33]

Maybe one of the priests here can settle this definitely for me.

When I used to go to the SSPX, it was a practice to say in confession as follows:

For these and all the sins of my past life, especially [fill in here a mortal sin of the past], I am very sorry.

When I later returned to the Church and made my confession to a priest in this manner, he became livid and accused me of making a mockery of the sacrament and God’s mercy.

My question: is necessary to add a particular mortal sin after saying “For these and all of the sins of my past life…”?

I wouldn’t say there is anything wrong with it, per se, provided that the person understands that what he/she is acknowledging has already been previously confessed has likewise already been forgiven and absolved. In other words, there is no need to say that, but it’s not wrong to do so either. Personally, I tend to discourage penitents from saying it, because experience tells me that usually though not always, the person tends to be scrupulous and is struggling with letting go of something that God has already forgiven.

The difficulty comes when someone has nothing else to confess, other than past sins that have already been absolved. Just like you can’t reconsecrate a host that has already been consecrated, you can’t reabsolve a sin that has already been absolved. For absolution to take place, new sins, sins that have never before been confessed, must be said in the sacrament.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

So yesterday, as a family, we all went to our weekly confession. The priest is Hispanic but bilingual. I confessed my sins and then in the ensuing discussion he says " in Spanish we have a saying… Blah blah blah (Spanish).
I only know enough Spanish to order a beer in Puerto Vallarta. (Thanks four years of Catholic school Spanish!)
Then he says, it means " there is no open bar, someone always has to pay". Then he laughs and laughs.
Some things are even lost in translation!
So after confession my kids are playing outside of the church and I called him over. I told him we have lots of sayings in English and told him a few. Well one I told him was the saying about putting lipstick on a pig…
I think he is laughing still today!

 

[Lormar]

Father, with all due respect this type of post is off putting. And for the record I have had plenty of people who were trained and have heard thousands of sacramental confessions get things soooooo wrong. Birth control is ok, use it. Masturbation is ok, do it. Etc.
appreciation and respect for priests is key even on these boards but if you will forgive me, you have no idea no clue, how hard it is to live in a place where priests are in short supply and rarely educated on the realities of the faith. I could tell you horror stories.
So be patient with those of us who see things differently. I know that for e personally, informative posts come accross better than ones who throw down a trump card.
Regardless thank you for all you do!

I didn’t find his post off putting at all. It must be very frustrating for a priest, who spent years in the seminary studying to become a priest, to come to a Catholic forum only to be told by laypeople with zero training - pastoral and otherwise - that they are wrong.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

I didn’t find his post off putting at all. It must be very frustrating for a priest, who spent years in the seminary studying to become a priest, to come to a Catholic forum only to be told by laypeople with zero training - pastoral and otherwise - that they are wrong.

True. But then aren’t we all frustrated at some point with people on the forums…
Or are there not enough modest dress, vaccination, artificial birth control, and liturgical abuse threads?

 

[Lormar]

I wouldn’t say there is anything wrong with it, per se, provided, the person understands that what he/she is acknowledging has already been previously confessed has already been forgiven and absolved. In other words, there is no need to say that, but it’s not wrong to do so either. Personally, I tend to discourage penitents from saying it, because experience tells me that usually though not always, the person tends to be scrupulous and is struggling with letting go of something that God has already forgiven.

The difficulty comes when someone has nothing else to confess, other than past sins that have already been absolved. Just like you can’t reconsecrate a host that has already been consecrated, you can’t reabsolve a sin that has already been absolved. For absolution to take place, new sins, sins that have never before been confessed, must be said in the sacrament.

I had to smile because I do tend to be scrupulous and have to be careful.

Thank you, Father, for answering me.

 

[FrDavid96]

From the Baltimore Catechism
catholicnewsagency.com/resources/catechism/baltimore-catechism/lesson-19-on-confession/

Q. 779. What is to be done when persons must make their confession and cannot find a priest who understands their language?
A. Persons who must make their confession and who cannot find a priest who understands their language, must confess as best they can by some signs, showing what sins they wish to confess and how they are sorry for them.

Now, if there were some obligation to re-confess those sins to another priest in the future, why does the Baltimore Catechism utterly fail to mention this requirement?

 

[FrDavid96]

…

My question: is necessary to add a particular mortal sin after saying “For these and all of the sins of my past life…”?

“Necessary?” No. Certainly not.

Once a sin is confessed and absolved, one should not be re-confessing it. I would have thought that would be clear by now.

Now, having said that, if there is some mortal sin from your past (even though already absolved) that is still bothering your conscience and you want to mention the fact that you are sorry for it (not re-confess it, but mention your contrition for having done it), it would not be wrong to do so. It does carry the danger of scrupulosity, so while I say “it would not be wrong” still it might be for a scrupulous person.

It is unhealthy spiritually, for one to search back into the past and look for some mortal sin merely for the sake of adding it to the words “for these and all…” That’s very much a thing which should not be done.

Ending with the words “…these and all my past sins…” or similar is fine; in fact, it’s a very good thing to say. However, adding a mortal sin from the past for no reason other than the sake of doing so does more harm than good.

I am going to leave it at that. Anything more would be too personal and inappropriate for this forum.

If you have a “followup” question, please address it to your own priest-confessor directly.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

From the Baltimore Catechism
catholicnewsagency.com/resources/catechism/baltimore-catechism/lesson-19-on-confession/

Q. 779. What is to be done when persons must make their confession and cannot find a priest who understands their language?
A. Persons who must make their confession and who cannot find a priest who understands their language, must confess as best they can by some signs, showing what sins they wish to confess and how they are sorry for them.

Now, if there were some obligation to re-confess those sins to another priest in the future, why does the Baltimore Catechism utterly fail to mention this requirement?

Hey! Thanks for finding that. Very interesting!

I suppose I phones and google translate have made our discussion less relavent.

" Siri, how do I say “masturbate” in The basque language?"
Then the priest says that as long as you paid for it you can do what you wish with a salami you purchased…

Forgive me if that was in bad taste. I debated posting…

 

[FrDavid96]

It is interesting when you take this concept out to other sacraments. In baptism no direct communication is required between the person baptizing and the baptisee. Hence, infant baptism. But in the Roman rite marriage is a sacrament done by not the priest, but rather the two becoming one. Imagine s wedding where neither person could understand the other. I’m sure validity would be in question.
Likewise confession or reconcilliation needs communication.

You don’t understand what makes a sacrament valid, or what makes it an invalid attempt.

This isn’t about feelings, or about “I don’t think…” sort of statements.

The Church defines what is valid and what is invalid.

As for your marriage comparison, there is no requirement of a common language for a valid marriage.

Human history is full of perfectly valid marriages where the two spouses do not share a common language.

You’re doing the same thing that other posters have already been doing: using the words “valid” and “validity” in ways that you do not understand.

The Church clearly defines what makes a sacrament valid. No one else can add conditions of validity. I cannot help but wonder how many times that has to be posted before people will understand it. The Church (not posters on CAF and not personal feelings) determines what makes a sacrament valid.

I think the absolution offered would be closer to a general absolution anyway and the person would then need to mention the sons again.

No. It is not similar. Once again I must point out what is painfully obvious: in a general absolution, there is no individual confession of sins. That part is missing. In what we’re discussing here, there is an individual confession of sins.

Bookcat nailed it.

No. Those posts are only sowing confusion and doubt.

 

[FrDavid96]

What is the point of dialogue if it ends up with two people just saying the other is wrong?

OK

If you insist:

Well, I’m glad you did chime in here.

I’ve been thinking about this logically and the more I do the less the position that the two clergy on here makes sense.

1. Confession is about communication. We must confess to someone and the priest has a responsibility to understand what we are saying. Absolution cannot be offered if one does not know what is being absolved!

Not true. There is no requirement that the priest understand the sin in order to absolve the sinner. Some examples:

a. The penitent is unconscious. Perfectly valid absolution.
b. The penitent lost the power of speech. Perfectly valid absolution
c. The priest does not understand the words being used because a person uses technical language, such as “I stole a Mark 12 gizmowhatzit thingamabob with an amber label” Perfectly valid absolution.

I can give more if you need them.

1. The Church does have rules that “touch” upon this. For instance we may not confess over the phone etc. Because of certain things that MUST be present to offer absolution.

Yes, and those “things” that “must be present” are defined by the Church. No where does the Church say that a common language is required for validity.

1. Here the Church points out that it is so important that communication be understood that an interpreter be used…

No. The Church permits an interpreter.

The fact that the canon permits an interpreter without requiring one only serves to prove that a common language is not required for validity.

1. Reconfessing is part of EVERY curriculum on confession I have ever seen. If we forget a mortal sin BY ACCIDENT it is covered and absolved though we are told to mention it at our next confession. Likewise if we make an act of perfect contrition.

And again, yet again, I’m going to say that we talking about sins that have already been confessed once and absolved. We are not told to re-confess sins, we are told to confess for the first time if they were omitted in previous confessions.

1. The words of absolution are not magic. If I purposely leave out a sin, I am not absolved no matter what the priest says.

Yet again, we aren’t talking about “purposely leave out a sin” we are talking about someone who does indeed confess the sin and is absolved.

Think of it this way.
If I have a prostitute and I I confess my 300 dollar evening, but fail to mention I used contraception by accident, My sin is forgiven. If I confess only to the contraception my sin is not forgiven and I must “reconfess” later. If I did this out of embarrassment or on purpose.

Communication is key. One might say PRIMARY for confession.

One could not choose to purposely confess in a language in which others cannot understand.

Bookcat is correct here. One should reconfess.

No. One should not re-confess sins that have already been confessed and absolved. To do that is to reject God’s mercy and to reject the Church’s ministry of the Keys.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

OK

If you insist:

Not true. There is no requirement that the priest understand the sin in order to absolve the sinner. Some examples:

a. The penitent is unconscious. Perfectly valid absolution.
b. The penitent lost the power of speech. Perfectly valid absolution
c. The priest does not understand the words being used because a person uses technical language, such as “I stole a Mark 12 gizmowhatzit thingamabob with an amber label” Perfectly valid absolution.

I can give more if you need them.

Yes, and those “things” that “must be present” are defined by the Church. No where does the Church say that a common language is required for validity.

No. The Church permits an interpreter.

The fact that the canon permits an interpreter without requiring one only serves to prove that a common language is not required for validity.

And again, yet again, I’m going to say that we talking about sins that have already been confessed once and absolved. We are not told to re-confess sins, we are told to confess for the first time if they were omitted in previous confessions.

Yet again, we aren’t talking about “purposely leave out a sin” we are talking about someone who does indeed confess the sin and is absolved.

No. One should not re-confess sins that have already been confessed and absolved. To do that is to reject God’s mercy and to reject the Church’s ministry of the Keys.

Is it your position that because the church does not explicitly say it that it is not the case? It’s my position that it is inferred that the two people in communication have to communicate…

 

[Don_Ruggero]

What is the point of dialogue if it ends up with two people just saying the other is wrong?

As you directed the question to me: I am not engaged here in dialogue. There is really nothing to dialogue about.

The principles of sacramental theology provide a theologian with the criteria to analyze an individual celebration of the sacrament against the measure articulated in theology while accounting for the prescriptions in canon law. The conclusion one will reach is essentially binary. Yes or no. In each instance, Father David has answered the points correctly. If the light switch is on and a person responded that no, in fact it is not, the only response is “that answer is wrong.” There is nothing about which to substantively dialogue.

The critique Father David has posted is also exactly correct.