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

[Hoosier_Daddy]

I’m not a canon lawyer…my canon law “expertise” (if you can even call it that) is limited to the six credit hours I took in seminary, and most of that dealt with marriage law. But, here goes…

Canon 1398 does affirm that procuring a direct abortion incurs a latae sententiae excommunication.

However…, that must be read in light of Canon 1323, which outlines when a person is NOT subject to penalty (in this case, excommunication) for violation of a law or precept. Those restrictions are:

1. Anyone under 16
2. Was ignorant of having violated a law or precept
3. Not be forced to violate said law/precept
4. A person who acted coerced by grave fear, “even if only relatively grave.”
5. A person who acted with moderation against an unjust aggressor
6. A person who lacked the use of reason (except for reason of drunkenness or influence of drugs)
7. A person who, without negligence, thought a circumstance mentioned in #'s 4-5 was present

So, practically speaking, what does this mean? It means for someone to be excommunicated for the sin of abortion, the person MUST, at one and the same time: be at least 16 years old AND know that this particular action was wrong AND know that it carried with it the penalty of excommunication AND not have anyone forcing her to have the abortion AND not be coerced by fear from a boyfriend, parents, missing work, missing school, boyfriend’s parents, etc. AND have full use of her reason AND not even THINK there was reason to be afraid.

I can’t think of any girl or young woman who WOULDN’T be afraid after learning of an unexpected pregnancy. I can’t think of one who would be of sound mind. Basically, to incur the excommunication, you have to pretty much say, “I’m getting this abortion for the sole purpose of being excommunicated from the Catholic Church. I’m making this decision on my own, without any outside influence. I don’t have any fear of being cut off by my parents, my boyfriend dumping me, missing out on school work, losing out on a promotion, etc. I’m having this abortion simply because I want to.”

Now, I suspect some might think I’m too loosely interpreting this canon. In that case, I would also note Canon 36, Section 1, which says, “In a case of doubt, those [administrative acts] which…restrict the rights of a person…are subject to a strict interpretation; all others are subject to a broad interpretation.” (emphasis mine)

In other words, the above criteria should be read broadly. For instance, is missing class and being the subject of gossip a source of “grave fear” for a 16 year old girl? Certainly, yes, in most cases. Therefore, no excommunication.

Thanks. Most women I have known who have had abortions would have fallen under the penalty if excommunication, though I don’t think you have to know you will be excommunicated…
Sadly I have known a few. They all knew the church taught against it and I don’t think coercion counts as it just being easier than telling parents or the cost of a baby.
If it were so rare then the pope would probably have not needed to make it a major worldwide focus for the year of mercy…

 

[buc_fan33]

Thanks. Most women I have known who have had abortions would have fallen under the penalty if excommunication,

With respect, this isn’t your determination to make. How can you know what kind of fear or duress the woman was under?

though I don’t think you have to know you will be excommunicated…

Yes, you do. The canon is clear. Please see Canon 1323, Section 2.

Sadly I have known a few. They all knew the church taught against it and I don’t think coercion counts as it just being easier than telling parents or the cost of a baby.

It’s not just knowing that the Church teaches abortion is wrong. Most people know that. It’s knowing that procuring one ALSO incurs the penalty of excommunication, consistent with Canon 1398.

If it were so rare then the pope would probably have not needed to make it a major worldwide focus for the year of mercy…

I’d have to reread what the Pope said, but I don’t recall him saying anything regarding the excommunication. What he did was grant universal faculties to any priest to absolve the sin of abortion. This faculty has been given throughout the dioceses of the United States already (where I assume most reading this reside). And, to be sure, that faculty ALSO carries with it the faculty to absolve from the censure IF IT APPLIES. But, as I said, in most cases, it doesn’t. Regardless, to the best of my recollection, the Pope was granting the faculty of absolving from the sin of abortion, regardless of whether or not it carried with it any canonical penalty, because in some countries, priests don’t have this faculty universally as they do in the States. If anything, it was more a recognition that abortion is so widespread, not that excommunication is so widespread.

 

[buc_fan33]

I have to add one more thing, well, reiterate one more thing. I am NOT a canon lawyer. I’m not an expert in these matters. If anyone reading this IS a canon lawyer (meaning an actual, trained canon lawyer, not just someone who has read a commentary somewhere), please correct me if I’m wrong.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Not to defend those whom you suspect of having “a very unhealthy suspicion around priestly formation on these forae,” but some of us, myself included, have throughout the years been given advice by priests that is contrary to Church teaching. Unfortunately, that has led to what you are seeing here and elsewhere.

Please don’t let that stop either you or Father David from posting here. We need your expert advice. Too many arm chair theologians on here and elsewhere in cyberspace.

Absolutely and I’ll take it further.
Every clergy on CAF I have ever seen has been incredibly well formed and trained. But they, like anyone else can be wrong or misinformed. And just like everyone else, like you or me, they may not readily say oops, I was wrong…

I think for the most part it is geographical as well. I’ve lived in many places and in some, there are excellent seminaries and well formed priests and in others it is s clerical desert.
I’ve had priests tell me that abortion and artificial birth control are permissible and others who have really struggled with thier own personal faith and knowlege. Our parish was scandalized about two years ago and it surely had to do with formation. Overall I find caf very respectful to the priesthood given all the different chaps out there who are priests or were priests…
Some of it is the geographical seminaries as well. Being close to seminarians is a nice window into thier formation. Around my area ( not my screen name) I would have a hard time letting my son go to our seminary…

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

I have to add one more thing, well, reiterate one more thing. I am NOT a canon lawyer. I’m not an expert in these matters. If anyone reading this IS a canon lawyer (meaning an actual, trained canon lawyer, not just someone who has read a commentary somewhere), please correct me if I’m wrong.

Nor am I father. . And in these crazy times even canon lawyers scratch thier heads.
Ask a cannon lawyer how an sspx priest can hear a confession…
The answer seems to be, well because the pope said so that’s why!

 

[FrDavid96]

This raises an interesting point. It’s certainly a valid confession if the penitent does his or her part and the absolution is given, but how wise is it for a confessor to hear confessions outside his linguistic comfort zone except in cases of real urgency? Redemptionis Sacramentum dissuades from the practice of concelebration of mass in an unfamiliar language, how much more important is it for the confessor as a judge-father-physician-teacher to know what’s being said?

I suppose he would have to decide in accord with his conscience, but it would seem reckless to hear confessions habitually in a language with which he had very little familiarity. Thoughts, Father David? What’s your experience with this? I don’t see a canon on this, but my guess is there’s a document somewhere.

A priest has a responsibility to hear confessions and absolve sinners. It’s the most important thing he does (with the exception of saying Mass, but that happens on a schedule). There is no requirement that the priest be in a “linguistic comfort zone” to absolve. I realize that you don’t mean anything by that, but truly, there is no requirement. If the option is available, certainly it would be preferred for the priest and penitent to share a language. However, if that is not an option, then it is better for the sinner to walk away absolved rather than unabsolved.

I never know (anytime I hear anyone’s confession) if this is going to be the very last time that person has an opportunity to be absolved. The person might die a sudden death shortly thereafter, or that person might (live another 70 years and) never come to confession again if turned-away. What if there is someone who finally decides “I’m going to confession today” after several decades of being away? I’m not going to let that person walk away unabsolved merely because of a language issue. One never knows what will happen next.

I know this is not a very likely scenario, but I’ll offer it anyway. What if that person tried to confess and I refused, then on the way home gets killed in an auto accident? I would not want to have to explain myself before Christ at my own judgement because I allowed him to die without giving him what I was able: reconciliation to God and the Church. Admittedly, that’s an extreme example. What I will add to it is that there can be any number of reasons why refusing to hear someone’s confession can have negative consequences. There are limitless possibilities, all of them undesired, if someone tries to go to confession, but gets turned away.

It’s not absolutely necessary to understand the penitent’s sins. It’s preferred, it’s desired, etc. but it isn’t absolutely necessary.

I’ve heard confessions in languages that I don’t understand many, many times. When I was newly ordained, I was very popular with the “old people” in the area who were first-generation Americans. They learned their catechism and their 10 commandments in their family language and they learned how to go to confession in those languages—this was a time when the ethnic parish was the norm in many parts of the U.S. Most of them just wanted to go to confession that way “one more time, for old times sake” so they could reminisce about how they used to do things. Contrary to what people often assume when I share that is that they weren’t trying to hide anything or get away with anything. They were just being nostalgic.

The point of all that is this; it’s the same thing I tell people (or try to convey to them) who want to confess in a language that I don’t speak: “it’s all right, God knows that language and that’s what matters.” And that really is what matters. God knows the sins, and He knows what is in the sinner’s hearts. The fact that the priest himself doesn’t understand is incidental. After all, the priest is there “in persona Christi” so as long as Christ understands the confession, it’s all good.

 

[FrDavid96]

Why would the excommunication rarely if ever apply?

This is why priests endure years of formation (does that sound familiar?).

I’m not going to type it because Dr Ed P-----. Has some very good explanations at his blog.

Here’s one place to start canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2015/09/01/pope-francis-on-reconciliation-for-abortion/

He has written several explanations of why automatic penalties rarely apply in the 1983 Code. He can phrase it much better than I can.

Also, I say it’s a start. He’s posted many times over the years about the distinction between absolving from the sin and lifting the canonical penalty. I do suggest that you search his blog for that distinction. I would provide some better links, but I can’t get the search feature to work right now.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

This is why priests endure years of formation (does that sound familiar?).

I’m not going to type it because Dr Ed P-----. Has some very good explanations at his blog.

Here’s one place to start canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2015/09/01/pope-francis-on-reconciliation-for-abortion/

He has written several explanations of why automatic penalties rarely apply in the 1983 Code. He can phrase it much better than I can.

Also, I say it’s a start. He’s posted many times over the years about the distinction between absolving from the sin and lifting the canonical penalty. I do suggest that you search his blog for that distinction. I would provide some better links, but I can’t get the search feature to work right now.

Thanks you two, I will look into it over there!

 

[ProVobis]

A priest has a responsibility to hear confessions and absolve sinners. It’s the most important thing he does (with the exception of saying Mass, but that happens on a schedule). There is no requirement that the priest be in a “linguistic comfort zone” to absolve. I realize that you don’t mean anything by that, but truly, there is no requirement. If the option is available, certainly it would be preferred for the priest and penitent to share a language. However, if that is not an option, then it is better for the sinner to walk away absolved rather than unabsolved.

I never know (anytime I hear anyone’s confession) if this is going to be the very last time that person has an opportunity to be absolved. The person might die a sudden death shortly thereafter, or that person might (live another 70 years and) never come to confession again if turned-away. What if there is someone who finally decides “I’m going to confession today” after several decades of being away? I’m not going to let that person walk away unabsolved merely because of a language issue. One never knows what will happen next.

I know this is not a very likely scenario, but I’ll offer it anyway. What if that person tried to confess and I refused, then on the way home gets killed in an auto accident? I would not want to have to explain myself before Christ at my own judgement because I allowed him to die without giving him what I was able: reconciliation to God and the Church. Admittedly, that’s an extreme example. What I will add to it is that there can be any number of reasons why refusing to hear someone’s confession can have negative consequences. There are limitless possibilities, all of them undesired, if someone tries to go to confession, but gets turned away.

It’s not absolutely necessary to understand the penitent’s sins. It’s preferred, it’s desired, etc. but it isn’t absolutely necessary.

I’ve heard confessions in languages that I don’t understand many, many times. When I was newly ordained, I was very popular with the “old people” in the area who were first-generation Americans. They learned their catechism and their 10 commandments in their family language and they learned how to go to confession in those languages—this was a time when the ethnic parish was the norm in many parts of the U.S. Most of them just wanted to go to confession that way “one more time, for old times sake” so they could reminisce about how they used to do things. Contrary to what people often assume when I share that is that they weren’t trying to hide anything or get away with anything. They were just being nostalgic.

The point of all that is this; it’s the same thing I tell people (or try to convey to them) who want to confess in a language that I don’t speak: “it’s all right, God knows that language and that’s what matters.” And that really is what matters. God knows the sins, and He knows what is in the sinner’s hearts. The fact that the priest himself doesn’t understand is incidental. After all, the priest is there “in persona Christi” so as long as Christ understands the confession, it’s all good.

I would think assigning penances can be quite challenging as well.

 

[e_c]

I would think assigning penances can be quite challenging as well.

Right…

From St. Alphonsus:

“The great Pontiff, St. Pius V, said: “Give us fit confessors, and surely the whole of Christianity will be reformed.” He who wishes to be a good confessor must, in the first place, consider that the office of a confessor is very difficult and dangerous, and that on account of its difficulty and danger the Council of Trent has called it an office to be dreaded even by angels.”

…

“But some will say, if we treat sinners in this manner a great deal of our time will be taken up, and others who are waiting cannot be heard. But in answer I say, that it is better to hear one confession well than to hear a great number imperfectly. But the most appropriate answer is, that the confessor has not to give an account to God of the persons who are waiting, but only of the person whose confession he has begun to hear.”

I ask, how can a confession one can’t understand be heard well? Certainly there are cases clearer than others, say I know some Spanish but am rather rusty with my Hindi…

It just seems very risky, except in the clear danger of death. What if this is a “relapsing” sinner whose absolution should be deferred? What if they are using someone of different language precisely to hide sins? What if they are in serious need of instruction in the context of the sacrament, and this occasions some exacerbation of a problem? Couldn’t an act of perfect contrition suffice (which might even be implicit in that act of presenting oneself to a confessor) in the “freak accident” scenario?

Lots of obligations conflicting… Requires a delicate conscience…

I don’t want to presume to “know better,” I just know Alphonsus is a great authority and that I fear for my soul if and when I should sit as a physician of souls in the confessional.

 

[dans0622]

I’m not a canon lawyer…my canon law “expertise” (if you can even call it that) is limited to the six credit hours I took in seminary, and most of that dealt with marriage law. But, here goes…

…

I could quibble with a few points of interpretation here and there but will only mention one thing: in order for an “automatic” penalty to apply, the person must have reached “majority” (i.e., has had his 18th birthday. See canon 1324.1.4, referencing also c. 1324.3).

In general and in theory, I agree with Dr. Peters and think the penalty is seldom incurred. But, as someone who actually hears confessions, you have practical experience and knowledge about this…

Dan

 

[Bookcat]

Hum…me thinks the thread got off the topic.

 

[Bookcat]

Here’s a question I can’t seem to find a definitive answer on.

Suppose you speak English and go to a priest who doesn’t know English for confession. Can one validly receive the sacrament in such a setting if the priest doesn’t really understand what specific sins are being said, but at the very least understands that the person is intending to receive the sacrament and is expressing sorrow for their sins?

Can it be valid? Yes it can.

If such occasion occurred and a Priest who did not know your language and did not know what you were confessing and he absolved you- and if it was a mortal sin …

then* mention that mortal sin at next opportunity of confession that you have in your language* or a language that you and the Priest know (noting that it was confessed to a Priest who did not understand your language).

 

[FrDavid96]

Can it be valid? Yes it can.

If such occasion occurred and a Priest who did not know your language and did not know what you were confessing and he absolved you- and if it was a mortal sin …

then* mention that mortal sin at next opportunity of confession that you have in your language* or a language that you and the Priest know (noting that it was confessed to a Priest who did not understand your language).

Please do not give confession advice that you are not qualified to give.

No one needs to do what you described.

It’s the second time you’ve posted that.

You are placing burdens on people that you have no right to assign.

 

[LoveMercyGrace]

Yes it is valid.

The bigger concern is this: given the fact that this priest is actually doing what you describe, why are you coming to an internet forum to ask if what he is doing is valid?

How can strangers on the internet know better than the priest himself who has had years of training and who has been sent by the bishop to hear confessions and absolve sinners?

Fr, I am not the op however thank you for clarifying

 

[Bookcat]

Please do not give confession advice that you are not qualified to give.

No one needs to do what you described.

It’s the second time you’ve posted that.

You are placing burdens on people that you have no right to assign.

Who says I am not qualified to note what I have noted? Sure I am.

Not making this up.

Once the impossibility ceases - the person is to confess their mortal sins.

The Priest* did not know what the Penitent was confessing - so while it can be valid - once the impossibility* ceases the obligation to confess all mortal sins resumes.

Similar to when a person receiving general absolution in an emergency (the plane is about the crash) is still obliged to confess all mortal sins in number and kind if they survive (but in that case it is as soon as possible).

Here for readers is commentary from another Priest who is also a Canon Lawyer and Judicial Vicar.

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.

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

 

[Bookcat]

Please do not give confession advice that you are not qualified to give.

No one needs to do what you described.

It’s the second time you’ve posted that.

You are placing burdens on people that you have no right to assign.

Who says I am not qualified to note what I have noted? Sure I am.

Not making this up.

Yes physical or moral impossibility excuses.

Once the impossibility ceases though- the person is to confess their mortal sins.

The Priest* did not know what the Penitent was confessing - so while it can be valid - once the impossibility* ceases the obligation to confess all mortal sins resumes.

Similar to when a person receiving general absolution in an emergency (the plane is about the crash) is still obliged to confess all mortal sins in number and kind if they survive (but in that case it is as soon as possible).

Here for readers is commentary from another Priest who is also a Canon Lawyer and Judicial Vicar in Diocese

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

 

[dans0622]

…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.
…

Considering that those mortal/grave sins were “directly pardoned by the keys of the Church and…were confessed in an individual confession” (c. 988.1), that response doesn’t make must sense to me … but … it’s not the first time and won’t be the last.

Dan

 

[Bookcat]

Considering that those mortal/grave sins were “directly pardoned by the keys of the Church and…were confessed in an individual confession” (c. 988.1), that response doesn’t make must sense to me … but … it’s not the first time and won’t be the last.

Dan

The Priest needs to know what mortal sin is being confessed…(that is part of confession…).

One is to make an integral confession (all mortal sins one knows)…and if the Priest does not know what your confessing because he does not know your language …well that needs to later happen (if there was mortal sin). Certainly then once a Priest is involved who knows what one is confessing - they are directly submitted to the keys - not just a jumble of foreign words that the Confessor does not know if you murdered your wife or stole a tube of tooth paste.

Impossibility can excuse from such - but once that impossibility ceases they are to be submitted to the keys (to a Priest who understands what on earth one is confessing…).

That is too why the Church provides the possibility of having an interpreter (who is bound not to say anything).

As noted this can be said to be similar to when an emergency general absolution happens - or other like absolution in an emergency. Though in that case one is to get to confession as soon as possible.

(PS: I am directly discussing the pure “Priest does not know the language” not where a Priest can understand things but has trouble with the language or various other like events - not giving particular “confession advice” with such but rather simply noting what I noted about an actual case where the Priest does not know the language but one needs to go to confession.)

 

[FrDavid96]

Who says I am not qualified to note what I have noted? Sure I am.

Approximately how many sacramental confessions have you heard?

Not making this up.

Yes physical or moral impossibility excuses.

Once the impossibility ceases though- the person is to confess their mortal sins.

The Priest* did not know what the Penitent was confessing - so while it can be valid - once the impossibility* ceases the obligation to confess all mortal sins resumes.

Similar to when a person receiving general absolution in an emergency (the plane is about the crash) is still obliged to confess all mortal sins in number and kind if they survive (but in that case it is as soon as possible).

Here for readers is commentary from another Priest who is also a Canon Lawyer and Judicial Vicar in Diocese

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

Once sins have been confessed and absolved, that’s the end of it. Over. Done. Finished.

No one needs to repeat sins that have already been confessed (assuming that it was done “in kind and number” the first time). Once is enough.

Nowhere does the Catholic Church say that sins must be repeated in future confessions. Indeed to say that would be a complete contradiction of God’s Mercy and of the Power of the Keys entrusted to the Church and Her priests.

Your posts are very harmful to actual, real-life confessors; you know, those priests out there who have actually been trained in how to hear confessions, ordained to absolve sinners, and finally sent by their respective bishops to absolve sinners.

You have no idea (I will say it again, you have no clue, none) how difficult it is to deal pastorally with penitents who read such misinformation on internet forums and who then insist on repeating past sins that have already been confessed and absolved.

The teaching of the Church is that a penitent is bound to confess (at a future Confession) only those mortal sins which were not confessed in kind and number. That is the only time one is obligated to confess sins from a time before ones last Confession.

If the sins are confessed and the priest absolves that the end of it. Finished.