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

[Bookcat]

…

I can understand your difficulty with those who mistakenly think they have to re-confess sins that have already been repented of and confessed and absolved. That must be great burden for them - God bless you and all Priests! May the Lord give you much grace and strength to help them out of their burdens.

Yes - it is finished - they are forgiven- they need now to let it go do their penance in life and follow the Lord with Joy in his mercy!

That is *not *what is at issue in my response. Nor is my response about a Priest who does understand enough - though he is not fluid in that language. Or any other aspect.

I was only addressing the “pure” case of a Priest who does not know the language of the Penitent - he does not know if he is confessing that he murdered his wife or stole a tube of toothpaste. If he confessed* mortal sins* - he is is to mention them again in a confession where the Priest does know what he is confessing.

You are though mistaken on this matter of when a penitent has confessed to a Priest who does not know his language. While such can yes be valid - that does not remove the obligation to confess those mortal sins once the impossibility ceases. This is the theological and canonically correct action (see as an example the quote from the Priest who is a Judicial Vicar I quoted saying the same).

Peace be with you Father and his abundant grace in your vocation as a Priest!

 

[Bookcat]

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

Readers may read for themselves - this is not my writing.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Approximately how many sacramental confessions have you heard?

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.

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!

 

[Bookcat]

…

I can understand your difficulty with those who mistakenly think they have to re-confess sins that have already been repented of and confessed and absolved. That must be great burden for them - God bless you and all Priests! May the Lord give you much grace and strength to help them out of their burdens.

Yes - it is finished - they are forgiven- they have again true life (if lost via mortal sin) p-they need now to let it go do their penance in life and follow the Lord with Joy in his mercy!

That is *not *what is at issue in my response. Nor is my response about a Priest who does understand enough - though he is not fluid in that language. Or any other aspect.

I was only addressing the “pure” case of a Priest who does not know the language of the Penitent - he does not know if he is confessing that he murdered his wife or stole a tube of toothpaste. If he confessed* mortal sins* - he is is to mention them again in a confession where the Priest does know what he is confessing.

You are though mistaken on this matter of when a penitent has confessed to a Priest who does not know his language. While such can yes be valid - that does not remove the obligation to confess those mortal sins once the impossibility ceases. This is the theological and canonically correct action (see as an example the quote from the Priest who is a Judicial Vicar I quoted saying the same).

Peace be with you Father and his abundant grace in your vocation as a Priest!

 

[dans0622]

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…).
…

The language states that the sins are “remitted/pardoned directly by the keys”, not that the sins must be “submitted directly to the keys.”

In any case, I think I understand the rationale behind the answer Fr. Gantley gave and know that he is not the only one who has given such an answer. I read in some old manual that “all theologians” agree that the penitent is bound to do this (but then went on to list a few circumstances where there was no obligation, including a time when there was only one or two grave sins…???).

From whence/whom does this obligation come? The obligation I am aware of is given in, for example, c. 988. The penitent has fulfilled that obligation already by confessing the sins and receiving absolution. It seems we all agree that such an absolution is valid. Therefore, I see no “obligation” to restate those sins. Is such an action laudable and perhaps beneficial? Sure.

If we look at it along the lines of “you should do this” (which is closer to how you phrased your own answer in the Feb. 29 post) as opposed to “you are bound to do this” (as Fr. Gantley said), I could go along with that.

Dan

 

[OraLabora]

I have the same problem when I’m in Italy (we go there for two or three months twice a year). The priest in our village is elderly and I’m pretty sure he doesn’t speak English - you don’t have a chance to talk to him, as he disappears immediately after the Mass.

As a result, I don’t go to Confession when we’re in Italy. I really wouldn’t know where to start. In any case, I’ve seen him hearing Confessions before Mass, and he stands in a corner with the person who’s confessing. It’s a very speedy process and I doubt if he offers appointments. It’'s not really the way things work in backwaters-Italy!

I don’t know if you get to Rome at all when you’re in Italy but at the major churches in Rome, you can surely find someone to confess in English, the confessionals are marked with a sing indicating the language(s) of the priest hearing confessions. One of the monks of our abbey gets regularly lent to Rome to hear confessions (in French and I think he can do English) at Saint Paul Outside the Walls. He’s there now until spring, for the Year of Mercy. He’s also normally the regular confessor for laity at the abbey; his predecessor is taking his place while he’s in Rome.

 

[Bookcat]

The language states that the sins are “remitted/pardoned directly by the keys”, not that the sins must be “submitted directly to the keys.”

In any case, I think I understand the rationale behind the answer Fr. Gantley gave and know that he is not the only one who has given such an answer. I read in some old manual that “all theologians” agree that the penitent is bound to do this (but then went on to list a few circumstances where there was no obligation, including a time when there was only one or two grave sins…???).

From whence/whom does this obligation come? The obligation I am aware of is given in, for example, c. 988. The penitent has fulfilled that obligation already by confessing the sins and receiving absolution. It seems we all agree that such an absolution is valid. Therefore, I see no “obligation” to restate those sins. Is such an action laudable and perhaps beneficial? Sure.

If we look at it along the lines of “you should do this” (which is closer to how you phrased your own answer in the Feb. 29 post) as opposed to “you are bound to do this” (as Fr. Gantley said), I could go along with that.

Dan

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.

Thanks for your thoughts - I agree with the Fr. Gantley (Juridical Victor) there (and any number of others…).

Those sins have not yet “been confessed” in the way they are to be submitted to the keys. All the Priest heard was hdgyfyrhfrkcoidlaldladeage and llkhgajhasfahjjadf. It made not sense to him.

As CDF via Cardinal Ratzinger noted that it is clear that the Priest - the judge - must know the facts of the case in confession.

If I go into confession this week and start confessing in Latin and the Priest has no clue what I am saying…how is that an integral confession? Or if my wife confesses in Polish to him and he has no clue what she is confessing?

Yes there could be say an occasion a person may be in some foreign country where the Priest does not know his language - does not know what he is confessing - was that murder or toothpaste theft??!- but he needs to confess some mortal sin (for his salvation!) -that is an “impossibility” and would excuse him and allow him to be absolved. But when that impossibility ceases - then the obligation to confess all mortal sins remains.

 

[e_c]

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.

I am suspending my personal judgment on the matter for the moment - though I lean towards Bookcat’s answer - but this seems to go hand in hand with the same obligation attached to Form 3 absolutions. The penitent has to be submitted to the judgment of a confessor to be fully reconciled to the Church, even though their sins have been completely forgiven.

This is also reflected by the distinction between lifting a sanction in confession (which is the prerogative of a duly commissioned judge) and absolution… Any priest with faculties can absolve the sin of abortion, but he must have special permission to lift the sanction of excommunication if it has been incurred (which, interestingly enough, according to Dr. Peters, has not been incurred by any woman seeking an abortion since the 1983 code). There used to be two separate parts in the old form of the sacrament.

In general it seems good for the soul to resubmit to one who can judge and offer advice rather than mechanically absolve… Certainly any sanctions would remain. Whether one would be required to refrain from Holy Communion regarding such a circumstance, I will ask around. I would not think so, provided one intends to seek proper judgment of his sins.

I’m a doubter for now.

 

[dans0622]

… (Juridical Victor)…

That made me laugh. I am not very impressed by such an appeal to authority since I have had more than my share of disagreements with my own judicial vicar over the years…and think I am in the right at least now and then…

Dan

 

[Bookcat]

and think I am in the right at least now and then…

Your married right? We can ask your wife

 

[FrDavid96]

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!

None of that means that anyone should be telling Catholics to re-confess sins that have already been confessed once (presuming “kind and number”) and already been validly absolved. That kind of information is downright dangerous. It fertilizes scrupulosity. I know because I have to deal with those scrupulous persons who say “I read on a Catholic internet forum that I have to re-confess my sins, so I’m doing it.”

It isn’t meant to be a trump card. It’s meant to share something about being on the other side of the confessional.

When a penitent confesses the sins to a priest and the priest absolves, that’s it. Done. Finished. Do not pass “go.” Do not go backwards. “Go in peace.”

No one should be telling anyone otherwise.

Bad information from one person (such as saying that artificial birth control is acceptable) does not excuse bad information from another person. Why would it?

 

[buc_fan33]

I’ve debated responding to this thread for quite some time now, writing something and deleting it, writing something, and deleting it. But, I’ve finally decided to chime in here.

First, I agree with Fr. David. Bookcat, if what you’re saying is true, it certainly was never communicated to me in my seminary formation, at least that I recall. But, I’ll also be the first to admit that priests don’t know everything. There has been one omniscient being…and we crucified him.

That said though, I also agree with him from a pastoral standpoint. I’ve tried responding in greater depth, but I just can’t find the right words to say without getting into specifics of the sacrament. Even if I don’t use the person’s name, I’m just not willing to post details of confessions on the Internet. Suffice it to say, there are pastoral concerns that come up in the confessional that you simply CAN’T understand as a layman.

That’s not a critique. It’s just true. I didn’t realize it until I became a priest and saw things from the other side of the box so to speak. And, I will echo what he says about scrupulosity.

 

[FrDavid96]

I am suspending my personal judgment on the matter for the moment - though I lean towards Bookcat’s answer - but this seems to go hand in hand with the same obligation attached to Form 3 absolutions. The penitent has to be submitted to the judgment of a confessor to be fully reconciled to the Church, even though their sins have been completely forgiven.

Here is the essential difference. In the case of general absolution (which is strictly reserved to extreme circumstances), the individual sins have never been confessed. For that reason, a person is obligated to mention the sins at the earliest opportunity, yet still for the first time and only one time.

This is also reflected by the distinction between lifting a sanction in confession (which is the prerogative of a duly commissioned judge) and absolution… Any priest with faculties can absolve the sin of abortion, but he must have special permission to lift the sanction of excommunication if it has been incurred (which, interestingly enough, according to Dr. Peters, has not been incurred by any woman seeking an abortion since the 1983 code). There used to be two separate parts in the old form of the sacrament.

Again the essential difference: in that case absolution is not yet given. It is delayed until the priest can obtain the proper faculties (or refer to another priest who does). In the situation we’re discussing, absolution is given.

In general it seems good for the soul to resubmit to one who can judge and offer advice rather than mechanically absolve… Certainly any sanctions would remain. Whether one would be required to refrain from Holy Communion regarding such a circumstance, I will ask around. I would not think so, provided one intends to seek proper judgment of his sins.

I’m a doubter for now.

And here I must disagree because the words “I absolve you” must have meaning. They must effect what they indicate.

Priests do not say “I absolve you, but…” or “I absolve you, come back later…” or “I think that maybe I absolve you…”

Either those words mean what they indicate, or they mean nothing.

A person is obligated to confess mortal sins (in kind and number) to a priest in the context of Confession. Once that person has been (validly) absolved, it’s over.

 

[dcana]

Here is the essential difference. In the case of general absolution (which is strictly reserved to extreme circumstances), the individual sins have never been confessed. For that reason, a person is obligated to mention the sins at the earliest opportunity, yet still for the first time and only one time.

Again the essential difference: in that case absolution is not yet given. It is delayed until the priest can obtain the proper faculties (or refer to another priest who does). In the situation we’re discussing, absolution is given.

And here I must disagree because the words “I absolve you” must have meaning. They must effect what they indicate.

Priests do not say “I absolve you, but…” or “I absolve you, come back later…” or “I think that maybe I absolve you…”

Either those words mean what they indicate, or they mean nothing.

A person is obligated to confess mortal sins (in kind and number) to a priest in the context of Confession. Once that person has been (validly) absolved, it’s over.

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.

What if, father, someone came to you in the confessional and told you he committed such and such a mortal sin but he thought he was justified in doing so (and you could tell by your discernment he wasn’t) and he intends to keep on committing the same sin. Would you absolve him? What if a person told you this same thing but spoke in a language you do not know, so that you have no idea what he is saying?

Aren’t there cases when a priest cannot absolve a penitent? If so, then doesn’t that imply that the priest must hear and understand something that would make absolution impossible to give?

Of course God knows his heart. But the priest doesn’t. He has to hear with his ears. Doesn’t the priest have to be able to hear and understand to know whether or not some sin confessed was actually a sin at all (objectively speaking, anyway - I guess if someone commits some act that he thinks is sinful, i.e. against God’s law and will, but it is actually not, then the person did, in fact, sin), and if it was, if it was grave matter or not; to understand the circumstances that can mitigate (or even increase, I guess) culpability, **to be able to discern if the penitent has any contrition whatsoever for the sin **(this seems to be the most important question); and to be able to give him or her counsel? It seems so to me, but I am not a priest. I know I can’t imagine how difficult it must be sometimes to hear confessions.

God bless you father - and all priests - for all you do

 

[Don_Ruggero]

None of that means that anyone should be telling Catholics to re-confess sins that have already been confessed once (presuming “kind and number”) and already been validly absolved. That kind of information is downright dangerous. It fertilizes scrupulosity. I know because I have to deal with those scrupulous persons who say “I read on a Catholic internet forum that I have to re-confess my sins, so I’m doing it.”

It isn’t meant to be a trump card. It’s meant to share something about being on the other side of the confessional.

When a penitent confesses the sins to a priest and the priest absolves, that’s it. Done. Finished. Do not pass “go.” Do not go backwards. “Go in peace.”

No one should be telling anyone otherwise.

Bad information from one person (such as saying that artificial birth control is acceptable) does not excuse bad information from another person. Why would it?

Father David has quite correctly answered the matters. No remedial effort on the part of the penitent is prescribed in this circumstance vis-a-vis trying to re-confess sins in subsequent confessions – and there are indeed solid pastoral reasons for proceeding as he has delineated.

 

[e_c]

Here is the essential difference. In the case of general absolution (which is strictly reserved to extreme circumstances), the individual sins have never been confessed. For that reason, a person is obligated to mention the sins at the earliest opportunity, yet still for the first time and only one time.

Certainly no dispute… However, it would also be extreme for one to use a confessor in a language which he can’t understand a word of.

Again the essential difference: in that case absolution is not yet given. It is delayed until the priest can obtain the proper faculties (or refer to another priest who does). In the situation we’re discussing, absolution is given.

Yes, absolution of the sin of abortion CAN be given by any priest with faculties, ever since the 1983 code. But to have the sanction lifted one must have extraordinary faculties. I will provide a link explaining this at the bottom.

And here I must disagree because the words “I absolve you” must have meaning. They must effect what they indicate.

Everyone so far seems to agree that such a confession is valid, ceteris paribus.

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

 

[ProVobis]

What if a person told you this same thing but spoke in a language you do not know, so that you have no idea what he is saying?

So what happens in countries like Nigeria, where, according to Card Arinze, they have 240 vernaculars?

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

I’ve debated responding to this thread for quite some time now, writing something and deleting it, writing something, and deleting it. But, I’ve finally decided to chime in here.

First, I agree with Fr. David. Bookcat, if what you’re saying is true, it certainly was never communicated to me in my seminary formation, at least that I recall. But, I’ll also be the first to admit that priests don’t know everything. There has been one omniscient being…and we crucified him.

That said though, I also agree with him from a pastoral standpoint. I’ve tried responding in greater depth, but I just can’t find the right words to say without getting into specifics of the sacrament. Even if I don’t use the person’s name, I’m just not willing to post details of confessions on the Internet. Suffice it to say, there are pastoral concerns that come up in the confessional that you simply CAN’T understand as a layman.

That’s not a critique. It’s just true. I didn’t realize it until I became a priest and saw things from the other side of the box so to speak. And, I will echo what he says about scrupulosity.

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!
2. 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.

Can. 990 No one is prohibited from confessing through an interpreter as long as abuses and scandals are avoided and without prejudice to the prescript of ⇒ can. 983, §2.

Here the Church points out that it is so important that communication be understood that an interpreter be used…
4) 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.
5) The words of absolution are not magic. If I purposely leave out a sin, I am not absolved no matter what the priest says.

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.

 

[ProVobis]

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.

This, however, brings up another question. How graphic does a confession have to be in order to get your sin communicated properly? How much does the priest NEED to know in order to absolve you? I would think the priest has been trained (and experienced) enough to recognize the nature of the sin no matter how it’s communicated.

I do think that it makes sense that if a priest says “Te absolvo…” (or however it’s translated) then the penitent is absolved.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

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!
2. 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.

Here the Church points out that it is so important that communication be understood that an interpreter be used…
4) 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.
5) The words of absolution are not magic. If I purposely leave out a sin, I am not absolved no matter what the priest says.

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.

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.