Is it necessary for someone who committed murder to turn himself in to the authorities?

[LilyM]

Could a priest really require such a person to turn themselves in to the police as a penance? I think that would violate the seal of the confessional.

It absolutely would break the seal, and absolutely would be forbidden for a priest to require anyone to turn themselves in as penance. The most they can do is refuse absolution.

 

[tbcrawford]

I agree entirely with florida_mom and biology brain
iIm afraid i think you are wrong LilyM.
We are bound by Gods laws AND Civil laws,we are taught this as catholics.
For someone who has commited murder a priest would not be able to absolve this enormous mortal sin without the confessor being truly sorry and if he were truly sorry he would hand himself into the authorities to re- unite himself with God.

And Buby when someone has commited murder or is harbouring someone who has, then you are further sinning by not going to the authotities.This will hurt God enormously and you cannot be truly reconciled/forgiven/absolved until this occurs.
LilyM it would not make sense to discourage someone who has commited such a terrible crime against God and country.It would surely hurt God even more by not doing so
God bless all of you

 

[kesa82]

I don’t really understand what you’re saying here. I work in forensics, so I go to court

Then you know how it really works.

– police routinely lie on the witness stand and nobody does anything about it.

– the public defenders office is a joke , because the average public defender is juggling 40 or 50 cases AT ONE TIME. So you BETTER hire a lawyer . Trouble is, at $500 dollars an hour for a lawyer, if you do get a not guilty verdict, chances are by that time you are bankrupt anyway .

— so people routinely plead guilty to nonsensical charges just to avoid the trauma.

— most jails do not have a law library, and even if they do, the inmate can’t just stroll down there to get a book. The guard has to bring books to your cell, the average guard has lots of things to do besides fetch things for you, in any case you might not know which book you need, and he certainly doesn’t know. If you can’t post bail, the only contact you have with the outside world is COLLECT phone calls. Everybody and his brother now has answering machines or cell phones, which typically don’t except collect calls. Given all of this, if you can’t post bail, you can in no practical way prepare your defense . You are effectively defenseless.

— prosecutors routinely make deals with defendants, even over quite heinous crimes, for the sake of political expediency , and never mind the victims.

I could go on and on, but I’m getting bored.

These are not my opinions, they are things I have seen with my own eyes.

One of the most telling things , to me, is that any day of the week you see these ads on TV sponsored by tax lawyers that literally read, " Hire us so you won’t be victimized by the IRS ( a law enforcement agency ) . And to date I have NEVER seen anyone blink , much less blanch, after viewing such commercials.
This would seem to indicate that large numbers of people do know what is going on, or sense it intuitively , but look the other way.

So much for morality, so much for credibility or integrity.

 

[kesa82]

Imagine turning oneself into the police, say, for a murder committed under the influence of drugs at the age of 16, when one is 50 and has been sober for 30 years. It might very well be entirely counter-productive and achieve nothing in terms of healing the penitent’s relationship with God or anyone else. And there may be other concerns - what if the murderer is a sole parent? Should the pain and loss the children would go through not be considered?

No, no, no, it is better that one should spend ones life in a cage at enormous social and financial expense for the sake of image.

I want to throw up.

 

[gardenswithkids]

For those of you who think someone must turn themselves into civil authorities before God will forgive them, think about abortion. According to your theory, women who had abortions and staff at abortion clinics should turn themselves into civil authorities. Yet in most cases, there was no violation of civil law, so abortions aren’t prosecuted by civil authorities.

I’m not saying that someone involved in crimes should hide from civil prosecution, but the op question asked if is NECESSARY to turn themselves in. It is not neccessary. God’s forgiveness for violations of moral law is independent of what civil authorities do.

 

[kesa82]

My states criminal code is not one book, it is a set of loose leaf binders that looks like a set of encyclopedias. It’s in loose leaf binders because every time the legislature meets something in it changes.
The upshot of this is that there are so many laws on the books now , the fact is if you are breathing you are breaking some law somewhere.
This question has been limited to murder exclusively .
That is misleading. It need not be limited to murder.
If you are reading this then it is fair to assume you are breathing.
Ok, then go check your states criminal, civil, regulatory, and tax codes and find your offense.
then go turn yourself in.

I won’t hold my breathe while I wait to see it.

 

[Florida_mom]

Uh … someone who says they didn’t murder is lying. Someone who keeps silent is not lying. Even the Catechism distinguishes between telling an untruth and keeping silence. This can be seen by its statements in terms of untruths never being moral but silence sometimes being not only permissible but the right and charitable thing to do. The Catechism even outright states something to the effect that some persons have NO RIGHT to the truth in some situations!

Wow. Your moral compass is in question if you feel that you can commit crimes and as long as you say nothing, it isn’t lying and you are free and clear.

ly⋅ing1  /ˈlaɪɪŋ/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [lahy-ing] Show IPA
Use lying in a Sentence
–noun 1. the telling of lies; untruthfulness.

–adjective 2. telling or containing lies; deliberately untruthful; mendacious; false: a lying report.

---

Origin:
1175–1225; ME; see lie 1 , -ing 1 , -ing 2

Related forms:

ly⋅ing⋅ly, adverb

Synonyms:

1. falsehood, falsity, mendacity, prevarication. 2. deceptive, misleading, fallacious; sham, counterfeit.

I cannot find how keeping a crime a secret is considered truth. But the person is living a lie, being phony and being false and thus LYING by keeping it a secret.

That’s why calumny and detraction, gossip and slander are sins, even if the things you say are true.

Dear friend–slander is lying–spreading falsehoods. By definition it can’t be a true statement—ever. That would be an oxymoron.

slan⋅der  /ˈslændər/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [slan-der] Show IPA
Use slander in a Sentence
–noun 1. defamation; calumny: rumors full of slander.
2. a malicious, false, and defamatory statement or report: a slander against his good name.
3. Law. defamation by oral utterance rather than by writing, pictures, etc.

–verb (used with object) 4. to utter slander against; defame.

–verb (used without object) 5. to utter or circulate slander

Gossip about things that are not true–is lying.

Gossip about things that are true–is just plain deceitful and disrespectful of whom you are talking about which is why those are sins.

As I said, it would be relevant if the murderer were claiming not to be a murderer, which they aren’t.

No–they are lying to the public. They are lying to authorities. Someone, somewhere–is looking for a suspect and this person is staying mute. They know who did it–they did. To themselves they admit they are a murderer. Their now-silent victim may or may not know who murdered them. But on a daily basis they live a lie for they have committed a crime and are selfishly keeping it to themselves.

The constitution may permit this–but morality does not and how can they be right with God without making right with the victim?

How one can be so selfish while being “really really really sorry” sounds like my kids when they don’t want consequences for hitting their sibling.

 

[Florida_mom]

Continuation of post:

Buy silence? Who mentioned buying silence here?

That was pointed at the person (was it you?) who suggested paying restitution to the victim’s family.

If it were me being paid the restitution–I would mortgage my life to track down where that money came from and have that person questioned as a person of interest in the murder
of my loved one.

It was an unwise suggestion with possibly many repercussions–even from a defense standpoint and would raise all sorts of red flags to the authorities.

It’s not like the money (or whatever other help) is conditional on the victims not seeking legal redress, or that the murderer is asking the victims to keep silent about the crime. It’s not like anyone is asking them to not attempt to have the murderer caught and punished or anything that could possibly be construed as buying silence

Your rationalization was quite weak–the person clearly doesn’t wish to be “caught”–for anyone to suggest a non-court ordered restitution as a means to do penance for a federal crime was poor advice and would surely get this person “caught”.

We all keep secrets every day - and we tell half-truths or keep polite silence every day too. Do even your closest family and friends know every single sin that you’ve ever committed since the year dot, or ever mentioned in the confessional? Do you tell your husband that yes you hate his Christmas present? Even if he asks and even if you really do think it’s awful? I doubt it!

This is not the same as committing a MURDER that may or may not have been premeditated, an act of passion, or an act of self defense.

I try to live my life as honestly as possible. Committing crimes and keeping silent about them is not part of my moral compass.

No the two are very different. Again, read the catechism on truth and lying and you’ll see. One is permitted to omit information in certain circumstances without it being morally wrong. Withholding information can sometimes be done for good reason - for example to save a life (and in this case you might be wanting to save the lives of the murderer’s family who might be destroyed if they admit their crime).

I challenge you to find the portion where it says it is okay to take someone’s life illegally and remain silent about it.

We don’t know why or how the crime was committed, but you are rationalizing that the CCC says it is okay to just be sorry and do nothing about it.

Very sad.

It absolutely would break the seal, and absolutely would be forbidden for a priest to require anyone to turn themselves in as penance. The most they can do is refuse absolution.

Perhaps this is why the OP is asking–if this were the case then the answer is…NO they cannot be forgiven. And this would be polar to anything you have posted which at best is a misinterpretation of the Cathechism and morality.

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

no.

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

Uh … someone who says they didn’t murder is lying. Someone who keeps silent is not lying. Even the Catechism distinguishes between telling an untruth and keeping silence. This can be seen by its statements in terms of untruths never being moral but silence sometimes being not only permissible but the right and charitable thing to do. The Catechism even outright states something to the effect that some persons have NO RIGHT to the truth in some situations!

where in the CCC?

 

[Florida_mom]

For those of you who think someone must turn themselves into civil authorities before God will forgive them, think about abortion. According to your theory, women who had abortions and staff at abortion clinics should turn themselves into civil authorities. Yet in most cases, there was no violation of civil law, so abortions aren’t prosecuted by civil authorities.

I’m not saying that someone involved in crimes should hide from civil prosecution, but the op question asked if is NECESSARY to turn themselves in. It is not neccessary. God’s forgiveness for violations of moral law is independent of what civil authorities do.

Right now–abortionist are not committing a crime so long as the abortion is done within the legal time frame per their state law.

One cannot be convicted of a crime that does not exist.

As LilyM said-gossip is a sin…but there is nothing the law can do to stop me.

Just b/c the law doesn’t prohibit my gossip or prohibit my silence which are both constitutionally protected (1st Amendment for gossip and 5th amendemtn for self incrimination)–that doesn’t mean that God is okay with it nor does it make it MORALLY CORRECT.

If a Catholic ran an abortion clinic–God forgives on the premise of promising to do what is right. Sure we may fall again–but we are to strive to not try to fall. A Catholic abortionist not breaking the law, but sinning as part of their livlihood with no intentions on quitting, is not right with God per our Catholic Faith. He/She is actively pursuing the deaths of unborn children and the likelihood they would make it to confession let alone get absolved of those sins is slim to none.

It is a POOR analagy for a crime against humanity such as murder that is prohibited by the Ten Commandements, prohibited in all 50 states (and a federal crime), and a violation of the CCC to be compared to an abortion that does not meet all 3 of those criteria.

Murder does apply and the OP (or whomever they are speaking about) has no intentions of ever turning themselves in (which is NOT the same as admission of guilt. One can still have a plea of “not guilty” btw! Much like folks who refuse to turn themselves in but are caught can still plea “not guilty”!).

That is living the sin over and over again.

To not want to be held accountable while still being very sorry b/c they knew it was wrong is having a poor conscience that does not recognize the importance of doing the right thing.

It makes for an interesting debate on forgiveness and ethics, but failing to fully confsess is likely going to fester in the conscience and manifest itself in an unhealthy manner. That is unless he/she is unaffected.

It is cowardly to not want to face the consequences and it is very much living falsely.

He didn’t ask if it was NECESSARY to be truly forgiven by the priest, he asked if it was necessary to be truly forgiven period.

Doing wrong against your fellow man and doing NOTHING to want to make it right–is not the sign that one desires to truly be forgiven.

 

[gardenswithkids]

Florida mom,

As you point out many sins, (including mortal sins,) are not against the law. The problem with murder isn’t simple that its a crime; murder is a crime because it is immoral. I’m surprised that you considered abortion a poor ananology here as it involves the taking of an innocent human life–just not a human life protected by current US law.

It appears to me as I read your posts that you hold something along the lines of* “perfect contrition”* as the standard for forgiveness. Our Catholic faith teaches that “imperfect contrition” can begin the process of God’s mercy and forgiveness through the Sacrament of Pennance. You are entititled to your opinions, but not all the opinions you express match with Catholic Church teachings.

VII. THE ACTS OF THE PENITENT

1450 "Penance requires . . . the sinner to endure all things willingly, be contrite of heart, confess with the lips, and practice complete humility and fruitful satisfaction."49
Contrition
1451 Among the penitent’s acts contrition occupies first place. Contrition is "sorrow of the soul and detestation for the sin committed, together with the resolution not to sin again."50
1452 When it arises from a love by which God is loved above all else, contrition is called “perfect” (contrition of charity). Such contrition remits venial sins; it also obtains forgiveness of mortal sins if it includes the firm resolution to have recourse to sacramental confession as soon as possible.51
1453 The contrition called “imperfect” (or “attrition”) is also a gift of God, a prompting of the Holy Spirit. It is born of the consideration of sin’s ugliness or the fear of eternal damnation and the other penalties threatening the sinner (contrition of fear). Such a stirring of conscience can initiate an interior process which, under the prompting of grace, will be brought to completion by sacramental absolution. By itself however, imperfect contrition cannot obtain the forgiveness of grave sins, but it disposes one to obtain forgiveness in the sacrament of Penance.52

 

[tbcrawford]

People who commit abortion and people who medically aid this are committing a grave sin against God but NOT AGAINST THE LAW!!!
That is the difference between someone committing murder and not turning themselves in to the authorities.Someone who has had an abortion /has been a medic involved in this heinous act has NOT committed a civil crime…they dont need to turn themselves in.So both can attend confession but a murderer of a person born has committed a crime against state aswell as against God.An abortionist can be absolved in confession but a murderer who does not go to the authorities is NOT fully repentent and in fact continuing to sin by lying and not abiding by civil laws therefore cannot be absolved.I am aware as catholics we are to abide by Gods laws and civil ones…“give unto Caesar what is Caesars”(paying taxes etc).Our parish priest is always telling us we are obliged to abide by the laws of the land aswell as Gods.
Im afraid i feel some of you on here are misguided in your views and Florida_mum is correct.You are encouraging catholics to commit murder and get away with it by your attitude…that cannot be right.
I know you are all good people who have the idea we dont need to turn ourselves in to the authorities but yes we do
God bless

 

[Florida_mom]

Florida mom,

As you point out many sins, (including mortal sins,) are not against the law. The problem with murder isn’t simple that its a crime; murder is a crime because it is immoral. I’m surprised that you considered abortion a poor ananology here as it involves the taking of an innocent human life–just not a human life protected by current US law.

It appears to me as I read your posts that you hold something along the lines of* “perfect contrition”* as the standard for forgiveness. Our Catholic faith teaches that “imperfect contrition” can begin the process of God’s mercy and forgiveness through the Sacrament of Pennance. You are entititled to your opinions, but not all the opinions you express match with Catholic Church teachings.

You have gravely misread my post.

The abortion is a poor analogy b/c it is not an ILLEGAL act and thus requires no reporting to authorities for full forgiveness in the eyes of God. Perhaps that person can further demonstrate against abortion in the future–but for now—if Sally goes to get an abortion tomorrow but then gravely sorrows over her sin afterwards–she can go to confession and be forgiven. There would be no moral need for her to go to the police department and turn herself in. They would likely look at her like she has three heads since there is not statute that Sally has violated.

The OP wasn’t asking about perfection. He went to confession–clearly does not feel forgiven and is asking US whether or not he is truly forgiven. That points to the fact that he still has guilt as he has not fully faced his own consequences.

He commited and IMMORAL and ILLEGAL crime against humanity by taking the life of aonther individual. Abortion is irrelevant for purposes of his question alone. IT isn’t to make light of abortion or in any way say that it is fine b/c it is legal. Not once did I state OR imply such drivel.

My contention is–those with blood on their hands are not sorry until they wish to come clean. A confession during the sacrament of reconciliation isn’t adequate.

For example—say I fixed the books at my former employer and took hundreds of thousands of dollars. Then I spent it all. Then I was truly sorry. And i won’t ever do it again and I confess. I’m sure the priest would ask me what I did then explain to me why it was wrong. He would likely ask me if I did anything to remedy my errors. For it to be a valid confession–I’m sure honesty is important and I would state no. I’m talkative so I would probably elaborate where all the money went. If I weren’t, I would be being deceptive to the priest anyway. Would he really be able to absolve me of that sin if I did nothing about it other than promise not to do it again? Forget my former employer, right? As long as I am very sorry and promise not to do it again–all will be right with God and me. God doesn’t care about consequences or restitution. Jesus dying on the cross made it possible to be forgiven, but it was never meant to be used as the “It’s okay, I can do what I want b/c I’m saved” crutch that it has become.

I would be curious on an actual apologists answer as opposed to us Catholics engaging in this morality debate. I’m in the camp that no absolution would take place and thus–by itself, there isn’t forgiveness outside of the sacrament.

This isn’t stealing a candy bar.

This it the killing of a living and breathing human being.

Also note–this isn’t about the priest violating the privileged communication but rather if a guilty party can be right with God when they choose to conceal a heinous crime despite being sorry for committing the crime.

And in looking up the sacramental seal–it seams it prohibits the priest from reporting (which I never claimed he could do) but not from encouraging the sinner to do the right thing and turn himself in.

There is nothing that obligates a priest to provide absolution to the sinner in those circumstances.

It is basic common moral sense.

Where’s the CCC on keeping murder a secret as long as your sorry? Anyone? (Not the part where the priest has to keep mum to authorities. Let us not confuse the issue.)

 

[Florida_mom]

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=221595&page=2

I like llroy’s reponse in this thread and it sums up what I have been trying to say based on the OP’s question:

The reason for this, as explained by Fr. Mitch Pakwa, is that if sinners know that a condition of absolution would be to turn themselves in, they probably wouldn’t come to confession and become reconciled with God.
The importance of coming back into Grace with God highly outweighs the person being arrested for their crime.
**If you think this is unjust, remember that God knows exactly what they did and will give them complete and fair justice, much moreso than we humans could or would do. **

I’m thinking a loving God would only truly forgive those who face the consequences for their grave actions.

The prodigal son story would surely have turned out differently if he murdered his brother prior to going away and coming back.

Being reconciled with God does not mean that God forgot what you did nor forgot that you hid it from everyone that you altered a family’s life for ever b/c your fear, seflishness or whatever it was made it possible for you to kill a human being.

I remember vividly a family where the wife and daughter were killed in a street racing accident. Innocent victims of a simple afternoon temptation of a young man to race another vehicle. The other guy got away. I hate that he did–but it happened. The young man wrecked and the accident invovled a fire that killed the wife and daughter of the other man.

The husband/father showed amazing grace as this young man went through court proceedings for his crime (street racing/vehicular manslaughter or homocide–i forget which charge he got.)

In the end, the husband/father asked for leniency so that this young man could make something good out of all this.

Why?

Not b/c this young man went to confession and told him about it. I’m not even sure he was Catholic. But the young man ended up manning up and apologizing for his actions to his victim’s family member.

After that, they began organizing “legal” street car racing events in order to provide a safe outlet for young men (and women I would presume) who want to race in order to help prevent future such tragedies.

Now–suppose the other guy who sped off–he just went to confession and was sorry for encouraging the race (based on the young man’s testimony–we don’t have this guy’s side since he sped off) and was sorry for causing the accident and promised never to race a car again so that he wouldn’t harm anyone with his actions.

The priest unable to turn him in–or require him to turn himself again, feels sorry for the young man and believes he is truly sorry and absolves him.

Are we to assume that when both of these young men reach the pearly gates upon their death that God is going to give more credence to the young man who went to confession versus the young man who actually faced the consequences of his actions and turned bad into good?

That isn’t for us to decide–but that is the crux of the OP’s question and my contention/belief is that without true remorse and admission outside of the confessional–it will be a challenge on judgement day and I could not live with that type of guilt knowing that there is more that I can do with my actions in making things right.

Otherwise it’s the ol’ “I can do whatever I want b/c I’m saved OR b/c I can go to confession” argument which is not what God intended when he provided us this opportunity for mercy.

 

[gardenswithkids]

…You are encouraging catholics to commit murder and get away with it by your attitude…

Oh, please. Commiting a sin with the idea that one can just go to Confession and wipe the slate clean compounds the sin with the sin of presumption. No one here is encouraging anyone to commit murder.

 

[gardenswithkids]

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=221595&page=2

I like llroy’s reponse in this thread and it sums up what I have been trying to say based on the OP’s question:

I’m thinking a loving God would only truly forgive those who face the consequences for their grave actions. …Being reconciled with God does not mean that God forgot what you did nor forgot that you hid it from everyone that you altered a family’s life for ever b/c your fear, seflishness or whatever it was made it possible for you to kill a human being…my contention/belief is that without true remorse and admission outside of the confessional–it will be a challenge on judgement day and I could not live with that type of guilt knowing that there is more that I can do with my actions in making things right.

Otherwise it’s the ol’ “I can do whatever I want b/c I’m saved OR b/c I can go to confession” argument which is not what God intended when he provided us this opportunity for mercy.

I liked Ilroy’s response too. God’s justice is perfect *and *His mercy is perfect. The Church teachings on the Sacrament of Confession are part of the whole. In my first post on this thread I mention Purgatory. Just because God shows His mercy and forgives a murderer through the Sacrament of Confession does not mean that person completely escaped God’s justice either in this life or the next. Nor does walking out of the Confessional in a state of grace following a heinous sin guarantee that person will die in a state of grace. We must persevere to the end. Catholics don’t believe “once saved always saved”. Similarly, it is the sin of presumption to “do whatever you want then go to confession.” When we discuss God’s forgiveness, we must keep in mind that both His mercy and His justice are perfect.

For those of you who say “a loving God won’t forgive murderers unless they also turn themselves in”, can you sight something in the Church teachings that supports that viewpoint?

 

[Florida_mom]

For those of you who say “a loving God won’t forgive murderers unless they also turn themselves in”, can you sight something in the Church teachings that supports that viewpoint?

We were not debating whether the murderer would be forgiven upon surrendering…nor did we state that a “loving God would not forgive a murderer without surrendering”.

We were debating on whether he could truly be sorry if he purposes to continue harboring a secret.

There is a big difference between the two.

Besides–I already asked you to cite church teaching that permits you to keep a grave violation of the 10 commendments a secret and still be sorry. Thus far you have not provided it.

The question is–are they truly sorry if they opt to do this and thus truly repentent. I don’t think it is possible and thus I don’t think they would be fully forgiven with God without consequence. (I.e. it is probable that on Judgement day the man would be asked WHY he opted to not turn himself in–an answer we have not be provided and leaving the possibilties too wide open to make blanket statements that he is free and clear and fully forgiven.)

It is an opinion for sure. While grace is possible–the CCC is not exactly explicit in stating that one is free and clear in the eyes of God in the context of murder which is why you will be unable to provide a citation.

But to pretend in this scenario that he is fully forgiven without accepting earthly consequences is a mockery of the Lord.

I more comprehend those who are in jails being forgiven.

But someone who can’t face the music and wishes to keep such a grave sin against humanity a secret outside of the confessional…first off, it is probably extremely rare. But the liklihood it ending positively. I believe in grace–but for those who want it and desire it. Hiding from consequences–is not someone who wants or desires grace.

My opinions of course–but no such church teaching has been presented that states that this opinion is ill formed or wrong.

Much to imply that this man can move on with life fully forgiven as though nothing ever happened.

I am succombing to temptation and stating that in this scenario the person is a coward for not coming forth and I don’t believe they are truly remorseful with exception that they could get caught and are being fooled into the notion that confessing to a priest meant that they were “safe” for eternity. I’ve withheld that all afternoon–but there it is.

This type of confession (murder without surrender) is such a rarity just based on common sense alone that surely statistics would support. (unsolved murderers vs. the percentage liklihood that any of the assailents are Catholic).

I’m still curious as to how an apologist or priest would answer to the “what happens after confession and are they “good with God”” part?

Even the most Catechism literate lay person would not be able to answer as they won’t ever be in the position to hear any confession let alone this type of confession.

 

[Florida_mom]

freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2267276/posts

This is an article about illegally taped confessions (not by the priest, but by the govt on a jail visit).

I do not agree with that.

Obviously he is bound by the seal. But in this case, it was the confession of an inmate being held on charges.

It should be noted in this link here:
newsaic.com/ftvpractice08-14i.html

That the young man states that he only confessed the burglaries and not the murders and it was he who asked the tapes to be used in his defense.

He was eventually convicted of the murders.

On appeal it was found that the priest’s 4th amendment rights were violated and the tape was not permitted to be used.

But again–not what we are talking about here. But thought I would post what I found in my web searches that was interesting.

What is interesting is that every where I like–it seems that a priest can withhold absolution. He is not obligated to provide it.

 

[LilyM]

A couple of thoughts before I finish up on this topic:

From the Catechism (with my comments in brackets):

"2482 “A lie consists in speaking a falsehood with the intention of deceiving.” " note: by this definition silence is NOT a lie, although of course there are exceptions where one is sworn to tell the whole truth - note I’m not saying that withholding information is never wrong. Of course it may be, even for other reasons, even if it doesn’t amount to a lie by this definition]

2487… If someone who has suffered harm cannot be directly compensated, he must be given moral satisfaction not monetary, not the satisfaction of seeing you in court or prison - but moral satisfaction] in the name of charity. … This reparation, moral and sometimes not always, not even often] material material reparation surely consists of physical actions as well as money or material goods], must be evaluated in terms of the extent of the damage inflicted. say, damage inflicted to the family of the penitent, who don’t deserve to be punished for the penitent’s sin].

IV. RESPECT FOR THE TRUTH

2488 The right to the communication of the truth is not unconditional. Everyone must conform his life to the Gospel precept of fraternal love. This requires us in concrete situations to judge whether or not it is appropriate to reveal the truth to someone who asks for it.

2489 Charity and respect for the truth should dictate the response to every request for information or communication. The good and safety of others such as the good of the penitent’s family, again],** respect for privacy, and the common good are sufficient reasons for being silent** about what ought not be known or for making use of a discreet language. **The duty to avoid scandal ** so if people will be scandalised by your being revealed as a murderer that can be reason to be silent] often commands strict discretion ie silence]. No one is bound to reveal the truth to someone who does not have the right to know it. bingo - in black and white - some persons have no right to know the truth!]

Another thought - I keep coming back to the Gospel story of the woman caught in adultery. Of course she was guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt. BUT … Jesus stepped in to save her from her legal punishment - being stoned to death. Now remember that this was a punishment ordained by God Himself in Leviticus, so it cannot possibly have been anything less than a perfectly just punishment for adultery. Yet Jesus did not permit this type of justice to be imposed upon her.

Not only that, there’s not even the breath of a mention of her making reparation in any other way - not even, say, by apologising to her husband or the wife of her partner in adultery, or the crowd around her whom she offended by scandalising them. Nothing. All Jesus requires of her is that she go and sin no more.

And the story of David and Bathsheba. Sure, he committed murder and adultery. Any mention of him paying compensation to Uriah’s family? Any mention of him ending his sinful relationship with Bathsheba? No. Any mention of THEM paying the perfectly just legal penalty and being stoned to death? No. Any mention of David being imprisoned (and yes, they surely had prisons in those days and put murderers in them) for his murder? God dealt his own unique brand of justice, sure - their child died. But He didn’t require even the letter of His own scriptural law to be imposed on them.

I’m going to be fair, and I realise there is one example that counters this - Zacchaeus. Certainly Jesus blessed him because he freely offered to make restitution to those who he had defrauded. I would point out that a) everyone already knew what his sin was - that he was an extortionate tax collector as all tax collectors at the time were and b) he STILL was not required to go to jail or turn himself into the authorities for his crime of fraud.

So - I will conclude, I’ve spent enough time on this topic already. My position is tenable both under church teaching and by scriptural example, even if some will disagree with it. You have a right to do so, but you have no right to suggest that I am wrong in my views.