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

[Florida_mom]

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

From the Catechism (with my comments in brackets):

"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]./QUOTE]

How can the victims be given moral satisfaction when they are left with a murder mystery?

It is weak to suggest that the murderer is entitled to have his familiy protected in exchange for his silence. It is a gross misinterpretation of the Catechism. I would say stopping the breath of a human–is a pretty serious physical damage and this is not to say that a mere confession satisfies Catechism requirements that he will be free.
LilyM;5408027:

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.

So which part of fraternal love is murder?

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!]

So it is charitable to murder and stay quiet so as not to harm the victim further?

There is a murderer on the loose–how is this safe for society?

So the pentitents family who likely doesn’t know that he is a murderer gets to trump the dead person?

Avoid scandal—so are you suggesting that it was within church teaching that the church stayed silent on the molestation scandals? I would hope that you and I both agree that the church knew this was wrong and remedied that secret…for the common good. Though it was later rather than sooner.

Sure–no one is bound to reveal the truth (priest molestation scandal)–but that is not a reprieve of accountability nor a promise that they must be given absolution anyway.

Or are you suggestion that the Catechism only applies to murderers in this instance?

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.

No–he did not. Please cite where it was suggested that this murderer be stoned to death.

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.

No–but her situation wasn’t private, and you don’t think he’s going to find out from gossip?
Where’s the part where Jesus told them all to keep it a secret?

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.

Unique brand of justice–they lost their child. So they weren’t forgiven on the spot?

post split in two due to length

 

[Florida_mom]

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.

The authorities at any time could have snatched him up though. Jesus silenced noone.

Did you find where in the catechism that says a murderer MUST BE ABSOLVED of his/her sin if they go to confession and are really, really, really, really sorry and promise to never ever, ever, ever do it again?

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.

I never said you were wrong–I simply requested the point blank church response that says murderes can get away with murder as long as they go to confession and the priest is obligated under church teaching to provide absolution (which seems to be your position.)

I also asked how one could be truly sorry for such a heinous action if they choose to keep it a secret. While the catechism doesn’t obligate one to reveal the truth–it doesn’t say under what terms (no mention of murder) that they will be forgiven anyway. It seems to be open to the discretion of the priest.

Remember with the above Bible stories–people knew. The public knew. Whether or not Jesus required them to go to the person they harmed admit it or turn themselves into authorities is moot.

Noone said that.

Again–can the sinner TRULY be sorry when they are the key to justice but refuse to unlock the door.

It seems God will have plans for this sinner who is a walking fraud.

 

[LilyM]

The authorities at any time could have snatched him up though. Jesus silenced noone.

No, he just indicated that God had forgiven Zacchaeus and he had been saved (‘salvation has come to your house’) without any requirement to be further punished by the civil authorities.

I never said you were wrong–I simply requested the point blank church response that says murderes can get away with murder as long as they go to confession and the priest is obligated under church teaching to provide absolution (which seems to be your position.)

That has never been my position, on the contrary. And I quote post #21 of mine above, containing a point I have made at least two or three times:

LilyM:

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.

Remember with the above Bible stories–people knew. The public knew. Whether or not Jesus required them to go to the person they harmed admit it or turn themselves into authorities is moot.

Yes, the people knew who committed the crimes. Knowing who committed them doesn’t constitute restitution in any way shape or form. Restitution literally means ‘restoring things to their original state’. Merely knowing the identity of the murderer does no such thing.

Making reparations to the victim and/or society (such as Zacchaeus did, such as a murder does* if they go to prison or pay compensation to their victims*) - that is restitution. And that - restitution - is precisely the question Jesus left open with the woman caught in adultery.

Not being restitution, it would seem to be not always relevant to confession to turn oneself into police. You think the family of the murderer would want merely to know the murderer’s identity and would be satisfied merely with that knowledge? Incredibly doubtful.

By the way, I appreciate your point about the rights of the victim’s family - but to say that they ALWAYS trump the rights of the murderer’s equally innocent family is as silly as to say the opposite. I’m not suggesting that either side has automatic priority, it depends on the circumstances of each individual case.

Note very carefully that I am specifically not saying publicly fessing up isn’t ever a relevant part of confession. However, the church did away with *mandatory *public confessions and penances many centuries ago, and for excellent pastoral reasons.

Again–can the sinner TRULY be sorry when they are the key to justice but refuse to unlock the door. It seems God will have plans for this sinner who is a walking fraud.

Yep. If they have been absolved, His plan is that they can go on to gain a plenary indulgence which completely satisfies ALL temporal punishment due to their sin - including that punishment which would’ve otherwise been satisfied by turning themselves in to police, or materially aiding the victim’s family in other ways. Not that plenary indulgences are easy to gain, but they are possible even for a repentant murderer.

If not, His plan is that they will satisfy the temporal consequences (which are all that remain after absolution) in purgatory - which might well be extremely painful for a murderer who hasn’t given himsel up, but then who knows. It’s certainly not for you or I to judge the methods another person uses to make reparation or restitution.

We, or almost all, fail to make adequate restitution for our sins. Some sins we cannot possibly make adequate restitution for in this life - even IF we suffer the full penalty of the law for them. I’d suggest murder just might be one.

Which is why in spite of Christ dying in order to satisfy God’s justice for them, there will still remain a lot (or a little) purgation for most of us.

Now please, for the sake of all of us, let’s not continue arguing around each other in circles, shall we? It’ll do no good to anyone concerned.

God bless.

 

[BiologyBrain]

By the way, I appreciate your point about the rights of the victim’s family - but to say that they ALWAYS trump the rights of the murderer’s equally innocent family is as silly as to say the opposite. I’m not suggesting that either side has automatic priority, it depends on the circumstances of each individual case.

While I’m no advocate of the family paying for the ‘father’s sins’ or anything, I just really don’t understand why the guilty party’s family gets to have priority (in any case) over the victim. Its not about the families of the guilty or the victim. Its about those actually involved - the guilty & the victim. Restitution and/or corporal (or even capital) punishment for crimes is not about the families involved. Its about the crime itself & the victim’s rights that were taken away by the guilty party. No circumstance of the guilty party’s family can change the crime and/or outcome for the victim. Yes, the victim’s family often feels somewhat vindicated when the guilty party is punished, but that’s not the purpose of the punishment. The purpose of punishment is to pay for the crime committed against the victim to the victim (or their advocate). Another purpose of punishment is to hopefully prevent further crimes of this nature by this person and/or to keep society safe from this individual.

Now please, for the sake of all of us, let’s not continue arguing around each other in circles, shall we? It’ll do no good to anyone concerned.

I guess that means you want to have the last word & no more questions about your stance? I don’t necessarily think you’re wrong in the eyes of the Church, but I do feel that the moral obligation we have is to obey civil laws including punishments for breaking those laws. I don’t think I’m necessarily right or wrong in the eyes of the Church. I realize that God has infinite mercy and His plans are not ours. As a human however, I would hope that others would feel that to be truly sorry for a crime as henious as murder, the guilty party would resolve to submit to civil authorities as well as to the Ulitmate Authority.

 

[new_User1357246]

Question for everyone on this thread who thinks the murderer must turn himself in:
Are we all, then, required to turn ourselves in for every crime that we commit? I sped to work today–do I need to go to the police station and have them write me a ticket? A catholic quits smoking pot, are they required to turn themselves in for every time they’ve smoked (and probably spend the rest of his/her life in prison)? How about for even worse crimes? Someone drives drunk, doesn’t get caught, confesses, goes to rehab, turns his/her life around? What if someone steals money from someone’s pocket and neither person knows who the other is/will never find out. By turning themselves in, the victim still wont get restitution… But they could confess then begin donating to charity and never steal again. Or is there a specific set of crimes that you think a person must turn himself into the proper authorities for?

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

While I’m no advocate of the family paying for the ‘father’s sins’ or anything, I just really don’t understand why the guilty party’s family gets to have priority (in any case) over the victim. Its not about the families of the guilty or the victim. Its about those actually involved - the guilty & the victim. Restitution and/or corporal (or even capital) punishment for crimes is not about the families involved. Its about the crime itself & the victim’s rights that were taken away by the guilty party. No circumstance of the guilty party’s family can change the crime and/or outcome for the victim. Yes, the victim’s family often feels somewhat vindicated when the guilty party is punished, but that’s not the purpose of the punishment. The purpose of punishment is to pay for the crime committed against the victim to the victim (or their advocate). Another purpose of punishment is to hopefully prevent further crimes of this nature by this person and/or to keep society safe from this individual.

I guess that means you want to have the last word & no more questions about your stance? I don’t necessarily think you’re wrong in the eyes of the Church, but I do feel that the moral obligation we have is to obey civil laws including punishments for breaking those laws. I don’t think I’m necessarily right or wrong in the eyes of the Church. I realize that God has infinite mercy and His plans are not ours. As a human however, I would hope that others would feel that to be truly sorry for a crime as henious as murder, the guilty party would resolve to submit to civil authorities as well as to the Ulitmate Authority.

I agree with this. Absolution does not require confession to the authorities. But I would think justice would require confession to the authorities.

Years ago in the 60’s a man (I can’t remember his name) killed his wife, his children and his mother in law. It was premeditated murder, he had purchased tickets to leave the state, informed his children’s school that they would be going on a trip, so they would be out of school. He left the state, assumed another identity and lived his life, getting a job and another wife. Decades later he was found to be the killer and was convicted.

IMO there is dishonesty in committing a murder and then pretending to be innocent. Most murder investigations are not closed after a certain time frame, and the murder cases have no statute of limitations.

The victim of the crime deserves justice.

 

[LilyM]

While I’m no advocate of the family paying for the ‘father’s sins’ or anything, I just really don’t understand why the guilty party’s family gets to have priority (in any case) over the victim. Its not about the families of the guilty or the victim. Its about those actually involved - the guilty & the victim. Restitution and/or corporal (or even capital) punishment for crimes is not about the families involved. Its about the crime itself & the victim’s rights that were taken away by the guilty party. No circumstance of the guilty party’s family can change the crime and/or outcome for the victim. Yes, the victim’s family often feels somewhat vindicated when the guilty party is punished, but that’s not the purpose of the punishment. The purpose of punishment is to pay for the crime committed against the victim to the victim (or their advocate). Another purpose of punishment is to hopefully prevent further crimes of this nature by this person and/or to keep society safe from this individual.

Somehow I don’t think a murderer is supposed to completely ignore their obligations to their own family and to the family of the victim when it comes to reparation for sin.

Didn’t Jesus tell us that whatever we did (or failed to do) to the least of our brethren we did (or failed to do) to Him? To me that means we ARE meant to take into account the effect of our actions - even those actions we take in reparation for our sins - on those around us. Do you think if I’ve stolen $100 dollars and have no other money left to feed my children with that I’m automatically supposed to repay that $100 straight away and let them starve? I’m not so sure.

I guess that means you want to have the last word & no more questions about your stance?

Thank you for a very charitable and civilised analysis of our differing (perhaps less so than you’d imagine) points of view. :tiphat: