No absolution for child abusers until they report themselves?

[Hokomai]

Would it be a) possible and b) wise for it to be mandatory for priests to whom child sexual abuse is confessed to require the penitent to report themselves to the appropriate authorities before absolution was given?

It seems to me that this would have reduced the number of priests and others in responsible positions who continued to offend, and would be a proportionate response to the seriousness of the offending. offenders who did not follow through would not have valid absolution and would therefore, presumably, have to cease their ministry as they would be in a constant state of sin. I know some would continue in any case, and I am not saying it is a 100% solution - just that it would help, and would allow the Church to use tools unavailable to other institutions. Incidentally, I do not think the incidence of abuse by priests and other Church people is disproportionately great, but I think it is good to do everything possible to reduce its incidence.

 

[Heuchler]

I would think it would be a requirement. If you are truly sorry for what you did you would face the consequences and turn yourself in.

 

[FrDavid96]

It is absolutely forbidden for a priest to require a penitent to reveal the penitent’s sins.

This cannot be done.

Under no circumstances can a priest require a penitent to report himself to anyone as a condition for absolution.

It cannot be done. Absolutely never.

And to answer to inevitable questions that are going to get posted:

The answer is still NO. Even before you post the question, the answer is NO.

Whatever question you’re thinking about posting, whatever scenario you draw, whatever the circumstance, a priest can NEVER require a penitent to reveal the penitent’s sin. Not in any way, shape, or form.

No. Nope. Nay. Never. Negative. Nix.

 

[Oneofthewomen]

Thank you, Fr. David!!!

 

[Rence]

It is absolutely forbidden for a priest to require a penitent to reveal the penitent’s sins.

This cannot be done.

Under no circumstances can a priest require a penitent to report himself to anyone as a condition for absolution.

It cannot be done. Absolutely never.

And to answer to inevitable questions that are going to get posted:

The answer is still NO. Even before you post the question, the answer is NO.

Whatever question you’re thinking about posting, whatever scenario you draw, whatever the circumstance, a priest can NEVER require a penitent to reveal the penitent’s sin. Not in any way, shape, or form.

No. Nope. Nay. Never. Negative. Nix.

No disrespect intended, but: And these priests know this too Perhaps if they were required to report themselves, at least to their bishop, they wouldn’t continue to do it. As it is, they have no accountability and there are no reprucussions. They go to confession, they get absolved, and according to the reports, they do it again. Why wouldn’t they? They give bad names to the good clergy who are honorable and take their vows seriously. They terribly smear the Church with their evil behavior.

When my mom was dating her second husband, before they married, he hadn’t finalized the annullment with his previous wife yet. My mom went to confession and the priest told her that he would not absolve her unless she agreed to stop seeing her boyfriend until after his annullment was complete. Now, she merely went to another priest and got absolution. And I suppose a priest given a condition to his absolution might do the same too. But it’s odd to me that the rules don’t apply to everyone, and the most harmful sins (especially sins against children) are not dealt with the same as others. How is it a condition was put on my mom, who was dating someone working on his annullment, but a condition couldn’t be made on a vile predator of children. Yeah, I know, the condition was to turn himself in. So what. He should turn himself in.

 

[Corki]

How is it a condition was put on my mom, who was dating someone working on his annullment, but a condition couldn’t be made on a vile predator of children?

Because the condition placed on your mother only involved her. The priest was telling her to change the living condition that made it difficult, if not impossible to avoid future sin. No third person was involved.

The condition you are proposing would involve revealing a sin to a third party. That is why it is forbidden under the seal of confession.

 

[FrDavid96]

Because the condition placed on your mother only involved her. The priest was telling her to change the living condition that made it difficult, if not impossible to avoid future sin. No third person was involved.

The condition you are proposing would involve revealing a sin to a third party. That is why it is forbidden under the seal of confession.

Exactly.

 

[Rence]

Because the condition placed on your mother only involved her. The priest was telling her to change the living condition that made it difficult, if not impossible to avoid future sin. No third person was involved.

On the contrary, our family would have been involved.

The condition you are proposing would involve revealing a sin to a third party. That is why it is forbidden under the seal of confession.

Now this is just a thought, but: If children were the priority instead of the priest and his sin, maybe children would be abused less?

 

[FrDavid96]

Now this is just a thought, but: If children were the priority instead of the priest and his sin, maybe children would be abused less?

That’s a completely unfair and untrue characterization.

The Church is protecting the integrity of the Sacrament of Confession, and protecting everyone else who commits a sin from the fear of having to reveal that sin, whatever it might be.

 

[Corki]

On the contrary, our family would have been involved.

I think you misunderstood. In the example you gave, no one would have been informed of the sin that was confessed. She simply needed to change her behavior. Your family would have been involved but not because of the confession or even because of the sin. That’s not the same as saying there would be no consequences to her change of situation, which is what I think you thought I meant.

 

[Heuchler]

I think they should at least require the priest to remove himself from working at a parish or from being around children as part of the absolution. They don’t have to tell anyone exactly why they are removing themselves.
But personally, I would rather the child abuser admit his sins, take responsibility, and truly be repentant, than to risk a single child over this priest and the possibility he might “slip up”. If these men carry on with this sin (as many do) they don’t deserve the forgiveness found in confession.

 

[Corki]

Now this is just a thought, but: If children were the priority instead of the priest and his sin, maybe children would be abused less?

On the surface, that sounds good. But what you are suggesting is to change the entire character of a Sacrament just because you think that there are people who have mixed up priorities.

The mission of the Church is to bring people to Christ - all people, not just children. If everyone knew that they could not get absolution without revealing their sins, would this bring people to the Sacrament?

From a practical standpoint, if a priest goes to Confession and confesses child abuse, he is at least expressing the first signs of contrition and a desire to ammend his behavior. If a priest knew he would be turned in, he would be even less likely to make even that first step. The end result wouldn’t be priests being held more accountable, it would just be more priests with unabsolved sin avoiding the Sacrament of Confession.

 

[Rence]

On the surface, that sounds good. But what you are suggesting is to change the entire character of a Sacrament just because you think that there are people who have mixed up priorities.

Yeah, I suppose you’re right. I guess I do…

From a practical standpoint, if a priest goes to Confession and confesses child abuse, he is at least expressing the first signs of contrition and a desire to ammend his behavior. If a priest knew he would be turned in, he would be even less likely to make even that first step. The end result wouldn’t be priests being held more accountable, it would just be more priests with unabsolved sin avoiding the Sacrament of Confession.

I guess it’s my burden to find it just unbelieveable that a priest would go to Confession and confess child abuse, and the only one capable of interventing to protect not only that child, but more children, won’t do anything to do just that. I wouldn’t be able to sleep at night. It’s just another thing I don’t get about the Church and it’s rules: one could confess murder, child molestation, rape, etc. and they’re safe because that priest won’t do anything to contribute to the justice that could result from the knowledge of those sins.

I never really thought about it before this way but…I guess that makes confession pretty useless. I mean, it’s useful for the sinner, who gets absolution and then goes on with his/her life with a clean slate. Too bad the victims don’t get the same.

 

[FrDavid96]

Yeah, I suppose you’re right. I guess I do…

I guess it’s my burden to find it just unbelieveable that a priest would go to Confession and confess child abuse, and the only one capable of interventing to protect not only that child, but more children, won’t do anything to do just that. I wouldn’t be able to sleep at night. It’s just another thing I don’t get about the Church and it’s rules: one could confess murder, child molestation, rape, etc. and they’re safe because that priest won’t do anything to contribute to the justice that could result from the knowledge of those sins.

I never really thought about it before this way but…I guess that makes confession pretty useless. I mean, it’s useful for the sinner, who gets absolution and then goes on with his/her life with a clean slate. Too bad the victims don’t get the same.

Once again, an unfair characterization.

 

[Corki]

I never really thought about it before this way but…I guess that makes confession pretty useless. I mean, it’s useful for the sinner, who gets absolution and then goes on with his/her life with a clean slate. Too bad the victims don’t get the same.

If that happened all the time, it wouldn’t mean the Sacrament was useless. It would mean the Sacrament was perfect. The goal is not law enforcement. The goal is absolution and a chance to enter heaven.

 

[TrueLight]

It is absolutely forbidden for a priest to require a penitent to reveal the penitent’s sins.

This cannot be done.

Under no circumstances can a priest require a penitent to report himself to anyone as a condition for absolution.

It cannot be done. Absolutely never.

And to answer to inevitable questions that are going to get posted:

The answer is still NO. Even before you post the question, the answer is NO.

Whatever question you’re thinking about posting, whatever scenario you draw, whatever the circumstance, a priest can NEVER require a penitent to reveal the penitent’s sin. Not in any way, shape, or form.

No. Nope. Nay. Never. Negative. Nix.

Next question!

 

[Castello]

I rejoice that my sins can be forgiven in the confessional, that I can trust my priest never to reveal them and would never want anything less for any other sinner.

 

[FrDavid96]

Next question!

This one pops up every few months.

Can you tell, we’ve been down this road before?

But, what if…

NO!

 

[amlcssr]

If that happened all the time, it wouldn’t mean the Sacrament was useless. It would mean the Sacrament was perfect. The goal is not law enforcement. The goal is absolution and a chance to enter heaven.

And furthermore, Rence, you are worrying about something that’s not your problem to worry about. Justice is ensured by God, and He is perfectly just. If not in this world, then in the next justice will be done. You will see it and you will know it.

 

[BigFellaMick]

I think its insanely unfair to attack the Church and its Priests over this issue. The Priesthood in general is a victim here too. Because there were many cases where individual priests had fallen into sin (something no one is innocent of) and assaulted children, does not mean the institution of the Church or the Priesthood itself is at fault or corrupt. It means that individuals fell to sin. This is entirely presumptuous on my part but I know I’ve seen it happen plenty of times in that some of the adults who slander the Church over the sex abuse scandal and point out the evil of the Priests involved and how they don’t deserve absolution for their sins, these very same people are married yet I bet you anything the majority of these people are having sex without finishing the act open to procreation. Thats a sin right there. Just because you have a ring on your finger does not give you the right to use sex as a tool for pleasure. That is still sinful in God’s eyes. How can you judge someone elses sin above your own? To God all sin is equal. It is only our mortal understanding that places such emotion over anything involving children. And its understandable. They are innocent and are our future. But it is horrible to attack God’s Church over the failings of individual men. These same people, ironically enough, are the ones who are on the fence about the Church’s stance on contraceptives, abortion (in the event of rape) and feel that Priestly celibacy should be abolished. Again, I speak of people I know and presume this applies to a good many people because it certainly does. Something needs to be done to protect children in the future but everyone seems to forget that Rome has been and is working on it. This abuse scandal is satans greatest attack against Christ’s Church in a long time. That and the general direction of the world via secularization. But even with this horrible scandal, blown out of proportion by western media, the Catholic Church as an institution remains untarnished and perfect for Christ Himself promised us that the gates of hell will NEVER overcome His Church. God Bless every man and woman who devotes their life to Christ by joining religious orders or follows the call to Holy Orders. You are all an inspiration to me and I pray if it is God’s will, that I have the strength and courage to follow your examples