No absolution for child abusers until they report themselves?

[DaveBj]

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

snip

Once upon a time I was confessing a particular sin to a visiting priest (from the Franciscan Friars of the Renewal), and he refused me absolution until I promised to get counseling for that particular sin (which involved revealing my sins to the counselor). I did promise, and I did carry out my promise, not that it did any good, but are you saying that he was out of line?

 

[colmywaykurtz]

On the contrary, our family would have been involved.

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?

It appears there is an admirable sentiment behind your proposal, but the fact remains that the sanctity of the confessional must be maintained, unconditionally, unequivocally.

This imperative trumps all other considerations. If priests give in on this just a little bit here, a little bit there, in ways that seem “small” and “minor” and “no big deal,” before you know it there won’t be a seal of confessional, for ANYBODY, anymore. It will have all been compromised away and lost. People would become afraid to confess. They’d always be wondering who was listening or who was going to find out.

Driving a wedge into the sanctity of the confessional is one avenue of attack for the Church’s detractors. People like that group in the diocese of Bridgeport, Connecticutt that was trying to get a law through the state legislature mandating an elected board of trustees for each parish—people like that would like to see the seal of the confessional breached, too, because that would enable their agenda to make more headway on other fronts as well.

 

[FrDavid96]

Once upon a time I was confessing a particular sin to a visiting priest (from the Franciscan Friars of the Renewal), and he refused me absolution until I promised to get counseling for that particular sin (which involved revealing my sins to the counselor). I did promise, and I did carry out my promise, not that it did any good, but are you saying that he was out of line?

I’m not in a position to know the answer to that.

What I can say is that a priest cannot compel the penitent to break the seal of the confession. I don’t know exactly and precisely what you mean when you say that “he refused me absolution until I promised to get counseling.” I’m not in any position to know, and it would not be appropriate for me (or anyone else) to know more about this. It would likewise not be appropriate for me to post anything further about this because in so doing, I would be compromising the integrity of that past confession.

 

[pnewton]

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?

The soul is the priority. People often forget, that while the Church may be engaged in helping people phyisically, financially and emotionally, her one great commission is the salvation of souls. This overrides the value of life and emotional well-being.

Now the time was that confession was done once in a lifetime and in public. The rules for conducting this sacrament have changed and will change again. What was a reserved sin may not always be, and new ones may be added. However, any such change will only be made with the good of the soul in mind, not for political expediency, and not even for the emotional well-being of children, though that goal must be a high priority in the Church. Reconcilliation will remain off-limits as a tool for protecting children.

There are plenty of other tools, and better tools, to be used.

 

[Rence]

For Rence and all those in favour of reporting - if such were the requirement, remember that child abusers would know it, just as we all now know that what we say in confession is absolutely secret.

Do you honestly think that we’d suddenly see loads of child molesters being reported by their priests? Of course not, because they’d simply not confess it any more. Why would you confess when you know the confessional is unsealed in cases of child abuse?

Since you ask what I honestly think, I’ll answer it. I can see you point, but I also think, there is no reason for them to change their behavior because all they have to do is go to confession and then start all over again, knowing their secret will be safe because the confessor priest is helpless to do anything about it. At the very least, if the confessor priest could deny absolution until the offending priest turned himself in, the course of direction would be in the hands of the offending priest and the secret would still be safe. In this case, the offending priest may still try to get absolution. His decision would drive the results, not give him a free ticket to continue hurting others.

 

[maryjk]

Since you ask what I honestly think, I’ll answer it. I can see you point, but I also think, there is no reason for them to change their behavior because all they have to do is go to confession and then start all over again, knowing their secret will be safe because the confessor priest is helpless to do anything about it. At the very least, if the confessor priest could deny absolution until the offending priest turned himself in, the course of direction would be in the hands of the offending priest and the secret would still be safe. In this case, the offending priest may still try to get absolution. His decision would drive the results, not give him a free ticket to continue hurting others.

But this brings us back to, why would anyone go to Confession if they know that they will not receive absolution? Or if by going to Confession, they would be some how required to reveal their sins to receive absolution?

 

[Rence]

But this brings us back to, why would anyone go to Confession if they know that they will not receive absolution? Or if by going to Confession, they would be some how required to reveal their sins to receive absolution?

Ok…but…then why have Confession at all if it’s a tool to continue bad behavior without any way of making them change their behavior? What is the purpose of confession? What is the intended result of “go and sin no more”? If it’s just a tool that gives them a sense of absolution and doesn’t change their behavior, why bother? They may as well just not abosolve them at all. That they can do: “if you hold them bound they are held bound”. I know they can put conditions on absolution, even if they can’t make them reveal their sins to an authority.

Sure there are sins that people commit habitually, but when they hurt other people they should be getting stern talking to, that’s for sure.

If the offending party is truly sorry, they will try to make it right in some way. It’s not a free ticket. Yes, you have to be truly sorry. No one can go to confession with the thought that they can fool God by getting a priest to absolve them when they’re truly not sorry. God can see past that. And no one is saying the offender isn’t truly sorry, who wouldn’t be? But there has to be a way to make it right, especially when one’s actions are hurting others. Also consider that a habitual child molester isn’t in the position to make sound decisions that will lead him to help, that person is sick and needs help. What if the confessing party said he was going to commit suicide? Does the confessor priest just say, “oh well, I’m bound by secrecy, I hope he doesn’t go off and kill himself”?

I guess all we can do is hope that the confessor priest is doing something to try and counsel the offending (or suicidal) priest to do something productive. It doesn’t just end with “go and sin no more” without any counsel or advice, or urgent recommendations.

 

[DaveBj]

I’m not in a position to know the answer to that.

What I can say is that a priest cannot compel the penitent to break the seal of the confession. I don’t know exactly and precisely what you mean when you say that “he refused me absolution until I promised to get counseling.” I’m not in any position to know, and it would not be appropriate for me (or anyone else) to know more about this. It would likewise not be appropriate for me to post anything further about this because in so doing, I would be compromising the integrity of that past confession.

Funny, I thought I posted in English, and it still looks like English to me. Nevertheless, if you don’t want to say anything about it, I’ll respect your wishes. It certainly seemed strange to me at the time, and it seems even stranger now in the light of your first post on this thread.

 

[maryjk]

Ok…but…then why have Confession at all if it’s a tool to continue bad behavior without any way of making them change their behavior? What is the purpose of confession? What is the intended result of “go and sin no more”? If it’s just a tool that gives them a sense of absolution and doesn’t change their behavior, why bother? They may as well just not abosolve them at all. That they can do: “if you hold them bound they are held bound”. I know they can put conditions on absolution, even if they can’t make them reveal their sins to an authority.

Sure there are sins that people commit habitually, but when they hurt other people they should be getting stern talking to, that’s for sure.

Do you truly believe that when a fellow priest confesses molesting a child, all he gets is “you are absolved, say a Hail Mary.” I am quite sure they got more than simply a stern talking to.

If the offending party is truly sorry, they will try to make it right in some way. It’s not a free ticket. Yes, you have to be truly sorry. No one can go to confession with the thought that they can fool God by getting a priest to absolve them when they’re truly not sorry. God can see past that. And no one is saying the offender isn’t truly sorry, who wouldn’t be?

Why else would they be in Confession?

But there has to be a way to make it right, especially when one’s actions are hurting others. Also consider that a habitual child molester isn’t in the position to make sound decisions that will lead him to help, that person is sick and needs help. What if the confessing party said he was going to commit suicide? Does the confessor priest just say, “oh well, I’m bound by secrecy, I hope he doesn’t go off and kill himself”?

What I am saying is that any condition on Confession would stop people from going to Confession.,

I guess all we can do is hope that the confessor priest is doing something to try and counsel the offending (or suicidal) priest to do something productive. It doesn’t just end with “go and sin no more” without any counsel or advice, or urgent recommendations.

Of course they are. Why would you think they weren’t?

 

[LilyM]

How many people who do ‘pay the penalty’ and go to jail really learn anything worthwhile about themselves or their behaviour as a result? And who is to say that turning oneself into the authorities is the only or best way of dealing with sin, even grave sin?

By this logic St Paul should have headed off to the nearest equivalent of a police station upon his conversion and demanded to be executed forthwith for the crime of murder (which he committed, by being an accessory if not by physically killing anyone, with his ruthless persecution of Christians). That being the standard penalty for murder.

Where would the world have been if he’d done this? He certainly wouldn’t have been able to pursue his career of evangelisation and win so many souls for God through the ages as he has done, would he?

By the way, ‘go and sin no more’ was plenty good enough for Our Lord to use with the woman caught in adultery - who is anybody to say it’s not good enough for His priests?

 

[Heuchler]

How many people who do ‘pay the penalty’ and go to jail really learn anything worthwhile about themselves or their behaviour as a result? And who is to say that turning oneself into the authorities is the only or best way of dealing with sin, even grave sin?

By this logic St Paul should have headed off to the nearest equivalent of a police station upon his conversion and demanded to be executed forthwith for the crime of murder (which he committed, by being an accessory if not by physically killing anyone, with his ruthless persecution of Christians). That being the standard penalty for murder.

Where would the world have been if he’d done this? He certainly wouldn’t have been able to pursue his career of evangelisation and win so many souls for God through the ages as he has done, would he?

By the way, ‘go and sin no more’ was plenty good enough for Our Lord to use with the woman caught in adultery - who is anybody to say it’s not good enough for His priests?

Please don’t compare those men to St. Paul. They are not saints, their acts were malicious, and they deserve punishment. Paul was following the old law which stated in Deuteronomy 13:6

And that prophet or forger of dreams shall be slain: because he spoke to draw you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, and redeemed you from the house of bondage: to make you go out of the way, which the Lord your God

In the Jewish law, Paul was perfectly justified in killing what he thought were heretics who were drawing people away from the true God. His “crime” would not have been punished. The Romans were also people who persecuted Christians and had no qualms about their persecution.

So, should we send every serial killer to confession and be done with it. Should our prisons be emptied and criminals just be sent to confession because they might be able to help the world. There are consequences to actions and punishments for their crimes. It is childish to run away from them. The men convicted of this crime deserve their punishment and should never be put around children again. We may love them and pray for them, but we should not risk a single child around these men nor should we release them from prison because they might be the next Paul.

 

[Hail_Linus]

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.

One solution is that perhaps penance and reconciliation should go back to its original sequence which is ironically do your penance and then get reconciliation. I don’t know when it happened but somewhere along the line we started receiving reconciliation/absolution prior to doing penance.

While I don’t think this is feasible for the general catholic parishioner, perhaps it should be required of the clergy after all they are held to a higher standard, they have a fiduciary relationship to the parishioners, and their sins do have the potential to cause great scandal (cause others to stumble in their faith).

Let me be clear I am not saying the sinner should be forced to reveal their sin. I am just saying the Priest doing the absolving should be able to satisfy themselves, to some extant, that the sinning priest is truly repentant and unlikely to repeat the sin. And after being satisfied then confer absolution.

 

[Rence]

Do you truly believe that when a fellow priest confesses molesting a child, all he gets is “you are absolved, say a Hail Mary.” I am quite sure they got more than simply a stern talking to.

I would hope so

Why else would they be in Confession?

So they could go to Communion. I mean, how much trouble can you possibly get into from absolution before Mass to Communion…

What I am saying is that any condition on Confession would stop people from going to Confession.,

They do have conditions. A priest can, and does, refuse to absolve someone. For example, a priest told my mom he would not absolve her unless she promised him she would stop dating her boyfriend until his annullment was finished. In her case, she simply went to another priest who did absolve her. However, a priest CAN put a condition on absolution. What they can’t do, according to Fr, is not make the confessor reveal his sin or identity to another party…again, not sure how I feel about that, but I see both sides.

Of course they are. Why would you think they weren’t?

Because the trend was to cover it up, and move them from parish to parish…It’s unreasonable to expect me to think any differently when this is what was done.

 

[Rence]

How many people who do ‘pay the penalty’ and go to jail really learn anything worthwhile about themselves or their behaviour as a result? And who is to say that turning oneself into the authorities is the only or best way of dealing with sin, even grave sin?

By this logic St Paul should have headed off to the nearest equivalent of a police station upon his conversion and demanded to be executed forthwith for the crime of murder (which he committed, by being an accessory if not by physically killing anyone, with his ruthless persecution of Christians). That being the standard penalty for murder.

Where would the world have been if he’d done this? He certainly wouldn’t have been able to pursue his career of evangelisation and win so many souls for God through the ages as he has done, would he?

By the way, ‘go and sin no more’ was plenty good enough for Our Lord to use with the woman caught in adultery - who is anybody to say it’s not good enough for His priests?

St. Paul wasn’t molesting children. And when Jesus told women caught in adultery to go and sin no more, it was implied that they did just that. He didn’t tell them go and sin no more but it’s okay if you can’t manage.

 

[Corki]

Let me be clear I am not saying the sinner should be forced to reveal their sin. I am just saying the Priest doing the absolving should be able to satisfy themselves, to some extant, that the sinning priest is truly repentant and unlikely to repeat the sin. And after being satisfied then confer absolution.

They are already supposed to be doing that - for all of us. It’s not just priests who need to demonstrate contrition in order to receive absolution.

Does anybody think that a preist goes to confession, confesses child abuse and then the confessor just says “ok, you’re absovled.”?!? Don’t you think these confessors are urging the priests to not only repent but to ammend their lives? Remember, that most of the priests who have been found to have abused in the past were not serial offenders. Sure, the serial offenders make the big headlines but most preists, even those who sin grieveously make ammends to their lives.

 

[LilyM]

St. Paul wasn’t molesting children. And when Jesus told women caught in adultery to go and sin no more, it was implied that they did just that. He didn’t tell them go and sin no more but it’s okay if you can’t manage.

He also didn’t say ‘I won’t absolve you of your sin unless you promise me that you’ll stand there and take your stoning without complaint - after all it’s only fitting to pay the secular penalty for your crime’.

 

[maryjk]

I would hope so

So they could go to Communion. I mean, how much trouble can you possibly get into from absolution before Mass to Communion…

My point is, why bother? If a person (or priest) never really intends to amend their ways, why bother faking it?

They do have conditions. A priest can, and does, refuse to absolve someone. For example, a priest told my mom he would not absolve her unless she promised him she would stop dating her boyfriend until his annullment was finished. In her case, she simply went to another priest who did absolve her. However, a priest CAN put a condition on absolution. What they can’t do, according to Fr, is not make the confessor reveal his sin or identity to another party…again, not sure how I feel about that, but I see both sides.

The condition you mother’s priest put on the the absolution was to stop sinning. Nothing more.

Because the trend was to cover it up, and move them from parish to parish…It’s unreasonable to expect me to think any differently when this is what was done.

Was it to cover up the abuse? Or was it because back when this was occurring, people believed that the priests could be cured?

 

[thistle]

I would hope so

So they could go to Communion. I mean, how much trouble can you possibly get into from absolution before Mass to Communion…

They do have conditions. A priest can, and does, refuse to absolve someone. For example, a priest told my mom he would not absolve her unless she promised him she would stop dating her boyfriend until his annullment was finished. In her case, she simply went to another priest who did absolve her. However, a priest CAN put a condition on absolution. What they can’t do, according to Fr, is not make the confessor reveal his sin or identity to another party…again, not sure how I feel about that, but I see both sides.

Because the trend was to cover it up, and move them from parish to parish…It’s unreasonable to expect me to think any differently when this is what was done.

Absolution is NOT conditional.

You go to Confession and if the priest thinks you have made a sincere confession and have repented you will be absolved.
If the priest thinks you have not repented and not made a sincere confession then he will not absolve you.

There is no such thing as an absolution kicking in once you fulfill some condition after Confession. That is nonsense.

 

[Rence]

My point is, why bother? If a person (or priest) never really intends to amend their ways, why bother faking it?

To have Communion. If you go to confession immediately before Mass, how much sin can you possibly be guilty of between the time you received absolution and the time you receive Communion.

The condition you mother’s priest put on the the absolution was to stop sinning. Nothing more.

It’s still a condition. He wouldn’t absolve her without the condition that she promise to not see her boyfriend anymore. It’s still a condition.

Was it to cover up the abuse? Or was it because back when this was occurring, people believed that the priests could be cured?

Who knows? I hope for their sakes it because because they thought the priests could be cured.

 

[Rence]

Absolution is NOT conditional.

You go to Confession and if the priest thinks you have made a sincere confession and have repented you will be absolved.
If the priest thinks you have not repented and not made a sincere confession then he will not absolve you.

There is no such thing as an absolution kicking in once you fulfill some condition after Confession. That is nonsense.

Well, all I can say is that mom’s priest would not give her absolution unless (which is a condition) she promised to not see her boyfriend anymore. She wouldn’t promise him, so he didn’t absolve her. It turned out fine: she just went somewhere else. But either there are no conditions and the priest wasn’t correct, or there are conditions and the priest was correct. He absolution was conditional. It was contingent on the priest’s requirement for a promise.