No absolution for child abusers until they report themselves?

[Heuchler]

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.

I’m sorry but in dealing with sin, it doesn’t just end once the sin is over with. Those children will probably will be scarred for life. They will probably leave the church and have a fear of priests. Through these priests’ sins, they are hurting the church and scaring off parishioners and would-be converts. And if we let these sinful priests carry on, it may become our problem in the future. I would be happy to see these men in prison where they can’t ruin innocent children’s lives and they can’t hurt the priesthood (which is supposed to be modeled after Christ). I understand the priest can’t force these people to admit their sins, but I have no pity for those men and I can’t see them receiving forgiveness if they continue sinning and won’t take responsibility for their actions. Maybe they shouldn’t be forced to turn themselves in, but they should at least remove themselves from parishes and contact with children. They won’t have to admit their sins to do this and it would be in the best interest of everyone.e

 

[BigFellaMick]

I understand the priest can’t force these people to admit their sins, but I have no pity for those men and I can’t see them receiving forgiveness if they continue sinning and won’t take responsibility for their actions. Maybe they shouldn’t be forced to turn themselves in, but they should at least remove themselves from parishes and contact with children. They won’t have to admit their sins to do this and it would be in the best interest of everyone.e

I guess you are ok with burning in hell for all time with zero chance for absolution the next time you commit any mortal sin? Would you see that as fair? Whether it be taking the Lords name in vain when you stub your toe, or skipping mass because you feel lazy some morning or whatever the case could be? Let the hatred out of your heart and learn to forgive. For these fallen mens sake as well as your own. If you keep that hatred locked inside you, you will have to answer for it someday. No one is perfect, we all fall short in the eyes of God. And all sin is equal no matter how we humans try and prioritize it otherwise. Please do not dehumanize a man for falling to sin, even one as hard to take as child abuse. They are still human beings and deserve our love and respect. It’s not an easy lesson to take but it is paramount to being Catholic that you learn to forgive others their sins, lest your sins never be forgiven.

 

[Jaypeeto4]

**Maybe they shouldn’t be forced to turn themselves in, but they should at least remove themselves from parishes and contact with children. They won’t have to admit their sins to do this and it would be in the best interest of everyone.**e

This I can agree with, because it wouldn’t violate the Divinely established secrecy
of what is confessed in the Sacrament. Remember, a penitent promises
to avoid, with God’s grace, the Sin AND THE NEAR-OCCASIONS OF THE SIN.
For a child molestor, to keep this promise, he or she would have to recuse himself
or herself from any activity where he or she is alone with children, because THAT
IS a NEAR OCCASION of sin for him or her.

But no, a priest in confession cannot tell ANY SINNER to “turn himself in” or
else he is not penitent. For one thing, a statement like that is a LIE.
If you committed adultery against your sweet, trusting wife, and confessed it,
how would you like it if the Priest ordered you to go and TELL IT TO YOUR WIFE,
HER PARENTS, AND YOUR CHILDREN or else you are not “truly” repentant???
By the way, according to God’s Law, adultery is always, always, always, a Death-Penalty deserving offense. How would you (hypothetically) like to be stoned to death for
any adultery/adulteries you have repented of and confessed??

It seems to me that real child molesters are really VERY UNLIKELY to confess their sins to a priest anyway, at least not face-to-face.
Still, if they do, they need to be told to STAY AWAY FROM ANY SITUATIONS WHICH PUT THEM ALONE WITH CHILDREN, because to be truly repentant, you promise, in the Act of Contrition, to AVOID THE NEAR-OCCASIONS OF SIN. Requiring them to do THAT would not, at all, be violating the Seal of the Confessional, it would be requiring them to keep the PROMISE they make in the Act Of Contrition they recite IN CONFESSION. In the same way, a person struggling with Same Sex Attraction needs to be told to STAY AWAY from Gay Bars, because those places are near occasions of sin for him or her, too.

God bless all,
Jaypeeto4

 

[Catherine_S]

Is there* ever ***an occasion when a priest would **refuse **absolution to someone?

 

[FrDavid96]

Is there* ever ***an occasion when a priest would **refuse **absolution to someone?

There are times when a priest should “delay” absolution. We don’t say “refuse.” The difference is that the penitent is given the opportunity to do whatever is necessary (like have proper contrition) and come back later to that same priest, or another priest and then be absolved.

There are times when a priest does not have the faculties to absolve from some particular sin (reserved sins). An obvious example of this is killing the pope. Only the next pope can absolve from that particular sin, so a priest would not be able to absolve (save in danger of death)–that’s different from refusing.

 

[Heuchler]

I guess you are ok with burning in hell for all time with zero chance for absolution the next time you commit any mortal sin? Would you see that as fair? Whether it be taking the Lords name in vain when you stub your toe, or skipping mass because you feel lazy some morning or whatever the case could be? Let the hatred out of your heart and learn to forgive. For these fallen mens sake as well as your own. If you keep that hatred locked inside you, you will have to answer for it someday. No one is perfect, we all fall short in the eyes of God. And all sin is equal no matter how we humans try and prioritize it otherwise. Please do not dehumanize a man for falling to sin, even one as hard to take as child abuse. They are still human beings and deserve our love and respect. It’s not an easy lesson to take but it is paramount to being Catholic that you learn to forgive others their sins, lest your sins never be forgiven.

I can’t see these men as forgiven since most continued doing it, and that they weren’t truly sorry since they weren’t willing to face the consequences or remove themselves from the situations that lead to this, in other words I don’t think they were truly sorry or intended to stop.

And I’m curious as to where you find the idea that there is no distinction between sins. The Catholic church says that there is a distinction between mortal and venial, and that there are grave sins and that there are others which aren’t grave. We also have the seven deadly sins. Besides missing mass is not as bad as ruining a child’s life and possibly scaring them away from the church through their actions.

Yes these men are humans and deserve our love (in other words wishing the best for them) but that doesn’t mean I have to like them and I especially don’t have to like their actions. I do want these people to stop and to turn back and repent and find forgiveness, but I also want them to accept the consequences of their actions and actually act repentent. True repentence comes with accepting the consequences of their actions and removing themselves from situations that would lead to these sins. If they are courageous and truly believe they did wrong, they would turn themselves in to prevent even the possibility of this happening again or remove themselves from the parish to prevent them ruining other children’s lives.

 

[Catherine_S]

There are times when a priest should “delay” absolution. We don’t say “refuse.” The difference is that the penitent is given the opportunity to do whatever is necessary (like have proper contrition) and come back later to that same priest, or another priest and then be absolved.

There are times when a priest does not have the faculties to absolve from some particular sin (reserved sins). An obvious example of this is killing the pope. Only the next pope can absolve from that particular sin, so a priest would not be able to absolve (save in danger of death)–that’s different from refusing.

Thank you! Very interesting!

 

[Rence]

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.

In fact it is my problem. But thank you, I appreciate the outreach

 

[Rence]

I think its insanely unfair to attack the Church and its Priests over this issue.The Priesthood in general is a victim here too.

I think it’s unfair to attack the Church too. But I do think that the individual priests who are guilty of such crimes should be held accountable and should be removed from the general population where they can’t hurt anyone anymore. I don’t care if they remain priests, but I do care that they are out in society where they can commit their crimes again.

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.

That’s very true, but the Church needs to do more to stop priests from not only falling into sin (because everyone does that), but from committing horrific crimes against kids. I think if they do more, people will not blame the whole Church because they will be able to trust that the Church will deal with it. Unfortunately, the Church has a history of covering up the crimes and transferring priests to different parishes, where they have molested more children. We have come to understand that it was for many reasons, not including neglect or lack of caring, but probably lack of judgement. But for whatever reason, that’s what happened.

I 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.

I don’t think that’s true. There is a world of difference between a married not finishing the act open to procreation and the molestation of a child. If you can’t see the difference, I certainly can’t open your eyes to the difference. Perhaps you should ask your priest if these two sins are equal in the eyes of God. I mean, seriously, there is a difference between shoplifting and rape. Again, if you can’t see the difference, it’s beyond me to open your eyes.

 

[Catherine_S]

I can’t see these men as forgiven since most continued doing it, and that they weren’t truly sorry since they weren’t willing to face the consequences or remove themselves from the situations that lead to this, in other words I don’t think they were truly sorry or intended to stop.

And I’m curious as to where you find the idea that there is no distinction between sins. The Catholic church says that there is a distinction between mortal and venial, and that there are grave sins and that there are others which aren’t grave. We also have the seven deadly sins. Besides missing mass is not as bad as ruining a child’s life and possibly scaring them away from the church through their actions.

Yes these men are humans and deserve our love (in other words wishing the best for them) but that doesn’t mean I have to like them and I especially don’t have to like their actions. I do want these people to stop and to turn back and repent and find forgiveness, but I also want them to accept the consequences of their actions and actually act repentent.*** True repentence comes with accepting the consequences of their actions and removing themselves from situations that would lead to these sins. If they are courageous and truly believe they did wrong, they would turn themselves in to prevent even the possibility of this happening again or remove themselves from the parish to prevent them ruining other children’s lives***.

You are correct Heuchler :hug1:!! Most of this could have been avoided if Canon Law had been implemented too.
Things are going to be* much*** better in the Church now. The Secular Law is going to see to this and Pope Benedict has done so much to end what he called the **Filth **in the Church. No " but were all sinners" nor “were all just human” in his declaration :nope. *Thank God that much of this has been uncovered and is out in the open. *
Absolution or no absolution our God is a God of love and justice and there will be serious consequences for harming His little ones in this evil way. When you are a God who speaks of tieing a large rock around someone’s neck and thowing them in the river, you are a God who means what you say. Justice will come to us all.
Time to get some sleep.

 

[Heuchler]

You are correct Heuchler :hug1:!! Most of this could have been avoided if Canon Law had been implemented.
Things are going to be* much*** better in the Church now. The Secular Law is going to see to this and Pope Benedict has done so much to end what he called the **Filth **in the Church. Not much " but were all sinners in his declaration ’’) nor " were all just human".
*Thank God much of this has been uncovered and is out in the open. *
*Absolution or no absolution our God is a God of love and justice and there will be serious consequences for harming His little ones in this evil way. When you are a God who speaks of tieing a large rock around someone’s neck and thowing them in the river, you are a God who means what you say and justice will come to those who have committed certain sins. *
Time to get some sleep.

Thank you. Really this subject just works me up. I just hate the thought that men of God who are performing daily mass in the person of Christ have done such terrible things to innocent children. I hope they repent and find forgiveness and enter into Heaven it’s just hard for me to not feel anger and hate toward these people. I guess I just need to pray and be thankful that we have a God who loves us even after we sin.

 

[BigFellaMick]

I don’t think that’s true. There is a world of difference between a married not finishing the act open to procreation and the molestation of a child. If you can’t see the difference, I certainly can’t open your eyes to the difference. Perhaps you should ask your priest if these two sins are equal in the eyes of God. I mean, seriously, there is a difference between shoplifting and rape. Again, if you can’t see the difference, it’s beyond me to open your eyes.

James 2:10 For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it.

This suggests accountability and potential punishment for all sin, it doesn’t differentiate. Besides I would agree with mortal vs venial but I still feel the distinction applies. Mortal sin is equal to mortal sin. A child offender in Gods eyes will have the same amount of sin (if God measures it this way) as someone who takes the Lords name in vain. Both are mortal sins and are equally deserving of the same amount of accountability and punishment. I am not in any way defending the priests who have abused children but I just think you are being unfair (to them and yourself) by being so quick to judge them. I have equal reservation about forgiving them as it doesn’t “feel” right but we both know in our hearts that we must. Because at some point in our life we will sin in a way that others would view with the same contempt (even though it may lack the severity we chart it with).

And to be fair, Mary told us that more people are going to hell for sins of the flesh than any other (yes child abuse falls into this category, but so does sex without procreation in or out of marriage). A sin of the flesh is a sin of the flesh and apparently thats the big one lately (and why shouldn’t we believe it? look at our societies in the 21st century!) Because this is such a grave and delicate matter, i just feel its imperative to approach the situation with love and forgiveness, not demands and reprehension

 

[Rence]

James 2:10 For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it.

This suggests accountability and potential punishment for all sin, it doesn’t differentiate. Besides I would agree with mortal vs venial but I still feel the distinction applies. Mortal sin is equal to mortal sin. A child offender in Gods eyes will have the same amount of sin (if God measures it this way) as someone who takes the Lords name in vain.

If you believe that, that’s fine with me. But I disagree. There isn’t anything anyone can say to convince me that some sins are more offensive to God than others. And I believe that hurting a child, especially child molestation and rape is way more offensive that almost any other sin. It’s your perogative to disagree. No one can convince me that rape is not a more serious offense than for example, shop lifting. It’s your perogative to disagree.

Both are mortal sins and are equally deserving of the same amount of accountability and punishment. I am not in any way defending the priests who have abused children but I just think you are being unfair (to them and yourself) by being so quick to judge them. I have equal reservation about forgiving them as it doesn’t “feel” right but we both know in our hearts that we must.

It’ not a matter of forgiving. I didn’t say they shouldn’t receive absolution. I’m saying they should be reported, either made to report themselves, or the priest should go to his Bishop. I seriously doubt you can say anything that would make me change my mind. But I don’t have to change my mind anymore than you do. I am merely sharing my thoughts, as I suppose you are. We just don’t agreee.

Because at some point in our life we will sin in a way that others would view with the same contempt (even though it may lack the severity we chart it with).

We can all think what we like, but in the end God is the One with the final judgement.

Because this is such a grave and delicate matter, i just feel its imperative to approach the situation with love and forgiveness, not demands and reprehension

I understand that’s how you feel, and I respect your opinion. But I don’t share it. I agree the situation should be approached with love and forgiveness, but I would demand a change, not freedom to go back and do it again. That’s where the secular authorities come in. Thankfully, they aren’t afraid to bring child molesters to justice, no matter what their occupation. One the civil authorities find out, it will have been too late for his confessor to make him do what is right on his own. Then instead of dealing with it through the Church, with integrity and respect, he’ll deal with it by being dragged through the mud by the civil authorities, and in the meantime making people needlessly angry with the Church as well.

 

[Hokomai]

James 2:10 For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it.

This suggests accountability and potential punishment for all sin, it doesn’t differentiate. Besides I would agree with mortal vs venial but I still feel the distinction applies. Mortal sin is equal to mortal sin. A child offender in Gods eyes will have the same amount of sin (if God measures it this way) as someone who takes the Lords name in vain. Both are mortal sins and are equally deserving of the same amount of accountability and punishment. I am not in any way defending the priests who have abused children but I just think you are being unfair (to them and yourself) by being so quick to judge them. I have equal reservation about forgiving them as it doesn’t “feel” right but we both know in our hearts that we must. Because at some point in our life we will sin in a way that others would view with the same contempt (even though it may lack the severity we chart it with).

And to be fair, Mary told us that more people are going to hell for sins of the flesh than any other (yes child abuse falls into this category, but so does sex without procreation in or out of marriage). A sin of the flesh is a sin of the flesh and apparently thats the big one lately (and why shouldn’t we believe it? look at our societies in the 21st century!) Because this is such a grave and delicate matter, i just feel its imperative to approach the situation with love and forgiveness, not demands and reprehension

Am I mistaken in thinking that you, BigFellaMick, think that taking the name of the Lord in vain and using contraception in marriage are offences of the same order as child abuse? I have long thought that one of the problems in the Catholic response to this issue has been the equation of all mortal sin as ‘the same’, but I do not think I have ever seen it stated in quite the chilling way you have done.

 

[Hokomai]

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.

Fr David96 I appreciate the clarity of your response, but are you able to cite some authorities for your view?

 

[Hokomai]

FrDavid96, in view of your emphatic ‘no’, could you please explain this bit of Canon Law for me?

Can. 982 Whoever confesses to have denounced falsely an innocent confessor to ecclesiastical authority concerning the crime of solicitation to sin against the sixth commandment of the Decalogue is not to be absolved unless the person has first formally retracted the false denunciation and is prepared to repair damages if there are any.

Do children deserve less?

 

[LilyM]

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?

 

[FrDavid96]

Fr David96 I appreciate the clarity of your response, but are you able to cite some authorities for your view?

First of all, it’s not my “view.”

And are you seriously asking me to document that the seal of the confessional is inviolable?

Yes, I can, if need be. But I fail to see the necessity.

 

[FrDavid96]

FrDavid96, in view of your emphatic ‘no’, could you please explain this bit of Canon Law for me?

Can. 982 Whoever confesses to have denounced falsely an innocent confessor to ecclesiastical authority concerning the crime of solicitation to sin against the sixth commandment of the Decalogue is not to be absolved unless the person has first formally retracted the false denunciation and is prepared to repair damages if there are any.

Do children deserve less?

Yes. This does call for some explanation.

I would call this a “reserved sin” although it’s not like any other reserved sin. See the earlier post.

I’ve struggled with understanding this myself. In this case, the victim here (the innocent confessor-priest) is completely unable to defend himself against the false accusation. Depending on the circumstances, he might not even be able to say “I am innocent.”

At the same time, this is like other sins that cannot be absolved until the sin itself ceases. If someone confesses to a priest “I sinned in the past” that person can be absolved. Sometimes, the likelihood of repeating the sin is very real, but the penitent still deserves a certain benefit of the doubt that the confession is sincere. On the other hand, if a person confesses a sin and says that he has every intention of continuing the sin, and is in fact committing that very sin during the confession then such a person cannot yet be absolved. That’s what is happening here–the sin itself is continuing; it’s not “likely” to be re-committed (like a child abuser is likely to re-commit) but it’s actually being committed at that very moment when the penitent is asking for absolution.

In this kind of scenario, the priest is not actually saying “I cannot absolve you until you turn yourself in” but he’s saying “I cannot absolve you because you are committing that sin at this moment.”

A good priest-confessor would say that same thing to any other penitent who is committing a particular sin during the confession itself, regardless of the severity of the sin.

A priest can only absolve from sins of the past. He cannot absolve from future sins, and he cannot absolve from sins that are being committed during Confession.

Also, the sin itself is already a public act. When falsely accusing a priest-confessor before an ecclesiastical authority, the act itself is already known to the authority. This is not like (say for example) committing murder and hiding the body; where the sin is known only to the perpetrator. The sinner has already revealed himself to the ecclesiastical authority by the fact that he made the false accusation. So, in reality the priest is not requiring the sinner to reveal himself as a condition for absolution–because that has already been done.

You’re presenting an unfair characterization (and I’ve read a lot of them on this thread) when you ask the rhetorical question: “do children deserve less?” The answer is no. But the question itself is not a legitimate one because the comparison is not a fair one.

When you ask questions like that, you are trying to make it sound as if you care about children, but the Church does not.

I cannot help but notice the irony of your question “do children deserve less?” given today’s gospel passage about the pharisees who asked “is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar?” The Pharisees cared nothing about fidelity, they only asked the question to entrap Him.

What if I were to ask you: do you really not care about the People of God having access to His mercy and forgiveness? Do you actually want people to go to Hell because they die with unforgiven/unabsolved sins because they can no longer freely go to confession? Why do you take such pleasure in people going to eternal punishment? Would you consider those fair questions? I do not. I only present them to illustrate the point that such questions do not make a contribution to the discussion.

If you would like to have a discussion about canon 982, I would welcome it. I only ask that it be made into a separate thread, and that we keep the discussion and the questions to reasonable ones and leave the false innuendoes out of it.

 

[Corki]

I can’t see these men as forgiven since most continued doing it, and that they weren’t truly sorry since they weren’t willing to face the consequences or remove themselves from the situations that lead to this, in other words I don’t think they were truly sorry or intended to stop.

Wow, that’s bold. How do you know whether or not these men were truly sorry? How do you know that “most” continued abusing after they confessed? How do you have any idea what their intentions were? Even St. Paul said “What I do, I do not understand. For I do not do what I want, but I do what I hate.” Having contrition does not mean that one will always succeed in avoiding the sin in the future.