No absolution for child abusers until they report themselves?

[thistle]

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.

How many times do we have to say this.

Absolution is NOT conditional, unless we are talking about repentence.

1. You either repent and make a sincere confession then absoluton is given OR
2. You have not repented and not made a sincere confession and absolution is not given.

What you state falls into 2. because the penitent had not repented. It was not a sincere confession.

 

[Hokomai]

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.

FrDavid96, I don’t want to discuss canon 982. I cited it to demonstrate that you were wrong when you said "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."

I’m not a believer but was once and I have read a lot of catholic material over the last 50 years and have never previously heard of the principle that a priest cannot require an action involving revelation of the confessed sin before absolution. Your dismissive earlier response “if you really want me…” does not answer my request that you cite some sources.

Fr David (assuming that is your everyday name), your attempt to square canon 982 with your assertions does not stack up.

Under canon 982 the requirement to reveal the sin applies in circumstances where the Church authorities did not know it was a sin, because until the point of the confessor sending the penitent to tell them, they thought the allegation was true. they did not, contrary to your assertion, already ‘know of the sin’.

My view, until someone shows me some evidence, is that canon 982 makes it clear that the Church could take the action I asked about in my OP. whether it should is still unclear to me.

Incidentally, you may care to re-read your post above and ask yourself who is responsible for innuendos. I think that at all times I was clear and direct in what I was saying. I certainly did not bring Pharisees into the discussion.

I still think it is reasonable to ask whether a sexually abused child deserve less protection than an adult priest abused through a false accusation. On reflection, don’t you?

 

[Contra_Mundum_1]

I still think it is reasonable to ask whether a sexually abused child deserve less protection than an adult priest abused through a false accusation. On reflection, don’t you?

I don’t think you truly understand what this sacrament is about. Protection of the abused and law enforcement are just and good but this sacramant is is primarily about something else. This discussion doesn’t make sense because you don’t see this distinction and insist on defining confession in terms of secular justice and rights. Why single out this particular sin? If we follow the same logic than everything should be reported to the police. Naturally, secularists always try and make religion a servant of the state and its institutions, and this is exactly what you are advocating.

 

[Catherine_S]

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?

The chances of any change in these types of men is highly unlikely!! Perhaps if the Church turned ( as many monisteries as needed) into maximum security prisons where these men (as they are caught and sentenced by the Civil Authorities and* if*** the Civil Authorities will agree) can live out their lives farming to provide themselves food, beauty of nature etc. and praying, with good clergy to serve their spiritual needs
There is very minium sentencing time for these men in* Secular Society*** at present (although, thank God, there are those who are working very hard to have this increased to much higher terms of incarseration) and these Catholic prisons would protect these men from the seriously harsh treatment that goes on secular prisons towards them ( most of those in prison have been molested as children and so they tend to have their own sense of justice when it comes to those who harm children) in this way they can live out their lives farming and praying. Safety for them and** most** of all** safety for children** which the truely repentant ones would surely desire.
.
1952
Fr. Fitzgerald’s efforts at helping troubled priests were unique and* quickly **became **known to all US bishops. It is safe to assume that his opinions about sexually abusing priests were known to most if not all bishops. Concerning priests who sexually abused minors he said “We find it quite common, almost universal with the handful of men we have seen in the past five years who have been under similar charges - we find it quite universal that they seem to be lacking in appreciation of the serious situation. As a class they expect to bound back like tennis balls on the court of priestly activity. **I myself would be inclined to favor laicization for any priest, upon objective evidence, for tampering with the virtue of the young, my argument being, from this point onward the charity to the Mystical Body should take precedence over charity to the individual and when a man has so far fallen away from the purpose of the priesthood the very best that should be offered him is his Mass in the seclusion of a monastery. Moreover, in practice, real conversions will be found to be extremely rare. *
.
Conclusions

In spite of claims to the contrary, the canonical history of the Catholic Church* clearly** reflects a consistent pattern of awareness that celibate clergy regularly violated their obligations in a variety of ways. The** fact of clergy abuse** with members of the same sex, with young people and** with women** is** fully** documented. At certain periods of church history clergy sexual abuse was** publicly** known and publicly acknowledged by church leaders. From the late 19th century into the early 21st century the church’s leadership has adopted a position of secrecy and silence. They have denied the predictability of clergy sexual abuse in one form or another and have claimed that this is a phenomenon new to the post-Vatican II era. The recently published reports of the Bishops’ National Review Board and John Jay College Survey have confirmed the fact of known clergy sexual abuse since the 1950’s and** the church leadership’s consistent mishandling **of **individual cases. ***

The bishops have, at various times, claimed that they were* unaware of the serious nature of clergy sexual abuse *and unaware of the impact on victims. This claim is easily offset by the historical evidence. Through the centuries the church has repeatedly condemned clergy sexual abuse, particularly same-sex abuse. The very texts of many of the laws and official statements show that this form of sexual activity was considered harmful to the victims, to society and to the Catholic community. Church leaders may not have been aware of the scientific nature of the different sexual disorders nor the clinical descriptions of the emotional and psychological impact on victims, but they cannot claim ignorance of the fact that such behavior was destructive in effect and criminal in nature.

In the 16th and 17th centuries there is evidence that church authorities often subjected accused clerics to canonical trials after which they were turned over to secular authorities for additional punishment. In the 20th century at least two civil trials received limited local publicity: Fr. Bruce MacArthur (El Paso, TX, 1979) and Fr. Mel Balthasar (Boise, ID, 1983-84)
http://www.crusadeagainstclergyabuse.com/htm/AShortHistory.htm

 

[maryjk]

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.

But if they were, in your opinion, abusing Confession, why would they care about Communion? In other words, if they had no intent of amending their ways, why bother with Confession?

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.

You statement here, says a lot. You seem to believe that going to Confession does not require an intent to change. Your mother wanted to go to Confession, but she didn’t want to stop the sin. In fact, she had no intention to stop sinning and is seems she told her priest that.

Confession requires us to amend our life. Your mother didn’t want to amend her life.

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

 

[Corki]

But if they were, in your opinion, abusing Confession, why would they care about Communion? In other words, if they had no intent of amending their ways, why bother with Confession?

These are priests. They know about the Sacraments. They *know *that just going to Confession does not result in a return to a state of grace unless there is contrition. If they had no intent of ammending their lives, of trying to avoid future sins, they know that they still wouldn’t be worthy to receive Communion not matter how recently their last Confession was. They would have received the Sacrament sacriligiously which is a sin - objectively a mortal one for a priest.

But IF the priest is contrite, IF he wants to avoid future sin and IF the sin is not reserved, there is no reason to deny absolution.

Father can correct me if I get this wrong but even in the case of reserved sins, it is not a case of when a sin can be absolved but more of** who **has the authority to absolve the sin. The case most people are familiar with is abortion which carries a penalty of excommunication. Although most priests in the US have been given the authority to absolve the sin of abortion, this isn’t true everywhere. If a priest has not been given that authority, he must take the matter to the Bishop. But even then, he maintains the anonymity of the penitent.

One could say that priestly abuse of a minor should be a reserved sin. I could definately see a case for making that change to canon law. However, doing that wouldn’t mean anything differerent in terms of law enforcement or criminal penalties. It would just mean that someone in a higher position (a Bishop) would need to grant absolution.

 

[Warrior1979]

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.

It’s interesting you mention this passage, as I was also thinking of it when I first started reading this thread, but before I got to your post. However, your comment in the above was not something I thought of, nor agree with.

I don’t believe that the purpose of people’s comments is to entrap. There is a primal instinct in human beings to protect children, whether it is to mete out justice for past actions, stop current actions, or prevent future actions.

As far as the reason I thought of this post is that the justice comes in two forms:

• Absolution - Where one becomes right with God.
• Societial Justice - Where one becomes right with society

In this case, the latter is avoided; i.e., what is Caeser’s is not rendered to Caeser.

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.

I agree that matters of faith should be handled by the Church, and the Confessional Seal should (and will) remain as it is. One that person steps out of the Confessional, though, he’s in Caesar’s world and is subject to Caesar’s justice, and he is not forgiven by Caesar.

 

[FrDavid96]

It’s interesting you mention this passage, as I was also thinking of it when I first started reading this thread, but before I got to your post. However, your comment in the above was not something I thought of, nor agree with.

I don’t believe that the purpose of people’s comments is to entrap. There is a primal instinct in human beings to protect children, whether it is to mete out justice for past actions, stop current actions, or prevent future actions.
…

I did not mean people in general, I meant that specific question in that specific post.

I also meant other questions and statements like it in the other posts here in this thread by that particular member.

I wasn’t trying to make a reference about “render unto Caesar” but instead, to the opening lines of the Gospel, that the Pharisees sent their disciples to Him to ask a question to entrap Him rather than asking a question because they sincerely wanted to know the answer.