Suppose you're a priest

[yesukristus]

Hi all. I was reading Jimmy Akin’s article (which can be found at jimmyakin.org/2010/03/suppose-youre-a-priest-.html) and there was this poster who said it was the confessor’s priest duty to report on confessions from another priest regarding child molestation, no matter that the confessor would be seriously sinning in doing this (automatically excommunicated, in fact). This got me thinking…
There’s a prevalent cultural idea that an aggressor is somehow less ‘valuable’ than his/her victims, that if it were necessary that evil things be done to him in order to save his/her victims, so be it. Now this might be true if he/she was right there and then carrying out acts that would endanger the life of another right there and then.
But what if that’s not true? Why should the aggressor’s soul be considered less valuable than his/her victim’s? Why should anyone endanger his own soul for the sake of another? Is this really love? To say that a human being is so valuable that I’ll rather go to Hell than allow harm or any more harm to come to him/her? Isn’t this playing God? Didn’t Jesus warn against this in the verses below? [BIBLEDRB]Mark 8:36[/BIBLEDRB] [BIBLEDRB]Matthew 16:26[/BIBLEDRB]

 

[Monte_RCMS]

The priest hearing the confession can say NOTHING.

However, he can not only refuse to give absolution, but he can demand that the confessing priest turn himself in immediately to the police. AND that he can demand that if the confessing priest attempts to “shop around” for another confessor, he MUST tell later confessors that he was told to turn himself in.

Of course, the word will get around that this particular confessor is “rigid” and the forces of political correctness will descend on him. And he can say nothing in his own defense in the particular situation.

 

[tee_eff_em]

However, he can not only refuse to give absolution, but he can demand that the confessing priest turn himself in immediately to the police. AND that he can demand that if the confessing priest attempts to “shop around” for another confessor, he MUST tell later confessors that he was told to turn himself in.

What makes you say so? Surely not having read the linked articles?


tee

 

[Agape_Thom]

The priest hearing the confession can say NOTHING.

However, he can not only refuse to give absolution, but he can demand that the confessing priest turn himself in immediately to the police. AND that he can demand that if the confessing priest attempts to “shop around” for another confessor, he MUST tell later confessors that he was told to turn himself in.

.

And surely, after being informed of these restrictions and conditions, the person in question will follow them to the letter. Right! Although I am not Catholic, I do believe in the priest/penitant privillege. But when the priest/minister has good reason to believe that the penitant is very likely to reoffend, it is incumbent upon him or her to seek a solution that will put an and to that behavior. If this means breaking the bond of the confessional to save another person from serious harm, so be it.

 

[JRKH]

And surely, after being informed of these restrictions and conditions, the person in question will follow them to the letter. Right! Although I am not Catholic, I do believe in the priest/penitant privillege. But when the priest/minister has good reason to believe that the penitant is very likely to reoffend, it is incumbent upon him or her to seek a solution that will put an and to that behavior. If this means breaking the bond of the confessional to save another person from serious harm, so be it.

The above makes me think of an exchnage of lines in the movie “A Man For All Seasons”. It goes:
William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
William Roper: Yes, I’d cut down every law in England to do that!
Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man’s laws, not God’s! And if you cut them down, and you’re just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake!

The problem with what is suggested by the poster above is that it does not take into account the longer range and longer lasting effects of violating the seal of the confessional. It is not just a matter of breaking some “rule” in some" individual case. It deals with the very deeply thought out needs of both the confessor and the penitent.

The Devil is at work in these things. No good Christian can deny that. But if we destroy the “laws” of the Church, whether they be governing the confessional or whatever, the repercussions will be far worse for millions of souls than the recent scandals could ever be.

The Church needs to learn from these problems, just as she has learned from other problems in the past, and make sure this does not and cannot happen in the future. Destroying the seal of the confessional will not do this.

Peace
James

 

[markomalley]

And surely, after being informed of these restrictions and conditions, the person in question will follow them to the letter. Right! Although I am not Catholic, I do believe in the priest/penitant privillege. But when the priest/minister has good reason to believe that the penitant is very likely to reoffend, it is incumbent upon him or her to seek a solution that will put an and to that behavior. If this means breaking the bond of the confessional to save another person from serious harm, so be it.

So in other words, you want the confessor to place his own soul in grave danger:

Can. 1388 §1. A confessor who directly violates the sacramental seal incurs a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See; one who does so only indirectly is to be punished according to the gravity of the delict.
​

That is just utterly unbelievable that you would wish damnation upon an innocent confessor like that. I see that you’re a Protestant, but surely you couldn’t wish that upon an innocent priest.

The idea of withholding absolution has more merit than you would otherwise think.

If an abusing priest was not contrite for his actions, why would he be in the confessional in the first place? Since confession is protected by that seal, the knowledge of whether the sin was absolved or not would be between the offender, the confessor, and God, in the first place. So even if he was absolved without making reparations for the damage he caused, nobody would know about it. And if the offending priest was not contrite, why would he bother to go to confession in the first place, or why would he just not withhold that act from his confession?

Bottom line, the confessional is a place of spiritual healing and reconciliation with God, not reconciliation with the State authorities; a sacramental absolution does not serve as an automatic pardon from the authorities for crimes (a murderer or a thief should not expect to be let off from any prison time they might owe because a priest may have absolved them from their sins, the same is true with child abusers).

If the offending priest is truly contrite and truly seeks reconciliation with God, he will follow the instructions of the confessor. It might be tough and he might not comply with it immediately, but if he’s contrite, he would do so in order to gain the absolution for his sins. If he’s not contrite, why would he be in the confessional in the first place?

There’s no sense in proposing the sacrifice of an innocent priest’s eternal soul to achieve some perceived temporal justice.

(I mean, would you do something to earn yourself a place in Hell forever in order to bring an accusation against somebody else?)

 

[Ocarm]

The priest hearing the confession can say NOTHING.

However, he can not only refuse to give absolution, but he can demand that the confessing priest turn himself in immediately to the police. AND that he can demand that if the confessing priest attempts to “shop around” for another confessor, he MUST tell later confessors that he was told to turn himself in.

Of course, the word will get around that this particular confessor is “rigid” and the forces of political correctness will descend on him. And he can say nothing in his own defense in the particular situation.

And the priests who are approached when the abuser is ‘shopping around’ would, under the seal of confession, be unable to start a whispering campaign against the ‘rigid’ priest, so this couldn’t actually happen.

Whether you mean to or not, you seem to be adding yet another scapegoat for abuse to the list that is being assembled - we’ve already had the reforms of Vatican II, the civil authorities, the kids themselves eek - and if you don’t believe me, read the other threads on the subject here on CAF - now its ‘political correctness’ that is responsible for the failure of clerical abuse to be addressed within the church, because this stops priests from giving the right kind of moral instruction and pentiential advice in confession. I don’t think so.

If that isn’t what you meant, it did sound like it. Whilst I am no friend of political correctness, it is wasteful to look outside the church for responsibility for the current scandals. The responsibility lies within the church; curiously enough, if we had engaged earlier with the secular and ‘politically correct’ structures that have to address these issues, we might have made the necessary changes sooner and saved a lot of young people from abuse. And note that I said ‘might’.

 

[rtconstant]

The Seal of the Confessional has never been “popular” we’re always seeing television shows displaying the “compliance” of the Church with some vile act because a confessor doesn’t come forth and then some “valiant” priest comes forward to save the day by breaking the seal. Our priests have a hard road to walk, and this is one of them. However, I think that things would only get worse if the Seal was broken. The confessional is the refuge of the sinner, the guilty. Because everyone no matter how terrible their sins may be deserve a chance to take refuge in God, and to receive instruction.

 

[yesukristus]

About the Seal of Confession below are some of the comments from the original website:

Under no circumstance - not a single one - am I able to disclose a) what Fr. X confesses, or b) that Fr. X even came to me for the Sacrament. Both would be grievous offenses, which would mar my (future) ability to function as a priest. I can’t even bring it up to Fr. X outside of the sacrament of confession. So, say I run in to him at a social function, and we get to talking. I in no way can bring the topic up in private… Say I see Fr. X at the aforementioned social gathering, and because I’ve heard him confess to abusing a child, my nauseated gut tells me to have nothing to do with the guy and avoid him as best I can all evening. Even that is forbidden, since I would be acting on the knowledge received in the confessional.

It’s true that the seal is a human construct in the sense that it is not a direct divine mandate. It’s also true that the Church received the power to bind and to loose and a traditional attitude of such long standing provenance with such draconian penalties applying to it is almost certainly a gift of the Holy Spirit to the Church. In any case, the Church doesn’t say “go ahead and violate this if you are willing to take the consequences.” The Church binds under pain of mortal sin, excommunication, etc.

 

[yesukristus]

Btw, I would like posters to talk also about the idea of sacrificing one’s soul to save another. Though this post has connections to the priest abuse scandal, that is NOT the major point. So do stay on track ppl…

 

[JRKH]

Btw, I would like posters to talk also about the idea of sacrificing one’s soul to save another. Though this post has connections to the priest abuse scandal, that is NOT the major point. So do stay on track ppl…

Talking about the self sacrifice angle can get into a vicious circle. Christ says that there is no greater Love than to lay down ones life for his brother. Yet if one sins mortally with the idea that they will be forgiven based on the bibical promise above, is one really making that sacrifice of ones soul - or are they rather committing the sin of presumption. That they will be saved by doing a bad thing for a good reason. This is very dangerous ground.

Peace
James

 

[Evan]

The priest hearing the confession can say NOTHING.

However, he can not only refuse to give absolution, but he can demand that the confessing priest turn himself in immediately to the police. AND that he can demand that if the confessing priest attempts to “shop around” for another confessor, he MUST tell later confessors that he was told to turn himself in…

That would violate the Seal of Confession. The priest cannot require that the one confessing violate the Seal. For neither person can discuss what is said during a confession. Neither the priest nor the penetant.

 

[JRKH]

That would violate the Seal of Confession. The priest cannot require that the one confessing violate the Seal. For neither person can discuss what is said during a confession. Neither the priest nor the penetant.

Could you supply the source for a penitant being unable to reveal what was said?

peace
James

 

[tee_eff_em]

Could you supply the source for a penitant being unable to reveal what was said?

peace
James

Yeah, I do not believe it is correct that the penitent is bound by the seal – Otherwise, how would one be able to report the crime of solicitation? (Among other reasons, I’m sure)

tee

 

[yesukristus]

Yeah, I do not believe it is correct that the penitent is bound by the seal – Otherwise, how would one be able to report the crime of solicitation? (Among other reasons, I’m sure)

Yep. Below is one of the comments from the original site:

The Seal of the Confessional deals with the vow of secrecy for the priest hearing the confession - not that the penitent is forbidden to discuss it ever again. Canon 983.1 talks only about the priest’s secrecy. According to Cathy Caridi, a licensed canonist on Catholic Exchange: “The priest might even offer to accompany the penitent to the police station when he does this; but in such a case he would still be forbidden to repeat the contents of the person’s confession to others. If the penitent wanted him to do so, it would be necessary for him to repeat to the priest, outside the confessional, the things which he had told him in confession. In this way the priest could discuss the penitent’s situation, yet the seal of the confessional would remain inviolate.” catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=1385&CFID=24138931&CFTOKEN=52938148

 

[yesukristus]

…or are they rather committing the sin of presumption. That they will be saved by doing a bad thing for a good reason. This is very dangerous ground. Peace. James

This is exactly what I’m talking about. Nowadays you have so many people saying they are willing to do murder one group of people to save another group, torture criminals to save their victims, etc. In other words, these people believe that they, and only they, can save whoever it is they are trying to save, and the goal of saving is so important that losing one’s soul is a cheap price to pay. In other words, they are playing God.
So hopefully if any of us ever feel this way (let’s pray that we will not) we will remember that there is a God, and he sees us, people who hurt us, and people who are hurt as EQUALLY valuable. It would be a shame if in our efforts to save others we end up being the ones not saved (i.e. not in Heaven)…

 

[Monte_RCMS]

The SEAL of Confession applies only to the confessor.

Not to the penitent.

[Keep in mind, that if you, as an innocent bystander, overhear someone else’s confession to the confessor, YOU are also bound under the seal of confession.]

A famous confessor, once explained it to me thusly:

If a person goes to confession, and confesses to the confessor that the “penitent” has planted a bomb in the priest’s car. And if the priest had planned a trip in that car, now knowing there is a bomb in his car, he must still make the trip.

However, the SEAL had been loosened only to the extent, that the confessor no longer had the obligation to make the car trip.

This issue is not a secular issue. The issue is that apart from consecrating bread and wine into the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, forgiveness of sins is about as intimate with God as you can get.

Me talking: I suspect the reason that so many priests die young is that they are so filled with the “stuff” that they hear in Confession and they can get no relief from psychotherapy or chatting with peers, that the stress kills them. Some may seek relief in food.

The only relief, me talking, is by spending time in prayer before Jesus in the tabernacle. Or better, before Jesus in the Monstrance in a Perpetual Eucharistic Adoration chapel.

The answer is Jesus.

The path to salvation is through the Cross.

One very old priest was asked, allowing for the Seal of Confession, did he have any conclusions that he could share. He thought for a while and said 1) people are more unhappy than you would think; and, 2) no one ever grows up.