The Seal of The Confessional and Absolution Requirements

[Jaypeeto4]

This whole situation with Ireland trying to force priests to report sex crimes confessed in a confessional raises a host of questions, it seems.
It seems reasonable to me that a priest who hears a confession of child-rape by a priest could, reasonably, require as a penance that the offending priest confess to the police.
Or at least agree to stay away from ALL children and check himself into a mental hospital or something. That seems reasonable. I have been reading Catholic threads on various websites about these penance/absolution/secrecy issues, and I wonder,
what about other sins, sins not heinous like child abuse or murder?

For example, if turning ones’ self in to the police can be a requirement for receiving absolution, where would this end?
Say a woman confesses to having driven drunk 3 times. This is not only sinful theologically, it is a violation of all legal statutes, i.e., a crime. Now, I can understand that the priest can require her to promise not to drink and drive EVER again as a condition of absolution, but can he require her to go and turn herself in to the cops as a condition of absolution?
What about if someone confesses to have filed a FALSE income tax return for each of the past 5 years. That is multiple perjuries and very, very illegal. Can the priest require that this offender turn themself in to the police or government as a condition of absolution?
Or can he simply require that they agree to make restitution, as best they are able, financially, for the matter?
All sin is crime in reality, although not necessarily crime in the sense of a violation of secular statutes, but a crime in the sense of violating the moral laws of God to some extent or another.
Abortion is, in reality, the crime of murder, even if the state wickedly no longer recognizes it as such. Should a priest require that a woman who has had an abortion, or a repentant abortionist, go to the cops and say “Even though it is legal, I have in reality committed murder”??? in order to receive absolution?
Murderers, armed robbers, rapists, carjackers — these people not only offend God, but they gravely and callously and deliberately harm their fellow human beings. I can “see” maybe requiring them (or at least urging them) to turn themselves in. But should all sinners be told to turn themselves in for some form of secular punishment, in order to receive absolution??
Where would we draw the line at such requirements?
And those who would say, yes in every case!!, are you willing to be arrested for your own mortal sins (such as adultery, fornication, etc., all of which also destroy other people’s lives, bodies and souls?).
It seems like Ireland is opening the doors to forcing priests to confess EVERYBODY’s transgressions…

 

[ChrisRedfield47]

Bump

 

[Della]

All the points you raise, Jaypeeto4 is why forcing priests to make turning oneself in to secular authorities a very bad idea. I know how heinous we all feel child abuse is, but we do have to look at the wider picture here and realize that all mortal sins destroy lives not just the ones we think the most disgusting, and no one should be forced to face criminal prosecution in order to receive absolution. The absolving of sins has nothing to do with criminal punishment. The civil courts need to keep their hands off the sacraments and our priests should not be making absolution only available to those willing to incriminate themselves. We have laws in place that say so in every civilized country. This is not the time to toss it out in the heat of a passing problem that targets only religious institutions. It’s not only a bad idea, it violates individual rights to the point of denying those rights.

 

[willofgods]

I always thought that if someone confessed to a murder (I’m talking about murder that the state sees as illegal) that unless they were willing to tell authorities of their crime that they were not truly contrite, thereby making absolution impossible.

 

[Trishie]

The question occurs, can a priest refuse Absolution if a person accused of a serious crime like murder doesn’t turn himself/herself in?
Certainly the priest can counsel criminal to pace themselves in the hands of the civil law.

From the Catholic Church, Code of Canon Law

8.16 The sacramental seal of the confessional is inviolable. Therefore it is a crime for a confessor, in any way or form, to betray a penitent by word or in any other manner for any reason.

8.17 An interpreter, if needed, is also obliged to preserve the secret, and also all others to whom knowledge of sins from confession shall come in any way.

8.18 Even if every danger of revelation is excluded, a confessor is absolutely forbidden to use any knowledge about sins from confession when it may harm the penitent.

8.19 One who is placed in authority can in no way use for external governance knowledge about sins which the confessor, or others cited, has received in confession at any time.

 

[Trishie]

The Fourth Lateran Council (1215) produced one of the first comprehensive teachings concerning the Sacrament of Penance…The council decreed, "Let the confessor take absolute care not to betray the sinner through word or sign, or in any other way whatsoever. In case he needs expert advice he may seek it without, however, in any way indicating the person. For we decree that he who presumes to reveal a sin which has been manifested to him in the tribunal of penance is not only to be deposed from the priestly office, but also to be consigned to a closed monastery for perpetual penance."

catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=1385
**
Code of Canon Law**:

trosch.org/law/cl-penan.htm

"Can. 983 §1 The sacramental seal is inviolable. Accordingly, it is absolutely wrong for a confessor in any way to betray the penitent, for any reason whatsoever, whether by word or in any other fashion.
§2 An interpreter, if there is one, is also obliged to observe this secret, as are all others who in any way whatever have come to a knowledge of sins from a confession.

Can. 984 §1 The confessor is wholly forbidden to use knowledge acquired in confession to the detriment of the penitent, even when all danger of disclosure is excluded.
§2 A person who is in authority may not in any way, for the purpose of external governance, use knowledge about sins which has at any time come to him from the hearing of confession."

Certainly the priest can strongly counsel criminals to turn themselves in.
In some of the cases you mention it is likely that the priest would refuse Absolution, unless restitution were intended, and if the person intended to persist in the crime confessed.

 

[GEddie]

I always thought that if someone confessed to a murder (I’m talking about murder that the state sees as illegal) that unless they were willing to tell authorities of their crime that they were not truly contrite, thereby making absolution impossible.

I’d like to see a source for that. Considering that murderers face execution in most of the nations of the world, requiring someone to give themselves up to death to receive absolution would lead most normal persons to forgo absolution. One can be “contrite” and still unwilling to die.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Jaypeeto4]

One can be “contrite” and still unwilling to die.

I agree with the above statement, although I do think that a murderer should
turn himself in. It is such a heinous crime, especially if deliberate.
It may take him or her months or years to muster up the courage to turn themself in
but I still think they should do it. Of course, that’s just MY opinion, and it’s far from
infallible of course. But I don’t believe requiring a person to turn themself in should
be a condition of absolution, strictly speaking.

But murder and other violent acts are extreme cases, very extreme.
Government statistics show that tens of millions and millions of Americans
submit, regularly, false income tax returns, which is very serious.
Some of them are no doubt Catholics. If they confess, and were required to turn themselves in for prosecution, this could destroy their wives or husbands and their children, for example. Not only that, if the Government’s statistics about this are correct,
if they all turned themselves in, the gov’t would have to build two or three times as many places of incarceration. If someone used to deal illegal drugs and repented, should
she or he be required to turn themselfs in?
Unless someone is violent or incorrigibly violent, I don’t think a prison is any place for a repentant believer in the LORD. They need their faith and goodness strengthened, and as documentaries reveal, those places are diabolical hell-holes filled with brutal and militant racism, predatory killers who rape, stab, beat and torture gentle and nonviolent people, filled with people who hate God and other people, i.e., they are therefore also likely filled with demonic activity. Why should and why WOULD God force a repentant Christian to submit herself or himself to a place like that?? In 2nd Corinthians, the man who had been committing the heinous crime of incest and had been excommunicated by the community, Paul recommended that since he was repentant, the community MUST confirm their love for him and help him recover lest the Devil cause him to be swallowed up by despair, for as Paul put it, “we are not ignorant of his designs.”
In light of that and many other scriptures urging strengthening of the repentant and comforting them, I cannot believe that God would intentionally insist that a repentant person submit themselves to punishment in an environment filled with hate, violence, sodomy, rape, racism and predatory brutality. Those are demon-infested environments. And it seems unrighteous of a priest
to require any nonviolent penitent to do so in order to receive absolution.
Thoughts??
Love,
Jaypeeto4

 

[Della]

One can be “contrite” and still unwilling to die.

I agree with the above statement, although I do think that a murderer should
turn himself in. It is such a heinous crime, especially if deliberate.
It may take him or her months or years to muster up the courage to turn themself in
but I still think they should do it. Of course, that’s just MY opinion, and it’s far from
infallible of course. But I don’t believe requiring a person to turn themself in should
be a condition of absolution, strictly speaking.

But murder and other violent acts are extreme cases, very extreme.
Government statistics show that tens of millions and millions of Americans
submit, regularly, false income tax returns, which is very serious.
Some of them are no doubt Catholics. If they confess, and were required to turn themselves in for prosecution, this could destroy their wives or husbands and their children, for example. Not only that, if the Government’s statistics about this are correct,
if they all turned themselves in, the gov’t would have to build two or three times as many places of incarceration. If someone used to deal illegal drugs and repented, should
she or he be required to turn themselfs in?
Unless someone is violent or incorrigibly violent, I don’t think a prison is any place for a repentant believer in the LORD. They need their faith and goodness strengthened, and as documentaries reveal, those places are diabolical hell-holes filled with brutal and militant racism, predatory killers who rape, stab, beat and torture gentle and nonviolent people, filled with people who hate God and other people, i.e., they are therefore also likely filled with demonic activity. Why should and why WOULD God force a repentant Christian to submit herself or himself to a place like that?? In 2nd Corinthians, the man who had been committing the heinous crime of incest and had been excommunicated by the community, Paul recommended that since he was repentant, the community MUST confirm their love for him and help him recover lest the Devil cause him to be swallowed up by despair, for as Paul put it, “we are not ignorant of his designs.”
In light of that and many other scriptures urging strengthening of the repentant and comforting them, I cannot believe that God would intentionally insist that a repentant person submit themselves to punishment in an environment filled with hate, violence, sodomy, rape, racism and predatory brutality. Those are demon-infested environments. And it seems unrighteous of a priest
to require any nonviolent penitent to do so in order to receive absolution.
Thoughts??
Love,
Jaypeeto4

While prisons certainly aren’t lovely places in which any sane person would wish to be confined, still the life a penitent might have to lead if convicted of a crime has no bearing on whether or not the priest grants absolution or asks a particular penance. What is relevant is that a lack of penance does not negate the absolution granted by the priest and no one is obliged to incriminate himself, so no priest can demand/make it a condition of penance that the pentitent turn himself over to civil authorities. The priest can advise him to do so, but even here, a priest is not a lawyer, and so should not be giving legal advice.

 

[GEddie]

While prisons certainly aren’t lovely places in which any sane person would wish to be confined, still the life a penitent might have to lead if convicted of a crime has no bearing on whether or not the priest grants absolution or asks a particular penance. What is relevant is that a lack of penance does not negate the absolution granted by the priest and no one is obliged to incriminate himself, so no priest can demand/make it a condition of penance that the pentitent turn himself over to civil authorities. The priest can advise him to do so, but even here, a priest is not a lawyer, and so should not be giving legal advice.

It would not be a matter of legal advice, even if the legal system is involved. The priest is not suggesting a legal action, but a form of conceivably just restitution (to the general society).

I’d still say that assigning a penance so harsh that it would be rejected out of hand by a sane human being (voluntary submission to death, or to torturous existence in a penal system) effectively negates the purpose of Reconciliation. Then, again, I am not a priest but just an average sinner.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Della]

It would not be a matter of legal advice, even if the legal system is involved. The priest is not suggesting a legal action, but a form of conceivably just restitution (to the general society).

Don’t you think a priest advising someone to turn himself in isn’t legal advice? I sure do. Anyone who has committed a crime ought to consult a lawyer before taking any such action. After all, that’s what lawyers are for–to help people with their legal rights. That is not a priest’s job.

I’d still say that assigning a penance so harsh that it would be rejected out of hand by a sane human being (voluntary submission to death, or to torturous existence in a penal system) effectively negates the purpose of Reconciliation. Then, again, I am not a priest but just an average sinner.

ICXC NIKA

Even without such possibilities, no priest can make it a condition of penance for the penitent to turn himself over to civil authorities. It’s not within the priest’s expertise to give anyone such a directive. The priest is concerned with restritution for sins committed against God and man, not with civil justice. Therefore, he can give him a reasonable penance, one geared towards making spiritual restitution and perhaps financial restitution but he cannot tell him to incriminate himself by turning himself in for any crime committed. I believe priests ought to tell such persons to get a good lawyer and do what he advises while giving the pentient some appropriate penance, such as reading Scripture or prayers or alms, etc. I don’t mean to be pedantic, but I’m concerned the civil rights of the penitent may be compromised by a priest acting as a lawyer rather than a priest, if you see what I mean.

 

[willofgods]

I’d like to see a source for that…]

The source is a memory from the recesses of my childhood mind, maybe a question I asked some grown-up at the time In any case, I’m liking all these arguments I’m reading They make a lot of sense.

 

[Jaypeeto4]

It would not be a matter of legal advice, even if the legal system is involved. The priest is not suggesting a legal action, but a form of conceivably just restitution (to the general society).

I can see your point, up to a point (no pun intended), but where would lines be drawn
if penitents were told to confess their sins to the authorities and submit to incarceration?
For example, again,
abortion is murder, period. Yet no one in the Church is demanding that women who are repentant for having had (even multiple) abortions be charged as murderesses and thrown into prison. The same goes for repentant abortionists. Catholics in general are very, very compassionate toward these people, not demanding that they pay a really severe penalty for what they’ve done. Why are Catholics (and others) so merciful about those who commit THIS (now legal but still evil) crime, yet demanding that priests should order people who commit OTHER offenses to turn themselves in as a condition of absolution?
Why the seeming double standard?

Or again, lets look at repentant Drug Addicts. We rejoice in their repentance and conversion and healing, do we not? We do not demand that priests order these people to turn themselves in for punishment as a condition of absolution.
But face it, to have years-long addictions to cocaine, heroin, etc., these now - repentant people had to, for years, commit the felonious action of knowingly and deliberately and regularly and ILLEGALLY buying these drugs from drug dealers. (( I too think that the Drug Dealer is far more sinful than the drug BUYER, but illegal is illegal, and both activities are seriously illegal )). We do not demand that priests order these people to submit to punishment “as retribution for their offenses against Society” in order to receive absolution.

So I guess if Ireland and other countries are going to start forcing (or trying to force)
priests to reveal what has been told them in confession, then to prevent these abuses,
we had BETTER get RID of “face to face” Reconciliation Rooms and go back to the
strict use of having the priest and the penitent be separated by a screen which prevents them from seeing each other.

 

[1ke]

The priest cannot require the penitent to “turn himself in”. This violates the seal of confession.

 

[LilyM]

Turning onself into the authorities is rarely if ever the only or the best or most effective form of restitution.

How much better, for example, for the repentant drug abuser to become a counsellor and work to prevent others going down the same path than simply to rot in prison.

 

[Jaypeeto4]

**How much better, for example, for the repentant drug abuser to become a counsellor and work to prevent others going down the same path than simply to rot in prison. **

AMEN !! Excellent point.

Same thing, if an executive has been submitting false income tax returns,
and has repented of this lying, perjuring and cheating (theft, really),
how much better for her to

1. make restitution as best as possible by contributing to the poor
   and to organizations that ease the social burdens on the Federal Government
   and
2. to teach a church or bible class on the value of honesty
   and on the moral rightness of paying your financial dues for the support
   of the common good of the community
   rather than rotting in a violent, demon-infested prison for years at taxpayers
   expense and losing her faith and hope in the process.

Today we celebrated the Feast of St. Matthew, the apostle and repentant Tax Collector.
Jesus never ordered this man, Matthew, to be severely punished or to ask to be incarcerated. But you know what Tax Collectors like Matthew WERE? They were NOT the ancient equivalent of H&R BLOCK !!! They were lying, cheating THIEVES
who charged large taxes on behalf of the occupying Romans and THEN, on top of THAT,
they usually EXTORTED LARGE SUMS of EXTRA Taxes and monies from the Jews
as their own personal, often-exhorbitant “TAKE.” That is why the repentant tax collector Zaccheus promised Jesus that he would repay those he had defrauded as much as four times what he extorted from them.
If Jesus and Zaccheus were both here TODAY, many of us, by contrast, would be furious at Jesus for not ordering Zaccheus to be charged with Fraud and thrown in the slammer for 30 years. And, ironically, at taxpayers expense.