When does a priest have the obligation to contact authorities?

[ThuribleGuy45]

Professed religious are not clergy.

While I know that is correct in Canon Law, “clergy” being those in Orders, as a practical matter I believe common usage in civil law would not make that distinction regarding mandated reporting laws. Being in Massachusetts, I am all too aware of alleged abuse issues by teaching brothers and religious sisters being reported as “clergy abuse,” and my original comment was made in that framework. Nor do I believe the mandated reporting laws here reflect the Canonical definition.

 

[grandfather]

By demanding as a condition of receiving absolution that the penitant present himself/herself to the legal authorities as a demonstration of firm purpose of amendment, the priest does not break the seal of confession. Matthew

When one confesses to a priest the priest has no obligation to give absolution. It is the responsibility of the priest before absolving sins to determine whether or not the person confessing is contrite, has repented of whatever sin is being confessed. If he decides that the person is not contrite and should not be absolved it has nothing to do with the seal of confession. If a person steals a diamond ring the priest will tell him to return it. This does not necessarily have anything to do with the penance. It will determine that the person is penitent. If you will not give back the thing you stole then you are not sorry you stole it. The priest could similarly say the person should turn himself in to civil authorities for some crime in order to demonstrate that he is sorry for it.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

When one confesses to a priest the priest has no obligation to give absolution. It is the responsibility of the priest before absolving sins to determine whether or not the person confessing is contrite, has repented of whatever sin is being confessed. If he decides that the person is not contrite and should not be absolved it has nothing to do with the seal of confession. If a person steals a diamond ring the priest will tell him to return it. This does not necessarily have anything to do with the penance. It will determine that the person is penitent. If you will not give back the thing you stole then you are not sorry you stole it. The priest could similarly say the person should turn himself in to civil authorities for some crime in order to demonstrate that he is sorry for it.

Absolution cannot be dependent on turning yourself in.

 

[drafdog]

Bear in mind that the priest has also his own conscience to live with. Making no provision for the safety of the community at large when faced with a violent malefactor, is a breach of his position of trust as much as betraying a penitent would be. A priest may refuse absolution for whatever reason he sees fit. Any person confessing a criminal act who does not see the necessity to make reparation by accepting the consequenses of criminal behavior is being dishonest with himself, the priest, the church, the victim, and with God. Certainly this is sufficient reason to refuse absolution. Again, if the priest offers to hear the penitent’s confession in his prison cell after turning himself in to the authorities, he has preserved the seal of confession. No one need know that the person was refused absolution previously.
Penal servitude for criminal behavior is a legitimate form of reparation for sin. It is a salutary activity.

Matthew

 

[THurifer2]

That is incorrect. The priest can give any penance that he feels is appropriate even for the penitent to turn themselves in.

What most people do not understand that there in no connection with the penance being performed and the absolution given. Absolution takes place before the penitent leaves the confessional and can never be conditional on some later action being performed.

The seal of confession is the issue not abosolution. Two different Matters…the seal means that whatever is said inside the confessional is sealed to the outside world…telling a penitent to turn themselves in is a violation of the SEAL of confession…absolution has NOTHING to do with the seal of confession. Not completing a pennance is a sin and in some cases can be a Mortal sin. imposing such a pennance would be wavering the pain of sin by the priest forcing the penitent to either commit another sin or turn themselves in. This is clearly against church teaching on the matter.

I have heard a priest say that in this situation he would refuse absolution by asking if the penitent has turned themselves in…he has the authority to retain sins in the confessional. He said if a person commits such a crime that and they haven’t turned themselves in…then they have not demostrated sufficient contrition.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Bear in mind that the priest has also his own conscience to live with. Making no provision for the safety of the community at large when faced with a violent malefactor, is a breach of his position of trust as much as betraying a penitent would be. A priest may refuse absolution for whatever reason he sees fit. Any person confessing a criminal act who does not see the necessity to make reparation by accepting the consequenses of criminal behavior is being dishonest with himself, the priest, the church, the victim, and with God. Certainly this is sufficient reason to refuse absolution. Again, if the priest offers to hear the penitent’s confession in his prison cell after turning himself in to the authorities, he has preserved the seal of confession. No one need know that the person was refused absolution previously.
Penal servitude for criminal behavior is a legitimate form of reparation for sin. It is a salutary activity.

Matthew

A priest may NOT refuse absolution for WHATEVER reason he sees fit. He must have serious reason to believe that the person has no contrition or sorrow for what they have done. Many times the example of someone stealing something is used. A priest may not impose as a condition of Absolution that the person return the item. He may impose as Penance that the item be returned in some way or given away to charity. He may not require as Penance that the person personally return the item.

 

[Sir_Knight]

A priest may NOT refuse absolution for WHATEVER reason he sees fit. He must have serious reason to believe that the person has no contrition or sorrow for what they have done. Many times the example of someone stealing something is used. A priest may not impose as a condition of Absolution that the person return the item. He may impose as Penance that the item be returned in some way or given away to charity. He may not require as Penance that the person personally return the item.

Do you have supporting reference for this?

 

[grandfather]

Not completing a pennance is a sin and in some cases can be a Mortal sin. imposing such a pennance would be wavering the pain of sin by the priest forcing the penitent to either commit another sin or turn themselves in. This is clearly against church teaching on the matter.

The seal prohibits the priest from revealing what the penitent tells him in confession. The priest can be faced with a serial killer who suffers from blood lust likely to kill more people. His role is to determine whether there is contrition prior to absolving. Penance is given prior to absolution. When he gives a penance if the penitent says he can not carry it out for some reason, the priest must decide whether to give another penance, or if the penance is reasonable and should be carried out. He does not force the penitent to commit a sin if he is unwilling to carry out the penance. If the penitent says he will not do the penance there is no absolution given and the sin is retained.

 

[hilde_the_dog]

Remember the sniper around DC as I recall he left a message of confession on a priest’s aswering machine and that info was correctly turned over.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

Remember the sniper around DC as I recall he left a message of confession on a priest’s aswering machine and that info was correctly turned over.

One cannot have sacramental confession over the phone. One cannot have an expectation of privacy in that situation.

 

[grandfather]

Remember the sniper around DC as I recall he left a message of confession on a priest’s aswering machine and that info was correctly turned over.

Interesting! He was a Moslem named John Mohamed. Why did he call a priest? Secondly, a message left on an answering machine is not protected under the seal of confession. You can’t call a priest on the phone and confess, much less leave a message. You have to go see him, unless it is life or death.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

I recall seeing this question asked someplace, probably EWTN. I think it was a priest who answered it. He said that the priest is forbidden to do anything which would reveal the penitent’s sin and that that includes compelling the penitent to publically admit to the sin .

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Remember the sniper around DC as I recall he left a message of confession on a priest’s aswering machine and that info was correctly turned over.

An answering machine has nothing to do with the Sacrament od Reconciliation.