A reader writes:
My neighbor is areligious yet very curious: Can a priest make
absolution conditional when a crime (e.g., murder, child abuse) is
being confessed? I’m assuming real sorrow for the sin(s) here. The
CCC says only that there are no exceptions to the seal. Thank you for
your time and attention.
A priest cannot make his absolution conditional on you going and confessing a crime–i.e., he can’t assign it as a penance that you go tell the police (or anyone else) what you did.
If he could do this then the seal of the sacrament would be meaningless as any priest could force any penitent to publicly disclose what he did.
This means that some crimes that come to light in the confessional will go undiscovered and unpunished by civil law, but the Church has judged it better to encourage the faithful to confess their sins by giving them an absolute assurance of confidentiality rather than leaving them to wonder whether the priest will disclose what they have done or–just as bad–force them to do so themselves.
The Code of Canon Law provides:
Can. 983 §1. The sacramental seal is inviolable;
therefore it is absolutely forbidden for a confessor to betray in any way a
penitent in words or in any manner and for any reason.Can. 984 §1. A confessor is prohibited completely
from using knowledge acquired from confession to the detriment of the penitent
even when any danger of revelation is excluded.
Though Canon 983 doesn’t address specifically the issue of forcing a penitent to confess to the police, it does cover this case implicitly by stressing the inviolability of the seal and forbidding the priest to betray the penitent "in any manner" (including forcing the penitent to betray himself) and "for any reason" (even reporting a grave crime against the civil law).
Indeed, as canon 984 states, the confessor is prohibited from using what he learns in confession to in any way harm the penitent even if he could do so without breaking the seal.
Breaking the seal of confession is one of the gravest crimes that exists in ecclesiastical law. Any priest (or anyone else bound by the seal, such as a translator or an eavesdropper) who violates the seal is automatically excommunicated and this excommunication is reserved to the Holy See.
(NOTE CAUSE FOLKS WILL WONDER: The penitent himself is not bound by the seal. They’re your sins; you can tell them to anyone you want. But if you tell them to a priest in confession then the priest–and anyone else who hears them as you are confessing–cannot disclose them.)
The seal of confession is inviolable, but does that speak to the efficacy of the sacrament for the penitent?
Would you say that sometimes perhaps the failure of a penitent to confess guilt to the legal authorities (in the case of really serious crimes) or to make restitution to victims would indicate an incomplete repentance?
Say, if you evade paying your taxes (and then go confess to a priest) and you make no effort to pay the back taxes you owe, could that be an indication that your repentance was not completely sincere, and so the sin remains?
I would think so, though not in every imaginable case.
Can’t priests withhold absolution if the contrition of the penitent is doubtful? And might the penitent’s refusal to turn himself in indicate a lack of contrition?
A quick question though…
If someone confesses, say, stealing a TV, could he said to be realy sorry…even if he does not return the TV to his rightful owner?
In this regard the story of Zacchaeus comes to mind….I know jesus does not ask him to give back what he has stole..but still..makes me wonder.
This means that some crimes that come to light in the confessional will go undiscovered and unpunished by civil law, but the Church has judged it better to encourage the faithful to confess their sins by giving them an absolute assurance of confidentiality rather than leaving them to wonder whether the priest will disclose what they have done or–just as bad–force them to do so themselves.
If anyone hasn’t yet seen Alfred Hitchcock’s classic movie “I Confess,” I highly recommend watching it as soon as possible.
When did the idea of the seal of the confessional emerge? My impression is that the earliest Christians had a general confession of their sins and we gradually developed the priest-penitent version. I’m curious as to when we have the first writers discussing the seal of the confessional.
Thanks.
So a priest/bishop that confesses to another priest/bishop about his sodomizing young children prevents the confessor from undertaking any corrective action, e.g. reporting it to civil authorites, removing the priest’s fauculties, notifying others in the Church (his superiors) about the problem, transferring him?
Isn’t this law then, an enabling cause of the recent scandals? Doesn’t it also leave the Church open to future civil lawsuits?
I heard that early Christians could only confess one time in their life, and this was a public confession. Early Christians also tended not to be baptized until in danger of death, so confession wasn’t entirely relevant for many of them. I know the Irish had great impact on the current form of confession, but I can’t say more.
Ashton– Get yourself a copy of Hitchcock’s “I Confess.” It was one of the most controversial films of its time.
I know the Irish had great impact on the current form of confession, but I can’t say more.
Bound by the seal? 🙂
I also recommend the 1987 film “The Rosary Murders,” starring Donald Sutherland and Charles Durning. There is some objectionable content, but, overall, it’s a very good film, in my opinion.
If you look through the archives of the “Scrupulous Anonymous” newsletter, they dedicated three consecutive issues to explain the history of Confession. As I am no authority on this particular area of history, I can’t evaluate it critically, but it was in the archives last I checked.
One thing I’ve always wondered is whether or not your restitution must be “direct” in every instance. For example, if you cheat on your taxes, I would imagine that going forth to the government could, potentially, have some pretty messy consequences (landing you in prison perhaps). Would restitution be satisfied if, instead of crying “Uncle” to the IRS, you donated a large sum of money to, say, Catholic Charities? Or would you need to notify the government so that they could properly punish you according to the civil and statutory laws in place. Just a question.
Not being a Catholic I can’t comment on cannon law, but I feel this violates the theme of confession. A confession is supposed to go hand-in-hand with repentance, that is a desire to set things to thier proper state. This was formalized by the joint moral-civil law of the Mosaic code. A thief, for example, was bound to pay back the thing stolen (with various additional penalties) whether he got caught or not to the person he stole the item from.
While Christians are not bound by the Law they are guided by its moral implications. I fail to see how a secret confession with no action to restore justice that affected others could be held as valid. I’ll also note that the snippets you quoted didn’t seem, to my untrained eye at least, to support your case.
pha, Matt C. Abbott: Thanks, I will.
I’m still confused though.
Anyone else would like to attempt an answer?
Jimmy help!
“Can’t priests withhold absolution if the contrition of the penitent is doubtful?”
Yes they can. But the contrition has to be obviously lacking (it is not judged by the amount of tears that are shed!). A penitent’s unwillingness to do any sort of “reparation” (pardon my French) for a sin is usually a good sign that something’s amiss. In case of a stolen tv, “reparation” could very well be returning the tv to the rightful owners (if it can be done without revealing the identity of the contrite thief…) Undertaking corrective actions like reporting to civil authorities can be (strongly) suggested by the confessor but cannot be imposed as a penance or a condition for absolution (and the confessor cannot in any case act himself upon the object of confession).
A priest may, indeed, withhold absolution if a penitent demonstrates a lack of repentance.
Once, when I was young and fiesty (that is, still enamored with my sins) I confessed to a priest that I simply did not believe this and that about the BVM, and that I just didn’t see how I could ever follow Church teaching on birth control. Very sadly, the priest responded that he did not have the authority to grant absolution to somebody who had indicated no intent to give up his sins. He told me he would pray for me, and advised me to come back when I really was sorry for my non-Catholic beliefs and acts.
After a few moments of stunned silence, I asked him what that meant for my recaiving Communion. He advised me that though he couldn’t stop me, that I certainly shouldn’t receive communion.
An hour later, I informed my stunned wife of how I had just been excommunicated (sort of). Thus began a major conversion experience in our lives. We gave up birth control, and eventually became natural family planning promoters.
I also became strongly devoted to the BVM.
Hurrah for priests who tell it like it is.
I don’t understand why you people are counting the exposure of someone to the legal system as something “harmful” to that person. Certainly it can be, but there are plenty of people who find faith only in prison. Why would calling the police on a murderer be considered “to the detriment of the penitent” when it is precisely after this experience — being apprehended and incarcerated for their crimes — that so many people realize the nature and wrongness of their acts… their “sins”, so to speak? Seems a bit of a worldly analysis if you ask me. Just what constitutes “harm” or “detriment” here?
‘I don’t understand why you people are counting the exposure of someone to the legal system as something “harmful” to that person.’
If criminal penitents had any expectation they could be arrested and prosecuted based on what they said in the confessional, then they would never make an honest confession. That’s from 2,000 years experience.
Moreover. I wonder about this, but I dont have any answer. Canonically, obviously, the priest can’t force anyone to turn himself in as a condition for absolution. That is a non-issue.
But, supposing he could. Or supposing they discussed a forgiven sin in spiritual direction. Could a priest in good conscience ever encourage someone to submit themselves to the potentiality, or perhaps inevitability, of the death penalty?
can’t figure out why the word moreover appears at the beginning of my post. why did i write that? disregard it
JD- I like the “moreover.” You should keep it. 🙂
supposing they discussed a forgiven sin in spiritual direction.
It wouldn’t release the priest from the requirement never to reveal the penitent’s sin.
pha-
that much i know. But…the priest could encourage his directee to confess the crime.
what im wondering about is whether any Catholic, clergy or toherwise, could direct someone to submit themselves to the potential of execution.
I see no support in the text of the canon for the position that Mr. Akin takes. While Mr. Akin offers policy and prudential reasons why priests shouldn’t make condition absolution on public confession, he does not offer a textual argument rooted in canon law. The plain meaning of the text refers to the priest revealing what has been confessed to him, not conditions for absolution that make indicate having to reconcile with another individual.
The “in any manner” clearly refers to non-verbal communication or action by the priest. Assuming that someone has a moral obligation to turn oneself in or pay a fine for a crime one has committed, and that to not do so is a sin, then how can informing a penitent of his moral duty be considered a “betrayal”? To fail to inform the penitent of his moral duty would be a betrayal.
This raises the question whether one has the duty of taking responsibility for one’s actions and bearing the consequences. Can we deny this? If I escape from a just prison sentence, for instance, don’t I have an obligation to return?
Turning oneself in is not a “betrayal.” Of course my argument only holds if one has a moral duty to turn oneself in. I agree with Jimmy that requiring a penitent to reveal his confessed sins when this wasn’t a moral duty would in practice be the same as the priest revealing them.
So the real question is, is there a duty to submit to turn onself in when one commits a crime? Is there a duty to pay one’s taxes? To pay a speeding ticket? To following your duties under the law? Could that really be in question?
Or rather I should say, that the textual argument from canon law takes an extremely broad sense of “betray,” a sense which can not stand up for the reason provided above, for it would prevent a priest from informing a penitent of his moral duty. It is effectively to deny that there is any duty to make any reparation or response to one’s actions which requires us to reveal ourselves to others. Since when does our identity being concealed give us a right to avoid a duty that we would have if we were known?
Nothing prevents a priest from informing a penitent of their moral duty. It’s just not necessarily an established part of the sacrament. Any priest I’ve confessed to has also counseled me a little further besides just giving me penance.
A priest may advise the person to turn himself or herself in as the right thing to do, but assign a different action as the actual penance.
In any case, nothing is holding the priest back from advising the right course of action. That’s a non-issue. It’s just that forgiveness can’t hinge on that course of action if it breaks the seal, so another proportionate penance may be assigned in completing the sacramental part.
The way I see it, this doesn’t mean that the right to a concealed identity would give anyone the right to avoid any duty to reparation. It’s up to the penitent to do the right thing after they are advised. It’s just that forgiveness can’t hinge on that particular act of restitution. The penance will have to be something else, and hopefully, something proportionate to all factors considered.
In a way, it’s having to make two acts of reparation–the actual penance for the sacrament, and then outside of the sacrament, the onus is still on the penitent to go forth and do the right thing.
That’s actually not unusual, if you think about it–for the reparation to begin with penance, upon which forgiveness is dependent, and to also have obligations outside of the sacrament to put things right. It happens also in cases where breaking the seal isn’t a consideration.
For example, think about this: If I confess that I lost my temper with someone or got violent with them, I might get either a penance of some prayers, or even to apologize to them.
That doesn’t mean I would be free from the obligation of working on the relationship and/or trying to better myself so that it does not happen again, and that’s an ongoing type of reparation. The onus is still on me to do what’s right. And hopefully, the priest would counsel me and give me some tips about how to go about that.
“Nothing prevents a priest from informing a penitent of their moral duty.”
That is how I see it. Absolution from the priest takes place before the penitent completes his/her penance, so the priest can and SHOULD advise the penitent regarding their moral duty, but should not make absolution dependent on it.
HOWEVER; without full, true repentance (as well as completing whatever penance is assigned by the priest) the grace of the sacrament simply won’t “stick”. True repentance means making amends whenever this is prudent (though, in many cases, it is not possible in this life). Lack of true repentance = sin remains.
This has more to do with the efficacy of the sacrament for the penitent than it does with the actions of the priest.
One would have to weigh the consequences of going to jail for a petty theft in one’s youth if one had a wife and kids. So if you stole a car stereo five years ago, and are now the head of a family, it might be better all around to find some other way of making recompense.
I think the “seal” as it is currently understood must be more a matter of discipline than of doctrine, because it is very different from the way it was done in the past.
DANG! Sorry this is so wordy… I don’t have time to make it shorter.
all interesting thoughts.
tim, breir- ought the priest advice one to turn himself in when he faces the death penalty?
“…supposing they discussed a forgiven sin in spiritual direction.”
Actually, they shouldn’t. Not even when providing moral direction to the penitent himself. Conventional guidelines for the priest has been that whatever is revealed at a given time in the confessional is left there, period. In future encounters with the priest– whether in conversation, counselling, direction, or subsequent confession– only the penitent can bring up the topic of previously confessed sins. The priest, even if he should recall the previous issues, is instructed to act as if he had never heard them before. I’m not joking. That is the degree of silence recommended for the confessional.
I once went to confession two weekd in a row and said “Remember what we were talking of last week, Father?”
His response was: “Whether I remember or not, I am required by the seal to leave it there. So you need to tell me about it as if I’ve never heard it before.”
I really don’t know about the death penalty issue, and I would be very hesitant to comment where so much is at stake and where I am so ignorant.
One in that position should seek counseling from a trustworthy priest, apologist and spiritual director – hopefully all the same guy.
In the case of murder; one can’t give back the life that was taken, so other means of compensation would have to be considered. Whether this would involve confession to authorities – or to anyone beside a priest – I don’t know.
This is one for Jimmy.
I think the “seal” as it is currently understood must be more a matter of discipline than of doctrine
It is. But the discipline is very serious!
My point is that I don’t see how one is “betraying” a penitent if one informs him of his moral duty to turn himself in, and refuses to absolve the penitent if he has no idention of doing his moral duty, which would show a lack of true contrition. Strictly speaking, the penitent in this case would betray himself. Unless laying a moral duty on someone to due their duty counts as a “betrayal.”
Certainly the actions of the priest would be causative of the penitent’s identity being revealed, but ultimately its the penitent who reveals himself. He isn’t being forced to do so. “Betrayal” refers to a direct action of a priest revealing the truth. Otherwise merely counseling someone to turn himself in would be a betrayal, if we are to be led by the results-oriented thinking that any action of the priest that may lead to the confessed matter being revealed is a “betrayal.”
So it seems to me that “betrayal” properly speaks of the priest spilling the beans and breaking the seal, not to the priest informing someone of the duty of their conscience to turn themselves in.
And if it is a duty to turn yourself in, then the priest can’t sidestep that. How can one grant absolution, if someone has the future resolution to sin?
Clearly absolution can be granted before hand, but only upon the priest discerning that the penitent has the resolution to avoid future mortal sins. If it’s a grave duty to turn oneself in, I hardly see how this exercise of one’s priestly duties is a “betrayal.”
JD,
I’m presupposing a probable moral duty, but I’d like to hear what the Church’s moral tradition has spoken regarding turning oneself in, the morality of escaping from prison, avoiding a grave but just punishment, etc. As for the death penalty, if it’s not immoral, I don’t see it is a special case. If one has an obligation to pay the just penalty for one’s crime, either by paying a traffic ticket or spending time in the pokey, should that not also apply to more serious punishments, like life in prison or a death sentence? If the punishment is just isn’t resisting it unjust?