Generally not.
Or at least that’s the answer of Bishop Gianfranco Girotti (pictured) of the Apostolic Penitentiary.
According to Catholic News Service:
A priest who confesses sexual abuse in the sacrament of penance should be absolved and should generally not be encouraged by the confessor to disclose his acts publicly or to his superiors, a Vatican official said.
Likewise, the confessor should not make the contents of such a confession public, said Bishop Gianfranco Girotti, regent of the Apostolic Penitentiary, a Vatican court that handles issues related to the sacrament of penance. . . .
When a priest confesses such acts, “the confession can only have absolution as a consequence,” he said.
This may be an eye-opening response, but there are some qualifiers. The first is this:
Bishop Girotti spoke strictly about the response of a confessor, and not about the wider responsibility to acknowledge and investigate priestly sexual abuse outside the confessional.
So he’s not saying that everything possible shouldn’t be done outside the confessional to investigate abuse. He’s dealing with what goes on under the seal of confession, which—among other things—prohibits the confessor from himself revealing the penitent’s sin.
Then there is this:
“It is not up to the confessor to make them public or to ask the penitent to incriminate himself in front of superiors. This is true because, on one hand, the sacramental seal remains inviolable and, on the other hand, one cannot provoke mistrust in the penitent,” he said.
“From the confessor, (the penitent) can only expect absolution, certainly not a sentence nor the order to confess his crime in public,” he said.
In the first quotation Bishop Girotti seems to be saying that (a) the confessor cannot make the sins public because of the seal and (b) he should not ask the penitent to incriminate himself because to do so would provoke mistrust in the penitent.
(a) is very certainly true. (b) would seem to be questionable.
In the second quotation Bishop Girotti refers to “a sentence” and “the order” to confess publicly. There may be a translation issue here, but he may be alluding to one of a number of things.
Perhaps by “a sentence” he means (c) sentencing the penitent to self-incriminate as part of the act of penance required for absolution.
Perhaps by “the order” he refers to (d) demanding that the penitent self-incriminate but not as a condition of absolution.
If he is saying that a confessor must not require the penitent to self-incriminate as a condition of absolution then he is absolutely correct. If that were possible then any priest in the world would be able to circumvent the seal of confession by simply requiring penitents to publicly self-incriminate. It would defeat the whole purpose of the seal.
“You committed a sexual sin? I think it would be spiritually advantageous in motivating you not to do it again by admitting it publicly. Your penance is to admit it on YouTube.”
“You stole something? It would serve you well in motivating you not to do it again by self-incriminating. Your penance is to go turn yourself in to the cops.”
While public self-accusation was sometimes practiced in the early years of the Christian faith, the pastoral experience of the Church has been that it is much more pastorally advisable to assure penitents that they will not be publicly exposed, which is why the seal was created in the first place. To require penitents to publicly reveal their sins would defeat its whole purpose.
Rome is very serious about the integrity of the seal, and to keep anybody from even thinking about ways to circumvent it, the Code of Canon Law bluntly states:
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.
§2. The interpreter, if there is one, and all others who in any way have knowledge of sins from confession are also obliged to observe secrecy.
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.
§2. A person who has been placed in authority cannot use in any manner for external governance the knowledge about sins which he has received in confession at any time.
So the priest could not sentence a penitent to self-incrimination as a requirement of absolution.
Could he order him to self-incriminate?
Apart from the elements required for the sacrament, such as the assignment of a penance, the confessor does not have authority over the penitent. A confessor could not say, “For your penance say three Hail Marys. Oh, and apart from your penance, I also order you to take up a career in journalism (or fill in the blank with some other act that isn’t part of the penance).”
For lack of ability to order the penitent to do something, the most the confessor would be able to do would be to implore, encourage, urge, etc., the penitent to self-incriminate, either before Church or civil authorities.
To what extent should he do that?
Here there is room for debate.
From the news story, Bishop Girotti appears to think that this should not generally be done out of concern that it could alienate the penitent—to discourage him from seeking God’s mercy in the way that is ordinarily required for the forgiveness of mortal sin.
To answer the question one would need to take into account both the goods to be achieved by encouraging the penitent to turn himself in and the harms that could result.
So I’m wondering what the readers think.
How strongly and in what circumstances should a confessor urge a penitent to turn himself in? Does it matter whether the penitent is a priest or a layman? If it is you? Does it matter whether the sin is sexual abuse or something else? What sins should be ones that a confessor encourages self-incrimination for? What ones shouldn’t he? How can we distinguish the two? And what would happen to your willingness to go to confession if you knew you would meet with a strong encouragement to self-incriminate?
Ooh, ooh, I actually know this one! To see if I’m correct, I’ll comment before reading the link and then correct myself if I turn out to be wrong. As an internal-forum matter, that situation would have to be referred to the Roman dicastary that handles internal-forum delicts, which I think is the Penitentiary. Now let’s see if I’m right…
OK, turns out I was wrong. The Apostolic Penitentiary does have jurisdiction over internal forum matters, and cases involving sexual contact between a priest and a penitent are reserved to the AP if I remember, but I was just flat out wrong about absolution of general sexual abuse by a cleric being reserved to the AP. You learn something every day.
Awful situation. I believe St. Pio denied absolution if he deemed the penitent wasn’t truly repentant. Perhaps the priest can admonish the confessor to turn himself in for the sake of the child to get the help needed, to lock him away to protect other children, and so that justice can be served? If the confessor balks, he should admonish the priest that no earthly justice will compare to the justice that awaits after death.
He can be granted absolution later from the prison cell.
I’d always heard that when a thief confesses, the priest can tell them to turn themselves in as a form of restitution, because that is one of the conditions of absolution: confess, do penance, amend your life. Part of amending your life is to give restitution to those you offended by your sin – in this example, it would be to give money/property back to the one(s) from whom you stole it.
In the case of the child abuser, the restitution would be to do the opposite of the crime. Just as the thief who took money/property must do the opposite (give it back), the abuser must do the opposite: protect the innocent. The only way that would be open to the abuser to protect the injured would be to admit the crime to the civil authorities, so they can be locked up (or otherwise counseled) so they never do it again.
I’d always heard that when a thief confesses, the priest can tell them to turn themselves in as a form of restitution, because that is one of the conditions of absolution: confess, do penance, amend your life. Part of amending your life is to give restitution to those you offended by your sin – in this example, it would be to give money/property back to the one(s) from whom you stole it.
Actually, a priest is never able to tell the penitent to turn himself in, because, as Jimmy explained, it binds the penitent to reveal what he has put forth under the seal of confession, and so this violates the seal.
Now, a priest can require the penitent to somehow make restitution. This means that if a person has, for example, stolen some money, he can be required to return it. Unless I am remembering incorrectly, however, he is not to be required to actually turn himself in, and could for example return the money in an anonymous way.
I think a priest in that situation ought to refuse absolution unless there is sufficient evidence of contrition – ie, willingness to remove oneself from the ministry.
>Actually, a priest is never able to tell the penitent to turn himself in, because, as Jimmy explained, it binds the penitent to reveal what he has put forth under the seal of confession, and so this violates the seal.
The Seal of the Confessional deals with the vow of secrecy for the priest hearing the confession – not that the penetent 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.”
http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=1385&CFID=24138931&CFTOKEN=52938148
The confessor should be jailed as an accessory (or at least for obstructing justice) if it is later found out that the pedophile committed more molestations any time after that confession.
I guess that James C. thinks that a confessor should either incur automatic excommunication and serious sin by breaking the Seal of Confession, or kill the penitent to make sure he doesn’t sin again (which would be another serious sin). I guess the latter is one way a confessor could insure that a penitent obey our Lord’s directive from Sunday’s Gospel to “Sin no more”.
You’re right, Bill. The “seal of confession” is far more important than the lifelong damage done to an innocent child. I’m sure Jesus would fall on your side with this one.
“I’m sure Jesus would fall on your side with this one.”
You are correct; He is against mortal sin.
Wow. You’re either being obstinant for the sake of ruffling someone’s feathers, or you really have a limited understand of . . . probably everything.
“It is never lawful to do evil that good may come of it.”–Pope Paul VI, “Humanae Vitae”.
I’m in good company.
“The confessor should be jailed as an accessory (or at least for obstructing justice) if it is later found out that the pedophile committed more molestations any time after that confession.”
James likes the idea of destroying Catholic sacraments. This is just a plausible-sounding excuse.
I’m wondering if James C. is Catholic. If he isn’t, this might explain some of the confusion.
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.
One way to look at this is in the case of Murder. If one confesses homicide, do I violate the seal based upon the increased likelihood that he might kill again?
The reason we insist upon absolute silence is so that anyone will bring anything before the Lord for healing, in a spirit of true repentance. Imagine how worthless the Sacrament would become if we put restrictions on what we were legally entitled to report.
The seal is a man-made construct to ensure the confidentiality of penitents. In general, it is a good, common sense idea; but as it arose from common sense, so too must it be judged by common sense. A pedophile who suspects you are on to him, or wishes to avoid exposure by fellow priests, may indeed use confession as a means to silence them. This has happened before.
In such situations, we must call to mind the principle Jesus expounded for enforcing laws concerning the Sabbath. The seal is a disciplinary matter, and Rome is wrong in saying that it applies absolutely. If I ever became a priest, you can bet I’d turn a pedophile in pronto if he confessed to me. Same goes for murderers, rapists, etc…
If it’s a violent crime, current canon law should be modified to permit the breaking of the seal. Keeping the law as it is, in light of everything that’s going on in the Church, is an atrocity crying out to heaven for redress.
I should also add (for non-Catholic James C.’s benefit) that Protestant pastors and ministers are also protected by law in the state of Illinois. So, if – in the context of “spiritual direction” or “consultation” or whatever the language is, precisely – someone comes and admits to abuse, the minister is not legally obligated to report under normal mandatory reporter laws.
I think the questions that should be asked in this discussion are, ” What is the The Church’s teaching on pedophilia, molestation, and sexual abuse?” and then, “Doesn’t The Church have a moral obligation to protect and advocate on the part of the victims and oppressed?”
This is not an matter of some priests being a little naughty.
Deacon Josh’s last paragraph is spot on.
“The confessor should be jailed as an accessory (or at least for obstructing justice) if it is later found out that the pedophile committed more molestations any time after that confession.”
Now, now, I don’t think so. From a legal standpoint, the confessor has a right to remain silent about his dealings with the perpetrator. From a divine perspective, the confessor is jammed in a hard moral dilemma. I don’t think we should go on witch hunts for good men of the cloth who were only doing what they thought was God’s will in the matter, especially since it isn’t against the law.
Deacon Josh’s last paragraph in his first post was the one I was referring to. (His second post is good, too).
Well Geoffrey, I hope you will reveal that during your studies for the priesthood. That would put an end to your studies. As it should.
It’s true that the seal is a human construct, 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.
Do you plan to repent after your grievous sin? If so, your repentance is invalid.
But it sounds like you wouldn’t be sorry for what you plan to do. In which case, you would plan to commit a grievous mortal sin and then refuse to repent.
Wouldn’t it be ironic if your penitent and his victim both got to heaven and mourned the fact that you were…elsewhere?
“If you love Me, follow My commandments.”
Crazier still, in reference to how serious the Seal is taken:
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.
” Imagine how worthless the Sacrament would become if we put restrictions on what we were legally entitled to report.”
The Sacrament is already worthless to pedophiles or murderers who won’t turn themselves in. It’s impossible that such a person has true repentance and wishes to set things right, so the grace of absolution won’t “stick.” Part of restitution in these cases means admitting your crime publicly and facing up to the law.
This situation under consideration is entirely different from some guy fessing up to having masturbated or two teenagers coming clean about having slept together. The harm pedophilia or murder, etc…, is unimaginably grave and the danger of repeat offenders is too great to ignore. There is a qualitative difference with such grave crimes that demands they be treated separate from other sins, even some very grave sins.
Having such a resolute devotion to this man-made seal, this human addition to divine law, strikes me as the worst kind of pharisaism run a-mock. Jesus Christ himself was quite casual about thrusting off such nonsense in his own actions. We should do likewise. Our Master himself thought this sort of thing madness. You strain out nats with it and swallow camels, I believe, were his words.
Geoffrey, if what you are saying is correct, then every priest in the world would be either instructed or required to make turning one’s self in the necessary penance. The priest can council this prior to absolution, sure. But to require it, or to state that it is “impossible” to truly repent without turning one’s self in, is a stretch. When you come right down to it, the “matter” of the Sacrament can be summed up in one word: sorrow.
What to do, for instance, when a woman is crying after having confessed to an abortion five years ago? Is there no way for her to make satisfaction with the Lord, outside of telling the world that she murdered her unborn? Must she become a pro-life crusader?
Jeff, the god you describe, who is ready to damn a concerned priest for reporting a pedophile and protecting innocent children, is a demon, not God.
“Geoffrey, if what you are saying is correct, then every priest in the world would be either instructed or required to make turning one’s self in the necessary penance.”
I would support that, definitely.
“When you come right down to it, the “matter” of the Sacrament can be summed up in one word: sorrow.”
No, the matter is a resolute stand to better one’s self in the eyes of God and man and to make proper restitution for the sin committed to the best of one’s ability. The matter also includes an openness to God’s mercy and a humble awareness of one’s inability to completely make amends (though this does not dispense of the duty to try).
“What to do, for instance, when a woman is crying after having confessed to an abortion five years ago? Is there no way for her to make satisfaction with the Lord, outside of telling the world that she murdered her unborn? Must she become a pro-life crusader?”
Categorical fallacy. The danger of repeat offense is negligible, the act is (unfortunately) not against the law, and yes, she is to make amends as best she can and assisting in a pro-life program is ideal for that purpose.
Penance given in confession should, ideally, match or relate to the sin committed. Otherwise, how is it supposed to help somebody amend their life?
The kind of minimalist view of confession that seems to be dominate demeans the Sacrament to the status of a cheap way to avoid consequences for your actions. This is what man has turned God’s institution of healing into. This is not how it was in the beginning, and it is not how it should be now.
The one who admitted that he wouldn’t hesitate to commit a serious sin were he a priest hearing a confession is now holding forth on others “demean(ing)” the sacrament. Irony abounds.
“The one who admitted that he wouldn’t hesitate to commit a serious sin were he a priest hearing a confession is now holding forth on others “demean(ing)” the sacrament. Irony abounds.”
As does the spiritual blindness of some folks. Are you really willing to offer up innocent children on the altar of this god you’ve made of the all-holy, inviolable (man-made) seal?
Applying these same criteria to Jesus convicts him of mortal sin for healing a man on the Sabbath, or for picking corn, or even for not washing his hands before eating. These matters were held by the Hebrews as being just as sacred as you hold the seal to be. And certainly, by your measure, Jesus is to be faulted for betraying the trust of his disciples by first declaring the law of Moses would not be altered or abolished before promptly abolishing and altering it in striking ways, including the abrogation of kosher laws.
My point is, it is ironic that those whose Master had as a major theme of his teaching ministry the rejection of pharisaism should fall into the same error, but on a matter far more grave.
And note who is being quick to condemn here. I have not said priests should be punished for keeping silent, but you would, in theory, punish me for talking. My only crime here is speaking truth in a world gone mad, and in a Church gone mad.
Fine, accuse me of mortal sin. I don’t even care if you say my words come from Beelzebub, because folks said the same about Jesus. I know that Jesus is my Lord, and he will be my judge in this matter and all matters. May he have mercy on you and open your eyes to reality.
“I know that Jesus is my Lord, and he will be my judge in this matter and all matters.”
Yes, and “with what judgment you judge, you shall be judged.”
Excellent. I haven’t judged anyone worthy of hell here, I’ve said priests who keep silent are within their rights, and I’ve advocated turning in pedophiles to the authorities and NOT punishing priests for breaking the seal of confession for grave reasons, but in fact encouraging them to do so and altering canon law in order to prevent the Sacrament from causing harm to children and to clarify and enhance its true purposes.
So, pretty much all you can abstract as a measure of judgement from the above is that people who disobey a certain Church discipline are not to be punished. That’s a measure of judgement I’m cool with being applied to me.
Please think before you issue “gotcha” statements. It’s poor rhetoric to threaten your opponent in a debate with something that really isn’t threatening.
Irony still abounds.
This sin can be comparible to murder, yet the soul impacted is now under the pressure of the world in its damaged state. The priest can give absolution if the accused is truly repentant, but the sinner must fully understand the breach of trust she/he has caused with the victim and the church. Turning oneself in should be recommended and expected for the sake of the victim, but not forced for absolution to take place. Restitution or penance for such an act, will take one’s whole life. The priest should direct the sinner to a place to go for help as part of the penance.
The most interesting question posed by the article is, “Does it matter whether the penitent is a priest or a layman?”
Yes, it matters because a confessor is not a law enforcement officer. In hearing confession from a layman, the priest can do his job with a single-minded purpose to administer the sacrament. Yes, there’s a question of conscience in shielding a known wrongdoer, but that is part and parcel of signing up for the priesthood. They have voluntarily taken on that moral burden, calculating that it serves a larger purpose. It is a commonplace.
When the penitent is a fellow priest, however, there are other duties that come into conflict and that change the equation. While it is not a priest’s job to present evidence to the district attorney, it is his job to not knowingly invite his parishioners into the care of a pedophile.
The confessor has been forced into a position of tacitly endorsing the abusing priest and thereby contributing to any future misconduct. If one doubts this, imagine what you would think of a non-abusing priest who kept quietly working alongside the known pedophile despite learning of the abuse outside the seal of confession.
Perhaps Canon Law should be reviewed with an eye toward removing penitent priests from the occasion of sin as part of their penance, by official action when necessary.
Here’s the thing; I don’t see how breaking the seal of confession for such a compelling reason is a grievous sin. I would be tempted to say not breaking the seal is a grievous sin in this instance, though I am stayed from doing so by thousands of years of the wisdom of common law and natural law: folks have a right to remain silent on these things. The priest who hears the confession of a pedophile is not doing something damnable by refusing to get involved. He isn’t doing what perfection would recommend, what courage would demand, but he isn’t being a monster or an accomplice to crime either. Folks are entitled not to get involved in crimes they didn’t commit, if they so choose. I don’t like it, but that’s how it is.
Even more scandalous is the natural law’s extension of the inalienable right to remain silent to avoid incrimination to the guilty themselves. But a moment of reflection reveals such a thing is indeed good and just.
The best argument against my position is that the right to remain silent is extendable to conversations had in confidentiality with religious figures. This principle is already in place for secular counselors, psychiatrists, and doctors. Regrettably, no one has cared to offer anything resembling a reasoned argument against me.
On deeper thought, the inalienable right to remain silent is in place in order to protect innocent people from being coerced into giving false confessions, or suspected of guilt before guilt is established (innocence must be presumed in accord with the law of hospitality until guilt is proven beyond reasonable doubt). I can see how the common good would demand the extension of confidentiality to certain relationships such as that between a patient and doctor, a client and counselor, and a penitent and priest. Therefore, according to the dictates of natural law, the seal of confession should be inviolable for the purpose of guaranteeing the common good.
Well, what do you know, I refuted myself. No thanks to you all.
I still maintain you’re pharisees though. ;-P
I’m sorry, but I thought that failure to observe the civil law (at least where such failure would risk harm to the public good in some way) was an obligation under the Decalogue, and thus sinful matter, and grave matter where the risk to the public good is grave. Nowadays, with affirmative reporting required under the civil law when one in certain positions becomes aware of child abuse, that means one is obliged to make public disclosures, and failure to do so is a sin, and objectively grave matter at that. So, an abuser priest coming in to confess who is not willing to comply with the civil law would be like any other person coming in and being unwilling to disavow a sinful state of life. Right? So that would mean that complying with the law would not be a penance but a condition for absolution because failure to do that would be per se evidence of lack of contrition. Right?
Wrong.
So wrong.
Liam: One of the problems here is that you’re mixing terms. Contrition is simply the sorrow one feels for having done something wrong, combined with a firm resolution never to do it again. The Act of Contrition we all likely memorized at some point sums up precisely what this term means.
Now, notice something: just because I’m sorry for having offended God’s law, and firmly intend never to do it again, doesn’t mean I must necessarily turn myself in to a local authority.
Restitution is something different. It’s an attempt to right some wrong you’ve caused, and is most often manifested in the case of theft. If I can restore someone’s property, for example, and give them back what I have taken, then I’ve made restitution. This is preferably done in such a way that everyone comes out feeling better about it.
The problem with restitution in terms of violence or sexual abuse is that I can’t make restitution. Nothing’s going to unring that bell.
Now, we could talk about whether or not I have a moral obligation to seek pardon and forgiveness through the act of turning myself in. But this is outside the purview of the Sacrament, unless the penance prescribed to the penitent includes it.
Deacon Josh’s comment that, ‘the seal is man-made’…is yes and no. Remember the lord’s words to Peter what you bind on earth is bound in heaven, what you loose on earth is loosed in heaven. Man-made and divine mandate have been intertwined in such a way that they can only be fully understood by the magesterium. Secondly, always remember Jesus protected the woman from being stoned which was her due by law. I do not think things are so general or simple as you have made them.
For the record, Fr. Shawn, I never asserted that the seal is man-made. I believe that was another Miller 🙂
There is absolutely no time when a priest can reveal anything learned in confession. Any Catholic who thinks there are exceptions, or should be, has no idea of the nature of the sacrament as well as the long standing law of the Church. Furthermore, as a matter of moral principle, no priest can oblige a penitent to do anything that would reveal the penitent’s sin to anyone else. He might counsel or encourage, but he can not make it obligatory.
In the confessional a person is kneeling before the Lord Himself in a sacramental manner. The Lord never tells us to let the world know that we deserve to be punished and destroyed because of our sins.
There is altogether too much emotion about sins against innocent children, and not enough prayerful thought. As bad as child abuse is, (and as a child social worker I know more of it than most), there are many sins more grievous.
I wonder why no one points out the obvious:
If priests reported crimes heard in the confessional, criminals won’t confess them.
So far from protecting anyone, it will remove the slight chance of protecting people. A priest can, in the confessional, instruct the criminal that it is his duty to turn himself in; even if only some are moved by it, it’s some. Or he can impose other penances that might help. Like where the child molestor is a woman working in child care, and the priest tells her she must quit her job and never again take a job working with small children (which is not an example that I have made up).
The seal of confession applies to the priest hearing the confession, that is, the priest cannot disclose what is heard in the confessional. I don’t think there is such an onus on the person doing the confession. If so, please enlighten me.
I think he could encourage him to get help through his Bishop but their could be no forcing him.
I also would like to think, that he could encourage him to discuss it with his Bishop about it being a near occasion of sin, thus removing himself from active duty.
That would have to be one of the hardest confessions to hear.
Or it would be for me.
I know if the child confesses to him and that is revealed, he can help the child contact the authorities, etc, with permission.
Deacon Miller
I understand that. I also understand that a priest cannot compel self-disclosure, nor himself disclose, as such.
But.
When a divorced and remarried person approaches the confessor, and discloses his state of life, the confessor will withhold absolution until the penitent indicates a willingness to resolve his sinful state of life. Likewise, being in a state of gravely sinful non-compliance with the civil law is a sinful state; the confessor would be prudent to ask if the penitent has resolved to comply with the civil law on disclosure – if the penitent says no, how is that not an indication of intention to persist in grave sin, thus contradicting a state of contrition? Please explain that.
I don’t think people understand that the gravity of complying with civil laws as a confessional matter; we’ve so inbibed our American sense of separation that we forget the Church itself binds us to compliance, often as grave matter.
I like where Mary is going with this…I am going to be confirmed in a few weeks, and quite frankly, I was under the impression that priests could order those who had committed grave criminal acts to turn themselves in as a condition of their absolution. That being said, I can see why that would be a destructive practice, as it would simply discourage those who had committed such acts from coming to the sacrament at all.
Isn’t their a middle way, though? Can’t the Church issue stronger guidance to priests concerning the counsel and penance they provide in such situations, especially in light of the current European scandal? The priest might be forbidden from binding the penitent to turning themselves in, but they can at least reason with them about the consequences of not doing so, about the scandal it will bring, about the faithful it might drive away, about the damage it will continue to mean to the children, about the likelihood that they will abuse again, about the occasion it will give the world to scorn the Church, about the potential of losing their eternal soul through the hardening of repeated sin, etc. It just seems that there needs to be stronger guidance from the upper eschelons about how such a confession is to be handled.
Then again, one thing we don’t actually know is how often pedophile priests actually use the sacrament of confession. It might be that it’s so rare that this is effectively a non-issue, right?
CrazyIvan,
When you go to confession, it is supposed to be with a mindset of repentance and amend your life so that you will not fall back into that same sin. If you committed a crime, one of the ways to amend your life is to submit to the civil system. If someone is unwilling to do that, are they truly coming to confession with the mindset of changing their lives, or are they just trying to ease their mind? All of the Church’s sacraments have three parts. Matter, form, and intent. In confession, intent is reliant on both the priest and the penitent. If the intent on the part of the penitent is not there, there is no sacrament.
Confessing to civil authorities is not, I think, an essential element of a sincere intent to amend one’s ways, even when one’s sins are also crimes. But in a situation where continuing the normal (and not intrinsically sinful) course of one’s life would present serious temptations to repeat past sins, it might be reasonable for a confessor to tell the penitent to take whatever steps are necessary to avoid those temptations.
In the case of a priest who has committed sexual sins with young parishioners, this would certainly mean, at the very least, asking the bishop for an assignment which doesn’t put the penitent in contact with children, and telling him as much as is necessary to impress upon him the urgency of the request, just as a priest who confesses to embezzling funds should ask to be taken out of authority over parish finances. A penitent unwilling to avoid the near occasion of sin can’t really be considered contrite, and for a priest (who can’t switch jobs without permission from his bishop) avoiding the near occasion of sin might consequentially entail a non-sacramental sort of confession.
The Church has been and often is still a bit too ready to grant absolution in the absence of real evidence of contrition. But that has nothing whatsoever to do with the Confessional Seal. The seal is absolute. It must remain absolute. If action outside the confessional is to be taken either in penance for past sins or in service of avoiding temptation to future ones, it must be the penitent who takes that action.
Matt
But here’s a rub. In most states, ministers (among other classes of persons, specified or general) have an affirmative duty under civil law to disclose their knowledge of child abuse – not only not to abuse, but not to conceal abuse by silence; I can see no grounds for the Church to object to the immorality of such laws, or to diminish the gravity of matter involved. This “nuance” seems to be ignored.
Greg E.,
Your comment seems to indicate that you view confession of crimes to civil authorities as necessarily implicit to the intent of the sinner in sacramental confession. If this is the case, what is wrong with the priest receiving the confession making that explicit as part of the penance and therefore a condition of absolution, especially in the case of sexual abuse by a priest where so much collateral damage is being done in so many ways? Still, I tend to agree with Matt’s comment that confessing to civil authorities is not appropriate in every case where a crime has been committed.
I have to say that I am pretty disappointed to hear that priests are almost completely discouraged from binding the penitent to criminal confession in extreme cases. The chance to cut is a chance to cure. Confessing to egregious crimes would be painful for the sinner, but our redemption was and is painful, and the glory of forgiveness far exceeds the pain.
Thanks for your reply.
I don’t usually blog here but the sexual abuse scandal and the media’s terrible bitter attacks on the Holy Father have motivated me to learn as much as I can about the Church’s response. Liam, would you have an example of the many states with laws on mandatory reporting of child sexual abuse? I would be interested in the scope of the obligation- eg. how much/what kind of/the circumstances of obtaining such knowledge, etc.etc.
Hi again, Liam. You ask:
When a divorced and remarried person approaches the confessor, and discloses his state of life, the confessor will withhold absolution until the penitent indicates a willingness to resolve his sinful state of life. Likewise, being in a state of gravely sinful non-compliance with the civil law is a sinful state; the confessor would be prudent to ask if the penitent has resolved to comply with the civil law on disclosure – if the penitent says no, how is that not an indication of intention to persist in grave sin, thus contradicting a state of contrition? Please explain that.
In terms of the moral theology behind civil law: where it becomes a matter of morality (or sinful, or even matter for sin) is in the breaking of the law. In this case, the law that protects the welfare of children. It is implied that when an individual confesses to abuse, they acknowledge their transgression from the law.
Now, if they’re sorry for having broken both man’s law and God’s law, and are firmly committed to avoiding their sins in the future, this is a wonderful confession and the priest can offer absolution for these things without hesitation. To my knowledge — and mind you, I in no way consider myself a moral theologian, as my specialty tends toward natural theology/philosophy — someone who commits murder or has abused someone is not in a state of perpetual non-compliance with the law, because they’ve already committed the act. The Church has always been hesitant (and for good reason) to draw uniform conclusions regarding the application of civil law upon individuals. This is why I suggested earlier that we can have a good and valid discussion as to whether or not I have a moral obligation in the name of virtue to turn myself in, but ultimately this is settled outside of the context of Reconciliation.
But let’s just run with it, assuming that your assumptions are correct. Let us assume that this individual is indeed in a state of perpetual non-compliance, and let’s assume that this qualifies as serious matter, and let us make an even bigger assumption: the person knows this is an issue (if a person doesn’t know any of these things, it decreases culpability). Anyway, assuming these conditions are in place, we’ve created a seperate issue spawning from the first. So, say he’s sorry for abusing the child, and he’s firmly resolved never to do it again. That’s good enough, and all I need, for that particular sin. However, he may not qualify for absolution in regard to his state of perpetual non-compliance against civil law, again assuming that this is even an issue.
As you’ve already noted, the problem in the case of remarriage outside the Church (almost always without annulment), is that we’re forced to ask how the penitent is committed to avoiding the sin of adultery/fornication in the future. If a penitent is living as brother-and-sister with their spouse and never intends to engage in sexual activity, this is sufficient. However, we all know this isn’t usually the case. So how do we have sufficient grounds to to believe that they’re going to avoid future sexual contact? If absolution is withheld in this regard, it’s because there’s no indication that the penitent intends to do the right thing.
I would like to know if a priest in mortal sin can still invoke the words of institution? If so, why?
RMI:
I can speak to this personally, since I’m a mandated reporter, a status that will become more complicated in a couple of months by my ordination to the priesthood.
I am from Illinois. I am obligated by law to report evidence of abuse in all instances, save two: 1) When I eventually end up in the confessional, and 2) Directly within the context of spiritual direction/direct ministerial contact. So, say I see signs of physical abuse, or a child admits to being abused in casual conversation. I’m required to report this to the authorities in every instance.
Here’s an excellent site explaining the differences in states.
As to the states which exclude any exemption for the confessional? Tough beans. I’d rather be thrown to the dogs than follow a law in contradiction to my personal obligations to Christ and His Church. And I’m guessing every single priest hearing confessions in those states agrees with me 100%.
Ronald asks:
I would like to know if a priest in mortal sin can still invoke the words of institution? If so, why?
Sure can. This was settled with the heresy of Donatism, in the long-long ago.
The reason is because a priest’s Sacramental efficacy is not contingent upon the state of his mortal soul: grace still operates through him when he acts in the person of Christ/the Church, by way of his ordination, even though me may himself be long gone.
Deacon Miller, you wrote;
“If I ever became a priest, you can bet I’d turn a pedophile in pronto if he confessed to me. Same goes for murderers, rapists, etc…”
and then
“There is absolutely no time when a priest can reveal anything learned in confession. Any Catholic who thinks there are exceptions, or should be, has no idea of the nature of the sacrament as well as the long standing law of the Church.”
I don’t understand. Is there no time that a Priest is ever allowed to reveal? If so, then why are you stating that you would disobey and reveal? I am not trying to challenge you. I just don’t understand. Would you explain please?
Or are there two Deacon Millers? I’m so confused!
-Tim-
Deacon Miller
You pay attention to one civil law but ignore another civil law. That is, the breaking of the law against abusing a child is a one-time act. But the breaking of the law imposing a duty to disclose, to not conceal by silence, is an *ongoing* state of law-breaking – it’s not a single act but a state of law-breaking until it is complied with. And breaking the law (unless the law is immoral or the breaking has no negative impact on the common good) is a sinful thing under the Ten Commandments – so it’s grave matter unless the negative effects are not grave, which no one could credibly claim in this instance. Thus it’s like being in a state of unlawful marriage.
Tim H.: The first quoted section isn’t mine. Names are just below the comment: I believe what you quote there belongs to a Geoffrey Miller.
Liam:
What interests me is how we’re able to handle this within the context of confession, and as I explained — if your interpretation of a moral obligation to the law is correct, as far as it concerns your responsibility to bring these things to the law — then it’s possible to receive absolution for one thing (the crime) and not the other (the obligation to the state, if indeed that obligation is just. Requiring a priest to report these things in the context of the Sacrament, for example, is unjust, and this has been ratified throughout Church history; one of Poland’s saints was a priest thrown off a bridge by a king, after he refused to spill the beans on a penitent).
Notice how we’re saying the same thing, if indeed your assumptions are true. I’m merely explaining why a person can indeed receive absolution for abuse under the requirements the Church hands to us, sans having to necessarily turn one’s self in. Both of us agree that it would be ideal and noble to handle both obligations to the state; it’s not a matter of me ignoring one in favor of the other, but rather I’m attempting to explain why all of the requirements the Church gives us for absolution are otherwise satisfied for an act of clerical/lay abuse.
Liam,
If I may interject,
The just laws of the state bind its citizens to comply. However, when a law demands that a Catholic violate the teaching of the Church, then that Catholic must submit to the higher authority. Obeying the Church’s law regarding the seal of the confessional has the unintended affect that the priest is not obeying civil law.
God speaks through His Church, and while it is just to require people to report sex offenders, God’s expectation of a priest is that he be obedient to the Church. I believe the Constitution forbids denying the rights believers (in this case priests) the right to practice their religion.
Excuse me, the reporting duty is on the part of the abuser penitent, not the confessor. That does not violate the seal. The issue is that the penitent comes to confession in a state of ongoing violation of the law (the law imposing an affirmative duty of disclosure) with no intention of compliance. That means a confessor would have good grounds to conclude the penitent is not contrite as he must be – one cannot be contrite for one grave sin but not contrite for another grave sin and yet receive absolution.
Are you familiar with the laws that have been enacted to require dislosure by all sorts of people when they have reason to believe a child has been the victim of abuse? The abuser himself is no less subject to that legal duty – as he has first hand knowledge – and that failure would be among the offenses with which he may be charged or for which he may be subject to punishment.
Yep, Liam, you’re exactly correct on the legal obligation pertaining to the culprit.
This has me thinking about something else interesting, so I appreciate how thought-provoking your point is. I’m wondering what the gravity of the matter is (whether or not it’s grave) due to the fact that man-made laws of this nature are somewhat relative. This probably points toward my lack of knowledge in natural law and precisely what constitutes grave matter.
By the way, if you guys ever meet a moral theologian, shake his or her hand. They deserve thanks for kicking stuff like this around for a living :).
Domino! Devils advocate? The sin is not absolved unless the perpetrator is advised to turn themself in the civil authorities and does so.
Tim,
I do not know what your confusion is. I wrote:
“There is absolutely no time when a priest can reveal anything learned in confession. Any Catholic who thinks there are exceptions, or should be, has no idea of the nature of the sacrament as well as the long standing law of the Church.”
I am not Deacon Miller. If he indeed wrote what you said he hardly seems fit for holy orders. I am a priest and a social worker for children. I know what I am talking about. Many here making comments do not have either the training or the qualifications to address these matters. I would wager $1000.00 with anyone, that if you write to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and ask what are the times when a priest may reveal what he has learned in confession, the answer will simply be, NEVER! And this law binds a priest under pain of excommunication reserved in a most special manner to the Holy Father. In confession, a man is speaking, as it were, to God in the depths of his heart. The Church even allows priests to deny under oath that they know something if they learned it in confession!. They are allowed to do this in both civil and ecclesiastical courts.
The law of God and the Church is supreme. No human authority or government can rightly compel the disclosure of crimes confessed. Talk that failing to report certain crimes is a sin because the State requires it is shallow and ignorant of moral law.
I’ve found this interesting in part because I find it quite surprising to what extent even Catholics feel the seal of the confessional is optional. It isn’t.
I also find this interesting as there’s a strong throwing stones aspect to it. Coming, as it does, on the heels of the Pope’s letter on the Irish situation, this is not surprising. But, working as a lawyer, I’ve become convinced that the number of people who carry around secret hidden sins of all types is stunningly large. This doesn’t excuse the conduct of anyone, but it also doesn’t mean that we can throw confessions out for anyone, and I strongly suspect that amongst those who express indignation and would have the Church dispense with the seal are any number of people who pack around heinous sins that they feel ought to be kept secret.
Indeed, I’m very much reminded, while reading this, that the civil (rather than moral) law makes an exception here for lawyers. I’m a lawyer. People can tell me about all sorts of nasty crimes and I’m under no obligation at all to tell anyone about them, save for the single exception that if I’m aware of an impending commission of a serious crime I can do something about that (although sometimes in odd ways). Otherwise, I can’t be compelled to testify about my knowledge about such things. No lawyer for a criminal defendant can be hauled up on the stand, put under oath, and asked if the client did it.
Also, a wife can’t be compelled to testify against a husband, or vice versa. And there are other “privileges” the law recognizes in this regards. For the most part, fwiw, no clergyman can be compelled to testify what a member of their flock has told them.
Anyhow, it’s funny how people now feel that this area should be reexamined, when the individuals in society who know the most about dirty deeds of various people, lawyers, get a free pass. And we should, too. But it’s odd that people have faith in a civil system with obvious problems, but will turn on members of the clergy.
Sky: I think the confusion is caused because the names under the comments are sometimes attributed to the post below them. It’s happened twice to me in this conversation. The layout is indeed a bit confusing. We’re both pitching the same story here :).
The practical matter forgotten by those who think the church should make exceptions is that if the penitent did not expect/contract for absolute confidentiality then they probably would not confess such crimes in the first place, and so the possibility of disclosure by the priest would not arise…
Remember: I am *not* discussing disclosure by the confessor; many here appear to be confused on that score – what I am discussing involves *no* violation of the seal. I am also not discussing disclosure by the penitent as a penance.
If the information was gained in the Sacrament of Confession proper the confessor cannot give any information to parties such as the police. I don’t believe it’s a reserved sin, so the confessor must give absolution if he believes the conditions for absolution have been met.
But my question is that the confessor has good grounds to consider that a key condition for absolution (namely, contrition for all grave sins) has not in fact been met when the penitent is in a state of ongoing serious sin that he has not committed to end.
Greg E put it well
If someone who committed adultery went to confession and confessed his sin,but only to ease his mind for the moment, having no intent to stop adultery, then his confession is not only worthless and invalid, but it becomes another mortal sin of sacrilige.
The same with a child rapist who confesses his sin only to ease his mind for the moment with no long term intent of amendment.
All the confessor can do, under Gods Law in the Church, is advise him to give himself up to the civil authorities as part of his penance and then give him absolution.
That is all that a confessor may do. Period.
Under Church Law he may never, ever reveal in any way shape or form the penitents sin, to anyone, else he is excommunicated.
All else is useless speculation.
I wouldn’t tell anybody and would give him absolution and everything. But as soon as he left the confessional box I would beat the crap out of him.
Liam,
Apologies for apparently misunderstanding your point.
“The abuser himself is no less subject to that legal duty – as he has first hand knowledge – and that failure would be among the offenses with which he may be charged or for which he may be subject to punishment.”
I don’t think that laws requiring the reporting of crimes against children necessarily apply to the prep., since the fifth amendment protects all citizens from self-incrimination. Of course, it’s a good thing for a criminal to admit his sin to proper authorities, but, apparently, the Church does not consider that necessary for absolution. At least that’s what I’m getting from Jimmy’s post.
David
What about the many non-US jurisdicitions that don’t necessarily have privileges against self-incrimination but have similar disclosure laws such that non-compliance would be an ongoing graveful sinful state that one would have to commit to renounce, like being in an unlawful union?
Liam,
I don’t know. But it seems to me that the thing which denies the consideration of self-incrimination (or disclosure) as required for absolution is the fact that the Church apparently deems intent to publicly disclose the sin as unnecessary. That does not mean that the Church opposes public disclosure, of course.
Furthermore, while sorrow for and firm purpose to avoid grave sin are necessary for absolution, public confession is, apparently, not. If this is the case (as it seems it is), then neither public confession of adultery nor public confession of sex abuse (though salutary for the offender and important for society) is needed for absolution.
The point then being that though the law may require reportage of his crime, the offender does not need to be resolved to publicly confess his sin in order to receive absolution. However, it may be that the Church would consider that the man’s civil obligations outside the confessional bind him to reveal his crime, even if the priest himself cannot bind him to reveal it and, indeed, absolves him. Again, I don’t know if this is true.