Okay, i was thinking about confession and the american justice system the other day.

lets say an already baptised murderer kills someone, goes to trial, pleads not guilty, and gets off with a verdict of not guilty. He then has a conversion experience and comes into the catholic church. he goes to confession, where he tells the priest the story of his crime and his escape from justice.

can the priest, as penance, require the criminal to go back to the authorities and report the truth? can he require the criminal to write a letter to the family reporting the truth and asking their forgiveness/ asking if they would like him to turn himself in? what are the limitations of penance, especially when dealing with someone who has escaped their deserved secular justice?

-- paul h (dontsendmemail@notanaddress.com), August 01, 2004

Answers

bump for answers

-- paul h (dontsendmemail@notanaddress.com), August 01, 2004.

paul h,

Interesting question. I had a very similar topic for my final project debate in political science class this past Spring semester. I don't know about the whole penance requirement side of the issue. Since I've never been to confession yet (not yet officially Catholic), I don't really know what a typical penance entails.

However, I do know that according to the Catechism, the confessory cannot betray confidence by telling what he has heard. So if the person were to fail in their penance, how would anyone (besides God and the confessor) know?

2490 The secret of the sacrament of reconciliation is sacred, and cannot be violated under any pretext. "The sacramental seal is inviolable; therefore, it is a crime for a confessor in any way to betray a penitent by word or in any other manner or for any reason."

2491 Professional secrets - for example, those of political office holders, soldiers, physicians, and lawyers - or confidential information given under the seal of secrecy must be kept, save in exceptional cases where keeping the secret is bound to cause very grave harm to the one who confided it, to the one who received it or to a third party, and where the very grave harm can be avoided only by divulging the truth. Even if not confided under the seal of secrecy, private information prejudicial to another is not to be divulged without a grave and proportionate reason.

You may wish to read more on this in "Respect for the Truth" CCC 2488-2492

For my class, I had to find Biblical support for the idea that a lawyer could not reveal information shared in confidence. It was difficult, but I found two passages.

Proverbs 25 (NAB)
8 What your eyes have seen bring not forth hastily against an opponent; For what will you do later on when your neighbor puts you to shame?
9 Discuss your case with your neighbor, but another man's secret do not disclose;
10 Lest, hearing it, he reproach you, and your ill repute cease not.

The other passage was Jeremiah 37-38, in which Jeremiah basically hides information from government officials because he has sworn secretly with the king and agreed not to tell anyone.

-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), August 01, 2004.

Paul,

In theory yes I think a priest could require that of a penitent. Whether the trial has happened yet or not. However, if the trial has already occurred, as in your example, the civil law of double jeopardy may mean there is no subsequent (additional) civil trial.

Hope that's helpful.

-- Fr. Mike Skrocki, JCD (cand) (abounamike@aol.com), August 01, 2004.

In light of new evidence (such as a confession), an appeal may be made (by the prosecutor), and there may be another criminal trial. If the criminal trial is denied, a civil trial will most likely be allowed.

The double jeapordy law is meant to protect the convicted person in the case that they have already served time, or there is no new evidence. For instance, OJ Simpson may be criminally charged again, in light of a confession, which is new evidence.

-- Dude (Dude4intws@hotmail.com), August 02, 2004.

What would the intent of such a pennance be? If it is to have the person pay for their crime in the judicial system, this would IMO be breaking the seal of the confessional as the priest is ordering the person to say what they cannot as a condition of forgiveness. OTOH, if the intent was that without this coming clean the priest didn't think that the person could *make* a valid confession, I suppose it would be acceptable, as it would show the person was truly repentent. It seems like it's pretty close to the line though, perhaps the penitent should refuse and say they aren't ready yet, and go back to a different parish, LOL!

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), August 02, 2004.

Hi paul h,

Interestingly, someone just posted a similar question on the Catholic Answers "Ask an Apologist" forum.

CMcLaurin said:
As my mother and I were discussing Confession this past Saturday, an interesting scenario came to mind.

A prime suspect in a murder case, who did indeed commit the crime, confessed his sin to his priest. The prosecution found out he was Catholic and he went to confession after the murder. They also knew which priest was giving Confession that day. Could the priest be called to court and be forced to reveal the forgiven sin of the suspect?

Apologist Michelle Arnold responded:
Although there are laws on the books that protect the sacramental seal of confession, it is theoretically possible that a court of law might try to force a priest to reveal a penitent's confession. Even if such pressure were brought to bear on a priest, he would be absolutely required to refuse to reveal the contents of any sacramental confession he heard, even if it meant being held in contempt of court and imprisoned:

Quote: 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.

-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), August 02, 2004.

“What would the intent of such a pennance be? If it is to have the person pay for their crime in the judicial system, this would IMO be breaking the seal of the confessional as the priest is ordering the person to say what they cannot as a condition of forgiveness.” (Frank)

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I understand that the absolution stands, even if the penitent fails to complete the penance he is given. (Even if the penitent never had any intention of doing the penance?) The penance is not “a condition of forgiveness” but something the penitent is told to do as a sign (TO HIMSELF) of his contrition and to help him get the spiritual strength to avoid sin in future. All sins, even after they are forgiven, will have to be paid for by penance, either in this life, or in purgatory if we fail to do sufficient penance in this life.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), August 03, 2004.

Steve, usually that is true. You are still forgiven even if you forget to say your "ten hail maries". But in some cases absolution can be made contingent upon additional action on the part of the penitent. The commonest example would be cases of theft. You can't steal something, confess the sin, and then keep the stolen property. If you confess such a sin, the priest should instruct you to return the stolen property, or if that is not possible to make restitution some other appropriate way, and absolution would not be effective until that was done. Similar conditions might apply for sins of slander, where you have intentionally damaged someone's reputation. You might have to undo the damage to the best of your ability before receiving absolution.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), August 03, 2004.

In the catechism, article 2491 states that a priest may reveal information given under the seal of confession under three conditions: 1. there is potential grave harm to the priest 2. there is potential grave harm to the penitent 3. there is potential grave harm to a third party.

A priest may not reveal anything from a confession if nobody is in harm's way. But, he may, under the condition that other people might be in grave harm's way, reveal what the penitent confessed.

-- Brian (Brian@brian.com), August 03, 2004.

Brian Brian,

I think you are mistaken. The Catechism section 2490 deals with confession, 2491 deals with other people like doctors. See below:

2490 The secret of the sacrament of reconciliation is sacred, and cannot be violated under any pretext. "The sacramental seal is inviolable; therefore, it is a crime for a confessor in any way to betray a penitent by word or in any other manner or for any reason." (CIC, can. 983 § 1.)

2491 Professional secrets ) for example, those of political office holders, soldiers, physicians, and lawyers ) or confidential information given under the seal of secrecy must be kept, save in exceptional cases where keeping the secret is bound to cause very grave harm to the one who confided it, to the one who received it or to a third party, and where the very grave harm can be avoided only by divulging the truth. Even if not confided under the seal of secrecy, private information prejudicial to another is not to be divulged without a grave and proportionate reason.

Confession then can NOT be violated for any reason, but others' obligations may be. Your secrets should be safe between you and God at least.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), August 03, 2004.

No, 2491 refers to secrets given BY professionals or people with power, TO priests, that may involve potential grave danger to others or the parties involved. In many occasions, if the situation is similiar with ordinary people, the secret must be divulged.

It is irresponsible and dangerous for the Church to teach that if somebody planted a bomb and confessed it to a priest under the seal of confession, that the priest may not reveal it to the proper authorities. It would be at that point that the Church loses its moral authority. It is simply absurd.

-- brian (brian@brian.com), August 03, 2004.

Sorry Brian, but that's the way it is. If Osama bin Laden converted and confessed he had a bomb in his pants, the priest would have to keep his confidence. Trying to save his soul is the priest's goal, not stopping him from committing future crimes.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), August 03, 2004.

If somebody planted a bomb and confessed it to a priest under the seal of confession, the priest could reveal that fact to the proper authorities, but would have to ensure that the source of the information remained secret. Probably the best way for him to do that would be anonymously. But even if the police traced the anonymous call back to him, that's as far as it could go. The priest could not reveal the identity of the person who confessed, even if it meant going to jail himself. That is what the seal of confession protects - not the content of a confession per se, but the risk of association of that information with the person who confessed it.

A priest can talk in general terms about things that are revealed in confession as long as there is no chance that what is revealed could be connected to the person who confessed it. For example, in giving a teaching about our responsibilities to the state, a priest might say "one time a man confessed that he hadn't paid his income tax in several years". If this was something that had happened ten years and three parishes earlier, and since it is not a unique kind of situation, the priest has not broken the seal of confession in mentioning it. Or if a penitent feels like he is unique in having a particular habitual sin, the priest might say "this is really quite a common problem. A half dozen people have confessed this same sin to me this week". That would not constitute a breach of the seal because there is no information given that might allow the other penitents to be identified. However, a priest could not say "a woman who recently moved into the parish confessed that she has been stealing her disabled daughter's welfare checks". That would be far too specific, and would allow the woman to be at least probably if not certainly identified.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), August 03, 2004.

Thank you Paul for being the only voice of reason here!!!!

Yes, a priest must be vague, and never reveal the sinner, only the sin.

When it comes down to it, it is the police that must bring people to justice. They have to do the police work. But a priest, like any human being, has a responsibility to protect others from harm if he has the means.

Now, if a priest has revealed information about a bomb and the police need to know the identity of the bomber to save a population from grave danger, there is a procedure that priests are trained to follow.

First the priest must contact the Bishop, and explain in writing and in speech what the information was, but not the bomber. If the Bishop decides the situation is grave enough, he sends it to the Pope. The Pope then may decide whether to grant permission, if he thinks there is grave danger, to that priest to reveal the identity of the bomber.

Brian

-- Brian (Brian@Brian.com), August 04, 2004.

I know of no such procedure. I can't say with certainty that there is no such procedure, but my understanding is that the seal of confession is absolute and inviolable.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), August 04, 2004.

"First the priest must contact the Bishop, and explain in writing and in speech what the information was, but not the bomber. If the Bishop decides the situation is grave enough, he sends it to the Pope. The Pope then may decide whether to grant permission, if he thinks there is grave danger, to that priest to reveal the identity of the bomber. "

Brian, where did you read this from?

Thanks in advance

-- - (David@excite.com), August 06, 2004.