Does a priest have authority to withhold forgiveness?

[Fascinated With God]

I say no for the short answer because in practice it doesn't seem to happen

It sounds more like your real question is, can priests refuse to absolve someone even if they are judged to be repentant, if the crime is heinous enough.

In general, if someone isn't feeling guilty and have no crisis of conscience they probably aren't going to confess about it anyway. So any other context than the one above is mostly a hypothetical question. Either that or they live reasonably good lives and have to search for venial sins to confess about.

 

[Athanasias]

in confession does the priest have any authority to say to the penitent "Your sins are not forgiven"

Yes!

 

[Athanasias]

I say no for the short answer because in practice it doesn't seem to happen

Happened to my mothers friend when they were younger. They can retain your sins if they do not think your truly sorry. Its rare now adays but they still have that power.

 

[disciple Clint]

After reading peoples responses I think I disagree, the short answer seems to be no.

No problem but the Church agrees with what I said. Why don't you do a little research for yourself?
The denial (or delay) of absolution is rare in a typical confession. When it does occur, it usually is because the confessor is not able to observe sufficient contrition from the penitent. As the Catechism teaches: “Contrition is sorrow of the soul and detestation for the sin committed, together with the resolution not to sin again” (No. 1451). So, mere sorrow is not enough; there must be sufficient resolution to avoid the sin in the future.

A confessor must do his best to dispose a penitent for absolution. Usually sorrow for sin and a firm purpose of amendment are evident in someone who has sought confession. However, in some cases, a penitent may give no signs of sorrow or may show no resolution to avoid obvious or near occasions of sin. Perhaps a penitent indicates a refusal to restore what is possible to rightful owners. Or a penitent who does not indicate a willingness to end illicit sexual unions or practices. Though they may experience sorrow or feelings of guilt, they cannot or will not supply a resolve to avoid the sin in the future.

The priest should do what he can to draw both sorrow and a firm purpose of amendment. But if there is no evidence of these, he should deny or delay absolution in a kind and fatherly manner, explaining the reason and also a way forward so that the penitent can return more properly disposed to receive the sacrament.

Generally, the simple fact that a penitent has sought confession is a demonstration of contrition and amendment. But there are rare times when during the confession something essential regarding contrition is found to be lacking. To simply overlook this does harm both to the sacrament and to the proper care of souls.

Refusing absolution

 

[ViaCrucis]

I can see withholding the words of absolution as a disciplinary measure, as mentioned by others in this thread. It's not about judging the worthiness of the penitent, since obviously none of us are worthy; but rather it would seem to boil down to discipline.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Paidiske]

No, the distinction of mortal vs venial sins isn't the issue here. It's whether one is actually sorry for their sins or not.

There are also instances where questions of legal obligation arise. For example, under the current direction of my bishop, I must withhold absolution from someone who has gravely abused a child until after they have handed themselves in to the police.

I'm suggesting that a priest isn't going to try to psychoanalyze whether the repentance is truly heartfelt unless it's a serious issue, or a penitent flaunts lack of repentance.

Hearing confessions isn't psychoanalysis. That said, yes, a priest is going to be listening closely to gauge a penitent's sincerity.

I say no for the short answer because in practice it doesn't seem to happen

It does, but rarely. But the fact that it is always a possibility is an important fact which colours every confession.

 

[chevyontheriver]

There are also instances where questions of legal obligation arise. For example, under the current direction of my bishop, I must withhold absolution from someone who has gravely abused a child until after they have handed themselves in to the police.

Don't know how I feel about that. They should turn themselves in. Can they be repentant without turning themselves in? I think maybe so. How do you feel about the things they are saying in Australia about confessions not being private any longer? If someone came to confess grave abuse of a child and you followed your bishop's rule and sent them away, would you report them to the government? If you didn't, they would perhaps otherwise be undiscovered. But then confession has always, at least for Catholics, been inviolable. And I think that's how it should remain. No matter what the sin or crime. But it's not easy.

 

[Paidiske]

Don't know how I feel about that. They should turn themselves in. Can they be repentant without turning themselves in? I think maybe so. How do you feel about the things they are saying in Australia about confessions not being private any longer? If someone came to confess grave abuse of a child and you followed your bishop's rule and sent them away, would you report them to the government? If you didn't, they would perhaps otherwise be undiscovered. But then confession has always, at least for Catholics, been inviolable.

Our position is that you aren't truly sorry for your sins, and seeking to put right the damage caused, in this sort of case, if you're not willing to admit to the authorities what you've done.

This direction from the bishop came because of the new laws here. I have no problem with them. It is not that confession is no longer private. It is that absolute confidentiality cannot apply in situations where a child is being abused. Honestly, after everything that's happened, I cannot fathom anybody arguing for ongoing cover up of abuse, even in the confessional.

And it's not that I must send them away, it's that I must withhold absolution until they've turned themselves in. If they refuse to turn themselves in, they are not truly penitent, it's not a true confession, and the seal doesn't apply, and I can turn them in.

 

[Fascinated With God]

Hearing confessions isn't psychoanalysis. That said, yes, a priest is going to be listening closely to gauge a penitent's sincerity.

Yes, I've definitely been asked tactful but gently pointed questions. I didn't mean to suggest that you don't pay close attention to a penitent's spiritual state and minister to us in a very private personal way.

My implication was that to not give absolution for venial sins is extremely unlikely because you would try to minister to them instead.

 

[chevyontheriver]

It is that absolute confidentiality cannot apply in situations where a child is being abused.

Do a lawyer and client still have confidentiality in Australia or does that not apply?

Honestly, after everything that's happened, I cannot fathom anybody arguing for ongoing cover up of abuse, even in the confessional.

For the record, I'm NOT arguing for coverup of abuse.

And it's not that I must send them away, it's that I must withhold absolution until they've turned themselves in. If they refuse to turn themselves in, they are not truly penitent, it's not a true confession, and the seal doesn't apply, and I can turn them in.

I don't think I would go to a confessor who I couldn't trust to hold all of my confidences, even though mine so far are only petty confidences. I want someone I could safely confess anything. An attempted confession should be treated the same as a completed confession, I would think. Anyhow, I don't want to argue, so no need to go further if you don't want to.

 

[Paidiske]

Do a lawyer and client still have confidentiality in Australia or does that not apply?

I am not clear how that works for lawyers and child abuse, in particular.

For the record, I'm NOT arguing for coverup of abuse.

If a priest knows a child is or was abused, and doesn't report it... how is that not covering it up?

I don't think I would go to a confessor who I couldn't trust to hold all of my confidences, even though mine so far are only petty confidences. I want someone I could safely confess anything.

I understand this. And in practice, the way it works is that every penitent who comes to me knows before we start what the boundaries are. They can choose to proceed or not, and in my experience, people knowing that the criminal abuse of children will not go unreported, but that anything else said to me is held in absolute confidentiality is not a line that people have a problem with. In fact, I would say that the people whose confessions I hear are glad and grateful that confidentiality can't be abused to the detriment of children.

An attempted confession should be treated the same as a completed confession, I would think.

Not necessarily.

 

[Fascinated With God]

Do a lawyer and client still have confidentiality in Australia or does that not apply?

Not a good comparison, if an attorney is court-appointed they have to represent the client regardless of whether or not they believe the client is innocent.

 

[gordonhooker]

In the diocese I belong to a priest must report child abuse to the authorities and must advise the person seeking confession that the priest must report it. That is what I was told when I went to confession with a new priest for the first time.

 

[PloverWing]

I like that rule that you have to tell the person seeking confession that child abuse will be reported to the authorities. I've really been torn by the Australian law: preventing child abuse is really important, but the secrecy of the confessional is really important too. If penitents are advised of the ground rules at the beginning of the confession, then there's no betrayal of trust.

 

[Fascinated With God]

I've really been torn by the Australian law: preventing child abuse is really important, but the secrecy of the confessional is really important too.

This seems important to a lot of people but I don't understand the difference between this and automatic excommunication for confessing having an abortion. Admittedly, no legal jeopardy is involved, but there is no secrecy in confessing abortion. Are these the only two exceptions?

 

[PloverWing]

In my tradition, an abortion does not result in excommunication. One of our Catholic participants can comment on how things work in their tradition.

 

[chevyontheriver]

This seems important to a lot of people but I don't understand the difference between this and automatic excommunication for confessing having an abortion. Admittedly, no legal jeopardy is involved, but there is no secrecy in confessing abortion. Are these the only two exceptions?

At least in the Catholic Church there is no automatic excommunication for CONFESSING having had an abortion. There is an automatic excommunication for having an abortion or doing an abortion. The confession is the remedy. If one confesses an abortion the confession is absolutely secret, as with all Catholic confessions. No announcement of excommunication would ever be made or recorded or anything. There is absolute secrecy in confessing an abortion to a Catholic priest. (Just as an aside, abortion was considered something one had to confess to the bishop. The priest would refer you to the bishop. Now almost all bishops have delegated the authority for priests to hear and absolve this sin. But even without that, it was always secret.)

I'm no fan of automatic excommunications, mostly because an excommunication in my opinion should be applied after a proper procedure, with facts brought forward. The 'automatic' thing fails that. And how does anyone else know who is or isn't excommunicated anyway? The one thing it does is to raise the level of seriousness that such things are to be taken.

Here is a list (from Wikipedia even) about Latae Sententia (automatic) excommunications in the Catholic Church:

• an apostate from the faith, a heretic, or a schismatic;[6]
• a person who throws away the consecrated Eucharistic species or takes and retains them for a sacrilegious purpose;[7]
• a person who uses physical force against the Pope;[8]
• a priest who absolves his accomplice in a sin against the commandment against adultery;[9]
• a bishop who ordains someone a bishop without a papal mandate, and the person who receives the ordination from him;[10]
• a confessor who directly violates the sacramental seal of confession;[11]
• a person who procures a completed abortion;[12]
• accomplices without whose assistance a violation of a law prescribing latae sententiae excommunication would not have been committed.[13]

 

[~Anastasia~]

There are Church canons in existence that prescribe periods of penance (including how long one should be barred from the Eucharist) for serious sins. These are not widely discussed among the laity, because they can be applied with pastoral dispensation by the confessor.

The Church used to have groups that would gather - some not allowed yet to enter the nave and staying only in the narthex, for example, and others passing by into Church would know and could keep them in prayers. Then after that period, they might be allowed into the nave but not communing. Later they would be restored to full communion. This is not "punishment" but rather everything for the good of the penitent. It helps to make a person feel the gravity of certain sins as an aid to repentance, and it also protects them from receiving the Eucharist in an unworthy manner.

But the confessor always has the ability to be lenient if he judges that repentance is sufficient and that Communion would more benefit the soul.

There is no longer (that I'm aware of) that group one walks through who are barred from entering the nave. But sometimes the period of abstaining from the Eucharist IS prescribed. I've known of it happening in a small number of cases, and it's not something we freely discuss so I expect it does happen here and there.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Regarding the mandatory reporting of the sin of abusing a child -

I am curious about something. What if a person confessed that they struggled with the temptation, but had not committed the sin? Do you report them then?

Or do people confess struggles within other Traditions? We aren't required to (to be tempted isn't a sin) ... but especially among the Greeks, the Confessor is a spiritual guide, not just one who speaks absolution. Struggles are just as much a part of how we receive guidance as actual sins.

 

[Paidiske]

Regarding the mandatory reporting of the sin of abusing a child -

I am curious about something. What if a person confessed that they struggled with the temptation, but had not committed the sin? Do you report them then?

No. We are talking here only about committing or actual intent to commit the sin.

Or do people confess struggles within other Traditions? We aren't required to (to be tempted isn't a sin) ... but especially among the Greeks, the Confessor is a spiritual guide, not just one who speaks absolution. Struggles are just as much a part of how we receive guidance as actual sins.

Discussing struggles with one's confessor would be normal (for those who use confession; it isn't mandatory) in my tradition.