<p>no, he cannot, and he would not, under penalty of excommunication. the seal of confession is taken very, very seriously. in over 2000 years of Church history, there has never been a single case of a priest divulging what he has heard in confession.</p>
<p>Baelor, no offense was taken - my response was more a statement of how I understand things, so I wondered where the Catholic viewpoint comes from. I was raised Catholic & to be honest, I just did things because I was supposed to do them. That’s not a put down of the Catholic religion; it’s just how it was for me.</p>
<p>Baelor- no I don’t believe that, as a rule, absolution can be withheld until penance is completed. (Although that was the tradition of the Church for nigh 1200 yrs). </p>
<p>But, in our contrived example, the priest could say- your penance is to call the cops now- here’s my cell phone and if you don’t I really don’t think you’re sorry for planting the bomb. Hence, no intention of accepting and completing your penance. Therefore, I won’t grant you absolution. </p>
<p>There has to be a willingness on the part of the penitent to accept and do the penance. </p>
<p>Hope your midterms go well. I’m praying for you and my daughter.</p>
<p>Amazing! I fully expected to log on today to see that this thread had gotten nasty.</p>
<p>And it hasn’t! </p>
<p>I love it!</p>
<p>Good job, everyone.</p>
<p>Excommunication from the Catholic church doesn’t mean you won’t have eternal salvation. If I’m not mistaken, Martin Luther was excommunicated and I would bet he has eternal salvation.</p>
<p>m.s.,
I know this is more than your question literally asked, but there are different things to consider. Yes, the answer that you can just go into a Catholic Church and anonymously confess to the priest in the confessional during scheduled times, is correct. Alternatively, you can make an appointment with him. (And of course, the Seal of Confession applies whether the confession is or is not anonymous/hidden.) Remember that your intention imust be to confess all serious sins that you remember since your last sacramental confession; otherwise the absolution is invalid. Often, the penitent asks the priest for help in this.</p>
<p>Let me just correct the title of your thread. 
You are never a “non-Catholic” in the eyes of the Church – even if you have not practiced your faith since baptism, including infant baptism. You only become a 'non-Catholic" if you formally renounce your faith such as converting to a different religion, or alternatively writing to your local bishop and stating your decision to divest yourself of your faith identity. If you have not done either, you are still considered a Catholic, just one who, well, took a long vacation. ;)</p>
<p>On the rest, I’ll PM you.</p>
<p>I think some may be assuming that mantori.suzuki was referring to him/herself when asking the question. I did not read the original post that way. I thought m.s was questioning in regard to someone who was never Catholic. (ie, a Protestant, Jew, Hindu, Buddhist,etc)</p>
<p>pipmom, Post #1:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>“If I’m not mistaken, Martin Luther was excommunicated and I would bet he has eternal salvation”</p>
<p>Cough. Did he repent during his lifetime for this</p>
<p>[Martin</a> Luther and antisemitism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“Martin Luther and antisemitism - Wikipedia”>Martin Luther and antisemitism - Wikipedia)</p>
<p>Actually, the bomb confession is one that is often discussed and argued among Catholic theologians, and there is no one pat answer. One school of thought is that the seal of confession is absolute and that the priest could do nothing. A second school thought would argue that seal is in place, but absolution should be withheld. Another school of thought is that it since the penitent is not “contrite and repentant” (as proven by his unwillingness to stop the bomb) nor does he intend to never do this sin again after this confession (as proven by his unwillingness to stop the bomb) the confession is not valid, so the seal of confession does not apply. Another school of thought would argue that the seal can be broken at times, but only with the consent of the penitent and keeping his identity secret (ie, the priest could ask the penitent if he could call the police without reveling his source). And another school, which I find most intriguing, is that ex-communiction is the sacrifice that God is asking of this individual priest for the greater good of humanity. (ie., his excommunication is the cost of saving thousands of unknown persons). There are other arguements and variations on each of these, but it is fairly common exercise among theologians, and one which I think everyone agrees would be a very real dilemma for the Church.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sorry you are feeling under the weather? What does that have to do with his eternal salvation?</p>
<p>If a non-Catholic wanted to “get something off his chest” by telling a priest about it, I would think most priests would be happy to meet with him and give advice. However, it wouldn’t be “confession.” Probably best to make an appointment than just going into a confessional–but that would be OK, too–if there isn’t a long line. Some priests become popular confessors and then many people want “counseling” in the confessional. I’ve heard some priests, when there is a long line, say, “Simply state your sins in kind and number only. Make an appointment if you need counseling.”</p>
<p>As an alternative, there is the “get it off your chest” thread on CC. . .</p>
<p>I don’t know if this has been said…</p>
<p>But if you are asking for absolution for an ongoing sin that you have no intention of stopping (such as having an on-going affair), you don’t get absolution.</p>
<p>That’s one of the reason for having confessions to a priest because he can point such things out. A person just saying he’s sorry privately to God but has little or no intention of stopping the behavior doesn’t get that kind of feedback.</p>
<p>As for the “getting it off your chest”…that is another reason for confession. Someone who - for instance - has had an affair and is deeply sorry - often has the need to “get it off his chest” - but doesn’t have the means to do so without repercussion. If he tells his wife, she might leave him. If he tells a friend, he/she might tell someone else and it gets out. Telling a priest lets you get it off your chest and feel secure that no one else will know.</p>
<p>I remember at Marriage Encounter there was one point where the priest tells the couple to tell each other something that the other spouse doesn’t know…however, he made it quite clear that infidelity or similar is not something to tell your spouse because of the likely horrible consequences. Instead, he said come to me for confession.</p>
<p>The above discussion about “schools of thought” regarding the Seal make for colorful theory, but are inconsequential as to what is approved or not approved. Any ordained Catholic priest is bound by the Seal, and absolutely so. He can, of course, exercise his own prudential cleverness within the bounds of morality and the theology of the sacrament, to try to get an individual to turn himself in, to change his mind, etc. However, he can only do so inside the confessional, never outside (unless approached again by the ‘penitent’ himself), because that priest can never be the one to initiate reference to that confession outside the moment itself. </p>
<p>He is forbidden to withhold absolution to a sincerely repentant confessing Catholic. OTOH, he may not provide absolution without the necessary conditions on the penitent’s part of sincere sorrow for the wrong and a firm purpose of amendment. Thus, a person stating that he was sorry for planting a bomb but had no intention of disarming the bomb, or planting other bombs, would not be absolved. </p>
<p>The role of the priest as confessor is limited to a spiritual role, and does not extend to a societal role. He is neither a Mandated Reporter nor a law enforcement official, nor a private detective. The priest’s realm is strictly one of confidential spiritual instrumentation, as the ‘representative of Christ’ (the theology goes – in persona Christi). Breaking the Seal “for the larger good of humanity” is incompatible with the strict limitations on his role. He is there to advance the cause of personal mercy for any baptized Catholic sincerely seeking that; he is not there for the salvation of humanity in the civil realm.</p>
<p>This has also a benefit for any possible wrongdoer, sociopath, etc., who may in fact be moved by guilt (rather than being energized by the drama of public spectacle & challenge) to recant, cease his acts, confess to civil authorities, etc. Therefore, ultimately, in this role, the priest is in a position to be potentially more of a ‘rescuer of humanity’ than if the penitent should fear reporting/repercussions of a priest betraying a secret.</p>
<p>And the priest may never put additional (secular) conditions on the absolution, such as making it contingent on turning oneself in to civil authorities, or even assigning that as a penance after the fact.</p>
<p>Overall, a narrow role.</p>
<p>“Sorry you are feeling under the weather? What does that have to do with his eternal salvation?”</p>
<p>I am not on expert on this, not being a Christian, but my impression was that in both Catholicism and Protestantism one was expected to repent of one’s sins in one’s lifetime to be eligible for salvation. Since his writings on the Jews were, arguably at least, sinful, if he did not repent of them in his lifetime, I would think it difficult to assert (on Christian grounds) that its a certainty that he had eternal salvation. </p>
<p>Note, I am quite aware that these views are NOT the position of today’s Lutheran churches. The assertion of certainty for the salvation of Martin Luther just seemed odd to me.</p>
<p>"And another school, which I find most intriguing, is that ex-communiction is the sacrifice that God is asking of this individual priest for the greater good of humanity. (ie., his excommunication is the cost of saving thousands of unknown persons). "</p>
<p>this is why, say what you will about the pope, etc, I like Catholicism. Or at least some catholic thinkers. Even if I would never become a Catholic.</p>
<p>“He is neither a Mandated Reporter nor a law enforcement official, nor a private detective.”</p>
<p>Nor are most private citizens. Nonetheless, if one them, not a priest (or for that matter a priest not under the seal of confession) were to learn of such a thing, I presume the RCC would consider such a person to have an ethical obligation to report it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The “school of thought” is irrelevant in the context of action on the part of the confessor (or anyone to whom it relates) until it is incorporated into the CCC or canon law, etc. In other words, the fact that this may be a topic of discussion for particular theologians does not change the fact that the priest is currently absolutely bound by the seal of confession. Partial disclosure can occur if the priest does not know if he can absolve the sin – e.g. sins incurring excommunication lata sententia (apostasy, desecration of the Eucharist, simulated ordination of a woman, and so forth) – but there is nothing in any official document that I have read that suggests he can break the seal even with the permission of the penitent. Could you provide sources? It would be helpful.</p>
<p>My general apprehension relating to discussions about “what Catholic theologians think” is that “Catholic theologians” can range from faithful to outright heretical on matters that are infallible. The claim that it is “under review” or “being discussed” doesn’t really give me a sense of who is actually in play here. After all, the WomynPriests are certainly claiming to be discussing the issue of female “ordination,” but it’s irrelevant to any serious discussion on ordination until actual priests and the Magisterium begin deliberations on that issue, something they will never do.</p>
<p>@BalconyBoy: You are correct in that we cannot claim that someone has been damned to hell for sure. However, outside of God’s bountiful mercy, according to Catholic theology, those who are in a state of mortal sin and are unrepentant do not enjoy eternal salvation. Martin Luther, as a heretic, incurred an excommunication and was never given absolution (that I have seen/heard about); thus, right before he died, he would have been in a state of mortal sin.</p>
<p>Post 57:
^ absolutely, BBD.</p>
<p>Outside of the confessional, and not in respect to anything that occurred there in the specific, he can/should report directly receiving or casually overhearing malicious intents on the part of criminals or would-be criminals. That includes, btw, material reported by such a prepetrator “confidentially,” (normally confidentially) such as in spiritual counseling/ spiritual direction. If a lay person has a relationship with a priest that is normally confidential but out of the confessional, and such a person reveals a scary plan or act, the priest is within his rights, canonically, to report that information to civil authorities, as the confidential information then becomes extraordinary, urgent, and loses its ‘normally confidential’ category.</p>
<p>Additionally, any priest can, as a private citizen or a priest, lobby for or against particular political/social causes, such as being a member of a group concerned about domestic terrorism.</p>
<p>As you see, the requirements of the confessional are unique to that situation.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Exactly…(and what my post 54 also said).</p>