<p>
</p>
<p>Not if it was revealed during confession.</p>
<p>
But it would never become known as the priest would never reveal it.</p>
<p>hayden - 
true that! lol</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It could come out if the bomber revealed to a friend or co-conspirator that he had confessed to a priest.</p>
<p>Though I feel the whole scenario is pretty far fetched as someone wanting absolution would probably not go to confession for this while there was still time to change his mind.</p>
<p>For the curious, some priests apparently do violate the secrecy of the confession, and get excommunicated for it. Only the Pope himself can restore them to communion:
[Filipino</a> priest excommunicated for violating the secrecy of confession :: Catholic News Agency (CNA)](<a href=“http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/filipino_priest_excommunicated_for_violating_the_secrecy_of_confession/]Filipino”>Filipino priest excommunicated for violating the secrecy of confession | Catholic News Agency)</p>
<p>Anybody know if the Vatican is working on a plan to allow online confessions?</p>
<p>Will never happen. Sacraments are done 'in person". You can’t get married over the phone either in the Church. </p>
<p>*I would just note that if a priest learned of a bomb, and did not reveal it, and this later became known after the bomb killed a bunch of people, it would be devastating to the Catholic Church in this country, at least. Can a priest report something like this to his bishop? *</p>
<p>NO, he can’t. He can’t tell ANYONE. Again, the priest (the man) never was told anything. The sin was told to priest in persona christi…not to the priest as a man. </p>
<p>Can we have some logic here? If the priest never tells anyone that he was told, then how would anyone know he was told? </p>
<p>For the curious, some priests apparently do violate the secrecy of the confession, and get excommunicated for it. Only the Pope himself can restore them to communion:
Filipino priest excommunicated for violating the secrecy of confession :: Catholic News Agency (CNA)</p>
<p>The fact that that is news, really suggests how rare this happens. It is very, very rare…and has been rare throughout Catholic history. Priest have been executed for not revealing confessions.</p>
<p>And, it doesn’t even mean that this priest told anyone else anything. It may just mean that he treated the person differently afterwards…</p>
<p>For instance, if you confessed that you are a thief, and then you applied to the parish for a job… if the priest were to say to YOU (not anyone else) that he can’t hire you because of your history of stealing…that would be a violation and would be grounds for excommunication. He wouldn’t have told anyone, but he still would have broken the bond. </p>
<p>We also don’t know if this priest inadvertently revealed something…which is still rare, but a possible problem because of a human error. </p>
<p>Priests also have to be VERY careful when speaking **about **confession. It’s ok for a priest to remark that he’s hearing more confessions about the sin of - say - adultery.</p>
<p>But, he can’t say something that is rather unique that would be a clue as to who the sinner was…like he can’t say…I recently had a young teacher from the parish school who confessed to adultery. </p>
<p>Priests have to be discrete because of the info that they carry around. Priests usually make their own schedules. You don’t typically call up the church secretary to get an appt with a priest. Typically, you’ll be told to talk to the priest (or leave a message on his answering machine) and make the appt with HIM.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>As stated earlier, if someone else knew that the bomber had confessed to Priest X on Y day, it would come out. </p>
<p>Far fetched, yes, impossible, no.</p>
<p>*As stated earlier, if someone else knew that the bomber had confessed to Priest X on Y day, it would come out.
*</p>
<p>There’s no way that 'someone else" could know that. He wouldn’t have witnessed the confession. All he’d have is the word of a terrorist. It would be “hear-say.” </p>
<p>So, what you’re saying is that the terrorist tells someone that he confessed to Father Blank on X day…And, you think the terrorist should be believed? Ha ha!</p>
<p>Again…can we have some sanity, please!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Um, but in this fictional situation, he would be telling the truth…I find it interesting to think of a scenario where the “terrorist” is telling the truth and the priest is lying…</p>
<p>But the priest would probably say something along the lines of “no comment,” similar to a lawyer who is protecting attorney/client privilege, so no "lie’ necessary.</p>
<p>I guess as an “outsider” it’s kind of a thought provoking scenario where the sanctity of the confession takes precedence over the lives of innocents. </p>
<p>It’s easier to digest as an unlikely hypothetical situation…</p>
<p>
…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s not an individual comparison, really. It’s that the sanctity of confession is absolute. It’s not being considered with other things pairwise.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Thanks for clearing that up. And this absolution comes from the Priest? And if one doesn’t confess to a Priest they will not be absolved?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Confession isn’t a sacrament.</p>
<p>The Sacrament is Reconciliation. Reconciliation consists of confessing one’s sins and being absolved of those sins. It is a two step process. Confession of sins is to Jesus through the Priest. Absolution comes from Jesus through the Priest.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Okay, point taken.</p>
<p>
Well, it is being compared–you’re just saying that the interest in preserving the sanctity of the confession is so great that nothing can overcome it. This reminds me of the discussions of whether we would torture a person to make him reveal the location of a bomb. Some people would, and others wouldn’t–and very few would, for example, torture the bomber’s young child to make him talk.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Does a priest have to be involved for absolution to take place?</p>
<p>Hypothetical </p>
<p>On Monday, Father John hears the confession of Sean O’Bomber, and after confession, has reason to think Sean is not going to follow up on his promise to remove the bomb. Father John cannot tell anyone, cause of the seal of confession. The bomb is set to explode on Friday.</p>
<p>On Tuesday, Father John is called in by his bishop (or however these things work) and told that the church has found out that Father John advocates X (something that would result in his being “defrocked”) and Father John is no longer a priest. He is still a Catholic.</p>
<p>On Wednesday, John (no longer Father) has lunch with his friend Father Thomas, a leading Canon Lawyer. John says that being a non priest, the seal of confession does not hold. However as Sean THOUGHT he was a priest, his human ethical obligation to Sean has not changed. John intends to tell the police what Sean told him, but wants Father Thomas’s advice.</p>
<p>What does Father Thomas say?</p>
<p>variant - The bishop tells Father John that his excommunication was “issued” (?) a week earlier, but unfortunately it was not possible to get in touch with Father John about it earlier.</p>
<p>Doing the right thing would be to turn Sean in, but the ethical thing would be not to turn Sean in. Telling the police there was a bomb set to go off without telling them who set it is walking the line.</p>
<h1>115 - yes.</h1>
<p>This is why we have Priests. Simply speaking they provide a bridge between us and the Holy Father. Jesus bestowed this on the first Priest, St Peter and all Priests are ‘descended’ from St Peter.
Not every sacrament requires a Priest to be present. Baptism does not, Holy Communion does not - although a Priest is require to Bless the Holy water used in the Baptism and also proceeds over the transubstantion of the Bread and Wine which are offered in Holy Communion.</p>
<p>If a Priest resigns from the Priesthood (some do) they are still bound by the sanctity of Confession. Can you imagine the ‘tell all’ books that would be written otherwise?</p>
<p>Similarly, I don’t see retired/former attorneys running around violating the attorney-client privilege when they are no longer a lawyer.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is not really the correct perspective, and your example is inapplicable. There are two ways to look at something absolute:</p>
<p>1) Pairwise comparison, with the conclusion that in each individual pairing, the absolute principle takes precedence</p>
<p>2) Ontological study, in which the conclusion (with specific comparison or consideration for priority) is that the nature of something in some way mandates the absolute principle. This can be done without consideration for any practical scenarios at all</p>
<p>The second is the far better way to consider Reconciliation (and certainly the Church’s approach). That is why I said what I did.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>For venial sins, not necessarily. For mortal sins, yes, except <em>maybe</em> in cases like deathbed (God’s mercy). Maybe because we aren’t sure.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This example is extremely complex theologically. His Reverence is defrocked, i.e. forbidden to celebrate the Sacraments, but he is still theologically able to celebrate the Sacraments validly, i.e. they would be valid but illicit. Thus he can still administer the Sacrament of Reconciliation, and therefore the rest of the example becomes irrelevant. Once a priest, the indelible mark thereof can NEVER go away for any reason.</p>
<p>"Thus he can still administer the Sacrament of Reconciliation, and therefore the rest of the example becomes irrelevant. Once a priest, the indelible mark thereof can NEVER go away for any reason. "</p>
<p>actually that makes perfect sense to me. The category of sinful yet binding acts occurs in halacha as well.</p>