Confession of Parish Priests

[jesusandyou]

The members of a parish go to their priest to confess their sins. Is this still in practice?

If the priest himself does sin, where does he go to confess? For example, in the recent years there have been lot of sexual abuse in many US parishes and many of them sent to jail. Some priests were sacked home by Rome. The Oregon Catholic District filed bankruptcy since they don't have enough finance to close the civil suits. Where do these priests go to confess their sin? Will the Priests get a chance to confess?

[Ayodhya Nath Bhat]

Bro Jesusandyou,

We seek your divine  intercession to solve this  problem.May be Fr Eric and
Fr Byron would like to comment on this subject.


Love

Ayodhya

[secretman]

Priest do confess, like any other Catholic? What is the question about? Of Course they are sinners like U or Me!, all Catholics go to conffesion every time they want to (if they want to!), so, don't we know priest are catholics too? If U don't seek the opportunity to confess then U don't have the chance to confess; that simple!


Want a disciplinar info?:

The Code of Canon Law:

Can. 991 All Christ's faithful are free to confess their sins to lawfully approved confessors of their own choice, even to one of another rite.

Can. 988 §1 The faithful are bound to confess, in kind and in number, all grave sins committed after baptism, of which after careful examination of conscience they are aware, which have nor yet been directly pardoned by the keys of the Church, and which have not been confessed in an individual confession.
       §2 The faithful are recommended to confess also venial sins.

Can. 989 All the faithful who have reached the age of discretion are bound faithfully to confess their grave sins at least once a year.


Thanks And may God bless U All!

[Seeker]

Good info secretman.

I believe that priests confess to other priests just as all the faithful do.  I don't think who one confesses to has anything to do with where one is in the church hierarchy.  For instance, priests confess to other priests, and bishops may confess to a fellow priest.  The key to the sacrament is individual repentance and the ordained minister of the sacrament.

Pope John Paul II is said to take part in the sacrament of reconciliation regularly by confessing his sins to a fellow priest.  

Just want to point out that the term "confession" in Catholic teaching includes true repentance of our sins with the desire not to sin again on the part of the recipient of the sacrament.

It would be interesting to also hear from priests to see their point of view on confession after having been a minister of the sacrament, as well as a recipient.

[Rev. Eric]

Hello One and All,

As already stated in this thread, a priest may go to another priest or to a bishop to receive the Sacrament of Reconciliation.  For example, earlier today I was visiting a priest I know and I took that opportunity to ask him to hear my confession.

God bless,
-Rev. Eric

[DavidFilmer]

Priests are encouraged to confess even more frequently than the laity. After all, they are on the "front lines" of spiritual warfare against the devil.

jesusandyou mentioned the bankruptcy of the Archdiocese of Portland in Oregon (my own diocese, by the way). I have a feeling that the abusive priests involved in these scandals did NOT confess regularly. Maybe if they had, none of this would have happened in the first place!

Any priest can hear anyone's confession - it doesn't matter if the penetent "outranks" the priest (ie, priests can hear the confessions of bishops or the Pope). Until he died in 2001, a Polish priest named Stanislaw Michalski heard Pope JP2's confession (I don't know who hears it now).

[Matthias]

If a priest can confess his sins to a priest and get forgiven, then why cannot a priest confess his sins to himself and get forgiven? (I am sure that the Catholics do not allow this.)

[Melody]

JesusandYou :

The members of a parish go to their priest to confess their sins. Is this still in practice?

Yes it is, or at least it should be. In my part of the world (Bbay, India), the churches are pretty filled with people who confess to priests on a regular basis. Confessions are held publically (as in it's held in church, with many priests all over & lines of ppl waiting to confess) every week and parishioners even have the option to ask for a private confession if they need to.

Seeker:

Pope John Paul II is said to take part in the sacrament of reconciliation regularly by confessing his sins to a fellow priest

and
David:

Priests are encouraged to confess even more frequently than the laity. After all, they are on the "front lines" of spiritual warfare against the devil.

I believe I was told that the Pope received the sacrament of reconcilliation every single day (not sure if this is a fact). I totally agree with David about the spiritual warfare.

Matthias:

If a priest can confess his sins to a priest and get forgiven, then why cannot a priest confess his sins to himself and get forgiven? (I am sure that the Catholics do not allow this.)

Firstly, an unofficial welcome

You are right about Catholism not allowing a priest to hear his own confession. This is because we believe that the Priest represents both God & the faithful (who have been hurt by the sin).

At the time of confessing a priest does not represent God, but only his human self. Hence he cannot possibly administer the sacrament to himself. (The same applies to the representation of the faithful). I can further explain this if you wish.

Blessings,

Melody

[Melody]

While on this topic, I had written about an experience I had wrt this Sacrament, just before Holy Week. The article will give you a good idea about what the receiving the Sacrament is like in my hometown.

For anyone interested, you can read it here:

"I Confess..."

Blessings,

Melody

[jesusandyou]

Thanks to all for the Info.

When it comes to Sin, what kind of sin you normally go to the Priest and confess? Yes, I know its between the person who confess and the Priest, but just want to know. If you have killed someone or cheated someone, will you go to the priest and confess about that? Does anyone remember an incident where a priest going to the witness stand to send a member of his church to the Jail because of a crime that he confessed? Is there a degree of sin that you can apply before you confess to your priest? Do you consider you Reputation before you confess?

If a Priest confess his sin to his fellow Bishop, for example the Priest had fornication with a member of his Church, can the Bishop sack this Priest based on that? Or is it mandatory that the Bishop needs to forgive the Priest?

When it comes to the ourcome, what happens after you confess your sin to the Priest?

Is there any authority in the Catholic Church who monitors the priests and decide on their performance? For example to check whether the Priest is doing his confession regularly and is eligible to server the Church?

[Rev. Eric]

Hello Everyone,

Here are few responses on the latest round of questions and comments.

why cannot a priest confess his sins to himself and get forgiven?

In addition to what has been said already in this thread, let me point out that, as a general rule, no one can give a sacrament to himself.  For example, a person cannot baptize himself or give himself the anointing of the sick.  A sacrament is something that involves the community so there should be at least two people present.  (Note that a priest who is a hermit and lives in seclusion can celebrate the Mass by himself, but even then he does this along with all the angels and saints in heaven).

When it comes to Sin, what kind of sin you normally go to the Priest and confess?

Is there a degree of sin that you can apply before you confess to your priest?

There are mortal sins and venial sins.  Mortal means "deadly" and venial means "little".  Strictly speaking, only mortal sins need to be confessed within the Sacrament of Reconciliaton (although a person still needs to have contrition for his venial sins and have a attitude of penance concerning them).  Nevertheless, it is still a good idea to confess venial sins because a person receives special sacramental graces to help him avoid commiting those sins in the future.  For more information on all this, see my responses in the thread "Degrees of Sin."

If a Priest confess his sin to his fellow Bishop, for example the Priest had fornication with a member of his Church, can the Bishop sack this Priest based on that?

No, because the bishop is bound by the seal of confession.  The fact that the bishop in your example is the priest's boss does not change this.  A bishop or priest cannot reveal what was brought up in any confession, or act upon that information, without the penitent's express permission.

is it mandatory that the Bishop needs to forgive the Priest?

If a penitent expresses some degree of contrition for his confessed sins then he should be granted absolution.

When it comes to the ourcome, what happens after you confess your sin to the Priest?

Within the Sacrament of Reconciliation, the penitent should:
1)  Have contrition for his sins and a resolution to avoid (with God's help) sinning again.
2)  Confess (by type and amount) all the mortal sins that he commited since his last confession.
3)  Do the act of penance given to him.

If the penitent is true to all this, then the outcome of the sacrament is:
a)  An outpouring of sanctifying grace on the penitent, and he also receives special sacramental graces to help him resist the temptation to commit the confessed sins in the future.
 Absolution for all the sins he's commited since his last confession, including any sins that he honestly forgot to mention in confession.

If a penitent is not true to 1-3 then basically nothing happens.  Even though the priest may say the words of absolution, the attitude of the penitent places an obstacle that blocks the function of the sacrament, and his sins are not truly absolved.  In this sacrament, either all his sins are absolved or none are.

Is there any authority in the Catholic Church who monitors the priests and decide on their performance? For example to check whether the Priest is doing his confession regularly and is eligible to server the Church?

Although priests are encouraged to go to confession on a regular basis, this is not monitered or recorded.

God bless,
-Rev. Eric

[Rev. Eric]

P.S.,

Looking back on my last post, I forgot that I have to be careful when trying to type b ) or it will come out as this guy:  

Anyway, I forgot to welcome Matthias to the community (so welcome!) and I also forgot to answer jesusandyou's question regarding:

Does anyone remember an incident where a priest going to the witness stand to send a member of his church to the Jail because of a crime that he confessed?

I have never heard of this happening, and if it did it would probably be reported in the news all over the world.  Therefore, I am inclined to believe that this has not happened.  

A priest cannot break the seal of confession even if called as a witness in a trail, regardless of whether or not he is protected by civil law in this regard.  Any priest who does break the seal of confession automatically excommunicates himself and is relieved of his priestly duties.  To get this corrected he has to go through Rome.  

This question reminded me of a story of fiction.  In Alfred Hitchcock's movie, "I Confess" a man confesses a murder to a priest.  Because of the seal of confession, the priest cannot reveal this information.  This puts the priest in a bind because certain circumstances cause him to be the murder suspect.  What a plot idea, huh?  It's a good movie so those of you who have not seen it might want to check it out.

God bless,
-Rev. Eric

[DavidFilmer]

The concept of the "seal of Confession" has not always been part of the Sacrament. In the very early Church, people stood up in the middle of the whole Assembly and confessed their sins! This arrangement didn't last long (for obvious reasons) and private confessions became the norm.  We see the "seal" firmly enshrined in Church canons dating to 1151, and secrecy was further (and more permanently) required in Canon 21 of the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), which says:

Let the priest absolutely beware that he does not by word or sign or by any manner whatever in any way betray the sinner: but if he should happen to need wiser counsel let him cautiously seek the same without any mention of person. For whoever shall dare to reveal a sin disclosed to him in the tribunal of penance we decree that he shall be not only deposed from the priestly office but that he shall also be sent into the confinement of a monastery to do perpetual penance.

In many nations, the Seal of Confession is legally recognized.  In the US, no priest can be compelled to testify regarding anything heard in Confession (but, as RevEric points out, a priest cannot testify even in a country where he may be legally required to do so).

I remember reading about King Wenceslaus IV of Poland, who suspected his wife, the queen, of infidelity, and sought to confirm his suspicions by interrogating the queen’s confessor. The priest was tortured and killed, but did not divulge anything. The priest was St. John Nepomucene (1340-93).

I have never heard of a priest breaking the seal. As RevEric says, it would be a HUGE scandal. And I have been active in a number of apologetical forums, and I've never heard an anti-Cahtolic present a credible example of the Seal being broken.  Anti-Catholics love to bring up scandals (even though it proves nothing), so if those guys don't have any dirt then I doubt there's any dirt to be had.

HOWEVER, not long ago here in Oregon, there was a case where the Seal was endangered. A priest visited a man in jail (accused of murder, if I recall).  In many US jails, if you visit someone, there is a thick piece of glass that totally separates you, and you talk by using an intercom which resembles a telephone handset. Well, the priest heard the guy’s confession using this intercom device. BUT, unknown to the priest (but not unknown to the prisoner), those conversations are recorded. The prosecutors sought to gain access to those recordings and possibly to use them as evidence (claiming that, because the prisoner knew about the recording, he had forfeited his right to secrecy). Church authorities were aghast, and petitioned the Court to have the recording destroyed. Eventually, the Church prevailed and the recordings were destroyed without ever being heard by anyone.

And let me add my own welcome to Matthias!  

[Matthias]

Hallo, Melody (that is a pretty name). I asked that a priest cannot forgive his own sins. You said

You are right about Catholism not allowing a priest to hear his own confession. This is because we believe that the Priest represents both God & the faithful (who have been hurt by the sin).

At the time of confessing a priest does not represent God, but only his human self. Hence he cannot possibly administer the sacrament to himself. (The same applies to the representation of the faithful). I can further explain this if you wish.

Thank you for your offer of further explaining.

A priest does not need another priest for communion, correct? This also is a sacriment, yes? But the priest does not need another priest for communion. Why is confession different?

[Melody]

Hallo, Melody (that is a pretty name).

Why thank you  

A priest does not need another priest for communion, correct? This also is a sacriment, yes? But the priest does not need another priest for communion. Why is confession different?

If you scroll up a little, Rev. Eric has put up an excellent post with various different aspects of this Sacrament covered in it, including this your question.

I quote from his post:

... as a general rule, no one can give a sacrament to himself. For example, a person cannot baptize himself or give himself the anointing of the sick. A sacrament is something that involves the community so there should be at least two people present. (Note that a priest who is a hermit and lives in seclusion can celebrate the Mass by himself, but even then he does this along with all the angels and saints in heaven).

I think the key word here is Community.

Blessings,

Melody

[Matthias]

So a priest cannot give do communion only with himself, but an exception is made for the hermit priest.  It is OK that the hermit priest give communion only with himself, yes? So can this same hermit priest forgive his own sins?

[Seeker]

Hi Matthias,

As part of the celebration of the Mass, the priest must take and eat the Eucharistic Bread after consecration.  So, in this respect, the priest is not administering the sacrament to himself, but receiving Christ as part of his role in the Mass.  If there are others present, he then distributes the Eucharist to the faithful.

I hope I am corrected if I am wrong on this.

[Rev. Eric]

Hello One and All,

Let me try to briefly clarify some of the things that have been brought up in this thread.

All the sacraments involve actions of giving and receiving, and therefore require at least two people to be present.  This is also why the sacraments are, by nature, community events.  One person gives and another receives.  For example, in marriage the bride and groom give and receive vows to one another.

Exceptions to this rule can be found with the celebration of the Eucharist due to the special nature of the Eucharist.  For example, even though the priest receives the Eucharist, he also "self-communicates," meaning that he gives Communion to himself.  As a Christian the priest receives Communion, but as the one standing in the person of Christ, he self-communicates before Communion is distributed to others.  The action of self-communication is an act of guiding the community, just as Jesus guided the Apostles at the Last Supper when He offered Himself to the Father.  Jesus showed the Apostles the way at the Last Supper, and the priest (representing Christ) does the same for the congregation at Mass.

It is worth pointing out that there are sacramental theologians who believe that a clearly visible action of giving and receiving should be consistently preserved in the Eucharist and, therefore, they believe that a priest should not self-communicate.  Nevertheless, the practice of a priest self-communicating is the approved liturgical norm.

In terms of sacramental theology, there is a lot more to all of this, but I am simply sticking with the basics for the sake of this post.

In conclusion we can see that a sacrament requires the presence of at least two people due to the sacramental action of giving and receiving.  This is the general rule.  We can see exceptions to this rule when it comes to the Eucharist due to the special nature of the Eucharist.  Nevertheless, whereas exceptions may be made with the Eucharist, they are not made with the other sacraments.  Hence, a priest may not go to himself for the Sacrament of Penance under any circumstances.  If a priest finds himself in a state of mortal sin, he must, like any other Catholic,  make an Act of Contrition (i.e., a prayer of contrition and repentence) and see a priest for Confession as soon as possible.

God bless,
-Rev. Eric

[Matthias]

just as Jesus guided the Apostles at the Last Supper when He offered Himself to the Father.

Was Jesus also eating and drinking the communion at the Last Supper? I am not knowing if the Bible say. But in all the Holywood movie you see that Jesus pass it around but Jesus is not himself having any.

RevEric, are you thinking that Jesus also had some of this communion?

If you say yes, he did, then I think that unusual because I belive that not many Christians are thinking this.

If you say no, he did not then I ask you why if the priest is (you say) acting like Jesus that the priest also is having some of the communion?

[Rev. Eric]

Hello Matthias,

Thank you for your questions and comments.  To begin with, let me clarify my earlier statement.  I did not specifically say that Jesus actually ate and drank at the last supper, I said He guided the apostles in His action of giving Himself to the Father.  Jesus gave Himself to the Father in the sacrifice of the Eucharist and Christians are called to give themselves to the Father in a sacrificial action while participating in the Mass.  The point I was trying to bring out is that the role of Jesus at the Last Supper was to guide those present (the apostles), and the role of the priest at Mass is to guide those present (the congregation).  

But the way that a priest needs to guide those at Mass will go beyond the actions described in the Bible during the Last Supper.  Even though he performs the actions of Christ, he is not restricted to doing only what the Bible said Jesus did.  The Mass is a living sacrament that each generation participates in, and it has grown in certain aspects.  It is not simply a historical re-enactment of the Last Supper.

The priest does not self-communicate because the Church believes that Jesus did.  The priest self-communicates because he is both Christ's representative and a member of the community, and the liturgical norm calls him to perform this action.  Anything beyond this is a theological explanation for the action, and such explanations are debated by sacramental theologians.  If I personally tried to explain this any further, I would have to simply present personal speculation.

In terms of whether or not Jesus actually ate and drank at the Last Supper, that's a good question.  As far as I know, Scripture does not clearly specify that He did, although I think that it is implied that He did.  For example, "I have ernestly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer" (Lk 22:15).

Being God, Jesus did not need to partake of the Eucharist in order to have life within Him (Jn 6:53-54).  After all, from a Catholic perspective, the Eucharist is Jesus.  But Jesus is also the Second Adam, a member of the human race who represents all of humanity.  As such, one could say that it would be fitting for Him to eat and drink at the Last Supper to show everyone else the way.  In a similar manner, Jesus did not need to be baptized, but in getting baptized He showed us the way.

God bless,
-Rev. Eric

[Matthias]

Thank you RevEric, all this very sensible, yes? I not agree with all that is teaching by the Catholic church, but I am understanding of what you say here and I have not any more questions about this thing. Your explaning is very good, yes? Especially about the baptism.