Nowadays, absolution is generally made dependant on the confession of the heinous crime to the authorities.
The secret of the confession is still absolute, though. The priest can’t take upon himself to denounce the culprit regardless how heinous the crime.
Look, I have no doubt that the secret of conffession has been broken many times and probably a few in Franco’s Spain, just like everywhere else. But here is not the place for making up things, even if they are “not *that *far-fetched”.
See? Again, you are making up shit. The guy stopped being a priest in 1977 so anything he knows is pretty old stuff. He says he would never break the secret. If he did it would probably backfire in a huge way. And a few of his enemies are saying, without any proof
So it is far from being a proven fact. More like a funny story if it were true. And the news will never get the truth get in the way of a good story.
Note too, that to make it easier on both the penitent and the priest, confession is often done anonymously: The priest sits in a little booth while the penitent sits in another booth adjacent to it, with a window between with a screen in it to prevent the priest from seeing the penitent clearly. Admittedly, face-to-face confession is an option, and the priest might recognize the sound of the penitent’s voice or the like, but in many cases, even if a priest did go rogue, there’s a limit to how much he could tell.
Just how absolute is absolute? A few thoughts.
Say the penitent prefaces his confession by saying, ‘I’m not a Catholic, in fact I’m agnostic leaning towards atheist. But, having committed a particularly gruesome murder, I do think confession would ease my troubled mind somewhat.’
He then details the murder he has committed. Is the priest absolved of his vow of secrecy in such circumstances?
Another thought. Someone mentioned upthread that he thought a priest could reveal to the police the fact that a crime is about to be committed. Is that in fact the case? For instance, let us suppose someone confessed that he and a group of conspirators were determined to blow up the Pope and the whole conclave of cardinals the next day. Could the priest take action to prevent the act?
Fair enough. My point wasn’t about that particular time and place - merely that the seal of confession is just a law, and like all laws it can be (and has been) broken on occasion.
Well, the story is 7 years old, and as far as I could find there was no follow-up so yes, it most probably was bogus, but it’s still a very amusing concept - and I did qualify it as off-topic.
O.J. Simpson is said to have confessed during his murder trial to Rosy Grier (cite) which was overheard by a guard, but the judge disallowed the guard from testifying due to the fact that Grier was an ordained minister and the conversation was privileged.
Kobal2 and sailor? As the OP I’m just asking for* facts*, not speculation, and if you two need to speculate there are other places for that.
Again, I’d like to thank all those giving answers to my question.
If he’s baptised, even if his personal beliefs are “agnostic leaning towards atheist”, he is entitled to receive the sacrament of penance. If the priest knows for a fact that the penitent is not baptised, he will not offer the sacrament but may certainly offer to talk.
There is a film called “Priest”, set in Liverpool, in which the seal of the confessional is an important theme. The young priest receives confession from a man who is habitually raping his daughter. Finally, the priest, very troubled by this knowldge but unable to act directly, goes to where the girl’s mother is and tells her to go home.
The mother discovers the abuse and puts an end to it.
Unfortunately, this action breaches the seal of the confessional just as surely as if the priest had informed the mother, or the police, directly.
According to Canon Law, the priest may take whatever steps he deems necessary to prevent a crime he’s been told about under seal of confession as long as he doesn’t put the penitent in jeopardy. He can’t give the guy’s name, nor any information that may lead to him whatsoever, not even should the Pope himself order him to.
He may however try to persuade the future perp to reconsider, or the future victim to be elsewhere, fast. What I don’t know for sure is whether direct action (i.e. conking the penitent on the head until the Pope’s gone, or holding him against his will until he’s been convinced not to commit the crime) is allowed, frowned upon or downright forbidden.
Oh, sorry, I did not know you owned and moderated this thread. And I was giving facts so I don’t understand why you have a problem.
IIRC, can’t a priest tell the confessor that he will withhold absolution if said confessor refuses to stop committing said crimes?
Interesting that both parties, the one telling the sins and the one listening, are called “confessor”. I would have expected “confessor” and “confessee” or something like that.
Yes, in order to make a valid confession, you have to be contrite and repentant. Part of this is to have the intention not to commit the same sin again. If the priest knows that you intend to commit the same sin again, he will not grant absolution.
Normally the person doing the confessing is called the penitent.
So in a situation like the one described above (the father molesting his child), that would be the case. I thought I remembered so from my Catholic school days. 
I’ve heard the movie nitpicked to the effect that since the molester indicates he doesn’t care whether he’s absolved or not (I think he’s going to confession just to torment the priest, but it’s been years since I saw it), there is no confession and therefore no seal of the confessional, just as if he’d told the priest over coffee. Is that true?
There are other church options available. it’s not like the Catholic church has any authority to stop it from happening. From a religous/moral standpoint I’d be more worried about my soul if I didn’t stop future murders than I would be from a letter from the Pope.