child porn and sins that need legal reparation

[fakename]

Originally Posted by underacloud

A priest may not "force" a penitant to turn themselves in as such, but may determine that they are not truly sorry for their sins if they have not done so, and so withhold absolution.

While in many cases there is nothing truly served by the sinner admitting to criminal offenses, there are cases where it may be very relevant. Say you committed a murder and another person was convicted of your crime. If you were truly sorry for your sin, no matter how hard it may be, you would surely admit to the crime so that an innocent person was not suffering due to your sin. Even if there is no innocent peron in jail, perhaps for the sake of the victims family you need to admit to it, to ease as much as possible the ongoing consequences of your actions.

If you raped a person, it may be considered a fundamental aspect of contrition for your sin that you admit to the crime and receive your just punishment, so that the victim may feel justice has been done. To not admit to the crime may perpetuate the evil that you have committed on your victim.

There are cases, as above, where taking responsibility for the sin is a fundamental component of contrition, and thus a priest will be entitled to withhold absolution where the sinner refuses to take on that responsibility.

In the case of child porn, I'm not sure that there is an immediate need for a person to turn themselves in, but certainly they would need to ensure that any materials are destroyed. Hypothetically, a priest may also determine that if someone involved in child porn knew of an ongoing operation and did not act to inform police of it (even at the risk of their own criminality becoming know), then they were not truly sorry.

Is it true that if a person stole or did anything else against justice (such that it would need reparation) accidentally, then he would have to make reparations?

Do you think that this would entail that accidentally viewing illegal porn (like child porn) would require a person to make reparations (confessing to the police, etc) even on an accident? (After all I hear, that Google doesn't filter child porn).

Oh, and given the perhaps unreasonable severity of the laws RE: kiddie porn, should such reparation be attempted or is it practically impossible or unjust to attempt such reparation? Perhaps reparations could be given in some other way?

[underacloud]

Originally Posted by fakename

Is it true that if a person stole or did anything else against justice (such that it would need reparation) accidentally, then he would have to make reparations?

Generally yes, I think so.

If a bank accidentally deposits $10M into your account, then you give it back (this happened recently in NZ and the person left with the money; they are now apprehended and on trial).

Originally Posted by fakename

Do you think that this would entail that accidentally viewing illegal porn (like child porn) would require a person to make reparations (confessing to the police, etc) even on an accident? (After all I hear, that Google doesn't filter child porn).

Oh, and given the perhaps unreasonable severity of the laws RE: kiddie porn, should such reparation be attempted or is it practically impossible or unjust to attempt such reparation? Perhaps reparations could be given in some other way?

Firstly, of course not. Accidentally viewing child porn is not a sin and does not require one to turn themselves in.

Secondly, what exactly do you think reparation is in this case? What is it that you have taken from the victim that you could give back in some way?

As above, if you accidentally receive money you aren't entitled to, you give it back. What are you going to give back in the case of accidentally viewing child porn? There is no reparation required or possible.

[fakename]

Originally Posted by underacloud

Generally yes, I think so.

If a bank accidentally deposits $10M into your account, then you give it back (this happened recently in NZ and the person left with the money; they are now apprehended and on trial).



Firstly, of course not. Accidentally viewing child porn is not a sin and does not require one to turn themselves in.

Secondly, what exactly do you think reparation is in this case? What is it that you have taken from the victim that you could give back in some way?

As above, if you accidentally receive money you aren't entitled to, you give it back. What are you going to give back in the case of accidentally viewing child porn? There is no reparation required or possible.

RE: reparations, I always thought that it takes away a person's innocence or reputation. This seems to be a commutative justice problem so there must be an obligation and a way to give something back.

Also, fornication or rape generally and naturally demand a death sentence (though these punishments are not insisted on for other reasons).

I guess I was wrong?

[underacloud]

Originally Posted by fakename

RE: reparations, I always thought that it takes away a person's innocence or reputation. This seems to be a commutative justice problem so there must be an obligation and a way to give something back.

Sure, but you are not the one who has taken away their innocence or reputation. The person who took the pictures and uploaded them has done this. When you accidentally view them, you may in fact be another victim of the other person's sins/crimes.

Originally Posted by fakename

Also, fornication or rape generally and naturally demand a death sentence (though these punishments are not insisted on for other reasons).

But you don't accidentally rape someone, right?

(And I'm not sure if it's correct to say the fornication naturally demands a death sentence...but that's an aside to this discussion.)

[losh14]

Since we've moved to the nature of reparations, bear in mind there are those reparations that are made externally (paying for damage to property, or giving closure to a victim), and those made internally. I've often thought those made internally can align fairly well with the doctrine of indulgences in so far as ameliorating the temporal burden levied by sin.

If one confesses pornography and, in accordance with a spirit of contrition, destroys it, the penitent is forgiven. Yet it is often the case that the penitent remains damaged by the pornography, especially after habitual use, to the extent of having an unhealthy fixation upon sex and a view of people as sexual objects intended for the sinner's gratification. It follows that certain reparative acts are really designed to restore the sinner to the Lord. A more proper focus upon prayer can only help - partly by opening the heart to the Kingdom of God, but also by distracting the mind during idle or even dangerous moments. If indulgences are described in the sense of reducing one's time in Purgatory, they should also be thought of in the sense of being more ready for Heaven during life on earth.

It's not that such reparations make one more or less forgiven - Christ's forgiveness is absolute to the one who confesses with a contrite heart. Rather, such reparations reorient the penitent towards Heaven, to abhor what is evil and embrace what is good, and assist the penitent in resisting temptation and avoiding occasions of sin.

[fakename]

Originally Posted by losh14

Since we've moved to the nature of reparations, bear in mind there are those reparations that are made externally (paying for damage to property, or giving closure to a victim), and those made internally. I've often thought those made internally can align fairly well with the doctrine of indulgences in so far as ameliorating the temporal burden levied by sin.

If one confesses pornography and, in accordance with a spirit of contrition, destroys it, the penitent is forgiven. Yet it is often the case that the penitent remains damaged by the pornography, especially after habitual use, to the extent of having an unhealthy fixation upon sex and a view of people as sexual objects intended for the sinner's gratification. It follows that certain reparative acts are really designed to restore the sinner to the Lord. A more proper focus upon prayer can only help - partly by opening the heart to the Kingdom of God, but also by distracting the mind during idle or even dangerous moments. If indulgences are described in the sense of reducing one's time in Purgatory, they should also be thought of in the sense of being more ready for Heaven during life on earth.

It's not that such reparations make one more or less forgiven - Christ's forgiveness is absolute to the one who confesses with a contrite heart. Rather, such reparations reorient the penitent towards Heaven, to abhor what is evil and embrace what is good, and assist the penitent in resisting temptation and avoiding occasions of sin.

Is it true that there are internal reparations?

I always thought that reparations were external objective things (or at least intersubjective) that were returned to wrongly injured equals?

[losh14]

Originally Posted by fakename

Is it true that there are internal reparations?
I always thought that reparations were external objective things (or at least intersubjective) that were returned to wrongly injured equals?

You made me scratch my chin a few times to flesh out my earlier thoughts, thank you.
Metaphorically, at least, if we ever have need to forgive ourselves because we have caused ourselves harm, then yes internal reparations are certainly warranted. I'd think them of very different type from external, especially in a legal situation, so that rather than being compensatory they'd be remediative.

And that external compensation is more in a legal or restorative capacity - it's of course never compensation for the mortal debt of the sin (in case anyone's wondering).

It's been argued here that external reparations are necessary:
* to show true contrition
* to prevent the sinner from remaining in the sin or continuing to sin
* to prevent other harm from coming
* to convert the sinner's behavior, externally at least if not internally as well

Now the legal purpose of the reparation is to make the victim (or at least the one sinned-against) "whole" again in some capacity. Whether the person is returned to the whole state doesn't invalidate the reparation - this is obvious in the case of homicide, but consider a tort case that results in a large monetary reward which is squandered. The purpose of the reparation isn't punitive - hence the difference between compensatory and punitive damages being awarded.

For the purposes of external reparations, then, with respect to absolution, the intent isn't to punish the sinner but to correct and help the sinner. Absolution makes the sinner "whole" in the most important sense, that of relationship with the Lord, but absolution is not a guarantee of future avoidance of sin. There remains the damage from the sin itself, so internal reparations with the intent of healing that damage to make the sinner "whole" in a mental or physical capacity are reasonable.

Consider alcohol or drug abuse - the damage done is obvious, and while the intent to avoid such abuse in the future is necessarily a part of contrition, there is likely the need for healing and conversion of habits. Given our above conversation, I think it'd be a breach of the seal to order a confessing drug addict to rehab for absolution, but at the same time penance would be incomplete without urging the penitent to consider it.

Without such internal reparations, though, it is far easier to fall back into sin. If we remain in Christ when we comply with Grace then the more often and in more varied ways with comply with Grace, the more and more deeply we are in Christ. This is true for all addictive or at least habitual behaviors, but I think there's more broadly a need to reorient the internal person towards Christ after absolution is granted. This should be an extension of penance - while saying a decade of the rosary or of the Jesus Prayer is good and beneficial, it is far more beneficial to do so every day, even if only for a definite period of time. Internal reparations, then, are not only pietistic or devotional but a more thorough inclusion of the Divine Life within the human.

[fakename]

Originally Posted by losh14

You made me scratch my chin a few times to flesh out my earlier thoughts, thank you.
Metaphorically, at least, if we ever have need to forgive ourselves because we have caused ourselves harm, then yes internal reparations are certainly warranted. I'd think them of very different type from external, especially in a legal situation, so that rather than being compensatory they'd be remediative.

And that external compensation is more in a legal or restorative capacity - it's of course never compensation for the mortal debt of the sin (in case anyone's wondering).

It's been argued here that external reparations are necessary:
* to show true contrition
* to prevent the sinner from remaining in the sin or continuing to sin
* to prevent other harm from coming
* to convert the sinner's behavior, externally at least if not internally as well

Now the legal purpose of the reparation is to make the victim (or at least the one sinned-against) "whole" again in some capacity. Whether the person is returned to the whole state doesn't invalidate the reparation - this is obvious in the case of homicide, but consider a tort case that results in a large monetary reward which is squandered. The purpose of the reparation isn't punitive - hence the difference between compensatory and punitive damages being awarded.

For the purposes of external reparations, then, with respect to absolution, the intent isn't to punish the sinner but to correct and help the sinner. Absolution makes the sinner "whole" in the most important sense, that of relationship with the Lord, but absolution is not a guarantee of future avoidance of sin. There remains the damage from the sin itself, so internal reparations with the intent of healing that damage to make the sinner "whole" in a mental or physical capacity are reasonable.

Consider alcohol or drug abuse - the damage done is obvious, and while the intent to avoid such abuse in the future is necessarily a part of contrition, there is likely the need for healing and conversion of habits. Given our above conversation, I think it'd be a breach of the seal to order a confessing drug addict to rehab for absolution, but at the same time penance would be incomplete without urging the penitent to consider it.

Without such internal reparations, though, it is far easier to fall back into sin. If we remain in Christ when we comply with Grace then the more often and in more varied ways with comply with Grace, the more and more deeply we are in Christ. This is true for all addictive or at least habitual behaviors, but I think there's more broadly a need to reorient the internal person towards Christ after absolution is granted. This should be an extension of penance - while saying a decade of the rosary or of the Jesus Prayer is good and beneficial, it is far more beneficial to do so every day, even if only for a definite period of time. Internal reparations, then, are not only pietistic or devotional but a more thorough inclusion of the Divine Life within the human.

Well I think that reparations rightly considered are defined differently:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12788a.htm

I even have a thread about what it exactly means.

But more to the point, I suppose you don't think that reparations (that is restitution) is possible or necessary in this point? But from the above you clearly must believe that some restitution is necessary although not in the sense that I use restitution? Then do you believe that perhaps for reasons of state (e.g., perhaps for reasons of disobedience to the laws) a person should do "restitution" that is, make some sort of compensation to the state for the disobedience of viewing underage porn?

I suppose he should but perhaps I'm being too rigorous?

[AHapka]

Originally Posted by fakename

Then do you believe that perhaps for reasons of state (e.g., perhaps for reasons of disobedience to the laws) a person should do "restitution" that is, make some sort of compensation to the state for the disobedience of viewing underage porn?

I suppose he should but perhaps I'm being too rigorous?

Hmmm...if you accept that, then that means a person should do restitution to the state for any law being broken.

Which, if you consider traffic offenses, means a large portion of us probably would have to start paying

[losh14]

I think we've moved past the original point of the thread but are onto something interesting. We initially discussed reparation as a necessity either by making the one harmed by our sin whole (close to the commutative justice linked to on NewAdvent, and to which I alluded above), or as a fundamental component of contrition. This can be entangling with civil justice where restitution is generally tangible.

Originally Posted by fakename

Well I think that reparations rightly considered are defined differently:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12788a.htm

The nature of internal reparations is necessarily distinct from that of commutative justice, so perhaps using the term reparation or restitution is only confounding here. Perhaps rectification ("righting" the breach) is a better term,but whatever term we'd like to use the point is that the sinner remains broken by sin and needs grace to be made whole again, a grace that requires compliance. We don't have to be perfect in this life, and aren't expected to, but we are expected to move towards that perfection which is one and the same with Unity in Christ. So rectification - or internal reparations - are not so much taking from the sinner's coffers to coffers of the aggrieved, but rather the binding and healing of one's own wounds, with Christ as Doctor and the penitent as patient. Does it help to explain it as such?

Originally Posted by fakename

But more to the point, I suppose you don't think that reparations (that is restitution) is possible or necessary in this point?

External reparations in the case of, say, buying 'legal' porn off a website, aren't possible, aside from perhaps providing funds to agencies that work to end sex trafficking. As to their necessity, I'd think not but that is up to the confessor. When we get into material that is obviously illegal that's a more complex area.

If restitution - in the sense you use - is obligatory it is because the sinner retains something that belongs to someone else. The something is obvious in theft, but less obvious in terms of indecency - we could argue the sinner who keeps his access to porn sites steals the dignity of the subject of indecent media, even if the subject willingly surrenders such dignity (though arguably it's not hers to surrender). In this case of truly disgusting materials involving children, that dignity can never be surrendered voluntarily and is indeed stolen. Having mere knowledge of these materials is, IMHO, a violation of justice without turning them over to authorities.

If restitution - as you use - is possible in such a case, ie through direct knowledge of production or distribution, then such restitution is necessary. If the only restitution possible is indirect and through police action, then these materials must be surrendered all the same.

Originally Posted by fakename

But from the above you clearly must believe that some restitution is necessary although not in the sense that I use restitution?

You are correct.Yours is the more technical, mine is perhaps more familiar but I see that would be a false assumption on my part.

Originally Posted by fakename

Then do you believe that perhaps for reasons of state (e.g., perhaps for reasons of disobedience to the laws) a person should do "restitution" that is, make some sort of compensation to the state for the disobedience of viewing underage porn?

A good question. Let me continue the framework I began above. The internal rectification would include healing and redirecting the psychological energy that went towards satisfying the impulse. The external reparation could include surrendering materials to the State, but I do not think surrendering of self to the State is always necessary for absolution. It may be necessary for healing to submit oneself to the authority of the State, and I would certainly not dispute the contrition of such a one. But given the Seal, I don't think self-surrender can be required for absolution unless the penitent has a direct role in production or distribution of such obscenity.

Originally Posted by fakename

I suppose he should but perhaps I'm being too rigorous?

It's right to be rigorous with regard to sin.

[losh14]

Originally Posted by AHapka

Hmmm...if you accept that, then that means a person should do restitution to the state for any law being broken.

Which, if you consider traffic offenses, means a large portion of us probably would have to start paying

To a point ... remember that the principle of restitution is obligatory when harm is perpetrated by declining such restitution. In other words, theft requires repayment because the one stolen from remains harmed and the one who keeps the property benefits from the sin (namely the theft).

Traffic tickets are an oddity. Yes, speeding breaks the law but its not co-equivalent to taking money from the State. The State doesn't track you by satellite (at least not yet) and keep a running tab of the number of feet you drive at excess speed, then send you the bill at the end of the month. The State is not less whole because you speed, although those who drive near you are less safe because of your speeding. Reducing speed, then, removes the danger and those driving around you are not worse off for your presence. Thus it's difficult because the harm is potential rather than actual. You still display disobedience when you speed but is it intentional and malicious ("floor it and forget the consequences"), or merely habitual or were you coerced (ie, are you going the speed of traffic)? I'd say only to be cognizant of your driving - speed as well as courtesy and awareness - and that it is not a sin unless you intentionally drive with disregard to others.

[fakename]

Originally Posted by losh14

I think we've moved past the original point of the thread but are onto something interesting. We initially discussed reparation as a necessity either by making the one harmed by our sin whole (close to the commutative justice linked to on NewAdvent, and to which I alluded above), or as a fundamental component of contrition. This can be entangling with civil justice where restitution is generally tangible.



The nature of internal reparations is necessarily distinct from that of commutative justice, so perhaps using the term reparation or restitution is only confounding here. Perhaps rectification ("righting" the breach) is a better term,but whatever term we'd like to use the point is that the sinner remains broken by sin and needs grace to be made whole again, a grace that requires compliance. We don't have to be perfect in this life, and aren't expected to, but we are expected to move towards that perfection which is one and the same with Unity in Christ. So rectification - or internal reparations - are not so much taking from the sinner's coffers to coffers of the aggrieved, but rather the binding and healing of one's own wounds, with Christ as Doctor and the penitent as patient. Does it help to explain it as such?



External reparations in the case of, say, buying 'legal' porn off a website, aren't possible, aside from perhaps providing funds to agencies that work to end sex trafficking. As to their necessity, I'd think not but that is up to the confessor. When we get into material that is obviously illegal that's a more complex area.

If restitution - in the sense you use - is obligatory it is because the sinner retains something that belongs to someone else. The something is obvious in theft, but less obvious in terms of indecency - we could argue the sinner who keeps his access to porn sites steals the dignity of the subject of indecent media, even if the subject willingly surrenders such dignity (though arguably it's not hers to surrender). In this case of truly disgusting materials involving children, that dignity can never be surrendered voluntarily and is indeed stolen. Having mere knowledge of these materials is, IMHO, a violation of justice without turning them over to authorities.

If restitution - as you use - is possible in such a case, ie through direct knowledge of production or distribution, then such restitution is necessary. If the only restitution possible is indirect and through police action, then these materials must be surrendered all the same.



You are correct.Yours is the more technical, mine is perhaps more familiar but I see that would be a false assumption on my part.



A good question. Let me continue the framework I began above. The internal rectification would include healing and redirecting the psychological energy that went towards satisfying the impulse. The external reparation could include surrendering materials to the State, but I do not think surrendering of self to the State is always necessary for absolution. It may be necessary for healing to submit oneself to the authority of the State, and I would certainly not dispute the contrition of such a one. But given the Seal, I don't think self-surrender can be required for absolution unless the penitent has a direct role in production or distribution of such obscenity.



It's right to be rigorous with regard to sin.

So the state is involved sometimes with restitution and sometimes with "rectification" and restitution is needed for absolution but restitution is not always needed for rectification nor is it always needed for absolution (though other payments might be)?

[losh14]

I appreciate the summary:

Originally Posted by fakename

So the state is involved sometimes with restitution and sometimes with "rectification" and restitution is needed for absolution but restitution is not always needed for rectification nor is it always needed for absolution (though other payments might be)?

But it might be clearer if I separate out some thoughts:

1) Absolution requires knowledge, contrition, confession and intent to sin no more.
2) Absolution may require restitution if that restitution is needed to avoid future sin.
3) Absolution may require rectification if that rectification is needed to avoid future sin.
4) A penitent who confesses and receives absolution may not need to make restitution or rectification but may do so anyway as a conversion of heart.
5) The actions of restitution may involve the State, the actions of rectification probably would not. Again, a penitent may, moved by their contrition, surrender themselves to the State for crimes committed even when such surrender is not part of absolution.

Let's go more concrete:
When would absolution require restitution? Examples:
a) A stolen car must be returned. Keeping it would offend commutative justice by continuing to deprive the owner of what is theirs, and would also allow the penitent to benefit from the theft.
b) An offense must be apologized for. Not apologizing prevents the one offended from healing (being made whole emotionally) and reflects a lack of contrition on the part of the penitent.

When is restitution needed and would require State involvement? Examples:
a) You've kidnapped someone, depriving them of freedom, and owe them freedom as part of restitution. Freeing him or her necessarily means you'll be reported to the police. You cannot receive absolution while keeping this person a prisoner.
b) You have participated in producing illegal obscenity that necessarily harms the subject (ie, matter involving children or women held against their will). You know of continuing operations. Your participation helped victimize these people and you benefited monetarily or pruriently. The rest will not stop despite your change of heart. You must report the activities to the police to stop them, necessarily surrendering yourself.

Note that State involvement doesn't mean you always must surrender yourself to the State. For example, mere possession of illegal obscenity, if you don't know where or from whom it was created, doesn't present a means for you to directly stop the production. The materials should be turned over to the State but can be done so anonymously - perhaps there is something in them that the State can use to stop the operations. Otherwise, the materials must be destroyed to prevent from sinning again.

Of course, the State would be involved in the examples of kidnapping and theft, if for no other reason than the crime would have been reported and have to be resolved. The car owner could decline to press charges for the auto theft and the State drop the complaint against you, that would be a tremendous demonstration of forgiveness. I'm inclined against thinking the same would happen in the case of kidnapping.

When would absolution require rectification (internal healing)?
a) Alcohol addiction. You are powerless to stop drinking on your own and need internal healing to accompany your spiritual conversion. That spiritual conversion is complete, but the penitent cannot remain in Grace against overwhelming compulsion to become drunk.
b) Cohabitation outside of marriage. At all times are we bound to avoid near occasions of sin. Consider a penitent who confesses sleeping with a partner but living separately from him or her. Absolution may be given to this one provided the penitent intends to live chastely going forward - no more sex until marriage. Now consider the penitent who confesses sleeping with a cohabiting partner. The penitent may be truly sorry for the illict sex but remains in near occasion to sin and so cannot receive absolution without intending to remove him or herself from the cohabitation. This is an internal reparation - a rectification - because it requires the reorienting of the penitent's life towards Christ by changing where and how he or she lives.
c) Attempted suicide. Whatever the cause - mental illness, physical pain, emotional burden - one who is experiencing suicidal thoughts must receive help and healing in order to not remain at risk of attempting their life again.

When would the State be involved in rectification - internal reparations? I have trouble of thinking when the State would necessarily be a part of rectification where rectification is necessarily a part of absolution. Going from the examples above, I think it would come where the State is offering counseling and healing services for alcoholism or suicidal intentions, or perhaps to assist a woman who cohabits partly out of financial need, but that's really contrived.

[losh14]

I should point out that intent to cease in sin is not a separate requirement but part of contrition.

Originally Posted by losh14

1) Absolution requires knowledge, contrition, confession and intent to sin no more.

I pull it out because I want to be clear that contrition does not exist if one intends to persist in sin.

[fakename]

Originally Posted by losh14

I should point out that intent to cease in sin is not a separate requirement but part of contrition.



I pull it out because I want to be clear that contrition does not exist if one intends to persist in sin.

Thanks for the interesting info.