Also, if the murderer were to make a mockery of the sacrament, then he has worse to worry about than going to jail…I think an exception would be if say a murderer confessed to a priest with obviously no repentance just to be able to prevent him from talking to the police. Wouldn’t this just be a mockery of the sacrament and not be under the seal of confession.
I don’t think the question would be if the priest gave absolution or if certain wording was used on the part of the penitent. I mean if a sincere confession was made but the priest said he had to withhold absolution because the person first had to remove himself from an occasion of sin, such as stop living with his girlfriend, he would not have given absolution but would still be held to the seal of confession. I meant that if the person was obviously mocking the priest and was not given absolution.
Yes, The priest is forbidden to discuss ANYTHING discussed in the Sacrament of Reconciliation with ANYONE outside of the Sacrament, under ANY circumstances, for ANY reason. PERIOD.
I’m surprised that law has held up. If it were challenged it would perhaps be struck down because that seems very contrary to laws in pretty much the rest of the civilized Christian world.
The seal still applies. Regardless of whether absolution was given or not, the integrity of the Confessional requires the seal on whatever was said during Confession, invalid or not.
Here is an excerpt from the Safe Environment document that is required by the diocese of Dallas…it quotes the specific statute:
Br. Rich, I would be interested in reading any specific information on this issue if you have any available. Thanks.
Note that C) does not specify a Catholic priest. Being some what ambiguous “a member of the clergy" could be referring to Protestant or lay ministers who have only civil “professional privilege” granted to them by the state. So the state could take that away as it wills. A Catholic priest in confession is protected by Canon and I might also say Divine law. The Seal of Confession” has been untouched by any civil law throughout history. If they had intended this to apply to the Sacrament of Confession. C.) would have said “including Catholic priests in the Sacrament of Confession.” It didn’t because they didn’t want to go there. I don’t think a Bishop can require a priest to break the seal or do I think any Bishop would even ask or allow a priest to under any circumstances.
I’m afraid a state court won’t give a whit about Canon and Divine law. A judge can easily consider a Catholic priest under the blanket of “member of the clergy” and the Confession a professional activity.
It is a Sacrament as soon as a baptized Catholic goes in there and says “Bless me Father, for I have sinned …” with the intent of making a good Confession. It doesn’t stop being a Sacrament just because the Absolution isn’t given, for whatever reason.
This makes absolutely no sense to me.I think an exception would be if say a murderer confessed to a priest with obviously no repentance just to be able to prevent him from talking to the police. Wouldn’t this just be a mockery of the sacrament and not be under the seal of confession.
The priest would just say, “I don’t remember hearing that person’s confession,” which would be true, because they are not even supposed to remember what is told to them in Confession.
I’m certain most, if not all priests would keep their mouth shut and go to jail if necessary instead of risking their eternal salvation. No judge in his right mind would even try to force that since it has never been successfully done that I’m aware of.
Yes, indeed. May they remain courageous if ever the state courts become so evil as to force priests to break their seal. Priests have become martyrs rather than give in.
The seal isn’t exactly for the sacrament, as it’s entirely possible (though at this point highly illicit) to administer the sacrament publicly, as was the ancient practice, and it’s also not exactly for the confessional, as it can be administered outside of that specific area; rather, if we must identify who or what the seal is for I would submit that it is for the penitent. The seal is in place in order to remove insofar as possible any deterrents to seeking the grace of the sacrament. If people knew their sins might be publicized (especially in the case of criminals who would face public punishment and not just ill-repute), they might not seek forgiveness.
While in general I think many if not most would “understand” having to confess in the corner instead of the confessional, it’s important to remember 1) that confession should normally be done in a confessional and 2) both penitent and priest have a right to have a screen between them. The screen actually originated to protect the priest (from charges of impropriety - incidentally the early confessionals were also, though partitioned between priest and penitent, open to view of the rest of the church for the selfsame reason), but at this point I think it also serves as one of those means to aid the reluctant/nervous/embarrassed in approaching the throne of grace.I’m sure we would all understand that if the Sacrament were to be administered in the corner of a room instead of in the Confessional, the Seal (Seal of the Confessional) would still be in place. In fact, I believe the corner of the room would serve as the Confessional.