2 questions about seal of confession

[Reformed_Rob]

Ok I know that when the priest hears someone’s confession, they are bound by the Seal to not say what the sins are. And they can’t even “take action” based on information gained during Confession.

But…my first question is what if something happens that prevents absolution from being given? For instance, the priest says “based on what you are saying, I can’t absolve you at this time.” In that case, the priest would not be bound by the Seal, correct?? Because there was no Sacramental action of Christ.

Also, my second question, the Seal applies to both the priest and the penitent, correct? I’m thinking it does, because I remember a good while back reading that a person is excommunicated for telling on a priest if he does something bad to them during Confession. So I’m reading that as the Seal applying to both priest and penitent.

 

[mommyof4]

Here’s a site that may answer your questions:
newadvent.org/summa/5011.htm

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Ok I know that when the priest hears someone’s confession, they are bound by the Seal to not say what the sins are. And they can’t even “take action” based on information gained during Confession.

But…my first question is what if something happens that prevents absolution from being given? For instance, the priest says “based on what you are saying, I can’t absolve you at this time.” In that case, the priest would not be bound by the Seal, correct?? Because there was no Sacramental action of Christ.

Also, my second question, the Seal applies to both the priest and the penitent, correct? I’m thinking it does, because I remember a good while back reading that a person is excommunicated for telling on a priest if he does something bad to them during Confession. So I’m reading that as the Seal applying to both priest and penitent.

But…my first question is what if something happens that prevents absolution from being given? For instance, the priest says “based on what you are saying, I can’t absolve you at this time.” In that case, the priest would not be bound by the Seal, correct?? Because there was no Sacramental action of Christ.

Once the Sacramental Rite is begun (Bless me father…) the seal is in place, period.

Also, my second question, the Seal applies to both the priest and the penitent, correct? I’m thinking it does, because I remember a good while back reading that a person is excommunicated for telling on a priest if he does something bad to them during Confession. So I’m reading that as the Seal applying to both priest and penitent

No, there is no seal on the penitent, theya re free to discuss their Confession outside the Confessional. You read wrong. There is no prohibition on reporting a priest who has “done something bad to them in Confession.”

 

[Reformed_Rob]

No, there is no seal on the penitent, theya re free to discuss their Confession outside the Confessional. You read wrong. There is no prohibition on reporting a priest who has “done something bad to them in Confession.”

Ok, then why the excommunication? I’ll have to go digging a little but that was the case. Legitimate vatican document. It may not be in effect now, but was at one time.

 

[Reformed_Rob]

Here’s a site that may answer your questions:
newadvent.org/summa/5011.htm

Thanks, that helped

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Ok, then why the excommunication? I’ll have to go digging a little but that was the case. Legitimate vatican document. It may not be in effect now, but was at one time.

The only excommunication is an automatic-excommunication when a priest breaks the seal of Confession.

 

[Reformed_Rob]

I read elsewhere, that many theologians (though it is not the general opinion) would say that the penitent is also bound by the Seal. That may have been a century or so ago.

Apparently that is not the normative teaching.

 

[Andy11]

If anyone else overhears a confession they are bound to the seal, but the penitent is not bound to it.

 

[bpbasilphx]

**
But…my first question is what if something happens that prevents absolution from being given? For instance, the priest says “based on what you are saying, I can’t absolve you at this time.” In that case, the priest would not be bound by the Seal, correct?? Because there was no Sacramental action of Christ.**

** Even if Absolution is temporarily deferred, the priest is STILL bound by the Seal of Confession, so you are wrong.**

 

[bpbasilphx]

I forgot to add that this is involved in the plot of the movie PRIEST.

 

[Reformed_Rob]

**
But…my first question is what if something happens that prevents absolution from being given? For instance, the priest says “based on what you are saying, I can’t absolve you at this time.” In that case, the priest would not be bound by the Seal, correct?? Because there was no Sacramental action of Christ.**

** Even if Absolution is temporarily deferred, the priest is STILL bound by the Seal of Confession, so you are wrong.**

ok, that is why I was asking

 

[Reformed_Rob]

**

** Even if Absolution is temporarily deferred, the priest is STILL bound by the Seal of Confession, so you are wrong.**

Do you have some proof for your statement? The seal is for Confession, which is a Sacrament. So if there is no sacrament, then why should there be a seal?

I’m not saying I don’t believe you, but I’m just not seeing any proof. Aside from what Br. Rich SFO said earlier, which is again, his statement.

 

[kleary]

The “Seal of Confession” is INNACCURATE. Believe me reformed one, I know. I went to Catholic School when we were taught by the nuns…who smacked your knucles on her desk when you were a bad boy…

What you are talking about here is the “Sacred Seal of the CONFESSIONAL”. If the place for Confession was the Confessional alone then you would understand this better I believe… BRING BACK THE CONFESSIONAL!

Everything heard by the priest from someone in the confessional is kept secret by the priest and never disclosed to anyone, even the one who confessed. It makes no difference if absolution is given or not or if the Sacrament is administered properly or not. The priest is bound by the laws of the Church not to disclose anything he has heard in the confessional to others. This is the Sacred Seal of the Confessional as I heard it taught to me.

Now the priest MAY discuss with the confessee the sin after confessing it, but ONLY if the confessee brings it up first.

Ken

 

[Reformed_Rob]

The “Seal of Confession” is INNACCURATE. Believe me reformed one, I know. I went to Catholic School when we were taught by the nuns…who smacked your knucles on her desk when you were a bad boy…

What you are talking about here is the “Sacred Seal of the CONFESSIONAL”. If the place for Confession was the Confessional alone then you would understand this better I believe… BRING BACK THE CONFESSIONAL!

Everything heard by the priest from someone in the confessional is kept secret by the priest and never disclosed to anyone, even the one who confessed. It makes no difference if absolution is given or not or if the Sacrament is administered properly or not. The priest is bound by the laws of the Church not to disclose anything he has heard in the confessional to others. This is the Sacred Seal of the Confessional as I heard it taught to me.

Now the priest MAY discuss with the confessee the sin after confessing it, but ONLY if the confessee brings it up first.

Ken

Ken,

Thanks for your post! St. Thomas calls it the “Seal of Confession” and that’s what I’ve always seen it referred to as, that and sometimes the “Sacred Seal” and the like.

“Seal of the Confessional” is new to me. But now I’ve heard of it.

Pretty much every time I’ve been to Confession, it’s been in a Confessional. There are a few exceptions. For instance, when you’re at a big retreat and there’s maybe 15 priests and hundreds of penitents.

If you don’t have enough Confessionals, what do you do? Allow the number of Confessionals to be the limiting factor, or the number of Confessors (Priests)?

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.

 

[Reformed_Rob]

Ok, then why the excommunication? I’ll have to go digging a little but that was the case. Legitimate vatican document. It may not be in effect now, but was at one time.

I went digging and found the discussion I was thinking about here.

It’s pretty in-depth and doesn’t exactly hit specifically on this question. But I was remembering it was close.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=106666

From what I understand, that Vatican document is not in effect anymore, and it didn’t necessarily bar abused penitents from “telling” on priests, but it sought to limit the discussion of it in reverence to the Seal, in order to keep priests from blabbing about things that could harm the penitent.

But like I said, it is complicated and I’m not about to go through all that again.

What got me started on this was thinking about something today and it led into this.

 

[Chatter163]

But…my first question is what if something happens that prevents absolution from being given? For instance, the priest says “based on what you are saying, I can’t absolve you at this time.” In that case, the priest would not be bound by the Seal, correct?? Because there was no Sacramental action of Christ.

Also, my second question, the Seal applies to both the priest and the penitent, correct? I’m thinking it does, because I remember a good while back reading that a person is excommunicated for telling on a priest if he does something bad to them during Confession. So I’m reading that as the Seal applying to both priest and penitent.

There were two asumptions made and both are incorrect.

 

[Reformed_Rob]

There were two asumptions made and both are incorrect.

Yeah, thank you for the post, you are in agreement with everyone else I believe.

 

[Reformed_Rob]

If the **place for Confession was the Confessional alone **then you would understand this better I believe… BRING BACK THE CONFESSIONAL!

Everything heard by the priest from someone in the confessional is kept secret by the priest and never disclosed to anyone, even the one who confessed. … The priest is bound by the laws of the Church not to disclose anything he has heard in the confessional to others.

Ken

So exactly what are you saying here, Ken??

 

[Claire_from_DE]

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.

 

[Reformed_Rob]

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.

Good question.

I believe that the replies will be along the lines of …

If the murderer was Catholic and the sacramental rite were followed, then the Seal would be in place.

I’m thinking that is a good example “what if” that I was getting at in my opening post. Supposedly what it supposed to happen is that if the priest knows the person is not the least bit sorry for his sins, then he’s not supposed to grant absolution.

But according to the replies I’ve seen so far, people are saying that the Church teaches that with or without absolution, if the Sacrament of Reconciliation were initiated, (“We begin in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” “Bless me Father for I have sinned…”) then the Seal would be in effect during the relevant period of time.

If the priest granted absolution (whether or not the penitent met the “I’m sorry” requirements), then the Seal would definitely be in effect, I would say. No doubt.