2009...2010 RCIA Dropout

[Bonnie]

Again, I don’t see the point why it matters whether someone WENT to confession, just the sins themselves are protected by the seal of the confessional. Anyone can sit in the Church and watch who goes into the Confessional, my friend.Regards

Whether it makes sense or not, it is still not permissible for a priest to tell anyone who went to confession.

I still remember, when I was joining the Church, the true story the priest told me. The police asked him if a certain person had gone to confession on a particular day. She was willing for him to say so, but he couldn’t. That is a part of the seal of the confessional.

So there is no record of one’s first confession or any confession thereafter. (Some anti-Catholic - Jack Chick? - claims there are tape recordings of all confessions stored at the Vatican!) First Communion is not recorded either. There is a record of public Sacraments - baptism, confirmation, marriage, ordination.

 

[fdesales]

Whether it makes sense or not, it is still not permissible for a priest to tell anyone who went to confession.

First of all, I did not get the impression that the priest was telling a third person anything, but was speaking to the confessee about something he said to her previously. True, bad timing, since someone overheard it, but does this break the seal???

Secondly, I looked at the Fourth Lateran Council, Canon 21 and it states : “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”. I found nothing about the seal including the fact that a penitent WENT to Confession.

The Canon Law # 983.1 states : The sacramental seal is inviolable; therefore it is absolutely forbidden for a confessor to betray in any way a penitent in words or in any manner and for any reason.

The later could be interpreted as you seem to think - that even mentioning offhanded that a person went to confession - is a breaking of the sacramental seal. I have never heard that interpretation before, but the Ecumenical Council does not seem to imply this broadening of the idea of the seal, as it only refers to the sin itself… Everything I have read so far seems to indicate that the seal refers to the sins themselves…

I still remember, when I was joining the Church, the true story the priest told me. The police asked him if a certain person had gone to confession on a particular day. She was willing for him to say so, but he couldn’t. That is a part of the seal of the confessional.

The laws of the land determine what the police can and cannot ask the priest. France, England, Spain and Mexico have different laws and procedures when a clergy man is involved in devulging particular evidence given by a confession. I refer you to the Catholic Encylopedia and its explanation on these various laws

newadvent.org/cathen/13649b.htm

For example:

“But some of the states have made the privilege a matter of statute law. In Arizona (Revised Statutes, 1910, S. 2535, par. 5) a clergyman or priest cannot without the consent of the person making the confession be examined as to any confession made to him in his professional character in the course of discipline enjoined by the Church to which he belongs. The same provision is enacted in the Penal Code, S. 1111, with the prelude “There are particular relations in which it is the policy of the law to encourage confidence and to preserve it inviolate”.”

I refer you to the first sentence “some of the states…” Thus, the questioning by the police (or lack thereof) is dependent upon the statutes of the state, not on the Canonical Law of the Church.

So there is no record of one’s first confession or any confession thereafter. (Some anti-Catholic - Jack Chick? - claims there are tape recordings of all confessions stored at the Vatican!) First Communion is not recorded either. There is a record of public Sacraments - baptism, confirmation, marriage, ordination.

If you note the post and citation of the gentleman in question, you will find it is a memo from a specific diocese that note protocol, not canonical law applicable to all churches everywhere throughout the world. What might be seen as prudent in Canada may not be in California. As to recording of sacraments, each diocese has their own procedures, the fact that the citation above states “shall no longer give certificates…” indicates that at one time, it had done so - and other dioceses, by implication, STILL do. (unless you believe this Canadien diocese was the last one to come on board with the universal Church’s ruling on such matters…!)

I am not trying to be argumentative; however, we should not be so quick to judge what the priests do or do not do and condemn them so quickly… Excessive scrutiny leads to a legalistic religion. Let us give Christians the benefit of the doubt first.

Regards

 

[jmcrae]

I think you are mistaken. Every diocese keeps records of when someone receives the sacraments of initiation… How does the Church know who has received Holy Communion?

The Sacrament of Reconciliation is not a Sacrament of Initiation - it is a Sacrament of Healing. The Church keeps track of the Sacraments of Initiation (Baptism, Confirmation, and First Holy Communion), and of Marriage and Holy Orders (the Sacraments of Service) but it does not keep records of the Sacraments of Healing. Did you read the link I posted? Deacon Soentgerath explains the Church’s law very clearly, I think. (He is also a very good friend of mine, and if you like, I could have him e-mail you privately to explain it to you further.)

Again, I don’t see the point why it matters whether someone WENT to confession, just the sins themselves are protected by the seal of the confessional. Anyone can sit in the Church and watch who goes into the Confessional, my friend.

And they would be sinning against the eighth commandment (which teaches us not to share any kind of information that could potentially harm another person’s reputation) if they were to disclose or to discuss that information with a third party.

 

[jmcrae]

First Communion is not recorded either. There is a record of public Sacraments - baptism, confirmation, marriage, ordination.

First Holy Communion is recorded in the parish records, and lists of First Communicants may be sent to the parish school. However, you are correct that this information is not sent to the Diocese, and we normally don’t send it to the original parish of baptism, either, unless they request it for some reason.

 

[Bonnie]

The laws of the land determine what the police can and cannot ask the priest.

The priest didn’t care that the police asked - they can ask anything they want - & countries can make all the laws they want, but priests CANNOT divulge what was said in confession, no matter what the law is.

I know a priest who during a homily mentioned that a parishioner (no name given) came to confession & he used the advice he gave her as part of his homily. Unfortunately, this is a small parish. To those of us who knew the person & her situation, we now knew she had gone to confession about it.

It is better to err on the side of caution & not mention ANYONE’S confession, for any reason. That priest could have given the same advice in the homily, without mentioning it was advice given in the confessional.

Re: First Communion. I’m pretty sure that one’s first communion is not a matter of record. I know mine isn’t. There was no RCIA when I joined. I said a profession of faith (much longer than what is said now) & I was in. That is a matter of record. My first communion was during the next Mass I went to.

 

[jmcrae]

Re: First Communion. I’m pretty sure that one’s first communion is not a matter of record. I know mine isn’t. There was no RCIA when I joined. I said a profession of faith (much longer than what is said now) & I was in. That is a matter of record. My first communion was during the next Mass I went to.

In your case, your Profession of Faith is recorded, and it is assumed that you began to receive Holy Communion at around the same time.

In my case, my First Holy Communion is recorded on the same document that records my Confirmation. There is no mention of my First Reconciliation, which occurred on the same day.

 

[fdesales]

The Sacrament of Reconciliation is not a Sacrament of Initiation - it is a Sacrament of Healing. The Church keeps track of the Sacraments of Initiation (Baptism, Confirmation, and First Holy Communion), and of Marriage and Holy Orders (the Sacraments of Service) but it does not keep records of the Sacraments of Healing. Did you read the link I posted? Deacon Soentgerath explains the Church’s law very clearly, I think. (He is also a very good friend of mine, and if you like, I could have him e-mail you privately to explain it to you further.)

Yes, you are correct, the Sacrament of Reconciliation is not a sacrament of Initiation, sorry about the confusion. It is my fault. I went from Reconciliation to Communion by mistake. I beg your forgiveness.

I did glance through the link and seen it was a memo, as I have stated previously. But the concern about issuing paperwork on the sacramental reception is NOT part of the seal of the confessional - otherwise, the practice of giving paperwork out would never had been done in the first place, since the idea of the seal is quite old. Certainly, the Fourth Lateran Council is not the first time the idea was invented. It clearly states that only the sins stated by the penitent are protected by the seal. The fact that your diocese ONCE DID give out certificates clearly implies that the new guidance found in the memo is a local protocol, NOT part of the universal Church’s effort to guard the seal of the confessional.

To get my point of view, ask yourself “Did my diocese just recently comply with the Roman Catholic universal law of the protection of the seal of the confessional? Were they breaking it all along until this memo came out? Were they heretical in practice before this memo?”

I hope you get my point here…

And of course, this is getting off subject, since the priest did not appear to speak of what was said in the confessional TO another person - but to the original penitent.

And they would be sinning against the eighth commandment (which teaches us not to share any kind of information that could potentially harm another person’s reputation) if they were to disclose or to discuss that information with a third party.

Then we should never open our mouths in fear of someone hearing only part of our conversation and being misconstrued to mean something totally different!

The eighth commandment, again, focuses on disclosing information directly to a third party, not the third party overhearing a conversation between the first and second party.

Only the penitent can rightfully accuse the priest of breaking the seal, anyways. Not bystanders jumping to conclusions.

I don’t really want to argue with you, I just want to caution you of jumping to conclusions about overhearing conversation. That is the Christian way, don’t you think? Give others the benefit of the doubt? Now if the penitent felt the same way, I would certainly feel that her concerns were warranted. But I believe you are hastily judging the situation. I apologize if you are offended.

Regards

 

[fdesales]

The priest didn’t care that the police asked - they can ask anything they want - & countries can make all the laws they want, but priests CANNOT divulge what was said in confession, no matter what the law is.

My point was to mention the POLICE’S side - why THEY did not question the priest, not vice versus. As the Catholic Encyclopedia article notes, evidence presented by a priest is not even acceptable as evidence in an American court of Law, nor can he be questioned, thus, as far as jurisprudence, the “seal of the Confessional” is moot. The story relating the police and what they would or would not ask a priest has no bearing on what EXACTLY is Rome’s position regarding the Seal and how broad we are to interpret it.

I know a priest who during a homily mentioned that a parishioner (no name given) came to confession & he used the advice he gave her as part of his homily. Unfortunately, this is a small parish. To those of us who knew the person & her situation, we now knew she had gone to confession about it.

Do you think this is a breaking of the Seal, or are people again jumping to conclusions and presuming they KNOW who the priest is talking about?

My point
It is better to err on the side of caution & not mention ANYONE’S confession, for any reason. That priest could have given the same advice in the homily, without mentioning it was advice given in the confessional.

That is your opinion, and thank you for sharing it. I agree that one must be cautious on the extent of what is divulged in the Confessional. HOWEVER, there are many generic items that CAN be mentioned without naming a penitent. Much of what is said in the confessional can be applied to sinners in general, and even particular sins. That is how I see the above situation.

Another example : if I confess yelling at my wife, and the priest gives advice to me on how to avoid that - DOES HIS USEAGE OF THE SAME ADVICE IN A HOMILY break the seal??? Certainly not. Spiritual advice is not so individualized in the Confessional. Much of what is said is generic and useful to many people.

Re: First Communion. I’m pretty sure that one’s first communion is not a matter of record. I know mine isn’t. There was no RCIA when I joined. I said a profession of faith (much longer than what is said now) & I was in. That is a matter of record. My first communion was during the next Mass I went to.

In the diocese of Tucson, local parishes record First Communions. I ask to see them as an RCIA coordinator, as does the Adult Confirmation Coordinator, who is a deacon. The office worker confirmed that they do record this stuff. My wife is a second grade teacher at the Catholic school here, and they give out certificates upon Reception of Communion. Perhaps other diocese are different, but there is certainly no canonical law that forbids recording First Communion receptions!!! Why would THAT be secretive?

Regards

 

[jmcrae]

Yes, you are correct, the Sacrament of Reconciliation is not a sacrament of Initiation, sorry about the confusion. It is my fault. I went from Reconciliation to Communion by mistake. I beg your forgiveness.

I did glance through the link and seen it was a memo, as I have stated previously. But the concern about issuing paperwork on the sacramental reception is NOT part of the seal of the confessional - otherwise, the practice of giving paperwork out would never had been done in the first place, since the idea of the seal is quite old.

No, it was being done by mistake, by well-meaning Catechists, without the knowledge of the Diocese. The phrase “we will no longer” is Diocesan code for “You’ve been caught; now stop doing that unauthorized thing.” (They also used the same language a few years ago with regard to self-intinction of the Eucharist, which has also always been forbidden these 2,000 years, but was taking place in some parishes, probably due to the influence of uncatechized Anglican converts.)

To get my point of view, ask yourself “Did my diocese just recently comply with the Roman Catholic universal law of the protection of the seal of the confessional? Were they breaking it all along until this memo came out? Were they heretical in practice before this memo?”

I hope you get my point here…

I do get your point, and the answer is in fact “Yes, forbidden practices were being done in our Diocese prior to the issuing of this memo.” This memo is Deacon Soentgerath’s ever-so-polite way of correcting the situation.

It is always so important to him that well-meaning people who didn’t know they were doing wrong not be made to feel terrible, which is why he constructs his corrections in language that makes it sound like a change in policy has occurred, rather than telling people outright that they have been doing it wrong all these years.

If you’ve been on this site for any length of time, I’m sure it’s not a surprise to you that things might be going on in a Diocese that are not in accord with the laws of the Church, either without the Bishop’s knowledge, or with.

 

[Bonnie]

My point was to mention the POLICE’S side - why THEY did not question the priest, not vice versus.Regards

I think we’re having a bit of a communication problem. It was the police who were asking the priest for the information as to whether the woman went to confession - not what she said. He could have said he saw her in the church, but he couldn’t remember one way or the other.

As to first communion being recorded, I meant officially, not just at the parish level. The parish where you were baptised - or joined the Church - is the parish of record. Notifications of confirmation, marriage, annulments, holy orders, & death are sent to that parish.

 

[fdesales]

No, it was being done by mistake, by well-meaning Catechists, without the knowledge of the Diocese. The phrase “we will no longer” is Diocesan code for “You’ve been caught; now stop doing that unauthorized thing.” (They also used the same language a few years ago with regard to self-intinction of the Eucharist, which has also always been forbidden these 2,000 years, but was taking place in some parishes, probably due to the influence of uncatechized Anglican converts.)

? “we will no longer…” means you have been caught, don’t do it anymore???

I will have to disagree that this language always means that. Again, I refer you to the Fourth Lateran Council. NOTHING said on whether a person went to Confession. That is public knowledge - all you have to do is go to the Church and watch people go in and out of the confessional… Noting who went is not breaking any “seal”… By going to Communion, we imply that we went to Confession. Again, this is going beyond the intent of the Council.

Are you aware of any Counciliar documents that state that the seal of the Confessional is MORE than refering to just the specific sins being divulged to a third party? If you are aware of this, I would like to see it, please.

Otherwise, this is your personal interpretation. We are to teach what the Church teaches, and as you can see from this exercise, it is not so simple, is it, with people second-guessing you all the time.

I do get your point, and the answer is in fact “Yes, forbidden practices were being done in our Diocese prior to the issuing of this memo.” This memo is Deacon Soentgerath’s ever-so-polite way of correcting the situation.

The Deacon is not part of the Magesterium. The Bishops in union with the Pope are. Secondly, you are ASSUMING that the Deacon is correcting something into conformance with the universal Church’s own teaching. And until you find something from the universal Church that states more than what I have said, we’ll have to agree to disagree. This is not applicable to the universal church, it is merely policy of your diocese. Stating “you shall not do this” does not mean they were in non-compliance with Rome, for heaven’s sake.

It is always so important to him that well-meaning people who didn’t know they were doing wrong not be made to feel terrible, which is why he constructs his corrections in language that makes it sound like a change in policy has occurred, rather than telling people outright that they have been doing it wrong all these years.

Again, you are reading into it, based on your idea that stating “Fred went to confession” is breaking the seal of the Confessional. That is ridiculous, since anyone can watch Fred go into the Confessional. The policy is in place because it is the Diocesan desire to go BEYOND the seal of the confessional in order to FURTHER protect anoynimity. That is the Bishop’s right, since he is responsible for the souls of his diocese.

But it DOES NOT FOLLOW that this is the law of the universal Church, OR that the Bishop was bringing the diocese into compliance with the universal Church. Your logic is faulty. No doubt, the reason is some people complained, and to “cover their arse”, the bishop implemented this policy upon those who teach the faith in HIS diocese.

If you’ve been on this site for any length of time, I’m sure it’s not a surprise to you that things might be going on in a Diocese that are not in accord with the laws of the Church, either without the Bishop’s knowledge, or with.

I am a newbie on this particular site, although I have posted over 10,000 times on Protestant sites like Christianforums.net, CARM and newrepublic.com defending the Catholic faith vs. all types of people. I got tired of arguing with people intent on believing what they believed, even if common sense and logic was used to prove them wrong. Hmmm.

I am aware that things are not always as they should be in the diocese. That is not the point. The point is whether the Seal of the Confessional, as DEFINED BY THE UNIVERSAL CHURCH includes anything other than guarding what the penitent CONFESSED. Can a Diocese add more? Sure. Can the diocese say that the rosary will now have 20 beads between intervening “Our Father’s”? Sure. But let’s keep the difference straight between what a Diocese policy is vs. the Universal Church’s teachings on a subject.

Remember, we are brothers in Christ, and with that, I will respectfully disengage this conversation, as I do not wish to scandalize anyone with incessant arguing.

to summarize, let’s not jump to conclusions and excommunicate priests so quickly for what we judge they are not doing correctly. They already must walk a fine line as it is.

fdesales

 

[jmcrae]

to summarize, let’s not jump to conclusions and excommunicate priests so quickly for what we judge they are not doing correctly. They already must walk a fine line as it is.

It’s admirable that you want to defend this priest, since who would want to think ill of a holy priest?

But I, for one, would not want to go to Confession with him - especially not First Confession as is done in RCIA, with literally every bit of dirty laundry in your whole life hanging out, and then he might use the advice he gave you in your Confession as a teaching example in his next RCIA class.

Would you?

As to “Fred” you can certainly observe him going to Confession; what you cannot do is discuss it with others and speculate about what he might have confessed.

 

[fdesales]

It’s admirable that you want to defend this priest, since who would want to think ill of a holy priest?

But I, for one, would not want to go to Confession with him - especially not First Confession as is done in RCIA, with literally every bit of dirty laundry in your whole life hanging out, and then he might use the advice he gave you in your Confession as a teaching example in his next RCIA class.

I understand, I would be a bit concerned that he was not more careful with exposing even what he did (which I believe was not a breaking of the seal - what I was defending).

When I think of this, it is not that I am defending a “holy priest”, but giving friendly council to a fellow Catholic to be careful to not judge too quickly and to give others the benefit of the doubt. Breaking the seal is a serious offense. The Fourth Lateran Council suggests quite severe punishment, and this tradition continues in the Code of Canon Law. When serious punishment is at risk, I would hope that “rumors” don’t get started where the priest is subsequently hauled off (like some of these flimsy accusations on sexual harassment charges). We are all too familiar with how priests have been abandoned by their bishops in many cases, often guilty until proven innocent. I would hate to see this happen in the case you mention, when, frankly, I don’t see a breaking of the Seal, my friend. Someone may overhear YOUR accusations and this could cause some serious scandal when it could have been taken care of in private.

Would you?

LOL! I don’t think my confessions would be of any amusement to most people… I wouldn’t be bothered much if he mentioned generic advice that he probably gives to most people in private during a public homily, like “husbands should be more loving to their wives. I hear too many men in confession have this problem”. Even this, to me, is not a breaking of the Seal, since no one in particular is mentioned, and this is a common fault of many husbands.

But that’s me. If a penitent is scandalized by such public advice, he personally should speak to the priest, NOT go in public and make public accusations that the priest is breaking the seal of the Confessional and should be excommunicated!!!

As to “Fred” you can certainly observe him going to Confession; what you cannot do is discuss it with others and speculate about what he might have confessed.

I agree that the PRIEST cannot do this. I continue to say that your priest did not do this. It would be advised that I personally don’t do this, as well, since it could cause scandal. But the fact that Fred went to confession is not a matter of interest, frankly. When a person goes to Holy Communion, we PRESUME that they DID go to Confession, correct?

Anyway, I hope you see that I am not arguing to argue, but am trying to point out that we should give others the benefit of the doubt. That is what love of others is about, no?

Take care and God bless