Another confession seal question

[NaturalEnquirer]

I know, dead horse, flog flog.

But I haven’t seen this exact variation of the question before. So: What if the penitent says something that demonstrates that he’s completely crazy? Hearing voices, or having delusions, or whatever. Like, to the point that he seems dangerous to others.

Just curious.

 

[PhilotheaZ]

The priest can urge the penitent to seek professional help, but he cannot report what was said to anyone.

 

[NaturalEnquirer]

That’s what I thought.

This seal must be enormous. What do the feed it?

 

[PhilotheaZ]

That’s what I thought.

This seal must be enormous. What do the feed it?

Horsemeat (lightly flogged).

 

[Kielbasi]

The seal is pretty absolute.

If a 911 hijacker came forward and confessed on 9-10, the priest couldn’t say a thing. Not to the police, not to his mother if she worked in the WTC.

If the priest was brought up to testify, threatened with capital punishment, he’d have to remain mute.

Regardless of the circumstances, whether its a priest inviting cable TV to tape the confessions for reality TV, or one of the grave reasons above, the punishment would be the same. The priest would be excommunicated no questions asked for violating the seal.

 

[ALLGIRLS]

The seal is pretty absolute.

If a 911 hijacker came forward and confessed on 9-10, the priest couldn’t say a thing. Not to the police, not to his mother if she worked in the WTC.

If the priest was brought up to testify, threatened with capital punishment, he’d have to remain mute.

Regardless of the circumstances, whether its a priest inviting cable TV to tape the confessions for reality TV, or one of the grave reasons above, the punishment would be the same. The priest would be excommunicated no questions asked for violating the seal.

But I believe the priest could, without mentioning names or details, call in an anonymous warning to the airlines, or simply tell his mother “don’t go to work tomorrow, and tell all your coworkers not to go either”. That wouldn’t be breaking the seal, as he mentioned no names or details. What he could not do would be call the police and say “so and so just told me he’s going to fly into the WTC tomorrow”, or even, after the fact, testify in court that he was told that. That applies to any crime. Police have been for years trying to get courts to force priests to reveal details of confessions of suspected criminals to use as evidence, but so far, I think, no court has allowed it. And if they did, yes, the priest would have to place himself in contempt and go to jail, for as long as necessary.

In Christ,

Ellen

 

[PhilotheaZ]

But I believe the priest could, without mentioning names or details, call in an anonymous warning to the airlines, or simply tell his mother “don’t go to work tomorrow, and tell all your coworkers not to go either”. That wouldn’t be breaking the seal, as he mentioned no names or details.

I don’t believe this to be true. He can’t take any action based on information received in confession.

 

[ALLGIRLS]

I don’t believe this to be true. He can’t take any action based on information received in confession.

Although, someone can’t go to confession prior to committing a sin, either. I don’t think a situation like that would even happen, come to think of it.

Heres another question: I’ve heard several priests dicuss confessions, in very vague terms: i.e., not mentioning names or specific sins, but talking about the confessions, nonetheless. (usually to reassure folks that he’s heard “everything”, so nothing we say is going to scandalize or embarrass him and we shouldn’t be afraid to go b/c of that, and also, ironically, given the topic, mentioning that everything we say is protected by the seal, so no one can ever find out). Does that violate the seal? If so, then there needs to be a pastoral letter sent out, b/c I’ve witnessed this several times, and if all these priests are automatically excommunicated, what does that mean for all the sacraments they celebrate after that?

In Christ

 

[tee_eff_em]

But I believe the priest could, without mentioning names or details, call in an anonymous warning to the airlines, or simply tell his mother “don’t go to work tomorrow, and tell all your coworkers not to go either”. That wouldn’t be breaking the seal, as he mentioned no names or details.

I don’t believe this to be true. He can’t take any action based on information received in confession.

Can. 983 §1 The sacramental seal is inviolable. Accordingly, it is absolutely wrong for a confessor in any way to betray the penitent, for any reason whatsoever, whether by word or in any other fashion.

Do you think anonymously warning the potential victims of an impending crime betrays the penitent?

tee

 

[Sir_Knight]

Father Peter Stravinskas, in “The Catholic Response” has stated that if someone confessed to a priest that he had poisoned the wine used during an upcoming mass, the priest would not be permitted to change the wine even though doing so would in no way betray the identity of the penitent. Fr. Stravinskas says that a priest is not permitted to use ANY information gained during the confessional in ANY way for ANY purpose even to save a life – even his own life.

 

[NaturalEnquirer]

Father Peter Stravinskas, in “The Catholic Response” has stated that if someone confessed to a priest that he had poisoned the wine used during an upcoming mass, the priest would not be permitted to change the wine even though doing so would in no way betray the identity of the penitent. Fr. Stravinskas says that a priest is not permitted to use ANY information gained during the confessional in ANY way for ANY purpose even to save a life – even his own life.

Huh. That seems… strange. It seems to me that a priest who knowingly serves poisoned wine is culpable for the poisoning.

Canon 984 only says, “Can. 984 §1 The confessor is wholly forbidden to use knowledge acquired in confession to the detriment of the penitent, even when all danger of disclosure is excluded.” Replacing the poisoned wine wouldn’t be to the detriment of the penitent. I’m no canon lawyer, but I think Fr Stravinskas may be off here.

Is there a lawyer in the house?

 

[stignatius]

Father Peter Stravinskas, in “The Catholic Response” has stated that if someone confessed to a priest that he had poisoned the wine used during an upcoming mass, the priest would not be permitted to change the wine even though doing so would in no way betray the identity of the penitent. Fr. Stravinskas says that a priest is not permitted to use ANY information gained during the confessional in ANY way for ANY purpose even to save a life – even his own life.

This brings up another question for me (I do want to know if this is actually true though), but can the priest do something about it if he asks the penitent? Like if he asks “may I replace the wine?” and the penitent says “yes”, could the priest replace the wine?

 

[Sir_Knight]

Huh. That seems… strange. It seems to me that a priest who knowingly serves poisoned wine is culpable for the poisoning.

Canon 984 only says, “Can. 984 §1 The confessor is wholly forbidden to use knowledge acquired in confession to the detriment of the penitent, even when all danger of disclosure is excluded.” Replacing the poisoned wine wouldn’t be to the detriment of the penitent. I’m no canon lawyer, but I think Fr Stravinskas may be off here.

Is there a lawyer in the house?
​

If Fr Stravinskas is off, then he has company because other priests are of the same opinion …

What exactly is the seal of confession and how strongly does it bind? This obligation is spelled out in two canons of the Code of Canon Law. Canon 983 says, “the sacramental seal is inviolable; therefore, it is a crime for a confessor in any way to betray a penitent by word or in any other manner or for any reason,” The penalty for direct violation is automatic excommunication of the priest. To this basic obligation Canon 984 adds the requirement that, “even if every danger of revelation is excluded,” a confessor is “absolutely forbidden to use knowledge acquired from confession when it might harm the penitent.” An illustration of this would be the priest who knows from confession that he will be attacked on his way home, or that poison has been put into the wine to be used for Mass. He may never save his life at the risk of even indirectly violating the seal of confession. As that suggests, a priest has few duties more serious and solemn than keeping the sacramental seal. By way of explanation, the Catechism of the Catholic Church cites “the delicacy and greatness of this ministry” and “the respect due to persons.”

… Source.
​

 

[Sir_Knight]

This brings up another question for me (I do want to know if this is actually true though), but can the priest do something about it if he asks the penitent? Like if he asks “may I replace the wine?” and the penitent says “yes”, could the priest replace the wine?

The priest could with hold absolution because if a penitent was truly sorry for his sins, then he would do all that he could to make right the wrong that he committed – which would INLCUDE removing the poison wine … but the priest could not remove the poison wine as illustrated by the quote above.

 

[mdgspencer]

If priests are able to judge that there are are expections to the seal of confession, flagrant exceptions would soon be made. Hearing of this, those who have most need of confession, would stay away.

 

[puzzleannie]

But I believe the priest could, without mentioning names or details, call in an anonymous warning to the airlines, or simply tell his mother “don’t go to work tomorrow, and tell all your coworkers not to go either”.
Ellen

no he could not
he can not take any action whatsoever outside the confessional that implies knowledge of matter of confession. nada

since it seems to need saying a penitent cannot be absolved before the fact, cannot confess future intended sins and be absolved, which is what most of the ridiculous scenarios in similar questions seem to involve. if no confession has taken place, the priest may have more latitude. everyone who enters the confessional is not their to confess

 

[NaturalEnquirer]

If Fr Stravinskas is off, then he has company because other priests are of the same opinion …
… Source.
​

All well and good… but that isn’t what the Canon says. It says the priest can’t reveal the contents of the confession, and can’t take action that would betray or harm the penitent.

How does changing the wine betray or harm the penitent?

And even if it does, in some way that I can’t see… what kind of man would allow mass homicide through inaction, rather than accept excommunication and then seek restoration?

I guess it’s all a tangent anyway. I still want to know what they feed that darn seal!

 

[b_justb]

Kielbasi:

If a 911 hijacker came forward and confessed on 9-10, the priest couldn’t say a thing. Not to the police, not to his mother if she worked in the WTC.

I’m pretty sure one cannot confess a sin he hasn’t committed. If someone told a priest the day before he was to do a crime the priest is obligated to report it. It’s not a confession if the sin has not been committed.

“Bless me father for I will sin tomorrow by killing my boss.” That’s not confession; that’s conspiracy to commit murder.

I don’t know all the numbers of all the documents and all that jazz. But it’s not the sacrament of penance if the sin has not been committed.

I would imagine the priest would let the person know that as well.

 

[CuriousInIL]

b_justb:
I’m pretty sure one cannot confess a sin he hasn’t committed. If someone told a priest the day before he was to do a crime the priest is obligated to report it. It’s not a confession if the sin has not been committed.

“Bless me father for I will sin tomorrow by killing my boss.” That’s not confession; that’s conspiracy to commit murder.

I don’t know all the numbers of all the documents and all that jazz. But it’s not the sacrament of penance if the sin has not been committed.

I would imagine the priest would let the person know that as well.
I believe that the seal applies to everything heard during sacramental confession even if the particular statement is not the statement of a past sin. So, it seems to me that in this situation, the sins being confessed are the past acts which are attempts to murder or parts of a conspiracy to murder. Therefore, the priest cannot reveal the potential future act either.

I do not think the seal applies to something said (assume even in a confessional) if it is not a confession and request for absolution. So, for example, a person enters a confessional and only says there is a bomb in the church, nothing more, nothing less, no request for absolution or other words to indicate that the person is trying to invoke the sacrament–then I do not think there is a seal and the priest can clear the church and call 911.

 

[Sir_Knight]

All well and good… but that isn’t what the Canon says. It says the priest can’t reveal the contents of the confession, and can’t take action that would betray or harm the penitent.

" … the priest can’t reveal the contents of the confession, and can’t take action that would betray or harm the penitent …" EVEN INDIRECTLY.

How does changing the wine betray or harm the penitent?

Maybe somebody will see him dumping the wine and wonder why it was done and taste it himself and die or become sick leading to an investigation by the police which ultimately leads to the arrest of the penitent which wouldn’t have happened if the priest did not dump the wine.

The accessment seems to be that the priest can not use ANY information gained during confession for ANY reason.

And even if it does, in some way that I can’t see… what kind of man would allow mass homicide through inaction, rather than accept excommunication and then seek restoration?

The last time I checked, both the CCC and the bible teach us that we are not permitted to do evil even if it is for a good cause.

What kind of God would prohibit one from doing an evil to prevent a greater evil? The kind of God who’s teaching, morals and ways are as high above us as the heavens are above the earth (Isaiah 55:9).