Another confession seal question

[dessert]

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.

Or that he beat his wife?

 

[NaturalEnquirer]

Or that he beat his wife?

What?

 

[He_Man]

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.

That begs the question of “what makes something a confession?”

For instance, I am Catholic. I’ve had confession in parking lots, back rooms, rectories, people’s homes, confessionals, you name it.

Now, if a man just walked up to his local Priest and said “tomorrow, I’m going to blow up the WTC”, the Priest is free to tell the police. The only difference between this and a confession would be him asking “Father, could you hear my confession.”

Also, if the seal is absolute, that would explain why the Priest scandal was covered up, in part. Using the defense of the seal of the confessional, many Bishops and Priests COULD NOT do anything about what they knew (assuming the posts in this thread dealing with the absolutism of the policy are true.) This also assumes that many of the Priests who had commited PAST crimes revealed them in the confessional at some point; obviously, we aren’t privy to how many did.

Also, what if the confession is not valid; does the seal still apply? For instance, I referenced past offenses. But if someone says they are currently doing something heinous (molestation, murderous crime spree, whatever), the confession isn’t valid (due to lack of true contrition), and thus, does the seal apply? What if the Priest simply doesn’t render absolution, I assume it would still apply then?

 

[NaturalEnquirer]

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

I guess I have to wonder why the canon law doesn’t just say that, then. Why all the hemming and hawing about “if it will harm the penitent”, if that condition must always be presumed true?

 

[Sir_Knight]

That begs the question of “what makes something a confession?”

1. Confessing a sin. 2) Expressing contrition. 3) Asking for absolution.

 

[CuriousInIL]

1. Confessing a sin. 2) Expressing contrition. 3) Asking for absolution.

I am not sure that #2 is required for the seal to apply.

 

[Kielbasi]

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.

The anger and hatred that the sinner may have had in his heart that would motivate him to commit the murders is a sin in itself.

Sin can be in thought , word, and/or deed. The sin of murder might not have been, but it seems very likely that another was(in the hypothetical given).

 

[Sir_Knight]

I am not sure that #2 is required for the seal to apply.

This may be true but without being contrite, would a person ask for absolution and if the person didn’t ask for absolution, why even bother confessing?

 

[dessert]

What?

I meant that if he admitted to beating his wife, what could the priest do? If the man is very crazy and he shot his wife I assume the priest would tell the penitent to go to the police. The priest can’t really tell the police himself, but outside the confessional if the person keeps talking and saying things then I think the priest can act on the info. Let’s say he was talking real loud got mad and started talking outside and I have seen a priest step out of the confessional before. If any of us were outside and could hear what was going on, it would be our responsibility to find out.IMHO

 

[dessert]

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.

I can see a priest downing the whole bottle just to save the others.
But I don’t see why he could not accidentally knock it over.

 

[Sir_Knight]

But I don’t see why he could not accidentally knock it over.

Because God would know that it wasn’t an accident and that he (the priest) disobeyed the rules of His (God’s) church where he (the priest) is not permitted to use any information gained during the confession in any way.

 

[NaturalEnquirer]

Because God would know that it wasn’t an accident and that he (the priest) disobeyed the rules of His (God’s) church where he (the priest) is not permitted to use any information gained during the confession in any way.

Except… that’s not what the canon says.

 

[Sir_Knight]

The canon says that 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 (Canon 983) even if every danger of revelation is excluded (Canon 984). I have referenced two separate sources which understand that (especially with the second piece added) to mean that a priest is not permitted to use any information that he learns during confession for any reason because there is a remote chance that a word or action on his part COULD reveal even INDIRECTLY a portion of the confession.

 

[NaturalEnquirer]

The canon says that 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 (Canon 983) even if every danger of revelation is excluded (Canon 984). I have referenced two separate sources which understand that (especially with the second piece added) to mean that a priest is not permitted to use any information that he learns during confession for any reason because there is a remote chance that a word or action on his part COULD reveal even INDIRECTLY a portion of the confession.

But you’re Frankenstein quoting two separate passages. “to betray a penitenet by word or in any other manner or for any reason… even if every danger of revelation is excluded.” Sounds impressive. But it’s not what the Canon says.

984 says that the priest can’t use knowledge to the detriment of the penitent, even if every danger of revelation is excluded.

Your quote makes as much sense as if I quoted you as saying “a priest is… permitted to use any information…” By stripping the immediate context, you completely change the meaning.

I’ll certainly grant that your understanding is shared by your two sources. No argument there. I just don’t see anything from the text of the law that supports that understanding.

 

[He_Man]

But you’re Frankenstein quoting two separate passages. “to betray a penitenet by word or in any other manner or for any reason… even if every danger of revelation is excluded.” Sounds impressive. But it’s not what the Canon says.

984 says that the priest can’t use knowledge to the detriment of the penitent, even if every danger of revelation is excluded.

Your quote makes as much sense as if I quoted you as saying “a priest is… permitted to use any information…” By stripping the immediate context, you completely change the meaning.

I’ll certainly grant that your understanding is shared by your two sources. No argument there. I just don’t see anything from the text of the law that supports that understanding.

So the crux of the seal lies in the words “the detriment of the penitent?”

I’d love to get an official ruling on this. like I said, it would explain why any priests who simply confessed their crimes during the priest scandal (and only those who confessed, mind you) were never dealt with and allowed to stay where they were, for example.

Let’s take the poison example a step further, and say a man tells the Priest that he poisoned the Priest’s lunch. Unless a priori, the Priest had planned to skip lunch, he would then logically have no choice but to eat his lunch as planned, not using the information gained in the confessional, and thus, kill himself.

Seems odd, but that is what has be echoed at times in this thread…

He could simply ask the man to remove the poision, but the man would be under no obligation to do so, and if he didn’t, the Priest would then have a bologna and hemlock sandwich waiting for him.

Now *if *the crux of the seal is as mentioned “the detriment of the penitent”, then this question becomes moot; NOT eating a poisoned lunch would not be to the detriment of the penitent, and thus, not a violation.

 

[mdgspencer]

One time a priest told me that if someone in confession told him that he was going to commit a murder, that he would ask the person to meet him outside of confession, so that then he, the priest, could report it.
I am happy that some of the people here aren’t priests, because they feel that a priest could report what someone said in confession. Where would this stop, if the priest himself is the one to decide when he should pass on what he was told in confession?

 

[NaturalEnquirer]

One time a priest told me that if someone in confession told him that he was going to commit a murder, that he would ask the person to meet him outside of confession, so that then he, the priest, could report it.
I am happy that some of the people here aren’t priests, because they feel that a priest could report what someone said in confession. Where would this stop, if the priest himself is the one to decide when he should pass on what he was told in confession?

I don’t think anyone has said that the priest could or should report what was said in confession. The issue is whether the priest is allowed to take action on that information, if it will not harm the penitent in any way. I don’t see anything in the canon to prohibit this. Sir Knight disagrees.

 

[Sir_Knight]

But you’re Frankenstein quoting two separate passages. “to betray a penitenet by word or in any other manner or for any reason… even if every danger of revelation is excluded.” Sounds impressive. But it’s not what the Canon says.

984 says that the priest can’t use knowledge to the detriment of the penitent, even if every danger of revelation is excluded.

Your quote makes as much sense as if I quoted you as saying “a priest is… permitted to use any information…” By stripping the immediate context, you completely change the meaning.

I’ll certainly grant that your understanding is shared by your two sources. No argument there. I just don’t see anything from the text of the law that supports that understanding.

The issue is whether the priest is allowed to take action on that information, if it will not harm the penitent in any way. I don’t see anything in the canon to prohibit this. Sir Knight disagrees.

Yes, I disagree. If your understanding is correct, then [1] why do priests not have the same understanding of it as you do? **[2] Where are they getting this much more restrictive understanding of canon law? **

I have supplied two references from PRIESTS (one in print and one online) who have this understanding. I welcome you to do the same and provide references from PRIESTS who support your understanding of the canon.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Here are some additional sources that have this same understanding of the canon …
*

… A priest cannot use the knowledge he gains in the confession even to save his own life or reputation or to refute a false accusation. He cannot even say what he did not hear in confession …

• Source.

… The sacramental seal is inviolable. Quoting Canon 983.1 of the Code of Canon Law, the Catechism states, “…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” (No. 2490). A priest, therefore, cannot break the seal to save his own life, to protect his good name, to refute a false accusation, to save the life of another, to aid the course of justice (like reporting a crime), or to avert a public calamity. He cannot be compelled by law to disclose a person’s confession or be bound by any oath he takes, e.g. as a witness in a court trial. A priest cannot reveal the contents of a confession either directly, by repeating the substance of what has been said, or indirectly, by some sign, suggestion, or action. A Decree from the Holy Office (Nov. 18, 1682) mandated that confessors are forbidden, even where there would be no revelation direct or indirect, to make any use of the knowledge obtained in the confession that would “displease” the penitent or reveal his identity …

Source.

… all of those things mentioned (save his own life, to protect his good name, to refute a false accusation, to save the life of another, to aid the course of justice (like reporting a crime), or to avert a public calamity) could be done WITHOUT revealing the identity of the penitent. Yet a priest is forbidden to perform any of them. Why? If this is an incorrect understanding, then I ask again, where are so many priests getting this inocrrect underststanding from?

​

Plus, I’d like to see a different understanding of this subject FROM priests – preferable in print.

 

[He_Man]

One time a priest told me that if someone in confession told him that he was going to commit a murder, that he would ask the person to meet him outside of confession, so that then he, the priest, could report it.
I am happy that some of the people here aren’t priests, because they feel that a priest could report what someone said in confession. Where would this stop, if the priest himself is the one to decide when he should pass on what he was told in confession?

Then there’s the loophole. Simply have the confessing person repeat what he said after confession, then act.

It seems that there is something wrong with rules we have to go to such lengths to find a way around. I don’t disagree with the seal, but when Priests have to trick and/or find ridiculous workarounds, it would seem they aren’t truly honoring the intent of the seal. Instead, they are looking for technicalities.