Break the Seal said Baton Rouge Court

[Hopey]

Hello Hopey. Me again.

Me again. No the Church cannot look into any Confession. EVER. No one can. Get it?

You’re Catholic, so how is it you don’t know the basics about Confession? No one gets to question the Priest about anything that goes on from the time he dons his stole, to the time he closes the Confessional door from the outside and every Catholic knows that. Why don’t you? Why do you think that there are ways the Church can look into it? They don’t. They aren’t allowed. It is a black and white issue, yet you keep seeing grey areas.

And Spiritual Direction is the same and sometimes if time was permitting I’d make a Confession with the Monsignor shortly after my sessions. Didn’t matter. Everything was under the Seal and that is the way he introduced me to Spiritual Direction. In our very first session he explained to me what it was, what it wasn’t, what we would try to accomplish, why this was, (at the request of my Religious Superior at the time) and he made sure I understood that everything was under the Seal. Why don’t you accept this as truth? Do you think I made it up? How about Deacon Gary? He made it up too? And why aren’t you answering some of the questions asked you? You ignore the ones that might show others you’re wrong. That’s what I think. This thread isn’t about Spiritual Direction anyway. But I think you’ve been on the defensive too long.

Glenda

This is one example I put earlier.

“Virtually all of Crimen Sollicitationis concerned the investigation and prosecution of complaints of sexual solicitation of penitents by priests in confession.10 Such procedures are difficult and sensitive because the seal of confession cannot be violated; a priest cannot break the seal even to defend himself against an accusation.11 The same policies and procedures were to be adapted and applied to the “worst crimes,” including sexual aggression against minors.12”

catholiceducation.org/art…ap0325.htm#011

Yes, they do look into confessions. They look if a direct or indirect break in the seal has occurred. They treat it very discreetly and confidentially.

It does sound like your spiritual direction is occurring during a confession. Not everyone uses a priest for spiritual direction so they could not don a stole and it be the seal of confession. My spiritual director doesn’t do that. I know it is confidential so it doesn’t matter. It seems that not everyone has the same experience as you.

 

[Hopey]

If I didn’t answer a question, please repeat it. I must have missed it.

 

[Hopey]

Here is something else for you regarding the indirect break of the seal and how they proceeded, q&a:
Q & A: Canonical Penal Procedures and Proceedings Related to Fr. David A. Verhasselt
chnonline.org/news/local/11106-canonical-penal-procedures-and-proceedings-related-to-reverend-david-a-verhasselt.html

I can look up the ones from Dr. Peters, one is a priest in prison ministry who spoke in detail about a confession of a man executed (seal doesn’t cease when penitent is dead) or the others he gets outlining what happened. Do you want those?

 

[Hopey]

Here is an expert looking at an article outlining how this could be a break:
Questions about the seal of Confession are not merely academic
canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2014/02/03/questions-about-the-seal-of-confession-are-not-merely-academic/

He ends with: The issues raised by Fr. Hummer’s essay on his pastoral practices show that questions concerning the seal of Confession are not merely academic, but arise in real life. I think they require careful examination by qualified Church officials.

 

[Hopey]

Glendab,
“every Catholic knows that. Why don’t you? Why do you think that there are ways the Church can look into it? They don’t. They aren’t allowed. It is a black and white issue, yet you keep seeing grey areas.”

I am not going to treat you the same as you have treated me, questioning why you don’t know what I just posted. I would guess I might be in the minority who hangs around canon lawyers blogs and with priests who are one.

I have demonstrated that while the Church would only do it if absolutely necessary, they can and do look into confessions when it warrants it.

There are also experts out there that can say in a split second if something was a confession, break etc.

 

[billcu1]

I read somewhere that there has been some bad persons in the churches history. Bad priests, Popes and Bishops. But one thing none of them ever did, was break the seal of confession.

 

[Atisor207]

I read somewhere that there has been some bad persons in the churches history. Bad priests, Popes and Bishops. But one thing none of them ever did, was break the seal of confession.

Good observation. In fact, that attests greatly to the fact that the Catholic Church is the true Church of Christ. Despite all the bad people in it the doctrine has remained untouched, pure. It is unreal if one thinks about it. I mean some of the bad popes, very few actually, could have changed it. Especially the Church’s teachings on divorce, but they didn’t.

It is truly a supernatural rock that not even the gates of hell will prevail against it.
It doesn’t adapt to modern fallacies but it teaches truth at a great cost.

 

[Arandur]

I think this thread got really bogged down in nuance and forgot the case at hand.

What’s the point of the court trying to get the priest’s side of what was said in the confessional? (6 years ago)

It’s not to review whether he gave bad advice. That wouldn’t be something they could prosecute, and it would be part of privileged counsel, anyway.

The court wants it because it wants to hold the priest accountable for not following a civil mandatory reporting law. That’s why it wants to know what happened, when, and in what context.

Problem is, in even wanting to do so, the court is asserting that its mandatory reporting law overrules the Seal of the Confessional; i.e., that the State can dictate or disregard religious belief at its whim.

It’s a clear violation of religious freedom; an assault on the foundation of recognition of all types of privilege; and even a disregard for the 5th Amendment (right to not be a witness against one’s self) and all those “privacy rights” that some claim hang out in the “penumbra” of the Constitution.

As to whether the priest is actually guilty of anything, worst case is that he could have given bad advice–something that cannot be known, but even if it were to be revealed what happened in Confession, this is the worst he could be liable for. The mandatory reporting law must be taken off the table, for it cannot require reporting of something revealed in the confessional.

How much can you prosecute someone for bad advice? Talk about a slippery slope. Lawyers will have a field day. Particularly if allowed to charge priests for bad advice given during Confession. Easy targets–they can’t defend themselves; they likely couldn’t remember word for word what they said even if they could, leaving it a case of he-said/she-said; and who gets to decide what is bad advice–or that the penitent, in such a vulnerable, sensitive, often wounded (and thus likely to misunderstand) state didn’t just misinterpret or read things into the situation, even projecting their own thoughts or feelings into the situation?

It’s an impossible situation, and one of the most asinine court cases to come up recently–though it doesn’t hold a candle to the idiocy that has been involved with thinking the HHS Abortion Mandate could by any measure of rationality be sane or licit.

The courts in this country have become ridiculous in the true meaning of the word: worthy of ridicule.