Breaking Seal of Confession

[1ke]

Are there ever situations where a priest is allowed by the church to break the seal of confession?

No.

Has there ever been a time in the past where this has occurred?

I’m sure there has been in 2000 years of church history, but I don’t know if any specific cases.

It is a grave offense and the priest is censured for it according to canon law.

Ex.
Cindy confesses that she has killed someone and disclosed where the hidden body is.

It doesn’t matter how many examples you give, the priest may NEVER break the seal of confession.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Other than assuming such things, has anyone found a documented case, where a priest was disciplined? It should be so remarkable as to make the news, right? Right?

Google is your friend. In addition to Fr Igbo, here’s 3 more:

Priest guilty of indirectly violating seal of confession

https://buffalonews.com/news/local/priest-accused-of-violating-seal-of-confessional-placed-on-administrative-leave/article_65c51c30-45f5-53da-8ca2-63ad7eea4ddd.html

https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/...cated_for_violating_the_secrecy_of_confession

I’m a bit baffled as to why you seemed to think there weren’t any documented cases of this.

 

[JulianN]

I love that movie!!

 

[Anne1964]

A priest in my diocese who works in the chancery indirectly violated the seal of confession by publishing an article describing the details of a penitent’s confession on a well known Catholic blog. Sadly, not only did our bishop take no action against this priest, he increased his responsibilities at the chancery.

 

[InThePew]

It depends how much information he gave. Simply setting out an example (which may or may not be hypothetical) or saying “a person came to me for confession once and…” doesn’t by itself violate the seal without the penitent’s name or at least enough information to (potentially) identify them. On the other hand, saying something like “when I was at St Margarita of the Flaming Chicken Parish in December 06 there was a middle aged woman who used to come to mass with her 16 children and her confessions were something else let me tell you” would violate the seal.

Still, there’s a need for caution even when identification is highly unlikely because of the “chilling effect” but also because people will try and work out who it is that the priest is talking about.

 

[LilyM]

I’m a bit confused about how a priest indirectly violates the seal of confession? If no information identifying the penitent is communicated how would others know the priest wasn’t merely talking about a hypothetical penitent? Where is the line drawn? How could it possibly be proven?

A quote from one of the articles up thread says:

“An indirect violation is one in which the priest reveals a penitent’s sin but not necessarily his or her identity, said archdiocese spokeswoman Julie Wolf. Such situations are extremely rare.”

I’m just trying to understand how this works. How can you reveal someone’s sin and not their identity?

Easy - e.g. “someone came.to me in confession yesterday and told me they had stolen 6 of their neighbour’s chickens”.

The priest might not have named names, but if it is a tiny town where only one resident keeps chickens and only one other person lives anywhere near them, not hard to figure out who he is talking about.

 

[LilyM]

LilyM:

Easy - e.g. “someone came.to me in confession yesterday and told me they had stolen 6 of their neighbour’s chickens”.

The priest might not have named names, but if it is a tiny town where only one resident keeps chickens and only one other person lives anywhere near them, not hard to figure out who he is talking about.

But where is the line drawn?

The line is drawn when there is enough identifying detail that whoever hears what the priest says is likely to be able to figure out who the penitent is that he is talking about. That can only be judged case by case.

 

[Edmundus1581]

Just two years ago, February 2018, a Fr. Ezinwane Igbo, a Nigerian priest working in Queensland, Australia incurred automatic excommunication for breaking the seal of confession: Pope excommunicates Father Ezinwanne Igbo for breaching confession secrecy

Well, that answers once and for all whether it’s ever happened! (Albeit, the Church doesn’t disclose the details and there’s just the linking of “complaint” about breaking the seal and the excommunication).

Curiously, I’m in Australia and I’ve never heard of this, even though it happened in 2018.

Another possible case I know of is that involving the commandant of Auschwitz in World War II, Rudolf Hoss. He was raised in a strict Catholic home, and once he suffered from an apparent breaking of the seal of the confession by a priest, and subsequently abandoned the faith. It’s not entirely sure whether the priest did break the seal, but the evidence is there an Hoss believed it. If he did break the seal the priest got away with it.

He brooded over this “monstrous” breach of trust for months. “My faith in the sacred priesthood had been destroyed,” he recalled, “And doubts began to arise in my mind for the first time.”

https://owlcation.com/humanities/Auschwitz-Commandant-Hss-The-Hidden-Truth-Disclosed

After the war he was tried and sentenced to death. Before his death he returned to the faith and received the last sacraments.

 

[Edmundus1581]

Anesti33:

Other than assuming such things, has anyone found a documented case, where a priest was disciplined? It should be so remarkable as to make the news, right? Right?

Google is your friend. In addition to Fr Igbo, here’s 3 more:

…
I’m a bit baffled as to why you seemed to think there weren’t any documented cases of this.

Thanks! Sorry, I responded to an earlier post before seeing this.

There is a (somewhat) common myth that the seal has never been violated, ever, in Church history, and that this is a “miracle” which proves the validity of the sacrament. I saw a video with two quite reputable priests discussing the sacrament and they repeated this myth (c 2010?). This was the sort of myth which more easily took hold before the internet.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Hmm, that’s interesting. I never heard of this myth.

Priests being human, I would find it hard to believe that in 2000 years no priests or only a tiny handful of priests slipped up and broke the rule.

 

[Leek]

I heard a priest give a homely one time where he described the contents of someone’s confession in detail, identified that it was a woman at the current parish and happened when he first got there (just a couple months ago). So very possible she was sittings in the pews. I pretty much was in shock and I think everyone else was too.

 

[HeDa]

Just put a newly ordained priest in the confessional for two hours and he will come out with a very muschy brain and find it very hard to even concentrate on leading the university students´ Bible study.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Here’s a question I have concerning this.

If the priest has already given absolution, but the person says something else while still in the confessional and it was not about a sin, can the priest repeat it ?

 

[stpurl]

@edward_george1 could you weigh in on this question from Jim in the post directly above, “if the priest has already given absolution, but the person says something else while still in the confessional and it was not about a sin, can the priest repeat it?

Thank you.

 

[Anne1964]

On the other hand, saying something like “when I was at St Margarita of the Flaming Chicken Parish in December 06 there was a middle aged woman who used to come to mass with her 16 children and her confessions were something else let me tell you” would violate the seal.

This is exactly what the priest did. He described the penitent, how the penitent always approached him outside of the confessional, while other parishioners were around, said what the penitent’s confessed sin was and proceeded to make fun of the penitent and the sin.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Given the gravity of breaking the seal, why would a priest ever risk talking about any real confession?

I don’t get it either, unless perhaps it was a private discussion with another priest for the purpose of getting or giving advice on how to priest.

Then again, priests often do, say, and post on the Web things that I find very imprudent. Sometimes humans simply have bad judgment.

 

[Edmundus1581]

This is exactly what the priest did. He described the penitent, how the penitent always approached him outside of the confessional, while other parishioners were around, said what the penitent’s confessed sin was and proceeded to make fun of the penitent and the sin.

That is just amazing, and outrageous also! Making fun of the penitent and the sin is serious.

Just a question though - was the “making fun” done in a kindly way rather than to mock? While the seal is inviolable, it is more serious to violate it to someone’s prejudice rather than advantage, such as “this dear sweet grandmother, a daily mass goer and church cleaner, confessed to me that she had forgotten to dust the top of the sacristy cabinet” would, I think, be a technical violation but hardly serious. (But I am not a canon lawyer!)

As it is in a published document (a blog) and is (potentially) serious, I think you should consider reporting it.

 

[twf]

“Father, I plan to murder you tomorrow.” I don’t understand why the priest can’t act on this. How does the seal apply? Clearly the person is not actually participating in the sacrament of penance in this case… they just happened to enter the confessional and announced a sin they plan to commit in the future.

 

[RolandThompsonGunner]

Hmm, that’s interesting. I never heard of this myth.

Priests being human, I would find it hard to believe that in 2000 years no priests or only a tiny handful of priests slipped up and broke the rule.

I mean, we have documented cases of priests being excommunicated for breaking the seal. So I think this one is demonstrably false.

Of course, it’s still exceptionally rare. I’ve never been worried after confession that the priest was going to disclose what I told him. Not that my sins are all that interesting anyway.

 

[LilyM]

“Father, I plan to murder you tomorrow.” I don’t understand why the priest can’t act on this. How does the seal apply? Clearly the person is not actually participating in the sacrament of penance in this case… they just happened to enter the confessional and announced a sin they plan to commit in the future.

The seal of the confessional is absolute. The person was confessing a sin, albeit a future planned sin for which they were not repentant and did not obtain absolution, but nonethless the priest is not supposed to act on knowledge gained in confession. There is no exception for confessions where the sin is not absolved, or confession of plans for future sins.

A confession - of any sort - and its contents are supposed, really, to be between the penitent and God, with the priest being a mere conduit between the two. None of it is, or is supposed to be used, for the benefit of the priest.

It is rather like someone acting as a translator between a patient and doctor or client and lawyer - in no way are they supposed to convey, outside of that office and that meeting, anything of what went on. Doctors have obligations in some circumstances to disclose certain information to authorities (eg suspected child abuse), but not translators.