Breaking the seal of confession

[minkymurph]

I was reading a response made by Father Vincent Sherpa in relation to breaking the seal of confession, in which he said the seal may not be broken even when the penitent has died. I can understand why he said that, but I would like to ask a question in relation to a certain incident.

In short, a priest confessed to another priest he had been involved in a bomb attack that had catastrophic consequences. The priest urged him to go to the police, but he would not. With the institution of the peace process in the North of Ireland, an inquiry was opened into this attack for the purpose of establishing who was responsible. The incident received considerable media coverage and was of great National importance. The priest against urged the other priest to go to the police, but he still would not.

The priest involved is now dead, as is the priest who heard his confession. However, on his deathbed the priest who heard the confession revealed what he had been told. Was he wrong?

 

[englishredrose]

no it is not wrong

 

[maltmom]

Based on what Father S said it sounds like he was wrong. I wonder why he felt the need to tell on his death bed.

 

[R_C]

Code of Canon Law
§1. 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.
§2. The interpreter, if there is one, and all others who in any way have knowledge of sins from confession are also obliged to observe secrecy.
§1. A confessor who directly violates the sacramental seal incurs a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See; one who does so only indirectly is to be punished according to the gravity of the delict.
§2.An interpreter and the others mentioned in can. 983, §2 who violate the secret are to be punished with a just penalty, not excluding excommunication.

Of course, while we don’t have the knowledge or authority to judge the behavior of a priest under these circumstances, the Canon Law is very clear.

 

[minkymurph]

Based on what Father S said it sounds like he was wrong. I wonder why he felt the need to tell on his death bed.

He felt the need because a public inquiry into the matter. Several major inquiries were opened when the ‘Troubles’ ended. Victims of bomb attacks etc. wanted the truth. They wanted to know who the individuals responsible for maiming or killing their loved one’s were so so justice could be done. As far as I understand it, someone else was implicated who may, (or may not) have been innocent. They had also been connected with this priest and people wanted to know it was true. If it was true, then it may have led to identification of others who bore responsibility for the attack.

 

[minkymurph]

Code of Canon Law
§1. 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.
§2. The interpreter, if there is one, and all others who in any way have knowledge of sins from confession are also obliged to observe secrecy.
§1. A confessor who directly violates the sacramental seal incurs a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See; one who does so only indirectly is to be punished according to the gravity of the delict.
§2.An interpreter and the others mentioned in can. 983, §2 who violate the secret are to be punished with a just penalty, not excluding excommunication.

Of course, while we don’t have the knowledge or authority to judge the behavior of a priest under these circumstances, the Canon Law is very clear.

I appreciate what you saying, and I’m not saying Father Sherpa was wrong. But I can also understand why the priest felt he had to reveal what had been confessed.

 

[lutherlic]

He felt the need because a public inquiry into the matter. Several major inquiries were opened when the ‘Troubles’ ended. Victims of bomb attacks etc. wanted the truth. They wanted to know who the individuals responsible for maiming or killing their loved one’s were so so justice could be done. As far as I understand it, someone else was implicated who may, (or may not) have been innocent. They had also been connected with this priest and people wanted to know it was true. If it was true, then it may have led to identification of others who bore responsibility for the attack.

No argument in favor of the public good can ever justify breaking the seal. The dying priest excommunicated himself by doing so.

 

[lutherlic]

I appreciate what you saying, and I’m not saying Father Sherpa was wrong. But I can also understand why the priest felt he had to reveal what had been confessed.

If he felt that he had to then his catechesis as a priest was lacking. Priests have died protecting the confessional seal.

 

[minkymurph]

If he felt that he had to then his catechesis as a priest was lacking. Priests have died protecting the confessional seal.

True. But what of people who confessed to priests in advance of committing acts of violence, which on occasion they did? What if a person confessed to an act of violence, and the priest knew they had the intention to commit more? If a priest knew the person was going to kill innocent people, what should he do? Is it more important to protect the seal of the confession, or the lives of the innocent? To me, it’s a real dilemma. I think I would prefer they just didn’t tell me.

 

[JGMendes4049]

True. But what of people who confessed to priests in advance of committing acts of violence, which on occasion they did? What if a person confessed to an act of violence, and the priest knew they had the intention to commit more? If a priest knew the person was going to kill innocent people, what should he do? Is it more important to protect the seal of the confession, or the lives of the innocent? To me, it’s a real dilemma. I think I would prefer they just didn’t tell me.

If the pentinent is not contrite and sorry, then absolution may be withheld.

 

[maltmom]

True. But what of people who confessed to priests in advance of committing acts of violence, which on occasion they did? What if a person confessed to an act of violence, and the priest knew they had the intention to commit more? If a priest knew the person was going to kill innocent people, what should he do? Is it more important to protect the seal of the confession, or the lives of the innocent? To me, it’s a real dilemma. I think I would prefer they just didn’t tell me.

They still can’t break the seal. I would venture to say that in most cases they don’t even know the name of the person who is confessing to them. So other than encouraging them to turn themselves in and getting help there’s isn’t much he can do.

 

[Chatter163]

True. But what of people who confessed to priests in advance of committing acts of violence, which on occasion they did? What if a person confessed to an act of violence, and the priest knew they had the intention to commit more? If a priest knew the person was going to kill innocent people, what should he do? Is it more important to protect the seal of the confession, or the lives of the innocent? To me, it’s a real dilemma. I think I would prefer they just didn’t tell me.

One cannot confess “in advance” to something one has not yet done.

This type of question, which we have heard a thousand times before here and elsewhere, is an old canard used to stir up dissent and somehow justify a changing of the Church’s teaching on the seal of the confessional. I am not saying that this was your intent here, but please understand two things: First, not being a Hollywood plot, what you describe above is extraordinarily unlikely, and is more akin to the things that we would think up as kids, to stump the nuns. (“Sister, if God can do anything, can he make a rock so heavy that even he can’t lift it?”) Second, the extremely few times that such a thing has ever actually happened do not justify the changing of the Church’s teaching, which is designed to draw people closer to the confessional, rather than away. God’s Divine Mercy provides for all.

 

[northernstar]

No argument in favor of the public good can ever justify breaking the seal. The dying priest excommunicated himself by doing so.

I agree, it is in God’s hands not mankinds what final justice will be… so the priest failed in his religious duties and having a trust in God over human pressure.

 

[minkymurph]

One cannot confess “in advance” to something one has not yet done.

This type of question, which we have heard a thousand times before here and elsewhere, is an old canard used to stir up dissent and somehow justify a changing of the Church’s teaching on the seal of the confessional. I am not saying that this was your intent here, but please understand two things: First, not being a Hollywood plot, what you describe above is extraordinarily unlikely, and is more akin to the things that we would think up as kids, to stump the nuns. (“Sister, if God can do anything, can he make a rock so heavy that even he can’t lift it?”) Second, the extremely few times that such a thing has ever actually happened do not justify the changing of the Church’s teaching, which is designed to draw people closer to the confessional, rather than away. God’s Divine Mercy provides for all.

The reason I mention it is because it happened in Ireland during the ‘Troubles.’ You can read about it in Irish history books, and I’m sure you’ll find it on the internet. So, this actually happened and is not a question to stump a nun.

Members of Paramilitary groups did on occasion go to confession prior to committing acts of violence. They did so because they could have been killed themselves. To them, it was like soldiers going into a war. Some went to confession after they had committed an act of violence.

I think I would go with what another poster said, in that absolution could be withheld. During the Irish Civil War, the Church instructed priests to withhold absolution if those involved would not renounce violence. However, priests who were sympathetic continued to go so. Therefore, it can be said that absolution in these circumstances was invalid. In which case, the seal could be broken as the confession was never sealed in the first place if you catch my drift. If someone confesses in advance, it can be argued that is not a valid confession either, so the same rule of thumb would apply.

In relation to conviction of a crime, I’m not convinced breaking the seal of the confessional would solve anything. I mean, a priest could say you confessed something you didn’t. Not that he would, but it’s something that could be argued in court. Further to this, I could claim someone confessed they committed a crime to me, and convicting someone on the basis of confession couldn’t be considered a safe conviction.

The only thing I see left as problematic, is if a priest knows someone intends to commit further crime when they leave the confessional. I know he can’t break the seal, but is there nothing he can do to intervene? Further to this, if he knew someone didn’t commit a crime because someone else confessed to it, is there anything he can do?

 

[northernstar]

True. But what of people who confessed to priests in advance of committing acts of violence, which on occasion they did? What if a person confessed to an act of violence, and the priest knew they had the intention to commit more? If a priest knew the person was going to kill innocent people, what should he do? Is it more important to protect the seal of the confession, or the lives of the innocent? To me, it’s a real dilemma. I think I would prefer they just didn’t tell me.

Why would the priest not attempt to verbally stop him with discussion. May be the priest can talk this person out of violence and into mental health care. Is this not part of a priest job to give direction?

 

[minkymurph]

Why would the priest not attempt to verbally stop him with discussion. May be the priest can talk this person out of violence and into mental health care. Is this not part of a priest job to give direction?

I would say they would. I also remember a priest telling me he would withhold absolution if someone confessed to crime and they weren’t prepared to go to the police.

 

[Corki]

I would say they would. I also remember a priest telling me he would withhold absolution if someone confessed to crime and they weren’t prepared to go to the police.

That would be his right if he was convinced that the penitent was not contrite. But it’s not right for a priest to have a “blanket rule” without hearing the individual confession.

Of course, it doesn’t effect the seal of Confession.

 

[Bill_Martin]

I would say they would. I also remember a priest telling me he would withhold absolution if someone confessed to crime and they weren’t prepared to go to the police.

I had a priest tell me that as well when I asked what he would do in that situation. He said he would make going to the police part of the penance.

 

[R_C]

The Church has guidelines on these matters.

 

[lutherlic]

The only thing I see left as problematic, is if a priest knows someone intends to commit further crime when they leave the confessional. I know he can’t break the seal, but is there nothing he can do to intervene? Further to this, if he knew someone didn’t commit a crime because someone else confessed to it, is there anything he can do?

The only thing he can do is speak with the penitent during that confession. Most priests never have a burden this heavy, but if they do then it is one that they must bear.