Can a priest act on information he got from a confession?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Speedypizza
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Speedypizza

Guest
Let us say that a person confessed to molesting children, and next month the priest learns that this person is trying to get a job as a day care worker for the Church. Could this priest not hire/appoint this person without saying why he decided to do that?

Or what if a person confessed to being a kleptomaniac with cash and then this person next month asks to be one of the people collecting money for the poor?

What if a person confessed that he was watching girls change through a hidden hole in a closet leading to the girls locker room. Could the priest have this hole sealed even though nobody knew about it till the confession?

I could keep going with examples of course, I am just curious as to if a priest can act on information he received from a confession if he in no way makes it known where he got this information from.

Pax :signofcross:
 
You don’t have to worry about posting more examples because the answer to them all is no. A priest cannot reveal what he heard in Confession to anyone. God bless
 
I think there would have to be some extraordinary reason, more serious than your examples, for a priest to do so.
 
Bezant said:
I think there would have to be some extraordinary reason, more serious than your examples, for a priest to do so.
Click to expand...
You don’t think his first example is serious? Would it be serious if it were your child/ sister in that daycare centre?
 
Bezant said:
I think there would have to be some extraordinary reason, more serious than your examples, for a priest to do so.
Click to expand...
A priest goes to the gallows before he breaks the Seal of Confession.
 
Bezant said:
I think there would have to be some extraordinary reason, more serious than your examples, for a priest to do so.
Click to expand...
According to Canon Law:

Can. 983 §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.
 
wolfgang said:
According to Canon Law:

Can. 983 §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.
Click to expand...
Assuming, of course, that the confession is valid. If I go into the confessional and “confess” that I’m going to go rob a bank tomorrow and murder everyone inside… I’m not really confessing so much as I’m telling the priest in advance of what I’m going to do.
 
Bezant said:
I think there would have to be some extraordinary reason, more serious than your examples, for a priest to do so.
Click to expand...
A priest is not allowed to break the Seal of Confession for anything. As another poster has said there is no point in giving examples because the answer is ALWAYS NO!
 
Actually, what the canon says (paraphrased) is that the priest cannot do anything that would betray the penitent. I don’t think sealing the hole in the locker room wall qualifies, unless the priest told someone that he sealed it (or even learned about it) because of something said to him in the confessional.

In the same way, he does not have to provide a reason for not hiring a particular individual, or accepting their offer to serve in any given ministry. These can be done without revealing anything about the confession/penitent.
 
BcuzISaidSo said:
Actually, what the canon says (paraphrased) is that the priest cannot do anything that would betray the penitent. I don’t think sealing the hole in the locker room wall qualifies, unless the priest told someone that he sealed it (or even learned about it) because of something said to him in the confessional.

In the same way, he does not have to provide a reason for not hiring a particular individual, or accepting their offer to serve in any given ministry. These can be done without revealing anything about the confession/penitent.
Click to expand...
I’m sorry, you’re wrong. He may not make use of any information found during confession. In a case like that, he should ask the penitent to bring up the hole again after confession is over, when he isn’t under the seal.

The seal is so strict for our protection. It may never be violated.
 
If the penitent had confessed that he had poisoned all the food in the rectory. After the confession, the priest would still have to act as if he had never heard, even if this meant he had to consume food left in the rectory if that was his habit.

He cannot act in any way differently about the facts revealed or toward the person. He must forget what was heard and continue his normal habits.
 
Yes a priest can act on the information he got from a confessional. He can:

a. See that the penitent is sorry and absolve his/her sins.
b. See that the penitent is not sorry and not give absolution.
 
Evan said:
If the penitent had confessed that he had poisoned all the food in the rectory. After the confession, the priest would still have to act as if he had never heard, even if this meant he had to consume food left in the rectory if that was his habit.

He cannot act in any way differently about the facts revealed or toward the person. He must forget what was heard and continue his normal habits.
Click to expand...
What? Where does it say that?

Of course the priest can remove the poisoned food. He’d have to do it himself. He can even tell other people its poisoned, but he cannot tell who poisoned it.
 
TheMc said:
I’m sorry, you’re wrong. He may not make use of any information found during confession. In a case like that, he should ask the penitent to bring up the hole again after confession is over, when he isn’t under the seal.

The seal is so strict for our protection. It may never be violated.
Click to expand...
Hello TheMc,

I sort of agree. The pertinent canon is 984, not 983. Canon 984 states:

“§1. A confessor is prohibited completely from using knowledge acquired from confession to the detriment of the penitent even when any danger of revelation is excluded. …”

Now, I fail to see how the priest covering over the hypothetical hole is an action that in any way is detrimental to the penitent. In the other examples, one could rightly point out that keeping a pedophile away from children is also not detrimental and keeping a kleptomaniac away from cash is also not detrimental: it is trying to keep people out of the occasion of sin. On the other hand, refusing to hire a person for a job is detrimental. So, there is some difficulty there. I’m not sure what I think about that, although I’m leaning toward concluding that the priest trying to prevent a sinner from falling back into sin is never detrimental, no matter what.

In any case, anonymous confessions would always prevent confessors from acting in any way that is detrimental to a penitent.

Dan
 
Here are the Canons:
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.
§2 An interpreter, if there is one, is also obliged to observe this secret, as are all others who in any way whatever have come to a knowledge of sins from a confession.
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.
§2 A person who is in authority may not in any way, for the purpose of external governance, use knowledge about sins which has at any time come to him from the hearing of confession. (emphasis added)
intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/_P3F.HTM

As you can see from the highlighted language, the inviolability of the seal is in relation to betraying the penitent - meaning identifying the penitent; the use of knowledge is in relation to harming - the detriment - of the penitent; and one in authority is limited in use for governance- ruling purposes.
 
dans0622 said:
In any case, anonymous confessions would always prevent confessors from acting in any way that is detrimental to a penitent.

Dan
Click to expand...
Dan, I think you could come up with a way it could be detrimental.

If something were revealed, there were limited penitents, and someone outside the confessional noted all who were confessing. That would certainly reduce the number of suspects in your murder investigation.
 
johnnykins said:
Here are the Canons:
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.
Click to expand...
I would think that would cover EVERYTHING (yes I’m shouting 🙂 ) The additional information is to EMPHASIZE that it cannot be used.
 
Evan said:
Dan, I think you could come up with a way it could be detrimental.

If something were revealed, there were limited penitents, and someone outside the confessional noted all who were confessing. That would certainly reduce the number of suspects in your murder investigation.
Click to expand...
Hello Evan,

Yes. That’s true and is a violation of the seal (c. 983). I was thinking along the lines of the example regarding employing a pedophile–if the person is not hired, nothing is revealed to anyone and there is no violation of the seal. In order to act in a detrimental manner (as in c. 984), the confessor would have to know who the penitent was/is.

Thanks for your time and I’m sorry I was not clear.

Dan
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top