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.
porthos11 said:
But if this is the only way the priest has knowledge of it (i.e. he didn’t find out any other way) and the penitent applies for aforesaid position: assuming he is the most qualified, the sin notwithstanding, Father cannot use the knowledge from the Confession to stop him from hiring the penitent.

This is true only if Father knew about it through some other means (e.g. sex offender website). Whether or not he finds out before or after the Confession, Father can act on it, based on the fact that he gained knowledge outside of the Confessional.
…
Click to expand...
But what if it is not the priest’s standard practice to check sex offender registries? I know that the sex offender site is public information, but it does seem that if the priest chooses to check the registry due to hints of deviancy revealed under seal, it is, in some way, acting on that information. There’s a secular law analogy here - if the police conduct an illegal search (evidence of which would NOT be admissible in secular criminal court), and discover a document indicating that a murder weapon was abandoned in a public park, could the police search the park and then use the found weapon as evidence? Remember that the park is, by definition, public, and there is (afaik) no right to privacy with respect to things that you leave in a public park.
 
Laudate_Dominum said:
The Seal is not to be broken. At all. Don’t try and weedle around it by going over the what ifs of** invalid confessions**, etc. THE SEAL IS NOT TO BE BROKEN.
Click to expand...
The rest of your post would be valid if the part that I turned red was what I was talking about. HOWEVER, what I am addressing is not invalid confessions, or even attempts at confession. I’m talking about instances where THERE IS NO CONFESSION.

If a man walks into the confessional with a dead baby and sits there and eats it (someone else’s morbid example), that isn’t an “invalid confession”, it’s NOT A CONFESSION AT ALL.

If a man walks into the confessional and simply says “I’m going to murder people at the mall tomorrow”, that isn’t an “invalid confession”, it’s NOT A CONFESSION AT ALL.

If a man walks into the confessional and wordlessly punches the priest in the face, that isn’t an “invalid confession”, it’s NOT A CONFESSION AT ALL.

I’m not talking about a case where someone did something and might not truely be contrite… I’m talking about a case where a person does not confess anything, but merely commits a crime or states an active intent to commit a crime (not in the sense of avoiding said intent, but rather just saying they’re going to do it). These aren’t even attempts at confession… they are NOT A CONFESSION AT ALL.
 
As I recall back a few years ago when we had the DC serial sniper, the issue of can a priest reveal information was brought up. It seems the serial sniper left a confession on a priest’s anwering machine. That he did turn over to the police. If the sniper had confessed in the sacrament of reciliation then the information could not be used. That upset alot of non-catholics who did not understand why information obtained in the confessional is sacred.
 
Curious, anyone know of test cases where a priest has been held liable for not breaking the seal? By that I mean a psychologist or lawyer are required to violate client/counselor privilege if they possess knowledge of someone’s intention to commit a grevious act that results in physical harm or death to someone else. Please note I’m referring to future tense grevious acts. Not a situation where a lawyer is defending a person charge with murder, and client/counselor privilege is in place.

Just curious.
 
dans0622 said:
Hello Joan M.,

What is hard (for me) to understand is the foundation upon which you have based your conclusions. Where is it stated, or who has said, that a “priest cannot act on any knowledge he has only from confession” or that acting on confessional knowledge is automatically violating the seal. The law of the church (canons 983-984) seem to make a clear distinction between violating the seal and acting upon confessional knowledge without a violation of the seal. The former is always wrong and prohibited but the latter can be tolerated, in certain circumstances. The old Code of Canon Law (1917) had basically the same content.

Thanks for your time.

Dan
Click to expand...
That’s good to hear!
 
x1980x said:
But what if it is not the priest’s standard practice to check sex offender registries? I know that the sex offender site is public information, but it does seem that if the priest chooses to check the registry due to hints of deviancy revealed under seal, it is, in some way, acting on that information. There’s a secular law analogy here - if the police conduct an illegal search (evidence of which would NOT be admissible in secular criminal court), and discover a document indicating that a murder weapon was abandoned in a public park, could the police search the park and then use the found weapon as evidence? Remember that the park is, by definition, public, and there is (afaik) no right to privacy with respect to things that you leave in a public park.
Click to expand...
This is a fine point and I don’t have a good answer. On the surface, it looks like a violation of the Seal and should not be done. I would defer to a good canon lawyer for this.

If it were the priest’s standard practice to always check an applicant against a sex offender registry (regardless of whether he confessed or not), then yes Father may check the registry just by the fact that this person is applying and regardless of what he confessed.

This is, by the way, one more reason why anonymity is preferred in the Confessional, to avoid exposing the confessor to temptations to act on someone based on what he heard.
 
x1980x said:
But what if it is not the priest’s standard practice to check sex offender registries?
Click to expand...
I think with all the media on the sex scandals of the Church, pretty much every diocese in the world would check police records. I have been a catechist for the RC diocese and the Ukrainian eparchy in my location, and both required that I submit a police clearance of my criminal record history, specifically for sexual offences. I can at the very least assume that this is a directive (or agreement) within the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops since these were two distinct jurisdictions which do the same thing. I’m expecting at least in the US that the bishops there are doing the same thing today.
 
whipp711 said:
Curious, anyone know of test cases where a priest has been held liable for not breaking the seal? By that I mean a psychologist or lawyer are required to violate client/counselor privilege if they possess knowledge of someone’s intention to commit a grevious act that results in physical harm or death to someone else. Please note I’m referring to future tense grevious acts. Not a situation where a lawyer is defending a person charge with murder, and client/counselor privilege is in place.

Just curious.
Click to expand...
This is the only case I know of:

nytimes.com/1996/05/26/us/vatican-wants-tape-of-jail-confession-destroyed.html
 
promethius said:
That’s not an example like he was asking for, the priest didn’t violate the seal… rather the prosecutor unjustly both violated the seal and the religious rights of the prisoner AND broke laws in the process. The man should be disbarred.
Click to expand...
I know. But it is the only case I am aware of that deals with the seal of confession, the proactive response of the Diocese and the Vatican. Moving the violation of the seal up an international incident. Moving it from a local to national to international deal. It’s pretty important.
 
No. all he can do is, while in the confessional, try to convince the person to turn themselves in and get help. Otherwise, he would be breaking the seal of confession and would be barred from the priesthood.
The priest is subject to his vows and to canon law, it is among the gravest of offences to reveal anything that took place during the sacrament of Penance.

God Bless.
Jillian
 
So here’s a hypothetical. Someone walks into a confessional and confesses to the priest that they raped the priest’s little sister. The priest has a general, ongoing intent to keep in touch with his family and call them when the time feels right, but he didn’t have any specific plans as to what exact date and time he would call his little sister next (though he knew that he would eventually when he felt like it). Obviously, the priest can’t report the person to the police for rape or tell his sister that he has been in contact with the rapist or reveal anything about how repentant he is, but what happens if he wants to call his sister to see if she reveals the incident and asks for support? Given that he now knows clearly material information that he is not allowed to act on, how could he ever hope to calculate the date and time that he WOULD have called sis next if he hadn’t learned the information? Does he have to act like a Corporate Insider who is banned from buying or selling stock for any reason until conditions change?

e.g.

Priest’s mom: “Son, why haven’t you called your sister Mary in five years?”
Priest: “Uhh, that’s kind of secret and I can’t say.”
Priest’s mom: “This is inexcusable. Don’t you care about her?”
 
Castello said:
One cannot confess an intent. I can plan that crime, then, change my mind. You can confess the planning, but, until you do the act you cannot confess the act.
Click to expand...
But I think the intent and planning, if interrupted, could still constitute a sin. That is, if you plan a bank robbery, buy a gun, stake out the bank, and arrive out front, then decide that robbing banks is stupid and go back home and throw the gun in your closet, you may have committed a sin that could or should be confessed.
 
Look it’s just a black and white no. No ifs, not buts. In a thousand scenarios you can think up, a priest does not break the seal. If a man walks into a confessional and says he’s going to kill the kind the priest cannot act on that out of the confessional. This is the constant teaching of the Church. This is the law of the Church.

If a priest violates the seal, he excommunicates himself.
 
Laudate_Dominum said:
Look it’s just a black and white no. No ifs, not buts. In a thousand scenarios you can think up, a priest does not break the seal. If a man walks into a confessional and says he’s going to kill the kind the priest cannot act on that out of the confessional. This is the constant teaching of the Church. This is the law of the Church.

If a priest violates the seal, he excommunicates himself.
Click to expand...
But the real question is what constitutes breaking the seal. Especially the questions that seem to have fed this thread is what may or may not the priest do–such as closing up a peephole–based on information from a confession, when it is the case that the priest’s actions are not going to reveal the contents of the confession to anyone and there will be no harm to the penitent.
 
What if a person confesses to murder. Can the priest be subpoenaed & forced to reveal?
 
CuriousInIL said:
But the real question is what constitutes breaking the seal. Especially the questions that seem to have fed this thread is what may or may not the priest do–such as closing up a peephole–based on information from a confession, when it is the case that the priest’s actions are not going to reveal the contents of the confession to anyone and there will be no harm to the penitent.
Click to expand...
It would be good to get some (name removed by moderator)ut from some of the Priests here.

I think it can be dangerous when we think of rules in black and white, and refuse to examine individual situations in light of our conscience/morality. I’m not saying that the seal of confession is not important, but it does seem there is some leeway to take action in some situations without breaking the seal.

To be honest I wish in certain serious situations penitents had to turn themselves in to the police before they are absolved, but I don’t make the rules.
 
journey00 said:
What if a person confesses to murder. Can the priest be subpoenaed & forced to reveal?
Click to expand...
A priest is not permitted to break the Seal of Confession for any reason. If a person confesses he has murdered or raped someone it stays with the priest. He cannot reveal anything said in Confession under any circumstances.
Even if a person confessed they were going to assassinate the Pope at a specific time and place the priest cannot reveal that information to anyone, not even the Pope or other priests.
 
thistle said:
A priest is not permitted to break the Seal of Confession for any reason. If a person confesses he has murdered or raped someone it stays with the priest. He cannot reveal anything said in Confession under any circumstances.
Even if a person confessed they were going to assassinate the Pope at a specific time and place the priest cannot reveal that information to anyone, not even the Pope or other priests.
Click to expand...
Yes, I get it. Priests cannot break the code of seal. But does the law respect that? If a Priest raises his right hand and swears to tell the whole truth so help him God, he can reveal anything not disclosed in confession but is he liable of lying under oath??

Im only asking because my 12yr old daughter asked me and said I don’t know, let me check out catholic answers.

I read on these boards that priests have a unique gift from God to “forget” anything said in confession. Interesting thought.
 
We were just discussing this at dinner last night (with our pastor). I believe he said that the seal is protected under federal law. Though I admit, I wasn’t 100% clear on whether it was state or federal. Will have to look that one up.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top