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

[johnnykins]

I would think that would cover EVERYTHING (yes I’m shouting ) The additional information is to EMPHASIZE that it cannot be used.

No, you are wrong - but it is very limited.

 

[SecretGarden]

The answer is unanimous but who is to say the next time the person confesses, as part of penitence, the priest can say: as part of it, they are to withdraw their application from the committee or where ever their behaviour can pose a threat to others. I think when a serious crime has been committed they can also recommend the person to turn them self in and so on. They can recommend that person seeks professional help. I think if the same confession happens, the priest might have the option of refusing to give the person absolution until they have turned them self, withdrawn their application etc.

If people’s lives are at stake, this is where moral ethics as well as the vow can be in conflict. The priest has to get on his knees pray and seek guidance on. He is never alone, there is a church hierarchy he can seek council as well. In worst case scenario, the police also have anonymous tip hotlines that he can use. As long as he uses a payphone that isn’t near his parish, he should be ok.

 

[Evan]

The answer is unanimous but who is to say the next time the person confesses, as part of penitence, the priest can say: as part of it, they are to withdraw their application from the committee or where ever their behaviour can pose a threat to others. I think when a serious crime has been committed they can also recommend the person to turn them self in and so on. They can recommend that person seeks professional help. I think if the same confession happens, the priest might have the option of refusing to give the person absolution until they have turned them self, withdrawn their application etc. .

I think this would violate the confessional. Of course, even if that were the penance, you would receive absolution, and could then not do the penance.

 

[johnnykins]

I think this would violate the confessional. Of course, even if that were the penance, you would receive absolution, and could then not do the penance.

I agree the priest cannot condition absolution on the disclosure of matters under the seal by the penitent.

1. You cannot identify the penitent.
2. Even without identifying the penitent, you can do nothing with information under seal to the penitent’s detriment.
3. You cannot use any information in a manner that involves some level of governance.

At least #2 is violated, and maybe both #1 and #3 depending on the situation.

 

[Laudate_Dominum]

As long as he uses a payphone that isn’t near his parish, he should be ok.

No, no, no. It’s very simple. A priest can never break the seal of the confessional. Even if a man brings a dead baby into the confessional and eats its corpse, the priest cannot break that seal. It’s that simple.

There is no conflict. It’s black and white. You don’t break the seal.

 

[Castello]

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.

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.

 

[Speedypizza]

I have done some more reading on this, and just wanted to point something out. The priest CANNOT make you admit your crime to another as part of your penance. If he could the whole idea of a seal would be meaningless. All the priest would have to do is tell everybody that they have to confess publicly everything. Now a priest can advise for you to turn yourself in, or to leave a certain job, but he cannot use confession as a tool to make you.

The point I am still not 100% on is if the priest can act on information he received in confession if doing so does not make it known who gave him that information. I will try to ask my priest about it after mass if I have a chance.

Pax

 

[Speedypizza]

FYI, I asked my priest about the hole in the wall question, and he was not 100% sure, but we have a priest in training at our parish who is somewhat of an expert on the rules of confession and he said that, no, a priest could not seal the hole unless he was told about it again after confession. He did say that he would ask the person to do this however so he could deal with the hole.

Pax

 

[anp1215]

I don’t really understand how sealing a hole in a wall would constitute violation of the seal. The penitent confesses he looked at the girls through the hole. The next day, the priest caulks the hole alone without telling anyone about it. I don’t see how he is violating the seal by doing this. Now if he said, “Hey John, can you please caulk this hole, someone has been looking at the girls through it” now that I can see as a violation. But the first scenario, I don’t think anything detrimental has been done to the penitent. The priest is preventing anyone else from noticing the hole and looking through it in the future.

 

[Speedypizza]

I don’t really understand how sealing a hole in a wall would constitute violation of the seal. The penitent confesses he looked at the girls through the hole. The next day, the priest caulks the hole alone without telling anyone about it. I don’t see how he is violating the seal by doing this. Now if he said, “Hey John, can you please caulk this hole, someone has been looking at the girls through it” now that I can see as a violation. But the first scenario, I don’t think anything detrimental has been done to the penitent. The priest is preventing anyone else from noticing the hole and looking through it in the future.

Look, I am with you on this. I think it is a bit weird that he could not fix a hole, however I was told that the priest could not.

Pax

 

[Joan_M]

I don’t really understand how sealing a hole in a wall would constitute violation of the seal.

It would violate the seal because he only knows about it and the use it is being put to from confession. Why is that hard to understand? The priest cannot act on any knowledge he has only from confession.

 

[dans0622]

It would violate the seal because he only knows about it and the use it is being put to from confession. Why is that hard to understand? The priest cannot act on any knowledge he has only from confession.

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

 

[BcuzISaidSo]

I work with two priests, both are canon lawyers. They at least are in agreement that the key phrase is the “to the detriment of the penitent”. A priest cannot reveal how he learned about the hole, but can fix it. He cannot admit to knowing that the food is poisoned, but he does not have to eat it.

Now, I will add that even though these two agree, they said that even amongst canon lawyers, there is some dissent on interpretation.

Thank you for the discussion, though. It led to a couple of really interesting conversations!

 

[promethius]

No, no, no. It’s very simple. A priest can never break the seal of the confessional. Even if a man brings a dead baby into the confessional and eats its corpse, the priest cannot break that seal. It’s that simple.

There is no conflict. It’s black and white. You don’t break the seal.

Bringing a dead baby into the confessional and eating it is not a valid confession, ergo the seal does not apply. The seal is not a matter of mere location, but of the sacrament, and if the “penitent” (used in quotes because your example is NOT a real penitent) is not even there to attempt the sacrament, then it is not a confession no matter where it takes place.

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.

That is why I said that wouldn’t actually be a confession and therefore the priest would not be bound by the seal.

 

[anp1215]

It would violate the seal because he only knows about it and the use it is being put to from confession. Why is that hard to understand? The priest cannot act on any knowledge he has only from confession.

dans and bcuzisaidso have expressed my thoughts

 

[Speedypizza]

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

Listen everybody, I just asked the question out of curiosity, and I did not think it would turn into a big thing. It seems clear to me that this is a gray area and that there is no way of getting an answer that is 100%. Maybe someday we will get a ruling that is firm on it, and until that day, each priest is going to interpret it in their own way. Some priests are sure they could seal the hole and others are sure that they could not seal the hole. I for one hope that they would seal the hole, as if I ever found out somebody was spying on my daughter, I would have a lot more serious things to confess then being a peeping tom or sealing a hole that I learned about from confession.

 

[Cbus]

I don’t see any of choices as violating the seal of confession.

Just because a penitent confesses sex abuse, thievery, and voyeurism does not obligate the priest to hire him for child care or money collection or leave a hole alone that needs to be fixed.

He had those free choices before the confession. Why does he not have them after the confession?

Not to mention that his providing the penitent with the near occasion to sin.

To break the seal of confession, he’d have actually tell someone else.

 

[Evan]

I don’t see any of choices as violating the seal of confession.

Just because a penitent confesses sex abuse, thievery, and voyeurism does not obligate the priest to hire him for child care or money collection or leave a hole alone that needs to be fixed.

He had those free choices before the confession. Why does he not have them after the confession?

Not to mention that his providing the penitent with the near occasion to sin.

To break the seal of confession, he’d have actually tell someone else.

If he confessed, the assumption is that he is trying to repent. The Church is in the business of forgiving sinners, not in putting them out of work.

He can certainly not hire him for various jobs, but NOT BECAUSE OF THE CONFESSION. This would be directly detrimental to the penitent.

He can fix the hole in the wall as part of building maintenance, but NOT BECAUSE OF THE CONFESSION.

Did you know that some people lie in Confession!!!
Some even confess to the police crimes they did not commit.
Some people have mental illnesses.
Some have a problem with scruples.
Some confess, not what they did, but what they wanted to do. And this may not be clear to the priest.

Confession is for healing the soul, not a job interview, not a mental health therapy session.

The priest should forget what was said in confession. He can make no legitimate use of the information. And even if he tries to remember, he could be mistake. Maybe he remembered the wrong person. Maybe the action took place 30 years ago. Maybe it never happened.

I know someone who will occasionally is a little upset with me for something I did in a dream. When I point that out, he may say something like ‘o yeah, well you could have done it’. If he remembered something in a dream that he thinks is a sin and confesses it, would it be proper for the priest to not hire him because he dreamed of doing something wrong and mistakenly remembered it is reality?

 

[Laudate_Dominum]

Bringing a dead baby into the confessional and eating it is not a valid confession, ergo the seal does not apply. The seal is not a matter of mere location, but of the sacrament, and if the “penitent” (used in quotes because your example is NOT a real penitent) is not even there to attempt the sacrament, then it is not a confession no matter where it takes place.

No. True contrition is necessary for absolution and the grace of the Sacrament, but a lack of contrition does not invalidate the the Seal.

It’s very simple. If a man presents himself to a priest for confession, even if after speaking with him the priest discovers a lack of contrition in him or that he is going to detonate a bomb at the mall after the confession, the priest can not do anything about it. The Seal does not start at the Absolution. It starts the minute they enter into communication with each other were both are aware it is within the framework of Confession.

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.

A priest dies before he breaks that seal. Simple. End off. If a priest thinks otherwise he has a duty before God and Church to resign from ministry.

 

[porthos11]

I don’t see any of choices as violating the seal of confession.

Just because a penitent confesses sex abuse, thievery, and voyeurism does not obligate the priest to hire him for child care or money collection or leave a hole alone that needs to be fixed.

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.

He had those free choices before the confession. Why does he not have them after the confession?

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.

Not to mention that his providing the penitent with the near occasion to sin.

To break the seal of confession, he’d have actually tell someone else.

Not true. He can do so indirectly by actions based on knowledge gained in the Confessional, or by mandating (for example as penance) the penitent to confess to civil authorities. This is still not allowed and carries severe penalties.