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

[chevalier]

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.

I have doubts as to whether in the following hypothetical the seal is broken. My opinion is that it is not. Here’s the hypothetical:

• bishop sits in the confessional,
• penitent mentions plans to kill Father X,
• bishop discreetly makes sure Father X is never alone, doesn’t go out much etc. by assigning him some new duties.

The above is clearly acting on the information from confession. But it does not betray the penitent, nor does it act to the penitent’s detriment in any other way. It merely foils the intent. Making Father X unkillable or less killable is hardly a “detriment” to the attempting killer.

Another example:

• priest used to be a military chaplain, in fact, he wasn’t always a chaplain and he knows how to handle explosives, although this part of Father’s past is not normally discussed,
• priest learns, in confession, about a bomb in the church,
• priest sets up some decor and disarms the bomb behind it, disposes of the remains and says nothing to anybody.

I honestly don’t think he has an obligation to wait until the Church explodes. “Detriment” is lacking.

If you want to take a wider interpretation than the language of canons 983-984 provide, and embark on some kind of doctrinal journey to prove that the priest can’t act at all on that knowledge, if a priest were in mortal sin himself and knew he had a 20 minutes to live and a confession for himself scheduled in 2 hours with another priest, he would be barred from seeking confession earlier. In fact, even making an act of contrition would be acting on the knowledge—at least internally, but that too is an action in moral terms. Well, if you exclude internal action from that, it still leaves the priest unable to seek confession. Also, if the penitent, prior to confession, presented the priest with some food and, in confession, mentioned the food was poisoned, the priest would be obliged to ignore the knowledge and eat that food, share with anybody who asked as he normally would, and so on. That goes way too far.

On the other hand, it is possible that a priest can’t jump out of the confessional and yell, “everybody out of the church, now!” because that could reveal the penitent (certainly can’t do so if it’s obvious who the last couple of penitents were).

Another hypothetical:

• priest learns in confession something to the effect that his ordination was clearly invalid (e.g. his baptism was invalid or the ordaining bishop’s but there could be other things).

Is that priest going to keep listening to confessions and absolving people?

 

[thistle]

I have doubts as to whether in the following hypothetical the seal is broken. My opinion is that it is not. Here’s the hypothetical:

• bishop sits in the confessional,
• penitent mentions plans to kill Father X,
• bishop discreetly makes sure Father X is never alone, doesn’t go out much etc. by assigning him some new duties.

The above is clearly acting on the information from confession. But it does not betray the penitent, nor does it act to the penitent’s detriment in any other way. It merely foils the intent. Making Father X unkillable or less killable is hardly a “detriment” to the attempting killer.

Another example:

• priest used to be a military chaplain, in fact, he wasn’t always a chaplain and he knows how to handle explosives, although this part of Father’s past is not normally discussed,
• priest learns, in confession, about a bomb in the church,
• priest sets up some decor and disarms the bomb behind it, disposes of the remains and says nothing to anybody.

I honestly don’t think he has an obligation to wait until the Church explodes. “Detriment” is lacking.

If you want to take a wider interpretation than the language of canons 983-984 provide, and embark on some kind of doctrinal journey to prove that the priest can’t act at all on that knowledge, if a priest were in mortal sin himself and knew he had a 20 minutes to live and a confession for himself scheduled in 2 hours with another priest, he would be barred from seeking confession earlier. In fact, even making an act of contrition would be acting on the knowledge—at least internally, but that too is an action in moral terms. Well, if you exclude internal action from that, it still leaves the priest unable to seek confession. Also, if the penitent, prior to confession, presented the priest with some food and, in confession, mentioned the food was poisoned, the priest would be obliged to ignore the knowledge and eat that food, share with anybody who asked as he normally would, and so on. That goes way too far.

On the other hand, it is possible that a priest can’t jump out of the confessional and yell, “everybody out of the church, now!” because that could reveal the penitent (certainly can’t do so if it’s obvious who the last couple of penitents were).

Another hypothetical:

• priest learns in confession something to the effect that his ordination was clearly invalid (e.g. his baptism was invalid or the ordaining bishop’s but there could be other things).

Is that priest going to keep listening to confessions and absolving people?

See my post #72. I have since checked with two priests referring them to Canon 983/984 and what I wrote in my post.
They both separately confirmed there are no exceptions allowing any violation of the Seal even if they have knowledge that a person’s life is in danger. EVERYTHING said during Confession is covered by the Seal.

 

[dans0622]

I have doubts as to whether in the following hypothetical the seal is broken. My opinion is that it is not. Here’s the hypothetical: …

Hello chevalier,

I find myself in agreement with all of your conclusions. I am not sure where the “a priest can’t do anything about anything he ever heard in the confessional” idea came from. That idea ignores the law which, in canon 984, admits and allows actions that arise from knowledge gained from a confession, as long as the Seal is not violated either directly or indirectly.

Dan

 

[thistle]

Hello chevalier,

I find myself in agreement with all of your conclusions. I am not sure where the “a priest can’t do anything about anything he ever heard in the confessional” idea came from. That idea ignores the law which, in canon 984, admits and allows actions that arise from knowledge gained from a confession, as long as the Seal is not violated either directly or indirectly.

Dan

Didn’t you read my post #82. Are you telling me these two priest either lied or are wrong? I’m pretty sure a priest knows better than any of us what the Seal of Confession means.

 

[chevalier]

See my post #72. I have since checked with two priests referring them to Canon 983/984 and what I wrote in my post.
They both separately confirmed there are no exceptions allowing any violation of the Seal even if they have knowledge that a person’s life is in danger. EVERYTHING said during Confession is covered by the Seal.

Your statement is too general, you seem to repeat that generalisation without addressing the issues. How about you, or the priests for that matter, address the hypothetical in which the priest learns about a bomb in the church, which the penitent somehow let the priest in on, and the priest can disarm the bomb without exposing the identity of the penitent? When done, please address the hypothetical in which a man learns that he is not a priest himself at all, or in fact not baptised. At least type it out for me that such a priest should keep dispensing the sacraments and should not try to get either (conditionally) ordained or (conditionally) baptised. While the first priest should wait for the bomb to explode.

Also, please don’t ignore the wording of c. 984 §1, where it contains the clause “to the detriment of the penitent”, as opposed to “in any way whatsoever” or even “especially to the detriment of the penitent”. It is, for example, entirely appropriate for priests to make generalised statements based on what people have been confessing, or even one (i.e. unaggregated) person somewhere but not identifying that person (e.g. “a boy once came to me, asking…”). The idea that priests must act as though they had never acquired the knowledge doesn’t appear sound. I’d be ready to guess that it stems from the modern view of non-disclosure agreements and confidentiality clauses. At any rate, no legal reasoning is valid about c. 984 §1 if the clause “to the detriment of the penitent” is ignored in the analysis (along with the reasons it was put in there). Simiarly, §2 contains the stipulation that, “A person who has been placed in authority cannot use in any manner for external governance the knowledge about sins which he has received in confession at any time.” There’d be no need to address this issue specifically if the priest were obliged to pretend he had heard nothing at all.

What you refer me to in your post #72 is this:

The Sacrament of Reconciliation (i.e. Confession) starts when the penitent goes into the Confessional and either through the screen or face to face with the priest and crosses himself/herself saying “Bless me Father for I have sinned…” and it ends when the penitent leaves after being absolved (or not absolved).
EVERYTHING that is said (no matter what it is about) during that time comes under the Seal of Confession. If a person says they intend to kill someone that is something said during Confession and comes under the seal.
You seem to be confusing what the penitent has confessed during Confession and everything that is said during Confession. The Seal covers everything that is said during Confession and not just any specific confession of sins made by the penitent. Priest and penitent usually have a conversation.

The italicised part is not relevant to our current issue. The bolded part refers to the fact that the priest can’t repeat what the penitent told him.

Didn’t you read my post #82. Are you telling me these two priest either lied or are wrong? I’m pretty sure a priest knows better than any of us what the Seal of Confession means.

The existence of appellate jurisdiction within the Church’s judicial structure proves that priests can sometimes be wrong on canon law, even if they hold a doctorate in it and are appointed judges.

 

[thistle]

Your statement is too general, you seem to repeat that generalisation without addressing the issues. How about you, or the priests for that matter, address the hypothetical in which the priest learns about a bomb in the church, which the penitent somehow let the priest in on, and the priest can disarm the bomb without exposing the identity of the penitent? When done, please address the hypothetical in which a man learns that he is not a priest himself at all, or in fact not baptised. At least type it out for me that such a priest should keep dispensing the sacraments and should not try to get either (conditionally) ordained or (conditionally) baptised. While the first priest should wait for the bomb to explode.

Also, please don’t ignore the wording of c. 984 §1, where it contains the clause “to the detriment of the penitent”, as opposed to “in any way whatsoever” or even “especially to the detriment of the penitent”. It is, for example, entirely appropriate for priests to make generalised statements based on what people have been confessing, or even one (i.e. unaggregated) person somewhere but not identifying that person (e.g. “a boy once came to me, asking…”). The idea that priests must act as though they had never acquired the knowledge doesn’t appear sound. I’d be ready to guess that it stems from the modern view of non-disclosure agreements and confidentiality clauses. At any rate, no legal reasoning is valid about c. 984 §1 if the clause “to the detriment of the penitent” is ignored in the analysis (along with the reasons it was put in there). Simiarly, §2 contains the stipulation that, “A person who has been placed in authority cannot use in any manner for external governance the knowledge about sins which he has received in confession at any time.” There’d be no need to address this issue specifically if the priest were obliged to pretend he had heard nothing at all.

What you refer me to in your post #72 is this:

The italicised part is not relevant to our current issue. The bolded part refers to the fact that the priest can’t repeat what the penitent told him.

The existence of appellate jurisdiction within the Church’s judicial structure proves that priests can sometimes be wrong on canon law, even if they hold a doctorate in it and are appointed judges.

I gave the two priests the example of intention to kill someone. In fact I elaborated on my post by saying what if the penitent said he was intending to kill the Pope at a specific time and place. I also asked about a bomb in the Church.
The priests said there are NO EXCEPTIONS. Nothing the penitent says during Confession can be repeated or acted upon even to save lives. If the priests repeated what they heard or acted upon this information to save lives then they would have violated the Seal of Confession.

 

[sedonaman]

C’mon, people, get reasonable. A priest can mention in a general way what penitents say in confession as long as he doesn’t reveal who the penitent was. For example, a priest from the pulpit once said he had an eight-year-old boy confess to committing adultery 5 times. [The priest said this to urge parents to remind their children to confess only sins they actually committed.] Another priest told an old, hard-of-hearing lady not to speak so loudly because others outside could hear her. She replied, “I don’t care. They are just as bad as I am!” Likewise, plugging up a peep hole in a locker-room is OK because no one’s identity is revealed.

There is nothing wrong with this as long as a penitent’s identity cannot be deduced.

P.S. Anyone accidentally hearing another confess is under the same prohibition as the priest.

 

[dans0622]

Didn’t you read my post #82. Are you telling me these two priest either lied or are wrong? I’m pretty sure a priest knows better than any of us what the Seal of Confession means.

Hello thistle,

It seems that the priests were wrong. It wouldn’t be the first time. Unfortunately, the typical priest today does not have a very broad foundation in canon law. Six credits in canon law is all that is required and about half of those credits is concerned with marriage. So, you have something like three credits for the other 1600+ canons. My guess is that most priests are, thankfully, quite familiar with c. 983 (and the associated automatic excommunication) but are not as familiar with c. 984.

Dan

 

[thistle]

Hello thistle,

It seems that the priests were wrong. It wouldn’t be the first time. Unfortunately, the typical priest today does not have a very broad foundation in canon law. Six credits in canon law is all that is required and about half of those credits is concerned with marriage. So, you have something like three credits for the other 1600+ canons. My guess is that most priests are, thankfully, quite familiar with c. 983 (and the associated automatic excommunication) but are not as familiar with c. 984.

Dan

Well I think what the priests told me trumps your opinion.

 

[chevalier]

I gave the two priests the example of intention to kill someone. In fact I elaborated on my post by saying what if the penitent said he was intending to kill the Pope at a specific time and place. I also asked about a bomb in the Church.
The priests said there are NO EXCEPTIONS. Nothing the penitent says during Confession can be repeated or acted upon even to save lives. If the priests repeated what they heard or acted upon this information to save lives then they would have violated the Seal of Confession.

The real question is no exceptions from what?

The priests may have said “no exceptions” because of presuming that you presumed betraying the penitent’s identity or requesting the assistance of the police, who won’t shy away from taking finger prints off the confessional and vetting everybody they read. You’d better make sure that by “acting on” they really mean things like plugging the whole on the priest’s own, without talking to anybody about it.

On the other hand, the language of canons 983-984 remains as it is, far less all-encompassing than it could be, stating things that would not need to be stated if the law really were that the priest must ignore all the knowledge that comes from confessions.

The other question is where people got the “no acting upon” notion from. (As opposed to not betraying the penitent as per c. 983 and not acting to his detriment as per c. 984.) According to that notion, if a man learnt that he wasn’t a priest, he would need to keep functioning as one, wouldn’t be able to seek to be baptised with water if it turned out he was attempted to be baptised with milk or without any liquid, etc.

Well I think what the priests told me trumps your opinion.

Possibly but it doesn’t trump the language of canons 983-984 and doesn’t explain the foundation of the “no acting on” idea, which goes farther than the language of the canons.

 

[promethius]

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.

You cannot confess an active intent to do a sin! In your example, there is no seal because there is no confession.

If a man walks into a confessional and simply says, Father, I’m going to kill you, then this is not a confession and therefore the priest can do whatever is needed to defend himself.

 

[chevalier]

You cannot confess an active intent to do a sin! In your example, there is no seal because there is no confession.

Addressed above. The seal applies even if no absolution is given. The penitent’s incapability of being absolved, despite attempting confession, doesn’t remove the seal.

If a man walks into a confessional and simply says, Father, I’m going to kill you, then this is not a confession and therefore the priest can do whatever is needed to defend himself.

1. The priest would see or hear the fact of being attacked and would be able to defend himself anyway.
2. The intent with regard to the future isn’t a sin, acting on it isn’t the same as, say, starting to lock the chests if the priest hears the confession of his maid and she confesses stealing.
3. Anyway, I think an interpretation forcing a priest e.g. to drink poisoned communion wine (let alone distribute it) as if he didn’t know about the poisoning, would be going too far. That kind of interpretation might cross the line into doing evil to another another evil.

 

[promethius]

Addressed above. The seal applies even if no absolution is given. The penitent’s incapability of being absolved, despite attempting confession, doesn’t remove the seal.

No, it has not been “addressed above”. Several members have made inaccurate ASSERTIONS with no documentary proof that anything said between “father forgive me for I have sinned” and absolution or denial of absolution falls under the seal and the priest cannot act on that information. That is not correct.

A confession still has a basic set of requirements, basically that of form and MATTER, and without appropriate matter, there is no confession. An intent to commit a sin is not valid matter for the sacrament of reconciliation, so there is no sacrament and therefore NO SEAL.

1. Anyway, I think an interpretation forcing a priest e.g. to drink poisoned communion wine (let alone distribute it) as if he didn’t know about the poisoning, would be going too far. That kind of interpretation might cross the line into doing evil to another another evil.

Let’s present another hypothetical example:

A man walks into the confessional and says exactly this: “Father, forgive me for I have sinned, it has been three months since my last confession. My sin is that tomorrow I will poison the communion wine for your mass so that it will kill my ex wife along with all of her friends who attend that mass.”

Not only would the priest not absolve this person, but this is not a confession (lack of proper matter and intent) and the priest would be OBLIGED to prevent this poisoning from occuring (else to participate in the murder of his entire congregation).

The idea that because a person says something to a priest in a particular room, or after a particular phrase automatically imposes a seal on the priest (and all who overhear it) is simply ludicrous. Form and matter, it’s required for ANY sacrament, and if the matter is not there, then no matter what form, the sacrament (and its seal) is non-existant.

 

[chevalier]

No, it has not been “addressed above”. Several members have made inaccurate ASSERTIONS with no documentary proof that anything said between “father forgive me for I have sinned” and absolution or denial of absolution falls under the seal and the priest cannot act on that information. That is not correct.

You can argue that a non-sin doesn’t fall under the seal. However, you can’t argue that an unregretted sin, preventing absolution, will also prevent the seal.

A confession still has a basic set of requirements, basically that of form, person, intent, and MATTER, and without appropriate matter, there is no confession.

An intent to commit a sin is not valid matter for the sacrament of reconciliation, so there is no sacrament and therefore NO SEAL.

In a case where the penitent doesn’t even attempt to initiate confession and just starts talking, maybe. On the other hand an intent disclosed within a normal confession would probably fall within the seal. The priest would also be unable to betray the penitent even indirectly due to the seal and, due to the fact that betraying an attempting thief could get him punished for his previous, confessed thefts, the priest would, I believe, be prevented from going to the police with that.

A man walks into the confessional and says exactly this: “Father, forgive me for I have sinned, it has been three months since my last confession. My sin is that tomorrow I will poison the communion wine for your mass so that it will kill my ex wife along with all of her friends who attend that mass.”

Not only would the priest not absolve this person, but this is not a confession (lack of proper matter and intent) and the priest would be OBLIGED to prevent this poisoning from occuring (else to participate in the murder of his entire congregation).

Obviously nobody can absolve a sin not yet committed or an intent not abandoned. I believe the priest would be in his right to prevent the poisoning. However, betraying the penitent, e.g. organising an ambush with the police would be different matter.

 

[dans0622]

You cannot confess an active intent to do a sin! In your example, there is no seal because there is no confession.

If a man walks into a confessional and simply says, Father, I’m going to kill you, then this is not a confession and therefore the priest can do whatever is needed to defend himself.

Hello promethius,

I think that I see your point and agree with it, i.e., what is protected by the Seal is: confessed sin and circumstances connected with those sins. But, even the intent to commit a sin could be a sin itself, or reveal another sin, and thereby come under the Seal. Most proven authors say that “future sins” confesssed by the penitent are protected by the Seal. I can’t point to any online resource to back this up (I haven’t really looked, actually). A dissertation by a certain Fr. Roos titled “The Seal of Confession” is one book where this is stated.

Dan

 

[thistle]

Hello promethius,

I think that I see your point and agree with it, i.e., what is protected by the Seal is: confessed sin and circumstances connected with those sins. But, even the intent to commit a sin could be a sin itself, or reveal another sin, and thereby come under the Seal. Most proven authors say that “future sins” confesssed by the penitent are protected by the Seal. I can’t point to any online resource to back this up (I haven’t really looked, actually). A dissertation by a certain Fr. Roos titled “The Seal of Confession” is one book where this is stated.

Dan

That is not so. It is not just confessed sins and circumstances related to these sins that fall under the seal. It is everything that is spoken during the time in the Confession.

 

[dans0622]

That is not so. It is not just confessed sins and circumstances related to these sins that fall under the seal. It is everything that is spoken during the time in the Confession.

Hello Thistle,

Ever since (at least) the Fourth Lateran Council, the Seal has been understood to be related to sins and the circumstances of sins confessed in the Sacrament.

“Let the priest be discreet and cautious that he may pour wine and oil into the wounds of the one injured after the manner of a skilful physician, carefully inquiring into the circumstances of the sinner and the sin, from the nature of which he may understand what kind of advice to give and what remedy to apply, making use of different experiments to heal the sick one. But let him exercise the greatest precaution that he does not in any degree by word, sign, or any other manner make known the sinner, but should he need more prudent counsel, let him seek it cautiously without any mention of the person. He who dares to reveal a sin confided to him in the tribunal of penance, we decree that he be not only deposed from the sacerdotal office but also relegated to a monastery of strict observance to do penance for the remainder of his life.” (canon 21) fordham.edu/halsall/basis/lateran4.asp

On June 9, 1915, the “Holy Office” issued an instruction on observing the Seal and it spoke of the object of the Seal as being “matters which have been submitted to the power of the keys in sacramental confession” (can be found in Canon Law Digest, vol. 1, pp. 413-414).

When the law speaks of the Seal being violated, whether directly or indirectly, the revelation concerns the sinner and his/her sin (see canon 1388 and commentaries).

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states: “1467 Given the delicacy and greatness of this ministry and the respect due to persons, the Church declares that every priest who hears confessions is bound under very severe penalties to keep absolute secrecy regarding the sins that his penitents have confessed to him.”

Certainly, a priest should observe prudent secrecy about other matters that he learns during a confession but this secrecy and its subject matter is not the same as the Seal and its subject matter.

Dan

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

That is not so. It is not just confessed sins and circumstances related to these sins that fall under the seal. It is everything that is spoken during the time in the Confession.

According to dans0622’s profile he is a defender of bonds and has a JCL. Thus I would advise to give good hearing to what he states in regards to canon law and its interpretations.

 

[thistle]

Hello Thistle,

Ever since (at least) the Fourth Lateran Council, the Seal has been understood to be related to sins and the circumstances of sins confessed in the Sacrament.

“Let the priest be discreet and cautious that he may pour wine and oil into the wounds of the one injured after the manner of a skilful physician, carefully inquiring into the circumstances of the sinner and the sin, from the nature of which he may understand what kind of advice to give and what remedy to apply, making use of different experiments to heal the sick one. But let him exercise the greatest precaution that he does not in any degree by word, sign, or any other manner make known the sinner, but should he need more prudent counsel, let him seek it cautiously without any mention of the person. He who dares to reveal a sin confided to him in the tribunal of penance, we decree that he be not only deposed from the sacerdotal office but also relegated to a monastery of strict observance to do penance for the remainder of his life.” (canon 21) fordham.edu/halsall/basis/lateran4.asp

On June 9, 1915, the “Holy Office” issued an instruction on observing the Seal and it spoke of the object of the Seal as being “matters which have been submitted to the power of the keys in sacramental confession” (can be found in Canon Law Digest, vol. 1, pp. 413-414).

When the law speaks of the Seal being violated, whether directly or indirectly, the revelation concerns the sinner and his/her sin (see canon 1388 and commentaries).

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states: “1467 Given the delicacy and greatness of this ministry and the respect due to persons, the Church declares that every priest who hears confessions is bound under very severe penalties to keep absolute secrecy regarding the sins that his penitents have confessed to him.”

Certainly, a priest should observe prudent secrecy about other matters that he learns during a confession but this secrecy and its subject matter is not the same as the Seal and its subject matter.

Dan

Hi Dan,

I can’t argue the Canon Law because I am not an expert. However, I have talked to a third priest and he confirms what the other two priests told me. None of these three priests know each other. All three confirmed to me that The Seal covers everything said during Confession and not just confessed sins and anything related to the sins.
Sorry, but if three priests all tell me the same thing I have to believe that.

thistle

 

[dans0622]

Hi Dan,

I can’t argue the Canon Law because I am not an expert. However, I have talked to a third priest and he confirms what the other two priests told me. None of these three priests know each other. All three confirmed to me that The Seal covers everything said during Confession and not just confessed sins and anything related to the sins.
Sorry, but if three priests all tell me the same thing I have to believe that.

thistle

Hello,

I am very glad that the priests have such honor for the Seal. So, while I don’t agree with them on how they understand it, I am not going to do anything more to try to “convert” you or them. Thanks for your time.

Dan