Can a priest break the secrecy of confession to save lifes?

[JRKH]

The fact that he intends to murder more people proves he is not repenting, therefore it is not a vaild confession at all. Thus the priest would be in the position of a private person who overheard a conversation, and thus he should contact the police. Likely, the priest would tell the murder to contact the police and turn himself in as proof of his repentance too.

According to every other responder here, the above answer is completely wrong. The validity of the confession is irrelevant. After all the penitant expects that he will receive absolution when they go to confession. If, for some reason, the priest withholds absolution should this person leavet eh confessional thinking that the priest is now free to blab what he heard?
No- The confessional seal remains intact regardless of whether the confession was valid or not.

Peace
James

 

[Thoughtfulone]

I am having a hard time with this. If a priest knew ahead of time about 9/11 and could have easily prevented it, I think it behooves him morally to do so, even if it was done anonymously so that it couldn’t be linked to him.

 

[WorkerPriest]

I am having a hard time with this. If a priest knew ahead of time about 9/11 and could have easily prevented it, I think it behooves him morally to do so, even if it was done anonymously so that it couldn’t be linked to him.

The problem only arises, when we forget the doctrine of vocation. The priest serves in a very peculiar vocation, called by God, to do very peculiar things. We serve in persona Christi, delivering the gifts of God to the people of God, not by virtue of who we are, but by virtue of who God calls us to be through His Word and by His Grace.

The priest serves, as it were, between heaven and earth. They are sinful men in need of grace and repentance, just like every other person in the world. But unlike every other person in the world, they are given a grave task of stewarding the mysteries of God. Holy Confession and Absolution is part of these divine mysteries, and we must adminster these mysteries as Christ has called us to do. We are not free to yield to our own opinions or proclivities, when dealing with the mysteries of God… not least because we hear the Master’s cautionary words-- that we must not fear him who can destroy only the body, but we must fear Him who can destroy both body and soul in hell.

Peace to you.

 

[ChadS]

I am having a hard time with this. If a priest knew ahead of time about 9/11 and could have easily prevented it, I think it behooves him morally to do so, even if it was done anonymously so that it couldn’t be linked to him.

If you start to violate the seal of confession on the big questions, like murder, then pretty soon the big questions start to get smaller and soon, maybe not tomorrow or in a year, the seal of confession would exist in name only. When the Church rightfully takes a hard stance on the seal of confession with the hard questions it’s protecting all of us from having our sins broadcast to everybody and anybody.

ChadS

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

The relevant canons from the Code of Canon Law.
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.

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.

Can. 1388 §1 A confessor who directly violates the sacramental seal, incurs a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See; he who does so only indirectly is to be punished according to the gravity of the offence.
Canon 984 shows that a priest can not violate the seal of the confessional even anonymously. Nor can he do so in a matter that would not cause the penitent to be known.

There is also a problem with the title of this thread. It is not the “secrecy” of confession, it is the seal of the confessional, which I have corrected in this reply.

 

[FrDavid96]

The relevant canons from the Code of Canon Law.
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.

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.

Can. 1388 §1 A confessor who directly violates the sacramental seal, incurs a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See; he who does so only indirectly is to be punished according to the gravity of the offence.
Canon 984 shows that a priest can not violate the seal of the confessional even anonymously. Nor can he do so in a matter that would not cause the penitent to be known.

There is also a problem with the title of this thread. It is not the “secrecy” of confession, it is the seal of the confessional, which I have corrected in this reply.

Good point. The “secrecy” of Confession might be violated in many different ways, but the “seal” is still inviolable (not that it “cannot” be violated, but that it “may not” be violated), even if the “secrecy” has been violated. Example: a third-party positions himself to overhear what’s being said in someone else’s confession. The secrecy has been broken. The priest is still bound to keep the seal even if somone else has violated the secrecy.

 

[Chatter163]

I agree that it is a highly unlikely scenerio, but **there certainly are those **who are so messed up mentally, emotinally, and spiritually as to try to gain absolution even while planning new crimes.
The other possibility for such a person might be that they are possessed and in need of the services of an exorcist.

Exactly how is this “certain”?

And the last place that Satan wishes to go is the confessional.

 

[tee_eff_em]

Good point. The “secrecy” of Confession might be violated in many different ways, but the “seal” is still inviolable (not that it “cannot” be violated, but that it “may not” be violated), even if the “secrecy” has been violated. Example: a third-party positions himself to overhear what’s being said in someone else’s confession. The secrecy has been broken. The priest is still bound to keep the seal even if somone else has violated the secrecy.

Although the law likewise binds such third parties to secrecy.
Can. 983 §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.

tee

 

[JRKH]

Exactly how is this “certain”?

In matters such as these there are no “exactly(s)”.
There are messed up people who, on the one hand are horrified by their acts and seek forgiveness, while on the other hand they are already reving up to do it again.
I’m not a psych person but My wife worked many years on acure care, in patient, psych and has seen this type of behavior.

And the last place that Satan wishes to go is the confessional.

What makes you think this is the “last place that Satan wishes to go”? Sure it might make him uncomfortable, but if Satan could stand in the presence of Christ Himself and tempt him, as we are told in the Gospels that He did, then I don’t think he is going to have any problem accompanying you or me into the confessional.

Peace
James

 

[Chatter163]

I’m not a psych person

That is quite nobvious. Your observations regarding disturbed persons in the confessional, though, is merely conjecture, and it seems more influenced by Hollywood than anything else.

What makes you think this is the “last place that Satan wishes to go”?

Read the comments of the saints, and accounts of actual exorcisms. Satan stays away from confession, which seems to put up a barrier between him and the penitent.

 

[tee_eff_em]

Read the comments of the saints, and accounts of actual exorcisms. Satan stays away from confession, which seems to put up a barrier between him and the penitent.

The historical tragedy and scandal of solicitation would indicate otherwise.

:twocents:
tee

 

[JRKH]

That is quite nobvious. Your observations regarding disturbed persons in the confessional, though, is merely conjecture, and it seems more influenced by Hollywood than anything else.

Ignoring the 'hollywood" slight, you are right. My observations are “conjecture” the secrecey of the confessional does not particularly lend itself to close scrutiny.
As such - I will make no further comment.
May I ask though, what do you base your observatons on. Are you in the psych field? In other words on what basis should I or anyone else except your observations over mine.
This is not a, “challenge”, just an honest request for clarification.

Read the comments of the saints, and accounts of actual exorcisms. Satan stays away from confession, which seems to put up a barrier between him and the penitent.

I’m sure that Satan will stay away from “true, and earnest” confession… I would not quibble with that. However, can you guarentee me that every person who enters a confessional is truly repentant?
And if not truely repentant, any “demon” they have in their soul will naturally accompany them into the confessional of for no other reason than to harden the heart further and hold onto his victim…
As I said previously…Satan appeared to Christ Himself in order to tempt Him…

Just more conjecture of course…

Peace
James

 

[Thoughtfulone]

Thanks for the responses to my difficulties, but they still remain, I’m afraid. I have a hard time with the idea that someone could go into confession and declare that they intend to leave the confessional and immediately upon getting home, beat their child to death and the priest is not required to do anything about it. I had always heard that if a future crime was told to the priest that he could take action.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Thanks for the responses to my difficulties, but they still remain, I’m afraid. I have a hard time with the idea that someone could go into confession and declare that they intend to leave the confessional and immediately upon getting home, beat their child to death and the priest is not required to do anything about it. I had always heard that if a future crime was told to the priest that he could take action.

You were told wrong. The Seal of the Confessional is inviolate. Period.

 

[Just_Lurking]

I had always heard that if a future crime was told to the priest that he could take action.

The standard story for explaining the rule about the seal is that if someone told the priest in the confessional that he had poisoned the communion wine, then the priest would still have to go ahead with Mass and consume the poison anyway.

 

[JRKH]

Thanks for the responses to my difficulties, but they still remain, I’m afraid. I have a hard time with the idea that someone could go into confession and declare that they intend to leave the confessional and immediately upon getting home, beat their child to death and the priest is not required to do anything about it. ** I had always heard that if a future crime was told to the priest that he could take action**.

You see, now this is where we can run into trouble… The title question asks if the Priest can break the secrecy of the confessional while the bolded section above speaks of the priest’s ability to “take action”…These may not be the same thing…

The first, and most obvious “action” that the priest can take is the witholding of absolution since the person is obviously not making a sincere confession.
Secondly, the priest in such a situation is surely going to seek - while still in the confessional - to counsel the person (I won’t call such a one a “penitant”) NOT to go home but to go, perhaps to the parish house, or to the ER so that the person can get proper help.
Thirdly, if a person were to make such a disclosure and decline counselling or if father, after confession, finds that the person did not go to the parish house, what is to prevent the priest from “Dropping by” the person’s house immediately? If he sees or hears something bad at that time, is there any reason he cannot act on that information which he gained outside of the confessional?

Byzcath posted some relevant canon law and I noted something interesting in one of them. Canon 984 states:
*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.

Now I know that the Church interprets this always on the side of secrecy. But, in the case of a “planned act” or “future sin” what is, “to the detriment” to the penitant?

Of course, it must be remembered in all of this that the proposed scenerio is extremely unlikely, except perhaps, as Chatter163 mentioned, in a hollywood script…

The two possible scenerio’s are these.

1. A person comes in, truly scared, sorry, and afraid of what he/she will do when leaving the confessional…
2. A person comes in, mentally ill and deranged and tells the priest what he/she is going to do, specifically to hurt the priest by putting him in an impossible situation…
   Number one is possible, number two is nearly impossible.

Peace
James

 

[GaryTaylor]

I agree Hollywood is the culprit which manipulates the reality.

The Priests in the confessional are not there to serve as mans police within the society of man, They serve the greater good, God.

Who goes to a confessional truly sorry for what they did. Manages to find the courage through prayer to confront their sins with a priest. They are then forgiven and a large weight is lifted from them. Then they run out and commit chaos?

Possible yes, but not probable.

 

[Chatter163]

Ignoring the 'hollywood" slight, you are right. My observations are “conjecture” the secrecey of the confessional does not particularly lend itself to close scrutiny.
As such - I will make no further comment.
May I ask though, what do you base your observatons on. Are you in the psych field? In other words on what basis should I or anyone else except your observations over mine.
This is not a, “challenge”, just an honest request for clarification.

I apologize for the tone of the Hollywood comment. I myself have made no observations; I have merely pointed out that you made a highly questionable assertion, a sweeping generalization, to be sure, and a very dramatic and highly unlikely scenario.

I’m sure that Satan will stay away from “true, and earnest” confession… I would not quibble with that. However, can you guarentee me that every person who enters a confessional is truly repentant?

Obviously no one can guarantee that, any more than they cannot guarantee that a spaceship will land on earth tomorrow, with visitors from another planet. But even priests are not trained to expect impenitent mass murderers to enter their confessional, confess past deeds and share their plans for future crimes. That’s where the melodramatics come in–too many details that require one to suspend his disbelief, all in the name of justifying a childish scenario that would permit a priest to break the seal of the confessional.

 

[JRKH]

I apologize for the tone of the Hollywood comment. I myself have made no observations; I have merely pointed out that you made a highly questionable assertion, a sweeping generalization, to be sure, and a very dramatic and highly unlikely scenario.

Obviously no one can guarantee that, any more than they cannot guarantee that a spaceship will land on earth tomorrow, with visitors from another planet. But even priests are not trained to expect impenitent mass murderers to enter their confessional, confess past deeds and share their plans for future crimes. That’s where the melodramatics come in–too many details that require one to suspend his disbelief, all in the name of justifying a childish scenario that would permit a priest to break the seal of the confessional.

Agree on all points.

Peace
James

 

[AHapka]

Here is a St. Pio story of Satan in the Confessional:

Satan went beyond all the limits of deception when he went to Father Pio pretending to be a penitent. This is the Father Pio’s testimony: “One day, while I was hearing confessions, a man came to the confessional where I was. He was tall, handsome, dressed with some refinement and he was kind and polite. He started to confess his sins, which were of every kind: against God, against man and against the morals. All the sins were obnoxious! I was disoriented, in fact for all the sins that he told me, but I responded to him with God’s Word, the example of the Church, and the morals of the Saints. But the enigmatic penitent answered me word for word, justifying his sins, always with extreme ability and politeness. He excused all the sinful actions, making them sound quite normal and natural, even comprehensible on the human level… He continued this way with the sins that were gruesome against God, Our Lady, the Saints, always using disrespectful round-about argumentation. He kept this up even with with the foulest of sins that could be conjured in the mind of a most sinful man. The answers that he gave me with such skilled subtlety and malice surprised me. I wondered: who is he? What world does he come from? And I tried to look at him in order to read something on his face. At the same time I concentrated on every word he spoke, trying to discover any clue to his identity… But suddenly; through a vivid, radiant and internal light I clearly recognized who he was. With a sound and imperial tone I told him: “Say long live Jesus, long live Mary!” As soon as I pronounced these sweet and powerful names, Satan instantly disappeared in a trickle of fire, leaving behind him an unbearable stench.” (Don Pierino is a priest and one of the father Pio’s spiritual sons who were present at the same time.)