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

[Big_Dummy]

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

Thanks James, this just shows how little I know, but would not the priesthood itself be invaild if it is based on an oath? At least according to the New Testament Church and Jesus?

James 5:12 (King James Version)
12But above all things, my brethren, swear not, neither by heaven, neither by the earth, neither by any other oath: but let your yea be yea; and your nay, nay; lest ye fall into condemnation.

Matthew 5:33-37 (King James Version)
33Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths:
34But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God’s throne:
35Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King.
36Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black.
37But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil [one].

Chrysostom writes,

Next, to lead them farther away from swearing by God, He says, “Neither by Heaven, for it is God’s throne, nor by the earth, for it is the footstool of His feet; nor by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King:” still speaking out of the prophetical writings, and signifying Himself not to be opposed to the ancients. This was because they had a custom of swearing by these objects, and he intimates this custom near the end of his Gospel.
But mark, I pray you, on what ground He magnifies the elements; not from their own nature, but from God’s relation to them, such as it had been in condescension declared. For because the tyranny of idolatry was great, that the elements might not be thought worthy of honor for their own sake, He has assigned this cause, which we have mentioned, which again would pass on to the glory of God. For He neither said, “because Heaven is beautiful and great,” nor, “because earth is profitable;” but “because the one is God’s throne, the other His footstool;” on every side urging them on towards their Lord.

“Neither by your head,” says He, “because you can not make one hair white or black.” Matthew 5:36

Here again, not as wondering at man, has He withdrawn him from swearing by his head (for so man himself would be worshipped), but as referring the glory to God, and signifying that you are not master even of yourself, and of course therefore not of the oaths made by your head. For if no one would give up his own child to another, much more will not God give up His own work to you. For though it be your head, yet is it the property of another; and so far from being master thereof, you shall not be able to do with it, no not the least thing of all. For He said not, “You can not make one hair grow;” but, “Not so much as change its quality.”

“But what,” it may be said, “if any one should require an oath, and apply constraint?” Let the fear of God be more powerful than the constraint: since, if you are to bring forward such excuses, you will keep none of the things which are enjoined.

Yea, for first with respect to your wife you will say, “what if she be contentious and extravagant;” and then as to the right eye, “what if I love it, and am quite on fire?” and of the unchaste look, “what then, if I cannot help seeing?” and of our anger against a brother, “what if I be hasty, and not able to govern my tongue?” and in general, all His sayings you may on this wise trample under foot. Yet surely with regard to human laws you dare not in any case use this allegation, nor say, “what then if this or that be the case,” but, willing or unwilling, you receive what is written.

And besides, you will never have compulsion to undergo at all. For he that has hearkened unto those former blessings, and has framed himself to be such as Christ enjoined, will have no such constraint to endure from any, being held in reverence and veneration by all.

“But let your yea, be yea; and your nay, nay: for that which exceeds these comes of the evil one.”
What is it then that “exceeds yea” and “nay”? It is the oath, not the perjury. For this latter is quite acknowledged, and no man needs to learn that it is of the evil one; and it is not an excess, but an opposite: whereas an excess means something more, and added over and above: which kind of thing swearing is.

“What then,” says one, “was it of the evil one?

newadvent.org/fathers/200117.htm

 

[Lapey]

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.

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.

Sorry, I couldn’t resist…kinda funny, huh?

 

[JRKH]

Thanks James, this just shows how little I know, but would not the priesthood itself be invaild if it is based on an oath? At least according to the New Testament Church and Jesus?

James 5:12 (King James Version)
12But above all things, my brethren, swear not, neither by heaven, neither by the earth, neither by any other oath: but let your yea be yea; and your nay, nay; lest ye fall into condemnation.

Matthew 5:33-37 (King James Version)
33Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths:
34But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God’s throne:
35Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King.
36Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black.
37But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil [one].

The Priesthood is not, “based on an oath”, but rather “vows” or promises made before God AND more importantly by the imposition of hands by the Bishop on those being ordained and the invoking of the Holy Spirit, just as Christ did to the Apostles and they did to their successors.
When a man enters seminary he is aware, at least partially of the various rules and requirements of he Priesthood. These are amplified and clarified during his formation. If, at any time, during that formation he discerns that he would be unable to fulfill those requirements, he must withdraw from seminary. If, after having completed the required course of study, and is fully aware of what is required of the miniterial priesthood, he has no doubts, then he procedes to take his vows and is ordained.
Once ordained he is bound by Canon Law, not because he has “Sworn an oath” but because he has accepted the cross.

Peace
James

 

[Big_Dummy]

Last I checked a vow is an oath.

Oaths and Lawsuits from the Early Church

Written by Clement of Alexandra
(approx. A.D. 190)

Oaths

The man who has a proven character and is devoted to God is not at all given to lying and swearing. An oath is a very serious affirmation, and it involves taking the Lord’s name. So how can such a man, who has been proven faithful, show himself to be unfaithful so as to need an oath? Isn’t his very life a sure and decisive oath? By the sure, unwavering way he lives and speaks, he shows that he is truthful. Therefore, the one who knows God will never lie or perjure himself. For to do so would be to wrong God. We can’t actually harm God, but we can wrong him.

Another reason he will avoid lying or wrongdoing is so he won’t harm his neighbor. For he has learned to love his neighbor. And his “neighbor” includes people who are not his intimate friends. Finally, for his own sake, he avoids lying or breaking an oath. For he surely does not want to wrong himself.

Actually, the one who knows God does not even swear. He prefers to affirm by saying “yes” and to deny by saying “no.” For it is an oath to swear, or to promise in any way resembling an oath. If another person needs to perceive the certainty of his answer, the Christian can simply add to his affirmation or denial the words, “I speak truthfully.” At the same time, his life should be lived in such a way that outsiders have complete confidence in him. The result is that unbelievers will feel no need to ask the man of God to take an oath. His life should also inspire good feeling in himself and the people around him. This is voluntary righteousness.

The one who knows God swears truly, but he is not in-clined to swear at all. He rarely comes near to an oath, as we have already said. His speaking truth on oath is a result of his agreement with the truth. Speaking the truth on oath is simply a result of correctness in duties. So why would it be necessary for this man to take an oath, since he lives a life in accord with the pinnacle of truth? He, then, who does not even swear will be far from perjuring himself. And he who does not breach his agreements, will never swear. For an agreement is violated or upheld by actions. Lying and perjury in affirming and swearing are wrong. But the one who knows God should live a just life, and he should never fail in his duties. As a result, his actions swear to the truth for him.

Therefore, it is unnecessary for him to swear with his mouth.

The one who knows God is satisfied only with God’s consciousness and with his own consciousness. He knows that God is everywhere. He is not afraid to tell the truth, and he knows it is unworthy of him to lie. So he does not lie, and he never does anything contrary to his agreements. And so he does not swear, even when he is asked for his oath. And he never denies what is true, even if he is tortured to death.
…

“The One Who Knows God” by Clement of Alexandria.

charityministries.org/theremnant/2005/January/theremnant-January2005-oaths.a5w?A5W_Sess_ID=e51f82b42f6f44beb35908331e0fb025

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Last I checked a vow is an oath.

charityministries.org/theremnant/2005/January/theremnant-January2005-oaths.a5w?A5W_Sess_ID=e51f82b42f6f44beb35908331e0fb025

And secular priests make no vows.

Only religious make vows.

Vows have nothing to do with the priesthood as a religious takes his vows upon becoming a religious.

 

[Big_Dummy]

vow [vaʊ]
n

1. a solemn or earnest pledge or promise binding the person making it to perform a specified act or behave in a certain way
2. (Christianity / Ecclesiastical Terms) a solemn promise made to a deity or saint, by which the promiser pledges himself to some future act, course of action, or way of life
   (Christianity / Ecclesiastical Terms)
   take vows to enter a religious order and commit oneself to its rule of life by the vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience, which may be taken for a limited period as simple vows or as a perpetual and still more solemn commitment as solemn vows
   vb
3. (tr; may take a clause as object or an infinitive) to pledge, promise, or undertake solemnly he vowed that he would continue he vowed to return
4. (Christianity / Ecclesiastical Terms) (tr) to dedicate or consecrate to God, a deity, or a saint
5. (tr; usually takes a clause as object) to assert or swear emphatically
6. (intr) Archaic to declare solemnly
   [from Old French vou, from Latin vōtum a solemn promise, from vovēre to vow]

thefreedictionary.com/vow

oath əʊθ]
n pl oaths əʊðz]

1. a solemn pronouncement to affirm the truth of a statement or to pledge a person to some course of action, often involving a sacred being or object as witness Related adj juratory
2. the form of such a pronouncement
3. an irreverent or blasphemous expression, esp one involving the name of a deity; curse
   on, upon, or under oath
   a. under the obligation of an oath
   b. (Law) Law having sworn to tell the truth, usually with one’s hand on the Bible
   (Law)
   take an oath to declare formally with an oath or pledge, esp before giving evidence

thefreedictionary.com/oath

Oaths may be: (1) assertory—or affirmative—if we call God to witness the assertion of a past or present fact; promissory, if we call Him to witness a resolution which we bind ourselves to execute, or a vow made to Him, or an agreement entered into with our neighbour, or a vow made to God in favour of a third party; every promissory oath includes of necessity an assertory oath (see below). A promissory oath accompanied by a threat against a third party is said to be comminatory;

newadvent.org/cathen/11176a.htm

A vow is defined as a promise made to God. The promise is binding, and so differs from a simple resolution which is a present purpose to do or omit certain things in the future.

newadvent.org/cathen/15511a.htm

doublespeak, a vow is not an oath, really, look at the definitions above.

oath of celibacy google.com/#sclient=psy&hl=en&rlz=1R2ADBF_en&q=oath+of+celibacy&rlz=1R2ADBF_en&aq=f&aqi=g1&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&pbx=1&fp=6cd6d4c3e6deab23

The Oath Against Modernism and the Spirit of Vatican II By Raymond B. Marcin
holyromancatholicchurch.org/TheOath.htm

PAPAL CORONATION OATH
dailycatholic.org/papaoath.htm

Where does this come from?
lightministries.com/id796.htm

 

[Big_Dummy]

When Bishop Explains Policy on Lying Under Oath, How Do We Know He Is Telling the Truth? Re: Deposition of William Levada

(He’s Number Two at the Vatican, in Ratzinger’s old job, in fact he says he’s the Pope’s long time friend. Yet Cardinal William Levada can barely answer a question when asked what the Catholic Church knew and when in the pedophile epidemic among its priests. The archbishop also won’t answer whether, when under oath, Catholic hierarchy are obliged to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth or not if it would harm the Church, a policy known in the Vatican as “Mental Reservation.” This story begins with quotes from deposition Jan. 2006 of Levada in San Francisco by plaintiff attorneys from Portland, OR

blogs.alternet.org/cityofangelsonalternet/2010/04/27/when-bishop-clarifies-policy-on-lying-under-oath-how-do-we-know-he-is-telling-the-truth-re-deposition-of-william-levada/

 

[Just_Lurking]

Can. 1191 §1. A vow, that is, a deliberate and free promise made to God about a possible and better good, must be fulfilled by reason of the virtue of religion.

Can. 1199 §1. An oath, that is, the invocation of the divine name in witness to the truth, cannot be taken unless in truth, in judgment, and in justice.

 

[Big_Dummy]

The Catholic doctrine on lying

According to the common Catholic teaching it is never allowable to tell a lie, not even to save human life. A lie is something intrinsically evil, and as evil may not be done that good may come of it, we are never allowed to tell a lie. However, we are also under an obligation to keep secrets faithfully, and sometimes the easiest way of fulfilling that duty is to say what is false, or to tell a lie. Writers of all creeds and of none, both ancient and modern, have frankly accepted this position. They admit the doctrine of the lie of necessity, and maintain that when there is a conflict between justice and veracity it is justice that should prevail. The common Catholic teaching has formulated the theory of mental reservation as a means by which the claims of both justice and veracity can be satisfied.

The doctrine of wide mental reservation

The doctrine was broached tentatively and with great diffidence by St. Raymund of Pennafort, the first writer on casuistry. In his “Summa” (1235) St. Raymund quotes the saying of St. Augustine that a man must not slay his own soul by lying in order to preserve the life of another, and that it would be a most perilous doctrine to admit that we may do a less evil to prevent another doing a greater. And most doctors teach this, he says, though he allows that others teach that a lie should be told when a man’s life is at stake. Then he adds:

I believe, as at present advised, that when one is asked by murderers bent on taking the life of someone hiding in the house whether he is in, no answer should be given; and if this betrays him, his death will be imputable to the murderers, not to the other’s silence. Or he may use an equivocal expression, and say ‘He is not at home,’ or something like that. And this can be defended by a great number of instances found in the Old Testament. Or he may say simply that he is not there, and if his conscience tells him that he ought to say that, then he will not speak against his conscience, nor will he sin. Nor is St. Augustine really opposed to any of these methods.

Such expressions as “He is not at home” were called equivocations, or amphibologies, and when there was good reason for using them their lawfulness was admitted by all. If the person inquired for was really at home, but did not wish to see the visitor, the meaning of the phrase “He is not at home” was restricted by the mind of the speaker to this sense, “He is not at home for you, or to see you.” Hence equivocations and amphibologies came to be called mental restrictions or reservations. It was commonly admitted that an equivocal expression need not necessarily be used when the words of the speaker receive a special meaning from the circumstances in which he is placed, or from the position which he holds. Thus, if a confessor is asked about sins made known to him in confession, he should answer “I do not know,” and such words as those when used by a priest mean “I do not know apart from confession,” or “I do not know as man,” or “I have no knowledge of the matter which I can communicate.”

APA citation. Slater, T. (1911). Mental Reservation. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Retrieved October 19, 2010 from New Advent: newadvent.org/cathen/10195b.htm

 

[Big_Dummy]

This Hebrew Parallelism shows that vows and oaths are the same in God’s eyes.

New International Version (©1984)
He swore an oath to the LORD and made a vow to the Mighty One of Jacob:

New Living Translation (©2007)
He made a solemn promise to the LORD. He vowed to the Mighty One of Israel,

English Standard Version (©2001)
how he swore to the LORD and vowed to the Mighty One of Jacob,

New American Standard Bible (©1995)
How he swore to the LORD And vowed to the Mighty One of Jacob,

GOD’S WORD® Translation (©1995)
Remember how he swore an oath to the LORD and made this vow to the Mighty One of Jacob:

King James Bible
How he sware unto the LORD, [and] vowed unto the mighty [God] of Jacob;

American King James Version
How he swore to the LORD, and vowed to the mighty God of Jacob;

American Standard Version
How he sware unto Jehovah, And vowed unto the Mighty One of Jacob:

Bible in Basic English
How he made an oath to the Lord, and gave his word to the great God of Jacob, saying,

Douay-Rheims Bible
How he swore to the Lord, he vowed a vow to the God of Jacob:

Darby Bible Translation
How he swore unto Jehovah, vowed unto the Mighty One of Jacob:

English Revised Version
How he sware unto the LORD, and vowed unto the Mighty One of Jacob:

Webster’s Bible Translation
How he swore to the LORD, and vowed to the mighty God of Jacob;

World English Bible
how he swore to Yahweh, and vowed to the Mighty One of Jacob:

Young’s Literal Translation
Who hath sworn to Jehovah. He hath vowed to the Mighty One of Jacob:

 

[Elizabeth502]

Fun thread.

I happened recently to re-view the movie I Confess from beginning to end, and I agree that it’s a good portrayal of the requirements of the Seal. As an irrelevant aside, I always find it interesting that Hollywood depicts priests as hunky men, even in movies when they’re not the protagonist.

It used to really, really bother me that the “saving lives” aspects could be jeopardized by the Seal (in the case of confessed crimes by an active or potentially active criminal, for example). Then I got it. As one of the priests earlier in the thread explained, his role is defined, and belongs to the realm of the sacred. Priests are not law enforcement officials, citizen detectives, let alone civil judges or members of a jury. So the confessional has nothing to do with any possible continuation of crime, or resolution of an unresolved crime.

But there’s a really important practical aspect to his defined role, as well. His very role puts him in a position to encourage any criminal’s conversion and/or surrender to civil lauthorities by the very fact that the person confessing knows he is protected. That trust benefits any voluntary cooperation on the part of the sinner that could happen as a result of the interaction with the priest. Not only would the absence of a seal jeopardize that, but even putting conditions on absolution (mentioned earlier) would more likely compromise the trust than not.

Here’s my question to priests, though: Not as a condition, but merely as a penance, Would it ever be appropriate to assign a penance to a confessing criminal to turn himself in? (I guess the problem could be that the sinner might interpret the penance as a condition.)

 

[Elizabeth502]

^ or answering my own question, I guess it could be like implying that the sinner should break the Seal as a condiiton of his trusting relationship with the priest, which is self-contradictory.

 

[ChadS]

Here’s my question to priests, though: Not as a condition, but merely as a penance, Would it ever be appropriate to assign a penance to a confessing criminal to turn himself in? (I guess the problem could be that the sinner might interpret the penance as a condition.)

I’m not a priest, so take my answer for what it’s worth, but I don’t think a priest can assign a penance that would require the penitent to make a sin that was confessed known. However, as part of his counsel, he could urge the penitent to turn away from sin and begin his life anew and make amends for past sins – I think hoping that this would lead the penitent to turn himself in or confess to his crimes. But, again not as part of the confession.

On another note this discussion between what constitutes a vow or an oath and it’s affect on confession is sophistry and changes not one wit the fact that a priest cannot under any circumstance break the seal of confession for any reason whatsoever.

ChadS

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

^ or answering my own question, I guess it could be like implying that the sinner should break the Seal as a condiiton of his trusting relationship with the priest, which is self-contradictory.

No, as ChadS said above, the priest can in no way make the penitent reveal himself or his sin as such a penance would do.

 

[sidnhan]

The Seal of Confession definitely can never be broken. However, my priest always speaks to congregation about people’s confessions even indirectly and he gets on my nerves so bad.
catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0059.html
All priests are human beings and sinful like us. They never keep the Seal of Confession intact except for our Highest Almighty Priest God. We commit our mortal sins, we have to be under his last judgements. The priest keeps the Seal of Confessions as long as you pay him and you are still in the parish.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

The Seal of Confession definitely can never be broken. However, my priest always speaks to congregation about people’s confessions even indirectly and he gets on my nerves so bad.
catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0059.html
All priests are human beings and sinful like us. They never keep the Seal of Confession intact except for our Highest Almighty Priest God. We commit our mortal sins, we have to be under his last judgements. The priest keeps the Seal of Confessions as long as you pay him and you are still in the parish.

You are just plan wrong on this one.