Can the seal of the confessional be defended on pragmatic grounds?

[EmilyAlexandra]

There are countless threads about this, but I don’t think any address my specific question.

Please allow me to explain the seal of the confessional as I understand it, in case I have got this wrong. There are many professional relationships in which the professional person claims that his or her conversations with clients/patients etc are privileged or confidential. E.g., all fields of law and healthcare, accountants, social workers, teachers, journalists. However, none of these professions offer absolute confidentiality. For example, we are told that our medical records are confidential, but as soon as the police or the courts want access to them, all of our most intimate medical history is laid bare in public.

The seal of the confessional, however, is apparently absolute. If you tell a priest that you are a terrorist or a paedophile or if you tell him that you are being abused or threatened, he will not tell anybody at all under any circumstances. A priest will apparently sooner go to prison than he will disclose something said in confession.

So, my question is twofold:

(1) Are there pragmatic reasons for the seal of the confessional? I understand that Catholics are passionate about the seal on religious grounds, but can it be defended on purely pragmatic grounds? One obvious argument in favour of absolute confidentiality is that it enables the client/patient etc to speak with complete openness and honesty. For example, whenever I speak to my doctor, I do so on the basis that anything I say will be recorded and may at some point in the future be disclosed to the police, courts, lawyers, expert witnesses, etc. I am therefore careful not to say anything to my doctor that I would not want to be disclosed in public (or that I would not want to share with my parents, sister, husband, best friend, etc). I can see that it would be difficult to confess to a priest if one had to worry that whatever one says to him may be disclosed.

However, this leads to:

(2) Do Catholics not also appreciate that there are competing priorities and that in some circumstances the interests of the administration of justice, the prevention or detection of crime, national security, protecting vulnerable people, etc take priority over confidentiality? For example, if I confess to a priest that I am having a sexual relationship with a 15-year-old boy and that I am meeting him tomorrow afternoon at the Premier Inn for the purpose of having sex, surely he is under an obligation to set aside my expectation of confidentiality and report me to the police in the interests of justice and to prevent further harm coming to my victim. Or suppose I confess that I have planted bombs at a number of abortion clinics and that they are timed to detonate at noon. Surely he is under an obligation to inform the police and ensure that every clinic in the area is evacuated before noon.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

(2) Do Catholics not also appreciate that there are competing priorities and that in some circumstances the interests of the administration of justice, the prevention or detection of crime, national security, protecting vulnerable people, etc take priority over confidentiality? For example, if I confess to a priest that I am having a sexual relationship with a 15-year-old boy and that I am meeting him tomorrow afternoon at the Premier Inn for the purpose of having sex, surely he is under an obligation to set aside my expectation of confidentiality and report me to the police in the interests of justice and to prevent further harm coming to my victim. Or suppose I confess that I have planted bombs at a number of abortion clinics and that they are timed to detonate at noon. Surely he is under an obligation to inform the police and ensure that every clinic in the area is evacuated before noon.

That’s where things stop existing in the real world.

 

[JerryZ]

When you enter the confessional, who do you believe you are speaking to?
If your answer is “a man” or “a priest” you are partially correct.
Primarily you are speaking to GOD.
Confession is not an invention of the Catholic Church.
In the Old Testament someone that had sinned had to expiate the sin with an offering to the Temple in Jerusalem.
The nature of the offering was proportional to the sin committed.
Who do you think set the penalty (Similar to what the Priest today imposes to us sinners, “the penance”), obviously it was a Priest of the Temple.
Hence that person had to “confess” to him the sin committed so that he could impose the penance.
Guess what, that confession was sacred and sealed between the sinner, the Priest and GOD.
If a Priest breaks the seal of confession the integrity of the Sacrament becomes suspect which means that people will start omitting their sins for fear of disclosure. That is a very pragmatic reason for enforcing the seal.
The Church would not impose an automatic excommunication to a Priest that breaks the seal of confession without a very powerful reason.

Yes a few brambles will grow next to the wheat, but GOD will take care of that, it is all under HIS command. Even when evil is allowed to happen, GOD manifests HIS power by bringing a greater good out of it.
It is a mystery but it is true none the less.
Peace!

 

[InThePew]

While medical and legal privileges are not absolute, very few people tend to tell their lawyer or counsellor that they’re engaging (or about to engage) in illegal activity. Likewise, people don’t tend to confess to the things described (although with the bomb threats, the priest could arguably tell the police without disclosing how he knew) - at least not in the detail described. Priests with decades of experience will tell you they’ve never had anything like this happen. Given this, the limited benefits which would come from loosening the seal need to be weighed against the likelihood that it would deter people from either going to confession at all or from being less forthcoming than they might otherwise be. This would be particularly true of someone contemplating self-harm. At the same time, rare though it may be, it’s actually a good thing if those contemplating unlawful acts go to confession because it means they’re seeking spiritual guidance and may well be able to be deterred from their intended act (certainly the chances are far higher than they would otherwise be).

 

[julietteamdg]

Hi!
Salvation of souls (our own and others) is of the utmost importance. If people didn’t want to go confess cause they were scared the priest was about to go telling everybody then that wouldn’t be right, it’d be putting the souls of many, many people in danger.

Simply speaking, the matters of the temporal world shouldn’t affect the Church in any way.

 

[White_Tree]

You’ve answered the first question yourself, so I’ll focus on your second one:

Do Catholics not also appreciate that there are competing priorities and that in some circumstances the interests of the administration of justice, the prevention or detection of crime, national security, protecting vulnerable people, etc take priority over confidentiality?

Yes, there are always competing interests, and different authorities make decisions about how to balance them within their domains.

In the United States, for instance, we have decided that protecting people against illegal searches and seizures by the government is more important than the administration of justice, etc., and we have a doctrine called Fruit of the Poisonous Tree, that renders evidence inadmissible in court if it can be traced back to an illegal search by the government.

As I understand it, in the U.K., society has come to the opposite conclusion about what it values more, and would admit such evidence.

The Catholic Church has decided that the benefits of protecting the confidentiality of the confessional supersede the administration of justice in secular society.

Who is to say they are wrong about that?

 

[OddBird]

(2) Do Catholics not also appreciate that there are competing priorities and that in some circumstances the interests of the administration of justice, the prevention or detection of crime, national security, protecting vulnerable people, etc take priority over confidentiality?

I’m a Reformed pastor, so I’m speaking from the perspective of a Christian minister who does not perform sacramental confession, although informal confessions can and do happen.

Where I live (Switzerland) the law considers that the only reason I learn what I learn about people is the specific ministry I hold (same for other professions were secrecy is necessary). If I were to disclose anything without the consent of the interested party, I would encur 3 years’ imprisonment. That’s because the law also considers that our trustworthiness where secrecy is concerned is one of the essential features of our profession, and that if secrecy could be breached, the very meaning and value of what we do would be imperiled. And indeed, how could we preach a Gospel of freeing truth and value of each single human life, if the people who come to see us could have no guarantee that we will respect them and provide a safe framework for them to tell the truth about themselves ? Facing that truth often is complicated enough as it is.

I see this as the recognition that we often are privileged enough to be admitted into the innermost heart of a person – that part that is so precious and so fundamental to who they are that taking lightly what we are told, and not keeping it to ourselves, could be qualified as abuse.

There is one single exception concerning child abuse, where a (complex) procedure has been elaborated to free people from the obligation of secrecy if there are compelling enough reasons to suspect that something serious is happening, and a child’s physical or psychological integrity is in danger – and that’s only when one learns things as a pastor, not as a pastoral auxiliary (ie if people tell me things because I’m their pastor’s wife, which also happens, the only person I am lawfully allowed to tell is my husband, not the police or social services).

Outside of that particular procedure, I could be summoned as a witness, but the only thing I’d be able to tell a tribunal without ending up myself on the bench would be “I am bound by professional secrecy”.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

(1) Are there pragmatic reasons for the seal of the confessional?

Yes. Basically the seal of the confessional is the Church equivalent to the concept of legal privilege. The law in USA provides that privileged communications between an accused and their lawyer, spouse, clergy (Note, doesn’t have to be Catholic priest - applies equally to Protestant minister, Jewish rabbi, Islamic imam, other religions) and to some extent doctor cannot be disclosed, unless the accused themself discloses.

Because this applies to ALL RELIGIONS, I’m not going to answer your second paragraph about “Do Catholics not appreciate” yada yada like this is some special Catholic thing. As usual Catholics get made the scapegoat for something that’s not specific to them, at least in the modern age. I sincerely doubt your average Anglican or Episcopal clergyman or woman, or a Presbyterian, a rabbi, an imam or what have you, would happily bop down to the police and reveal everything that a troubled soul told him.

The pragmatic reason for legal privilege is to permit the perp to communicate freely in these relationships. Obviously you cannot get the best legal advice if you’re afraid to talk to your lawyer for fear your lawyer will turn you in, or that the prosecution will bug your defense lawyer’s office. Likewise you should be able to communicate honestly with your doctor to get the best medical advice, and with your clergy to get the best spiritual advice, and with your spouse in order to have a good marriage.

There are constantly discussions of the ethical dilemmas in the lawyer/ client situation and what should a lawyer do if his client tells him that he murdered 10 people and is going to murder another one tomorrow, etc. Lawyers get punished severely, as in disbarred and unable to practice law, if they break the privilege. There are also numerous Hollywood movies involving lawyer-client privilege (Many of which have lawyers doing stuff that in real life would get them disbarred but it’s Hollywood).

I realize that in some countries other than USA, there is a different concept of how information is gathered for legal process and therefore some or all of these privileges don’t exist. However, I of course uphold the constitution of the USA and think the US view is best for preserving a person’s civil rights.

(Continued next post due to length limits)

 

[Tis_Bearself]

(Continued from previous post)

Regarding the clergy privilege specifically, legal analysts generally give the following reasons for it:

1. It promotes freedom of religion.
2. Clergy have an ethical duty not to reveal confessions made to them in confidence.
3. Many if not most clergy will go to jail (some have even accepted martyrdom) rather than reveal a confession, so a law compelling them to disclose wouldn’t be very useful.

If you want to read more on this, see Wikipedia

Priest–penitent privilege - Wikipedia

Finally, I would note that if we don’t have secrecy of the confessional, and priests can reveal what was said, then who’s to say they wouldn’t reveal it to somebody other than the police?
Priest A gets a confession that indicates Priest B or Parishioner C might have committed child sexual abuse. What’s to stop Priest A from telling Priest B or Parishioner C that he’s been accused, so the accused person can then bully his accuser into silence or flee the country? We had a thread on confessional seal just yesterday where somebody posted that they knew of a case where a priest did break the confessional seal for this very reason. Obviously we do not want priests doing this sort of thing.

I hope this helps you to understand why we have had the seal of the confessional for hundreds of years and are not going to throw it out the window now. As I have written quite a long post here, I will be stepping off the thread and not responding to further inquiries, as I do not see any point in arguing over this in a non-legal context. I am also not interested in doing a country-by-country comparison since I feel very strongly the US has the best system in regard to privilege and am appalled by the erosion of privilege in some countries such as Australia. To me it’s a step on the road to a police state if you do that.

 

[EmilyAlexandra]

Okay, these are hypothetical examples, and they are extreme and unusual examples.

However, Catholic priests, religious, and laity must have used the confessional to disclose sexual abuse or harassment, whether as perpetrators or victims. Presumably in these instances the priest hearing the confession would have maintained the seal of the confessional and not reported the offences to the police, social services, ecclesiastical superiors, etc. I am wondering how they would justify this. To me, it seems obvious that if somebody discloses such offences they must be reported to the appropriate authorities to bring perpetrators to justice and prevent further harm being done.

Perhaps people do not go to confession to tell the priest that they have planted bombs, but they must sometimes tell the priest about an immediate danger. E.g., I confess adultery, I say that my husband has found out about the affair and has threatened to kill my lover. Any sensible person would surely do something to prevent somebody being murdered. Or I say my husband has left me and I am so devastated that I plan to harm myself. Again, surely the priest should do something to prevent this.

 

[1ke]

Are there pragmatic reasons for the seal of the confessional

Yes, so that people will confess their sins.

Do Catholics not also appreciate that there are competing priorities and that in some circumstances the interests of the administration of justice, the prevention or detection of crime, national security, protecting vulnerable people, etc take priority over confidentiality?

Nothing takes priority over the salvation of soul of the person confessing.

For example, if I confess to a priest that I am having a sexual relationship with a 15-year-old boy and that I am meeting him tomorrow afternoon at the Premier Inn for the purpose of having sex,

You can’t confess future sins. I don’t think you understand confession.

surely he is under an obligation to set aside my expectation of confidentiality and report me to the police in the interests of justice and to prevent further harm coming to my victim.

Nope.

What part of absolute isn’t clear?

Or suppose I confess that I have planted bombs at a number of abortion clinics and that they are timed to detonate at noon.

Another nonsensical example. Confession requires contrition. And you can’t confess future sins

Surely he is under an obligation to inform the police and ensure that every clinic in the area is evacuated before noon.

Again, no.

 

[1ke]

There is one single exception concerning child abuse, where a (complex) procedure has been elaborated to free people from the obligation of secrecy if there are compelling enough reasons to suspect that something serious is happening, and a child’s physical or psychological integrity is in danger – and that’s only when one learns things as a pastor, not as a pastoral auxiliary (ie if people tell me things because I’m their pastor’s wife, which also happens, the only person I am lawfully allowed to tell is my husband, not the police or social services).

Outside of that particular procedure, I could be summoned as a witness, but the only thing I’d be able to tell a tribunal without ending up myself on the bench would be “I am bound by professional secrecy”.

A Catholic priest could not disclose anything from confession, period. Regardless of what civil law says. There are no exceptions.

 

[1ke]

Again, surely the priest should do something to prevent this

Again, absolute. The priest may NEVER break the seal.

I’m not sure why people keep trying to make up scenarios where “surely” the priest will break the seal when it’s already been stated there are NO circumstances under which the priest can break the seal.

 

[OddBird]

Yes, I know.

I was just trying to explain why secrecy makes sense even from a non-Catholic (or, in the case of penal law, non-religious) point of view.

 

[FiveLinden]

I was just trying to explain why secrecy makes sense even from a non-Catholic (or, in the case of penal law, non-religious) point of view.

I think society in general benefits from allowing religious freedom. By this I mean allowing individual adults to do what they want without harming others.

I would include 'not altering authorities to a serious risk that someone will abuse a child. as harm to others.

The question is whether society gains a net benefit by requiring priests in those circumstances (or other knowledge of threats to society) to disclose it. On the one hand religious freedom is restricted. On the other society is harmed by a member withholding information.

If I were a member of a legislature I think I would not support a law that required priests to disclose such threats. My reasons would be pragmatic: such confessions (of future intent) are unlikely, it would be virtually impossible to detect a priest offending by breaking such a law, juries might well have sympathy for the priest and fail to convict and such a law would reduce more effective behaviour such as priests strongly advocating that offenders report themselves and/or seek professional, science-based treatment.

But I would not see there being any reason to establish an absolute ‘right’ to silence in such cases. Rather I think efforts in reducing any sort of behaviour that harms society should be directed in a pragmatic way.

So yes, it makes sense from even an atheist point of view (i.e. mine).

 

[jochoa]

An additional pragmatic ground for the seal of the confessional is based on the mental/spiritual states of the person confessing future sins.

There are only two mental/spiritual states one could be in when confessing a future sin: 1. The person is contrite and willing to reconcile. 2. The person is a liar. A liar because the Sacrament of Reconciliation/Confession is for those who desire to reconcile with God, and a person declaring a future sin does not desire to reconcile with God in a place for people who desire to reconcile with God is a lying.

The logical response to someone who is contrite and willing to reconcile is to privately admonish, and the person will do what is necessary to reconcile.

The logical response to a liar is to not trust a liar. Therefore, priests shouldn’t tell on someone, whose word can’t be trusted.

 

[jochoa]

Again, surely the priest should do something to prevent this.

I think you have fallen into spirit of devaluing the priest’s work because of a shallow understanding of Confession.

Confession is not solely a place to share with another bad actions. More so Confession is a place to reconcile sins with God, including those committed, being committed and those planned to be committed. Since one should desire to reconcile sinful ways in the Sacrament, all one needs is God’s Word, which the priest delivers, in order to change their ways.

And the priestly role to deliver God’s Word requires far more work than meets the eye! Consider the years of prayer, study and practice it takes for a person to be deemed worthy of the position of Confessor. Every priest takes on these works to prevent future sinners from sining. Such a humbling and loving consideration…

 

[sunrise]

Nothing takes priority over the salvation of soul of the person confessing.

I think prioritizing the health and safety of innocent children should take priority over the soul of a child molester penitent. For a priest to stay silent when he knows a child molester will continue to abuse children just seems plain wrong. It’s a line I just can’t cross.

 

[JimG]

As noted previously, confession is for the purpose of seeking forgiveness of past sins which are repented of. Penitents don’t confess future sins or planned sins; that would be pointless and contradictory.

And criminals just don’t confess crimes as a matter of course. I’ve read of a priest who noted that even in the midst of sexual abuse cases, he has never heard such a sin confessed in the confessional.

The seal of confession has never been a concern to me. For most f my life I have confessed behind a screen so the priest doesn’t know who is confessing. Even in the cases where I have confessed face to face, it has been to a priest who does not know me; and even in face to face confessions, the priest is often looking down, not at the penitent. And the lines are often long; a priest would hardly be able to remember what was confessed, from one penitet to the next.

 

[RolandThompsonGunner]

@EmilyAlexandra, a lot of your questions seem to boil down to “does this catholic practice make sense absent a belief in catholic theology?” The answer is almost always no.

Like, unless you believe that a penitent is actually confessing to God, and that the salvation of his or her soul may hinge on that confession, then of course you can imagine scenarios in which the priest should “break the seal.”