Confession, absolution and presence of third person

Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Anicette

New member
Hi!
Please, would you enlight to situations:
  1. A priest heard the confession of someone during a time dedicated to this sacrament. Let’s called him “the unrepentent”.This person (a minor) is not ready for absolution for personals reasons. So, the priest do not give it…
    Could he repeat what the unrepentent had said to a third person, in his presence? While before warned him that he would do?
  2. So, the priest repeats what he have heard. Then, he gives the absolution in the presence of this third person, after a time of discution and prayer to what have been said previously?
Is that clear? ☺️

Can a priest do this? Is it allowed?

Thanks you for your comments!
 
This is a priest’s prerogative. I am saying this because Sacraments are something very basic for them, which they have been trained on. It is unlikely that a priest would make a mistake on it.

Despite your post, probably there is more to the context as to why he did what he did.

Breaking the seal of Confession is always wrong but it could be a way he wanted to do to help the person who was a minor. That part we do not have information on, so the context does matter.
 
No, it is not clear what you are asking.

What we can say is that the confessor cannot repeat what he has heard in confession.
 
The seal of the confessional still applies, even if absolution is denied. The sincere attempt to receive the Sacrament is all that is required for the Seal to apply. The priest can never repeat what is said to a third party.
 
thanks you.

Sorry for unclearness.

So if can resume, Ron Conte, if a person do not intend to received the absolution, even in confession time, the seal do not apply. (It is the case, in this situation).

And the fact that a third person had heard and was present when the absolution is finally given, is it a problem?

For the others circonstances, there is the fact that the sin was already forgiven. But apprently on a human level, it is more complicated. Without going in any details, the circonstances surrunding involved psychology, alternative therapy, and recent discovery of the unsuspeted ramifications of the sin in the unpenitent’s life. So the unpenitent had some doubt on the sacrament, and not whish to receive the absolution for the already confess sin.But finally received it.

It’s complicated to explain without explaining all.

I know @Ruben, that it is a somewhat pastoral special treatment of a particular case. But I have big doubts on the manner the absolution was finally given, on legal level, or even moral level regarding the respect of the penitent’s privacy.
More, it is not in a context parish, but in a charismatic community.So more suspect.
 
Anicette said:
I know @Ruben, that it is a somewhat pastoral special treatment of a particular case. But I have big doubts on the manner the absolution was finally given, on legal level, or even moral level regarding the respect of the penitent’s privacy.
More, it is not in a context parish, but in a charismatic community.So more suspect.
Click to expand...
As far as Confession per se, there should not be a third person present unless there is special circumstances that demands it (one I could think of is on death bed).

So why is there a third person?

What is the context, is it counselling, after the Confession was over?

Edit: Or there was no Confession to begin with but a counselling?
 
Last edited:
Anicette said:
Hi!
Please, would you enlight to situations:
  1. A priest heard the confession of someone during a time dedicated to this sacrament. Let’s called him “the unrepentent”.This person (a minor) is not ready for absolution for personals reasons. So, the priest do not give it…
    Could he repeat what the unrepentent had said to a third person, in his presence? While before warned him that he would do?
  2. So, the priest repeats what he have heard. Then, he gives the absolution in the presence of this third person, after a time of discution and prayer to what have been said previously?
Is that clear? ☺️

Can a priest do this? Is it allowed?

Thanks you for your comments!
Click to expand...
It’s not totally clear what you are asking but if you are asking if the priest can tell a third party what was said in Confession because he did not absolve the penitent the answer is no. The Seal of Confession is not conditional upon absolution having been given.
 
I conceded that it is not clear.

the context:

it was more a counselling with a third person on the topic that was raised on confession (so, 3 people) + a general counselling, a mission was given for the third personn and what i see as penance for the unrepentant. There was a time of prayer.
Finally the absolution was given in the presence of the third person.
 
Last edited:
The priest should not be repeating what was said in the confessional room/booth, nor in any place/time set aside for confession, even if strictly speaking there was no seal of the confessional. Confidentiality applies even if the seal does not.

There should not be a third person present for any confession, except for an interpreter or translator, or in some extenuating circumstance, and then only if the penitent permits it.
 
Thanks you for your understanding.

So, I suppose that the priest could reapeat it, because it is “confidentiality”, and he informs before the unpenitent of his intention. So he could have said “no” to the priest…

But in this case, it is just a little problematic, even if not illegal. How to say no to a priest? (even more, when minor?)

Is my understanding is correct?
 
Last edited:
thanks you!

I have also learn in this link it that person who might understand accidentally any part of a confession is also bound to secrecy. If they betrays, they could be excommunicated too.

It is very important, as know in many place the confession are not in confessional room, and that others parishionners can be very close, for many resons, and might hear something.

I have been myself close for some ministry stuff one day, and I find it very disturbing for myself, and not right for the penitent even if I have not hear something.
 
Last edited:
Anicette said:
Can a priest do this? Is it allowed?
Click to expand...
Absolutely not. It is TOTALLY forbidden, under any and all circumstances, for anyone other than the penitent to reveal what is said in the confessional. This includes the priest, translators, anyone who may have overheard through a thin wall… ANYONE. The penalty for breaking the seal is automatic excommunication.

And I’m pretty sure that it’s even forbidden to say that someone went to confession.
 
Last edited:
Anicette said:
I conceded that it is not clear.

the context:

it was more a counselling with a third person on the topic that was raised on confession (so, 3 people) + a general counselling, a mission was given for the third personn and what i see as penance for the unrepentant. There was a time of prayer.
Finally the absolution was given in the presence of the third person.
Click to expand...
I feel this is not right arising from the principle that Confession is confidential which is between the priest and the penitent.

I can see what is going on there though, which is basically counselling but together with Confession. Not sure whether the priest has a prerogative to do it that way, which as I said, it shouldn’t be.

The counselling can be carried out after the Confession but without referring to the fact that the sin has been confessed. In other word, the third person did not know that there was Confession for the issue being addressed. Then it would be seen as counselling only where a few persons can be present. Of course, no absolution needs to be pronounced there.
 
The secrecy of confession is absolute. Whether the priest gave absolution, refused absolution, deferred absolution it is forbidden for the priest to repeat what he heard in confession to anybody else. The only instance in which a third person could be involved in confession would be if the priest and the person could not speak the same language and there were to be no other option for the person’s confession. In that case the translator would be bound by the secrecy of confession also.
 
From the Code of Canon Law;

Can. 983 §1. The sacramental seal is inviolable; therefore it is absolutely forbidden for a confessor to betray in any way a penitent in words or in any manner and for any reason.

§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.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P3G.HTM
 
My understanding is that a priest can not reveal the sin and the person who committed it, if he learned than in confession. Also, if revealing one part and the other is obvious to most who hear it, that should also not be revealed. Other things could be revealed but most priest would be very careful about doing so.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top