Confession and Secular Law

[Gorgias]

I know not why you have done this. You must have done it deliberately because I never wrote the words your quote attributes to me; therefore, you can’t simply have clicked on ‘Quote’.

Quote tag fail. I was attempting to quote Jozefo here; in his post, his use of quote tags didn’t work properly. It seems that I simply propagated that error.

But thanks for assuming that I deliberately attempted to defame you, rather than simply having clicked on the ‘quote’ button.

Peace,

G.

 

[Gorgias]

Really. Ok, I’ll accept that for now, in the absence of any formal cite of Church teaching.

Jozefo,

Unless I’m mistaken, the citations from canon law in this thread demonstrate that confessors cannot break the seal of the confessional in any way – which would include, as you asked, whether a confessor might coerce a penitent to publicly reveal his sin to others (especially in a way that would expose him to civil authorities and civil punishment).

 

[spinninglink]

Is there ever a time a priest can be given permission to reveal the contents of the confessional, especially if it involves a criminal act?

If the penitent lets the priest know that they are making a mockery of the sacrament of confession, and commits criminal activity knowing that the priest cannot reveal the content, can the priest request from his superiors the right to reveal the crime(s)?

Thank you.

 

[PaulfromIowa]

Canon 983-984:

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.

Can. 984 §1. A confessor is prohibited completely from using knowledge acquired from confession to the detriment of the penitent even when any danger of revelation is excluded.

§2. 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.

 

[bzkoss236]

In other words, no. A priest cannot break the seal for any reason.

Think of it like Doctor-Patient Confidentiality, but stricter. The “patient” (penitent) can tell whomever he/she wants, but the “doctor” (priest) cannot tell anyone.

 

[TK421]

If for whatever odd reason somebody just kept showing up to troll the priest, the priest can simply refuse to hear them AFAIK, but the content of a confession cannot be disclosed except by the person doing the confessing.

 

[Starrsmother]

I understand, respect and admire the rule of silence in the confessional. If priests were allowed to expose sins confessed to them, it would certainly impact what anyone told them. The silence of confession allows all sinners to lay their hearts open without fear of reprisal here on earth. Having said that, I cannot even imagine what a priest must go through if someone confessed a sin that caused the sinner to be a danger to those around him. My examples would be if someone confessed that they were an active pedophile or were a serial killer. I realize the priest must still not reveal what was told him in the confessional–but, oh the weight that the priest who has heard such a confession must carry in his heart! This would even be made worse, if for instance, someone confessed to committing pedophilia, said they planned to change, but then the priest found out that this person had committed said sin again. We really should pray for our priests. Their job has to be unbelievably hard.

 

[Zekariya]

There is an Alfred Hitchcock film called “I Confess”. It is about a priest who hears a murderer’s confession and does not break the seal even when he becomes the prime suspect. It presents the heroic virtue of the priest quite well. I thought I’d share this since this topic has been popular lately.

 

[janeway529]

There’s been talk among canonists about the Code of Canon Law being revised in that area, specifically when it comes to the sexual abuse of minors by clergy. It’ll be interesting to see what develops.

 

[dans0622]

There’s been talk among canonists about the Code of Canon Law being revised in that area, specifically when it comes to the sexual abuse of minors by clergy. It’ll be interesting to see what develops.

Hello,

Really? Where have you heard about this talk or what canonists are doing the talking? I’d like to know more. Thanks.

As to the OP, some learned persons say that the penitent can “release” the confessor from the Seal. If a priest learns of a fact outside of confession, he can further reveal it even if he also knows of it through confession. If it is obvious that the “penitent” is truly making a mockery of the Sacrament, there is no Seal because there was no intention to confess sin. There is no permission the confessor would/could receive. He might seek counsel from someone in authority but the decision to reveal the contents of a (simulated) confession would be entirely up to him.

You might benfit from reading the entry on “Confession” in the Catholic encyclopedia, specifically the section on the Seal. newadvent.org/cathen/11618c.htm

Dan

 

[Chatter163]

There’s been talk among canonists about the Code of Canon Law being revised in that area, specifically when it comes to the sexual abuse of minors by clergy. It’ll be interesting to see what develops.

Really? Can you provide a source? Canonists, especially in America, can 'talk" all they want, since they are not the ones who promulgate canon law. I find it extremely difficult to believe that the Holy See, and especially the Holy Father, would even consider such a thing.

 

[JimG]

There seems to be an assumption here that a priest knows who is confessing to him. In many if not most parishes, that is not the case, because confession is anonymous. A penitent can always confess anonymously. And if the priest believed that lack of anonymity could present a problem, he could simply require that all confessions be anonymous.

 

[Fr_Destoop]

The reason why the Cardinal referred to in this thread said he would not like to hear the confession of a priest if he knew in advance that the priest has sexually abused someone is this: The Seal of Confession pertains to more than divulging the contents of the penitent’s confession. It also requires that the priest or bishop who hears the confession does not act upon any of the information he learned from the penitent’s confession, nor can he speak to penitent about his sins outside the confessional.

If the Cardinal referred to in this thread did hear the confession of a priest who confessed he has sexually abused a child, you can imagine that it would put him in a position he would rather not be in, for he is in a position of responsibility over the priests in his diocese. His comment is also consistent with Canon Law which states that the bishop of a diocese cannot hear the confessions of his priests. If he did, he would not be able to act upon the knowledge he gains (in this case, suspend the priest from his ministry.)

For the same reason, the vocation directors cannot hear confessions of applicants of the seminary. This enables them to advise their bishops (in what is known as the “external forum”) about the suitability of each applicant without any conflict of interest in relation to the Seal of Confession (as this is known as the “internal forum”). Likewise, rectors of seminaries cannot hear confessions of seminarians, and pastors cannot hear the confessions of their assistant priests. If none of these measures were set in place by the Church, it would prevent bishops who have a duty of care for priests, or those being formed to become priests, to exercise the appropriate authority they have over them that is required.

 

[JimG]

The reason why the Cardinal referred to in this thread said he would not like to hear the confession of a priest if he knew in advance that the priest has sexually abused someone is this: The Seal of Confession pertains to more than divulging the contents of the penitent’s confession. It also requires that the priest or bishop who hears the confession does not act upon any of the information he learned from the penitent’s confession, nor can he speak to penitent about his sins outside the confessional.

If the Cardinal referred to in this thread did hear the confession of a priest who confessed he has sexually abused a child, you can imagine that it would put him in a position he would rather not be in, for he is in a position of responsibility over the priests in his diocese. His comment is also consistent with Canon Law which states that the bishop of a diocese cannot hear the confessions of his priests. If he did, he would not be able to act upon the knowledge he gains (in this case, suspend the priest from his ministry.)

For the same reason, the vocation directors cannot hear confessions of applicants of the seminary. This enables them to advise their bishops (in what is known as the “external forum”) about the suitability of each applicant without any conflict of interest in relation to the Seal of Confession (as this is known as the “internal forum”). Likewise, rectors of seminaries cannot hear confessions of seminarians, and pastors cannot hear the confessions of their assistant priests. If none of these measures were set in place by the Church, it would prevent bishops who have a duty of care for priests, or those being formed to become priests, to exercise the appropriate authority they have over them that is required.

Thanks for that information. It seems that there are a number of considerations that most of us do not even think of, but what you related certainly makes sense.

 

[PaladinGamer]

There is an Alfred Hitchcock film called “I Confess”. It is about a priest who hears a murderer’s confession and does not break the seal even when he becomes the prime suspect. It presents the heroic virtue of the priest quite well. I thought I’d share this since this topic has been popular lately.

I want to second that film, outstanding work on the subject. I like the imagery of Christ on the way to Calvary when it becomes obvious that this priest will be executed if he doesn’t damn his soul by breaking the seal of the confessional.

You folks who think a penitent MUST give themselves over to death to have contrition are way off. I wonder if you hold yourselves to such standards. I wonder how many would confess adultery against their spouse if they knew the priest could say “you’re not contrite unless you tell your wife all about it”…

Your sense of earthly justice would damn souls. That’s what the Church is concerned with here, not assisting earthly authority.

 

[Bergon]

Is there ever a time a priest can be given permission to reveal the contents of the confessional, especially if it involves a criminal act?

No.

 

[Rau]

You folks who think a penitent MUST give themselves over to death to have contrition are way off. I wonder if you hold yourselves to such standards. I wonder how many would confess adultery against their spouse if they knew the priest could say “you’re not contrite unless you tell your wife all about it”…

Your sense of earthly justice would damn souls. That’s what the Church is concerned with here, not assisting earthly authority.

Not sure who mentioned anything about “giving themselves over to death”??

While I get your point that the standard of contrition is an issue, your adultery example is not a good one because informing the wife brings no relief to anyone, in fact the reverse. The more challenging example is rape, or child sex abuse, where to remain “on the run” amounts to an ongoing (but different) sin against the victim, misuse of the police resources, etc.

 

[jackxowen]

This thread reminds me of the classic joke about losing your wallet in Rome. Hope it’s not found by a moral theologian (sometimes poorly attributed as a Jesuit), since he knows 10 reasons the Lord wants him to keep it. Don’t get so caught up in Canon Law that you miss the spirit behind it.

 

[Starrsmother]

I don’t pretend to know all there is to know about what priests can or can’t ask a penitent to do as a penance for sins. I also don’t pretend to know what priests are taught their responsibility is if a penitent confesses to a sin such as pedophilia, which has such potential to continue hurting the little children that Jesus loved so very much. I do know that there should be some responsibility and that one reason a penance is assigned is so that a sinner can prove true remorse for their sins. A priest has a variety of latitude in assigning penance–or at least did in the past. The other day, I read about typical penances assigned in the middle ages–and they were some real beauts! Some of the penitents back then were asked to do things like stand in front of the church for a week begging alms for charity. Some were sent on crusades and if you ever wonder where the term “sack cloth and ashes” came from, just read about the middle ages and penances! Today most priests assign fairly minimal penances–but that doesn’t mean they can only assign a certain number of Our Fathers or Hail Marys and that’s the limit. I would enjoy hearing from a priest on this subject and learn their understanding on this matter. It occurs to me though that “the punishment should fit the crime.” To ask a practicing pedophile to say 5 “Glory Be’s” and do nothing further to show remorse or to curb such a weighty sin seems a little wrong to me. It is the kind of thinking that contributed to the pedophile-priest scandal that still hangs like a cloud around our beloved church today. For someone who admits to a sadistic criminal behavior in confession, to be given a penance that doesn’t address the sin and possibly even (as in the case with the priests in the past) to be transferred to a new parish where they can start afresh with the sin again, just seems wrong, wrong, wrong to me. I’m not quite sure that it’s exactly what Jesus had in mind when he gave us the sacrament of confession. I’d love to hear what a priest has to say about this though.

 

[nodito]

I don’t pretend to know all there is to know about what priests can or can’t ask a penitent to do as a penance for sins. I also don’t pretend to know what priests are taught their responsibility is if a penitent confesses to a sin such as pedophilia, which has such potential to continue hurting the little children that Jesus loved so very much. I do know that there should be some responsibility and that one reason a penance is assigned is so that a sinner can prove true remorse for their sins. A priest has a variety of latitude in assigning penance–or at least did in the past. The other day, I read about typical penances assigned in the middle ages–and they were some real beauts! Some of the penitents back then were asked to do things like stand in front of the church for a week begging alms for charity. Some were sent on crusades and if you ever wonder where the term “sack cloth and ashes” came from, just read about the middle ages and penances! Today most priests assign fairly minimal penances–but that doesn’t mean they can only assign a certain number of Our Fathers or Hail Marys and that’s the limit. I would enjoy hearing from a priest on this subject and learn their understanding on this matter. It occurs to me though that “the punishment should fit the crime.” To ask a practicing pedophile to say 5 “Glory Be’s” and do nothing further to show remorse or to curb such a weighty sin seems a little wrong to me. It is the kind of thinking that contributed to the pedophile-priest scandal that still hangs like a cloud around our beloved church today. For someone who admits to a sadistic criminal behavior in confession, to be given a penance that doesn’t address the sin and possibly even (as in the case with the priests in the past) to be transferred to a new parish where they can start afresh with the sin again, just seems wrong, wrong, wrong to me. I’m not quite sure that it’s exactly what Jesus had in mind when he gave us the sacrament of confession. I’d love to hear what a priest has to say about this though.

Starrsmother, short of asking said pedophile to turn himself in, what do you feel would be an appropriate penance for someone confessing that sin?

I agree that priests have a lot of latitude and I’ve received some longer/more difficult ones myself. I’ve never been asked to participate in a crusade or beg alms, but I can recall being asked to read the Gospel of Mark and other things that would take more time and effort than just 5 Glory Bes.