Confession conundrum?

[sinner]

The last time I went to Confession, during the course of relating my sins from behind the screen, the priest asked “Are you so-and-so?”. What was I to do…lie in the confessional? I answered affirmatively, but was irritated that my confidentiality and anonymity had been lost. I rarely confess face to face. What should I have done and was the priest wrong for asking my name?
Did he have a right to a truthful answer?

 

[mercygate]

sinner:

The last time I went to Confession, during the course of relating my sins from behind the screen, the priest asked “Are you so-and-so?”. What was I to do…lie in the confessional? I answered affirmatively, but was irritated that my confidentiality and anonymity had been lost. I rarely confess face to face. What should I have done and was the priest wrong for asking my name?
Did he have a right to a truthful answer?

You can always think of the right answer three weeks after you need it, but you could have said:

It is a canonical provision that anonymity must be available to penitents in confession. Any answer I give to your question will compromise that at least to some degree. What is your reason for asking the question?

 

[msproule]

This would certainly catch me off-guard, as well! Nevertheless, I do not think the confessional seal applies to this specific detail, but I am no Canon Lawyer.

Instead, Canon Law prohibits the priest from divulging anything he learns in the confessional (including the name of the penitent). It does not specifically prohibit him from asking the name of the penitent. However, it does prohibit him asking for the name of any accomplices to the sin.

It may be pertinent to the priest’s decision of absolution and penance if he knows the identity of the penitent. He may know that Person X (maybe a public figure, for example) is simply going through the motions and is not truly contrite and therefore not worthy of absolution.

I don’t know…

 

[mercygate]

Come to think of it, what if you were not Joe Smith? The priest might have introduced the name of someone who had confessed that sin to him at another time. Comes perilously close to violating the seal, if you ask me.

He might better have said: I believe I could help you better if I knew for certain who you are. Would you mind you mind if I ask who you that? Feel perfectly free to remain anonymous if you are more comfortable.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

sinner:

The last time I went to Confession, during the course of relating my sins from behind the screen, the priest asked “Are you so-and-so?”. What was I to do…lie in the confessional? I answered affirmatively, but was irritated that my confidentiality and anonymity had been lost. I rarely confess face to face. What should I have done and was the priest wrong for asking my name?
Did he have a right to a truthful answer?

Was the priest wrong? Does he not know why there is a screen? Of course he was wrong to ask this. I would have just ignored the question and continued on.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

msproule:

This would certainly catch me off-guard, as well! Nevertheless, I do not think the confessional seal applies to this specific detail, but I am no Canon Lawyer.

Instead, Canon Law prohibits the priest from divulging anything he learns in the confessional (including the name of the penitent). It does not specifically prohibit him from asking the name of the penitent. However, it does prohibit him asking for the name of any accomplices to the sin.

It may be pertinent to the priest’s decision of absolution and penance if he knows the identity of the penitent. He may know that Person X (maybe a public figure, for example) is simply going through the motions and is not truly contrite and therefore not worthy of absolution.

I don’t know…

He could then ask generic questions about the persons position in the community, etc.

 

[JimG]

Br. Rich SFO:

Was the priest wrong? Does he not know why there is a screen? Of course he was wrong to ask this. I would have just ignored the question and continued on.

Amen, brother. If the penitent wanted to be known, he would have gone face-to-face. This was just out of order.