Confession & Conversations

[bobolink]

Can anyone confirm whether or not a discussion with a priest, followed by a sacramental confession, protects the contents of the previous, non-confessional, conversation, if that content then formed part of the confession?

Which is to say, if you have a personal, assumed to be confidential conversation with a priest, and then enter into a sacramental confession, which includes the content you had discussed outside the sacrament, are those things bound up by the seal of the confessional? I would assume they would be… how about after the confession, if you were to discuss the topics mentioned in confession, would they remain bound by the seal?

 

[LilyM]

Well, whatever is said in confession becomes protected by the seal of confessional. That would include things that were previously said to the priest outside the confessional.

However, it doesn’t include things that are repeated to the priest in conversation AFTER the confession, if this occurs outside the confessional.

 

[jmcrae]

Can anyone confirm whether or not a discussion with a priest, followed by a sacramental confession, protects the contents of the previous, non-confessional, conversation, if that content then formed part of the confession?

Which is to say, if you have a personal, assumed to be confidential conversation with a priest, and then enter into a sacramental confession, which includes the content you had discussed outside the sacrament, are those things bound up by the seal of the confessional? I would assume they would be… how about after the confession, if you were to discuss the topics mentioned in confession, would they remain bound by the seal?

As Lily pointed out, the seal of the Confessional covers everything mentioned in the Confession.

Things mentioned in the context of a counseling session would also be considered private, but they are covered under confidentiality laws that protect counselors, and not under the seal of the Confessional, so if the police had a good reason to suspect that you had discussed the commission of a crime with the priest in a counseling session, then they could potentially get some kind of a warrant to make the priest talk. But he wouldn’t be required to just reveal everything, without the warrant.

If you are just speaking to him as a friend, then no, it wouldn’t be covered by any kind of privacy law, and your priest could even take it upon himself to disclose something to the police, if he thought he had a reason.

 

[FrDavid96]

Can anyone confirm whether or not a discussion with a priest, followed by a sacramental confession, protects the contents of the previous, non-confessional, conversation, if that content then formed part of the confession?

Which is to say, if you have a personal, assumed to be confidential conversation with a priest, and then enter into a sacramental confession, which includes the content you had discussed outside the sacrament, are those things bound up by the seal of the confessional? I would assume they would be… how about after the confession, if you were to discuss the topics mentioned in confession, would they remain bound by the seal?

No.

Information that a priest has from outside of Confession is not protected by the Seal of Confession. That’s not to say that they aren’t protected at all–they would still be confidential and they would be in the “internal forum” if the conversation is indeed a spiritual one. In other words, if you’re just having an everyday casual conversation with the priest, it wouldn’t be protected, but if you’re in a situation of spiritual direction, it would be (“internal forum” but not “seal of the confessional”).

To give a practical example: if you meet a priest in the grocery store (where there’s no real expectation of privacy) and say to him “Father, last night I killed someone…” that’s not protected by the seal of Confession. One cannot later go to that same priest in Confession and expect the information to be under the seal.

Likewise if one confesses to murder in Confession and later approaches the priest and says “last night I killed someone” that’s not protected by the seal either.

The fact that the priest heard it in confession is still sealed; so a priest still cannot tell anyone about the confession itself. But at the same time, because he learned the same information outside of confession, that isn’t sealed.

Another example:
A priest is hearing confessions. A parishioner confesses to robbing a bank yesterday. The priest goes to the rectory and picks up the newspaper and reads about the robbery. A priest can say “yes, I know there was a robbery yesterday” because he read it in the paper (external forum) but he still cannot say “so-and-so confessed to robbery” because that’s sealed.

A priest is still bound to safeguard the confidentiality of anything that happens in the internal forum, but the standard for that is not quite as high as that of the seal of confession.

 

[LilyM]

Hmm, I’ve just reread this:

“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.” (my emphases)

Looks like the Canon is talking about the existence of a relationship between the two people here, confessor and penitent, one that may extend to information that was gained outside the confessional, but which being repeated inside comes under the umbrella of that relationship.

Let’s say, for example (I hope that my understanding is accurate here) that you are about to go into the confessional to hear confessions. You see that there’s only one parishioner waiting to confess, we’ll call him Tom, who you recognise by sight, but you don’t give any indication OUTSIDE the confessional that you know him. Tom then comes in and makes his confession. Let’s say he goes anonymously behind the screen, so it’s not as if his identity is explicitly part of the information he gives you in confession. However, you still know it’s him, say no-one else was anywhere near the church at the time, let alone in the vicinity of the confessional.

Regardless of the fact that you found out Tom’s identity OUTSIDE the confessional, you can’t use that information in any way. You can’t, for example, say to his wife the next Sunday ‘Oh, Tom came to confession the other day …’

If my understanding is correct, the identity of the penitent, regardless that you found it out outside the confessional, is part and parcel of the seal, at least if he or she chooses to confess anonymously. And the seal goes so far as you not being able to name individuals as having confessed to you, no?

 

[FrDavid96]

Hmm, I’ve just reread this:

“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.” (my emphases)

Looks like the Canon is talking about the existence of a relationship between the two people here, confessor and penitent, one that may extend to information that was gained outside the confessional, but which being repeated inside comes under the umbrella of that relationship.

Let’s say, for example (I hope that my understanding is accurate here) that you are about to go into the confessional to hear confessions. You see that there’s only one parishioner waiting to confess, we’ll call him Tom, who you recognise by sight, but you don’t give any indication OUTSIDE the confessional that you know him. Tom then comes in and makes their confession behind the screen without mentioning who he is. But of course you know it’s Tom - say, because no-one else was even in the church at the time.

Regardless of the fact that they haven’t revealed their identity to you IN the confessional, and that you found out their identity only OUTSIDE the confessional, you can’t, for example, say from your side of the screen ‘Hi Tom, how’s the wife and kids?’

If my understanding is correct, the identity of the penitent, regardless that you found it out outside the confessional, is part and parcel of the seal, at least unless TOM chooses explicitly to tell you who he is from his side of the screen, no?

Right, but you’re applying it the wrong way. Your example has nothing to do with the OPs question, or my response.

The OP asked about information that the priest knows before the Confession ever takes place. That information is not protected by the Seal. The fact that the priest later learns it in confession does not mean that the Seal extends backward and applies to knowlege the priest had previously. The confession itself is still sealed though (of course).

You’re confusing a “relationship” with the Sacrament of Confession.

 

[CB_Catholic]

Right, but you’re applying it the wrong way. Your example has nothing to do with the OPs question, or my response.

The OP asked about information that the priest knows before the Confession ever takes place. That information is not protected by the Seal. The fact that the priest later learns it in confession does not mean that the Seal extends backward and applies to knowlege the priest had previously. The confession itself is still sealed though (of course).

You’re confusing a “relationship” with the Sacrament of Confession.

OK.So that means that if a person told you, outside of the Confessional, that he robbed a bank, and then came to you and confessed it, you could still turn him in or testify, but you could not mention that he also confessed this. But if he only told you this in the Confessional, you woud be bound by the seal of the Confessional. Have I got that right?

 

[FrDavid96]

OK.So that means that if a person told you, outside of the Confessional, that he robbed a bank, and then came to you and confessed it, you could still turn him in or testify, but you could not mention that he also confessed this. But if he only told you this in the Confessional, you woud be bound by the seal of the Confessional. Have I got that right?

Right.

Well, more or less. Let me explain: that first out-of-confession conversation might be protected by the obligation of privacy from the internal forum. It would all depend on the circumstances of how the priest came to have that information. If he said it while standing in line in the grocery store, it would not be protected (since there’s no expectation of privacy). If he said in during spiritual direction, then it would be in the “internal forum” and the priest would be bound to keep that privacy.

Let me give an example that makes this quite obvious. Let’s say there’s a person named Tom. I know Tom well. I know that he’s married, how many kids, what he does for a living, etc. He comes to confession and says “Bless me Father…I’m married…” and goes on to confess infidelity. Of course, the knowlege of the infidelity is protected by the seal of the confession. But the part about being married is not; even though he mentioned it in confession. The priest already had that knowlege from the external forum, so the fact that he heard it again in the confessional makes no difference. The priest would not later have to “deny” any knowlege of the fact that Tom is married because he mentioned it in confession.

 

[lutherlic]

OK.So that means that if a person told you, outside of the Confessional, that he robbed a bank, and then came to you and confessed it, you could still turn him in or testify, but you could not mention that he also confessed this. But if he only told you this in the Confessional, you woud be bound by the seal of the Confessional. Have I got that right?

I hope it is OK if I take a crack at this as this is mostly directed at Father David.

You can not put back into the bottle that which has already been disclosed outside of the confessional seal. However, if the priest were to disclose the non-confessional information, he would have to be very, very careful. The police would ask many questions and he would not be in a position to clarify much if there were a possibility of his clarification even remotely being based upon anything he learned under the seal.

To your specific question on disclosing that the penitent had also confessed the crime, I would say that is covered by the seal - so no, it could not be confirmed, denied, hinted at or anything else.

As a practical matter, this would put the priest into a terrible situation. If no one were at future risk (as in not a past crime but a planned one), I would think most would feel bound to confidentiality.

 

[LilyM]

I hope it is OK if I take a crack at this as this is mostly directed at Father David.

You can not put back into the bottle that which has already been disclosed outside of the confessional seal. However, if the priest were to disclose the non-confessional information, he would have to be very, very careful. The police would ask many questions and he would not be in a position to clarify much if there were a possibility of his clarification even remotely being based upon anything he learned under the seal.

To your specific question on disclosing that the penitent had also confessed the crime, I would say that is covered by the seal - so no, it could not be confirmed, denied, hinted at or anything else.

As a practical matter, this would put the priest into a terrible situation. If no one were at future risk (as in not a past crime but a planned one), I would think most would feel bound to confidentiality.

Well, by pleading the fifth and refusing to break the seal, are you not admitting in a fairly obvious way that the person in the question HAS confessed to you? What other reason would a priest really have for refusing to answer certain questions about his parishioners, after all?

 

[Bookcat]

Can anyone confirm whether or not a discussion with a priest, followed by a sacramental confession, protects the contents of the previous, non-confessional, conversation, if that content then formed part of the confession?

Which is to say, if you have a personal, assumed to be confidential conversation with a priest, and then enter into a sacramental confession, which includes the content you had discussed outside the sacrament, are those things bound up by the seal of the confessional? I would assume they would be… how about after the confession, if you were to discuss the topics mentioned in confession, would they remain bound by the seal?

ONLY what is said in the context of the Sacrament of Confession.

However normal “confidentuality” covers the rest…but not the seal…

(if you give permission basically to discuss things that were confessed outside of confession…it can be the case I think that those things he ONLY knew from confession…and basically discussed with you as only from your confession…would be under the seal…he is only now talking with you about it …cause you give him leave in some way…(like you start talking about it right after confession and ask further questions I would think) but if he knows about things from before the confession or in some other ordinary way such is not under the seal)

 

[lutherlic]

Well, by pleading the fifth and refusing to break the seal, are you not admitting in a fairly obvious way that the person in the question HAS confessed to you? What other reason would a priest really have for refusing to answer certain questions about his parishioners, after all?

I don’t think so. I would expect the priest to say that he is not permitted to confirm or deny that he heard the confession of any specific person - even though many others may have observed a person in line for confession. Should the police, tabloids, whoever - reasonably determine to their own satisfaction that the person did receive the sacrament - they still could not draw a conclusion on what was confessed.

If the people with questions are asking things like “is he a member of this parish” or “have you seen him in the last 2 weeks” or similar questions then the seal does not come into play and answering the questions does no harm to it.

 

[TheDoctor]

Well, by pleading the fifth and refusing to break the seal, are you not admitting in a fairly obvious way that the person in the question HAS confessed to you? What other reason would a priest really have for refusing to answer certain questions about his parishioners, after all?

Hi Lily. The Priest would not plead the “5th”. The fifth amendment is the right against self-incrimination, i.e. against the Priest saying something that implicates him, and not others, in a crime.

If the question was “Father Flanagan, did Tom come to you for confession on so and so a date?” and beleived an affirimative answer would violate the seal, the appropriate respose would be along the lines of “I can neither confirm nor deny that information”.

If the Priest persists in this answer, the police have nothing else to go on. Even better, the priest will be best served to “lawyer up” and refuse to answer at all.

In court under oath, I believe the same story line would play out. It is then up to the judge to either hold the priest in contempt for not answering or tell the jury to ignore the line of questioning.

 

[jmcrae]

Well, by pleading the fifth and refusing to break the seal, are you not admitting in a fairly obvious way that the person in the question HAS confessed to you? What other reason would a priest really have for refusing to answer certain questions about his parishioners, after all?

Actually, all the priest has to say is “I don’t know.” He doesn’t have to “plead the fifth,” or make it obvious that he is refusing to answer questions.

One priest explained to me that if my mother were to ask him whether I had been to Confession that day, he would be free to say, “I don’t know” even if he remembered me perfectly, because that information is none of my mother’s business. (And yes, he was a Jesuit - but that’s beside the point, I think.)

 

[lutherlic]

Actually, all the priest has to say is “I don’t know.” He doesn’t have to “plead the fifth,” or make it obvious that he is refusing to answer questions.

One priest explained to me that if my mother were to ask him whether I had been to Confession that day, he would be free to say, “I don’t know” even if he remembered me perfectly, because that information is none of my mother’s business. (And yes, he was a Jesuit - but that’s beside the point, I think.)

It would be the easiest answer, but it wouldn’t be true and the good ends would not justify the bad means. I still think a simple “not confirm or deny” response would be best.

Either way, it certainly would be an uncomfortable position for the priest to be put in.