Confession Question

[Medic_Mark]

My friend and I were discussing a MASH episode he saw. Someone had stolen the base supply of penicillin and confessed its hidden location to the priest. The soldier got called away (or something like that) and the priest recovered the medicine.

I know a priest could never violate the confessional seal, but could he in essence go recover stolen goods that he learned about during confession?

 

[Simplicitas]

The priest is forbidden to say or act in any manner based on his confessional knowledge. However, the priest should have told his penitent that he needed to return what was stolen in order to be forgiven. Assuming the priest did what he was supposed to, and the man was called away so immediately that he could not, probably the most the priest could do would be to contact the man in an ordinary manner, but not speak of anything regarding the matter, hoping that the mere contact would jog the man’s memory enough so that he would think of giving the priest permission to do something about the medicine in his stead. A penitent can give the priest the permission to make confessional matter public.

 

[Scoobyshme]

My friend and I were discussing a MASH episode he saw. Someone had stolen the base supply of penicillin and confessed its hidden location to the priest. The soldier got called away (or something like that) and the priest recovered the medicine.

I know a priest could never violate the confessional seal, but could he in essence go recover stolen goods that he learned about during confession?

No, a priest cannot use information told in Confession in any way outside of the man’s Confession. What a smart priest would do, though, is give him, as his penance, to go give the stolen penicillin back, or find some way for someone else to “find” it. That would solve all problems.

 

[JRKH]

I am going to give two answers to this.

1. In the general sense of the confessional seal the above answers are correct. The Priest may do nothing outside of what is madated by canon Law.
2. In the specific scenerio of the episode, the Priest needs to act on the dictates of his, “well formed conscience”, which he did.
   Then, at the earliest possible opportunity, he would need to confess this episode and his actions to a brother priest.

Peace
James

 

[rwoehmke]

“Stumbling” upon the hidden penicillin, reveals nothing about the confession.

 

[JRKH]

No, a priest cannot use information told in Confession in any way outside of the man’s Confession. What a smart priest would do, though, is give him, as his penance, to go give the stolen penicillin back, or find some way for someone else to “find” it. That would solve all problems.

The Bolded section is in violation of your earlier statement.
If the priest “finds some way for someone els to ‘find’ it”, he has “used information told in confession in (a) way outside of the man’s confession”

Peace
James

 

[Neil_Anthony]

I read an example that if someone confessed in confession that he had poisoned the wine for the mass about to be said, the priest would still have to go ahead and say mass and drink the wine, since he can’t use that information outside of confession. Seems like an even more extreme situation.

 

[JRKH]

I read an example that if someone confessed in confession that he had poisoned the wine for the mass about to be said, the priest would still have to go ahead and say mass and drink the wine, since he can’t use that information outside of confession. Seems like an even more extreme situation.

I’ve heard this too, but I disagree with it.
While it is a good “anecdote” and perhaps a good teaching tool for seminarians to understand the sanctity of the confessional, it also borders on a pharisitic view of the rules. Something that Christ flat out abhores is placing the “Law” above what is “right and just”.

I dont’ know about Canon Law, but the Catechism states that we are free to act on our “well formed” conscience.

If a priest, upon hearing this, determines that he must replace the wine or whatever in order to spare, not only his life but possibly the lives of his parishoners, he will have commited a sin that would need confessed to a brother priest. But in such extreme and rare cases, what would Jesus want him to do?

Peace
James

 

[AngloCatholic1]

I read an example that if someone confessed in confession that he had poisoned the wine for the mass about to be said, the priest would still have to go ahead and say mass and drink the wine, since he can’t use that information outside of confession. Seems like an even more extreme situation.

I think THAT would be crossing the line. The priest would knowingly be committing suicide, and should anyone else partake, then he would also make himself an accessory to murder. Besides, Trent tells us that the body and blood of our Lord is fully received in either species of the blessed sacrament (bread or wine). The priest would simply serve the bread only.

 

[JRKH]

I think THAT would be crossing the line. The priest would knowingly be committing suicide, and should anyone else partake, then he would also make himself an accessory to murder. Besides, Trent tells us that the body and blood of our Lord is fully received in either species of the blessed sacrament (bread or wine). The priest would simply serve the bread only.

Here’s an intresting thought. There are strict rules regarding the composition of the bread and wine. If the wine is taninted with poison, could the preist even use it in good conscience knowing that this tainted subsatnce could not be consecrated?

peace
James

 

[Barbkw]

In a war situation, where “the base supply of penicillin” was stolen, it certaining would be moral for a priest to accidentally stumble upon it’s “hiding place” particularly if the confessor did not have or did not take the opportunity to return the medicine.

 

[Medic_Mark]

I read an example that if someone confessed in confession that he had poisoned the wine for the mass about to be said, the priest would still have to go ahead and say mass and drink the wine, since he can’t use that information outside of confession. Seems like an even more extreme situation.

Might Matthew 12:1ff shed some light on this question or would that be out of line?

At that time Jesus was going through a field of grain on the sabbath. His disciples were hungry and began to pick the heads of grain and eat them. When the Pharisees saw this, they said to him, "See, your disciples are doing what is unlawful to do on the sabbath. "He said to them, “Have you not read what David did when he and his companions were hungry, how he went into the house of God and ate the bread of offering, which neither he nor his companions but only the priests could lawfully eat? Or have you not read in the law that on the sabbath the priests serving in the temple violate the sabbath and are innocent? I say to you, something greater than the temple is here.If you knew what this meant, ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned these innocent men. For the Son of Man is Lord of the sabbath.” Moving on from there, he went into their synagogue. And behold, there was a man there who had a withered hand. They questioned him, “Is it lawful to cure on the sabbath?” So that they might accuse him. He said to them, “Which one of you who has a sheep that falls into a pit on the sabbath will not take hold of it and lift it out? How much more valuable a person is than a sheep? So it is lawful to do good on the sabbath.” Then he said to the man, “Stretch out your hand.” He stretched it out, and it was restored as sound as the other. But the Pharisees went out and took counsel against him to put him to death.