Confessional Secrecy: Discipline or Dogma

[Neil_Anthony]

There’s been some talk about countries forcing priests to break the seal of the confessional in cases where child abuse is involved.

I know that the secret confession we have today was not the practice in early Christianity. Penance was public in early Christianity.

Given that history, is secret confession something that the church can change? Can the church give priests permission to divulge information from confession when required by law?

Also, since this practice is not based on apostolic practice or teaching, is it really justified to take it so seriously? Why does a practice made up in 8th century western Christendom have greater importance than preventing crime?

 

[105lynne]

In the case of child abuse, I don’t know. I don’t think a priest HAS to give absolution. Like if a person confesses to murder, the priest could say that he won’t give absolution until they turn themselves in to the police. Now, there’s no guarantee that the murderer will do so. But if they’re feeling guilty enough to confess to a priest, hopefully they will confess to police too. I don’t know. I’ve wondered about a priest’s seal also. I’m sure someone else could answer better than I have…

 

[Corki]

In the case of child abuse, I don’t know. I don’t think a priest HAS to give absolution. Like if a person confesses to murder, the priest could say that he won’t give absolution until they turn themselves in to the police. Now, there’s no guarantee that the murderer will do so. But if they’re feeling guilty enough to confess to a priest, hopefully they will confess to police too. I don’t know. I’ve wondered about a priest’s seal also. I’m sure someone else could answer better than I have…

A priest can withhold absolution if he feels the penitent is not contrite. A priest cannot require a penitent to reveal his sin to any one.

Neil,

I would say it is neither discipline nor dogma. It is doctrine. No, the Church cannot give priests permission to break the seal of Confession in order to comply with a civil law.

 

[Miriam1947]

newadvent.org/cathen/11618c.htm

Confession (various kinds)

Confession is the avowal of one’s own sins made to a duly authorized priest for the purpose of obtaining their forgiveness through the power of the keys. Virtual confession is simply the will to confess even where, owing to circumstances, declaration of sin is impossible; actual confession is any action by which the penitent manifests his sin. It may be made in general terms, e.g., by reciting the “Confiteor”, or it may consist in a more or less detailed statement of one’s sins; when the statement is complete, the confession is distinct. Public confession, as made in the hearing of a number of people (e.g. a congregation) differs from private, or secret, confession which is made to the priest alone and is often called auricular, i.e., spoken into the ear of the confessor. We are here concerned mainly with actual distinct confession which is the usual practice in the Church and which so far as the validity of the sacrament is concerned, may be either public or private. "As regards the method of confessing secretly to the priest alone, though Christ did not forbid that any one, in punishment of his crimes and for his own humiliation as also to give others an example and to edify the Church, should confess his sins publicly, still, this has not been commanded by Divine precept nor would it be prudent to decree by any human law that sins, especially secret sins, should be publicly confessed. Since, then, secret sacramental confession, which from the beginning has been and even now is the usage of the Church, was always commended with great and unanimous consent by the holiest and most ancient Fathers; thereby is plainly refuted the foolish calumny of those who make bold to teach that it (secret confession) is something foreign to the Divine command, a human invention devised by the Fathers assembled in the Lateran Council" (Council of Trent, Sess. XIV, c. 5).** It is therefore Catholic doctrine, first, that Christ did not prescribe public confession, salutary as it might be, nor did He forbid it; second, that secret confession, sacramental in character, has been the practice of the Church from the earliest days.**

 

[lutherlic]

This is doctrine, recognized at the Council of Trent. Regardless of any civil law that is passed, priests are strictly bound by the seal of the confessional. Breaking that seal would lead to serious sanctions including excommunication. The Church will never “give permission” to a priest to break the seal.

Civil authorities have tried to force priests to break the seal in the past. There are Saints who were martyred for this.

I would argue that this is apostolic as a necessary element for the Church to exercise its authority to bind/loose sins.

These are not anti-crime efforts but attacks on the Church.

 

[Hecares]

One may never obey a command that would cause them to disobey God’s command. Which is the higher authority?

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Thanks for clearing up my misconceptions of the history of confession.!

 

[Timothysis]

I don’t think a priest HAS to give absolution. Like if a person confesses to murder, the priest could say that he won’t give absolution until they turn themselves in to the police.

Wrong. A priest either gives absolution or he doesn’t; he cannot make it dependent upon a future action.

 

[wisdomseeker]

There’s been some talk about countries forcing priests to break the seal of the confessional in cases where child abuse is involved.

I know that the secret confession we have today was not the practice in early Christianity. Penance was public in early Christianity.

Given that history, is secret confession something that the church can change? Can the church give priests permission to divulge information from confession when required by law?

Also, since this practice is not based on apostolic practice or teaching, is it really justified to take it so seriously? Why does a practice made up in 8th century western Christendom have greater importance than preventing crime?

There is nothing to tell. This is a mistery but priests after someone confesses a sin, the priest cannot remember what the person said. I was told this by a priest.

 

[thistle]

In the case of child abuse, I don’t know. I don’t think a priest HAS to give absolution. Like if a person confesses to murder, the priest could say that he won’t give absolution until they turn themselves in to the police. Now, there’s no guarantee that the murderer will do so. But if they’re feeling guilty enough to confess to a priest, hopefully they will confess to police too. I don’t know. I’ve wondered about a priest’s seal also. I’m sure someone else could answer better than I have…

That is not correct. Absolution is not conditional upon a penance being done.
If a priest feels someone is not sincere they will not give absolution.
If a priest feels someone is sincere they will give absolution.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

There is nothing to tell. This is a mistery but priests after someone confesses a sin, the priest cannot remember what the person said. I was told this by a priest.

That’s not true. We normally don’t remember simply because we’re not trying to remember and most of what we hear we’ve heard 1,000 times before. However, if I sat face to face with someone who confessed child abuse, murder, or some or very serious crime I’m pretty sure I’d remember their face and what they confessed. Not that I could/would do anything with that information but I would definitely remember and I think most priests would as well…

 

[JRKH]

That’s not true. We normally don’t remember simply because we’re not trying to remember and most of what we hear we’ve heard 1,000 times before. However, if I sat face to face with someone who confessed child abuse, murder, or some or very serious crime I’m pretty sure I’d remember their face and what they confessed. Not that I could/would do anything with that information but I would definitely remember and I think most priests would as well…

I too have heard this thing about “Priest’s don’t remember” and thought the same thing that you are saying here.
It’s one thing to say a priest “forgets” who said what when talking about the normal range of sins, but Murder? Child abuse? Bank Robbery? I think that such would stick with most priests.

Of course another point is that, if the penitent were to use a screen (which is suppose to be provided for those who wish it) then the priest cannot know who confessed the sin and, even if forced to do so, so could not stand up in court and identify who it was that confessed.

Peace
James

 

[Pilgrim1701]

Its all a bit of a non story anyway.
Penitent doesn’t want the whole world or the authorities to catch up with him? He simply goes to a priest he doesn’t know, in a confessional behind a screen.
What can the priest do? Someone I don’t know and can’t identify confessed such and such?
This is altogether impractical an unenforceable. Just a gombeen Irish politician trying to look tough in front of the electorate by sticking it up to the Vatican. Why? Because Ireland didn’t have the sovereign authority to investigate a foreign state.If he were really serious he would issue an arrest warrent for clergy guilty of any crimes, including any absconding bishops. Even better they would have stopped anyone who was an obvious flight risk from leaving the country in the first place, but that smacks too much of a government doing its job. Something Irish governments have been historically inept at doing. Also the same standards would have to apply to those who aren’t clergy which would mean sorting out the staff in more than a few schools around the country. Again, something an inept government will not be prepared to do. A bit of bombastic filibustering is not a substitute for leadership and good government.
Also, if such a policy were to be adopted, it would, in my view, have to extend to all apsects of the criminal code, and apply to everyone in the state. Now, imagine the problems with criminalising everyone who has some knowledge of a crime, however minor or serious,who for whatever reasons, fear, intimidation ect, doesn’t report both the crime and identify the criminal.
While we could have more practical proceedures for protecting vulnerable members of society, we still need to hold those with resposiblity to account, which, unfortunately in Ireland, we don’t, clerics or citizens alike.