Did this priest violate the seal of confession?

[prodigalson2011]

I was just watching an episode of Fr. Cedric Pisegna’s “Live with Passion!” and saw something that troubled me. I have long heard that the seal of confession has never been broken, and that this is a testament to the protection of the Holy Spirit. However, during the course of this program, Fr. Cedric said something to the effect of this:

"A woman came to me once to confess abortion. I asked if she was sorry, and she said no. I asked her, “Well, why did you come?” She told me she just felt like she was supposed to. So I had to tell her, “You know, I can’t give you absolution unless you’re sorry.”

I have been a fan of Fr. Cedric’s for awhile. In fact, he helped me come back to the Church.

However, it has always been my understanding that whether the penitent is named or not, the contents of the confession are bound to secrecy. Am I incorrect?

 

[ConstantineTG]

I was just watching an episode of Fr. Cedric Pisegna’s “Live with Passion!” and saw something that troubled me. I have long heard that the seal of confession has never been broken, and that this is a testament to the protection of the Holy Spirit. However, during the course of this program, Fr. Cedric said something to the effect of this:

"A woman came to me once to confess abortion. I asked if she was sorry, and she said no. I asked her, “Well, why did you come?” She told me she just felt like she was supposed to. So I had to tell her, “You know, I can’t give you absolution unless you’re sorry.”

I have been a fan of Fr. Cedric’s for awhile. In fact, he helped me come back to the Church.

However, it has always been my understanding that whether the penitent is named or not, the contents of the confession are bound to secrecy. Am I incorrect?

Well if thats the case, priests cannot mention any kind of sin anymore because that would break the seal.

It doesn’t work that way. Nobody knows who the woman is. And given the society today, it could have been any woman.

 

[Julia_Mae]

Well if thats the case, priests cannot mention any kind of sin anymore because that would break the seal.

It doesn’t work that way. Nobody knows who the woman is. And given the society today, it could have been any woman.

I disagree, and I’ve been pointing out for years that priests who break the seal of the confessional because it’s “anonymous” are still breaking it and it’s a terrible sin for them to do so.

You don’t have to mention anyone’s confession to talk about sin or discuss repentance or whatever other point he wanted to make.

The seal of the confessional is supposed to be inviolable by anyone at any time in any way.

.

 

[figs]

The seal was NOT broken.
For all we know it could have been a ficticious person used for purposes of illustration.
Do you have any idea who he was talking about? No? Exactly. Nothing was broken.

 

[Filii_Dei]

I disagree, and I’ve been pointing out for years that priests who break the seal of the confessional because it’s “anonymous” are still breaking it and it’s a terrible sin for them to do so.

You don’t have to mention anyone’s confession to talk about sin or discuss repentance or whatever other point he wanted to make.

The seal of the confessional is supposed to be inviolable by anyone at any time in any way.

.

I heartily disagree. The priest does not violate the seal of confession by not identifying, or giving anyone a reasonable chance of identifying, the individual and his sins. I shall elaborate thus:

The priest may talk about the case in question, but he must delete all irrelevant identifying information such that anyone who hears this case cannot have a reasonable chance of identifying the individual in question, or else he should not talk about the case at all. In this case, there is nothing he shared here that could identify anyone. Any woman could have said that in the confessional.

The reason behind the seal of confession is similar to that of doctor-patient confidentiality: to avoid identifying the individual in question to society. His sins are privately confessed to God as witnessed by the priest. Nobody else has any right to know the sins of any penitent, and neither may the priest betray the trust of the penitent by identifying the individual and his sins.

However, if identifying information is deleted, it becomes genericized and no longer associated with a particular individual. The seal of confession is not broken this way. Similarly, doctors will keep the medical information of a patient private, but they can use certain elements of it to help in public education (common patient mistakes, misconceptions, et cetera).

By your principle, then a priest cannot discuss anything that is ever said in a confessional. He cannot speak of how people make excuses for themselves when they sin, because somebody has already said that. He cannot speak out about certain sins which are becoming more prevalent in society. All this is antithetical to the role of the priest as the pastoral guardian of the faithful and serves no purpose whatsoever. As a physician of the soul, a pastor should be allowed to use the information he learns to help other sinners. He has that responsibility as the pastoral guardian of the faithful. It does not make sense for a priest to undergo a memory-wipe after every confession and never to speak of whatever transpired in the confessional, as though it were a booth of black magic.

As an aside, the seal of confession is distinguished from doctor-patient confidentiality in that secular authorities have no right to force the priest to divulge any information at all, whereas they can mandate doctors to share this information, such as in the case of dangerous infectious diseases.

 

[Joannm]

This is an interesting question. I have often heard priests refer generally to confessions heard. For example when talking about adolescent confessions at a staff meeting a priest was mentioning how he noticed there is rise of sexual activity among younger teens. But that is general. When you mention a specific person, even though you don’t mention the name, then it gets tricky.

I recall once I went to confession and, while I really don’t remember what I confessed since it was a long time ago, the priest stopped me as soon as I confessed it and said that it was the topic of his homily at the mass immediately following the confession, so do not think that he was breaking the seal or speaking about me. Since I knew the priest well, and he told me, I didn’t think anything of it. But say I came off the street, didn’t know the priest, and he didn’t tell me he was talking about that particular sin in his homily. I would have thought that he was speaking about my confession and breaking the seal.

I guess the priest the OP was talking about could have worded his story better. Instead of saying “a woman came to me in confession,” he could say “suppose a woman came to me in confession…”

 

[figs]

I don’t know, there’s just so much information that ISN’T there… obviously no name, not even a place, or a time frame when it was confessed. I know absolutly zero to aid in identifing who confessed. I know as much now as I did last week. Nothing.
Honestly I can’t see how it could even be a question.

 

[Filii_Dei]

I guess the priest the OP was talking about could have worded his story better. Instead of saying “a woman came to me in confession,” he could say “suppose a woman came to me in confession…”

In which case it would lose its impact. Anything can be posited as a hypothetical scenario, but a hypothetical scenario does not convince the listener of the gravity of the case, and undermines the point of mentioning it at all. Telling people that this was actually spoken grounds it in reality.

Is it more convincing if Jesus says “I am the living bread” as opposed to “suppose I am the living bread”?

 

[FrDavid96]

I was just watching an episode of Fr. Cedric Pisegna’s “Live with Passion!” and saw something that troubled me. I have long heard that the seal of confession has never been broken, and that this is a testament to the protection of the Holy Spirit. However, during the course of this program, Fr. Cedric said something to the effect of this:

"A woman came to me once to confess abortion. I asked if she was sorry, and she said no. I asked her, “Well, why did you come?” She told me she just felt like she was supposed to. So I had to tell her, “You know, I can’t give you absolution unless you’re sorry.”

I have been a fan of Fr. Cedric’s for awhile. In fact, he helped me come back to the Church.

However, it has always been my understanding that whether the penitent is named or not, the contents of the confession are bound to secrecy. Am I incorrect?

First of all, I did not see that episode, so I’m responding here strictly based on what you’ve posted.

No, the Seal of the Confession was not violated.

Yes, the priest is bound to secrecy (whether the penitent is named or not) but from what you’ve posted, that secrecy has not been broken. This could be anyone (well, half the human adult population at least), even someone no longer living. Nothing was revealed that would violate the Seal of Confession.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

I was just watching an episode of Fr. Cedric Pisegna’s “Live with Passion!” and saw something that troubled me. I have long heard that the seal of confession has never been broken, and that this is a testament to the protection of the Holy Spirit.

I wouldn’t put too much stock into the claim that the seal has never been broken. For starters a priest could break the seal to someone who never repeats what he said and thus we’d never know.

"A woman came to me once to confess abortion. I asked if she was sorry, and she said no. I asked her, “Well, why did you come?” She told me she just felt like she was supposed to. So I had to tell her, “You know, I can’t give you absolution unless you’re sorry.”

I have been a fan of Fr. Cedric’s for awhile. In fact, he helped me come back to the Church.

However, it has always been my understanding that whether the penitent is named or not, the contents of the confession are bound to secrecy. Am I incorrect?

Based on the info presented, I would say no the seal was not broken. He mentions a generic person and a generic sin in a generic situation. There is simply no way to identify anyone or any particular situation based on what he said.

However, its situations like this that should give priests pause about speaking in anything other than hypotheticals since it could be an occasion of scandal for the faithful. After all, someone might avoid going to confession to this priest fearing that their sins might be aired on TV…

 

[ssa_trad_cath]

I don’t think the seal was broken. As I understand it, breaking the seal involves associating a specific sin with a specific person. From what the OP said, it doesn’t sound as though the priest did this. Although he mentioned a woman confessing to an abortion, he didn’t identify the woman. And perhaps it wasn’t the first time a woman had admitting to having an abortion in confession, i.e. perhaps it isn’t as rare as we hope it would be. So I don’t think the priest broke the seal.

 

[Julia_Mae]

The seal was NOT broken.
For all we know it could have been a ficticious person used for purposes of illustration.
Do you have any idea who he was talking about? No? Exactly. Nothing was broken.

Avoiding even the appearance of impropriety is reasonably expected of a priest, first. Second, you are saying he was* lying* and this is a defense? No, this has gotten to be somehow common and is not acceptable. Ever.

 

[Julia_Mae]

I heartily disagree. The priest does not violate the seal of confession by not identifying, or giving anyone a reasonable chance of identifying, the individual and his sins. .

Prove it.

 

[Jesus_123]

… Fr. Cedric said something to the effect of this:

"A woman came to me once to confess abortion. I asked if she was sorry, and she said no. I asked her, “Well, why did you come?” She told me she just felt like she was supposed to. So I had to tell her, “You know, I can’t give you absolution unless you’re sorry.” …

However, it has always been my understanding that whether the penitent is named or not, the contents of the confession are bound to secrecy. Am I incorrect?

**
An Act of Contrition**
O my God, I am heartily sorry for having offended you and I detest all my sins, because I dread the loss of heaven and the pains of hell. But most of all because I have offended you, my God, who are all good and deserving of all my love. I firmly resolve with the help of your grace, to confess my sins, to do penance and to amend my life. Amen.
​

+Re the above statement . . . to the effect of this . . .exactly how the priest verbally stated his example of an inadequate ineffectual confession seems to be the key to this situation . . . if he verbally approached it as a “possible” or “generic” confessional situation for an illustration . . . and not as an actual confession in which he was involved . . . then it would not have involved breaking the Seal of the Confessional . . .

That having been said . . . *in the light of the below article with its Catechism quotes, etc., . . . if you are still concerned and can’t exactly recall how the example was stated by the priest . . . out of love and concern for your brother priest’s soul . . . perhaps you should prayerfully seriously consider contacting him . . . and conveying your concerns about a possible breach of the Confessional Seal . . . in obedience to the guidance below from God’s . . . **Holy :bible1: Word **. . .

. . . *:bible1:
But if thy brother shall offend against thee,
go,
and rebuke him between thee and him alone.
If he shall hear thee,
thou shalt gain thy brother.
- Matthew 18:15

. . . :coffeeread: . . .

The Seal of the Confessional
Fr. William Saunders

Can a priest ever tell someone another person’s confession?

The standard of secrecy protecting a confession outweighs any form of professional confidentiality or secrecy. When a person unburdens his soul and confesses his sins to a priest in the Sacrament of Penance, a very sacred trust is formed. The priest must maintain absolute secrecy about anything that a person confesses. …

The sacramental seal is inviolable. Quoting Canon 983.1 of the Code of Canon Law, the Catechism states, “…It is a crime for a confessor in any way to betray a penitent by word or in any other manner or for any reason” (No. 2490). A priest, therefore, cannot break the seal to save his own life, to protect his good name, to refute a false accusation, to save the life of another, to aid the course of justice (like reporting a crime), or to avert a public calamity. He cannot be compelled by law to disclose a person’s confession or be bound by any oath he takes, e.g. as a witness in a court trial. A priest cannot reveal the contents of a confession either directly, by repeating the substance of what has been said, or indirectly, by some sign, suggestion, or action. A Decree from the Holy Office (Nov. 18, 1682) mandated that confessors are forbidden, even where there would be no revelation direct or indirect, to make any use of the knowledge obtained in the confession that would “displease” the penitent or reveal his identity. …

What happens if a priest violates the seal of confession? The Catechism (No. 1467) cites the Code of Canon Law (No. 1388.1) in addressing this issue, which states, “A confessor who directly violates the seal of confession incurs an automatic excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See; if he does so only indirectly, he is to be punished in accord with the seriousness of the offense.” …

Each priest realizes that he is the ordained mediator of a very sacred and precious sacrament. He knows that in the confessional, the penitent speaks not so much to him, but through him to the Lord. Therefore, humbled by his position, the priest knows that whatever is said in confession must remain secret at all costs. …

:compcoff: Link: catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0059.html​

. . . all for Jesus+
. . . praise God+
. . . for our Wonderful Holy Mother Church!+
:harp:​

 

[Rolltide]

If the woman stated that she was not sorry, and since absolution did not take place, does this even fall under the rules of violation of the seal of Confession? The sacrament did not take place.

 

[paul11b]

The seal was NOT broken.
For all we know it could have been a ficticious person used for purposes of illustration.
Do you have any idea who he was talking about? No? Exactly. Nothing was broken.

This:thumbsup:

 

[Timothysis]

I wouldn’t put too much stock into the claim that the seal has never been broken. For starters a priest could break the seal to someone who never repeats what he said and thus we’d never know.
.

When the future Nazi Rudolph Hoss was a young boy, he would always confess to his priest before he received communion. One day his priest told his father about something that Rudolph confessed and when he got home his father beat him. Rudolph eventually stopped going to confession and, having nothing happen to him receiving without confessing, eventually lost his faith.

He was hung at Auschwitz on April 16, 1947 for murdering three and a half million people.

 

[PrayRosary]

I don’t know, there’s just so much information that ISN’T there… obviously no name, not even a place, or a time frame when it was confessed. I know absolutly zero to aid in identifing who confessed. I know as much now as I did last week. Nothing.
Honestly I can’t see how it could even be a question.

This.

 

[figs]

Prove it.

Well, you’re so keen to say he has broken the seal, how about you prove it.
Do YOU know who the woman was he was referring to then?

I’m really curious because I couldn’t figure it out.

 

[Filii_Dei]

Prove it.

I refer to Canon 978 §1, CIC 1983:

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.

The penitent cannot be betrayed if she is not identified, or if the little information given is insufficient for any individual to have a reasonable chance of identifying her.

Additionally, I recommend that you into account the contributions by two respected priests on CAF.

Based on the info presented, I would say no the seal was not broken. He mentions a generic person and a generic sin in a generic situation. There is simply no way to identify anyone or any particular situation based on what he said.

First of all, I did not see that episode, so I’m responding here strictly based on what you’ve posted.

No, the Seal of the Confession was not violated.

Yes, the priest is bound to secrecy (whether the penitent is named or not) but from what you’ve posted, that secrecy has not been broken. This could be anyone (well, half the human adult population at least), even someone no longer living. Nothing was revealed that would violate the Seal of Confession.

In any case, I agree that priests should exercise caution even when they have genericized the information, for you never know when what little information is given is sufficient for a unfortunate friend or relative who is listening to connect the dots.