V
ValPal
Guest
Ditto the above. If the penitent is not identified, betrayed, or the information used to the detriment of the penitent, the seal of the confessional is not broken.
- Status
F
Filii_Dei
Guest
That’s more or less right.
A small issue: Even if the information was used for the supposed benefit of the penitent and forwarded to other parties, it is still not permissible whatsoever. The penitent should never be identified, regardless of whether the priest perceives it to help the penitent or not.
However, within the context of a formal confession, the priest can advise the penitent to seek further assistance (such as therapists or social services), but once the penitent steps out of the confessional, the penitent is to no longer be identified with his past sins which have been forgiven.
Just picking at nits. Don’t mind me.
L
Leon_Bloy
Guest
Nobody has claimed that no priest has ever broken the seal. Of course, it’s incredibly, exceedingly rare (certainly nothing to worry about it happening to you in the least) and it is always punished severely, but to say it has never ever happened once…
The answer is: whatever the legitimate authority of the Church says it is. Don’t priests who write manuals for seminarians about how to be good confessors have to “use” knowledge from their experience - of course, indirectly, and without ever identifying the persons involved in any way - in how they write about the subject?
The answer is: whatever the legitimate authority of the Church says it is. Don’t priests who write manuals for seminarians about how to be good confessors have to “use” knowledge from their experience - of course, indirectly, and without ever identifying the persons involved in any way - in how they write about the subject?
L
Leon_Bloy
Guest
P.S. That priest who the OP mentioned did not break the seal.
C
curlycool89
Guest
To put it lightly, you’re wrong. And it doesn’t take much to prove it either.
Here’s my justification. In several countries outside of the US/Canada, priests do not have the faculties to lift a latae sententiae excommunication imposed as a result of participating in a direct abortion (a women who gets one for example). This caused a bit of a stir at WYD in Spain because the Pope announced any priest would be given faculties to do this, and of course the media (and many Catholics) misinterpreted this or didn’t understand it.
In those case, after giving absolution for the sin the priest must write the bishop (or in some cases, the lifting of the excommunication is reserved to the Pontiff) and request the excommunication be lifted (using psedo-names for the people I believe). The priest is required to speak of the sin they heard in confession because otherwise the excommunication cannot be lifted (and it’s unreasonable to require a penitent to have to confess to the Bishop or even the Pope, not to mention the travel that may be required). This does not break the seal of confession as the bishop (or other person) does not know who the priest is speaking of.
N
NewEnglandPriest
Guest
Like I said, we have no idea. However, in defense of the priest in question, according to Wikipedia “he said, his own priest broke the Seal of the Confessional by telling his father about an event at school that young Rudolf had described during confession.”
The event at school might have been relayed to the priest outside the confessional (by school faculty or students) and thus the priest could legitimately act on it.
F
FrDavid96
Guest
The other thing that we must keep in mind is that there is such a thing as “Pharisaic Scandal.”
For those not familiar: Pharisaic scandal arises when there is not actual wrongdoing on the part of one person, but because someone else seeks to create scandal from a legitimate (even righteous) act. For example, the Pharisees were scandalized that Christ healed on the Sabbath. Christ’s act of healing was certainly not an occasion of sin; nor was it something that would give anyone else cause to commit sin. However, the Pharisees, desired that there should be scandal and so they caused scandal to happen.
See this link newadvent.org/summa/3043.htm
The same thing here with this priest on TV. Both the act and the intention of that priest was to bring about healing; by teaching in public about the benefits of a good confession and the consequences of a bad confession. The Pharisees of today, though, seeking to create scandal where there is none will accuse him of violating the Seal just as those of old accused Christ of violating the Sabbath.
What we have then is a priest who works to bring about healing; but that healing is hindered by those who accuse him (and wrongly at that) of violating the Seal. People who are not aware of all the facts, or who do not understand exactly how the Seal of Confession is defined, are exposed to this Pharisaic scandal and they begin to think that priests violate the Seal of Confession. This then hinders them from making a proper confession because they have been wrongly told that priests violate the Seal, and out of fear that the same might happen to them, they hesitate to confess or do not confess at all.
The end result of this Pharisaic scandal is that the very ones who perpetuate it under the guise of “protecting the seal” are in actual fact hindering others from making a good confession.
Where is the sin?
P
prodigalson2011
Guest
I hope this wasn’t directed at me. I asked out of honest concern.
F
FrDavid96
Guest
NO.
It was not directed at the question.
It was directed at some of the answers to the question.
P
prodigalson2011
Guest
Oh. Ok. Good deal.
I actually found some official Church documents that cleared this up for me as well, but I do thank all of you for your help.
I’m very glad this was not the case, as I really enjoy Fr. Cedric’s shows and books. I was a little afraid he could have gotten himself excommunicated!
L
Leegal
Guest
I don’t think so because he did not name the woman nor point her out. My priest used such an anology about a woman who had somehow been in the middle of some family argument, until she had alienated her whole family. He made sure that she was not at Mass.
N
NewEnglandPriest
Guest
Not only do we not know who the woman was or when she confessed it but the wording of the sin is so vague that we don’t even really know the what. Based on the OP the priest said: “A woman came to me once to confess abortion.”
He didn’t say she confessed she had an abortion. We might presume either the priest or the penitent meant that, but there’s technically a list of things that this could fall under:
He didn’t say she confessed she had an abortion. We might presume either the priest or the penitent meant that, but there’s technically a list of things that this could fall under:
- She is a doctor and performed an abortion.
- She is a nurse and assisted in an abortion.
- She drove a friend to get an abortion.
- She carelessly took a medication that caused her to have a miscarriage.
- She’s on the birth control pill and she realized it caused an abortion.
- She’s a pharmacist and filled a prescription for an abortion pill.
V
veilofveronica
Guest
No, he didn’t
catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0059.html
The priest only has to keep the IDENTITY of the person secret. He did not divulge their identity or tell any identifying details about the person. Priests are allowed to use examples as long as the person could not be identified by their example.
God Bless.
catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0059.html
The priest only has to keep the IDENTITY of the person secret. He did not divulge their identity or tell any identifying details about the person. Priests are allowed to use examples as long as the person could not be identified by their example.
God Bless.
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
It depends on how identifiable the person would be from the story. Saying a person confessed a particular kind of sin doesn’t identify the person at all. If the priest gives details of how the sin was committed, then its less anonymous.
D
dans0622
Guest
Hello prodigalson2011,
I think others have given you the right answer: no, the Seal was not broken. However, confessors are to be very careful in what they say about anything that has been said to them in confession. The Holy Office (Congregation for the Doctine of the Faith) issued a “private instruction” on this topic back in 1915 and it stated:
"…there are sometimes found (confessors) who, though they keep silence about anything that might in any way betray the person of the penitent, yet are not ashamed rashly to speak, in private conversations or in public sermons, for the edifications of their hearers, as they say, of matters which have been submitted to the power of the keys in sacramental confession. Now, since in a matter of such gravity and importance not only a perfect and consummated injury but every appearance and suspicion of injury must be studiously avoided, everyone must see how thoroughly such a practice is to be condemned. For, even though it be done without substantial violation of the sacramental secret, it cannot fail to offend the ears of pious listeners and to produce in their hearts uneasiness and diminished confidence – a thing which is surely entirely foreign to the nature of this sacrament…
Ordinaries…and Superiors…(are to) carefully see to it that the priests subject to them be taught never to dare mention anything which pertains to the matter of sacramental confession in any form or under any pretext, … (except for necessary consulation)…" (can be found in Canon Law Digest, vol. 1, p. 413-414).
It seems to me that a priest could easily change the way he wants to present something from “A woman confessed abortion but was not repentant.” to “Whenever you confess, you have to be repentant. You can’t say ‘I committed adultery but I’m not sorry.’”
It’s not that a priest can never discuss sins but I see no reason why he would have to contextualize any public discussion of a sin so that it is now “A person *confessed *such-and-such.” If he wants to teach people how to confess, there is still no need to mention any particular person, even if that person is unidentifiable.
Thanks for your time.
Dan
Z
zab
Guest
Good post from dan0622 - The quote from the “private instruction” from the Congregation For Doctrine of the Faith is just as important to today as it was in 1915.
F
FrDavid96
Guest
The problem that some see with this is that the priest said “a woman confessed abortion to me” instead of saying something like “let’s say that some woman confesses to having an abortion.” However, in this context, that’s a distinction without a difference.
There is so little information being “revealed” and such a wide range of possible persons that this priest might be talking about that the very idea that anyone hearing it could learn anything material about that confession is not just unlikely but plain impossible. The only person who might (even just might) know who he’s talking about is the penitent herself–any other person would be someone to whom the penitent already revealed the confession. We don’t even know what country she lives in (and this priest has ministered in a number of countries over his priesthood—I looked up his bio) or even what language she spoke. We don’t even know if she’s living or dead. She might have been 90 when she confessed to having an abortion at age 20 maybe in the year 1921. We don’t even have enough information to eliminate even such a “wild” scenario.
There are so many “unknowns” here and almost no “knowns” that I rather doubt this is the sort of thing the Holy Office was writing about in 1915. I am curious to see the actual question submitted though.
What DO we know?
- The penitent was a woman
- The sin was abortion
- The penitent (at least at first) did not express contrition.
- The confessor was Fr. C.P.
In the end, all this priest was talking about was the Sacrament of Confession itself.
The “known points” here are so few and so generalized that only the only kind of scandal that might arise is Pharisaic scandal.
There just isn’t enough information here to truly say that the priest is revealing anything pertaining to the matter of someone’s confession–unless we become overly legalistic and literal to the point of absurdity about interpreting the Holy Office’s letter.
Z
zab
Guest
*"For, even though it be done without substantial violation of the sacramental secret, it cannot fail to offend the ears of pious listeners and to produce in their hearts uneasiness and diminished confidence – a thing which is surely entirely foreign to the nature of this sacrament… "
*I think this quote says it all. There have been a few times when I have heard a priest give such examples of what was heard in confession, including mission priests who made some remark such as “Since this occurred half way across the country you would not know this person…” or “…in a former parish…”. Even though they did not violate the seal of confession, I have to admit that this produced an uneasiness in me, not because I have committed the sin being mentioned, but because I worried that there may be some in attendance who may not have been to confession for some time and whose confidence may be diminished. I prayed that the overall message of the priest’s homily would be effectively heard.
*I think this quote says it all. There have been a few times when I have heard a priest give such examples of what was heard in confession, including mission priests who made some remark such as “Since this occurred half way across the country you would not know this person…” or “…in a former parish…”. Even though they did not violate the seal of confession, I have to admit that this produced an uneasiness in me, not because I have committed the sin being mentioned, but because I worried that there may be some in attendance who may not have been to confession for some time and whose confidence may be diminished. I prayed that the overall message of the priest’s homily would be effectively heard.
C
CuriousInIL
Guest
I can’t find it right now, but there was an earlier thread about whether a priest could act on the contents of a confession. One example was that some man confesses he is peeping through a hole into the girls locker room and the question was would it break the seal for the priest to patch the hole.
While in that thread, as here, there was not uniformity in responses, I find it interesting that in this thread the clear majority of answers is no break in the seal but in that other thread it was perhaps 50/50 or even a majority giving the opinion that patching the hole would break the seal.
For what it’s worth, to me reading the “rules,” so long as the identity of the penitent is not disclosed nor are the penitent’s interests harmed by the disclosure or action, it seems there is no break in the seal. In short my answer here (and in the other thread) is there is no break.
While in that thread, as here, there was not uniformity in responses, I find it interesting that in this thread the clear majority of answers is no break in the seal but in that other thread it was perhaps 50/50 or even a majority giving the opinion that patching the hole would break the seal.
For what it’s worth, to me reading the “rules,” so long as the identity of the penitent is not disclosed nor are the penitent’s interests harmed by the disclosure or action, it seems there is no break in the seal. In short my answer here (and in the other thread) is there is no break.
F
FrDavid96
Guest
Well, let’s look at that “it cannot fail to offend” part. What cannot fail to offend???
The fact that a priest mentions a sin?
Let’s be reasonable here, shall we? Instead of just picking out words let’s look at what the words are and are not saying.
A priest speaking about what he hears in confession can cover such a wide range of examples that we cannot just generalize them and say that absolutely anything would not fail to offend the ears of pious listeners.
If my theme for the Sunday homily is the 10 commandments and I say “Three. Remember to keep holy the Lords’s day. In my years as a confessor, people have confessed that they missed Sunday Mass…”
Gasp!
Shock!
Scandal!
:bigyikes:
Violation of the sacred Seal of the Sacrament of Confession! How dare he? Quick, someone grab a cell phone and call the Vatican to report him! My pious ears are burning with offense!
Operator! Get me the Apostolic Penitentiary at the Vatican. NOW! This is an emergency!
Now, back to reality.
Can a priest go too far and indeed say something inappropriate even though it is not an outright violation of the Seal? Yes. A priest can. And sometimes priests do (very, very, very rarely)–most unfortunately it happens, and priests who do this are in the wrong.
But let’s keep this in perspective and look again at what the OP posted here.
Any problems with what we read? No. No problem.
- Status