Did this priest violate the seal of confession?

[CuriousInIL]

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.

My understanding is that the seal applies when it is reasonably clear that the penitent was seeking absolution, even if it is not given for some reason. I’m contrasting that situation with one at say a gathering where someone comes up to a priest and says “I had an abortion, was that a sin?” in that case, it’s not a confession and there is no seal I believe.

 

[zab]

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.

You and I both know that there is a certain deception and injustice which does not permit me to adequately respond here. So I will offer no further comment on your tone etc. I agree that the OP’s question has been answered.

 

[Filii_Dei]

You and I both know that there is a certain deception and injustice which does not permit me to adequately respond here. So I will offer no further comment on your tone etc. I agree that the OP’s question has been answered.

I’m afraid you may have lost me there.

 

[Evan]

Another option is how some people I know speak.

In order to make a point more personal, they take a hypothetical point and say it happened to them. It may have never happened, or it may be a conglomeration of many confessions that include abortion.

There may not be a woman or there may be many women. It’s far to vague to consider it a breaking of the seal.

My dad told this story:

I was in a bar one night when a fellow came in telling great stories about his fishing prowess. I then told about one of my experiences:
“Years ago, my partner and me went a’ fishin’ one night. We were fishin’ by lantern and a great fish jumped up and capsized the boat. We swam to shore and made it home (just barely). Only last month we caught a great fish, tremendous size. When we got it home we recognized it by some scars that this was the same fish as before. When we gutted this fish, there inside was the lantern. AND IT WAS STILL LIT!!!”
The fellow asked me if I was callin’ him a liar. I told him:
“No, but if you cut the size of your fish in half,** I’ll blow out the lantern**”

See how much more personal the story is if it happened to you?

 

[zab]

Another option is how some people I know speak.

In order to make a point more personal, they take a hypothetical point and say it happened to them. It may have never happened, or it may be a conglomeration of many confessions that include abortion.

There may not be a woman or there may be many women. It’s far to vague to consider it a breaking of the seal.

My dad told this story:

See how much more personal the story is if it happened to you?

There can be benefit in making the story more personal. When people perceive the love and mercy of God towards the sinner they are moved and have more courage to approach the sacrament.

 

[Jesus_123]

:bible1:
From all
appearance of evil
refrain yourselves.
- 1 Thessalonians 5:22

+I approach the subject of this thread from a rather unique perspective . . . our **Wonderful Lord **blessed my life with the privilege of working as a church secretary for 20+ years . . . and . . . personally . . . I have the gravest of reservations . . . beyond words to express . . . about any priest allowing himself to share anything whatsoever revealed within the confessional . . . unless he has permission to so share by the penitent . . .

Church families . . . whatever their sizes . . . are very like small towns or corporate businesses . . . and there are always some “newsy tidbits” about members floating through the parishioners and around about in the church atmosphere . . . some of which rumors/newsy-tidbits . . . with some individuals . . . sink right down into the level of unhealthy and malicious “gossip” at even a sniff or a hint of a possible scandle or a bit of dirt about the sin(s) or disordered life circumstances in other parishioners lives . . . these poisoness conversations . . . sadly and most unfortunately . . . sometimes flourish in most unholy ways in a parish . . . and making a comment such as was recorded in the original post before a congregation . . . can . . . ***and often will ***. . . create most unholy speculation in the minds of some of the less spiritually inclined members of a congregation . . . and if there has been a breath or whisper of scandal about any individuals regarding a possible sin such as an abortion within the congregation . . . ***such a misguided sharing re same from a priest ***. . . can create a most unholy toxic “buzz” that can spread like wildfire throughout the congregation . . . injuring and sickening both the hearers . . . ***and possibly the penitent(s) involved should they have heard such an utterance . . . whether the individual penitent is identified or not . . . ***

Over the years . . . I cannot even count the number of telephone calls and individuals who contacted me as I worked in the heart of Christ’s Church . . . who personally boldly asked me . . . or other staff members . . . about “rumors” or “newsy tidbits” floating around about other church members . . . which inquiries we tried to kindly and firmly refuse to address . . .

**Christ’s **Catholic Church has a Divine and Holy Calling . . . but sinful human nature being what it is . . . our priests . . . as well as our parishioners . . . need to be constantly vigilant and careful so as to not in anyway scandalize God’s children entrusted into our care . . . and I would think that the indiscretion of leaking . . . even the subject . . . of a particular confessed sin uttered within the confessional should be unthinkable to a priest . . . given their considerable training regarding absolute need for confidentiality, private communication and sealed confessional secrecy in this area . . . *a church can be sickened terribly if transgressions in this area are indulged in and encouraged . . . *

There are many excellent inoffensive ways to couch an example . . . concerning an impenitent confession . . . open to a priest without diving into and revealing the slightest whisper or hint of the breaking of the holy confessional seal . . . so as that protection of past, present and future penitents is maintained . . .

:bible1: Matthew 18:6 But he that shall scandalize one of these little ones that believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone should be hanged about his neck, and that he should be drowned in the depth of the sea.​

. . . all for Jesus+
*. . . St. Michael Holy Archangel of God+
. . . guide and protect God’s dearly beloved priests+
. . . and His dearly beloved children+
. . . may we always be careful to give God all the honor and all the glory+
*​

 

[Jesus_123]

+The below quote contains such . . . timeless . . . holy wisdom from the . . . Holy See’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith deep within heart of our Holy Mother Church . . . and is so thoroughly insightfully and beautifully written it more than deserves to be yet again carried forward on this thread . . . thanks so much for sharing dans0622 . . .

…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

. . . all for Jesus+
. . . thank You Blessed Lord our Saviour+
. . . thank you Blessed Virgin Mary our Mother+
. . . thank you Blessed Holy Mother Church+
​

 

[FrDavid96]

Pharisaic scandal. Textbook.

 

[GwenL]

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?

I would agree that the priest, in relating the story of this confession, did not reveal the identity of the penitent to the listeners. However, what if the penitent were in the audience (congregation at Mass, radio show listeners, whatever)? The story is specific enough that it would likely be obvious to the penitent that it was about her. What seems a very general, non-specific example to most people would likely be seen as breaking the seal to the penitent herself.

Something similar happened to me once with a doctor. I was telling him, in confidence, about a very personal, sensitive medical issue. Later, I overheard him telling a larger group about my story. He didn’t use my name, or say anything that would let anybody know it was me he was talking about. But I knew and felt totally betrayed. Nobody in the group knew it was me–my identity (and the medical issue) had not been revealed in public. But I knew that a doctor was relating my personal problems to others.

If you were that penitent, and heard the priest telling a story about your confession, even if he cloaked it in anonymity, would ever go back to confession?

 

[couponfit]

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?

The priest may not use confession knowledge of the penitent.

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.

Can. 984 §1. A confessor is prohibited completely from using knowledge acquired from confession to the detriment of the penitent even when any danger of revelation is excluded.

There are a couple things: 983 and 984 does not apply to her. Because she was not penitent. Statements of wrong doing to a priest do not create the seal, but confession and penitence combined by the confessor to an ordained priest make the seal. The sacrament of confession did not occur! This was a conversation! The place of the conversation, albeit in a confessional, does not make it sacramental. Even if a penitent confessed outside a confessional to an ordained priest, the sacrament is still real.

 

[dans0622]

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 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.
…
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.

Hello,

1. The distinction and difference is that one example has the priest clearly speaking about the contents of a specific confession and in the other example he is not.
2. There was no question given in the instruction so I do not know if there was a certain incident to which the Congregation responded.
3. Your use of the word “scandal” seems to be missing the point. Scandal is not so much as it is the result that the faithful would be led into error or sin because of the rash discussion of confessional matters. The most likely sin/error would simply be the refusal to make use of the Sacrament of confession because of a fear, whether justified or not, that the priest will not keep the confession secret.
4. I don’t see how you can say there “isn’t enough information here to truly say that the priest is revealing anything pertaining to the matter of someone’s confession.” He specifically and obviously revealed the contents of a certain person’s confession.

Finally, I don’t know what the “point of absurdity” would be in observing the following statement of the Holy Office: “priests (are) never to dare mention anything which pertains to the matter of sacramental confession in any form or under any pretext.” If you think that someone who would like priests to follow this directive are being legalistic and literalist and absurd and pharisaical, ok. I’m guilty.

Thanks for your time.
Dan

 

[dans0622]

…

There are a couple things: 983 and 984 does not apply to her. Because she was not penitent. Statements of wrong doing to a priest do not create the seal, but confession and penitence combined by the confessor to an ordained priest make the seal. The sacrament of confession did not occur! This was a conversation! The place of the conversation, albeit in a confessional, does not make it sacramental. Even if a penitent confessed outside a confessional to an ordained priest, the sacrament is still real.

Hello,

I have to disagree. The woman clearly confessed an objectively sinful action to a priest who was hearing confessions. Her imperfect contrition does not make the Seal disappear. If she was “confessing” only to make a mockery of the Sacrament then it could be argued that the Seal would not apply. But, here, I see no mockery but only a person who may have had less-than-ideal contrition but had something going on since she thought she “was supposed to” confess. According to authoritative opinions of scholars, the Seal would apply in her case.

Thanks for your time.

Dan

 

[CuriousInIL]

Hello,

I have to disagree. The woman clearly confessed an objectively sinful action to a priest who was hearing confessions. Her imperfect contrition does not make the Seal disappear. If she was “confessing” only to make a mockery of the Sacrament then it could be argued that the Seal would not apply. But, here, I see no mockery but only a person who may have had less-than-ideal contrition but had something going on since she thought she “was supposed to” confess. According to authoritative opinions of scholars, the Seal would apply in her case.

Thanks for your time.

Dan

This is quite true and very important.

 

[Jesus_123]

Hello,

I have to disagree. The woman clearly confessed an objectively sinful action to a priest who was hearing confessions. Her imperfect contrition does not make the Seal disappear. If she was “confessing” only to make a mockery of the Sacrament then it could be argued that the Seal would not apply. But, here, I see no mockery but only a person who may have had less-than-ideal contrition but had something going on since she thought she “was supposed to” confess. According to authoritative opinions of scholars, the Seal would apply in her case. …
CuriousInIL;8898726:

This is quite true and very important.

+I agree with Dan also . . . it is my humble understanding . . . that when a validly ordained priest begins hearing a confession . . . whether absolution is given . . . or not . . . the sacramental nature of confession opens up a heavenly channel of **Holy Grace **between heaven and earth . . . and the priest is then validly . . . sacramentally acting . . . “In Persona Christi” . . . (In The Person of Christ). In the original post example . . . the Sweet Spirit of our Holy God . . . through the priest under the Seal of the Confessional . . . taught the woman that her “partial” confession of sin was not adequate and could not be absolved as is . . . repentence being necessary for absolution . . .

Below is a quote from New Advent re the Holy Doctor of the Catholic Church . . . St. Thomas Acquinas’ Summa Theologica . . . Article 1. Whether in every case the priest is bound to hide the sins which he knows under the seal of confession?

. . . :coffeeread: . . .
Question 11. The seal of confession
On the contrary, The Decretal says (De Poenit. et Remiss., Cap. Omnis utriusque):

“Let the priest beware lest he betray the sinner, by word, or sign, or in any other way whatever.” Further, the priest should conform himself to God, Whose minister he is. But God does not reveal the sins which are made known to Him in confession, but hides them. Neither, therefore, should the priest reveal them.

I answer that, Those things which are done outwardly in the sacraments are the signs of what takes place inwardly: wherefore confession, whereby a man subjects himself to a priest, is a sign of the INWARD SUBMISSION, whereby one SUBMITS TO GOD.

Now God hides the sins of those who submit to Him by Penance; wherefore this also should be signified in the sacrament of Penance, and consequently the sacrament demands that the confession should remain hidden, and he who divulges a confession sins by violating the sacrament. **Besides this there are other advantages in this secrecy, **because thereby men are more attracted to confession, and confess their sins with greater simplicity.

Reply to Objection 1. Some say that the priest is not bound by the seal of confession to hide other sins than those in respect of which the penitent promises amendment; otherwise he may reveal them to one who can be a help and not a hindrance.** But this opinion seems erroneous**, since it is contrary to the truth of the sacrament; for just as, though the person baptized be insincere, yet his Baptism is a sacrament, and there is no change in the essentials of the sacrament on that account, so confession does not cease to be sacramental although he that confesses, does not purpose amendment. …

- St. Thomas Acquinas
Summa Theologica​

:compcoff: Link: newadvent.org/summa/5011.htm​

St. Thomas of Acquinas

“I hope I have never advanced any tenet as your word, which I had not learned from You,” he told God, before making his last communion. “If through ignorance I have done otherwise, I revoke everything of that kind, and submit all my writings to the** judgment** of the holy Roman Church.” …St. Thomas Aquinas died on March 7, 1274. He was canonized in 1323, and made a Doctor of the Church in 1568. In 1965, the Second Vatican Council taught that seminarians should learn **“under the guidance of St. Thomas,” in order to “illumine the mysteries of salvation as completely as possible.”

:compcoff: Link: catholicnewsagency.com/saint.php?n=130**
+​

. . . all for Jesus+
. . . Precious Shed Blood of Jesus+
. . . Prevail+​

[/quote]

 

[zab]

Sorry, **Jesus_123 , **but all of the highlighting and boldness is a little too overwhelming for me. It’s like all of the notes on my refridgerator that go unnoticed because there are so many .

 

[couponfit]

Hello,

I have to disagree. The woman clearly confessed an objectively sinful action to a priest who was hearing confessions. Her imperfect contrition does not make the Seal disappear. If she was “confessing” only to make a mockery of the Sacrament then it could be argued that the Seal would not apply. But, here, I see no mockery but only a person who may have had less-than-ideal contrition but had something going on since she thought she “was supposed to” confess. According to authoritative opinions of scholars, the Seal would apply in her case.

Thanks for your time.

Dan

Then canon needs to be changed to confessor in lieu of penitent. I agree with you that it should be written differently. But the fact is it is not. Thus you argument is opinion. Only the penitent receive the seal of confession.

 

[couponfit]

+I agree with Dan also . . . it is my humble understanding . . . that when a validly ordained priest begins hearing a confession . . . whether absolution is given . . . or not . . . the sacramental nature of confession opens up a heavenly channel of **Holy Grace **between heaven and earth . . . and the priest is then validly . . . sacramentally acting . . . “In Persona Christi” . . . (In The Person of Christ). In the original post example . . . the Sweet Spirit of our Holy God . . . through the priest under the Seal of the Confessional . . . taught the woman that her “partial” confession of sin was not adequate and could not be absolved as is . . . repentence being necessary for absolution . . .

Below is a quote from New Advent re the Holy Doctor of the Catholic Church . . . St. Thomas Acquinas’ Summa Theologica . . . Article 1. Whether in every case the priest is bound to hide the sins which he knows under the seal of confession?

. . . :coffeeread: . . .
Question 11. The seal of confession
On the contrary, The Decretal says (De Poenit. et Remiss., Cap. Omnis utriusque):

“Let the priest beware lest he betray the sinner, by word, or sign, or in any other way whatever.” Further, the priest should conform himself to God, Whose minister he is. But God does not reveal the sins which are made known to Him in confession, but hides them. Neither, therefore, should the priest reveal them.

I answer that, Those things which are done outwardly in the sacraments are the signs of what takes place inwardly: wherefore confession, whereby a man subjects himself to a priest, is a sign of the INWARD SUBMISSION, whereby one SUBMITS TO GOD.

Now God hides the sins of those who submit to Him by Penance; wherefore this also should be signified in the sacrament of Penance, and consequently the sacrament demands that the confession should remain hidden, and he who divulges a confession sins by violating the sacrament. **Besides this there are other advantages in this secrecy, **because thereby men are more attracted to confession, and confess their sins with greater simplicity.

Reply to Objection 1. Some say that the priest is not bound by the seal of confession to hide other sins than those in respect of which the penitent promises amendment; otherwise he may reveal them to one who can be a help and not a hindrance.** But this opinion seems erroneous**, since it is contrary to the truth of the sacrament; for just as, though the person baptized be insincere, yet his Baptism is a sacrament, and there is no change in the essentials of the sacrament on that account, so confession does not cease to be sacramental although he that confesses, does not purpose amendment. …

- St. Thomas Acquinas
Summa Theologica​

:compcoff: Link: newadvent.org/summa/5011.htm​

​

. . . all for Jesus+
. . . Precious Shed Blood of Jesus+
. . . Prevail+​

Honestly, the highlights do not make your post more authoritative, and actually kind of confusing.

 

[figs]

Sorry, **Jesus_123 , **but all of the highlighting and boldness is a little too overwhelming for me. It’s like all of the notes on my refridgerator that go unnoticed because there are so many .

Definately overwhelmed!! …all the colors and bold and italics and… it just makes my eyes strain and gives me a headache. uch:

 

[paperwight66]

Definately overwhelmed!! …all the colors and bold and italics and… it just makes my eyes strain and gives me a headache. uch:

Absolutely agree. In fact, I’ve given up reading that particular poster’s posts for that reason. I just scroll down as quick as I can to the next one.

 

[petrel]

Seems a bit dodgy to me.
These kinds of comments get tongues wagging. Two and two can be put together and before you know it someone is reputed as having had an abortion.
I think the priests comment was too generic to break the confessional and probably too generic even to cause scandal, but I still think its a bit of shaky thing to say and could cause a slide in standards associated with the confessional.
Personally I hope the Bishop pulls him up on this.