Disclosure "with malice'

  • Thread starter Thread starter Clevus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Clevus

Guest
Am I reading correctly this amendment in the Vatican’s paper. It seems to say breaking of the confessional seal is permitted as long as there was no intent to do harm.
Code: 
            *               Normae de gravioribus delictis,
         reserved to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
The new text of the Normae de gravioribus delictis, as revised by Pope Benedict XVI on 21 May 2010, contains modifications to both the substantial and the procedural norms found in the original text of Sacramentorum sanctitatis tutela.

The following are the changes introduced into the text:

A) The following faculties, originally granted by Pope John Paul II to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and later confirmed by his successor, Pope Benedict XVI, on 6 May 2005, have been introduced into the text:
  1. Also included among the delicts are the indirect violation of the seal (art. 4 § 1 n. 5), the recording and divulgation of a sacramental confession done with malice (decree of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 23 September 1988) (art. 4 § 2); *
So then after confessions, one can have a coffee with his fellow priests and discuss the the particulars of a confessee’s case if it’s for the common good.?

Thanks
 
Clevus said:
Am I reading correctly this amendment in the Vatican’s paper. It seems to say breaking of the confessional seal is permitted as long as there was no intent to do harm.
Code: 
            *               Normae de gravioribus delictis,
         reserved to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
The new text of the Normae de gravioribus delictis, as revised by Pope Benedict XVI on 21 May 2010, contains modifications to both the substantial and the procedural norms found in the original text of Sacramentorum sanctitatis tutela.

The following are the changes introduced into the text:

A) The following faculties, originally granted by Pope John Paul II to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and later confirmed by his successor, Pope Benedict XVI, on 6 May 2005, have been introduced into the text:
  1. Also included among the delicts are the indirect violation of the seal (art. 4 § 1 n. 5), the recording and divulgation of a sacramental confession done with malice* (decree of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 23 September 1988) (art. 4 § 2);
So then after confessions, one can have a coffee with his fellow priests and discuss the the particulars of a confessee’s case if it’s for the common good.?

Thanks
Click to expand...
The Seal of Confession is absolute. I would assume what you are referring to is if a priest inadvertently lets something from Confession slip out.
 
Clevus said:
Am I reading correctly this amendment in the Vatican’s paper. It seems to say breaking of the confessional seal is permitted as long as there was no intent to do harm.
Click to expand...
No, you aren’t.
Clevus said:
So then after confessions, one can have a coffee with his fellow priests and discuss the the particulars of a confessee’s case if it’s for the common good.?
Click to expand...
Don’t be flip.
 
If a priest inadvertently reveals something he heard in Confession, it’s not treated as if he had intentionally revealed it. He’s still done something forbidden.
 
Clevus said:
Am I reading correctly this amendment in the Vatican’s paper. It seems to say breaking of the confessional seal is permitted as long as there was no intent to do harm.
Code: 
            *               Normae de gravioribus delictis,
         reserved to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
The new text of the Normae de gravioribus delictis, as revised by Pope Benedict XVI on 21 May 2010, contains modifications to both the substantial and the procedural norms found in the original text of Sacramentorum sanctitatis tutela.

The following are the changes introduced into the text:

A) The following faculties, originally granted by Pope John Paul II to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and later confirmed by his successor, Pope Benedict XVI, on 6 May 2005, have been introduced into the text:
  1. Also included among the delicts are the indirect violation of the seal (art. 4 § 1 n. 5), the recording and divulgation of a sacramental confession done with malice* (decree of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 23 September 1988) (art. 4 § 2);
So then after confessions, one can have a coffee with his fellow priests and discuss the the particulars of a confessee’s case if it’s for the common good.?

Thanks
Click to expand...
Actually, the answer is “yes.” But not in the way you seem to characterize it.

Sometimes priests do indeed discuss confessions with fellow priests. Sometimes we need the advice and counsel of a priest who might have certain expertise in certain matters. In that case, the second priest is still bound by the Seal of Confession, as much as the first.

There are times when this must be done. If I am hearing a Confession, but I lack the faculties to absolve I must refer the matter to the local bishop (or vicar)—in the case of what we call “reserved” sins. In a situation like that, I am not acting “with malice” but instead with a concern for the penitent. Likewise, the local bishop or his vicar (who must be a priest) is bound by the Seal of Confession.

The qualification in the law “with malice” simply means that the canon does not apply a penalty in situations where the priest is acting legitimately.
 
FrDavid96 said:
Actually, the answer is “yes.” But not in the way you seem to characterize it.

Sometimes priests do indeed discuss confessions with fellow priests. Sometimes we need the advice and counsel of a priest who might have certain expertise in certain matters. In that case, the second priest is still bound by the Seal of Confession, as much as the first.

There are times when this must be done. If I am hearing a Confession, but I lack the faculties to absolve I must refer the matter to the local bishop (or vicar)—in the case of what we call “reserved” sins. In a situation like that, I am not acting “with malice” but instead with a concern for the penitent. Likewise, the local bishop or his vicar (who must be a priest) is bound by the Seal of Confession.

The qualification in the law “with malice” simply means that the canon does not apply a penalty in situations where the priest is acting legitimately.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the response.

What are the indicators during the confession that would indicate to the confessee that the priest does not have the faculties to absolve him.?
 
1ke said:
Yes that was extremely insulting to priests. As if they just sit around having coffe, discussing oarishioner confessions.
Click to expand...
I am blessed to have their spokesman speaking to me.

This is a new experience for me. I admit I have never been reprimanded by a person who, at the same time wishes me Pax, and presumptuously believes my post is intentionally challenging,hostile,whatever or implies my owing to make amends in some way. The two positions would seem diametrically opposed, as one intends a charity, and the other is an accusation, public at that.

But I only wish this alleged error of mine could have come to light through methods recommended by scripture as to the proper way to “settle with thy brother”. But alas, this opportunity has gone, even though this forum provided that mechanism.

So I stand here as an object, with my coffee and mud on my 73 years old face, as spectator to this sycophantic comedy that is playing out before me. I may even have that with a muffin.

What was it that Christ said, “they have received their reward”?.

But to the initial post which is the object of objection. I am a lay person, and I have only
a lay background to draw analogies for eccelesial situations. I have seen priests work 12 hour days during lent confessions, and still responsible to take care of 2 parishes. So yes, it is plausible that priests may well gather for a well deserved coffee break. They can ask me and I will gladly make it for them.
 
My understanding of the confessional seal is a little lacking, but I was told by a priest that a confessor isn’t allowed to give any indication at all of what was said in confession.

I heard an example somewhere (it may have been another CAF thread) that if a penitent confesses that he/she has poisoned the communion wine, the priest isn’t allowed to throw it out. I’m sure that’s hyperbole, but is it a decent indication of the priest’s obligation to maintain confidentiality?
 
Brassring said:
I heard an example somewhere (it may have been another CAF thread) that if a penitent confesses that he/she has poisoned the communion wine, the priest isn’t allowed to throw it out. I’m sure that’s hyperbole, but is it a decent indication of the priest’s obligation to maintain confidentiality?
Click to expand...
I should think he could act out of the common good, but he would still be obligated to try to keep the confession(what is known to God) private to the best he can.
 
Clevus said:
I should think he could act out of the common good, but he would still be obligated to try to keep the confession(what is known to God) private to the best he can.
Click to expand...
Yes, any priest worth his salt would find some way to protect the lives of others without revealing what was said or by whom. He could for example “accidentally” trip and spill all the wine, taking the fault on himself for being a clumsy idiot.
 
Clevus said:
What are the indicators during the confession that would indicate to the confessee that the priest does not have the faculties to absolve him.?
Click to expand...
I would think the failure of the priest to give the usual absolution at the end would indicate this, and that the priest would also give an explanation, however brief, to the confessee explaining why absolution was not being given and perhaps asking the person to come again the next week, or make an appointment for a confession in a few days, etc.
 
Tis_Bearself said:
I would think the failure of the priest to give the usual absolution at the end would indicate this, and that the priest would also give an explanation, however brief, to the confessee explaining why absolution was not being given and perhaps asking the person to come again the next week, or make an appointment for a confession in a few days, etc.
Click to expand...
Good answer.

I found this FWIW in New Advent that may help us.

newadvent.org/summa/5011.htm#article2

I’m done here, thanks everyone. 🙂
 
1ke said:
Yes that was extremely insulting to priests. As if they just sit around having coffe, discussing oarishioner confessions.
Click to expand...
A dear friend of mine who used to help at a centre, got used to serving coffee to the priests as they did just that, sadly.
 
It’s also important to remember that speaking in generalities is not breaking the seal. It might not be particularly prudent, but it’s not breaking the seal.

Saying, “Gosh, those were powerful confessions,” isn’t breaking the seal. Connecting sinner to sin is, “John Doe did x, y, and z.”

Also, violations happen in two ways. First, directly, which I noted above, “John Doe did x, y, and z.” The second mode would be an indirect violation. To be totally honest, even as a priest, I’m not altogether clear what this means. As far as I could ascertain from my studies and speaking with other priests, it’s a combination of words and actions that can lead one to connect sin to sinner. E.g., “Someone, ahem…ahem (pointing in the direction of John Doe) confessed x, y, and z.” Or, “My very first penitent confessed a, b, and c.” And then five minutes later John Doe walks in and says, “Father, I just want to tell you what an honor it was to be your very first penitent.”

But, Fr. David is right. Sometimes, we get hard cases and especially younger priests need some guidance about how to handle them. On a few rare occasions, I’ve had this happen. I usually wait some amount of time, change a few non-essential details, and call a close brother priest, usually in a different diocese to further remove him from the situation to talk about the case in question and just ask, “What would you do here?”

Every priest holds the seal of the confessional in highest regard. Personally, I only asked the Lord for one grace on the day of my ordination, I obviously would readily receive other graces as well, but specifically asked Him for only one, and that is this…that I would be given the grace never to break the seal, even enduring the most gruesome tortures imaginable, and even death should that come to pass. But that I would endure all of that before violating the seal of the sacrament. I have absolute faith and confidence in the Holy Spirit that He will not allow me to break the seal.
 
I liked that old movie “I Confess” with Montgomery Clift as the priest. He gets framed for murder and dragged through a scandalous trial while all the time he knows who the real murderer is because the guy confessed to him, but he doesn’t break the seal.
 
Tis_Bearself said:
I liked that old movie “I Confess” with Montgomery Clift as the priest. He gets framed for murder and dragged through a scandalous trial while all the time he knows who the real murderer is because the guy confessed to him, but he doesn’t break the seal.
Click to expand...
Great movie. When I taught sacraments in a Catholic high school, I had my students watch that movie during our unit on Confession.
 
Clevus said:
Thanks for the response.

What are the indicators during the confession that would indicate to the confessee that the priest does not have the faculties to absolve him.?
Click to expand...
There are certain sins called “reserved sins” * That means that not every priest (who otherwise can hear confessions) has the authority to absolve from those sins.

The most obvious example is abortion. Until recently, only the local bishop could absolve from a procured abortion. That doesn’t apply anymore, but still the explanation holds. I’m using this example because until it was changed, it was often a topic of discussion and you might have heard about it.

Another example is the crime of assaulting (literally) the pope. If someone does that, and later confesses to a priest, the priest cannot absolve that person (except in danger of death). Only the Holy See, meaning the pope himself, or his representative at the Vatican, can absolve from that sin.

There are others, but I’m merely listing 2 obvious examples.

When someone confesses a reserved sin, the priest must do one of 2 things:
  1. Refer the penitent to a priest (or bishop) who does have those faculties.
  2. Contact that appropriate authority and request the faculty for that particular confession.
In addition to reserved sins, there are times when a priest cannot absolve because the priest himself was a party to the sin. A priest cannot absolve an accomplice in a sin against the 6th commandment.
  • (ok, a certain canonist reminds us that it is not the sin, but the lifting of the penalty that is reserved—that’s for a different day).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top