Does Confessional seal prevent priest from ACTING on knowledge?

[Brenda_V]

My question is how does the seal of confession apply to a sin yet to be committed? Wouldn’t a Priest have the right and duty to not give absolution to such a penitent as say the poison in the chalice or the “I’m going to kill you after your done here” scenarios given?

Just because one enters the confessional does not mean one is truly accepting the Sacrament. As a matter of fact if one is confessing a sin yet to be committed one is not penitent (I am using this word as a verb here) and the Priest has every right to make sure it is not committed (i.e. taking a different route home from the Church when the penitent said he was going to kill him, the Priest removed himself from the possibility of the person committing the sin and crime of murder) of course if he knows who the person is he does not have to tell the police this person is contemplating murder.

Or the bomb scare. The Priest can indeed call the police in and say that he got information that there might be a bomb in the basement of the Church and the police could then search for it and take care of it should it be there.

Do you see the difference? If someone came in and confessed “I was the one who set off that bomb at St. Michaels last night and am so sorry for doing it” vs. “I am going to set off a bomb at St. Michaels during the 9 a.m. Sunday Mass”. One the event has already happened the other the event has a chance of being prevented and causing further damage to the persons soul.

Brenda V.

 

[DL82]

How is that conditional? We know that he is absolved even if he does not perform his penance. I would personally recommend a penance of removing the bomb. A penance of locking all of the church doors and throwing the keys away before Mass might also be appropriate

There’s a difference between penance and restitution. Forgiveness is not conditional on penance, but it can be conditional on restitution. If a penitent confesses to a sin whose effects have not yet taken place (like planting a bomb) then in order to show contrition, they would be expected to diffuse the bomb or at least get people away from it. It’s the same with stealing, if you’re really sorry, you’ll pay the money back, that’s not penance, it’s restitution.

 

[Reynardus]

This topic reminds me of a past incident.

I remember a priest once said something that was said in confession during his homily. Like most priests, he was trying to start his homily with a story like most priests do. He added that he was not breaking the seal of confession since he wasn’t mentioning the name of the penitent or something like that.

I’m not sure about his reasoning but did he or did he not break the seal?

 

[christcnection1]

Our Priest gave this example:

Prior to mass, someone confesses that he put arsnec in the wine that will be used for communion. He said he was unable to not use the wine - he had to proceed as if he didn’t know.

What is the Church’s justification in all this?

It’s hard to see how not doing anything about it would be loving your neighbor. It’s not as if the priest would have to do anything to get to perpetrator in trouble. If my priest didn’t do something about it and a loved one died, I would be infuriated.

Furthermore, wouldn’t this be desecrating the blood of Christ. Or would it be preventing the consecration from happening?

I understand what the Church teaches. I just don’t understand why, particularly in these circumstances. There must be some kind of loop hole in all this. The Sacrament of Reconciliation is meant to bring life, not only for the one member of the Body, but for all members.

Obviously this is a very strange case, and in the vast majority of circumstances, a call to action need not apply.

 

[Joan_M]

What is the Church’s justification in all this?

It’s hard to see how not doing anything about it would be loving your neighbor. It’s not as if the priest would have to do anything to get to perpetrator in trouble. If my priest didn’t do something about it and a loved one died, I would be infuriated.

Furthermore, wouldn’t this be desecrating the blood of Christ. Or would it be preventing the consecration from happening?

I understand what the Church teaches. I just don’t understand why, particularly in these circumstances. There must be some kind of loop hole in all this. The Sacrament of Reconciliation is meant to bring life, not only for the one member of the Body, but for all members.

Obviously this is a very strange case, and in the vast majority of circumstances, a call to action need not apply.

The Sacrament of Reconciliation is meant to bring eternal life. Remember Jesus said - do not fear those who can kill the body, but fear who can kill both body and soul.

Death is but the doorway to life everlasting.

 

[christcnection1]

The Sacrament of Reconciliation is meant to bring eternal life. Remember Jesus said - do not fear those who can kill the body, but fear who can kill both body and soul.

Death is but the doorway to life everlasting.

Yes, this corresponds to what I posted, and what the Church teaches.

 

[EasterJoy]

This topic reminds me of a past incident.

I remember a priest once said something that was said in confession during his homily. Like most priests, he was trying to start his homily with a story like most priests do. He added that he was not breaking the seal of confession since he wasn’t mentioning the name of the penitent or something like that.

I’m not sure about his reasoning but did he or did he not break the seal?

It depends on how much detail he gave. It is OK for a priest to talk about his experience as a confessor in general terms. If no one who knew the penitent could recognize it, and especially if the penitent could not have said for certain it was him or her, it would be OK. I have been told that it is up to the confessor to err on the side of caution.

 

[Chatter163]

We see in that story though, that the penitent WOULD have known that the priest took another way home, and knowing that he wouldn’t have been able to trust that the priest didn’t take other action as well, like calling the police or something. So yes, it would’ve led the penitent to think that he had been betrayed.

Canon law does not deal with how a penitent thinks or feels. It deals with the actual betrayal of what has been heard in confession. The priest takes a different route home, but this has not revealed what he has heard in any way.

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.

§2. The interpreter, if there is one, and all others who in any way have knowledge of sins from confession are also obliged to observe secrecy.

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.

§2. A person who has been placed in authority cannot use in any manner for external governance the knowledge about sins which he has received in confession at any time.

 

[LilyM]

Canon law does not deal with how a penitent thinks or feels. It deals with the actual betrayal of what has been heard in confession. The priest takes a different route home, but this has not revealed what he has heard in any way.

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.

§2. The interpreter, if there is one, and all others who in any way have knowledge of sins from confession are also obliged to observe secrecy.

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.

§2. A person who has been placed in authority cannot use in any manner for external governance the knowledge about sins which he has received in confession at any time.

Of course there’s also the Catechism, which seems more in accord with what the priests mentioned on this thread express - eg that they couldn’t even do as little as not drink poisoned wine if the poisoning had been revealed to them under seal of Confession.

"1467 Given the delicacy and greatness of this ministry and the respect due to persons, the Church declares that every priest who hears confessions is bound under very severe penalties to keep absolute secrecy regarding the sins that his penitents have confessed to him. He can make no use of knowledge that confession gives him about penitents’ lives.72 This secret, which admits of no exceptions, is called the “sacramental seal,” because what the penitent has made known to the priest remains “sealed” by the sacrament. "

 

[THurifer2]

How is that conditional? We know that he is absolved even if he does not perform his penance. ** I would personally recommend a penance of removing the bomb**. A penance of locking all of the church doors and throwing the keys away before Mass might also be appropriate

I am sorry I misunderstood the quote that I quoted…However the priest cannot require defusing a bomb as penance. Doing so would be a violation of the seal of confession. It is coercion into restitution which is not penance. Telling a penitent to defuse the bomb and applying it as a penance is no different than the priest acting on defusing the bomb himself. In Fact the priest is indeed acting on the situation by prescribing a restitution to save people. It cannot be done. Similarly it is alos placing condition on the confessed sin itself by requiring the penitent to choose to either complete the penance or comit an additional sin by not completeing the penance. That is placing a condition directly on the sin. The sin is forgiven but the condition of committing another sin of not completing penance is directly attached to the originally confessed sin. Can’t be done! What really comes into play is the fact that the penitent simply cannot be contrite at all if they allow the bomb to go off… If they let the bomb go off then they have to come back and confess the sin again…becuase they committed the sin of murder. The priest MIGHT be able to tell the penitent to give hime permission to reveal his sins… I am not sure on that though becuase that would be coercion.

 

[wjp984]

How is a priest supposed to know how they would have acted if they had not known information? If a priest finds out that someone is planning on killing him on his way home then perhaps he was going to go visit a friend that day? Perhaps he was going to take a scenic route and pray on the way home? I don’t understand how a preiest’s decisions are set in stone and that he has to think retroactively on what he might have done had he not known information. In regards to the arsinic in the wine, once again, perhaps there was some dirt in that batch of wine that the priest notices or perhaps there is one of many reasons that the priest might want to change the wine.

 

[LilyM]

How is a priest supposed to know how they would have acted if they had not known information? If a priest finds out that someone is planning on killing him on his way home then perhaps he was going to go visit a friend that day? Perhaps he was going to take a scenic route and pray on the way home? I don’t understand how a preiest’s decisions are set in stone and that he has to think retroactively on what he might have done had he not known information. In regards to the arsinic in the wine, once again, perhaps there was some dirt in that batch of wine that the priest notices or perhaps there is one of many reasons that the priest might want to change the wine.

C’mon. The priest CANNOT behave any differently than he would have if no such confession had been made to him. To do so is to use the knowledge he has gained in confession.

I can - just - buy a priest who honestly hadn’t decided where he was going to go after Church, but even then he can’t deliberately avoid that particular route, because he wouldn’t have before the confession. He should flip a coin or something and leave it in God’s hands. As for the wine - he can surely be 99.99% certain that if wine is set out for him for Mass he is going to use it.

If God at that time chooses not to require the priest’s life of him then He will intervene - something will happen to the killer waiting for him, some dirt will REALLY fall into that wine before he has to drink it, or God will spare him from the effects of the poison if he does use it or something.

To do other than take an honest chance on that route or use that wine, though, is to betray lack of trust in God and lack of desire that His will be done - as well as a sacreligious disrespect for the sacrament of confession, which confession is purely between God and the penitent and not the priest and the penitent.

Remember Christ was obedient unto accepting even His own untimely death.

 

[Claire_from_DE]

I cannot see that a person confessing to a sin he hasn’t yet committed can even be called a penitent. This isn’t a confession, it’s a mockery of the sacrament. It’s just trying to manipulate the priest. There’s no intention of that person to take part in or receive a sacrament. I would judge that the seal of confession does not apply there. I wish that a priest would answer this question.

However, in the original question which concerns child abuse, if there was the intention to receive the sacrament the seal would apply. Even if the priest withheld absolution because he judged there was no firm purpose of amendment the seal would still hold.

 

[LilyM]

I cannot see that a person confessing to a sin he hasn’t yet committed can even be called a penitent. This isn’t a confession, it’s a mockery of the sacrament. It’s just trying to manipulate the priest. There’s no intention of that person to take part in or receive a sacrament. I would judge that the seal of confession does not apply there. I wish that a priest would answer this question.

However, in the original question which concerns child abuse, if there was the intention to receive the sacrament the seal would apply. Even if the priest withheld absolution because he judged there was no firm purpose of amendment the seal would still hold.

Who says they haven’t committed the sin already? The poison can have already been put in the wine (attempted murder) or the killers already paid and waiting for the priest (again, attempted murder). Nothing says someone can’t do either act and then, in a fit of remorse, sincerely confess.

If you do a search using the words ‘seal of confession’ you’ll probably find there are numerous threads on the topic - maybe priests have contributed on them?

 

[Sir_Knight]

Reynardus;3856296:

This topic reminds me of a past incident.

I remember a priest once said something that was said in confession during his homily. Like most priests, he was trying to start his homily with a story like most priests do. He added that he was not breaking the seal of confession since he wasn’t mentioning the name of the penitent or something like that.

I’m not sure about his reasoning but did he or did he not break the seal?

It depends on how much detail he gave. It is OK for a priest to talk about his experience as a confessor in general terms. If no one who knew the penitent could recognize it, and especially if the penitent could not have said for certain it was him or her, it would be OK. I have been told that it is up to the confessor to err on the side of caution.

This can be a very slippery slope. There is a story that I once heard. Don’t know if it is true or if it was told to illustrate a point but it went something like this …

Father was celebrating his 25th anniversary as a priest and a big party was planned. During his speech, Father touched upon the various things that he recalled from being a priest commenting that his very first confession he was told of adultery and being inexperienced, was not sure how to properly proceed.

Unknown to Father, members from his previous parishes were also invited. Arriving late and not hearing Father’s opening remarks, a man got up and said that his was the very first confession that Father heard …

 

[Sir_Knight]

I am sorry I misunderstood the quote that I quoted…However the priest cannot require defusing a bomb as penance. Doing so would be a violation of the seal of confession. It is coercion into restitution which is not penance. Telling a penitent to defuse the bomb and applying it as a penance is no different than the priest acting on defusing the bomb himself. In Fact the priest is indeed acting on the situation by prescribing a restitution to save people. It cannot be done. Similarly it is alos placing condition on the confessed sin itself by requiring the penitent to choose to either complete the penance or comit an additional sin by not completeing the penance. That is placing a condition directly on the sin. The sin is forgiven but the condition of committing another sin of not completing penance is directly attached to the originally confessed sin. Can’t be done! What really comes into play is the fact that the penitent simply cannot be contrite at all if they allow the bomb to go off… If they let the bomb go off then they have to come back and confess the sin again…becuase they committed the sin of murder. The priest MIGHT be able to tell the penitent to give hime permission to reveal his sins… I am not sure on that though becuase that would be coercion.

That is incorrect. The priest can give any penance that he wishes because absolution is not conditional on the penance being performed.

Secondly failure to perform a penance is NOT a sin. Any penance that we fail to perform in this life, will be expected of us in the next life and it has been said that we can pay our debt in this life with pennies on the dollar compared to what will be required of us in the next life.

So, no matter how difficult a penance may be, it would be really foolish not to do it because what awaits us in the afterlife will be MUCH more difficult.

 

[THurifer2]

That is incorrect. The priest can give any penance that he wishes because absolution is not conditional on the penance being performed.

.

A priest giving a penance of defusing a bomb OR turning ones self in is a break in the Seal of confession…It is called coercion.

The priest is telling /coercing the penitent to break the seal of confession. A priest cannot take any part in the revelation of ones confessed sins without permission. Providing a penance of admission is doing just that.

And a priest CANNOT give any penance he wants…he cannot give a penance to a person who he KNOWS cannot complete. An exaggerated example would be "go and say 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 hail Marys in aramaic. "

 

[SacredHeartFan]

He just gave the person absolution. The person was forgiven. Why would he act differently? This person has seeked out reconciliation with God.

 

[Sir_Knight]

A priest giving a penance of defusing a bomb OR turning ones self in is a break in the Seal of confession…It is called coercion.

The priest is telling /coercing the penitent to break the seal of confession. A priest cannot take any part in the revelation of ones confessed sins without permission. Providing a penance of admission is doing just that.

The PRIEST can not use ANYTHING that he has learned during the confession OUTSIDE of the confessional WITHOUT permission of the individual but requiring the person to perform such actions is an entirely different matter because the priest isn’t using that information.

The only condition being that the absolution can not be conditional on the penance being performed.

 

[LilyM]

The PRIEST can not use ANYTHING that he has learned during the confession OUTSIDE of the confessional WITHOUT permission of the individual but requiring the person to perform such actions is an entirely different matter because the priest isn’t using that information.

The only condition being that the absolution can not be conditional on the penance being performed.

Of course the priest is using the information in the above case. The information directly determines the course of action is that the priest wants the penitent to take.

There’s a very good reason why many priests will only ever give prayers for penance - it’s because people around you can’t figure out what sin you confessed if your penance is just prayer. For the same reason if a priest were to suggest some sort of reparation to the victim of someone’s sin he must arrange for it to be done anonymously, so the sinner doesn’t have to reveal the nature of their sin (in other words reveal the contents of their confession)

If you walk out of the confessional and then proceed to another spot in the church to pull a bomb that no-one else knew was there and defuse it, well of course people will figure out that you planted that bomb and confessed to it, no???