Does Confessional seal prevent priest from ACTING on knowledge?

  • Thread starter Thread starter DL82
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

DL82

Guest
I understand that a priest can NEVER reveal what he hears in confession, under penalty of excommunication.

However, can a priest act differently because of something he knows through confession?

For example, if a member of his congregation comes and confesses to looking at child pornography or abusing young children, and then later volunteers to help lead a Church kids camp, would the priest be allowed to refuse his help, as long as he doesn’t tell anybody why he’s refusing?
 
To my knowledge, the priest can do nothing with what he learns in confession.
 
Hmm… The priest cannot reveal what is confessed to anyone or act differently toward the penitent. He could refuse to give absolution if there is no purpose of amendment but I don’t think he can act on what was confessed.

I think the present general practice of requiring everyone who comes into contact with children in a church sponsored activity to undergo a background check would help the priest in such a predicament. It is a good policy that there be at least two adults present with the children in any activity.
 
I think the priest has to leave everything between the penitent and God.
There’s the story about a priest who heard a man’s confession, the man confessed to planning kill the priest on his way home. The priest finished hearing confessions and went home as usual. The man came to him and said he was just testing the priest, to see how firm was the seal of confession. And since the priest hadn’t changed anything about his usual going-home routine even after hearing the plan to be murdered, the man believed in the depth of the seal.
…something like that.

If there is such an argument as ‘greater good’, imagine what would happen if priests started using their own discretion in regards to what could be revealed or not :eek:. Also if a priest had the person confused with someone else. Out the window goes the confidence of the masses.
 
This is a fascinating question. I am curious if any one knows the answer. Any documentation from anyone?
 
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.

Source: vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_P3G.HTM#TR
 
Along these lines, suppose a person confessed that he planted a bomb in the church basement that was set to go off during the main Sunday Mass. Would it be permissible to notify police or warn people in order to save their lives while maintaining the bomber’s anonymity?
 
Cavaille-Coll said:
Along these lines, suppose a person confessed that he planted a bomb in the church basement that was set to go off during the main Sunday Mass. Would it be permissible to notify police or warn people in order to save their lives while maintaining the bomber’s anonymity?
Click to expand...
The most logical thing would be for the priest to ask the penitent to tell him outside of the confessional; then he could act on it.
 
Cavaille-Coll said:
Along these lines, suppose a person confessed that he planted a bomb in the church basement that was set to go off during the main Sunday Mass. Would it be permissible to notify police or warn people in order to save their lives while maintaining the bomber’s anonymity?
Click to expand...
Easy- make his penance rescuing everyone in the area from the blast before the bomb goes off 😉
 
THurifer2 said:
I know you are being funny but that is a conditional penance and it is not allowed.
Click to expand...
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:)
 
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.
 
yellowbird said:
Our Priest gave this example:

Prior to mass, someone confesses that he put arsenic 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.
Click to expand...
Actually, this probably wouldn’t harm anyone in any event. First, people take a very small sip in general of the Precious Blood. Second, because the lethal dose of arsenic is actually quite high:

A toxic intake is between 5-50 milligrams. A lethal intake is between 50-300 milligrams (with the LD50 being 100 milligrams (that’s the amount where 50% of people will die)). Since most people only drink a few cubic centimeters of the Precious Blood, it’s unlikely they would get that much.

It is interesting to note that arsenic is actually essential to human survival (though in very small amounts). As in many things, quantity makes the poison. Arsenic salts tend to be more poisonous then the free element.

I know the point you were trying to make, I’m just one of those very picky people:rolleyes: I do agree with you.

The worst part of this is that the wine would not become the Precious Blood because proper matter would be lacking.
 
My Priest actually said “poison” but when I typed that, I thought it was probably spelled incorrectly so I changed it to arsnic.

That’s what I get for misquoting a Priest! :rolleyes:

Glad you get the point I was trying to make though!
 
yellowbird said:
My Priest actually said “poison” but when I typed that, I thought it was probably spelled incorrectly so I changed it to arsnic.
Click to expand...
So you misspelled arsenic instead? 😃

Moral of this story is 'If the Precious Blood smells like bitter almonds, be content with receiving Jesus under the bread specie."
 
I think the priest has to leave everything between the penitent and God.
There’s the story about a priest who heard a man’s confession, the man confessed to planning kill the priest on his way home. The priest finished hearing confessions and went home as usual. The man came to him and said he was just testing the priest, to see how firm was the seal of confession. And since the priest hadn’t changed anything about his usual going-home routine even after hearing the plan to be murdered, the man believed in the depth of the seal…something like that.
Click to expand...
If one reads the canon law regarding this (which has been posted in this thread), one sees that the priest’s taking a different route would in no way violate the seal of the confessional. It would in no way betray a penitent.
 
Chatter163 said:
If one reads the canon law regarding this (which has been posted in this thread), one sees that the priest’s taking a different route would in no way violate the seal of the confessional. It would in no way betray a penitent.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top