Does Confessional seal prevent priest from ACTING on knowledge?

[Sir_Knight]

Sorry if I was unclear. Let me try again. The first time I confessed this was behind the screen. For my penance, I was told to find the original priest and if I was successful, I was to confess to him and perform whatever penance he gave me. If the original priest was no longer around or I was unsuccessful in locating him after an honest and reasonable effort, then my penance was the attempted search.

I was successful in finding the second / original priest. Made a face to face confession regarding the charcoal. Could have done it behind that screen but by the time I got there, I prepared to do it face to face.

The penance that he gave me was to pay to the original parish for the cost of two boxes of charcoal. I loooked up the cost on the web and sent them a check for that amount with “donation” written in the memo section.

 

[Deborah_Kloos]

I think if another person’s life or wellbeing is in danger, then safety should come before anything else, for example, someone saying they are going to murder their family in the confessional, or that they were performing incest or sexual abuse on a child. I don’t care what the Catholic faith says about the priest’s seal of silence, if someone is harming another person or harm can be prevented, if the priest protects the perpetrator, he is just as accountable for the results of the harm on someone else’s wellbeing. I think this is why this sexual abuse was allowed to go on in the Catholic church for so long. People’s lives were destroyed. If confession is used as a place to protect the perpetrator and not to help someone, then this is not what God wanted it to be. God wants good, not evil to occur with the sacraments.

 

[LilyM]

I think if another person’s life or wellbeing is in danger, then safety should come before anything else, for example, someone saying they are going to murder their family in the confessional, or that they were performing incest or sexual abuse on a child. I don’t care what the Catholic faith says about the priest’s seal of silence, if someone is harming another person or harm can be prevented, if the priest protects the perpetrator, he is just as accountable for the results of the harm on someone else’s wellbeing. I think this is why this sexual abuse was allowed to go on in the Catholic church for so long. People’s lives were destroyed. If confession is used as a place to protect the perpetrator and not to help someone, then this is not what God wanted it to be. God wants good, not evil to occur with the sacraments.

God wants sinners to come to His priests and confess to Him for spiritual healing - saving their immortal souls, a far more important task than saving anyone’s physical life or protecting their physical wellbeing. He ordained auricular confession to a priest for this purpose.

That auricular confession, the spiritual healing and the saving of peoples’ immortal souls, simply won’t happen when people know that what they say in the confessional can be reported to the police or anyone else.

Priests of course can and do urge people to turn themselves in, and they do refuse absolution to people who are unrepentant so that they don’t feel like they’re ‘getting away with’ something. The seal must, however, remain inviolable.

 

[NoxSineStellae]

God wants sinners to come to His priests and confess to Him for spiritual healing - saving their immortal souls, a far more important task than saving anyone’s physical life or protecting their physical wellbeing. He ordained auricular confession to a priest for this purpose.
.

I’m curious as to what you believe the effect of sexual abuse is on the victim’s soul. I can assure you that it doesn’t “save” it. In my own case, I feel every day as though it was destroyed.

I understand the sancity of confession when it comes to past sins/crimes for which the person is genuinely sorry for. Knowing that a priest shouldn’t do anything if someone happens to tell him within the bounds of confession that he plans to go home and rape a child makes me want to have absolutely nothing to do with the Catholic Church. I don’t care if it’s the “Truth”. I’d rather be tortured by Satan for eternity than worship a God who requires that good men do nothing in the face of evil. Or, worse, since the priest is acting as Christ in the confessional, that Christ does nothing in the face of evil.

It’s a perversion.

 

[LilyM]

I’m curious as to what you believe the effect of sexual abuse is on the victim’s soul. I can assure you that it doesn’t “save” it. In my own case, I feel every day as though it was destroyed.

I understand the sancity of confession when it comes to past sins/crimes for which the person is genuinely sorry for. Knowing that a priest shouldn’t do anything if someone happens to tell him within the bounds of confession that he plans to go home and rape a child makes me want to have absolutely nothing to do with the Catholic Church. I don’t care if it’s the “Truth”. I’d rather be tortured by Satan for eternity than worship a God who requires that good men do nothing in the face of evil. Or, worse, since the priest is acting as Christ in the confessional, that Christ does nothing in the face of evil.

It’s a perversion.

No it’s not a peversion. Confessional information belongs to two people - the penitent and God to whom he or she confesses. The priest is there to act as the mouthpiece and the hands of God, not as a private individual, and the information in no way belongs to him.

A priest without the seal of confession won’t be able to report abusers to police anyway - simply because no abusers are going to choose to confess if their confessions can be reported! So in your scenario nothing will get done about abuse either, unless by good fortune the priest should hear about it OUTSIDE the confessional.

Put it this way. Someone who confesses believes in the sacrament, seeks forgiveness, recognises the wrongness of what they have done and what they might be planning to do, and are 99.9% of the time ready to make any sort of amends that the priest suggests, or else they wouldn’t confess.

If he advises that they should give themselves up to the police and face their punishment then they will certainly do so. If he refers them to a counsellor they will go. And he will refuse absolution if they don’t agree, or if they indicate that they plan to sin again in future. Which most certainly will make anyone who believes in confession think twice about what they’re about to do. And there’s really no other type of person who goes!

On the other hand without the seal he can’t even get them to come to him so that he can do or say that much, and children would be lost who could be saved by the means the priest has at his disposal, and no additional ones saved should he NOT have the advantage of the confessional seal.

 

[Spirithound]

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?

If I heard my sins being told about an anonymous person, from the pulpit, I would almost certainly blush, and I don’t blush easily…This situation could very easily lead to scandal.

 

[Spirithound]

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.

“Bless me Father, for I will sin…”??
In the case of the priest potentially being killed on his way home, the priest could certainly order the “penitent” not to commit the further crime and sacrilege of killing a priest. In the bomb scenario, the priest could give a penance of anonymously calling the police. Plently of pay phones for that purpose
Maybe in the first case, the priest could ask the penitent to accompany him home (although I acknowledge this would be inappropriate if the confession was made behind the screen). For the second one, the priest could specify that the penitent is to attend the Mass during which the bomb is to go off…motivation for certain!
It seems to me, however, that in the first case (sorry for jumping around!!), a true penitent would actually suggest to the priest that he take another route home (assuming the priest does not live right next to the church )
Anyways, in the child abuse example, the priest certainly could not exclude that person. If they’re reformed, they’re reformed. If not, then they’d probably be booted out quickly enough that no sexuality would take place. Child-care is a high-risk ministry. The hold on one’s position there is tenuous enough!

 

[AHapka]

I think if another person’s life or wellbeing is in danger, then safety should come before anything else, for example, someone saying they are going to murder their family in the confessional, or that they were performing incest or sexual abuse on a child. I don’t care what the Catholic faith says about the priest’s seal of silence, if someone is harming another person or harm can be prevented, if the priest protects the perpetrator, he is just as accountable for the results of the harm on someone else’s wellbeing. I think this is why this sexual abuse was allowed to go on in the Catholic church for so long. People’s lives were destroyed. If confession is used as a place to protect the perpetrator and not to help someone, then this is not what God wanted it to be. God wants good, not evil to occur with the sacraments.

Part of the problem here is the way you are looking at it. Confession is for those who are repentant and want to avoid future sins.

If someone were to confess that they were going to murder their family, they would be confessing the temptation to that sin ( I know that temptation in and of itself is not a sin, but perhaps they took pleasure in thinking about it). Perhaps they might be confessing that they had done some initial planning. But such a person, as part of their repentance, obviously does not wish to go through with the sin. Hence the fact that they are at confession.

You say “if somone is harming another person or harm can be prevented.” The harm is being prevented by that person being at confession. They have repented of that sin, and no longer wish to perform it, and want to come clean before the Lord and do penance. While you can never guarantee that someone won’t commit it again, the priest is already taking action to prevent any further harm by 1) Hearing the person’s confession, and 2) Assigning a penance as appropriate.

"I don’t care what the Catholic faith says about the priest’s seal of silence" Be careful, this is heresy: “The believer accepts the whole deposit as proposed by the Church; the heretic accepts only such parts of it as commend themselves to his own approval” (definition of heresy from New Advent). I’m not in any position to accuse you of sin, however the statement is heretic on it’s face. Please carefully consider this.

**“he is just as accountable for the results of the harm on someone else’s wellbeing.” **Accountable in the eyes of God for doing the right thing? I think all priests would like to be in that state as much as possible.

**“God wants good, not evil to occur with the sacraments.” ** Exactly and totally correct. And the way we as lay Catholics understand Gods will is in submission to the Church where the Vicar of Christ has told us how God intends the Sacraments to be performed.

 

[wjp984]

It is not about privileged information since the priest has no knowledge of what is confessed to begin with. If the penitant is confessing to God and the priest is only taking the place of God for the time being, then the reality is the priest never heard anything and has no knowledge of what was said and therefore no matter how serious the situation would not be able to reveal it since there is nothing to be revealed.

 

[THurifer2]

Fr. John Corapi Publicly discussed his Fathers confession during a speaking forum. Of course this was OK because his father gave him full permission to do so. The confessional seal can be broken by the penitent giving full permission to the priest to divulge sins for “education adn spiritual development” of the faithful. The penitent must however give total and complete permission to the priest.

 

[caleb83]

I have a practical question, I think someone said something about “restitution”? The sin of stealing, or any sin that is a crime, or injust to another: should the sinner know that he cannot have absolution or forgiveness if he does not turn himself in? I mean, sure the priest can’t turn him in, and the man could ‘get away’ with it, but he should not think he can get away with a valid absolution? Two things, the priest under seal letting bad happen because he cannot ‘make use of his knowledge’ and the other is the sinner getting absolved and thinking he is.

I am sure this kind of stuff happens all the time, and is not only hypothetical. What is restitution? Does absolution depend on it?

 

[LilyM]

I have a practical question, I think someone said something about “restitution”? The sin of stealing, or any sin that is a crime, or injust to another: should the sinner know that he cannot have absolution or forgiveness if he does not turn himself in? I mean, sure the priest can’t turn him in, and the man could ‘get away’ with it, but he should not think he can get away with a valid absolution? Two things, the priest under seal letting bad happen because he cannot ‘make use of his knowledge’ and the other is the sinner getting absolved and thinking he is.

I am sure this kind of stuff happens all the time, and is not only hypothetical. What is restitution? Does absolution depend on it?

Restitution is not the same thing as turning yourself in or admitting your sin to the victim. Restitution means making good the damage you have done. Turning yourself in or public admission of your sin/crime is only one means of doing so.

A murderer need not have himself put in jail, or tell the family of the victim that he’s the murderer, to make good the damage he’s done. He could, for example, anonymously send money each month to them or help them in some other way, again anonymously.

 

[caleb83]

Yes but does the absolution depend on the restitution, so that the priest can, in one sense, make them do it, the alternative being that they are lead wrongly by priest, and take comfort in forgiveness that is wrong, that they can ‘get’ absolution from sin while fleeing punishment.

 

[LilyM]

Yes but does the absolution depend on the restitution, so that the priest can, in one sense, make them do it, the alternative being that they are lead wrongly by priest, and take comfort in forgiveness that is wrong, that they can ‘get’ absolution from sin while fleeing punishment.

No. Confession and absolution are NOT about punishment, or really about restitution. Did Jesus tell the woman caught in adultery to take the stoning as her just punishment? Did He even tell her to apologise to the wife of the man she was caught with? No.

He simply told her to go and sin no more, and trusted that her own repentant heart would lead her to make restitution of some kind without his commanding it, as happened with Zacchaeus.

In the same way, the father of the prodigal son neither punished him for his misdeeds nor required repayment of the money he had squandered before extending his forgiveness.

Failure to make restitution for one’s sins is a fresh sin in itself, it is true. But this means failure to make ANY type of restitution, and restitution can be as simple as praying for those you have hurt by your sins, which will often do them as much good as anything physical you could do. And you ARE absolved from all previously confessed sins as long as one is genuinely sorrowful and genuinely intends to sin no more, including doing penance.

Again, it is a breach of the seal of the confessional for a priest to require a penitent to do anything that would betray the nature of their sin to any third party. And if a penitent is unwilling or unable to do a particular penance they certainly have every right to request something else instead, and a priest won’t give them a penance they have indicated they will not do if they are willing to do something else.

 

[caleb83]

Oh, then ****. I thought that would resolve the difficulty. Now it seems they are left with the heinous possibility of absolving sins and becoming accomplises to crime. The crime may not be sin, but still. If it is sin, then one is absolving and taking part at the same time, one of those abuses and biggy sins that are reserved to the Holy See, right?

If it is not an abuse, then one must hold that to have knowledge of a crime and not report it is no sin, easy.

But to have knowledge of a future crime?

It seems to me like they should be able, easily, to make them ‘face the state’. It seems that a priest would be offering a delusional forgiveness if anyone can think they can be forgiven in soul if they refuse to face punishment in body. Not for the purpose of the secular law, but for themselves.

For the purpose of the secular law, this is definitely illegal, the only protection to a priest is privileges of being a councilar, like a lawyer, doctor, psyciatrist. This is judgable by the court, like if they say that the ‘umbrella’ (or whatever it is called) does not cover something. I get that the Seal is totally different, but it seems like it is liable to be abused.

 

[LilyM]

Oh, then ****. I thought that would resolve the difficulty. Now it seems they are left with the heinous possibility of absolving sins and becoming accomplises to crime. The crime may not be sin, but still. If it is sin, then one is absolving and taking part at the same time, one of those abuses and biggy sins that are reserved to the Holy See, right?

If it is not an abuse, then one must hold that to have knowledge of a crime and not report it is no sin, easy.

But to have knowledge of a future crime, there is another thread talking about that.

It seems to me like they should be able, easily, to make them ‘face the state’. It seems that a priest would be offering a delusional forgiveness if anyone can think they can be forgiven in soul if they refuse to face punishment in body. Not for the purpose of the secular law, but for themselves.

For the purpose of the secular law, this is definitely illegal, the only protection to a priest is privileges of being a councilar, like a lawyer, doctor, psyciatrist. This is judgable by the court, like if they say that the ‘umbrella’ (or whatever it is called) does not cover something. I get that the Seal is totally different, but it seems like it is liable to be abused.

For a priest to do their priestly duty and uphold and adhere to the seal of the confessional, which binds them on pain of mortal sin, is no more a sin than for a doctor to adhere to doctor-patient confidentiality when obliged to do so.

To keep confidence in such circumstances is a binding moral if not legal duty, and in no way makes them an accomplice to sin or crime, for it is to reveal the information that in such cases would be the sin and sometimes a crime too.

And what is this about it being illegal? It’s completely legal. Priests and other ministers of religion are recognised, in most every jurisdiction, as counsellors bound to confidentiality, in exactly the same way as doctors and lawyers and therapists are. And so they should be because they have a duty of confidentiality in exactly the same way and for the same reasons as doctors or lawyers. And as a matter of law priests and other religious ministers are exempted from having to reveal privileged information or testify in court just as doctors, lawyers and therapists are.

 

[caleb83]

For a priest to do their priestly duty and uphold and adhere to the seal of the confessional, which binds them on pain of mortal sin, is no more a sin than for a doctor to adhere to doctor-patient confidentiality when obliged to do so.

To keep confidence in such circumstances is a binding moral if not legal duty, and in no way makes them an accomplice to sin or crime, for it is to reveal the information that in such cases would be the sin and sometimes a crime too.

And what is this about it being illegal? It’s completely legal. Priests and other ministers of religion are recognised, in most every jurisdiction, as counsellors bound to confidentiality, in exactly the same way as doctors and lawyers and therapists are. And so they should be because they have a duty of confidentiality in exactly the same way and for the same reasons as doctors or lawyers. And as a matter of law priests and other religious ministers are exempted from having to reveal privileged information or testify in court just as doctors, lawyers and therapists are.

But all such confidentiality has its limits, and that is judged by the courts. If a priest got into a position that they had to plead such privilege and obligation, it could fail. Knowledge of future crimes and being an accomplise to an act are NOT privileged, no matter if they are a lawyer or a doctor or anyone. But the seal is different, and it is not an obligation or privilege given by the state or a recognized freedom of a citizen (as is a ministers or a therepists confidentiality) so it is not something judgeable by a court. It may be that not breaking the seal IS a crime. It may be that a court should rightely punish a priest because the seal is not recognized by law (nor should it be), and knowledge of a crime or a future crime and not doing anything about it is a crime.

But my concern is why a priest would give absolution to someone, and lead them into thinking they were forgiven by God while they evade the law. I have no problem with priests breaking the law, insofar as keeping crimes secret MAY be crime, but for the sake of that sinner. I guess I don’t understand the value or healing quality of penance or reconcilation for a criminal (again, not for a priest to decide, but the court) who wants to evade punishment. I am not saying the priest should have anything to do with turning the person in or aiding in any case against the perpetrator. But prayers and any other action but turning oneself in, that does not seem just or penitent. Giving money anonymously to victums? Come on. One should have to reveal oneself to ones victum and ask THEM for forgiveness, even if they don’t give it.

 

[Spirithound]

But all such confidentiality has its limits, and that is judged by the courts. If a priest got into a position that they had to plead such privilege and obligation, it could fail. Knowledge of future crimes and being an accomplise to an act are NOT privileged, no matter if they are a lawyer or a doctor or anyone. But the seal is different, and it is not an obligation or privilege given by the state or a recognized freedom of a citizen (as is a ministers or a therepists confidentiality) so it is not something judgeable by a court. It may be that not breaking the seal IS a crime. It may be that a court should rightely punish a priest because the seal is not recognized by law (nor should it be), and knowledge of a crime or a future crime and not doing anything about it is a crime.

Although we’ve never actually questioned any of them, I am sure that any and all of the priests I know would much rather go to jail if they were found in contempt of court, or perjury or obstruction of justice, whatever, and I, for one, would visit them every week to receive the sacrament of Reconciliation and attend their Mass.

 

[Marc_Aupiais]

“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. Therefore, this notwithstanding, it must be held secret; nor does the seal of confession militate against charity on that account, because charity does not require a man to find a remedy for a sin which he knows not: and that which is known in confession, is, as it were, unknown, since a man knows it, not as man, but as God knows it. Nevertheless in the cases quoted one should apply some kind of remedy, so far as this can be done without divulging the confession, e.g. by admonishing the penitent, and by watching over the others lest they be corrupted by heresy. He can also tell the prelate to watch over his flock with great care, yet so as by neither word nor sign to betray the penitent.”
newadvent.org/summa/5011.htm#article1
done with scripturelink

 

[LilyM]

But all such confidentiality has its limits, and that is judged by the courts. If a priest got into a position that they had to plead such privilege and obligation, it could fail. Knowledge of future crimes and being an accomplise to an act are NOT privileged, no matter if they are a lawyer or a doctor or anyone. But the seal is different, and it is not an obligation or privilege given by the state or a recognized freedom of a citizen (as is a ministers or a therepists confidentiality) so it is not something judgeable by a court. It may be that not breaking the seal IS a crime. It may be that a court should rightely punish a priest because the seal is not recognized by law (nor should it be), and knowledge of a crime or a future crime and not doing anything about it is a crime.

But my concern is why a priest would give absolution to someone, and lead them into thinking they were forgiven by God while they evade the law. I have no problem with priests breaking the law, insofar as keeping crimes secret MAY be crime, but for the sake of that sinner. I guess I don’t understand the value or healing quality of penance or reconcilation for a criminal (again, not for a priest to decide, but the court) who wants to evade punishment. I am not saying the priest should have anything to do with turning the person in or aiding in any case against the perpetrator. But prayers and any other action but turning oneself in, that does not seem just or penitent. Giving money anonymously to victums? Come on. One should have to reveal oneself to ones victum and ask THEM for forgiveness, even if they don’t give it.

So? It doesn’t seem just to me that Jesus should die for my sins or yours either, but He did, precisely so that if we throw ourself on His mercy we don’t have to pay an overwhelming debt for them.

I suppose it doesn’t seem just to you that Jesus forgave the paralytic man without requiring ANYTHING of him - no restitution, no facing legal punishment, nothing - except the longing for forgiveness that He obviously read in His heart.

I suppose it seems unjust to you that He didn’t make the woman caught in adultery go back and face the stoning that was her just punishment? Or to apologise to the wife of the man she was with? Surely if your contention is right then Jesus made a huge mistake and failed in a big way by not making her go back and get stoned, didn’t He?

Or that the father of the prodigal son didn’t drag him into court to make him pay back every penny that the father had given him? And that he forgave him without any requirement that the son EVER would pay Him back?

You seem not to comprehend the depths of God’s mercy, who is love itself. Nor do you seem to be able to see that human concepts of justice are very poor representations of God’s true justice which is ONE with His mercy - human justice is usually just another word for vengeance, which is God’s alone by the way and not the state’s or the victim’s.

And obviously you can’t see that when He said His burden was light that that included the burden of satisfying God’s justice as well.

Let me put it in terms that you can understand. What have you been taught about why purgatory exists? I have been taught that purgatory exists for us to pay the temporal (earthly) debt accrued by our sin - at least that which we haven’t worked off by our actions (which do include prayers, and just because you can’t see their value doesn’t mean they have none - the Mass is a prayer, and it is the most worthwhile thing we have to offer to God, next to which our other good works are as nothing).

So put it simply, if you ought to go to jail or pay some other civil penalty (and that’s a big if, many a person is punished by the state who oughtn’t to be) and don’t, then you pay that debt off with a much worse punishment in purgatory. Do you understand now?