Is there a known and VERIFIABLE instance of a priest knowingly breaking the Seal of Confession?

[TheWarriorMonk]

At least in my parish, I would think that breaking the seal of confession would be almost impossible to do, even deliberately, let alone accidentally. Priests hear confessions every day, in the confessional. They can not see who is confessing. One person leaves, another penitent is waiting on the other side of the confessional. One penitent after another. I doubt that a priest hearing confessions for 30 minutes or an hour could even tell you what sins were confessed, and certainly not who confessed them.

It depends. I’ll use myself as an example. I almost always confess face to face. And, in my own parish, the pastor knows my wife and I very well. It’s the reason I rarely go to him for confession. Not only does he know me, but he knows my voice, and would very likely remember anything I told him, just as well as you would remember anything a friend told you. So one of the reasons I rarely go to him is because I don’t want him to ever slip up, since it is a real possibility that he may confuse what was and what was not said in the confessional.

 

[Aramis]

There was a jesuit who sired a child in Alaska; he publicly admitted to having absolved his partners of the sin of fornication. Since he was successfully sued for paternity, this is a full breach.

 

[Fairwinds]

if anyone knows for sure, what’s the procedure/guidelines if, during confession, someone disclosed an intent to commit a future crime? assume the priest believed the intent.

 

[Marysann]

Aramis, I was always under the impression that a priest would be automatically excommunicated if he absolved an accomplice in a sin against the sixth or ninth commandments. If the priest in your example also publicly broke the seal, the he must have been in double trouble. Please help us, all you priests and canon lawyers out there!

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

Aramis, I was always under the impression that a priest would be automatically excommunicated if he absolved an accomplice in a sin against the sixth or ninth commandments.

Absolving an accomplice in a sin against chastity is an excommunication specifically reserved to the Pope.

If the priest in your example also publicly broke the seal, the he must have been in double trouble. Please help us, all you priests and canon lawyers out there!

I’m not sure about this one. If the penitent reveals all of the information in the Confessional, then its public knowledge. In other words, the penitent has already connected him/herself with the sin. Anything the priest says doesn’t change that. I believe I had read something about the priest being able to use the public information to defend himself. But don’t take that as fact; let the experts comment.

 

[Aramis]

Aramis, I was always under the impression that a priest would be automatically excommunicated if he absolved an accomplice in a sin against the sixth or ninth commandments. If the priest in your example also publicly broke the seal, the he must have been in double trouble. Please help us, all you priests and canon lawyers out there!

He’s in hot water, anyway. It wasn’t discovered until after his retirement… and the child was into their 20’s. He is thought to have molested several; he only admitted the one that I’ve heard.

 

[JimG]

It depends. I’ll use myself as an example. I almost always confess face to face. And, in my own parish, the pastor knows my wife and I very well. It’s the reason I rarely go to him for confession. Not only does he know me, but he knows my voice, and would very likely remember anything I told him, just as well as you would remember anything a friend told you. So one of the reasons I rarely go to him is because I don’t want him to ever slip up, since it is a real possibility that he may confuse what was and what was not said in the confessional.

Well, with a face to face confession, I presume the priest knows the penitent, though that may not always be the case.

But in my parish, during normal confession times, face to face confession is impossible. And the parish is large enough I don’t think a priest could remember everyone’s voice, nor would he even try to.

It seems that anonymous confession not only makes the penitent’s job easier, it makes it easier for the priest to keep the secret of the confessional. When a priest hears the confessions of 15 or 20 or 30 people in a row anonymously, even recognition of voices would be difficult, and keeping an idea of what sins were confessed from one confession to the next is almost impossible.

 

[JimG]

if anyone knows for sure, what’s the procedure/guidelines if, during confession, someone disclosed an intent to commit a future crime? assume the priest believed the intent.

I was once told that a priest cannot disclose in any way, either by words or actions, anything said to him in the sacrament of confession.

The extreme example given was that of a penitent who confessed that he had poisoned the altar wine to be used in the chalice of the priest in that day’s Mass. The priest would not be able to disclose that fact, nor could he refrain from taking the wine at the consecration because his action in refusing to do so would disclose the contents of the confession. Note it was only a hypothetical, and I can’t vouch for how a canon lawyer would interpret the situation.

 

[Elizium23]

I was once told that a priest cannot disclose in any way, either by words or actions, anything said to him in the sacrament of confession.

The extreme example given was that of a penitent who confessed that he had poisoned the altar wine to be used in the chalice of the priest in that day’s Mass. The priest would not be able to disclose that fact, nor could he refrain from taking the wine at the consecration because his action in refusing to do so would disclose the contents of the confession. Note it was only a hypothetical, and I can’t vouch for how a canon lawyer would interpret the situation.

I don’t know if the seal is that broad. Here are the canons:

Can. 983 §1 The sacramental seal is inviolable. Accordingly, it is absolutely wrong for a confessor in any way to betray the penitent, for any reason whatsoever, whether by word or in any other fashion.

§2 An interpreter, if there is one, is also obliged to observe this secret, as are all others who in any way whatever have come to a knowledge of sins from a confession.

Can. 984 §1 The confessor is wholly forbidden to use knowledge acquired in confession to the detriment of the penitent, even when all danger of disclosure is excluded.

§2 A person who is in authority may not in any way, for the purpose of external governance, use knowledge about sins which has at any time come to him from the hearing of confession.

note the use of “…betray the penitent” and “…detriment of the penitent”. If a priest takes action to dispose of poisoned wine, and he doesn’t let on the fact that he knows who did it, or indicates who did, that seems to pass muster, at least by a reading of these canons.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

But in my parish, during normal confession times, face to face confession is impossible. And the parish is large enough I don’t think a priest could remember everyone’s voice, nor would he even try to.

All of the Confessionals in my general area have a screen with a kneeler, and a chair in front of the priest. The penitent makes the choice of which to choose. Some of the very old Churches have the more “traditional” setups with the booths, like the one’s you see in the movies.

 

[JimG]

All of the Confessionals in my general area have a screen with a kneeler, and a chair in front of the priest. The penitent makes the choice of which to choose. Some of the very old Churches have the more “traditional” setups with the booths, like the one’s you see in the movies.

My church has the traditional confessional booths. It’s not a very old church, and it was recently remodeled, which included making the confessionals even more secure and private and anonymous.

 

[DavidFilmer]

There was a jesuit who sired a child in Alaska; he publicly admitted to having absolved his partners of the sin of fornication. Since he was successfully sued for paternity, this is a full breach.

Can you cite this case?

 

[Aramis]

Can you cite this case?

Not by name - it’s been years since it was on the news. He’s been punished by his chapter… and that was the last I heard.

 

[Digitonomy]

I don’t know if the seal is that broad. Here are the canons:…
note the use of “…betray the penitent” and “…detriment of the penitent”. If a priest takes action to dispose of poisoned wine, and he doesn’t let on the fact that he knows who did it, or indicates who did, that seems to pass muster, at least by a reading of these canons.

The nice thing about hypotheticals is that one can always hypothesize additional details so that the point can’t be avoided. In this case, perhaps we can say

• the priest personally directed the preparation of the wine bottle before mass, * no mail or phone service to the priest or other outside sources of information were available as alternative reasons for the priest’s action, * listening to confession was the only thing the priest did between getting the wine ready and starting mass, * the poisoner was the only one who attended confession this week, * the other two people at mass, one of whom was also the sacristan, were able to observe these details, * the poisoner was known to have previously poisoned the wine, and * the only other available wine was at a winery an hour away in a unique direction that gave away what the priest was up to in his sudden two-hour delay of mass.

 

[DavidFilmer]

The nice thing about hypotheticals is that one can always hypothesize additional details so that the point can’t be avoided. In this case, perhaps we can say

• the priest personally directed the preparation of the wine bottle before mass, * no mail or phone service to the priest or other outside sources of information were available as alternative reasons for the priest’s action, * listening to confession was the only thing the priest did between getting the wine ready and starting mass, * the poisoner was the only one who attended confession this week, * the other two people at mass, one of whom was also the sacristan, were able to observe these details, * the poisoner was known to have previously poisoned the wine, and * the only other available wine was at a winery an hour away in a unique direction that gave away what the priest was up to in his sudden two-hour delay of mass.

Correct, very good. I’ve heard this silly “poisoned wine” scenario many times before (logically, a straw-man argument), but I have never seen it so capably refuted.

The problem is that people don’t understand what the Seal really is.

The Seal is only broken if it is possible for someone to associate a particular sin to a particular sinner. With proper pastoral cause, a priest may discuss confessions in a general sense, such as telling his Bishop that he has noticed an increase in a particular sin and asking his Bishop for advice regarding his council. This is acting on the content of what he has heard in the Confessional, but it is impossible to associate the sin with the sinner(s), so the Seal is not broken. (assuming that more than one person confesses to this priest.)

A priest doesn’t break the Seal if he pours wine down the drain when nobody else is around.