Just how inviolable is the confessional seal?

  • Thread starter Thread starter StephenBales
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I think canon lawyers, myself included, take our duty and training to interpret canon law very seriously as the salvation of souls is often at stake. I mean, why else would we go through all the education needed for proper interpretation including several years of graduate philosophy and theology classes not to mention the 3 years of canon law classes for poor financial remuneration? We have had 2,000 years of canon law and a methodology for interpretation and need that theological and philosophical background. Even St. Thomas Aquinas has an extensive treatment on law because as the door above the Apostolic Signatura (highest Vatican court) says “without justice there is no charity”.
PatK63 said:
Lawyers! My reading is the Canon you sited does not say what you represented.
I’ll let the priest figure it out. I give up though. 😎
Click to expand...
 
So the opinion expressed in this thread are unanimously held by canon lawyers?
 
There were many opinions given in this thread. I agree with this canon lawyer: Restrictions on absolution are not so easily placed | In the Light of the Law

I myself wrote my canon law thesis (needed to become a canon lawyer) on conscience matters, so I know a bit about this topic. The bottom line is the Church has a LOT of theology and centuries of wisdom on this topic and yes, the seal is inviolable. We even have martyrs for the seal. I do not guarantee the opinions of the non-canonists on this thread. Just saying that you appeared to be shrugging at “lawyers” as if we are non-entities, whereas we are the ones advising the bishops on these matters…
 
Sorry, I was saying that there are lawyers on both sides of any issue. We need lawyers. my son is one and we love him just like our other children. That is a joke!

We all, those that chimed in, believe in the seal of the confessional. One question is what is sealed? If you don’t want to weigh in, I understand.

Sorry for my cheep shot on lawyers.
 
PatK63 said:
My reading is the Canon you sited does not say what you represented.
Click to expand...
I know. A casual reading of canon law is a tricky thing – it doesn’t read like an owner’s manual or instruction book. One must read it in the context of the genre that it is, and with sensitivity to the way it’s been understood and interpreted over time!

Here’s what a standard reference (the “New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law”, by Coriden et al) says:
In order to stress the gravity of the violation of the norm… the canon uses the term nefas (criminal, abominable). Neither the canon nor earlier interpretation admit exceptions to the norm. … No distinction is made among the matters confessed, whether the sinful action itself or the attendant circumstances, or the acts of satisfaction or penances imposed, etc. The secrecy to be maintained concerning the penitent and his or her confession of sins is properly described as total.

In canon 984… other use of knowledge gained from a penitent’s confession of sins may be permitted–or, according to a more prudent judgment, tolerated–only if there is no danger of revelation (i.e., of the matters disclosed in the confession and the identity of the penitent) and if no harm will come to the penitent from the confessor’s use of information. Any other use of such knowledge, even if it does not constitute a direct or indirect violation of the sacramental seal of canon 983, §1, is entirely prohibited by canon 984, §1.
Click to expand...
That last sentence was the one I wanted to show you. However, what precedes it helps give it context.

Trust me… I’m not making this stuff up. 😉
 
Last edited:
PatK63 said:
One question is what is sealed?
Click to expand...
Everything that is said between the penitent saying Bless me Father… until the end after absolution where the penitent says Amen or leaves the confessional.
 
I don’t agree. It makes no sense and, as I said earlier, have heard priest violate it in the presence of other priest. I was also thought by priest and they said only sins and who confessed are sealed.
 
At what point does the Formula of confession start? It’s my understanding that happens when a) the penitent enters the confessional and /or is in there and blesses themselves and says “Bless me Father…”

At what point does the Formula of confession end? It’s my understanding that occurs when the priest says “After the absolution, the priest continues: Give thanks to the Lord, for he is good. The penitent concludes: His mercy endures for ever.
Then the priest dismisses the penitent who has been reconciled, saying:
The Lord has freed you from your sins. Go in peace.”

So everything said between the priest and the penitent between these two points is considered to take place within the Sacrament of Confession and comes under the seal.
PatK63 said:
have heard priest violate it in the presence of other priest
Click to expand...
just because some priests may do this does not make it right/permitted or lawful.
PatK63 said:
by priest and they said only sins and who confessed are sealed.
Click to expand...
well apart from this the only other thing would be the priests counsel given to a penitent.

They are free to talk about sins in general, just as we are. In fact we ourselves are not bound by the seal of the confessional in regards to our own sins. If we overhear the sins of someone who perhaps is talking a little too loud, then we too are bound by the seal not to identify whose confession we overheard or the sins themselves we did overhear.

They also with the penitents permission discuss the same with that penitent or to obtain the advice of a more experienced confessor but without identifying the penitent - see The Seal of the Confessional FR. WILLIAM SAUNDERS

A priest cannot identify whose confession they’ve heard, what sins a certain individual confessed as both of these would identify the penitent. As others have pointed out above, this under canon law is not permitted and is an excommunciable offense for a priest who does so.

Can. 1388 §1 " A confessor who directly violates the sacramental seal incurs a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See; one who does so only indirectly is to be punished according to the gravity of the delict."
 
PatK63 said:
as I said earlier, have heard priest violate it in the presence of other priest
Click to expand...
So, you’re assuming that since he appeared to have done it, it’s acceptable? Isn’t it just as likely – or moreso! – that what he did was unacceptable? 🤔 😉
 
Anything is possible. When the priest told the story he said he could tell is because there was no sin involved. So he belied it was correct and other priest there also agreed.
 
As to the seal of the confessional, consider Saint John of Nepomuk. He was confessor to the queen of Bohemia. The King demanded to know the content of her confession. Saint John suffered martyrdom rather than divulge what the queen has confessed.

Sounds pretty seriously inviolable to me.
 
Last edited:
If you are right outside the confessional and you accidentally overhear a loud confession… I assume you are bound by the seal. Can you give the priest a heads up that you heard it? That’s not breaking the seal I assume…
 
Sbee0 said:
If you are right outside the confessional and you accidentally overhear a loud confession… I assume you are bound by the seal. Can you give the priest a heads up that you heard it? That’s not breaking the seal I assume…
Click to expand...
You don’t have to tell the priest but yes you are bound by the seal.
 
When I start to hear something I hum and start talking to myself. The result I have never heard anything.
 
StephenBales said:
Are there any circumstances in which the seal can be licitly broken? Say, if someone in confession reveals suicidal thoughts and intentions for that very night. Would it count as breaking the seal to alert the police or their parents or other people with charge over them?
Click to expand...
I’ve actually had this experience once (although not that the penitent intended it that night). I explained to them that I wanted to help but couldn’t unless they approached me after confession which (fortunately) they did. A priest is forbidden from revealing the identity of the penitent, their sins and also from using what they learned in the confessional to the detriment of the penitent. With the experience I had, some canonists might argue that what was revealed wasn’t technically a sin and so I’m not bound by the seal. I would say that if it’s a sin for the person confessing that’s good enough for me but besides that I’d rather not play fast and loose with the seal of the confessional.

With the classic poisoned wine scenario however, there’s nothing to stop the priest from spilling it (accidentally on purpose) or just removing it provided there’s no danger of the action being linked to the penitent. Of course, if the penitent was truly contrite then presumably they’d be willing to remove it themselves…

So if there’s no chance of identification of the penitent I’ll talk about what I’ve heard but only in general terms and only to select audiences while always taking care to safeguard the identity of the penitent as well as the sanctity of the sacrament (not wanting to discourage people after all).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top