On the seal of Confession

[cycleman]

Canon 1387

Not sure how this helps . In order for that canon to apply the wrongdoing would have to be made public . And the church is saying that the person who was wronged is prevented from revealing the wrongdoing by the priest .

So, tell me how is the church going to take any action when it has no way of knowing that the wrongdoing took place ?

 

[JimG]

Many people may be more comfortable confessing face to face however, especially with a familiar priest.

That may be. However, if a priest does not wish to use that option, he is not required to use it. One can confess face to face in my parish, but you would have to make an appointment. Regular confession times in the confessional are anonymous.

As an aside, it seems to me that if the seal of confession were put into legal jeopardy, people would simply quit going to confession. Or at least opt for the screen.

 

[otjm]

I think that the discussion clears up the fact that anything simply overheard would be considered hearsay.

Although it would be interesting to know if it has ever happened in the past…

Even worse, it would be interesting to know if a court has ever admitted to evidence a police bugged confession…even I would be quite appalled at this…

And similarly, has the court ever desided that “preist client privilege” did not apply just as “lawyer client privilege” does not apply in certain cases? Had a preist ever been jalied for not divulging this information in these cases?

See the case reference in post 36. The priest was taped, speaking with the defendant in a capital murder case, based on a search warrant requested by a detective in the case (the taping was in the jail; all conversations between prisoners and visitors were taped, with the exception of defense attorneys). One judge signed the warrant; the confession was taped; the trail judge would not suppress the tape as evidence; the matter was then taken from state court to federal court, and the federal judge refused to suppress; the 9th circuit finally suppressed the admission of the tape and the evidence flowing from it (so several who had listened to the tape could not testify, and the DA could not use the taping itself (as opposed to the tape itself) in trial.

 

[otjm]

One must remember that the facts of this case have nothing to do with protecting the secrets of the penitent. The allegations in this case are of wrongdoing by the priest within the confessional, and the only interest the priest has in the seal is thwarting an attempt by the girl to obtain justice from him for his alleged wrongdoing. (He is using the seal as a backdoor 5th amendment, as I think the 5th amendment doesn’t apply in civil cases).

In fact, he is going even further and saying the girl has no right to accuse him of anything that happened within the confessional.

As I understand the church’s position, neither the penitent nor the priest can say anything about what went on in the confessional. This means (tell me where I’m wrong) that if the priest committed a crime within the confessional such as sexually harassing conversation or threatening the penitent with harm etc. the seal prevents the penitent from ever revealing what went on. That is just plain perverse!

It is no more perverse than the opposite; the scenario being that the girl has a crush on the priest (or for whatever other reason) and decides to accuse the priest of sexual misconduct in the confessional; the priest cannot say a word. He cannot even admit that he heard her confession.

 

[otjm]

It seems to me that questions regarding breaking the seal of confession would rarely arise if all parishes had actual private confessionals, as mine does. The confessional is soundproof, has a door which closes, and a fixed grille covered by a curtain on both sides. The confessional is well lit, not scary and dark. But the priest can hear but not see or identify the penitent. If the penitent doesn’t like what the priest is saying for any reason, he can get up and leave. No priest would be able to identify whether a penitent even confessed to him, let alone say what sins were confessed. No one outside the confessional can overhear what is being said. If someone inadvertently opens the door, you stop talking.

Confessions occur in all sorts of places; in the case noted in post 36, it occurred in the visitor center, with the priest and the prisoner separated by a thick glass partition.

 

[SAVINGRACE]

I saw something strange at the World Youth Day in Sydney. In the middle of the city on a park walkway with hundreds of people walking past a Priest stood still facing one way, a man in a expensive suit stood facing the other direction, close but not touching, standing still but not facing each other. The man in the suit was talking and the Priest was nodding and listening, it went for at least 10minutes. At the end the guy crossed himself, Priest crossed himself and walked on, not looking back.

People kept walking by, nobody stopped to listen.

I was not Catholic at that time and sitting on a bench eating lunch with my Baptist friend, we couldn’t help staring, our Catholic friend returned just as they were finishing up, we asked and she said "oh that guy in the suit is confessing and the Priest is hearing his confession.

It was a bizarre sight to see out in the open.

 

[Faith1960]

The priest delays absolution in the following:

a. the penitent is not sincere in the confession
b. the individual priest does not have faculties to absolve from that particular sin
(c. the penitent is not Catholic, also applies, but that may be going beyond the scope of the question)

What if the penitent had an abortion long ago and was seriously sorry?

 

[buc_fan33]

What if the penitent had an abortion long ago and was seriously sorry?

Certainly, this individual could be absolved. Why might you think this would preclude absolution? This is precisely why we have the sacrament in the first place.

 

[peter26]

The norm is however that a priest needs permission from the bishop to absolve someone from participation in abortion. This does not apply during the Year of Mercy or in America but it is the norm.

 

[Brendan]

The norm is however that a priest needs permission from the bishop to absolve someone from participation in abortion. This does not apply during the Year of Mercy or in America but it is the norm.

The priest needs faculties to remove the excommunication. Absolution cannot be granted until the excommunication is removed.

If the conditions of the excommunication were not met, say the person was under the age of 16, was unaware of the penalty of excommunication, or was not Catholic at the time of the abortion, the priest would need no additional faculties to absolve.

 

[Faith1960]

Certainly, this individual could be absolved. Why might you think this would preclude absolution? This is precisely why we have the sacrament in the first place.

I thought I once read something that said abortion wouldn’t be absolved.

 

[Faith1960]

I thought I once read something that said abortion wouldn’t be absolved.

Or maybe it said anyone who had an abortion would be excommunicated. Would they?

 

[otjm]

Or maybe it said anyone who had an abortion would be excommunicated. Would they?

It is automatic, by operation of Canon law.

Yes, abortion can be forgiven. At least in the United States, the bishop can delegate this to the priests; any exceptions would be made known to the priests if the bishop made such an exception, but not necessarily known to the laity.

During the Year of Mercy, the Pope has specifically granted it to all priests, as I understand it.

 

[Gorgias]

It is automatic, by operation of Canon law.

Oh, boy. Here we go again.

It is automatic, when it occurs at all. In other words, saying that it is “automatic” doesn’t mean that it applies to all abortions. Instead, it just means that, only in that subset of abortions to which it applies, its application is automatic.

 

[Faith1960]

It is automatic, by operation of Canon law.

Yes, abortion can be forgiven. At least in the United States, the bishop can delegate this to the priests; any exceptions would be made known to the priests if the bishop made such an exception, but not necessarily known to the laity.

During the Year of Mercy, the Pope has specifically granted it to all priests, as I understand it.

I on t understand. Would the person be excommunicated or not? And or the record, I’ve never had an abortion

 

[Faith1960]

I on t understand. Would the person be excommunicated or not? And or the record, I’ve never had an abortion

• I don’t understand

 

[otjm]

Oh, boy. Here we go again.

It is automatic, when it occurs at all. In other words, saying that it is “automatic” doesn’t mean that it applies to all abortions. Instead, it just means that, only in that subset of abortions to which it applies, its application is automatic.

Um Hmm.

Some people ask a generic question and want a generic answer; not one that says "yes, with the exception of “A” when Subsection “b” applies, and only based on “1,2 and 3”, unless “4"”.

Since you decided to open up the qualifications, please cite them for the other poster.

 

[Gorgias]

I on t understand. Would the person be excommunicated or not? And or the record, I’ve never had an abortion

Faith,

An excommunication doesn’t always follow as a penalty to an abortion. However, in those cases in which it does apply, it applies ‘automatically’ (that is, without any sort of process or trial).

So, the answer to your question is that, only if excommunication applies, then it happens automatically. Brendan listed a few reasons why an excommunication might not apply: being younger than 16, not realizing that it was an excommunicable offense. In addition, if the person agreed to the abortion only under coercion or force, then an excommunication would not result.

Does that help?

 

[Gorgias]

Um Hmm.

Some people ask a generic question and want a generic answer; not one that says "yes, with the exception of “A” when Subsection “b” applies, and only based on “1,2 and 3”, unless “4"”.

Since you decided to open up the qualifications, please cite them for the other poster.

Brendan already alluded to some of them.

The lack of clarity, I think, with your answer that it’s “automatic” is that the natural assumption is that it applies automatically as a result of every abortion (which, of course, it doesn’t). A better description of ‘latae sentatiae’ might be “without a formal canonical process”.