Seal of Confession and the Principle of Double Effect

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ana_v
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Ana_v

Guest
  1. Is breaking the Seal of Confession an intrinsic evil?
  2. Is there any (hypothetical) situation in which a priest would be justified in breaking the seal under the principle of double effect (the breaking of the seal being the inintended “second effect”)? Why yes or why no?
 
Ana_v said:
  1. Is breaking the Seal of Confession an intrinsic evil?
  2. Is there any (hypothetical) situation in which a priest would be justified in breaking the seal under the principle of double effect (the breaking of the seal being the inintended “second effect”)? Why yes or why no?
Click to expand...
yes
no
 
No situation would call for the priest to break the seal of the Confessional, even if someone confessed to a heinous crime. We will never know what others say in the Confessional no matter how bad it is.

Depending on local laws, if the person came to his office out of the blue and said they committed a heinous crime, and it was not a Confession appointment then he must obey the local laws to contact law enforcement.
 
Ana_v said:
  1. Is breaking the Seal of Confession an intrinsic evil?
  2. Is there any (hypothetical) situation in which a priest would be justified in breaking the seal under the principle of double effect (the breaking of the seal being the inintended “second effect”)? Why yes or why no?
Click to expand...
What makes you think there ever could be such a situation?
 
Ana_v said:
  1. Is breaking the Seal of Confession an intrinsic evil?
Click to expand...
Yes
  1. Is there any (hypothetical) situation in which a priest would be justified in breaking the seal under the principle of double effect (the breaking of the seal being the inintended “second effect”)?
Click to expand...
No
Why yes or why no?
Click to expand...
Because violating the seal is not the “effect” it is the “act” itself.
 
1ke,
1ke said:
What makes you think there ever could be such a situation?
Click to expand...
Because there are examples within Catholic moral theology, where an otherwise morally illicit act, is rendered permissible under exceptional cases:

e.g. causing the death of an innocent human being: in the event of a pregnant mother whose life is endangered, by say a cancerous uterus or say her pregnancy is ectopic, then removal of the uterus or fallopian tubes (which will cause – indirectly – the death of the unborn child) is allowed.

another e.g. having contraceptive sex is allowed if (to my knowledge) all of the following conditions are met: (1) you are validly married, (2) you have made it known to your spouse that you affirm Catholic moral doctrine on contraception (3) your spouse refuses to respect Catholic doctrine on contraception and
(4) you are not the one who is using contraception, then for the sake of preserving the marriage, you may (without sinning) engage in contraceptive sex with your spouse.

Albeit, the above isn’t relevant to the princ(name removed by moderator)le of double effect. What might (?) be an application of double effect, is if the faith Catholic spouse refuses to engage in contraceptive sex with her dissenting- Catholic or non-Catholic spouse,
and as a result, that spouse seeks divorce. Divorce would be an unintended effect. I say “might” though because refusal is passive, whereas prototypical double effect examples have to do with active causes.

Anyways, I digress. The point was that I don’t think it should surprise anyone for Catholics to wonder if the seal can be broken under certain circumstances, given nuances in Catholic teaching elsewhere.

FrDavid96,
FrDavid96 said:
Because violating the seal is not the “effect” it is the “act” itself.
Click to expand...
Thank you! This settles my second question.

Two more questions to anyone (I’d rather add them here then start new threads):
  1. Do the Eastern Orthodox (not Easter Rite) churches also maintain an absolutely inviolable Seal of Confession (regardless if they call
    it by that term or not)?
  2. Am I correct to assume that since violating the Seal is intrinsically evil, then that means the law that states the seal is inviolable, is an unalterable law? In other words, the inviolability of the seal is a doctrine, not merely discipline?
 
Ana_v said:
1ke,

Because there are examples within Catholic moral theology, where an otherwise morally illicit act, is rendered permissible under exceptional cases:

e.g. causing the death of an innocent human being: in the event of a pregnant mother whose life is endangered, by say a cancerous uterus or say her pregnancy is ectopic, then removal of the uterus or fallopian tubes (which will cause – indirectly – the death of the unborn child) is allowed.

another e.g. having contraceptive sex is allowed if (to my knowledge) all of the following conditions are met: (1) you are validly married, (2) you have made it known to your spouse that you affirm Catholic moral doctrine on contraception (3) your spouse refuses to respect Catholic doctrine on contraception and
(4) you are not the one who is using contraception, then for the sake of preserving the marriage, you may (without sinning) engage in contraceptive sex with your spouse.

Albeit, the above isn’t relevant to the princ(name removed by moderator)le of double effect. What might (?) be an application of double effect, is if the faith Catholic spouse refuses to engage in contraceptive sex with her dissenting- Catholic or non-Catholic spouse,
and as a result, that spouse seeks divorce. Divorce would be an unintended effect. I say “might” though because refusal is passive, whereas prototypical double effect examples have to do with active causes.

Anyways, I digress. The point was that I don’t think it should surprise anyone for Catholics to wonder if the seal can be broken under certain circumstances, given nuances in Catholic teaching elsewhere.

FrDavid96,

Thank you! This settles my second question.

Two more questions to anyone (I’d rather add them here then start new threads):
  1. Do the Eastern Orthodox (not Easter Rite) churches also maintain an absolutely inviolable Seal of Confession (regardless if they call
    it by that term or not)?
  2. Am I correct to assume that since violating the Seal is intrinsically evil, then that means the law that states the seal is inviolable, is an unalterable law? In other words, the inviolability of the seal is a doctrine, not merely discipline?
Click to expand...
Give any example you have heard of or your imagination can devise but it will make absolutely no difference: the seal is totally inviolable. Let me give you a horrendous example. A man goes to confession and he tells the priest he has raped and murdered 10 children and he intends to murder more. In these circumstances the priest cannot break the seal of the confession. Is the seal inviolable? Yes! Can it be broken under any circumstances? No!

I cannot, and, therefore, will not give you an answer regarding the Eastern churches. You ask is it merely Church discipline or a doctrine of the Faith. It’s a doctrine of the Faith. It’s divine law.
 
Matthew_Holford said:
Give any example you have heard of or your imagination can devise but it will make absolutely no difference: the seal is totally inviolable. Let me give you a horrendous example. A man goes to confession and he tells the priest he has raped and murdered 10 children and he intends to murder more. In these circumstances the priest cannot break the seal of the confession. Is the seal inviolable? Yes! Can it be broken under any circumstances? No!
Click to expand...
This, however, raises a question in my mind: does the seal of confession apply to a non-valid confession.

Namely, if a penitent comes into the confessional, and states they’ve killed and raped 10 children, and tomorrow they intend to do the same at the local kindergarten to five more children, they are OBVIOUSLY not repentent, and therefore there is no valid confession.

If that is the case, does the seal of confession still apply? Can the common criminal come into the confession with no intent of inacting the sacrament, and say his intentions then expect the priest to be silent on the matter?
 
40.png
promethius:
This, however, raises a question in my mind: does the seal of confession apply to a non-valid confession.

Namely, if a penitent comes into the confessional, and states they’ve killed and raped 10 children, and tomorrow they intend to do the same at the local kindergarten to five more children, they are OBVIOUSLY not repentent, and therefore there is no valid confession.

If that is the case, does the seal of confession still apply? Can the common criminal come into the confession with no intent of inacting the sacrament, and say his intentions then expect the priest to be silent on the matter?

This is not true. The penitent being repentant and wanting to avoid future sin are not required for a valid confession. They are required for absolution but the priest choosing not to grant absolution does not make the sacrament invalid.
 
Ana_v said:
  1. Is breaking the Seal of Confession an intrinsic evil?
  2. Is there any (hypothetical) situation in which a priest would be justified in breaking the seal under the principle of double effect (the breaking of the seal being the inintended “second effect”)? Why yes or why no?
Click to expand...
There is NO EXCEPTIONS to keeping what is told in the Confessional secret! NONE!
 
ByzCath said:
This is not true. The penitent being repentant and wanting to avoid future sin are not required for a valid confession. They are required for absolution but the priest choosing not to grant absolution does not make the sacrament invalid.
Click to expand...
How is a confession without an absolution a valid sacrament then? The form is “I absolve you”. Either those words are uttered (and there is a sacrament) or they are not (and there is no sacrament).

That’s like if the priest took a handful of hosts and tossed them on a plate then handed out communion at mass with no Eucharistic prayer. You can’t say “well, there wasn’t a consecration, but that was a valid Eucharist”… there is a matter of form to be observed (as well as person, intent, and matter).
 
40.png
promethius:
This, however, raises a question in my mind: does the seal of confession apply to a non-valid confession.
I am quite sure that you understood the point I was making consequently I fail to comprehend your motive for playing devil’s advocate. My honest answer: I don’t know how the Church would view it. Logical answer: if there’s no valid confession I would presume that there’s no seal to be broken. Of course to be accurate, there’s no issue of validity or non-validity concerning confession. It’s the absolution that is valid or invalid.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top