Seal of Confession-confused

[CollegeKid]

I need some help. I’ve always been a bit confused about the Church’s strict rule regarding the Seal of Confession- that the priest absolutely may never for any reason whatsoever, not even the impending death of an innocent third party, reveal the sins of one of his penitants.

The explanation I remember reading (I think in the old Catholic Encyclopedia) for this is that for the priest to reveal any of these sins would violate the penitant’s right to keeping their good name (reputation).

The possible situation in which I don’t understand the application of this rule, as I intimated above, is the hypothetical situation where a penitant confesses to doing something that may soon cause the death of one or two or many innocent people, such as confessing to rigging a nuclear weapon in a football stadium.

My question: why is the penitant’s good name more important than the life(s) of an innocent third party which may be lost? Please correct my mistakes, if I’ve made any, and I thank you for your time and consideration.

 

[jmcrae]

It’s not about their good name, but about their salvation.

Most people would rather die and go to Hell than think their priest could ever tell anyone their sins. The seal of the Confessional insures that no one will ever be intimidated from going to Confession by the thought that their priest could ever tell on them.

 

[LilyM]

It’s not just about the person’s good name, it’s a simple matter of a person’s right to privacy about such things as their sins, which really are between themselves and God alone. There are many other situations - doctors, lawyers, counsellors or therapists - where professionals are similarly bound by confidentiality.

What a priest CAN do in such instances is deny absolution and urge the person to hand themselves in. I should imagine they can make an anonymous tip to the police or some such, without revealing that they found it out in confession or who it was who confessed.

 

[wanner47]

from catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0059.html

The standard of secrecy protecting a confession outweighs any form of professional confidentiality or secrecy. When a person unburdens his soul and confesses his sins to a priest in the Sacrament of Penance, a very sacred trust is formed. The priest must maintain absolute secrecy about anything that a person confesses. For this reason, confessionals were developed with screens to protect the anonymity of the penitent. This secrecy is called “the sacramental seal,” “the seal of the confessional,” or “the seal of confession.”

The sacramental seal is inviolable. Quoting Canon 983.1 of the Code of Canon Law, the Catechism states, “…It is a crime for a confessor in any way to betray a penitent by word or in any other manner or for any reason” (No. 2490). A priest, therefore, cannot break the seal to save his own life, to protect his good name, to refute a false accusation, to save the life of another, to aid the course of justice (like reporting a crime), or to avert a public calamity. He cannot be compelled by law to disclose a person’s confession or be bound by any oath he takes, e.g. as a witness in a court trial. A priest cannot reveal the contents of a confession either directly, by repeating the substance of what has been said, or indirectly, by some sign, suggestion, or action. A Decree from the Holy Office (Nov. 18, 1682) mandated that confessors are forbidden, even where there would be no revelation direct or indirect, to make any use of the knowledge obtained in the confession that would “displease” the penitent or reveal his identity.

(Just as an aside, a great movie which deals with this very topic is Alfred Hitchcock’s “I Confess,” which deals with a priest who hears a murder confession and then is framed for the murder. As a priest, I was in agony during much of the movie.)

BTW, I’ve seen the movie “I Confess” and it is excellent!

 

[joshua_b]

I need some help. I’ve always been a bit confused about the Church’s strict rule regarding the Seal of Confession- that the priest absolutely may never for any reason whatsoever, not even the impending death of an innocent third party, reveal the sins of one of his penitants.

The explanation I remember reading (I think in the old Catholic Encyclopedia) for this is that for the priest to reveal any of these sins would violate the penitant’s right to keeping their good name (reputation).

The possible situation in which I don’t understand the application of this rule, as I intimated above, is the hypothetical situation where a penitant confesses to doing something that may soon cause the death of one or two or many innocent people, such as confessing to rigging a nuclear weapon in a football stadium.

My question: why is the penitant’s good name more important than the life(s) of an innocent third party which may be lost? Please correct my mistakes, if I’ve made any, and I thank you for your time and consideration.

This is a legitimate question, but you seem to lack a basic understanding of what is required for absolution. If you are confessing a sin that you INTEND to commit, then there is no true contrition for that sin, because true contrition includes a firm purpose of amendment, meaning you have no intention of commiting that sin any more (doesn’t mean you WONT, just that you intend not to). By intending to carry out this sinful act, there can be no absolution, and any good priest will tell you that you are not absolved. I honestly just can not see how this situation would ever come up.

 

[wanner47]

This is a legitimate question, but you seem to lack a basic understanding of what is required for absolution. If you are confessing a sin that you INTEND to commit, then there is no true contrition for that sin, because true contrition includes a firm purpose of amendment, meaning you have no intention of commiting that sin any more (doesn’t mean you WONT, just that you intend not to). By intending to carry out this sinful act, there can be no absolution, and any good priest will tell you that you are not absolved. I honestly just can not see how this situation would ever come up.

I think he’s referring to a situation where someone would go into the confessional and say, “Father, I just rigged a bomb at the local football stadium. It’s set to go off in one hour but I’m sorry I did it now and I want to confess.”

 

[joshua_b]

I think he’s referring to a situation where someone would go into the confessional and say, “Father, I just rigged a bomb at the local football stadium. It’s set to go off in one hour but I’m sorry I did it now and I want to confess.”

I understand, but just in a practical sense, if there is ample time for the confessor to save someones life by violating the seal of the confessional, there is ample time for the penitent to reverse the consequences on their own. As long as that holds true, then the penitent must reverse the outcome (or potential outcome) of their actions to show true contrition.

I’m not being obstinant here, I just truly dont see how this could really apply. If I’m missing something here, then please go on.

 

[asquared]

It’s not just about the person’s good name, it’s a simple .

What a priest CAN do in such instances is deny absolution and urge the person to hand themselves in. I should imagine they can make an anonymous tip to the police or some such, without revealing that they found it out in confession or who it was who confessed.

no, they may not withhold absolution on the condition that the criminal turn himself in, however they may withhold absolution if the penitent does not give evidence of contrition. No, the priest cannot reveal in any way shape or form information received in the internal forum (confession) anonymously or any other way.

for a complete discussion see Catholic Answer (the other one, a publication of OSV) Nov-Dec 2006 The Seal of Confession by Edrawrd N Peters JD JCD

 

[LilyM]

no, they may not withhold absolution on the condition that the criminal turn himself in, however they may withhold absolution if the penitent does not give evidence of contrition. No, the priest cannot reveal in any way shape or form information received in the internal forum (confession) anonymously or any other way.

for a complete discussion see Catholic Answer (the other one, a publication of OSV) Nov-Dec 2006 The Seal of Confession by Edrawrd N Peters JD JCD

I didn’t mean to imply making the absolution conditional on the person turning themselves in, just that both could be done during the confession.

As for the other point - if a bomb was planted somewhere and I was a priest who knew it and could save lives by alerting the police without revealing my identity or the identity of the person who confessed to me, why could I not do so?

 

[vince2paul]

I think he’s referring to a situation where someone would go into the confessional and say, “Father, I just rigged a bomb at the local football stadium. It’s set to go off in one hour but I’m sorry I did it now and I want to confess.”

-Off-topic-

“Father, I just rigged a bomb at the church carpark. It’s set to go off in two minutes but I’m sorry I did it now and I want to confess.”

 

[Caesar]

I need some help. I’ve always been a bit confused about the Church’s strict rule regarding the Seal of Confession- that the priest absolutely may never for any reason whatsoever, not even the impending death of an innocent third party, reveal the sins of one of his penitants.

The explanation I remember reading (I think in the old Catholic Encyclopedia) for this is that for the priest to reveal any of these sins would violate the penitant’s right to keeping their good name (reputation).

The possible situation in which I don’t understand the application of this rule, as I intimated above, is the hypothetical situation where a penitant confesses to doing something that may soon cause the death of one or two or many innocent people, such as confessing to rigging a nuclear weapon in a football stadium.

My question: why is the penitant’s good name more important than the life(s) of an innocent third party which may be lost? Please correct my mistakes, if I’ve made any, and I thank you for your time and consideration.

The point of the seal of confession has nothing to do with the penitent’s name, whether previously good or bad. Rather, it ensures that the confession remains between the penitent, the priest and God.

And priests are trained to deal with this. It can be assumed that since the crimminal is confessing his crime(s) he believes in, and is seeking, forgiveness and absolution. So for a crime such as murder or theft or the like, the priest might try to convince the person to turn themselves in and even deny absolution until they do so. If the person truly believes that God will forgive if he repents, then he will follow the priests adivice- if not, why would he go to confession in the first place?

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I believe that the seal is only on who the individual is. In the case that the OP has stated I do not believe that there is any issue with the priest making an anonymous phone call to the authorities to alert them to this nuclear bomb, he just can not say who told him.

It is the identity that is protected by the seal.

Relevant 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.

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.

So reporting the nuclear bomb in no way betrays the penitent or is to the detriment of the penitent.

 

[teachccd]

In the Sacrament of Reconciliation the penitent is in the presence of God represented by the priest.The priest, through apostolic succession, is given the authority to forgive or retain sin. (See John 20:19-23) The priest is not there to judge the soul of a person but to actualize the judgement that God gives us. On that note, even though the priest is indeed present in the confessional, you are confessing to God and only God through His ministerial priesthood. So as far as what takes place outside the confessional cannot reflect itself within the confessional. This is an encounter with God and nothing less. If the Seal of Confession were broken then the priest diminished the sacredness of the Sacrament and it becomes a mere encounter with man. I hope that this makes sense as we do live in a world where trust is doubted and is carried into the sanctity of this most healing Sacrament… God Bless…

 

[LilyM]

-Off-topic-

“Father, I just rigged a bomb at the church carpark. It’s set to go off in two minutes but I’m sorry I did it now and I want to confess.”

I absolve you, my son … now RUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUN!!!

 

[Caesar]

Consider St. John Nepomucene. He was the confessor to the wife of King Wenceslaus IV in Prague. When the King demanded that St. John reveal the Queen’s confessions, when he refused and was sent to prison. The King offered this venerable Saint great riches, but he still refused. Even under torture St. John remained stubborn and did not break the seal of the confessional, so he was tied to a rock and thrown into a river, where afterward a strange light would shine up from the depths of the water. St. John Nepomucene is known as the Martyr of the Confessional.

 

[LilyM]

Consider St. John Nepomucene. He was the confessor to the wife of King Wenceslaus IV in Prague. When the King demanded that St. John reveal the Queen’s confessions, when he refused and was sent to prison. The King offered this venerable Saint great riches, but he still refused. Even under torture St. John remained stubborn and did not break the seal of the confessional, so he was tied to a rock and thrown into a river, where afterward a strange light would shine up from the depths of the water. St. John Nepomucene is known as the Martyr of the Confessional.

Yes, but of course that would’ve harmed the Queen if he’d revealed her confessions to the King. A totally anonymous tip off to the police when a crime plan has been revealed resulting in possible deaths of innocent people is something different altogether.

 

[porthos11]

I absolve you, my son … now RUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUN!!!

Er, that’s invalid

The valid form would be

I absolve you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Now let’s get the heck OUT OF HERE!

That’s the valid form.

 

[mgy100]

Priests have been killed, jailed and tortured for not breaking the seal of confession, and just not in times past. It happens to this very day. Confession is the last safe place where a man can confess his sins in true and utter secrecy without having to worry about telling other people.

 

[Meggie]

Is a priest that lists off “common sins he hears in confession so don’t be afraid to confess them” sorts of deals in violation of the seal of confession, when no names are mentioned in any way shape or form?
In this case it was to a small group of young adults (19-25) that were on a retreat, most knowing little about the Catholic church or sacraments, although it was made up of all Catholics.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Is a priest that lists off “common sins he hears in confession so don’t be afraid to confess them” sorts of deals in violation of the seal of confession, when no names are mentioned in any way shape or form?
In this case it was to a small group of young adults (19-25) that were on a retreat, most knowing little about the Catholic church or sacraments, although it was made up of all Catholics.

No this is not a violation of the seal.

Again, if you look back at the Canons from the actual Code of Canon Law that I posted, the seal is to protect the identity of the individual.