Seal of Confession, etc. If priest learns he fathered a child

[neophyte]

(post deleted)

 

[goout]

Is there any real-life problem to be productively addressed here, or is the subject matter strictly hypothetical based on entertainment?

 

[Tis_Bearself]

This just seems to be some soap opera about a priest who had an affair.

It’s not a realistic story.

 

[Ana_v]

This just seems to be some soap opera about a priest who had an affair.

It’s not a realistic story.

Well, if you think sex outside of marriage, single motherhood, and children who don’t know their parents identity is not a real world problem, I can’t help you there. If you cannot see the obvious moral lesson in the story I also can’t help you. Do you realize how many novelas are made about single mothers and the suffering that they and their children face. Hmmmm. Geee. I wonder what the point of that could be.

My mother, for example, had me as a single mother and I don’t know who my biological father is.
…

The priest didn’t have an affair as a priest. As I explained in my earlier posts, he and the woman had intimacy the night before he left for seminary. He left her while she was still sleeping.

He never knew she became pregnant. His mother knew, and never told him. And kicked the young woman out.

 

[Ana_v]

Is there any real-life problem to be productively addressed here, or is the subject matter strictly hypothetical based on entertainment

I think adult viewers can answer that for themselves and draw their own conclusions based on knowledge about this fallen world. Also, I recommend reading stories from the Bible. It doesn’t shy away from sexual morality related drama. King David?

But for some reason, if it’s in a TV drama, we’re so scandalized.

 

[Rau]

I do however enjoy posing plots and scenes, describing them, and narrating them. I do that a lot on my Instagram. I will often narrate a scene or explain context where I think it is needed.

Maybe Instagram would be the more appropriate platform for you in this instance?

 

[Ana_v]

Maybe Instagram would be the more appropriate platform for you in this instance?

Nope. If people read my opening posts carefully, they would see that I explicitly stated that analyzing the whole story was beyond the scope of this thread. I was simply using a specific scene as a point of departure for discussion about a general question, which is in the title of my thread. I really don’t understand why it’s so hard to keep to the point. This isn’t a TV or film critic-review focused thread. I was simply using a scene as an example because humans are sensory, visual beings and I thought it would be a helpful reference in order to get a discussion started, that’s all.

 

[Ana_v]

For anyone interested, here is the confessional scene. I added English subtitles.

Note: “Ave María Purísima / Conceived without sin”

is a greeting - response commonly used in Mexico by priests when starting Confession.

 

[Useless]

0n the topic, I would think that the hypothetical priest in question should have whatever relationship with his daughter that she wants to have. If she wanted him to publicly acknowledge her as his daughter I think she has that right.

If the only time her existence is mentioned to him is in the confessional then unfortunately his hands would probably be tied, he shouldn’t track her down or acknowledge her existence because he should not act on things learned in the confessional. Theoretically though, he could ask the “penitent” to bring the matter up with him outside the confessional.

Ultimately the good of the daughter should come before most considerations, but nothing can come before the sanctity of the confessional. That seal cannot be broken for any reason. There is no authority other than God that can authorize breaking the seal and He will never authorize that. Any imaginable scenario that brings up the question of whether a priest should break the seal has only one answer:

Under no circumstances can the priest break the seal of the confessional.

 

[Ana_v]

I mean this in all charity; perhaps the reason it is difficult for other posters to stay on point or topic is because you didn’t define it in a clear and concise way and have gone off-topic yourself in several subsequent posts.

The following is from my very first post:

~ On the use of knowledge gained confidentially~

Please note, this post is not about absolution or the conditions under which absolution is valid or invalid.

This post is about two things:

First,

Can. 983 §1. The sacramental seal is inviolable; therefore it is absolutely forbidden for a confessor to betray in any way a penitent in words or in any manner and for any reason.

Can. 984 §1. A confessor is prohibited completely from using knowledge acquired from confession to the detriment of the penitent even when any danger of revelation is excluded.

Second,

The related (though distinct) topic of information gained by a priest in spiritual direction or private conversation wherein confidentiality is expected, or information was shared on the assumption that trust would not be betrayed.

I am not posing a specific question. Instead, I’m doing something similar to what is done in the News section of the forum – posting content as a point of departure and basis for conversation.

Now that I have established the topic, I pose the scenario.

After that, I posted a video scene, explaining that I was using it as an example.

If anyone was unclear about the topic, I think the most reasonable thing to do would have been to quote my OP, or a specific part of it, and ask for further clarification.

In your case, while you didn’t quote my OP, you did ask for clarification and I thank you for that.
In response to your inquiries, I wrote:

I would like to discuss what a priest would be able to do and would not be able to do if he found out that he fathered a child. Specifically, if he found out in the context of sacramental confession, or in a conversation linked to confession, or confidential (even if non-sacramental) conversation.

By “able”, we can mean able in the ethical sense, the canonical sense, (wherever it applies), prudential, and practical sense. I’m interested in considering the issue from any of those angles.

For example, would he be able to seek out a paternity test?

 

[Ana_v]

Any imaginable scenario that brings up the question of whether a priest should break the seal has only one answer:

Under no circumstances can the priest break the seal of the confessional.

Thank you for your reply.

I understand that the seal is inviolable. My own question is, “What constitutes a violation of the seal?”, not whether the seal may be violated, since Canon law is clear that it may not.

Are there any situations, real or hypothetical, where information is “acted upon” in a way that does not violate the seal?

If anyone knows a Canon lawyer on this forum - - could you please tag the user?

…
Even if something that was brought up in confession, is subsequently brought up outside of confession, I don’t think it necessarily follows that the priest is free to act on the knowledge.
Because doing so still means, acting upon information gained in confession.

The Canon has interesting wording. When expressing the prohibition on the use of knowledge, it says “to the detriment of the penitent”. To me that sounds like a qualifier.

What is interesting about the scene I posted is that the woman does reference the sexual act, while in the confessional, when she says:
“you knew me a long time ago…you shared with me important moments of my life…in the home of your parents”.

But she does not mention that she got pregnant, within the confessional. Because the priest asks her name. After he asks her what her name is, and she gives her name, they move outside of the confessional.

Father finds out about the existence of his daughter outside of the confessional.

So, the act in which she was conceived is brought up in the confessional.

But the consequence of the act is brought up outside of the confessional.

What can a priest do in this situation?

 

[InThePew]

Again, if a priest learns about something outside of the confessional, he is free to act on the information.

True.

I can’t bring up the subject of a person’s confession with them, but they can bring it up with me. If they do, it then becomes information learned outside of the seal.

Real life example: teenager confessed thoughts of self harm during a school Rite II. I explained I wanted to link her with those who could help but in order to do that needed her to come and talk to me afterwards because otherwise I couldn’t tell anyone what she had told me. Thankfully she did (there was a tense moment there) and I passed it onto the school.

Incidentally, the restriction is on using information learned in confesion to the detriment of the penitent. If you tell me your favorite lottery numbers, and I think they’re good, I’m using them!

 

[Ana_v]

I’m not sure where you are getting this idea that if something is brought up in Confession, it can’t be brought up outside of Confession by the penitent to the priest at a later time. That’s incorrect

I choose my words very carefully. I didn’t say that something brought up in confession can’t subsequently be brought up outside of confession, e.g. by the penitent.

What I said was:

Even if something that was brought up in confession, is subsequently brought up outside of confession, I don’t think it necessarily follows that the priest is free to act on the knowledge.
Because doing so still means, acting upon information gained in confession.

Your reply to me confirms my suspicion. When pressed on the topic about the seal of the confession, answers will boil down to how Catholics define the terms “use” and “act upon”. Hence, the title and subtitle of my thread:

On the use of knowledge gained confidentially

I think you should stop referencing this fictional scenario.

I disagree. As the author of this thread, it was within my freedom to choose the topic and the focus. I decided that a very specific scene that has been on my mind would complement the topic very well, to be used as a “case-study”, and so to speak, to help anchor the discussion.

Others are free to use or offer their own examples if they wish. I am not forcing anyone to participate in this thread. I simply invited people to do so. If others do not like the manner in which I have posed the topic, or the example I have chosen, they are free to start their own threads.

I don’t think we should denigrate fiction or a fictional scenario just because it doesn’t suit our fancy or go the way we want it to. I’m sure fictional scenarios are used and brought up very often in seminaries and canon law studies by professors and students.

I could have posed the same exact OP on a philosophy forum and probably would have had much more success. But I chose to do so on a Catholic forum and so far have been disappointed with how it’s gone.

My major in college was philosophy. I belonged to a group called Socratic Club in which every week a member would pick a topic of his or her choice, present on it, and then open up the floor for discussion.

There are many topics I presented on and on two occasions I presented on a film.

One of the films was The Mission. No one got hung up on the fact that it was a movie. We stayed focused on the moral questions the movie raises.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Father finds out about the existence of his daughter outside of the confessional.

So, the act in which she was conceived is brought up in the confessional.

But the consequence of the act is brought up outside of the confessional.

As we said before…the priest simply asks the person to come talk to him outside of confession.

Presumably, in the TV show scenario, the priest did this very thing, as you said the next scene shows the priest and the mother of the child having a talk that doesn’t appear to be “confession”.

The seal doesn’t apply to whatever the priest discusses with the person outside confession. It does not matter if they said ABC first in confession and then met the priest outside of confession and repeated ABC to him there. Once they said ABC outside of confession, that information isn’t under seal and the priest could tell it to someone else or act on it.

This is how priests are trained to deal with all sorts of tricky situations, whether it’s “Father, I had your child from our affair 20 years ago” or “Father, I just murdered my girlfriend” or “Father, I’m thinking about killing myself”. The priest asks the person to speak with him outside of confession. If they agree to do this, the priest has a lot more freedom to tell others and act to help the person.

It’s not some big huge giant dilemma unless the person refuses to talk to the priest outside of confession.

 

[Ana_v]

I can’t believe I have to point out something that should be obvious, but of course I had to rely on a fictional scenerio for this thread!

I’m not privy to real world confessions to know who, when, where, and how anyone has ever confessed to a priest, or disclosed to him, a sexual act or pregnancy that involved said confessor!

I’m not privy to private conversations between priests and laypeople! The only way to do that is to eavesdrop!

I do know, however, that there are priests who have betrayed their vows of celibacy. I know that there are seminarians who have been involved in sexual activity. I do know that there are men outside of seminaries who have engaged and are engaging in sexual activity.

I know that there are men who didn’t know they fathered a child. Just a few weeks ago, I watched an interview with an actor from a different telenovela (that I’m currently watching) who revealed that when he moved from Argentina to Mexico to begin his acting career, he and his girlfriend had broken up. And he didn’t know until a year and a half later, when he visited Argentina, that she had gotten pregnant. This was back before cell phones, etc.

And guess what? In the telenovela that I’m watching, that he is featured in, he plays
a character that discovers (years later) that his former fiancé had gotten pregnant and he didn’t even know about it. And she had a miscarriage.

I know that there are many single mothers.

I know that there are many children born outside of marriage.

I know that there are children who don’t know one or both of their parents, or don’t know that they have siblings or half siblings. Etc.

So, it is in no way absurd to pose a scenario about a priest who learns that he is a father.

The fact that the scenario involves him learning this information in a situation linked to Confession means that this scenario can be used as an interesting example that touches upon a lot of points at once:

Canon law, ethics, human emotion, etc.

I could defend the drama very well, if I wanted to, but as I said, TV or film criticism wasn’t the point of the thread.

I’ll only note here that if people can’t discern the most obvious theme in all of this (forgiveness) then we are in trouble indeed.

The woman is wounded that the priest (who wasn’t a priest at the time that they had sexual intimacy) disappeared from her life, after she gave him her virginity, and carries his child… and imagine how this otherwise good priest feels at learning that his daughter was abandoned by her own mother, and that he didn’t even know his daughter existed.

They have to forgive eachother. I’m not talking about the sacrament. I’m talking about human forgiveness. A forgiveness that won’t be easy because sins have consequences, and sometimes, very, very serious consequences that no one foresees.

And he has to “step outside of the confessional” for this forgiveness to happen. A sinner forgiving another sinner.

Why is that such a bad thing to portray on TV!
For the love of God! I feel like I’m preaching to the choir.

 

[Ana_v]

And yes, I am fixated. Do you know why?

I am working on writing a novel and a melodrama, and I am borrowing elements from literature, theatre, TV, film, and many other sources, including personal stories.

It was not my original intention to reveal something personal about myself such as me being conceived outside of marriage and not having a clue who my father is, or my writing projects. I felt compelled to do that to try and justify the topic of my thread and I really wish that wasn’t necessary and people could just stick to the topic.

If that cannot be done, then moderators please close down the thread.

There’s a renown canon lawyer named Edward Peters (he has a blog) who I may be able to submit the question to in an email. I will look into that.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

I don’t think we should denigrate fiction or a fictional scenario just because it doesn’t suit our fancy or go the way we want it to. I’m sure fictional scenarios are used and brought up very often in seminaries and canon law studies by professors and students.

I could have posed the same exact OP on a philosophy forum and probably would have had much more success. But I chose to do so on a Catholic forum and so far have been disappointed with how it’s gone.

You’re still free to go post it on some philosophy forum, but this forum is concerned with presenting Catholic teaching, including on what priests are allowed to do after hearing something in confession that might require them to act outside the confessional.

This isn’t a topic for philosophical discussion. Priests have rules to follow, and they generally follow them.

It’s not very helpful for you to try to make a fairly simple topic into a complicated philosophy discussion, which it isn’t. Also, the whole other question of whether a priest might or might not establish a relationship with his long-lost child that he didn’t know he had is a separate issue from the seal of the confessional.

It’s hard to not come away from this thread with the idea that you for whatever reason just have an unusual level of interest in the plot of this story. I won’t speculate on why that is, but most of us don’t sit around pondering the problems of some fictional priest and his illicit romantic life.

 

[Ana_v]

You’re still free to go post it on some philosophy forum, but this forum is concerned with presenting Catholic teaching, including on what priests are allowed to do after hearing something in confession that might require them to act outside the confessional.

Please reread my opening post. I was very, very thoughtful and intentional with my word choice. If despite that, people cannot see that I did my best to delineate the topic and specify what I wanted to discuss, I give up.

Thank you for your participation. Moderator please close this thread.

 

[goout]

goout:

Is there any real-life problem to be productively addressed here, or is the subject matter strictly hypothetical based on entertainment

I think adult viewers can answer that for themselves and draw their own conclusions based on knowledge about this fallen world. Also, I recommend reading stories from the Bible. It doesn’t shy away from sexual morality related drama. King David?

But for some reason, if it’s in a TV drama, we’re so scandalized.

We know the context of King David’s story. The question at the top of the page has no real context. It’s inflammatory and on top of that, it’s that special paradigm of non-productiveness: hypothetically inflammatory.
Surely you can see the difference.

 

[0Scarlett_nidiyilii]

Interestingly, one of the more allegedly “correct” legal movies is “My Cousin Vinny”, so they say.

My biological. Clock. Is ticking.