Seal of Confession - preknowledge

  • Thread starter Thread starter jimmysnyder
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

jimmysnyder

Guest
A priest witnesses a crime. Before being able to report the crime, the perpetrator confesses to the priest. May the priest report what he knows?
 
jimmysnyder said:
A priest witnesses a crime. Before being able to report the crime, the perpetrator confesses to the priest. May the priest report what he knows?
Click to expand...
Yes, since the priest witnessed the crime. He could not, however, say that the perpetrator confessed it to him, nor anything the perpetrator told him that he would have only known from that confession.
 
Last edited:
If I were in this position (and of course I would not be) I would doubt my ability to keep the two streams of information separate under questioning. For example, without the confession I might answer ‘90% certain’ to the ‘can you identify the offender with certainty?’ question. With the confession I might tend to ‘firm up on the answer’. So a priest would be in a terrible situation. Even if he answered perfectly and refused answers which might involve the confession the police would be likely to guess that confession was involved and then become more determined that the offender was guilty.
 
Last edited:
It appears that I need to clarify my question. It is not a question about general ethical problems related to the reporting of crimes. Rather it is a question about official Church policy concerning the Seal of the Confessional. Is there written or unwritten policy?
 
jimmysnyder said:
Rather it is a question about official Church policy concerning the Seal of the Confessional. Is there written or unwritten policy?
Click to expand...
From the Code of Canon Law:

https://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_P3G.HTM
“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.”
Click to expand...
“§2. The interpreter, if there is one, and all others who in any way have knowledge of sins from confession are also obliged to observe secrecy.”
Click to expand...
“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.”
Click to expand...
“§2. A person who has been placed in authority cannot use in any manner for external governance the knowledge about sins which he has received in confession at any time.”
Click to expand...
 
Thank you Faulken. I read the entire page you linked to and couldn’t find a clear answer to my question. At least as far as written policy is concerned the issue is not clearly covered. However, there does seem to be some wiggle room in Can. 984 §2. It mentions “knowledge about sins which he has received in confession.” If the priest already has knowledge before confession then can it be said that the knowledge was received in confession? This is no longer a question about policy, but rather a request for guidance on the interpretation of policy. Faulken, are you in a position to interpret official Church policy? If not, are you in contact with someone who is?
 
jimmysnyder said:
If the priest already has knowledge before confession then can it be said that the knowledge was received in confession?
Click to expand...
No.
jimmysnyder said:
are you in a position to interpret official Church policy? If not, are you in contact with someone who is?
Click to expand...
I’m in no position to do so. The closest person we have to that here is @edward_george1, but I’m 90% certain he would tell you the same thing I have said:
jimmysnyder said:
40.png
jimmysnyder:
A priest witnesses a crime. Before being able to report the crime, the perpetrator confesses to the priest. May the priest report what he knows?
Click to expand...
Yes, since the priest witnessed the crime. He could not, however, say that the perpetrator confessed it to him, nor anything the perpetrator told him that he would have only known from that confession.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
If someone commits a crime and the priest witnessed it, the person committing the crime having confessed it does not somehow take away the priest’s ability to report it. He cannot act on knowledge he received in the Confessional. He can act upon knowledge he received in other venues. Fauken is right.

-Fr ACEGC
 
My own personal thought was confession is kept private.

I can tell you right now there are murders who have repented in heaven.

A priest can not judge any soul good or bad.

But of course a priest can be a witness to a crime just like any other person.
 
My thanks to all for your answers. You may be aware of a series of detective novels written by G. K. Chesterton in which the amateur detective is Father Brown. There is a TV series based on this character. In particular there is an episode with the name “The Daughter of Autolycus”. I don’t think Chesterton wrote it, they just used the Father Brown character in an original story. I could be wrong about it, but I failed to find mention of Chesterton having written it by means of googling. I was prompted to ask my question because in it a situation similar to the one I have asked about occurs. The circumstances are not exactly the same. For one thing, Father Brown does not witness the crime, he merely proves to himself that it was committed by the guilty party. The guilty party does not actually confess to the crime, he merely makes confession without actually confessing anything at all. Rightly or wrongly, Father Brown considers that he is bound by the Seal of Confession. None the less, he seems willing to violate 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.” (emphasis mine) by praising the rival of the criminal for advancement in the Church. If you get the opportunity to watch this episode I hope you will remember me and let me know what you think of it.
 
You may have been watching a show based loosely on the stories by Chesterton, produced by people who do not care enough about Catholicism to portray it accurately. Chesterton’s stories were in perfect line with the Church’s teachings, and Fr. Brown does not break the Seal in any of them. There are more than one television series of Fr. Brown, so I won’t comment on any particular one. But, the seal must be interpreted in accordance with canon law which dictates that the penitent must not be harmed in any way for his/her confession by the priest. The classic example given to us in canon law school (I am a canon lawyer) is when someone confesses they put poison in the communion wine. A priest cannot go out of his normal routine in order to not drink the poison at mass if the only knowledge he has of it is from the confessional.
 
Thank you SerraSemper for this fascinating post. I think you are correct about the producers of the Father Brown TV show. Are you aware whether Chesterton even wrote a story called “The Daughter of Autolycus”? As I said, I googled for it and only found references to the show.

Now to your classic example of canon law. At first I was skeptical, but I googled it as well and found that you are correct. This question has indeed come up for discussion. From my reading I get the impression that there is more than one opinion within the Church as to whether or not the Seal of Confession applies. Apparently the Holy See has not weighed in on it, perhaps in fear of infecting weak minds. Thanks again for this fascinating post.
 
The Holy See has weighed on it. In the form of the canons! This is not rocket science.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top