Seal of Confession Question

[LilyM]

I still don’t see how a priest calling the police and saying “I can’t tell you anything more but I have reason to believe that so-and-so’s life is in danger.” No more, no less. Besides, if the person is talking about something they intend to do in the future, it’s not a confession whether it takes place in the confessional, the priest’s office or Maxwell Smart’s Cone of Silence.

Well what is the first thing the police will do? Call so and so and say ‘we’ve been told of a threat against your life.’

What’s the first thing so-and-so does? Tell at least some of his or her friends and acquaintances. Who in turn ttell some of theirs. After all, it’s too good a story not to tell. Eventually it will certainly get back to the person who confessed the intent, who won’t need a college degree to figure out that the priest has blabbed.

Think that person will ever go anywhere near a confessional again knowing that that confidence was broken? of course not. They will avoid the sacrament, with immeasurable harm to their soul resulting.

 

[Just_Lurking]

I go to confession behind a screen AND curtain

Today, many Catholics go to the sacrament of Reconciliation in an open room with no screen or curtain.

 

[Richard320]

I can’t cite the source for this, because I don’t remember where I read it. But somewhere I have read that after emerging from the confessional, the priest has to act as if he has completely forgotten everything he heard. The rationale being that while hearing confessions, he is acting in persona Christi, therefore he as a human individual did not really hear all those things, it was Christ who heard them. Of course in actual fact the priest did hear those things, but morally, he has to act as if he did not.

The penalty of excommunication is just that, a penalty, that is not in itself the reason for the existence of the seal. The real reason, at least if I understand it correctly, is what I just gave above. There is also the practical fact that people would be less likely to go to confession if the seal did not exist, but that is still not the primary reason.

You’re probably thinking about Bishop Sheen’s recorded talk on confession, where the penitent confesses that he stole the priest’s watch. I won’t give any more away - it’s worth a listen.

There’s also a pretty good movie that explores the Seal of Confession called A Prayer for the Dying

 

[louisak]

You’re probably thinking about Bishop Sheen’s recorded talk on confession, where the penitent confesses that he stole the priest’s watch. I won’t give any more away - it’s worth a listen.

I haven’t listened to any recordings by Bishop Sheen, but somebody may have quoted from it, and maybe that’s where I got the idea.

You say it’s worth a listen, but you haven’t provided enough information for the rest of us to obtain a copy of this recording and listen to it. What is the title? Is there a copy of the audio online somewhere? If not, how would we obtain it? Is there a CD or tape?

 

[Richard320]

I haven’t listened to any recordings by Bishop Sheen, but somebody may have quoted from it, and maybe that’s where I got the idea.

You say it’s worth a listen, but you haven’t provided enough information for the rest of us to obtain a copy of this recording and listen to it. What is the title? Is there a copy of the audio online somewhere? If not, how would we obtain it? Is there a CD or tape?

The series is called “Life is Worth Living.”

I own the cassette set. It’s probably available on CD now. They used to be on EWTN for downloading, but I can’t find them. fultonsheen.com/Fulton-Sheen-MP3.cfm shows them available if you register. They’re probably hosted other places n the web, too, just google it.

 

[Gorgias]

You’re probably thinking about Bishop Sheen’s recorded talk on confession, where the penitent confesses that he stole the priest’s watch.

Is this what you’re talking about? I found it at timothyandtitus.wordpress.com/2011/04/02/why-penance-after-confession-fulton-sheen/

There is a story told, which is sheer imagination with no basis in fact, about a man who came to confession to a priest. During the course of the confession, he stole the priest’s watch. At the end of the confession, he said to the priest: “Oh, Father, I forgot to tell you. I stole a watch.” The priest, emphasizing the necessity of satisfaction, said: “You must return the watch to the owner.”…

 

[Actaeon]

Let’s suppose she said, “I’m thinking of doing this thing.” What’s the appropriate response? If it were simply a counseling session, what would we expect? The counselor would – we presume – recommend that the person seek the appropriate level of help. But, if the person should go ahead with their plans, wouldn’t there be the expectation of confidentiality on the part of the counselor?

Actually, in the USA, when a patient confesses that they intend to harm another person (or often times themselves), a certified counselor is required by law to report that to the appropriate governmental agencies.

 

[Actaeon]

I want to focus on the word “penitent” because obviously, as someone pointed out earlier, a person is *not *penitent if they go into the confessional and say “I’m going to kill two children,” but then they never change their mind, or recite an act of contrition. If you’re going to do it, you are *not *sorry. It could be argued that the sacrament of confession *has not taken place *in that instant, and the person is a potential *perpetrator *rather than a penitent. The seal shouldn’t apply.

But even in that extreme case, as someone also pointed out earlier, there is a *long way *in between saying that you’re *going *to do something, and actually *doing *something. I’ll stop short of saying whether a priest could or could not call the cops in that instance, but I think it’s very likely that this didn’t happen.

I’ve argued that point before: that a valid confession requires valid material and that an attempt to preemptively confess a plan to commit sin with no purpose of amendment does not constitute a valid confession wherein there could be any expectation of the seal taking place… that such a behavior would rather be an abuse of the sacrament by the person approaching the priest (a person whom we could not even qualify at that point as a penitent because of their lack of contrition or purpose of amendment).

Personally, if I thought my priest had stood by and not done anything about a murder that was about to take place, that would certainly keep me out of his confessional, would definitely drive me to another parish, and most likely would make me question why I was a catholic in the first place. The argument that the sacrament and seal can be abused to “keep people going to confession” is simply bunk, because if that is the case then there are much more horrible ramifications that will keep people from even coming to the church in the first place.

Now, if we assume the woman confessed a desire to kill her children but gave the statement that she was contrite and wasn’t going to do it (and only later did she act on this desire), then such a confession would be valid and the seal would apply… but if she went into the confessional and merely stated an intent to murder and couldn’t be bothered to resist such temptation, I argue that there was no valid confession and therefore no seal.

 

[Gorgias]

I’ve argued that point before: that a valid confession requires valid material and that an attempt to preemptively confess a plan to commit sin with no purpose of amendment does not constitute a valid confession wherein there could be any expectation of the seal taking place.

Well… there would have been no opportunity for absolution; yet, the seal isn’t one ‘of the absolution’, but ‘of the confessional’, isn’t it?

Now, if we assume the woman confessed a desire to kill her children but gave the statement that she was contrite and wasn’t going to do it (and only later did she act on this desire), then such a confession would be valid and the seal would apply… but if she went into the confessional and merely stated an intent to murder and couldn’t be bothered to resist such temptation, I argue that there was no valid confession and therefore no seal.

If, on the other hand, she confessed the desire, and talked about how she was trying to fight the impulses, then it would be sufficient to warrant the seal of the confessional (aside from the question of whether it was matter that would warrant absolution). At that point, the priest would be required to hold as confidential the information that he learned int the context of the attempt at sacramental confession. So, there would be no opportunity for him to go to the authorities. (Of course, as I mentioned earlier, we would expect that he would have strongly encouraged her to seek counseling.)

 

[Actaeon]

Well… there would have been no opportunity for absolution; yet, the seal isn’t one ‘of the absolution’, but ‘of the confessional’, isn’t it?

You’re correct, the seal applies to confession, not absolution per se.

However, what is a confessional? Is it a specific space? If there’s construction in the church and the priest must hear confessions in his office for three weeks, does that mean the seal of the confessional doesn’t apply there? No. The confessional is whereever confessions are being heard… and so where there isn’t a valid attempt at confession (such as when no penitent is present) then the seal of confession would not apply.

If, on the other hand, she confessed the desire, and talked about how she was trying to fight the impulses, then it would be sufficient to warrant the seal of the confessional (aside from the question of whether it was matter that would warrant absolution). At that point, the priest would be required to hold as confidential the information that he learned int the context of the attempt at sacramental confession. So, there would be no opportunity for him to go to the authorities. (Of course, as I mentioned earlier, we would expect that he would have strongly encouraged her to seek counseling.)

Yes, I agree on this point (and note that it’s very similar to what I posited as another example where the seal of confession would hold as valid). It all comes down to a single question: is this woman ACTUALLY a penitent or not? If she’s not a penitent, then it’s not a confession. If she is, then it’s a confession and the seal applies.

 

[Leon_Bloy]

Like Ike said, the seal is absolutely involiable. Nothing can be revealed for any reason. Period.

Period.

One priest in a book tells how he refuses to even speak about anything in the most remotely general terms, nor to reveal whether or not somebody has even come to him for confession.

He gives this hypothetical example: a priest talks casually at a party about how when he heard his very first confession (without mentioning any other details), the penitent said they had committed adultery.

A few weeks later, at another party, a woman boasts that she was Fr. So-and-so’s first penitent.

Whoops.

 

[poche]

The priest is not allowed to say anything he heard in the context of confession. That secret is absolute and he has no choice.

 

[Actaeon]

Like Ike said, the seal is absolutely involiable. Nothing can be revealed for any reason. Period.

Period.

That is not a logical argument, it is an assertion which you provide no evidence to support.

One priest in a book tells how he refuses to even speak about anything in the most remotely general terms, nor to reveal whether or not somebody has even come to him for confession.

He gives this hypothetical example: a priest talks casually at a party about how when he heard his very first confession (without mentioning any other details), the penitent said they had committed adultery.

A few weeks later, at another party, a woman boasts that she was Fr. So-and-so’s first penitent.

A nice example, for certain, about why a priest should not discuss any details about a confession (at least, not with any sort of information that has any possible identification factor)…

… but that’s a false analogy to the original question, which was about a woman who did not come and make a confession, but rather came and stated a plan to commit sin to the priest (under the guise of making a confession). There is, simply put, no way to compare that hypothetical situation to the one you have recounted here.

 

[LilyM]

That is not a logical argument, it is an assertion which you provide no evidence to support.

A nice example, for certain, about why a priest should not discuss any details about a confession (at least, not with any sort of information that has any possible identification factor)…

… but that’s a false analogy to the original question, which was about a woman who did not come and make a confession, but rather came and stated a plan to commit sin to the priest (under the guise of making a confession). There is, simply put, no way to compare that hypothetical situation to the one you have recounted here.

So if you made an appointment with your doctor to meet in his or her surgery to ‘have a chat’, not being ill at all, but said private medical stuff during the course of that chat (say you were seeking advice about the illness of a loved one rather than your own) you’d be fine for the doctor to blab the contents of that chat all over town?

Confidentiality is more about the relationship between the parties than the setting - it is the fact that you are talking to your doctor/lawyer/priest in the context of their role as such, rather than just the fact you are formally having a legal/medical consult or formally making a confession that gives rise to this expectation that what you say will be confidential.

Canon law sets the bare minimum - it does not mean that ethically or morally there are not times where more than that bare minimum is called for.

 

[Actaeon]

So if you made an appointment with your doctor to meet in his or her surgery to ‘have a chat’, not being ill at all, but said private medical stuff during the course of that chat (say you were seeking advice about the illness of a loved one rather than your own) you’d be fine for the doctor to blab the contents of that chat all over town?

Under the privacy act of 1972, discussing confidential medical information is always protected, whether one is discussing their own condition or those of their dependents.

Again, this is a false analogy.

Instead, let’s compare it to the psychiatrist who sees a new patient. That new patient sits down and gives a detailed plan to murder two people… not speaking hypothetically, but actually detailing a plan.

Not only does the privacy act of 1972 NOT apply in preventing the psychiatrist from speaking with police, the law actually COMPELS the psychiatrist to report that plan to police (or the psychiatrist can face accessory to murder charges).

Confidentiality is more about the relationship between the parties than the setting - it is the fact that you are talking to your doctor/lawyer/priest in the context of their role as such, rather than just the fact you are formally having a legal/medical consult or formally making a confession that gives rise to this expectation that what you say will be confidential.

And that relationships is predicated on the idea of valid confession, which requires valid material from an actual penitent to exist. A person “confessing” that they are planning and going to murder someone is NOT a penitent and NOT confessing valid material. They have no validity of the “expected relationship” because they are NOT partaking in any part of actual confession…

Canon law sets the bare minimum - it does not mean that ethically or morally there are not times where more than that bare minimum is called for.

Nonetheless, the moral ramifications are horrendous if the seal applies to the case of the woman telling the priest that she planned to murder while purporting to be confessing.

First and foremost, what that means is that the seal of the confessional does in reality is protect the interests of the personal murder (that interest being to commit murder, not to repent from sin) over the lives of the innocent that will be lost if the priest fails to report the plan. That is wrong, it’s evil. It turns the sacrament from a means of grace for the penitent into a means of cooperation with evil on the part of the priest (might I remind you that it is a sin itself to NOT speak when one can do so to prevent upcoming grave sin, particularly sins against others such as murder).

If that is the case, then we have a sacrament in which it is possible to promulgate evil rather than good, in which an evil person walks in to see a good priest, and the priest leaves the confessional in a state of mortal sin himself because the “rules” say that the priest MUST cooperate with evil by remaining silent while lives are lost.

If so, then secular morality has us beat insofar as it doesn’t protect the nefarious and neglect innocent lives lost… and that would be a travesty if it were so.

 

[salusanimarum17]

…A person “confessing” that they are planning and going to murder someone is NOT a penitent and NOT confessing valid material. They have no validity of the “expected relationship” because they are NOT partaking in any part of actual confession…

…

That sounds like sin/“valid material” to me.

 

[LilyM]

Under the privacy act of 1972, discussing confidential medical information is always protected, whether one is discussing their own condition or those of their dependents.

Again, this is a false analogy.

Instead, let’s compare it to the psychiatrist who sees a new patient. That new patient sits down and gives a detailed plan to murder two people… not speaking hypothetically, but actually detailing a plan.

Not only does the privacy act of 1972 NOT apply in preventing the psychiatrist from speaking with police, the law actually COMPELS the psychiatrist to report that plan to police (or the psychiatrist can face accessory to murder charges).

And that relationships is predicated on the idea of valid confession, which requires valid material from an actual penitent to exist. A person “confessing” that they are planning and going to murder someone is NOT a penitent and NOT confessing valid material. They have no validity of the “expected relationship” because they are NOT partaking in any part of actual confession…

Nonetheless, the moral ramifications are horrendous if the seal applies to the case of the woman telling the priest that she planned to murder while purporting to be confessing.

First and foremost, what that means is that the seal of the confessional does in reality is protect the interests of the personal murder (that interest being to commit murder, not to repent from sin) over the lives of the innocent that will be lost if the priest fails to report the plan. That is wrong, it’s evil. It turns the sacrament from a means of grace for the penitent into a means of cooperation with evil on the part of the priest (might I remind you that it is a sin itself to NOT speak when one can do so to prevent upcoming grave sin, particularly sins against others such as murder).

If that is the case, then we have a sacrament in which it is possible to promulgate evil rather than good, in which an evil person walks in to see a good priest, and the priest leaves the confessional in a state of mortal sin himself because the “rules” say that the priest MUST cooperate with evil by remaining silent while lives are lost.

If so, then secular morality has us beat insofar as it doesn’t protect the nefarious and neglect innocent lives lost… and that would be a travesty if it were so.

The relationship between priest and lay member of the faithful does not begin and end with the meeting of the formal requirements of the Sacrament of Confession! Neither, to be sure, does the duty of confidentiality of a priest towards a parishioner or those who approach him in the confessional.

A lot of people say that the doctrine against ordination of women promulgates evil. Even more say that the discipline of priestly celibacy is a direct cause of a far greater evil - priestly child abuse. So by your logic the doctrine and the discipline must be changed? Or what?

Others would say that the fact that we hold it to be a grave sin to deny our faith even when life is at stake, or abortion to be a grave sin in all circumstances, is equally a promulgation of a terrible evil. So weiss change those teachings too?

Evil is sometimes relative, and the relative gravity of certain evils is often skewed by our over attachment to earthly life and comforts, as the above examples show.

 

[Leon_Bloy]

That is not a logical argument, it is an assertion which you provide no evidence to support.

… but that’s a false analogy to the original question, which was about a woman who did not come and make a confession, but rather came and stated a plan to commit sin to the priest (under the guise of making a confession). There is, simply put, no way to compare that hypothetical situation to the one you have recounted here.

Um, it was not my intention to make a “logical argument.” Canon Law is quite blunt on the matter. Since others already quoted Canon Law, this isn’t really necessary, but again, here you are (even though this can easily be looked up by anybody who googles “confession” and “canon law”:

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. §2 An interpreter, if there is one, is also obliged to observe this secret, as are all others who in any way whatever have come to a knowledge of sins from a confession.

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.
§2 A person who is in authority may not in any way, for the purpose of external governance, use knowledge about sins which has at any time come to him from the hearing of confession.

 

[Leon_Bloy]

Personally, if I thought my priest had stood by and not done anything about a murder that was about to take place, that would certainly keep me out of his confessional, would definitely drive me to another parish, and most likely would make me question why I was a catholic in the first place. The argument that the sacrament and seal can be abused to “keep people going to confession” is simply bunk, because if that is the case then there are much more horrible ramifications that will keep people from even coming to the church in the first place.

Now, if we assume the woman confessed a desire to kill her children but gave the statement that she was contrite and wasn’t going to do it (and only later did she act on this desire), then such a confession would be valid and the seal would apply… but if she went into the confessional and merely stated an intent to murder and couldn’t be bothered to resist such temptation, I argue that there was no valid confession and therefore no seal.

These distinctions are yours… the Church teaches that the seal of the confessional is inviolable (see my earlier post). The priest can reveal nothing, no matter what.

 

[clem456]

Um, it was not my intention to make a “logical argument.” Canon Law is quite blunt on the matter. Since others already quoted Canon Law, this isn’t really necessary, but again, here you are (even though this can easily be looked up by anybody who googles “confession” and “canon law”:

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. §2 An interpreter, if there is one, is also obliged to observe this secret, as are all others who in any way whatever have come to a knowledge of sins from a confession.

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.
§2 A person who is in authority may not in any way, for the purpose of external governance, use knowledge about sins which has at any time come to him from the hearing of confession.

I understand the absolute seal, but how does our Church square these laws with this from the catechism:

2269 The fifth commandment forbids doing anything with the intention of indirectly bringing about a person’s death. The moral law prohibits exposing someone to mortal danger without grave reason, as well as refusing assistance to a person in danger.