seal of confession question

[seekinghelp87]

If a person were to confess attempting to take their own life would a priest deny them absolution until they sought medical help? What if the person were to lose consciousness while confessing this sin, would the priest be able to call for help for them? Or in a different situation, what if a person were to have a heart attack and lose consciousness during confession but right before had said to the priest “My chest hurts”, would the priest be able to tell emergency responders what the person had said about their chest?

 

[QuasiCatholic]

I don’t know the actual answer to this question, but for some reason it made me think of the character Father Mulcahy from MAS*H and how I’d imagine him handling something like that.

I would be OK with the priest breaking the seal for that reason, but if they aren’t allowed to I would expect they’d turn to the EMT and say something like: “I can’t say what happened, but I do hope you’ll be checking his heart first.” (nudge nudge wink wink)

 

[TheDoctor]

If a person were to confess attempting to take their own life would a priest deny them absolution until they sought medical help?

No. Absolution cannot be contingent on an action of the penitent that would break the seal. If you are truly sorry and do not intentionally intend to do it again then Father should absolve. If however you confess to doing it and say “and I would do it again if I had the chance” then absolution could be denied because there is no sorry or firm purpose of amendment.

IWhat if the person were to lose consciousness while confessing this sin, would the priest be able to call for help for them?

Yes, of course.

Or in a different situation, what if a person were to have a heart attack and lose consciousness during confession but right before had said to the priest “My chest hurts”, would the priest be able to tell emergency responders what the person had said about their chest?

I believe “Yes” because you need help but he cannot say anything about the sins you confessed.

 

[Memaw]

I don’t know the actual answer to this question, but for some reason it made me think of the character Father Mulcahy from MAS*H and how I’d imagine him handling something like that.

I would be OK with the priest breaking the seal for that reason, but if they aren’t allowed to I would expect they’d turn to the EMT and say something like: “I can’t say what happened, but I do hope you’ll be checking his heart first.” (nudge nudge wink wink)

Telling a medic he said his chest hurts is not the same as telling his sins. I don’t think that would be considered breaking the Seal. Ask an Apologist ! God Bless, Memaw

 

[theyoungmonk]

If someone passed out in the confessional, the priest could, according to my rusty memories of formation,call for help. He would have to say something like “I found this person passed out” He cannot admit that the person even went to confession unless he knows that from outside the confessional. Every word said during the sacrament is under the seal and the priest can say and do nothing to give even a hint of what was said.

 

[nodito]

Every word said during the sacrament is under the seal and the priest can say and do nothing to give even a hint of what was said.

This. The priest could probably call 911 and say that he had a parishioner in need of help, but I don’t believe he could report anything about the penitent’s chest complaints.

 

[Edmundus1581]

This. The priest could probably call 911 and say that he had a parishioner in need of help, but I don’t believe he could report anything about the penitent’s chest complaints.

Absolutely.

Priests are so used to forgetting what they hear in the confessional that the question wouldn’t even enter his head.

His job is to hear the confession, absolve, and forget.

The medics job is to treat the patient.

His job is much more important!

Canon Law 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.”

 

[CB_Catholic]

This. The priest could probably call 911 and say that he had a parishioner in need of help, but I don’t believe he could report anything about the penitent’s chest complaints.

I do not think this is correct, his chest complaints are not sins and he is not confessing them, and by not giving the EMT’s the information they need, the priest could be putting the person’s life in jeopardy. If an unconscious patient complained about chest pain, or a severe headache or some other symptom before passing out, that is vital and necessary information to help save the patient’s life.

This is not the same as the seal, which is the seal of CONFESSION. They are not confessing anything–they are in a life and death medical situation. and need help.

 

[7_Sorrows]

I do not think this is correct, his chest complaints are not sins and he is not confessing them, and by not giving the EMT’s the information they need, the priest could be putting the person’s life in jeopardy. If an unconscious patient complained about chest pain, or a severe headache or some other symptom before passing out, that is vital and necessary information to help save the patient’s life.

This is not the same as the seal, which is the seal of CONFESSION. They are not confessing anything–they are in a life and death medical situation. and need help.

That sounds correct to me.

 

[Edmundus1581]

I do not think this is correct, his chest complaints are not sins and he is not confessing them, and by not giving the EMT’s the information they need, the priest could be putting the person’s life in jeopardy. If an unconscious patient complained about chest pain, or a severe headache or some other symptom before passing out, that is vital and necessary information to help save the patient’s life.

This is not the same as the seal, which is the seal of CONFESSION. They are not confessing anything–they are in a life and death medical situation. and need help.

You are correct (I think) that the Seal of the Confessional, strictly speaking, only applies to the penitent’s sins.

However, from what I’ve heard, in practice priests apply it to absolutely anything they hear in the confessional.

I saw two priests discussing this on EWTN, and they described the canonical example of someone entering the confessional shortly before Mass and telling the priest that they had poisoned the wine to be used in that Mass. When the priest left the confessional he would go on to say Mass, consecrate the wine and distribute it as if he had heard nothing.

Another example is one I’ve seen on CAF (below).

The point is that anything the priest has heard could, in some unforeseen way, disclose the penitent’s sin.

The point is, also, that the sacrament of confession is more important than life and death.

"An old priest who had spent forty years in a small town was assigned somewhere else. The retired mayor of that town decided to throw him a farewell party. Everybody gathered because everybody loved the old priest very much.

Since the priest did not arrive, he was delayed on Church, the mayor decided to give a small speech to the gathered crowd while they waited. He said that he was proud to mention that he was the very first person to go to Confession when the priest arrived in town forty years ago.

After this, the priest finally came to the party.

Everybody asked him to say a few words.

He said he was very moved by this party, and that he was going to miss everybody very much. That he never thought he would grow so fond of people in this town because when he first arrived forty years ago, he was shocked to find that the first person that went to Confession thought it was ok to lie, to steal and to cheat on his wife… "

 

[QuasiCatholic]

I saw two priests discussing this on EWTN, and they described the canonical example of someone entering the confessional shortly before Mass and telling the priest that they had poisoned the wine to be used in that Mass. When the priest left the confessional he would go on to say Mass, consecrate the wine and distribute it as if he had heard nothing.

That is insane. And honestly it would make the priest guilty of murder – or at least accessory to murder – if anyone died from drinking it. (Although how would the police prove it I guess … )

I’m pretty sure if that happened in real life the priest would go dump the wine out, no matter what they said on EWTN.

 

[Edmundus1581]

I’m pretty sure if that happened in real life the priest would go dump the wine out, no matter what they said on EWTN.

LOL! Pay that!

I still think the principle is true, though

 

[Edmundus1581]

LOL! Pay that!

I still think the principle is true, though

I should just qualify that the confessional is not some sort of magic box! Rather it is the priest present, ready to hear the confession of sins!

When we enter a doctor’s room, we assume that what we are about to tell him will be understood as a medical problem, and also respected as confidential. Similarly with the confessional - it’s not the physical environment, but the assumption of privacy.

 

[theyoungmonk]

I had a conversation about a similar matter once with a moral theologian. He made the point that the very act of going to confession is under the seal unless it is a public fact. If it was a crowded church with a long line for confession that is not revealing something from within the box but in an empty church a man walks into the box and the priest is only aware of him “through the grill” so to speak then that is under the seal, let alone anything said or done.

He also made it clear that anything said is under the seal not just sins. There is no differentiation made. the priest made the example of when he was younger he received information in the box that was urgently required for a missionary, though he did not know that at the time. As this information was not intrinsic to a sin he was able to find the penitent and say “can you tell me something about so and so outside the box” he then went back an gave the information having received it outside the box.

 

[nodito]

I do not think this is correct, his chest complaints are not sins and he is not confessing them, and by not giving the EMT’s the information they need, the priest could be putting the person’s life in jeopardy. If an unconscious patient complained about chest pain, or a severe headache or some other symptom before passing out, that is vital and necessary information to help save the patient’s life.

This is not the same as the seal, which is the seal of CONFESSION. They are not confessing anything–they are in a life and death medical situation. and need help.

I’m open to correction if I’m wrong, but I don’t believe I am. When a person starts a confession, everything he says is under the seal. So whatever information he gives to the priest, in whatever context, cannot be used in any manner, even if the priest believes it’s to the penitent’s benefit. The penitent is not confessing to mere man, but to God himself, with the priest acting in God’s place.

This makes sense to me when I think about how God acts. God is perfect love, and is perfectly capable of letting an EMT know about chest complaints, a person’s allergies, or whatever, should that person collapse alone in his house. And yet God does not usually speak in a booming voice to give relevant information to care givers. Why not? That information could help save that person’s life…

 

[Edmundus1581]

I’m open to correction if I’m wrong, but I don’t believe I am. When a person starts a confession, everything he says is under the seal. So whatever information he gives to the priest, in whatever context, cannot be used in any manner, even if the priest believes it’s to the penitent’s benefit. The penitent is not confessing to mere man, but to God himself, with the priest acting in God’s place.

This makes sense to me when I think about how God acts. God is perfect love, and is perfectly capable of letting an EMT know about chest complaints, a person’s allergies, or whatever, should that person collapse alone in his house. And yet God does not usually speak in a booming voice to give relevant information to care givers. Why not? That information could help save that person’s life…

It is so difficult to go to confession. We often worry "What will he think?.

This is difficult, but at least we know that he will NEVER disclose what he has heard to anyone else - ever. Moreover, was also know that he won’t even think about what we have said outside the confessional. But still it’s difficult…

Imagine if there were elastic boundaries on what the priest might say??? We may trust that he won’t tell anything that’s not important to our life or safety, but how do we know what he is decided is important to our life or safety? I may confess “adultery, many times”, trusting that this is confidential. But maybe the priest will decide that everyone (including myself) will be safer if they knew about my adultery!

The only way for us to know that the priest can’t choose what may be revealed is for us to trust that NOTHING will EVER be revealed.

 

[Edmundus1581]

About the confessional as a “magic box” I am quite certain that if a third party were to bust in and say “***Someone ***has poisoned the wine”, then the priest would act on that information. No doubt.

However if someone entered and said “***I ***have poisoned the wine” then the priest would have to assess whether this an attempt at confession, or just as statement of fact.

My guess is, furthermore, that if it were an attempt at confession, however flawed, and even if absolution were denied, then the Seal applies. On the other hand, if it were just a statement of fact, then he would act on it.

 

[Memaw]

I do not think this is correct, his chest complaints are not sins and he is not confessing them, and by not giving the EMT’s the information they need, the priest could be putting the person’s life in jeopardy. If an unconscious patient complained about chest pain, or a severe headache or some other symptom before passing out, that is vital and necessary information to help save the patient’s life.

This is not the same as the seal, which is the seal of CONFESSION. They are not confessing anything–they are in a life and death medical situation. and need help.

I agree, God Bless, Memaw

 

[thistle]

In my opinion the priest would be able to tell the paramedics/doctor that the penitent said he had a pain in his chest before collapsing. See the parts I highlighted below in canon law covering the seal of confession. I do not see how telling the medics that the penitent told him he had a pain in his chest before collapsing would be betraying the penitent nor would it be to the detriment of the penitent.

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.

 

[nodito]

In my opinion the priest would be able to tell the paramedics/doctor that the penitent said he had a pain in his chest before collapsing. See the parts I highlighted below in canon law covering the seal of confession. I do not see how telling the medics that the penitent told him he had a pain in his chest before collapsing would be betraying the penitent nor would it be to the detriment of the penitent.

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.

Thanks for providing the relevant canon law, thistle.

I agree that this would not be to the penitent’s detriment, and so I don’t think canon 984 applies. But as for canon 983, I think revealing what is said in confession, even interjections or asides that are not sins, does betray the penitent, because it reveals or gives evidence of (that is, betrays) what was said during confession (as in, “her expressions betrayed her thoughts”). And we are reminded in that same canon that the confessor is prohibited from violating the seal “for any reason whatsoever.” I would argue that this includes violating it in favor of the penitent’s assumed preferences.