Seal of confession?

[FrDavid96]

At this point I’m not disagreeing with you. If this is the letter of the law, then this is the letter of the law. It’s a law I sure as dickens was never aware of before, but my ignorance is obviously my problem.

You are writing about the “letter of the law” as if it’s the priest who is somehow taking advantage of some technicality.

It is the other way around.

While the Seal of Confession is inviolable, if there’s no Confession and nothing even resembling a Confession, then there’s no seal.

But I stridently and adamantly disagree that this is no different than if they just walked up to him in public and made a public statement. Or that this is no different than shouting from a street corner as someone else stated. But I can assure you that knowing priests view it this way has dramatically effected how I view confession in general.

You can disagree all you want, but it doesn’t change the fact that unless there’s actually a Sacrament (or an attempt at the Sacrament) then there’s no Seal.

I also don’t think this case was all that unusual in the least. I hazard on any given day people are entering confessionals and saying something very similar.

That’s not true.

I find it difficult to imagine that it’s terribly unusual for someone to enter confession and tell a priest they are sorry but they don’t know what to say bc they are frustrated and wondering if god really cares about them and they really wanted to just stay home but feel they have to go to church for whatever reason. For them to feel angry and frustrated and so forth about just not feeling like everyone tells them they should. Really? Yes this is very concerning. (Please don’t think I don’t think it is concerning. I absolutely do.)

Now, that’s entirely different.
When someone comes into the Confessional and does make an attempt at Confession, then the Seal does apply.
When someone comes into a Confessional and says “I am sorry…” (in the literal sense) then yes the Seal attaches.
However, that’s the opposite of what was described in the first post. When the “I’m sorry” really means “I am not sorry.” Again:

The person, an adult if it matters, according to the the priest and the person, entered the screened confessional and said, “I’m sorry but I’m really angry and don’t want to be here. (Mass that day) I’m just doing what I’m forced to do bc I feel I have to.”

It changes things.

But if it’s so awful as to mean the confessional (where ever it might be) event is not sealed, I have to wonder how many times people don’t know that their discussion in the confessional, or wherever they thought they were speaking in confidence to a priest, had no seal. I can’t think of anyone who hasn’t had to bring those feelings and thoughts to confession at some point in their lives.

The Seal of Confession IS inviolable. There’s no question on that point.

But my perspective is obviously wrong so I am left stranded trying to find my way to accept this caveat to whether a seal of confession exists in any given private conversation with a priest, even one had inside a confessional.

It’s not “perspective” it’s that you don’t understand the facts—and that’s one of the purposes of CAF, to help people with questions, so you’re in the right place. What I’m trying to help you to do is understand the facts. If you’re willing to listen (“read”) then I can try to help you understand. If you’re not willing, then I cannot help.

The Seal applies to Confession (and indeed to any attempt at Confession) but it does not automatically apply to any conversation with a priest, and not just to location.

What occurred, as described in the original post, was that someone simply took advantage of the fact that the priest happened to be sitting in the confessional and that person decided to blurt out something to the priest. That’s not a sacrament.

If you want to discuss this and actually understand it, I’m more than willing to help. But if you’re just going to insist that the Seal was broken because you don’t like what happened, then I cannot help.

 

[Hopey]

Maybe we need clarification as to when the seal applies to this situation.
As the person entered the confessional but later said they were only there because they had to be/were angry.
That is different to me that talking with a priest outside the confessional and would make me question IF the seal did apply or not.
They were in the confessional.
They went during the time confessions were held.
Would whatever was said in their be considered under the seal, even if they didn’t receive absolution?

 

[FrDavid96]

Maybe we need clarification as to when the seal applies to this situation.
As the person entered the confessional but later said they were only there because they had to be/were angry.
That is different to me that talking with a priest outside the confessional and would make me question IF the seal did apply or not.
They were in the confessional.
They went during the time confessions were held.
Would whatever was said in their be considered under the seal, even if they didn’t receive absolution?

You’re mixing all different kinds of issues.

If there is a Confession, or even an attempt at Confession, then the Seal does apply,

However, when the situation is such that there’s not even an attempt at Confession, but merely an attempt to blurt out something in the priest’s direction, then there’s no Seal.

 

[dans0622]

…The person, an adult if it matters, according to the the priest and the person, entered the screened confessional and said, “I’m sorry but I’m really angry and don’t want to be here. (Mass that day) I’m just doing what I’m forced to do bc I feel I have to.” The priest then refused to listen further stating they were not spiritually prepared to give confession and told them to seek further counsel elsewhere.

I was stunned to hear this. Not so much that a fellow catholic could be having major spiritual struggles, that’s nothing new, but that I would hear from their priest that they voiced this inside the confessional. …

Hello,

I often cringe whenever and wherever I hear anybody say anything about what happened in a confessional. I just don’t like to hear about it since I basically never think there is a good enough reason for me to be hearing it and I don’t want to have anything to do with even the appearance of infringing upon the Seal.

The situation you describe is rather unusual, it seems to me… Based on the event itself–as you related it–and since the person involved also took part (apparently) in telling you about this event, I would not be inclined to conclude that the Seal was directly or indirectly violated.

Dan

 

[Hopey]

The person, an adult if it matters, according to the the priest and the person, entered the screened confessional and said, “I’m sorry but I’m really angry and don’t want to be here. (Mass that day) I’m just doing what I’m forced to do bc I feel I have to.” The priest then refused to listen further stating they were not spiritually prepared to give confession and told them to seek further counsel elsewhere.

The above quote from the OP, Rob’s Wife, and what you said is what is confusing me.
It was in a confessional, it was during time of confession, it had all the things necessary as you stated to respect the seal.
I am not seeing it as blurting it out in another forum where it could be misunderstood.
I could see why she was very concerned because we think everything, as you stated, is under the seal even if absolution isn’t given.

 

[FrDavid96]

The above quote from the OP, Rob’s Wife, and what you said is what is confusing me.
It was in a confessional, it was during time of confession, it had all the things necessary as you stated to respect the seal.
I am not seeing it as blurting it out in another forum where it could be misunderstood.
I could see why she was very concerned because we think everything, as you stated, is under the seal even if absolution isn’t given.

It does not have “all the things necessary.”

It has to be at least an attempt at Confession.

You’re doing the same thing in this post that you did a few minutes ago; mixing different situations.

The Seal of Confession is inviolable. But it must be within the context of an actual Confession or an attempt at Confession.

 

[Hopey]

It does not have “all the things necessary.”

It has to be at least an attempt at Confession.

You’re doing the same thing in this post that you did a few minutes ago; mixing different situations.

The Seal of Confession is inviolable. But it must be within the context of an actual Confession or an attempt at Confession.

So if someone were to enter the confessional, during the time of confessions, and state they are angry and didn’t want to be there but had to be, it didn’t meet all the requirements because the penitent was not prepared?

 

[Hopey]

What is confusing me the word “attempt”.
Because I do read it as an attempt.
But, you don’t see it as an attempt?

 

[Rob_s_Wife]

FrDavid96:

It’s not “perspective” it’s that you don’t understand the facts—and that’s one of the purposes of CAF, to help people with questions, so you’re in the right place. What I’m trying to help you to do is understand the facts. If you’re willing to listen (“read”) then I can try to help you understand. If you’re not willing, then I cannot help.

If you want to discuss this and actually understand it, I’m more than willing to help. But if you’re just going to insist that the Seal was broken because you don’t like what happened, then I cannot help.

I must say I don’t think you are particularly reading me or being much willing to understand me either. I’ve made it clear I understand the facts as explained here and that it thus means he didn’t break the seal bc this is how the law actually works. I wrote I’m not disagreeing with that bc there’s nothing to disagree with. If the law is that the seal doesn’t apply, then it doesn’t apply. I have not at all insisted the seal was broken in light of having these details of the rules explained.

What I have done is say that any parishioner I’ve ever known in my life expects the confessional to be private no matter what is said in there or the format of the exchange. They most certainly do not think it would ever be at all on par with a publicly stated conversation or that their intentions change whether it is a sacrament that will be sealed. Obviously I was wrong to think that. I’m not arguing that I’m right. I’m stating that I still find it shocking and disturbing and it will have a tremendous impact on my personal confessions.

As for taking advantage of someone. I never insinuated that of either party. My posts have been trying to wrap my mind around this rather mind-blowing to me discovery. I have been presuming good will of both parties. But sure, if you want to get to brass tacks, if only one person in the confessional is aware that it isn’t sealed, then whoever that person is most certainly has the advantage over the other.

 

[Rob_s_Wife]

What is confusing me the word “attempt”.
Because I do read it as an attempt.
But, you don’t see it as an attempt?

Me too. Also for clarity, the only reason the person in question spoke to me about their time in the confessional is specificly bc the priest had already told me about it.

 

[Hopey]

Me too. Also for clarity, the only reason the person in question spoke to me about their time in the confessional is specificly bc the priest had already told me about it.

Yikes.
Yes. I would be very concerned also.
I am waiting to understand what attempt means in regards to this also.

Not being contrite is one thing that can get you sent away but I always thought, as Fr. David stated, the attempt was still under the seal.

 

[FrDavid96]

What is confusing me the word “attempt”.
Because I do read it as an attempt.
But, you don’t see it as an attempt?

No. I certainly do not see it as an attempt. And remember that I’m speaking strictly about what I read in the OP. Obviously, the priest who was actually involved did not see it as an attempt—and that’s the most important piece of information.

There’s nothing described that would be even close to an actual Confession.

 

[FrDavid96]

So if someone were to enter the confessional, during the time of confessions, and state they are angry and didn’t want to be there but had to be, it didn’t meet all the requirements because the penitent was not prepared?

I can’t answer the question because of the way it’s phrased.

You say “because the penitent is not prepared” that is not a standard for determining if a Confession is attempted or not. Plenty of penitents make confessions while “not prepared” yet those are still valid, licit Confessions and the Seal applies.

I did not say “not prepared” I said that there is no attempt at Confession. There is a world of difference.

 

[FrDavid96]

Yikes.
Yes. I would be very concerned also.
I am waiting to understand what attempt means in regards to this also.

Not being contrite is one thing that can get you sent away but I always thought, as Fr. David stated, the attempt was still under the seal.

Here’s what attempt means.

It means that the penitent actually tries to celebrate the Sacrament of Confession (which did not happen here).

Perhaps I can explain it by example. Here are some times when the Seal does apply, even though the Sacrament is not complete:

• An impostor priest, when the penitent thinks he is a legitimate priest.
• A reserved sin that the priest cannot absolve himself, such as a procured abortion or physical assault of the pope. The absolution does not occur, but can occur later.
• A penitent who does not make a good confession. The priest tells the penitent to do a better examination of conscience and come back later.
• A penitent who is not truly sorry for the sin. Again, the priest tells the penitent to come back later.
• A scrupulous person who confesses non-sins. The priest can absolve if sins are confessed, but cannot absolve if there are no true sins confessed.

In all of those cases, no absolution occurs. There is no complete Sacrament, but the Seal of Confession does still apply.

 

[FrDavid96]

I must say I don’t think you are particularly reading me or being much willing to understand me either. I’ve made it clear I understand the facts as explained here and that it thus means he didn’t break the seal bc this is how the law actually works. I wrote I’m not disagreeing with that bc there’s nothing to disagree with. If the law is that the seal doesn’t apply, then it doesn’t apply. I have not at all insisted the seal was broken in light of having these details of the rules explained.

What I have done is say that any parishioner I’ve ever known in my life expects the confessional to be private no matter what is said in there or the format of the exchange. They most certainly do not think it would ever be at all on par with a publicly stated conversation or that their intentions change whether it is a sacrament that will be sealed. Obviously I was wrong to think that. I’m not arguing that I’m right. I’m stating that I still find it shocking and disturbing and it will have a tremendous impact on my personal confessions.

As for taking advantage of someone. I never insinuated that of either party. My posts have been trying to wrap my mind around this rather mind-blowing to me discovery. I have been presuming good will of both parties. But sure, if you want to get to brass tacks, if only one person in the confessional is aware that it isn’t sealed, then whoever that person is most certainly has the advantage over the other.

There’s no cause for concern.

Catholics know that when the go to Confession,or they attempt to go to Confession, whatever they say is protected by the seal.

However, what’s confusing you here is the location. Just because words are said within the confessional, that doesn’t automatically make them protected by the Seal. There must be some semblance of a Confession. That’s what you’re missing here. You’re equating genuine attempts at Confession with something that does not even resemble an attempt at Confession.

If I’m cleaning the church and I happen to be straightening my prayer books in the confessional, and someone else who is helping to clean happens to walk in and say “Father, I’m putting the flower vases in the closet.” Later, someone asks where the vases are, and I answer “Mary put them in the closet.” I am not violating the Seal of Confession just because I happened to be standing in the room when the words were spoken to me. There’s no semblance of Confession in that situation. Likewise, what is described in the first post is not even a semblance of Confession even though the words spoken just happened to occur in the room.

 

[Hopey]

Here’s what attempt means.

It means that the penitent actually tries to celebrate the Sacrament of Confession (which did not happen here).

Perhaps I can explain it by example. Here are some times when the Seal does apply, even though the Sacrament is not complete:

• An impostor priest, when the penitent thinks he is a legitimate priest.
• A reserved sin that the priest cannot absolve himself, such as a procured abortion or physical assault of the pope. The absolution does not occur, but can occur later.
• A penitent who does not make a good confession. The priest tells the penitent to do a better examination of conscience and come back later.
• A penitent who is not truly sorry for the sin. Again, the priest tells the penitent to come back later.
• A scrupulous person who confesses non-sins. The priest can absolve if sins are confessed, but cannot absolve if there are no true sins confessed.

In all of those cases, no absolution occurs. There is no complete Sacrament, but the Seal of Confession does still apply.

I read it as #4 example.
But you don’t?

 

[Truth_Faith13]

Coming out of my lurkdom to ask a serious question.

At what point should someone expect that the seal of confession is in place?

I was recently told that no seal was broken when a priest told what someone else said in the confessional and I’m still stunned.

The person, an adult if it matters, according to the the priest and the person, entered the screened confessional and said, “I’m sorry but I’m really angry and don’t want to be here. (Mass that day) I’m just doing what I’m forced to do bc I feel I have to.” The priest then refused to listen further stating they were not spiritually prepared to give confession and told them to seek further counsel elsewhere.

I was stunned to hear this. Not so much that a fellow catholic could be having major spiritual struggles, that’s nothing new, but that I would hear from their priest that they voiced this inside the confessional.

To me, regardless of attitude of penitent, if they entered the confessional then it should be sealed unless the penitent clearly states that the priest can speak of it outside of the confessional, which in this case they say they did not, tho they weren’t bothered about it since it was me he spoke to, but I am extremely bothered by it. When I voiced this concern, I was told that people say all kinds of stuff before , or after or whatever while in the confessional and that those things do not fall under the seal. I’m just…

I’ve never in my life heard that before. Ever. Any time anything about confession is mentioned it’s always been stringently driven into everyone I’ve met that anything said in the confessional is sealed. I’m just… Seriously this is rocking my world. When I said that’s how it made me feel, he laughed and said I just needed to understand that the confessional is not a place for counseling. um? What? Yes, I know that and yet, yes it sort of is too. One of the reasons we are encouraged to seek one confessor is specificly so he can know us well enough to counsel us properly on avoiding and dealing with the struggles we bring to confession. It’s right there in Introduction to the Devout Life for one. I know I’ve had priests in confession ask for background on what I am bringing to them. It never even remotely occurred to me that only some of what I said in there was sealed.

I’m just a ridiculous mess about this —> eek:

I’m not catholic so could be completely wrong here…but the person didn’t confess? They announced that they didn’t want to be there and the priest said not to do confession. Surely a confession actually has to have started/taken place for there to be a seal of confession?

 

[FrDavid96]

I read it as #4 example.
But you don’t?

No. I don’t. Not at all.

The person, an adult if it matters, according to the the priest and the person, entered the screened confessional and said, “I’m sorry but I’m really angry and don’t want to be here. (Mass that day) I’m just doing what I’m forced to do bc I feel I have to.” The priest then refused to listen further stating they were not spiritually prepared to give confession and told them to seek further counsel elsewhere.

I do not read anything in that which would indicate that the person even had the intention of going to Confession. I see nothing to indicate an attempt to Confess. There is a difference between being not-truly-sorry and not even attempting Confession.

Once more I want to caution that what I am writing is strictly limited to what I read in the first post.

 

[FrDavid96]

I’m not catholic so could be completely wrong here…but the person didn’t confess? They announced that they didn’t want to be there and the priest said not to do confession. Surely a confession actually has to have started/taken place for there to be a seal of confession?

Yes, exactly.

That’s what I mean when I keep writing that there has to be some attempt at Confession.

 

[Hopey]

No. I don’t. Not at all.

I do not read anything in that which would indicate that the person even had the intention of going to Confession. I see nothing to indicate an attempt to Confess. There is a difference between being not-truly-sorry and not even attempting Confession.

Once more I want to caution that what I am writing is strictly limited to what I read in the first post.

Ok.
Not everyone who enters the confessional, during the time of confessions, and says “something”, is intending to confess nor is it considered attempting to confess. Is that a fair understanding?

So, if I go into a confessional, kneel down behind the screen, say something, that MAY or MAY NOT be kept under the seal. Right?

My going in, kneeling down, doesn’t indicate an necessary attempt, right?