Seal of confession?

[Truth_Faith13]

BINGO! This looks to be like what is the problem! The kid should have started with the magic words Bless me Father, for I have sinned. But he didn’t. I get both sides…

I can too…without knowing exactly what was said between the person and priest, it is difficult to know for certain. The way the OP has described it, I don’t think an attempt at confession was there. Being spiritually prepared/ not prepared also doesn’t (to me) automatically imply a confession was started/not started. You could be spiritually prepared and then not give a confession surely?

 

[otjm]

I don’t want you to keep repeating yourself either as I am just trying to understand it also - what attempt is - etc - with what was given.

I am all for giving everyone the benefit of the doubt.

The priest made the decision that his was not an attempt. Because none of us, including FrDavid96, were in the confessional to hear the matter, the only person who could make that decision was the priest, and he made it.

Anything further tends toward judging the priest’s decision, and that is not our place. We have to presume that he understands the seal and honors it.

Again, the words “I’m sorry” can be taken any number of ways. Without being present and hearing the inflection and tone, and possibly seeing posture and/or actions, we are simply left with words on paper. Again, read my post 44 - an attempt to confess is going to be the sum of all the (name removed by moderator)ut - words, tone, actions. The priest made the decision the individual was not attempting to confess. And that settles that issue.

 

[Hopey]

The priest made the decision that his was not an attempt. Because none of us, including FrDavid96, were in the confessional to hear the matter, the only person who could make that decision was the priest, and he made it.

Anything further tends toward judging the priest’s decision, and that is not our place. We have to presume that he understands the seal and honors it.

Again, the words “I’m sorry” can be taken any number of ways. Without being present and hearing the inflection and tone, and possibly seeing posture and/or actions, we are simply left with words on paper. Again, read my post 44 - an attempt to confess is going to be the sum of all the (name removed by moderator)ut - words, tone, actions. The priest made the decision the individual was not attempting to confess. And that settles that issue.

Ok. So the priests decides if an attempt was made, not the penitent.
Even tho we, penitents, think, when we go into the confessional - kneel down - and confess (even things that may not be sins) are under the seal. If the priest says there was no attempt, then there was none.

 

[Rob_s_Wife]

The second part I included is because, me at least, believe when we kneel down in the confessional, during confession time, that we are attempting to confess something (confession) even if it isn’t a sin or we need additional help afterwards (counseling).

Ding ding ding!!! Exactly where I am wrong. It’s not like the person came in with cola and was just griping. Given the setting and situation, it would never even remotely have occurred to me it would not have the seal. Just as you mention above. But that is obviously not the case in all those situations. It would never even remotely have occurred to me that my tone or my wording could affect whether it was sacramental and thus sealed.

I don’t know what you mean by this last part.

Yes, you have made it clear why there is not a seal. Which means if I don’t cross my Ts and dot my Is, and make sure I’m careful about my tone, my time kneeling in the confessional might not be considered an actual confession and thus will have no seal at all. I had honestly never considered that being in the confessional would not be sealed. From the perspective of penitent, I’ve never had a priest just come in the confessional to tell me where my keys or flowers are. Me+priest+confessional = sealed confession. It never occurred to me that there could be a circumstance where that would not be sealed. Now of course it is blazoned in my head that I was in error. Which, while informative, doesn’t much ease my feelings of disturbance about it, however irrational and wasted you might think I am being for having them.

 

[mommamaree]

Ok. So the priests decides if an attempt was made, not the penitent.
Even tho we, penitents, think, when we go into the confessional - kneel down - and confess (even things that may not be sins) are under the seal. If the priest says there was no attempt, then there was none.

I have been following this whole thread because the situation described really concerned me. I think your post here expresses my concern exactly. I thought that the penitent is the one who knows if it was an actual attempt at confession. If the penitent is the one who knows if it was an actual attempt, but was turned away because the priest said they were not spiritually prepared, and then the priest told others about the content, name of penitent, and so on, how is this not a violation of the seal of confession? I have no dog in this fight, so to speak, and no desire to besmirch the character of the priest, but the way that this is being explained is very concerning. It seems that FrDavid and others are saying that regardless of what the penitent believes about his attempt at reconciliation, if the priest decides it was not an attempt, he is free to name the person and reveal the content of the conversation that passed between them. That is alarming to me, to say the least.

 

[Rob_s_Wife]

Ok. So the priests decides if an attempt was made, not the penitent.
Even tho we, penitents, think, when we go into the confessional - kneel down - and confess (even things that may not be sins) are under the seal. If the priest says there was no attempt, then there was none.

Yes. Exactly so.

 

[mommamaree]

Ding ding ding!!! Exactly where I am wrong. It’s not like the person came in with cola and was just griping. Given the setting and situation, it would never even remotely have occurred to me it would not have the seal. Just as you mention above. But that is obviously not the case in all those situations. It would never even remotely have occurred to me that my tone or my wording could affect whether it was sacramental and thus sealed.

Yes, you have made it clear why there is not a seal. Which means if I don’t cross my Ts and dot my Is, and make sure I’m careful about my tone, my time kneeling in the confessional might not be considered an actual confession and thus will have no seal at all. I had honestly never considered that being in the confessional would not be sealed. From the perspective of penitent, I’ve never had a priest just come in the confessional to tell me where my keys or flowers are. Me+priest+confessional = sealed confession. It never occurred to me that there could be a circumstance where that would not be sealed. Now of course it is blazoned in my head that I was in error. Which, while informative, doesn’t much ease my feelings of disturbance about it, however irrational and wasted you might think I am being for having them.

I am every bit as alarmed as you. I am also wondering what would have motivated the priest to tell you about a conversation between himself and another Catholic inside the confessional booth, including naming the person. You obviously seem to feel that you had no right to know that. I agree with you.

 

[FrDavid96]

Ok. So the priests decides if an attempt was made, not the penitent.
Even tho we, penitents, think, when we go into the confessional - kneel down - and confess (even things that may not be sins) are under the seal. If the priest says there was no attempt, then there was none.

You keep mixing scenarios.

You just wrote “…and confesses.” That means that the priest MUST keep the Seal.
In what you just described above, a priest is bound to keep the Seal.

A priest cannot simply decide when it applies and when it doesn’t–in situations where someone actually attempts Confession. If a person does indeed confess sins then the priest is bound by the Seal.

In the scenario described in the OP, there was no attempt to confess at a Sacrament—it’s completely different from what you’re describing in this latest post.

What the priest in that situation determined was that the person had no intention of going to confession, and made no attempt at the Sacrament of Confession, despite the fact that it happened in the confessional and during the scheduled times. It isn’t about time or location, it’s about whether or not there was any semblance of a Sacrament.

 

[Hopey]

I have been following this whole thread because the situation described really concerned me. I think your post here expresses my concern exactly. I thought that the penitent is the one who knows if it was an actual attempt at confession. If the penitent is the one who knows if it was an actual attempt, but was turned away because the priest said they were not spiritually prepared, and then the priest told others about the content, name of penitent, and so on, how is this not a violation of the seal of confession? I have no dog in this fight, so to speak, and no desire to besmirch the character of the priest, but the way that this is being explained is very concerning. It seems that FrDavid and others are saying that regardless of what the penitent believes about his attempt at reconciliation, if the priest decides it was not an attempt, he is free to name the person and reveal the content of the conversation that passed between them. That is alarming to me, to say the least.

Yes.
:sad_yes:

 

[dans0622]

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.

Oh. In that case, what was the person’s perspective on all of this? Did he/she think the Seal applied to that conversation?

Dan

 

[Hopey]

You keep mixing scenarios.

You just wrote “…and confesses.” That means that the priest MUST keep the Seal.
In what you just described above, a priest is bound to keep the Seal.

A priest cannot simply decide when it applies and when it doesn’t–in situations where someone actually attempts Confession. If a person does indeed confess sins then the priest is bound by the Seal.

In the scenario described in the OP, there was no attempt to confess at a Sacrament—it’s completely different from what you’re describing in this latest post.

What the priest in that situation determined was that the person had no intention of going to confession, and made no attempt at the Sacrament of Confession, despite the fact that it happened in the confessional and during the scheduled times. It isn’t about time or location, it’s about whether or not there was any semblance of a Sacrament.

The only difference to me is that YOU said the priest determined there was none. The OP said the person went in, keeled down, and said X. Just because they are a kid, don’t do it exactly this way or that, doesn’t make it a valid attempt or not, right?

 

[mommamaree]

After hearing FrDavid’s explanation, my concern now is this:

If one of my children, in a moment of anger with me for insisting they come to Mass, were to go into the confessional and make an initial statement that they are sorry but they don’t want to be there but they have been forced to come and the priest says to come back later when they are spiritually prepared for the sacrament, does the priest then have the right to tell others what they said in the confessional? Even if it is not breaking the Seal, as FrDavid says it is not, it seems to be indiscreet and I know I would feel betrayed on behalf of my child and would never want to be in the confessional with that priest again.

 

[FrDavid96]

I have been following this whole thread because the situation described really concerned me. I think your post here expresses my concern exactly. I thought that the penitent is the one who knows if it was an actual attempt at confession. If the penitent is the one who knows if it was an actual attempt, but was turned away because the priest said they were not spiritually prepared, and then the priest told others about the content, name of penitent, and so on, how is this not a violation of the seal of confession? I have no dog in this fight, so to speak, and no desire to besmirch the character of the priest, but the way that this is being explained is very concerning. It seems that FrDavid and others are saying that regardless of what the penitent believes about his attempt at reconciliation, if the priest decides it was not an attempt, he is free to name the person and reveal the content of the conversation that passed between them. That is alarming to me, to say the least.

No.

There is nothing to be alarmed about.

The problem is that people keep mixing different kinds of situations.

If there is an attempt at the Sacrament, then the Seal applies. There is no doubt about this, and every priest knows it.

It’s not about “what the penitent believes” versus “what the priest believes.” If there is an attempt at Confession, then the inviolable Seal applies.

Based solely on what was written in the first post, the person made no attempt at the Sacrament of Confession. I keep writing this but it isn’t getting through. That is completely and entirely different from a situation where someone does attempt Confession.

People keep trying to compare this situation to different situations where there is an attempt at Confession. That just doesn’t work.

 

[Rob_s_Wife]

I am every bit as alarmed as you. I am also wondering what would have motivated the priest to tell you about a conversation between himself and another Catholic inside the confessional booth, including naming the person. You obviously seem to feel that you had no right to know that. I agree with you.

For me, it does not matter what my rights to know might be bc for ME if it was said inside a confessional then I automatically have no right to know.

The interesting thing is that no mention of the confessional conversation was necessary. It’s not as though I have said no if father had called or approached me and said, “I have some concerns that the three of us should make an appointment to discuss it together to help them.”

I am glad to help this person as best I can and I’m glad I know they need this help from me.

None of that bothered me. Well it does. A lot actually bc I love this person and certainly worry over their spiritual crisis. But I would never be upset at a priest for enlisting wanted help for a soul.

But the confessional conversation has completely tossed me for a loop.

Btw. This person is rather oblivious to my concern on this topic. I have not and will not mention it to them. All they know is that father called me about them bc their confessional time greatly worried him and they know he and I want to help them if we can. I asked what happened with them and was told and they don’t seem to be bothered bc I really don’t think they are giving the seal of confession priority of thought at the moment and I sure am not going to add to their spiritual struggles by bringing it up.

 

[Hopey]

No.

There is nothing to be alarmed about.

The problem is that people keep mixing different kinds of situations.

If there is an attempt at the Sacrament, then the Seal applies. There is no doubt about this, and every priest knows it.

It’s not about “what the penitent believes” versus “what the priest believes.” If there is an attempt at Confession, then the inviolable Seal applies.

Based solely on what was written in the first post, the person made no attempt at the Sacrament of Confession. I keep writing this but it isn’t getting through. That is completely and entirely different from a situation where someone does attempt Confession.

People keep trying to compare this situation to different situations where there is an attempt at Confession. That just doesn’t work.

Because the kid went into the confessional, knelt down, and said s/he was sorry and didn’t want to be at MASS (not confession) but were forced to (attempt to confess anger) which is similar to anyone else who goes in, kneels down and confesses X even though it may not be a sin or they may need help outside the confessional.
The only thing that was determined was that you said the priest determined it was not a confession.
It was during the time of confessions. It was in a confessional. It started with “I’m sorry”.

That is why we compare it to ours because it is like most of ours and it is disturbing on how and who can judge this as being an attempt or not.

I would not use the priest ever again and go to a neighboring parish. That is just how strongly it would disturb me even if they were a child.

 

[otjm]

Ok. So the priests decides if an attempt was made, not the penitent.
Even tho we, penitents, think, when we go into the confessional - kneel down - and confess (even things that may not be sins) are under the seal. If the priest says there was no attempt, then there was none.

Nope.

You are making presumptions.

He (I am assuming this is a teenager or not much older than that) appears to be royally peeved at being forced to go (either to church, or to confession, or both). He goes into the confessional with an attitude as wide as a Mack truck. Anyone who is paying attention could tell he was under full steam.

He walks into the confessional (and I would lay odds his parent was outside - either in the church or in the parking lot), and he starts to vent. His attitude, as exhibited by his body posture, his motions, his tone of voice, the look on his face - all add up to someone who has no intent on his own to be there. He is being coerced, he knows it, and he is going to let you know it.

That is not a penitent. That is a kid who wants nothing to do with church, or confession, or a sacrament, or reconciliation.

And the priest calls a spade a spade.

That has nothing to do with “we, penitents, think, when we go into the confessional - kneel down - and confess (even things that may not be sins) are under the seal”. Your example is people going in who intend to confess.

The kid didn’t intend; the priest got the message, and stopped the charade.

Someone intending to confess is going to give indications that is what they are there for. The priest was there; he made the call.

The OP was under the impression that the seal attaches if you go in. Almost always, it does, because almost always, the person going in intends to start the sacrament of reconciliation. In this circumstance, the individual did not intend to do so; the priest made the call, and that is that. It is an esoteric area in that it is rare (most people going in intend to confess). While there is a presumption that anyone entering intends to confess, it is not absolute.

And if you don’t intend to confess, to start the sacrament, then it does not start, and the seal does not attach.

So it is not correct to say that one intends and the priest over-rules the intent (that is the implication of your comment).

It would be clearer to not use the word “penitent” for absolutely anyone who enters the confessional, as the implication of the word is that one is intending to confess. By its definition, a penitent is one who intends to confess. What we are dealing with in this thread is one who does not intend to do so, and is thus not a penitent.

Anyone entering the confessional is going to have the presumption they are there to confess, but that presumption can be overcome by evidence to the contrary. The kid gave the evidence, and the priest made the decision. It was not random, or willy-nilly, or subjective. It was based on objective, observable evidence, including, but not limited to what the kid said.

 

[Rob_s_Wife]

After hearing FrDavid’s explanation, my concern now is this:

If one of my children, in a moment of anger with me for insisting they come to Mass, were to go into the confessional and make an initial statement that they are sorry but they don’t want to be there but they have been forced to come and the priest says to come back later when they are spiritually prepared for the sacrament, does the priest then have the right to tell others what they said in the confessional? Even if it is not breaking the Seal, as FrDavid says it is not, it seems to be indiscreet and I know I would feel betrayed on behalf of my child and would never want to be in the confessional with that priest again.

I can absolutely see my aspies doing that. And I would feel the same way.

I know, NOW, it would be wrong of me to feel that way, but it would all the same.

 

[Hopey]

For me, it does not matter what my rights to know might be bc for ME if it was said inside a confessional then I automatically have no right to know.

The interesting thing is that no mention of the confessional conversation was necessary. It’s not as though I have said no if father had called or approached me and said, “I have some concerns that the three of us should make an appointment to discuss it together to help them.”

I am glad to help this person as best I can and I’m glad I know they need this help from me.

None of that bothered me. Well it does. A lot actually bc I love this person and certainly worry over their spiritual crisis. But I would never be upset at a priest for enlisting wanted help for a soul.

But the confessional conversation has completely tossed me for a loop.

Btw. This person is rather oblivious to my concern on this topic. I have not and will not mention it to them. All they know is that father called me about them bc their confessional time greatly worried him and they know he and I want to help them if we can. I asked what happened with them and was told and they don’t seem to be bothered bc I really don’t think they are giving the seal of confession priority of thought at the moment and I sure am not going to add to their spiritual struggles by bringing it up.

That is prudent.
I would never mention it to them.

 

[Hopey]

Nope.

You are making presumptions.

He (I am assuming this is a teenager or not much older than that) appears to be royally peeved at being forced to go (either to church, or to confession, or both). He goes into the confessional with an attitude as wide as a Mack truck. Anyone who is paying attention could tell he was under full steam.

He walks into the confessional (and I would lay odds his parent was outside - either in the church or in the parking lot), and he starts to vent. His attitude, as exhibited by his body posture, his motions, his tone of voice, the look on his face - all add up to someone who has no intent on his own to be there. He is being coerced, he knows it, and he is going to let you know it.

That is not a penitent. That is a kid who wants nothing to do with church, or confession, or a sacrament, or reconciliation.

And the priest calls a spade a spade.

That has nothing to do with “we, penitents, think, when we go into the confessional - kneel down - and confess (even things that may not be sins) are under the seal”. Your example is people going in who intend to confess.

The kid didn’t intend; the priest got the message, and stopped the charade.

Someone intending to confess is going to give indications that is what they are there for. The priest was there; he made the call.

The OP was under the impression that the seal attaches if you go in. Almost always, it does, because almost always, the person going in intends to start the sacrament of reconciliation. In this circumstance, the individual did not intend to do so; the priest made the call, and that is that. It is an esoteric area in that it is rare (most people going in intend to confess). While there is a presumption that anyone entering intends to confess, it is not absolute.

And if you don’t intend to confess, to start the sacrament, then it does not start, and the seal does not attach.

So it is not correct to say that one intends and the priest over-rules the intent (that is the implication of your comment).

It would be clearer to not use the word “penitent” for absolutely anyone who enters the confessional, as the implication of the word is that one is intending to confess. By its definition, a penitent is one who intends to confess. What we are dealing with in this thread is one who does not intend to do so, and is thus not a penitent.

Anyone entering the confessional is going to have the presumption they are there to confess, but that presumption can be overcome by evidence to the contrary. The kid gave the evidence, and the priest made the decision. It was not random, or willy-nilly, or subjective. It was based on objective, observable evidence, including, but not limited to what the kid said.

I looked at what she said and what was told to her.
And we do think that things of this nature are under the seal and not to be discussed. Not directly. And you wait for the penitent to come to you.

 

[mommamaree]

I can absolutely see my aspies doing that. And I would feel the same way.

I know, NOW, it would be wrong of me to feel that way, but it would all the same.

It would not be wrong of you to feel betrayed if the priest told someone else about a private conversation that passed between the priest and your child while in the confessional. Other people would not have the right to such information. I don’t think that even a spouse or parent is privy to such information, unless said person clearly stated “I am not here for confession but I need to turn to someone for help. Can you talk to me or tell me who I can go to for help?”