Seal of confession?

[Sunbreak]

It seems from your example that the person who entered the confessional did not want to be there and had no intention of receiving the sacrament. So, the priest did not violate anything. Not everyone who enters a confessional box wants to go to confession. It’s not the fact that this takes place in the confessional that creates the seal - it’s the intent to confess that matters. .

 

[otjm]

I thought that the penitent is the one who knows if it was an actual attempt at confession.

Not all who enter the confessional are penitents. Again, we are judging a situation from written words, not from actually hearing the statements made and how they were made. Just because someone enters the confessional does not mean, absolutely, that they intend to confess. They are presumed to intend that, but that can be overcome by the facts. In this circumstance, the priest decided, from the facts, there was no intent. Again, the presumption is being made that “I’m Sorry” has any reference to what follows. Given circumstances, tone of voice, and what follows, it can only be a semi-polite way of saying “I’m sorry to bother you…” and nothing more. It also can be an expression of sorrow. Have you ever heard a teenager say “I’m sorry” and known instantly they have no sorrow at all? I have - and as a kid, I said it more than once.

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?

It would be; as noted, the priest determined from the circumstances there was no intent; there was no “penitent” but rather an angry individual expressing their anger.

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 not what is being said. What is being said is that if an individual walks into a confessional and exhibits no intent to confess, then the sacrament does not occur. In the given circumstances, the individual expressed anger, coercion, and used the words “I’m sorry”. Everyone seems to be focusing on the “I’m sorry” as if that were the start of a confession. It may be, or it may not be, depending on how it is said. It is subject to more than one meaning. The priest heard how the words were said, and made the judgement.

And he made the same judgement, from the facts, that I have made when I heard one of my teenagers say “I’m sorry” and knew there was no sorrow at all.

“I’m sorry (for bothering you)…”

“I’m sorry (for wasting your time)…”

“I’m sorry (for venting at you; this isn’t your fault)…”

“I’m sorry (I am not the least sorry; I am really angry, but I am trying to be polite)…”

 

[mommamaree]

Again, I am alarmed at the indiscretion of the priest. I am not saying anything contrary about the Seal. If FrDavid says that the priest determines that an attempt was not made, then fine, I believe him. I still feel it was very wrong for the priest to tell another person about what was said to him in a private conversation. Even if no attempt was made at confession, the fact remains that the person was conversing privately with the priest in an enclosed space.

 

[dans0622]

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.

Well, even if it can be argued that there was no seal of confession in this case, it would not necessarily be “wrong” to feel that way. I suspect that many people would, for understandable reasons.

At any rate, getting back to the topic at hand, the Seal arises from confession. What is confession? It is nicely defined as “the self-accusation of one’s sins to a competent priest for the sake of absolution” (Roos, “The Seal of Confession” p. 23). A person either does this or not. A priest could wrongly conclude that a person did not do this. It’s not simply up to the priest to decide and whatever he says, goes.

In this case, I can see why one can argue that the priest correctly concluded that the person did not do this (perhaps somewhat as a result of the priest effectively kicking him/her out a bit prematurely). I can also see why some would say that the person did at least begin to make a self-accusation. It is less clear that the person did this for the sake of absolution. It seems to me that he/she probably did not say anything for the sake of absolution.

Nevertheless, I see no reason to disagree with you (re: another post) that the priest did not need to tell you about this in such a blatant manner. I would feel the same way. It’s at least unseemly, as far as I’m concerned.

Dan

 

[otjm]

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.

Well, you may think that, but as FrDavid96 has said, it is not.

Again, not everyone is a penitent. Continuing to use that word causes the confusion.

You are looking at the printed words. Printed words have no inflection, and are subject to misinterpretation because they lack inflection.

Some people do not pick up on inflections. Most do, and it is funny to watch someone who doesn’t pick up on inflections get the wrong meaning of a statement.

"I’m sorry can most certainly be the start of a confession. It also can mean anything but sorrow, with a different inflection.

The priest heard the comments; the priest determined the individual was not there to confess, but rather was there under coercison, and stopped the conversation because the person was exhibiting coercion, not sorrow. That is, they came in because they felt they were being forced to do so, not because they intneded to confess any sins.

That does not make for a sacrament.

There is a separate issue of what, if anything, should be said (as opposed to could be said) to anyone else. There are a whole lot of facts not present. The priest made the decision the individual was not there to confess sins (and the facts certainly can be interpreted that way) so there was no seal.

There was no intent to confess sins (the priest’s determination based on the facts - and the facts support that) so the priest did not violate any seal. Whether or not there was indiscretion on his part is outside the facts presented.

 

[otjm]

Again, I am alarmed at the indiscretion of the priest. I am not saying anything contrary about the Seal. If FrDavid says that the priest determines that an attempt was not made, then fine, I believe him. I still feel it was very wrong for the priest to tell another person about what was said to him in a private conversation. Even if no attempt was made at confession, the fact remains that the person was conversing privately with the priest in an enclosed space.

Understood. The problem we have is that there are a whole lot of facts not present to determine why the priest spoke to the OP. And that includes not only facts from the OP’s side, but the priest’s side. It appears to be an indiscretion, and that is about the most we can say.

And that would be the same, whether or not it was in an “enclosed space”.

 

[Hopey]

Well, you may think that, but as FrDavid96 has said, it is not.

Again, not everyone is a penitent. Continuing to use that word causes the confusion.

You are looking at the printed words. Printed words have no inflection, and are subject to misinterpretation because they lack inflection.

Some people do not pick up on inflections. Most do, and it is funny to watch someone who doesn’t pick up on inflections get the wrong meaning of a statement.

"I’m sorry can most certainly be the start of a confession. It also can mean anything but sorrow, with a different inflection.

The priest heard the comments; the priest determined the individual was not there to confess, but rather was there under coercison, and stopped the conversation because the person was exhibiting coercion, not sorrow. That is, they came in because they felt they were being forced to do so, not because they intneded to confess any sins.

That does not make for a sacrament.

There is a separate issue of what, if anything, should be said (as opposed to could be said) to anyone else. There are a whole lot of facts not present. The priest made the decision the individual was not there to confess sins (and the facts certainly can be interpreted that way) so there was no seal.

There was no intent to confess sins (the priest’s determination based on the facts - and the facts support that) so the priest did not violate any seal. Whether or not there was indiscretion on his part is outside the facts presented.

I use the word penitent because the person entered a confessional, during confession time and that is what the person is called, a penitent. Regardless of age, whether they have been catechized, whatever. That person, who comes to the priest, in the describe scenario is a penitent. The priest determined they were not sufficiently prepared. They still remain a penitent, just unprepared.

 

[Hopey]

And the penitent gets to decide when/where/how he will discuss this matter outside of the confessional and with whom.

S/he, the penitent gets to decide if they go to father - make an appointment.

The penitent gets to decide if they take their concerns (anger) to an open forum to decide if it is a sin - where to work on anger etc.

The priest, for the sake of the person involved - penitent, doesn’t do it for them.

That is the way we understand the confessional. That is the way we understand the seal. Even if s/he, the penitent did not have what was required, the attempt is what is very troubling.

 

[Rob_s_Wife]

I use the word penitent because the person entered a confessional, during confession time and that is what the person is called, a penitent. Regardless of age, whether they have been catechized, whatever.

Well if I’m understanding father correctly, that is not true.

They are only a penitent if they display an intent to seek absolution for their sins.

Otherwise they are called a person passing through a door.

ETA: Tho it seems one presumes they are a penitent unless they do or say something that makes the priest decide they are not.

But now a person entering the confessional and speaking to the priest there does decidedly NOT necessarily make them a penitent.

 

[mommamaree]

Well if I’m understanding father correctly, that is not true.

They are only a penitent if they display an intent to seek absolution for their sins.

Otherwise they are called a person passing through a door.

ETA: Tho it seems one presumes they are a penitent unless they do or say something that makes the priest decide they are not.

But now a person entering the confessional and speaking to the priest there does decidedly NOT necessarily make them a penitent.

Does it matter if they close the door after they enter?

 

[otjm]

I use the word penitent because the person entered a confessional, during confession time and that is what the person is called, a penitent. Regardless of age, whether they have been catechized, whatever. That person, who comes to the priest, in the describe scenario is a penitent. The priest determined they were not sufficiently prepared. They still remain a penitent, just unprepared.

You are using the word incorrectly. In the vast majority of times, your definition is correct, not because they enter the confessional, but because they intend to confess. As FatherDavide96 has pointed out, there can be any number of reasons someone might enter the confessional during the time for confessions, with no intent to confess.

This was not a case of lack of preparation. This was a case of someone not intending to confess - which is radically different from lack of preparation.

Lack of preparation is not an intent to not confess; it is intent to confess but lack of forethought as to history since the last confession.

One who lacks preparation but intends to confess is a penitent.

One who lacks intent to confess is not a penitent, because the definition of penitent is one intending to confess - prepared, partially prepared, or not prepared at all.

From Merriam Webster: noun: a person who is sorry for doing something wrong and asks for forgiveness : a penitent person

By the facts, as determined by the priest, the individual was not sorry for doing something wrong, and was not asking forgiveness. They were venting their anger at their feeling of coercion.

 

[otjm]

Does it matter if they close the door after they enter?

No. :nope:

 

[Hopey]

You are using the word incorrectly. In the vast majority of times, your definition is correct, not because they enter the confessional, but because they intend to confess. As FatherDavide96 has pointed out, there can be any number of reasons someone might enter the confessional during the time for confessions, with no intent to confess.

This was not a case of lack of preparation. This was a case of someone not intending to confess - which is radically different from lack of preparation.

Lack of preparation is not an intent to not confess; it is intent to confess but lack of forethought as to history since the last confession.

One who lacks preparation but intends to confess is a penitent.

One who lacks intent to confess is not a penitent, because the definition of penitent is one intending to confess - prepared, partially prepared, or not prepared at all.

From Merriam Webster: noun: a person who is sorry for doing something wrong and asks for forgiveness : a penitent person

By the facts, as determined by the priest, the individual was not sorry for doing something wrong, and was not asking forgiveness. They were venting their anger at their feeling of coercion.

"The priest then refused to listen further stating they were not spiritually prepared to give confession and told them to seek further counsel elsewhere. "

 

[otjm]

And the penitent gets to decide when/where/how he will discuss this matter outside of the confessional and with whom.

That is correct; the seal binds the confessor, but not the confessee.

S/he, the penitent gets to decide if they go to father - make an appointment.

Also correct.

The penitent gets to decide if they take their concerns (anger) to an open forum to decide if it is a sin - where to work on anger etc.

Yes

The priest, for the sake of the person involved - penitent, doesn’t do it for them.

For a penitent, yes; for a non-penitent, no.

That is the way we understand the confessional. That is the way we understand the seal. Even if s/he, the penitent did not have what was required, the attempt is what is very troubling.

Taht is where we seem to be going astray.

 

[Hopey]

No. :nope:

We leave the door open. Only place our kids can do this without being told “were you born in a barn - shut the door!”

 

[otjm]

"The priest then refused to listen further stating they were not spiritually prepared to give confession and told them to seek further counsel elsewhere. "

Which was appropriate, as they were not a penitent. They were not seeking reconciliation. They were venting, felt coerced, and needed counseling for their anger and perhaps resolution of their feelings of coercion…

As to whether or not they had sinned, that could not be determined until they sought to confess.

And since they were not seeking to confess in the given instance, they were not a penitent, there was no sacrament, and so no seal.

 

[otjm]

We leave the door open. Only place our kids can do this without being told “were you born in a barn - shut the door!”

My kids heard that one too!

 

[otjm]

"The priest then refused to listen further stating they were not spiritually prepared to give confession and told them to seek further counsel elsewhere. "

Spiritual preparation: being sorry for doing something wrong and asking for forgiveness : a penitent person

Not to belabor the point…

 

[Hopey]

Spiritual preparation: being sorry for doing something wrong and asking for forgiveness : a penitent person

Not to belabor the point…

Not quite from my understanding but I am willing to leave it alone and pray about it.
There are ill-prepared penitents who have to do work and come back.
But, since there is no super duper light that comes on, purple or something, when the priest is sure everything is met (they do have a penitent), I am willing to leave it alone. And will suggest fr putting in a strobe light to indicate when the seal is occurring and not. (joking slightly).

 

[FrDavid96]

I use the word penitent because the person entered a confessional, during confession time and that is what the person is called, a penitent. Regardless of age, whether they have been catechized, whatever. That person, who comes to the priest, in the describe scenario is a penitent. The priest determined they were not sufficiently prepared. They still remain a penitent, just unprepared.

By your definition, a person who answers the office telephone, and walks over to tell Father that he needs to go to the hospital for an emergency is a penitent–merely because the person “entered a confessional during confession time.”

That’s not the definition of a penitent.

A penitent is one who confesses or attempts to confess.

That’s not determined merely by time and place. That’s what people don’t understand here. People are insisting that just because the location was the confessional and the time was during the scheduled time for confession that the person was a penitent. That’s not how a penitent is defined, and it’s not how Confession is defined.