Seal of confession?

[Hopey]

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.

No, sir. I would not consider just anyone entering the confessional a penitent.
A person who enters under the given scenario, and kneels behind the screen (anonymity), and starts “I’m sorry…” I would though.
I would agree that person may not be ready. I agree the person may could have been helped by the priest to determine what they were sorry about.
But, it isn’t something that should have been initiated by the priest outside the confessional.
The person should have been the one to decide where to bring this up and to whom.

 

[otjm]

No, sir. I would not consider just anyone entering the confessional a penitent.
A person who enters under the given scenario, and kneels behind the screen (anonymity), and starts “I’m sorry…” I would though.
I would agree that person may not be ready. I agree the person may could have been helped by the priest to determine what they were sorry about.
But, it isn’t something that should have been initiated by the priest outside the confessional.
The person should have been the one to decide where to bring this up and to whom.

Like I said, there is no inflection in written words.

“I’m sorry” with one inflection would indicate the person was sorry. With another inflection, it would take on a different meaning, a point you seem unwilling to concede.

And this isn’t just about not being ready; it is about not intending to confess sins.

As to the issue of what occurred outside the confessional, we do not have enough information to determine right or wrong, as we have not heard all the facts. It appears that it may have been indiscreet, but there could be facts that it was justified and proper. Without (name removed by moderator)ut from the priest,k that is only speculation.

 

[FrDavid96]

No, sir. I would not consider just anyone entering the confessional a penitent.
A person who enters under the given scenario, and kneels behind the screen (anonymity), and starts “I’m sorry…” I would though.
I would agree that person may not be ready. I agree the person may could have been helped by the priest to determine what they were sorry about.
But, it isn’t something that should have been initiated by the priest outside the confessional.
The person should have been the one to decide where to bring this up and to whom.

The words “I’m sorry” do not a confession make.

Those words can mean the exact opposite of their literal meaning.

“I’m sorry, but we don’t serve your kind in here” is not a expression of contrition.
“I’m sorry, but that’s the law and if you don’t like it, tell it to the judge” is not contrition.
“I’m sorry, but if your club strikes the ball, that counts as a stroke” is not contrition.

There are plenty of times when people start by saying “I’m sorry” and when those words are immediately followed by “I’m really angry and don’t want to be here” then that means the person has no intention of confessing–at least not at that moment.

No attempt at Confession means that there is no Seal of Confession to be broken.

 

[Millie123]

The words “I’m sorry” do not a confession make.

Those words can mean the exact opposite of their literal meaning.

“I’m sorry, but we don’t serve your kind in here” is not a expression of contrition.
“I’m sorry, but that’s the law and if you don’t like it, tell it to the judge” is not contrition.
“I’m sorry, but if your club strikes the ball, that counts as a stroke” is not contrition.

There are plenty of times when people start by saying “I’m sorry” and when those words are immediately followed by “I’m really angry and don’t want to be here” then that means the person has no intention of confessing–at least not at that moment.

No attempt at Confession means that there is no Seal of Confession to be broken.

I would like to respectfully ask a question from your explanation…without the penitents contrition there is no sacrament…and therefore no sacramental seal.

I’m sure, you’ve heard this extreme example before…hypothetically speaking suppose someone walked into the confessional kneels down and “Bless me Father for I have sinned, I’m sorry, I’m going to kill a parishioner next Friday…”
This person knows about the sacramental seal…his intention in telling the priest this is to maliciously test the sacramental seal, and abuse the sacrament of confession itself.

There is no contrition at all…he is planning to commit a murder.
Is a sacramental confession taking place? Is this a loophole to the sacramental seal?

Can the priest worn the parishioner and call the police? The guy is not a penitent in that he has no contrition…therefore he is not receiving a sacramental confession…therefore no sacramental seal?

I always thought that the answer to this question was no. But after reading your explanations regarding contrition and the sacrament itself, I’m not so sure anymore.

This is an honest question and I ask it in kindness.

 

[FrDavid96]

I would like to respectfully ask a question from your explanation…without the penitents contrition there is no sacrament…and therefore no sacramental seal.
…

First of all, that’s not what I am saying. I have not said that if the penitent lacks contrition, there is no sacrament (because that’s a different situation). I have been saying that in the example presented here, there was no attempt at a sacrament, and therefore no penitent. There is a difference between a penitent who lacks contrition and a situation that is not an attempt at Confession.

I am saying that if there is no attempt at a Confession, then there is no Seal. That is different than a penitent’s lack of contrition.

If there is a Sacrament of Confession, or even an attempt at the Sacrament (which might not be completed if the penitent lacks contrition, or the sin is a reserved one, or some other reason), or even a simulation of the Sacrament (by an impostor priest) then the Seal is inviolable.

In the Sacrament of Confession, the Seal is inviolable. Period. End. Absolute.

So, to answer the rest of your question: if what occurs is the Sacrament of Confession or the attempt at the Sacrament of Confession, the Seal is inviolable.

 

[Hopey]

Because the seal is supposed to be inviolable doesn’t mean it can’t be broken.

There are cases right now concerning confessions of a dead person that were brought to the public sphere that are being determined to be suspected of breaking the seal.

Death doesn’t remove the seal, iow.

You have judged that the person did not intend to make a confession, therefore the seal would never apply.

Did I miss something along the way that indicated the person involved was wanting to vent and just popped into the nearest room?

At the end of the day, we, penitents, want to be reassured that the priest will err on the side of caution and do NOTHING that would EVEN remotely give anyone a reason to believe he is revealing something he shouldn’t.

If I missed something and the person said before all this, I was looking for a place to rant and that was the first room I saw, please, PLEASE tell me. Set my mind at ease.

Because the seal is inviolable doesn’t mean it can’t be broken.

 

[tafan]

First of all, that’s not what I am saying. I have not said that if the penitent lacks contrition, there is no sacrament (because that’s a different situation). I have been saying that in the example presented here, there was no attempt at a sacrament, and therefore no penitent. There is a difference between a penitent who lacks contrition and a situation that is not an attempt at Confession.

I am saying that if there is no attempt at a Confession, then there is no Seal. That is different than a penitent’s lack of contrition.

If there is a Sacrament of Confession, or even an attempt at the Sacrament (which might not be completed if the penitent lacks contrition, or the sin is a reserved one, or some other reason), or even a simulation of the Sacrament (by an impostor priest) then the Seal is inviolable.

In the Sacrament of Confession, the Seal is inviolable. Period. End. Absolute.

So, to answer the rest of your question: if what occurs is the Sacrament of Confession or the attempt at the Sacrament of Confession, the Seal is inviolable.

Fr, I understand your point. However, it seems to leave open the problem that the attempt at the sacrament is a subjective decision on the part of the priest about at what point in time does the seal take effect. In the example of the OP, the priest seems to have cut off the potential penitent before he had a chance to start confessing.

Lets give the following example: the penitent enters the confessional (according to you, the seal is not in effect) and says, “I don’t want to be here, but I have to be…” as in the OP. However, instead of being cut off by the priest, the penitent makes the sign of the cross, says “bless me Fr, for I have sinned” and confesses his sins.

Now, in this scenario, if I follow your logic, the sins he confesses are protected by the seal, but not the penitent’s opening statement, since there was no attempt at confession during that period. But this does not seem right to me. If it does, then the only difference to the OP, is that the priest did not send him away.

I understand accusing a priest of breaking the seal is an extremely serious charge and we should be very careful to not judge, OTH the priest has to make the judgment about the attempt to confess very liberally. And while in theory, I agree the time and place do not make the sacrament, it seems to me that if a person enters a confessional during hours, that should be assumed to be an attempt to confess until it is absolutely obvious he just walked in for some other attempt.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

From reading the OP’s post, I don’t think we can really determine what went on. It’s between the priest and that person involved, neither of whom are posting here, thus everything we know about the situation is hearsay.

That said, it might be advisable for the priest to simply not discuss the matter, as the public might see it as breaking the confessional seal, even if that was not the case. It’s best to err on the side of caution in situations like this.

 

[JimG]

This whole thread is a little confusing to me. Re-reading the original post, it doesn’t seem to me that we are getting the whole story. Why did the priest decide to discuss the matter with the O.P.? Was the ‘penitent’ a relative? Was it a family matter? It doesn’t seem to make sense otherwise.

I’m just thinking of a hypothetical scenario in which a mom tells son, “Yes, you are going to mass and you are going to confession!” Son, angry about the whole thing, goes into the confessional or reconciliation room and says, “I don’t want to be here! I’m just here because I have to be!”

The priest responds that since he does not wish to go to confession, he need say no more, and that he should seek counseling elsewhere. No confession. Priest later contacts mom and explains what happened, and suggests further counseling.

I have no idea if this is what happened. I’m just extrapolating from an original post with not enough information.

Aside from the seal of confession, it still leaves open the question of whether what was essentially a private rant to the priest should have been discussed with someone else. I’m still confused.

 

[InLight247]

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.

According to OP, all the person said was in the bold part. The priest then ended the conversation. The person did NOT even confess anything other than saying he did not want to be there.

In this case, even if the priest mentioned such a case outside of the confessional, there actually was nothing to reveal, nothing to break. There was nothing to do with seal of confession because there was no confession. Period.

I don’t understand what is the OP’s concern. I do understand Fr. David’s explanation. It is very clear.

 

[FrDavid96]

Fr, I understand your point. However, it seems to leave open the problem that the attempt at the sacrament is a subjective decision on the part of the priest about at what point in time does the seal take effect. In the example of the OP, the priest seems to have cut off the potential penitent before he had a chance to start confessing.

Yes, it can be a subjective decision–although I do hesitate to say that because given what’s already been posted here, someone will find some way to make that mean what I don’t intend. However, look again at the words you wrote “before he had a chance to start confessing” Since no confession had begun, there is no problem with the Seal.

Lets give the following example: the penitent enters the confessional (according to you, the seal is not in effect) and says, “I don’t want to be here, but I have to be…” as in the OP. However, instead of being cut off by the priest, the penitent makes the sign of the cross, says “bless me Fr, for I have sinned” and confesses his sins.

In that case, the Seal attaches and the Seal is inviolable. Elementary.

Now, in this scenario, if I follow your logic, the sins he confesses are protected by the seal, but not the penitent’s opening statement, since there was no attempt at confession during that period.

No, that is not my logic at all.
That is not what I’m saying. It’s the opposite of what I’m saying.
I keep saying over and over again that if there is a Confession (or attempt) then the Seal applies.
In what you just described, there was a Confession, therefore the Seal applies. Period.

But this does not seem right to me. If it does, then the only difference to the OP, is that the priest did not send him away.

It doesn’t seem right because it isn’t right. The Seal applies, because a Confession happened.
There’s no need for concern. The Seal applies and the priest will keep the Seal.

I understand accusing a priest of breaking the seal is an extremely serious charge and we should be very careful to not judge, OTH the priest has to make the judgment about the attempt to confess very liberally. And while in theory, I agree the time and place do not make the sacrament, it seems to me that if a person enters a confessional during hours, that should be assumed to be an attempt to confess until it is absolutely obvious he just walked in for some other attempt.

Yes, and from what we know, based on what that priest did, there was no attempt at Confession.

 

[AliR14]

This whole thread is a little confusing to me. Re-reading the original post, it doesn’t seem to me that we are getting the whole story. Why did the priest decide to discuss the matter with the O.P.? Was the ‘penitent’ a relative? Was it a family matter? It doesn’t seem to make sense otherwise.

I’m just thinking of a hypothetical scenario in which a mom tells son, “Yes, you are going to mass and you are going to confession!” Son, angry about the whole thing, goes into the confessional or reconciliation room and says, “I don’t want to be here! I’m just here because I have to be!”

The priest responds that since he does not wish to go to confession, he need say no more, and that he should seek counseling elsewhere. No confession. Priest later contacts mom and explains what happened, and suggests further counseling.

I have no idea if this is what happened. I’m just extrapolating from an original post with not enough information.

Aside from the seal of confession, it still leaves open the question of whether what was essentially a private rant to the priest should have been discussed with someone else. I’m still confused.

This is pretty much what I’m thinking. I was totally with the OP until she explained that the priest KNOWS she wants to spiritually help this person.

Remove the fact completely that the outburst happened in the confessional. Let’s say it’s 20 minutes before Mass and Father is walking through the church to the sanctuary to set up. He sees the person in question - let’s call him Jerry, for ease of the conversation - sitting in a pew looking downright irate.

Father: Hey, Jerry, how’s it going?
Jerry: “I’m sorry, but I just do not want to be here right now. I’m only here because I think I have to.”
Father: That’s rough, hope your day gets better…
Father (to himself): “Hmmm, I know Rob’s Wife has been working on Jerry getting back to church and involved in the parish. I’d better let her know there seems to be a set back.”

It seems, from what OP has written in her responses that the priest came to her out of mutu concern for the person in question. She then, when talking to the person in question, asked what was going on and he freely offered the same exact story. I guess, from where I’m standing, this just seems like a non-issue. Unless the priest was calling in order to gossip or was telling all the parishioners in his general vicinity what this person did, I don’t feel like he was violating anyone’s trust (at least intentionally!). It’s not like he was saying, “Hey, Rob’s Wife, can you believe what this yahoo just said to me in the confessional, HA HA HA”. He called you because he knows you’re trying to help this person and felt this angry outburst was something you might want to know about.

…or am I reading this situation completely incorrectly?

 

[tafan]

It doesn’t seem right because it isn’t right. The Seal applies, because a Confession happened.
There’s no need for concern. The Seal applies and the priest will keep the Seal.
.

I am not trying to be picky or obstinate here, I am just trying to understand. And it just seems as there is an inconsistency. In both cases, there was something said outside of the bounds of the sacrament. In one case it is protected, simply because the sacrament ultimately occurs, in the other case it is not, simply because the penitent was interrupted before starting the sacrament.

Edited to add: and I am only using the OP scenario as a means to my understanding. I fully understand we likely do not have the complete story

 

[FrDavid96]

I am not trying to be picky or obstinate here, I am just trying to understand.

And I said I agree with you that it doesn’t seem right, then I explained why it’s not right.

And it just seems as there is an inconsistency. In both cases, there was something said outside of the bounds of the sacrament. In one case it is protected, simply because the sacrament ultimately occurs, in the other case it is not, simply because the penitent was interrupted before starting the sacrament.

There is no inconsistency. It’s either A or B.
A. There is a confession or an attempt at confession
B. There is no attempt at confession

In B there is no penitent. There is no penitent when there is no attempt at Confession.

Again, I am not saying “because the sacrament ultimately occurs.” Please read what I wrote and go by those words, without changing what I wrote. When you change what I wrote it changes everything. I mean that about when you’re addressing my posts in particular—if you want to ask or state something else, by all means do so; but if you’re going to address what I wrote the first time, changing it only causes more confusion.
I am not saying “simply because the penitent was interrupted” I am saying because there was no attempt at a Confession, and therefore no penitent----different things. Please understand that.

At the same time, however look again at what you wrote “before starting the sacrament” That means everything. Before the sacrament, there is no sacrament (when the situation ends there), and there is no Seal. It really is that simple.

Edited to add: and I am only using the OP scenario as a means to my understanding. I fully understand we likely do not have the complete story

It’s very simple.

If the Sacrament of Confession occurs, or is attempted, the Seal applies.

If there is no attempt at the Sacrament of Confession, then there is no Seal of Confession.

 

[tafan]

Fr, I did not intentionally change what you wrote. I apologize. Will follow up later when I have time to be more careful. Thanks for your participation.

 

[Rob_s_Wife]

** I would like to update my original post, but I can’t seem to edit it? Could a mod move this to the top of first post? Or feel free to just delete the thread even?

Anyways.

I just wanted to say that as far as my concerns about this particular event and this particular priest go - they are resolved. I have confidence this priest would not break the seal and I have enough confidence that I would have him for my confessor. I was in err in my understanding on the confessional and sadly that has caused tremendous heartache and probably some anger on the part of a good priest and I deeply regret that. If I could redo it, I’d have just presumed I was in err and never called the bishop. I am tremendously glad I have never spouted names or spoke of it in a more defining public manner both here and IRL. I wish I hadn’t even brought it up here to be honest. I have no desire to make it out as though this man is a bad priest or to cause anyone to not go to confession. Apparently this is so rare that no one else need even think about it. My struggles with this are mine and no one else should be taking them on bc of my posts here.

My sincere apologies.

**

 

[Blessedwithfive]

Nice ending!

 

[otjm]

I am not trying to be picky or obstinate here, I am just trying to understand. And it just seems as there is an inconsistency. In both cases, there was something said outside of the bounds of the sacrament. In one case it is protected, simply because the sacrament ultimately occurs, in the other case it is not, simply because the penitent was interrupted before starting the sacrament.

Edited to add: and I am only using the OP scenario as a means to my understanding. I fully understand we likely do not have the complete story

If I may: years ago I was taught by Jesuits (high school) and I cannot begin to estimate the number of times a priest or scholastic would stop a student and say “Define your terms!”.

This always meant that the student speaker was using words improperly, and was confusing the issues because of improper terms.

The problem running through this thread is that everyone having a problem with the explanation is using the term “penitent” for someone who is not a penitent.

The assumption is being made either that a) the speaker went into the confessional, therefore he is confessing (i.e. starting the sacrament), or b) the words “I’m sorry” are the start of a confession.

Numerous example have been given of people who might enter a confessional without any intention of seeking forgiveness; so a) should have been put to rest. The (kid/adult) who entered the confessional was not, by the simple fact of entering, starting the sacrament.

Therefore, calling him a penitent simply by his entering is a misuse of the word.

That leaves b). And it has been said more than once that the words “I’m sorry” can mean anything but sorrow. Take the example of a teenager told to apologize to a sibling, and does so with a snotty enough tone of voice to fill a handkerchief. No one hearing that would presume any sorrow in the statement.

Everyone seems to want to focus on the first two words. Those words, taken out of context of what followed, could possibly be the indication that the speaker intends to be a penitent. Taken in context, however, by a speaker who is angry, and in statement indicates they feel coerced into being present, can most certainly be taken that the speaker has no intent on being a penitent. And the priest in the confessional took it that way.

So, referring to the speaker as a penitent only confuses the issue - they were not a penitent; they were someone angry about being at church, feeling coerced into being there (and apparently being coerced into going to confession). They exhibited no intent to confess. Thus no sacrament.

This really is not difficult at all to understand, if we stop insisting on using the word “penitent” for the individual who did not want to be in the confessional.

This thread started because the OP was under the impression that whatever was said in the confessional was under the seal.

That has been answered.

There is a separate issue of discretion; but there are not enough facts to indicate that the priest was indiscreet; there are some indications that it might not have been. But that is outside the main topic, which is the seal of confession.

 

[tafan]

FrDavid96:

Again, I am not saying “because the sacrament ultimately occurs.” Please read what I wrote and go by those words, without changing what I wrote. When you change what I wrote it changes everything. I mean that about when you’re addressing my posts in particular—if you want to ask or state something else, by all means do so; but if you’re going to address what I wrote the first time, changing it only causes more confusion.
I am not saying “simply because the penitent was interrupted” I am saying because there was no attempt at a Confession, and therefore no penitent----different things. Please understand that.

I understood the part about you saying there was an attempt at confession as opposed to the sacrament ultimately occurs. I was just not being careful enough with my typing, I am sorry about that.

Its the part about the interruption where I am still a little confused, so if you will please be patient with me one more time, I will try to provide a little more clear example.

Suppose once every 4 weeks, I load up my kids and take them to confession. Now, they always are willing to go, but that’s not to say there is never any grumbling about it.

Now one of them goes into the confessional and since they know the priest fairly well says: “Fr, I am only here because my stupid dad brought me”, to which our pastor kind of chuckles, and then the kid says “Bless me Fr for I have sinned, its been 4 weeks since my confession, I did X,Y,Z…”.

Now suppose instead, after the kid says “Fr, I am only here because my stupid dad brought me”, and our pastor interrupts him and sends him away.

If I understand you correctly, in the first instance the pastor would not be allowed to come and tell me the kid didn’t want to go to confession, but in the second instance the pastor would be allowed to. Again, the intent of the child was the same in both cases, its just that the priest interrupted the child before could make an attempt at confession.

Is this correct?

 

[PrayPsalm51]

** I would like to update my original post, but I can’t seem to edit it? Could a mod move this to the top of first post? Or feel free to just delete the thread even?

Anyways.

I just wanted to say that as far as my concerns about this particular event and this particular priest go - they are resolved. I have confidence this priest would not break the seal and I have enough confidence that I would have him for my confessor. I was in err in my understanding on the confessional and sadly that has caused tremendous heartache and probably some anger on the part of a good priest and I deeply regret that. If I could redo it, I’d have just presumed I was in err and never called the bishop. I am tremendously glad I have never spouted names or spoke of it in a more defining public manner both here and IRL. I wish I hadn’t even brought it up here to be honest. I have no desire to make it out as though this man is a bad priest or to cause anyone to not go to confession. Apparently this is so rare that no one else need even think about it. My struggles with this are mine and no one else should be taking them on bc of my posts here.

My sincere apologies.

**

Rob’s Wife
I’m so glad you re-posted. It was an interesting thread but the whole time I worried that you (and others) were now concerned about confessing/receiving the sacrament. And, that would be very tragic. Like you said, this is a rare incident. The vast majority of us go into the confessional and make a clear indication to confess. I trust the priests know the difference or will clarify even is someone is fuzzy on the standard ‘procedure’. I don’t think anyone who intends to confess, confesses sins, says an act of contrition, and receives absolution should ever doubt that they attempted a confession.

You must be a trusted parishoner if the priest turned to you to try to help this other person. I’m thankful to Fr. David for his many replies. We can learn so much from each other!