Seal of confession?

[Hopey]

** 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.

**

If you are happy with it, then so am I. No need to apologize, at least to me.
Peace.

 

[Hopey]

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.

Yes. A person who enters a confessional, during times of confessions and kneels behind a screen in said manner, could be taken to be a penitent.
Whether or not a priest can decide, on his own, whether or not it applies is another time and thread as it could be looked at hypothetically in another situation.
And how the canon lawyers state their opinions on this matter is very precise also.
So, I guess we will have to disagree.

 

[thewanderer]

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

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.

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.

Fr, I think the reason people are having a hard time with this is that they are imagining a case where someone comes to the priest, angry that they have to be there but still intending to confess, starts off by saying the exact same thing we were told the person in question said, and then being cut off by the priest. In such a scenario you really would have a penitent, a person who intended to confess, who was making an attempt at confession and so whose speech would be covered by the seal, but, because he was cut off by the priest he did not get a chance to make it clear that he intended to confess, and so the priest assumed there was no such intent and so broke the seal of confession by talking to others about what was said. Does that make more sense?

 

[thewanderer]

Fr, I think the reason people are having a hard time with this is that they are imagining a case where someone comes to the priest, angry that they have to be there but still intending to confess, starts off by saying the exact same thing we were told the person in question said, and then being cut off by the priest. In such a scenario you really would have a penitent, a person who intended to confess, who was making an attempt at confession and so whose speech would be covered by the seal, but, because he was cut off by the priest he did not get a chance to make it clear that he intended to confess, and so the priest assumed there was no such intent and so broke the seal of confession by talking to others about what was said. Does that make more sense?

And just so its clear, I realize that this scenario was not the case in the OP’s scenario, but it is something that came to mind because of the discussion on this thread.

 

[Hopey]

And just so its clear, I realize that this scenario was not the case in the OP’s scenario, but it is something that came to mind because of the discussion on this thread.

I don’t think the priest in question understood why the person was angry and didn’t want to be there, but the way it was stated in the original scenario (Mass/Church) indicated the person was angry not at being in confession, but the obligation to attend mass.

I am all for giving everyone the benefit of doubt and that confusing things happen and do happen.

So, where I disagree at least is where there was an attempt or not. Because the priest understood it one way, then that is how he responded.

I don’t think it is good practice to find help for the people outside the confessional because great confusion could occur and CONCERN. If Rob’s wife is okay with helping people and the priest sees her as such, then I think it would have been better to give her name to the person and let them handle it outside on their own.

I am glad the Bishop clarified some things.

 

[otjm]

I don’t think the priest in question understood why the person was angry and didn’t want to be there, but the way it was stated in the original scenario (Mass/Church) indicated the person was angry not at being in confession, but the obligation to attend mass.

I am all for giving everyone the benefit of doubt and that confusing things happen and do happen.

So, where I disagree at least is where there was an attempt or not. Because the priest understood it one way, then that is how he responded.

I don’t think it is good practice to find help for the people outside the confessional because great confusion could occur and CONCERN. If Rob’s wife is okay with helping people and the priest sees her as such, then I think it would have been better to give her name to the person and let them handle it outside on their own.

I am glad the Bishop clarified some things.

The priest understood exactly what was going on and responded appropriately. Simulation of a sacrament is not a game to be played by an individual nor by a confessor; the kid indicated he was being coerced. How much bigger a sign of no intent do you want?

The OP did not question that there was no intent; her concern was that the seal of confession does not attach simply by walking into the confessional. She has acknowledged that her original impression was wrong, that no seal attached. In essence, the question has been answered; except that you keep trying to change the original question and come up with a different scenario.

This is not a “coulda, shoulda, woulda” question. It is a question concerning the specific facts, which either you are choosing to ignore, or wish to change.

The priest in question has a bachelor’s degree and at least one Masters; he is specifically trained in being a confessor. He was there (unlike any posters herein); he is trained to make these decisions; the evidence was perfectly clear (the kid said he felt he wa being coerced); the kid displayed anger along with that feeling of coercion.

THAT DOES NOT START A SACRAMENT. This is not a discussion of what “coulda” occur, or “shoulda” occur, or “woulda” occur. It is about what did occur. The priest was entirely within proper procedure to stop an angry rant and tell the individual to come back at another time. But this is not about procedure; it is about whether, at that exact moment, had the sacrament of reconciliation started? And the answer is “No”.

You have now disagreed with two priests; FRDavid96 and the priest who was in the confessional. If you have specific training in the administration of the sacrament of reconciliation, then somehow you might have a basis for disputing what the priest did; but so far you have not shown those qualifications. Perhaps you should concede they have the training? That just possibly, your impression is wrong?

“Yeahbutwhatif” is something for another thread.

 

[Hopey]

The priest understood exactly what was going on and responded appropriately. Simulation of a sacrament is not a game to be played by an individual nor by a confessor; the kid indicated he was being coerced. How much bigger a sign of no intent do you want?

That is not what she gave, that the adult was coerced.

The OP did not question that there was no intent; her concern was that the seal of confession does not attach simply by walking into the confessional. She has acknowledged that her original impression was wrong, that no seal attached. In essence, the question has been answered; except that you keep trying to change the original question and come up with a different scenario.

Yes.

This is not a “coulda, shoulda, woulda” question. It is a question concerning the specific facts, which either you are choosing to ignore, or wish to change.

This is where you are wrong as I have been using the quotes she gave and you and others have been assuming this or that. I think it is great to give everyone the benefit of the doubt. I think I would have followed up as she did because of the way it was presented. But one is left with, is that a person may NOT be a penitent when they walk into a confessional, during times of confessions, etc which is NOT the proper attitude.
If there are confessions at specific times, then a person coming through their door is, in the very least a POTENTIAL penitent. If the confessional is being used for other things, then maybe that needs to be stopped.

Throughout all of this I have been using what she said, quoted. You and others have taken the opportunity to look at it in a different light - reading more/less into what is there.

If a person enters a confessional during times confession is heard, in the very least we would hope they would be considered a potential penitent and treated as such.

Yes, I will still respectfully disagree with Fr David on the basic fact of how people are treated and considered who enter the confessional during confession time. I don’t feel I am in the minority here either. I will disagree with you as to whether a person could be considered a penitent who enters under said circumstances. At the end of the day, if the Bishop examined it and said he found nothing that broke the seal, then that is acceptable.

 

[otjm]

“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.”

That speaks to the issue of coercion; and it is out of the first post. And that is what she gave, in the first post.

This, I will repeat, is not about giving someone “the benefit of the doubt”; it is not about what they mighta coulda woulda shouda said some time later. It is about what existed at the moment.

It is not about attitude; it is about facts. No one has said that one coming through the door at a specific time does not have the potential to be a penitent. Father admitted that; I have said the same. That was not the question of the thread.

We are not looking at it in a different light; we are looking at the question the OP posed. You want to take it somewhere else. Then start another thread.

Hoping has nothing o do with the question. Hope may be a virtue, but that does not make it relevant to all discussions. And if a person exhibits a purpose other than confessing, then the sacrament does not start. Which is what the discussion is about, not about your wishing and hoping.

The issue of the thread is not about how people are treated; it is about whether or not, when a person comes into the confessional and clearly exhibits they are not there to confess sins, does the sacrament begin.

Answer: it does not.

How long would this kid need to be in the confessional until you would be satisfied that he does not want to go to church, he does not want to be in the confessional, he has no intention of confessing sins, and you would be willing to admit the priest called it correctly? 2 more minutes? 5? 10? A half hour?

You seem unable to grasp that some people don’t want to go to church.

 

[Hopey]

“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.”

That speaks to the issue of coercion; and it is out of the first post. And that is what she gave, in the first post.

This, I will repeat, is not about giving someone “the benefit of the doubt”; it is not about what they mighta coulda woulda shouda said some time later. It is about what existed at the moment.

It is not about attitude; it is about facts. No one has said that one coming through the door at a specific time does not have the potential to be a penitent. Father admitted that; I have said the same. That was not the question of the thread.

We are not looking at it in a different light; we are looking at the question the OP posed. You want to take it somewhere else. Then start another thread.

Hoping has nothing o do with the question. Hope may be a virtue, but that does not make it relevant to all discussions. And if a person exhibits a purpose other than confessing, then the sacrament does not start. Which is what the discussion is about, not about your wishing and hoping.

The issue of the thread is not about how people are treated; it is about whether or not, when a person comes into the confessional and clearly exhibits they are not there to confess sins, does the sacrament begin.

Answer: it does not.

How long would this kid need to be in the confessional until you would be satisfied that he does not want to go to church, he does not want to be in the confessional, he has no intention of confessing sins, and you would be willing to admit the priest called it correctly? 2 more minutes? 5? 10? A half hour?

You seem unable to grasp that some people don’t want to go to church.

Not wanting to go to Church and not wanting to go to confession are two different things.

You read the above quote as being coerced into, what? Go to Church or confession?
Because a person has an obligation to go to Mass and is angry may or may not be a sin. That doesn’t mean they do not want to be in confession nor not want to confess it.

When a person goes into the confessional, during confession time, in said manner, they are a penitent or potential one.

I believe the Bishop called it correctly. I am willing to agree with that. I believe this can be examined independently of what the priest thought, etc.

 

[otjm]

Not wanting to go to Church and not wanting to go to confession are two different things.

Well, actually, no. They are sourced in the same place. I have yet to meet anyone who is rejecting going to church, who is going to confession - and I have been around the block more than a few times.

You read the above quote as being coerced into, what? Go to Church or confession?
Because a person has an obligation to go to Mass and is angry may or may not be a sin.

This thread is not about the sinfulness of that issue - start your own thread.

That doesn’t mean they do not want to be in confession nor not want to confess it.

This issue is totally irrelevant to this thread. Start a new one. As noted, you don’t seem to be able to understand the question at hand, no matter who explains it to you.

When a person goes into the confessional, during confession time, in said manner, they are a penitent or potential one.

They are a potential one. As noted previously, almost all who go into a confessional intend the sacrament. That, however, is not the issue. That they are potential has been pointed out before also, but seems to have escaped attention.

I believe the Bishop called it correctly. I am willing to agree with that.

Oh.

I believe this can be examined independently of what the priest thought, etc.

No, it cannot; because it confirms what the priest did was not a violation of the seal of confession, which is what this thread is about. The Bishop’s reaction is not anything to do with where you keep trying to go, it is a response to the question of the thread. The issue, no matter how much you try to stretch it, is not whether the priest was too quick to make his decision that the kid was not a penitent. The bishop confirms the priest’s decision that the kid was not there to confess, but because he felt coerced.

Not to make too find a point of it, but the OP never said that what was related as to the kid’s statement was the sum total of it. That would not be unusual, because it is entirely possible the priest did not relate the sum total of what the kid said. So neither you nor I know how long the kid vented, or whether or not he said more; only that he vented, the substance of which was he did not want to be at church and felt coerced, and that the priest at some point in the venting, dismissed him as not wanting to confess. You were not there, I was not there, the OP was not there; the priest was. He made the determination that the kid was not intent on confessing. Your only challenge seems to be “well, maybe he really wanted to and if only…” That is coulda shoulda woulda. There is no evidence of it except that you want the circumstances to be different.

They are not.

 

[Hopey]

Well, actually, no. They are sourced in the same place. I have yet to meet anyone who is rejecting going to church, who is going to confession - and I have been around the block more than a few times.

This thread is not about the sinfulness of that issue - start your own thread.

This issue is totally irrelevant to this thread. Start a new one. As noted, you don’t seem to be able to understand the question at hand, no matter who explains it to you.

They are a potential one. As noted previously, almost all who go into a confessional intend the sacrament. That, however, is not the issue. That they are potential has been pointed out before also, but seems to have escaped attention.

Oh. No, it cannot; because it confirms what the priest did was not a violation of the seal of confession, which is what this thread is about. The Bishop’s reaction is not anything to do with where you keep trying to go, it is a response to the question of the thread. The issue, no matter how much you try to stretch it, is not whether the priest was too quick to make his decision that the kid was not a penitent. The bishop confirms the priest’s decision that the kid was not there to confess, but because he felt coerced.

Not to make too find a point of it, but the OP never said that what was related as to the kid’s statement was the sum total of it. That would not be unusual, because it is entirely possible the priest did not relate the sum total of what the kid said. So neither you nor I know how long the kid vented, or whether or not he said more; only that he vented, the substance of which was he did not want to be at church and felt coerced, and that the priest at some point in the venting, dismissed him as not wanting to confess. You were not there, I was not there, the OP was not there; the priest was. He made the determination that the kid was not intent on confessing. Your only challenge seems to be “well, maybe he really wanted to and if only…” That is coulda shoulda woulda. There is no evidence of it except that you want the circumstances to be different.

They are not.

It was not a child but an adult.
How do you think the Bishop arrived at his decision?
Do you think that all cases that involve the seal, and possible break, defacto take the priests word or that they could be judged, examined independently? Or are you just unaware of this?

 

[Hopey]

Well, actually, no. They are sourced in the same place. I have yet to meet anyone who is rejecting going to church, who is going to confession - and I have been around the block more than a few times.

This thread is not about the sinfulness of that issue - start your own thread.

This issue is totally irrelevant to this thread. Start a new one. As noted, you don’t seem to be able to understand the question at hand, no matter who explains it to you.

They are a potential one. As noted previously, almost all who go into a confessional intend the sacrament. That, however, is not the issue. That they are potential has been pointed out before also, but seems to have escaped attention.

Oh. No, it cannot; because it confirms what the priest did was not a violation of the seal of confession, which is what this thread is about. The Bishop’s reaction is not anything to do with where you keep trying to go, it is a response to the question of the thread. The issue, no matter how much you try to stretch it, is not whether the priest was too quick to make his decision that the kid was not a penitent. The bishop confirms the priest’s decision that the kid was not there to confess, but because he felt coerced.

Not to make too find a point of it, but the OP never said that what was related as to the kid’s statement was the sum total of it. That would not be unusual, because it is entirely possible the priest did not relate the sum total of what the kid said. So neither you nor I know how long the kid vented, or whether or not he said more; only that he vented, the substance of which was he did not want to be at church and felt coerced, and that the priest at some point in the venting, dismissed him as not wanting to confess. You were not there, I was not there, the OP was not there; the priest was. He made the determination that the kid was not intent on confessing. Your only challenge seems to be “well, maybe he really wanted to and if only…” That is coulda shoulda woulda. There is no evidence of it except that you want the circumstances to be different.

They are not.

I will let you start your own thread.
I have had about enough.
FWIW, cases like this are not judged by the priest in question. Maybe that is where the confusion is coming from. They are looked at, examined, and determined if there was a break in the seal. Violation of the seal is not judged by the priest. He can say X all day long but it has to be determined that in fact, there was no seal, etc, to begin with.
Peace.

 

[Rob_s_Wife]

It was not a child but an adult.
How do you think the Bishop arrived at his decision?
Do you think that all cases that involve the seal, and possible break, defacto take the priests word or that they could be judged, examined independently? Or are you just unaware of this?

The bishop arrived at his decision after speaking to me, speaking to the priest (who was extremely hurt and upset and grievously wounded by even the hint that there was concern btw) and then speaking to me again. At that point and only at that point was the decision made.

It was examined independently. That’s the job of the bishop.

Not the public. Not me or my friends. The bishop.

While this has thrown me for a loop, I have no qualms with the third party handling of it. The bishop did his job and he did it swiftly and thoroughly.

 

[Hopey]

The bishop arrived at his decision after speaking to me, speaking to the priest (who was extremely hurt and upset and grievously wounded by even the hint that there was concern btw) and then speaking to me again. At that point and only at that point was the decision made.

It was examined independently. That’s the job of the bishop.

Not the public. Not me or my friends. The bishop.

While this has thrown me for a loop, I have no qualms with the third party handling of it. The bishop did his job and he did it swiftly and thoroughly.

If it’s any consolation, I probably would have done the same thing.
I am sorry he was hurt. Maybe some good can come from it.
I know we only use the confessional for confessions!!

 

[InLight247]

The bishop arrived at his decision after speaking to me, speaking to the priest (who was extremely hurt and upset and grievously wounded by even the hint that there was concern btw) and then speaking to me again. At that point and only at that point was the decision made.

It was examined independently. That’s the job of the bishop.

Not the public. Not me or my friends. The bishop.

While this has thrown me for a loop, I have no qualms with the third party handling of it. The bishop did his job and he did it swiftly and thoroughly.

So you went to the bishop and concerned about the priest of breaking the seal of confession. Actually the priest did not break anything since there was no actual confession. Of course the priest was deeply hurt. This is a very serious matter.

And what was the bishop’s decision?

 

[Rob_s_Wife]

So you went to the bishop and concerned about the priest of breaking the seal of confession. Actually the priest did not break anything since there was no actual confession. Of course the priest was deeply hurt. This is a very serious matter.

And what was the bishop’s decision?

**
After hearing all the parties, the bishop decided the priest was proper and the seal was not broken and it was explained to me, tho not as thoroughly as it was here, how I was in error.

I am aware this is a serious matter. That’s why I refused specifics, identities and instead of chit-chating all over town, went to the bishop as I was advised to do was the proper thing.**

 

[otjm]

It was not a child but an adult.

It appears he was a young adult. If my use of the word “kid” concerns you, translate it “young adult”.

How do you think the Bishop arrived at his decision?

by examining the facts, not by playing the woulda coulda shoulda card.
QUOTE=Hopey;12043002]
Do you think that all cases that involve the seal, and possible break, defacto take the priests word or that they could be judged, examined independently? Or are you just unaware of this?Why do you ask?

I am well aware of how cases are handled. None of that changes the issue.

And you seem to be presuming that any time there is an issue of no seal, that there is a similar investigation. Aside for the fact that such cases are rare, that is not true; there was an investigation because someone, aware of the facts or some of them, spoke to the bishop.

I suspect that if the OP knew then what they know now, they would not have spoken with the bishop; that certainly seems to be the essence of what their last post was.

And had they not spoken to the bishop, there would not have been any investigation.

So could a priest’s decision be examined? Of course. Nothing I have said in any posts would indicate that I thought to the contrary.

 

[otjm]

I will let you start your own thread.
I have had about enough.
FWIW, cases like this are not judged by the priest in question. Maybe that is where the confusion is coming from.

Actually, they are judged by the priest in question; he is the person who makes the judgment that no sacrament had started. And most cases end there.

They are looked at, examined, and determined if there was a break in the seal. Violation of the seal is not judged by the priest. He can say X all day long but it has to be determined that in fact, there was no seal, etc, to begin with.
Peace.

This case went to the bishop not because the priest could not make a determination. It went there because the OP was under the mistaken assumption that if someone walked into the confessional, the seal applied. She did not understand the explanation the priest gave, so she spoke with the bishop.

As she noted, the bishop gave a less detailed explanation than has been given in these posts; and it is also obvious that other posters have had difficulty understanding longer explanations given in these posts.

Does that mean that in another case, the bishop will be involved? No, it does not.

What was determined was that there was no seal, because there was no attempt to confess. Another way of saying it was that the bishop determined that the individual who entered the confessional and vented did not intend to confess; so not sacrament, so no seal.

Which is what the priest determined, and which is what the bishop, after the OP went to him, confirmed after an examination.

 

[Hopey]

**
After hearing all the parties, the bishop decided the priest was proper and the seal was not broken and it was explained to me, tho not as thoroughly as it was here, how I was in error.

I am aware this is a serious matter. That’s why I refused specifics, identities and instead of chit-chating all over town, went to the bishop as I was advised to do was the proper thing.**

And he determined there was no attempt at a true confession, right?
Again, if it had been presented to me in the same way, red flags would have gone up no matter the amount of affection, etc. I felt for the priest.
At the end of the day, I don’t think that was the best way to involve you in helping this person, the way the priest handled it.
I am sorry you had to go through that. It just makes me ever more vigilant in using the confessional for confession and that’s it!!

 

[Hopey]

**
After hearing all the parties, the bishop decided the priest was proper and the seal was not broken and it was explained to me, tho not as thoroughly as it was here, how I was in error.

I am aware this is a serious matter. That’s why I refused specifics, identities and instead of chit-chating all over town, went to the bishop as I was advised to do was the proper thing.**

Just on the side, I am not sure the priest should have revealed he was deeply wounded. That it was examined and he found correct would have been a cause to rejoice!