Seal of confession

  • Thread starter Thread starter Catholic_Duck
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Catholic_Duck

Guest
Hi. Hypotheticly if a priest was told something in confession but then someone else tells him outside of confession e.g priest finds out person A murdered someone and person B tells the priest that he saw A murder the person, can the priest do something or is he still bound by the seal of confession l?
 
If a priest learns something outside of the Sacrament of Penance, there is no seal. The priest can never reveal what he heard in Confessional, however.

Note that the example you gave is hearsay, and would ordinarily not be admissible in court.
 
Do what any concerned citizen should do, tell the witness to report it to the police. It’s not hard, nor in violation of the seal of confession.
 
Catholic_Duck said:
Hi. Hypotheticly if a priest was told something in confession but then someone else tells him outside of confession e.g priest finds out person A murdered someone and person B tells the priest that he saw A murder the person, can the priest do something or is he still bound by the seal of confession l?
Click to expand...
Always bound, always. Nothing told in Confession will be used in court. We are literally washed clean in the Blood of God’s Son when we go to Holy Confession. God is present in Holy Confession.
 
Wouldn’t the confessor be bound to tell the killer that as part of his penance he must turn himself in? Whether he does so or not is out of the priests control. And its not exactly fully remorseful to still try and avoid justice from human punishment…render unto ceasar and all that…
 
Crusaderbear said:
Wouldn’t the confessor be bound to tell the killer that as part of his penance he must turn himself in?
Click to expand...
Absolutely not.

This is about the 3rd or 4th thread on this same thing this week alone. The answer is always the same: no.
 
It is my understanding that the seal is pretty much absolute.

Even if someone confessed that he poisoned the sacramental wine supply, the priest couldn’t drop the dime on the sinner.
 
Kielbasi said:
It is my understanding that the seal is pretty much absolute.

Even if someone confessed that he poisoned the sacramental wine supply, the priest couldn’t drop the dime on the sinner.
Click to expand...
And the priest can not act on information received in the confessional. So he would still have to drink the wine knowing it is poisoned. Theoretically anyway…
 
Kielbasi said:
It is my understanding that the seal is pretty much absolute.

Even if someone confessed that he poisoned the sacramental wine supply, the priest couldn’t drop the dime on the sinner.
Click to expand...
He could however drop the chalice on the floor… 😃
 
Kielbasi said:
It is my understanding that the seal is pretty much absolute.

Even if someone confessed that he poisoned the sacramental wine supply, the priest couldn’t drop the dime on the sinner.
Click to expand...
peter26 said:
And the priest can not act on information received in the confessional. So he would still have to drink the wine knowing it is poisoned. Theoretically anyway…
Click to expand...
A priest cannot use what he’s told in the confessional to the detriment of the penitent so he could drop the wine on the floor… accidentally on purpose of course 😃
 
The sigillum, or seal, is permeable only when there is moral certainty that discussion of a penitent’s sins would not be traceable back to him. For instance, a priest could discuss with seminarians the ways in which he has dealt with certain kinds of sins. It would not be permissible for a priest to say at a conference that he was at St. so and so’s parish one time and a big man with a long red beard came to confession and said x y z.

In the case of hearing the sin on the external forum, what must be avoided is the sin of scandal… He must go out of his way to show that he learned this from an informer, rather than a penitent.

There is a lot of commentary out there on canons 983 and 984, which are the ones that deal with this. There is a bit of a gray area… What exactly does “detriment” mean, and all that.
 
peter26 said:
And the priest can not act on information received in the confessional. So he would still have to drink the wine knowing it is poisoned. Theoretically anyway…
Click to expand...
If hundreds of lives were at stake, I would hope the priest could ask the penitent in the confessional to go back and switch out the sacramental wine- since he himself can’t act on the information.
 
Kielbasi said:
Even if someone confessed that he poisoned the sacramental wine supply, the priest couldn’t drop the dime on the sinner.
Click to expand...
But he would of course promptly dispose of the wine, without having to explain to anybody why he is doing this.
 
The priest I know well, said during my confession, to tell him again outside about my husband’s job loss, which came up during the conversation, so that he could pass along any job leads he came across, since he couldn’t acknowledge knowing anything about it otherwise.
 
  • OP said the penitent was the witness to an alleged crime by a third party. My question is why does it come into the “confession”. The correct procedure is what Keneata says. The matter should be pursued outside the confessional.
A lot of molesters reportedly morally tricked vulnerable youngsters into believing (maybe as part of the ethnic culture they come from) that they were obliged to “confess” their “blame” for being molested and confessors who don’t do as Keneata says are complicit. There’s Berulleanism for you.
  • Most of the replies assume the penitent had confessed his own crime. There’s a very large quantity of information available which I have no need to add to.
Ah! Just re-read it but I’m not going to alter what is above.

OP asked whether priest should report something which coincides in information value with the culprit’s confession of crime - yes? Well it seems to me your own answer is in there regarding what is heard outside the confessional.

Question could be worded at greater length for clarity.

What responders said about using confessions against penitents (i.e in order to fuel gossip and faction-mongering) vs. using it at all - as in constructively dropping poisoned wine - was useful.

“That Fred - seems to have a bad conscience about the way he feels towards his wife. Young Johnnie is a rebel at heart - needs putting down.”

Priests seem to have been well trained in not going in for this sort of thing! Or am I naive!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top