Seal of Confession

[veredignum]

Hello!

I have a quick question about the seal of confession.

To begin with, I know that seminarians/religious are discouraged from confession to their respective rector/superior for various good reasons.

Now, if a seminarian/religious were to confess a sin to his rector/superior that would constitute grounds for expulsion, would his confessor be allowed to go ahead with the expulsion in spite of the fact that he got to know the incriminating sin in the context of confession?

Thanks.

 

[1ke]

No.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Hello!

I have a quick question about the seal of confession.

To begin with, I know that seminarians/religious are discouraged from confession to their respective rector/superior for various good reasons.

Now, if a seminarian/religious were to confess a sin to his rector/superior that would constitute grounds for expulsion, would his confessor be allowed to go ahead with the expulsion in spite of the fact that he got to know the incriminating sin in the context of confession?

Thanks.

This is actually very dangerous ground.

The law itself declares:
*Can. 984 §1. A confessor is prohibited completely from using knowledge acquired from confession to the detriment of the penitent even when any danger of revelation is excluded.

§2. A person who has been placed in authority cannot use in any manner for external governance the knowledge about sins which he has received in confession at any time.

Can. 985 The director of novices and his associate and the rector of a seminary or other institute of education are not to hear the sacramental confessions of their students residing in the same house unless the students freely request it in particular cases.*
One must strictly keep compartmentalized knowledge acquired in the internal forum from knowledge acquired in the external forum – and there should not be even the appearance of a compromise in that regard.

When I did formation work, I had an absolute policy that no student was to approach me for the sacrament of penance – and this was a severe policy I had acquired from my own formators.

In answer to your question: if the sole source of the knowledge is from the internal forum, and in every other way the issue is occult, no it cannot be the basis for the rector’s decision.

On the other hand, if the seminarian confesses to the rector, for example, grave and successive academic dishonesty but, at the same time or subsequently, the matter was actually witnessed by a faculty member of the seminary and is adjudicated and substantiated by the due process mechanism of the seminary, the rector could expel the seminarian based solely and entirely on the documented determination of the seminary’s officials without any intellectual recourse to the knowledge he gained through the seminarian’s admission of guilt in the internal forum.

It would also not obviate the rector from expelling a seminarian for an entirely different reason. In that regard, however, prudence would strictly demand that it be easily verified and externally evident through knowledge clearly in the external forum so that no allegation could be lodged by the seminarian that the rector had, in fact, acted on knowledge from the internal forum and in violation of Canon 984.

This is, however, precisely why those officials should never, apart from danger of death and they being the only priest(s) available, hear the confessions of their subjects in formation…even if the Code makes an allowance for it.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Hello!

I have a quick question about the seal of confession.

To begin with, I know that seminarians/religious are discouraged from confession to their respective rector/superior for various good reasons.

Now, if a seminarian/religious were to confess a sin to his rector/superior that would constitute grounds for expulsion, would his confessor be allowed to go ahead with the expulsion in spite of the fact that he got to know the incriminating sin in the context of confession?

Thanks.

No

The Confessor is acting as Christ not the superior in the Confessional

 

[Petaro]

As a lawyer I see very good reason for a miscreant seminarian asking his superiors to hear his confession. It would pose such a moral quandary as to what was confessed and what was found out from external evidence it would make a wonderful case. I would make a movie out of it. I would bring in the Dominicans with a lot of pomp and candles and incense in a darkened church for the questioning. I might even add an albino opus dei operative and would have a very dark ending with the seminarian being given the benefit of the doubt only to be disclosed as the Anti-Christ, leaving room for a sequel. Where is Dan when you need him?
Simple answer is of course well answered in previous wise posts outlining Canon Law.

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

This is actually very dangerous ground.

The law itself declares:
*Can. 984 §1. A confessor is prohibited completely from using knowledge acquired from confession to the detriment of the penitent even when any danger of revelation is excluded.

§2. A person who has been placed in authority cannot use in any manner for external governance the knowledge about sins which he has received in confession at any time.

Can. 985 The director of novices and his associate and the rector of a seminary or other institute of education are not to hear the sacramental confessions of their students residing in the same house unless the students freely request it in particular cases.*
One must strictly keep compartmentalized knowledge acquired in the internal forum from knowledge acquired in the external forum – and there should not be even the appearance of a compromise in that regard.

When I did formation work, I had an absolute policy that no student was to approach me for the sacrament of penance – and this was a severe policy I had acquired from my own formators.

In answer to your question: if the sole source of the knowledge is from the internal forum, and in every other way the issue is occult, no it cannot be the basis for the rector’s decision.

On the other hand, if the seminarian confesses to the rector, for example, grave and successive academic dishonesty but, at the same time or subsequently, the matter was actually witnessed by a faculty member of the seminary and is adjudicated and substantiated by the due process mechanism of the seminary, the rector could expel the seminarian based solely and entirely on the documented determination of the seminary’s officials without any intellectual recourse to the knowledge he gained through the seminarian’s admission of guilt in the internal forum.

It would also not obviate the rector from expelling a seminarian for an entirely different reason. In that regard, however, prudence would strictly demand that it be easily verified and externally evident through knowledge clearly in the external forum so that no allegation could be lodged by the seminarian that the rector had, in fact, acted on knowledge from the internal forum and in violation of Canon 984.

This is, however, precisely why those officials should never, apart from danger of death and they being the only priest(s) available, hear the confessions of their subjects in formation, even if the Code makes an allowance for it.

985 contradicts 984 §2. If you’ve done something, hard luck, you should only mention it to lay people. Don Ruggero is far more right than is the last phrase of 985 as quoted. Note Don Ruggero’s “and”.

(This in my opinion as a non-authoritative complete outisder is always completely different from the situation that has agitated the world in that if child A goes to “confession” with priest B and says “priest C did such & such to me (GF)” that is not under the seal in the slightest because priest C is not confessing and in reality child A obviously isn’t making a “confession” either, therefore priest B and colleagues have to go into external governance mode in responsible - and not irresponsible - fashion. I’m only mentioning it because this is probably at the back of some readers’ minds, including non-forum members, though it wasn’t explicitly implicit in the OP’s question.)

This is somehow why well organised seminaries insist their students live with lay couples most of the time and undertake joint devotions and mutual catecheses and mutual intercessions with people outside the seminary (whom the seminary is in continual touch with). This is what is meant by community (a dirty word for Catholics). All the problems are because their fellow human beings haven’t been enabled to unmask them in their (the seminarians’) own eyes - held up a mirror to them - before problems got out of hand. “Hey mate you’d make a great engineer” or something like that. The seminarian and priest route is an extremely heavy burden and not a privilege at all, the way I look on it from afar. (This of course depends crucially on the lay people involved not being pie-eyed about clergy in the first place.)

If it’s something like “I have unbelief because I don’t see why God should make me rub shoulders with that miserable Father so-and-so” then that’s a different kettle of fish! What superior would want to be burdened with that kind of guff any more than the other kind!

 

[Don_Ruggero]

985 contradicts 984 §2. If you’ve done something, hard luck, you should only mention it to lay people. Don Ruggero is far more right than is the last phrase of 985 as quoted. Note Don Ruggero’s “and”.

(This in my opinion as a non-authoritative complete outisder is always completely different from the situation that has agitated the world in that if child A goes to “confession” with priest B and says “priest C did such & such to me (GF)” that is not under the seal in the slightest because priest C is not confessing and in reality child A obviously isn’t making a “confession” either, therefore priest B and colleagues have to go into external governance mode in responsible - and not irresponsible - fashion. I’m only mentioning it because this is probably at the back of some readers’ minds, including non-forum members, though it wasn’t explicitly implicit in the OP’s question.)

This is somehow why well organised seminaries insist their students live with lay couples most of the time and undertake joint devotions and mutual catecheses and mutual intercessions with people outside the seminary (whom the seminary is in continual touch with). This is what is meant by community (a dirty word for Catholics). All the problems are because their fellow human beings haven’t been enabled to unmask them in their (the seminarians’) own eyes - held up a mirror to them - before problems got out of hand. “Hey mate you’d make a great engineer” or something like that. The seminarian and priest route is an extremely heavy burden and not a privilege at all, the way I look on it from afar. (This of course depends crucially on the lay people involved not being pie-eyed about clergy in the first place.)

If it’s something like “I have unbelief because I don’t see why God should make me rub shoulders with that miserable Father so-and-so” then that’s a different kettle of fish! What superior would want to be burdened with that kind of guff any more than the other kind!

What you have said makes no sense to me.

First, the two canons are not in contradiction.

Second, the issue is keeping internal forum matters in the internal forum (which is why a seminary has outside confessors come in who have nothing to do with the seminary or its faculty) and matters of external governance being determined by matters and issues that are, in fact, in the external forum where they should be.

If I am a confessor for seminarians, then I have no place being on any panel related to the seminary or the bishop’s advisers relative to selection for ordination.

On the other hand, as I tried to say, when I was a professor or a formator, I would not expose myself to the situation in which I possibly could acquire knowledge derived from the internal forum – even though the law could allow it.

There is one movement I know of that uses the model of seminary you propose. Based on my experience, I do not endorse it. The formation is inadequate and wanting.

As for your scenario in parenthesis and beyond, I frankly don’t understand what exactly you are trying to imply…and I don’t think I care to know from the context of the combination of As, Bs and Cs. Any knowledge, however, that is gained in the context of a person making their confession is, in fact, covered by the seal. It cannot migrate from the internal forum to the external forum at all. That is fundamental.

As for the “and” you underscored…had I had a seminarian felled by a heart attack and I had been the only priest who was available to accompany him to the hospital and the only one who could hear his confession in extremis, of course I would have done it. There is no question. There is also no question I would not have done it had there been a priest who was not of the seminary available – let alone my doing it outside of a matter of life and death.

 

[Exsultet]

I would bring in the Dominicans with a lot of pomp and candles and incense in a darkened church for the questioning.

I go to a Dominican parish, and can give you some great names if you need them.

Incidentally, I find this image incredibly amusing. I know the historical reasons you’re making this joke, but I just couldn’t imagine a Dominican Friar actually being able to pull this off! They’re one of the silliest groups of people I’ve ever had the pleasure of meeting.

 

[Petaro]

Thank Heavens we have such wise men to guide this forum as Don Ruggero. I know I make light of most issues, but it is valuable for all of us to be informed properly by experts and not allow issues to be muddled by any of us lacking a cohesive knowledge of Church Law.