Seal of Confession

  • Thread starter Thread starter Two_of_Clubs
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

Two_of_Clubs

Guest
How does the seal of confession work?

Say, Dakota goes to confession and tells Fr. Priest that he murdered Citizen Y. Under normal circumstances, Fr. Priest would be required to report the crime. However, this is confession. Therefore, Fr. Priest must not tell.

Later that week, though, Dakota signs up for spiritual direction with Fr. Priest. In their first session, Dakota mentions the murder and asks how he can come to terms with what he’s done.

Now that Dakota has mentioned the murder of Citizen Y outside of confession. Can Fr. Priest, if he deems it necessary, let the cat out of the bag? Does the fact that this is the same murder Dakota mentioned in confession change anything?
 
Legally, both scenarios come under what is known as ecclesiastical privilege and Fr. Priests testimony would be inadmissible in court either way, and Dakota, if it did not mean confessing to the crime, could sue him.

People tend to make a lot of the Confession example because people actually catalog their shameful deeds, but all interactions between clergy of any faith and their laity carry an expectation of privacy and a trust.

What a priest would do in both scenarios is the same. Something along the lines of handing Dakota a cellphone with 911 already dialed, and telling her to hit send as necessary for her salvation.
 
Federal Law recommends this understanding of privilege but state law carries more weight here, usually, but most states are close to this.

Uniform Rule Of Evidence 505
Rule 505. Religious Privilege
(a) Definitions. In this rule:
(1) “Cleric” means a minister, priest, rabbi, accredited Christian Science Practitioner, or other similar functionary of a religious organization, or an individual reasonably believed so to be by the individual consulting the cleric.
(2) A communication is “confidential” if it is made privately and not intended for further disclosure except to other persons present in furtherance of the purpose of the communication.
(b) General rule of privilege. An individual has a privilege to refuse to disclose and to prevent another from disclosing a confidential communication by the individual to a cleric in the cleric’s professional capacity as spiritual adviser.
(c) Who may claim the privilege. The privilege under this rule may be claimed by an individual or the individual’s guardian or conservator, or the individual’s personal representative if the individual is deceased. The individual who was the cleric at the time of the communication is presumed to have authority to claim the privilege but only on behalf of the communicant.
 
Two_of_Clubs said:
How does the seal of confession work?

Say, Dakota goes to confession and tells Fr. Priest that he murdered Citizen Y. Under normal circumstances, Fr. Priest would be required to report the crime. However, this is confession. Therefore, Fr. Priest must not tell.

Later that week, though, Dakota signs up for spiritual direction with Fr. Priest. In their first session, Dakota mentions the murder and asks how he can come to terms with what he’s done.

Now that Dakota has mentioned the murder of Citizen Y outside of confession. Can Fr. Priest, if he deems it necessary, let the cat out of the bag? Does the fact that this is the same murder Dakota mentioned in confession change anything?
Click to expand...
Nothing changes. The second conversation is an extension, or a continuation, of the Confession. The Seal still applies.

The priest can never violate the Seal.
 
FrDavid96 said:
That answer simply doesn’t apply here.

The other question was about information the priest already had before hearing it in Confession. That makes it completely different.
Click to expand...
I’m sorry, FrDavid96, but I’m going to have to give you a little push back here. It’s nothing personal.

What difference does it make if the priest had the information before hearing it in confession? Once he hears it in confession, he is bound to secrecy. Say a penitent mentions her pornography addiction to a priest and confesses it later. Is it still eligible for dinner conversation since the priest technically knew about it prior to the confession? I would appreciate any insight you have into this objection, for I might be missing something.

As to your other point, you mentioned that Dakota’s mentioning it in spiritual direction would be a “continuation” of the confession, as it were. How far can we go with such an interpretation, though? Say Dakota had waited a month before approaching Fr. Priest for spiritual direction. Would it still be a continuation?

Thank you for your responses. I appreciated them, and I look forward to seeing what else you have to add to this discussion about the Seal.
 
Two_of_Clubs said:
I’m sorry, FrDavid96, but I’m going to have to give you a little push back here. It’s nothing personal.

What difference does it make if the priest had the information before hearing it in confession? Once he hears it in confession, he is bound to secrecy. Say a penitent mentions her pornography addiction to a priest and confesses it later. Is it still eligible for dinner conversation since the priest technically knew about it prior to the confession? I would appreciate any insight you have into this objection, for I might be missing something.

As to your other point, you mentioned that Dakota’s mentioning it in spiritual direction would be a “continuation” of the confession, as it were. How far can we go with such an interpretation, though? Say Dakota had waited a month before approaching Fr. Priest for spiritual direction. Would it still be a continuation?

Thank you for your responses. I appreciated them, and I look forward to seeing what else you have to add to this discussion about the Seal.
Click to expand...
I don’t understand people asking a question that they already have, in their own mind, an absolute answer for…instead of asking a question, just make a statement and move on.🤷
 
Neofight said:
I don’t understand people asking a question that they already have, in their own mind, an absolute answer for…instead of asking a question, just make a statement and move on.🤷
Click to expand...
I don’t have an absolute answer in my mind—hence, why I asked the questions. I think FrDavid96 is experienced enough to recognize that my queries are counterexamples. I want more information about FrDavid96’s responses. He may be right, and I practically admit just as much when I say, “I might be missing something.”

I reserve the right to present my argument, concerns, or comments in whatever manner I choose. I would also like to do so without accusations of being disingenuous, thank you.
 
Two_of_Clubs said:
I’m sorry, FrDavid96, but I’m going to have to give you a little push back here. It’s nothing personal.

What difference does it make if the priest had the information before hearing it in confession? Once he hears it in confession, he is bound to secrecy. Say a penitent mentions her pornography addiction to a priest and confesses it later. Is it still eligible for dinner conversation since the priest technically knew about it prior to the confession? I would appreciate any insight you have into this objection, for I might be missing something.
Click to expand...
Yes. It makes a huge difference.

If someone talks to me about a sin, and that’s done in a public context (I mean one in which there’s no expectation of privacy), then later confesses the sin, then what was said in public is not protected by the seal. Anything said in Confession is still under the Seal, including the fact that it was confessed; however what was said in public (by definition, said in such a way that others could hear) is not protected.

Example: a married couple is engaged in a shouting match in a public park. At least 20 people can all hear what they’re saying quite clearly. Husband yells out “yes, I cheated on you, you gave me good reason…” The next day the husband confesses to me that he committed adultery. Now, if someone asks me “did you hear the Smiths yelling at each other in the park yesterday?” I can’t very well deny it. I might (and should) say that I won’t engage in gossip, but I cannot deny hearing it, nor could I say that Mr. Smith’s outburst is protected by the Seal of Confession. I’m sure you can see how that makes sense.

Keep in mind though, that no matter what he might have said or done in public, whatever Mr. Smith said in Confession itself is absolutely protected by the Seal. So while I could admit that I heard him in the park, I could not say one single word about what he said in Confession.
As to your other point, you mentioned that Dakota’s mentioning it in spiritual direction would be a “continuation” of the confession, as it were. How far can we go with such an interpretation, though? Say Dakota had waited a month before approaching Fr. Priest for spiritual direction. Would it still be a continuation?
Click to expand...
There’s no time limit.

It’s not about time. It’s about context. If the conversation is private (what the Church calls the “internal forum”) and the penitent makes reference to “this is about what I confessed to you” or some such words (or otherwise implied), then it’s protected by the Seal.

On the other hand, a priest might not always know that a conversation is an extension of the confession. Example:
Someone confesses adultery to me. That’s done in a proper confessional, so it’s anonymous. Ten years later, that same person comes to me for spiritual direction. I would have no way of knowing about the prior confession unless the person tells me (and no, it would not be appropriate to ask)–so that would not be an extension of the Confession. It would still be protected conversation in both Church and civil law, but it would not be literally the “Seal of Confession.”
Thank you for your responses. I appreciated them, and I look forward to seeing what else you have to add to this discussion about the Seal.
Click to expand...
 
This was an interesting discussion and thank you, Father David, for your answers.

Mary.
 
FrDavid96 said:
It would still be protected conversation in both Church and civil law, but it would not be literally the “Seal of Confession.”
Click to expand...
I understand your point completely, then. I’m pretty much satisfied.

I just have one final question regarding what I’ve quoted above:

What you’ve said here, is it unqualified? Adultery is different than murder. Say, Dakota mentioned the murder of Citizen Y in spiritual direction sans confession. I assume the priest would be comfortably within his rights to turn him in.
 
Two_of_Clubs said:
I understand your point completely, then. I’m pretty much satisfied.

I just have one final question regarding what I’ve quoted above:

What you’ve said here, is it unqualified? Adultery is different than murder. Say, Dakota mentioned the murder of Citizen Y in spiritual direction sans confession. I assume the priest would be comfortably within his rights to turn him in.
Click to expand...
It’s easy to answer about Confession. The Seal is inviolable.

When it comes to spiritual direction, it’s not quite so clear. As I wrote earlier, such conversations are in what the Church calls the “internal forum” and they are confidential. The ambiguity lies in the question “just what constitutes the internal forum?”

On the one hand, if someone visits a monastery on a retreat and has a private spiritual conversation with a priest, that would be “internal forum.” On the other extreme, if someone is simply sitting with a priest and talking over a cup of coffee, talking about the weather, last week’s game, and who makes the best pizza in town, and “by the way, I did such-and-such” then it’s not always clear.

Now here’s the important point: conversations in the internal forum are confidential, and thereby protected, there’s no question about that part. The question is whether or not that conversation is truly in the internal forum.
 
And again, as the rules of evidence I cited above say very clearly, legally, anything done by a clergyman of any denomination in his or her ”professional capacity as spiritual adviser” is not admissible and carries an expectation of privacy. It is all inadmissible.

In other words, the seal of Confession is not a magic abrogation of mandatory reporting, nor is it the sole interaction with clergy in which the public has an expectation of privacy. Which is what I think Fr. David is getting at with more Catholic words.
 
claymcdermott said:
And again, as the rules of evidence I cited above say very clearly, legally, anything done by a clergyman of any denomination in his or her ”professional capacity as spiritual adviser” is not admissible and carries an expectation of privacy. It is all inadmissible.

In other words, the seal of Confession is not a magic abrogation of mandatory reporting,
Click to expand...
I’m not sure what you mean by that, but the Seal of Confession is absolutely inviolable. Period. No exceptions.
nor is it the sole interaction with clergy in which the public has an expectation of privacy.
Click to expand...
I don’t understand what you mean. If something is “public” then there’s no expectation of privacy.
Which is what I think Fr. David is getting at with more Catholic words.
Click to expand...
 
No, I am not saying that the seal is ever violable, I am saying that the logic for the seals inviolability does not come from the simple fact that it is THE SEAL of lore. It comes from the very prosaic non magic reality that the people can expect privacy with the clergy.

And “the public“ here means

pub·lic
ˈpəblik/Submit
noun
noun: the public
ordinary people in general; the community.

Which does not contradict the word private.
 
In fact, if you look up the word “public“ in most dictionaries, that is the first definition given.
 
Say a penitent mentions her pornography addiction to a priest and confesses it. Is it still eligible for dinner conversation since the priest technically knew about it prior to the confession? I would appreciate any insight you have into this objection, for I might be missing something.
Click to expand...
In my little world of manners and family dinners, that topic isn’t appropriate dinner table conversation, regardless if a confessor is at the dinner or not.

“Please pass the potatoes. Seen any good movies lately? Oh, that reminds me, how’s your struggle with mortal sin going?”

Some subjects just shouldn’t be brought up for discussion at meals.
 
The seal of confession cannot be violated at all means, unless you want to be damned for all your life.
 
Seal of confession works when a person violates it deliberately after years of practicing priesthood.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top