Seal of confession

[Milestone]

If someone tells the priest during confession that he has molested a child and plans on doing it again, and makes it clear he doesn’t feel contrite and doesn’t plan on amending his life, can the priest report him since the child molester wasn’t actually seeking absolution and was only using the sacrament as a pretext to keep the priest quiet?

 

[Kielbasi]

no.

 

[PopePiusXIISupp]

Well, since he has no contrition or firm amendment the priest would deny him absolution. No. The priest may not reveal what this person has said. Also we are not alway granted absolution which we sometimes turn it into a comfy pillow in where we tell ourselves that we can sin (mortally) and o to confession on x day. That is presumption.

Sorry if I got off track. The short answer is no

 

[Chatter163]

As others have said, no. But then again, the question is both hypothetical and somewhat absurd, in that someone who is a chronic child molester, is not contrite and plans on doing it again, is not going to go to confession, is he?

 

[casslean]

No, he absolutely cannot breach the seal of the confessional.

Further, where legal liability attaches to such positions, he might still be held criminally or civilly liable for NOT reporting, even though he is canonically prohibited from doing so. It’s a weighty burden our priests take on.

 

[porthos11]

No, he absolutely cannot breach the seal of the confessional.

Further, where legal liability attaches to such positions, he might still be held criminally or civilly liable for NOT reporting, even though he is canonically prohibited from doing so. It’s a weighty burden our priests take on.

Priests have died protecting this seal.

 

[William1438]

Well, since he has no contrition or firm amendment the priest would deny him absolution. No. The priest may not reveal what this person has said. Also we are not alway granted absolution which we sometimes turn it into a comfy pillow in where we tell ourselves that we can sin (mortally) and o to confession on x day. That is presumption.

Sorry if I got off track. The short answer is no

No, like everyone. However, the priest can talk him out of doing it and propose him to see the concerned people to talk about it.

The priest can also ask the person to him about it after the confession. Now, if the person does so, the priest could take important measures. This answer is based on an actual event that took place, not with child molesting but someone who came in confession with the desire of suiciding. The priest proposed the person to come and talk with after the confession so that he could take important measures.

 

[Irishmom2]

As others have said, no. But then again, the question is both hypothetical and somewhat absurd, in that someone who is a chronic child molester, is not contrite and plans on doing it again, is not going to go to confession, is he?

You beat me to it. If he isn’t contrite and plans on doing this again, he would not be going to confession.

 

[pianistclare]

You beat me to it. If he isn’t contrite and plans on doing this again, he would not be going to confession.

Exactly. I feel like this is a “defending the Sacrament of Reconciliation” thread more than a real issue.

And let’s be real here: hardly anyone is going to confession, much less hardened criminals.

 

[thistle]

No, like everyone. However, the priest can talk him out of doing it and propose him to see the concerned people to talk about it.

The priest can also ask the person to him about it after the confession. Now, if the person does so, the priest could take important measures. This answer is based on an actual event that took place, not with child molesting but someone who came in confession with the desire of suiciding. The priest proposed the person to come and talk with after the confession so that he could take important measures.

That is not correct. Not only must the priest never reveal what was said in Confession he cannot use the knowledge obtained there to do anything against the penitent. Talking about the same thing which the penitent confessed after Confession to the penitent does not change this because the reason the priest might talk to him after Confession is because of the knowledge obtained during Confession.

Can. 983 §1 The sacramental seal is inviolable. Accordingly, it is absolutely wrong for a confessor in any way to betray the penitent, for any reason whatsoever, whether by word or in any other fashion.

Can. 984 §1 The confessor is wholly forbidden to use knowledge acquired in confession to the detriment of the penitent, even when all danger of disclosure is excluded.

 

[William1438]

That is not correct. Not only must the priest never reveal what was said in Confession he cannot use the knowledge obtained there to do anything against the penitent.

I totally agree with you on this matter, i.e. the priest using the knowledge obtained during Confession is violating the seal.

Talking about the same thing which the penitent confessed after Confession to the penitent does not change this because the reason the priest might talk to him after Confession is because of the knowledge obtained during Confession.

What I meant, I would like you to clarify it for me, please is that during the confession the priest asks the person in question, if the latter desire it, to meet him and talk about it. When the priest welcomes that person in question, the story is retold from the beginning as if there was neither an encouter nor knowledge of the matter. Is this possible to be done?

 

[thistle]

I totally agree with you on this matter, i.e. the priest using the knowledge obtained during Confession is violating the seal.

What I meant, I would like you to clarify it for me, please is that during the confession the priest asks the person in question, if the latter desire it, to meet him and talk about it. When the priest welcomes that person in question, the story is retold from the beginning as if there was neither an encouter nor knowledge of the matter. Is this possible to be done?

For the priest to ask a person during Confession to meet afterwards it is obviously to discuss something that has been first brought up during Confession. If the penitent retells outside Confession what he said during Confession that is covered by the Seal because it is knowledge first obtained during Confession.

 

[William1438]

For the priest to ask a person during Confession to meet afterwards it is obviously to discuss something that has been first brought up during Confession. If the penitent retells outside Confession what he said during Confession that is covered by the Seal because it is knowledge first obtained during Confession.

Thank you for this clarification.

 

[Kielbasi]

As others have said, no. But then again, the question is both hypothetical and somewhat absurd, in that someone who is a chronic child molester, is not contrite and plans on doing it again, is not going to go to confession, is he?

Good point here. If someone came into confession and said this, I would assume they were lying. Maybe to “test” the priest, or to otherwise get a rise out of him.

 

[otjm]

No, he absolutely cannot breach the seal of the confessional.

Further, where legal liability attaches to such positions, he might still be held criminally or civilly liable for NOT reporting, even though he is canonically prohibited from doing so. It’s a weighty burden our priests take on.

That presumes that in that state, there are no exemptions. I have not seen a study of the issue, but most states have an exemption.

 

[casslean]

That presumes that in that state, there are no exemptions. I have not seen a study of the issue, but most states have an exemption.

That’s why I qualified my statement by saying “where legal liability attaches”.

While most states do have laws respecting priest-penitent privilege, that law generally applies to protect the pentient, not the priest, and can be waived by the penitent, making the priest a compellable witness. It is less common to see a jurisdiction where the privilege applies to protect the priest from revealing information, though I know some certainly do exist (Louisiana was the most recent decision, though it was upheld on the grounds of it being “confidential communications”). In my own jurisdiction, not only is a member of the clergy a mandated reporter, it explicitly states that they are NOT exempted by reason of the information having been obtained by means of a confidential communication.