Seal of the Confessional. Are there exceptions?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Zaccheus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Z

Zaccheus

Guest
For example: a priest learns that the penitent was in fact practicing entrapment. Trying to invent an excuse to accuse the priest of some crime. The entrapping (false) penitent brings that false accusation. The priest sees that he can both disprove the accusation and prove that it was entrapment, but to do so he has to testify to what the false penitent said in the confessional booth.

Is the priest permitted to speak or does the seal of the confessional apply even to this case?

The above contrived example is explicitly not meant to argue against the Seal, I am a believing Catholic who accepts the doctrines of Mother Church. It is meant only to illustrate my question.
My reason for asking: I wish to know whether or not there are any legitimate exceptions to the Seal.
 
Last edited:
Zaccheus said:
My reason for asking: I wish to know whether or not there are any legitimate exceptions to the Seal.
Click to expand...
The Short and Long answer is NO.

Also, your hypothetical situation would only be considered hearsay.
 
Funny you mention that movie. In the movie the penitent comes to the priest later, after confession and asks him not to reveal that he committed the crime. But funny enough by doing so the priest could then turn the guy in since he admitted to it again outside of confession… Ignoring that it’s a good movie.
 
No, there isn’t any “legitimate exception to the seal”.

I would gently suggest you maybe search and read all the past threads on this. For a while now it seems we have at least one thread a week with somebody asking, “But what about this situation” and spinning some improbable scenario where a penitent is actually up to no good and trying to harm the priest, the Church, a shopping mall full of people, etc.

The answer is always the same:

NO, THERE IS NO EXCEPTION THAT ALLOWS THE PRIEST TO BREAK THE SEAL.
 
chessnerd321 said:
Funny you mention that movie. In the movie the penitent comes to the priest later, after confession and asks him not to reveal that he committed the crime. But funny enough by doing so the priest could then turn the guy in since he admitted to it again outside of confession… Ignoring that it’s a good movie.
Click to expand...
The priest did not have to “turn the guy in since he admitted to it again outside of confession”. The guy made his public statement admitting to the crime within earshot of a whole bunch of people including the priest, his superior, law enforcement who was chasing him, and other witnesses. On top of that the guy had just killed his wife in full view of a huge crowd, which is why law enforcement was chasing him.

Plus it’s implied that he, being wounded, very likely died at the end after Montgomery Clift as the priest heard his last confession and gave him last rites.

Unless it’s a situation like that where the person has blurted out a confession in front of a big group of people, it’s very difficult for a priest to determine on his own what private conversation might and might not be a confession, and the priest would likely err on the side of keeping it private and encouraging the person to turn himself in to law enforcement.
 
Last edited:
Tis_Bearself said:
The priest did not have to “turn the guy in since he admitted to it again outside of confession”.
Click to expand...
I was trying to not to spoil the movie, but you remember the part where the priest was on trial for murder, right? You skipped that part, but it’s the relevant detail, and why the priest would have liked to call out the real murderer. The scene you mention is like, the last scene. (Which is by the way after he is given a not guilty verdict so he wouldn’t even have a reason to anymore.)

Again, it is very complicated as the priest cannot reveal information about confession. But when the man comes to him basically to gloat and rub it in Fr. Logan’s face that he can’t say anything, he gives himself away outside of confession (happens pretty early in the movie). So if Fr. Logan can give that information to the police without revealing the confession he is free to do so.
 
First of all, the movie is what, 60 or 70 years old now? I don’t think we need to worry about a spoiler for it any more than we need to worry about one for Gone with the Wind. Edited to add, I blurred it anyway.
Second, the earlier conversation between the bad guy and the priest was in private and likely still fell under the seal of confession. The guy did not somehow remove the seal by having a private conversation with the priest later outside the confessional, to taunt him as you said. The priest was not free to reveal the secret on the stand. If he had done so, he likely would have been disciplined and maybe even left the priesthood, which his former girlfriend would have liked him to do. He didn’t break the seal.

Edited to add, I think I see where you’re coming from here - the canon law that states that once a person has repeated to a priest outside the confessional what he said in the confessional, the priest can reveal it. However, in the examples I see of that, it’s generally a penitent who is telling the priest outside the confessional the things he said in the confessional for the express purpose of allowing the priest to disclose the information on his behalf. Joe Murderer doesn’t want to repeat all his bad acts to the police, he says “You do it for me, Father” and the priest says to Joe to repeat the material to him in a whisper or whatever and the priest then tells the police. The intent of the penitent in this case is to definitely disclose the info. For a priest to presume that a penitent who described a bad act again outside the confessional for purposes of taunting the priest just broke the seal without intending to do so, is a big assumption on the part of a priest, and a Gotcha. Priests would likely not break the seal from that. Joe Murderer might also testify that the private convo outside the confessional never happened and the priest just made it up, which leaves the priest in a bad position. In addition, in the USA the clergy privilege would apply to any private conversation for spiritual counseling, so the priest’s civil lawyer might have to advise on it also if this were a courtroom situation.
 
Last edited:
With regard to the spoiler issue, there is always a new generation of Hitchcock enthusiasts who may never have seen or heard of the movie. Incidentally, Hitchcock is not a director to pay attention to external informational details in his story plots. It is not so much oversight on his part, but rather more of a focus on the internal unfolding of the plot and the suspense it invokes than concern with detailed knowledge about whatever the topic may be.`
 
Last edited:
Yeah, but the problem is we can’t discuss the issue here without discussing the movie.

I’d be interested to hear from one or more of the priests on this issue because if the priest could somehow repeat what was said outside the confessional to taunt him, and the movie was set in the US (I have no idea about the law in the jurisdiction where it was set), we would have a situation where the civil law privilege might be in force while the Church seal was not, which is a weird legal position to be in. (The civil law privilege would normally require the consent of both priest and penitent to waive it.) If on the other hand, the penitent disclosed information outside the confessional for the express purpose of the priest telling someone else like the police, then there is no issue with either civil privilege or the seal.
 
Last edited:
NO. Automatic excommunication latae sententiae, loss of faculties to hear confession, removal from the sacerdotal state…
 
Chessnerd didn’t say the priest had to. He said the priest could.
 
YONYtheTONY said:
so if a serial killer came into the confessional the priest couldn’t alert authority’s? What about sex abuse or terrorism? I don’t agree with what you guys are saying. If something is a major crime the priest should be allowed to tell.
Click to expand...
If the priest can report one crime he will be pressured to report all crimes.
No, the seal has to be all or nothing.
 
Tis_Bearself said:
I would gently suggest you maybe search and read all the past threads on this.
Click to expand...
I wish I could upvote this comment 100 times. Threads continually created about subjects that have been discussed ad naseum:
  • Extraordinary form vs Ordinary form and/or ad orientem.
  • Is _______ a mortal sin? (How can we possibly know if full knowledge and full consent was exercised)
  • What do you think about ________ (when the matter is obviously pastoral and/or confessional in nature)?
  • Can non-Catholics go to heaven?
St. Anthony please help our members search and find answers to this commonly repeated questions,
Deacon Christopher
 
Last edited:
Spoiler. Bruce Willis is dead the whole movie!

These spoiler alerts are insane. It is almost like we cant discuss a movie ever.
Spoiler alert for the passion of the Christ. He is resurrected!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top