Secrecy of Confession

[promethius]

Ah, I see. For there to be sacramental absolution, a penitent and priest, a contrite heart, sins to confess, a desire to not commit the sins in the future, and a desire to confess are what are required.

I posit that simply an attempt to confess warrants the Seal, and that absolution is not required. That is, if I walk into a confessional and confess my dirt, and Father decides to withhold absolution for whatever reason, he still can’t divulge it just because he withheld the sacrament. I do think the Seal pertains to all confessions understood to be attempts at receiving the sacrament, whether followed by sacramental absolution or not.

Any priests want to give us some help?

That at least very nearly mirrors what the Canon law says on the matter, when it relates:

Can. 959 In the sacrament of penance the faithful who confess their sins to a legitimate minister, are sorry for them, and intend to reform themselves obtain from God through the absolution imparted by the same minister forgiveness for the sins they have committed after baptism and, at the same, time are reconciled with the Church which they have wounded by sinning.
Namely that for an attempt at the sacrament we require a penitent who is part of “the faithful”, who confesses sins, is sorry for them, and intends to reform themselves. Further, the sacrament is for sins committed, not for those that WILL BE committed.

Therefore if one approaches the confessional who is not catholic, is there to confess an act that WILL BE done rather than is done, is not sorry, and has no intention of reform, then there isn’t even the required matter to consider this a valid attempt at confession. And if there is no valid penitent, then there is no penitent to betray, and therefore the seal does not apply.

I make the distinction of a valid attempt at confession vice an abusive attempt with reason… if we consider the priest who attempts to consecrate the Eucharist using valid matter, and has a heart attack half way through the Eucharistic prayer (let’s say right before saying “Body” in ‘This is my B…’), we might say that he made a valid attempt… namely that he celebrated in good faith with the belief that he was going to validly fulfill the sacrament. The priest with the fruit roll up instead of the valid host, however, might be said to have celebrated in deliberate disobedience… namely that his attempt was de facto invalid before he ever attempted to consecrate invalid matter. The latter priest would be subject to corrective action for his abuse, while the former would not.

So I apply this logic to the case of the false penitent… he is like the priest who deliberately uses invalid matter: the attempt is, by essense of it’s very parts, de facto invalid before he even begins to confess… it’s not even a valid ATTEMPT at the sacrament, but rather is abusive from the moment the so-called “penitent” resolves to try and force the priest to materially cooperate in sin by abusing the confessional.

At any rate, from which source do you derive that attempts are subject to the seal? Perhaps that would be a bit more enlightening than the sparse definitions offered by Canon Law in this regard…

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

For me the start of a confession is when the penitent either says to father “Father can you hear my confession?” or when the penitent says “Forgive me father for I have sinned.”

I think it is very obvious that both of these are the beginning of a confession.

Other than that, it is up to the priest to determine but I believe that he can guess when the penitent actually states laying out sins.

I do not think any person just walks up to a priest and starts blurting out sins with out letting the priest know that he wishes to confess.

This is why it is important that we have set aside areas and times for confession (this includes making an appointment).

Not everything we say to a priest is confession.

Contrary to some of the opinions expressed here, when working with a penitent who is confession the seal is in place whether or not there is sacramental absolution at the end of the confession.

The seal may never be broken. You can do a search of this topic on the forum, it comes up on a regular basis and many of us who work in the Church have grown weary of the topic as the answer is always the same no matter what the example give.

The seal may never be broken.

Give any example, the answer is the same.

 

[YoungTradCath]

At any rate, from which source do you derive that attempts are subject to the seal? Perhaps that would be a bit more enlightening than the sparse definitions offered by Canon Law in this regard…

Well, I am not aware that priests are required to verify the identity of a penitent to make sure he is a valid penitent (member of the faithful). I think to answer your question we have to define “attempt at confession.” Wouldn’t that reasonably be defined as the span of time from the point at which the dialogue is mutually understood to be a confession until it is either finished or interrupted? I have always logically understood it that way. And if so, and if the Seal does not require an actual absolution to take place, then any attempt at confession is protected by the Seal.

If someone comes to a priest and babbles something to him that he doesn’t realize is a confession, then there would be no Seal. Naturally, both parties have to understand that a confession is about to ensue for there to be a Seal.

I am not quite sure if there are particular sources to cite regarding this, because this is a rather non-generic way of approaching the situation.

 

[Godfollower]

I don’t think the debate about exactly when the confession begins really addresses the point. The question is from a Protestant asking just how seriously we take the seal of the confessional. So we should begin by assuming that the Sacrament has begun – because the seal of the confessional has attached.

My response to the OP would be two-fold:

First, it’s absolutely true that the seal of the confessional is absolute. A person confessing a sin to a priest is protected by the seal of the confessional, and the priest cannot do anything to break that seal. This even extends to the bomber who planted an armed and ticking nuclear device but refuses to disarm it and the serial killer who says he plans to kill again.

BUT . . . .

Second, such a scenario will never present itself in real life. Why? Because the Sacrament of Confession is not a come-on-in-and-anything-you-confess-is-automatically-forgiven kind of get-out-of-jail-free card. Among other things, the priest can say “I decline to absolve you on the ground that you clearly have not repented of your sin.”

If you’re refusing to disarm the nuclear weapon or planning to kill other people in the future, then you (by definition) lack the pentitent attitude necessary to receive absolution. Such a person wouldn’t be interested in going to confession; he’d be far away, planning his getaway or next crime.

Hope this helps.

 

[promethius]

Well, I am not aware that priests are required to verify the identity of a penitent to make sure he is a valid penitent (member of the faithful).

I agree, there is no requirement to assess that a penitent is ACTUALLY catholic… but that is not the ONLY thing that is required for someone to be considered a penitent. A penitent must also be confessing sins, be contrite (or at least have SOME sort of contrition, even imperfect), and have resolution to amend themselves.

A person, therefore, who enters the confession and only confesses an intent to commit an atrocity, with no contrition and no purpose of amendment, might meet the requirement of being catholic… but they would fail the other requirements and would therefore not be a penitent.

Without a penitent, there’s no confession. None. Not even an attempt at one because, unlike the penitent who celebrates in good faith a valid attempt at confession and absolution, there isn’t a real penitent here, and the person abusively giving a de facto invalid attempt doesn’t begin to meet the requirements that you yourself laid out as required for a confession to begin (a confession to which the seal would most definitely apply).

I think to answer your question we have to define “attempt at confession.” Wouldn’t that reasonably be defined as the span of time from the point at which the dialogue is mutually understood to be a confession until it is either finished or interrupted? I have always logically understood it that way. And if so, and if the Seal does not require an actual absolution to take place, then any attempt at confession is protected by the Seal.

I would agree with that statement with one caveat: the person who comes to tell the priest of an intent to do an atrocity, with no contrition and no purpose of amendment, has no “mutual understanding” that what they are engaging in is really a sacramental confession. They are there to abuse the sacrament and attempt to entrap the priest into material cooperation with sin.

I am not quite sure if there are particular sources to cite regarding this, because this is a rather non-generic way of approaching the situation.

And herein lies the problem… I do happen to think that this is not as open and shut a case as those who shout down anyone with an opposing view seem to think. I think it’s one that certainly warrants clarification from the Holy See, so that we understand exactly WHAT entails the confession such that the seal applies. It is easy to sit here and say “the seal applies no matter what”, but regarding abusive attempts at non-confessions by people who fail to meet the definition of a penitent, the church documents are silent…

 

[promethius]

My response to the OP would be two-fold:

First, it’s absolutely true that the seal of the confessional is absolute. A person confessing a sin to a priest is protected by the seal of the confessional, and the priest cannot do anything to break that seal. This even extends to the bomber who planted an armed and ticking nuclear device but refuses to disarm it and the serial killer who says he plans to kill again.

But if said person fails to meet the requirements of being a penitent, which you admit by your own definition, then there isn’t even the matter present to begin a confession, and so the seal MIGHT NOT apply.

This case is not as cut and dried as people are asserting…

BUT . . . .

Second, such a scenario will never present itself in real life. Why? Because the Sacrament of Confession is not a come-on-in-and-anything-you-confess-is-automatically-forgiven kind of get-out-of-jail-free card. Among other things, the priest can say “I decline to absolve you on the ground that you clearly have not repented of your sin.”

If you’re refusing to disarm the nuclear weapon or planning to kill other people in the future, then you (by definition) lack the pentitent attitude necessary to receive absolution. Such a person wouldn’t be interested in going to confession; he’d be far away, planning his getaway or next crime.

Hope this helps.

Conversely, I could see just such a thing happening if someone was an ENEMY of the church and wanted to implicate a priest in a crime to have him incarcerated (and thus taken out of shepherding a particular parish or diocese).

 

[YoungTradCath]

I would agree with that statement with one caveat: the person who comes to tell the priest of an intent to do an atrocity, with no contrition and no purpose of amendment, has no “mutual understanding” that what they are engaging in is really a sacramental confession. They are there to abuse the sacrament and attempt to entrap the priest into material cooperation with sin.

And herein lies the problem… I do happen to think that this is not as open and shut a case as those who shout down anyone with an opposing view seem to think. I think it’s one that certainly warrants clarification from the Holy See, so that we understand exactly WHAT entails the confession such that the seal applies. It is easy to sit here and say “the seal applies no matter what”, but regarding abusive attempts at non-confessions by people who fail to meet the definition of a penitent, the church documents are silent…

Okay, but you have to look at this from the side of the priest. Priests can’t go and assume that a penitent is not a valid penitent. Therefore, for a priest to break the Seal of Confession is just that, breaking the Seal of Confession, until and if he knows that the penitent is not valid. No matter how whacky it might sound for a person to go to a priest and say, “Hey Father, just planted a nuke in the sewer, gonna blow up the Empire State Building. I’m sorry,” he can’t assume that the person is an invalid penitent. He must assume that the penitent is valid until it is absolutely proven to him otherwise, and until then, the Seal remains.

So in essence, the Seal always applies until and if a priest knows factually that a person was an invalid penitent. That is the only hypothetical situation I can think of in which a priest might be allowed to divulge things said at the confession, because technically it wasn’t a confession. Even if the priest finds out that someone wasn’t really contrite (which is impossible, no?), or didn’t confess all his sins (again, impossible?), the Seal would still apply.

Conversely, I could see just such a thing happening if someone was an ENEMY of the church and wanted to implicate a priest in a crime to have him incarcerated (and thus taken out of shepherding a particular parish or diocese).

That would require some crazy good deception from all sides: the State, the Church, and the priest. Which is why it is good for a priest to ALWAYS ASSUME that a penitent is valid, and even if proven otherwise, not to tell anyone what happened anyway.

 

[promethius]

Okay, but you have to look at this from the side of the priest. Priests can’t go and assume that a penitent is not a valid penitent. Therefore, for a priest to break the Seal of Confession is just that, breaking the Seal of Confession, until and if he knows that the penitent is not valid. No matter how whacky it might sound for a person to go to a priest and say, “Hey Father, just planted a nuke in the sewer, gonna blow up the Empire State Building. I’m sorry,” he can’t assume that the person is an invalid penitent. He must assume that the penitent is valid until it is absolutely proven to him otherwise, and until then, the Seal remains.

I’d say that in your example, the person could be easily known to be a non-penitent by the very fact that they lacked even a hint of resolution to amend themselves… evidenced by the fact that they are resolved to carry out the act that they have enumerated…

So in essence, the Seal always applies until and if a priest knows factually that a person was an invalid penitent. That is the only hypothetical situation I can think of in which a priest might be allowed to divulge things said at the confession, because technically it wasn’t a confession. Even if the priest finds out that someone wasn’t really contrite (which is impossible, no?), or didn’t confess all his sins (again, impossible?), the Seal would still apply.

Even so, and I agree that the priest would not necessarily be able to determine these things, the confession of a person who said they murdered someone where their contrition might be dubious is VERY different from the “confession” (in quotes because I hold it is no confession at all) of a person who says they are GOING to commit an atrocity and have no purpose to prevent that atrocity despite ability to do so.

In other words, the difference between a confession of sin done and merely recounting plans to commit a sin is readily apparent to any observer…

Another question then: if the seal applies to the confession where a valid penitent is present, but MIGHT not in the case of someone who is in fact a non-penitent, how does it apply to the situation when the priest becomes aware that there is no valid penitent involved? In other words, at the point the priest realizes that the person can in no way be defined as a penitent, does the priest say “this confession is over” and the seal applies, or does the seal not apply at all since valid matter was never present to even make a good-faith attempt at a confession?

Example: I get married to a woman. Ten years later I find that she never had any resolution to be faithful to me. Is the marriage invalid from that point on, or was it invalid from the very beginning…? As is obvious in this case, the lack of an element of criteria means that no sacrament took place… not that the sacrament took place and then was countered by discovery that one person was not who they said they were (free and of a will to marry). Of course, there’s the counter example of the putative nature of a marriage where one party celebrates in good faith… but again, that has only to do with protecting the legitimacy of children and the good faith spouse from secular legal action, and likewise the binding nature of a putative only marriage disolves when it becomes apparent that the marriage is invalid…

That would require some crazy good deception from all sides: the State, the Church, and the priest. Which is why it is good for a priest to ALWAYS ASSUME that a penitent is valid, and even if proven otherwise, not to tell anyone what happened anyway.

It would most certainly be possible, even with a priest assuming that the penitent is valid in all cases.

All that would be required for a person to get a priest incarcerated in such a fashion is:

1. A government willing to persecute christians and violate the freedom of religious belief and… (a la Russia, China, and, in the opinion of some, the potentiality of the HHS mandate)
2. A person willing to commit a heinous crime in order to accomplish their ends (such as the animal rights activist in the news last week who made the news when she tried to hire a hitman to kill someone wearing fur in public… preferably someone over 15, but she was willing to accept down to the murder of a 12 year old)

Given these two things, both of which could be present at any time, a scenario where an enemy of the church sought to entrap a priest by rendering a non-confession is entirely plausible…

 

[ValPal]

Information obtained in the confessional can be referred to. What cannot be done is betray the penitent, or use the knowledge contained in the confessional to the detriment of the penitent. References:

Can. 983 §1. The sacramental seal is inviolable; therefore it is absolutely forbidden for a confessor to betray in any way a penitent in words or in any manner and for any reason.

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.

The example that is often heard is that a priest might discuss various issues obtained in a confessional for the benefit of the congregation. The priest makes no mention in any way, shape, or form of the penitent, or even the possible identify of the penitent.

I have also read that the priest may alert the authorities of impending danger, but the information provided cannot identify, refer to, etc. the penitent. I assume that would allow the priest to identify the authorities that a grave danger is present. Feel free to correct me if I’m wrong.

 

[mamaslo]

I’m a Protestant and I apologize in advance if this is a dumb question.

How far does the secrecy of the confessional extend?

If a priest was told in confession that a nuke was planted in Manhattan set to go off in a few days, would the priest have to keep quiet about it?

How about if a serial killer confessed and said he wasn’t through killing?

If you think about the mentality of those two people…why would they tell someone who couldn’t tell anyone? They probably wouldn’t they would tell someone who could go on a wild goose chase.

 

[promethius]

Information obtained in the confessional can be referred to. What cannot be done is betray the penitent, or use the knowledge contained in the confessional to the detriment of the penitent. References:

The example that is often heard is that a priest might discuss various issues obtained in a confessional for the benefit of the congregation. The priest makes no mention in any way, shape, or form of the penitent, or even the possible identify of the penitent.

I have also read that the priest may alert the authorities of impending danger, but the information provided cannot identify, refer to, etc. the penitent. I assume that would allow the priest to identify the authorities that a grave danger is present. Feel free to correct me if I’m wrong.

All this, however, fails to address the questions we’ve been discussing, which is central to the OP’s question:

What constitutes a penitent? And does the seal apply to a situation where someone who is NOT a penitent introduces that which is NOT valid matter to the priest in the guise of confession? Does the lack of a penitent and valid matter mean that no seal ever takes place?

 

[YoungTradCath]

What constitutes a penitent? And does the seal apply to a situation where someone who is NOT a penitent introduces that which is NOT valid matter to the priest in the guise of confession? Does the lack of a penitent and valid matter mean that no seal ever takes place?

A penitent is a member of the faithful who expresses intent to confess.

No, it does not.

I would say so. However, If I was a I priest I would not, except for in the most extreme circumstances, divulge information anyway, even if the “confession” didn’t take place because the person was not a valid penitent for the reasons you talk about: governmental persecution of clergy/Catholics in general. It does not seem prudent to ever divulge anything revealed in the confessional, even if the penitent is not valid.

 

[promethius]

A penitent is a member of the faithful who expresses intent to confess.

No, it does not.

I would say so. However, If I was a I priest I would not, except for in the most extreme circumstances, divulge information anyway, even if the “confession” didn’t take place because the person was not a valid penitent for the reasons you talk about: governmental persecution of clergy/Catholics in general.

You left out the other requirements given in Canon Law, namely the requirement for contrition and intention to amend… the lack of which would render one a non-penitent…

It does not seem prudent to ever divulge anything revealed in the confessional, even if the penitent is not valid.

Not even to save someone from dying in a bomber’s blast?

You see the problem here, I’m sure: the church teaches that material cooperation in sin is gravely disordered, and can be a mortal sin in and of itself. If we apply the idea that the seal applies to an invalid attempt at confession by someone who does not meet the criteria of a penitent, in what does not meet the criteria of even a good-faith attempt at confession, then the natural conclusion is that the church’s law could lead the priest to be in material cooperation with mortal sin (by failing to prevent a violent action which he knows will occur).

That is the objection, I think, that the OP has… if that is indeed the case then the seal dooms priests to commit mortal sins. I would likewise say that if that is the case then the seal is a grave violation of justice… I for one would rather have my sins shouted from every rooftop and broadcast on every media than have a single innocent person die because the “seal could not be violated” when a non-penitent abused the confessional in an invalid attempt at confession.

Essentially, then, if the seal acts as stringently as people here suggest with, as I have pointed out, NO backing whatsoever from official church documents regarding the hypothetical situation here given, then it is possible to conceive of the seal as an evil institution.

Since the seal cannot be an evil institution (given the caveat that the church is what she claims to be), that is the reason this question comes up again and again… because the hypotheticals given ARE valid complaints for which there is not an official answer on, and the ones given thus far are unsatisfactory to dismiss the aspects of material cooperation in sin and the tragedy of violence if these hypotheticals were allowed to happen…

 

[YoungTradCath]

You left out the other requirements given in Canon Law, namely the requirement for contrition and intention to amend… the lack of which would render one a non-penitent…

But is it even humanly possible to know the other parts? The only requirement of that set is validity of penitent. No priest can know without a doubt if a penitent is really sorrowful or not if he does express some sort of guilt; in other words, no priest can say “oh you’re not guilty enough.” He can say that, but he can’t know that. Similarly, no priest can KNOW that a penitent confessed all his mortal sins.

The reason that I only mentioned the validity/invalidity of penitent is because that is truly the only absolutely knowable one of those criteria, and even then, only in limited and rare cases.

Not even to save someone from dying in a bomber’s blast?

You see the problem here, I’m sure: the church teaches that material cooperation in sin is gravely disordered, and can be a mortal sin in and of itself. If we apply the idea that the seal applies to an invalid attempt at confession by someone who does not meet the criteria of a penitent, in what does not meet the criteria of even a good-faith attempt at confession, then the natural conclusion is that the church’s law could lead the priest to be in material cooperation with mortal sin (by failing to prevent a violent action which he knows will occur).

That is the objection, I think, that the OP has… if that is indeed the case then the seal dooms priests to commit mortal sins. I would likewise say that if that is the case then the seal is a grave violation of justice… I for one would rather have my sins shouted from every rooftop and broadcast on every media than have a single innocent person die because the “seal could not be violated” when a non-penitent abused the confessional in an invalid attempt at confession.

Essentially, then, if the seal acts as stringently as people here suggest with, as I have pointed out, NO backing whatsoever from official church documents regarding the hypothetical situation here given, then it is possible to conceive of the seal as an evil institution.

Since the seal cannot be an evil institution (given the caveat that the church is what she claims to be), that is the reason this question comes up again and again… because the hypotheticals given ARE valid complaints for which there is not an official answer on, and the ones given thus far are unsatisfactory to dismiss the aspects of material cooperation in sin and the tragedy of violence if these hypotheticals were allowed to happen…

I do see what you are saying, but even then, the Church has not ruled on such a case. From all serious thought, I cannot see how this could be a mortal sin on the part of the priest. In the best of situations, he would not have full knowledge or have given full consent. It seems most likely that someone at some level of the CDF bureaucracy has conceived of this before, and nothing yet from Rome so, yeah… Perhaps because this would be scandalous if it was to be announced? Of course it would be scandal only out of ignorance, but it would scandalize a lot of Catholics nonetheless.

 

[promethius]

But is it even humanly possible to know the other parts? The only requirement of that set is validity of penitent. No priest can know without a doubt if a penitent is really sorrowful or not if he does express some sort of guilt; in other words, no priest can say “oh you’re not guilty enough.” He can say that, but he can’t know that. Similarly, no priest can KNOW that a penitent confessed all his mortal sins.

The reason that I only mentioned the validity/invalidity of penitent is because that is truly the only absolutely knowable one of those criteria, and even then, only in limited and rare cases.

That’s why the hypothetical deals with a case where the so-called “penitent” literally announces a lack of qualification, such as “I’m going to blow up New York City tomorrow”… this is a statement that shows that from the very outset the person lacked the critical qualification of being a penitent (most obviously lacking the intent to reform).

I do see what you are saying, but even then, the Church has not ruled on such a case. From all serious thought, I cannot see how this could be a mortal sin on the part of the priest. In the best of situations, he would not have full knowledge or have given full consent. It seems most likely that someone at some level of the CDF bureaucracy has conceived of this before, and nothing yet from Rome so, yeah… Perhaps because this would be scandalous if it was to be announced? Of course it would be scandal only out of ignorance, but it would scandalize a lot of Catholics nonetheless.

That’s all I said at the outset… that the situation is not as cut and dried as some people like to claim as they shout down those who disagree. Regarding these hypothetical situations, the church has not spoken officially.

In the meantime, I think it’s important to realize that there is some question in this subject then, and to at least unequivocally state that while that question may remain, the seal and confession, being institutions of the church, are not and cannot be a source of evil or sin.

My only desire is that those of us who happen to disagree with the “seal always applies no matter what” types get a little bit of charitable discussion rather than being brusquely shouted down and played off as ignorant of Catholic teaching when the subject comes up.

 

[Godfollower]

I’d say that in your example, the person could be easily known to be a non-penitent by the very fact that they lacked even a hint of resolution to amend themselves… evidenced by the fact that they are resolved to carry out the act that they have enumerated…

Even so, and I agree that the priest would not necessarily be able to determine these things, the confession of a person who said they murdered someone where their contrition might be dubious is VERY different from the “confession” (in quotes because I hold it is no confession at all) of a person who says they are GOING to commit an atrocity and have no purpose to prevent that atrocity despite ability to do so.

In other words, the difference between a confession of sin done and merely recounting plans to commit a sin is readily apparent to any observer…

{Snip}.

You appear to be arguing that the seal of the confessional applies absolutely unless the priest decides that it doesn’t. And the priest gets to make that decision retroactively. And on his own, with no right of appeal.

Surely you see how completely unworkable such a rule would be?

The seal of the confessional is “absolute” under canon law. Not “almost absolute.” Not “absolute unless the priest decides differently later.” Not “absolute unless the priest can think of a technicality that gets him out from under the seal.”

Just “absolute.” Walk into the confessional, ask for confession (the “Bless me, father, for I have sinned,” is not actually required for the Sacrament to begin), and the seal attaches.

You left out the other requirements given in Canon Law, namely the requirement for contrition and intention to amend… the lack of which would render one a non-penitent…

Not even to save someone from dying in a bomber’s blast?

You see the problem here, I’m sure: the church teaches that material cooperation in sin is gravely disordered, and can be a mortal sin in and of itself. If we apply the idea that the seal applies to an invalid attempt at confession by someone who does not meet the criteria of a penitent, in what does not meet the criteria of even a good-faith attempt at confession, then the natural conclusion is that the church’s law could lead the priest to be in material cooperation with mortal sin (by failing to prevent a violent action which he knows will occur).

That is the objection, I think, that the OP has… if that is indeed the case then the seal dooms priests to commit mortal sins. I would likewise say that if that is the case then the seal is a grave violation of justice… I for one would rather have my sins shouted from every rooftop and broadcast on every media than have a single innocent person die because the “seal could not be violated” when a non-penitent abused the confessional in an invalid attempt at confession.

Essentially, then, if the seal acts as stringently as people here suggest with, as I have pointed out, NO backing whatsoever from official church documents regarding the hypothetical situation here given, then it is possible to conceive of the seal as an evil institution.

Since the seal cannot be an evil institution (given the caveat that the church is what she claims to be), that is the reason this question comes up again and again… because the hypotheticals given ARE valid complaints for which there is not an official answer on, and the ones given thus far are unsatisfactory to dismiss the aspects of material cooperation in sin and the tragedy of violence if these hypotheticals were allowed to happen…

Actually, you’ve been given very clear documentation:

Can. 983 §1. The sacramental seal is inviolable; therefore it is absolutely forbidden for a confessor to betray in any way a penitent in words or in any manner and for any reason.

§2. The interpreter, if there is one, and all others who in any way have knowledge of sins from confession are also obliged to observe secrecy.

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.

CIC cann. 983-84.

You’ve simply decided that “penitent” in those canons must not mean people who, in the opinion of the confessor, lack contrition. But that understanding conflicts with canon 980, which provides as follows:

If the confessor has no doubt about the disposition of the penitent, and the penitent seeks absolution, absolution is to be neither refused nor deferred.

CIC can. 980.

If the confessor has doubt about the disposition of the penitent, and the penitent does not seek absolution, then the confessor doesn’t have to give absolution.

But the person is still a penitent for purposes of canon law.

And, for the record, “material cooperation in evil” does not include “obeying the rules of the Sacraments.” By obeying the seal of the confessional, the priest serves good, not evil. Breaking the seal – for what the priest thinks at the time is a pretty good reason, even if he later turns out to be wrong – violates the Sacraments and is in itself immoral (= evil).

 

[YoungTradCath]

That’s why the hypothetical deals with a case where the so-called “penitent” literally announces a lack of qualification, such as “I’m going to blow up New York City tomorrow”… this is a statement that shows that from the very outset the person lacked the critical qualification of being a penitent (most obviously lacking the intent to reform).

Yes. But then again, we have yet another complication. If you read the OP, he asks, “If a priest was told in confession that a nuke was planted in Manhattan set to go off in a few days, would the priest have to keep quiet about it?”

What if the penitent was, indeed, a Catholic, thus a valid penitent, as probably 99.999999% of penitents are? Well then, even if the explosion hadn’t happened yet, as long as the other requirements were met (some act of contrition and confession of all mortal sins), then if the priest grants absolution, the absolution is valid and the Seal would be in place. Even then, if the priest for whatever reason doesn’t grant absolution and perhaps the penitent didn’t make an act of contrition for whatever reason, the Seal would be in place because the penitent was valid.

So we have different possibilities.

That’s all I said at the outset… that the situation is not as cut and dried as some people like to claim as they shout down those who disagree. Regarding these hypothetical situations, the church has not spoken officially.

In the meantime, I think it’s important to realize that there is some question in this subject then, and to at least unequivocally state that while that question may remain, the seal and confession, being institutions of the church, are not and cannot be a source of evil or sin.

My only desire is that those of us who happen to disagree with the “seal always applies no matter what” types get a little bit of charitable discussion rather than being brusquely shouted down and played off as ignorant of Catholic teaching when the subject comes up.

Oh boy, that “c” word again! Personally I don’t think this has anything to do with charity, not nearly as it does with [semi-incomplete but probably prudential] Catholic teaching drilled into the heads of people over years. Perhaps the Church does teach this as an example at seminaries but tells priests not to tell the faithful of such a rare occurrence. (?)

 

[YoungTradCath]

You appear to be arguing that the seal of the confessional applies absolutely unless the priest decides that it doesn’t. And the priest gets to make that decision retroactively. And on his own, with no right of appeal.

Surely you see how completely unworkable such a rule would be?

etc
etc
etc

Promethius isn’t talking about contrition, he’s talking about the hypothetical case in which a priest finds out that a penitent isn’t a Catholic. The Seal only applies to valid confessions. For a confession to be valid, a valid penitent must be present, and only Catholics can be valid penitents. So if a Jew or a Muslim “confesses,” and the priest finds out, then there is no reason why he couldn’t go tattle because the confession would be invalid and there would be no Seal to begin with. Now, the priest can’t assume, but if he is given proof, then yes.

 

[promethius]

You appear to be arguing that the seal of the confessional applies absolutely unless the priest decides that it doesn’t. And the priest gets to make that decision retroactively. And on his own, with no right of appeal.

Surely you see how completely unworkable such a rule would be?

You have utterly mischaracterized what I have said… but it’s not surprising given that this is par for the course in these kinds of discussions.

What I have said is that the seal absolutely applies given that the requesite parts of the sacrament are present, and that it does not apply when one of those parts are missing such that the attempt is not even a good faith effort at confession.

That is not dependent on the decision of the priest… that is dependent on objective reality. The priest might choose to consider it sealed anyway, but he would not, in my opinion, ACTUALLY be under the seal in a case where there was no actual penitent.

The seal of the confessional is “absolute” under canon law. Not “almost absolute.” Not “absolute unless the priest decides differently later.” Not “absolute unless the priest can think of a technicality that gets him out from under the seal.”

Actually, what the portion of Canon Law states is that the seal of confession means the priest cannot betray the penitent…

Canon Law defines the penitent, if you read the thread, as one who:

1. is a member of the faithful
2. Confesses sins
3. is contrite
4. has intention to reform

While a priest might have a problem discerning the first three, if a person walks in and states an intention to bomb a building, from which they have no intention to retreat, then the priest can EASILY discern that the person in question is NOT A PENITENT, and therefore the words of the canon on the seal DO NOT APPLY to said person… at least, that is my take.

Just “absolute.” Walk into the confessional, ask for confession (the “Bless me, father, for I have sinned,” is not actually required for the Sacrament to begin), and the seal attaches.

So what about confessions outside the confessional? By your definition here, a church with the confessional under remodelling means that there’s no seal.

Obviously a qualifier of confession, and therefore the seal itself, is not intrinsically attached to location. If you’d read the whole thread, you would know that this was already discussed.

Actually, you’ve been given very clear documentation:

CIC cann. 983-84.

You’ve simply decided that “penitent” in those canons must not mean people who, in the opinion of the confessor, lack contrition. But that understanding conflicts with canon 980, which provides as follows:

Noooo… you have again either misread or are misrepresenting what I have said. What I have said is that in the hypotheticals, the person talking to the priest CLEARLY lacks intention to reform. While a priest might have DOUBTS about contrition on the part of a penitent confessing sins, the priest can have no doubt about what the person saying they’re going to detonate a bomb means… and what they are declaring is that they are not and never were a valid penitent.

CIC can. 980.

If the confessor has doubt about the disposition of the penitent, and the penitent does not seek absolution, then the confessor doesn’t have to give absolution.

But the person is still a penitent for purposes of canon law.

That is true, if that is the portion of being a penitent that the OP was addressing with these hypotheticals. It is not, so this point is irrelevant.

If the priest DOUBTS contrition is different than if the priest KNOWS the person has no intention to reform, especially in the case where the person is not confessing sins (another requirement of confession), but rather is simply telling the priest about an intention to commit a sin…

And, for the record, “material cooperation in evil” does not include “obeying the rules of the Sacraments.” By obeying the seal of the confessional, the priest serves good, not evil. Breaking the seal – for what the priest thinks at the time is a pretty good reason, even if he later turns out to be wrong – violates the Sacraments and is in itself immoral (= evil).

Material cooperation in evil includes remaining silent and therefore allowing a sin to be committed. The church’s teaching on material cooperation in sin makes no exception for people who are supposedly “bound to silence” to stand by and watch an atrocity be committed.

If the seal only applies to valid confessions, ones which deal with sin rather than active intent, and involve a valid penitent, then the situation where the priest would have to remain silent and watch an atrocity happen will never come to fruition. And again, if the seal leads to people dying who would not have otherwise, then material cooperation or no, that would render the seal an evil institution.

So, in my opinion and regarding the silence of the church as to a clarification on this matter, the seal does not apply when it becomes apparent that there was never even a good faith effort to attempt confession. It is entirely possible that the church has never clarified because the possibility of someone ACTUALLY doing something like this is more or less nil, but the reality is that it IS a valid hypothetical question, and one which SHOULD be answered… but I wouldn’t even begin to know who to write to to ask about it…

 

[promethius]

Yes. But then again, we have yet another complication. If you read the OP, he asks, “If a priest was told in confession that a nuke was planted in Manhattan set to go off in a few days, would the priest have to keep quiet about it?”

What if the penitent was, indeed, a Catholic, thus a valid penitent, as probably 99.999999% of penitents are? Well then, even if the explosion hadn’t happened yet, as long as the other requirements were met (some act of contrition and confession of all mortal sins), then if the priest grants absolution, the absolution is valid and the Seal would be in place. Even then, if the priest for whatever reason doesn’t grant absolution and perhaps the penitent didn’t make an act of contrition for whatever reason, the Seal would be in place because the penitent was valid.

More or less, but I would extend the non-penitent aspect likewise to catholics who clearly fail on other required elements of being a penitent (for example, if someone came in and said “Father, forgive me, i like the color blue. Cheese is yummy. The brown cow jumped over the fence.” this would not be sins to confess, and thus not subject to the seal. Likewise with the lack of intent to reform…) Sometimes what the person in the confessional says can indicate not just a dubious nature, but one which is contrary to the person being considered a penitent.

In that case, I would say that if the penitent has no intention to reform (aka, to NOT carry out the sin that he is confessing), then he is likewise rendered a non-penitent. So if he states “Father, I’m going to blow up New York City”, then that’s not a valid confession subject to the seal (regardless of his status as a catholic or not)… based on his stated lack of desire to reform (a requirement for one to be a penitent).

Oh boy, that “c” word again! Personally I don’t think this has anything to do with charity, not nearly as it does with [semi-incomplete but probably prudential] Catholic teaching drilled into the heads of people over years. Perhaps the Church does teach this as an example at seminaries but tells priests not to tell the faithful of such a rare occurrence. (?)

Perhaps. And when I refer to lack of charity in these discussion, I only refer to those rare cases I have experience where I have been told that I’m ignorant of the church’s teachings, a heretic, etc… like I said, a civil discussion (like this one!) is certainly a good thing. When it devolves to telling people they’re ignorant for having a differing opinion about a matter on which the church is silent, then it oversteps the bounds of catholic behavior…