Suicide and the seal of confession

[CatholicMatthew]

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.

As a former seminarian (okay, I know it is an appeal to authority) I ended up having this discussion with many faithful Catholics who couldn’t believe that the confessor is not allowed to do anything based upon knowledge revealed in the confessional. Even if that means that the Pope or an entire congregation will be posioned. The confessor can make the penance the removal of the wine but he cannot do anything based on that knowledge from the confessional. The same seal is present if you or I overheard something accidentally from someone receiving the sacrement. It may sound cold and cruel but I would like to make note of two things.

One, hard cases make bad law.
Two, has this ever happened???

Under the Mercy,

Matt

 

[Sir_Knight]

ByzCath:

A frequently given example given by who? I have never heard of this example before.

While you may have never heard of it before, other members are chiming in that they have indeed heard of it and it does appear to be more common than you might think.

ByzCath:

this appears to be a thinly veiled attempt to “catch” us in some imagined technicality.

Catch us? Who’s “us”?

I saw something that appeared on the surface to be a no-win situation and was curious what, in the eyes of God. would be the correct course of action.

ByzCath:

… the seal would only stand if the person who confessed it was the one who “poisoned” it and then the seal would only prevent the priest from turning him in to the authorities …

Not according to what others are sayiing. Note what CatholicMatthew said: … the confessor is not allowed to do anything based upon knowledge revealed in the confessional …. That is consistent with what I was told.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Sir Knight:

Not according to what others are sayiing. Note what CatholicMatthew said: … the confessor is not allowed to do anything based upon knowledge revealed in the confessional …. That is consistent with what I was told.

Until someone can show proof of this I do not believe it.

I believe that a priest may act on what he learns in the confessional as the Canon spells out. Also the seal only protects the individual in regards to sin.

I have heard that it is ok for a priest to do something when an individual “confesses” that they have been the subject of abuse.

They are only bound by the seal when the abuser confesses the abuse.

As the victim of abuse has not sinned they are not bound.

I would be intrested in what a priest out there would have to say on this matter or even one of the apologists here (I am sorry but I do not see any authority in a former anything).

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

CatholicMatthew:

I ended up having this discussion with many faithful Catholics who couldn’t believe that the confessor is not allowed to do anything based upon knowledge revealed in the confessional. Even if that means that the Pope or an entire congregation will be posioned.

I do not agree after thinking about this some more and reading the canon. Lets make sure that all the important words are highlited.

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.

What this excludes is any negative impact on the penitent, even if you do not identify who he or she is. Replacing the poisned wine does not have any negative impact on the penitent.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

ByzCath:

I have heard that it is ok for a priest to do something when an individual “confesses” that they have been the subject of abuse.

They are only bound by the seal when the abuser confesses the abuse.

I understand that the seal is from “Bless me Father… to Go in peace.” Even if a victim of abuse reveals the abuse in Confession. The priest cannot speak with the abuser or take any action against the abuser. I believe he would ask the abused person to come see him in his office. It would then be up to them (the abused) to seek additional help outside of the confessional from the priest. It is possible that additional harm could come to the penitent/victim if it was revealed. The seal would be broken because it would be revealed to the abuser that the abused had spoken to the priest and the only place the priest heard of the abuse was in the Sacrament.

A priest cannot even mention to the abused next time he sees them that they should come see him to discuss the matter. Once the confesion is finished it’s done. Now if a friend of the abused mentions the abuse tp the priest. Then the priest could approach the abused and say I have been told that you are being abused, please come see me I can help.

 

[Ray_Marshall]

I’m not quite sure why I want to get into this food fight, but I’ll add my two cents worth.

Under normal circumstances, the priest would have heard many confessions that day. If it was the Cure’ d’Ars, or Padre Pio, there might be hundreds of penitents who came to him.

Changing the wine to, Mogen David, say, he could attribute to a new found taste for a Kosher product. This would not break the seal of the confessional. Although he might lose some repeat communicants.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Br. Rich, I am not in a position to disagree with you but Father Peter M. J. Stravinskas puts out a bi-monthly magazine called The Catholic Answer which is in it’s 18th year of publication and he directly states the example which I gave initially that a priest can not use ANY information learned during confession in ANY way (even in the case of abuse) and would be required to drink the poison wine – saying that the seal is absolute with NO exceptions.

After reading that, I wrote in with the question that I asked here. However, Father Stravinskas receives thousands of questions a month, does not give personal replies because he has a parish to run and does not have the time and spotlights only about two dozen questions in his magazine. Thus, the reason for my asking the question here.

 

[Sir_Knight]

ByzCath:

Until someone can show proof of this I do not believe it.

I believe that a priest may act on what he learns in the confessional as the Canon spells out. Also the seal only protects the individual in regards to sin.

I have heard that it is ok for a priest to do something when an individual “confesses” that they have been the subject of abuse.

They are only bound by the seal when the abuser confesses the abuse.

As the victim of abuse has not sinned they are not bound.

I would be intrested in what a priest out there would have to say on this matter or even one of the apologists here (I am sorry but I do not see any authority in a former anything).

Proof? Okay, can we start with this …

In this week’s Our Sunday Visitor there is an interesting article on the seal of the sacrament of confession. The author of this particular article is Russell Shaw. He begins the article by saying that moviegoers with long memories will recall a 1953 Alfred Hitchcock thriller called “I Confess.” In this particular movie Montgomery Clift played a priest who hears a murderer’s confession, then finds himself suspected of the crime. The priest cannot give information obtained in the confessional even to prove his own innocence. The author points out that this particular movie underlines the hold that the seal of confession—the obligation of priests to keep what they’re told in the Sacrament of Penance a secret, no matter what—has long exercised on imaginations.

In his article, Shaw speaks of a Jesuit priest, Fr. Joseph Towle, who in mid-July testified in U.S. District Court that a Bronx teenager had told him he was guilty of a killing for which two other men went to jail in 1987. At the end of the month, the judge released the men, who’d served 13 years of their 15 year terms. The priest noted that this teenager spoke to him outside sacramental confession, although he did give the teenager absolution at the end of their conversation without the teenager requesting it. Fr. Towle noted that the purpose of this conversation was to set his friends free not, so much to make a personal confession of his own guilt. . . .From beginning to end, this teenager intended his disclosure to be made public. The teenager did finally come forward to admit the crime as the priest had urged him—but the other men went to jail anyway.

The author notes that there is nothing in the record to suggest that Fr. Towle—who was supported by the Archdiocese of New York—violated the seal of confession.

This raises the question for us, What exactly is the seal of confession and how strongly does it bind? This obligation is spelled out in two canons of the Code of Canon Law. Canon 983 says, “the sacramental seal is inviolable; therefore, it is a crime for a confessor in any way to betray a penitent by word or in any other manner or for any reason,” The penalty for direct violation is automatic excommunication of the priest. To this basic obligation Canon 984 adds the requirement that, “even if every danger of revelation is excluded,” a confessor is “absolutely forbidden to use knowledge acquired from confession when it might harm the penitent.” An illustration of this would be the priest who knows from confession that he will be attacked on his way home, or that poison has been put into the wine to be used for Mass. He may never save his life at the risk of even indirectly violating the seal of confession. As that suggests, a priest has few duties more serious and solemn than keeping the sacramental seal. By way of explanation, the Catechism of the Catholic Church cites “the delicacy and greatness of this ministry” and “the respect due to persons.”

*** Continued in NEXT Post ***

 

[Sir_Knight]

*** Continued from PREVIOUS Post ***

According to our Catholic faith, in this sacrament of reconciliation, a penitent confesses to and receives forgiveness from Christ himself. The priest acts as a representative of Christ but from the sacramental perspective what is communicated in confession is communicated primarily to Christ.

A confessor may only speak of confessional matter with the permission of the penitent. This exception gives no scandal to the faithful for they understand it, nor is the divine precept of secrecy violated, since the precept ceases to bind if a penitent gives permission.

I think it is important for all of us to know that the seal of the sacrament of penance is inviolable. It is in this sacrament that we can share what is deepest in our hearts in a most confidential way with the Lord Himself who comes to us with his mercy and forgiveness despite what we have done or failed to do in our lives as Catholic Christians.

As a priest I find hearing confessions one of the most humbling aspects of my ministry. All of us struggle with faults, failures and sin. Some of us struggle more than others. It is for me very humbling and a privilege to be called on to act in the person of Christ to help people with their struggles and to bring to them the absolute forgiveness of Christ himself. As Catholic Christians we are indeed truly blessed to have this sacrament at our disposal. It is something that we should avail ourselves of as often as we need. Needless to say, Catholic parents should form their children in the practice making a regular confession. This is so important in later life when sometimes we feel trapped by a sense of unworthiness and guilt. The sacrament of confession, the sacrament of penance enables us to experience God’s unconditional love and forgiveness. It helps us see the difference between shame and guilt. Shame causes us to think that the evil we do is who we are. Guilt, on the other hand, comes from the fact of not who we are, that is a child of God, but what we do or fail to do at times. Shame prevents us from seeing ourselves as infinitely loved by God despite our weakness and sinfulness. The sacrament of reconciliation helps us face our guilt in a realistic and wholesome way, deal with it and be freed from it so that we can live with freedom in the present and look to the future with hope.

Sincerely,
Father Kleppner

… sfcabriniparish.org/fk_08_26_01.html

 

[Anne_Carmel]

This thread is closed pending apologist (name removed by moderator)ut.

 

[Anne_Carmel]

Please remember that opinion is not fact. If you are doing research in order to answer the questions of other members, please site your source. Others may want to go to that source for further information.

Thank you for the research that is done in order to help others.

The thread is reopened for the weekend. Again, it is important to site sources in order for others to not assume that they are meerly opinion.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

I attended this past week a workshop on Canon Law and had the opportunity to ask the person conducting it (a Canon Lawyer, Judge and director of a diocesan Tribunal) for their opinion on both the original question and the additional “abuse” posting. Their answer was that immediate action on the first question must be taken to protect the innocent lives, always protecting the identity of the penitent and not revealing why the wine or whatever was being replaced. In other words just do it and do not say anything to anyone as to why.

The other was that all information given in the Sacrament of confession, even that not directly related to the sins of the penitent, could not be used to help (or harm) the penitent unless the penitent asked for help with the abuse or made contact with someone outside of the confessional.

The proper response of the priest would be “please come see me later in my office about this!”

 

[thisismyusrname]

I have heard that a priest can mention that he has heard something in confession, provided nothing is given to identify the penitent (or something to that effect), though it would seem to be better not to make a habit of this.

But, by getting rid of the poisoned wine and using good wine, how is he breaking the seal of confession?

 

[Jim_ov_Cov]

A priest from the north of England told me an apocryphal account of how careful you have to be about revealing anything of what you’ve heard in the confessional. A priest is celebrating his Silver Jubilee of priesthood, and as part of the celebrations he travels back to the first parish in which he served for a party in his honour. After the formal welcome he says jokingly that he will always remember this parish, as the first confession he ever heard was an adultery! Everyone laughs and the party continues. Later the local Mayor and his wife arrive, he is a parishoner and knew the priest. While giving his congratulatory speech he too says jokingly, "I’ll never forget Fr. X, mine was the first confession he ever heard!

 

[Pug]

I’ve heard that story, too. A young priest had been at out parish for just a short time when he gave a homily about how we should go to confession more often. Somehow he thought that story would encourage us to go.

Don’t worry, he’s not at all scary in the confessional itself.