Suicide and the seal of confession

[Sir_Knight]

I have heard it said and seen in written both in books and on the web that the seal of confession is absolute. An example I’ve seen given numerous times is that if it was confessed to a priest that the wine that the priest was to use for the upcoming Mass was poisoned, the priest could not doing anything with that information and was to act as if he never heard it.

My question is this … while the priest is bound by his vow not to break the seal of confession, isn’t is also bound by our faith not to commit suicide?

Seems to me like a catch-22 situation – don’t drink the wine and he breaks the seal of confession. Drink the wine and he intentionally commits suicide which is also a no-no.

 

[beng]

As a penance, the priest could ask the penitent to remove the poisoneous blood so it will not harm other.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Yes, the priest could & SHOULD do that but the penitent doesn’t have to comply.

 

[Pug]

Hmmm, the priest could become a big klutz (and spill the wine, obviously before the consecration). That would not reveal the penitent nor harm him.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Yeah but if he did it on purpose then he knows that he broke the seal of confession because he wasn’t suppose to use ANYTHING that he heard during a confession.

What I’m really asking is if a priest found himself in this situation, what course of action would be acceptable in the eyes of God who knows everything? To break the seal of confession in order to preserve his life or to take his life but keep the vow?

What would Jesus do?

 

[Jim_ov_Cov]

The priest offers Mass as per usual and trusts in God. It’s not suicide as the priest does not intend to kill himself. I bet that would be the longest Mass in history. Boy would he pray!

How about this; say that communion under both kinds was the norm in that parish. Would the priest be right to refuse the chalice to the faithful? What if the bishop was concelebrating? I suppose that would be a bonus!

 

[Sir_Knight]

Jim, you bring up an even better point. Is the priest justified in committing an act which can lead to his death and the death of others as well in order to preserve the seal of confession?

Seems like a moral deleima [sp]. What would be the acceptable course of action in God’s eyes? Keep the seal and trust in God?

 

[yallguys]

Wouldn’t the guy who put the poison in the wine have gone to confession because he felt pretty bad about it, and would be telling the priest both for confession and so that something could be done… otherwise it isn’t a valid confession. If I walk in and say forgive me father I have a gun and will shoot the next person I see, I’m not exactly sorry for my sins now am I. Even if the priest was foolish enough to give absolution would the murderer be capable of receiving this grace from God?

Also, I am confused how the priest isn’t obligated to do something about the wine. Seems he could not in good conscience murder everyone in the church since he would now be a part of the murdering. At any rate, and above all, the priest isn’t obligated to give final absolution either. He can hold the man bound to his sin as he has that authority until the man can demonstrate that he is sincere in his desire to repent, which I’m quite certain would involve taking out the poison. We don’t often hear about a priest refusing absolution, but once a priest almost did to me and it quite literally scared the hell right out of me. If all else fails it seems the priest could at least change the wine in secret, unless of course the mass murderer was sitting in the back the church and when no one died he would jump up and yell a ha! You’re a bad priest!
Sorry, I hope I haven't ruined the fun of a good hypothetical question. Cheers!

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

I think that the issue here is “What is the Seal?” I think it is on who and what they confessed and is intended to protect the identy. I would think that he could decide to use a new sealed bottle of wine without saying why and not violate the seal of Confession. In my opinion the seal would be broken if he were to say, “Someone told me in Confession…” or even “The wine has been tampered with…” But to simply use differnt wine without saying a single word to protect the rest of the faithful from harm or death would be a moral obligation on his part.

 

[beng]

Sir Knight:

Yes, the priest could & SHOULD do that but the penitent doesn’t have to comply.

Then he’s not sincere in his confession, thereby his confession is nulled. (not sure whether a null confession also make null the seal of confession tho).

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Br. Rich SFO:

I think that the issue here is “What is the Seal?” I think it is on who and what they confessed and is intended to protect the identy. I would think that he could decide to use a new sealed bottle of wine without saying why and not violate the seal of Confession. In my opinion the seal would be broken if he were to say, “Someone told me in Confession…” or even “The wine has been tampered with…” But to simply use differnt wine without saying a single word to protect the rest of the faithful from harm or death would be a moral obligation on his part.

This is what I believe is meant by the Seal of Confession except for the last part.

I believe that a priest could say, “Someone told me in Confession…” as long as he does not say who told him and as long as he makes sure that no one could tell who told him.

The seal protects the individual. Just as my work as a paramedic. Our patients had the right to privacy but that did not mean that we could not talk about their cases. We just could not use names or addresses or anything else that might lead to who the patient was/is.

 

[Erich]

ByzCath:

I believe that a priest could say, “Someone told me in Confession…” as long as he does not say who told him and as long as he makes sure that no one could tell who told him.

We used to have a pastor who would, on occasion, include in a homily something along the lines of “I’m not breaking the seal of confession when I say …” and proceed to talk about something – without attribution – in such general terms that pretty much anyone at that particular Mass could have confessed the exact same thing. So I guess I’m agreeing with this statement

 

[JimG]

Well, I’m not a priest, but if I were, I would first of all refuse him absolution until he showed repentance. He could show repentance by retrieving the poisoned wine and disposing of it without harm to anyone.

 

[SaintJVMan]

The way that I understand the seal is that the priest can not change is actions because of what was told to him in confession either.

Besides look at it this way, if you had to die can you think of a better time to do it then moments after you’ve received the Body and Blood of Christ?

 

[Ray_Marshall]

Sir Knight:

My question is this … while the priest is bound by his vow not to break the seal of confession, isn’t is also bound by our faith not to commit suicide?

The priest is under obligation not to REVEAL what he heard in Confession; Deciding to use another wine would not reveal anything.

Questions like this one which abound on these forums remind me of the old “Ocean Liner Conundrum” which as fourth graders, my class debated with our Benedictine teacher.

"S’ter, S’ter, say you were on an ocean liner travelling to Japan and it’s getting near the end of Easter Time, S’ter, and and you realize that you haven’t made your Easter Duty. But, the next day is the last day you can do it,so you decide to go to Mass the next morning and receive Communion. (In those days there weren’t mass pilgrimages each Sunday to the communion rail).

“Then, S’ter when you get up in the morning, you realize that you have crossed the International Date Line and you have missed doing your Easter Duty. Is that a Mortal Sin, S’ter? Huh?” Huh?"

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

SaintJVMan:

The way that I understand the seal is that the priest can not change is actions because of what was told to him in confession either.

Besides look at it this way, if you had to die can you think of a better time to do it then moments after you’ve received the Body and Blood of Christ?

This poisoned wine would not become the Body of Christ.

The addition of the poison, a foregin substance, would make the wine invalid matter for the Eucharist.

Ray spells out the rest very well.

I can not even understand what would make someone raise this sort of question except in an attempt to “catch” us.

 

[Pug]

Sir Knight:

Yeah but if he did it on purpose then he knows that he broke the seal of confession because he wasn’t suppose to use ANYTHING that he heard during a confession.

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.

From the CIC (Canon Law).

This sounds to me like it is not a prohibition on using the knowledge. You just can’t hurt the penitent with your using it, and from another canon you can’t betray or reveal the penitent.

That’s why I went with spilling the wine. Then you don’t have to hem and haw about why you are dumping it if you are observed. Pug=not a canon lawyer.

 

[Sir_Knight]

ByzCath:

… what would make someone raise this sort of question …

Because of the example that Pug listed …

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.

… it is an example that is frequently given as an example.

 

[beng]

beng:

Then he’s not sincere in his confession, thereby his confession is nulled. (not sure whether a null confession also make null the seal of confession tho).

I hereby retract this statement. An insincere penitent doesn’t nulled the seal of confession.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Sir Knight:

ByzCath:

… what would make someone raise this sort of question …

Because of the example that Pug listed …

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.

… it is an example that is frequently given as an example.

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

If you read the Canon Pug gave, the knowledge can not be used to the detriment of the penitent.

How would not using the “poisoned” wine (which would not become the Blood of Christ as the “poison” would make the wine invalid) be a detriment to the person who told the priest in confession.

Also, 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.

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