Twixt a Rock & Hard Place/Seal of Confession

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Sir Knight:

The priest is ABSOLUTELY bound by the seal. If a penitent were to confess poisining the wine the priest was about to use for mass, the priest would be bound to discard that information and use the poison wine even if it killed him.

I still do not believe this one. The priest is not breaking the seal if he removes the wine without telling anyone why. He only breaks the seal when he tells someone else what was said during the confession.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Sir Knight:

The priest is ABSOLUTELY bound by the seal. If a penitent were to confess poisining the wine the priest was about to use for mass, the priest would be bound to discard that information and use the poison wine even if it killed him.

However, the penitent is not bound by the seal and the priest can give a penance of turning himself in but this penance can NOT be a CONDITION for receiving absolution.

A priest would not have to use the wine and could simply use new wine without letting anyone know why.

 

[Sir_Knight]

The seal prevents the priest from using ANY information obtained during confession in ANY manner. If he dumped the wine, he would be using information obtained during confession even if he pretended to accidently spill the wine in order to fool the penitent, God would still know the truth that he used information obtained from confession.

PS: My answer is based on this very example being discussed by Msgr. Peter MJ Stravinskas in his “Catholic Response” books.

 

[mosher]

Sir Knight:

The seal prevents the priest from using ANY information obtained during confession in ANY manner. If he dumped the wine, he would be using information obtained during confession even if he pretended to accidently spill the wine in order to fool the penitent, God would still know the truth that he used information obtained from confession.

PS: My answer is based on this very example being discussed by Msgr. Peter MJ Stravinskas in his “Catholic Response” books.

Exactly. We were taught this very principle at the seminary.

 

[Lazerlike42]

mosher:

Exactly. We were taught this very principle at the seminary.

So the priest would be bound to kill any who wished to receive the wine?

 

[Sir_Knight]

Lazerlike42:

So the priest would be bound to kill any who wished to receive the wine?

If the priest NORMALLY shares the wine with others, then the answer would be ‘yes’ because the priest is to act as if he never received that information.

He can withhold absolution from the penitent. He can try to convince the penitent to get rid of the poison wine but he can not make the absolution CONDITIONAL on the poison wine being removed nor can he use that information in ANY way once he walks out of the confessional even to save himself or others.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Sir Knight:

Actually, penance does not have to be done.

Whaaaa??? Willfully neglecting to perform penance is a mortal sin.

 

[Sir_Knight]

EXACTLY the point!

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

mosher:

Exactly. We were taught this very principle at the seminary.

In my opinion the way I read it is that he cannot use any information gained in the Sacrament in any way that would identify the penitent, disclose the content of the confession and harm or effect the penitent in any way, including any judgment or restriction on the penitent.

Simply using another chalice would not identify the penitent, disclose the content, or harm/effect the penitent in any way.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Br. Rich SFO:

mosher:

Exactly. We were taught this very principle at the seminary.

In my opinion the way I read it is that he cannot use any information gained in the Sacrament in any way that would identify the penitent, disclose the content of the confession and harm or effect the penitent in any way, including any judgment or restriction on the penitent.

Simply using another chalice would not identify the penitent, disclose the content, or harm/effect the penitent in any way.

And lets add the fact that not everything taught in the Seminary is always correct Catholic Teaching.

From my reading of the Canons involved I think the right thing to do would be to use other wine.

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.

§2 An interpreter, if there is one, is also obliged to observe this secret, as are all others who in any way whatever have come to a knowledge of sins from a confession.

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.

§2 A person who is in authority may not in any way, for the purpose of external governance, use knowledge about sins which has at any time come to him from the hearing of confession.

In the spirit of the Canons I do not think commiting murder or allowing muder to be commited though you (the priest) you are bound to keep this knowledge secret. Mainly for the fact that in using different wine you are in no way acting in the detriment of the penitent. You (the priest) is actually acting in the benefit of the penitent. Also there is no chance by changing the wine that you will disclose the penitent or the knowledge gained in the confession.

And then I would also add that the “confession” of putting poison in the the wine could, in a sense, not be considered a sin as no sin has really occured when one adds one substance to another. The sin occurs when someone drinks that win and gets sick and/or dies. So really that act could be argued to be not a sin and therefore not under the protection of the seal.

 

[mosher]

Br. Rich SFO:

In my opinion the way I read it is that he cannot use any information gained in the Sacrament in any way that would identify the penitent, disclose the content of the confession and harm or effect the penitent in any way, including any judgment or restriction on the penitent.

Simply using another chalice would not identify the penitent, disclose the content, or harm/effect the penitent in any way.

It is a matter of interpretation of the seal. Some have a much more rigorous view of it than others. However, I don’t think that the rigorous view cited here is wrong per se. Personally I don’t know what I would do in the situation. It would take some serious reflection and prayer to determine my course of actions. On the other hand we have to remember that the seal is not essential to the sacrament but is imposed by the Church canonically. This would mean that the rule of charity would apply and so it would probably be meritorious in this case to replace the wine for the sake of the other who may be harmed by the act. Charity trumps the law.