|
Post by Professor Q on Mar 1, 2017 5:15:39 GMT
...based on a (not very good) novel I read recently. The scenario is this: Fr. X has just heard the confession of a woman named Y. Y confesses that she has had an affair with another priest, Fr. Z. There is no question of solicitation; this was a sinful relationship, but the Sacrament of Confession was not abused by Fr. Z to absolve Y. The affair ended some years ago and Fr. Z is not stalking / harassing Y, as he has moved to a different geographical location. Fr. X hears that Fr. Z is about to be given an important office; let's say "Head of the (Fictitious) Pontifical Council on Family Life." Is Fr. X within his rights to confront Fr. Z with the knowledge he has acquired, and dissuade him from fear of scandal (if Y turns hostile and goes public) or hypocrisy (given that Fr. Z has violated his vow of celibacy and is now going to, ahem, "pontificate" on matters of sexual morality)? I'd guess not, because he'd be acting on confidential information obtained under the Seal of the Confessional, but said novel actually has Fr. X confront Fr. Z and force him to step down, without any consideration of the morality thereof. Is this just more "fictional stupidity" at work, or can such actions be legitimate in some circumstances?
|
|
tommy
New Member
Posts: 9
|
Post by tommy on Mar 1, 2017 18:48:53 GMT
This also sounds like a potential very interesting future episode of Father Brown on TV.
I am not Catholic, but from what I understand, he cannot violate the seal of the confessional or he will be ex-communicated. Are there exceptions to this?
With that said, I wonder if he could take the matter to his (or another) bishop and ask for advice in hypothetical terms without naming names or divulging specific details.
Just curious.
|
|
|
Post by sirach on Mar 1, 2017 19:07:32 GMT
Even if Father learns in confession that a serial killer confessed to murdering his victims, he cannot tell the police, even though it may save many more lives by putting the guy in jail. NEVER can a priest violate the seal of confession. I'll take a look at Canon Law or Trent which may give solemn direction.
|
|
|
Post by sirach on Mar 1, 2017 19:17:51 GMT
Here is the documentation from Canon Law: 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.
|
|
tommy
New Member
Posts: 9
|
Post by tommy on Mar 1, 2017 19:37:47 GMT
Thanks for the clarification, Sirach. It sounds like they can't bring it up to another priest even as a hypothetical scenario using fictitious names. It makes me wonder if priests can ever "talk shop" with one another regarding their experiences at the confessional or if they are to steer clear of that sort of thing.
That makes me feel better about folks being able to confess sins to a priest knowing it will be kept in complete confidence.
|
|
|
Post by pianistclare on Mar 1, 2017 20:52:44 GMT
I'd say a big NO. He can't say anything to anyone no matter how serious or benign. I once mentioned that a priests younger brother was my best and favorite student, and he said " too bad I can't share that with him due to the seal!"
|
|
|
Post by pensmama87 on Mar 1, 2017 21:10:34 GMT
Thanks for the clarification, Sirach. It sounds like they can't bring it up to another priest even as a hypothetical scenario using fictitious names. It makes me wonder if priests can ever "talk shop" with one another regarding their experiences at the confessional or if they are to steer clear of that sort of thing.
That makes me feel better about folks being able to confess sins to a priest knowing it will be kept in complete confidence. I have heard priests speak generally about things they hear in the confessional. Not specific confessions, but say, trends for particular sins. Even that unsettles me a little bit. I don't know how such a thing would be regarded.
|
|
|
Post by pianistclare on Mar 1, 2017 21:35:09 GMT
My priest says the very LAST thing he talks about with other priests is confessions. He does his level best to "forget" about it immediately.
|
|
|
Post by tawny on Mar 1, 2017 21:53:30 GMT
My priest says the very LAST thing he talks about with other priests is confessions. He does his level best to "forget" about it immediately. Most of the Priests I have known say the same thing.
|
|
|
Post by Beryllos on Mar 1, 2017 22:45:07 GMT
A while back, I read the transcript of a lecture by Archbishop Chaput ( here) in which he spoke of confessions he has heard over the last 50 years or so, and huge sociological changes which they revealed. He didn't name names. I think I'm okay with that. Still there may be an ethical question because, unlike a survey, the participants did not give consent for their information to be aggregated and analyzed.
|
|
|
Post by pianistclare on Mar 1, 2017 23:03:35 GMT
That's kind of like if a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it fall.......
|
|
vz71
Junior Member
Posts: 50
|
Post by vz71 on Mar 15, 2021 20:17:04 GMT
...based on a (not very good) novel I read recently. The scenario is ... Is Fr. X within his rights to confront Fr. Z with the knowledge he has acquired NO.
|
|
|
Post by ratioetfides on Mar 15, 2021 23:21:04 GMT
Here is the documentation from Canon Law: 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. The Law, on the subject, seems largely oriented toward the penitent, who is neither to be revealed nor betrayed. The prohibitions seem to largely surround the identity of the penitent as opposed to the actual information shared. References to the information shared seems to be prohibited only in cases of this information being used in external governance or in a way detrimental to the penitent. There seems to be a sentiment confessors may not, or at least should not, discuss information arising from confessions in any manner or in any circumstance. Would readers argue a confessor learning a powerful bomb has been planted inside a nursery school is unable to notify authorities even if the confessor is able to shield the identity of the penitent and has no reason to believe such an action would be detrimental to the penitent?
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Mar 16, 2021 0:14:02 GMT
Would readers argue a confessor learning a powerful bomb has been planted inside a nursery school is unable to notify authorities even if the confessor is able to shield the identity of the penitent and has no reason to believe such an action would be detrimental to the penitent? I hate to have to say it, but the seal is inviolable, even then.
One reason I could not be a priest, is that I could not forget what I was told in confession. I don't have the ability to compartmentalize that way.
I have long struggled with --- and I am not so sure I am wrong on this --- whether a priest may tell a penitent who has committed a crime, or even some grave offense against another person that requires restitution, that the penitent must turn themselves in to the law, or make amends to that person, not as a condition of absolution per se, but as part of the demands of justice to repair what has been injured. (I raised this question on CAF and they either locked the thread, deleted my comments, did something, I just know it wasn't well-received. I got a lot of pushback on CAF sometimes.)
Look at it this way. I steal my neighbor's car. I am sorry I did it. I go to confession and confess it as a sin. All well and good, but don't I have to give that car back? And isn't the act of giving the car back, in a sense, "telling what I said in confession"? May I go back and give the car to my neighbor in plain view, in broad daylight, and say "I'm sorry I stole your car, here it is, I beg you not to have me arrested or sue me, I'll never do it again, I even filled the tank up with gas and got it premium-washed"? Or, to keep from disclosing what I said in confession, do I have to wait until it's 3 o'clock in the morning, slowly drive into his neighborhood, turn off the lights as I approach his house, quietly park the car, throw the keys up on the porch, and skulk away in cover of darkness, dressed in black like a cat burglar, until I am safely out of the neighborhood, then get a Lyft, Uber, or cab to take me home?
Or in the case of a crime, especially one that has injured someone, don't I owe restitution? And isn't part of that restitution, going to the police, saying " I did it", and accepting whatever consequences come from it? What if I killed someone and hid the body? Doesn't the family need closure? Don't I owe that to them in justice? Or does the fact that I confessed it, mean that it has to stay secret forever, the body hidden never to be found, and the family having to wonder what ever happened to their loved one?
|
|
|
Post by ratioetfides on Mar 16, 2021 1:38:52 GMT
Would readers argue a confessor learning a powerful bomb has been planted inside a nursery school is unable to notify authorities even if the confessor is able to shield the identity of the penitent and has no reason to believe such an action would be detrimental to the penitent? I hate to have to say it, but the seal is inviolable, even then.
One reason I could not be a priest, is that I could not forget what I was told in confession. I don't have the ability to compartmentalize that way.
I have long struggled with --- and I am not so sure I am wrong on this --- whether a priest may tell a penitent who has committed a crime, or even some grave offense against another person that requires restitution, that the penitent must turn themselves in to the law, or make amends to that person, not as a condition of absolution per se, but as part of the demands of justice to repair what has been injured. (I raised this question on CAF and they either locked the thread, deleted my comments, did something, I just know it wasn't well-received. I got a lot of pushback on CAF sometimes.)
Look at it this way. I steal my neighbor's car. I am sorry I did it. I go to confession and confess it as a sin. All well and good, but don't I have to give that car back? And isn't the act of giving the car back, in a sense, "telling what I said in confession"? May I go back and give the car to my neighbor in plain view, in broad daylight, and say "I'm sorry I stole your car, here it is, I beg you not to have me arrested or sue me, I'll never do it again, I even filled the tank up with gas and got it premium-washed"? Or, to keep from disclosing what I said in confession, do I have to wait until it's 3 o'clock in the morning, slowly drive into his neighborhood, turn off the lights as I approach his house, quietly park the car, throw the keys up on the porch, and skulk away in cover of darkness, dressed in black like a cat burglar, until I am safely out of the neighborhood, then get a Lyft, Uber, or cab to take me home?
Or in the case of a crime, especially one that has injured someone, don't I owe restitution? And isn't part of that restitution, going to the police, saying " I did it", and accepting whatever consequences come from it? What if I killed someone and hid the body? Doesn't the family need closure? Don't I owe that to them in justice? Or does the fact that I confessed it, mean that it has to stay secret forever, the body hidden never to be found, and the family having to wonder what ever happened to their loved one?
The penitent is free to share information as they please. It does seem justice ought be served after the confession of sins both criminal and non-criminal. If this ‘totally and always inviolable seal’ of the confessional does exist it should be noted this is not a condition only to be observed priests. As reflected in The Law, this condition extends to interpreters and other persons who may hear the contents of a confession. If this is true in the hypothetical situation perhaps members of the faithful, ordained or not, would be willing to intervene and accept the potential interdicts which could follow.
|
|