Should A Priest Be Able To Reveal Details Of A Persons Confession?

[CatholicCid]

If I remember the episode correctly (Yay Law and Order), the Priest felt that the spiritual direction was a form of Confession even though they did not go through the actual motions of confession. The Priest was not excommunicated I believe, but at the end took of his collar as he left, feeling like he had failed the boy.

[SaintOfVirtue]

[quote name='notardillacid' post='1426166' date='Nov 28 2007, 05:38 AM']No.[/quote]

[SaintOfVirtue]

[quote name='infinitelord1' post='1426162' date='Nov 28 2007, 04:59 AM']Heres one of those debates that may be a lil controversial. Lets say that a serial killer confessed his murders to a priest. Now lets say that the serial killer kept killing even though he was confessing his sins he shows no sign of stopping. Wouldnt you think it would be the duty of the priest to go tell the proper authority to stop the madness? What are your thoughts?[/quote]


I have not read all the other posts so someone may have already said this. First of all I understood from the topic post (above) that the guy continues to kill after having gone to confession, this means that first, he is not truly repentant, and secondly that the confession is null and void. A person who thinks "I can sin today and go to confession tomorrow," is as wrong as protestants who think "I can sin because I am saved." the whole point of confession is to repent and to strive to do better. Now should the priest tell the authorities or not? the priest is bound under pain of mortal sin never to reveal anything said in confession regardless of who said it, what they said, or how terrible the sin was. What happens in confession stays in confession, any priest who does otherwise is committing a mortal sin, loses the right to administer the sacraments (at least until he himself confesses), and under certain circumstance may be excommunicated. Any 'by standers' who over hear any part of a confession are also bound under pain of mortal sin not to reveal anything they have heard in any way, shape, or form. everything revealed in confession is between the confessor, the priest, and God. It is not a matter of what you think is right, it is a matter of what the church tells you is right. Hope this cleared things up a bit.
Pax,

[Aloysius]

This is a simple matter of the Eighth Commandment.

The Church tells all: anything you say in the confessional will never be revealed to anyone by the priest. Because of this, sometimes murderers who are continuing to murder will discuss this with a priest. If the Church did not say this, the murderer would NOT tell the priest these things.

Either the Church can lie to trick murderers into telling priests things and then go ahead and reveal them anyway, or she can simply no longer bind priests under the seal of confession in which case murderers will not tell priests these things any more than they will tell them to their next door neighbor. But you cannot have it both ways; either there is a seal of confession and priests will know secrets that they may not reveal, or there is no seal of confession and priests will not know these secrets. With either choice, you get no priests with useful clues for the police.

I believe the priest was excommunicated latae sentantiae in Law & Order, I believe that is what the taking off of his collar was intended to symbolize. The priest in that case ought to have refused to absolve that bishop unless he revealed his sins to the authorities, and demanded that he not receive communion (can a confessor tell a priest, ie a bishop, that he may ought not to celebrate communion?) unless he submit to the penance of revealing himself to the authorities.

For a child who has been molested who reveals this in the confessional, or simply tells a priest after asking for the seal of confession, the priest ought to convince the child to release him from the seal of confession. I believe, if it is really a case in which the child remains in terrible danger, the priest may begin to withold absolution (making it clear that the molestation is not his sin, of course) if the child continues to sin against the Fourth Commandment by not going to trustworthy elders who can protect him from the evil that is being done to him; that is, if the child continually refuses to either release the priest from the seal or go himself to some adult who can help him.

But the same thing holds true for children who are molested: either the Church lays a trap for children by lying to them and telling them that they may tell a priest anything and it not be revealed to anyone, but telling it anyway, or it doesn't tell them that there will be a seal of confession in which case the child will be no more willing to tell the priest about the abuse than he'd be willing to go tell a trusted teacher. If he's unwilling to reveal these things to people who can help him through the police, he simply will not reveal them to a priest if the priest is among those who will inform the police. A child with a secret that he is ashamed to admit to the public might reveal it when there is an absolute inviolable promise that it will not be revealed publicly, but will not reveal it if there is no inviolable promise.

I notice Law & Order did not have as much trouble with this concept when it came to a Rape Counsellor who refused to reveal confidential information, even though ordered by a judge to do so, on the basis that she would not have even found that information out if it was not understood that she would not be revealing it. Instead, they made sure to convince the rape victim herself to choose to reveal the informaiton. So too, a confessor must attempt to convince the confesee to reveal the information himself (and obligate him to do so as part of his penance, if necessary), becaue it is information that the priest only obtained because he promised not to reveal it unless the confesee wished it to be revealed.

[kateri05]

[quote]he priest in that case ought to have refused to absolve that bishop unless he revealed his sins to the authorities, and demanded that he not receive communion (can a confessor tell a priest, ie a bishop, that he may ought not to celebrate communion?) unless he submit to the penance of revealing himself to the authorities.[/quote]

i thought that the priest was not allowed to give a penance that obliged you to confess your sins to someone else.


is this not true?

[Aloysius]

I believe a penance may include turning oneself in as a part of your contrition. If you murder someone, part of your contrition must include turning yourself in to the proper authorities (barring special circumstances). It's like reparation for theft, you must give the money back to the person you stole from if possible, or else to some charity. Likewise, with crimes like murder, as part of your repentance you can be compelled to turn yourself in. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, this has always been my understanding.

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='MissScripture' post='1427383' date='Nov 30 2007, 04:18 PM']But if it was not for confession, why did the priest get excommunicated?[/quote]

Because it makes for better TV.

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='kateri05' post='1427993' date='Dec 2 2007, 12:14 AM']i thought that the priest was not allowed to give a penance that obliged you to confess your sins to someone else.
is this not true? [/quote]

Never heard that before, and while I see where you're coming from, there are some situations where it's spiritually healthy or simply the right thing to do. If you commit a felony, you need to turn yourself in as the first step in repaying your debt to society. If you deceived someone, in many cases you need to fess up to them and set things straight.

Edited December 2, 2007 by LouisvilleFan

[Aloysius]

The priest found out about the sin under the seal of confession. I forget the storyline, but I am almost positive that this was the intended meaning in the show, though they seemed to not have things exactly straight; there was a line about how the clergy had their little private absolution of each other party going on, never once did they mention the concept of a confessor refusing to absolve someone, or the idea that a penance could be imposed which included turning oneself in, and that unwillingness to do this penance could merit the refusal to absolve.

If the sins were confessed to him, even if there was counseling done outside of the confessional dealing with it, the seal applies to the sins. one cannot play the game of claiming you also found out about it outside the confessional; once he finds out about it inside the confessional, the priest is bound to keep the secret unless the penitent releases him. even if the penitent went and made the sin public knowledge, the priest could only respond to already public knowledge but never volunteer any information about it that he learned in the confessional; nor could he use the knowledge obtained in the confessional to publically affect him in any way. again, if anyone thinks this too much, remember: if this promise were not in place, people would not reveal these secrets to the priests anway, and thus either way, seal or no seal, priests are not going to be good informants to the police.

again, I forget the exact storyline, but I think the idea was clearly meant to show that he broke the seal of confession. and you could ask a priest for the seal of confession even if you're just going to discuss something with him and are not necessarily seeking the sacrament, I believe breaking that would be just as serious because the discussion you have there is attached to the potential sacrament in some way; when one asks for the seal of confession he is basically saying he wants this discussion to be a part of a guided examination of conscience, if he is not at that moment prepared to display a purpose of ammendment and thus does not wish to make the sacrament, the discussion would be protected by the seal if it was requested and the preist agreed.

and about penance requiring you to turn yourself in, I remember in second grade I felt like I was getting jipped when the CCD teacher revealed that. I got all excited about how cool it was that the priest couldn't tell anyone; then I found out that he had a loophole in which he could tell me I had to tell someone... totally ruined my plans to commit some great heist and go chat with the priest about it (no joke, I really remember thinking this out when I was in second grade, lol)

[CatholicCid]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1427998' date='Dec 2 2007, 12:23 AM']I believe a penance may include turning oneself in as a part of your contrition. If you murder someone, part of your contrition must include turning yourself in to the proper authorities (barring special circumstances). It's like reparation for theft, you must give the money back to the person you stole from if possible, or else to some charity. Likewise, with crimes like murder, as part of your repentance you can be compelled to turn yourself in. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, this has always been my understanding.[/quote]
I would disagree with this. The Priest cannot give a penance to force one to reveal their sins. That would break the Seal of the Confessional. The Priest can Highly reccomend it, but he cannot force it.

To quote Fr. Vincent Serpa from CA's AAA:

[quote][i]I am aware of the seal of confession, however, I was wondering if, in the case of sins that are major crimes, such as murder, the priest could assign confessing to the police as a penance?[/i]

Hi Firefox,

No, a priest cannot pressure a penitent to break the seal of Confession.

Fr. Vincent Serpa, O.P.[/quote]
[url="http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=131208&highlight=Penance+Seal"]http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?...ht=Penance+Seal[/url]

[quote][i]Can a priest make you confess to the authorities as your penance or does this violate the seal of confession?[/i]

It violates the seal of the confessional. A priest cannot require as penance any action that would reveal to outsiders the contents of a sacramental confession. He can encourage the penitent to turn himself in to civil authorities, but he cannot condition absolution upon the penitent doing so.[/quote]
[url="http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=79561&highlight=Penance+Seal"]http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?...ht=Penance+Seal[/url]

[Resurrexi]

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.

Can. 1388 §1 A confessor who directly violates the sacramental seal, incurs a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See; he who does so only indirectly is to be punished according to the gravity of the offence.

Edited December 2, 2007 by StThomasMore

[Aloysius]

The canons do not say a priest cannot impose turning oneself in as a penance; I believe I would disagree with Fr. Vincent on this issue: the seal binds the priest, not the penitent, and there are cases wherein part of showing contrition must be turning oneself in, and if one is not going to turn oneself in, he can be judged as not being sufficiently contrite, not having the purpose to ammend the damage he did to society, and thus ineligable for absolution.

I'd need something more substantial than the opinion of this priest to change my mind; canon law does not seem to protect a penitent who wishes to keep secret a grave crime against being bound by a penance to turn himself in, it simply ensures that the priest himself cannot do anything to reveal it; he can indeed bind the penitent to turn himself in if the sin merits that as a part of his reparation to society. He may keep his secret and not be absolved, and the priest can never publicly do anything to pressure him to reveal it or to reveal it himself, but he can withold absolution if one refuses to turn oneself in when the crime is of the nature that turning oneself in is a part of the reparation due to society.

[CatholicCid]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1428314' date='Dec 2 2007, 08:24 PM']The canons do not say a priest cannot impose turning oneself in as a penance; I believe I would disagree with Fr. Vincent on this issue: the seal binds the priest, not the penitent, and there are cases wherein part of showing contrition must be turning oneself in, and if one is not going to turn oneself in, he can be judged as not being sufficiently contrite, not having the purpose to ammend the damage he did to society, and thus ineligable for absolution.

I'd need something more substantial than the opinion of this priest to change my mind; canon law does not seem to protect a penitent who wishes to keep secret a grave crime against being bound by a penance to turn himself in, it simply ensures that the priest himself cannot do anything to reveal it; he can indeed bind the penitent to turn himself in if the sin merits that as a part of his reparation to society. He may keep his secret and not be absolved, and the priest can never publicly do anything to pressure him to reveal it or to reveal it himself, but he can withold absolution if one refuses to turn oneself in when the crime is of the nature that turning oneself in is a part of the reparation due to society.[/quote]

It's late so only a short question.
If the priest has already absolved the person and the person does not complete the penance, would the priest consider the contrition untrue and would say the absolution was ineffective as the person was not sorrowful? Or would breaking the penance be seen as a seperate sin.

I suppose I would just see it somewhat as the Priest using the Penitant as an instrument to violate the Seal. Is it better for the person to turn themselves over for fear of no absolution or for actual sorrow.

What Canons or readings make you think that this would be allowable?