Seal of Confession

alex73

On the right hook this evening there was some politician talking about legislation making it mandatory to report abuse. Including information from confession.

Now I don't think that a person who is so evil as to abuse a child would bother to listen to their conscience and go and confess their sins, but if they did I am sure the priest will never open up the seal of confession to any judge.

Is the state going head to head with faith?

gimmebroadband

The sacramental seal is inviolable. Quoting Canon 983.1 of the Code of Canon Law, the Catechism states, "...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" (No. 2490). A priest, therefore, cannot break the seal to save his own life, to protect his good name, to refute a false accusation, to save the life of another, to aid the course of justice (like reporting a crime), or to avert a public calamity. He cannot be compelled by law to disclose a person's confession or be bound by any oath he takes, e.g. as a witness in a court trial. A priest cannot reveal the contents of a confession either directly, by repeating the substance of what has been said, or indirectly, by some sign, suggestion, or action. A Decree from the Holy Office (Nov. 18, 1682) mandated that confessors are forbidden, even where there would be no revelation direct or indirect, to make any use of the knowledge obtained in the confession that would "displease" the penitent or reveal his identity.

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0059.html

dvpower

Perhaps priests could inform penitents that they shouldn't disclose reportable offences in the confessional, and that if they do, those disclosures wouldn't fall under the 'seal'.

gimmebroadband

dvpower wrote: »

Perhaps priests could inform penitents that they shouldn't disclose reportable offences in the confessional, and that if they do, those disclosures wouldn't fall under the 'seal'.

The point of confession is to confess the sin, however the Priest may encourage the penitent to confess the crime to the police!

Onesimus

I'm with gimmebroadband on that one. Code of Canon clearly states that if a priest breaks the seal of confession he is automatically ex-communicated.

dvpower

gimmebroadband wrote: »

The point of confession is to confess the sin, however the Priest may encourage the penitent to confess the crime to the police!

If this legislation is introduced, it will be an offence not to report a reportable offence. I can only see a few ways to deal with this.

1) Priests would break the seal and report offences to the Gardai.
2) Priests would not hear reportable offences in the confessional.
3) Priests would refuse to break the seal and face the consequences (I think they're talking about jail terms).

It looks like there is a simple conflict between canon and state law. Priests are subject to state law, like it or not.
Option two seems like a solution.

Maybe priests could hear the confession after the penitent reported the offence to the authorities. After all, (esp in cases where the penitent is the offender) its probably fair to say that they're not really penitent unless they are willing to report.

dvpower

Onesimus wrote: »

I'm with gimmebroadband on that one. Code of Canon clearly states that if a priest breaks the seal of confession he is automatically ex-communicated.

Its a clear choice between ex-communication and, perhaps, jail.

Perhaps priests should reflect on the major reason for bringing in the legislation, that is the protection of children who are in danger or are currently being abused.

Onesimus

dvpower wrote: »

Its a clear choice between ex-communication and, perhaps, jail.

Perhaps priests should reflect on the major reason for bringing in the legislation, that is the protection of children who are in danger or are currently being abused.

If I was a priest I wouldnt give absolution to an offender if he was not willing to report it. Because as you say he really isnt penitent if not willing to report his ''crime'' as well as sin.

Wolfe Tone

IMO the priest should never reveal anything he is told in confession.

dvpower

Onesimus wrote: »

If I was a priest I wouldnt give absolution to an offender if he was not willing to report it. Because as you say he really isnt penitent if not willing to report his ''crime'' as well as sin.

Do priests have an obligation to hear confession? i.e. could a priest, on sensing that a reportable offence was going to be confessed, suspend the confession and advise the penitent that they first need to go to the authorities?

alex73

dvpower wrote: »

Do priests have an obligation to hear confession? i.e. could a priest, on sensing that a reportable offence was going to be confessed, suspend the confession and advise the penitent that they first need to go to the authorities?

No point. its one of those sound bit laws that come out, but when the legislation gets drafted all the flaws come out. Its not only priests that have this seal. Legal representatives also, Doctors, Councillors aswell (to a certain extent).

Many priests have died rather than reveal the seal of confession, nothing is going to change.

smokingman

Simple solution to this really, if a priest refuses to reveal information on the sexual abuse of a child, deport them back to Rome.

I know a lot of people on this forum believe their organisations rules somehow trump this countrys laws, but in reality, they don't.

You live in a country, you follow the laws of that entity.

Robert ninja

This really doesn't matter as nobody is dumb enough to tell a priest (of all people) about a crime they commited. Honestly, who even goes to confession anymore?

gimmebroadband

smokingman wrote: »

You live in a country, you follow the laws of that entity.

The early Christians were willing to be tortured and thrown to the lions rather than submit to laws of Rome!

Wolfe Tone

Priests havent reported it when they hear confessions of other crimes, that aint going to change.

Benny_Cake

alex73 wrote: »

dvpower wrote: »

Do priests have an obligation to hear confession? i.e. could a priest, on sensing that a reportable offence was going to be confessed, suspend the confession and advise the penitent that they first need to go to the authorities?

No point. its one of those sound bit laws that come out, but when the legislation gets drafted all the flaws come out. Its not only priests that have this seal. Legal representatives also, Doctors, Councillors aswell (to a certain extent).

Many priests have died rather than reveal the seal of confession, nothing is going to change.

In the other cases you mention,AFAIK it would still be required to.report to the authorities if a person said they were going to commit a crime in the future,or were goign to kill themselves.Doesn't seem unreasonable to me that a priest would be expected to do the same.Breaking the seal in such cases would seem a lesser evil.

gimmebroadband

Robert ninja wrote: »

This really doesn't matter as nobody is dumb enough to tell a priest (of all people) about a crime they commited. Honestly, who even goes to confession anymore?

Judging by the queues I've seen in church, there is still plenty who go to confession, myself among them!

gimmebroadband

Benny_Cake wrote: »

In the other cases you mention,AFAIK it would still be required to.report to the authorities if a person said they were going to commit a crime in the future,or were goign to kill themselves.Doesn't seem unreasonable to me that a priest would be expected to do the same.Breaking the seal in such cases would seem a lesser evil.

The seal cannot be broken under ANY circumstance as I posted previously, not even to save a life!!!

Onesimus

dvpower wrote: »

Do priests have an obligation to hear confession? i.e. could a priest, on sensing that a reportable offence was going to be confessed, suspend the confession and advise the penitent that they first need to go to the authorities?

If outside of the confessional a man was to reveal he comitted the crime of abusing children to the priest, then the priest can no doubt report it and is bound to of course. But in the seal of confession the priest can not report it and only refuse the penitent absolution should he refuse to report it. For if they are truly sorry for their sin then they will report it and face the consequences.

If the priest had evidence outside of the confessional that this man/woman commited this crime then he can go and report it or even before the sin was confessed he could report it. But once in the confession box, whatever sins are confessed there, remain there and go nowhere else.

antiskeptic

Onesimus wrote: »

I'm with gimmebroadband on that one. Code of Canon clearly states that if a priest breaks the seal of confession he is automatically ex-communicated.

So. We have someone admitting to abuse - an act of which we can say there is a reasonable chance of a repeat. The priest maintains this "seal"

The man comes in the week after and confesses to more abuse.


What do you think now..

antiskeptic

gimmebroadband wrote: »

The early Christians were willing to be tortured and thrown to the lions rather than submit to laws of Rome!

Quite..

wonderfulname

alex73 wrote: »

...Legal representatives also, Doctors, Councillors aswell (to a certain extent)...

Would it not make more sense for a priest to have this burden to the same extent, i.e. they cannot reveal anything from a confession unless the person is deemed to be a serious danger to themselves or others?

On that note, what happens if someone discloses that they intend to commit suicide in confession?

chughes

Onesimus wrote: »

I'm with gimmebroadband on that one. Code of Canon clearly states that if a priest breaks the seal of confession he is automatically ex-communicated.

I must say that I find it hard to understand the logic that a clerical child abuser isn't ex-communicated but his confessor is if he informs the police.

Benny_Cake

gimmebroadband wrote: »

Benny_Cake wrote: »

In the other cases you mention,AFAIK it would still be required to.report to the authorities if a person said they were going to commit a crime in the future,or were goign to kill themselves.Doesn't seem unreasonable to me that a priest would be expected to do the same.Breaking the seal in such cases would seem a lesser evil.

The seal cannot be broken under ANY circumstance as I posted previously, not even to save a life!!!

No,I do understand that,but I really don't think it is something that the state can or should legislate for.It puts priests in an awkward position (although I think its a rather theoretical situation really).Ultimately,had the bishops implemented their own policy things would probably never have come to this.

Onesimus

Robert ninja wrote: »

This really doesn't matter as nobody is dumb enough to tell a priest (of all people) about a crime they commited. Honestly, who even goes to confession anymore?

Well they are obviously dumb enough to tell their crime/sins to their blathering friends and psychiatrists that they visit. Why not go to a priest who faces ex-communication if he reveals your sins? who by the way is also trained in pshycology.

I know someone who goes to a pshyciatrist and he used to tell her all the problems of his other clients and their sins :eek:

So dont give me that nonsense. people do go to confession...the only change is....instead of confessing their sins to a priest they confess to the gossiping psychiatrist and their allegedly ''close'' friends and doctors.

dvpower

alex73 wrote: »

No point. its one of those sound bit laws that come out, but when the legislation gets drafted all the flaws come out. Its not only priests that have this seal. Legal representatives also, Doctors, Councillors aswell (to a certain extent).

Many priests have died rather than reveal the seal of confession, nothing is going to change.

They might bring in some priest-penitent privilege, but not likely going by Enda Kenny today.

rte.ie wrote:

Meanwhile, Taoiseach Enda Kenny has said the new law on mandatory reporting of child abuse will apply irrespective of location or circumstance of the persons involved.
Mr Kenny was replying to a question from journalists as to whether the traditional Catholic seal of the confessional will be exempted from the law.
'The law of the land should not be stopped by crosier or by collar,' he said.

I'd say it'll be just something that will never be prosecuted.

antiskeptic

alex73 wrote: »

Now I don't think that a person who is so evil as to abuse a child would bother to listen to their conscience and go and confess their sins..

Pick up The Woodsman next time you fancy a sombre dvd. It's goes a ways to dispelling what appears to be a bogeyman kind of image of child abusers.

dvpower

gimmebroadband wrote: »

The seal cannot be broken under ANY circumstance as I posted previously, not even to save a life!!!

Perhaps Catholics should lobby for a change in the (canon) law - it does seem to be far too rigid?

Onesimus

antiskeptic wrote: »

So. We have someone admitting to abuse - an act of which we can say there is a reasonable chance of a repeat. The priest maintains this "seal"

The man comes in the week after and confesses to more abuse.


What do you think now..

He gets refused absolution again for the sin unless he is going to report it to the authorities.

wonderfulname

Benny_Cake wrote: »

No,I do understand that,but I really don't think it is something that the state can or should legislate for.It puts priests in an awkward position (although I think its a rather theoretical situation really).Ultimately,had the bishops implemented their own policy things would probably never have come to this.

I don't see it making any difference to be honest, how do you prove a private conversation between two people, on a specific topic, took place when neither will talk about it and there is no record? How do you punish someone for something you can't prove?

dvpower

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

Priests havent reported it when they hear confessions of other crimes, that aint going to change.

This new law will only apply to 'reportable' offences.

Tea 1000

antiskeptic wrote: »

So. We have someone admitting to abuse - an act of which we can say there is a reasonable chance of a repeat. The priest maintains this "seal"

The man comes in the week after and confesses to more abuse.


What do you think now..

Two things - One is there's hardly much point from the confessor's point of view of going back to confession week after week to confess when none of his serious crimes are being absolved from the previous confessions, based on the idea that many priests with a brain would absolve the sin pending on the penance being to turn themselves in. And Two, what's to stop the priest putting himself in a position to catch the repeat offender in the act, therefore reporting him on what he has seen first hand, keeping the seal of confession in tact?

In all fairness, I think targeting priests who won't speak about what was said in the confession box is shooting the wrong target. If this is ever pressed, and a case is found where a priest on trial won't speak about the confession, he will just allow himeself to be arrested. Then all you'll have is a man doing his job as best as he knows how in jail.
The real problem is the lack of action by certain memebers of the church when abuse victims came forward or when knowledge was acquired outside the confession and not acted upon.
I'd wonder is there any case at all where the only information known by anyone was via confession. Typical media picking on the contentious subject.

dvpower

wonderfulname wrote: »

I don't see it making any difference to be honest, how do you prove a private conversation between two people, on a specific topic, took place when neither will talk about it and there is no record? How do you punish someone for something you can't prove?

You might have a situation where a person who has being abusing a child over a long period, and is eventually caught, comes clean to the Gardai and tells them that he had informed his priest of the offences.

The priest won't be able to confirm this (because of the seal), but neither might he deny it. Its easy to see how his failure to report could be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

lmaopml

I came in at the end of that program dvpower....and I understood that the FG representative wanted to introduce new legislation whereby a 'barrister' - 'laywer' etc. had heard a confession of abuse and 'had' to report it to the authorities even if the person confessing was a 'client'?

Maybe it wasn't the same program? It was around 5'ish..?

Still, the point and similarity stands.

Genuine question:

If the breaking of the seal of confession results in the immediate excommunication of the priest (by latae sententiae I assume), is his breaking of that seal considered a sin? Not only that, is it considered a sin that's on par with with the mortal sins?

If the above is the case, here's a novel solution: the priest should inform the relevant authorities in the cases of serious situations--such as another priest confessing child abuse, or a person confessing either murder or the intent to murder, etc.--after which the priest himself can seek absolution from another priest, resulting in his communion with the Church being reinstated.

Good solution?

Manach

Whilst I agree with previous Catholic posters on this, I'd also not like this proposal extended to include other professions such as the doctor/patient confidentiality.
I seem to remember in certain US States in is legally inviolate however in this jurisdiction I would not know if this would fall under common or legislative law.

swiftblade

Im sure if the police had an idea a crime was committed and the priest may have heard of it, they could request that the facts be disclosed, similar to if a doctor heard of a crime. A warrent ( don't know the correct term) would obviously be needed along with sufficient evidence to obtain it.

gimmebroadband

gvn wrote: »

Genuine question:

If the breaking of the seal of confession results in the immediate excommunication of the priest (by latae sententiae I assume), is his breaking of that seal considered a sin? Not only that, is it considered a sin that's on par with with the mortal sins?

If the above is the case, here's a novel solution: the priest should inform the relevant authorities in the cases of serious situations--such as another priest confessing child abuse, or a person confessing either murder or the intent to murder, etc.--after which the priest himself can seek absolution from another priest, resulting in his communion with the Church being reinstated.

Good solution?

A priest who violates the seal of confession is subject to very severe ecclesiastical penalties. According to the Code of Canon Law, a priest who deliberately reveals a penitent's sins and identity is subject to an automatic (latae sententiae) excommunication, which can be lifted only by the Apostolic See, i.e., the Pope (see canon 1388).

gimmebroadband

gimmebroadband wrote: »

A priest who violates the seal of confession is subject to very severe ecclesiastical penalties. According to the Code of Canon Law, a priest who deliberately reveals a penitent's sins and identity is subject to an automatic (latae sententiae) excommunication, which can be lifted only by the Apostolic See, i.e., the Pope (see canon 1388).

Ah, I see. So the version of latae sententiae imposed on him for this offence is far more severe than the version imposed on a regular person for a mere mortal sin. Thanks for clearing that up.

phantom_lord

Onesimus wrote: »

I'm with gimmebroadband on that one. Code of Canon clearly states that if a priest breaks the seal of confession he is automatically ex-communicated.

Why do they not apply the same sort of rigour to dealing with abuse?

Penn

phantom_lord wrote: »

Why do they not apply the same sort of rigour to dealing with abuse?

Beat me to it.

gimmebroadband

Priests have gotten into legal trouble due to their refusal to reveal a penitent's sins.

St. John Nepomucene (1340–1393) was tortured and then drowned by King Wenceslaus IV of Bohemia because he would not reveal the sins confessed by the queen.

In 1813, a Jesuit priest from New York, Father Anthony Kohlman, S.J., was called into court to testify concerning matters he had learned about during a confession. When he refused to testify, Father Kohlman was tried for contempt of court. The issue was finally settled when the State of New York passed a law exempting priests from revealing any information obtained in confession.

http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/abbott/100423

gimmebroadband

phantom_lord wrote: »

Why do they not apply the same sort of rigour to dealing with abuse?

How do you know they didn't, not all Hierarchy did coverups!!

dvpower

gimmebroadband wrote: »

Priests have gotten into legal trouble due to their refusal to reveal a penitent's sins.

St. John Nepomucene (1340–1393) was tortured and then drowned by King Wenceslaus IV of Bohemia because he would not reveal the sins confessed by the queen.

In 1813, a Jesuit priest from New York, Father Anthony Kohlman, S.J., was called into court to testify concerning matters he had learned about during a confession. When he refused to testify, Father Kohlman was tried for contempt of court. The issue was finally settled when the State of New York passed a law exempting priests from revealing any information obtained in confession.

http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/abbott/100423

If this passes (and there is ever real life cases) then priests are going to be in trouble with either canon law or state law. They're just going to have to choose their allegiance.

If it ever comes to it, maybe they will consider the actual victim that they could actually help when coming to their decision. They could try a novel practise of disregarding both laws and looking into their hearts and doing the right thing.

phantom_lord

gimmebroadband wrote: »

How do you know they didn't

The myriad of reports and cases shows they clearly didn't.

gimmebroadband

phantom_lord wrote: »

The myriad of reports and cases shows they clearly didn't.

There is also a myriad of those who didn't do coverups!

phantom_lord

gimmebroadband wrote: »

There is also a myriad of those who didn't do coverups!

That's nice, but it doesn't take away from the incredible amount that went on.

lmaopml

phantom_lord wrote: »

The myriad of reports and cases shows they clearly didn't.

I think the 'Confession' box here is an easy target. It undermines Catholics for the sake of vigilantism, and it jumps the gun insofar as any other profession is concerned. Should a lawyer not represent a client either whom they believe is 'guilty' of drink driving or speeding? Should they go straight to the judge and say - 'Yeah, he/she told me they did it, so throw the book at them'?

Everybody deserves to be innocent until proven guilty - there is such a thing called 'due process' - it's very very important in civilised society. It involves an 'accusation' and a procedure.......

Now, rather than indulging in hysterics over the 'confessional' - perhaps the law, and in particular those who are suggesting such outrageous human rights violations should start to look at how better to 'protect' children and improve the 'law' which was ultimately complicit in letting them down? No?

antiskeptic

Tea 1000 wrote: »

Two things - One is there's hardly much point from the confessor's point of view of going back to confession week after week to confess when none of his serious crimes are being absolved from the previous confessions,

I didn't appreciate that. So a priest won't absolve sin for a crime without confession to the authorities first? Or is it just some crime and how would that be decided upon?


What about adultery? Would a person have to confess to their wife first in order to be absolved? Or confess to an employer that they were surfing instead of working?

And Two, what's to stop the priest putting himself in a position to catch the repeat offender in the act, therefore reporting him on what he has seen first hand, keeping the seal of confession in tact?

The idea of him turning up next week shouldn't be taken too literally. Let's just say the offender could offend again at a time frame impossible for the priest to keep tabs on

In all fairness, I think targeting priests who won't speak about what was said in the confession box is shooting the wrong target. If this is ever pressed, and a case is found where a priest on trial won't speak about the confession, he will just allow himeself to be arrested. Then all you'll have is a man doing his job as best as he knows how in jail.

I don't see how this is so. The priest is in jail because he's committed an offence. Aiding and abetting a child molester for all intents and purposes.

The real problem is the lack of action by certain memebers of the church when abuse victims came forward or when knowledge was acquired outside the confession and not acted upon. I'd wonder is there any case at all where the only information known by anyone was via confession. Typical media picking on the contentious subject.

The typical media is currently shredding Rupert Murdoch. They also have their maulers on a church apparently riddled with an inability to realise the freefall they are undergoing. The issue isn't the press picking on any loose threads (loose threads have a habit of unravelling garments btw), the issue is a church continuously caught like rabbits in the headlights.

I'm all for the Roman church maintaining it's position on the "sacred(?) seal" btw. It only adds more holes below the waterline and causes more and more people to abandon ship.

antiskeptic

lmaopml wrote: »

I think the 'Confession' box here is an easy target. It undermines Catholics for the sake of vigilantism, and it jumps the gun insofar as any other profession is concerned. Should a lawyer not represent a client either whom they believe is 'guilty' of drink driving or speeding?

The issue isn't what the priest believes about is client. The issue is what the priest has been told by the client.


The client has announced himself guilty so this..

Everybody deserves to be innocent until proven guilty..

...isn't all that relevant anymore.

dvpower

lmaopml wrote: »

Everybody deserves to be innocent until proven guilty - there is such a thing called 'due process' - it's very very important in civilised society. It involves an 'accusation' and a procedure.......

The procedure will be that certain offences are mandatory reportable - that's all. Due process will then continue.
If someone fails to report a reportable offence, that will be a crime and there will be due process for that too.