Automatic Excommunication And Damnation, According To Canon Law

[add]

http://www.nola.com/crime/baton-rouge/index.ssf/2014/07/priest_confession_testimony_lo.html

 

As far as I’m aware, a priest must still observe Catholic doctrine of confession even if the confessor is planning or admits to perpetrating a crime, no matter what that crime is.

A priest can, and probably would in an instance like this, try and convince the confessor to turn himself in

can a  priest  break the confidential confession?

 

 

[Credo in Deum]

http://www.nola.com/crime/baton-rouge/index.ssf/2014/07/priest_confession_testimony_lo.html

 

As far as I’m aware, a priest must still observe Catholic doctrine of confession even if the confessor is planning or admits to perpetrating a crime, no matter what that crime is.

A priest can, and probably would in an instance like this, try and convince the confessor to turn himself in

can a  priest  break the confidential confession?

 

The priest cannot break the seal of confession.  The only time this is allowed is if the penitent gives their permission. 

 

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

[Nihil Obstat]

The priest cannot break the seal of confession. The only time this is allowed is if the penitent gives their permission.

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

And even then it can be dicey. Some priests I know do not even entertain that as a possibility.

[Credo in Deum]

And even then it can be dicey. Some priests I know do not even entertain that as a possibility.

 

Yes, I agree.  I think in serious matters they would approach their Bishop for guidance and then follow whatever he decided is best.   If the penitent wanted to just speak with the same priest about a previous confession they had, then I do not see the problem, provided the penitent gives permission. 

[add]

       The position of the Diocese of Baton Rouge and Fr. Bayhi is that the Supreme Court of Louisiana has run afoul of the constitutional rights of both the Church and the priest, more particularly, has violated the Establishment Clause and the separation of Church and State under the first amendment. For a civil court to impinge upon the freedom of religion is a clear violation and the matter will be taken to the highest court in the land by the Church in order to protect its free exercise of religion.

 

 

http://www.diobr.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=featured&Itemid=189

 

 

 

 

[Credo in Deum]

 

       The position of the Diocese of Baton Rouge and Fr. Bayhi is that the Supreme Court of Louisiana has run afoul of the constitutional rights of both the Church and the priest, more particularly, has violated the Establishment Clause and the separation of Church and State under the first amendment. For a civil court to impinge upon the freedom of religion is a clear violation and the matter will be taken to the highest court in the land by the Church in order to protect its free exercise of religion.

 

 

http://www.diobr.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=featured&Itemid=189

 

 

 

 

 

So are you shifting the focus now to a debate about religious freedom?  I'm kind of confused on what you're looking to discuss, Add.

[Nihil Obstat]

There was a retired Australian bishop who said he would violate the seal for criminal matters. Frankly I think he should have been suspended for even saying it.

 

http://wdtprs.com/blog/2012/11/retired-australian-bp-robinson-says-he-would-break-seal-of-confession-trashes-card-pell/

 

Speaking about the issue of sexual abuse coming up in the confessional:

 

TIM PALMER: Let’s say these are serious allegations. What would be your next step if you can’t get that cooperation?

GEOFFREY ROBINSON: If the person won’t go that far then I would have to make a decision, and if I really thought that young people were at serious risk here then I would speak to the police.

TIM PALMER: You would break the seal of confession?

GEOFFREY ROBINSON: Well, you know, I’d have to weigh a lot of things up – did I know the name of the alleged offender? Did I know the name of the alleged victim? If I didn’t, if it’s simply someone who comes into confessional who’s not known to me, then obviously I can’t tell the police that.

I would be prepared to break the seal of confessional because you have to weigh up the greatest good, and here the greatest good is surely the protection of innocent people.

 

[truthfinder]

I have shudders just about any time someone says "greater good" because usually a lot of bad will come of it.

 A priest would not be able to approach his bishop on the specifics of any confession (and some priests would say not at all even in general terms) without direct permission from his penitent.  It's been raised in other places that why would the seal matter if the penitent has shared their confession - but the seal still remains.  I would also think that permission to break the seal would need to be given in the that first confession - and not after the fact, because the priest would be forced to use knowledge from a confession still under the seal - unless the person retold their story. 

[Nihil Obstat]

Yeah, a priest would be on extremely shaky ground even just saying "hey that confession that time......." because as far as I know even the fact that he heard a person's confession at all is under the Seal. At the very least the penitent would have to approach the priest entirely of his own accord.

 

 

In terms of the court case, any priest is clearly obliged to go to prison rather than violate the Seal. He would be obliged to face martyrdom rather than violate the Seal, if it came to that. The courts will do what they will do, but the priest's obligation will not change.

Edited July 8, 2014 by Nihil Obstat

[Nihil Obstat]

Lucky for us, Fr. Z is also on the case.
 
 http://wdtprs.com/blog/2014/07/seal-of-confession-under-attack-by-louisiana-supreme-court/

Seal of Confession under attack by Louisiana Supreme Court
Posted on 8 July 2014 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

I have read with concern and anger that a court in Louisiana has ruled that a priest of the Diocese of Baton Rouge, who had heard the confession of a minor concerning abuse by an adult, can be compelled to break the Seal of Confession and testify in court.  HERE
A lot more of this is coming soon, friends, to a court and diocese near you.
In conflict here are issues of religious freedom and exemption of certain professionals from compulsion to testify (clergy, doctors, lawyers, etc.), on the one hand, and, on the other, statues about “mandatory reporting” of certain crimes (such as child abuse).
The Times-Picayune says:

The Catholic Diocese of Baton Rouge has issued a statement decrying a decision by the Louisiana Supreme Court that could compel a local priest to testify in court about confessions he might have received. The alleged confessions, according to legal documents, were made to the priest by a minor regarding possible sexual abuse perpetrated by another church parishioner.
The statement, published Monday (July 7) on the diocese’s website, said forcing such testimony “attacks the seal of confession,” a sacrament that “cuts to the core of the Catholic faith.”
The statement refers to a lawsuit naming the Rev. Jeff Bayhi and the Catholic Diocese of Baton Rouge as defendants and compels Bayhi to testify whether or not there were confessions “and, if so, what the contents of any such confessions were.”
[...]
The Louisiana Supreme Court said in its ruling that the priest’s confidentiality can only be claimed “on behalf of” the confessor, [The terms are confusing here.  In the Church, the "confessor" is the priest, who hears the penitent's confession.  Here, it seems that "confessor" means the person making the confession to the priest.] so he can’t claim confidentiality to protect himself since the confessor[ditto] waived her privilege. It maintains that the confession, then, wasn’t “privileged communication,” so he should possibly be subjected to mandatory reporting laws.

The Diocese is ready to fight this to the US Supreme Court.

 

Priests who hear confessions, who hear something in what is called the “internal forum”, understood to be a confidential revelation, may not, must not, reveal what they heard.  This is called the “Seal” of confession.  The 1983 Code of Canon Law of the Latin Church says in can 983 § 1: “It is a crime [Latin nefas is much stronger than just "crime".  Call it "abominable crime".] for a confessor [the priest] in any way to betray a penitent by word or in any other manner or for any reason”.  The priest confessor must not break the Seal to protect his reputation, to refute a false accusation, to save his own life or the life of another, to avert a crime or attack, or to justice or law enforcement (e.g., reporting a crime).  The priest confessor must not be compelled by any authority, civil or ecclesiastical, to reveal a person’s confession.  A confessor must not reveal the contents of a confession either directly, by repeating what has been said, or indirectly, by some hint or clue or gesture.  The priest must not use the information learned in a confession for his own gain.  He cannot reveal the identity of penitents.
If a priest breaks the Seal, he incurs, automatically, an excommunication (can. 1388).  He is, thus, immediately suspended a divinis.  The censure incurred is reserved to the Holy See.  He can be also “reduced” to the lay state.

BTW… any person who overhears a confession is also bound by the obligation not to reveal what she heard.  This is also the case for language interpreters who help a penitent and priest communicate.

None of this means that priests can’t ever talk about anything heard in confessions.  If sufficient care is taken to “anonymize” everything and make the details general, examples of moral situations can be discussed, which is important for seminary training.  But care must be taken not to use any example that could reveal the identity of a penitent.
Sometimes a case might arise in which a penitent says that she’s okay with the priest revealing what she said in her own confession.  In other words, she gives permission.  Even then the penitent would have to repeat to the priest, outside the context of confession, anything she told him during confession.  In that way, the priest could talk to others about what the penitent said in that second conversation.  The Seal, however, remains regarding the previous sacramental confessional.
Also, if the priest needs either advice about what to tell a penitent, or needs to obtain the faculty to lift a penitent’s censure, he must ask, within the internal forum moment, the penitent’s permission to do so.

[fides' Jack]

I've often wondered about this, as we hear priests tell some things even in Sunday sermons.  They will say something to the general effect of: "What I hear most from men is yaddayadda, and mostly from women is yiddiyiddi..."  That seems to me to also break the seal, but that might be general enough that it's OK.

 

But I've also heard more specific things in sermons, like "somebody confessed to me blahblah".  Surely that's breaking the seal.

 

Do priests just not think too much on the seal anymore?  I've heard this from priests who are very orthodox, so it's not like I live in an extremely liberal diocese.

[truthfinder]

I think in some instance our understanding of the seal is actually stricter than the canon.  Things which can be said which are not identifiable to an individual are *generally* thought to be permissible.  Whether or not this is prudent is the question, and thus it is for good reason that many priests just will not go there. 

[Nihil Obstat]

Priest says: "Once a man confessed to me to having had illicit sexual relations with a woman who was not his wife while acting as President of the United States." <--- Very very wrong.

Priest says: "Once a man confessed to me to having had illicit sexual relations with a woman who was not his wife." <-- Should be fine as long as he is careful never to indicate any identifying characteristics about anyone involved.

[Anastasia13]

If a person says they are planning to kill a bunch of people, what can a priest do?

[Nihil Obstat]

If a person says they are planning to kill a bunch of people, what can a priest do?

Ask him really nicely not to. After he leaves the confessional, absolutely nothing. Not even approach him about it.