Baton Rouge Case Stuff

[PhuturePriest]

I dont believe for 1 second that God would punish a priest who broke the seal to save millions of lives. poppycock. 

 

You aren't the Successor of Saint Peter and are not guided by the Holy Spirit, so what you say in contradiction doesn't hold much weight.

[CrossCuT]

Thats fine with me

[veritasluxmea]

Great. We can all agree to disagree here. /thread

[Basilisa Marie]

The thing is, there are other ways to handle it. The issue isn't really the seal itself, it's that the lady is saying that the priest told her to hush up. If he had told her to talk to him about it afterward, or if a pedophile goes to confession he can withhold absolution if he doesn't believe the person is truly sorry. 

 

CrossCut, you're not Catholic, right? PhuturePriest is being really aggressive and hyperbolic about it, but it's such an important and sacred thing for us. Would you totally give up your right to privacy on the government's word that it might stop a terrorist? Most people I know are uncomfortable with that. 

 

(In Calvary he isn't bound by the seal, he never gives the guy absolution which is why he's allowed to talk to the bishop about it. EXCELLENT movie though, and incredibly heart wrenching.)

[Nihil Obstat]

Even if absolution is withheld I believe the Seal still applies.

[Not The Philosopher]

The seal of confession, I think, has some analogy to the presumption of innocence in secular courts. In both cases, it means that some criminals will get away free, but it would be wrong to allow a desire for security to trump mercy here.

[veritasluxmea]

The issue isn't really the seal itself, it's that the lady is saying that the priest told her to hush up. 

I agree the "advice" was extremely... bad. (There's another word I would use but this is phatmass.) However, whatever Rebecca Mayeux said about the confession, the priest can't talk about it. That's where the issue is: will he talk about it or not? Should or shouldn't he? What will happen? The advice itself is only the reason for a lawsuit, not what people are actually interested in, for better or worse.

 

The good news is in seminaries nowadays this sort of thing is discussed and seminarians are taught how to properly handle it and what kind of advice to give. (hint: it's not what he supposedly said.) I don't know if in the past this was treated differently (I really hope not), but fortunately nowadays no one is taught or supposed to give that kind of advice. This is part of basic seminary curriculum, and basic common sense anyways. 

 

PhuturePriest is being really aggressive and hyperbolic about it

 

I think I'm more like that right now tbh

 

 

(In Calvary he isn't bound by the seal, he never gives the guy absolution which is why he's allowed to talk to the bishop about it. EXCELLENT movie though, and incredibly heart wrenching.)

 

I know what I'll be busy doing this weekend... online movies, here I come. 

Edited January 23, 2015 by veritasluxmea

[Oremus Pro Invicem]

I Confess is another good one.

I just finished watching this movie. Thanks for the recommendation. It was a great movie.

[Basilisa Marie]

Even if absolution is withheld I believe the Seal still applies.

 

Maybe, though in the movie there's a throwaway line about no absolution being involved, which is what I understand to be the reason why he could even bring up the issue with the bishop and the bishop could tell him to go to the police if he wanted. He was in the confessional, sure, but it wasn't a Confession. 

[Nihil Obstat]

Maybe, though in the movie there's a throwaway line about no absolution being involved, which is what I understand to be the reason why he could even bring up the issue with the bishop and the bishop could tell him to go to the police if he wanted. He was in the confessional, sure, but it wasn't a Confession. 

Honestly, I think the movie is taking liberties with that. (I have not seen it.)
My understanding is that even if absolution is not given (i.e. withheld or deferred), the fact that it happened in the context of a confession means that it is automatically under the Seal. Basically, the Seal comes into effect when you sit/kneel down in the confessional (or office, or closet, or whatever), regardless of what occurs subsequently.

I do not have a source for this right now, but I am extremely confident that I am not mistaken.

 

Otherwise, a priest would be able to deny absolution, then report a crime. Conduct like that is absolutely forbidden.

Edited January 23, 2015 by Nihil Obstat

[Basilisa Marie]

Honestly, I think the movie is taking liberties with that. (I have not seen it.)
My understanding is that even if absolution is not given (i.e. withheld or deferred), the fact that it happened in the context of a confession means that it is automatically under the Seal. Basically, the Seal comes into effect when you sit/kneel down in the confessional (or office, or closet, or whatever), regardless of what occurs subsequently.

I do not have a source for this right now, but I am extremely confident that I am not mistaken.

 

Otherwise, a priest would be able to deny absolution, then report a crime. Conduct like that is absolutely forbidden.

 

Okay, cracked open my canon law handbook. 

 

The seal DOES bind if sins are confessed but absolution isn't given. The confession of sins apart from the sacrament is confidential, but not bound by the seal. 

 

Furthermore, direct violations include both the person and the act. Indirect is, well, when people could connect the dots. A priest can say that someone did go to confession without violating the seal, but it's highly imprudent, and an indirect violation if people could figure out what was confessed. People seem to argue over whether or not the penitent can release the priest, so the safer option for now is no. The priest should tell the penitent to talk to him about the issue outside the confession.  

 

It's pretty unclear what exactly constitutes the context of the sacrament, i.e. if you have to be in the confession and how much of the rite you have to follow if any. But that's not hard to figure out using reasonable judgement. 

 

But anywho, in the movie the guy isn't confessing sins. It's really clear that he's just using the confessional as a way to speak privately with the priest, and he doesn't talk about sins he committed, just that he's going to commit a sin. So I think it follows the rules. 

[Nihil Obstat]

:like2:

[Oremus Pro Invicem]

In the movie the reason given is not because absolution was withheld, it was because the man was not confessing any past sins, not expressing any contrition, and not seeking absolution. He was threating to commit a crime and not confessions a crime that had already been committed. In short He was not a penitent, which is why the Bishop said the seal does not apply in that particular case. Whether that holds up to canon law is something someone should look into.

[Basilisa Marie]

In the movie the reason given is not because absolution was withheld, it was because the man was not confessing any past sins, not expressing any contrition, and not seeking absolution. He was threating to commit a crime and not confessions a crime that had already been committed. In short He was not a penitent, which is why the Bishop said the seal does not apply in that particular case. Whether that holds up to canon law is something someone should look into.

 

lol I did and it does. :)