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

[Maggyie]

[quote]I actually heard that priests actually a special grace from God to forget the sins heard in confession.[/quote]

I have heard, also, that it is actually a part of their training, to forget what has been confessed to them... don't know if it's true, though!

[prose]

I would suspect it would be quite difficult to forget if a molester or a murderer who was continuing to do so came into the confessional.

[rkwright]

[quote name='Anthony' post='1426921' date='Nov 29 2007, 07:38 PM']I don't think that's true. Confession is between the penitent and God. It's not the same as a doctor/patient privilege or a attorney/client privilege. There are no forms to fill out. It's an unwritten rule of God that what is said in the confessional stays in the confessional. I actually heard that priests actually a special grace from God to forget the sins heard in confession. How can a priest be obligated by the law to dislose information they do not possess?[/quote]

According to the law it is true, and from what I remember even hearing of child abuse required disclosure in some states.

Traditionally in the law priest/penitent privilege is been held to the same standard as attorney/client and doctor/patient privileges; all 3 of which were diminished in America.

The really tough thing is how is anyone going to know that something has been said in confession. No one is really going to force the Priest to say anything; its really in the Priest's own conscience.

Another twist on the problem would be someone who is seeking spiritual direction and confesses to say child molestation. The person wants help, but not necessarily confession or absolution.

[Maggyie]

Not be be too personal, but after I came back to the Church I had to confess to some things that would probably be "hard to forget" (not those two, thank God). I know the good father who heard me would never let slip any sins, no matter how black they were.

The only reason a child molester or a murderer would approach a priest in the confessional is because of the expectation of strict confidence. If there were an exception to the seal of confession about these particular sins, the miscreants wouldn't talk to a priest about it anyway. Not only would the criminal still be on the loose, but the priest would lose the opportunity to counsel the individual, to exhort him/her to turn themselves in and to make restitution.

A confession, properly understood, is a conversation between the penitent and God. It is the most intimate and vulnerable moment in a person's spiritual life, in which the soul exposes itself NOT to the priest, who is only a human representative, but to God. If people understood better what this Sacrament really was in all its power and significance, there would be no call to have priests break the seal. There is a good reason why the Church applies the harshest punishment she can levy - one equivalent to the consequences for desecrating a Host or committing abortion (murder) - on the priest who violates the seal.

The ecclesiastical laws governing the sacrament of penance have no *asterisk* next to them to indicate that this sin or that sin is so particularly horrible that the sacred duties of the priest can be loosed and he can feel free to tell the butcher, the baker, and the candle-stick maker the contents of their fellow sinner's confession.

All I can say is I sincerely hope that the Church never lets a man who thinks there should be an asterisk there get anywhere near the laying-on of hands.

Edited November 30, 2007 by Maggie

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='thequeensindian' post='1426872' date='Nov 29 2007, 07:02 PM']If a priest knew that a crime would be comitted and did nothing to stop it, wouldn't he be partially responsible?

I suspect that most priests, being good men, would turn a serial killer or serial child molester in and accept whatever consequences result.[/quote]
Nope.

As any priest will tell you, between jail and hell there is no contest. One is temporary and one is eternal.

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='infinitelord1' post='1426162' date='Nov 28 2007, 07:59 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]

For one, like with most hypothetical situations that attempt to create a logical contradiction in faith, this kind of thing doesn't happen.

Second, when somebody confesses a felony, it is the priest's responsibility to have the person turn themselves in as part of their penance. Confession reconciles a person with God, but it doesn't nothing about their relationship with society, for which a penalty must be paid since we are subject to all temporal authority just as those authorities are subject to God.

Third, in this specific example, if the guy actually comes back to the confessional, it's obvious he didn't do his penance.

[MissScripture]

If the priest DOES break the seal, if he goes to confession for it, can he be un-ex-communicated?

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='MissScripture' post='1427369' date='Nov 30 2007, 03:39 PM']If the priest DOES break the seal, if he goes to confession for it, can he be un-ex-communicated?[/quote]

Without knowing the answer for a fact, it's almost a certainty that he needs to confess this to his bishop. And, of course, the bishop is under no obligation to allow this priest to hear Confessions ever again.

[rkwright]

So I saw a Law and Order the other night that dealt with this exact problem. I realize its a TV show, but the circumstances are believable.

Joe and his friends, one named John, get in a fight with some other guy; Joe kills the other guy, but John ends up getting pinned with the crime. Joe goes to his Priest for spiritual direction (not confession) that he killed the guy and John is doing the time for it. A while later Joe realizes his mistake of telling the priest and worried that the priest will tell someone, Joe attempts to kill the priest and by mistake kills a different priest.

So you have 2 murders, the wrong guy in jail, and a priest who knows everything.

In the end the Priest ended up testifying and was excommunicated for it.

Again it was just TV, but a good example of this.

[MissScripture]

But if it was not for confession, why did the priest get excommunicated?

[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?