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

[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?