Hard Question On Confessional Seal

[Theosopher]

I just heard a statement on EWTN, and I'm sure EWTN is right, I would just like to get a discussion gong on it - it is kind of a hard question and I'd like to get some discussions and opinions on it. If this has already been discussed I'm sorry but would love to see the link. Thank you!

So there is a priest who is hearing confession, an hour before Mass. A penitent comes in and begins his confession, and says: "Bless me Father for I have sinned... I have poisoned the Communion wine that you will use for Mass. It is a very powerful poison that will kill the entire congregation." The person is denied absolution because he does not display sorrow for his sin, and is not going to take the poisoned wine away or reveal what he has done outside the Confessional.

Should the Priest use that wine during Mass?

[CatherineM]

I've heard this one before. A priest told it to me. He told me that he would have to act normal, go about using the wine, but when he went to fill the chalices, he would oops and drop the vessel. Pre-consecration, they'd just run in back and open a new bottle, and it would give everyone something to laugh about. He'd also replace the locks in the sacristy.

[Theosopher]

But wouldn't that be the Priest acting on something that he heard in confession? Doing something differently based on what he heard in Confession? Surely he would not "oops" and drop the vessel intentionally had he NOT been told this thing in Confession.

[TeresaBenedicta]

Does the seal still apply if their is no absolution? Technically, no confession has occured?

Also... I thought it was only that the priest could not tell anyone what was said in a confession. Is it so that he cannot act on said information either?

[Theosopher]

I was told that he could not act differently either. A Priest could not look at someone differently based on what they said in Confession, etc.

And it would seem that the seal still applies because there has been a confession, just not an absolution.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Theosopher' post='1627799' date='Aug 14 2008, 09:59 PM']I just heard a statement on EWTN, and I'm sure EWTN is right, I would just like to get a discussion gong on it - it is kind of a hard question and I'd like to get some discussions and opinions on it. If this has already been discussed I'm sorry but would love to see the link. Thank you!

So there is a priest who is hearing confession, an hour before Mass. A penitent comes in and begins his confession, and says: "Bless me Father for I have sinned... I have poisoned the Communion wine that you will use for Mass. It is a very powerful poison that will kill the entire congregation." The person is denied absolution because he does not display sorrow for his sin, and is not going to take the poisoned wine away or reveal what he has done outside the Confessional.

Should the Priest use that wine during Mass?[/quote]

He should obviously get some other wine to consecrate. Even then, why would it be necessary for him to distribute Communion under both species to the faithful?

In any case, the seal does not forbid the priest from acting on information heard in confession, but only on revealing it. If the priest were to ask a sacristan to get different wine, he just wouldn't tell the sacristan that the reason why, or if he were to tell the sacristan a reason, it would merely have to be one that does not reveal the contents of the confession, such as "that wine isn't good."

Edited August 15, 2008 by StThomasMore

[CatherineM]

From the Code of Canon Law

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.

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.


Accidentally dropping poisoned wine doesn't betray the penitent and doesn't do anything to his detriment.

[CatholicCid]

My biggest struggle with this topic would be whether the knowledge gained through the Confessional binds the Priest entirely in his options. The Priest has the legitimate option to only recieve the Precious Blood himself, therefore only putting his life in danger. Or say he has a small bottle of untampered wine in his private residence that he could choose to use instead.

Of course, if the Priest is choosing these actions, does it necessarily mean he is making these choices based on the knowledge he just obtained? Or, could he ignore this knowledge, and just choose to act on a whim. I suppose it would be the Priest's intent, which would seem extremely difficult to be able to push such knowledge from their mind.

Edit
Most of my thoughts are based on the 2nd half of Canon 984
Can. 984 §1. A confessor is prohibited completely from using knowledge acquired from confession to the detriment of the penitent even when any danger of revelation is excluded.

§2. A person who has been placed in authority cannot use in any manner for external governance the knowledge about sins which he has received in confession at any time.

What exactly would external governance would be, I do not know.

Edited August 15, 2008 by CatholicCid

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='CatholicCid' post='1627849' date='Aug 14 2008, 10:41 PM']My biggest struggle with this topic would be whether the knowledge gained through the Confessional binds the Priest entirely in his options. The Priest has the legitimate option to only recieve the Precious Blood himself, therefore only putting his life in danger. Or say he has a small bottle of untampered wine in his private residence that he could choose to use instead.

Of course, if the Priest is choosing these actions, does it necessarily mean he is making these choices based on the knowledge he just obtained? Or, could he ignore this knowledge, and just choose to act on a whim. I suppose it would be the Priest's intent, which would seem extremely difficult to be able to push such knowledge from their mind.

Edit
Most of my thoughts are based on the 2nd half of Canon 984
Can. 984 §1. A confessor is prohibited completely from using knowledge acquired from confession to the detriment of the penitent even when any danger of revelation is excluded.

§2. A person who has been placed in authority cannot use in any manner for external governance the knowledge about sins which he has received in confession at any time.

What exactly would external governance would be, I do not know.[/quote]

Using a different bottle of wine would in no way be to "the determent of the penitent." How could it possibly harm the penitent to use different wine?

What I'm going at is that this thread is based on a completely incorrect interpretation of what the seal of confession requires. It doesn't require that the priest forget the confession. It doesn't even require that he not act upon it. It merely requires that he reveal the contents of the confession to no-one and that he not use the information he acquired to the harm of the person whose confession he heard.

Also, it wouldn't be a good idea for the priest to drop the wine after the Offertory because from the Offertory foreword, the wine is set aside for God and can't be used for anything else.

Edited August 15, 2008 by StThomasMore

[cappie]

[quote name='CatholicCid' post='1627849' date='Aug 15 2008, 02:41 PM']My biggest struggle with this topic would be whether the knowledge gained through the Confessional binds the Priest entirely in his options. The Priest has the legitimate option to only recieve the Precious Blood himself, therefore only putting his life in danger. Or say he has a small bottle of untampered wine in his private residence that he could choose to use instead.

Of course, if the Priest is choosing these actions, does it necessarily mean he is making these choices based on the knowledge he just obtained? Or, could he ignore this knowledge, and just choose to act on a whim. I suppose it would be the Priest's intent, which would seem extremely difficult to be able to push such knowledge from their mind.

Edit
Most of my thoughts are based on the 2nd half of Canon 984
Can. 984 §1. A confessor is prohibited completely from using knowledge acquired from confession to the detriment of the penitent even when any danger of revelation is excluded.

§2. A person who has been placed in authority cannot use in any manner for external governance the knowledge about sins which he has received in confession at any time.

What exactly would external governance would be, I do not know.[/quote]

Can 984.1 forbids the confessor to use any information gained to the penitent's detriment, even if there is no risk of disclosure. The basic principle is that it is never lawful to do what one would not have done but for the fact of having heard the confession. So the priest could not e.g. discriminate against employing someone on the sole basis of what has been heard in confession; neither should he lecture or preach using a specific example that which he has heard in confession. Any such practice could give rise to the suspicion he is careless about the seal.

Can 984.2 means no one who exercises authority in the external forum, such as a Bishop, Religious superior, a memebr of staff in e.g.a seminary or a school may use information that has come to him in the hearing of confessions. Thus a Bishop who at some stage, even before he became a bishop, heard a priest's confession could not use the information, good or bad, gained from that confession in deciding to appoint or not appoint that priest to a particular position.

During the draft of the Code a suggestion was made that an exception be made when the use of the information be to the penitent's advantage, this was rejected precisely because no one could judge in such a dangerous matter.

[aalpha1989]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1627841' date='Aug 15 2008, 12:32 AM']From the Code of Canon Law

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.

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.


Accidentally dropping poisoned wine doesn't betray the penitent and doesn't do anything to his detriment.[/quote]

neither does just getting a new bottle of wine. accidentally dropping it would be disrupting the mass and is not a good way to solve this problem. it's trying to find a loophole when there is no need for one, and it just makes the priest look silly.

[quote name='StThomasMore' post='1627861' date='Aug 15 2008, 12:52 AM']Using a different bottle of wine would in no way be to "the determent of the penitent." How could it possibly harm the penitent to use different wine?

What I'm going at is that this thread is based on a completely incorrect interpretation of what the seal of confession requires. It doesn't require that the priest forget the confession. It doesn't even require that he not act upon it. It merely requires that he reveal the contents of the confession to no-one and that he not use the information he acquired to the harm of the person whose confession he heard.

Also, it wouldn't be a good idea for the priest to drop the wine after the Offertory because from the Offertory foreword, the wine is set aside for God and can't be used for anything else.[/quote]

I agree on all counts.

[quote name='cappie' post='1627882' date='Aug 15 2008, 01:46 AM']Can 984.1 forbids the confessor to use any information gained to the penitent's detriment, even if there is no risk of disclosure. The basic principle is that it is never lawful to do what one would not have done but for the fact of having heard the confession. So the priest could not e.g. discriminate against employing someone on the sole basis of what has been heard in confession; neither should he lecture or preach using a specific example that which he has heard in confession. Any such practice could give rise to the suspicion he is careless about the seal.

Can 984.2 means no one who exercises authority in the external forum, such as a Bishop, Religious superior, a memebr of staff in e.g.a seminary or a school may use information that has come to him in the hearing of confessions. Thus a Bishop who at some stage, even before he became a bishop, heard a priest's confession could not use the information, good or bad, gained from that confession in deciding to appoint or not appoint that priest to a particular position.

During the draft of the Code a suggestion was made that an exception be made when the use of the information be to the penitent's advantage, this was rejected precisely because no one could judge in such a dangerous matter.[/quote]

so none of the above prohibits the priest from simply getting a new bottle of wine.

[Theosopher]

What's the counter-argument? Father Levis on EWTN seems to disagree, he said on Web of Faith that the Priest WOULD have to continue to celebrate Mass as if he had not this knowledge.

Father Stravinskas, author of this "Catholic Answer Book" which we can infer from some of the dates was written after the 1983 Canons took effect, believes the same. [url="http://books.google.com/books?id=k9-y1yXYWHkC&pg=PA237&lpg=PA237&dq=confessional+seal+poisoned+wine&source=web&ots=Ru69xudmI-&sig=Obd3aCKaQOYW0OmPx263Ye9bzaw&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=5&ct=result"]http://books.google.com/books?id=k9-y1yXYW...5&ct=result[/url]

Edited August 15, 2008 by Theosopher

[CatholicCid]

[quote name='cappie' post='1627882' date='Aug 15 2008, 01:46 AM']Can 984.1 forbids the confessor to use any information gained to the penitent's detriment, even if there is no risk of disclosure. The basic principle is that it is never lawful to do what one would not have done but for the fact of having heard the confession. So the priest could not e.g. discriminate against employing someone on the sole basis of what has been heard in confession; neither should he lecture or preach using a specific example that which he has heard in confession. Any such practice could give rise to the suspicion he is careless about the seal.

Can 984.2 means no one who exercises authority in the external forum, such as a Bishop, Religious superior, a memebr of staff in e.g.a seminary or a school may use information that has come to him in the hearing of confessions. Thus a Bishop who at some stage, even before he became a bishop, heard a priest's confession could not use the information, good or bad, gained from that confession in deciding to appoint or not appoint that priest to a particular position.

During the draft of the Code a suggestion was made that an exception be made when the use of the information be to the penitent's advantage, this was rejected precisely because no one could judge in such a dangerous matter.[/quote]

Thanks for the clarification Father.

So, just as a Bishop cannot base the decision of the appointment of a Priest to a particular position upon the knowledge from the Confessional, does that mean that the Priest cannot alter his normal routine based upon this poisoning example? While such an actions that can be taken would not be at the detriment of the penitent, would not the Priest still be using the knowledge of the Confessional in the external forum?

[Paddington]

I remember a discussion about wrong ingredients invalidating the Eucharist in regards to the Host.

Does that pertain here?

[Noel's angel]

It's a no-brainer for me. Simply using different win doesn't mean a huge neon finger is pointed to the guy saying 'he tried to poison us!'. No one would know that the priest was doing anything different, nor would they know that his actions were changed because of something he heard in the Confessional. As Catherine said, it doesn't affect the penitent.