Hard Question On Confessional Seal

[aalpha1989]

[quote name='Theosopher' post='1627898' date='Aug 15 2008, 03:49 AM']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][/quote]

STM has already given the same counter-argument I would have given. Canon law prohibits the priest from acting in a way which is detrimental (or even good for) the penitent. In the above situation the priest's decision to get a new bottle of wine is neither detrimental nor helpful to the "penitent" (although he can hardly be called such, as he had no true contrition; the priest in all likelihood would withhold absolution, because an obvious part of the penance would be to make reparations, i.e. change the bottle of wine). Besides, there is presumably more than one bottle of wine in the sacristy. All the priest has to do is grab a new (sealed) one, or even distribute Communion under one species only. None of these methods reveal the contents of the confession. When asked questions the priest doesn't have to answer. He could just be "really busy" or come up with another plausible (and true) answer.

[aalpha1989]

[quote name='Noel's angel' post='1628059' date='Aug 15 2008, 02:00 PM']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.[/quote]

iawtp

[thessalonian]

Poison is not consecrated. I do not believe that a consecration using wine with poison in it would be valid. If someone were to add poison aftward then it would be poisoned, consecrated wine.

This senarios are silly. They are attempts to trap Catholics by hypothetical questions of something that has never happened. But were suppposed to say "Oh my gosh I don't know" and deny the Eucharist over them.

[cmotherofpirl]

The question is phrased by someone who doesn't understand what the seal means. Of course the priest dumps the wine and gets new locks, he just can't call the police and say there was an attempted mass murder.

[Vincent Vega]

Interesting question...I'd have to agree that if the priest didn't disclose the penitent or his intent, he wouldn't be violating the seal.
[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1628067' date='Aug 15 2008, 01:31 PM']...and say there was an attempted [b]mass[/b] murder.[/quote]
Pun intended?

[cmotherofpirl]

[Saint Therese]

i think the priest could pour out the wine in good conscience because : By doing this he would not be divulging anything that would break the seal of anonymity. Now if he said "I"m doing this because John Anderson told me he poisoned the wine." That would be bad.

[CatholicCid]

What if the Priest, acting upon the knowledge of the Confession, inadvertinly reveals the Confession in this situation? Say Fr. X pours out the wine. John notices this and is unsure why. He goes to ask but immediately recognizes the smell of X poison from the wine. He calls the police, which eventually leads to the finding of the Penitent's fingerprints on the bottle.
(Yes, it's a far strung scenario, but so if the original )

To quote Cappie, "it is never lawful to do what one would not have done but for the fact of having heard the confession."

I can understand that it cannot be used to the detriment of the Penitent, but I don't see how that oks it even if it won't harm the penitent. It seems to lead one to a very thin line, a line which could harm the soul of the Priest if crossed.


This all reminds me of a MASH episode. Fr. Mulcahy learns the location of a medicine in the confessional, and the MASH Unit runs out of the medicine, but need it. He has to decide what to do.

Edited August 16, 2008 by CatholicCid

[jeffpugh]

[quote name='CatholicCid' post='1628588' date='Aug 15 2008, 11:41 PM']What if the Priest, acting upon the knowledge of the Confession, inadvertinly reveals the Confession in this situation? Say Fr. X pours out the wine. John notices this and is unsure why. He goes to ask but immediately recognizes the smell of X poison from the wine. He calls the police, which eventually leads to the finding of the Penitent's fingerprints on the bottle.
(Yes, it's a far strung scenario, but so if the original )

To quote Cappie, "it is never lawful to do what one would not have done but for the fact of having heard the confession."

I can understand that it cannot be used to the detriment of the Penitent, but I don't see how that oks it even if it won't harm the penitent. It seems to lead one to a very thin line, a line which could harm the soul of the Priest if crossed.


This all reminds me of a MASH episode. Fr. Mulcahy learns the location of a medicine in the confessional, and the MASH Unit runs out of the medicine, but need it. He has to decide what to do.[/quote]
By that scenario, the priest could pour it could "normally as if the confession didn't happen" because of the odor of the poison! srsly. Cmom pwn'd this one with common sense and a pun. give us a real situation to ponder over, people.

[EricTheRed]

[quote name='Saint Therese' post='1628523' date='Aug 15 2008, 10:34 PM']i think the priest could pour out the wine in good conscience because : By doing this he would not be divulging anything that would break the seal of anonymity. Now if he said "I"m doing this because John Anderson told me he poisoned the wine." That would be bad.[/quote]


Hey now dont be giving out names

Mr. Anderson

[Aloysius]

okay, I really like crazy hypotheticals, so how about this:

"Bless me Father for I have sinned, I have planned to be first in line for communion today and have a little plastic bottle of poison in my mouth which I intend to break upon taking a sip of the precious blood and poor out from my mouth in order to kill everyone behind me"

... I suppose Father ought to simply decide in that case to not distribute communion under both species (assuming we can really say that he can act on the information so long as it is not to the detriment of the penitent)... but that's definitely a harder question hahahaha. I imagine Father would have to face a lot of flack from the hoards of amateur lay liberal liturgists who would be absolutely offended if communion were offered under only one species

... ooo... I got one (lol I know, everyone has already complained about these unrealistic examples so I decided to get even more unrealistic)... "Bless me Father for I have sinned. I have placed a nuclear bomb in the Church. If you do not reveal my name and what I have done in your homily, though I do not give you permission to do so and demand the sacramental seal, then I will press the detonator. If you reveal my name and what I have done, I will not."

.... AWESOME movie plot.... you could make it crazy suspenseful, fill the Church full of all sorts of children and families and people with everything to live for (a girlscout troup singing "We like being alive").... and then either have a Divina ex Machina and miraculously the bomb disappears, or you let it all tragically blow up and have a final scene in heaven where the priest is rewarded for not breaking the seal and they show all the people that were in Church applauding him for taking them to heaven with him.

this makes me wonder if there are any crazy militantly anti-Catholic secularists who would actually go and say something like this just to mess with a priest. that would be so annoying to be a priest and have people coming in mocking the seal like that... but I don't think most people would have the guts to actually say it with a straight face even if they had the idea to do it

[CatholicCid]

[quote name='Sacred Music Man' post='1634273' date='Aug 21 2008, 11:44 PM']By that scenario, the priest could pour it could "normally as if the confession didn't happen" because of the odor of the poison! srsly. Cmom pwn'd this one with common sense and a pun. give us a real situation to ponder over, people.[/quote]

Regardless of the absurdity of the scenario, I am still confused as to how the Priest can use the information from the Confessional.

To post from the book Theosopher mentioned:
[quote]The seal of the confessional is so absolute that [b]a priest may never use any information gained in confession for any purpose outside the sacrament [/b]- and that includes saving his own life. In other words, he must act as though he does not know what he has learned under the seal.[/quote]

The CCC 1467 only seems to reinforce this:
[quote]Given the delicacy and greatness of this ministry and the respect due to persons, the Church declares that every priest who hears confessions is bound under very severe penalties to keep [b]absolute secrecy [/b]regarding the sins that his penitents have confessed to him. He can make [b]no use [/b]of knowledge that confession gives him about penitents' lives.72 This secret, which admits of [b]no exceptions[/b], is called the "sacramental seal," because what the penitent has made known to the priest remains "sealed" by the sacrament.[/quote]
Emphasis mine on both accounts.

I don't understand how this would allow any exceptions to using the knowledge of the confessional at all, even if the use of the information in no way threatens to reveal the penitent.

Edited August 22, 2008 by CatholicCid

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='CatholicCid' post='1634511' date='Aug 22 2008, 09:44 AM']Regardless of the absurdity of the scenario, I am still confused as to how the Priest can use the information from the Confessional.

To post from the book Theosopher mentioned:


The CCC 1467 only seems to reinforce this:

Emphasis mine on both accounts.

I don't understand how this would allow any exceptions to using the knowledge of the confessional at all, even if the use of the information in no way threatens to reveal the penitent.[/quote]
I think better emphasis might be:
[quote]Given the delicacy and greatness of this ministry and the respect due to persons, the Church declares that every priest who hears confessions is bound under very severe penalties to keep absolute secrecy regarding the sins that his penitents have confessed to him. [b]He can make no use of knowledge that confession gives him about penitents' lives.[/b]72 This secret, which admits of no exceptions, is called the "sacramental seal," because what the penitent has made known to the priest remains "sealed" by the sacrament.[/quote]
Lives being the key word. Now the question is: does this impact their lives?

Another scenario:
If the penitent was truly contrite, couldn't the priest make the penance to be to go dispose of the wine?

[CatholicCid]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' post='1636341' date='Aug 24 2008, 01:22 AM']I think better emphasis might be:[b]
He can make no use of knowledge that confession gives him about penitents' lives.[/b]
Lives being the key word. Now the question is: does this impact their lives?

[color="#FF0000"]Yes, I noticed that when I first read it, but I thought the structure was referring to something different. More so "He can make no use of knowledge that confession gives him" then clarifying that the confession gives him knowledge "about penitents' lives". Not that he can only use the knowledge if it won't impact their lives.[/color]

Another scenario:
If the penitent was truly contrite, couldn't the priest make the penance to be to go dispose of the wine?[/quote]
The question here would be could the Priest give a penance that would risk having the Penitent reveal his sins. I've argued about this before, and my thought would be that the Priest could strongly suggest it, but could not make it the penance.

Edited August 24, 2008 by CatholicCid

[Vincent Vega]

Hmm...this is a very slippery subject. I think it is above the likes of me!