Posted on 09/06/2014 2:06:54 PM PDT by NYer
![]() |
The sacramental seal is inviolable. Quoting Canon 983.1 of the Code of Canon Law, the Catechism states, "...It is a crime for a confessor in any way to betray a penitent by word or in any other manner or for any reason" (No. 2490). A priest, therefore, cannot break the seal to save his own life, to protect his good name, to refute a false accusation, to save the life of another, to aid the course of justice (like reporting a crime), or to avert a public calamity. He cannot be compelled by law to disclose a person's confession or be bound by any oath he takes, e.g. as a witness in a court trial. A priest cannot reveal the contents of a confession either directly, by repeating the substance of what has been said, or indirectly, by some sign, suggestion, or action. A Decree from the Holy Office (Nov. 18, 1682) mandated that confessors are forbidden, even where there would be no revelation direct or indirect, to make any use of the knowledge obtained in the confession that would "displease" the penitent or reveal his identity.
(Just as an aside, a great movie which deals with this very topic is Alfred Hitchcock's "I Confess," which deals with a priest who hears a murder confession and then is framed for the murder. As a priest, I was in agony during much of the movie.)
However, a priest may ask the penitent for a release from the sacramental seal to discuss the confession with the person himself or others. For instance, if the penitent wants to discuss the subject matter of a previous confession a particular sin, fault, temptation, circumstance in a counseling session or in a conversation with the same priest, that priest will need the permission of the penitent to do so. For instance, especially with the advent of "face-to-face confession," I have had individuals come up to me and say, "Father, remember that problem I spoke to you about in confession?" I have to say, "Please refresh my memory," or "Do you give me permission to discuss this with you now?"
Or if a priest needs guidance from a more experienced confessor to deal with a difficult case of conscience, he first must ask the permission of the penitent to discuss the matter. Even in this case, the priest must keep the identity of the person secret.
What happens if a priest violates the seal of confession? The Catechism (No. 1467) cites the Code of Canon Law (No. 1388.1) in addressing this issue, which states, "A confessor who directly violates the seal of confession incurs an automatic excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See; if he does so only indirectly, he is to be punished in accord with the seriousness of the offense." From the severity of the punishment, we can clearly see how sacred the sacramental seal of confession is in the eyes of the Church.
Actually, the Church's position in this matter has long-standing credibility. The Fourth Lateran Council (1215) produced one of the first comprehensive teachings concerning the Sacrament of Penance. Addressing various problems ranging from abuses to heretical stands against the sacrament, the council defended the sacrament itself, stipulated the need for the yearly sacramental confession of sins and reception of the Holy Eucharist, and imposed disciplinary measures upon priest confessors. The council decreed, "Let the confessor take absolute care not to betray the sinner through word or sign, or in any other way whatsoever. In case he needs expert advice he may seek it without, however, in any way indicating the person. For we decree that he who presumes to reveal a sin which has been manifested to him in the tribunal of penance is not only to be deposed from the priestly office, but also to be consigned to a closed monastery for perpetual penance."
A beautiful story (perhaps embellished with time) which captures the reality of this topic is the life of St. John Nepomucene (1340-93), the vicar general to the Archbishop of Prague. King Wenceslaus IV, described as a vicious, young man who easily succumbed to rage and caprice, was highly suspicious of his wife, the Queen. St. John happened to be the Queen's confessor. Although the king himself was unfaithful, he became increasingly jealous and suspicious of his wife, who was irreproachable in her conduct. Although Wencelaus tortured St. John to force him to reveal the Queen's confessions, he would not. In the end, St. John was thrown into the River Moldau and drowned on March 20, 1393.
Each priest realizes that he is the ordained mediator of a very sacred and precious sacrament. He knows that in the confessional, the penitent speaks not so much to him, but through him to the Lord. Therefore, humbled by his position, the priest knows that whatever is said in confession must remain secret at all costs.
Another interesting side to this question is the obligation of the laity: An interpreter needed for someone to make a confession or anyone who gains knowledge of a confession (such as overhearing someones confession) is also obligated to preserve secrecy (Code of Canon Law, No. 983.2). For such a person to violate the secrecy of another persons confession is a mortal sin and warrants "a just penalty, not excluding excommunication" (No. 1388.2). A person who falsely accuses a priest of breaking the seal of the confession incurs a mortal sin and perhaps other canonical penalties, including excommunication.
Clearly, the Church regards the seal of confession as sacred. Every person whether priest or laity must take the obligation to preserve the secrecy of confession absolutely seriously.
The Seal of the Confessional - FR. WILLIAM SAUNDERS
Ping!
I am guessing this is not the "Good King Wenceslaus" of song.
I was under the impression that under Catholic doctrine what was said in confession could be revealed by the confessor only with the permission of the penitent.
Is the priest refusing to testify after having received such permission? Or is he refusing to testify having not received such permission?
Seems to me that is the critical point, and if it’s mentioned in the news coverage, I’ve missed it.
He deal of confession is a right under the catholic religion. This country was founded on freedom of religion, that is, that the government may not dictate how we live out our religion
So. If the USSC decides,,,
Father would never say that,she misunderstood.
“Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s.” Words from the confessional are God’s, and no government has the authority to violate the confessional.
Good Question.
I don’t think so. I think he can’t even confirm or deny he even heard a confession at all, even if the person wants him to. I think from the other threads a few months ago about this the law changed or something to allow one side of a privileged relationship to relieve the other party of any mandatory silence.
What I don’t understand is why this haven’t happened before. Seems like there would be no way to defend against any civil suit against the diocese where supposedly something damaging was revealed in a confession.
FReegards
Cynical me. My second reaction, after the first, was “Why not?”. My first reaction was rage.
But, why not? Why wouldn’t the courts, in this evil age, believe that their enforcement powers of guvmnt “mandates” and the power of the state, must certainly trump religious practices, which they most assuredly deem to be silly in the first place?
This will surely die before their eyes. If it does not, and the good priest pays a price, then it’s safe to say that our “hour has come”. Persecution begins in the United States of America.
Sounds like the ambulance chasers are looking for work.
Here is another article with some additional details.
However, the high court ruled that Fr. Bayhi can only invoke confidentiality if the girl refuses to disclose their conversation, and since she waived her confidentiality privilege, he is subject to the mandatory sexual abuse reporting laws.In the appeal, the diocese stated that even to admit the conversation took place much less reveal its alleged contents would involve Fr. Bayhi breaking the Seal of Confession, which no priest is allowed to do, even under threat of civil penalty or imprisonment.
Supreme Court asked to defend Seal of Confession in La. case
See post #13.
Lest there be any confusion as to what the church wants to suppress:
“...the priest allegedly responded to her that she simply needed to handle the situation herself because otherwise “too many people would be hurt.” The minor child testified that during one of those confessions she told the priest what had happened and asked for advice on how to end it. According to her deposition testimony: “He just said this is your problem. Sweep it under the floor and get rid of it”
No. 2913 CW 0316 Court of Appeals First Circuit
Thanks NYer,Father must maintain the seal of seal of Confession.Nice-as I thought.
Well she might have a case and just wants to build on it but Father is a dead end.Father would never say that.She must have mis-understood.
The guy who was abusing her has been dead for years, if I recall. This is some kind of civil case against the diocese, to my understanding.
Freegards
Soon we will see the fallout of putting a Kagen and Sotomayer on the Bench. Two starry-eyed rookies with something to ‘prove’ to the anti-God; anti-American left.
By my reading of cannon law, the Priest may not talk. Period.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.