This series is not intended as a spiritual guide for how to make a good confession: you can find such guides elsewhere (on my parish website for example.) What I am concerned to do here is to explain some of the canonical-theological questions that form a part of priestly theological formation but have not normally been part of ordinary catechesis for the sacrament. They are of some importance now because of attacks that have been made on the sacrament and are likely to continue.
************************
The seal of confession is a strict obligation upon the priest to keep secret the sins that have been confessed and to abstain from any use of knowledge of those sins which might betray the penitent. The confessor may not speak in any way that might give those who hear him any grounds for suspecting the penitent of any sin that he has confessed.
A direct violation of the seal occurs when the priest reveals the identity of the penitent and the sin that they have committed. This is a serious crime in canon law and it incurs the penalty of automatic (“latae sententiae”) excommunication. This penalty is reserved to the Apostolic See which means that if a priest incurs this penalty, he can only be absolved from it by the Apostolic See. He cannot be absolved from it by another priest or Bishop.
An indirect violation of the seal occurs when the priest does not directly reveal the identity of the penitent and the sin that they have committed. This can happen if a confessor speaks of a sin told in confession without revealing who the penitent was. If people work out who it was, or even if they suspect whom it might have been, an indirect violation has been committed. An indirect violation can occur when a priest foolishly tells stories from the confessional in a sermon or in conversation. Even though he does not reveal who the penitent was, somebody might “put two and two together” and the priest has committed the crime of indirect violation. The code stipulates that this crime is to be punished “according to the gravity of the delict.”
The priest is also strictly forbidden to use any other knowledge acquired in the sacrament (i.e. knowledge about matters not connected with sin) if this would be in any way to the detriment of the penitent. This is not strictly speaking a violation of the seal itself, since it does not concern sins confessed. Nevertheless it is completely prohibited by the code, even when any danger of revelation is excluded. For example, if the confessor learned in the sacrament that a person was wealthy, it would be unlawful use of knowledge if he were to pester the penitent for a contribution to a building project, or encourage others to do so.
One matter that is sometimes not realised is that the penitent himself is not bound by the seal. A penitent is free to say that he has confessed such and such a sin (provided, of course, that he does not commit the sin of scandal.) The penitent may also give permission to the priest to talk to him about his sins outside of confession or at a subsequent confession. The priest is not to do this unless the penitent has freely and explicitly given him permission to do so.
In some cases, this is a good thing to do. A regular penitent who has explained the circumstances of his life, and past sins, to the confessor, or who has particular temptations to which he often succumbs, may give permission to the confessor to refer to this matter in order to receive appropriate counsel regularly as he engages in the spiritual battle. But the confessor may not presume this and should ask explicitly for permission if the penitent seems to presume that the priest will refer to previously confessed sins.
That’s enough for today. We also need to look at the reasons why the seal is binding, the proper place, time and vesture for hearing confessions, one or two more particular crimes in canon law, the question of jurisdiction and the much misused expression “Ecclesia supplet”, and, of course, what to do if the civil authority tries to compel a priest to break the seal.
26 comments:
This is a very good summary Father, but the Irish government have already backtracked. "The Thirsty Gargoyle" received a letter from the Department of Justice informing him that the law would just be a clarification of that already existing and would not legislate anything new.
Shane
Excellent.
As someone in the process of converting, this is EXACTLY what I need to know.
Many thanks and look forward to the next one.
"The penitent may also give permission to the priest to talk to him about his sins outside of confession or at a subsequent confession. The priest is not to do this unless the penitent has freely and explicitly given him permission to do so."
Can. 983 §1. The sacramental seal is inviolable; therefore it is absolutely forbidden for a confessor to betray in any way a penitent in words or in any manner and for any reason.
Fr. Finigan, I disagree with your statement above. The canon is absolute and makes no provision nor does any other canon make provision for release from the seal of confession; nor does the penitent have the authority whatsoever to release a priest from the seal. The imposition of the seal comes from law and not from the penitent. A priest cannot even recall a confession and give further advice later on in the day after a confession. When it is finished, it is history. This is my understanding, for what it is worth. don Jeffry
lxoa - very good news that the Irish government have backtracked. But I think that this issue will be taken up by secularists everywhere.
don Jeffry - the canon speaks of "betraying" the penitent ("prodere")
If a penitent gives permission for the confessor to recall previous confessions for the purposes of giving counsel, that is in order. This is affirmed in all the standard manuals, following, for example, St Thomas Aquinas (Suppl. q.11 art.4 ad.2)
In theory the penitent could give the confessor permission to make his sins known more widely but it would obviously be highly imprudent for the confessor to make use of any such permission.
Thank you very much for this clarification. There is too much misinformation out there about confession.
As a Deacon, parishoneers ask me from time to time when exactly does the time start when a priest may not reveal the contents of a confession. I asked one priest and he told me that time is the moment you step into the reconcillation room. Another priest told me it happens when absolution is given. I know of a case where the priest told the person that absolution will take place when she gives herself up to the authorities because of a capital crime. When this happens the priest will know that the person was sincere in her confession.
deacon tony - "Reconciliation room" hmmm. That's part of the problem.
But on the point your raise, the seal of confession is binding from the moment the penitent begins their confession. It is absolutely not "when absolution is given" since it is binding even if absolution is refused.
Absolution is given by the priest personally. It cannot happen automatically when a person gives themself up to the authorities. If they have been refused absolution on this condition, they still need to seek absolution after the condition has been met.
Do these canonical norms also apply to the internal forum of Spiritual Direction?
JPD - no, they apply strictly to the sacrament of confession.
There are norms for spiritual direction which are prudent. For example, a member of seminary staff who gives spiritual direction to a student may not contribute to a discussion about whether the man may be ordained.
But this is not itself a matter of the seal of confession.
"ubi lex non distinguit, neque nos debemus."
Can. 983 §1. The sacramental seal is inviolable; therefore it is absolutely forbidden for a confessor to betray in any way a penitent in words or in any manner and for any reason.
Dear Father, I hold tight to my position now more than ever after having read numerous opinions of canon lawyers on this point. Unfortunately I have been unable to find particular responses. The law is extremely clear ending with "in any manner and for any reason". The theological manuals do not supersede canon law. Should anything need to be made public, the penitent should make known what he wishes. I believe so even for spiritual direction for there is always the possibility of an error of a priest attributing to a particular person the sins of another in a discussion. Should a penitent refer to a prior confessed sin, the priest should ask him to clarify.
Also, RE: the word betray, the priest acts on behalf of Christ and his duty is first and foremost to Christ, then to the penitent who may seriously regret having given permission to violate the seal. It's a slippery slope, how much of the seal/particular confession can be free from the seal, to whom, for how long, etc?. The Church's best interest is absolute inviolation which is why there is no provision whatsoever to the contrary.
There is also the great possibility that the priest may not recount correctly what was said. If you don't believe this, tell a joke to someone and have him tell it to someone else and you'll hear how many changes were inserted. Very best, don Jeffry
Seal of confession? The Scripture tells us that we should submit to the authorities because God put them there. That said, doesn't about every government require you to tell of crimes if you know of them? Answer: Yes. God is NOT the author of confusion. What do you think an unbeliever thinks when he sees that a priest is keeping something horrific or even not so horrific from the authorities? Think about it. For the sake of the gospel, Paul said that we should become a Jew to convert a Jew, gentile to convert a gentile, etc. Why be the cause of confusion to the unbeliever? Also, for a horrific crime or even a not so horrific crime to be concealed, where's the closure for the victim and the victim's close ones? As I said, I'll say again, God is NOT the author of confusion. Period.
Thankyou, Fr Tim, for a well-timed, properly explained teaching.
You really should be a Bishop. But that is going slightly off-topic.
Very helpful explanation.
Hello Father,
I recently completed a masters thesis in canon law on jurisdiction in the sacrament of penance. In it I argue that the requirement of penitential jurisdiction, now termed facultas, flows from the judicial nature of the sacrament. Along with Melchior Cano I believe the requirement is, to that extent, a precept de iuro divino. While the Church has never explicitly taught the divine law status of the requirement (and most modern commentators believe it to be of merely ecclesiastical law), I nevertheless believe it to be implied. Of particular interest to me is the recent elevation of the delicts mentioned in c. 1378, 2 of the CIC/83 to the status of graviora delicta. As one with an interest in the traditional doctrine surrounding the sacrament, I would be honored to have your critical review of my work. If you have time and would care to read it, please email me at travis.rankin@student.kuleuven.be- this post was truly a breath of fresh air! I love Fr. Cappello!
Kind regards,
Travis
But is what is spoken about in Spiritual Direction a secret, for example someone seeing their Parish Priest for Spiritual advice regarding sin? What if it leads to confession? Can it be murky to mix the two?
Nice start. When one thinks of the old public penances, one wonders why public reparation is not imposed on sinners who have given public scandal or have injured many people. It seems to me that justice would require that sort of public acknowledgment and pubic punishment.
If neither the confessor nor the spiritual director may even contribute to a discussion of whether a person can be ordained, then no wonder we have had a problem!!!
Sometimes the confessor priest and the penitent can accidentally make innocent comments separate from each other after confession than when added together heads in the direction of revealing too much. This happeded at our parish when our pastor was commenting in the presence of some parishioners that his first confession that day went on and on, and that she had a lot to say. A few minutes later that penitent walked into the room and exclaimed to the pastor, "Hey, I was your first confession today!"
Secondly, it seems to me that those who would insist that priests report serious crimes to the authorities are more interested in using that as a weapon against the church that they are in catching bad guys, just like those who caught the woman in adultry were more interested in trapping Jesus that they were in punishing the woman.
Don Jeffry - the "betray" is indeed important. The theological manual do not supercede canon law but Cappello's, which is a commentary both canonical and theological, does provide a reasonable interpretation.
That being said, your remarks on prudential care in the matter are wise and prudent, but I would consider that a prudent confessor could handle the matter reasonably.
michaeladdison - the scriptures also report the apostles saying "We should obey God rather than men." The seal of confession is a matter of divine law which no human law can override.
Cassandra - the distinction between internal forum and external forum is essential for proper order in the Church and particularly for the training of priests.
But the system does suppose: 1. In the external forum there are clear rules and expectations and clear consequences of failing to meet these. 2. The confessor or spiritual director will, in the internal forum, firmly deter an unsuitable candidate from continuing.
Jim L - referring to "my first confession today" is a classic example of how an indirect violation of the seal can be committed.
The case you mention is an indirect violation of the seal because saying that the penitent had a lot to say indicates that she may have had serious sins to confess. The Pastor should manifest this to his Bishop and offer to undertake the appropriate penance given by the Holy See "in accordance with the gravity of the delict."
the Rankins - most interested to hear of your work. Yes, I would very much like to read your thesis and I will email you.
JPD - Where confession and spiritual direction are given by the same priest there is the possibility of confusion. What is said in SD is strictly confidential but not, strictly speaking, under the seal properly so-called.
A spiritual directee can opt to have a different priest for confession (the the Spiritual Director should leave him completely free to do so.) If the same priest is used for SD and confession, the priest needs to establish clearly whether the directee also wishes the Spiritual Director to refer to confessional matter or not.
This dangerous territory can be charted but only with a solid knowledge of canon law and sacramental theology regarding the sacrament of Penance.
Thank you for an excellent and timely post. I find it difficult to understand don Jeffrey's objections: can. 983 forbids absolutely the betrayal of a penitent; it does not forbid a penitent's regular confessor from taking into account habitual sins or temptations within the confidentiality guaranteed by the seal. Fr Tim is prudent to suggest that this should be at the penitent's initiative.
@aka Cassandra: Spiritual direction is not covered by the seal of confession, but it takes place in the "internal forum" and in a similar context of confidentiality. This encourages and protects honesty and sincerity. Can. 240 §2 forbids spiritual directors (and confessors) to participate in decisions about promotion to orders or expulsion from a seminary; such matters are simply not their role. Those sorts of processes and decisions are made in the "external forum".
Michael
Fr., sorry to resurrect an old post. You said on 8/14 at 9:55am, regarding a classic example of an indirect violation of the seal that "The Pastor should manifest this to his Bishop and offer to undertake the appropriate penance given by the Holy See 'in accordance with the gravity of the delict.'" Since indirect violations are now reserved to the Holy See just like direct ones, should the priest go straight to the Holy See?
Post a Comment