Hm, interesting. Whenever my parish has a specific penance service, they specifically bring in a few priests from outside the parish (in addition to the pastor), just in case any parishioners would feel more comfortable confessing to a stranger. Though I guess that sort of thing is easy enough to set up with the bishop.
And while a priest can certainly act on information gained outside of the confessional, even if it matches privileged information, I expect that it would generally be rather awkward.
But that is a case of a priest passing on information he had before he heard the confession.
Let’s say the parish secretary confesses “I’ve been stealing from the petty cash box” and the priest did not previously know there had been theft going on. If the priest is now inclined to keep a more careful eye on the petty cash box (or the secretary) and catches the secretary stealing, the information learned in the confessional led to the discovery. Can the priest then inform the authorities or is his discovery the theological equivalent of “fruit of the poisonous tree”?
Or suppose it had been unknown who was defacing the lockers and a student confesses it. If the priest later catches the student doing it again, the priest can’t be sure about whether the information learned in the confessional led him to the discovery.
Presumably, if the Pope asked a random priest to hear his confession, he could grant him the permission needed to hear that confession on the spot, couldn’t he?
And, just to clarify, if a priest either accidentally or intentionally heard a confession outside the area where he had authority to do so, would the absolution granted be invalid or just illicit? In other words, would the penitent’s sins be forgiven anyway, but the priest would be scolded by his superiors? Or would the sins still be bound?
Yep, Can. 967 ß1 provides that cardinals can hear confessions everywhere, and so can bishops unless the local bishop explicitly disapproves.
Priests require the bishop’s permission in writing unless the law grants them the faculty by virtue of the office they hold. So the local bishop doesn’t need to give the parish priest permission in his own parish.
Oh, I went and found Canon 967 as soon as I saw your post. (Not doubting you, of course, just trying to get the law straight in my head.) I am just trying to ensure that the peanut gallery is clear on what we have each said.
Where is the civil law (I’m in NYC, but I’ll take any example) that says–and I only know the general sense–that a priest, psychiatrist, or lawyer must violate their previously granted assumptions of privacy? Note that what I am calling “assumption of privacy” (I just made that up) refers to those professions’ intra-social rules and the rules relative to the law of the land.
One thing is very clear: The seal of confession is inviolable. Now the tricky part… defining exactly what that means. Obviously, a confession of a sin, in which said confession is done such that all the parties agree that this is a sacramental moment of confession, could never be revealed. But what about information passed along ‘in the confessional’ which is not really a part of a confession? Or, what about information gained outside of a confession that duplicates what was revealed in confession? Or what if a serial murderer/molester confessed that they were going to do it again?
Technically, such matters aren’t covered by the seal since that information is not confession. Non-confessional material is not covered by the seal. So, information not part of a confession isn’t covered. Information about future actions isn’t covered because you can’t confess what you will do in the future. And information gleaned outside the confessional isn’t covered.
Although, you’ll find priests so worried about ‘breaking’ the seal (or being way too scrupulous about it), they put everything under the seal, even if a penitent said, “Father, I just poisoned the sacramental wine,” they would go ahead and drink it! (Like I said: scrupulous.)
Now, just because a priest gains information related to a confession but is not technically part of an actual confession doesn’t mean he isn’t obliged by ordinary, non-sacramental, professional secrecy.
Which brings us to…
To my knowledge, U.S. states back off from trying to get a priest from revealing confessional secrets. And many judges have slapped down authorities who try to make a priest give testimony to confessional information or attempted to bug a confession (as has been attempted in prisons). I’m not aware of this going to the Supreme Court, but the judiciary wants to avoid the Freedom of Religion thing and also to avoid putting priests in jail because they know the priests would do that rather than spill the beans.
However, that’s sacramental secrecy that’s inviolate. Ordinary, professional secrets aren’t. Different states have different levels of mandatory giving-up-of-the-secrets for professionals. E.g., if someone threatens to harm themselves or others, all bets are off… doctors, lawyers, psychologists, and priests have to report.
In NJ, all adults are mandatory reporters of suspected child abuse. So, if someone told a priest about abuse outside of the confessional (or they were going to do it, even in the confessional), the priest would have to report it.
For less serious situations, states generally allow certain professionals to keep the secrets of their clients, even if it’s about illegal activity so that those professionals can perform their service. This is for the good of society. E.g., if the state required psychologists to report drug users, then no one with a drug addiction would ever seek psychological help.
Sacramental confession can take place just about anywhere there can be private face-to-face conversation.
My WAG would be that part of penance would be something like the secretary resigning his/her position or the kid defacing lockers’ spending a Saturday cleaning them. The punishment fitting the crime, so to speak.
At least that’s how most of the priests we had growing up would have handled it.
In fact, those private little boxes at the back of the church have mostly fallen into disuse. You can still arrange to use one if you want (drop an anonymous note to your pastor of when you’d be coming in), but nowadays it’s encouraged for confession to be face to face, and is usually done sitting in a couple of ordinary chairs in an ordinary room.
I told you that scrupulous priests would disagree with my assessment, and look, you found one! (Association with Ignatius Press and EWTN puts one squarely on the very conservative and often scrupulous side of Catholicity.)
I got the same degree in theology that Mitch has and I say differently. There’s your cite.
Besides, your quote of his repeats the inviolability which I spoke of, but the rest is his interpretation. He didn’t give any more citation for his interpretation than I did for mine.
*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. 985 The director and assistant director of novices, and the rector of a seminary or of any other institute of education, are not to hear the sacramental confessions of their students resident in the same house, unless in individual instances the students of their own accord request it.
Can. 986 §1 All to whom by virtue of office the care of souls is committed, are bound to provide for the hearing of the confessions of the faithful entrusted to them, who reasonably request confession, and they are to provide these faithful with an opportunity to make individual confession on days and at times arranged to suit them.
§2 In an urgent necessity, every confessor is bound to hear the confessions of Christ’s faithful, and in danger of death every priest is so obliged. *Note that the “knowledge of a sin of confession” applies to what is properly defined as ‘confession.’ Future actions are not confession of a sin… or do you dispute that? Dante put certain clerics in Hell for ‘forgiving’ the future actions of a sinner noting that future acts can not be properly repented since there was no intention to reform, precisely because there was an intention to sin! That just shows how longstanding the knowledge is in the Church that future actions are not the proper subject of confession. And if they aren’t “sins from a confession” then they are not covered under the seal of confession… there was no real confession. (Although, professional, non-sacramental secrecy still applies if applicable.)
This puts a big hole in all those melodramatic made-for-TV plots where a serial criminal tells a priest what they’re going to do to silence him. It just doesn’t work that way… despite what some superstitious priests think who get their pious books printed by a conservative publisher. I know plenty that say otherwise.
Note that #984 talks about *knowledge acquired in confession, *as opposed to the knowledge of sin in confession. Such knowledge can’t be used if it becomes a detriment to the penitent, which means it can be used if it doesn’t become a detriment to the penitent. So… where is the inviolable seal here with regard to any knowledge from a confession?
But, I’ll let the editors of The Code of Canon Law: A Text and Commentary speak to this: “The canons do not touch extra-sacramental confidentiality, to which the ordained minister is bound as is any recipient of confidences, but bound even more so when the relationship of the minister to the individual is analogous to that of a professional counselor.”
There are still plenty of churches that use them, esp. in the US Northeast. Though it’s true that many have been renovated into a larger space (from tiny booth to walk-in-closet size) to accommodate either anonymous (behind the screen) or face-to-face confession.
Is not the intention to commit an evil act itself sinful? How about lusting after your neighbor’s wife?
So, imagine somebody goes into a confessional and says “I’m not sure this is a sin, but I did x.” If the priest says “of course not, but it’s really funny, I’m publishing it in the church bulletin next week” then that’s OK?
Well, you mean apart from how I said over and over again that ordinary professional secrecy is always applicable and thus putting it in the bulletin would be ethically wrong as I’ve consistently maintained?
But let’s ignore your woeful straw man and get to your point about intentions…
When one confesses, one accuses themselves of a sin they committed. In the past. They do so because they are sorry, and they desire to repent, that is, to stop doing it in the future. Now, people aren’t perfect and bad habits are hard to break, and so, they may wind up doing it again out of human frailty. That wasn’t their intention at the time of confession.
This is widely and wildly different from telling how one plans to intentionally commit an evil act. There is no intention not to do it if there is at the same time intention to actually do it. These are incompatible.
So, yes, the intention to purposely commit an evil act is sinful. You go to confession when you realize that and want to stop doing that. Telling the priest you’re struggling with it and trying to stop is perfectly fine. Telling the priest you’re going to do it regardless, neener neener neener is not covered.
But just because it’s not covered by the sacramental seal doesn’t take away the professional secrecy, unless it’s a clear indication the person is going to harm themselves or others, then that trumps the professional secret.
To be clear: I maintain that a confession of causing harm in the past is covered by the seal. A murderer can confess their murders and the priest must keep it secret. Telling the priest who’s next on the hit list is not a valid confession with intent to repent.
That’s supposed to apply to everybody, though, and of course it’s possible only if they’re able to meet at a frequency the person confessing finds appropriate. Those who prefer to have a confessor do, those who don’t or can’t, don’t.
Perhaps a previous analagous SD thread may be of help:
How do med students learn to do a digital-rectal exam?*
*This is not a knock on confession, which is a profound subject, nor on the quality of this thread. Think of it, if you will, as a funny, a fart in the peanut gallery.
**The above footnote is a statement of Poster’s Regret.
I’m not 100% sure, but I’m pretty sure the penance that the priest gives the penitent locker-defacing student might well be to go confess to the principal and accept whatever temporal punishment ensues.
What I’ve always wondered about is how the privacy aspect of confessions works in terms of aggregate reporting? I know that they can’t say that Mr. X confessed to sin Y, but is it ok for priests to get together and say “I’ve heard a lot of confessions by married men about sin Y lately.”?
I don’t know what’s the official position, but I can tell you it happens. Sometimes it translates into fire and brimstone from the pulpit, sometimes into a school’s Civics curriculum being tweaked to reflect the problems the students are really having rather than the ones the Standard Student is expected to have.
The usual formulation is “tell the sin, not the sinner”.
(Association with Ignatius Press and EWTN puts one squarely on the very conservative and often scrupulous side of Catholicity.)