Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: The Seal of the Confessional
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
7.2 There can be not disclosure of what is confessed to a priest. [..]
Should, of course, be "no" disclosure.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Leorning Cniht: quote: Originally posted by SvitlanaV2: Could one argue that mentioning 'concerns' isn't a betrayal if one doesn't say what those concerns are about....?
I think "in any way" would include your suggestion here. [...] I'm not Roman Catholic, not a priest, and not any kind of expert in canon law, but to me the instructions are clear. You can't leak information out of the confessional, so you can't "just decide" to take an evening stroll in order to encounter Joe committing the bank robbery that he confessed to planning.
[...] If you have independent knowledge of a crime outside the confessional, you can and should report it to the appropriate authorities - but only including information which you have obtained outside confession.
Hmmm. These instances and turns of phrase don't sound 100% watertight to me, so we'll have to differ on that. A good lawyer could come in handy.
As others have said, I imagine that very few serious criminals would really spend much time making confession. Can we take it as read that priests who violate the seal of the confessional are also extremely rare?
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Leorning Cniht: ... It is also worth, I think, quoting the 2003 Guidelines for the Professional Conduct of the Clergy, which are currently in force in the Church of England, and address this explicitly:
7.2 There can be no disclosure of what is confessed to a priest. [..]
7.3 Where abuse of children of vulnerable adults is admitted in the context of confession, the priest should urge the person to report his or her behaviour to the police or social services, and should also make this a condition of absolution, or withhold absolution until this evidence of repentance has been demonstrated.
7.4 If a penitent's behaviour gravely threatens his or her well-being or that of others, the priest, while advising action on the penitent's part, must still keep the confidence.
Thank you. That's pretty clear to me. Checking the original, it even applies after the penitent has died. Are we agreed that, whether one likes it or not, that closes the debate as far as the CofE is concerned? [ 11. June 2013, 07:14: Message edited by: Enoch ]
-------------------- Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Enoch: Checking the original, it even applies after the penitent has died. Are we agreed that, whether one likes it or not, that closes the debate as far as the CofE is concerned?
So C of E priests, as well as RCC priests, are absolutely forbidden from disclosing anything they hear in Confession? Wow.
Taking the point that people are only likely to confess to crimes if they also intend to hand themselves in to the police, I wonder if there have been any cases of priests (C of E, RCC or any other sort) being prosecuted for not passing on information revealed in the Confessional context.
-------------------- My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by South Coast Kevin: ... I wonder if there have been any cases of priests (C of E, RCC or any other sort) being prosecuted for not passing on information revealed in the Confessional context.
What offence would they be committing?
It's more likely to arise if they were subpoenaed to give evidence against their will, and declined to answer questions. Would that be contempt of court?
That wouldn't have been an issue until recently, as the answer to 'what did X tell you he/she had done?' would in most contexts have been inadmissible as hearsay.
-------------------- Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Man with a Stick
Shipmate
# 12664
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Enoch: quote: Originally posted by South Coast Kevin: ... I wonder if there have been any cases of priests (C of E, RCC or any other sort) being prosecuted for not passing on information revealed in the Confessional context.
What offence would they be committing?
It's more likely to arise if they were subpoenaed to give evidence against their will, and declined to answer questions. Would that be contempt of court?
That wouldn't have been an issue until recently, as the answer to 'what did X tell you he/she had done?' would in most contexts have been inadmissible as hearsay.
I'm afraid I'm short of time, but the 1912 Catholic Encyclopedia has a fairly good case history (scroll down to "important cases and decisions". Linky
I'm not aware of a case on point since about 1905.
Posts: 335 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
TMwaS - thank you for the link; it was interesting. Mind you, I think I'm really arguing on the principle, so my position isn't changed by virtue of there being little case history. quote: Originally posted by Enoch: quote: Originally posted by South Coast Kevin: ... I wonder if there have been any cases of priests (C of E, RCC or any other sort) being prosecuted for not passing on information revealed in the Confessional context.
What offence would they be committing?
I don't know what any specific potential offences might be called (I'm not a lawyer!) but I mainly had child and vulnerable person safeguarding in mind. Is it not an offence of some sort to suspect or witness abuse but do nothing about it?
And is it called being an 'accessory after the fact' when someone tells you about an actual crime and you don't report it? That phrase is in my head, but it could be from films and therefore quite possibly not accurate...
-------------------- My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Man with a Stick
Shipmate
# 12664
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by South Coast Kevin: I don't know what any specific potential offences might be called (I'm not a lawyer!) but I mainly had child and vulnerable person safeguarding in mind. Is it not an offence of some sort to suspect or witness abuse but do nothing about it?
Not currently, no. Requires some degree of aiding, abetting, assisting. Mere passive witnessing or subsequent knowledge is not sufficient, save where courts have held that continued or repeated presence at the scene of a crime was sufficient in itself to be deemed 'encouragement' to the perpetrator.
quote: Originally posted by South Coast Kevin: And is it called being an 'accessory after the fact' when someone tells you about an actual crime and you don't report it? That phrase is in my head, but it could be from films and therefore quite possibly not accurate...
Your self-analysis is spot on
Posts: 335 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Indifferently
Shipmate
# 17517
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by South Coast Kevin: quote: Originally posted by Indifferently: ...yes, the Confessional is made for man. But there are still boundaries which must not be crossed...
This seems contradictory to me. The existence of any 'boundary which must not be crossed' indicates to me that, at some point, the Confessional (should it have capital 'C'? I didn't mean to offend by not capitalising earlier) takes precedence. quote: Originally posted by Indifferently: ...since I have said that the more serious the sin, the greater the need for God's forgiveness, the greater the importance of the seal of the Confessional, that should settle it.
I hope I've understood you here - are you saying forgiveness from God can only come when one has confessed to a priest in the Confessional? There must be caveats on this, surely, otherwise the only way of entering eternity with God would be to die pretty much immediately after Confession, right? And - getting back on topic - if a priest breaks the Confessional seal with the best of intentions, believing it to be the right thing to do in the particular circumstances, would you say that priest must repent or else face eternity without God?
No. Confession is not compulsory. Man is justified by God's unmediated grace. The Homily on Justification tells us the Church doctrine on this perfectly well. The Confession is however in some mysterious way a means by which God imparts his grace, but I know not how. I would go so far as to say that it was during my first Confession that I underwent a true conversion experience, but that is just me.
The Church of England does not hold to Roman Catholic unscriptural legalism with respect to Confession. I'm not sure how you deduced that from anything I had said.
Posts: 288 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Jan 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Indifferently
Shipmate
# 17517
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by SvitlanaV2: quote: Originally posted by Leorning Cniht: quote: Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
On the other hand, maybe in practice there are ways and means for a priest to indicate his 'concerns' to a third party without directly violating the seal of the confessional?
Here's canon 983 of the Roman Catholic Church:
§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.
"In any way ... for any reason ... in any fashion" seems pretty clear to me.
Thank you. Could one argue that mentioning 'concerns' isn't a betrayal if one doesn't say what those concerns are about....?
In addition, if someone confesses to a sin only once, but you, the priest, know or suspect that the original sins are still going on afterwards, is it against RCC law to take action regarding the later, unconfessed sins?
No. If someone confessed to being a thief and later put himself forward to be the parish treasurer, it is a sin for the priest to even prejudice his decision based on what he heard in confession.
The secrets of all hearts are open to God. There is no way of getting round the seal of the Confessional.
Posts: 288 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Jan 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
Okay, thanks again, The Man with a Stick. I shall consider myself educated! quote: Originally posted by Indifferently: No. Confession is not compulsory. Man is justified by God's unmediated grace. The Homily on Justification tells us the Church doctrine on this perfectly well.
What is the 'Homily on Justification', please? And by 'Church', I presume you mean your church, which is the C of E, yes? quote: Originally posted by Indifferently: The Church of England does not hold to Roman Catholic unscriptural legalism with respect to Confession. I'm not sure how you deduced that from anything I had said.
Sorry, my bad. So, for Anglicans, the point of Confession is that it's helpful for us in terms of enabling us to experience God's grace and releasing us from feelings of guilt. It's not that you believe the formal act of Confession is something all Christians must do or else risk damnation or some other consequence?
-------------------- My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Indifferently: If someone confessed to being a thief and later put himself forward to be the parish treasurer, it is a sin for the priest to even prejudice his decision based on what he heard in confession.
Do priests ever forget what they've heard in the confessional? Do they have to make notes? I was thinking that forgetting would be a good thing, because what you don't remember can't influence you in any way. But forgetting might be a bad thing if you only half-forget, if you think someone's confessed to one sin, but in fact they've confessed to something else. How can you will yourself not to be 'prejudiced' by a confessed sin if you can't quite remember what you heard in the confessional and what you heard, say, on a social visit?
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Indifferently
Shipmate
# 17517
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by SvitlanaV2: quote: Originally posted by Indifferently: If someone confessed to being a thief and later put himself forward to be the parish treasurer, it is a sin for the priest to even prejudice his decision based on what he heard in confession.
Do priests ever forget what they've heard in the confessional? Do they have to make notes? I was thinking that forgetting would be a good thing, because what you don't remember can't influence you in any way. But forgetting might be a bad thing if you only half-forget, if you think someone's confessed to one sin, but in fact they've confessed to something else. How can you will yourself not to be 'prejudiced' by a confessed sin if you can't quite remember what you heard in the confessional and what you heard, say, on a social visit?
Many priests believe that God gives them grace to forget confessions they have heard. To my knowledge there are no instances where the seal has ever been broken.
Posts: 288 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Jan 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
I'm glad you've said that about receiving the grace to forget. It makes the work seem more bearable.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Indifferently
Shipmate
# 17517
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by South Coast Kevin: Okay, thanks again, The Man with a Stick. I shall consider myself educated! quote: Originally posted by Indifferently: No. Confession is not compulsory. Man is justified by God's unmediated grace. The Homily on Justification tells us the Church doctrine on this perfectly well.
What is the 'Homily on Justification', please? And by 'Church', I presume you mean your church, which is the C of E, yes? quote: Originally posted by Indifferently: The Church of England does not hold to Roman Catholic unscriptural legalism with respect to Confession. I'm not sure how you deduced that from anything I had said.
Sorry, my bad. So, for Anglicans, the point of Confession is that it's helpful for us in terms of enabling us to experience God's grace and releasing us from feelings of guilt. It's not that you believe the formal act of Confession is something all Christians must do or else risk damnation or some other consequence?
Hi there.
The Homily on Justification can be found here: http://www.anglicanlibrary.org/homilies/bk1hom03.htm
Posts: 288 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Jan 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
 Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Indifferently: No. If someone confessed to being a thief and later put himself forward to be the parish treasurer, it is a sin for the priest to even prejudice his decision based on what he heard in confession.
The secrets of all hearts are open to God. There is no way of getting round the seal of the Confessional.
It is simply plain idiocy for a priest not to discuss with the person who wants to be treasurer about their application and how the priest is not in support of it. This can all take place within the confessional. It has nothing whatsoever to do with violating the confessional. It has to do with good, decent and proper priest behaviour. Untrained priests or those not fitted to be might not be with it enough to understand their extended responsibility.
-------------------- Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety. \_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
South Coast Kevin
To save you following it up, that Homily is the third in the first Book of Homilies. Most of those are believed to have been written by Cranmer. Book 1 was first published in 1547. [ 12. June 2013, 07:09: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
-------------------- Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by no prophet: quote: Originally posted by Indifferently: No. If someone confessed to being a thief and later put himself forward to be the parish treasurer, it is a sin for the priest to even prejudice his decision based on what he heard in confession.
The secrets of all hearts are open to God. There is no way of getting round the seal of the Confessional.
It is simply plain idiocy for a priest not to discuss with the person who wants to be treasurer about their application and how the priest is not in support of it. This can all take place within the confessional. It has nothing whatsoever to do with violating the confessional. It has to do with good, decent and proper priest behaviour. Untrained priests or those not fitted to be might not be with it enough to understand their extended responsibility.
That is true, but it also brings into the picture the prior understanding of the person making the confession. The Confessional may be misused by that person. One reason may be to establish some form of mind control over the priest, an idea well explored in Jimmy McGovern's "Priest".
It is well known that "he who hath a secret to keep must keep it secret that he hath a secret". But he cannot in fact keep it a secret to himself. Nor should he try. We cannot will ourselves to forget.
But as anyone who has ever had to keep confidences knows, discretion is a mental discipline, sometimes requiring us to pretend effectively to be ignorant. The line between effective discretion and outright lying can be a very thin one.
-------------------- Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Indifferently: The Homily on Justification can be found here: http://www.anglicanlibrary.org/homilies/bk1hom03.htm
Thanks Indifferently and Barnabas62. By the way you mentioned it, I was thinking the Homily on Justification is some kind of almost scriptural text, perhaps part of the Apocrypha that I wasn't aware of. I wonder if you've assumed rather more knowledge than is really the case! (Certainly you did with me.)
-------------------- My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Indifferently
Shipmate
# 17517
|
Posted
One further point:
As to the question of whether the penitent thief should be prejudiced against, Christian principles would insist that he not be. Since the priest was satisfred that the penitent was of sufficient level of contrition to receive Absolution, and then absolved him, the sin must not only be forgiven but also forgotten. If you absolve someone only to hold his sin against him at a later date, he hasn't really been forgiven his sin at all. The priest is officiating in the Lord's stead, and Jesus's forgiveness is perfect.
"Remember not, Lord, our offences, nor the offences of our forefathers, neither take thou vengeance of our sins."
Ever wronged someone, and had them bring up a past wrong they said they had forgiven at the time? It's a very nasty thing for that person to do, and shows you that he or she never really forgave you at all. God is not like that.
Posts: 288 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Jan 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
seasick
 ...over the edge
# 48
|
Posted
Is there not also though an imperative to avoid the near occasions of sin? Surely if the penitent is someone who is more susceptible than others to being tempted by sums of money then the priest is wise to advise him/her that the job of parish treasurer is not the best place for him/her. That's not prejudice so much as helping him/her to "go and sin no more."
-------------------- We believe there is, and always was, in every Christian Church, ... an outward priesthood, ordained by Jesus Christ, and an outward sacrifice offered therein. - John Wesley
Posts: 5769 | From: A world of my own | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|