Posted on 11/15/2014 1:56:37 PM PST by NYer
VATICAN CITY — The secrecy of a confession is maintained so seriously and completely by the Catholic Church that a priest would be excommunicated for revealing the contents of a confession when ordered to testify by a court or even after the penitent dies, Vatican officials said.
“No confessor can be dispensed from it, even if he would want to reveal the contents of a confession in order to prevent a serious and imminent evil,” said Msgr. Krzysztof Nykiel, regent of the Apostolic Penitentiary, a Vatican court dealing with matters of conscience.
The penitentiary sponsored a conference at the Vatican Nov. 12-13 on “the confessional seal and pastoral privacy.”
According to the Vatican newspaper, L’Osservatore Romano, conference participants heard that since the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 spelled out the penalties in church law for violating the secret of the confessional, “the discipline of the church in this matter has remained substantially the same,” with the exception of additional protections.
One of those additions, the newspaper said, was a 1988 church law explicitly stating that using an “electronic apparatus” to record, broadcast or otherwise share the contents of a confession also is an excommunicable offense.
Cardinal Mauro Piacenza, head of the Apostolic Penitentiary, told conference participants it is important “to remove any suspicion” that the church’s commitment to the confessional seal “is designed to cover intrigues, plots or mysteries as people sometimes naively believe or, more easily, are led to believe.”
The seal, he said, is intended to protect the most intimate part of the human person, “that is, to safeguard the presence of God within each man.” The effect of the secret, he said, is that it also protects a person’s reputation and right to privacy.
The confessional seal, Msgr. Nykiel said, “is binding not only on the confessor, but also on the interpreter, if present, and anyone who in any way, even casually, comes to know of the sins confessed.”
The church, he said, takes the seal so seriously that it forbids, on the pain of excommunication, a priest from testifying in court about what he heard in the confessional, “even if the penitent requests” he testify.
Not even the death of the penitent can absolve the confessor from the obligation to maintain the secret, Msgr. Nykiel said.
Face to face confession is not mandated, it is purely optional. every parish I have gone to has the screen available. Personally I prefer face to face, especially if discussing a sensitive matter.
I know it is not mandated. But it was not an option pre-Vatican II.
A frequent line of mine: "Let me put my glasses on so I can hear you."
Yes, it does. The exception doesn’t apply to the ATTORNEY but to the person who may be an attorney acting in another, non-attorney capacity.
I didn't say that it did...But it is interesting that the Apostle John wrote a bunch of things and stated those things were written so that we may KNOW we have eternal life...And confession to priests was no where in sight...
And St. John wrote the verses that you are ignoring, in which Jesus gave the apostles and disciples the power to forgive—or to retain—sins.
I wouldn’t bother. Iscool will just tell you you are cherry picking Bible verses (if that’s not ironic).
I can’t seem to find when and how face-to-face started after VII. It’s not in the documents as far as I can tell, but exactly who started it then?
As if that's not what your religion does...
And yours doesn’t? LOL
The feeling of walking two feet off the ground is something that most non-Catholics will never get. Good description. God bless!
It's HARD to be a Catholic because of their high standards?
What standards? The ones the PRIESTS live up to when they molest children?
Please tell me that you're not saying that with a straight face.....
Then Catholics do not understand real confession to God.
And the priest can send you off with *penance*. A few prayers, a trip around the rosary and you're good to go.
God requires restitution.
I'd take *penance* any day over going face to face with someone I'd wronged, but that's what God would have us do. THAT'S humility.
There was a time when leaving a young one in the care of a priest wouldn’t have been thought twice about.
No longer.
All it takes is providing link to the source from which you are lifting textual copy. It really is that simple.
Meanwhile, that same argument you borrowed from elsewhere, which, along with piles of other Romish blather accumulated over the centuries, results in one being required to confess sins to a 'Catholic' priest primarily & only in order to realize/obtain forgiveness of their own sins -- from God Himself (where the forgiveness actually originates from!) --- is not nearly as sound as Roman Catholics seem to think.
Meanwhile, there is yet another large and gaping hole in the article itself, from the very title of the article itself.
The so-called seal is not absolute in regards to the penitent -- even by RCC canon law, yet there is no mention of that whatsoever in this article you brought, or much of anywhere else when such matters are discussed...
Meanwhile, in a recent case in Louisiana, the Roman Catholic Church, in the persons of Diocese representatives, did attempt to prohibit a witness from testifying in a court of law concerning what a priest allegedly told her in context of RC 'confessional'.
Rather than dig out all the official court document themselves (I did view them some months ago) from http://religiondispatches.org/the-lie-misrepresentation-in-louisiana-seal-of-confessional-case/ is a decent summary of what was being much overlooked -- namely -- the Baton Rouge Diocese's legal wranglings which for a time successfully muzzled the plaintiff from testifying concerning what she [allegedly] had been told [presumably in context of confessiona] -- until that 'muzzling' and case dismissal was overturned by the State of Louisiana Supreme Court;
"...According to Baton Rouge newspaper The Advocate (not to be confused with the LGBT publication of the same name), “The case involves a young girl who claims she was sexually abused by a now-deceased church parishioner but that her confession to a local priest fell on deaf ears.” (Even this brief summary is somewhat misleading, since the status of the girl’s conversation with the priest as “confession” is a central question.)---------------A lawsuit filed against the priest and the church several years ago was dismissed by the Louisiana First Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled that the priest was not required to report the abuse since his conversations with the girl all occurred during the sacrament of Confession. The state Supreme Court reversed that decision in May ruling that what did and did not take place during confession was a matter of fact that ought to be argued at trial.
So, despite the misrepresentations of the Church, newspapers and right wing bloggers, the court did not rule that the priest had to testify as to what he was told during confession.
It’s also worth noting that, with regard to the girl’s own testimony, the seal of Confession wouldn’t be broken as it doesn’t apply to the penitent, only to the priest. Yet, not only is the Diocese seeking to keep the priest from testifying at all, it filed a motion to bar anyone from mentioning what took place during confession.
So no, no one is actually attempting to compel the priest’s testimony—the attorney for the plaintiff confirmed that fact—and nobody is challenging the seal of Confession. The only question here is: can a religious body—one that, in this case, is a defendant in a lawsuit—make its own determination concerning the facts?
More detail, from the aforementioned Advocate July 16, 2014 [again, not to be confused with the 'gay-fag' publication of the same name]
"...The lawsuit also names as defendants the girl’s alleged perpetrator, George J. Charlet Jr., who died in February 2009 at the age of 65, and Charlet Funeral Home Inc. Charlet was president of the company.
Charlet was a well-known, longtime parishioner and active member of Our Lady of the Assumption Catholic Church in Clinton, where Bayhi was pastor, according to the Supreme Court opinion.
The suit alleges Charlet began emailing the girl in the summer of 2008, and that the emails quickly increased in frequency and became “laced with seductive nuances.” The suit contends Charlet ultimately kissed and fondled the child.
A phone message left Monday at the home of Charlet’s widow, Miriam Joy “Sue” Stelly Charlet, was not returned.
In George Charlet’s obituary, which was published in The Advocate, he shared a message that read in part, “I am alright with my God. He knows my heart. I bet my life on Him. I ain’t worried.”
The suit alleges the girl went to confession three times, telling Bayhi that Charlet had inappropriately touched her, kissed her and told her that “he wanted to make love to her.”
The priest allegedly told her she needed to handle the situation herself because “too many people would be hurt” otherwise, the suit says. He also allegedly told her, “This is your problem. Sweep it under the floor and get rid of it,” the suit alleges.
Charlet’s alleged abusive acts continued after the confessions, the suit adds.
The Supreme Court opinion says various parishioners observed the seemingly inappropriate closeness between Charlet and the girl.
The child’s parents filed a formal complaint against Charlet with the East Feliciana Parish Sheriff’s Office, but he died while the investigation was ongoing, the high court’s decision notes.
Shortly before the trial of the suit was set to begin, the church filed a motion seeking to prevent the plaintiffs from “mentioning, referencing, and/or introducing evidence at trial of any confessions that may or may not have taken place.”
Caldwell denied the motion. The state 1st Circuit Court of Appeal not only reversed the judge but also dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims against the priest and church in their entirety.
The Supreme Court reversed the appellate court and, in a concurring opinion, Justice Jeff Hughes emphasized that the issue of whether the communications were confessions must be addressed before the legalities can be resolved.
“I believe the integrity of the sacrament must be protected to the utmost, not only for the sake of the participants, but to protect the ability of individuals to freely confess their sins,” he wrote. “I see nothing that prevents the child from testifying about her own communications to the priest.” ..."
that's an asinine example of anything....priests are human and commit the same sins as everyone else....just not as often I hope. I do say that with a straight face because it is true, Catholics live up to a higher standard than do most others. Do all Catholics live up to every standard...of course not but that changes nothing. We have the seven sacraments instituted by Christ, the consecration of the nread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ.....you may not believe in things like that but your inability to accept reality changes nothing.
they are MUCH safer there than with a protestant clergyperson, public school teacher, scout leader, or day care worker...look it up
Source for “The Forgiveness of Sins?”
You’re free to do so. I wouldn’t.
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.