RSS
Home
Priest betrays vow, calls police on penitent
Print
Email
RSS
Subscribe
In what appears to be a shocking betrayal of the Sacred Seal of confession, a California priest called the police on a remorseful man who had confessed to robbing a bank and returned the $1200 stolen money to the church. Let's take a look at the official Church teaching on this matter:
-
2490 The secret of the sacrament of reconciliation is sacred, and cannot be violated under any pretext. "The sacramental seal is inviolable; therefore, 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."
- 1467 Given the delicacy and greatness of this ministry and the respect due to persons, the Church declares that every priest who hears confessions is bound under very severe penalties to keep absolute secrecy regarding the sins that his penitents have confessed to him. He can make no use of knowledge that confession gives him about penitents' lives.72 This secret, which admits of no exceptions, is called the "sacramental seal," because what the penitent has made known to the priest remains "sealed" by the sacrament.
MSNBC reported the story, 'Calif. robber confesses to priest, turns in cash' stating that police are looking for the man "and will arrest him when he's found". Another San Francisco paper reported that the bank, Patelco Credit Union in Walnut Creek, CA, will get the money back. [See 'Man confesses to priest, turns in cash from heist' ].
Why was the priest's first instinct to call the police on the man? Did the priest give a physical description of the man to police when they arrived? Did the police then take fingerprints of the confessional to possibly ID the confessor? In an age when pastors are being paid by homeland security to propagandize their congregations, [See Secret FEMA Plan To Use Pastors as Pacifiers in Preparation For Martial Law and Homeland Security Enlists Clergy to Quell Public Unrest if Martial Law Ever Declared ]. and the church itself is plagued and scandalized by rogue pervert priests molesting kids, usually pederasts targeting teenaged boys, is it too much to ask that the priests respect the rules and sacred vow of silence regarding what is told to them in the confessional?
This is a great shame and does nothing but undermine the parishoners, as well as the public's trust in what should be a solemn and sacred Sacrament. I do not know which church this happened at; there seem to be numerous Catholic churches near Walnut Creek, CA. However, Catholics should be alarmed at the uncouth actions of an ordained priest.
The Catholic confessional is a place where people share their innermost thoughts, most serious sins and shortcomings and gain forgiveness for their sins. They should never feel any doubt about the secret nature of this interaction. The priesthood is not a law enforcement position. They should focus on higher things, and not get bogged down involved as being an untrustworthy police state enforcer. This is a shame all around and I will address a question regarding this to the Catholic Archdiocese in San Francisco. As an aside, those who wonder "why do Catholics confess their sins to a priest anyway?"? can read the answer here:
- Christ instituted sacramental confession when he breathed on the Apostles and said, "As the Father has sent me, so I send you. Receive the Holy Spirit. Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, whose sins you retain are retained"? (John 20: 21-23).
RELATED:
THE SACRAMENTAL SEAL
17. What a penitent shares with a priest during the Sacrament of Confession is sacred and cannot be revealed to anyone else for any reason whatsoever. What is said during the "Sacrament" of Confession is "sealed" forever, never to be repeated. The Church proclaims that every priest who hear confessions is bound under very severe penalties to keep absolute secrecy regarding the sins that his penitents have confessed to him. He cannot use this information to his advantage. It is a crime for a priest in any way to betray a penitent by word or in any other manner or for any reason. (C.C.C. # 1467, 2490)
Seal of confession
Regarding the sins revealed to him in sacramental confession, the priest is bound to inviolable secrecy. From this obligation he cannot be excused either to save his own life or good name, to save the life of another, to further the ends of human justice, or to avert any public calamity. No law can compel him to divulge the sins confessed to him, or any oath which he takes -- e.g., as a witness in court. He cannot reveal them either directly -- i.e., by repeating them in so many words -- or indirectly -- i.e., by any sign or action, or by giving information based on what he knows through confession. The only possible release from the obligation of secrecy is the permission to speak of the sins given freely and formally by the penitent himself. Without such permission, the violation of the seal of confession would not only be a grievous sin, but also a sacrilege. It would be contrary to the natural law because it would be an abuse of the penitent's confidence and an injury, very serious perhaps, to his reputation. It would also violate the Divine law, which, while imposing the obligation to confess, likewise forbids the revelation of that which is confessed. That it would infringe ecclesiastical law is evident from the strict prohibition and the severe penalties enacted in this matter by the Church. "Let him beware of betraying the sinner by word or sign or in any other way whatsoever. . . we decree that he who dares to reveal a sin made known to him in the tribunal of penance shall not only be deposed from the priestly office, but shall moreover be subjected to close confinement in a monastery and the performance of perpetual penance" (Fourth Lateran Council, cap. xxi; Denzinger, "Enchir.", 438). Furthermore, by a decree of the Holy Office (18 Nov., 1682), confessors are forbidden, even where there would be no revelation direct or indirect, to make any use of the knowledge obtained in confession that would displease the penitent, even though the non-use would occasion him greater displeasure.
Related Articles:
Add a Comment
