Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: RomanCatholic1953 on July 04, 2018, 11:33:29 AM
-
Seal of Confession Broken by Catholic Priests
From the Voice of Bombay Laity, India
https://mumbailaity.wordpress.com/2018/07/
-
Don't need to go all the way to India for that.
.
It happened to me, here in the USA, more than once.
-
Article says " Malankara Orthodox Church" - not Catholic.
-
Don't need to go all the way to India for that.
.
It happened to me, here in the USA, more than once.
Horrible!
I am so sorry that happened to you, it is a miracle you found out what he did.
How many more souls is this happening to and they don’t ever find out?
I personally had an issue with my priest years ago at my SSPX chapel who would bring his cellphone with him in the confessional and while I was confessing my sins I could see his smartphone screen lit up until I was finished and then he would turn it off.
I was mortified of course because I know that smartphones have the capability to listen and/or record. And why would he even have it on during my confession in the first place?
I didn’t have the courage to confront him in person or even ask him in confession, but I did voice my concerns to the chapel coordinator and he said he’d speak to him. The Priest was transferred soon after but I don’t know if that had anything to do with it.
It was rumored that a listening device was found in the confessional at the Ky chapel. I don’t know if it was true but I wouldn’t be surprised.
-
Horrible!
I am so sorry that happened to you, it is a miracle you found out what he did.
How many more souls is this happening to and they don’t ever find out?
It was rumored that a listening device was found in the confessional at the Ky chapel. I don’t know if it was true but I wouldn’t be surprised.
probably a lot.
.
Listening device rumored here, too, in sspx chapels.
.
I noticed, once, at our fraternity of St. Peter chapel, which we haven't attended since being profiled, that women were kneeling near the confessionals, leaning to hear what was being said. I also once saw a woman (who wrote a book on modesty that most families own) standing next to the open window of the confessional (on the priests side). I yelled at her and she left. I hope the priest heard me.
.
-
probably a lot.
.
Listening device rumored here, too, in sspx chapels.
.
I noticed, once, at our fraternity of St. Peter chapel, which we haven't attended since being profiled, that women were kneeling near the confessionals, leaning to hear what was being said. I also once saw a woman (who wrote a book on modesty that most families own) standing next to the open window of the confessional (on the priests side). I yelled at her and she left. I hope the priest heard me.
.
There was a woman in my old SSPX chapel who would sit in the back pew right near the confessional door. Several times various people asked the priest to speak with her about it. One priest spoke from the pulpit that nobody should use the five rear pews when the confessional was in use unless it was while Mass was going on. If I saw her there, then I didn't go to confession.
I cannot say I ever had a priest violate the seal of confession with me. Then again, I don't think anyone would find my sins of interest.
-
That is scary. And how many other were women were sɛҳuąƖly abused in India. And to use Confession to prey on victims is really evil.
For any priest to abuse the Seal of Confession is a mortal sin.
And a woman to listen to other people's confession is evil too.
And to record people's private conversations is sinful too.
-
That is scary. And how many other were women were sɛҳuąƖly abused in India. And to use Confession to prey on victims is really evil.
For any priest to abuse the Seal of Confession is a mortal sin.
And a woman to listen to other people's confession is evil too.
And to record people's private conversations is sinful too.
If a priest abuses the sin of the confessional only the pope can absolve them, one of the worst sins that will put you in the bottom of the lake of fire.
-
If a priest abuses the sin of the confessional only the pope can absolve them, one of the worst sins that will put you in the bottom of the lake of fire.
You are right. Sacrilege. And from a priest? Wouldnt want to be in his shoes...
-
That is scary.
For any priest to abuse the Seal of Confession is a mortal sin.
And a woman to listen to other people's confession is evil too.
And to record people's private conversations is sinful too.
It's not scary, VCR, breaking the confessional seal is a sacrilege. Priests have died rather than commit that sin. That tells you how bad it is.
.
Laity listening to others confessions or recording confessions could be sacrilege, too. If not, they are certainly serious mortal sins...
-
That is scary. And how many other were women were sɛҳuąƖly abused in India. And to use Confession to prey on victims is really evil.
For any priest to abuse the Seal of Confession is a mortal sin.
And a woman to listen to other people's confession is evil too.
And to record people's private conversations is sinful too.
It's the sacrilege of sacrileges. It's not just scary.
-
Let's begin with waiting behavior.
Our confessionals must be virtually soundproof because I have never heard anything when standing outside them, and that means fairly close to the priest's side (not the penitent's). It's just the way the line works because otherwise we would be blocking a narrow aisle.
That said, as a matter of form, I find it extremely rude to stand or kneel unnecessarily close to the door, merely because it looks to be very inappropriate, to say the least, and it certainly is not necessary. That said (again), how does anybody know that such behavior is for the express purpose of listening to other people's sins? Most of us generally recoil at the prospect of hearing someone's sins; we don't want to, and in fact we are told not only not to repeat what we said in confession, but also not to repeat what our confessor said. Is it possible that the bad manners of others are related to ignorance and not to morbid curiosity?
As to The Seal, that would be shocking, given the penalty to the priest (automatic excommunication); pretty high risk stuff on his part, and certain a grave injustice to the penitent. But without disclosing private details, can anyone give the general circuмstances -- such as whether the sins mentioned were mentioned to the penitent? If they were mentioned to a third party, how was the penitent made aware of such a breaking of the Seal? (Again, if it's possible to explain without revealing anything uncomfortable regarding identities, etc.)
-
Let's begin with waiting behavior.
Our confessionals must be virtually soundproof because I have never heard anything when standing outside them, and that means fairly close to the priest's side (not the penitent's). It's just the way the line works because otherwise we would be blocking a narrow aisle.
That said, as a matter of form, I find it extremely rude to stand or kneel unnecessarily close to the door, merely because it looks to be very inappropriate, to say the least, and it certainly is not necessary. That said (again), how does anybody know that such behavior is for the express purpose of listening to other people's sins? Most of us generally recoil at the prospect of hearing someone's sins; we don't want to, and in fact we are told not only not to repeat what we said in confession, but also not to repeat what our confessor said. Is it possible that the bad manners of others are related to ignorance and not to morbid curiosity?
As to The Seal, that would be shocking, given the penalty to the priest (automatic excommunication); pretty high risk stuff on his part, and certain a grave injustice to the penitent. But without disclosing private details, can anyone give the general circuмstances -- such as whether the sins mentioned were mentioned to the penitent? If they were mentioned to a third party, how was the penitent made aware of such a breaking of the Seal? (Again, if it's possible to explain without revealing anything uncomfortable regarding identities, etc.)
I can't imagine WANTING to listen to the sins of others, but I assure you I am not mistaken. The woman by the open window of the confessional and the woman leaning so she could hear better (a fan was later put outside that confessional to make is harder to hear others).
.
As to how I found out the confessional seal was broken, a friend who I went i church with told me what our priest said to her about me. It was exactly what I had told him in confession the previous day. I had never told another living soul.
-
I can't imagine WANTING to listen to the sins of others, but I assure you I am not mistaken. The woman by the open window of the confessional and the woman leaning so she could hear better (a fan was later put outside that confessional to make is harder to hear others).
.
As to how I found out the confessional seal was broken, a friend who I went i church with told me what our priest said to her about me. It was exactly what I had told him in confession the previous day. I had never told another living soul.
The friend could have misunderstood what the priest said, possibly? She, or you, misinterpreted what he said? Also, most priests (a) forget quickly what is said in the confessional, since they hear so many confessions, (b) are actually not all that interested in remembering the sins they hear, let alone repeating them to others (because of the severe punishment). I mention that because you said,
"It was exactly what I had told him in confession the previous day." [bolding mine]
Given how quickly priests forget, it would be extraordinary to remember a verbatim confession, and to care enough about remembering it to share it with a third party, and then third to risk his own excommunication.
Keep in mind that priests hear repeated patterns of sins-- from many parishioners -- in the course of even a single month. Some sins are so common that they could be "lifted" from any random person's confession without the priest intending to identify anyone -- that's how common they are. And he is covered, canonically, for doing that, by the way -- IOW, for saying things like, "Anger is the most frequently repeated sin in my confessional." Priests are allowed to speak vaguely of generic sins confessed without identifying a particular confession moment or a particular penitent.
So be careful of repeating things you heard from a third party -- about anyone, but certainly about this matter, because of the severe consequences to the priest and to his reputation. I'm not saying that I "know" that it didn't happen, but I am saying that it is unlikely that a priest would recklessly mention your specific confession to a third party, and there is a great risk here of calumny or detraction.
-
It's the sacrilege of sacrileges. It's not just scary.
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.
§2. The interpreter, if there is one, and all others who in any way have knowledge of sins from confession are also obliged to observe secrecy.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P3G.HTM
Those individuals who are near the confessional even if by accident are obliged to observe the same secrecy as the priest.
-
From the Code of Canon Law;
Can. 1388 §1. A confessor who directly violates the sacramental seal incurs a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See; one who does so only indirectly is to be punished according to the gravity of the delict.
§2. An interpreter and the others mentioned in ⇒ (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_P3G.HTM#4.1.0.4.2.0.983) can. 983, §2 who violate the secret are to be punished with a just penalty, not excluding excommunication.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P54.HTM
-
The friend could have misunderstood what the priest said, possibly? She, or you, misinterpreted what he said? Also, most priests (a) forget quickly what is said in the confessional, since they hear so many confessions, (b) are actually not all that interested in remembering the sins they hear, let alone repeating them to others (because of the severe punishment). I mention that because you said,
"It was exactly what I had told him in confession the previous day." [bolding mine]
Given how quickly priests forget, it would be extraordinary to remember a verbatim confession, and to care enough about remembering it to share it with a third party, and then third to risk his own excommunication.
Keep in mind that priests hear repeated patterns of sins-- from many parishioners -- in the course of even a single month. Some sins are so common that they could be "lifted" from any random person's confession without the priest intending to identify anyone -- that's how common they are. And he is covered, canonically, for doing that, by the way -- IOW, for saying things like, "Anger is the most frequently repeated sin in my confessional." Priests are allowed to speak vaguely of generic sins confessed without identifying a particular confession moment or a particular penitent.
So be careful of repeating things you heard from a third party -- about anyone, but certainly about this matter, because of the severe consequences to the priest and to his reputation. I'm not saying that I "know" that it didn't happen, but I am saying that it is unlikely that a priest would recklessly mention your specific confession to a third party, and there is a great risk here of calumny or detraction.
I know of what you speak. There is no mistake, I can assure you. This particular priest absolutely, without a doubt in either my mind or my friends mind, broke the confessional seal. I pray for him often.
-
From the Code of Canon Law;
Can. 1388 §1. A confessor who directly violates the sacramental seal incurs a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See; one who does so only indirectly is to be punished according to the gravity of the delict.
§2. An interpreter and the others mentioned in ⇒ (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_P3G.HTM#4.1.0.4.2.0.983) can. 983, §2 who violate the secret are to be punished with a just penalty, not excluding excommunication.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P54.HTM
I seem to recall the sentence was automatic in the 1917 code. No matter... God will sort it out.
-
I have never personally had the seal of confession broken with me, but the priest we use to see would always make comments to everyone “oh I truly know this person, because I hear their confessions!” And give like this almost making fun of the person laugh. It felt like whatever you said in confession was stored in his head to be kept for later. It was scarey going to confession after a while.
I honestly can’t imagine why people want to know anyone else’s confessions... I don’t even want to know my husbands confession because it’s all I can do to keep myself out of trouble lol I can only think that they do it to make themselves feel better about their sins, but not realizing they are committing a sin by doing that.
-
I have never personally had the seal of confession broken with me, but the priest we use to see would always make comments to everyone “oh I truly know this person, because I hear their confessions!” And give like this almost making fun of the person laugh. It felt like whatever you said in confession was stored in his head to be kept for later. It was scarey going to confession after a while.
That is a terrible priest.
-
...the priest we use to see would always make comments to everyone “oh I truly know this person, because I hear their confessions!” And give like this almost making fun of the person laugh. It felt like whatever you said in confession was stored in his head to be kept for later. It was scarey going to confession after a while.
For a while?
I would not go to confession with that priests anymore.
-
For a while?
I would not go to confession with that priests anymore.
I don't think I would go to his mass, either. Intent would come into question.
-
I know of what you speak. There is no mistake, I can assure you. This particular priest absolutely, without a doubt in either my mind or my friends mind, broke the confessional seal. I pray for him often.
You do not "absolutely without a doubt" know unless you confront the priest, preferably with your friend as witness, to ask him to verify that he did or did not reveal a particular sin that you told to him within the sacrament only (without not also mentioning it outside of the sacrament during direction, a private meeting, etc.). He will ask what you are talking about. You will repeat what your belief is, based on this third party's version of what he said. He will then ask the friend to recount the conversation between him and her, such as, 'You, Father, discussed TxTrad's sin that she confessed just a few days ago,' and precisely as she confessed it. You [brought it up out of the blue]" -- difficult to believe, by the way; priests have better things to do -- or "[you, Father, responded to a question of mine about sin in general, and you chose to insert into our conversation a particular sin a penitent, my friend, had just revealed to you in the holy sacrament of Confession.]"
Etc. There are obviously other scenarios, but none of them are believable to me, because they all assume far too much, to wit....
The confessor has a morbid interest in your personal sins, outside of the confessional, and is willing to risk his position and his standing with the Church, just to satisfy his morbid interest.
In turn, that would mean that he has an intense, spiteful, or vengeful dislike of you for some personal reason such as some "bad blood" between you and him. But it would have to be pretty extreme for him to risk so much just to indulge a capital sin of Anger, Envy, etc. There are a lot of jerky priests within the Church, although they are a minority, but very few of the worst jerks would jeopardize their position unless they were already on the way out, by their own choice or someone else's. And he knows darn well he will have to answer to a very justly angry Second Person of the Trinity for indulging a vice at the expense of his own soul and in violation of a sacred trust. I don't care what trad or N.O. seminary he graduated from; he knows it.
Alternately, the priest thinks so highly of your friend that he figured he could "score some points" with her by revealing a sacredly privileged secret. If so, either she is someone very important in the parish -- so much so that he found it useful to ingratiate himself to her by going so far as to risk his soul and his position, or he has a personal stake in his relationship with her. Men are more prone to sudden heart attacks than women are, and often those first heart attacks are final heart attacks. He would have to think very highly of your friend to make such a foolish error, particularly because he would also know/assume that she would repeat it to you -- assuming he knows you two are friends.
Less far-fetched (slightly, but only slightly more believable) would be if he repeated your sin to another priest. That would be less risky to him because he knows that other priests know what canon law binds them to, as well as what it bound your confessor to. Therefore, unlike your friend, any priest hearing your sin outside of a confessional would not be so foolish as to repeat the sin that was revealed. Your friend seriously compounded the problem by either misunderstanding a general comment to equal a specific revelation, or she participated in the same hypothetical evil he committed by then detracting against him. Detraction is a mortal sin. If she were so convinced that what the priest said was an actual unlocking of a secret confession, she should never have told you. She should have brought the situation to her own confessor to ask for advice on how to handle it. If I were she -- your friend -- and I was absolutely convinced that this was a deliberate breaking of the Seal on the priest's part, I would not have gone to you, but I might have gone to my bishop if a (obviously different) confessor did not satisfy my sense of Catholic morality.
At the very least, she participated in backbiting, which is a specific sin, and in this case a very serious level of backbiting. Possibly she participated in calumny or detraction. And if she misunderstood what he said, she threw you into a great deal of anguish about this, anguish of soul, anguish of heart and mind -- threatening not only your relationship with this priest, but possibly your confidence in approaching the sacrament, period.
-
A response to what somebody reported another priest said ("I hear X person's confessions."):
Such a remark is ALSO a violation of Canon law, but again, even this is all third-party stuff and unverifiable from a distance. The rule of secrecy extends to a priest revealing whether he is the confessor of any particular person. So again, either we have a bunch of priests who deliberately and casually violate canon law on a regular basis, or we have rumor and gossip.
-
You do not "absolutely without a doubt" know unless you confront the priest, preferably with your friend as witness, to ask him to verify that he did or did not reveal a particular sin that you told to him within the sacrament only (without not also mentioning it outside of the sacrament during direction, a private meeting, etc.). He will ask what you are talking about. You will repeat what your belief is, based on this third party's version of what he said. He will then ask the friend to recount the conversation between him and her, such as, 'You, Father, discussed TxTrad's sin that she confessed just a few days ago,' and precisely as she confessed it. You [brought it up out of the blue]" -- difficult to believe, by the way; priests have better things to do -- or "[you, Father, responded to a question of mine about sin in general, and you chose to insert into our conversation a particular sin a penitent, my friend, had just revealed to you in the holy sacrament of Confession.]"
Etc. There are obviously other scenarios, but none of them are believable to me, because they all assume far too much, to wit....
The confessor has a morbid interest in your personal sins, outside of the confessional, and is willing to risk his position and his standing with the Church, just to satisfy his morbid interest.
In turn, that would mean that he has an intense, spiteful, or vengeful dislike of you for some personal reason such as some "bad blood" between you and him. But it would have to be pretty extreme for him to risk so much just to indulge a capital sin of Anger, Envy, etc. There are a lot of jerky priests within the Church, although they are a minority, but very few of the worst jerks would jeopardize their position unless they were already on the way out, by their own choice or someone else's. And he knows darn well he will have to answer to a very justly angry Second Person of the Trinity for indulging a vice at the expense of his own soul and in violation of a sacred trust. I don't care what trad or N.O. seminary he graduated from; he knows it.
Alternately, the priest thinks so highly of your friend that he figured he could "score some points" with her by revealing a sacredly privileged secret. If so, either she is someone very important in the parish -- so much so that he found it useful to ingratiate himself to her by going so far as to risk his soul and his position, or he has a personal stake in his relationship with her. Men are more prone to sudden heart attacks than women are, and often those first heart attacks are final heart attacks. He would have to think very highly of your friend to make such a foolish error, particularly because he would also know/assume that she would repeat it to you -- assuming he knows you two are friends.
Less far-fetched (slightly, but only slightly more believable) would be if he repeated your sin to another priest. That would be less risky to him because he knows that other priests know what canon law binds them to, as well as what it bound your confessor to. Therefore, unlike your friend, any priest hearing your sin outside of a confessional would not be so foolish as to repeat the sin that was revealed. Your friend seriously compounded the problem by either misunderstanding a general comment to equal a specific revelation, or she participated in the same hypothetical evil he committed by then detracting against him. Detraction is a mortal sin. If she were so convinced that what the priest said was an actual unlocking of a secret confession, she should never have told you. She should have brought the situation to her own confessor to ask for advice on how to handle it. If I were she -- your friend -- and I was absolutely convinced that this was a deliberate breaking of the Seal on the priest's part, I would not have gone to you, but I might have gone to my bishop if a (obviously different) confessor did not satisfy my sense of Catholic morality.
At the very least, she participated in backbiting, which is a specific sin, and in this case a very serious level of backbiting. Possibly she participated in calumny or detraction. And if she misunderstood what he said, she threw you into a great deal of anguish about this, anguish of soul, anguish of heart and mind -- threatening not only your relationship with this priest, but possibly your confidence in approaching the sacrament, period.
You make a lot of assumptions and extrapolate many conclusions based on very little information I provided. You were not there. You have no idea what you are talking about. If anyone is causing calumny or detraction it is you.
.
I know for a fact, beyond a shadow of doubt, he broke the seal of confession. I will not discuss it further.
-
Yes, you should not discuss it further because it will not bring you peace or even intellectual closure to expand the conversation beyond what is already unverifiable "fact."
Let me just say, TxTrad, I am not trying to minimize your turmoil about this. I can understand why you are in turmoil, but your friend did you no favors, as it was her responsibility to keep this private and instead to go to another priest (more trustworthy, if she questioned the trustworthiness of this priest). If she had discussed this in her own confession, with a different priest whom she knew or sensed would not discuss her confession outside of that sacramental event, and/or if she had brought such a serious accusation to the priest's bishop, she would have done nothing wrong and would not have put you in a position of potentially rashly judging this priest. The best way to have done this would be to have gone to a parish outside of that diocese for the confession per se, but the "bad priest's" own bishop if the first step did not satisfy my need for closure.
Now, if I were she and had such a concern to protect you from a supposedly bad priest who casually commits sacrilege and risks excommunication for a mere lay woman, what I would do is this: I would urge you never to confess to this priest again because she had concerns about how he keeps confidences, given some private matters he revealed to her. And I would not have gotten more specific than that. We are preserved from the mortal sin of detraction if we have a just reason to reveal a grave fault of another. Yet, just in case I was wrong about what the priest said, this limited information I gave you would have protected his reputation because I did not actually accuse him of Breaking the Seal, a far greater violation than being untrustworthy/indiscreet in general.
I seem to be arguing with you, I understand, and I'm sure that frustrates you, but I am actually very much in sympathy with you and I share your upset. Confession is so important to me; I'm sure it is equally important to you, and without this sacrament, and the freedom to visit it as often as our urgency dictates, our souls are in danger.
I'll remember you and this priest in Mass this evening and have already offered your intention.
:pray:
-
I don't think I would go to his mass, either. Intent would come into question.
We haven’t been in almost two years...
-
Yes, you should not discuss it further because it will not bring you peace or even intellectual closure to expand the conversation beyond what is already unverifiable "fact."
Let me just say, TxTrad, I am not trying to minimize your turmoil about this. I can understand why you are in turmoil, but your friend did you no favors, as it was her responsibility to keep this private and instead to go to another priest (more trustworthy, if she questioned the trustworthiness of this priest). If she had discussed this in her own confession, with a different priest whom she knew or sensed would not discuss her confession outside of that sacramental event, and/or if she had brought such a serious accusation to the priest's bishop, she would have done nothing wrong and would not have put you in a position of potentially rashly judging this priest. The best way to have done this would be to have gone to a parish outside of that diocese for the confession per se, but the "bad priest's" own bishop if the first step did not satisfy my need for closure.
Now, if I were she and had such a concern to protect you from a supposedly bad priest who casually commits sacrilege and risks excommunication for a mere lay woman, what I would do is this: I would urge you never to confess to this priest again because she had concerns about how he keeps confidences, given some private matters he revealed to her. And I would not have gotten more specific than that. We are preserved from the mortal sin of detraction if we have a just reason to reveal a grave fault of another. Yet, just in case I was wrong about what the priest said, this limited information I gave you would have protected his reputation because I did not actually accuse him of Breaking the Seal, a far greater violation than being untrustworthy/indiscreet in general.
I seem to be arguing with you, I understand, and I'm sure that frustrates you, but I am actually very much in sympathy with you and I share your upset. Confession is so important to me; I'm sure it is equally important to you, and without this sacrament, and the freedom to visit it as often as our urgency dictates, our souls are in danger.
I'll remember you and this priest in Mass this evening and have already offered your intention.
:pray:
.
Once again, I will repeat, there is no question this priest violated confessional seal.
.
How can you possibly say "I would have done this or that"? You weren't there. You don't have all the data. You are making rash assumptions and judgements based on incomplete information.
.
You remind me of the women at my old sspx chapel who seemed to know better what everyone should or should not be doing based on very little data.
.
I pity you.
-
I seem to recall the sentence was automatic in the 1917 code. No matter... God will sort it out.
Latae Sententiae means that the excommunication is automatic.
-
.
Once again, I will repeat, there is no question this priest violated confessional seal.
.
How can you possibly say "I would have done this or that"? You weren't there. You don't have all the data. You are making rash assumptions and judgements based on incomplete information.
.
You remind me of the women at my old sspx chapel who seemed to know better what everyone should or should not be doing based on very little data.
.
I pity you.
There is always a question if one has not witnessed an event, a conversation, oneself. I am not the one with "very little data." You may have a fair amount of data, but your data is still second-hand. Therefore, you may be right, or you may be wrong. I do not have an opinion about what happened because I wasn't there. Therefore, I am unlike however you falsely imagine I am like some woman or women at "your old sspx chapel." I am simply not going to contribute to calumny or detraction or mere backbiting, and the same would happen to me in my own parish. I refuse to condemn my priest for something reported to me by someone else. When I am concerned about something he has said to me or to someone else, I have approached him respectfully about it for clarification, even when what he said troubled me or made me nervous to talk about. He is God's appointed minister. Priests can be wrong, they can obviously err and obviously sin. But, like all of us sinners and flawed people, they deserve to retain their good name until it can be verified that they do not deserve such a good name.
In good faith, I prayed for you this evening at Mass, as I promised. I appealed to the Sacred Heart on your account. I'm sorry that you don't want my prayers and that your response to my offer is to "pity" me.
-
And of course it is completely rational and prudent to avoid the priest until (if ever) you discover the answer. I would, too, out of an abundance of caution. And I would pray an awful lot about it. But what troubles me about anyone experiencing any range of doubt about a confessor -- and especially if one assumes a report or rumor to be true, correctly or incorrectly -- is that it potentially jeopardizes one's relationship with any confessor.
We Catholics are supposed to be able to trust that our sins are held in confidence, so I would be more concerned about resolving this one particular incident for my peace of mind. The human mind being what it is, it would be very natural to unconsciously carry that lack of trust into one or many other confessionals, of various priests. How unfortunate that would be for anyone's peace of mind and soul. We should sense a freedom to disclose everything, because the Devil makes it hard enough as it is -- always tempting us to hold back.
So I would nevertheless look for a priest I can trust --someone I feel quite comfortable with outside of the confessional -- and of him I would ask spiritual advice to deal with a feeling of betrayal. A good priest will guide any sincere seeker carefully about such a sensitive issue.
-
Seal of Confession Broken by Catholic Priests
From the Voice of Bombay Laity, India
https://mumbailaity.wordpress.com/2018/07/
These were not Catholic priests.
-
There is always a question if one has not witnessed an event, a conversation, oneself. I am not the one with "very little data." You may have a fair amount of data, but your data is still second-hand. Therefore, you may be right, or you may be wrong. I do not have an opinion about what happened because I wasn't there. Therefore, I am unlike however you falsely imagine I am like some woman or women at "your old sspx chapel." I am simply not going to contribute to calumny or detraction or mere backbiting, and the same would happen to me in my own parish. I refuse to condemn my priest for something reported to me by someone else. When I am concerned about something he has said to me or to someone else, I have approached him respectfully about it for clarification, even when what he said troubled me or made me nervous to talk about. He is God's appointed minister. Priests can be wrong, they can obviously err and obviously sin. But, like all of us sinners and flawed people, they deserve to retain their good name until it can be verified that they do not deserve such a good name.
In good faith, I prayed for you this evening at Mass, as I promised. I appealed to the Sacred Heart on your account. I'm sorry that you don't want my prayers and that your response to my offer is to "pity" me.
there is no question this priest violated confessional seal.
-
And of course it is completely rational and prudent to avoid the priest until (if ever) you discover the answer. I would, too, out of an abundance of caution. And I would pray an awful lot about it. But what troubles me about anyone experiencing any range of doubt about a confessor -- and especially if one assumes a report or rumor to be true, correctly or incorrectly -- is that it potentially jeopardizes one's relationship with any confessor.
We Catholics are supposed to be able to trust that our sins are held in confidence, so I would be more concerned about resolving this one particular incident for my peace of mind. The human mind being what it is, it would be very natural to unconsciously carry that lack of trust into one or many other confessionals, of various priests. How unfortunate that would be for anyone's peace of mind and soul. We should sense a freedom to disclose everything, because the Devil makes it hard enough as it is -- always tempting us to hold back.
So I would nevertheless look for a priest I can trust --someone I feel quite comfortable with outside of the confessional -- and of him I would ask spiritual advice to deal with a feeling of betrayal. A good priest will guide any sincere seeker carefully about such a sensitive issue.
It is unfortunate, but there is no question this priest violated confessional seal.
.
if you had all the data, you would agree.
.
I suggest you pray for this priest rather than wasting your time attempting to extrapolate, guess, draw conclusions and make recommendations.
.
-
It is unfortunate, but there is no question this priest violated confessional seal.
.
if you had all the data, you would agree.
.
I suggest you pray for this priest rather than wasting your time attempting to extrapolate, guess, draw conclusions and make recommendations.
.
These were not Catholic priests.
-
It is unfortunate, but there is no question this priest violated confessional seal.
.
if you had all the data, you would agree.
.
I suggest you pray for this priest rather than wasting your time attempting to extrapolate, guess, draw conclusions and make recommendations.
.
Neither you nor I have "all the data." We both have a hearsay report.
As to prayer, whenever we have been wronged by anyone --or perceive we have been wronged by someone, or assume we have been wronged -- the appropriate action is for the supposedly wronged person (you, in this case, not I) to do reparation for the assumed guilty party. This is not something coming from me, but what my trad priest recently told me, and I had forgotten about that with regard to priests especially, although I learned it long ago. (I had told him something that a priest once did long ago, directly to me, in my presence -- not a hearsay accusation when the priest could not defend himself.) My current priest correctly enjoined me to do reparation for that other priest because I was the wronged party, and there would be (thus) graces attached to my prayers of reparation more than those offered by strangers.
I did, however, pray for your priest at Mass. I'm sure my prayers are not as efficacious as yours, and I'm glad you are also praying for him.
-
Neither you nor I have "all the data." We both have a hearsay report.
.
Once again, you are wrong.
.
I have all the data. You don't, yet you insist on making assumptions, extrapolating and giving advice based on your imaginations which are flat out wrong. I choose not to give you all the data because you don't need to know. I assure you, all has been verified and the priest broke the confessional seal.
.
My only intent in posting was to show that breaking of the confessional seal happens in the USA, too.
-
....
.
Listening device rumored here, too, in sspx chapels.
.
I noticed, once, at our fraternity of St. Peter chapel, which we haven't attended since being profiled, that women were kneeling near the confessionals, leaning to hear what was being said. I also once saw a woman (who wrote a book on modesty that most families own) standing next to the open window of the confessional (on the priests side). I yelled at her and she left. I hope the priest heard me.
.
Maybe your "friend" got her info from the listening woman.
Don't need to go all the way to India for that.
.
It happened to me, here in the USA, more than once.
What sort of action have you taken or are you taking? If it's happening to you it may be happening to others.
-
Poche is right - the original article says the priests involved were part of the "Malankara Orthodox Church." They are not Catholic.
-
It is certainly rare that trad priests break the seal of Confession stricto senso, but some of them speak much too loud when they give advice (which amounts to revealing one's sins in some way), and some others reveal the information given to them by their penitents outside the confessional.
The first thing happened to me: a sedevacantist priest spoke too loud when he gave me advice and a nun heard my sins, or let's say the matter of my sins.
In the SSPX chapel where I attend Mass, the confessional is in a closed room with a glass, which is very convenient.
-
For those who are familiar with the former satanist, now Catholic, Zachary King; he has reported that they have operatives in churches attempting to cause problems. Since he was raised Baptist, his role was to break up Baptist churches. However he reports that there were others assigned to break up Catholic churches or chapels. Just brainstorming here, wouldn't it be possible for them to do either of the possibilities mentioned in this thread, either:
1. using a listening device or
2. having someone listen outside the door
and then they could use the information to MAKE IT APPEAR as if the priest violated the person's privacy when in actuality, an operative used the information in order to tell the person the info they had confided in the confessional. Some people would then lose their faith. Others would never trust the priest again. Very few people would go to the priest and say what is going on here, and even fewer would look for a concealed listening device or watch out for eavesdroppers.
-
For those who are familiar with the former satanist, now Catholic, Zachary King; he has reported that they have operatives in churches attempting to cause problems. Since he was raised Baptist, his role was to break up Baptist churches. However he reports that there were others assigned to break up Catholic churches or chapels. Just brainstorming here, wouldn't it be possible for them to do either of the possibilities mentioned in this thread, either:
1. using a listening device or
2. having someone listen outside the door
and then they could use the information to MAKE IT APPEAR as if the priest violated the person's privacy when in actuality, an operative used the information in order to tell the person the info they had confided in the confessional. Some people would then lose their faith. Others would never trust the priest again. Very few people would go to the priest and say what is going on here, and even fewer would look for a concealed listening device or watch out for eavesdroppers.
This actually makes a lot of sense to me, and is consistent with the way Satan works. Thank you for this, Cara.
-
Check your PM box, Amakusa.