Last week’s post examined the crime of solicitation to indecency at the sacrament of penance. Today’s post considers another more grave delict reserved to the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith against the sacrament of penance, namely, the direct and indirect violation of the sacramental seal.
In his 2019 address to participants at the course organised by the Apostolic Penitentiary, Pope Francis said:
“Reconciliation itself is a benefit that the wisdom of the Church has always safeguarded with all her moral and legal might, with the sacramental seal. Although it is not always understood by the modern mentality, it is indispensable for the sanctity of the sacrament and for the freedom of the conscience of the penitent, who must be certain, at any time, that the sacramental conversation will remain within the secrecy of the confessional, between one’s own conscience that opens to grace, and God, with the necessary mediation of the priest. The sacramental seal is indispensable and no human power has jurisdiction over it, nor lay any claim to it”.[1]
Canon 983 states: “§1The 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.”
Therefore, one can distinguish two shades of secrecy of the sacrament of penance: sacramental seal and confessional secrecy.
The sacrament seal, which binds only the confessor, implies that the confessor does not know what was said at the confessional, as what was said in God’s forum must always remain in God’s forum.[2]
In light of this, the confessional seal makes clerics incapable of reporting what they hear at the confessional. They simply do not know. On the other hand, confessional secrecy means one knows something but does not want to reveal it, that is, keeping a secret. Confessional secrecy only binds interpreters and not the priest.
Hence, writing on the importance of the internal forum and the inviolability of the sacramental seal, the Apostolic Penitentiary notes that the “inviolable secrecy of Confession comes directly from the revealed divine right and is rooted in the very nature of the sacrament, to the point of not admitting any exception in the ecclesial sphere, nor, least of all, in the civil one.”[3]
Consequently, the Church does not permit confessions through phone calls or social media in order to safeguard the sanctity of the sacrament of penance, the confessional seal, and the welfare of the penitent. This is because most of these means of communication are not private. The companies providing the communication service have access to the communication. Even end-to-end encrypted communication networks such as WhatsApp, seemingly impenetrable by company owners, cannot always guarantee data security because of data breaches through hacking. The calls could be recorded or put on a loudspeaker perceptible to a third person. Even if none of these happens, having confession through calls means the sacrament could happen anywhere one can make a call. People could also eavesdrop on the phone call.
In light of safeguarding the sacrament of penance, the direct and indirect violation of the sacramental seal is a more grave delict. Canon 1386 states:
“§1 A confessor who directly violates the sacramental seal incurs a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See; he who does so only indirectly is to be punished according to the gravity of the offence. §2 Interpreters, and the others mentioned in can. 983 §2, who violate the secret are to be punished with a just penalty, not excluding excommunication.
§3 Without prejudice to the provisions of §§1 and 2, any person who by means of any technical device makes a recording of what is said by the priest or by the penitent in a sacramental confession, either real or simulated, or who divulges it through the means of social communication, is to be punished according to the gravity of the offence, not excluding, in the case of a cleric, by dismissal from the clerical state.”
Direct violation of the sacramental seal occurs when the confessor explicitly or equivalently reveals the sin and the sinner. It is a direct violation if the confessor mentions only the sin without the name in circumstances where the hearers can easily determine who the sinner is. It is also direct when the confessor reveals the sinner without the sin in circumstances where the hearers can easily determine the sin. An indirect violation happens when, through the words of a priest, the sin and the sinner can be identified.
Hence, priests who criticise parishioners from the pulpit should be careful about what they say and how they say it. If the parishioner has come for confession on that vice, the priest may be violating the sacramental seal directly or indirectly. Direct violation is punished with a latae sententiae excommunication, while an indirect violation is punished according to the gravity of the offence. If the case is in the external forum, the Dicastery for the Doctrine of Faith is competent to remit (free one from) the penalty. However, if the case is occult, the Apostolic Penitentiary is competent.[4]
A third dimension is the recording or divulging the confession using a technical device. This dimension incorporates all attempts to hear the confession through phone calls or other internet communication. Here, the offence is not restricted to the priest but extends to the penitent or those around the penitent. The offender is punished according to the gravity of the offence, not excluding the dismissal from the clerical state when it concerns clerics.
A major pastoral issue is confession before mass, when the priest’s homily may refer to a sin he has just absolved. When the penitent listens to the homily, there is a tendency to assume that the priest used his or her sins to preach. Should we then stop hearing confessions before mass?
Given the peculiarities of parish administration in Nigeria, it is not opportune to prohibit it. In fact, in many cases, that is the only opportunity the priest has to listen to the confessions of the people in outstations or distant parishes.
Hence, if confessions before mass is the only available option, the priest should continue with the confessions but must be very cautious with his homily in the mass.
If a priest is to preach against what he just absolved, the priest should ensure that at the end of the confession, he tells the penitent that he has already prepared to reflect on that. Hence, the homily is not directed to the penitent.
May God continue to help us🙏🏾
K’ọdị🙋🏾♂️
[1] Francis, Address to the participants in the xxx Course on the Internal Forum organized by the Apostolic Penitentiary (29 March, 2019).https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/speeches/2019/march/documents/papa-francesco_20190329_penitenzieria-apostolica.html
[2] V. De. Paolis, “De delictis contra sanctitatem sacramenti Paenitantiae”, Periodica 79 (1990), 191
[3] Apostolic Penitentiary, Note on the importance of the internal forum and the inviolability of the sacramental seal of 29 June 2019, AAS 111
(2019), 1113-1121.
[4] Sacra Paenitentiaria Apostolica, Instructio Suprema Ecclesiae Bona, 15 luglio 1984, in EV/S1, Bologna 1990, n.902.
