War On You: Breaking Alternative News

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:

var sc_project=4964472;
var sc_invisible=1;
var sc_partition=57;
var sc_click_stat=1;
var sc_security=”6a5d1424″;

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)

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.

These prohibitions, as well as the general obligation of secrecy, apply only to what the confessor learns through confession made as part of the sacrament. He is not bound by the seal as regards what may be told him by a person who, he is sure, has no intention of making a sacramental confession but merely speaks to him “in confidence”; prudence, however, may impose silence concerning what he learns in this way. Nor does the obligation of the seal prevent the confessor from speaking of things which he has learned outside confession, though the same things have also been told him in confession; here again, however, other reasons may oblige him to observe secrecy. The same obligation, with the limitations indicated, rests upon all those who in one way or another acquire a knowledge of what is said in confession, e.g., an interpreter who translates for the priest the words of the penitent, a person who either accidentally or intentionally overhears the confession, an ecclesiastical superior (e.g., a bishop) to whom the confessor applies for authorization to absolve the penitent from a reserved case. Even the penitent, according to some theologians, is bound to secrecy; but the more general opinion leaves him free; as he can authorize the confessor to speak of what he has confessed, he can also, of his own accord, speak to others. But he is obliged to take care that what he reveals shall cast no blame or suspicion on the confessor, since the latter cannot defend himself. In a word, it is more in keeping with the intention of the Church and with the reverence due to the sacrament that the penitent himself should refrain from speaking of his confession. Such, undoubtedly, was the motive that prompted St. Leo to condemn the practice of letting the penitent read in public a written statement of his sins (see above); and it needs scarcely be added that the Church, while recognizing the validity of public confession, by no means requires it; as the Council of Trent declares, it would be imprudent to prescribe such a confession by any human enactment. (For provisions of the civil law regarding this matter, see SEAL OF CONFESSION.)