I write in reference to an article under the rather misleading headline ‘Stolen church items found after tip-off during confession’ (September 19). The item was reported by other media outlets. It must be admitted that The Times of Malta was the least inflammatory in this regard. A few betrayed a certain indelicacy, if not outright lack of comprehension, with regard the central point at issue: namely, the so-called tip-off during confession.
That this is a sensitive issue is made apparent by a number of comments made on the social media. I write this not in reference to the Cospicua case specifically, but as regards confession (or reconciliation) in general and the seal of the confessional in particular. I am speaking only in my capacity as an acting Catholic priest. As such, my intention is purely to clarify the process and practice of the sacrament of confession.
Despite the antiquity of the Church and its sacraments, or perhaps in these days of putative technological enlightenment because of it, there is still a great and grave amount of misunderstanding of them and their practice in the minds of many. None of these can be felt more acutely than the confusion surrounding the precious sacrament of confession, known as penance or reconciliation.
The greatest stumbling block is to be found in the hallmark of the sacrament, known in English as the seal of the confessional, the confessional secret, or otherwise.
Stated simply, this means that any penitent, on seeking the succour and guidance of Our Lord sacramentally present in the confessional through his priestly ministers, has a guarantee of absolute confidentiality. The priest can under no circumstances divulge that which was revealed to him in the sacramental process – the penitent’s sins and faults, obliterated by God’s mercy, are not a matter of public or private record.
This translates into a number of other considerations in relation to the sacrament, including the capacity of the penitent seeking confession to do so under conditions of anonymity if he/she so chooses; there is, therefore, a freedom in the administration of reconciliation whereby a person can sit or kneel in full view of the priest or behind an appropriate screen.
It is clear enough from what has been said that the seal of the confessional is sacrosanct – under no circumstances can the priest reveal or profit by anything he has heard in the confessional. This may seem to be a sticking point, especially when confronted by the article mentioned above.
However, to fully understand what occurred there, it is best to take note of the aspects of the act of confession. The procedure is a simple one: a person, sincerely penitent over his misdeeds or in need of guidance, goes to a priest, who provides assistance and then suggests a penance, whereby the person seeks to make amends for his errors, before giving the sacramental absolution.
Again, there is not enough space here to discuss the finer points, but we must take a closer look at the subject of penance. The guidance afforded and the penance given by the minister are among the most flexible aspects of the sacrament, and are intended to respond directly to the specific needs of the penitent.
No Catholic priest would break or compromise the seal of the confessional, and it would be unfair to insinuate otherwise
This flexibility, apropos of the various circumstances expressed in the confessional, necessitates a categorisation of cases and their responses to facilitate the procedure the priest should follow in the confessional and what rules regulate each particular situation. So, for instance, one can engage in discussions of sins pertaining to private or public life, religious duties, marriage, et al.
A particular subset of cases fall under the category of restitution: in other words, the theft or misappropriation of goods and/or services, and the criteria to be followed for their just return or for proper amends to be made. All of this – every penance in fact – must be prescribed and undertaken, it must be kept in mind, without impacting the honour and dignity of the individual, while still respecting the penitential seal.
There are manifold situations that can be dealt with, all with their appropriate praxis, however it is informative to take a simple case as illustrative of what is generally done.
Supposing an individual were to attend confession after having swindled a watch. Obviously, the priest would attend to the various circumstances of this crime, but, whatever his judgment of the contextual issues, would always emphasise the need for the restitution or return of the stolen goods.
In some cases, this could easily be achieved by the penitent himself. More often than not, such a solution is difficult, if not impossible, without damaging the standing and reputation of the individual, and obviously impairing the seal of the confessional.
Let us suppose that in our case the watch was stolen from the penitent’s friend, co-worker or employer. In all these situations it is clear that to force the person to return the item would incur loss of friendship, pay, or gainful employment. Thus, the priest would suggest the simple expedient of leaving the watch with a proxy (an uninterested third party) to initiate the return – the most obvious being the priest/confessor himself.
The penitent may not have the stolen goods on his person, in which case he may tell the priest where to find them and the latter has the choice of either retrieving and returning the items himself or providing the information for this to the concerned parties.
In all of these cases, it should be observed, the solutions presented still preserve the anonymity of the penitent and can be undertaken without impacting the secrecy inherent to the confessional.
Such a procedure should not sound foreign even to modern ears – an analogue can be found in the attitude of reporters with regards the confidentiality of their sources.
It can readily be appreciated, therefore, that a similar condition holds with regard the sacramental seal of confession – the priest must always maintain the anonymity of the penitent, however this does not preclude actions being taken based on the act of confession (such as in the case of restitution above) that do not, by their nature, impinge upon the confessional secret.
In light of the above, I would suggest that due consideration be given in the future to display a proper sensitivity when reporting on such topics. I am convinced that no malice was intended on the part of this newspaper, and any confusion resulting from the report was the result of oversight or a desire for concision that, unfortunately, resulted in the meaning being clouded.
It is absolutely certain that no Catholic priest would break or compromise the seal of the confessional, and it would be unfair to insinuate otherwise.
While the silent work of our priests is disregarded, perhaps even misunderstood or disparaged by some, it must be maintained that the care, diligence, and devotion that they showcase in their vocation, as any honest labours undergone for the service of society, should be safeguarded from misrepresentation – especially by the news media – be it the result of accident, oversight, or indifference. I should hope that more attention will be afforded in similar situations in the future.
Fr Emmanuel Schembri, hailing from Canada though of Maltese descent, is an associate pastor in the parish of Żabbar.