Opus Dei Violates the Seal of Confession

The Capture of Christ, detail (c. 1250-1300) by Cimabue

Opus Dei Violates the Seal of Confession

Recently, an acquaintance of mine related that an Opus Dei priest refused him absolution during confession. The incident persuaded me to compose this critical post.

begin Has confessional secrecy ever been abused? Not directly, perhaps, but Vladimir Felzmann relates a disturbing incident. After some time as a lay numerary he was ordained and returned to England where he heard the confessions of members. One day he was visited by senior Opus Dei officials. It had come to their attention, they told him, that someone had confessed to him the sin (as they saw it) of homosexuality, yet Felzmann had not informed Rome. That, pointed out Felzmann, would have been to breach the seal of the confessional. The officials grudgingly conceded the point, but told him he should have made the person involved, on the pain of not receiving absolution from his real or supposed sin, come back to him or to someone else outside the confessional in the form of a confidence, so that the information might be used. Felzmann protested to the point of tears that this could still technically be construed as breaking the seal. The senior members would not accept this, and rebuked him sharply for his want of loyalty to the organization. end

—Michael Walsh, Opus Dei: An Investigation into the Secret Society Struggling for Power within the Roman Catholic Church (1992), pages 118-119

When Opus Dei directors require priests to withhold absolution in order to compel the penitent to reveal his or her sins in the external forum, they violate the seal of the sacrament—not directly, but indirectly.

begin The sacramental seal is inviolable. Quoting Canon 983.1 of the Code of Canon Law, the Catechism states, “...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" (No. 2490). A priest, therefore, cannot break the seal to save his own life, to protect his good name, to refute a false accusation, to save the life of another, to aid the course of justice (like reporting a crime), or to avert a public calamity. He cannot be compelled by law to disclose a person’s confession or be bound by any oath he takes, e.g. as a witness in a court trial. A priest cannot reveal the contents of a confession either directly, by repeating the substance of what has been said, or INDIRECTLY, BY SOME SIGN, SUGGESTION, OR ACTION. [all capitals mine] end

https://www.catholiceducation.org/en/religion-and-philosophy/catholic-faith/the-seal-of-the-confessional.html

—Father William Saunders, “The Seal of the Confessional,” Catholic Education Resource Center, reprinted with the permission of Arlington Catholic Herald, 2000

 

In the above account of Father Vladimir Felzmann, the priest is being required by the directors to reveal the content of the confession by using a threat (action) not permitted under the circumstances to compel the penitent to disclose the details of the confession in the external forum.

Categorically, the priest is not allowed to withhold absolution in order to compel the penitent to reveal information in the external forum.

There are limited circumstances in which the priest is allowed to withhold absolution, e.g., the penitent does not show contrition.

begin The correct disposition on the part of the penitent is sorrow for their sins and a purpose of amendment (c. 959). Occasionally, a penitent may “confess” their sins, but indicate that they have no regret in respect of them. …There are those also who mention a sin but leave the confessor in little doubt that there is no intention of future amendment. This is most frequently the case with “states of sin”, e.g. an irregular union or an ongoing adulterous relationship. With sensitivity the priest endeavours to bring the penitent to see the true consequences of their action, which includes the wounding of their relationship with God, the Church and the wider human community. “We beseech you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God” (2 Cor. 5:20). The priest might highlight the providential nature of their act of confession, and encourage consideration of avoiding the occasions of the sin in question.

Often a grudging acknowledgment of sorrow, a hesitant acceptance that they will endeavour to begin to rectify the situation will be elicited. To grant absolution, one is not seeking cast-iron guarantees that the sin will never be committed again, nor demanding perfect contrition. Other things being equal, absolution can be granted if the penitent simply expresses the desire not to sin again, or regrets the consequences of sin. end

http://www.faith.org.uk/article/november-december-2008-withholding-absolution-a-pastoral-option

 

—Mark Vickers, “Withholding Absolution. A Pastoral Option?” FAITH Magazine (November-December 2008)

The Opus Dei directive bears all the hallmarks of the abuse of religious and spiritual authority in the organization—deception (before going to confession the penitent does not know that the priest prospectively harbors the intention to withhold absolution illicitly), manipulation, and the obscene transgression of fundamental rights. Besides, the directive violates the sacred trust that should be maintained between penitent and confessor, and is according to canon law, criminal.