Seal Of The Confessional Analysis

Watching the film Priest for the first time, not really focusing on the issue of the Seal of the Confessional, I was preoccupied with Father Greg’s many dilemmas about the Church, faith and homosexuality. The second time around, however, I watched the film with a clear question in my mind – is the Seal of the Confessional to be respected at all times, and are possible repercussions for the victim of the penitent worth the honouring of secrecy? It immediately became clear to me that in fact, there is no dilemma at all.
The Seal of the Confessional was introduced in 1151 and states: "Let the priest who dares to make known the sins of his penitent be deposed." It is quite similar in function to the rule regarding psychotherapy and doctor-patient

It seems as though he is willing to ignore the rules in order to satiate his physical desires, but experiences this huge personal dilemma when it comes to breaking the rules for someone else. “I can’t take on 2000 years of history, that would be pride, that would be arrogance, they’d crucify me!”, he yells in despair. Yet taking his relationship with Graham into account, he already took on 2000 years of history, if for a more selfish reason. In fact, it seems that he is able to act only when he is directly affected by a situation, which is explained nicely through the story about the poisoned wine – Father Greg would willingly drink the wine he knows is poisoned in order not to break the Seal of the Confessional, making himself “a martyr” in the process. But what would happen if someone else were to drink the poisoned wine, an innocent, 14-year-old girl, perhaps?
The answer Father Greg seems to provide is that the Seal of the Confessional is more important than an innocent life. Although he regrets his decision in the end, we must take into account that Lisa’s mother learned about her husband’s horrific actions by coincidence. If that had not happened, Lisa’s suffering could be prolonged indefinitely, and Father Greg may never have spoken up. To me, that is not acceptable behaviour of a “moral guide” and to me, his decision not to speak