Real-Life “I Confess” Case

[Eve]

I’ve been away for awhile, so if there has already been a thread on this, could someone direct me to it? This is from today’s newswire:

“A Bronx man who spent the past 12 years in prison for murder shook with emotion yesterday as a federal judge ordered him freed because a priest's testimony convinced him the inmate was innocent. José Morales, 31, blinked into the bright sun and smiled at his newfound freedom as he stepped out of Manhattan federal court yesterday.

Morales' release came after the Rev. Joseph Towle came forward to say that another man, Jesus Fornes, had come to him years ago and confessed to the crime. Fornes told the priest that Morales and the other man convicted of the killing, Ruben Montalvo, 30, were not involved. ‘Father Joe’ kept the confession secret for years, finally coming forward in 1998 after Fornes was killed in Harlem.”

—Me, I think “Father Joe” should be tried for obstruction of justice, and Morales should sue the cassock off him. How 'bout y'all?

[Myrr21]

Good god. Why couldn't he have just said, "yeah, somebody else confessed to me; this guy is innocent?" He wouldn't be breaking confidentiality, would he?

Ugh. That sucks.

[Steve Wright]

I'm not a lawyer, but I'd always heard that American law respected the obligation on priests to keep confessions secret. (And if it didn't, and Fornes knew that Towle could be forced to reveal the confession, would he have made that confession in the first place?) For my money, no, and no. Towles made the information known at the earliest time he could, in view of his obligations as a priest - which obligations he has every right to assume. And if he didn't assume them, the situation wouldn't arise - and Fornes wouldn't confess to anyone, and Morales would still be in jail.

Would the absence of the religious element put a different complexion on this? Suppose mental patient Fornes, under treatment for violent behavioural problems, had revealed the truth in a therapy session with psychiatrist Joseph Towles; how do Dr. Towles' obligations stack up against Fr. Towles'?

(For that matter, you don't say - probably no one besides the priest knows - what attempts Towles made to get Fornes to confess to the authorities. I'd be surprised if he hadn't tried.)

[IzzyR]

I'm with Steve Wright, and would add, in fact, that had Towle come forward earlier, Fornes could have probably "sue[d] the cassock off him". There is currently a lawsuit of this nature going on in NY in which a woman is suing two rabbis for revealing information that she told them in a religious capacity. The courts have upheld her grounds for a suit (despite some complicating factors not present in the Fornes case).

[IzzyR]

link

[Eve]

Well, OK, then, let's take this to a more Hitchcockian level: let's say that Jesus Fornes was a serial killer, and confessed to Father Joe that he'd killed before and was going to kill again and again. I don't really see much difference: the padre let at least one, apparently two, innocent men rot in jail for 12 years because of some religious rule.

If I were José Morales, I'd haul the Pope's ass into court, too!

[pldennison]

I guess this could be cross-posted to the "How Does Religion Hurt People?" thread. Two guys had to sit in jail for 12 years because we grant to clergy a privelege we do not grant to other citizens--the right to withhold knowledge of or evidence regarding a crime. Gee, tough noogies for Mr. Morales and Mr. Montalvo, I guess. It's far more important to grant special priveleges to religious bodies than to see that justice is done.

[Steve Wright]

My point is, Fornes would not have confessed at all if he'd known the information could be passed to the authorities. We know this, because he did not confess to anyone who was free to reveal the information. So, if priests were not specially privileged in this way... then Fornes would take his secret to his grave, and Morales and Montalvo would still be in jail.

Isn't it better for justice to be delayed, rather than denied altogether?

[manhattan]

Well, no. The clergy does not have a privlege not to tell, but rather an obligation not to tell.

The "privilege" belongs to the confessor, and the obligation extends not only to clergy, of course, but to the teller's attorney, shrink, doctor and (in some cases) spouse.

All that said, based on an earlier story I don't think this particular case had a clergy-confessor privilege issue directly involved at all. Lemme go running through the Times' archives to see what comes up.

[kabbes]

Yes pld but, as Steve Wright said, if priests did not have an unshakable reputation for confidence keeping, this Fornes would probably never have confessed to the crime in the first place. In this case, Morales would still be in jail.

So the fact that Townes and other priests can be trusted to keep confidence has actually led to the miscarriage of justice being revealed much earlier than would otherwise have been the case.

pan

[IzzyR]

Eve, I think you should answer the question posed by Steve Wright about the corresponding priviledge (and resulting innocent suffering) granted to doctors and lawyers etc. It would appear that that you and pldennison, being both atheists, see little or no value in religion, and are therefore horrified at the idea of clergymen being given rights similar to parallel secular professionals. Those who believe that religion too has some value disagree. The fact that the laws are the way they are is a result of the religious (and symphathisers) being in heavy majority.

Also, pldennison, I don't understand your post at all. Besides for the point made by Steve Wright that the guy would likely not have confessed without knowing that his confession was confidential, it makes no sense at all to make this out to a harm of religion. Even if the guy would have confessed without a confidentiality rule, it is certainly unlikely the guy would have confessed without religion. The whole confession is a religious rite. So in the abscence of religion there would have been no confession and how would these guys have been better off?

(I should also note FWIW, that it is apparently not clear that this confession is to be tken at face value - the prosecution is apparently going to fight the release.)

[manhattan]

OK. This is not a clergy-confessor case. This guy was apparently blabbing about his guilt to anyone who would listen until his lawyer told him to shut up.

But because he listened to his lawyer, all the testimony about his confession at the time was inadmissible as hearsay.

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/25/nyregion/25PRIE.html

[IzzyR]

Father Towle said he urged him to go to court and tell the truth about what happened, and Mr. Fornes did, on the scheduled day of the sentencing. He spoke with one of the defense lawyers, and the sentencing was postponed. In the meantime, Mr. Fornes found a lawyer of his own, who advised him not to talk.

So let's get upset at the lawyer instead.

[Eve]

Manny—Your link only works if one is registered with the Times; can you provide a few excerpts?

Izzy—I am not here to "answer questions," I am simply bringing up a topic for discussion and debate. And I have never said religion has "no value," it simply has no value for ME. I'm sure people who believe in that sort of thing find it very valuable, and good for them. That being said, I would indeed hold doctors and lawyers to the same standards: if they know that by keeping silent they are putting an innocent person in jail, they should speak up, too.

[tavalla]

Originally posted by Eve
Well, OK, then, let's take this to a more Hitchcockian level: let's say that Jesus Fornes was a serial killer, and confessed to Father Joe that he'd killed before and was going to kill again and again. I don't really see much difference: the padre let at least one, apparently two, innocent men rot in jail for 12 years because of some religious rule.

Answering purely "on the Hitchcockian level" (I like that phrase, btw)...

If I were a serial killer, went to a priest and made an act of confession but said that I was "going to kill again and again", then it's not a true act of confession; I'm not repenting my sins. Therefore, in that situation the priest is not bound by the rules of confession. If, however, I go to my local priest and confess to murder, say that I truly repent, that I will not repeat my sin and make a true act of confession, then my words are sealed in the confessional; it's between me and God, and the priest can't tell anyone.

That information comes from a conversation with a Catholic priest.

[IzzyR]

Eve

Sorry, I didn't mean to be confrontational, I was trying to bring out the point that if one concentrates solely on the confidentiality of clergy and not others it implies that one recognizes that there is a genuine purpose in these other cases and not in the case of clergy. Which seems to point to the conclusion that I drew, and hence my counterpoint. I don't think it makes sense to look at confidentiality of clergy in isolation from other identical priviledges. But if indeed you are uniformly opposed to all confidentiality, than that point is off the table (with regards to you, at least).

[Steve Wright]

I can't reach Manhattan's link either - but the bit IzzyR quotes reinforces a point I made earlier; Towles tried to get Fornes to confess to the authorities. (And if I'd committed a crime, and confessed it to a priest - confession is available, though rare, within my denomination - I'd be astonished if the priest didn't at least suggest this, and quite possibly make it a condition for the granting of absolution). If Fornes refuses to do so (or backs out of it), then there's nothing Towles, as a priest, can do about it. And if Towles were not a priest - with all the obligations that entails - then the situation wouldn't arise.

I'm not sure I'd get mad at the lawyer who advised Fornes not to talk, either; he has his own obligations, and among them is the obligation to act in his client's best interests. For my money, the real villain of the piece is (are you surprised?) Fornes - the murderer who told the priest he'd tell the truth, then went back on his word. As far as I can see, Towles did the best he could within the limits imposed on him.

[Eve]

Don't fret, Izzy, dahling. And from what Manny says, it seems this case is much more complex than my hurried reading of the Times this morning (coffee cup in hand, cats sitting on my lap) implied.

Let's go with what Tavalla says: Father Jimmy Stewart hears the confession of his parishioner, Ray Milland, who has killed his first wife, Barbara Bel Geddes. Father Jimmy knows poor Bob Cummings is in jail for that crime, on death row—and that his pal Grace Kelly is about to unwittingly marry the evil Milland! It seems that Father Jimmy has to keep mum? That seems awfully wring to me.

[manhattan]

In making his decision, Judge Chin noted that he had the advantage of testimony from two extraordinary sources who came forward recently - a Roman Catholic priest and a former public defender. They said they had been told by the teenager, Jesus Fornes, that he had committed the crime and that Mr. Morales and Mr. Montalvo had not been involved.
Even so, Judge Chin said, the state courts rejected testimony from two other witnesses who had told essentially the same story. If evidence from those first witnesses had been available at the trial in 1988, "surely the jury would have found reasonable doubt," the judge ruled.

So that's four people to whom he evidently spoke.

He (Towle) noted that he had not broken the seal of the confession, a point Judge Chin also made in his decision. "I was repeating - not revealing - what Jesus Fornes had stated," the priest said. "It was the most redeeming moment of this boy's life." (note: Identification of Towle added by me --manhattan)

Whatever the hell that means. Perhaps one of our Catholic folks could explain the distinction.

And Eve, you really should sign up. It's free, and they don't sell your email addy. I've never received spam from my account there. And they have Doonesbury and old Dilberts, so I save 50 cents by not having to buy the Daily News.

[pldennison]

Well, first of all, I don't feel that religion is entirely without value, but I most emphatically do feel that clergymen, in their roles as clergymen, provide services that cannot (and should not) be equated with those of legal and medical professionals. (Legal professionals, especially, are bound by Fifth Amendment concerns regarding their clients.)

Second of all, and as a corollary to the first point, I would offer the opinion that whether doctors and lawyers are obliged to keep confidential on those matters is irrelevant to whether clergy should be obligated to do so.

Third of all, call me crazy, but my concern lies more with the two innocent men sitting in jail than with the hypothetical state of Mr. Fornes hypothetical soul, and with whom who chooses to keep counsel on the matter.

Finally, I do have an issue, excepting the aforementioned Fifth Amendment concerns, with professional confidentiality in general, when it involves evidence of a crime. If one has evidence that a crime has been committed, or even worse, has evidence that justice is about to be perverted by having innocent men convicted of a crime, I think it's a moral imperative to speak. Doctors, certainly, are required to report suspected cases of child abuse, so we already make exceptions to that shield of confidentiality. We aren't talking about, "Father, forgive me, I cheated on my wife" or "I stole a Snickers bar." We're talking about, "Hey, I killed a guy, and two other guys are going to go up the river for it."

[wring]

manny a non Catholic here - but I think this answers your question about not breaking the seal of confession.

the statement was made, not in the confessional booth, which the Church holds inviolate, but 'as a friend', that's what they mean by 'breaking the seal of confession' (ie one done inside the confessional booth or in a formalized 'forgive me Father for I have sinned' manner)

The four people this man confessed to, by the way, appear to have been: 2 attorneys (one public defender, one not), this priest and his mom. I don't think it comes up to the 'blabbing around' level, though.

The court also looked at the fact that the evidence against the guy in prison was pretty slim, one person, and that he'd had several eye witnesses to say he was elsewhere.


Re: the supplemental Hitchockian theme - At least for lawyers and therapists, my understanding is that they have an obligation to their client re: information about past activities, however, if they have information about future crimes, they have a 'duty to warn' in some sense.

not to transport this into another debate, but for me the scarier issue would have been 'what if the kid had been sentenced to die'. And I don't know what the Church's position on that would be (since I'm neither Catholic nor do I play one on TV).

[IzzyR]

pldennison

clergymen, in their roles as clergymen, provide services that cannot (and should not) be equated with those of legal and medical professionals. (Legal professionals, especially, are bound by Fifth Amendment concerns regarding their clients.)

Second of all, and as a corollary to the first point, I would offer the opinion that whether doctors and lawyers are obliged to keep confidential on those matters is irrelevant to whether clergy should be obligated to do so.

Third of all, call me crazy, but my concern lies more with the two innocent men sitting in jail than with the hypothetical state of Mr. Fornes hypothetical soul, and with whom who chooses to keep counsel on the matter.

I would imagine that the rationale for having clergy confidentiality is not connected to societal concern about anyone's soul. Rather, to the fact that having such rules will allow people to obtain guidance from (and, in the case of Catholics, confession to) religious guides without worry that these confidences will be relayed to others. In other words it is to allow people leeway to practice religion - not to conform to religious practice. As such it is remarkably similar to the rationale used for doctors and lawyers, and if you consider freedom to get religious counseling to be on par with freedom to get medical and legal counseling, then one follows from the other. Therefore, these issues are not unrelated, and can be equated.

Despite all this, I shall not call you crazy.

I don't think your example of child abuse is comparable. The rationale for having people report child abuse is likely to prevent further abuse more than to punish past crimes.

[DoctorJ]

The "privilege" belongs to the confessor, and the obligation extends not only to clergy, of course, but to the teller's attorney, shrink, doctor and (in some cases) spouse.

I'm not sure, but I don't think the privilege automatically extends to the teller's doctor. The obligations are different for someone providing general health care and someone providing mental/emotional counseling. (Medical records can certainly be subpoenaed.)

I don't even think that a psychiatrist/counselor has a legal obligation to maintain secrecy when someone has committed a violent crime. In fact, he has a duty to contact the authorities if the teller indicates that he might harm someone.

We had a lecture on this topic a few months ago, and it only served to confuse us even more.

Dr. J

[Steve Wright]

Right. Having now read the article (Manhattan's quite right, the NY Times site is spam-free - so much so that I'd forgotten I'd signed up for it), it looks as though the issue is not all that clear-cut. Fornes went to Towles and confessed, Towles persuaded Fornes to go to the authorities (as I'd expect), and Fornes did, only to clam up later on legal advice. Justice then, as so often seems to happen, got lost in the resulting shuffle.

pldennison, whether it's a stolen Snickers bar or a double murder, a priest is almost certainly going to urge a penitent to make temporal restitution - to own up and take whatever secular punishment is coming to them. And if the sacrament of the confessional has any meaning for the penitent, then s/he's going to listen to the priest. (Which seems to be what's happened in the case at issue.)

(I say "almost" certainly, because there are bound to be some priests who feel that they and their flock are "above Man's law", or some such. I think such people are comparatively few in number, though.)

Eve, this seems to me to be the flaw in your "Hitchcock" scenario. If Ray Milland's conscience is troubled enough for him to be seeking absolution in the first place, then Father Jimmy Stewart is free to work on him until he does the right thing of his own accord. Unless, of course, Ray Milland is truly evil, and is only turning up at the confessional to taunt Father Jimmy... in which case tevalla's information suggests that Ray Milland is not truly making a confession, and therefore Father Jimmy is free to spill his guts. (And should, and will).

Finally, what would be accomplished by charging a priest in such a situation with obstruction of justice? If I were a priest, and faced with a choice of going to jail or violating a sacrament, I think the right choice - from the priest's point of view - is pretty much obvious. So, if you take away the privilege of confidentiality of the confessional (OK, it's an obligation in religious terms, but a privilege in secular terms), you won't get more information revealed to the courts; all you'll get is priests in prison. And I don't think anyone's suggesting that's a good thing in itself.

[SuaSponte]

Originally posted by tavalla
If I were a serial killer, went to a priest and made an act of confession but said that I was "going to kill again and again", then it's not a true act of confession; I'm not repenting my sins. Therefore, in that situation the priest is not bound by the rules of confession. If, however, I go to my local priest and confess to murder, say that I truly repent, that I will not repeat my sin and make a true act of confession, then my words are sealed in the confessional; it's between me and God, and the priest can't tell anyone.

That information comes from a conversation with a Catholic priest.

We really need a Catholic priest to start posting on these boards; this doesn't seem correct to me.
To take the same situation - you go to priest and confesses to murder. Priest says that, as part of your act of contrition, you must confess to the police. You refuse.
Under your interpretation, as provided you by the your priest, the man has not fulfilled his requirements of the sacrament of Confession, and the priest is able to turn the guy in, regardless of whether the guy says he is going to kill again. That is a massive loophole, and one I don't see the RCC allowing.
Few other points: Eve, obstruction of justice is utterly irrelevant to this case. No one has a legal obligation to come forward with evidence - obstruction only occurs when a person refuses to provide evidence when demanded by the police/grand jury/etc. (not precisely sure which). If a friend confessed to you, Eve, you may be in a horrible ethical situation, but unless the police ask you, you are not obstructing justice by remaining silent.

pldennison, the Fifth Amendment is not involved with privilege, even attorney/client privilege - it derives from a separate, common-law tradition. BTW, for many, the penitent/confessor relationship bears marked similarities with the patient/psychologist relationship - not for nothing are psychologists/psychiatrists often referred to as "secular priests".

DoctorJ - psychiatrist/counselor privilege is pretty new in the common-law, and it varies from state to state. One point, though - all privileges fall in the face of future crimes. Even attorneys are obligated to turn their client in, or at least take steps to prevent the future crime.

Of course, in the case at hand, I think the priest was more than a bit, shall we say, misguided. He acknowledged that the confessional bond did not apply, so he had nothing preventing him from coming forward earlier. There is no crime here, but I don't think highly of his ethical situation.

Sua

[manhattan]

Originally posted by SuaSponte
There is no crime here, but I don't think highly of his ethical situation.

Sua

Question one: What about from an evidentiary standpoint? At the original sentencing, the judge apparently ruled that witnesses to his confession could not testify because it would constitute hearsay evidence. Presumably this would also apply to the priest, though it appears from the story that he did not try to testify at that time.

Once the confessor is dead and therefore unable to testify for himself, is the balance of hearsay/probative changed?

[SuaSponte]

Originally posted by manhattan
Sua [/b]

Question one: What about from an evidentiary standpoint? At the original sentencing, the judge apparently ruled that witnesses to his confession could not testify because it would constitute hearsay evidence. Presumably this would also apply to the priest, though it appears from the story that he did not try to testify at that time.

Once the confessor is dead and therefore unable to testify for himself, is the balance of hearsay/probative changed? [/quote]
Good question. I'm doing this from memory, so I'm sure someone will be along to correct me.
I don't know all the details, but apparently Fornes told several people, but took the Fifth when asked to testify. On that information, the trial judge should not have ruled the testimony of the witnesses as hearsay, as the confession was a "statement against penal interest." My guess is that the trial judge thought that it wasn't, as there had already been convictions for the murder, thus no penal interest to be harmed. If so, that's bloody stupid - if the wrong guys were in jail, they could be released and Fornes charged.

After his death, nothing changed. There is an additional hearsay exception, the "dying declaration", but that doesn't seem to apply. Concerning the priest, the appellate judge seemed to create a new hearsay exception, that statements made to a priest in a pseudo-confessional situation are more likely to be true. But I'll have to read the case itself to figure it all out.

Sua

[toadspittle]

There was an earlier story (before the prisoner's release) in the NYT that detailed the priest's coming forward. Here is (per what I recall of that article) the difference between a sacramental confession (and its confidentiality) and what happened in this case:

- in a formal, sacramental confession, the priest is acting as an intermediary between the penitent man and God. Thus, it's a huge sin for the priest to reveal what is, essentially, a private conversation between a man and God. That's pretty heavy.

- in this case, the killer came to the priest not asking for absolution, but rather seeking advice as from a friend. Plus, he wanted to admit to the crime in court, but then his lawyer stopped him. So the priest in this case was not violating any strictures of sacred confidentiality by coming forward.

How he lived with himself for all those intervening years, though, I don't know. Seems to me that he should have kept after the killer to confess. Should he have gone to the police/courts/whatever himself--despite the killer's wishes--on the behalf of the two innocents? Maybe.

I'm sure he's going to have a long talk with the man upstairs one day.

[Guinastasia]

From what I've been told (though this was by a priest in 2nd grade, still, it wouldn't surprise me), back in the day, many priests went to their deaths rather than reveal confessions. I wouldn't be surprised-not so much here, but in some of your stricter countries, under dictators, it doesn't seem that farfetched. I'll look into it.

[IzzyR]

Just an update about confidentiality rules for lawyers. Apparently some thought is being given to loosening these rules.

link (for those who are registered with the NYT.)

[wring]

here's a link to an ABC news report about the same thing.

[horhay_achoa]

Regardless of weather or not the priest did something against the law, I think he did something against his religion. I am not Catholic, but I found this site regarding one of the Ten Commandments:

http://maxpages.com/jesusisalive/Bear_False_Witness

To bear false witness is to lie…right?
To lie, according to Marriem Webster Dictionary, is to “create a false or misleading impression”.
By not telling the authorities about the confession the priest most definitely created a misleading impression that the murder was committed by someone he knew did not commit the murder.
Why should the priests promise of confidentiality out weigh his commitment to the 10 commandments?

[SuaSponte]

Originally posted by horhay_achoa
To bear false witness is to lie…right?

Actually, no. That Commandment has been, er, "expanded" to include lying, but the actual meaning is to testify falsely.

By not telling the authorities about the confession the priest most definitely created a misleading impression that the murder was committed by someone he knew did not commit the murder.

Only if he was asked. I personally belive the priest had an ethical obligation to come forward, but I don't think he lied, per se - he was never asked.
To put it in a less-charged situation - you're a kid, and your little sister accidently breaks a lamp. Your parents come home and assume the dog did it, without asking you about it. Are you lying if you don't point the finger at lil' sis?

Sua

[JDM]

Originally posted by kabbes
Yes pld but, as Steve Wright said, if priests did not have an unshakable reputation for confidence keeping, this Fornes would probably never have confessed to the crime in the first place. In this case, Morales would still be in jail.

So the fact that Townes and other priests can be trusted to keep confidence has actually led to the miscarriage of justice being revealed much earlier than would otherwise have been the case.

pan

But think about this: we are told often that the confession booth serves the purpose of letting people go on with their lives after sin, rather than being crippled by guilt. That is one rationale for the confidentiality of religious confession. If Fornes had not had the option of confessing freely and safely, maybe that same burden of guilt that the confession booth expiates would have caused him to confess to someone that mattered, like a cop.
Suppose there were no tradition of priestly confession, and someone said- "hey- let's set up this thing, where there's one group of people that we can tell about anything we do, and they can't tell anybody else anything about it- that'll make us feel better"- would you support the creation of such a group? JDM

[horhay_achoa]

Sua- I would say that by the definition I found you would be lying because, by not saying anything, you would be "creating a false or misleading impression" that the dog broke the lamp.
I am not religious, so I don't really know what the answer to my question is, but to me it seems that the priest did something very wrong.
What if the innocent men had been sentenced to death? Does the priest still hold the obligation not to speak of the confession? If he does not speak up he becomes a murderer. I think the priest would speak up in this case, which means that there are certain circumstances when the priest is allowed to speak of a confession. If there are certain circumstances when a priest can discuss a confession I think he should have told authorities about this one.

[SuaSponte]

Originally posted by horhay_achoa
Sua- I would say that by the definition I found you would be lying because, by not saying anything, you would be "creating a false or misleading impression" that the dog broke the lamp.

But you didn't "create" anything. Your parents did.

As for the rest of your post - in this case, the Sacrament of Confession was not involved, and thus there was no confessional seal. I agree that the priest is in a horrible ethical position, but it really is a different issue than whether a priest should keep things told him in confession confidential.

Sua

[IzzyR]

And now, AA confessions are confidential

[CrankyAsAnOldMan]

I guess what bugs me about this is that his keeping the confession confidential caused a miscarriage of justice. It's one thing to let a crime that was already committed go unpunished because you don't come forward with knowledge. That's not a good thing, but I think I can go with the special confidentiality gig on that.

It's another thing, in my mind, to let an innocent person be punished for the crime without coming forward with the knowledge. It's like the serial killer example: your silence allowed yet another misdeed to happen.

Perhaps this is an unrational distinction, but it's what bothers me.

[SuaSponte]

Cranky, it's not an unrational concern at all, but we often adhere to principles that have real human cost. For example, we let murderers go free very often because we can't prove their guilt "beyond reasonable doubt". These people may very well kill again, and we all know it, but we adhere to the principle that "it's of more importance to community, that innocence should be protected, than it is, that guilt should be punished." John Adams.

Sua