Related to TV show I saw this week.
I’m guessing you watched House?
Anyways, I found myself wondering the same thing and did some research:
A sacremental seal is inviolable. To quote from the Canon Law 983.1…“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.” 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), etc. A Decree from the Holy Office dated November 18, 1682 mandated that confessors are forbidden, even when there would be no revelation direct or indirect, to make use of any knowledge obtained in the confession that would “displease” the penitent or reveal his identity.
I’m an atheist by the way.
Matthew
Quite the opposite, in fact. Section 983(1) of the Code of Canon Law, in reference to the sacrament of penance, states:
No. Most jurisdictions prohibit the examination of clergy as to what was said in confidence by a sinner. newadvent.org presents a history of the law of the seal of confession, along with a quick summary of how it is applied around the world.
Ah, but could they be compelled to do so through state or federal law, much like how doctor/client priviledge can be broken through court order?
I’m suspecting there’s probably something in one of the post-9/11 laws that allow it.
And yes, it was House. 
Both previosu posts accurately state the Code of Canon Law. So from the point of view of the Church, the question is answered.
The answer remains the same from the point of view of civil law. All fifty states in the United States provide for some measure of privilege as to communications between a priest and a penitent, where the priest cannot be compelled to reveal information he received during a confession.
So Chase is safe? 
For those thinking that the priest is morally culpable for covering up a crime, he has one out: he can refuse absolution unless the criminal makes appropriate restitution for his crime, which might include confession to the police. But he may not himself say one word that might point to the criminality of the person whose confession he has heard – nor may he be forced to do so.
No. Chief Justice Burger’s words in Trammel v. U.S. 445 U.S. 40 (1980), although written some twenty years before 9/11, remain good law:
I can understand how that would apply to things that have already happened, but what about things to come?
If I confessed or somehow revealed I was about to kill someone, does the priest have any kind of obligation to prevent the crime?
Superhal, I hope you don’t mind a piggyback question.
I saw the confession in question while flipping through the channels, but not the rest of the episode. The part I saw must have been earlier, and the confessor encourages the guy to confess to the police as Polycarp says.
I’ve only been to confession once so don’t know much, but as I understand it the confessor can encourage you to surrender, but is under no obligation to do so. Are you then (religiously) obligated to abide by the confessor’s edict? Somehow I think “priest shopping” is not an acceptable loophole, but are you held to the command of the first confessor?
So even if someone confessed to murder and another person was awaiting execution for that crime, the priest still had to keep shtum?
I know it’s probably not a plot twist, but don’t spoil the show for those of us you haven’t seen it yet. :mad:
The priest could “say the sin but not the sinner,” depending on who you ask, but a priest who wasn’t wrong in the head would start by encouraging the confessed murderer to talk to the police thereby saving an innocent man’s life (plus in many jurisdictions, spontaenous confession leads to lower penalties).
The priest definitely could not call the cops and say “Jack Smith down at the bridge just came and told me he’d killed Joe Slowpoke.” He could, depending on who you ask and which hairs they feel like splitting, call the cops and say “someone just confessed to me the murder of Joe Slowppoke, I realize you already have a man in custody but you may need to look harder; sorry I can’t give you better information.”
I’m guessing that if I confessed to a Roman Catholic priest that I was off to Rome to assassinate the Pope I’d find the guard tripled when I got there and the police on the look-out. It beggars belief that the priest would take no action but I don’t know, maybe I’m wrong. How absolute is absolute? Is he permitted to reveal all the details but my name? That doesn’t seem very absolute to me if so.
The priest cannot say anything, he cannot even hint at the identity nor can he withhold absolution to a person who is repentant or tie it to a later action. Also, since most confessions are anomymous and one does not have to reveal details of the sin it’d be very difficult for a priest to actually know much. You only have to mention kind and quantity and not go to more detail than necessary, “father, I killed one guy”, the only judgment call is if the person is truly repentant.
And you can’t confess a future sin, which for some reason several people in the thread seem to think you can.
You can confess sins of thought (“sometimes I think of beating my wife up”), sins of action (“I’ve yelled at my wife”) and sins of omission (“I never thank my wife”), but you can’t confess, repent and ask for forgiveness - on something you haven’t done. As well as the little problem re. the laws of physics, if you’re still planning on doing it you’re not repentant.
I grew up as Catholic and I always assumed that in some cases the priest would recognize the person’s voice during confession. What I learned in Catholic school was that the priest could only try to convince the person to turn himself in.
Your guess is wrong.
The sacramental seal is absolute.
Even if local laws compelled the priest to break privilege he’d be obligated to break those laws or face eternal damnation. He could be standing on the gallows and still not be allowed to break privilelge.