# Concerning mandatory reporting for Catholic priests. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 26, 2011, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concerning-mandatory-reporting-for-catholic-priests/590412 "2011-07-26T18:31:41Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2011, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concerning-mandatory-reporting-for-catholic-priests/590412/141 "2011-07-28T19:22:22Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I’ve got the laws of most states on my side. I’m happy to continue in the posture of: > > (a) priest-penitent privilege is recognized byt the laws of 46-ish states, and > (b) you believe this is indefensible. The law is on your side, logic is on Der Trihs’ side … is this really a good situation for you? ---
**Author:** ![CurtC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ce73a5/32.png) [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2011, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concerning-mandatory-reporting-for-catholic-priests/590412/142 "2011-07-28T19:40:38Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > And of course, if subpoened by a grand jury, I would have to answer questions. Failing to do so there would subject me to contempt charges; lying at that point would be perjury. To fill in the cells of my matrix from earlier, you’re telling this story from the POV of a shlub, the brother of a person committing a crime. What if the person who was committing the crime was your client? Would you, as an attorney, be forced to tell a jury? What about if a member of the clergy were in front of the jury? Can he be forced to tell what he knows? ---
**Author:** ![straight\_man](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/straight_man/32/3027_2.png) [@straight\_man](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/straight_man)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2011, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concerning-mandatory-reporting-for-catholic-priests/590412/143 "2011-07-28T20:49:17Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > The law is on your side, logic is on Der Trihs’ side … is this really a good situation for you? Seriously? I’ve not seen any logic behind **DT** ’s position that actually applies to public policy. He seems to be saying they’re wrong, therefore their desires don’t matter. But the state is supposed to remain neutral on religious matters whenever it can; so the only salient point is that _people want to practice in that manner_. It is not a socially harmful manner of practice; therefore the state has no right to block it. Pretty simple. If your argument rests on “All religion (or in this case, specifically Catholicism) is false”, you’re subverting the First Amendment. **DT** ’s argument fails without that premise; therefore it is incompatible with free religious practice. I am, of course, aware that sometimes religious practices clash with the social interest so heavily that there has to be a compromise or a restriction on the practice (e.g. JWs refusing blood transfusions for children who will otherwise die, or arguably, Sikh children wearing kirpans to school), but nobody has even _tried_ to make an argument that there is a substantial social interest in breaking the confidentiality of confessions. ---
**Author:** ![CurtC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ce73a5/32.png) [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2011, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concerning-mandatory-reporting-for-catholic-priests/590412/144 "2011-07-28T20:55:10Z")
> [@straight\_man](#): > > But the state is supposed to remain neutral on religious matters whenever it can; so the only salient point is that _people want to practice in that manner_. It is not a socially harmful manner of practice; therefore the state has no right to block it. Pretty simple. I’m still unclear on whether the confidentiality of confessions is given any protected status in the law. If it is, then that’s _not_ remaining neutral on religious matters. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2011, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concerning-mandatory-reporting-for-catholic-priests/590412/145 "2011-07-28T21:17:36Z")
> [@straight\_man](#): > > Seriously? I’ve not seen any logic behind **DT** ’s position that actually applies to public policy. He seems to be saying they’re wrong, therefore their desires don’t matter. I’m saying why do _these particular_ wrong people get special privileges when other wrong people don’t. Why should this particular group of con artists get privileges? > [@CurtC](#): > > I’m still unclear on whether the confidentiality of confessions is given any protected status in the law. If it is, then that’s _not_ remaining neutral on religious matters. Exactly. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2011, 10:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concerning-mandatory-reporting-for-catholic-priests/590412/146 "2011-07-28T22:38:08Z")
> [@straight\_man](#): > > It is not a socially harmful manner of practice; therefore the state has no right to block it. Pretty simple. If the effect is to conceal the identity of criminals, it’s socially harmful, and isn’t that the problem with it? ---
**Author:** ![straight\_man](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/straight_man/32/3027_2.png) [@straight\_man](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/straight_man)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2011, 12:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concerning-mandatory-reporting-for-catholic-priests/590412/147 "2011-07-29T00:12:06Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > If the effect is to conceal the identity of criminals, it’s socially harmful, and isn’t that the problem with it? …except in reality, it does not conceal the identity of criminals. The priest only knows of the crimes because of his job; and we are discussing the continued legality of that job. ---
**Author:** ![JRDelirious](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jrdelirious/32/9531_2.png) [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2011, 2:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concerning-mandatory-reporting-for-catholic-priests/590412/148 "2011-07-29T02:53:50Z")
> [@CurtC](#): > > I’m still unclear on whether the confidentiality of confessions is given any protected status in the law. If it is, then that’s _not_ remaining neutral on religious matters. The thing is that where it is protected, it’s usually protected as part of a general clergy-congregant privilege, not a specifically Catholic one. So it gets a (debatable, indeed, but historically accepted in US Courts) pass as “neutral” for being neutral between religions as opposed to neutral between religion and non-religion. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2011, 4:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concerning-mandatory-reporting-for-catholic-priests/590412/149 "2011-07-29T04:19:12Z")
> [@straight\_man](#): > > …except in reality, it does not conceal the identity of criminals. The priest only knows of the crimes because of his job; and we are discussing the continued legality of that job. I’m not getting that at all. If the preist knows who committed a murder/robbed a bank, and he doesn’t come forward, he is concealing their identity. Simple as that. There is a social cost for that, murderers and thieves run free. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2011, 4:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concerning-mandatory-reporting-for-catholic-priests/590412/150 "2011-07-29T04:29:42Z")
> [@JRDelirious](#): > > The thing is that where it is protected, it’s usually protected as part of a general clergy-congregant privilege, not a specifically Catholic one. So it gets a (debatable, indeed, but historically accepted in US Courts) pass as “neutral” for being neutral between religions as opposed to neutral between religion and non-religion. In other words, fake neutrality like “ceremonial deism”. ---
**Author:** ![straight\_man](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/straight_man/32/3027_2.png) [@straight\_man](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/straight_man)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2011, 4:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concerning-mandatory-reporting-for-catholic-priests/590412/151 "2011-07-29T04:34:33Z")
…except people are likely not to tell him that if they know he has to report them. So the end result is the same. Let’s use a hypothetical. Say there were professional secret-keepers, people who you could tell things who in turn couldn’t tell them. Not for religious purposes, just because people wanted them. (Yes, I use lame hypotheticals.) They can’t tell you anything back, they can’t forward your secrets to conspirators or anything, they just have to hear your secrets. Would society suddenly have an increase in people getting away with crimes? Of course not! Ergo, there is no real social cost to having religious figures who can be bound by strict rules of confidentiality. Further, it is not at all clear to me that religious practices even _should_ be bound impartially. We make exemptions for religious groups all the time —allowing Muslims to wear hijabs at work, or JW’s to reject blood transfusions, or Jews to not work on Sundays, etc. The most important point of both the American and Canadian secularisms is to let people practice or not practice as they wish without the government interfering, wherever that is reasonable. This board in general, and people in this thread in particular, seem to want to use the First Amendment to screw religions; that’s clearly not its intent. On an unrelated note, I’m not at all sure “ministers” have to be especially religious for these sorts of rules to apply. Unitarians and LaVeyan Satanists get the same protections as Catholics, do they not? ---
**Author:** ![Jack\_Batty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jack_batty/32/3201_2.png) [@Jack\_Batty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jack_Batty)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2011, 4:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concerning-mandatory-reporting-for-catholic-priests/590412/152 "2011-07-29T04:40:30Z")
> [@straight\_man](#): > > …except people are likely not to tell him that if they know he has to report them. So the end result is the same. Well then what difference does it make? If a guy will only confess to some horrible “sin” because he knows the priest, or imam, or what-the-fuck-ever, won’t rat him out … how is that any better than the guy just not admitting it to anyone. He still won’t face the music until he sacks up on his own accord. ---
**Author:** ![straight\_man](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/straight_man/32/3027_2.png) [@straight\_man](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/straight_man)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2011, 5:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concerning-mandatory-reporting-for-catholic-priests/590412/153 "2011-07-29T05:04:43Z")
LOL! I meant to write “Jews not to work on Saturdays”. Actually, this leads to a nice quasi-hypothetical. So (observant) Jews don’t work on Saturday. They’re pretty tolerant sorts, so they don’t think others need to observe the Sabbath, but let’s imagine that they did. (If you prefer, you can change “Jews” into “Adventists”. Works either way.) Then what would the neutral thing be? Clearly not to force everyone to observe the Sabbath! Yet that would be applying the same rules to everybody, right? On the other hand, if people are getting fired for needing that day off of work, suddenly you can’t be a Jew in society anymore; it’s not neutral, either. Instead, the neutral thing to do is clear: decide that Jews must be allowed to observe the Sabbath, but non-Jews must also be allowed to work on the Sabbath. We thus conclude that there’s more to freedom of religion then just applying the same rules to everybody. ---
**Author:** ![straight\_man](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/straight_man/32/3027_2.png) [@straight\_man](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/straight_man)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2011, 5:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concerning-mandatory-reporting-for-catholic-priests/590412/154 "2011-07-29T05:06:22Z")
> [@Jack\_Batty](#): > > Well then what difference does it make? > > If a guy will only confess to some horrible “sin” because he knows the priest, or imam, or what-the-fuck-ever, won’t rat him out … how is that any better than the guy just not admitting it to anyone. He still won’t face the music until he sacks up on his own accord. It’s better because it doesn’t interfere with people freely practicing their religion. That’s the only difference between the two outcomes. That’s exactly the point I was trying to make in our exchange. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2011, 1:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concerning-mandatory-reporting-for-catholic-priests/590412/155 "2011-07-29T13:14:08Z")
> [@CurtC](#): > > To fill in the cells of my matrix from earlier, you’re telling this story from the POV of a shlub, the brother of a person committing a crime. What if the person who was committing the crime was your client? Would you, as an attorney, be forced to tell a jury? No. I could not be forced to the jury anything I learned in the context of attorney-client privilege without the consent of the client. (There are some restrictions on how such communications must happen, mind you – for example, the presence of a third party during the conversation would destroy the privilege, unless that party was a prospective or actual co-defendant.) > [@](#): > > What about if a member of the clergy were in front of the jury? Can he be forced to tell what he knows? No, assuming he learned it in the context of a priest-penitent conversation – again, though, there are circumstances that would remove it from the privilege. And here state laws vary much more dramatically. If I recall correctly, six states don’t recognize the privilege at all. In some others, the privilege is held by the priest, meaning that it’s up to him (or her) to decide to disclose the communication. In others, it’s up to the penitent, and without his consent the priest cannot testify. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2011, 1:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concerning-mandatory-reporting-for-catholic-priests/590412/156 "2011-07-29T13:16:38Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > I’m not getting that at all. If the preist knows who committed a murder/robbed a bank, and he doesn’t come forward, he is concealing their identity. Simple as that. There is a social cost for that, murderers and thieves run free. Except the priest only knows this information because the criminals knew it was safe to confess to him. If we change the law, criminals no longer reveal their crimes to him, and so he won’t know them anyway. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2011, 1:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concerning-mandatory-reporting-for-catholic-priests/590412/157 "2011-07-29T13:18:04Z")
> [@Jack\_Batty](#): > > Well then what difference does it make? > > If a guy will only confess to some horrible “sin” because he knows the priest, or imam, or what-the-fuck-ever, won’t rat him out … how is that any better than the guy just not admitting it to anyone. He still won’t face the music until he sacks up on his own accord. The priest then can become an influence urging the guy to …er… “sack up.” ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2011, 1:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concerning-mandatory-reporting-for-catholic-priests/590412/158 "2011-07-29T13:27:03Z")
> [@Wood\_Man](#): > > The straight dope is about combating ignorance. So try to learn. > As excommunication is the worst thing that can happen to a catholic then logically it is worse than being raped. > There are over 1 billion catholics around the world. Maybe you should take that into account before making any rash statements. I am not a catholic. I went to catholic schools for 12 years and read numerous books on religion and especially catholicism. Excommunication maybe the worst thing for some Catholics, but there are others who would not care less! ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2011, 1:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concerning-mandatory-reporting-for-catholic-priests/590412/159 "2011-07-29T13:49:02Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > No. I could not be forced to the jury anything I learned in the context of attorney-client privilege without the consent of the client. (There are some restrictions on how such communications must happen, mind you – for example, the presence of a third party during the conversation would destroy the privilege, unless that party was a prospective or actual co-defendant.) …Or a lawyer who is a professional colleague working with you on the same case and himself retained as an attorney by your client, right? I.e., if you and **Gfactor** are law partners and I retain your firm, with you as my lead attorney, but with consideration also passing to **Gfactor** to make me his client as well, the two of you may discuss strategy with me with attorney-client privilege intact; is this correct? > [@](#): > > No, assuming he learned it in the context of a priest-penitent conversation – again, though, there are circumstances that would remove it from the privilege. And here state laws vary much more dramatically. If I recall correctly, six states don’t recognize the privilege at all. In some others, the privilege is held by the priest, meaning that it’s up to him (or her) to decide to disclose the communication. In others, it’s up to the penitent, and without his consent the priest cannot testify. Just to nail this down, you are talking the civil/criminal laws of individual states (and the Feds.) here, and the Vatican’s canon law proposition is that the privilege is absolute and held by the penitent; a priest breaking confidentiality in this way incurs automatic excommunication, right? (I’m not in any way asserting that canon law trumps secular law, just observing that disregarding the privilege altogether or placing the privilege in the priest’s hands places him in a very difficult situation. ==== One additional note on this: The privilege must be within the bounds of the Sacrament of Reconciliation; a ‘confession’ (in the secular sense) in the context of counseling outside sacramental Confession is subject to ‘ordinary’ confidentiality, exactly as if the priest were a lay psychotherapist. IIRC this means it must be honored in ordinary circumstances where the law does not compel divulgence but is overridden by statute or court order that does compel it. Correct? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2011, 2:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concerning-mandatory-reporting-for-catholic-priests/590412/160 "2011-07-29T14:05:01Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > …Or a lawyer who is a professional colleague working with you on the same case and himself retained as an attorney by your client, right? I.e., if you and **Gfactor** are law partners and I retain your firm, with you as my lead attorney, but with consideration also passing to **Gfactor** to make me his client as well, the two of you may discuss strategy with me with attorney-client privilege intact; is this correct? Absolutely; I think I alluded to something similar earlier in the thread. Such a conversation extends the privilege and does not breach it. I could even retain outside counsel myself to advise me on my own exposure and ethical options, and extend the privilege to them. > [@](#): > > Just to nail this down, you are talking the civil/criminal laws of individual states (and the Feds.) here, and the Vatican’s canon law proposition is that the privilege is absolute and held by the penitent; a priest breaking confidentiality in this way incurs automatic excommunication, right? Correct. I’m using “priest” in the secular law manner, referring to any priest, minister, rabbi, imam, or other regular religious clergy member. As to the Catholic Code of Canon Law, a priest who directly violates the seal of the confessional incurs a _latae sententiae_ excommunication – that is, he is automatically excommunicated at the instant he commits the offense. Lifting this penalty may not be done by his bishop, but is reserved to the Vatican. A priest who acts in some way to indirectly reveal a secret of the confessional in punished with “a just penalty” which can extend to excommunication, but must be imposed after a trial. > [@](#): > > One additional note on this: The privilege must be within the bounds of the Sacrament of Reconciliation; a ‘confession’ (in the secular sense) in the context of counseling outside sacramental Confession is subject to ‘ordinary’ confidentiality, exactly as if the priest were a lay psychotherapist. IIRC this means it must be honored in ordinary circumstances where the law does not compel divulgence but is overridden by statute or court order that does compel it. Correct? Yes. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concerning-mandatory-reporting-for-catholic-priests/590412.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concerning-mandatory-reporting-for-catholic-priests/590412.md?page=9)