# 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:** 5\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2011, 2:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concerning-mandatory-reporting-for-catholic-priests/590412/161 "2011-07-29T14:07:44Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > 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. I cannot see the rationale behind the priest holding the privilege. Doesn’t make any sense to me whatsoever. ---
**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, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concerning-mandatory-reporting-for-catholic-priests/590412/162 "2011-07-29T14:23:40Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > 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. Ah, just keep a bottle of booze in the confessional and that’ll loosen their tongues. It’s how a lot of criminals get caught I hear … they go to a bar, get liquored up and blab all. I guess there’s no bartender/customer privilege … which honestly, makes about as much Real World sense as priest/penitent privilege does if you’re not superstitious. ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2011, 2:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concerning-mandatory-reporting-for-catholic-priests/590412/163 "2011-07-29T14:31:25Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > I guess there’s no bartender/customer privilege … which honestly, makes about as much Real World sense as priest/penitent privilege does if you’re not superstitious. Well there is one significant difference - because of the nature of a bar, there can be no expectation of privacy - other customers are around. And without that expectation, there is no privilege. Tell your lawyer something incriminating in the middle of a private room and there is no privilege attached. ---
**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, 2:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concerning-mandatory-reporting-for-catholic-priests/590412/164 "2011-07-29T14:32:03Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > In other words, fake neutrality like “ceremonial deism”. Oh, but of course. Look, we all know that as a rule, in spite of what grand pronouncements pundits, politicians and lawers make, the law and the courts tend to _reflect_ the society’s _extant_ culture, and it is actually the\* exception\* when they deliberately seek to steer it in “the right direction”. Until the attitude towards religion of the general American social culture changes, you will probably continue to have a hard time with how the law treats religions, and I expect that means well beyond both our lifetimes. And BTW many religions’ rites and ordinaces do _not_ get a pass _if it’s about laws of universal applicability_ (v. Polygamy, Peyote). But, as has been mentioned, in the US “duty to report” and “privileged communication” are NOT universally applicable, it takes specific statute or case law to define what specific persons or groups’ communications are privileged, on the one end, and, on the other, what specific persons or groups have a mandate to report (usually holders of state licenses). In the middle, we the “schlubs” merely have a\* moral \*expectation to report and IF dragged before a court a duty to testify the truth with the option to shut up it it’s self-incriminating. As others point out, there isn’t even uniformity as to what the (secular) law is of which of the parties can invoke the penitential privilege. ---
**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, 2:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concerning-mandatory-reporting-for-catholic-priests/590412/165 "2011-07-29T14:51:46Z")
> [@villa](#): > > I cannot see the rationale behind the priest holding the privilege. Doesn’t make any sense to me whatsoever. Well, it’s obviously not consistent with the Catholic approach, but as a more general matter, it seems to make some sense from a social wisdom point of view. The priest (generic) is obviously guided by the best interests of his penitent, as a general proposition, but is also in a good position to weigh the benefit of disclosure against the benefit of remaining silent against not only his penitent but any others involved and society as a whole. The rabbi, let’s say, who is permitted to break his silence if he determines, in his discretion, that there are higher or more serious interests involved isn’t a crazy idea. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concerning-mandatory-reporting-for-catholic-priests/590412.md?page=8)