Try reading what people write. I am not a catholic. The reason is I was encouraged by my teachers to read every thing under the sun.I agree that size has no bearing on veracity. It is obviously different making a statement about a religion of over 1 billion followers to a statement about a religion of 2 followers. That is my only point.
Also, the private schlub can be required to disclose it. If I tell you one day that I’ve made millions last month in the kiddie porn business, you don’t have to report that (assuming no state law says otherwise). But if you’re called as a witness, you must testify truthfully that this is what I said.
If I tell my lawyer, or my priest, that same fact, neither one may be compelled to disclose it.
So lawyers who learn of such things should be disabarred?
How can defendants receive an effective defense if, in addition to the array of prosecutorial might levied against them, thier own lawyer must either report them or face the loss of his job?
What if the lawyer is told, “I have killed in the immediate past, and I will kill in the immediate future-I cannot stop killing.” Is the lawyer under any obligations then?
Where did I make the assumption that you were? I only make the assumption that you consider yourself well read on catholic doctrine (and I base that on your own claims)
“obviously different”…why do you say that? I’m struggling to understand why you are bringing numbers into the debate.
This is a mighty fine line. Are you saying there is a law that says Priests can not be compelled to disclose but other citizens can be? I would be very interested in learning what kinds of people are allowed to tell the court no.
I’m not sure what lawyers have to do with anything in this situation or how you are lumping them together with Catholic priests.
Grumman, everyone gets a right to have an effective defense, or no one does. Courts are not omniscient.
He does so as to provide an example of professional categories that the law makes explicitly privileged to that effect.
And it’s not just RCC priests and confessions, the privilege applies to clergy in general. Just that the Catholic/Orthodox churches also make a really, really big deal of it internally.
Think that’s going to vary by state. My state follows the Model Rules of Professional Conduct on point. Model Rule 1.6 allows, but does not require, me to disclose information in that situation.
There is obviously a privilege for priest-penitent communications but I don’t believe it is founded on a constitutional basis.
If that privilege was abolished for certain crimes (or indeed for all crimes), as long as the law were one of general applicability, I think it could pass constitutional muster under current First Amendment jurisprudence.
Now, the next question is whether religious ministers could be added to a list of required reporters. That’s a tougher call, because it is less a generally applicable rule. But I think a legitimate argument could be made for it.
Now, whether it should happen or not is a different question.
This website suggests that it doesn’t exist in the UK, exists in Federal Australian law and the law of New South Wales, but not the rest of Australia, and exists in Ireland, France, Germany, and Austria:
In Canada, it seems like there’s statutory protection in Quebec and Newfoundland. Nationally, though, I think the most recent case was the 1991 Supreme Court Case R v Gruenke, which said that even though Canada doesn’t, as a matter of law, recognize it, whether or not privilege exists needs to be determined on a case by case basis, using the Wigmore test, The Wigmore test, if anyone is curious:
Chief Justice Lamer, in his decision, lays out the rationale as to why people believe minister-penitent privilege should exist:
I think the mandatory reporting issue is most valid in the instances where the superiors of a priest knew or had reason to know he was abusing children and did not report it. Instead, they moved him to another location and allowed him to continue to have access to children.
All of the abuse that has been reported has caused a number of non-Catholics to think harshly of the Catholic Church and its policies. I do believe the superiors of an abusing priest should be legally required to report him. I just don’t see that many people going into confession and saying “Forgive me, Father, I like to diddle little boys”.
Because our system of justice includes the assumption of zealous advocacy?
Because the individual may be accused, falsely, of a more serious crime, and revealing this crime to his attorney may assist him in defending himself against that more serious crime?
Because it’s a fundamental proposition of our system that a man should not be forced to accuse himself?
Presumably because the decision to tell the priest results from a desire for absolution, and the priest presumably will withhold absolution until the penitent comes forward publicly, thus encouraging the revelation of the abuse. A therapist, in contrast, does not withhold therapy until the patient agrees to confess publicly - so far as I know, anyway.
Right. The superiors of an abusing priest do not generally learn of the problem via the confessional. They learn from reports and complaints, and those are not privileged in the slightest.