Thank you!
And yes, I absolutely agree. It could go either way. But we are also in agreement it ain’t gonna happen, because no one is going to make such a law in the religion dominated US.
How does this provision interact with Washington’s Rev. Code § 26.44.030?
(colored emphasis added)
I think that’s pretty sloppy, david42, since (while I am no expert on Washington state law) the Washington courts have spoken pretty clearly on the issue in State v. Warner, 889 P. 2d 479 (Wash 1995):
(colored emphasis added)
And thus we see the danger of reading a single statute and assuming you know the law. You have to research the law, which includes annotated code and caselaw.
Given that Washington law, I think priests could be added without running into a problem under Smith. It seems pretty broad ranging as it is.
Sure. And there are a small number of states that already include priests, IIRC.
Did we just agree on a First Amendment issue there?
Can anyone in England please check if there are any large black birds still perched at the Tower of London? 
Bricker, could you help me out with my question in post #33?
I think so, yes, although of course the law firm’s sanctions would end with terminating the lawyer. The only thing I can think of that might limit this would be some expansive state whistleblower laws, but in general I think they apply to an employee revealing questionable conduct of the company, not of a client.
I have done no research on this point, though, and so I welcome correction from anyone except david42 that has.
The lawyer may reveal the information to other members of his firm – this does not breach the privilege, but merely extends it. Certainly, if disclosure of the information resulted in malpractice liability against the firm, then the firm can expect a fiduciary duty from its partner or employee to not reveal it, and presumably can make job policy consistent with that duty.
That’s my shoot-from-the-hip response, anyway.
Thank you.
Then I can state my opinion that the law is a giant, elderly ass in this case, and I look forward to the day when the law is changed such that all religious officials, regardless of religion, are treated the same in the topic at hand as an average person.
BTW, do Physicians have any absolute immunity from disclosing private information, like a Lawyer does? How about a licensed professional Engineer? Any case law on those professions? These are honest questions; I don’t know the answer in advance.
Get used to disappointment.
No, I’d say it’s more accurate to characterize physicians’ privilege as more qualified, rather than absolute. As an exmaple I just mentioned above, Washington State appears to require psychologists to disclose child abuse when they become aware of it.
I am not aware of any analogous provisions for licensed professional engineers.
Lawyers, counselors, physicians, and (licensed) engineers are all professions that are licensed by the state to provide a needed public service. On the other hand, clergy are not (and cannot be licensed due to our First Amendment). I have the same opinion as you - there should be no law that treats the clergy differently from any other “shlub.”
Allow me to offer the Bricker Rebuttalsup[/sup]: “yeah, well, there are, so tough shit.”
Awesome.
Say, can you cover for me tomorrow afternoon? I have meetings until 6. Thanks!
Since when are “shlubs” required to report what people tell them to the police. Clergy aren’t licensced and shouldn’t fall into the category of mandatory reporters.
That’s not his opinion. He believes that the law SHOULD treat priests differently than private persons, since he believes priests should be forced to report what they learn, and we know that (in general) private persons are not.
But the original claim was that it was the worst thing that could happen to a catholic, worse than rape.
Losing your job is not worse than rape. I’m guessing that the same thing applies to murder as well?
I just don’t see that a priest occupies a position in society that is different from mine. He is no moral authority, no legal authority. If I am under obligation to report crime than so is he.
However, I have long since given up on the catholic church taking the moral and ethical lead on anything. As an institution it is rotten to the core and I expect no better. (note - here I refer to the institution rather than the congregation)
Quoth Boyo Jim:
While priests do hear confessions of other priests, they generally don’t confess to other priests directly above themselves in the hierarchy, nor, I imagine, to those tasked with investigating wrongdoing among priests. Just because what they say in the confessional can’t be used against them, doesn’t mean that the church hierarchy can’t use anything at all against them. If the bishop learns outside of the confessional that one of his priests has been abusing children or committing some other crime, he can take the same actions against him that any other boss could, including removing him from all contact with children or turning him over to the law.
Now, all too often, this doesn’t happen, and the offending priest is left in a situation where he can continue to do harm. This is a problem, and it needs to be addressed. But it’s a problem that’s completely unrelated to the sanctity and confidentiality of confessions.
This is a lot funnier if you read it alongside the Lamer quote.
Whoops, sorry. I meant this quote:
Juxtaposed with this (courtesy of Captain Amazing):
[QUOTE=SCC Chief Justice Lamer]
The first is utilitarian. Religious confidentiality is vitally important not only to the maintenance of religious organizations but also to their individual members. Without it, individuals would be disinclined to confide in their religious leaders. Its value is the value to society of religion and religious organizations generally. Second, the Charter guarantee of freedom of religion indicates that a legal privilege for confidential religious communications is commensurate with Canadian values. The third rationale relates to privacy, where the emphasis is placed on the benefit to the individual as opposed to society as a whole. The religious element in the pastor-penitent relationship promotes special values of privacy characteristic of that relationship, and makes the privacy rationale a possible justification towards the recognition of the privilege. As well, it would be impractical and futile to attempt to force the clergy to testify because often the cleric would refuse. Compelling disclosure, or charging a cleric with contempt, could bring disrepute to the system of justice. Indeed, admitting such evidence has been compared to admitting confessions made under duress to police. . .
A human need for a spiritual counsellor exists and, in a system of religious freedom and freedom of thought and belief, must be recognized. While serving a number of other policy interests, the value to society of disclosure to and guidance from a spiritual counsellor, in total and absolute confidence, must supercede the truth‑searching policy. An ad hoc approach may overshadow the long-term interest served by the recognition of the privilege since the relationship of the confidence between pastor and penitent may not develop in the absence of an assurance that communications will be protected. Not every religious communication will be protected. The creation of the category simply acknowledges that our society recognizes that the relationship should be fostered, and that disclosure of communications will generally do more harm than good.
[/QUOTE]