Then, to apply this to the scenario; so long as the priest in question stays silent or expresses no positive answer (which would break the confession), he would not be covering up the crime (a positive answer would be the opposite, I suppose). However, if the priest said “No, I know of no reason why Person X would be inappropriate for that role”, would that not count as active misleading? That seems a covering lie on par with the cabin lie.
I’m not sure I agree. It seems as though the lack of a positive recommendation could only be explained by either a confessed sin or the priest refusing on principle to supply any reccommendations, which I do not believe would be that common without an example of confessed sin (though perhaps not by that particular confessor) to prompt it. Possibly i’m just undervaluing the abilities of priests in that area.
I think so. It might not be criminal, since “covering up the crime” doesn’t generally reach lies told to other people, just to official investiogators, but I agree the anbalogy is apt.
Well, I have done a small amount of canon law work (I have a licentiate in canon law) and I can tell you that there’s a paucity of real-world cases in which this arises – at least of cases that reach a tribunal. My summary is the my best guess, based on my experience and education, but I’ll be the first to admit it’s not based on a stack of precedent.
Does “official investigators” in this example mean an officer of the law (or appropriate authority) specifically looking into the events the confessor perpetrated, or mean only such a person who generally conducts official investigations acting in that role, or mean such a person who generally conducts such investigations but asks outside of that role?
I can understand why it would be the kind of area that would have little avaliable or widely-known precedent to look at, or at least not a sufficient amount to stand firmly behind a position.
Now you’re geting into an area in which state laws will differ greatly, and I’m not sure there’s a generally applicable answer for the nation as a whole.
As a VERY general statement, I think you’ll find the widest agreement in state law in your first sceanrio – an official authority investigating the specific acts at issue in the confession. But I would not be stunned to learn of more expansive state laws that reached your other scenarios.
Fine. Then provide evidence that it isn’t a delusion. Otherwise giving priests privileges is no different than giving any other salesman for a fraud privileges. Should someone promoting a pyramid scheme be given special privileges like a priest?
I don’t need to. It’s you who seeks to change the extant system. I haven’t advanced any proposition at all. I am content to stop talking and go away, leaving things as they are.
I suppose the situation largely seems to rest on the notion that priests (and the like) won’t be interrogated in such a way and so won’t be required to make this kind of decision. By and large, the extent to which the police in an occasion like that agree that sealed confession is a worthwhile idea overall, as compared to the (possibly highly significant) benefit to the specific case they’re working on.
Anyway, thanks for putting up with my extended line of questions.
Heh. So you have a cop ask the priest whether Person X would be inappropriate for a job where confessions of regicide are the only disqualification, and he says “No, I know of no reason why Person X would be inappropriate for that role.” And then you do likewise for stealing the Declaration of Independence, and get the same loud answer. And then you ask about child molestation, and he says nothing…
The thing is, even if it is a delusion, it’s a wide-spread one, it’s one that seems to give emotional and mental comfort to those who believe in it, and it’s one that we, as a society, has chosen to encourage. If you want to change the minister-penitent confidentiality thing, you’re going to have to first change the society so that it no longer values the relationship. Unless and until you do that, I don’t think it’s going to happen.
I never thought it was; the lunatics are running the asylum. But the popularity of a fraud or delusion has never made it one bit less a fraud or a delusion. And plenty of frauds offer people emotional comfort, it’s one of the more popular hooks for frauds. That doesn’t mean that people engaging in fraud should get special privileges.
Well, hence the comment about a priest refusing to discuss all matters in that way, so as to avoid giving the game away when they cannot discuss one thing. Even then, i’m unsure that it’s not still a giveaway.
Yes, this is a discussion board. But in this discussion, you have impermissibly sought to shift the burden of proof to me. The burden lies with the person making the claim. I’m making no claim at all. I’m happy to remain silent.
If you wish to make a claim about some change to the law you feel would be beneficial, the burden is on you to support it.
Catholic confession is anonymous. The sinner does not identify himself. Both the sinner and priest are in darkened cubicles not able to see each other. Obviously a priest may recognise the voice of someone he knows. But a catholic can go to confession in any catholic church and would not identify himself or herself.
Since the Catholic Church hierarchy is known to have actively concealed the activities of pedophiles within the priesthood and to have obstructed investigations by the federal authorities, could they be treated as, I dunno, hostile witnesses?
Well yes, but that doesn’t really alter anything. What they hear in the confessional is still privileged, whether or not the person calling the witness can ask leading questions or not.
I don’t think you need to show it isn’t a delusion, just that the people involved don’t think it is a delusion, and there is a benefit to society of having that form of individual release available in a privileged setting.
Now, we can argue whether the people involved do believe that, and we can argue whether there is a benefit to society. I might well agree with you on the latter. I’d also argue that other forms of “baring the soul” for want of a better term should be included in the privilege. But none of this depends on anything behind the act being actually true. What we are interested in, as a society, is the act of confession itself, not if the mystical elements have any veracity.
Certainly a penitent may choose to find a confessional that is set up as you mention, although many parishes now do face-to-face confessions.
But even if he’s anonymous, the priest may withhold absolution unless he confesses first. And if this is an idle threat, then why would the pentient approach confession in the first place?