So far as I’m aware, the priest-penitent privilege has never been found to contain a crime-fraud or future crimes exception. To pick an example I’m most familiar with, the Code of Virginia, § 19.2-271.3 provides:
(emphasis added)
So what tactic do you imagine “the authorities” might use to get around that explicit codification of absolute privilege?
First, he obviously would not be repentant of his sin in doing so. He would also (a) lose his job as a priest – priests who break the seal of the confessional are, I believe, automatically excommunicated – and, having forsworn an oath, would not be able to hold a job requiring that anyone trust him thereafter, meaning he would have to become unskilled labor. It’s quite a step down from, “The body of Christ, the bread of heaven” to “Do you want fries with that?”
Well, no offense to any and all Catholics as the confessional has worked to my advantage several times inasmuch as an old girlfriend of mine was Catholic. When her conscience began to trouble her concerning her propensity to engage in any and all sexual activity, she would have me drive her to various catholic churches where she would confess her sinful ways, be absolved and then resume her sinful ways in short order. But she insisted on going to different churches on the grounds that a priest might remember her is she returned too soon. There are an awful lot of Catholic churches in Dallas. This is an absolutely true story; I swear it by my hope of eternal salvation.
But I will continue to believe that it is just flat wrong for a priest to conceal knowledge of a capital crime. For that matter, I believe it is just flat wrong for anyone to conceal knowledge of a capital crime.
I will also concede that I have no idea how often a capital crime is confessed to a priest. For all I know, it might happen only occasionally, if that often. And my opinion is prejudiced because I was raised as a Southern Baptist and we do not believe in intermediaries between us and our God. Therefore, to my way of thinking, there is no need whatsoever for a confessional. IMHO, YMMV, and so forth and so on.
A real world example of this was the case of Robert Hanssen, an Opus-Dei Catholic who was a spy for the Russians. His actions cause the deaths of contacts in Russia and did huge damage to the U.S. military and intelligence efforts. He would confess his crimes many times and by his own testimony his priest suggested he give the money the KBG paid him to Mother Theresa. Even though Hanssen’s criminal actions were directly responsible for the executions of people in Russia the confessional system is immune from any responsibility.
Several items deserve discussion. First, there is no joint “confession.” Or to put it another way, while there certainly can be joint confession, there is no joint Confession. If the Hanssens jointly discussed this with the priest, then it may well have been counselling and guidance, but it’s not correct to blame any outcome on the secrecy of confession. The fact that they all talked about it together removed it from the secrecy requirements. The priest’s decision to not report it, then, has absolutely zero to do with the canon law or secular law requirements of the priest-penitent privilege.
So on what basis do you inveigh against the practice using this example?
It was reported in the book SpyCatcher, that he did confess his crimes to his priest perhaps it was a different one than in your info. I am not saying the confessional system like lawyer/client and others in medical situations
is good or bad just indicating in this case crimes were committed and people in Russia died because of them.
Did he confess his crimes to his priest, or did he Confess his crimes to his priest? If I go up to Fr. O’Rourke and say, “hey Father, I just stole $1,000 from Joe - what should I do?” that is entirely different than going into a confessional booth and saying, “Bless me, Father, for I have sinned. I stole $1,000 from Joe.”
Eh? Is there another “SpyCatcher” I don’t know about ? SpyCatcherwas the MI5 expose that was banned in the UK during the 1980s, Hanssen wasn’t caught until 2001. Or is this another thread ?
No question that crimes were committed, and no quesiton that people died.
The objection I have to the relevance of the story is that their deaths had absolutely nothing to do with the secrecy requirement imposed by canon law on a priest hearing a confession.
Since this thread is titled Do priests hearing confession have an obligation to report serious crimes?, it’s not really clear what that story has to do with the subject of this thread.
Hanssen (actually his wife) claims it was in confession (my reading of the story is that Hanssen then told his wife what the prest has said, not that they both talked to the priest together). Though of course we have no corroboration of that as for the priest in question to deny or confirm it, would be a breach of the confessional.
Other preists have commented that it would have been theologically dubious for Father Bucciarelli not to have insisted he turn himself in to the authorities. As the sin in question was not just taking the money (e.g. if a hitman takes $20000 to kill someone, then confesses it. The priest shouldn’t just tell him to give the money to charity and it will all be ok.).
Though purely theologically speaking is spying a sin ? Yes it resulted in deaths, but so does being a soldier.
I quite agree and have no problem with any of that. My point was that the lawyer’s privleged communication has exceptions, the priest’s does not. It’s this absolute privilege that concerns me. Both lawyer and priest do serve valuable roles but society extends the greater privilege to the priest. I don’t see how that can be justified.
There is nothing in that story that seems to imply it was not a confession. My reading of it is that Hanssen told his wife what the priest had told him (which would seem the natural thing to do).
It’s extremely difficult to read into that account the idea that Hanssen’s disclosure to the priest was solely in the context of the confessional. The priest clearly talks with both of them about the issue, which he could not have done if the matter were covered by the seal.
Well, I do, but that’s a discussion that cannot really take place in GQ, the home of factual questions and answers. From a factual standpoint, the privilege does exist and it is not coextensive with the privileges granted to attorney client or doctor-patient communications. Whether this is a justified decision for a society to make is not factual determination.