Has this even happened in real life? A killer going to confession just to brag about his crime sounds like the kind of thing that only occurs in movies and cheap novels.
No, he absolutely could not! Not unless the priest is will to risk severe punishment, including losing his priestly functions (‘defrocked’). A priest may not break the seal of the confessional to report on someone, even anonymously.
A problem given in the Seminary about this: Joe has been charged with a murder, convicted by a jury, and sentenced to be executed tomorrow. But Jack has confessed to the murder, and convinced the priest that he is the real guilty party. What is the responsibility of the priest in this case?
The “correct” answer is:
- the priest must give Jack a penance that includes going to the police and confessing, and that he must do so before Joe’s execution, or Joe’s death will also be on his soul. And if Jack refuses to do this, the priest is justified in denying him absolution.
- If Jack has refused to confess publicly, and the execution of Joe is imminent, the priest is justified in going to the Governor and telling him that someone else has confessed to this crime, and given proof to the priest, and then asking the Governor to commute or delay Joe’s execution. But the priest still can not tell the Governor who the other person was, or give any information likely to identify him.
Also, in your above post, you imply that these parties are a regularly occurring event. A valid confession requires repentence and an intention not to commit the sin again. Or at least to attempt to not do it again. So the priest would certainly tell Joe that if he is sincerely sorry for this sin, he would no longer attend these parties in the future. If Joe refuses, and declares his intention of continuing to go to these, it’s likely that the priest will refuse him absolution, on the grounds that he hasn’t really repented if he intends to commit the sin again.
The canonical prohibition from revealing confessed sins relies on the fact that the sins were committed, the penitent is sorry for them, and the penitent intends on reforming their life (even if the penitent is only imperfectly able to do these things – intent is what counts).
If the penititent reveals that they are going to commit future sins that harm themselves or others, then that is not covered by the ‘seal’ of confession. One can not express sorrow for and seek forgiveness, and reform oneself from what they’re about to do.
Thus, future sins are not proper matter for the sacrament, therefore, they do not fall under the seal. The same is true for incidental information which is not a confessed sin.
Of course, if the future actions and incidental information are not indicative of future harm, then the priest should keep that information as part of a professional (rather than sacramental) confidence.
Also, if someone comes into the sacrament to mock it (“I killed ten people, and I’m not sorry, and there’s nothing you can do about it, priest!”), then again, there’s no true sacramental relationship established, and thus, there’s no obligation to consider the ‘confession’ as being under ‘the seal.’
Regardless of whether civil law recognizes the confessional seal as privileged or not, almost all RC priests would endure prison and/or death than reveal a confession.
In 1997, a U.S. appeals court upheld the privilege of sacramental confession. Don’t know whether a state law could get around a U.S. Constitutional protection of the seal as a first amendment issue of freedom of religion if it ever got to the Supreme Court.
Peace.
This happened in the OJ Simpson case. Simpson was overheard by a deputy saying something to Rosie Grier (Pam’s uncle/cousin?), a self appointed minister, on Grier’s visit to LA County jail. The cop was not allowed to testify- Grier was deemed to be acting as a minister & OJ’s remark was privileged.
Pusuant to the Tarasoff case-adopted in most states, a mental health professional MUST inform known victims, or tell the police.
I couldn’t find a specific example of this, but I did find two articles that are interesting.
This one discusses a case involving Jackie O.
in short:
This one involves murder and the definition of ‘confession’.
From what I saw on the net, especially at some Catholic sites, a confession is private, period. There is no questioning of some thing being a heart-to-heart talk vs. a true confession. It’s all confidential or so it appears from what I read.
So, if this has happened in real life, vs. some mystery novel or movie, it would be hard to know.
Its not legal to attempt to trick him and it wouldn’t be admissible any way.
This is false, at least legally speaking. Privileges such as the priest-penitent privelege are purely functions of state law. If a state wished to do away with the privilege there is nothing to prevent them from doing so. A priest who did not testify when compelled to do so would then be held in contempt of court.
(If on the other hand you mean the priest has a moral obligation not to reveal anything under the rules of his religious order, and that he should remain silent even on pain of being held in contempt of court, that’s another matter entirely)
According to http://www.11kbw.co.uk/html/articles/selfincrimination.html there is no legal standing in the UK for the priest-penitent privilege, but my Googling skills are poor.
Y’know, we gotta come up with a vBB code that inserts a flashing neon-orange sign that says “WARNING: NONSERIOUS QUIP AHEAD”… But apart from that, it was only past Vat-2 that “Reconciliation” became the popular name for the sacrament.
Saying that you are about to do something to a priest in confession is not confession or reconciliation - and the priest would not be bound to honor that part of the confession. In fact, not going to the authorities would itself be a sin - the sin of pride maybe? You can go to confession and say you are sorry for shooting grandpa, the priest would have to respect that. But if you say you are going home to shoot grandma, the priest would be bound to take action - including going to the authorities. If for some convoluted reason the priest feels the person is genuinely sorry for offing grandpa, but still intends to shoot grandma, than grandma should be warned - but nothing said about grandpa.