# Is there any legal prohibition against a priest revealing a confession? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [October 26, 2016, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-legal-prohibition-against-a-priest-revealing-a-confession/769800 "2016-10-26T19:36:15Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 11\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2016, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-legal-prohibition-against-a-priest-revealing-a-confession/769800/41 "2016-10-27T18:17:32Z")
> [@kayaker](#): > > I once got pretty drunk with my friend Michael and his uncle, an alcoholic Catholic priest. > > Michael’s uncle began telling “tales from the confessional” which I found hilarious, but Michael became increasingly upset. The priest said it was ok because he wasn’t naming names, but Michael insisted it was a horrible sin. > > Eventually Michael couldn’t take any more and asked me to leave. > ETA: the priest got a real kick out of me calling him “Uncle Father”, but then again he was pretty trashed. As **psychonaut** correctly cited above, this is covered by the Code of Canon Law, Can. 983 §1, which provides that it is absolutely forbidden for a priest to betray in any way a penitent in words or in any manner and for any reason. So the better practice is to avoid doing what the priest was doing, especially if the “tales” contain specific information by which a listener might identify a specific situation or penitent. It’s likely safe for a priest to discuss, generically, things like, “Many small children confess to fighting with their siblings,” because this is an aggregate observation that can apply to any population of small children. But more specific, or lurid, recitals run the risj of transgressing that law. And of course that’s church law, not secular law. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2016, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-legal-prohibition-against-a-priest-revealing-a-confession/769800/42 "2016-10-27T19:00:15Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > That’s a pretty simplistic note for a complicated issue of Church history. There was also the Nestorian Church, the Eastern Church, the Coptic Church, and so forth. **[t.bonham@scc.net](mailto:t.bonham@scc.net)** was responding to a question from **Francis Vaughan** about where the priest-penitent privilege comes from, i.e. the legal privilege. Since the US law on this point is based on English common law, then yes, the Catholic Church doctrine was the starting point for the privilege, since those other churches were not present in England. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2016, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-legal-prohibition-against-a-priest-revealing-a-confession/769800/43 "2016-10-27T19:07:32Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > **[t.bonham@scc.net](mailto:t.bonham@scc.net)** was responding to a question from **Francis Vaughan** about where the priest-penitent privilege comes from, i.e. the legal privilege. Since the US law on this point is based on English common law, then yes, the Catholic Church doctrine was the starting point for the privilege, since those other churches were not present in England. The Celtic church was. Still, in AD 400 it’s hard to argue there was a distinct “Catholic” church. ---
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2016, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-legal-prohibition-against-a-priest-revealing-a-confession/769800/44 "2016-10-27T19:45:26Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > As **psychonaut** correctly cited above, this is covered by the Code of Canon Law, Can. 983 §1, which provides that it is absolutely forbidden for a priest to betray in any way a penitent in words or in any manner and for any reason. So the better practice is to avoid doing what the priest was doing, especially if the “tales” contain specific information by which a listener might identify a specific situation or penitent. It’s likely safe for a priest to discuss, generically, things like, “Many small children confess to fighting with their siblings,” because this is an aggregate observation that can apply to any population of small children. But more specific, or lurid, recitals run the risj of transgressing that law. > > And of course that’s church law, not secular law. I imagine it’s rather similar to the restrictions on medical professionals as far as divulging someone’s medical status. If the doctor says “A guy came in the other day with an acorn squash up his butt”, that doesn’t really divulge anything identifying any more than a priest saying that one of his penitents confessed to some bizarre act, unless the bizarre act was in itself identifying. ---
**Author:** ![Tom\_Tildrum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e95f7d/32.png) [@Tom\_Tildrum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tom_Tildrum)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2016, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-legal-prohibition-against-a-priest-revealing-a-confession/769800/45 "2016-10-27T20:22:21Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I don’t know the law in Australia. I’ve heard that it turns the common law upside down in many ways. ---
**Author:** ![Melbourne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b5e925/32.png) [@Melbourne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Melbourne)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2016, 12:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-legal-prohibition-against-a-priest-revealing-a-confession/769800/46 "2016-10-28T00:08:51Z")
> [@Tom\_Tildrum](#): > > I’ve heard that it turns the common law upside down in many ways. ˙pǝʇɐlsᴉƃǝl-ǝɹ uǝǝq ʎlʇsoɯ ǝʌɐɥ ɐᴉlɐɹʇsn∀ uᴉ ǝɔuǝpᴉʌǝ ɟo sǝlnɹ 'ʍɐl uoɯɯoɔ ɯoɹɟ pǝʌᴉɹǝp ǝɹɐ ʎǝɥʇ ɥƃnoɥʇl∀ ---
**Author:** ![UDS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecae2f/32.png) [@UDS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2016, 1:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-legal-prohibition-against-a-priest-revealing-a-confession/769800/47 "2016-10-28T01:18:31Z")
> [@coremelt](#): > > I believe that counsellors / psychiatrists are legally required to break privilege in Australia in cases of ongoing harm and I see no rational reason why religious clergy should not have a similar obligation. Sorry but real world ongoing harm takes priority over your made up rules from the invisible sky father. > [@Bricker](#): > > Nothing in your post addresses the law in Australia; you have merely shared your opinion of what the law should be and your opinion of what public sentiment might be. I assume that in Australia, neither your opinion nor a measurement of public sentiment would be the basis for an evidentiary ruling by a court. > > Or am I mistaken? As I say: I don’t know the law in Australia. Various Australian states have mandatory disclosure regimes in relation to child abuse, but so far as I know none of them extend to what a priest might hear in the confessional. It’s hard to see the value in such a rule. If the priest doesn’t disclose what he has heard in the confessional, then the only way you would know what he had heard, and could prosecute him for not disclosing it, is if the pentitent reports what he himself said, and is willing to give evidence to that effect. But if the penitent does this, you have whatever evidence of crime the penitent’s statements could give you - you have direct evidence from the penitent that such-and-such a thing happened, which is obviously better than hearsay evidence from a priest that the penitent said that such-and-such a thing happened, both in terms of admissibility and in terms of simple probative value… ---
**Author:** ![muldoonthief](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muldoonthief/32/3188_2.png) [@muldoonthief](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/muldoonthief)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2016, 12:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-legal-prohibition-against-a-priest-revealing-a-confession/769800/48 "2016-10-31T12:56:27Z")
I found this [document](https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubPDFs/clergymandated.pdf) from the US government listing various rules about clergy testifying, specifically in child abuse cases. There most certainly are several states that do not recognize any clergy-penitent privilege in child abuse cases, so yes, a priest could be forced to testify as to what he was told in the confessional. Also, as I’m reading the laws about the privilege, it appears that a priest cannot be forced to testify to what he heard in the confessional, but can he volunteer to do so and still have it be admissable? **Bricker’s** cite above (of Virginia law?) says: > [@](#): > > A clergy member means any regular minister, priest, rabbi, or accredited > practitioner over the age of 18 years, of any religious organization or denomination > usually referred to as a church. A clergy member **shall not be required** : > > (A) in any civil action, to give testimony as a witness or to disclose in discovery > proceedings the contents of notes, records or any written documentation made by > the clergy member, where such testimony or disclosure would reveal any > information communicated in a confidential manner, properly entrusted to such > clergy member in a professional capacity and necessary to enable discharge of the > functions of office according to the usual course of the clergy member’s practice or > discipline, wherein the person so communicating such information about himself > or herself, or another, was seeking spiritual counsel and advice relating to and > growing out ofthe information so imparted; and > > (B) in any criminal action, in giving testimony as a witness to disclose any > information communicated by the accused in a confidential manner, properly > entrusted to the clergy member in a professional capacity and necessary to enable > discharge of the functions of office according to the usual course of the clergy \_ > member’s practice or discipline, where the person· so communicating such > information about himself or herself, or another, was seeking spiritual counsel and > advice relating to and growing out of the information so imparted. So basically you can’t require clergy to testify, but I don’t see anything there about evidence being inadmissable if a clergy member volunteers to testify. **Bricker** , is that a separate section of law? ---
**Author:** ![Tired\_and\_Cranky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/a87d85/32.png) [@Tired\_and\_Cranky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tired_and_Cranky)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2016, 3:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-legal-prohibition-against-a-priest-revealing-a-confession/769800/49 "2016-10-31T15:09:14Z")
> [@muldoonthief](#): > > I found this [document](https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubPDFs/clergymandated.pdf) from the US government listing various rules about clergy testifying, specifically in child abuse cases. There most certainly are several states that do not recognize any clergy-penitent privilege in child abuse cases, so yes, a priest could be forced to testify as to what he was told in the confessional. > > Also, as I’m reading the laws about the privilege, it appears that a priest cannot be forced to testify to what he heard in the confessional, but can he volunteer to do so and still have it be admissable? **Bricker’s** cite above (of Virginia law?) says: > So basically you can’t require clergy to testify, but I don’t see anything there about evidence being inadmissable if a clergy member volunteers to testify. **Bricker** , is that a separate section of law? I think it will depend on the state. In New York, for instance, the priest-penitent privilege essentially belongs to the penitent. New York law provides that, “Unless the person confessing or confiding waives the privilege, a clergyman, or other minister of any religion or duly accredited Christian Science practitioner, shall not be allowed [to] disclose a confession or confidence made to him in his professional character as spiritual advisor.” Delaware has a similar rule (“A person has a privilege to refuse to disclose and to prevent another from disclosing a confidential communication by the person to a clergyman in his professional character as a spiritual adviser”) and that privilege can be claimed by the person’s estate even after they die. I’m not sure where Bricker’s cite is from but there may be a separate provision in that state that would prohibit the priest from testifying even if he or she wanted to. Or maybe there isn’t and a priest could not be compelled to testify but could do so willingly. ---
**Author:** ![md2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/73ab20/32.png) [@md2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md2000)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2016, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-legal-prohibition-against-a-priest-revealing-a-confession/769800/50 "2016-10-31T18:32:46Z")
The privilege comes about because going far back in history, some (Catholic) clergy chose to become martyrs or go to jail or undergo torture rather than betray the confessional and their vows. A state that state that chooses to ignore the privilege of confessional simply is one that has to decide whether it will routinely lock up clergy, particularly Catholic ones, for sticking to principles. Some states apparently didn’t have a problem with that. All churches have some form of counselling for members. The sacrament of confession was instituted to allow people to confess their sins to God without fear that there would be earthly retribution. Obviously, unburdening your mind and admitting wrongdoing helps. IIRC, some confessions the priest will strongly suggest that confessing to worldly authorities would be part of the duty of righting things, although they don’t deny spiritual confession. But then, of course as pointed out - if there’s no expectation of confidentiality, why would anyone be honest? Then just stack the jury with Catholics and get the priest to admit that you told him in the privacy of the confessional that you didn’t do it. ---
**Author:** ![Melisande](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/dec6dc/32.png) [@Melisande](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Melisande)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2016, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-legal-prohibition-against-a-priest-revealing-a-confession/769800/51 "2016-10-31T21:09:18Z")
> [@UDS](#): > > Various Australian states have mandatory disclosure regimes in relation to child abuse, but so far as I know none of them extend to what a priest might hear in the confessional. > > It’s hard to see the value in such a rule. If the priest doesn’t disclose what he has heard in the confessional, then the only way you would know what he had heard, and could prosecute him for not disclosing it, is if the pentitent reports what he himself said, and is willing to give evidence to that effect. But if the penitent does this, you have whatever evidence of crime the penitent’s statements could give you - you have direct evidence from the penitent that such-and-such a thing happened, which is obviously better than hearsay evidence from a priest that the penitent said that such-and-such a thing happened, both in terms of admissibility and in terms of simple probative value… The point of mandatory reporting is so that the appropriate authorities can step in and stop the abuse, not so that they can charge the abuser. But AFAICT, priests in Australia are not required to report confessions, even if they are otherwise mandatory reporters. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-legal-prohibition-against-a-priest-revealing-a-confession/769800.md?page=2)