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.
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.
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.
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…
I found this document 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.
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.
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.