Okay, I’ll buy that. So now I’m wondering, is every communication with such a person protected? Or just special ones? As I said, I’m pretty sure that the “seal of the confessional” doesn’t apply to someone who deliberately makes a confession just to avoid prosecution, because it wouldn’t actually be a confession as the Church defines it. So would a priest reporting a blatantly false confession be indadmissible? Or if you said something to your lawyer, say, at a party, would that be inadmissible because (s)he was your lawyer? Or are there special times or places when such communications are protected?
The priest can’t reveal information given during confession, but that doesn’t necessarily save the person from prosecution. I don’t see any way that you could “deliberately make a confession just to avoid prosecution” - it’s not like telling the priest gets you out of whatever info the police have on you. If the priest is the only one who has any information on the matter, he can’t alert the cops, even if he thinks your confession was insincere.
For lawyers, the privilege applies to information given in the course of seeking legal advice. So if you tell your lawyer that she’s hot after you’ve had a few drinks at a party, it’s definitely not privileged. If you tell your lawyer that you were the driver in a hit-and-run and you want to know the least damaging way of turning yourself in, it definitely is. If you tell your lawyer that you were the driver in a hit-and-run, and by the way, the victim is still alive and wedged in your windshield in the garage, she probably can alert the authorities to check your garage in order to avoid the threat of a crime resulting in grave bodily harm. (The “probably” is because it may not be a future crime, which is what the rule actually says. But it’s unlikely that a court would hold it against her).
I was thinking of the question obfusciatrist asked, whether a priest could simply routinely confess to another priest and be protected by the seal of the confession from that priest (or anyone else in the hierarchy) going to the cops or testifying against him.
Is this church law, or secular law? It seems to me from what you’ve said so far (although, obviously, IANAL) that the priest could go to the police, especially if he were certain that the confession wasn’t a good one and he were convinced that the acts would be repeated. He just wouldn’t be able to testify in court about the confession. Now, the trouble said priest would get into with the bishop is a whole 'nother ball of wax.
The rest of what you said made perfect sense to me. Thanks!
I’m not a Roman Catholic; however, I was raised Episcopalion (and, yes, the “whiskeypalians” also have the sacrament of confession). The way I understood it, back in the 1970s, is that if I confessed a crime to my priest, the priest would encourage or exhort me to also confess my crime to the civil authorities.
Sins, on the other hand (not that!), were solely in the priest’s purview.
Monty hits the nail on the head.
A priest cannot go to the police with what he knows. If he were to do that, he would have violated the seal of the confessional.
What he can do (and is supposed to do) is encourage the offender to go to the secular authorities with regard to the crime as part of the offender’s atonement.
So if I went to a priest (IANAC, BTW, not that it matters) and confessed that I’d lost it and murdered my roommate, and buried her out in California’s High Desert, he would tell me that a part of my penance should be to turn myself in.
Whether I do that or not is entirely up to me; if I’m truly penitent presumably I will do what it takes to earn atonement through penance.
Right, but is the seal of the confessional there when the confession isn’t? Entirely absurdly hypothetical situation: A man comes into the confessional, and says, “Bless me Father, for I have sinned. My last confession was yesterday. I killed a man five minutes ago, I enjoyed it, and what’s more, I’ll probably do it again tomorrow. You can’t turn me in, because of the seal of the confessional!”
This wasn’t a confession–we’re not just talking insincere here, we’re talking blatantly ignoring what confession is. So there’s no seal of the confessional. Or at least that’s what I was taught.
It seems to me that any priest hearing another priest repeatedly confess to molesting children has grounds to suspect the sincerity of the confession. At the very least, a priest could probably refuse to hear any further confessions from such a person, although I’m hazy on how binding imposition of pennance is–if you’re repeatedly given turning yourself in as a pennance, and you repeatedly don’t, can that be considered “evidence” that your confession was meant deceptively (so that, for instance, your confessor doesn’t turn you in even though they suspect you)? I imagine most bishops wouldn’t want to touch that with a ten foot pole, but what is the letter of Canon Law in such a situation?
It is my understanding that when one confesses to a crime (to a priest, in confession, etc), part of the reconciliation is to confess said to a police officer. IOW, you turn yourself over. The seal of confession would prohibit any priest from telling someone else what he (or she, depending on the Rite or whatever) heard in confession, and, it is my understanding, said seal would also prohibit priests from acting on any information they received during a confession (i.e. telling a parent or the police). I would hope, however, that any priest who heard the confession of a pederast would immediately tell said person to go to the police and turn him/herself in.
I’d love to know if they ever told my grandfather that (assuming he A) admitted it in confession and B) acknowledged to himself that it was a sin).
Say I’d killed someone and then buried the corpse in the Mojave about 20 yards away from the road. Say that I then went and confessed this crime to a priest. It’s actually irrelevant that I’m not a member of his or her faith group. The confession itself is still protected. The Priest may not divulge my identity to the police; however, he can call the cop shop and inform them of the whereabouts of the corpse. He can also tell them that he got this information in confession. He can’t tell anyone who confessed the crime to him, nor can the police legally set up around the church and see who is in the habit of going to confessional.
Close enough, Monty, though I’ll leave it to the Catholics to make the clarification needed.
The “seal of the confessional” prohibits a priest from telling anyone at any time of what was divulged in a proper confession, including that a crime was committed – but note that a “proper confession” includes contrition for one’s sins, and the desire to make appropriate amends. Forgiveness would therefore be incumbent on carrying out the penance given, which might include engaging an attorney and divulging to him one’s guilt for a crime. I don’t believe a priest can use his power of absolution to enforce a confession to the police, per se, but could require that the penitent enter into the proper legal process of clearing up the crime. (E.g., that the attorney, once engaged, might negotiate a plea bargain or immunity in exchange for aiding the police in catching those guilty of more major offenses is not germane to the priest/penitent interrelationship, but that one pursue some form of atonement for one’s sins, which can involve clearing up crimes one has committed, is.) Does that distinction help to clear up what can and cannot be done licitly by the priest?
Unfortunately, I left my copy of the Code of Canon Law in my car…(no, really…I did…)
Priests are entirely capable of refusing to grant absolution. (My suspicion is that a priest can’t refuse to hear confession…we’re talking about a person’s soul being at stake…) To the best of my knowledge, however, the “seal of the confessional” is still present. The best the priest could hope to do is direct the confessor to repent by surrendering himself to the authorities; confession could still be heard in prison.
Canon 983.1 appears to address the “Seal of the confessional”. A general overview is given here.
Not that there is also the notion of “professional secrets”…a slightly different notion than that of confessional privacy.
I don’t ordinarily find myself defending JP II, but here goes:
It is not official church policy to molest children, or to cover it up. They clearly have had a de facto policy of covering it up and enabling it. But it has been condemned publicly and that is a good thing is it not. The Pope has not admitted a de facto conspiracy to cover these incidents up that enabled it to continue, probably for legal reasons. The church faces potentially thousands of lawsuits, and such an admission would be binding in most courts, and bankrupt the church. So he cannot responsibly protect the institution he is the head of by making such an admission.
(Another Catholic piping in)
I would also think that then the priest who heard the confession might perhaps, oh, keep an eye on the confessee, and see if he sees or hears anything suspicious. If he learns something OUT of the confessional, I would think that he could report THAT.
Couldn’t he?
I don’t claim expertise, but a former priest (who left the priesthood to marry) told me that the example you cite could be considered “abuse of confessional privilege”. I am certainly willing to be informed otherwise, if such is not the case.
You’re probably right.
QtM is correct. This would be an “indirect” violation of the seal.
From my earlier cite…
The sacrosanct nature of the seal of the confessional makes sense to me, btw, even as a non-Christian.
After all, I as confesser need to be able to trust that what I say to the priest under that seal will remain between us. Otherwise, I’m not as likely to confess my sins (whatever they may be) for fear that the priest will betray my confidence and all my embarrassment will be put on public display (within the church).
The necessity of this silence for trust of the priest by the parishoner, however, does lead to a certain inevitable (and unenviable) position for the priest who has heard a confession of grave sin. And to the subject of this discussion - because the confessor can’t violate that trust no matter how much he may want to.
The “sin” here isn’t the covering up by confessors. It’s the covering up by the church.
First of all could we be a little more respectfull, even though this the pit we are speaking of the spiritual leader of millions (including myself).
First issue: confession, everything you say to a priest in confession is secret period. He can not go to the police, if he is questioned in a court of law (at least according to my countries processals codes) he has the same privileges as the lawyer, that is he can only testify if he is allowed by the confessor. Of course, a confession is not valid if you do not repent, confessing to the police your crime is a nice way to show you are truly sorry.
Second issue, the church as an institution did not cover up those crimes, a bishop (perhaps) but if you think that the Pope himself from Castelgandolfo silenced everything, you are seriously msitaken. Give credit to the man he believes in what he preaches and he acts in consequence.
Well, even IF one buys the argument that only individual bishops have direct oversight over their priests…the Holy Father (and his advisors) have known of the problems of clerical abuse for quite some time now.
To many observers, it seems that the pontiff has been engaged in (as RTF put it) a conspiracy of silence. Whatever PUBLIC proclamations on the topic there have been from J2P2, have been few and far between. His latest mention amounted to one paragraph out of a 23 page statement annually given to priests at Easter time. It essentially had the same kind of language in it as the last time he spoke on the topic (briefly) at Catholic World Youth Day in Denver a few years back.
You mention that “he acts in consequences”…yet I (a fellow Roman Catholic) have not seen those acts, certainly not in the light of day…where they would make the most impact on the church faithful. I DO see Bernard Cardinal Law, an American clone of his holiness, being dragged kicking and screaming (metaphorically) into seriously facing the issue of pedophillia in his own archdiocese. I suspect that the pope has issued far MORE words on the need to keep priests male and celibate, than he has ever issued on the very real issue of pedophillia. That seems to be a glaring ommission, and a distorted sense of church priorities.
Your evidence? It would be nice for me to believe that at least the pope didn’t know, as well as not being part of a cover up. However, history doesn’t paint the RC church organization and many past popes in a particularly honest and honorable light. Maybe this pope is different, and is one of better ones.
One of my old profs was a Basilian priest, and we had one or two frank discussions about the RC church. Homosexuality in the RC church came up one time. He said that it was known by the powers running the RC church that a large percentage of the aspiring priests coming into the seminaries were sexually perverted, and many of them continued to be active. When I asked him how could he keep working with such, and how come he didn’t quit, he told me that it was hard to let go, since he was in his 60’s, and could retire with the RC church if he stayed on.
He also said that there were many good priests in the RC church. I didn’t bring up at the time that anyone who knows, and stands silently by and allows such things to happen, probably shouldn’t be considered in too high of a standing, either.
I was raised RC. Much of my family still is RC. When I was small, the one thing I wanted to be for a time was an RC priest. Back then, I had a lot of respect for who I thought they were.