I am curious how far the legal protections for what is said in Confessional to a priest extend.
Attorneys and doctors enjoy a similar priviledge but the priviledge is not absolute. If you tell an attorney you are going to go out and commit a crime they are supposed to snitch on you (whether they do or not is another matter). Doctors are compelled to report child abuse.
Are priests similarly compelled by law to report specific things if they learn of it in the confessional or can someone say anything they like to the priest without fear of the police being informed?
Also, what specifically constitutes the ‘confessional’ itself. Do you have to be sitting in the classic confessional box or is chatting with your priest at the door to the church sufficient for protection? Does the confession have to be formally begun and ended to define where the protected communication occurs?
Depends on state law. Most states probably have some form of exception that allows the clergyman to report future crimes, but whether this will be permissive or mandatory and its exact contours are a matter of the particular statute or rule at issue.
As to your last question, as far as the State is concerned, there is no formal requirement to be in a specific place or recite specific words for the protection to be invoked, but if the religion does have formal requirements, then failing to fulfill them may mean the communication was not made in confidence with the expectation that it would be protected, which is typically required.
Technically, if someone tells a priest what they are going to do in the future, then they are not confessing past sins, thus, future intentions are not covered under the sacramental seal of the confessional. However, barring a promise to harm oneself or others, such information about future intentions would be considerd by the priest (and the courts) to be part of the usual client/counselor privilege.
**
I’ve heard hearsay that some state (Minnesota maybe) requires the priest to wear a stole. That won’t hold up in court since a stole is not absolutely required by Church practice. It’s pretty clear when someone is asking to celebrate the sacrament of confession, it’s not going to be confused with chit chat or pastoral counseling.
The form of the sacrament begins with the penitent asking for forgiveness and listing the sins that their conscience accuses themselves of. Then the priest imposes a penance and grants absolution. That’s not going to be mistaken for other types of interactions. The sacrament can be celebrated practically anywhere at anytime.
Non-sacramental pastoral counseling is treated by the courts with the same standards as psychological counseling.
Peace.
Bless me, Father, for I have sinned. I stole a banana and ate the skin.
I’m sure it differs from church to church but I am curious about this part. A Catholic friend of mine said she can hardly remember doing the “Forgive me Father for I have sinned” bit…especially in a confessional box. She said most of her confessing is done these days in a much more relaxed and informal manner that generally sees her sitting across the table from the priest and chatting.
I suppose it is likely up to the priest to determine whether a communication should be guarded by the church or not (that is…the Church defines where the lines are drawn). I wonder though who gets to invoke this? If a priest decides he must talk to the police can the person who had the communication with the priest invoke this priviledge or is it up to the priest alone? I know in the case of a spouse the protected communication is held by the ‘other’ party. That is, if your wife (for instance) tries to tell the police about your confession of murder the husband can invoke the priviledge. It is not up to the wife to decide whether she wants to talk or not. I do not know if this is the case for priests, doctors and attorneys.
I would be surprised if a state has ever tested this against the Catholic Church and I wouldn’t be surprised to find the priests protecting the confessional ahead of the state laws. If anyone does know of instances where these boundaries have been tested in the courts I’d be interested to know of them.
There are two different privileges between spouses: spousal immunity and confidential marital communication privilige. In spousal immunity, a married person cannot be compelled to testify against their spouse in a criminal proceeding. In federal court, the witness-spouse hold the privilege (decides whether to testify or not), in most state courts, the party-spouse does.
In confidential marital communications, statements made in confidence to the spouse can’t be divulged in either a criminal or civil proceeding. Both spouses hold this privilege.
In the clergy-penitent privilege, the confessor holds the privilege.
Well, there are situations when one sees a person on a regular basis for spiritual direction. When the spiritual director is a priest, he is sometimes called a ‘confessor.’ In these situations, it’s sort of understood that when discussion is of past sin, that there will be official celebration of the sacrament of confession. When that does occur, it’s pretty clear when it does, for even though most of the form is skipped (e.g., no ‘bless me father…’), the absolution from the priest (“I forgive you of your sins in the name of the Father…”) is essential and never skipped. When the absolution is given, then there is the understanding that the sins mentioned, even informally are now under the seal.
Anyone can blab about their sins to whomever they want, even if they’ve confessed them to a priest. The priest may never divulge confessed sins, even it the penitent said it was OK.
Now, if I understand your question, you want to know if a priest was about to break the seal of confession, can the penitent insist that the priest shut up? With regards to the Church, yes. With regards to civil law… I don’t know.
Peace.
Now, hear my confession: I have, many times in the past spelled ‘privilege’ as ‘priviledge.’ Please learn from the error of my ways.
I’ll try to cover the legal situation in Australia, and under the English common law. Some terminiology first: in Australia, the usage is “clergy-penitent privilege”.
Common law
Some commentators argue that before England severed its ties to Rome, there may have been civil law recognition of the confessional seal of the Catholic Church, but after the Reformation such privilege was no longer granted to any member of the clergy.
There is also argument to the contrary, but strong support exists for the proposition that no clergy-penitent privilege exists at common law. (If we want cases, I’d two old English cases *Normanshaw v Normanshaw * and R v Hay.) OTOH, there is some case law which would appear to contradict the claim that privilege does not exist at common law (especially R v Griffin), but essentially, the issue of “confessional” privilege is a discretionary matter for judges under the common law. The issue remains is better settled by looking at the legislation.
In Australia
There is a statutory clergy-penitent privilege in most Australian states, contained in the Evidence Act of each state. State provisions typically allow for removal of privilege where the penitent consents. From memory, the New South Wales and Commonwealth Acts allow for removal of the privilege only where confession was made to a criminal purpose.
In my home state, Western Australia and (I think) Queensland, there was no statutory clergy-pentient privilege (when I last covered this, some years ago), but that may have changed since as Australia moves towards uniform evidence laws.
**
**As an illustration, under the Commonwealth law down here, the confession must be a “religious confession”, which means “a confession made by a person to a member of the clergy in the member’s professional capacity according to the ritual of the church or religious denomination concerned.”
Well, there are situations when one sees a person on a regular basis for spiritual direction. When the spiritual director is a priest, he is sometimes called a ‘confessor.’ In these situations, it’s sort of understood that when discussion is of past sin, that there will be official celebration of the sacrament of confession. When that does occur, it’s pretty clear when it does, for even though most of the form is skipped (e.g., no ‘bless me father…’), the absolution from the priest (“I forgive you of your sins in the name of the Father…”) is essential and never skipped. When the absolution is given, then there is the understanding that the sins mentioned, even informally are now under the seal.
Anyone can blab about their sins to whomever they want, even if they’ve confessed them to a priest. The priest may never divulge confessed sins, even if the penitent said it was OK.
Now, if I understand your question, you want to know if a priest was about to break the seal of confession, can the penitent insist that the priest shut up? With regards to the Church, yes. With regards to civil law… I don’t know.
Peace.
Now, hear my confession: I have, many times in the past spelled ‘privilege’ as ‘priviledge.’ Please learn from the error of my ways.