Jehovah’s Witnesses are chubacabras. Didn’t you know? 
I keep my Chupacabra-repelling rocks (big uns, too) in my knickers.
According to certain UK newsapapers Mrs McCann has allegedly confessed to a Catholic priest that she accidentally killed Maddy.
Portuguese police are pressing the priest for information but the question remains:
Can the priest be made to admit if this allegation is true or will he be bound by the rules of the confessional?
Here’s a breakdown of the rumors (including a couple I hadn’t heard) v. acknowledged facts, in The Guardian.
No mention of a confession, though.
That’s all kinds of stupid. How did UK newspapers found out about it in the first place? The priest wouldn’t have said anything and neither would she.
I have no idea who found out what or even if it is substantiated.
Portuguese detectives think that Mrs McC may have confessed to the priest at the church which they had unlimited access to
You mean they HOPE she did.
What’s next? Kate McCann allowed Maddie to be taken by space aliens?
:rolleyes:
What’s with the sarcasm lady?
I posted only what I saw in the papers so get off your high horse.
FWIW I hope the kiddy is alive and well, that’s all I hope
I suggest the sarcasm is not directed at you, but at those stupid UK papers. Or maybe it’s not the papers that are stupid.
That’s the strangest kind of logic I’ve heard lately (unless they had a spy camera in the confession booth).
I suggest the sarcasm was indeed fired straight at me.
Read again the first sentence
Now they’re just making shit up. They’re probably picking stuff up off the forums at the newspapers website.
Or they’re working under the assumption that she did it and, therefore, must have confessed. Although would an accidental murder be a mortal sin requiring confession, I was under the impression that mortal sins had to be committed with full intent.
Anyroads, the priest isn’t going to have told anyone. And the police are not going to make the media circus any worse by implying he has.
Just not going to happen.
In some countries confessions are considered privileged, in others they aren’t. I’d lean towards them being privileged in Portugal but I’ve no cite for it.
In any case they’d have to have a damn good reason for trying to force the priest to testify and newspaper hearsay is not that reason.
Let us assume for a second that the newspapers are correct.
I realise that the confessional is supposed to be sacrosanct and that whatever is said by the the confessor is absolutely confidential.
If the priest has received a confession and if that confession indicated that Maddy had been killed by her parents, whether purposefully or not, surely the priest would be under moral obligation to inform the authorities.
Or am I wrong?
You’re very wrong. Whatever his moral obligation might be, he is bound by his Holy Orders to keep the confessional sacrosanct. If he breaks the seal of the confessional, he is automatically excommunicated. Priests have gone to jail rather than break the seal of confession. They also cannot make absolution contingent on the penitent confessing their offense to legal authorities.
Are you asking if his own moral code would compel him, or if the Church would compel him? If the former, it depends upon the individual. If the latter, I think you are wrong. I am not a Catholic, and am open to correction, but I think that that is what the sanctity of the confession means. The priest will not divulge what was told to him during confession, no matter what it is.
What lisacurl said.
Also, from the priests point of view, who is the higher power here, the law or the Lord? If Mrs McCann did confess and is remorseful then she has been absolved. So there may be no real moral obligation depending on the priests views.
Regardless Holy Orders prevent him revealing details of the confession, even if lives are at risk. It would be a truly remarkable occurrence if it ever happens (and I believe it has from time to time) and it will not happen in this case.
OK I get what you all say.
However by not informing the authorities, does this not then make the priest some sort of an accessory to the crime
“Thou Shalt Not Kill”
Again, I am not a legal expert, but, depending upon the venue, priests are excused by statute from testifying against those who confess to them.
There is also the logistical problem of knowing when a priest has knowledge of a crime. How would you know when to charge them unless they had already revealed the confession?
I wasn’t talking about charging the priest. What I really meant,I suppose it could have been clearer, would not the priest himself feel like an accessory
Well, like I said upthread, he may take the view that it’s for God to decide.
But, yes, I imagine he’d feel conflicted, this is just one of the burdens that priests have to endure.
As in partly responsible? Doubtful. **lisacurl **covered it. Priests, in their minds, answer to a higher authority. Their responsibility is to adhere to the rules of God.