You must be rather fond of being the target of Pit threads here. Otherwise, you wouldn’t be looking for yet another one with such a comment as this.
Priests don’t have a code of ethics, then? I know that in psychiatry/psychology, the Tarasoff ruling made it clear that mental health professionals must break confidentiality to protect people who might be the target of harm. I’m not sure what their responsibility is in the case where someone has confessed a murder that hasn’t happened, but with regard to an impending death/harm, the responsibility is clear. I assumed that priests, lawyers, or anyone with confidentiality would have to break it for similar reasons.
But not priests. Because they believe that there is a higher law, one that trumps man’s law.
I’m simul-reading this with the OJ thread, incidentally, and it reminds me of Rev. Rosie Grier’s visit to OJ in prison. That was confidential too – all clergy visits are, in prison – and the subject of much speculation, because OJ raised his voice, and people heard, or thought they heard, the phrase “kill my wife” or “killed my wife.” But no one will ever know what was said there, either.
The priest/penitent privilege is a legal question which is different from the Roman Catholic doctrine of the Seal of the Confessional.
In the US the legal question is based in First Amendment doctrine, unlike the confidentiality of mental health professionals which is a matter of public policy and therefore more flexible. In most states in the US it is defined by statute. If I recall correctly it does not exist in the UK. I have not even a tiny clue whether it exists in Portugal. I would guess that priests are not compelled to testify there, but it would be a guess.
Whether it does or does not exist in Portugal, the priest won’t tell anyway, because of the Catholic doctrine of the Seal of the Confessional. A priest may make no use of the information he gains about the penitent’s life. He may not in any way, verbal or nonverbal, betray the penitent. He can’t even ask his pastor, Bishop, or Archbishop for advice unless he omits the name and identity of the penitent.
A priest may refuse absolution if he feels that the person is not repentant or will fail to take steps to prevent serious future wrongdoing – and those steps may include requiring the penitent to turn himself in to the police, if that is what the priest thinks is required. He may not refuse absolution to get a person to turn him/herself in to the police for past wrongdoing. But even if he refuses absolution he still may not make use of the information he got during confession.
Sorry chowder, I just got back to the thread. It was poorly worded, but the sarcasm was aimed at the media. I apologize if you thought I was being an ass to you personally, it was not my intention.
Peace?
Peace indeed 
In all fairness, Shawn Hornbeck was found alive something like five years after his disappearance. But I don’t think that’s going to happen here.