Supposedly the priest is supposed to make “you gotta go to the cops yourself” a condition of absolution… but the criminal, I would think, would be unlikely to follow through - either not caring about absolution (in which case, why go to church??) or promising to do so, then leaving and not doing so anyway, assuming that the absolution was already in effect, so why bother…
A few decades ago, there was an episode of LA Law (I think) in which one of the lawyers had a client who admitted to doing something pretty heinous. The lawyer could not disclose it to the authorities, due to attorney-client privilege - but he or she asked an older mentor (also a lawyer) for legal advice.
The mentor went to the authorites. He stated “I’m old, and don’t have much working time left, so go ahead and disbar me. Oh, and I’ve got this terminal health condition, so it’s not like you’ll have time to even do THAT, neener neener”. I wonder if something like that scenario could play out.
If I were an immigrant wanting to be a citizen of the United States and I told the U.S. Government that I would obey another set of laws over those of the U.S., do you think it might interfere with my citizenship plans?
Let’s be clear, confession exists to make the confessor feel better. If child abuse, rape and murder aren’t offered the seal of the confessional, so be it. The members of the flock will just have to deal with only everyday sins being considered secret, they don’t get absolution for raping children or murdering prostitutes unless they’re willing to face the legal consequences.
If we’re willing to force doctors to report gunshot wounds, we can force priests to report the gunmen who caused the wounds.
Approximately 28 States and Guam
currently include members of the clergy among
those professionals specifically mandated by law
to report known or suspected instances of child
abuse or neglect.2 In approximately 18 States and
Puerto Rico, any person who suspects child abuse
or neglect is required to report it.3 This inclusive
language appears to include clergy
And as detailed in the linked document there are within those jurisdictions various degrees of case-specific excemptions.
Though as far as I know it has never been ruled at SCOTUS level if this can be applied specifically to what is spoken at sacramental confession, as opposed to knowledge gained in the course of overall pastoral activity. Not everything you speak privately with your priest is a sacramental confession.
IRL a state would have a helluva time trying to prove they have the right to compel the confessor to reveal what the penitent confessed in the booth. Apparently a Lousiana case in the mid-20teens was kicked back down to district for the court to figure whether it was the one or the other kind of information, rather than validated or overruled as a whole, but my Google-fu fails at finding how it all finally ended up.
(BTW part of the messiness is that the Seal includes that the priest should not yield to a request to disclose even if the person had gone to confession, not just the content thereof.)
If a priest becomes convinced that one of hs flock has committed a crime (circumstantial evidence etc) he would, I imagine, want to report that to the police.
What if the parishioner then confesses (in the confessional) before the priest has time to report his suspicions to the police - is the priest then bound to keep those secret, or does he only keep the actual confession a secret?
I know we could play ‘what-if’ games for hours, but really, the whole idea of religious absolution having some legal standing is ludicrous.
I can imagine a TV series called “ETHICS” about a series of confessions (to priests, to shrinks, to MDs, to lawyers) that are each tainted in different ways, and the ways various confessors deal (or don’t) with the situations.
The messiness is even messier because the penitent cannot unseal the priest’s lips. The secret is not based on any individual’s rights, it is based on Catholic belief that the priest is hearing the confession as God.
Priests who choose to die rather than break the seal have been made into martyrs.
No, not just how many murderers are lining up at St, Joseph’s to confess - how many murderers are lining up at St. Joseph’s to confess to a priest who can recognize their voice/identify them rather than going across town to St. Anthony’s where none of the priests know them. My guess is probably close to none - it’s not terribly uncommon for Catholics to go where they are not known to confess more mundane sins, so why wouldn’t this murderer confess to a priest who doesn’t know him?
I think this might be it - note that it wasn’t about whether the priest could disclose the abuser’s confession but whether the priest could be forced to disclose information that the plaintiff allegedly told him during confession or even that there was a confession .
Yes and no. The priest can never reveal what he heard during the confession, or even that there was a confession - but if our murderer asks the priest to go with him to the police station to admit his crime to the police , my understanding is that the priest can invite him to repeat the information and request outside of the context of confession.
I don’t follow your point. The seal of confessional only binds the priest. There’s nothing stopping the penitent from going to the police and making full confession to the cops.
Yes, has a case ever come up where a priest has asserted that the seal of confessional is part of the “free exercise of religion” and therefore protected by the 1st Amendment?
Is there a downside to that? What happens to Catholics who don’t confess their sins? I imagine a whole bunch of Catholics don’t confess their sins: birth control users, adulterers, abusers both mental and physical. I imagine just the teenage boys that don’t confess to masturbation would overflow the kingdom of hell.
I wonder how silent a priest would be if someone confessed to having sex with the priest’s underage niece or nephew? Something tells me that confessional seal would be broken pretty quickly.
To me? No - I’m not a Catholic. To Catholics? It’s an essential sacrament for practicing their religion.
Sure. Church-going is down across the board in the US, and Catholics are at the top of the list. And there’s likely a correlation between the groups you name and those who aren’t partaking of all the sacraments.
Yep, but I’m talking about the ones that do go to church. I would guess that priests know that a huge chunk of their female churchgoers use birth control and who never confess to it. Same with kids and masturbation and sex before/outside of marriage.
So confession may be essential to the church, but churchgoers don’t see it as essential. I doubt most of them give it any thought at all. Like a lot off religions, people will pick and choose what rules they want to follow and shrug off the rest.
Confession is mostly anonymous, so I’m not sure that holds. And why would a woman on birth control withhold that in confession? If you’re assuming she’s making the effort to go to confession, I don’t think it’s reasonable to assume she’d omit that.
Again speaking as a former Catholic, that particular aspect doesn’t bolster your point. The outlet of confession made, for me, cafeteria-style Catholicism easier to participate in the faith, confession itself in particular. A good priest made it very clear during the process that one sin wasn’t any more egregious than another, and confessing your entire slate of shortcomings was all the easier.
I’m not really sure what this means. If it’s that of your regular churchgoers, a smaller percentage of them are going to also be regular confession-goers, then sure. It’s difficult for even us non-believers to face our own particular demons and admit where we’ve fucked up, isn’t it?