Secrets of the Confessional

[chowder]

If a person admits, whilst taking confession, that they have or are planning to commit a really horrendous crime is the priest obliged to respect the laws of the confessional box.

Or is there some sort of special dispensation which would allow him to break them should such a situation arise.

[Rigamarole]

If they’re only planning to commit it, I don’t think they’ve really sinned yet. Maybe they just want to be talked down?

[Cunctator]

The Code of Canon Law makes it pretty clear that a confessor may not, under any circumstances, reveal anything that has been told to him in the confessional:

Can. 983 §1. The sacramental seal is inviolable; therefore it is absolutely forbidden for a confessor to betray in any way a penitent in words or in any manner and for any reason.

[GIGObuster]

IANAL, I did pass my college required credits on law and even then you should not trust my words, So let us check the precedent on the law:

It seems that in law, there is a lot of overlapping with psychotherapy:

http://jaffee-redmond.org/articles/kenney.htm

Notably, federal courts do not recognize a crime-fraud exception in the priest-penitent arena. It appears that the lack of a crime-fraud exception is due to the perceived competency of the spiritual-purpose requirement to exclude from protection communications made for criminal or fraudulent purposes. In United States v. Dube, [117] for example, the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit found that an individual’s criminal purpose in communicating with a clergyperson, which consisted of “efforts to relieve himself from the necessity of paying income taxes,” [118] directly conflicted with the priest-penitent privilege’s spiritual-purpose requirement. [119] Failure to establish the Jaffee treatment condition should be similarly effective in blocking the prima facie validity of the psychotherapist-patient privilege.

On the other hand, after the patient establishes a course of psychotherapeutic diagnosis or treatment, thereby evidencing psychotherapeutic intent, a court should not continue to inquire into the patient’s intentions. Jaffee does not require continual affirmative justification of the psychotherapeutic nature of the confidential communications during the course of diagnosis or treatment. [120] On the contrary, Jaffee’s omission of a “purpose condition” [121] implies a continuous presumption of protection for communications throughout the course of diagnosis or treatment. [122] The implication of continuous protection without regard to proper purpose follows not only from the Court’s omission of proper purpose as a condition for protection of specific communications, but also from the Court’s omission of any discussion of proper purpose whatsoever. [123] Without the limits imposed by proper-purpose scrutiny, the specific subject matter of the confidential communications between psychotherapist and patient is unrestricted for the duration of the course of diagnosis or treatment. More importantly, proper-purpose inquiries are irrelevant to prima facie application of the psychotherapist-patient privilege.

Therefore, the timing of an individual’s alleged criminal or fradulent purpose is an important consideration. Whether the crime-fraud purpose existed prior to the patient’s initiation of a professional relationship with a psychotherapist or arose during an established course of diagnosis or treatment with the psychotherapist should determine which crime-fraud application is appropriate spoiler of the Jaffee treatment condition or the crime-fraud exception.

So, AFAICT the crook better be sorry and confess that a possible crime will not happen, in other cases, the Priest should confess to earthly authorities; but I think this is not the whole story, I will also wait for a more experienced person to chime in.

[Lazlo]

If a crime had been committed, wouldn’t the priest require that the penitent turn himself in as part of his absolution?

“Go to the police station, tell them what you told me, and say 10 Hail Marys.”

[One_And_Only_Wanderers]

@Lazlo

If a crime had been committed, wouldn’t the priest require that the penitent turn himself in as part of his absolution?

“Go to the police station, tell them what you told me, and say 10 Hail Marys.”

The priest can require it all he likes, nothing saying the guy is going to do it.

[chowder]

@One And Only Wanderers

The priest can require it all he likes, nothing saying the guy is going to do it.

But if it was part of his absolution and he did not tell the authorities then he would not be absolved of his sin/s.

I would have thought that if a person confessed to a crime of such magnitude as Murder/rape/drug dealing etc etc. then the priest would be morally obliged to pass on this information so that the confessor could be dealt with under due process of law.

Or maybe the confessional is on a par with doctor/patient info. maybe more so.

[Polycarp]

@chowder

But if it was part of his absolution and he did not tell the authorities then he would not be absolved of his sin/s.

I would have thought that if a person confessed to a crime of such magnitude as Murder/rape/drug dealing etc etc. then the priest would be morally obliged to pass on this information so that the confessor could be dealt with under due process of law.

Or maybe the confessional is on a par with doctor/patient info. maybe more so.

The last is in fact the case. Under church law, the seal of the confessional is absolute – as applies to the priest hearing the confession – in any church that has a confession-and-absolution ritual. And the legal systems of most if not all jurisdictions recognize this, and provide for it.

As noted by others, the sacrament (Reconciliation of the Penitent is the modern term for it) does require that the penitent going to confession be duly sorry for his sins. And the priest has the right to withhold absolution until/unless the penitent confesses to civil authorities, as a sign of that contrition. But he, the priest, may not breach that confidentiality himself in any way.

[Billdo]

Many states have statutory provisions regarding what is commonly known as the “priest-penitient privilege.” For instance, New York Civil Practice Law & Rules 4505 provides:

§  4505.  Confidential  communication to clergy privileged. Unless the person confessing or confiding waives the  privilege,  a  clergyman,  or other  minister  of  any  religion  or duly accredited Christian Science practitioner, shall not be allowed disclose a confession  or  confidence made to him in his professional character as spiritual advisor.

[chowder]

So what in effect you are sayin **Polycarp ** is that unless the confessor is prepared to admit to his/her sins to the proper authorities then he/she is still a sinner in the eyes of the church/God.

Seems a bit crazy to me as it means that the confessor is free to sin again and again and again…

Religion? mmm!!

[fisha]

Anyone is free to sin again and again, Chowder. But under absolutely no circumstances, none whatsoever, can the priest reveal what is said in the confessional. Otherwise, who would go?

[chowder]

Point taken dahfisheroo

[aldiboronti]

@dahfisheroo

Anyone is free to sin again and again, Chowder. But under absolutely no circumstances, none whatsoever, can the priest reveal what is said in the confessional. Otherwise, who would go?

None whatsoever?

Let us say that a man enters the confessional and confesses to the priest that he raped and killed a small child the night before. He expresses his regret, asks absolution but then reveals that he still feels the urge within him to kill again. He may or may not receive absolution but in either case the priests keeps silent.

The next day he is back. He did indeed rape and kill another child. More soul-searching by the criminal, more internal agonizing by the priest, but the same result. The priest says nothing.

The man returns the next day. Another dead kid. By this time the papers are full of it. The priest pleads withy the guy to give himelf up. No, the guy tells him, my inner voices have instructed me that I must kill seven children before they’ll even consider releasing me. This is just between us, Father, but I may make it two tonight, the sooner I get this thing done the better.

Now, is there any priest on Earth that would carry on with this charade, whatever his Church tells him? If so, he should rot in hell. No rules should be absolute.

[fisha]

None whatsoever.

And you post a horrifying extreme. But how about the guy who’s stealing from his employer, and the business will eventually go under? Or how about the guy who is cheating on his wife, and having unprotected sex with prostitutes, endangering his wife’s life? Where do you draw the line, aldi? And who gets to draw it?

None whatsoever.

[Bryan_Ekers]

Without priest-penitent confidentiality, you could write off at ten episodes of Law & Order.

[fisha]

Nine, Brian.

[chowder]

Yours is more or less the scenario I had in mind Aldiboronti.

You are quite right, if the priest stays shtum on this he is totally wrong. Matter of fact he could, I guess, be considered as being an accessory to murder and rape by virtue of keeping quiet about something he knew was going to happen.

[Raguleader]

See, this is EXACTLY the sort of thing the Church needs Secret Sacrimental Hit Squads for.

[mittu]

Take from the Catholic Encyclopedia

Regarding the sins revealed to him in sacramental confession, the priest is bound to inviolable secrecy. From this obligation he cannot be excused either to save his own life or good name, to save the life of another, to further the ends of human justice, or to avert any public calamity. No law can compel him to divulge the sins confessed to him, or any oath which he takes – e.g., as a witness in court. He cannot reveal them either directly – i.e., by repeating them in so many words – or indirectly – i.e., by any sign or action, or by giving information based on what he knows through confession. The only possible release from the obligation of secrecy is the permission to speak of the sins given freely and formally by the penitent himself.

It is a strange conflict in my mind to think of a priest on the stand acting as a witness and (having taken the oath) refusing to provide information when asked for it. Is refusing to answer the question not seen as a violation of the oath whereas lying, of course, is?

[Sarahfeena]

@mittu

Take from the Catholic Encyclopedia

It is a strange conflict in my mind to think of a priest on the stand acting as a witness and (having taken the oath) refusing to provide information when asked for it. Is refusing to answer the question not seen as a violation of the oath whereas lying, of course, is?

That’s a good question. From the POV of the Church, it doesn’t matter if the priest faces reprisals from the government for not talking (such as going to jail for contempt of court)…he still can’t talk. Of course, Law & Order nonwithstanding, the police would have to figure out that the priest knows something, and they most likely wouldn’t, unless the perpetrator told them, and why would he do that?

The reason the seal of the confessional is so important is because it is thought that if people were afraid that the priest would blab, then they would not go to confession. It’s a sacred trust between the Church and the People, which, according to Catholic theology, has the souls of all Catholics hanging in the balance.