Secrets of the Confessional

[fisha]

[QUOTE=aldiboronti]
I deliberately took my hypothetical situation to absurd extremes to ask if there were any point at all at which the principle of confessional sanctity breaks down and common sense comes into play.

After all, we’re not talking about the confidentiality between a lawyer and his client here, a confidentiality which ultimately is for the benefit of us all. We’re talking about the beliefs of one particular church.

Confession may be good for the soul, but when the preservation of its privacy involves the sacrifice of other people’s bodies I think we need to draw the line.
[/QUOTE]

1. There is no point at all where the sanctity of the confessional can be broken by the priest

2. Not sure if the confidentiality between lawyers and clients is any more beneficial to society at large.

3)Reconciliation is not a secret “Get out of hell free card” that some evil cabal uses to exploit the masses.

And where is your line, aldi? Use my example of the husband cheating on his wife with prostitutes and no condom. By your definition, the priest would have to tell.

How about a 16 year old girl who confesses she is pregnant and is going to get an abortion. Doesn’t the priest have to tell her parents?

How about a 25 year old pregnant woman who confesses she drinks like a fish all day, endangering the life of her child?

How about a man who confesses he beats his wife regularly, and fantasizes about killing her?

A gambler that embezzles from his company, bankrupts it, and the owner commits suicide?

I mean, we can go on and on. Perhaps the priest can keep a little cheat sheet in his pocket…

Why does this bother you so? Very rare occurence outside of novels, and as Brian pointed out earlier, Law & Order episodes.

“Safety of the community” is a very nebulous phrase. Makes me nervous.

[alphaboi867]

[QUOTE=Blanche]
Have there been any cases of priests who said “Screw it” and told the authorities anyway? Are they able to be forgiven by the church if they do?
[/QUOTE]

It wouldn’t help the authorities that much. They could prevent a criminal from commiting a crime, but they wouldn’t be able to use anything the priest said in prosection. If they had no clue who commited the crime until the priest told them they still couldn’t do anything. Fruit of the posion tree.

[fisha]

Seal of the Confessional

“In a criminal matter, a priest may encourage or require the penitent to surrender to authorities and may withhold absolution if the penitent refuses to do so. However, this is the extent of the leverage they wield. They may not directly or indirectly disclose the matter to civil authorities themselves.”

[joema]

[QUOTE=aldiboronti]
I deliberately took my hypothetical situation to absurd extremes to ask if there were any point at all at which the principle of confessional sanctity breaks down and common sense comes into play…
[/QUOTE]

Your scenario is not far fetched, merely uncommon. Given one billion Catholics on earth, the vast array of human experience virtually ensures cases like that.

In 1605 an attempt was made to kill James I of England, most of his family, and most of the Protestant aristocracy in one attack by blowing up the Houses of Parliament during the State Opening. Via the confessional, the principal Jesuit of England, Father Henry Garnet became aware of the plot. Due to the absolute confessional seal he didn’t reveal the plot to the authorities, but tried to convince the plotters to stop. They didn’t but were later found out via another channel. When the authorities found Father Garnet knew and didn’t reveal the plot, he was hanged, drawn and quartered for treason: Gunpowder Plot - Wikipedia

Such historical situations have spawned many book and movie plots. The famous Alfred Hitchcock film “I Confess” is based on the confessional conflict: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0045897/ Likewise the more recent film “Priest” is based on confessional conflict in a child sexual abuse case: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0110889/

Catholic dogma clearly states the seal of confessional is absolute with no exceptions, unless the penitent grants permission to disclose the facts. There is no limit to the hypothetical circumstances and conflicts that could arise from this. In today’s world it’s conceivable a terrorist could confess of his involvement in a plot to use a nuclear device to destroy the Vatican. Such things sound far fetched, but as the Gunpowder Plot of 1605 shows, anything is possible.

In general most governments honor the confessional privilege. However the tension between state and clerical authority is always present and always subject to change.

[Sarahfeena]

Great post, joema!

[OldGuy]

[QUOTE=Anne Neville]
But then how would you protect members of religions that require believers to confess their sins to someone, but not necessarily a member of the clergy? (I imagine that’s what the Christian Science practitioner language is there for) If the Sister Fidelma books by Peter Tremayne can be believed (and Peter Tremayne is supposedly a pen name for an expert on Irish history), early Celtic Christians did that, too- they had a “soul friend” to whom they confessed their sins, but that person wasn’t necessarily a priest.
[/QUOTE]

But the law has singled out one religion where confession to a lay person is permitted. It, to use your example, doesn’t say confession to a Celtic Christian “soul friend” is protected. A strict reading of the law indicates the only lay confessor protected by privilege is a Christian Scientist. That’s what I don’t see as being Constitutional.

[rocksolid]

Firstly, what a great thread!

Second, yeah, great post joema. Father Garnet got what he deserved, canon law or not.

This could go on forever in great debates but keeping to the GQ theme, anyone got any info on the same concept releted to A: other religions and B: laws of others countries regarding such matters? Do all countries honour the confidentiality?

Lastly:

Quote from aldiboronti: ‘Religious freedom does not mean religious licence.’

AMEN!

[Oakminster]

[QUOTE=aldiboronti]

After all, we’re not talking about the confidentiality between a lawyer and his client here, a confidentiality which ultimately is for the benefit of us all. We’re talking about the beliefs of one particular church.

[/QUOTE]

Since you brought it up, lawyers have more leeway that Catholic Priests do in some states. In some states, lawyers are allowed, but not required, to divulge such information as the lawyer reasonably believes is necessary to prevent reasonably certain death or substantial bodily harm, among other things.

As an example, Rule 1.6(b) of the Mississippi Rules of Professional Conduct reads:

• (b) A lawyer may reveal such information to the extent the lawyer reasonably believes necessary:

(1) to prevent reasonably certain death or substantial bodily harm;

(2) to prevent the client from committing a crime or fraud that is reasonably certain to result in substantial injury to the financial interest or property of another and in furtherance of which the client has used or is using the lawyer’s services;

(3) to prevent, mitigate or rectify substantial injury to the financial interests or property of another that is reasonably certain to result or has resulted from the client’s commission of a crime or fraud in furtherance of which the client has used the lawyer’s services;

(4) to secure legal advice about the lawyer’s compliance with these rules;

(5) to establish a claim or defense on behalf of the lawyer in a controversy between the lawyer and the client, to establish a defense to a criminal charge or civil claim against the lawyer based upon conduct in which the client was involved, or to respond to allegations in any proceeding concerning the lawyer’s representation of the client.

(6) to comply with other law or a court order.*

http://www.mssc.state.ms.us/rules/RuleText.asp?RuleTitle=RULE+1.6+CONFIDENTIALITY+OF+INFORMATION&IDNum=7

[gigi]

[QUOTE=Sarahfeena]
I AM a Catholic, and I thought that is how it worked, too! gigi, don’t you think the case could be made that if you don’t complete the penance, it shows a lack of…well, a lack of penitence? That the confession wasn’t sincere?
[/QUOTE]
Absolution is still true; the “satisfaction” angle is an attempt to make up for the sins Committed and forgiven.

Catholic Encyclopedia: "It is not true that for the Catholic the mere “telling of one’s sins” suffices to obtain their forgiveness. Without sincere sorrow and purpose of amendment, confession avails nothing, the pronouncement of absolution is of no effect, and the guilt of the sinner is greater than before. "

Catechism:
Satisfaction
1459 Many sins wrong our neighbor. One must do what is possible in order to repair the harm (e.g., return stolen goods, restore the reputation of someone slandered, pay compensation for injuries). Simple justice requires as much. But sin also injures and weakens the sinner himself, as well as his relationships with God and neighbor. **Absolution takes away sin, but it does not remedy all the disorders sin has caused. Raised up from sin, the sinner must still recover his full spiritual health by doing something more to make amends for the sin: he must “make satisfaction for” or “expiate” his sins. This satisfaction is also called “penance.” **

The penance the confessor imposes must take into account the penitent’s personal situation and must seek his spiritual good. It must correspond as far as possible with the gravity and nature of the sins committed. It can consist of prayer, an offering, works of mercy, service of neighbor, voluntary self-denial, sacrifices, and above all the patient acceptance of the cross we must bear. Such penances help configure us to Christ, who alone expiated our sins once for all. They allow us to become co-heirs with the risen Christ, “provided we suffer with him.”

[Billdo]

[QUOTE=OldGuy]
Wow! I’d have thought a law mentioning a specific religion would be prima face evidence it were unconstituional.
[/QUOTE]

No, merely mentioning a particular religion doesn’t make a statute unconstitutional. There are two aspects to the First Amendment religious freedom clause: (1) the establishment clause, which prohibits the government from establishing a state religion or excessively supporting or entabling itself in a particular religion; and (2) the free exercise clause, which prohibits the government from unduly burdening a person’s ability to exercise any religion of his or her choosing.

A statute giving all clergy members (without regard to their denomination) particular rights or privileges is neither an establishment of religion nor a burden to the free exercise of religion. A statute recognizing that certain religions do not have formal clergy members and providing similar protections for the equivalent functions is likewise neither an establisment of religion nor a burden to its free exercise.

In another context where the state gives privileges to clergy, the New York Domestic Relations Law generally provides that a marriage may be performed either by specified civil officials or a “clergyman or minister of any religion”, but also provides that marriges may performed according to the customs of “the people called friends or quakers; nor marriages among the people of any other denominations having as such any particular mode of solemnizing marriages; but such marriages must be solemnized in the manner heretofore used and practiced in their respective societies or denominations.” This provision was necessary because the Quakers do not have clergy as such, but do perform marriages.

In fact, provisions of law providing privileges to clergy would likely be held unconstitional if they were not interpreted to permit those religions without formal clergy to have similar privileges.

@OldGuy

But the law has singled out one religion where confession to a lay person is permitted. It, to use your example, doesn’t say confession to a Celtic Christian “soul friend” is protected. A strict reading of the law indicates the only lay confessor protected by privilege is a Christian Scientist. That’s what I don’t see as being Constitutional.

Although the statute has an express exception for Christian Scientist practitioners, it would almost certainly be intrepreted to apply to the seeking of spiritual guidance from lay religious leaders in another religion that did not have formal clergy. (As a potential example, the “auditing” done by Scientologists might well be considered to be protected by this privilege, though the Church of Scientology is not specifically mentioned.)

In an interesting case a Federal District Court, subsequently overturned by the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, Alcoholic Anonymous qualifies a a religion under CPLR 4505 because of its religious underpinnings and that statements made in AA meetings were priviliged uner that section. The Second Circuit reversed this decision holding that even if AA was considered a religion for some purposes, attending AA meetings was not for the purpose of seeking spiritual guidance. Cox v. Miller, 296 F3d 89 (2d Cir. 2002)

[smiling_bandit]

I should also point out that it is not at all clear to me that the preist is obligated to keep silent about what the penitant intends to do.

You CANNOT ever, under any circumstances, be absolved of what you have not done (yet). Simply put, even if you intend to do it, you haven’t done it. You’re looking for permission and not forgiveness. It is not clear to me that the seal of confession applies to mere advice or even warnings against sin. I could call my priest. And telling a priest what evils you intend to commit may simply not fall under the religious direction of “Confession.”

[Anne_Neville]

[QUOTE=gigi]
Absolution is still true; the “satisfaction” angle is an attempt to make up for the sins Committed and forgiven.

Catholic Encyclopedia: "It is not true that for the Catholic the mere “telling of one’s sins” suffices to obtain their forgiveness. Without sincere sorrow and purpose of amendment, confession avails nothing, the pronouncement of absolution is of no effect, and the guilt of the sinner is greater than before. "
[/QUOTE]

But what if you really are sorry that you did something, but you’re not willing to do what the priest says you should do as penance? I think that, in most cases, you can get a priest to give you a different penance, but in this case I can’t imagine a priest giving a penance that didn’t involve confessing to civil authorities. What if this person was really sorry for what he did, and was willing to do something for penance, but wasn’t willing to go through with confessing to the civil authorities? Would the absolution be valid, or not?

@smiling bandit

You CANNOT ever, under any circumstances, be absolved of what you have not done (yet).

From Dante’s Inferno, spoken by Guido da Montefeltro:

@Dante Alighieri

St Francis came to get me when I died, but one of the black Cherubim cried out: “Don’t touch him, don’t cheat me of what is mine! He must come down to join my other servants for the false counsel he gave… because one cannot be absolved unless repentant, nor can one both repent and will a thing at once- the one is canceled by the other!”

O wretched me! How I shook when he took me, saying, “Perhaps you never stopped to think that I might be somewhat of a logician!”

[Anne_Neville]

[QUOTE=joema]
In 1605 an attempt was made to kill James I of England, most of his family, and most of the Protestant aristocracy in one attack by blowing up the Houses of Parliament during the State Opening. Via the confessional, the principal Jesuit of England, Father Henry Garnet became aware of the plot. Due to the absolute confessional seal he didn’t reveal the plot to the authorities, but tried to convince the plotters to stop. They didn’t but were later found out via another channel. When the authorities found Father Garnet knew and didn’t reveal the plot, he was hanged, drawn and quartered for treason: Gunpowder Plot - Wikipedia
[/QUOTE]

But that was under English law in 1605. American law is different (US law recognizes priest-penitent privilege, UK law doesn’t), and for that matter British law today is different- they don’t hang people for witchcraft any more, for example.

[OldGuy]

Billdo,

Suppose then I commit a crime and confess it to my brother. My brother and I then both tell the police that in our religion, “The Brotherhood under God” confession to you brother is required fo absolution, an dhe will not testify against me.

If the court insists that my brother testify, haven’t they then established what is a recognized religion, by establishing my, admittedly just made up, religion is not one? They can claim that I just did make it up, but how do they prove it. Don’t you see that one of the religion’s requirements is you not talk about t.

[Quercus]

[QUOTE=OldGuy]
Billdo,
Suppose then I commit a crime and confess it to my brother. My brother and I then both tell the police that in our religion, “The Brotherhood under God” confession to you brother is required fo absolution, an dhe will not testify against me.

If the court insists that my brother testify, haven’t they then established what is a recognized religion, by establishing my, admittedly just made up, religion is not one? They can claim that I just did make it up, but how do they prove it. Don’t you see that one of the religion’s requirements is you not talk about t.
[/QUOTE]
I think the court would take the stand that the burden is rather on you to prove that you didn’t just make it up. Can you show a history of a group practicing this religion, and document that there are established rules and practices (including the brother-confession)? I’m sure this has come up multiple times in the context of ‘freedom to practice my religion’ issues for more minor situations (dress codes, etc.).

Someone else would have to provide the legal foundation for making this test in general, but Billdo already provided one example for marriages (emphasis mine) in New York:

[QUOTE= New York State Law]
…but such marriages must be solemnized in the manner heretofore used and practiced in their respective societies or denominations.
[/QUOTE]

[gigi]

[QUOTE=Anne Neville]
But what if you really are sorry that you did something, but you’re not willing to do what the priest says you should do as penance? I think that, in most cases, you can get a priest to give you a different penance, but in this case I can’t imagine a priest giving a penance that didn’t involve confessing to civil authorities. What if this person was really sorry for what he did, and was willing to do something for penance, but wasn’t willing to go through with confessing to the civil authorities? Would the absolution be valid, or not?
[/QUOTE]

ORDER:
<<Confession of Sins and Acceptance of Satisfaction:
The penitent confesses his or her sins and accepts the prayers or deeds that the priest proposes as a penance.

Prayer of the Penitent and Absolution:
The priest asks the penitent to express sorrow by praying one of the prayers found in the ritual or in his or her own words. The priest then prays the Prayer of Absolution, to which the penitent responds: “Amen.”

Proclamation of Praise and Dismissal:
The priest continues: “Give thanks to the Lord, for he is good.” The penitent responds: “His mercy endures for ever.” The priest then dismisses the penitent, using one of the formulas found in the ritual.
>>

You’re right that the penance might include the urging by the priest for the person to turn themself in, but I’m not sure the priest would require it as part of penance. And I don’t think someone being unwilling to go to the secular authorities would bar them from absolution in front of God. At least that’s the way I always heard it; the priest would perform a valid absolution but also urge restitution secularly.

[chowder]

Supposing this happens…

Guy in confessional tells priest that he has raped and killed a child and that he intends to do it again, tonight!

Priest #1 tells a fellow priest to walk or at least linger by confessional box the day after.

Priest #2 hears confessor admitting to killing yet another child, this after listening as requested.

Is priest #1 guilty of some form of “sneaky” breaking confessional rules.

Is priest #2 obliged to keep quiet about what he heard.

[Sarahfeena]

[QUOTE=chowder]
Supposing this happens..

Guy in confessional tells priest that he has raped and killed a child and that he intends to do it again, tonight!

Priest #1 tells a fellow priest to walk or at least linger by confessional box the day after.

Priest #2 hears confessor admitting to killing yet another child, this after listening as requested.

Is priest #1 guilty of some form of “sneaky” breaking confessional rules.

Is priest #2 obliged to keep quiet about what he heard.
[/QUOTE]
I would say that Priest #1 is guilty of breaking the seal of the confessional, and Priest #2 is also obligated to keep quiet.

[Moirai]

As a Methodist, I do not practice confession as a formal rite. However, should I confess a crime to my pastor and seek his and God’s forgiveness, would this confidentiality clause cover that exchange? Would I have to state something along the lines of “I want to discuss something with you, but it must be kept confidential between you, me and God?”

Curious. And fascinating. This is a most informative GQ!

Although the whole “future crime” thing squicks me out a little bit… Disregarding the sin angle for a moment, if I decide to commit a murder but then don’t go through with it, then legally I haven’t committed murder. So get off my back!

[GusNSpot]

I have two Uncles who are RC priests.

They are real people, sons of their parents, brothers to my Mom, yepper, real human people.

So, in confession, which I just asked him about on the phone, he has never heard of anything like that ever happening and he has been doing the priest gig for over 60 years and knows lots of priests. He says that it is a moot point because the telling of a future plan negates the spirit of confession in the first place and a priest probably would not allow himself to get boxed into the silly convoluted scenarios that we are coming up with,

YMMV