The United States already has established procedures for deciding what will and won’t be recognized as a religious body, procedures that are used to determine everything from tax status to the rights of a conscientious objector in wartime.
But the basic premise of the thread, that the doctrines of any church must be subjected to the demands of secular society, is not always true. For example, children can legally consume alcohol in a religious service.
According to legend, G. K. Chesterton took his first confession in a hen house.
Also, for what it’s worth, personal confessions aren’t limited to the Catholic Church. The Episcopal Church sometimes performs them, though not nearly as often as the Catholic Church. The service is on page 449 of the Book of Common Prayer.
Actually this has been tested on occasion. If Little Johnny has consistently served in a religious or quasi-religious capacity to Fat Tony and others then he might be able to invoke the right of the confessional. However if it has not been consistent, or if the court has no reason to believe that Little Johnny’s capacity is truly that of a leader and his flock, the confessional does (or may) not exist. I seem to remember a case where a guy told his golf partner, a priest, something on the course, and the priest was called into court to testify. The golfer tried to argue he was protected under the seal of the confessional. The court found against him.
What can or must be reported by whom varies by state.
Politics. The entire state of Louisiana would shut down if priests talked.
Cite? Cause you are about as completely mistaken as a person can be on a legal matter. The issue in California is black and white. A lawyer cannot turn in his client without the client’s permission. While a practitioner must turn in for a prospective crime, he cannot under virtually all circumstances pass on a confession to a past crime and testify to it. (One of the few exceptions would be a joint representation, which would require a written and signed waiver of conflict of interest). The Zodiac killer could walk into my office and confess and I would not be able to turn him in. One San Francisco lawyer claims exactly that. It would be a disciplinary offense to spill the beans. And make one unemployable as a criminal defense lawyer. And the statement would be refused as evidence if the lawyer did it anyway. Perhaps you are thinking of the rare civil case in California where the court has approved a lawyer interviewing a person who was the opposing party while not disclosing he represented the other party and the opposing party was fooled into thinking she might hire the lawyer. That’s been allowed in a civil case once, but we are talking about criminal cases.
See Simons, California Evidence Manual sections 5:24 et seq. “The purpose of the lawyer-client privilege is to encourage clients to make full disclosures to their attorneys without fear that others may be informed… To accomplish this purpose courts have frequentcy foudn that the privilege should be construed liberally. … Under section 954, the privilege can be asserted to prevent anyone including eavesdroppers from testifying to a confidential communication… Unlike the privilege against self-incrimination, the attorney-client privileged continues even after the possibility of punishment has disappeared…” Cites omitted.
California Evidence Code Sections 950-962 Article 3. Lawyer-Client Privilege Article 3. Lawyer-Client Privilege - Sections 950-962 :: California Evidence Code :: 2005 California Code :: California Code :: US Codes and Statutes :: US Law :: Justia
Campion is correct. The Second Stone is not correct. In California, there is lawyer-client privilege, but in the criminal context there are exceptions to this privilege for both certain prospective crimes (see 956) and certain past crimes (see 956.5), as well as exceptions for certain civil issues, particulalry those pertaining to certain aspects of estate litigation. There is no blanket exception from privilege concerning all prospective crimes, and there is no blanket exception from privilege that requires a lawyer turn in a client for all prospective crimes.
This is exactly why the state needs to be separate. No the state should not have any qualifications, as they are under (the authority of) God, as opposed to God under state rule. The anointing of a person as a leader/priest, whatever the title, is done by God, not man. Man should not impose any barriers to what God has already declared. The relationship between God and man is direct, personal and one to one.
God is above the state. If a believer confides in another along the lines of the OP, both have divine protection, unless God wants it revealed. God Himself will give the believer the words to say:
I have personally experienced this gift of God’s words spoken through me.
As for then anyone can get a ‘title’ from somewhere and all claim this immunity. It doesn’t work that way with God. It’s like anyone can apply and get a patch that states that they have completed the Applichian ,<sp> Trail (a 2000 mile hiking trail in the eastern US) if they completed it or not. But one knows in their heart if they really completed it, regardless of the patch. God judges the heart, and will expose the false leaders and place His people in the places He wants.
So if one was to get ordained this way, with deception in his heart (to claim he is a spiritual leader and immune), he has sown the seeds of deception and that will grown and he will reap deception which will be much worse.
I had the numbers backwards. Make that “. . . certain prospective crimes (see 956.5) and certain past crimes (see 956) . . . .”
Which is not relevant to the discussion. This thread is about priest-penitent privilege in non-ecclesial law jurisdictions.
What would happen if a person in another confessional, ah “booth”?? overhears another confessing about a crime he intends to commit. Is it proper for the third party to inform the police?. From the Catholic morality point of view would a third party be in the wrong for calling the authorities? Does the absolute silence of the priest also apply to something overheard by another?
Short answer, yes. Longer answer, it wouldn’t happen this way. If a priest is sincerely going to confession, it’s because he’s repentant and intending to go and sin no more. He wouldn’t be confessing with the assumption that he’d be going right back out and continuing his sin. His confessor would be in a position to help him with this.
Execpt that has not worked out that way, for example with the Maritime priests buggering little boys, and Bishop Lahey, who represented the RC Church in the legal settlement being arrested for child porn just a few days after the settlement.
What’s your basis for believing those acts were disclosed in confession?
The Code of Canon Law, Can. 983 ß2, provides that if a third person overhears a confession, he is also obliged to observe the secrecy.
However, there is no similar secular legal privilege in such a case. A person who overheard a confession could theoretically be compelled to testify as to what he heard.
I’m not aware of any case that has tested this point.
No, you are incorrect. You need to read the code sections you have cited. You cited 956.5 for “certain past crimes”. It says nothing of the sort. 956.5 applies to future acts: “There is no privilege under this article if the lawyer reasonably believes that disclosure of any confidential communication relating to representation of a client is necessary to prevent a criminal act that the lawyer reasonably believes is likely to result in the death of, or substantial bodily harm to, an individual.” Now that is all future tense. It’s true that lawyers can pretend that words have opposite meanings, but appellate courts don’t play those same word games. Or at least they are not supposed to. I certainly made the exception about prospective crimes in my first post.
So you are not correct, nor is Campion. In California, you can come in and confess in a criminal matter to being the Zodiac killer. I may do nothing until someone is in danger in the future. Yes, there are non-criminal case exceptions. The thread is not about civil or probate cases, but rather confessions of crimes. Please state exactly where I am wrong.
I’m certainly open to admitting that I am wrong on California law if you can point to a criminal case (published or ordered unpublished) where a lawyer was either compelled or even allowed to testify to the past criminal acts of a client against the client’s wishes.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/07/19/MNGA18D3FV.DTL is an interesting newspaper article on the subject.
A long standing church policy of many child buggering priests being shifted about from job to job, rather than being dealt with publicly or judicially, and the Bishop in charge of cleaning up the mess himself being charged for child porn, indicates that there was knowledge within the Church of what the priestes were doing. It could be that they were not confessing their sins, which suggests that priest-penitent privilege is needless, or it could be that they were confessing their sins, in which case priest-penitent privilege was used by the Church to cover up the crimes and delay both criminal prosecution and civil remedy. Given the scale of the criminality, both in breadth and in hierarchy, I would be very surprised if somewhere along the line confessions within the church were not being made.
Relevant to the point that in my experience it is a right ordained by God and efforts of man to get around that are just not going to work. IMHO the right not changeable by man. My personal experience shows that God has His hand on all of our laws.
Do you imagine that reports or summaries of confessions are circulated amongst priests? That the bishop gets a weekly chart with trend lines?
You make statements here which don’t follow. How does it follow that the privilege was used as a vehicle to cover up anything? All accusations concerning the coverup have related to the officials knowing, actually or constructively, about the abuse through methods other than confession. You’ve simply strung together claims that do not follow.
If they didn’t confess the crimes, then the privilege is needless? Nonsense. What about the many other people that do confess wrongdoing precisely because of the anonymity and secrecy confession offers? Why are they exempt from your analysis?
And if they did confess the crime, how do you conclude that this enabled a coverup? The coverups are already explainable without postulating any involvement whatsoever of the privilege.
In fact, why don’t you lay out a specific case for me: how do you imagine that things would have been any different with respect to the abuse cases if the privilege didn’t exist?
. .
As I already pointed out, I had the numbers backwards.
Now let’s have a look at subsection 956 that deals with certain past crimes. Article 3. Lawyer-Client Privilege - Sections 950-962 :: California Evidence Code :: 2005 California Code :: California Code :: US Codes and Statutes :: US Law :: Justia
http://www.lectlaw.com/def/c180.htm
Arrrrgh, Matey, thar be yer lawyer-client privilege walkin’ t’ plank an’ drownin’ in t’ deep blue briny, wid t’ cleint cryin’ “But me lawyer weren’t suppos’d ta tell!” as he goes under fer ta las’ time.