Can Priests Ever Reveal What is Said in Confession [Ecumenical]

Catholic Exchange ^ | December 4, 2008 | Cathy Caridi, J.C.L

[Religion Moderator]

Antagonistic posts are not allowed on "ecumenical" threads in the Religion Forum.

Click on my profile page for more guidelines pertaining to the Religion Forum.

[B4Ranch]

I wasn’t trying to be antagonistic, just giving my opinion of what I thought about the article.

[baa39]

I have asked priests about this. It is one area whether young or old, liberal or “traditional” they seem to be in agreement. This is a sacred thing, the “seal of the confessional”. However, one priest told me what he could do is assign as penance that the person confess to the police and willingly accept his fair legal punishment. Or if there is not sincere repentance and intention to avoid sin, withhold absolution, perhaps advising the person to seek other help (such as counseling where the professional WOULD report to the police), or to confess first and then he will give absolution. The priest said it’s impossible to apply any formula, as 99 percent of people have the same old ordinary, usual sins and this does not come up, but in the rare occasion of a serious crime or potential for one, each situation is unique and he must be quite sensitive to how he could influence the person. This from a man a priest for over 60 years.

[Salvation]

BTTT!

[ArrogantBustard]

The movie “Mortal Sins” (Christopher Reeve as the priest) also centers on this theme. Very well done film, sadly almost forgotten. It doesn’t trash the Church, so it must be thrown down the memory hole.

[NYer]

I am trying to build a dvd library of Catholic themed and/or content films. Do you recall who produced this film and when? Thanks.

[ArrogantBustard]

Mortal Sins at the Internet Movie Database.

That should give you all the information necessary to run it down.

[hunter112]

In NC, we have a Priest/Penitent statute as well.

I've long wondered what would happen if such a case came to the SCOTUS, and they made a strict application of the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."

What is the Constitutional basis for any law that holds the conversation (call it a confession, if you will) between a religious figure and someone under his/her spiritual leadership any more "sacred" than something I tell one of my drinking buddies?

[padre35]

The Court ruled that when prosecuters attempted to force Nixon’s priest to reveal what the President had confessed to that a Priest Penetant relationship was of the same class as a Atty Client or Doctor Patient one.

[hunter112]

The Court ruled that when prosecuters attempted to force Nixon’s priest to reveal what the President had confessed to that a Priest Penetant relationship was of the same class as a Atty Client or Doctor Patient one.

I'm aware that it's been decided that way, but that was well over thirty years ago. My guess is that a liberal SCOTUS might decide differently.

The attorney-client and the doctor-patient exclusions come from the idea that no one who would be justifiably fearful of being charged with a crime would use the services of attorneys or doctors if the testimony was admissible. I would never expect a Court comprised of attorneys to do anything that would cut off business for the legal profession.

Of course, the argument could be made that people wouldn't confess things to their religious intermediaries to their deities if it were admissible in court, but I can see a day where a Supreme Court might just decide that it's not compelling enough of a reason. And as we have been perfectly willing to give up freedom for security in the case of the war on drugs and the war on alcohol, we will give up the quaint notion of priest-penitant privilege in the case of the pedophile who must be stopped in his tracks. There's even a Constitutional reason to do so, I cited it in my first post on this thread.