I was under the impression that under Catholic doctrine what was said in confession could be revealed by the confessor only with the permission of the penitent.
Is the priest refusing to testify after having received such permission? Or is he refusing to testify having not received such permission?
Seems to me that is the critical point, and if it’s mentioned in the news coverage, I’ve missed it.
Good Question.
I don’t think so. I think he can’t even confirm or deny he even heard a confession at all, even if the person wants him to. I think from the other threads a few months ago about this the law changed or something to allow one side of a privileged relationship to relieve the other party of any mandatory silence.
What I don’t understand is why this haven’t happened before. Seems like there would be no way to defend against any civil suit against the diocese where supposedly something damaging was revealed in a confession.
FReegards
Here is another article with some additional details.
However, the high court ruled that Fr. Bayhi can only invoke confidentiality if the girl refuses to disclose their conversation, and since she waived her confidentiality privilege, he is subject to the mandatory sexual abuse reporting laws.In the appeal, the diocese stated that even to admit the conversation took place – much less reveal its alleged contents – would involve Fr. Bayhi breaking the Seal of Confession, which no priest is allowed to do, even under threat of civil penalty or imprisonment.
Supreme Court asked to defend Seal of Confession in La. case
To be clear, the answer to your question is: No, a priest cannot divulge what was said in Confession or even if it took place, even if the Pennitant gives his permission to do so.