Posted on 02/05/2016 5:55:33 PM PST by marshmallow
A Delaware superior court judge has questioned the constitutionality of a state law that protects the secrecy of sacramental confession.
State law mandates the reporting of suspected child abuse except in cases covered by the attorney-client privilege and conversations "between priest and penitent in sacramental confession."
Ruling in a case involving the failure of elders of the Jehovah's Witnesses to report child abuse, Judge Mary M. Johnston said that if "priest," "penitent," and "sacramental confession" are interpreted narrowly, then the law is unconstitutional because its "effect would be to advance certain religions over others."
(Excerpt) Read more at catholicculture.org ...
The problem with this is that I don’t see any way for the Catholic Church to defend itself against something the priest allegedly either heard or said in a confession. True or not true they couldn’t defend themselves in a civil trial if they were ordered to testify about what they allegedly said or did that would cause damages. They can’t even confirm they heard a particular confession, much less deny or confirm what supposedly happened in it. So they just get sued into oblivion if someone is willing to lie? How would this work?
Freegards
Don’t forget lots of Mexican women. Who invariably each take ten minutes or longer for some reason, like maybe they are all axe murderers or something, and are always in front of me. Even I get there 20 minutes early.
Freegards
There are 2 different issues here, a law and it’s purported fairness or constitutionality, which is primarily the topic of the article and the discussion on this thread.
The other issue is the right to freedom of religion for a specific sacrament that has been practiced by Catholics for centuries in almost the exact form as today, including the inviolability of the Seal. That is an individual right guaranteed by Founding Documents, a human right to free exercise of religion, irrespective of statutes.
We were once in line behind a wheelchair-bound 85-year-old woman. As we waited and waited, one of my sons asked, “HOW did she sin so much?!?”
My priest doesn’t speak Spanish, so the Mexican ladies go to either of the two nearest parishes, each of which has a Spanish-speaking priest on staff.
If the crime is serious enough (What did Jesus say about those who caused children to sin?), then the pervert should have a free venue to talk about it - even in a confessional. Some may be truly repentant but it's just as likely that many just want the thrill of being able to tell someone w/o paying the social price.
Since only God can actually forgive sins against Him, does a Priest really have to know the sick details in order to carry out the confessional? God already knows everything and He makes the final decisions.
Seems that if this "trust" was broken for certain crimes (I thought that murder wasn't still considered an inviolable trust for confessions -is that wrong?).
Since I'm a fan of the concept that an unexamined life isn't worth living, I like the thought of a confessional/place to be able to discuss one's pluses and minuses, but I can't see the logic in becoming a willing protector of a heinous act for religious purposes.
I belong to an association where folks admit their foibles to another as a means of getting a grasp on the true import of their actions so atonement or healing can begin - I tell those who come to me that they can tell me anything in confidence, except murder or child abuse.....that isn't my cross to bear and I will not bear it for them.
Can you give me an example of a sin that harms nobody other than the perpetrator?
Tyrants and totalitarian regimes have executed priests for refusing to break the seal of confession.
In those cases, political dissidents were being hunted down by the authorities.
With the hyper-intrusive means used today to monnitor those who disagree with the government, the judge’s remarks may be the setup to revoking the privilege.
No, soycd is not taking shots at the Church but has a misunderstanding of the seal of the confessional. His (her) subsequent posts don't reveal any ill intent.
The privilege belongs to the penitent who can disclose whatever he wants to anyone at any time. The priest cannot.
If a lying penitent disclosed what was confessed in a legal setting, the priest no longer breaks the seal by denying a publicly stated lie by the so called penitent.
So a priest can say this person never actually confessed to him, or deny something that was said or heard in confession? I dunno, that sure goes against anything I have ever heard about it. I thought the priest couldn’t even confirm he heard an particular confession no matter what.
There’s a case going on in La where the diocese is being sued because a priest allegedly didn’t report abuse when he supposedly learned of it and allegedly told the penitent to forget it or something.
Freegards
Very strange. I posted this last night but it seems to have disappeared. Oh well. Thanks for reposting it. This is an important issue.
You are correct. Even if the penitent breaks the seal of confession (and a penitent is allowed to) the priest can’t confirm or deny what happened.
Jehova’s witnesses don’t have “sacramental confession”, so honestly it isn’t any different from me telling you I murdered someone.
That’s was my understanding anyhow. My comment whenever this comes up is if the confessor-privilege goes away, there doesn’t seem to be any way for the Catholic Church to defend itself against civil suits that are trying to award damages against something actionable that was done or said in confession. And for all I know there may actually be something actionable, but either way the priest is supposedly always going to act the same way unless he wants to be excommunicated, ‘no comment.’
I wonder if the other faiths besides the Orthodox that use the privilege also have the rule that the priest cannot even confirm or deny a confession took place at all, or still not confirm or deny anything about it even if the penitent wants the priest/clergy to do so.
Freegards
The political authorities surely realize all this. Which is why I can't see it as anything other than making a show of pointlessly bullying clergy in order to score politically with the bigot constituency.
Yes, I fully agree with you on all counts! My point is that the Seal of the confessional is NOT a ‘privilege’ granted by the state. It’s a religious right - irrespective of whether or not any court chooses to claim otherwise.
Preserving the Seal is not a permission or allowance made by the government, it is not up to the state to decide anything about it. The State has no just authority (only usurped power) to grant it or interfere with the free exercise of a sacrament.
The Seal is a human right and a constitutional right REGARDLESS of the state’s defining it otherwise - which (as you correctly surmise) the state no doubt will.
Small groups are scattered throughout the Church that already are discussing “going underground” in anticipation of the Statist imposition on religious freedom.
Thanks for clearing that up, FRiend.
It’s an easy call. Once you violate an innocent, you are guilty for life.
He can't but the privilege belongs to the penitent who gives it up publicly by talking about it or testifying about it. Now the priest could not comment on anything that the penitent had NOT made public just those things he or she had.
Actually, the more I think about this, the more inclined I am to think I’m wrong. Let me check with a canon lawyer I know to be sure.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.