[johniegrad]

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?

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.

[Ransomed]

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