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.
That’s not my understanding at all, but I am certainly no expert. I thought they make it that the priest can’t be released from the privilege by the penitent no matter what. Because the Church is afraid the person might be induced against their actual will by the state or whoever to ask for the priest to tell what he knows about any alleged confession that was given. I could be wrong.
It seems to me that if it the way you say, I guess my question is why haven’t we heard about court cases where a confession was divulged by a priest to solve it? Or have has there been and we just haven’t heard about it? Do you think the La diocese just doesn’t know how it is supposed to work, or are they fighting this because they don’t want to payout?
freegards