Catholic Confessional Seal Part 2 - Supreme Court

[Northwest Slobovia]

I can see Constitutional arguements both ways:

Yes, Courts can force priests break the Confessional Seal:
Many Catholic Priests & Some Bishops will start going to jail for refusing to break their seal. The remainder that do break the seal are stripped of their title by the Church. The Vatican will react very harshly this decision, and I wouldn't be surprised to see mass protests by the 25% of the US population that's Catholic. Criminals will stop confessing to Catholic priests for fear of being prosecuted.

A) All citizens have a duty to report crimes, and treating Catholic clergy different than the clergy of other religions would violate the establishment clause.

No, Courts can't force priests to break the Confessional Seal:
Some Murderers, Child Molestors, Rapists, etc will continue to go free, possibly commiting more crimes. Some Criminals will continue to repent, and overall the status quo will remain until the next time this is brought to court.

B) The "confessional seal" is an integral part of Catholic ritual, and breaking it violates Catholics' rights under the free exercise clause.

My bias is towards A, but I can see SCOTUS choosing B on well-established grounds. I could even see them greasing that legal camel up and slipping it through the eye of the Constitutional needle by saying that A takes precedence for certain (specificially enumerated) serious crimes, such as rape, kidnapping, and murder -- and conspiracy to commit them -- but B takes precedence for all other crimes, even other felonies (assault with intent to kill, for example).

[Jetan]

Yes. Catching criminals matters FAR more, sacredness be damned.

It only works for catching criminals one time, though.

Because a couple of years after you force priests to tell the police what they heard in confession, criminals will simply stop confessing their crimes to priests, and then you will have violated a religion's core beliefs for nothing.

That's not true at all. Not only can those who did confess be caught, but the ones that won't have the courage to confess to priest anymore lose a "safety valve" so to speak and consequently some of them may be driven to confess to the police instead. Religious beliefs are only acceptable as long as they're not harmful, and protecting a murderer or a rapist, etc. most certainly is harmful.

[English Socialist INGSOC]

It's not a man's rights. The man has no right to have a crime hidden from the rest of the world.

Yout issue isn't those who are religious but the church itself. The Church can't withhold records of serious crimes just because they believe that a divine being lets them. This is a case where you seem to be arguing a churches right to defend criminals from the law.

How about spouses' "right" to "defend criminals from the law," as you so put it?

There are very real practical concerns related to compelling spouses to testify, and compelling spouses to testify as a matter of general policy is not greatly likely to significantly increase the number of criminals sentenced to prison.

We are talking a religions ability to let criminals of rape and myrder possibly walk home without a prison sentence. Do you believe this is right?

[Risottia]

So back in July, I posted a discussion about a Louisiana Court attempting a Catholic priest to break his the Confessional.

You can't force people to talk if they don't want to, of course. What are you going to use, torture?

You can just jail them for withholding information about a crime or for refusing to testify during a trial.

And no, in secular countries with a rule of law, religion can't excuse anyone from his legal duties.

[Herskerstad]

I do feel the Catholic church should have made it a requirement for what is not merely a heinous sin, but also a heinous crime that they make restitution to the state honestly, and serve their time.

[WestRedMaple]

And you think it would all change if the number of religious people just wasn't so high? What about all the non-religious people who would oppose such an amendment?

Why should a church? We're not talking about a church. We're talking about a man. Why should his rights be sacrificed to satisfy your desires?

It's not a man's rights. The man has no right to have a crime hidden from the rest of the world.

Yout issue isn't those who are religious but the church itself. The Church can't withhold records of serious crimes just because they believe that a divine being lets them. This is a case where you seem to be arguing a churches right to defend criminals from the law.

It IS a man's right at issue. The man has a right to follow his religion.

You are creating a straw man about the church rather than addressing the facts of the issue. Why don't you try addressing the actual issue at hand? Or is it because you already know you don't have a case?

[English Socialist INGSOC]

It's not a man's rights. The man has no right to have a crime hidden from the rest of the world.

Yout issue isn't those who are religious but the church itself. The Church can't withhold records of serious crimes just because they believe that a divine being lets them. This is a case where you seem to be arguing a churches right to defend criminals from the law.

It IS a man's right at issue. The man has a right to follow his religion.

You are creating a straw man about the church rather than addressing the facts of the issue. Why don't you try addressing the actual issue at hand? Or is it because you already know you don't have a case?

Wow. I am addressing the situation at hand. The issue is can religious organizations due to their beliefs hide crimes from the Government. The answer to this is no. Freedom of Religion is null and void when you are using it to keep criminals from getting caught by the government.

A man has right to religion, but no religion should have the right to hide information from the Government.

[WestRedMaple]

It IS a man's right at issue. The man has a right to follow his religion.

You are creating a straw man about the church rather than addressing the facts of the issue. Why don't you try addressing the actual issue at hand? Or is it because you already know you don't have a case?

Wow. I am addressing the situation at hand. The issue is can religious organizations due to their beliefs hide crimes from the Government. The answer to this is no. Freedom of Religion is null and void when you are using it to keep criminals from getting caught by the government.

A man has right to religion, but no religion should have the right to hide information from the Government.

That is not the issue, something of which you would be aware had you read the topic.

The issue at hand is whether this man should be forced by the government to violate his religious beliefs.

Until you amend the Constitution, his right remains legally protected

[English Socialist INGSOC]

Wow. I am addressing the situation at hand. The issue is can religious organizations due to their beliefs hide crimes from the Government. The answer to this is no. Freedom of Religion is null and void when you are using it to keep criminals from getting caught by the government.

A man has right to religion, but no religion should have the right to hide information from the Government.

That is not the issue, something of which you would be aware had you read the topic.

The issue at hand is whether this man should be forced by the government to violate his religious beliefs.

Until you amend the Constitution, his right remains legally protected

The man is a leader (though a lower one) of an organization that has this rule for all its members. Thus the reason I refer to the Catholic Church as a whole, because it applies to all of the Catholics in this position.

The answer is simple. Your freedom of religion should end when you use it to keep criminals from getting caught by the government.

Freedom of Religion shouldn't allow you to hide this info from the Government. That's why I brought up the amendment a page ago. Limiting the Freedom of Religion.

[WestRedMaple]

That is not the issue, something of which you would be aware had you read the topic.

The issue at hand is whether this man should be forced by the government to violate his religious beliefs.

Until you amend the Constitution, his right remains legally protected

The man is a leader (though a lower one) of an organization that has this rule for all its members. Thus the reason I refer to the Catholic Church as a whole, because it applies to all of the Catholics in this position.

The answer is simple. Your freedom of religion should end when you use it to keep criminals from getting caught by the government.

Freedom of Religion shouldn't allow you to hide this info from the Government. That's why I brought up the amendment a page ago. Limiting the Freedom of Religion.

Keeping criminals from getting caught doesn't have anything to do with this specific case.

Fortunately, significant support for removing this protection of rights is just not there.

[The Peaceful Territories]

I don't think priests should be forced into breaking their confessional seal, but instead have the option to, and in secret so the Church does not know. The government could keep interviews of priests confidential, in a locked soundproof room.

[English Socialist INGSOC]

The man is a leader (though a lower one) of an organization that has this rule for all its members. Thus the reason I refer to the Catholic Church as a whole, because it applies to all of the Catholics in this position.

The answer is simple. Your freedom of religion should end when you use it to keep criminals from getting caught by the government.

Freedom of Religion shouldn't allow you to hide this info from the Government. That's why I brought up the amendment a page ago. Limiting the Freedom of Religion.

Keeping criminals from getting caught doesn't have anything to do with this specific case.

Fortunately, significant support for removing this protection of rights is just not there.

Did you read the issue?

The issue is as stated: "Does the government have the right to force priests to break confessional seals?"

These seals are when someone who might've commited a crime goes to the priest. Confesses his crime and leaves a free man. The priests then because of religious freedom must keep this information on whatever crime the man committed from the Government.

Thus it is in a way the withholding of information to catch criminals.

[WestRedMaple]

Keeping criminals from getting caught doesn't have anything to do with this specific case.

Fortunately, significant support for removing this protection of rights is just not there.

Did you read the issue?

The issue is as stated: "Does the government have the right to force priests to break confessional seals?"

These seals are when someone who might've commited a crime goes to the priest. Confesses his crime and leaves a free man. The priests then because of religious freedom must keep this information on whatever crime the man committed from the Government.

Thus it is in a way the withholding of information to catch criminals.

So you didn't read the specific case at hand. The accused man wasn't the confessor, and he no longer exists. So, no, you are not correct when you say the seal is involved when someone confesses a crime. The seal is in place whenever anyone confesses anything.

[English Socialist INGSOC]

Did you read the issue?

The issue is as stated: "Does the government have the right to force priests to break confessional seals?"

These seals are when someone who might've commited a crime goes to the priest. Confesses his crime and leaves a free man. The priests then because of religious freedom must keep this information on whatever crime the man committed from the Government.

Thus it is in a way the withholding of information to catch criminals.

So you didn't read the specific case at hand. The accused man wasn't the confessor, and he no longer exists. So, no, you are not correct when you say the seal is involved when someone confesses a crime. The seal is in place whenever anyone confesses anything.

Yes. I know. The topic though is does this churches priests of the right to hide confessional seals from the Government based on from of Religion.

The seal is involved when someone commits a crime because as you said "The seal is in place whenever anyone confesses anything" INCLUDING crimes.

[WestRedMaple]

So you didn't read the specific case at hand. The accused man wasn't the confessor, and he no longer exists. So, no, you are not correct when you say the seal is involved when someone confesses a crime. The seal is in place whenever anyone confesses anything.

Yes. I know. The topic though is does this churches priests of the right to hide confessional seals from the Government based on from of Religion.

The seal is involved when someone commits a crime because as you said "The seal is in place whenever anyone confesses anything" INCLUDING crimes.

You say the seal is when a crime has occurred, when in fact the seal is always in place.

In order to change the legal protection, a Constitutional amendment is required. There is not much support for such an amendment, so it doesn't appear to be going anywhere anytime soon.

[English Socialist INGSOC]

Yes. I know. The topic though is does this churches priests of the right to hide confessional seals from the Government based on from of Religion.

The seal is involved when someone commits a crime because as you said "The seal is in place whenever anyone confesses anything" INCLUDING crimes.

You say the seal is when a crime has occurred, when in fact the seal is always in place.

In order to change the legal protection, a Constitutional amendment is required. There is not much support for such an amendment, so it doesn't appear to be going anywhere anytime soon.

It's always in place. Including when the crime was committed. Exactly. It doesn't matter if it's always active since in either case the crimes are still under seal.

[L Ron Cupboard]

Being a Catholic Priest should be entirely irrelevant - everybody should have the same rights and obligations under the law.

[Murkwood]

Being a dick isn't going to convert anyone to your cause.

Atheism isn't a cause, I don't "convert" people nor am I trying to and Marx was a dick but that doesn't necessary make his claims valid or invalid.

Okay, let me rephrase that.

Being a dick accomplishes nothing. You may have a good point, but any semblance of intelligence is masked by the scent of you being a dick.

[Risottia]

It IS a man's right at issue. The man has a right to follow his religion.

Wrong.

A man has the right to follow his religion as long as only he is involved. That's freedom of worship.
In this case, a man is trying to enforce his religious views over and against the law of the land by claiming that his religion gives him a special snowflake status - ignore the law for free card.

[Pope Joan]

Next it will be psychologists, doctors and lawyers. No one will dare bring any need, in confidence, to any professional.
Society will be the worse for this, not the better.

[Risottia]

Next it will be psychologists, doctors and lawyers. No one will dare bring any need, in confidence, to any professional.

Are we in for slippery slopes?

Then how about this one: you now allow a Catholic priest to ignore the law because of his religion - he claims his deity told him not to speak when the law requires him to do so. Next it will be Islamic fundie terrorists getting a "get out of jail for free" card because of their religion - they claim their deity told them to kill when the law requires them not to do so.

[Murkwood]

Next it will be psychologists, doctors and lawyers. No one will dare bring any need, in confidence, to any professional.

Are we in for slippery slopes?

Then how about this one: you now allow a Catholic priest to ignore the law because of his religion - he claims his deity told him not to speak when the law requires him to do so. Next it will be Islamic fundie terrorists getting a "get out of jail for free" card because of their religion - they claim their deity told them to kill when the law requires them not to do so.

The difference is Pope Joan's made sense, while yours was bullshit in the first degree.

[WestRedMaple]

It IS a man's right at issue. The man has a right to follow his religion.

Wrong.

A man has the right to follow his religion as long as only he is involved. That's freedom of worship.
In this case, a man is trying to enforce his religious views over and against the law of the land by claiming that his religion gives him a special snowflake status - ignore the law for free card.

You are incorrect. He isn't trying to force his religious beliefs on anyone else, merely practice them himself. You are also incorrect about the law of the land. The law of the land makes it illegal to force him to break the seal.

[Pope Joan]

Next it will be psychologists, doctors and lawyers. No one will dare bring any need, in confidence, to any professional.

Are we in for slippery slopes?

Then how about this one: you now allow a Catholic priest to ignore the law because of his religion - he claims his deity told him not to speak when the law requires him to do so. Next it will be Islamic fundie terrorists getting a "get out of jail for free" card because of their religion - they claim their deity told them to kill when the law requires them not to do so.

The priest is not ignoring the law. The law, if it is just, requires that confidence be maintained.

The exception, under the current rule (and under state regulations responding to Tarasoff) is that the one receiving the confidential communication MAY reveal it to the authorities only if there is a clear and present danger to named individuals. So, if a client tells his psychologist "I bought a gun and I am going to kill my mother", the professional MAY tell the police (but is under no duty to do so).

[Northwest Slobovia]

Next it will be psychologists, doctors and lawyers. No one will dare bring any need, in confidence, to any professional.
Society will be the worse for this, not the better.

AFAIK, only attorney-client communications have absolute legal protection. This summary of HIPAA says:

(5) Public Interest and Benefit Activities. The Privacy Rule permits use and disclosure of protected health information, without an individual’s authorization or permission, for 12 national priority purposes.²⁸ These disclosures are permitted, although not required, by the Rule in recognition of the important uses made of health information outside of the health care context. Specific conditions or limitations apply to each public interest purpose, striking the balance between the individual privacy interest and the public interest need for this information.

Required by Law. Covered entities may use and disclose protected health information without individual authorization as required by law (including by statute, regulation, or court orders).²⁹

...

Victims of Abuse, Neglect or Domestic Violence. In certain circumstances, covered entities may disclose protected health information to appropriate government authorities regarding victims of abuse, neglect, or domestic violence.³¹

...

Judicial and Administrative Proceedings. Covered entities may disclose protected health information in a judicial or administrative proceeding if the request for the information is through an order from a court or administrative tribunal. Such information may also be disclosed in response to a subpoena or other lawful process if certain assurances regarding notice to the individual or a protective order are provided.³³

Law Enforcement Purposes. Covered entities may disclose protected health information to law enforcement officials for law enforcement purposes under the following six circumstances, and subject to specified conditions: (1) as required by law (including court orders, court-ordered warrants, subpoenas) and administrative requests; (2) to identify or locate a suspect, fugitive, material witness, or missing person; (3) in response to a law enforcement official’s request for information about a victim or suspected victim of a crime; (4) to alert law enforcement of a person’s death, if the covered entity suspects that criminal activity caused the death; (5) when a covered entity believes that protected health information is evidence of a crime that occurred on its premises; and (6) by a covered health care provider in a medical emergency not occurring on its premises, when necessary to inform law enforcement about the commission and nature of a crime, the location of the crime or crime victims, and the perpetrator of the crime.³⁴

(My underlining.)

So, if a court demands a doctor turn over information about a patient, he gotta; that's repeated serveral times. Also note the more general "as required by law". "Law Enforcement Purposes" (2) and (4) make it pretty clear that if a doctor knows who committed a crime, or knows about a murder -- "Doc, I shot and killed my asshole boss!" -- he is allowed to tell the police... and (3) seem to say that if a cop comes to a doctor about said boss with a new hole, the doctor is required to tell him what he knows, even without a court order (warrant).

Edit: and in any case, HIPAA covers only medical information, not everything a doctor knows.

So AFAICT, people who confess crimes to their doctors should expect the usual punishment.