The seal of the confessional

[Albicia]

What is the general view here on the seal of the confessional? Is it a holy sacrament and an integral part of freedom of religion, or does it provide cover for sex offenders and murderers? Should priests be held accountable for the crimes they forgive in confession? Does the Catholic Church subvert the rule of law through confession?

I'm interested in hear the responses. I had a very loud argument with a progressive Catholic friend over this; she believes that the sacrament shouldn't be used to protect criminals, whereas I take the traditional view the the seal is unbreakable.

[United Marxist Nations]

In such cases, the Priest should be allowed to ask the Papacy to provide them with permission (which should be granted) to say what has been said, and allow him the time for a reply before his testimony.

[Themiclesia]

The priest offers religious absolution, not secular pardon; a sin absolved is not an indictment dismissed. Since many European states have a history of established religion to which civil authority defers in certain matters, the seal of the confessional was usually considered inviolable. The confessor is required by oath to maintain the seal.

[Aelex]

Even as a Laïciste, I do have to say that there are some things the state should stay off. The seal of the confessional is one of the few I do considered as "Inviolable"

[Farnhamia]

What is the general view here on the seal of the confessional? Is it a holy sacrament and an integral part of freedom of religion, or does it provide cover for sex offenders and murderers? Should priests be held accountable for the crimes they forgive in confession? Does the Catholic Church subvert the rule of law through confession?

I'm interested in hear the responses. I had a very loud argument with a progressive Catholic friend over this; she believes that the sacrament shouldn't be used to protect criminals, whereas I take the traditional view the the seal is unbreakable.

What's your opinion? It's considered polite, if not actually required, for you to state your opinion on the matter you propose for discussion.

[Threlizdun]

Allowing those who are a danger to others to continue performing dangerous acts rather than trying to stop them when you have the capacity to do so is dispicable. If priests are concerned about their souls for breaking confession, perhaps they should be concerns for their souls when they allow murderers, rapists, and child molesters to go unstopped. If you must be damned, choose damnation that saves the lives of others. If your god cannot understand that, he is not a god worth worshipping.

In such cases, the Priest should be allowed to ask the Papacy to provide them with permission (which should be granted) to say what has been said, and allow him the time for a reply before his testimony.

They will never give it. The papacy has been adamant that they are unwilling to make exceptions to this under any circumstance. There's a reason nothing happens to child molesters among the Church.

What is the general view here on the seal of the confessional? Is it a holy sacrament and an integral part of freedom of religion, or does it provide cover for sex offenders and murderers? Should priests be held accountable for the crimes they forgive in confession? Does the Catholic Church subvert the rule of law through confession?

I'm interested in hear the responses. I had a very loud argument with a progressive Catholic friend over this; she believes that the sacrament shouldn't be used to protect criminals, whereas I take the traditional view the the seal is unbreakable.

What's your opinion? It's considered polite, if not actually required, for you to state your opinion on the matter you propose for discussion.

They said in the last sentence that they believe the seal is in breakable.

[MERIZoC]

I'm of the belief that rather than the government forcing them to break the seal, the church must allow them to do so.

[United Marxist Nations]

Allowing those who are a danger to others to continue performing dangerous acts rather than trying to stop them when you have the capacity to do so is dispicable. If priests are concerned about their souls for breaking confession, perhaps they should be concerns for their souls when they allow murderers, rapists, and child molesters to go unstopped. If you must be damned, choose damnation that saves the lives of others. If your god cannot understand that, he is not a god worth worshipping.

In such cases, the Priest should be allowed to ask the Papacy to provide them with permission (which should be granted) to say what has been said, and allow him the time for a reply before his testimony.

They will never give it. The papacy has been adamant that they are unwilling to make exceptions to this under any circumstance. There's a reason nothing happens to child molesters among the Church.

In that case, the Church's position is unconscionable, and should be debated at all fronts, both within and without the Church.

[Diopolis]

The seal of the confessional is utterly inviolable; there are no exceptions.

[Ostroeuropa]

It should be subject to the same rules as attorney-client privilege.
I.E, if someone goes to confess a past crime, they may hold the seal.
If they indicate an intention to commit a future crime, the priest/lawyer is duty bound to report it.

Further, if a lawyer goes to another lawyer and indicates they are abusing their status as a lawyer to commit a crime (Blackmailing their clients, for instance.) that lawyer is duty bound to report it to the bar association.
Similarly, if a priest reports to a priest that they are fucking the altar boys, that priest should be duty bound to report it.

I think this should be enshrined in law. If the church refuses to comply, those who refuse to comply should be arrested or fined.
In cases of priests reporting to other priests, arguments could be made that the church is a criminal organization if it is their doctrine to refuse to report, allowing it to be outlawed.

[Threlizdun]

The seal of the confessional is utterly inviolable; there are no exceptions.

So it is better to let a murderer kill again than for you to just tell someone? The Church doesn't think enabling murderers is a sin?

[Threlizdun]

It should be subject to the same rules as attorney-client privilege.
I.E, if someone goes to confess a past crime, they may hold the seal.
If they indicate an intention to commit a future crime, the priest/lawyer is duty bound to report it.

Further, if a lawyer goes to another lawyer and indicates they are abusing their status as a lawyer to commit a crime (Blackmailing their clients, for instance.) that lawyer is duty bound to report it to the bar association.
Similarly, if a priest reports to a priest that they are fucking the altar boys, that priest should be duty bound to report it.

I think this should be enshrined in law. If the church refuses to comply, those who refuse to comply should be arrested or fined.

Agreed entirely.

[Themiclesia]

The seal of the confessional is utterly inviolable; there are no exceptions.

So it is better to let a murderer kill again than for you to just tell someone? The Church doesn't think enabling murderers is a sin?

The fact that the murderer has already confessed shows that whether the priest divulges the murder to other authorities is utterly irrelevant to the life of the victim. A pardon from a confessor isn't enabling a non-murderer to commit murder, or a deterrence to a would-be murderer from murder.

[Ostroeuropa]

It should be subject to the same rules as attorney-client privilege.
I.E, if someone goes to confess a past crime, they may hold the seal.
If they indicate an intention to commit a future crime, the priest/lawyer is duty bound to report it.

Further, if a lawyer goes to another lawyer and indicates they are abusing their status as a lawyer to commit a crime (Blackmailing their clients, for instance.) that lawyer is duty bound to report it to the bar association.
Similarly, if a priest reports to a priest that they are fucking the altar boys, that priest should be duty bound to report it.

I think this should be enshrined in law. If the church refuses to comply, those who refuse to comply should be arrested or fined.

Agreed entirely.

I'll add, that if someone indicates an intention to commit a future crime in confession, then their confession cannot reasonable be construed to have been made in good faith with the objective of penance, so it might be theologically dodgy to consider it a confession in the first place, though i'm not sure.
I will say that, regardless of what the crime is, if someone confesses to a past crime, and gives no indication of future crime, and is not a priest abusing their position, that the clergy should be able to hold their seal.

[Ostroeuropa]

So it is better to let a murderer kill again than for you to just tell someone? The Church doesn't think enabling murderers is a sin?

The fact that the murderer has already confessed shows that whether the priest divulges the murder to other authorities is utterly irrelevant to the life of the victim. A pardon from a confessor isn't enabling a non-murderer to commit murder, or a deterrence to a would-be murderer from murder.

This is why I suggest it be subject to the same rules as attorney-client privelege.

You may confess to murder, and the priest may keep your secret.
You may not confess to murder, say "and i'm doing it again tommorow." and expect the same treatment.
This is the same standard lawyers are held to.

[Themiclesia]

Agreed entirely.

I'll add, that if someone indicates an intention to commit a future crime in confession, then their confession cannot reasonable be construed to have been made in good faith with the objective of penance, so it might be theologically dodgy to consider it a confession in the first place, though i'm not sure.
I will say that, regardless of what the crime is, if someone confesses to a past crime, and gives no indication of future crime, and is not a priest abusing their position, that the clergy should be able to hold their seal.

I don't think a priest can absolve a crime yet to be committed, but otherwise quite reasonable.

[Pope Joan]

In the aftermath of the Tarasoff decision, which went overboard against confidentiality, most states passed legislation, or their courts imposed rule interpretations. which allowed professionals in positions which required confidentiality (psychologists, attorneys etc.) to breach confidentiality only if there was an immediate danger to named persons. The NASW Code of Ethics follows this rule.

So, if a client says "I have a plan and I am going to go kill Joe Smith", the the professional may breach confidentiality and notify authorities. But if the client says "I have a drug addiction which I am trying to quit, but I do not want to leave my job as an OR nurse", there is no named individual at risk, and if the professional breached confidentiality she is guilty of misconduct.

[Ostroeuropa]

I'll add, that if someone indicates an intention to commit a future crime in confession, then their confession cannot reasonable be construed to have been made in good faith with the objective of penance, so it might be theologically dodgy to consider it a confession in the first place, though i'm not sure.
I will say that, regardless of what the crime is, if someone confesses to a past crime, and gives no indication of future crime, and is not a priest abusing their position, that the clergy should be able to hold their seal.

I don't think a priest can absolve a crime yet to be committed, but otherwise quite reasonable.

That's why I think they should consider it something they should be able to report to the authorities.
They havn't actually engaged in a confessional. It's not, really, breaking a seal.

"I killed a man, and i'm doing it again tommorow."

The priest should indicate that the person intends to kill someone tommorow to the authorities.

[Themiclesia]

I don't think a priest can absolve a crime yet to be committed, but otherwise quite reasonable.

That's why I think they should consider it something they should be able to report to the authorities.
They havn't actually engaged in a confessional. It's not, really, breaking a seal.

"I killed a man, and i'm doing it again tommorow."

The priest should indicate that the person intends to kill someone tommorow to the authorities.

I agree fully. Though the question arises, why would such a person ever announce his intention to an outsider as a priest? He would know that the priest can't pardon a sin that doesn't yet exist.

[Ostroeuropa]

That's why I think they should consider it something they should be able to report to the authorities.
They havn't actually engaged in a confessional. It's not, really, breaking a seal.

"I killed a man, and i'm doing it again tommorow."

The priest should indicate that the person intends to kill someone tommorow to the authorities.

I agree fully. Though the question arises, why would such a person ever announce his intention to an outsider as a priest? He would know that the priest can't pardon a sin that doesn't yet exist.

People still fall afoul of confessing future crimes to their lawyers too.
It's mostly a matter of ignorance as to what they can and cannot be expected to keep secret.

[Lleu llaw Gyffes]

The big abuse is rape of children. We need a statute than when rapists confess and the priest don't tell the police, then the priest goes to jail for aiding and abetting, accessory after the facts. If a priest tells and the bishop sacks him, the bishop goes to jail.

Freedom of Worship is excellent, but we don't use it to permit Human Sacrifice, neither should it be applied to encourage rape

[Dyakovo]

What is the general view here on the seal of the confessional? Is it a holy sacrament and an integral part of freedom of religion, or does it provide cover for sex offenders and murderers? Should priests be held accountable for the crimes they forgive in confession? Does the Catholic Church subvert the rule of law through confession?

I'm interested in hear the responses. I had a very loud argument with a progressive Catholic friend over this; she believes that the sacrament shouldn't be used to protect criminals, whereas I take the traditional view the the seal is unbreakable.

1: Provides cover for criminals.
2: There's certainly an argument for them being accessories to the crimes.
3: Yes.

[Russels Orbiting Teapot]

I think it should be held to a similar standard as doctor/patient privilege. They shouldn't have to disclose past crimes, but should have to disclose intent to commit future crimes.

[Diopolis]

The seal of the confessional is utterly inviolable; there are no exceptions.

So it is better to let a murderer kill again than for you to just tell someone? The Church doesn't think enabling murderers is a sin?

I believe(I've never done it, but I have heard it, mostly from a couple of theology teachers) the common practice for dealing with confessions of serious crimes is that the penance given will be to confess to the authorities. If they don't, they don't get absolution.

[United Marxist Nations]

The big abuse is rape of children. We need a statute than when rapists confess and the priest don't tell the police, then the priest goes to jail for aiding and abetting, accessory after the facts. If a priest tells and the bishop sacks him, the bishop goes to jail.

Freedom of Worship is excellent, but we don't use it to permit Human Sacrifice, neither should it be applied to encourage rape

That's illegal, as it violates the free exercise of religion.