Catholic Confessional Seal Part 2 - Supreme Court

[Skappola]

Yes, obviously. If the Pope complains about this, who cares, fuck the Pope.

The hundreds of millions of Roman Catholics (and tens of millions in the United States alone) care.

1.2 Billion Catholics, in fact.

[Zaldakki]

So, by the same logic, let's force lawyers to testify against their own clients! Hey, it will certainly help us to catch some rapists and murderers right now - after all, some of them confess to their lawyers that they are guilty - and who cares about the future, right?

Unlike a Priest, a Lawyer is legally assigned to defend their client. It's a different circumstance bud, your logic doesn't enter into it.

A priest is religiously assigned to their penitent to give them penance.

[Allet Klar Chefs]

Yes, obviously. If the Pope complains about this, who cares, fuck the Pope.

1.2 billion Roman Catholics (and tens of millions in the United States alone) care.

I'm sure they do. There are many other billions of people (and hundreds of millions in the United States alone) that wish the Catholic Church would stop covering up awful, awful things just for one minute.

[Cata Larga]

The hundreds of millions of Roman Catholics (and tens of millions in the United States alone) care.

1.2 Billion Catholics, in fact.

Already revised it.

[Neo Rome Republic]

Unlike a Priest, a Lawyer is legally assigned to defend their client. It's a different circumstance bud, your logic doesn't enter into it.

A priest is religiously assigned to their penitent to give them penance.

Which has nothing to do with a criminal case.

[Carniola]

Usually, doctors, priests, lawyers etc have the right of client confidentiality.

There are legal precedents that confidentiality can be canceled when necessary.

Raping children is so bad that canceling confidentiality is Righteous.

Severity of the crime is not grounds for revocation of communication privileges in many jurisdictions, and for me, it should not be. You cannot force a lawyer to divulge whether his client admitted to him whether his client confessed to him or not. A doctor can usually only comment based on scientific facts (the only instance I can think of right now, when a doctor can divulge anything said to him is when the victim asserted to him, on his dying breath, the identity of his killer). Spouses are also given the privilege to keep to themselves anything communicated by their spouse during marriage and to refuse testifying against their spouses, subject to restrictions (mostly involving cases filed between husband and wife, and communications given outside of/before marriage) - although civil law and common-law jurisdictions have different interpretations of spousal privilege. So, I don't see why priests should be forced to do divulge what was said to them; otherwise we should force lawyers to testify against their clients, abrogate medical confidentiality by having doctors spill everything they know about their patients, and promote marital breakdown by forcing spouses to divulge sensitive stuff said to them by their spouses.

[Galloism]

I will point out that both rights are limited.

You do not have a right to remain silent unless it might incriminate you, and if you are given immunity there is no right to remain silent (as you can't be incriminated).

Freedom of religion is not unlimited either, although it is broad.

If the priest has knowledge of a crime, he might be incriminated through being an accomplice or having knowledge of the crime. Therefore he has the right to remain silent because it could incriminate him, right?

Typically (legal jurisdictions vary) one must act in furtherance of a crime to be an accomplice, either before or after the fact.

Merely possessing untold knowledge is generally not acting in furtherance of that crime.

[Trollgaard]

Of course not! The confession booth is sacred, and I'm not a catholic!

Anyone who says they should be forced to break sacred oaths to their God is dead fucking wrong and should feel bad and ashamed of themselves.

[Digital Planets]

Of course not! The confession booth is sacred, and I'm not a catholic!

Anyone who says they should be forced to break sacred oaths to their God is dead fucking wrong and should feel bad and ashamed of themselves.

Lolno, priests are withholding information to the police, simple as that. They must be forced to break their seal.

[Servinta]

Of course not! The confession booth is sacred, and I'm not a catholic!

Anyone who says they should be forced to break sacred oaths to their God is dead fucking wrong and should feel bad and ashamed of themselves.

Lolno, priests are withholding information to the police, simple as that. They must be forced to break their seal.

Then what about client-attorney privileges should that be nullified to?

I'm not a catholic and I'm against this,priest should keep confessions sealed.

[Greed and Death]

Unlike a Priest, a Lawyer is legally assigned to defend their client. It's a different circumstance bud, your logic doesn't enter into it.

A priest is religiously assigned to their penitent to give them penance.

Attorney client privilege (and the related work product doctrine) is not guaranteed by the Constitution, it is a simple rule of evidence just like seal of the confessional.

Also like the seal of the confessional there are exceptions to Attorney client privilege. The biggest is if you tell me you are about to kill someone. Also if you employee an attorney to do not attorney things such as tax work (tobacco companies tried to have scientist that were lawyers refrain from testifying on research on the grounds of attorney client privilege) there is neither privilege or work product doctrine.

[Trollgaard]

Of course not! The confession booth is sacred, and I'm not a catholic!

Anyone who says they should be forced to break sacred oaths to their God is dead fucking wrong and should feel bad and ashamed of themselves.

Lolno, priests are withholding information to the police, simple as that. They must be forced to break their seal.

The confessional is between the confessor, the priest, and god. No one else.

[Coccygia]

This is really not so much about religious "freedom" as about the Church being open to a lawsuit, IMFAO.

[WestRedMaple]

No. The Constitution of Louisiana prohibits that at the state level, and the Constitution of the United States prevents that at the federal level.

[Camicon]

No. The Constitution of Louisiana prohibits that at the state level, and the Constitution of the United States prevents that at the federal level.

That remains to be seen.

[WestRedMaple]

Of course not! The confession booth is sacred, and I'm not a catholic!

Anyone who says they should be forced to break sacred oaths to their God is dead fucking wrong and should feel bad and ashamed of themselves.

Lolno, priests are withholding information to the police, simple as that. They must be forced to break their seal.

Something that they cannot LEGALLY be forced to do without an amendment to the constitution

[WestRedMaple]

No. The Constitution of Louisiana prohibits that at the state level, and the Constitution of the United States prevents that at the federal level.

That remains to be seen.

No, it doesn't. The Constitutions involved are quite clear on the matter.

[Camicon]

That remains to be seen.

No, it doesn't. The Constitutions involved are quite clear on the matter.

Louisiana's Supreme Court has yet to rule on the matter, no? They are the ones that will be making this decision, no? Unless you are privy to a decision that has yet to be made, in which case I demand the use of your time machine.

[Lavan Tiri]

regardless of sacredness, every person retains the right to remain silent and the right to religious freedom. If their religion requires that they remain silent, they have the twofold right to do so. The state cannot make anyone testify.

I will point out that both rights are limited.

You do not have a right to remain silent unless it might incriminate you, and if you are given immunity there is no right to remain silent (as you can't be incriminated).

Freedom of religion is not unlimited either, although it is broad.

"You have the right to remain silent……"

The Miranda Code.

[WestRedMaple]

No, it doesn't. The Constitutions involved are quite clear on the matter.

Louisiana's Supreme Court has yet to rule on the matter, no? They are the ones that will be making this decision, no? Unless you are privy to a decision that has yet to be made, in which case I demand the use of your time machine.

The decision has already been made and codified in the highest law. There is only one way to legally change it now: amendment.

[Camicon]

Louisiana's Supreme Court has yet to rule on the matter, no? They are the ones that will be making this decision, no? Unless you are privy to a decision that has yet to be made, in which case I demand the use of your time machine.

The decision has already been made and codified in the highest law. There is only one way to legally change it now: amendment.

So you do have a time machine.

Well good sir, if you wish for my silence upon this matter you will meet me outside my house in the next five minutes, else I shall spread far and wide the news of your marvellous Time Machine^tm.

[Apparatchikstan]

Forcing a priest to break the confessional seal is against the first amendment.

No, secular law demands it, if it truly applies to everyone equally as it is intended to do. Anyone, priest or no, witholding information is obstructing investigation and justice, aiding and abetting, and possibly even a conspirator. It's no wonder some atheists misunderstand what a secular society is and strive for an inverted fundamentalism.

[WestRedMaple]

The decision has already been made and codified in the highest law. There is only one way to legally change it now: amendment.

So you do have a time machine.

Well good sir, if you wish for my silence upon this matter you will meet me outside my house in the next five minutes, else I shall spread far and wide the news of your marvellous Time Machine^tm.

So you think a time machine is necessary to have knowledge of the past

That's certainly an.....interesting.....position

[Camicon]

Forcing a priest to break the confessional seal is against the first amendment.

No, secular law demands it, if it truly applies to everyone equally as it is intended to do. Anyone, priest or no, witholding information is obstructing investigation and justice, aiding and abetting, and possibly even a conspirator. It's no wonder some atheists misunderstand what a secular society is and strive for an inverted fundamentalism.

What?

[Vetalia]

The confessional is between the confessor, the priest, and god. No one else.

I agree; enabling the government to force a priest to break the seal is a dangerous precedent; namely it awards them the power to dictate matters of religious responsibility and erodes other confidential relationships. If they can't prove the case without violating the confessional seal, they obviously have none.