NationStates

So back in July, I posted a discussion about a Louisiana Court attempting a Catholic priest to break his the Confessional. In case you don't know what the Confessional Seal is:

the Catholic Confessional Seal essentially says that Catholic priests are not allowed to disclose any information given to them during confession by the confessor. This includes whether he did or did not commit a crime, like murder. As you can imagine, this is to encourage people who have commited "Mortal Sins"- Horrible sins that can send you to hell unless you repent in confession - to come to confession and repent.

Depending on how the Church reacts, breaking said seal can lead to either losing your priestly duties or being excommunicated from the Church. Considering how devout Catholic priests have to be (They have to go through Seminary AND College to get a degree in Theology AND never get married AND become celibate), it's unlikely that many of the priests will ever agree to breaking their confessional seal.

Historically, the US government and most world governments respected the Confessional Seal, lest they incure the wrath of the Church and their faithful. There have been cases involving it, but they almost always come out in favor of the Church. That's why it's so major that this Louisiana Court continues to attempt to force the priest to break the seal despite the controversy. Now the case is being taken to the Supreme Court, which increases the stakes considerably.

I'm Catholic myself, so my own bias likely comes into play here, but here's how I see the consequences of the two possible decisions:

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.

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.

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/ ... ase-53807/
http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/20 ... onal-seal/
http://www.tri-parishtimes.com/opinion/ ... f887a.html
http://www.catholicsentinel.org/main.as ... leID=26394
http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/0 ... se-tangle/
https://time.com/3318814/catholic-confe ... fidential/
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/thejesuitp ... nviolable/

This is insane! No priest should be forced to break the confessional seal. The confession is between him, the confessor, and God, not the government.

Murkwood wrote: The confession is between him, the confessor, and God, not the government.

It becomes the government's business when you molest children, under Louisiana law.

We should just get rid of the Catholic Church and follow the wisdom of Calvin and other protestant reformers or atleast the Church of Idolatry should stop worshipping Mary.

Geilinor wrote:

Murkwood wrote: The confession is between him, the confessor, and God, not the government.

It becomes the government's business when you molest children, under Louisiana law.

Well, that law isn't right. Confession is a most sacred of practice, and we can't taint it like this.

The Catholic Community of Pola says: NO.

In real: Catholic: I would say YES.

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

Dragomerian Islands wrote:Forcing a priest to break the confessional seal is against the first amendment.

No it's not.

Theorett wrote:

Dragomerian Islands wrote:Forcing a priest to break the confessional seal is against the first amendment.

No it's not.

Yes it is, as it forces one to go against their own religion.

Dragomerian Islands wrote:

Theorett wrote: No it's not.

Yes it is, as it forces one to go against their own religion.

Not always against the First Amendment. It depends on the purpose of the law and which groups are most affected.

Dragomerian Islands wrote:

Theorett wrote: No it's not.

Yes it is, as it forces one to go against their own religion.

If someone founds a religion that prohibits paying taxes he still has to pay taxes. It's the same thing.

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

"Force them to break the confessional seal" is a bit misleading. It's more"arrest them for not talking to the police."

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.

Margno wrote:"Force them to break the confessional seal" is a bit misleading. It's more"arrest them for not talking to the police."

It's not misleading, since that is what they are doing. They are attempting to force the Priest to talk, thereby breaking his confessional seal.

Murkwood wrote:

Geilinor wrote:It becomes the government's business when you molest children, under Louisiana law.

Well, that law isn't right. Confession is a most sacred of practice, and we can't taint it like this.

If a priest is breaking the law by molesting children, then he should be forced to give up that information. They shouldn't be allowed to use their religion as an excuse to molest children.

I can see how both sides have valid arguments. I'd just suggest the Vatican change their policy. Pope Francis is progressive and reasonable, maybe he'd be willing to alter Church doctrine or policy in order to have Priests maintain their duties and ensure that the information law enforcement needs to properly prosecute criminals is obtained.

The Orson Empire wrote:

Murkwood wrote:Well, that law isn't right. Confession is a most sacred of practice, and we can't taint it like this.

If a priest is breaking the law by molesting children, then he should be forced to give up that information. They shouldn't be allowed to use their religion as an excuse to molest children.

But... this isn't about the priest molesting children...

The Orson Empire wrote:

Murkwood wrote:Well, that law isn't right. Confession is a most sacred of practice, and we can't taint it like this.

If a priest is breaking the law by molesting children, then he should be forced to give up that information. They shouldn't be allowed to use their religion as an excuse to molest children.

The priest isn't molesting children; he may or may not have had a crime confessed to him.

I really hate it when people hear Catholic priest and think child molester...

NEO Rome Republic wrote: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.

Skappola wrote:

The Orson Empire wrote:If a priest is breaking the law by molesting children, then he should be forced to give up that information. They shouldn't be allowed to use their religion as an excuse to molest children.

I really hate it when people hear Catholic priest and think child molester...

So do I.

Skappola wrote:

The Orson Empire wrote:If a priest is breaking the law by molesting children, then he should be forced to give up that information. They shouldn't be allowed to use their religion as an excuse to molest children.

The priest isn't molesting children; he may or may not have had a crime confessed to him.

I really hate it when people hear Catholic priest and think child molester...

First Priest raped children and confessed to second priest. The legal case is whether 2nd priest should testify that 1st priest done it.

Lleu llaw Gyffes wrote:

Skappola wrote:The priest isn't molesting children; he may or may not have had a crime confessed to him.

I really hate it when people hear Catholic priest and think child molester...

First Priest raped children and confessed to second priest. The legal case is whether 2nd priest should testify that 1st priest done it.

It was a parishioner, and he said it in a way which suggested the second priest raped someone & refused to give up any info.

No, as it goes against both freedom of religion and the right to remain silent.

Zaldakki wrote:No, as it goes against both freedom of religion and the right to remain silent.

5th amendement = you cannot be forced to confess to a crime you personally done.

1st priest raped children and confessed to 2nd priest. This case is about forcing 2nd priest to testify that 1st priest done it.