Are confessions protected information? Maybe not as courts decide

[TraditonRules]

Michigan court mulls confession issue

Published: Feb. 10, 2012 at 2:21 AM

DETROIT, Feb. 10 (UPI) – A three-judge appellate panel in Michigan is mulling over a case that could affect whether conversations between a pastor and parishioner remain privileged.

The case involves Pastor John Vaprezsan of Metro Baptist Church in Belleville, who testified last March that a 17-year-old member of his congregation had admitted in 2009 to raping a 9-year-old girl two years earlier. The teen’s mother was present at the meeting.

Raymond Cassar, the attorney for the youth, Samuel Bragg, contended during arguments before the appeals panel Thursday that the confession was privileged communication and should not have been used in court, The Detroit Free Press.

m.upi.com/m/story/UPI-60611328858468/

 

[YoungTradCath]

Seriously? A pastor broke the Seal of Confession? Isn’t that excommunication latae setentiae?

 

[nickybr38]

The Pastor is a Pastor of a Baptist church. For him there is no confessional seal.

 

[TraditonRules]

The Pastor is a Pastor of a Baptist church. For him there is no confessional seal.

I understand, but if the courts decide to order the testimony not sure if a seal will hold up in court. Even potentially for a Priest.

 

[Cristiano]

I understand, but if the courts decide to order the testimony not sure if a seal will hold up in court. Even potentially for a Priest.

The Baptist minister is protected by the Michigan law but not by the First Amendment. As long as a religious groups do not consider the secrecy of confession as a doctrinal point there is nothing they can do. How can you claim it protection of a religious belief when it is not a religious belief?

 

[nickybr38]

I understand, but if the courts decide to order the testimony not sure if a seal will hold up in court. Even potentially for a Priest.

Hm, it definitely seems to be a slippery slope. However, should things said in confidence between two people ever be used as evidence in a court room? Unfortunately because Protestant Ministers do not have a confessional seal in place when someone speaks to them it’s no different then sharing a ‘confidential’ secret with a friend. It’s not necessarily the same as being in a confessional (although the courts may not see it as that).

 

[jilly4ski]

Hm, it definitely seems to be a slippery slope. However, should things said in confidence between two people ever be used as evidence in a court room? Unfortunately because Protestant Ministers do not have a confessional seal in place when someone speaks to them it’s no different then sharing a ‘confidential’ secret with a friend. It’s not necessarily the same as being in a confessional (although the courts may not see it as that).

It should also be noted that the teens mother was in the room as well. A known third party usually breaks the privilege. (a professional like an interpreter doesn’t count). There must be an expectation of privacy. If you think about communications with a lawyer or a doctor, or a priest in the confessional. The privilege doesn’t kick in if you are talking to your priest in the vestibule after Mass, just like it wouldn’t count if you are shouting down the hallway to your doctor, or speaking to your lawyer in front of a reporter.
There is no privilege between the teen and his mom, even if there is a privilege between the pastor and the teen. Therefore it is no longer privileged information. As the pastor in this case already testified, it seems he had no scruples disclosing it against his religious beliefs.

 

[TraditonRules]

It should also be noted that the teens mother was in the room as well. A known third party usually breaks the privilege. (a professional like an interpreter doesn’t count). There must be an expectation of privacy. If you think about communications with a lawyer or a doctor, or a priest in the confessional. The privilege doesn’t kick in if you are talking to your priest in the vestibule after Mass, just like it wouldn’t count if you are shouting down the hallway to your doctor, or speaking to your lawyer in front of a reporter.
There is no privilege between the teen and his mom, even if there is a privilege between the pastor and the teen. Therefore it is no longer privileged information. As the pastor in this case already testified, it seems he had no scruples disclosing it against his religious beliefs.

But if the courts order the Pastor to testify same could be done to a Priest. Yes???

 

[po18guy]

The Pastor is a Pastor of a Baptist church. For him there is no confessional seal.

Nothing gets past you! Yet, there is a privilege between “clergy and communicator” just as there remains a privilege between husband and wife as well as doctor and patient. Such communications are contextual, however, and the presence of the communicant’s mother may significantly alter the privilege. But, the principle of privileged communication is enshrined in America law.

The concern here is that conscience is now also under attack - although by government and not specifically by the courts. Indeed, some errant courts have begun to consider foreign law and/or precedent in their rulings. Of course, this by itself is dangerous and a violation of sovereignty.

This link provides a (necessarily) generic explanation of privileged communications: legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/privileged+communication

 

[jilly4ski]

But if the courts order the Pastor to testify same could be done to a Priest. Yes???

He already testified, and did not object to testifying, saying while he thought the conversation was private, testifying did not break church doctrine. While the courts could ask a priest to testify, he would refuse (potentially be jailed), but I believe his rights would be upheld. There are too many breakages between not only the privilege, but also the expectation of confidentiality.

We must look at the who is arguing for the privilege, it is not the pastor refusing to testify, but the defendant, who wants the statement excluded from evidence.

 

[SwizzleStick]

But if the courts order the Pastor to testify same could be done to a Priest. Yes???

No. The courts couldn’t and wouldn’t know anything unless the courts develop omniscience. They could not otherwise know because a priest cannot break the seal of the confessional.

 

[po18guy]

He already testified, and did not object to testifying, saying while he thought the conversation was private, testifying did not break church doctrine. While the courts could ask a priest to testify, he would refuse (potentially be jailed), but I believe his rights would be upheld. There are too many breakages between not only the privilege, but also the expectation of confidentiality.

We must look at the who is arguing for the privilege, it is not the pastor refusing to testify, but the defendant, who wants the statement excluded from evidence.

It would appear that both have standing to make objection.

 

[jilly4ski]

It would appear that both have standing to make objection.

Is that michigan law that protects the penitent as well as the “priest.” Who holds the privilege is not enshrined legal doctrine, and can change depending on which privilege we are discussing.

I personally don’t think that is an issue that is even in dispute. It is rather that the privilege has been broken with the third party being present. It was not a scenario that qualifies for the privilege.

 

[nickybr38]

Nothing gets past you! Yet, there is a privilege between “clergy and communicator” just as there remains a privilege between husband and wife as well as doctor and patient. Such communications are contextual, however, and the presence of the communicant’s mother may significantly alter the privilege. But, the principle of privileged communication is enshrined in America law.

The concern here is that conscience is now also under attack - although by government and not specifically by the courts. Indeed, some errant courts have begun to consider foreign law and/or precedent in their rulings. Of course, this by itself is dangerous and a violation of sovereignty.

This link provides a (necessarily) generic explanation of privileged communications: legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/privileged+communication

I was not aware there was such a thing as ‘privileged communication’. I am aware that conversations you have the phone cannot be used against you UNLESS you give your consent to have them recorded… although even that has been gotten around depending on the situation.

Also, no need for the sarcasm.

 

[TraditonRules]

No. The courts couldn’t and wouldn’t know anything unless the courts develop omniscience. They could not otherwise know because a priest cannot break the seal of the confessional.

That is to be determined.

The courts could very well decide and change laws that would trump the Church and any seal. Thus making a Priest testify what they discovered in confession. Especially after the contraception Obama mandate, anything is possible with liberal courts and politicians.

 

[Khalid]

I was not aware there was such a thing as ‘privileged communication’. I am aware that conversations you have the phone cannot be used against you UNLESS you give your consent to have them recorded… although even that has been gotten around depending on the situation.

Also, no need for the sarcasm.

As far as I’m aware, conversations on the phone are fair game, but if the other guy doesn’t have a warrant he can get charged with wiretapping - but the record is still admissible.

 

[nickybr38]

That is to be determined.

The courts could very well decide and change laws that would trump the Church and any seal. Thus making a Priest testify what they discovered in confession. Especially after the contraception Obama mandate, anything is possible with liberal courts and politicians.

Except a Priest would never obey such a law… and thus we would see many of our Priests behind bars or with fines…

 

[nickybr38]

As far as I’m aware, conversations on the phone are fair game, but if the other guy doesn’t have a warrant he can get charged with wiretapping - but the record is still admissible.

Well, I’m speaking from a different country so I’m unsure about US laws… but I’m fairly certain up north here taped conversations, taped without consent that is, are not permissable evidence… but I could be wrong. I’m no lawyer. I just know what I’ve been told.

 

[JReducation]

But if the courts order the Pastor to testify same could be done to a Priest. Yes???

So what?

The Catholics in the United States are not subject to the laws of the United States when those laws are in conflict with dogma, Canon Law, or moral law.

Aquinas and other doctors of the Church have made it very clear that a law that violates the law of God ceases to be a law. If it’s not a law, then it’s not binding.

If you get punished, it’s called persecution.

So what’s new here? Priests, brothers, sisters and laymen have been persecuted by many governments. The US Government is a late comer to the party.

It drives me crazy when Catholics ask questions such as, “What if the law says . . .?” We’re Catholics. We’re not bound by any law that contradicts our faith. If the government wants to persecute us for it . . . we bite the bullet.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[nickybr38]

So what?

The Catholics in the United States are not subject to the laws of the United States when those laws are in conflict with dogma, Canon Law, or moral law.

Aquinas and other doctors of the Church have made it very clear that a law that violates the law of God ceases to be a law. If it’s not a law, then it’s not binding.

If you get punished, it’s called persecution.

So what’s new here? Priests, brothers, sisters and laymen have been persecuted by many governments. The US Government is a late comer to the party.

It drives me crazy when Catholics ask questions such as, “What if the law says . . .?” We’re Catholics. We’re not bound by any law that contradicts our faith. If the government wants to persecute us for it . . . we bite the bullet.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

That’s one thing I did learn as a Protestant. If the law tells us to disobey God’s law we say no. Period. There is no question about that.

Christians have disobeyed civil laws throughout history. It’s nothing new… we just haven’t had to in our nice cushy country so far… The problem with cultural religion though is that when you have to be persecuted for it that’s when you’re most likely to give it up.