Are confessions protected information? Maybe not as courts decide

  • Thread starter Thread starter TraditonRules
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
It is my understanding that a Priest will go to jail first than to break the confession seal. However, other denominations may have confessions that follow the the local law. That way they have an excuse to state what was said in a legal manner
 
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.
I stand by my answer with the addition of the bolded words.
No. The courts couldn’t and wouldn’t know anything unless the courts develop omniscience, **in which case they wouldn’t need testimony of a priest or anyone else either. **They could not otherwise know because a priest cannot break the seal of the confessional.
 
It is my understanding that a Priest will go to jail first than to break the confession seal. However, other denominations may have confessions that follow the the local law. That way they have an excuse to state what was said in a legal manner
The Orthodox and the Catholics are the only priests who have the power to absolve from sin. Therefore,they are the only Churches that have the Sacrament of Penance.

The Sacrament of Penance is supposed to be protected under the First Amendment, because it is not a practice of the Orthodox and Catholics, it is part of our faith. To violate the Sacrament is to violate our faith. According to the Constitution, the government cannot demand that anyone violate his faith.

If they find a loophole around this, the priests (Catholic and Orthodox) will have no option but to go to jail.

What we need to decide is, are we Catholics who are Americans or Americans who are Catholic? It’s not the same thing. If I’m a Catholic who just happens to be an American, the Catholic takes precedence. If I disobey my country because it has violated God’s law, I am even a better patriot, because I’m protecting my country from sin.

Let us not forget Thomas More. “I die a loyal subject of the king, but a faithful son of the Church first.”

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
The Orthodox and the Catholics are the only priests who have the power to absolve from sin. Therefore,they are the only Churches that have the Sacrament of Penance.

The Sacrament of Penance is supposed to be protected under the First Amendment, because it is not a practice of the Orthodox and Catholics, it is part of our faith. To violate the Sacrament is to violate our faith. According to the Constitution, the government cannot demand that anyone violate his faith.

If they find a loophole around this, the priests (Catholic and Orthodox) will have no option but to go to jail.

What we need to decide is, are we Catholics who are Americans or Americans who are Catholic? It’s not the same thing. If I’m a Catholic who just happens to be an American, the Catholic takes precedence. If I disobey my country because it has violated God’s law, I am even a better patriot, because I’m protecting my country from sin.

Let us not forget Thomas More. “I die a loyal subject of the king, but a faithful son of the Church first.”

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
Government can and will impose people violate its faith, Obama proved that this week.
 
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.
At least someone knows how the privilege works. The mom most likely broke the privilege plus the kid wasn’t seeking spiritual guidance. The pastor asked him a question and the kid supposedly answered. The priest penitent privilege is very ingrained in the law and has be expanded to include non-catholics but it has specific requirements. A priest in a confessional would not be able to break the seal and testify.
 
Government can and will impose people violate its faith, Obama proved that this week.
The government can say and impose anything it wants. It does not mean that we have to agree with it.

In Germany six million of my people died, because the government imposed its wishes. Among them were five of my uncles who were between the ages of 11 and 18.

In the Soviet Union, millions of Orthodox Christians, Jews and Muslims died or disappeared because the government imposed its will on the people.

In Muslim countries, Eastern Catholics are dying every day because radical Muslims impose their will on their fellow citizens…

Maybe it’s time that Americans tasted religious oppression. It might strengthen our faith.

There is an old saying about separating the men from the boys. Maybe these and future actions by our government will separate the person of faith from the culturally faithful.

Fraternally,

Br.JR, OSF 🙂
 
At least someone knows how the privilege works. The mom most likely broke the privilege plus the kid wasn’t seeking spiritual guidance. The pastor asked him a question and the kid supposedly answered. The priest penitent privilege is very ingrained in the law and has be expanded to include non-catholics but it has specific requirements. A priest in a confessional would not be able to break the seal and testify.
😊 I glad I retained something from the scant discussion about privileges in criminal law.
 
In any event the point is moot until the reviwing cout makes its ruling. That ruling is likely to be challenged no matter whose favor it is in.
 
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.
Whether the minister thought that testifying didn’t break a church doctrine, normally under law it is the penitent, not the minister, that owns the right to confidentiality. Allowing the testimony is dangerous.
 
😊 I glad I retained something from the scant discussion about privileges in criminal law.
I am trying to forget most of it I can but it’s crammed up there. I hoping the farther away i get from school and the bar the less I remember. I mean every time I watch law and order or any cop or law show I just keep thinking…the law doesn’t work that way and that so wouldn’t be allowed…kind of ruins watching tv. Also ruins wanting to have law discussions with people on the Internet as it would take way to long to go through the case break downs on why things are they way they are.
 
Whether the minister thought that testifying didn’t break a church doctrine, normally under law it is the penitent, not the minister, that owns the right to confidentiality. Allowing the testimony is dangerous.
Under normal circumstances your right the privilege lays with the penitent hence why a priest can’t break the seal but the defendant could decide to say anything he wants about the confession. But the kicker is is has to be a ‘a confidential communication by the person to a clergyman in his professional character as a spiritual adviser.’. The court has to decide was it confidential and was it in the preachers role as a spiritual advisor.

Listen not every conversation with a priest is protected. It has to be his role as a spiritual advisor and be confidential. Those facts seem to be missing here. The kid wasn’t approaching the pastor for spiritual guidance but the pastor approached him about something in front of his mom. The courts might go either way but it’s not a huge precedent. Privileges are looked at on a case by case and circumstances. Just try to do some studying on the differences between the spousal and the martial communication privilege. It will blow your mind on what is covered and what isn’t covered by a privilege.

As fun as it is to talk law at midnight my body is tried. Goodnight all!
 
Under normal circumstances your right the privilege lays with the penitent hence why a priest can’t break the seal but the defendant could decide to say anything he wants about the confession. But the kicker is is has to be a ‘a confidential communication by the person to a clergyman in his professional character as a spiritual adviser.’. The court has to decide was it confidential and was it in the preachers role as a spiritual advisor.

Listen not every conversation with a priest is protected. It has to be his role as a spiritual advisor and be confidential. Those facts seem to be missing here. The kid wasn’t approaching the pastor for spiritual guidance but the pastor approached him about something in front of his mom. The courts might go either way but it’s not a huge precedent. Privileges are looked at on a case by case and circumstances. Just try to do some studying on the differences between the spousal and the martial communication privilege. It will blow your mind on what is covered and what isn’t covered by a privilege.

As fun as it is to talk law at midnight my body is tried. Goodnight all!
lol oh the differences between the spousal and marital privileges. 😛

Night! 👍
 
Under normal circumstances your right the privilege lays with the penitent hence why a priest can’t break the seal but the defendant could decide to say anything he wants about the confession. But the kicker is is has to be a ‘a confidential communication by the person to a clergyman in his professional character as a spiritual adviser.’. The court has to decide was it confidential and was it in the preachers role as a spiritual advisor.

Listen not every conversation with a priest is protected. It has to be his role as a spiritual advisor and be confidential. Those facts seem to be missing here. The kid wasn’t approaching the pastor for spiritual guidance but the pastor approached him about something in front of his mom. The courts might go either way but it’s not a huge precedent. Privileges are looked at on a case by case and circumstances. Just try to do some studying on the differences between the spousal and the martial communication privilege. It will blow your mind on what is covered and what isn’t covered by a privilege.

As fun as it is to talk law at midnight my body is tried. Goodnight all!
Agreed, this is state law. I’m used to dealing with the military where this conversation would almost assuredly be inadmissable.
 
I could be wrong but I believe clergy are protected from being force to reveal information obtained in confidential counseling of a person, just as a psychologist would be.

If they ever try to force priest to present information obtained in a confessional, I would hope that our priests would take jail time rather than violate their vow.

Jim
 
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/
Since Baptist do not have confessions, how is this protected in any way?
 
Since Baptist do not have confessions, how is this protected in any way?
It isn’t just confessions, they now include spiritual counseling as part of the priest penitent privilege. You expect things you tell your pastor about your spiritual life and your regular life, in order to get advise and counseling (both spiritual and practical) to be confidential, and the courts have respected that. So they have enlarged the right to be given to other religions, and to Catholics who go get counseling or spiritual direction from their priests outside of the confessional.

However, this particular case, it probably isn’t protected at all, because the privilege was broken by the teens mother being present.
 
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.
It would make for an interesting case. The right of the Catholic Church to keep secrets vs public safety and justice.
 
It would make for an interesting case. The right of the Catholic Church to keep secrets vs public safety and justice.
My guess is that if things continue the way they are, that we will see priests in prison for this. The choice for a priest is stark. Divulging a confession for a priest is an excommunication offense. Some priests would die first. We should be grateful for their faithfulness instead of playing at lawyer.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top