Boston Legal

[BornInMarch]

In law there are two instances in which it is legal to withhold relevant information from the police. When you are married to someone who committed a crime (spouse privilege) and when you are a priest who hears someone confess to a crime during confession (Priest-penitent privilege).

What this means is that if the police think someone’s spouse or confessional priest is privy to a crime, then those two people can not be forced to reveal what they know. They can not be held in contempt of court, they can not be charged with obstruction of justice, and they can not be arrested. If the police try to do any of those things, than the police will be the ones breaking the law.

The reasoning behind this is that laws are made for the betterment of society, and that lawmakers agree that maintaining the trust in sacred bonds is more important for society than catching one criminal or solving one case. The police have to find another way to nab the bad guys.

 

[pnewton]

A “moral” system, which is unable to provide solution for hard-hitting problems is useless.

Scare quotes? Are you joking? If you are going to preach morality, let me first address the beam of coming to a Catholic website where one agrees to abide by the rules upon signing up and then showing disrespect, as in using scare quotes that Catholicism is a “moral” system, breaking that agreement.

So, did you want an answer, or are you just here to make a point that you do not agree with Catholic confession. Because there is an answer. Namely, as horrible as all child sexual abuse is, it pales in comparison to the reality of Hell. That is the choice priests are charged with, how to best keep people from Hell, not how to locate child molesters, who even at their lowest point, are still deserving of mercy.

Yet there remains some solutions. In the case above, a confessor can most definitely require a repentant kidnapper to release their captive for absolution, as the sin is on-going, though not to turn himself in, or do anything that would violate the seal of confession. As to law enforcement, there are other avenues of enforcement that do not tromp all over religious liberty. The could check out any cameras in the area. Knowing someone went into a Church does not violate the seal of confession.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

That’s not relevant to this fictional scenario.

Of course. But you brought it up. The fact is that there was a moral scenario in which child molesters confessed and heard confessions.

We should argue for the sacrament to stand on its theological merits more than the legal system does. We should argue for the idea of in persona Christe, being the theological basis of the sacrament of confession. We should not argue on the idea that child molesters and confession don’t mix. That is falling into a trap.

 

[porthos11]

A “moral” system, which is unable to provide solution for hard-hitting problems is useless.

An excommunication is lengthy process. If you perform any sin (except maybe “blasphemy” against the holy spirit) you can go and seek absolution. You say the words of repentance, the confessor hears them, ACCEPTS the repentance as genuine, and says the words: “Ego Te absolvo a peccatis Tuis”. Now at that moment the absolution is complete… or the whole process is useless. The confessor cannot KNOW if the repentance is real or not.

I am using this forum to get information. The show only presented the problem, and gave a highly satisfactory but SECULAR solution. I was wondering if there exists a Catholic solution, but so far there does not seem to be.

At least get your facts straight.

Breaking the seal of confession incurs a latae sententiae excommunication, which means it’s automatic, not imposed. A priest who carries this penalty CANNOT be absolved. The lifting of this penalty is reserved to Rome. So it’s no way “lengthy”. For this crime (breaking the Seal), the penalty applies immediately, and even if the confessor were to attempt to absolve the priest, it would not be valid.

What would be lengthy would be the lifting of the penalty. A priest who hears the confession of another priest stating that he broke the Seal will have no choice but to withhold absolution and refer the case to Rome. And even then, he would likely be banished to a monastery or laicized, and stripped of all positions and authority. His life would essentially be over.

As for a solution, IF the scenario is as you described, no more, no less, AND the priest is the only one who knows, AND the only way he knows is through confession, and the only way the victim is coming home alive is if the priest breaks the Seal of confession, and no other factors play in the hypothetical, then there is only one outcome.

The child will die.

Further, this will not be the priest’s guilt. It will be the killer’s.

You may not understand any of this, and your contempt for the Catholic faith is dripping throughout your posts, but we believe that there are more important things than this earthly life. One of those is the good of souls, and the Seal is absolutely crucial to safeguarding that good. If the Seal were to be made breakable, no one would confess to terrible crimes, and the number of souls falling into hell would increase. This the Church seeks to avoid as much as possible. For those who don’t believe in the immortality of the soul, it would sound ridiculous. For those of us who do, it makes sense, and are grateful for it.

So scorn away at this answer. But no priest may EVER break the Seal to save a life, even his own. If he can do so without betraying the penitent, that would be permissible, for as long as it cannot be traced back to Confession or the penitent. But he cannot even confirm if any given person ever confessed to him or not, much less reveal what was said.

 

[pianistclare]

Of course. But you brought it up. The fact is that there was a moral scenario in which child molesters confessed and heard confessions.

We should argue for the sacrament to stand on its theological merits more than the legal system does. We should argue for the idea of in persona Christe, being the theological basis of the sacrament of confession. We should not argue on the idea that child molesters and confession don’t mix. That is falling into a trap.

On this tv show??? Really??? It’s a TV SHOW.
There’s nothing real about it. Except perhaps in the argument about non sequiturs…
The “trap” was laid when the premise was accepted as genuine.

 

[pnewton]

On this tv show??? Really??? It’s a TV SHOW.
There’s nothing real about it. Except perhaps in the argument about non sequiturs…
The “trap” was laid when the premise was accepted as genuine.

Yes, like the idea that after 48 hours no child is found. The artificial clock ticking to ramp up the drama.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

On this tv show??? Really??? It’s a TV SHOW.
There’s nothing real about it. Except perhaps in the argument about non sequiturs…
The “trap” was laid when the premise was accepted as genuine.

I thought the op was using the show to discuss a moral principle. Which we could also point out usually misrepresents the catholic faith. But if in fact we are not discussing a moral principle and all this thread is about is a silly show then it is in the wrong subforum. If it is just the example to discuss a moral principle then we discuss away and become apologists for the Catholic view. If it is about a show that aired a decade ago then you are right and we can ask it to be removed.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

I thought the op was using the show to discuss a moral principle.

And that is exactly the case. Let me repeat the relevant information from the OP: “What morally acceptable solution can you offer, which will find the child and arrest the kidnapper?” And obviously I meant “morally acceptable” according to the principles of Catholic morality.

Most of the answers attempted to redefine the problem, changing the parameters. None of the other answers had a solution to the actual question: find the child and arrest the kidnapper. I was not asking about the seal of confession, or any other possible avenues of behavior in general. The question was: “is there a morally acceptable solution which would find the child and lead to the arrest”? Instead of admitting that there is no morally acceptable solution to this problem they started to talk that being kidnapped, raped and slaughtered is not a “big deal”, when compared to the eternal torture in hell. I have no problem with coming clean and confessing that within the Catholic moral framework there is no solution to the presented problem. That would have been just fine.

One more thing. If you wish to talk about the details, I suggest you get the show itself. Then you can see what the actual circumstances are.

 

[pensmama87]

Yes, like the idea that after 48 hours no child is found. The artificial clock ticking to ramp up the drama.

Not to mention, that time marker, while it may be true statistically (best chances of recovering a child alive within 48 hours of disappearance, which I could easily believe) is largely dependent on the motivations of the kidnapper. A kidnapper who is contrite enough to go to confession for kidnapping is going to be very different psychologically than someone who’s not contrite.

The OP fundamentally misunderstands confession. It’s not a box one checks to get the moral all-clear.

 

[Wesrock]

There is not a morally acceptable “solution” to this contrived and absurd scenario that gets the end result you’re insisting on. The only morally appropriate action for the priest is to uphold the seal of Confession. The only morally acceptable action for the police is to pursue other avenues. It’s what the entire sacrament depends on. If it wasn’t invioble, people who’ve committed grave sins would be even less likely to confess even if sincerely repentant. And this isn’t wrong.

 

[BoomBoomMancini]

I have no problem with coming clean and confessing that within the Catholic moral framework there is no solution to the presented problem. That would have been just fine.

.

If it makes you feel better, it’s entirely possible that you can imagine some set of hypothetical set of circumstances where the priest must maintain the seal of the confessional even if some external harm will occur. There are workarounds in the real world: for example, the priest is free to share information with law enforcement that he learned of some other way. But yes, in a theoretical world, it’s possible that the priest must accept that maintaining the seal will result in something negative, and maintain it anyway. You may think that’s silly or antiquated or perverse, but the confessional is just that important. It’s not a “gotcha” moment: the Church has been very public about this for centuries.

One tenet of Catholic morality is the idea that it is not morally acceptable to do evil in order to prevent some other evil. It’s not utilitarian. For example, pretend you live in a village in eastern Europe 800 hundred years ago. A Mongol horde shows up and surrounds the village. The leader orders you to boil a child alive for his amusement. You refuse. He tells you that if you don’t do it, he’ll do it himself, then four more children as punishment for your disobedience. Let’s assume away all attempts to get out of the choice: you can’t run, the village is surrounded. It’s too late to hide the kids. You can’t resist by force with any hope of success: you’re a tiny village and you’re surrounded by 10,000 warriors. You can’t talk him out of it: his mind is firmly made up.

Under a utilitarian framework, boiling the child alive is obviously the right choice. You’re sacrificing one life to save four. Under a Catholic framework, you can’t do evil to avoid evil, full stop. The only thing to do then is refuse and pray for the souls of everyone involved, including the warlord.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

There is not a morally acceptable “solution” to this contrived and absurd scenario that gets the end result you’re insisting on.

Well, cheers! The scenario may be rare, but unfortunately it does happen once in a while. And I see nothing absurd about the desired outcome: “find the child, and arrest the kidnapper”.

The only morally appropriate action for the priest is to uphold the seal of Confession. The only morally acceptable action for the police is to pursue other avenues. It’s what the entire sacrament depends on. If it wasn’t invioble, people who’ve committed grave sins would be even less likely to confess even if sincerely repentant. And this isn’t wrong.

As I said, our value system is different.

 

[1ke]

if the responders would have exhibited the intellectual honesty and actually ADMITTED it.

See my first post where I clearly stated: scenarios are irrelevant, the seal is inviolate.

What is more important, to save a child from being raped and murdered, or protect the “seal of confession”?

The seal is inviolate.

What makes the responses so astonishing is that all the responders overlooked the obvious solution.

Obvious to someone who has no understanding of the seal.

Get the information to the police, and then immediately confess and get absolution for the sin of breaking the seal of confession. After all any and all sins are forgiven (maybe excepting the blasphemy against the holy spirit) upon confession and repentance. That is all the priest would have to do.

This is not possible. A priest may NOT break the seal. Now YOU are dealing in fictions.

Don’t forget, you always have the “get-out-of-jail-free” card. You can do anything (no matter how heinous the act might be) as long as you repent.

You cannot commit a sin **intending **to confess it.

If you would like to actually **learn **about sin, confession, forgiveness, and the sacraments then start a thread on that.

 

[Corki]

And that is exactly the case. Let me repeat the relevant information from the OP: “What morally acceptable solution can you offer, which will find the child and arrest the kidnapper?” And obviously I meant “morally acceptable” according to the principles of Catholic morality.

Most of the answers attempted to redefine the problem, changing the parameters. None of the other answers had a solution to the actual question: find the child and arrest the kidnapper. I was not asking about the seal of confession, or any other possible avenues of behavior in general. The question was: “is there a morally acceptable solution which would find the child and lead to the arrest”? Instead of admitting that there is no morally acceptable solution to this problem they started to talk that being kidnapped, raped and slaughtered is not a “big deal”, when compared to the eternal torture in hell. I have no problem with coming clean and confessing that within the Catholic moral framework there is no solution to the presented problem. That would have been just fine.

One more thing. If you wish to talk about the details, I suggest you get the show itself. Then you can see what the actual circumstances are.

I gave you the morally acceptable solution. The police investigate and interview anyone who knows the kidnapper, including his relatives. They can pay particular attention to what the priest knows from any of his non-Confession interactions and communications with the kidnapper.

 

[z_0101]

(…) because the crime is already public knowledge, the priest might be able to impose upon the criminal that they turn over both themselves and the child in order to receive absolution

Absolutely not.

I have a high respect for you 1ke; however, what you quoted lacked the context of “public knowledge part”.

So from where did I get the potential for the priest to include this in the penance:
Rituale Romanum - Penance - General Rules - Rule#22 (link)
22. He must not impose a public penance for sins that are secret, no matter what their enormity.

From EWTN
PART V. THE SACRAMENT OF PENANCE - CHAPTER I
GENERAL RULES FOR ADMINISTERING PENANCE - Rule#22 (link)22. He must not impose a public penance for sins that are secret, no matter what their enormity.

Note in the story line that OP is referring to the kidnapper is known to the public and the crime is known to the public - hence, the **sin is not a secret **and therefore may be the loophole in the imposition of the penance in that, it seems very clear to me that for sins that are secret, that imposition of a penance that would result in the detriment of the penitent are not to be enjoined upon same; HOWEVER, in this particular scenario, as the sin is public knowledge, there may indeed be the possibility to make such an imposition.

However, for the sake of argument, say that I accept that I may be mis-reading rule22 and that I agree with the “absolutely not;” then, I propose an alternative that instead of “requiring” the penitent to turn themselves in as part of the absolution, the priest may entirely withhold absolution and strongly advise the criminal to surrender to the authorities. The withholding of absolution can based upon the fact that the criminal is continuing to commit the sin and would have the appearance that they have no intent to stop such action; therefore, failing to meet the criteria needed for a valid confession; thus, basically forcing the priest to withhold absolution.

A matter of application of the sacrament, yet, achieving the same end: in order to receive absolution, the criminal must stop the sinful action and in part atone for the sin by submitting to the lawful authorities.

 

[Corki]

I have a high respect for you 1ke; however, what you quoted lacked the context of “public knowledge part”.

So from where did I get the potential for the priest to include this in the penance:
Rituale Romanum - Penance - General Rules - Rule#22 (link)
22. He must not impose a public penance for sins that are secret, no matter what their enormity.

From EWTN
PART V. THE SACRAMENT OF PENANCE - CHAPTER I
GENERAL RULES FOR ADMINISTERING PENANCE - Rule#22 (link)22. He must not impose a public penance for sins that are secret, no matter what their enormity.

Note in the story line that OP is referring to the kidnapper is known to the public and the crime is known to the public - hence, the **sin is not a secret **and therefore may be the loophole in the imposition of the penance in that, it seems very clear to me that for sins that are secret, that imposition of a penance that would result in the detriment of the penitent are not to be enjoined upon same; HOWEVER, in this particular scenario, as the sin is public knowledge, there may indeed be the possibility to make such an imposition.

However, for the sake of argument, say that I accept that I may be mis-reading rule22 and that I agree with the “absolutely not;” then, I propose an alternative that instead of “requiring” the penitent to turn themselves in as part of the absolution, the priest may entirely withhold absolution and strongly advise the criminal to surrender to the authorities. The withholding of absolution can based upon the fact that the criminal is continuing to commit the sin and would have the appearance that they have no intent to stop such action; therefore, failing to meet the criteria needed for a valid confession; thus, basically forcing the priest to withhold absolution.

A matter of application of the sacrament, yet, achieving the same end: in order to receive absolution, the criminal must stop the sinful action and in part atone for the sin by submitting to the lawful authorities.

Imposing a public penance is not the same as withholding absolution. Absolution comes first and is unconditional. The penance is done afterward. Failure to do the prescribed penance is a new sin; it does not invalidate the absolution already given.

 

[z_0101]

A matter of application of the sacrament, yet, achieving the same end: in order to receive absolution, the criminal must stop the sinful action and in part atone for the sin by submitting to the lawful authorities.

Corki,
Respectfully, you missed the point.
What I am saying here is the same end was achieved via a different path, avoiding the public penance, by not providing absolution to begin with in that the penitent by continuing the sin via the on going criminal act cannot make a valid confession…

 

[z_0101]

(…)This relative happens to be a Catholic priest, who refuses to reveal what the kidnapper told him under the seal of confession.(…)
Vera_Ljuba;14314123:

I was not asking about the seal of confession, or any other possible avenues of behavior in general.

Vera, from your original post, the premis of the show deals with the seal of the confessional.
As you can clearly see from your original post: No-one changed the parameters of your question.

The question was: “is there a morally acceptable solution which would find the child and lead to the arrest”?

Your “morally acceptable solution” has been suggested by several of us.

1. The priest could require the as part of the penance that the criminal release the hostage. This would in no way directly place the criminal in danger of public admision. By the cause of double effect the victum could potentially identify the criminal and as a result the criminal is arrested
2. The priest could, now aware that the child is in danger, potentially give a general search area, provided in a very oblique direction to the police so that such information would not directly relate to the criminal’s confession. This was such a possible scenero given in the link I provided in my post to the cannon law site ( here’s the link again )
3. The priest could have knowledge of the criminal’s usual locations and behaviours outside of the confessional
4. (From Corki ) The police investigate and interview anyone who knows the kidnapper, including his relatives. They can pay particular attention to what the priest knows from any of his non-Confession interactions and communications with the kidnapper.

problem they started to talk that being kidnapped, raped and slaughtered is not a “big deal”, when compared to the eternal torture in hell.

WOW - how did you get that?!
No-one here ever suggested that kidnapping, rape, tourture, or murder was or is “no big deal.”
With that said, we as Catholics, hold the act of breaking the Seal of the Confesional to be equal each of these criminal acts. Priests can work with the Bishops and have some guidance in how to handle situations such as that presented in this scenerio.

An excommunication is lengthy process. If you perform any sin (except maybe “blasphemy” against the holy spirit) you can go and seek absolution.
porthos11;14314027:

Breaking the seal of confession incurs a latae sententiae

excommunication, which means it’s automatic, not imposed. A priest who carries this penalty CANNOT be absolved. The lifting of this penalty is reserved to Rome. So it’s no way “lengthy”. For this crime (breaking the Seal), the penalty applies immediately, and even if the confessor were to attempt to absolve the priest, it would not be valid.

porthos11 - Absolutely correct Cannon Law: 1388.1; Cannon Law: 1323 n. 2; I cannot think of any case wherein the priest wouldn’t know about the latae sententiae excommunication for breaking the Seal.
BTW: Anyone who hears the confession of another person is also bound by the seal (Cannon Law 983.2) and very possibly incure latae sententiae excommunication; however, they would also have to know about this under C.1323.2

Also, as noted, this isn’t an excommunication that can be lifted by the local priest or Bishop, it is reserved for the Vatican alone!
Can. 1378 §1. A priest who acts against the prescript of ⇒ can. 977 incurs a *latae sententiae *excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See.

One more thing. If you wish to talk about the details, I suggest you get the show itself. Then you can see what the actual circumstances are.

That is VERY disingenuous, you provided the context in your original post; however, lets dig in to some things here:

• The firm lawyers present a fake warrant (BTW this is potentially a felony offense that should have them arrested and presented to the bar for disciplinary review) in an effort to force the priest to break the seal of the confessional
• When the priest locks his office door in defiance of the (fake) warrant and to protect the confessional seal, Denise “breaks the glass”
• Brad “accidentally” chops off three of the priest’s fingers in the process of breaking down the office door with a fire-axe
• At the behest of the FBI agent, the two lawyers take one of the priest’s fingers to his hospital room:
  (a) notify him that they found fake documents implicating the priest in criminal fraud
  (b) subtly suggest that if the priest doesn’t provide some information protected by the confessional seal, his finger might disappear.

The not so subtle messages presented in this very anti-Catholic episode:
++++ that Catholic priests stand in the way of “justice” and that they are probably invoking privileges to prevent the discovery of their own illegal ways.
++++ It is OK to commit crimes against the Catholic Church because the “ends justify the means”
++++ It is OK to assault and harm a member of the clergy because the “ends justify the means”
++++ It’s OK to extort a member of the clergy because the “ends justify the means”

This is extremely nasty propaganda in the way this entire episode was presented as it never allowed the Priest nor the Church to actually attempt anything except to break the seal of the confessional

? How much longer do you want to beat on this “dead horse” ? :stretcher:

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

WOW - how did you get that?!
No-one here ever suggested that kidnapping, rape, tourture, or murder was or is “no big deal.”

Compared to the “existence” of hell, yes they did.

That is VERY disingenuous, you provided the context in your original post; however, lets dig in to some things here:

Ah, at least you checked the details. Good for you. I appreciate your endeavor.

• The firm lawyers present a fake warrant (BTW this is potentially a felony offense that should have them arrested and presented to the bar for disciplinary review) in an effort to force the priest to break the seal of the confessional

Sure. I already stipulated that the actions of the members of the firm are likely to be construed as illegal. That is beside the point.

• When the priest locks his office door in defiance of the (fake) warrant and to protect the confessional seal, Denise “breaks the glass”

Yes.

• Brad “accidentally” chops off three of the priest’s fingers in the process of breaking down the office door with a fire-axe

It is accidental, but even if it were not, it is irrelevant.

• At the behest of the FBI agent, the two lawyers take one of the priest’s fingers to his hospital room:
  (a) notify him that they found fake documents implicating the priest in criminal fraud
  (b) subtly suggest that if the priest doesn’t provide some information protected by the confessional seal, his finger might disappear.

Yes, this is sheer blackmail. It cannot be denied.

The not so subtle messages presented in this very anti-Catholic episode:
++++ that Catholic priests stand in the way of “justice” and that they are probably invoking privileges to prevent the discovery of their own illegal ways.
++++ It is OK to commit crimes against the Catholic Church because the “ends justify the means”
++++ It is OK to assault and harm a member of the clergy because the “ends justify the means”
++++ It’s OK to extort a member of the clergy because the “ends justify the means”

Up until this point your analysis was quite correct. But here you made a mistake. No one says that the “end justifies the means”. Such a blanket assertion is incorrect, and must be discarded. The “end” cannot be artificially separated from the means, they must be investigated together. Sometimes the means can be justified, other times they cannot be. Good old relativism raises its “ugly” head.

As it has been stipulated several times, it all boils down to the value system. In your value system the fate of the child is of lesser importance than the seal of the confessional. In mine it is the reverse. We all have to live with our preferences.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Well, cheers! The scenario may be rare, but unfortunately it does happen once in a while. And I see nothing absurd about the desired outcome: “find the child, and arrest the kidnapper”.

As I said, our value system is different.

So would you be consistent with all crime, not just the emotional one you gave.
If a government made it illegal to be a Christian would a priest have to inform on his parishioners?

What is the defining entity of morality? The government or the church?