Confessing illegal things

[urbana]

otm:

No, requiring the penitent to turn themself in would not be breaking the seal, as the priest would not be saying or doing anything that anyone else could take as a statement. It is not the priest who would be turing anyone in, but the penitent themselves.

The act of turning oneself in has no observable or apparent connection with the act of confessing the sin.

I don’t know an authoritative source, but at least one Catholic Answers Apologist disagrees.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=79561

If you want to argue this point any further, you’ll have to take it up with her, not me.

 

[JimG]

The whole thing is still moot, if the penitent confesses to a strange priest anonymously behind a confessional screen!
–and further, states only the sin, not the details.

(In addition, there is the question of whether the penitent is truly repentant if he refuses to pay the civil penalty for the crime committed.)

Civil law does not mitigate the priest’s duty to keep all confessions secret. But, as I say, how could the question even arise if the confession is anonymous?

 

[cargopilot]

BioCatholic:

as i said before, the priest can choose to keep the confidence, but as a consequence under supoena, can be held in criminal contempt.

even as a Catholic, but being a police officer, if a judge or magistrate issues a bench warrant or a state attorney executes an order for a priest to be arrested for obstruction of justice, if i am the executing officer i have no choice but to comply.

thats just the laws as they are written.

That’s just great that the civil laws, in many cases, appear to force a priest to break the seal. But just as abortion is legal, that doesn’t make it right. Still, as Father told the RCIA class, a priest cannot violate the seal, even if tortured or threatened with death. I’m curious, are there any Catholic priests who are now, or have in the past been sentenced to hard time for refusing to break the seal?

I pray that you, or any other Catholic police officer, will never have to face a lawful order to arrest and/or interrogate a priest. I never thought of it before, but what about the faithful Catholic police officer who is faced with having to arrest/interrogate a Catholic priest, in persuit of getting him to violate the sacramental seal? Worse yet, what if he was successful?

 

[Sir_Knight]

urbana:

Originally Posted by otm

No, requiring the penitent to turn themself in would not be breaking the seal, as the priest would not be saying or doing anything that anyone else could take as a statement. It is not the priest who would be turing anyone in, but the penitent themselves.

The act of turning oneself in has no observable or apparent connection with the act of confessing the sin.I don’t know an authoritative source, but at least one Catholic Answers Apologist disagrees.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=79561

If you want to argue this point any further, you’ll have to take it up with her, not me.

Okay, let’s clear this up. A priest can give ANY type of penance that he feels is appropriate INCLUDING turning one self in to the authoritories. However, that can not be a condition for absolution – meaning, that if you don’t do it, your sins are not forgiven.

 

[Sir_Knight]

cargopilot:

… what about the faithful Catholic police officer who is faced with having to arrest/interrogate a Catholic priest, in persuit of getting him to violate the sacramental seal …

I would think that the proper thing to do would be for him to turn in his resignation. Of course, then the act would eventually fall on a non-Catholic to perform.

 

[BioCatholic]

Sir Knight:

I would think that the proper thing to do would be for him to turn in his resignation. Of course, then the act would eventually fall on a non-Catholic to perform.

i read the state statuates on conflict of interests during an arrest:

IF this were to happen, most likely the priest is going to know when i or anyone else comes to serve the warrant. it is not like he is going to resist arrest. we’d just inform him of his rights, and MOST LIKELY, what happened with tom Delay would occur.

Arrested, booked and released on thier own recogniscance. the state attorney or judge can request they be held in criminal contempt, where they would remain in jail until the trial or situaiton is over. then again, the priest may have already been taught this at seminary, and is ready for the drill.

i CAN refuse to place a person under arrest (taken into lawful custody) if there is a conflict of interest, provided doing so would not prevent them from taken into custody, or jepordize public safety. so, one of my buddies would have to do it.

i could be present, and just advise him to stay quiet and wait for a church appointed lawyer, and make sure no other police try to squirm things out of him.

in this hypothetical situation, being that it is a priest, you bet your life that a street officer like me ISNT going to do this. its going to be a high profile detective sergeant or captain.

bascially id say" we both know what you have to do, we both know what i have to do. so lets just get it over with and let the courts sort it out."

 

[Lux_et_veritas]

BioCatholic:

i read the state statuates on conflict of interests during an arrest:

IF this were to happen, most likely the priest is going to know when i or anyone else comes to serve the warrant. it is not like he is going to resist arrest. we’d just inform him of his rights, and MOST LIKELY, what happened with tom Delay would occur.

Arrested, booked and released on thier own recogniscance. the state attorney or judge can request they be held in criminal contempt, where they would remain in jail until the trial or situaiton is over. then again, the priest may have already been taught this at seminary, and is ready for the drill.

i CAN refuse to place a person under arrest (taken into lawful custody) if there is a conflict of interest, provided doing so would not prevent them from taken into custody, or jepordize public safety. so, one of my buddies would have to do it.

i could be present, and just advise him to stay quiet and wait for a church appointed lawyer, and make sure no other police try to squirm things out of him.

in this hypothetical situation, being that it is a priest, you bet your life that a street officer like me ISNT going to do this. its going to be a high profile detective sergeant or captain.

bascially id say" we both know what you have to do, we both know what i have to do. so lets just get it over with and let the courts sort it out."

If this were a US legal forum, I could understand your argument. However, this is a forum which discusses Catholicism. Catholicism is not bound by US law when there is a conflict. Otherwise, you could come in here claiming the Catholic Church would need to accept abortion because it is legal.

The seal of confession is what it is and no US law can force a priest to break it. Maybe in reality people feel they can make a law to do this, but I see loads of priests headed off for jail all in the name of the Seal!

I think the original poster wanted to know the Catholic Church’s position, not the position of the United States of America and its legal system.

 

[cargopilot]

So, in the USA, are there now, or have there ever been any cases of a priest being held and/or convicted for refusing to break the seal?

 

[cameron_lansing]

quote=cargopilot I’m curious, are there any Catholic priests who are now, or have in the past been sentenced to hard time for refusing to break the seal? and
(2) So, in the USA, are there now, or have there ever been any cases of a priest being held and/or convicted for refusing to break the seal?
[/quote]

(1) Yes in other countries. (2) I am aware of cases where prosecutors have tried. I am not aware they have been successful.

As to the original question by alex_noel, “How do we balance the confidentiality of the confessional?”

The seal is that involate and does not admit to exception. Breaking it directly would typically result in a loss of the priesthood. The case is processed under the norms of Sacramentorum sanctitas tutela and reserved to the Holy See in the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. While the Church defers to certain civil laws, it would assert the right to uphold the inviolate nature of the seal of confession.

The direct **and **indirect violation of the sacramental seal is mentioned in can. 1388, § 1, of the Code of Canon Law and in can. 1456, § 1, of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches.

 

[Chatter163]

So the information posted to the effect that a confessor might break the seal under specific cirumstances has, in fact, proven to be COMPLETELY unfounded in Catholic law or practice, which provides NO exception for the breaking of the seal of confession. It was quite disingenous for the poster who posted it, because the original post did not specifiy that he was speaking of civil law, and thus it implied that there was a canon law provision.

The quoting of this or that cvil case law precedent is irrelevant to the subject at hand, which was the Catholic sacrament of confession. It seems to me that this is simply an attempt to stir up trouble.

 

[otm]

urbana:

I don’t know an authoritative source, but at least one Catholic Answers Apologist disagrees.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=79561

If you want to argue this point any further, you’ll have to take it up with her, not me.

I think I was crossing over civil law with Canon Law.

In Civil Law, the privilege would be the penitent’s, and it would be up to him to waive it or not.

I don’t know the Canon Law decision on this, but will assume she is correct, as their research is usually very reliable.

 

[otm]

Chatter163:

So the information posted to the effect that a confessor might break the seal under specific cirumstances has, in fact, proven to be COMPLETELY unfounded in Catholic law or practice, which provides NO exception for the breaking of the seal of confession. It was quite disingenous for the poster who posted it, because the original post did not specifiy that he was speaking of civil law, and thus it implied that there was a canon law provision.

The quoting of this or that cvil case law precedent is irrelevant to the subject at hand, which was the Catholic sacrament of confession. It seems to me that this is simply an attempt to stir up trouble.

I don’t see it as stirring up trouble, but rather, an educational opportunity to see both the Canon Law aspects of the issue, and the possible civil law aspects of the same issue. The two can be in conflict.

Further, often people are not aware that there can be conflict between civil law requirements and Canon Law requirements, and so I would not presume that the question was stated as a “set up”.

It is also of some interest, if for no other reason than the sex abuse scandal that the Church is having to deal with, and the possible issues arising out of a sex abuse case, Church knowledge of the abuse, and civil reporting requirements.

 

[Kielbasi]

The seal is that involate and does not admit to exception. Breaking it directly would typically result in a loss of the priesthood. The case is processed under the norms of Sacramentorum sanctitas tutela and reserved to the Holy See in the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. While the Church defers to certain civil laws, it would assert the right to uphold the inviolate nature of the seal of confession.

The direct **and **indirect violation of the sacramental seal is mentioned in can. 1388, § 1, of the Code of Canon Law and in can. 1456, § 1, of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches.__________________
(Deacon) John M. Cameron MA Theol, JCL
Lansing, Michigan

Actually, the penalty is much greater than just being defrocked, for violating the seal.

The priest, or anyone (e.g., inadvertant eavesdroppers, translators or other aides for the penitent) who violate the seal of confession are put out of the church for breaking it.

 

[cameron_lansing]

Kielbasi:

the penalty is much greater than just being defrocked, for violating the
seal.

Absolutely so and well observed. Reading canon 1388 §1 which I cited above would make that very clear: “A confessor who directly violates the sacramental seal incurs a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See; one who does so only indirectly is to be punished according to the gravity of the delict.” So I think that point might as well be explicitly stated and you have done that.

But in the general law itself, penalization of others by excommunication in §2 of the same canon is discretionary rather than obligatory. In that case, it would need to be imposed: “An interpreter and the others mentioned in canon 983, §2 who violate the secret are to be punished with a just penalty, not excluding excommunication.” Here the legislator did not expressly impose an automatic excommunication, so a process to declare it would be needed.

Kielbasi:

The priest, or anyone (e.g., inadvertant eavesdroppers, translators or other aides for the penitent) who violate the seal of confession are put out of the church for breaking it.

Well, not exactly. The notion of excommunication involves the deprivation of certain spiritual and possibly other goods according to canon 1331. The present Code does not speak of excommunication as excluding a person from the communion of the faithful as the former Code did in canon 2257 §1.

What canon 1331 does say in part is that, “§1. An excommunicated person is forbidden: 1º to have any ministerial participation in celebrating the sacrifice of the Eucharist or any other ceremonies of worship whatsoever; 2º to celebrate the sacraments or sacramentals and to receive the sacraments; 3º to exercise any ecclesiastical offices, ministries, or functions whatsoever or to place acts of governance.”

.

 

[Topher]

BioCatholic:

actually"

Defendant’s threats of violence against third parties which defendant reveals to clergyman are not covered by the communications to clergyman privilege and clergyman may testify to those threats Case # 424 (4/99) (Ala. Crim. App.)

According to Texas Family Code, Section 34.04, no privileges apply in a proceeding regarding child abuse or neglect. It is a crime to fail to report evidence of child abuse and neglect, (TFC, Section 34.07)

Notably, federal courts do not recognize a crime-fraud exception in the priest-penitent arena. It appears that the lack of a crime-fraud exception is due to the perceived competency of the spiritual-purpose requirement to exclude from protection communications made for criminal or fraudulent purposes. In United States v. Dube, or example, the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit found that an individual’s criminal purpose in communicating with a clergyperson, which consisted of “efforts to relieve himself from the necessity of paying income taxes,” directly conflicted with the priest-penitent privilege’s spiritual-purpose requirement

This privilege, however, is not absolute. While clergy-penitent privilege is frequently recognized within the reporting laws, it is typically interpreted narrowly in the child abuse or neglect context. The circumstances under which it is allowed vary from State to State, and in some States it is denied altogether. For example, among the States that enumerate clergy as mandated reporters, New Hampshire and West Virginia deny the clergy-penitent privilege in cases of child abuse or neglect. Three of the States that enumerate “any person” as a mandated reporter (North Carolina, Rhode Island, and Texas) also deny clergy-penitent privilege in child abuse cases.

Approximately 25 States (Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wisconsin) currently include members of the clergy among those professionals specifically mandated by those States’ reporting laws to report known or suspected instances of child abuse or neglect.​

as i said before, the priest can choose to keep the confidence, but as a consequence under supoena, can be held in criminal contempt.

even as a Catholic, but being a police officer, if a judge or magistrate issues a bench warrant or a state attorney executes an order for a priest to be arrested for obstruction of justice, if i am the executing officer i have no choice but to comply.

thats just the laws as they are written.

But the law of the Church is above the law of the state and the state has no authority over the Church in God’s view.