Suudy
Active member
Of course it matters! Your consequentialism notwithstanding, there is a reason and a purpose the confessional is a secret place where the penitent may in absolute confidence bare the state of their souls and receive absolution.
Delaware judge: priest-penitent privilege may be unconstitutional [CWN]
- Status
E
EmperorNapoleon
Guest
Perhaps not, but that didn’t stop the Diocese from trying to shut her up and it doesn’t change the fact that the priest was using the confessional seal to conceal ongoing sexual abuse by a parishioner.
Suudy
Active member
That’s not the understanding I had. And we’ve discussed this before.
The issue wasn’t about silencing the girl. The issue was about LA trying to force the priest to become a mandated reporter. The claim is that only the penitent can claim privilege, and if the penitent releases the privilege, the law would force the priest to testify. The issue was about whether or not the release of privilege would bind the priest to reveal the contents of the confession.
There was no effort to prevent the girl from testifying. The effort was to prevent the state from compelling the priest to testify because the girl released the privilege. There is a difference.
E
EmperorNapoleon
Guest
“The diocese sought to block Mayeux’s testimony about the confessions at the trial court level, but Caldwell ruled that the priest-penitent privilege was Mayeux’s to break.”
Well, the reality is that the seal of the confessional is absolute.
The only non-reality I see is the made up scenario to claim such a seal to be immoral.
Suudy
Active member
That’s exactly the point. It cannot be dissolved. Ever. Read the dioceses brief. If the penitent has the power to dissolve the seal, it permits the state to try and compel the priest to testify. There has never been a bar on the girls ability to testify. The bar is to prevent the states attempt to dissolve the privilege.
D
didymus
Guest
Not by the statute because it specifies sacramental confession.
I think it needs to be rewritten to include pastor-congregant counseling. As is it odes favor Catholicism and Orthodoxy over other religions.
M
Memaw
Guest
It may be reality in your thinking but NOT in the teachings of the Catholic Church. I go to Confession pretty regularly and the priests do give other penances and they all give spiritual direction. General Absolution in the 1970’s was being done illicitly, and the Church forbid it except in cases of real emergency, such as a plane going down or ship sinking etc. If Catholics are not going to Confession and the lines are “short” that is their own choice. The Church has always encouraged frequent Confession, ( once a month) and always will. Maybe we Catholics have “lost” the sense of sin and think we are to perfect to need Confession. Most can wait for the regular Confession time and can’t expect the priest to be at our beck and call instantly. It only “upsets” me when Catholics do not even understand their own faith properly. God Bless, Memaw
P
pnewton
Guest
Regular general absolution would go against the discipline of the Church. I would argue it also goes against all common sense. However, it does not violate the* teaching* of the Church. The power to bind and loose can *validly *take other forms than the current confessional, and has over time. I note you correctly use the word "illicitly, " as in, contrary to Church law (as opposed to doctrine).
S
SuperLuigi
Guest
They’ll just claim separation of Church and state, just like they do to justify secular stances on other issues.
I
Inquiringperson
Guest
Even in the early church there was still private confession. From a Catholic Answers article:
catholic.com/tracts/confession
W
Wampa
Guest
The decision isn’t any kind of attack on the priest-penitent privilege. In a nutshell, the decision says:
The Delaware state courts have never decided if the priest-penitent privilege applies to Jehovah’s Witnesses, which required the judge to discuss how it would apply to them. She discusses three possibilities:
But based on the amount of time she spent explaining how the wording of the privilege statute could easily apply to most denominations, it’s pretty clear she’d have gone that way (finding it constitutional) if she was forced to choose.
Nothing to see here. No attack on the Church. If anything, I’d say she made solid arguments for upholding the privilege if a similar question is raised again in Delaware down the road.
The headline in the OP’s article is misleading. If you had to ram this idea into a headline (which you shouldn’t because the ruling made no decision on it and it’s basically just non-authoritative comments made in passing), a more accurate headline would be the almost-opposite: “Delaware judge: priest-penitent privilege probably constitutional”
The Delaware state courts have never decided if the priest-penitent privilege applies to Jehovah’s Witnesses, which required the judge to discuss how it would apply to them. She discusses three possibilities:
- if the privilege applies only to churches that use the exact words ‘priest’ and ‘penitent’, then it would be unconstitutional as it would advance some religions over others
- if the courts had to assess it on a denomination-by-denomination basis, then it would also be unconstitutional because it would require the government to get “excessively entangled” with religion (which it can’t do)
- if applies to all religions, then it’s constitutional - no problem
But based on the amount of time she spent explaining how the wording of the privilege statute could easily apply to most denominations, it’s pretty clear she’d have gone that way (finding it constitutional) if she was forced to choose.
Nothing to see here. No attack on the Church. If anything, I’d say she made solid arguments for upholding the privilege if a similar question is raised again in Delaware down the road.
The headline in the OP’s article is misleading. If you had to ram this idea into a headline (which you shouldn’t because the ruling made no decision on it and it’s basically just non-authoritative comments made in passing), a more accurate headline would be the almost-opposite: “Delaware judge: priest-penitent privilege probably constitutional”
J
JimR-OCDS
Guest
Actually at that time, formal private Confession as we know it today, was prohibited by the Church except in the case of last rites.
Jim
I
Inquiringperson
Guest
Citation please?
F
fred_conty
Guest
Confession means confessing sins openly. The General Absolution is not confessing sins.
I am somewhat confused with this. How is it that General Absolution can be given for non-confessed sins?
J
JimR-OCDS
Guest
Not available on line.
It comes from a history seminar given by my spiritual director, who is a Discalced Carmelite Friar, with a PHD from Rome, on Liturgy and the Sacrements
I know this probably doesn’t help you settle it in your mind, but being its no longer the case, don’t let it bother you.
Confession as we know it today, is how it stands and all we have to live by, for now.
Jim
J
JimR-OCDS
Guest
Confession means confessing our sins to God, first and foremost.
If you commit a mortal sin which you know is a mortal sin, and are most sorry for offending God, you best confess and repent to Him first, for you don’t know if you’ll ever make it to a priest to confess. You could be killed on the way to confession or some other circumstance keep you from making a formal confession to a priest.
Remember, the Sacrament is called, “Reconciliation,” and this means we are reconciled to the Church, which we have harmed through our sin.
Also, the true definition for sin is, “to miss the mark,” its akin to an archer shooting an arrow toward his target, but misses.
So it is with us, We strive to avoid committing sin, but when we do, we missed the mark of our intended goal.
In this the year of Mercy, we need to understand that God is not a God of retributive justice, but of mercy and restorative justice,
Jim
E
esieffe
Guest
The seal of confession has been around a lot longer than Delaware has. I wouldn’t want to be the prosecutor that threw a priest in jail. Delaware should really think this through.
W
Wampa
Guest
They already did and the judge implied that, if she had to rule on it (she did not need to and didn’t), she’d probably rule the priest-penitent privilege constitutional.
See post #92 for explanation.
J
Joie_de_Vivre
Guest
The priest should have urged her while in the confessional to report the abuse of her and to tell her it isn’t her fault.
- Status