Does 'Legal Silence' Clash With Confession?

[coldthermistor]

I’ve been wondering a little about a possible venture into the military or law enforcement. The problem is, I know that there is a legal act compelling silence about aspects of what they do.

Now, I know there’s supposed to be the Seal of the Confessional - what goes on in that box stays in there, given several caveats, e.g. the priest is free to dispense information he has received outside of the confessional, for instance. But the thing is, as far as I know, my country isn’t particularly Catholic-friendly. In fact, while it’s never been legally proven, law enforcement has been engaged in some pretty dubious acts before.

So here’s my problem. What does a Catholic do? I’m not sure about legal recognition of the Seal of the Confessional, and given that…well, if there are things that don’t necessarily sit well on my conscience, I’m not certain if I’d be legally allowed to confess them to my priest. I mean, pragmatically, it probably won’t make a difference: no priest is going to up and say whatever I confess to…right?

And yeah, I’m Catholic

 

[LilyM]

Put it this way - you MUST confess any mortal sins you commit. Doesn’t matter if the sin happens as part of your work or not. Doesn’t matter if the confession could get you into trouble legally or not. Didn’t Christians in Roman times get into trouble with the law simply for admitting to their faith in times of persecution?

Part of true contrition for a sin is a resolve to make full restitution - to accept whatever consequences may come from your sin. If one of those consequences is legal punishment, then you must accept it if it happens, although you don’t necessarily have to hand yourself into authorities.

 

[PolyphonyChick]

Put it this way - you MUST confess any mortal sins you commit. Doesn’t matter if the sin happens as part of your work or not. Doesn’t matter if the confession could get you into trouble legally or not. Didn’t Christians in Roman times get into trouble with the law simply for admitting to their faith in times of persecution?

Part of true contrition for a sin is a resolve to make full restitution - to accept whatever consequences may come from your sin. If one of those consequences is legal punishment, then you must accept it if it happens, although you don’t necessarily have to hand yourself into authorities.

I second this!

Of course the priest will never tell. Also, there is legal recognition of the priest-penitent privilege. And finally, your soul is more important than any illegitimate oath (I would say that being forbidden to confess sins because of a contract is a promise that can be legitimately broken without fear of sin.)

 

[Cavaille-Coll]

Regardless of what your country’s laws are in regard to privacy, a Catholic priest cannot disclose anything revealed in confession to any person, even with the threat of torture or death.

 

[PacoG]

The Federal system has left it to the Supreme Court and the appellate courts to define the Priest-Pentitent privilege. But it’s pretty stringent in its protections.

The Texas Rules of Evidence are pretty standard:

Rule 505. COMMUNICATIONS TO MEMBERS OF THE CLERGY

(a) Definitions. As used in this rule:

(1) A “member of the clergy” is a minister, priest, rabbi, accredited Christian Science Practitioner, or other similar functionary of a religious organization or an individual reasonably believed so to be by the person consulting with such individual.

(2) A communication is “confidential” if made privately and not intended for further disclosure except to other persons present in furtherance of the purpose of the communication.

(b) General rule of privilege. A person has a privilege to refuse to disclose and to prevent another from disclosing a confidential communication by the person to a member of the clergy in the member’s professional character as a spiritual adviser.

(c) Who May Claim the Privilege. The privilege may be claimed by the person, by the person’s guardian or conservator, or by his personal representative if the person is deceased. The member of the clergy to whom the communication was made is presumed to have the authority to claim the privilege but only in behalf of the communicant.

 

[coldthermistor]

Thanks guys

Well, see, those regulations are all and very well, but as far as I’m aware (if I’m not mistaken), those are in the US. I don’t actually live in the US, and when I’ve run through the laws, all I can see is pretty much no recognition in any sense of the status of the Seal of the Confessional, although tacitly, we’ve yet to hear of a priest getting subpoenaed.

Hmm. I know pragmatically it’s not going to be a problem. Just wondered if I should be smart and avoid these areas anyway, just to be safe in case there’s a conflict of interests. It’s not as if there aren’t so many other areas a person can work in…

 

[PatrickSebast]

You can probably just explain the situation to the Priest and he will tell you what to do. Perhaps general statements like “I have broken the 4th commandment several times while working with the government.”

 

[PacoG]

Thanks guys

Well, see, those regulations are all and very well, but as far as I’m aware (if I’m not mistaken), those are in the US. I don’t actually live in the US, and when I’ve run through the laws, all I can see is pretty much no recognition in any sense of the status of the Seal of the Confessional, although tacitly, we’ve yet to hear of a priest getting subpoenaed.

Hmm. I know pragmatically it’s not going to be a problem. Just wondered if I should be smart and avoid these areas anyway, just to be safe in case there’s a conflict of interests. It’s not as if there aren’t so many other areas a person can work in…

What country are you talking about?

Most Common Law jurisdictions (most countries have some judicial connection to Britain) recognize some form of the privilege or another.

 

[Spirithound]

Just wondered if I should be smart and avoid these areas anyway, just to be safe in case there’s a conflict of interests. It’s not as if there aren’t so many other areas a person can work in…

If I am understanding your situation properly, you are wondering whether you can commit a mortal sin as part of your job, and then confess it later. Well, no, you can’t do that. Confession requires contrition, which requires a resolve not to commit that act again. If you are accepting a job description that involves sin, there is no resolve not to commit the act.

This is not to say that everything the military does is sinful. But if it isn’t a sin, then you don’t need to confess it.

 

[LilyM]

What country are you talking about?

Most Common Law jurisdictions (most countries have some judicial connection to Britain) recognize some form of the privilege or another.

As do most non-Common Law countries as well. Most European legal systems respect the privilege, and most of the rest of the world is at least passingly influenced in terms of law by what happens in Europe.

Someone can ‘run through all the laws’, but unless you’re a lawyer it still may easily happen that you just don’t know where to look.

Put it this way - if a priest IS subpoenaed, it doesn’t matter. On pain of grave, potentially mortal, sin he is obliged not to reveal the contents of a confession under any circumstances. The situation is different for the penitent, however, as they are not bound by the seal. Not only can a penitent talk about the content of their confession to whoever they like, they may under certain situations be morally obliged to.

 

[coldthermistor]

Don’t mind if I’d rather not be specific about where. If you like, however, you can think ‘China’ in order to get some idea of where I stand.

Someone can ‘run through all the laws’, but unless you’re a lawyer it still may easily happen that you just don’t know where to look.

Oh, definitely. I should probably ask a bunch of Catholic lawyers. The problem with acts that allow aspects of law enforcement agencies extra-judicial powers is that you pretty much have no inherent checks and balances. While no one would ever bring a case up about what happened to some Catholics…well. There’s a lot of space in which no one can account for what happened to them. It certainly promotes a great deal of trust.

I know a priest can’t, and won’t reveal it. As far as I’m told, there’s plenty of available data where priests, no matter what they’ve done, have consistently refused to break the Seal of the Confessional. I was simply wondering if it was fair to commit to two sets of obligations, knowing that they can be placed into conflict.

And probably being excessively worried, even though pragmatically, information won’t get out from the priest, at least. Although granted, it’s fair enough to say that I probably wouldn’t make it on the contrition scale. i.e. just don’t go there.

 

[LilyM]

I know a priest can’t, and won’t reveal it. As far as I’m told, there’s plenty of available data where priests, no matter what they’ve done, have consistently refused to break the Seal of the Confessional. I was simply wondering if it was fair to commit to two sets of obligations, knowing that they can be placed into conflict.

But there isn’t really any conflict. You are obligated to follow the laws of the land and the requirements of your job as far as you can in good conscience do so. God approves of obedience to legitimate laws and directions given by those legitimately placed in authority over you.

Once the law or your job requirements demand you do something sinful, then their authority becomes ILLegitimate. And then the reverse applies. You are obligated to NOT follow those illegitimate laws or job requirements, and instead must follow God’s commands and laws, as revealed through the Church, which always trump those of mere man.

As Our Lord said, ‘render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, and unto God what is God’s’. Did He mean by this that whatever Caesar said must be obeyed? Of course not. Did He mean that one could not give Caesar anything because Caesar’s laws sometimes conflicted with God’s? No again.

One needs to discern between the legitimate and illegitimate authority and legitimate and illegitimate laws or commands, obey the legitimate and refuse to obey the illegitimate.

The example to follow is that of St Thomas More, who was Chancellor of England, a high political office, under Henry VIII, who while More was Chancellor began instituting laws to make himself head of the Church of England, and further requiring people to swear that his first marriage was illegitimate and his second marriage and second daughter were both legitimate.

More well and truly went right to the edge in terms of serving the King, absolutely as far as he could go without positively doing or swearing to anything immoral. And considered it his duty as a servant of his King to do so. It was only when his duties to the King and to God could not possibly, by any means, be reconciled with each other, that he then chose the proper path of refusal, leading to martyrdom. As he said just before he was executed, ‘I die the King’s good servant - but God’s first’. If God is always first, then there really is no conflict in the matter.

Although granted, it’s fair enough to say that I probably wouldn’t make it on the contrition scale. i.e. just don’t go there.

What do you mean by this statement?

 

[Chatter163]

I do not have any idea what the OP is trying to say and, moreover, I am not even sure that the OP is legitimate.