W
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
F
FrDavid96
Guest
The Seal (and the privilege of the Seal) does indeed belong to both the penitent and to the priest.
Whether or not that court decision recognized the fact is a different matter. Regardless of what any court might say, the secrecy of the Seal does belong to the priest.
F
Faith1960
Guest
Are you a priest?I doubt that any moral theologian would say that sacrilege is worse than murder.
C
cycleman
Guest
Actually I don’t believe the court has required the priest to break the seal of confession. The only substantive thing that has been litigated so far is whether the girl can testify as to the contents of her confession and what the priest said to her.The Seal (and the privilege of the Seal) does indeed belong to both the penitent and to the priest.
Whether or not that court decision recognized the fact is a different matter. Regardless of what any court might say, the secrecy of the Seal does belong to the priest.
The diocese sought a gag order against the girl. That was what was litigated up to and including the Supreme Court, with the result being that the gag order was not upheld by the court the girl is free to testify as to her version of what happened in the confessional.
That’s it, folks! The priest hasn’t been ordered to do anything!
F
Faith1960
Guest
Good question. And further, if he didn’t break the seal, what happened next?I think that the discussion clears up the fact that anything simply overheard would be considered hearsay.
Although it would be interesting to know if it has ever happened in the past…
Even worse, it would be interesting to know if a court has ever admitted to evidence a police bugged confession…even I would be quite appalled at this…
And similarly, has the court ever desided that “preist client privilege” did not apply just as “lawyer client privilege” does not apply in certain cases? Had a preist ever been jalied for not divulging this information in these cases?
W
WillyAL
Guest
While you are certainly free to assert the Church’s position on the Seal belonging to the priest, the Louisiana Supreme Court has ruled differently, and the SCOTUS has declined to hear an appeal. This is now the law in Louisiana, and this priest could be (and should be, in my opinion) subject to sanctions if he refuses to give testimony.The Seal (and the privilege of the Seal) does indeed belong to both the penitent and to the priest.
Whether or not that court decision recognized the fact is a different matter. Regardless of what any court might say, the secrecy of the Seal does belong to the priest.
With respect to my hypothetical described above, I’m somewhat disturbed by the fact that no one has expressed any interest in Person C, the innocent man languishing in prison while the priest keeps secret the information that could rightfully free him. Do you (FrDavid) simply regard him as collateral damage in the quest to safeguard the Seal of Confession? Suppose that Person C is an atheist who regards religion in general and Catholicism in particular as just another superstition. Is it “right” or “moral” that he should have to give up his freedom so that the priest does not have to violate the rules of his particular brand of superstition?
(Please note that I mean no disrespect by these questions. Although I am not Catholic, I have the privilege of being married to one, and I spend most Sunday mornings attending Mass with her. In general, I have respect for the Church, and I do appreciate and thank you for your thoughts on this topic .)
H
Horton
Guest
Any situation can be “what if’d” to death. The reality is the seal of the sacrament of reconciliation stays with the priest and person confessing regardless of any state law. I seriously doubt the Catholic Church is going to change this because a state made a bad decision.While you are certainly free to assert the Church’s position on the Seal belonging to the priest, the Louisiana Supreme Court has ruled differently, and the SCOTUS has declined to hear an appeal. This is now the law in Louisiana, and this priest could be (and should be, in my opinion) subject to sanctions if he refuses to give testimony.
With respect to my hypothetical described above, I’m somewhat disturbed by the fact that no one has expressed any interest in Person C, the innocent man languishing in prison while the priest keeps secret the information that could rightfully free him. Do you (FrDavid) simply regard him as collateral damage in the quest to safeguard the Seal of Confession? Suppose that Person C is an atheist who regards religion in general and Catholicism in particular as just another superstition. Is it “right” or “moral” that he should have to give up his freedom so that the priest does not have to violate the rules of his particular brand of superstition?
(Please note that I mean no disrespect by these questions. Although I am not Catholic, I have the privilege of being married to one, and I spend most Sunday mornings attending Mass with her. In general, I have respect for the Church, and I do appreciate and thank you for your thoughts on this topic .)
In regards to the situation you describe there is nothing stopping the priest from encouraging the person to confess his/her part in the crime.
I would assume you would know this of you attend Mass on a fairly regular basis even if you are not Catholic.
F
FrDavid96
Guest
The Seal of Confession is inviolable.While you are certainly free to assert the Church’s position on the Seal belonging to the priest, the Louisiana Supreme Court has ruled differently, and the SCOTUS has declined to hear an appeal. This is now the law in Louisiana, and this priest could be (and should be, in my opinion) subject to sanctions if he refuses to give testimony.
With respect to my hypothetical described above, I’m somewhat disturbed by the fact that no one has expressed any interest in Person C, the innocent man languishing in prison while the priest keeps secret the information that could rightfully free him. Do you (FrDavid) simply regard him as collateral damage in the quest to safeguard the Seal of Confession? Suppose that Person C is an atheist who regards religion in general and Catholicism in particular as just another superstition. Is it “right” or “moral” that he should have to give up his freedom so that the priest does not have to violate the rules of his particular brand of superstition?
(Please note that I mean no disrespect by these questions. Although I am not Catholic, I have the privilege of being married to one, and I spend most Sunday mornings attending Mass with her. In general, I have respect for the Church, and I do appreciate and thank you for your thoughts on this topic .)
Period.
End.
No matter what you say…no matter what you ask…no matter how you present your questions, nothing will change that.
The Seal of Confession is inviolable.
F
Faith1960
Guest
What does inviolable mean in this sense?The Seal of Confession is inviolable.
Period.
End.
No matter what you say…no matter what you ask…no matter how you present your questions, nothing will change that.
The Seal of Confession is inviolable.
F
FrDavid96
Guest
That’s true, nevertheless the state did violate freedom of religion because the Seal belongs to the priest as well as the penitent.Actually I don’t believe the court has required the priest to break the seal of confession. The only substantive thing that has been litigated so far is whether the girl can testify as to the contents of her confession and what the priest said to her.
The diocese sought a gag order against the girl. That was what was litigated up to and including the Supreme Court, with the result being that the gag order was not upheld by the court the girl is free to testify as to her version of what happened in the confessional.
What this case really proves is that we can no longer rely on either our state governments or the US Supreme Court to uphold the US Constitution as the supreme law of the land. It’s just one more example among a growing many from recent decades.That’s it, folks! The priest hasn’t been ordered to do anything!
H
Horton
Guest
Basically mean can not be violated.What does inviolable mean in this sense?
adjective
- prohibiting violation; secure from destruction, violence, infringement, or desecration:
an inviolable sanctuary; an inviolable promise. - incapable of being violated; incorruptible; unassailable:
inviolable secrecy.
W
WillyAL
Guest
I agree that the Church is unlikely to change it’s position on this matter based on a court decision. Especially one that applies to only one state. I’m disappointed that the SCOTUS declined to hear this case.Any situation can be “what if’d” to death. The reality is the seal of the sacrament of reconciliation stays with the priest and person confessing regardless of any state law. I seriously doubt the Catholic Church is going to change this because a state made a bad decision.
No, of course not. And I assume that any priest in that position would strongly encourage the guilty person to confess his part in the crime to the legal authorities. If, however, he was not inclined to do so, or if he died before being able to do so, the priest is the one keeping the secret that could right a terrible wrong.In regards to the situation you describe there is nothing stopping the priest from encouraging the person to confess his/her part in the crime.
Your assumption is correct.I would assume you would know this of you attend Mass on a fairly regular basis even if you are not Catholic.
F
FrDavid96
Guest
It means that no one may reveal information that was learned in Confession.What does inviolable mean in this sense?
Of course, human beings are physically able to do it, but no one may do it legitimately.
The only time it can be revealed is to another priest-confessor (usually a bishop) who is likewise still bound by the Seal; while this may appear to be an exception, in reality it is not. For example, a priest can request permission to absolve from a reserved sin. The Seal still applies.
W
WillyAL
Guest
Well OK. I’ll quit wasting your time.The Seal of Confession is inviolable.
Period.
End.
No matter what you say…no matter what you ask…no matter how you present your questions, nothing will change that.
The Seal of Confession is inviolable.
Ah…now I see where you’re coming from.What this case really proves is that we can no longer rely on either our state governments or the US Supreme Court to uphold the US Constitution as the supreme law of the land. It’s just one more example among a growing many from recent decades.
C
cycleman
Guest
One must remember that the facts of this case have nothing to do with protecting the secrets of the penitent. The allegations in this case are of wrongdoing by the priest within the confessional, and the only interest the priest has in the seal is thwarting an attempt by the girl to obtain justice from him for his alleged wrongdoing. (He is using the seal as a backdoor 5th amendment, as I think the 5th amendment doesn’t apply in civil cases).
In fact, he is going even further and saying the girl has no right to accuse him of anything that happened within the confessional.
As I understand the church’s position, neither the penitent nor the priest can say anything about what went on in the confessional. This means (tell me where I’m wrong) that if the priest committed a crime within the confessional such as sexually harassing conversation or threatening the penitent with harm etc. the seal prevents the penitent from ever revealing what went on. That is just plain perverse!
In fact, he is going even further and saying the girl has no right to accuse him of anything that happened within the confessional.
As I understand the church’s position, neither the penitent nor the priest can say anything about what went on in the confessional. This means (tell me where I’m wrong) that if the priest committed a crime within the confessional such as sexually harassing conversation or threatening the penitent with harm etc. the seal prevents the penitent from ever revealing what went on. That is just plain perverse!
F
FrDavid96
Guest
Canon 1387One must remember that the facts of this case have nothing to do with protecting the secrets of the penitent. The allegations in this case are of wrongdoing by the priest within the confessional, and the only interest the priest has in the seal is thwarting an attempt by the girl to obtain justice from him for his alleged wrongdoing. (He is using the seal as a backdoor 5th amendment, as I think the 5th amendment doesn’t apply in civil cases).
In fact, he is going even further and saying the girl has no right to accuse him of anything that happened within the confessional.
As I understand the church’s position, neither the penitent nor the priest can say anything about what went on in the confessional. This means (tell me where I’m wrong) that if the priest committed a crime within the confessional such as sexually harassing conversation or threatening the penitent with harm etc. the seal prevents the penitent from ever revealing what went on. That is just plain perverse!
K
Kielbasi
Guest
You might be a detective on the job, looking for a witness in a case unrelated to situation being confessed to. You could be in church to attend someone’s wedding, funeral or baptism. You could be visiting the church because the particular building is an historic monument. You could have been passing by, and entered the church to look for a bathroom, and the door to the confessional looked like your goal.I think the more interesting question is - as an unbaptized person, why would you be hanging around the confessional where this might happen? You certainly may have reason for being in the church, but unless you are seeking the sacrament of reconciliation what reason do you have to be close enough to the confessional to hear what is going on?
J
JimG
Guest
It seems to me that questions regarding breaking the seal of confession would rarely arise if all parishes had actual private confessionals, as mine does. The confessional is soundproof, has a door which closes, and a fixed grille covered by a curtain on both sides. The confessional is well lit, not scary and dark. But the priest can hear but not see or identify the penitent. If the penitent doesn’t like what the priest is saying for any reason, he can get up and leave. No priest would be able to identify whether a penitent even confessed to him, let alone say what sins were confessed. No one outside the confessional can overhear what is being said. If someone inadvertently opens the door, you stop talking.
W
WillyAL
Guest
Too easy. Must. Not. Respond.You could have been passing by, and entered the church to look for a bathroom, and the door to the confessional looked like your goal.
P
peter26
Guest
Many people may be more comfortable confessing face to face however, especially with a familiar priest.It seems to me that questions regarding breaking the seal of confession would rarely arise if all parishes had actual private confessionals, as mine does. The confessional is soundproof, has a door which closes, and a fixed grille covered by a curtain on both sides. The confessional is well lit, not scary and dark. But the priest can hear but not see or identify the penitent. If the penitent doesn’t like what the priest is saying for any reason, he can get up and leave. No priest would be able to identify whether a penitent even confessed to him, let alone say what sins were confessed. No one outside the confessional can overhear what is being said. If someone inadvertently opens the door, you stop talking.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.