Seal of Confession

[claymcdermott]

Yeah, kdbueno, we are all saying that for reasons legal, me, and canonical, Fr David, and common sense, gardens with kids, that you cannot divulge any ecclesiastically priveliged anything ever, whether it was said in Confession or not.

Hey, we all agree!

 

[kdbueno]

The seal of confession cannot be violated at all. The priest telling you to do reparation is a different case.

 

[thistle]

The seal of confession cannot be violated at all means, unless you want to be damned for all your life.

Not correct. You can only be damned AFTER you die should you die in a state of mortal sin. Anyone who mortally sins can be absolved at any time if they go to Confession and sincerely repent.

 

[cjb_914]

No, I am not saying that the seal is ever violable, I am saying that the logic for the seals inviolability does not come from the simple fact that it is THE SEAL of lore. It comes from the very prosaic non magic reality that the people can expect privacy with the clergy.

And “the public“ here means

pub·lic
ˈpəblik/Submit
noun
noun: the public
ordinary people in general; the community.

Which does not contradict the word private.

This has absolutely NOTHING to do with the inviolability of the seal of confession. If, say, there was a society where privacy with the clergy was not expected, or indeed if such a privacy was explicitly against the law, the seal would still be inviolable. Again, the inviolability of the seal has nothing to do with the definition of the word public, or secular laws pertaining to privacy. It is inviolable because it has been bound by the Church under the penalty of excommunication.

That said you’d be right if you said it is inadmissible in a court of law in the United States of America. That statement is true due to the reason you stipulate, but that, a third time, has absolutely nothing to do with the inviolability of the seal of confession which binds a priest regardless of laws pertaining to admissibility of evidence or prevailing social norms pertaining to privacy.

 

[claymcdermott]

Please reread the OP. The OP is asking about a criminal case. The question is, in fact, one of admissibility in a court of law.

Also, and again, reread the OP, the OP is assuming that a clergyman can repeat stuff said to him in his official capacity as a clergyman, because the seal of confession did not* technically *apply, as though the canon law on specifically the seal was the only moral principle. This violation of privacy would be immoral for reasons both related to, and totally unrelated to, canon law (which by the way is changeable) or civil law.

The Church’s canon law on the matter was instituted because of the immorality of violating someones moral right to privacy here, not the other way around.

 

[kdbueno]

The seal of confession according to the current integrity of the moral code of Canon law deems us understandable by general facts. Pre-supposing a theory that canon jurisintegrity is based on the fact that it can be changed.