Would a court respect the Seal of the Confessional should a priest or bishop have to appear in a criminal trial?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Holly3278
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
H

Holly3278

Guest
Hey everyone. I was just thinking about this. Are there any laws on the books (state or federal) anywhere here in the United States that protect priests and bishops from violating the seal of the Confessional during a criminal trial?

I can’t think of any examples right now but what I am trying to ask is this: Could a court of law ever legally attempt to force a priest or a bishop to violate the Seal of the Confessional? Are there any laws that protect the Seal of the Confessional? Thanks.
 
No the courts couldn’t, because priests are trained to not reveal what has been said during Confession even under the threat of death. That’s how serious Confession is, and that’s how assured you can be that nothing you confess in front of a good priest will be leaked out.

That said, I have heard of ways to get around this. For example, a priest could tell a person who committed a heinous deed worthy of significant jail time that he would only offer absolution if he/she hands him/herself in as a form of penance. If memory serves me correct, in antiquity, you had to complete your penance before being offered absolution. So I think a priest, if he had foresight, could prevent conflict of interest between human law and Church law by this “loophole”, but don’t quote me on this.
 
How do priests handle the confession of child sexual abuse now?

Is absolution granted without requiring the person to turn their crime into the police?
 
In the United States the federal rules of evidence give a priest penitent privilege. There are also similar state laws. Meaning even if they ask, the priest is protected from revealing what was said in the confessional, and is not punished for protecting that information. Also, I believe it is the penitent’s privilege and thus a priest could not reveal it even if he wanted to without the penitent’s permission. The public policy behind this is that these people seeking confession are remorseful for what they have done, and even society wants repentance, not just punishment.

Of course the priest is bound by the Seal and thus could not reveal the information even if he were to be punished (contempt, interfering with a criminal investigation, etc) because of his non disclosure.

Edit: I should make this clear. The privilege itself is a common law principle, but Rule 501
Except as otherwise required by the Constitution of the United States or provided by Act of Congress or in rules prescribed by the Supreme Court pursuant to statutory authority, the privilege of a witness, person, government, State, or political subdivision thereof** shall be governed by the principles of the common law as they may be interpreted by the courts of the United States in the light of reason and experience**. However, in civil actions and proceedings, with respect to an element of a claim or defense as to which State law supplies the rule of decision, the privilege of a witness, person, government, State, or political subdivision thereof shall be determined in accordance with State law.
Click to expand...
gives the common law direct applicability.
 
Bohm_Bawerk said:
For example, a priest could tell a person who committed a heinous deed worthy of significant jail time that he would only offer absolution if he/she hands him/herself in as a form of penance.
Click to expand...
This is completely wrong. The priest CANNOT make absolution contingent on turning oneself in to the authorities.
 
Spirithound said:
This is completely wrong. The priest CANNOT make absolution contingent on turning oneself in to the authorities.
Click to expand...
And when the person comes back to Reconciliation time after time after time for the sin of child sexual abuse, what then?
 
Not that this is all that relevant, but I do remember seeing a movie many years ago about a priest who hears a confession of a bomber about a bomb he has planted. But then the bomber dies of a heart attack in the confessional immediately after confessing this. So the story goes on about how this priest attempts to prevent the bomb from going off without violating the seal of the confessional. It was not a very good movie. I don’t know why I still remember it.
 
From here:
Currently all 50 states recognize the priest-penitent privilege by statute although many provide for special circumstances where the privilege is abrogated. For instance, in Massachusetts, Illinois, Mississippi, Colorado and New York, clergy members must report child abuse under existing statutory reporting schemes. Similarly, several states abrogate the privilege for cases of elder abuse.
 
Barbkw said:
And when the person comes back to Reconciliation time after time after time for the sin of child sexual abuse, what then?
Click to expand...
If a priest knows the penitent is not remorseful or not seeking forgiveness he can refuse absolution, but he still cannot violate the Seal. What happens when people confess porn and masturbation again and again? It doesn’t give the priest license to talk about that sinner’s sins. The number of times a sinner sins has no bearing on the priests requirement to keep the Seal.
 
Barbkw said:
And when the person comes back to Reconciliation time after time after time for the sin of child sexual abuse, what then?
Click to expand...
If the priest believes the person is not really contrite, absolution can be withheld or delayed.
 
Barbkw said:
And when the person comes back to Reconciliation time after time after time for the sin of child sexual abuse, what then?
Click to expand...
Here’s the thing, is turning yourself over to the authorities a mark of true repentance? No. There’s no guarantee just because you accepted jail time means you are truly repentant or that you have changed your ways.
 
Barbkw said:
And when the person comes back to Reconciliation time after time after time for the sin of child sexual abuse, what then?
Click to expand...
Three options: 1. Give absolution, in the hopes that the person truly is contrite, time after time, and if he isn’t, let God sort out the bad confessions.
Or 2. If that person is going to confession face-to-face, and so the priest has positively identified a pattern of sin, give counselling or recommend counselling, and refer to Option 1.
Or 3. If, in face-to-face confession, the priest has identified a non-penitent, refuse absolution. I assume the priest would tell this person to come back in a few days to try again, and refer to Option 1.

BTW, thank you for making this about child sexual abuse. This highlights the immense gravity of the seal of the confessional.
 
I don’t think that is quite right. The priest can never require the penitent to reveal his sin to another. A penance such as you describe would seem to violate that prohibition.
 
It is illogical, after the scandal that’s occured in the Church, that a priest would grant absolution for child sexual abuse knowing that pedaphiles will continue to abuse.

If not immoral.
 
I am pretty sure after the confessed a sin big enough for trial to a Priest. The Priest would tell him to turn himself in and take action for his own responsibility.

However, I don’t think that the Priest can give away someone’s confession because it is only between God, The Sinner, and the Priest.

Good Question
God Bless.
 
SwissGuard25 said:
I am pretty sure after the confessed a sin big enough for trial to a Priest. The Priest would tell him to turn himself in and take action for his own responsibility.

However, I don’t think that the Priest can give away someone’s confession because it is only between God, The Sinner, and the Priest.

Good Question
God Bless.
Click to expand...
The Church has said its not contingent to make “turning oneself in” as a condition for absolution. But I wouldn’t be surprised if some priests thinks he they can do that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top