Ship of Fools: Secrecy of Confession: An Abuser's Charter?

Thread: Secrecy of Confession: An Abuser's Charter? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=028035

Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :

Everyone knows about the Catholic Church hiding their kiddy-fuckers - and many know that whatever the official position another entire archdiocese has been exposed this year (with the priest-shuffle going back to at least January 1955) - and two days ago the Vatican arrested its former ambassador to the Dominican republic, another Archbishop, for paying for sex with minors (which, I suppose, is progress). But this is a new wrinkle. Using the secrecy of confessional to gag the victim.

The Catholic Church is trying to slap a gagging order on an abuse victim to prevent her revealing what she said in the confessional. There is, in this case, no evidence at all that there was any direct abuse by the priest.

quote:
From the actual court papers:
This writ presents the issue of whether a party is precluded from offering any evidence of her confession and whether a priest has a duty to report allegations of sexual abuse perpetrated on a minor parishioner.
...
Shortly before trial was scheduled to commence in
the present matter, the Church filed its motion in limine, seeking to prevent the plaintiffs from “mentioning, referencing, and/or introducing evidence at trial of any confessions that may or may not have taken place” between plaintiffs’ minor child and the priest, while the priest was acting in his official capacity as a Diocesan priest and hearing confession from his parishioner. The trial court denied the motion, finding the testimony of the minor child regarding the confession was relevant and, certainly, as the holder of the privilege, she was entitled to waive it and testify. However, the trial court “did recognize the conundrum with which [the priest] is presented, and I know his solution to that is going to be that he is not going to say anything about any confession.”

No, you don't get to do that outside a theocracy. Church law is subordinate to the law of the land. And in the nearest legitimate cases such as doctor-patient confidentiality the patient is not bound by such confidentiality. Being a priest does not put you above the law. You can excommunicate them - that's your affair. But the Church is not above the law. Further, regarding the Sanctity of Confession, it would be impossible to prevent e.g. the soliciting of sex within the Confession without the victim being allowed to speak.

Stop thinking you are above the law. And finding new ways to demonstrate your contempt for decency and for ordinary people. [Mad]

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

Surely 'religious privilege' ('priest'n'penitent') can only be exercised by the priest refusing to disclose evidence; it cannot be forced on the penitent(?)

Posted by Siegfried (# 29) on :

The priest, in this case, wasn't the abuser. The minor told him in confession about the abuse. And from the court papers, it looks like in Lousiana, priests are not mandatory reporters of abuse.

Posted by Gildas (# 525) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Surely 'religious privilege' ('priest'n'penitent') can only be exercised by the priest refusing to disclose evidence; it cannot be forced on the penitent(?)

Correct.

I think the issue here is that if the penitent discloses the confession in a court of law it then becomes evidence and the priest is put in a position where he either has to breach the Seal or refuse to answer questions in court.

Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Surely 'religious privilege' ('priest'n'penitent') can only be exercised by the priest refusing to disclose evidence; it cannot be forced on the penitent(?)

Unless you are this particular branch of the Catholic Church who has gone to court to force non-disclosure on the penitent.

quote:
Originally posted by Siegfried:
The priest, in this case, wasn't the abuser. The minor told him in confession about the abuse. And from the court papers, it looks like in Lousiana, priests are not mandatory reporters of abuse.

From the court papers it looks as if the Catholic Church is claiming in Loisiana priest aren't mandatory reporters. A court of appeal agreed with them - on pages 5 and 6 the Louisiana Supreme Court is saying why it finds that clam to be untrue.

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

The 'seal' only applies to the priest, not the penitent, IIRC; what this particular part of the RCC therefore seems to be attempting would appear to be something rather novel in canon law, never mind about the secular law courts.

Posted by *Leon* (# 3377) on :

As a matter of interest, there's been some recent discussion about the legal force of the seal of the confessional in the CofE. Summary: Priests can probably be forced to reveal what was said but it's unclear and it's somewhat unlikely to happen. Other denominations would be even less protected.

I'd suggest it would be polite to refrain from ever revealing what you said in the confessional; it seems odd to report on a conversation when the other party is forbidden to do so. But there are situations where you need to be impolite.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

I doubt any of this would have been a problem had the actual abuser not died prior to the case going to trial - he would have been found guilty and the family would have had their closure. But die he did, and it would seem that the family have now decided to sue the Church for damages on the basis that the priest should have done something about the abuse as soon as he was told about it.

The Church is seeking to avoid such a suit by attempting to gag the victim, as without the evidence of the priest having been told about the abuse there can be no case against him for ignoring it. And it would seem that for whatever reason he was only told during the confessional.

Whether correct in law (be it national or canon) or not, it's hard to see the actions of either the priest or the Church as being particularly Christian.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

Confessional can never be absolute. Ever. As far as I know in Canada, the issue of privileged communication may be examined in each case, and the court can decide if it exists. My read of things is that priestly confession is no different than any other form of communication privilege. Which is as it should be.

The problem of course being that anyone who is abusing one child may also be abusing others, and may abuse others after telling a priest. The priest in this case could be charged (should be if possible) under many child protection acts. There's also some questions for the supervising bishop who should be asked about the local child abuse protocol for priests and churches.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

I suppose the sanctity of the confessional should be like the counsellor/counsellee relationship.

From my experience (on both sides) is that everything within the discussions is totally confidential, unless it involves hurting yourself or others.

Any relationship of this nature should be 99% confidential, that extra 1% being the crucial ones - it should be both ways, that is either side believes there is abuse occurring - that is, harm to someone - they should have someone they can talk to and get it sorted.

If there is not this safeguard in place, the relationship is dangerous and potentially abusive. No it shouldn't be in the courts, but the RC church have proves that they are not great at dealing with this matters internally.

Posted by agingjb (# 16555) on :

I'm unclear about the precise rules of the confessional.

I can see that priest is bound to secrecy, but I cannot see that the person confessing should be so bound to their disadvantage.

I also see that the priest may not report confessed criminality, but surely sincere repentance must mean the criminal also confesses to the police, and should hardly be granted absolution otherwise.

But, as I say, I'm unclear about the precise rules of the confessional.

Posted by Gildas (# 525) on :

Anything told to the priest under the Seal is not to be disclosed to anyone else. Not one's wife. Not one's Bishop. Not the fuzz. No-one.

Clearly an individual confessor has a degree of latitude. He (or she) can withhold absolution until the penitent reports the matter to the fuzz. He can direct a confessee who has been abused to report the matter to the salient authorities. But, at the end of the day, the Seal is absolute.

In some jurisdictions that is recognised. In some it is not. Speaking for myself I would rather go to prison than disclose what a penitent said to me in the Confessional. In those circumstances I might very well deserve to. I suppose one has to make ones choice and abide by it.

As I understand it there is no obligation on the penitent to maintain silence about the matter confessed. In some circumstances a Confessor would advise a penitent to speak to someone else. In the example above they may make absolution conditional upon sharing the information with a third party.

For those of you who think that the needs of the fuzz automatically trump the Seal I should point out that the evidential value of such a disclosure, by definition, is going to be a "he said, she said" situation. Also that whilst the laws of England generally command my assent and loyalty not all jurisdictions are similarly benign.

Posted by Jon in the Nati (# 15849) on :

Let us make sure that we are not confusing two different-but-related things. These are the clergy/penitent privilege, and the seal of the confessional.

The Seal, as others have noted, binds the confessor (and, incidentally, any third party who might overhear a confession). It is an element of Catholic canon law and is absolute. It has nothing to do with civil (i.e., non-church) law.

The clergy/penitent privilege is a common-law privilege recognized by all 50 US states as well as the federal courts. It predates the founding; I'm certain it is recognized in some fashion or another in most Commonwealth nations as well. The privilege, depending on the situation, allows either the clergy to decline to testify, or the penitent to keep the clergy from testifying. Thus, the holder of the privilege is the penitent. It cannot be invoked by the clergy to keep the penitent from testifying about the communications.

The point, then, is that the church's attorneys are not asking the court to enforce Catholic canon law against this alleged victim, but rather to enforce the common-law clergy/penitent privilege (which, we will recall, has nothing to do with Catholic canon law) against the alleged victim. The trial court appears to have ruled (correctly, as I see it), that the alleged victim is entitled to waive the privilege and testify because the privilege is personal to the penitent.

As I say, these are two distinct things. It is true that the clergy/penitent privilege most often arises in situations regarding the RCC (and the recent abuse scandals) but this alone does not implicate the seal. As such, I think that OP mischaracterizes the role of the Seal of the Confessional in this particular case.

Posted by St. Punk the Pious (# 683) on :

Question (And forgive me if I'm missed the answer.): Does the abuse victim want to testify what was said in the confessional?

Yes, I think this point is important.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by St. Punk the Pious:
Question (And forgive me if I'm missed the answer.): Does the abuse victim want to testify what was said in the confessional?

ISTM that such a testimony is essential to her claim that the priest was negligent, so yes.

That also explains why the Church is so keen to prevent it. No testimony, no case, no damages to pay.

Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
I think the issue here is that if the penitent discloses the confession in a court of law it then becomes evidence and the priest is put in a position where he either has to breach the Seal or refuse to answer questions in court.

That does seem to be the crucial point. It's also something that distinguishes the way priests see the seal of the confession from the way that secular professionals view other sorts of privilege.

Real life (and recent) example: I'm a lawyer. A client of mine was accused of breaking in to a property owned (on paper) by another party, to which my client claimed title. I was asked whether he had so acted on my advice.
Of course the only answer I could give was that my advice was privileged, and I couldn't disclose it. So far the position is simple.
BUT, suppose my client turned out to be legally wrong to break in, and sues me for negligently advising him that he should - as soon as he does that, he waives privilege. I'm allowed to defend myself by saying (if it is true) that I gave no such advice. The law, and my professional ethics, will recognise my client's right to privilege, but WON'T let him have it both ways - he can't make allegations about what I'm supposed to have said, and then stop me from putting my contrary recollection in answer. He can't purport to disclose my advice, and at the same time assert the right to keep it confidential. Legal advice is privileged, but the client can impliedly waive that privilege.

The seal of the confessional doesn't work like that (or, at least, the priest in the OP doesn't seem to think that it works like that). A priest keeps what's said confidential, and that's it. The penitent is free to say to others what was said in the confessional without thereby freeing the priest from a sacred duty to respect his confidence. So, unlike the lawyer, a priest could be faced with courtroom testimony by a penitent that such-and-such was said in confession, and not feel that he can in conscience confirm or deny that testimony, because the seal is absolute. That's why there is a good (though not overwhelming) argument for excluding evidence of what was said in confession. It is not fair to permit evidence from one side that the other side is in principle prevented from answering.

In most cases, though, a confession is only going to be corroborative evidence of the truth of an allegation. It might (in a particular case, although possibly not the one in the OP) be unfair to allow a witness to say "I told Father X in confession that I was abused by Father Y", but they can still say "I was abused by Father Y" without mentioning the confession. Of course, if the complaint is "I told Father X and he did nothing" then what was said in confession is relevant, but it hardly seems fair to me for someone to sue the church because their confidence was respected. The issues are different, and more complicated, if the allegation is a failure to act on an abuser's confession - there the victim is saying "my safety was worthy more than my attacker's confidentiality", and there's a real question of principle to be decided. However where it is the victim complaining because their own confession was kept under seal, then, provided they were properly counselled about the restrictions on the priest disclosing anything to anyone, they are not wronged by the priest following the rules.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

It's complete nonsense to think that in any of those confidentiality relationships, the original imparter of the information is bound.

If doctor/patient privilege bound me as a patient, I could never go to a second doctor. Including the specialist that my GP referred me to for the express purpose of further treatment.

A lawyer's client could never change lawyers.

And a parishioner could never talk to another priest. Or if he/she did, would have compartmentalise what had been previously told.

The obligation is always on the person receiving information not to further pass it on. It is not an obligation on the person who has the information in the first place never to share it again.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

In Canada, according to the fountain of wisdom, wikipedia:

quote:
Religious communications are not presumptively (prima facie) privileged.

Thank God for that. There is no way in hell that any communication about harm to a child should be kept secret. Any decent priest (and there are too many indecent ones) should pastorally bully the confessing person into calling the police to join their little conversation.

Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on :

If the one "confessing" isn't actually penitent in the priest's judgement, but just wanted to get something off their chest, is it still a confession bound by the seal? Forgive me if it's a dunce or wrong-headed question.
I remember this exact issue came up in the recent film (which is absolutely brilliant, btw) Calvary, and I think the priest's bishop argued that the seal did not apply.

Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on :

And also thanks to Jon in the Nati and Eliab for some very clear explanations already.

Posted by Net Spinster (# 16058) on :

I suspect the embarrassing thing for the church is that when the victim (note not the criminal) confessed that she had been abused the priest should have counseled her that she was not at fault and to repeat what she had said to him outside the bounds of confession (either to him or to someone who could take action) so action could be taken.

A similar situation would be if a client went a lawyer, described a situation where the client was a victim of a crime perhaps by a fellow lawyer (though the client wasn't aware that what had happened to him was a crime), and the lawyer failed to tell the client that he was a victim and he could report it to the police or to the bar association or, with permission, the lawyer would report it herself.

Posted by Jon in the Nati (# 15849) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight
If the one "confessing" isn't actually penitent in the priest's judgement, but just wanted to get something off their chest, is it still a confession bound by the seal? Forgive me if it's a dunce or wrong-headed question.

Far from it, DK.

As to the RCC Seal, my understanding is that not all communications, even those which are ostensibly private, are covered by the Seal. The exact parameters are beyond me, surely determined by the niceties of canon law.

As to the common-law clergy penitent privilege, it has changed a bit over time. Historically (pre-20th century), the privilege has only covered communications within the context of sacramental confession (and in some states only to Catholic priests). In the 20th century, the privilege expanded to include non-sacramental communications such as counseling or spiritual advice. This has widely been the case until recently, when there has been some pushback on that for many of the reasons discussed in this thread. Most states, as well as the federal government, still recognize the privilege to cover non-sacramental communications.

[ 26. September 2014, 02:03: Message edited by: Jon in the Nati ]

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

If as some on the ship claim that a priest is a walking sacrament, then aren't all conversations potentially confessional? Doesn't that then mean that the priest can claim secrecy on every conversation?

Those of a non catholic view of such things (and/or not in the uk) should be aware that, in the UK, there is a requirement for all ministers to disclose any abuse - whether actual, reported or suspected - to the relevant authorities. That is part of the safeguarding training undertaken by most denominations.

As to the question posed in the OP, the answer is potentially yes and probably (actually) yes.

Posted by Gildas (# 525) on :

Originally posted by Exclamation Mark:

quote:
If as some on the ship claim that a priest is a walking sacrament, then aren't all conversations potentially confessional? Doesn't that then mean that the priest can claim secrecy on every conversation?

QTWTAIN.

[Hostly Edit: This apparently means "questions to which the answer is no". Alternatively, it means the poster has had a stroke while seated at the keyboard and is in urgent need of medical assistance, which regretfully no reader of this post will be in a position to provide. A moment's silence, please, for the demise of a beloved Shipmate.]

[ 26. September 2014, 08:41: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
If as some on the ship claim that a priest is a walking sacrament, then aren't all conversations potentially confessional? Doesn't that then mean that the priest can claim secrecy on every conversation?

Those of a non catholic view of such things (and/or not in the uk) should be aware that, in the UK, there is a requirement for all ministers to disclose any abuse - whether actual, reported or suspected - to the relevant authorities. That is part of the safeguarding training undertaken by most denominations.

As to the question posed in the OP, the answer is potentially yes and probably (actually) yes.

The person I usually ask this is at home so ...

Are you saying that ministers in the UK are legally required to report abuse. ie. Mandatory reporters, like some health and educational professionals. OR are you saying that most churches have adopted compulsory reporting as a best practice? It's quite an important distinction.

Tubbs

Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The obligation is always on the person receiving information not to further pass it on. It is not an obligation on the person who has the information in the first place never to share it again.

The argument in this case doesn't appear to be that the parishoner can't tell other people (or the court) the same facts as they related in confession - it's that it would be unfair for them to give evidence about what was said in the confession itself, because the other party isn't permitted to.

The Church is not saying that once you mention something in confession you're automatically prevented from mentioning it to anyone else ever. They are saying, in effect, that you cannot both avail yourself of the secrecy of the confession AND at the same time adduce evidence of what you confessed to support a cause of action against the Church who is prevented by that same duty of confidentiality from answering you.

Lawyers never face that problem. If a client sues me on the basis of what I told them as part of my confidential advice, everything's wide open - I can pull out all my letters, notes, drafts, statements, or whatever and put my own version of what I was told and what I advised before the Court. Privilege has automatically been waived to the extent that I need to defend myself.

If the priest's duty really is different in this instance - that he is still bound to respect the confidence of a confession even if the penitent is now using allegations of what was said in confession to sue the Church, I can quite understand why the Church thinks that this is unfair.

Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The obligation is always on the person receiving information not to further pass it on. It is not an obligation on the person who has the information in the first place never to share it again.
The argument in this case doesn't appear to be that the parishoner can't tell other people (or the court) the same facts as they related in confession - it's that it would be unfair for them to give evidence about what was said in the confession itself, because the other party isn't permitted to.

The Church is not saying that once you mention something in confession you're automatically prevented from mentioning it to anyone else ever. They are saying, in effect, that you cannot both avail yourself of the secrecy of the confession AND at the same time adduce evidence of what you confessed to support a cause of action against the Church who is prevented by that same duty of confidentiality from answering you.

Lawyers never face that problem. If a client sues me on the basis of what I told them as part of my confidential advice, everything's wide open - I can pull out all my letters, notes, drafts, statements, or whatever and put my own version of what I was told and what I advised before the Court. Privilege has automatically been waived to the extent that I need to defend myself.

If the priest's duty really is different in this instance - that he is still bound to respect the confidence of a confession even if the penitent is now using allegations of what was said in confession to sue the Church, I can quite understand why the Church thinks that this is unfair.

Actually, when you put it like that, the action by the church seems more reasonable. The plantiff is using the whole seal of the confessional to their advantage. It means the priest can't defend himself / answer back in court. And if they can't defend themselves, then kerching!

Tubbs

[ 26. September 2014, 14:37: Message edited by: Tubbs ]

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
If as some on the ship claim that a priest is a walking sacrament, then aren't all conversations potentially confessional? Doesn't that then mean that the priest can claim secrecy on every conversation?

Those of a non catholic view of such things (and/or not in the uk) should be aware that, in the UK, there is a requirement for all ministers to disclose any abuse - whether actual, reported or suspected - to the relevant authorities. That is part of the safeguarding training undertaken by most denominations.

As to the question posed in the OP, the answer is potentially yes and probably (actually) yes.

Wrong on both counts.

First, safeguarding guidance urges that sacramental confession be differentiated from pastoral conversation. In practice, this means that confession takes place at a set time and in church as a public building. So it's not a chat over tea in the vicarage.

Second, the C of E 'Safe from harm' endorses the seal of the confessional as set out in the canons.

Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
Actually, when you put it like that, the action by the church seems more reasonable. The plantiff is using the whole seal of the confessional to their advantage. It means the priest can't defend himself / answer back in court. And if they can't defend themselves, then kerching!

Since when? How exactly is the plaintiff going to show anything beyond reasonable doubt when there is such a clear "I can't say anything about this for very good reason".

Unless they have more than one person making allegations that can't be substantiated the case won't go anywhere and all they are doing is wasting time and their own money.

Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:

quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
Actually, when you put it like that, the action by the church seems more reasonable. The plantiff is using the whole seal of the confessional to their advantage. It means the priest can't defend himself / answer back in court. And if they can't defend themselves, then kerching!
Since when? How exactly is the plaintiff going to show anything beyond reasonable doubt when there is such a clear "I can't say anything about this for very good reason".

Unless they have more than one person making allegations that can't be substantiated the case won't go anywhere and all they are doing is wasting time and their own money.

Based on my reading of the court documents - and I have no legal qualifications whatsoever! - the plantiff seems to be suing the church for damages for comments that the priest made in response to her telling him about the abuse during her confession as these enabled the abuse to continue.

But the basis of the action isn't what she said to him, but what he said in response. And he can't confirm that without breaking the seal of the confessional. And, as that's not allowed, he can't defend the action. Which is unfair.

He could have said anything! The comments that she alleges are, sadly, within the realms of possiblity. But so is the fact that he suggested she go to the authorities.

Tubbs

[ 26. September 2014, 16:01: Message edited by: Tubbs ]

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

There's more than a bit of truth in what Tubbs says.

The uniform Evidence Act here (uniform in all States and Territories) has a range of provisions protecting confidential communication, including that of the confessional. There is the traditional one, noted above, whereby a lawyer may not divulge certain information without the client's express consent. There is that of confession to ministers of religion. A more general one covers a range of relationships. Recently a psychiatrist was restrained from divulging information given by a patient who sought to uphold a privilege. After a discussion of balancing competing interests, the court ordered that an occasion of privilege had existed and restrained the psychiatrist.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The obligation is always on the person receiving information not to further pass it on. It is not an obligation on the person who has the information in the first place never to share it again.
The argument in this case doesn't appear to be that the parishoner can't tell other people (or the court) the same facts as they related in confession - it's that it would be unfair for them to give evidence about what was said in the confession itself, because the other party isn't permitted to.

The Church is not saying that once you mention something in confession you're automatically prevented from mentioning it to anyone else ever. They are saying, in effect, that you cannot both avail yourself of the secrecy of the confession AND at the same time adduce evidence of what you confessed to support a cause of action against the Church who is prevented by that same duty of confidentiality from answering you.

Lawyers never face that problem. If a client sues me on the basis of what I told them as part of my confidential advice, everything's wide open - I can pull out all my letters, notes, drafts, statements, or whatever and put my own version of what I was told and what I advised before the Court. Privilege has automatically been waived to the extent that I need to defend myself.

If the priest's duty really is different in this instance - that he is still bound to respect the confidence of a confession even if the penitent is now using allegations of what was said in confession to sue the Church, I can quite understand why the Church thinks that this is unfair.

It would seem rather odd to me, though, to say that the he IS still bound to respect the confidence in that situation. It would far more sensible to treat in the same way that you treat lawyer/client privilege - that there's been a waiver for the purpose of the court case, as a consequence of the client's actions.

Posted by Net Spinster (# 16058) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The obligation is always on the person receiving information not to further pass it on. It is not an obligation on the person who has the information in the first place never to share it again.
The argument in this case doesn't appear to be that the parishoner can't tell other people (or the court) the same facts as they related in confession - it's that it would be unfair for them to give evidence about what was said in the confession itself, because the other party isn't permitted to.

The Church is not saying that once you mention something in confession you're automatically prevented from mentioning it to anyone else ever. They are saying, in effect, that you cannot both avail yourself of the secrecy of the confession AND at the same time adduce evidence of what you confessed to support a cause of action against the Church who is prevented by that same duty of confidentiality from answering you.

What if what happened in a confession (not this case) was that the priest propositioned a child for sex? Should the child be prevented from testifying to this because it happened in a confession?

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
If as some on the ship claim that a priest is a walking sacrament, then aren't all conversations potentially confessional? Doesn't that then mean that the priest can claim secrecy on every conversation?

Those of a non catholic view of such things (and/or not in the uk) should be aware that, in the UK, there is a requirement for all ministers to disclose any abuse - whether actual, reported or suspected - to the relevant authorities. That is part of the safeguarding training undertaken by most denominations.

As to the question posed in the OP, the answer is potentially yes and probably (actually) yes.
Wrong on both counts.

First, safeguarding guidance urges that sacramental confession be differentiated from pastoral conversation. In practice, this means that confession takes place at a set time and in church as a public building. So it's not a chat over tea in the vicarage.

Second, the C of E 'Safe from harm' endorses the seal of the confessional as set out in the canons.

First - that doesn't square with the insistence of some on "walking sacrament"

Second - if that's the case pray God then that it changes soon or the parts of the church that practice it will get so isolated from society that any hope of building bridges will be destroyed forever

[ 27. September 2014, 05:08: Message edited by: ExclamationMark ]

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Net Spinster:
What if what happened in a confession (not this case) was that the priest propositioned a child for sex? Should the child be prevented from testifying to this because it happened in a confession?

Absolutely not.

It is only the priest who is bound by the seal.

There is no such binding upon the penitent.

It is probably toe case that abusive priests have misled people into thinking so - indeed, i have watched TV documentaries about this happening.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
First - that doesn't square with the insistence of some on "walking sacrament"

Sure it does. Not every conversation with a priest is a sacramental confession. Similarly, if Father John makes me a sandwich, it's not Jesus.

Leo pointed out the safeguarding guidance that confession only happen at particular times and places. This doesn't mean that it is impossible for a priest to hear confession in any time and at any place. In particular, if a penitent is confined to his bed, the priest is going to have to go to him.

Posted by Pre-cambrian (# 2055) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Net Spinster:
What if what happened in a confession (not this case) was that the priest propositioned a child for sex? Should the child be prevented from testifying to this because it happened in a confession?
Absolutely not.

It is only the priest who is bound by the seal.

There is no such binding upon the penitent.

So when questioned under oath about whether he propositioned the minor the priest could simply respond that he is bound by the seal of the confessional. What conclusion would the jury be permitted to reach in such a case?

It would be helpful if someone could explain precisely when the seal of the confessional applies. Is it as soon as the potential penitent enters the box? Is it when absolution is granted? Or is it in same vague middle ground at the confessor's choosing and convenience?

Posted by Net Spinster (# 16058) on :

What would happen if the priest were dead and therefore unable to testify? The witness then as now is presumably testifying under penalty of perjury so her testimony is weighed with other evidence.

Also does the regular law's views on the seal of confession agree with the canon law's views? Personally I would say that the law should leave it to the client, patient, penitent whether to keep or not keep the seal since it is for their benefit (not the church's) it exists in the first place. I note that New York and California state law have this view.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Net Spinster:
What if what happened in a confession (not this case) was that the priest propositioned a child for sex? Should the child be prevented from testifying to this because it happened in a confession?
Absolutely not.

It is only the priest who is bound by the seal.

There is no such binding upon the penitent.
So when questioned under oath about whether he propositioned the minor the priest could simply respond that he is bound by the seal of the confessional. What conclusion would the jury be permitted to reach in such a case?

It would be helpful if someone could explain precisely when the seal of the confessional applies. Is it as soon as the potential penitent enters the box? Is it when absolution is granted? Or is it in same vague middle ground at the confessor's choosing and convenience?

I am no canonist but it seems obvious to me that propositioning someone is not a sacramental act and is therefore not part of the sacrament of reconciliation and so is not under the seal.

Such a priest should be exposed and punished.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
So when questioned under oath about whether he propositioned the minor the priest could simply respond that he is bound by the seal of the confessional.

I'm unclear why the priest can't say "I am bound by the seal of the confessional regarding the penitents confession and the penitence I prescribed, but I can tell you under oath that indecent propositions were not then nor have ever previously been part of my repertoire."

Posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger (# 8891) on :

Here's the bit I don't get - if A tells B that C abused A, why wouldn't B, whether bound by the seal, the privy seal, the black seal or the singer of "Crazy", take steps to do something about it, so that C can either be found guilty and dealt with, or exonorated?

It doesn't make any sense to me.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger:
Here's the bit I don't get - if A tells B that C abused A, why wouldn't B, whether bound by the seal, the privy seal, the black seal or the singer of "Crazy", take steps to do something about it, so that C can either be found guilty and dealt with, or exonorated?

Because the abuser was an active and important member of the parish community, so the priest allegedly told her to keep quiet about it.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger:
Here's the bit I don't get - if A tells B that C abused A, why wouldn't B, whether bound by the seal, the privy seal, the black seal or the singer of "Crazy", take steps to do something about it, so that C can either be found guilty and dealt with, or exonorated?

It doesn't make any sense to me.

I can't speak of the admissibility of that evidence elsewhere, but the only question here it would go to here is whether A made a complaint soon after the event; otherwise it is simply hearsay. Evidence of recent complaint is admissible as somehow bolstering the credibility of a complainant. It's is not admissible as evidence that C did in fact abuse A. That does not stop B going to police with what he has told and let them then investigate if there is sufficient admissible evidence to warrant putting C on trial.

Posted by FCB (# 1495) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:

quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
Actually, when you put it like that, the action by the church seems more reasonable. The plantiff is using the whole seal of the confessional to their advantage. It means the priest can't defend himself / answer back in court. And if they can't defend themselves, then kerching!
Since when? How exactly is the plaintiff going to show anything beyond reasonable doubt when there is such a clear "I can't say anything about this for very good reason".

Unless they have more than one person making allegations that can't be substantiated the case won't go anywhere and all they are doing is wasting time and their own money.
Based on my reading of the court documents - and I have no legal qualifications whatsoever! - the plantiff seems to be suing the church for damages for comments that the priest made in response to her telling him about the abuse during her confession as these enabled the abuse to continue.

But the basis of the action isn't what she said to him, but what he said in response. And he can't confirm that without breaking the seal of the confessional. And, as that's not allowed, he can't defend the action. Which is unfair.

He could have said anything! The comments that she alleges are, sadly, within the realms of possiblity. But so is the fact that he suggested she go to the authorities.

Tubbs

In my non-expert opinion, Tubbs get the defendant's argument exactly right. Not that this argument is not based on the principle of the seal of the confessional, but rather that the seal of the confessional--to which the defendant (priest) is bound but not the plaintiff (penitent) makes for an uneven playing field vis-a-vis the courtroom. Judging from the document, the courts seem divided on this issue.

So while the seal of the confessional is a factor in this case, it seems to me that it is not playing the role that the OP assigned to it (i.e. of providing a charter to abusers).

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

The stories we make up eh? Unmake them.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0