Delaware judge: priest-penitent privilege may be unconstitutional

[High Fidelity]

“The sacramental seal is inviolable; therefore it is absolutely forbidden for a confessor to betray in any way a penitent in words or in any manner and for any reason.” (Canon Law # 983. §1)

Thanks for the source. Unfortunately the SOP doesn't allow me to reply so I suppose that's me done

 

[Anhelyna]

Patrick - we all acknowledge that this is a real problem - but as things stand there is nothing that we can do about the fact that nothing which is said in Confession [ whether using a traditional Confessional or a modern Reconciliation Room ] which can be repeated outside.

 

[High Fidelity]

Patrick - we all acknowledge that this is a real problem

I understand

I understand there can't be obedience to one authority without disobedience to another, but my opinions on that are contrary to the core beliefs of the sub-forum so that's all I meant when I said that's me done.

 

[Tallguy88]

I understand

I understand there can't be obedience to one authority without disobedience to another, but my opinions on that are contrary to the core beliefs of the sub-forum so that's all I meant when I said that's me done.

Currently, there is not a conflict of authority because most states allow priest-penitent confidentiality. That's why this story is worthy of discussion because it bucks the trend. Or rather, it could depending on how the terms in the statute are defined. Defined broadly to encompas more than just Catholics, it is allowable. Where the judge has a problem is if it is only for Catholics, as she believes that to be discriminatory by not allowing the confidentiality for members of other faiths.

So there's not a particular conflict at this time in the USA.

 

[benedictaoo]

The priesthood in the wrong hands is plain dangerous and to me if this pope we have really wanted to impress me, he'd do something more tangible about taking precautions against this.

 

[Hank77]

What, the abuser who would be shot?
All silliness aside, a priest has a duty to every member of his flock, to the penitent and to a victim. Just as he cannot shoot an abuser he cannot reveal what he heard in an abuser's confession. He has to figure out a different way to protect a victim. It might not be easy or apparent how to do that. People might think he didn't do enough. Might even be that there is nothing possible to do without breaking the seal of confession, but any decent priest would try mightily anyhow.

I'll see if that movie is on Netflix, thanks.
It would seem to me that the priest must find a way to expose the predator of children. Because one child is protected doesn't protect the unknown child victims or the future one's. It truly is a conundrum for a Godly priest but he must find a way. It would seem to me that his own soul might be in danger if he doesn't do everything he can to not allow evil to continue, and especially not among the Body of Christ. If a person can be excommunicated for divorcing an abusive husband how much more a child abuser?

 

[benedictaoo]

And it's not just child abusers, its anyone in danger.

 

[Hank77]

And it's not just child abusers, its anyone in danger.

That is why I think it is so sensible when it comes to lying to someone. Do they have the right to know? Not if their intent is harm someone.
But I do understand this other is a problem and don't have a clue as to what the solution would be. Maybe there is a better chance of finding out about these predators and doing something about them, if they know they can rely on the privacy of the confessional. If there isn't any expectation of privacy there may be no confession at all.

 

[benedictaoo]

Well, if a person is confessing that they did hurt another person I can't ration how owning up to what you did would not be apart of the reparations that are required.

 

[Hank77]

Well, if a person is confessing that they did hurt another person I can't ration how owning up to what you did would not be apart of the reparations that are required.

I'm pretty sure it would be.

 

[Anhelyna]

The priest , as I understand it, can suggest that , but he can't insist on it as a condition for the giving of absolution.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

It is necessary to this sacrament in how it is applied in the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church, and has been such for over 1000 years.

Is it? As you said, it doesn't date from Apostolic times; and other churches have confession and absolution without confessional booths, so....???

Albion, you are an Anglican; so was my mother. They also held to the sanctity of the seal of the confessional; has something changed?

 

[Rhamiel]

there are also laws of doctor patient confidentiality?
how does that apply in this situation?

can a doctor testify against someone for what they did in the past?
I know if you are planning to do something in the future, the doctor has to say something, but what about stuff that you have already done?

 

[benedictaoo]

A doctor has a legal obligation to report any suspected abuse. I've notice on my last doc visit, the nurse doing her intake, now asks "are you being abused or neglected"? Lol is what I did... I thought that was funny that they ask this now as part of the routine questions.

 

[Hank77]

there are also laws of doctor patient confidentiality?

A doctor has a legal obligation to report any suspected abuse.

I think the reporting only applies to minors not adults, if I read the law correctly.
But I know there is more concern now for women who are abused and doctors will try to council them about getting help and give them information to resources.

 

[chevyontheriver]

I'll see if that movie is on Netflix, thanks.
It would seem to me that the priest must find a way to expose the predator of children. Because one child is protected doesn't protect the unknown child victims or the future one's. It truly is a conundrum for a Godly priest but he must find a way. It would seem to me that his own soul might be in danger if he doesn't do everything he can to not allow evil to continue, and especially not among the Body of Christ. If a person can be excommunicated for divorcing an abusive husband how much more a child abuser?

A person is not excommunicated for divorcing an abusive husband.

 

[Albion]

Albion, you are an Anglican; so was my mother. They also held to the sanctity of the seal of the confessional; has something changed?

Hi, Mark. Well, there is something to that, although private confession is rare among Anglicans. The general confession, with absolution, is the prescribed method. There neither is a form for private confession in the historic BCP nor encouragement for parishes to use it. There is a provision for private confession if the person cannot quiet his own conscience.

It is supposed to be an exceptional thing, and IMHO amounts to permission for counseling more than for sacramental confession. But yes, those churches in which there is private confession have discussed the issue of the seal, etc. so you are correct to say it has some place in the Anglican scheme of things. What I remember is permission being given to break that seal under certain circumstances, but that's all I can say directly about that.

The issue was on this thread seems to have been completely pushed aside by the angry posters who accused me of attacking the Catholic Church. I did no such thing. All I commented on is the fact that the seal matter is not part of the sacrament. It's been very important to the Catholic Church over the years and to those Anglican churches that have offered private confessions, but the seal of the confessional, so called, is not inherent in confession itself. Taking note of that fact could make for an interesting discussion.

There is a definition for a sacrament, any sacrament. The seal or any seal is not part of it, and neither is it the case that private confession in a booth dates from the time of the Apostles. It doesn't. What we know as private confession in those churches that practice it, whether Roman Catholic or another, dates from a much later time in church history. I first learned this in Catholic school, and "Tallguy" admitted it himself.

 

[Tallguy88]

Hi, Mark. Well, there is something to that, although private confession is rare among Anglicans. The general confession, with absolution, is the prescribed method. There neither is a form for private confession in the historic BCP nor encouragement for parishes to use it. There is a provision for private confession if the person cannot quiet his own conscience.

It is supposed to be an exceptional thing, and IMHO amounts to permission for counseling more than for sacramental confession. But yes, those churches in which there is private confession have discussed the issue of the seal, etc. so you are correct to say it has some place in the Anglican scheme of things. What I remember is permission being given to break that seal under certain circumstances, but that's all I can say directly about that.

The issue was on this thread seems to have been completely pushed aside by the angry posters who accused me of attacking the Catholic Church. I did no such thing. All I commented on is the fact that the seal matter is not part of the sacrament. It's been very important to the Catholic Church over the years and to those Anglican churches that have offered private confessions, but the seal of the confessional, so called, is not inherent in confession itself. Taking note of that fact could make for an interesting discussion.

There is a definition for a sacrament, any sacrament. The seal or any seal is not part of it, and neither is it the case that private confession in a booth dates from the time of the Apostles. It doesn't. What we know as private confession in those churches that practice it, whether Roman Catholic or another, dates from a much later time in church history. I first learned this in Catholic school, and "Tallguy" admitted it himself.

Phrased that way, you are correct and I have no objection. But the way it was originally phrased sounded as if it was an optional thing. It is not optional in the Catholic understanding and is not going to change. The seal is absolute and involatile, even after the penitent has died.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Hi, Mark. Well, there is something to that, although private confession is rare among Anglicans. The general confession, with absolution, is the prescribed method. There neither is a form for private confession in the historic BCP nor encouragement for parishes to use it. There is a provision for private confession if the person cannot quiet his own conscience.

It is supposed to be an exceptional thing, and IMHO amounts to permission for counseling more than for sacramental confession. But yes, those churches in which there is private confession have discussed the issue of the seal, etc. so you are correct to say it has some place in the Anglican scheme of things. What I remember is permission being given to break that seal under certain circumstances, but that's all I can say directly about that.

The issue was on this thread seems to have been completely pushed aside by the angry posters who accused me of attacking the Catholic Church. I did no such thing. All I commented on is the fact that the seal matter is not part of the sacrament. It's been very important to the Catholic Church over the years and to those Anglican churches that have offered private confessions, but the seal of the confessional, so called, is not inherent in confession itself. Taking note of that fact could make for an interesting discussion.

There is a definition for a sacrament, any sacrament. The seal or any seal is not part of it, and neither is it the case that private confession in a booth dates from the time of the Apostles. It doesn't. What we know as private confession in those churches that practice it, whether Roman Catholic or another, dates from a much later time in church history. I first learned this in Catholic school, and "Tallguy" admitted it himself.

Thanks for the clarification, and what you have said is correct.

Phrased that way, you are correct and I have no objection. But the way it was originally phrased sounded as if it was an optional thing. It is not optional in the Catholic understanding and is not going to change. The seal is absolute and involatile, even after the penitent has died.

In our Confessional Lutheran Churches, this is also the way it is. I can not speak for the other synods though. The absolute and inviolate nature of the seal ensures that the penitent has no fear of repercussions from seeking counsel and absolution. Without the seal, many would not confess, and an opportunity to council them to do the right thing would never present itself.

 

[Albion]

All right, but then the question to be debated would seem to be "What would the effect be of some government invalidating the seal of the confessional and, therefore, subjecting priests to being served with subpoenas that would legally require them to break the seal in court?" What effect would this have on confessions? WHOM would it affect? Would it breach the church-state separation or constitute a violation of freedom of religion? etc. Would this be similar to the gay marriage ruling or the case of the Little Sisters and Obamacare--or not?