NationStates Jolt Archive


Priests , confidentiality and confession

UpwardThrust
11-05-2005, 05:33
Ok these question was spawned by some of the issues with priests in my past (note this is NOT a slam on the priesthood)
they have to do with confession and confidentiality

1)If a person confesses the specifics to a past crime that is still open (such as theft or an accident or something) where there is no intimidate threat of harm to another person but he was a fugitive from justice... should the priest have an obligation to turn this person in? Can he be forced to testify?

2)Same setup as before but with possible harm (such as the crime being murder or rape where there is possibility of harm happening again)
If they chose not to reveal what they know and someone IS harmed should they be responsible for not bringing it forward?
Patra Caesar
11-05-2005, 05:36
1. Nope
2. Depends, you would have to use your judgement. If there was the slight possibility that the confessor may reoffend then no, but if they have confided or implied that they will reoffend then yes.
UpwardThrust
11-05-2005, 05:38
1. Nope
2. Depends, you would have to use your judgement. If there was the slight possibility that the confessor may reoffend then no, but if they have confided or implied that they will reoffend then yes.
so should they be responsible if we allow them to use their own judgement and essentialy hold the safty of others in their hands and guess wrong?
Patra Caesar
11-05-2005, 05:43
so should they be responsible if we allow them to use their own judgement and essentialy hold the safty of others in their hands and guess wrong?

Probably, again it is a case of 'depends.' Is it a reasonable error? Was it un/reasonable for the priest to think that the confessor would reoffend? Would his reporting helped prevent a reoffence? It really should be done on a case by case basis, although the biggest problem would be holding the priest responsible. If the priest does not testify after hearing a confession and thinking it likely to reoffend it is not very likely that he will testify after he has heard this confession and discovered that the confessor has repffended.
UpwardThrust
11-05-2005, 05:48
What if someone confesses to me personaly just to "get a load off" should I be required to report illigal activities? or possible harm
Patra Caesar
11-05-2005, 05:54
Well I think you have a duty of care to report it, but I think the law (in Australia) disagrees with everything I have posted in this thread.
Bitchkitten
11-05-2005, 05:55
They should follow the same rules as any therapist/counselors. If it's to protect someone from criminal activity, by all means they have the obligation to tell.
UpwardThrust
11-05-2005, 05:59
They should follow the same rules as any therapist/counselors. If it's to protect someone from criminal activity, by all means they have the obligation to tell.
I happen to agree ... the only possition I feel should go a little farther twards some pertection from reporting criminal activity is lawyer because it is against the express intrest of protecting their client (which is nessisary for the idea of adaquite council in the united states)
[NS]Simonist
11-05-2005, 10:15
Ok these question was spawned by some of the issues with priests in my past (note this is NOT a slam on the priesthood)
they have to do with confession and confidentiality

1)If a person confesses the specifics to a past crime that is still open (such as theft or an accident or something) where there is no intimidate threat of harm to another person but he was a fugitive from justice... should the priest have an obligation to turn this person in? Can he be forced to testify?

2)Same setup as before but with possible harm (such as the crime being murder or rape where there is possibility of harm happening again)
If they chose not to reveal what they know and someone IS harmed should they be responsible for not bringing it forward?
My generalized understanding, from a life of Vatican II Catholicism (which may vary to the dioces still practicing the old ways) is that....
1) The law recognizes, in most states, that a priest is exempt from testimony unless he willingly chooses to, which, depeding on the severity of the crime, likeif it's a more minor crime like this scenario suggests, many may not. It all depends on the individual priest.
2) Most common priests aren't actually able to forgive a more violent crime such as rape, and I know murder is what Fr. Thomas (my priest) refers to as a Cardinal Sin (don't know if that's a frequent term, I don't talk much on sins with unfamiliar priests, let alone Cardinals), which means it can only be forgiven by a Cardinal (duh). And I think an offender would be hard-pressed to find a Cardinal that forgiving in the first place.

I could be wrong, it's always a possibility, and it's also 4.15 AM or so....but I'm pretty sure that's the way it would go.
Legless Pirates
11-05-2005, 10:27
Law > Church

so yes.
Equal Altruism
11-05-2005, 10:45
Actually, the law of the church (or your religion) is always greater than that of social/criminal law. If i am drafted, and I can somehow prove that going to war for me is against my religion (i.e. it is against my charecter, my past serves as proof, i'm not just saying it to deviate from a duty...etc) I can be exempt.

1. And priests is not allowed by church mandate to go to the authorities if someone who has not been convicted confesses a major crime. There have been stories in the past where romans threatened priests with death unless they give the information that was confessed to them and....they were killed.

2. However to answer two, u can see from answer one how severly the thought of secrecy (sp?) is treated. If someone confesses and means no harm, he has truely confessed his sins and is trying to become a better person. However, if someone approaches a priest and confesses his sins then tells the priest he is going to go do it again really soon, then he has not truely confessed his sins because he does not mean to make himself a better person. See, confessing means being sorry, and no person is sorry if they mean to do it again right away.

However, if a person is maybe disfunctional, chemically imbalanced, or suffers from a psycological disorder and is truely sorry but is afraid that they may do it again against their will, then a priest is held responsible to counsel that party by church law and takes moral responsibility, but NOT by civil law. Why? Well, church law is above the laws of men.
LazyHippies
11-05-2005, 11:31
Legally, there is nothing stopping the government from attempting to force the priest to reveal the information. However, revealing the contents of a confession for any reason whatsoever is grounds for an automatic excommunication from the catholic church, so I dont think there are many priests who would do so.
FitzBilly
11-05-2005, 11:41
Surely, ideally (and I know this may not be the case all the time) if a person is confessing something it's because they are repenting, and are seeking forgiveness. Since repenting is turning away from sin, then they shouldn't be planning to do it again.

Also...being forgiven by a priest, doesn't mean you don't deserved to be punished by the law...so if a person is confessing a crime, for which they are truly sorry, they should give themselves up...so perhaps rather than going to the authorities himself, the priest should suggests that the person go to the authorities, admit what he/she has done, and face the consequences. If they're not prepared to do that, surely they're not actually sorry/repenting, and can't really be forgiven.

Does that make sense?
UpwardThrust
11-05-2005, 14:03
Simonist']My generalized understanding, from a life of Vatican II Catholicism (which may vary to the dioces still practicing the old ways) is that....
1) The law recognizes, in most states, that a priest is exempt from testimony unless he willingly chooses to, which, depeding on the severity of the crime, likeif it's a more minor crime like this scenario suggests, many may not. It all depends on the individual priest.
2) Most common priests aren't actually able to forgive a more violent crime such as rape, and I know murder is what Fr. Thomas (my priest) refers to as a Cardinal Sin (don't know if that's a frequent term, I don't talk much on sins with unfamiliar priests, let alone Cardinals), which means it can only be forgiven by a Cardinal (duh). And I think an offender would be hard-pressed to find a Cardinal that forgiving in the first place.

I could be wrong, it's always a possibility, and it's also 4.15 AM or so....but I'm pretty sure that's the way it would go.

While I understand the law (and you were close enough) SHOULD that be the way it is? We are essentially allowing that one man to decide the persons fate.
I am not saying that a trial is foolproof for weeding out those that are going to harm others again but they go about it in a relatively organized and consistent (as possible with 12 peers making the decision)

If we allow them to come above the law (above non religious “confession”) should they not be held at a higher level of responsibility for the actions they choose to let slip by
[NS]Simonist
11-05-2005, 14:08
While I understand the law (and you were close enough) SHOULD that be the way it is? We are essentially allowing that one man to decide the persons fate.
I am not saying that a trial is foolproof for weeding out those that are going to harm others again but they go about it in a relatively organized and consistent (as possible with 12 peers making the decision)

If we allow them to come above the law (above non religious “confession”) should they not be held at a higher level of responsibility for the actions they choose to let slip by
Well, most every priest I've ever met (and there are many.....if you've been on other boards, I've mentioned my involvement in the Church over my lifetime) are crafty enough that I'm sure they could get a person to go to the police if they're truly repentant. However, as I've never actually had to have this kind of scenario discussion with a priest, I'm not sure how many would WANT to get directly involved, which is a problem. But, any priest with even a basic background in psychology can take a broken man (or woman) and turn them in the right direction. The best you can do then, so to speak....is pray.

Edit: I was just informed that in some circumstances, even in a clergy member directs you to the police, a confession can still be considered to be given "under duress" and may be inadmissable in court....I'm taking this one on faith, as I can't speak one way or another on it. Anybody else know anything about this?
UpwardThrust
11-05-2005, 14:28
Simonist']Well, most every priest I've ever met (and there are many.....if you've been on other boards, I've mentioned my involvement in the Church over my lifetime) are crafty enough that I'm sure they could get a person to go to the police if they're truly repentant. However, as I've never actually had to have this kind of scenario discussion with a priest, I'm not sure how many would WANT to get directly involved, which is a problem. But, any priest with even a basic background in psychology can take a broken man (or woman) and turn them in the right direction. The best you can do then, so to speak....is pray.

Edit: I was just informed that in some circumstances, even in a clergy member directs you to the police, a confession can still be considered to be given "under duress" and may be inadmissable in court....I'm taking this one on faith, as I can't speak one way or another on it. Anybody else know anything about this?
But then we are still relying on a legally untested person to basically take and hold a confession without being liable if his action causes harm (if I did it as a non priest I could be liable for things such as “adding and abiding” ) and would myself be liable
But it seems like priests are above other people in the eyes of the law
[NS]Simonist
11-05-2005, 14:31
A lot of law bodies want to have that changed, and there's pressure on the Vatican to allow priests to testify in major cases where the public will benefit from breaking that vow of secrecy, but this is the problem: a good amount of the lawmakers are deeply religious and resistant to forcing a religious body into anything like that.

On the upside, if it's not technically Confession, and they just say it "in confidence" to get it off their chest.....then the priest is no more obligated to keep that to himself than a drinking buddy might be.
[NS]Simonist
11-05-2005, 14:34
And by the way, it's so nice to be able to go back and forth with someone who's not, at every other post, calling me retarded or a hypocrite or anything of the sort. Thanks for treating this with maturity, whether or not we are just playing games of verbal technicality.... :p
UpwardThrust
11-05-2005, 14:34
Simonist']A lot of law bodies want to have that changed, and there's pressure on the Vatican to allow priests to testify in major cases where the public will benefit from breaking that vow of secrecy, but this is the problem: a good amount of the lawmakers are deeply religious and resistant to forcing a religious body into anything like that.

On the upside, if it's not technically Confession, and they just say it "in confidence" to get it off their chest.....then the priest is no more obligated to keep that to himself than a drinking buddy might be.
Even so they seem to be elevated above what therapists (witch is essentially what they are when in the confessional) or the average person is. I know it may not happen but SHOULD they be allowed to hold other peoples lives in their hands

I say no

But I have personal background that causes me to take such opinion (which is why I am trying not to rant) lol
UpwardThrust
11-05-2005, 14:36
Simonist']And by the way, it's so nice to be able to go back and forth with someone who's not, at every other post, calling me retarded or a hypocrite or anything of the sort. Thanks for treating this with maturity, whether or not we are just playing games of verbal technicality.... :p
No problem most of us are respectful … though we do get frustrated but that tends to be because we put a lot of effort into thinking about these things and tend to get short “from the hip” responses rather then people actually thinking about their situation

I was catholic myself at one time so I understand where you are coming from
[NS]Simonist
11-05-2005, 14:40
See, personally I'm in a position where I can understand, in misdemeanor crimes, that a priest should not necessarily be expected to testify. However, I think they SHOULD be free of repercussions from the Church should they choose to testify in larger cases. I think that's what keeps most from doing so; I'm sure they care more for the greater good of society than the individual's privacy, but it's also hard to give up something you care so much about, and that defines your life, to put one person away.

I'm concerned mostly because nuns face the same sort of problems. If a Sister or a Mother hears confession (though not many ever do anymore, it's pretty freakin rare), she's held to the same obligations as the Father. Being someone looking into the Sisterhood later in life.....well, obviously, I don't want to get caught in that position....

I still have high hopes that someday, somebody will talk this Pope into slacking the rules in regards such as this....as well as MANY others.
But that is not a discussion for today.
UpwardThrust
11-05-2005, 14:47
Simonist']See, personally I'm in a position where I can understand, in misdemeanor crimes, that a priest should not necessarily be expected to testify. However, I think they SHOULD be free of repercussions from the Church should they choose to testify in larger cases. I think that's what keeps most from doing so; I'm sure they care more for the greater good of society than the individual's privacy, but it's also hard to give up something you care so much about, and that defines your life, to put one person away.

I'm concerned mostly because nuns face the same sort of problems. If a Sister or a Mother hears confession (though not many ever do anymore, it's pretty freakin rare), she's held to the same obligations as the Father. Being someone looking into the Sisterhood later in life.....well, obviously, I don't want to get caught in that position....

I still have high hopes that someday, somebody will talk this Pope into slacking the rules in regards such as this....as well as MANY others.
But that is not a discussion for today.

I think they are concerned that no one will come to them at all if they know priests even CAN tell

(in my past … and this is not a rant I was molested by my priest who HAD confessed to it in the 1970’s to another priest) so I am a bit biased into allowing their free decision in this manner
[NS]Simonist
11-05-2005, 14:51
I honestly am sorry to hear that, and I realize we're coming from COMPLETELY different worlds (I'm still a college underclassman, and I gather from your last post you're a bit older), but I believe that if a serious Catholic did something wrong, they would go to a priest whether or not the priest had the ability to then go tattle on them. And if they're not willing to go to a priest to confess their sins, then they have less reason to say they're a true Catholic.
UpwardThrust
11-05-2005, 14:56
Simonist']I honestly am sorry to hear that, and I realize we're coming from COMPLETELY different worlds (I'm still a college underclassman, and I gather from your last post you're a bit older), but I believe that if a serious Catholic did something wrong, they would go to a priest whether or not the priest had the ability to then go tattle on them. And if they're not willing to go to a priest to confess their sins, then they have less reason to say they're a true Catholic.
No :) I am only 22 myself (post grad though I went through and finished up my second masters this semester)

And don’t worry I don’t hold Christians responsible or anything its not their fault … I just have my issues with the organization
[NS]Simonist
11-05-2005, 15:00
Yeah, that's cool.....actually up until last year I had a beef with the Dioces of my area.....I pretty much ditched my church for awhile to hang out with the Episcopals, because they're mostly Catholic to begin with. There was a priest at my church who was accused of molestation, and it had been one that I'd been close with when I went to school there, so I was upset. I distanced myself from the whole thing, but about a year later the guy who spoke out against him got caught in a lie and then admitted he was just going to try to settle out of court.

Of course, that's the main thing that taught me that even the most well-meaning Christians can be total bastards......
UpwardThrust
11-05-2005, 18:06
Simonist']Yeah, that's cool.....actually up until last year I had a beef with the Dioces of my area.....I pretty much ditched my church for awhile to hang out with the Episcopals, because they're mostly Catholic to begin with. There was a priest at my church who was accused of molestation, and it had been one that I'd been close with when I went to school there, so I was upset. I distanced myself from the whole thing, but about a year later the guy who spoke out against him got caught in a lie and then admitted he was just going to try to settle out of court.

Of course, that's the main thing that taught me that even the most well-meaning Christians can be total bastards......
Im not saying it dosent happen but the big cover up they did predisposes me against the organization as a whole

But basicaly the priest that took my priests confession more then 20 years before he got to me held my future in his hands
Talk or possibly have him reoffend
He did 4 times that I know of

Why is the priest taking the confession not liable for ading and abbeding?
UpwardThrust
11-05-2005, 18:33
Well I think you have a duty of care to report it, but I think the law (in Australia) disagrees with everything I have posted in this thread.
But why is there no legal responsibility like (at least in the us) every other citizen is required to report potental harm and past legal activity
Extradites
11-05-2005, 19:24
UK law states that failure to report knowlege of crime or reasonable suspicion of future crimes is perverting the course of justice and this law applied to everyone. If a priest fails to report crimes confessed to them they will face prosecution, and damn right too.
UpwardThrust
12-05-2005, 06:37
UK law states that failure to report knowlege of crime or reasonable suspicion of future crimes is perverting the course of justice and this law applied to everyone. If a priest fails to report crimes confessed to them they will face prosecution, and damn right too.
I agree they should be responsable for their judgement call
[NS]Simonist
12-05-2005, 06:47
I talked to Fr. Thomas today about this (what? It's finals week at the University, it was a down day for me) and he informed me that when I was in elementary school, two individual priests in our area, from separate churches, were excommunicated for coming forward with information pertaining to a robbery/killing case. Apparently it's simply because they put their passion and their purpose in life on the line that the criminals were accused of armed robbery and second degree murder.

Does this offer any more faith whatsoever in the personal integrity of these clergymen? I hope it does, because I know one of these men and I never even knew he'd been a Catholic priest....I just knew that he was "forced" into the Episcopal Church because of things that happened "when I was young".
Rotovia
12-05-2005, 06:50
Ok these question was spawned by some of the issues with priests in my past (note this is NOT a slam on the priesthood)
they have to do with confession and confidentiality

1)If a person confesses the specifics to a past crime that is still open (such as theft or an accident or something) where there is no intimidate threat of harm to another person but he was a fugitive from justice... should the priest have an obligation to turn this person in? Can he be forced to testify?

2)Same setup as before but with possible harm (such as the crime being murder or rape where there is possibility of harm happening again)
If they chose not to reveal what they know and someone IS harmed should they be responsible for not bringing it forward?
1) Most definately not.
2) A priest may never violate the sanctity of confession, however some preists may in order to protect the another from harm. Such a priest would be expected to resign from the priesthood though.
Equal Altruism
13-05-2005, 08:57
Priests arn't counslers, they r the line between you and God. And think of what would happen if priests were forced to tell of peoples crimes. That would completely discourage people from comming forth to confess, as well as completly discredit any form of secrecy. The laws of the church are above those of the civil system, so no court can hold a priest to abiding a criminal.

And as for having a pope change things in the catholic church, this is an organization remained unchanged and an organization that is 2,000 years old. The oldest ever, thats older than almost every country on this earth, and has a population of 1.2billion (billion, not million) members. Unfortunatly, evil is everywhere, Judas was one of the 12 apostles even, sat at Jc's table. But anwyay, back to the point.

Priest will continue to uphold the same laws of secrecy as before, and nothing will change because it is the citizens duty to ascend to his/her religion, and not for the religion to be change and descend to society.
[NS]Simonist
13-05-2005, 12:50
And as for having a pope change things in the catholic church, this is an organization remained unchanged and an organization that is 2,000 years old. The oldest ever, thats older than almost every country on this earth, and has a population of 1.2billion (billion, not million) members. Unfortunatly, evil is everywhere, Judas was one of the 12 apostles even, sat at Jc's table. But anwyay, back to the point.

Priest will continue to uphold the same laws of secrecy as before, and nothing will change because it is the citizens duty to ascend to his/her religion, and not for the religion to be change and descend to society.
Either you're NOT a member of the Catholic church, or you're living under a completely different Church law than the rest of us Catholics. How obtuse can one be to claim that the Church hasn't changed in 2,000 years? For one thing, in the early part of the Dark Ages they redefined Jesus' deification, then reorganized some of the minor tenets of the religion as a whole. They gradually made changes to Church Doctrine as science evolved, otherwise we'd still be told every Sunday that the Sun rotates around the Earth (and if you still believe this -- sorry, not true). They redefined the Shroud of Turin as decidedly NOT from the age of Christ. They redefined most of the well-known "Incorruptable Saints" that had been celebrated as absolute miracles for CENTURIES, after medical proof that they'd been artificially preserved. And hey, ever heard of 1963? It's this year where this important event was held, called the Sacrosanctum Concilium. I'd tell you to look it up, but to save you the eventual headache, I'll sum it up in an easier light -- Vatican II. The currently celebrated and MUCH LESS STRICT faith system than the previous 1,950 years or so. Those are just some of the more media-covered, recognizable changes that have been made over time. The ones you may stand a chance of somehow knowing about, deep in the recesses of your memory.

The Catholic Church hasn't CHANGED?! You live in a dream world.
UpwardThrust
13-05-2005, 14:48
Simonist']I talked to Fr. Thomas today about this (what? It's finals week at the University, it was a down day for me) and he informed me that when I was in elementary school, two individual priests in our area, from separate churches, were excommunicated for coming forward with information pertaining to a robbery/killing case. Apparently it's simply because they put their passion and their purpose in life on the line that the criminals were accused of armed robbery and second degree murder.

Does this offer any more faith whatsoever in the personal integrity of these clergymen? I hope it does, because I know one of these men and I never even knew he'd been a Catholic priest....I just knew that he was "forced" into the Episcopal Church because of things that happened "when I was young".

No because a few making a personal choice to go agains the churches wishes does not mean others will not take the way their religion tells them to

Yes some have a passion but dont you find it somehow wrong that they would have to go against the whole of their organized faith and have to stand banashment from their faith just to do the right thing?

To me I would not want to be part of a religion where protecting the inosent is not one of the primary concerns
UpwardThrust
13-05-2005, 14:50
Priests arn't counslers, they r the line between you and God. And think of what would happen if priests were forced to tell of peoples crimes. That would completely discourage people from comming forth to confess, as well as completly discredit any form of secrecy. The laws of the church are above those of the civil system, so no court can hold a priest to abiding a criminal.

And as for having a pope change things in the catholic church, this is an organization remained unchanged and an organization that is 2,000 years old. The oldest ever, thats older than almost every country on this earth, and has a population of 1.2billion (billion, not million) members. Unfortunatly, evil is everywhere, Judas was one of the 12 apostles even, sat at Jc's table. But anwyay, back to the point.

Priest will continue to uphold the same laws of secrecy as before, and nothing will change because it is the citizens duty to ascend to his/her religion, and not for the religion to be change and descend to society.

So basicaly you are saing that the church wants to be popular with people (to have them confess to them) but in doing so they have to potentialy let inosents get harmed

What a loving faith
Personal responsibilit
13-05-2005, 17:25
Ok these question was spawned by some of the issues with priests in my past (note this is NOT a slam on the priesthood)
they have to do with confession and confidentiality

1)If a person confesses the specifics to a past crime that is still open (such as theft or an accident or something) where there is no intimidate threat of harm to another person but he was a fugitive from justice... should the priest have an obligation to turn this person in? Can he be forced to testify?

2)Same setup as before but with possible harm (such as the crime being murder or rape where there is possibility of harm happening again)
If they chose not to reveal what they know and someone IS harmed should they be responsible for not bringing it forward?

I think they should be held to the same standard that a medical, legal or social services practitioner would be. They should be required to report to the police and warn any person who is in imminant danger.
UpwardThrust
13-05-2005, 20:13
I think they should be held to the same standard that a medical, legal or social services practitioner would be. They should be required to report to the police and warn any person who is in imminant danger.
:fluffle: hello sir ... with our disagreement in some other threads I am glad we see eye to eye on this
Personal responsibilit
13-05-2005, 22:01
:fluffle: hello sir ... with our disagreement in some other threads I am glad we see eye to eye on this


This one is kind of a no brainer though... but, its is still nice to agree with you for a change. :D :fluffle: Any priest that could knowingly stand by and allow people to be harmed isn't worth his salt.
Rotovia
17-05-2005, 02:14
Simonist]:
I talked to Fr. Thomas today about this (what? It's finals week at the University, it was a down day for me) and he informed me that when I was in elementary school, two individual priests in our area, from separate churches, were excommunicated for coming forward with information pertaining to a robbery/killing case. Apparently it's simply because they put their passion and their purpose in life on the line that the criminals were accused of armed robbery and second degree murder.

Does this offer any more faith whatsoever in the personal integrity of these clergymen? I hope it does, because I know one of these men and I never even knew he'd been a Catholic priest....I just knew that he was "forced" into the Episcopal Church because of things that happened "when I was young".

And so he should. As a Catholic, I would demand the excommunication of any Preist who broke the sanctity of confession.
Equal Altruism
17-05-2005, 13:24
Obviously some of you don't think more than two steps ahead.

If a priest should confess the crimes of another to criminal court, by the second day noone will confess to him. Obviously, noone is going to say anything good in a confessional booth.

As for the catcholic church, don't bring a tone into a forum because you read one of my posts. The conrete infromation, everything the church has been based of off, has NOT changed. The interpretations however, have. Don't base someone perspective on one post, I have more to say and I was being brief. I know my religion.
UpwardThrust
17-05-2005, 14:12
And so he should. As a Catholic, I would demand the excommunication of any Preist who broke the sanctity of confession.
And I would demand that any priest that found his vow more precious then stoping harm from happening to another human being be tried as an accessory to that crime and be responsable legaly for his foreknoledge of a likly occurance but doing nothing to stop it