View Full Version : Question to Christians !
I have a slight view about Christianity and the Church ..
Confession of sins to a priest is a part of the Christian practice .. Also they said Confession is protected (not sure of the right word here) by Church and the law.
The Qs ;
Can they ask a priest to stand as a witness after hearing a confession from a murderer ?!?! & why ?
I have a slight view about Christianity and the Church ..
Confession of sins to a priest is a part of the Christian practice .. Also they said Confession is protected (not sure of the right word here) by Church and the law.
The Qs ;
Can they ask a priest to stand as a witness after hearing a confession from a murderer ?!?! & why ?That might play in the Vatican but not in the US.
A priest would have to testify about criminal activity id supeaned by a US court. I'm guessing many presit wouldn't betray the confessional. If he chooses to not testify then he will go to jail for contempt.
Jack, you are wrong.
You won't find any cases of priests being forced in the US to testify about what they heard in confession. That's protected by the First Amendment.
Maybe you think they shouldn't be. But they are.
You are right though about one thing. A priest would have to go to jail rather than divulge what he heard in confession. In fact, he would have to die rather than divulge what he heard in confession.
I beg to differ. Knowledge of criminal activity is not protected by the 1st amendment be it a priest, doctor, lawyer or anyone else if the court can show that these people have knowledge of criminal activity.
They can and have been supenaed to testify. It's up to them if they choose to testify or be held in comtempt.
Even a lawyer representing a defendent is not excempt ... technically.
I have a slight view about Christianity and the Church ..
Confession of sins to a priest is a part of the Christian practice .. Also they said Confession is protected (not sure of the right word here) by Church and the law.
The Qs ;
Can they ask a priest to stand as a witness after hearing a confession from a murderer ?!?! & why ?
Catholics believe they must confess their sins to priest. Billy and I just went to confession today as a matter of fact! :p
Protestants don't have priests at all and they don't believe in a Visible Church, just an invisible, spiritual one. So they don't confess their sins.
There is something called, "the Seal of the Confessional". What that means is that a priest is bound most solemnly not to reveal by word or act or omission or even any kind of hint what he has heard in confession. For example, if a priest was going to buy a car from a man and then that man came to him in confession and confessed to being a cheat in selling cars, the priest would have to act as if he didn't know the information. He would have to buy the car.
If a priest breaks the seal of the confessional, he is automatically excommunicated. In order to have that lifted, he can't confess to just another priest. He can't even just confess to his bishop. He has to have the ban lifted by the Pope himself.
I remember once my sister Melissa coming to church with my wife and me and talking afterwards to our priest friend Father Pokorsky. She said, "We haven't met...oh, but we have! I went to confession to you once!" And Father Pokorsky said, "You were right the first time, then. We haven't met."
Why is Church law so strict? Because we believe you HAVE to go to confession if you commit a serious sin. God forgives you through the ministry of the priest.
So you have to be free to confess without fear that you will be revealed.
If a murderer confesses, the priest will counsel him to turn himself in. He will tell him that staying free is another sin. He will tell him that it's no use going to confession and getting freed from the sin of murder if you are just going to commit another sin by not paying for your crime.
But he can't reveal what was said in any court of law. Or in any other place.
And the end result of this is usually that people turn themselves in, not that they get a free pass to hide out and cheat the law.
I beg to differ. Knowledge of criminal activity is not protected by the 1st amendment be it a priest, doctor, lawyer or anyone else if the court can show that these people have knowledge of criminal activity.
They can and have been supenaed to testify. It's up to them if they choose to testify or be held in comtempt.
Even a lawyer representing defendent is not excempt ... technically.
Well, what I am saying is that as far as the state of the law in the US is concerned, you are wrong. It's not a matter of opinion. It's not a matter of begging to differ. You're just wrong.
I can't prove a negative. So my challenge to you is: find a case where a priest has been forced to testify or gone to jail because he refused.
You won't find any.
Okay, well it turns out I CAN at least partially prove a negative!
The Confessional Privilege is a rule of evidence that forbids the inquiry into the content or even existence of certain communications between clergy and communicants.
In American law, it grows out of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the Common Law and statutory enactments which may vary between jurisdictions.
All fifty states, the District of Columbia, and the federal government have enacted statutory privileges providing that at least some communications between clergyman and parishioners are privileged.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confessional_Privilege_(United_States)
If you follow the footnoted documents, Jack, you will see that in all fifty states and DC, the "some communications" always included all communications between a priest and a pentitent in confession.
SOMETIMES, they might even include a private discussion between a priest and someone OUTSIDE of confession.
THE FIRST AMENDMENT BASIS FOR THE CLERGYMAN-COMMUNICANT PRIVILEGE (http://www.clsnet.org/clrfPages/pubs/clergyPriv.php)
A remarkable number of cases have forced clergyman to choose between violating a religiously compelled rule of confidence or violating secular judicial process. The First Amendment was intended to enable clergymen to avoid these conflicts and prevent the courts from dictating religious duties. Church autonomy principles are the most solid doctrinal basis for reaching this result; however, courts have never recognized that the privilege belongs to clergy on strictly constitutional grounds. Good advocacy should include this claim and, where applicable, assert additional bases for the privilege, such as federal RFRA, state RFRA, RLUIPA, hybrid rights, Sherbert exemption, and state constitutional claims.
Who's wrong?
I think in a murder case (per the question asked) the court would say testify or be held in contempt.
And here's a case from the federal courts in which a tape was made secretly by law enforcement of a murderer's confession.
There was no necessity of subpoenaing the priest!
So the lower court allowed the tape to be used as evidence. But the Circuit Court threw it out on appeal. The tape could not be used as evidence.
The Catholic seal of confession remains inviolable following a federal case in which the prosecution attempted to use a secret recording of a prisoner confessing to a Catholic priest. The judge reversed a lower court ruling and would not permit the evidence
A federal court reinforced the inviolability of the Catholic seal of confession when the judge refused to allow law enforcement officials to use the surreptitiously wiretapped confession of a prisoner to a Catholic priest.
On Jan. 27, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals sitting in San Francisco in an opinion by Judge John Noonan reversed the ruling of a lower federal judge in Oregon.
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-19206224.html
That's how far the privelege goes under US law.
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals sitting in San Francisco
surreptitiously wiretapped confession :rolleyes:
Yea this court have thrown many cases into chaos ... haven't they?
surreptitiously wiretapped confession ... yea I agree throw it out.
Now I'm getting confused here :o!!!
Associated Press/February 27, 2001
Jefferson City, Mo. -- A prosecutor asked the state Supreme Court on Tuesday to allow him to subpoena religious leaders who listened to a man who allegedly confessed to sexually abusing two children.
Texas County Prosecutor Doug Gaston wants to use Robert Eisenhouer's statements as evidence against him in a rape and sodomy case. Eisenhouer's wife told investigators that Eisenhouer confessed his sexual involvement with the children to church elders, Gaston said. But she declined to testify, and the church officials' testimony was needed as proof of the confession.
A judge previously quashed subpoenas against the two Jehovah's Witness church officials, saying the state law that Gaston relied upon violates the federal Constitution's First Amendment protection of freedom of religion. The law says that any legal shield for communication -- except that between an attorney and client -- does not apply to situations involving suspected child abuse or neglect.
But Gaston asked the Supreme Court to overturn that decision. ``If we compel the elders of the church to testify against the church members, doesn't that in some way affect the exercise of their religious beliefs?'' Supreme Court Judge Michael Wolff said.
``It absolutely does,'' Gaston replied, but he said it is a permissible infringement because the intent of the state law is to protect children.
Joy Hutcheson, an attorney for the church officials, said the law ``directly attacks religion.''
THE FIRST AMENDMENT BASIS FOR THE CLERGYMAN-COMMUNICANT PRIVILEGE (http://www.clsnet.org/clrfPages/pubs/clergyPriv.php)
Who's wrong?
I think in a murder case (per the question asked) the court would say testify or be held in contempt.
Well, Jack, you didn't look at the footnotest which explain what kind of cases they include in their "remarkable number"! :p
They're not talking about priests in the confessional. They're talking about instances where it's just a conversation between a person and a clergyman, such as this:
People v. Johnson, 497 N.Y.S.2d 539, 539 (App.Div. 1985) (refusing to extend the privilege to communications between a defendant and members of his Muslim mosque on the grounds that the defendant was not seeking religious counsel, but acknowledging that the priest-penitent privilege may exist between a Muslim and an advisor of the Muslim faith under certain circumstances).
Why? Because the person was not seeking religious counsel from the imam, just chatting.
Or this one:
Compare In re Murtha, 279 A.2d 889 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1971) (holding Catholic nun in contempt of court for refusing to testify about a communication to her; privilege did not apply to her on two grounds: (1) Catholic doctrine and practice concerning the nun's activities and (2) the legislative history surrounding the expansion of the New Jersey privilege) with Eckmann v. Board of Educ. of Hawthorn School Dist. No. 17, 106 F.R.D. 70, 72-73 (E.D. Mo. 1985) (communication to a nun was privileged because she was acting in her capacity as a spiritual advisor); Masquat v. Maguire, 638 P.2d 1105, 1106 (Okla. 1981) (nun qualified as a "clergyman" under the state's privilege statute).
Some states count a nun as a clergyman! :p But some don't. The Catholic Church doesn't count a nun as a clergyman. :p You can't confess to a nun!
So: who is right? Me of course.
US law protects priest-penitent confessions. Always.
You haven't found a single case of a priest being forced to testify in any case whatsoever about what was confessed to him. And you won't. Because you are flat out wrong.
That's my challenge to you.
You cannot meet it! :p
Associated Press/February 27, 2001
Jefferson City, Mo. -- A prosecutor asked the state Supreme Court on Tuesday to allow him to subpoena religious leaders who listened to a man who allegedly confessed to sexually abusing two children.
Texas County Prosecutor Doug Gaston wants to use Robert Eisenhouer's statements as evidence against him in a rape and sodomy case. Eisenhouer's wife told investigators that Eisenhouer confessed his sexual involvement with the children to church elders, Gaston said. But she declined to testify, and the church officials' testimony was needed as proof of the confession.
A judge previously quashed subpoenas against the two Jehovah's Witness church officials, saying the state law that Gaston relied upon violates the federal Constitution's First Amendment protection of freedom of religion. The law says that any legal shield for communication -- except that between an attorney and client -- does not apply to situations involving suspected child abuse or neglect.
But Gaston asked the Supreme Court to overturn that decision. ``If we compel the elders of the church to testify against the church members, doesn't that in some way affect the exercise of their religious beliefs?'' Supreme Court Judge Michael Wolff said.
``It absolutely does,'' Gaston replied, but he said it is a permissible infringement because the intent of the state law is to protect children.
Joy Hutcheson, an attorney for the church officials, said the law ``directly attacks religion.''
1. This is not a case about priests and confession. This about Jehovah's Witnesses. Jehovah's Witnesses do no have priests. And they do not mandate confession.
2. The court would not allow the evidence anyway. It was protected under the First Amendment, just as I said.
So we still have zero cases of priests being forced to testify about what they heard in the confessional.
Here's another case and one about murder too!
James Cooke insisted at his Delaware murder trial yesterday that he did not kill Lindsey Bonistall, the White Plains college student who was raped and strangled in her Newark, Del. apartment two years ago.
But he allegedly confessed to the killing during a jailhouse session with a minister last year.
Jurors will not hear of that, however, because Cooke yesterday refused to waive the confidentiality of statements he made to the Rev. James Beardsley.
The so-called religious privilege, or priest-penitent privilege, protects conversations that defendants have during confession or other situations when a member of the clergy is ministering to them.
http://crimescene.lohudblogs.com/2007/02/23/priest-penitent-privilege/
Some things to point out:
1. This is not a priest in the confessional. This is just a Protestant minister giving guidance.
2. In this case, the MINISTER wanted to testify. But he wasn't ALLOWED to, because the person who confessed held the privelege. So the minister couldn't testify.
That's how strong this privelege is in the US.
And here's a recent case from the Supreme Court of Texas saying that the priest-penitent privelege (meaning you can't force priests to testify about what they hear in confession) still stands:
Prosecutors could win more convictions absent the Fifth Amendment, or the priest-penitent privilege, or the marital privilege, but we safeguard these privileges and others because they advance a greater societal good.
http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/Historical/2007/may/050613.htm
Notice that this case is from March of 2007.
Anyway, Lost Soul, you poor guy! Jack and I arguing about US Law made it hard for you, I think.
Countries can make any laws they want. But Church Law remains.
Maybe in Oman there is no law protecting such confessions for example.
But suppose I am a priest and I go to Oman and a Catholic confesses murder to me.
Suppose the police come and ask what the guy told me.
I have to say, "no comment."
Suppose they put me in jail?
I have to say, "no comment."
Suppose they tell me they will execute me if I don't answer the questions?
I have to say, "no comment."
Catholic priests can never say what they were told in confession.
According to Roman Catholic Canon law 983 §1:
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.
Priests may not reveal what they have learned during confession to anyone, even under the threat of their own death or that of others. For a priest to break confidentiality would lead to a latae sententiae (automatic) excommunication, the lifting of which is reserved to the Holy See - in fact, to the Pope himself (Code of Canon Law, 1388 §1). It is presumed such a breach could be forgiven only with the lifting of the authority of that priest to ever hear confessions again, and a requirement that the priest undertake an extended period of penance, perhaps in a monastery.
In a criminal matter, a priest may encourage or require the penitent to surrender to authorities and may withhold absolution if the penitent refuses to do so. However, this is the extent of the leverage they wield. They may not directly or indirectly disclose the matter to civil authorities themselves (see priest-penitent privilege).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seal_of_the_Confessional
Absolutely forbidden. For any reason. In any way.
It's sealed, shut, closed, locked. And the key is thrown away.
So the upshot is ...
Have they been called to testify ... yes.
I haven't found a case that hasn't been over turned on appeal ... yet.
So I will give this round to Jeff ... :yes:
Thanks for giving this round to me!
But I'll give you the round if you can even find ONE CASE in which a Priest, not a minister, has been called to testify even, about What he Heard in the Confessional.
Can't be. Because there is a priest-penitent privelege in the US.
Find even a case about one being called to testify?
Can't do it. Because they don't exist.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.10 Copyright © 2012 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.