I don't see a problem with this. If the priest would have told the police that the guy wants to kill himself, police arrest the guy, the murder of his wife would have been discovered sooner or later. Does it matter whether the priest sad it or the police found it out on their own? The murder has been done, its not that it could have been prevented.
Why is the formality of the setting important?

I did not see much detail in the article about the conversation between the Priest and the man. Is there more? Not enough detail for me to have any opinion.

Did the man say to the Priest, "I want to make a confession," or "In the name OFSHS, my last confession was ___."


I haven't seen that.

Do you think there should be a presumption that when someone tells a Priest about criminal behavior that he is intending to make a confession?

---

________
It doesn't really matter what Phil is saying, the music of his voice is the appropriate soundtrack for a bicycle race. HTupolev

Who is claiming that the setting was the reason it was not, "formal sacrament of confession" ?

Could they be arguing there was no act of penance or something else thus no confession.

---

"I think I've cracked the code. double letters are cheaters except for perfect squares (a, d, i, p and y). So Leddy isn't a cheater... "

There is no guarantee the police would have arrested the guy for saying he wanted to kill himself. Likewise, that may not have resulted in their immediate discovery of the murdered wife.

Right. But now the police have a confession, which is huge in any murder case, no matter how straight forward it may appear.


That's the point of the OP. Under the law, the formality of the setting is irrelevant. What matters is that the comment was made in a private setting with the intent to be a confidential communication. Under Church Law, the formality of the setting should not matter if the Church continues to push confessional into a more laid back, face-to-face setting.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

When I go to Confession [twice a year - once during Lent & once during Advent] I go to a Parish other than my own

Granted, I covered all the deepest darkest shameful sins years ago, so now it's more of a touch up than a full-on soul-scrubbing, but I'd still rather not have my voice recognized

---

"What's your claim?" - Ben Gravy
"Your best work is the work you're excited about" - Rick Rubin

There were two articles. I posted the original source. In the secondary source, the article said the man entered the church and told the priest he needed to talk.


Going all the way back to my parochial grade school days, this was happening. The college church I attended did face-to-face all the time.


Under the law, that presumption exists. I'm not saying it is right or wrong, but that is what the law presumes. There is a subjective and an objective element. Did the speaker intend the communication to be confidential? Would a reasonable person assume the communication to be confidential?

Obviously, it is a fact-specific question. If I run into a church and blurt out I committed a crime, no. If I approach a priest and say we need to talk, go somewhere private, start with "I did something wrong," then yes.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

The priest is making that claim and the Church is supporting him. Click on the link I provided. Scroll down. You will see a text box where the Church explains the rationale.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

According to the article is says “The individual spoke with the priest outside of sacramental confession,”. To me that means outside of the sacrament of confession not outside of the confessional

---

"I think I've cracked the code. double letters are cheaters except for perfect squares (a, d, i, p and y). So Leddy isn't a cheater... "

According to the article:

“He was a little distraught and, after a moment, he pretty much just said I need to tell you that I killed my wife and I am going to go home and kill myself,” Polinek said. “After a little while, I was able to convince him for the sake of the rest of his family and other people that it would be a good idea to call the police — 911.″

So the priest is saying that he received the consent of the shooter to call the police, no? Seems the church is also saying this 'didn't count' as a confessional given the locale and pre-conversation. I have no strong view. Seems like all the guy wants is for someone to tell him god forgives him...

Understood, but here is what it says:

The Roman Catholic priest who spoke to Grazioli said he never asked for the sacrament of confession, but told the priest what he had done.

Ok. Since when did the penitent have to formally require the sacrament?

Again, the law is based on Church Doctrine. The law does not require this formality. I am a bit disturbed the Church is relying on the lack of formality and/or magic words.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

The penitent must show an act of penance in order for it to be a confession. Or if I said that wrong he must be "sorry" for whatever sin. If he merely says hey I just killed my wife and I am going to kill myself I think the priest would be within his rights. Could be wrong. I am a little rusty on this stuff.

I do know only the penitent man will pass .

---

"I think I've cracked the code. double letters are cheaters except for perfect squares (a, d, i, p and y). So Leddy isn't a cheater... "

Can't you also pass if you answer three questions?

When they kill their wife.

---

"I think I've cracked the code. double letters are cheaters except for perfect squares (a, d, i, p and y). So Leddy isn't a cheater... "

I do not believe he received consent from the shooter to call the police. If that was the case, the Church would not need to explain why this was not a breach of the confessional. According to Church Doctrine, if the individual admits to a crime, the priest cannot disclose that admission, but should use every effort to convince the individual to turn himself in. Even if the individual agrees to turn himself in, the priest still cannot advise the police the individual confessed to the crime. Here, the priest told the police the shooter confessed to the crime.

My issue with this is - The Law has chosen to adopt and codify a privilege stemming solely from Church Doctrine. If The Law is going to do so, then the Church should not be dicking around with this area. If the Church wants to start playing games, then perhaps The Law should remove this privilege.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

Sorry, that should have said "request" as in "formally request the sacrament."

Again, look at what I said to Kay. The Law has adopted and codified a privilege based solely on Church Doctrine. Now the Church wants to dick around with this doctrine. Perhaps The Law should then revoke the privilege.

The interesting note here is that the confession to the priest will almost certainly be inadmissible at trial because it most likely falls under the clergy-penitent privilege. But, hey, the priest is able to sleep at night because this wasn't a formal confession.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

That would seem sensible to me. Personally I don't think you should be able to confess to a crime to a priest and not expect legal repercussions.

I read it this way, and there may be something missing in the story

Man: Father, I have killed my wife, and I am going to kill myself
Priest: For the sake of the rest of your family and other people, I think it would be a good idea for you to call the police — 911. If you don't - or can't - I will
Man: Thank you, Father

---

"What's your claim?" - Ben Gravy
"Your best work is the work you're excited about" - Rick Rubin

Isn't there a law stating if you have strong reason to believe a serious crime has occurred you are legally compelled to report it? Wouldn't such a law supercede rules of confidentiality or religious formality?

If the killer didn't show any real sorrow for the murder then I still think the priest was within his rights. I also don't think this is new with the church. Probably not a regular thing but I seem to remember this when I was younger.

Had the murderer actually said the formal words from a confession I think it would be a more difficult argument. But it sounds as was stated in the article he went to talk to the priest, not confess. So lesson #1, after a murder start all conversations with clergy, "forgive me father for I have sinned".

VII. THE ACTS OF THE PENITENT[/url]
[/url]1450 "Penance requires . . . the sinner to endure all things willingly, be contrite of heart, confess with the lips, and practice complete humility and fruitful satisfaction."49
[/url]Contrition
1451 Among the penitent's acts contrition occupies first place. Contrition is "sorrow of the soul and detestation for the sin committed, together with the resolution not to sin again."50

---

"I think I've cracked the code. double letters are cheaters except for perfect squares (a, d, i, p and y). So Leddy isn't a cheater... "

It seems dicey, but there is a ritual around confession, whether it is in the confessional, face to face, or in a group.

Just further evidence that all religion is weird. :)

---

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.

Based on what you say, I'd agree with your assessment. However, I don't rate very high the accuracy of local reporting such as this, so who knows what really happened.

I agree with your description of confession in the last 30 years, but I wouldn't characterize lack of screens as lack of formality. Folks still line up and wait for a Priest at designated time who is waiting to hear confessions in a designated private place. Aside from the screen, is the architecture of a booth somehow relevant? (BTW, most confessionals that I've been to have option to sit behind screen or in front of Priest.)

Accepting the reported facts as true, I'd be inclined to think the Priest made a mistake. But maybe the facts are different or there are additional facts. Maybe the Vicar made a mistake too. And they would be serious mistakes. But I don't read any more into than that.

---

________
It doesn't really matter what Phil is saying, the music of his voice is the appropriate soundtrack for a bicycle race. HTupolev

This is what should happen. As the holder of the privilege, the parishioner should move the suppress the priest's improper disclosure of a clearly confidential communication that is privileged.

The motion to suppress should be granted and all "fruits of the poisonous tree," namely the confession et al., should likewise be excluded from evidence.

Without such evidence, the parishioner should be set free so that he can, indeed, end his own life thereby saving the taxpayers lots of money for a needless trial, inevitable appeals, and the probable life incarceration of this murderer.

Of course this won't happen because it's way too efficient and economical.

Well, I'm torn. There are documented cases where a person went to a priest and confessed to a crime and the priest was able to convince the person to turn himself/herself in. Those cases may not have been resolved as easily or at all without that intervention by the priest. So, I see the value to the privilege. This, and the fact these incidents are few and far between, is why I have never opposed the privilege.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

Nope. I believe you are thinking of the exception for the situation in which you have a strong belief a crime is going to be committed that could cause grievous harm to another. That exception applies to both the clergy-penitent privilege and the attorney-client privilege. But, there is no exception to those privileges for crimes that have already been committed, no matter how serious.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

In this case, my issue is with the Church. If formality is required, then stop with the "more relaxed" confessional. Make it old school in the booth with faces obscured. In addition, in that case, it would seem to be incumbent on the priest to stop someone if they strayed in this direction. For example, if a non-client starts telling me privileged information, I have an affirmative duty to stop the person and explain there is no privilege. I think the Church should be held to the same standard.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

I take everything reported with a grain of salt. News media rarely gets it right. What struck me was the formal response by the Church. They seemed to acknowledge there was an issue here. I was surprised to see they were resting on the "formality" of the discussion, rather than simply saying he threatened to due bodily harm to himself, so, the priest had to intervene.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

Confession in the Catholic Church is a sacramental act. Every confession to a catholic priest is not an act of Confession. I've seen nothing in the article that takes this out of the realm of a confession to a Priest. For example, was the killer Catholic, was he a member of the congregation, was he known to the priest? Every private conversation with a Priest is not an act of Confession.

What makes you think I am not chill?

This may not be binding on priests, but it certainly will impact the law. I don't care what the Church does or doesn't do, but if it wants to play semantic games, then perhaps the law should change.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

Why do you think the law should be changed just because we may have a particularly difficult and exceedingly rare case?

I don't think the law "should" be changed. I think this incident will cause a ripple effect in the law, which will then require the court to take another look at the law.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

I'm not sure it would make sense that requiring formal entry into the sacrament of confession would be a requirement, since not all churches or religions recognize confession as a sacrament or execute it in the same way, but still enjoy similar protections for communications presumed to be confidential.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Whose law are we talking about ?

---

"I think I've cracked the code. double letters are cheaters except for perfect squares (a, d, i, p and y). So Leddy isn't a cheater... "

I was generally familiar with the privilege but have never had an occasion to assert it. I just did some quick research. Generally speaking, the priest-penitent privilege (1) is not limited to Catholic Confession; (2) is not limited to the Catholic faith or even Christianity; (3) includes counseling sessions and other private conversations where the penitent is need of comfort, forgiveness, solace, or spiritual advice. The privilege can be asserted by both the priest and the penitent. If violated by the priest, the priest may be subject to civil liability.

If the above is true, then I don't think the law should be changed and I don't think the facts of this case are particularly tricky. The legal privilege should apply to the conversation with the Priest.

Whether the Priest violated canon law is another matter. The legal privilege does not rely upon the church's view of canon law. A Catholic Priest may very well hear a confession outside of the sacrament of Confession and still be bound by the legal application of the priest-penitent privilege.

State and federal law regarding the clergy-penitent privilege.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

Well counselor, you need to explain how a newspaper article can impact the law. Or maybe things have changed in the nearly ten years since I stopped practicing. Do you expect trial judges to change the way they rule on privilege cases as a result of this?

Do you expect police and investigators to start visiting Priests now as part of their investigation of cases and questioning them?

Meanwhile, have you researched the applicable Canon Law and does it say anything pertinent?

---

________
It doesn't really matter what Phil is saying, the music of his voice is the appropriate soundtrack for a bicycle race. HTupolev

I agree with you. This is why I am having trouble here. Unless the reporting is completely off, this communication will almost undoubtedly be inadmissible in court under the clergy-penitent privilege. It seems unconscionable to me that the law would render this inadmissible at the same time the priest had no hesitation in reporting it to the police.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

When this doesn't happen it is not the sacrament of confession just the priest counseling someone. Greeting:
The priest welcomes the penitent warmly and greets him or her with kindness.

• Sign of the Cross:
  Then the penitent makes the Sign of the Cross, which the priest may also make.

• Invitation to Trust in God:
  The priest invites the penitent to have trust in God using one of the formulas in the ritual or similar words. If the penitent is unknown to the priest, it is proper for the penitent to indicate his or her state in life (married, single, or clergy), the time of his or her last confession and anything else that may help the confessor in exercising his ministry.

• Reading of the Word of God:

• Confession of Sins and Acceptance of Satisfaction:
  The penitent confesses his or her sins and accepts the prayers or deeds that the priest proposes as a penance.

• Prayer of the Penitent and Absolution:
  The priest asks the penitent to express sorrow by praying one of the prayers found in the ritual or in his or her own words. The priest then prays the Prayer of Absolution, to which the penitent responds: "Amen."

• Proclamation of Praise and Dismissal:
  The priest continues: "Give thanks to the Lord, for he is good." The penitent responds: "His mercy endures for ever." The priest then dismisses the penitent, using one of the formulas found in the ritual.

The legal privilege is expressly derived from the church's view of canon law. That is the origin of this privilege.

Like I said to slowguy, it is unconscionable to me that the law would render this confession inadmissible, yet a priest would have no hesitation revealing it to the police.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

Absolutely. It will be an issue in this case, there is no question. A judge will rule on admissibility and the party that loses may appeal. Bad facts make bad law. Certainly your hiatus has not been so long that you have forgotten this truism.

That's already being done.


Briefly, yes. What is more pertinent and telling is the rambling excuses of the Church "explaining" why this confession "didn't count."

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

It seems unconscionable to me that the law would render this inadmissible at the same time the priest had no hesitation in reporting it to the police.


Do you find the Church's view of canon law unconscionable or do you find the Church's view of civil law unconscionable? Unless more is required to demonstrate the existence of the civil priest-penitent privilege, I think the Priest made a mistake by disclosing. With respect to the canonical confidentiality of Confession, the answer is much more difficult. But remember, the Priest is bound by the civil law even if the confession was not Confession.

I think you are wrong here. My research disclosed that a priest-penitent privilege exists without regard to the Sacrament.

I find the priest's conduct in this case to be unconscionable. I believe the priest made a dramatic mistake and I believe the Church is looking foolish trying to justify the conduct. I have a hard time believing anyone in the Church could excuse this if he/she was being honest, given the spirit, if not the letter, of the sacrament of confession.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

What am I wrong about? I think you are misreading what I said. See my prior response to you. The privilege does exist without regard to the sacrament. That is not my beef.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

Here is a better explanation of the privilege I found. In many states the church's view of the confession is immaterial. The privilege belongs to the penitent and the penitent can assert it regardless of the whether or not the church agrees with the penitent's position. In other states, the privilege belongs to the priest. In these states the penitent cannot complain if the priest chooses to disclose. In some states the privilege belongs to both. Thus, the only time the church's view comes into play is when the penitent has no ability to assert the privilege in the first instance.





https://scholarship.law.edu/...mp;context=lawreview

We are,obviously, talking right past one another ...

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

Sorry. Where am I off the rails?

---

"I think I've cracked the code. double letters are cheaters except for perfect squares (a, d, i, p and y). So Leddy isn't a cheater... "

I'm left wondering if this is just the church making shit up after the fact. How many priests have someone come in and confess murdering their wife? Did this priest just kind of panic and call the cops and now the church is saying, 'we meant to do that'?

According to the article the guy left at least one note saying he did it and if I recall correctly called an ex-wife to confess as well. Doesn't sound like the priest confession is key to a conviction and the church may just be engaging in CYA.

---

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.

My position is, the law seems to recognize the "value" and the "sanctity" of these discussions more than the Church. That does not seem right to me when you look not only at the letter, but the spirit of the Sacrament of Confession. After all, The Didache teaches:

"Confess your sins in church, and do not go up to your prayer with an evil conscience. This is the way of life. . . . On the Lord’s Day gather together, break bread, and give thanks, after confessing your transgressions so that your sacrifice may be pure" (Didache 4:14, 14:1 [A.D. 70]).

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

Exactly. I think that is spot on and a little pathetic.

Correct. This guy is toast even without the confession to the priest. But, it will be argued by the defense.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

Nit pick: Is it a confession*, or is it "merely" an admission against interest, which is an exception to the hearsay rule? (Quoted because of a jury will probably interpret it as a confession, so my question is academic.) I have no idea how the two differ in a court of law, but I imagine they must differ in criminal procedure/evidence law. I.e., is an admission against interest rebuttable, whereas a confession is a signed document from which there's little escape?

*In the legal sense, not in the religious sense.

---

War is god

The Pennsylvania statute protecting confidential information acquired by members of the clergy provides:


No clergyman, priest, rabbi or minister of the gospel of any regularly established church or religious organization, except clergymen or ministers, who are self-ordained or who are members of religious organizations in which members other than the leader thereof are deemed clergymen or ministers, who while in the course of his duties has acquired information from any person secretly and in confidence shall be compelled, or allowed without consent of such person, to disclose that information in any legal proceeding, trial or investigation before any government unit.
42 Pa.C.S. § 5943 emphasis added.

Thus, in Pennsylvania, the privilege belongs to the penitent. Assuming the communication in this case meets the secular requirements of the statute, then the Priest violated the statute if he shared the communication without the Penitent's consent. The Church's view is immaterial. The court will determine the course of the Priest's duties and whether the communication was secret and in confidence.

That the Church has taken the position the communication was not Confession is irrelevant. Pennsylvania law does not care. Your concern only matters in the exceedingly rare case where the privilege belongs to the priest and the penitent is relying upon a mistaken or unclear canonical interpretation of what might require the priest (canonically) to decline to testify.

Doesn't the fact the priest convinced him it was a good idea to call 911 nullify a lot of this ?

I could see if the priest of his own accord called the police and reported the guy. But they were already notified of the crime by the criminals admission to his ex wife and his leaving a note.

---

"I think I've cracked the code. double letters are cheaters except for perfect squares (a, d, i, p and y). So Leddy isn't a cheater... "

Confession. A confession is when you admit to the crime. A statement against interest is simply a statement that hurts your case.

Assume you are a defendant in a drunk driving case. Your statement: "I was clearly hammered when I drove my car," is a confession. Your statement earlier in the night: "I am going to really tie one on tonight," is a statement against interest.

The legal definition of a "confession" is: A statement by which an individual acknowledges his or her guilt in the commission of a crime.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

Nope. Even if the person subsequently admits to the police he committed the crime, the priest is still not permitted to disclose the confession made to the priest.

But, in this case, it appears the priest disclosed the confession, not the shooter. Otherwise, the Church would not be falling all over itself explaining why it was ok for the priest to disclose the confession.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

1. If the Priest did persuade the Penitent to call 911 and the Penitent did so, then no civil law was broken and the Priest did what we and the Church should want him to do. So, in that sense, yes it nullifies a lot of this.

2. If the Priest did persuade the Penitent that 911 should be called but the Priest did so, then no civil law was broken and the Priest did what most of us would want him to do. However, some would argue that the Priest was compelled by canon law never to disclose what was shared in Confession even if the Penitent wants the Priest to do so. This seems to be at least part of JSA's point. That is, the Priest should have treated this as Confession and shared nothing as a matter of his canonical and religious obligations.

Except in this case no confession in the eyes of the church took place ;)

Bear with me on the state law. I am also way out of my depth here. The priest convinces him he or they (he and priest) should call 911 , and we probably need to know if it was just about suicide or about crime also, that is not the penitents consent ?

---

"I think I've cracked the code. double letters are cheaters except for perfect squares (a, d, i, p and y). So Leddy isn't a cheater... "

Yeah, well, the Church is quite experienced when it comes to denying things.


In the eyes of the Church:

It depends on how it goes down. Let's assume this was a formal confession. During the course of the confession, the priest tries to talk the husband into calling 911 and confessing to the crime (this is what the priest should do). If the husband is on the phone talking about everything but killing his wife, the priest cannot disclose the confession. If the husband is one the phone and confessing to killing his wife, the priest still cannot disclose the fact the husband confessed to the priest in confession. The husband needs to makes the confession.

Now, one possible exception - the husband calls the police, then says "I cannot do it, you get on the phone and tell them what I told you." In that case, the priest could disclose the confession.

In the eyes of the Law:

At the federal level, the privilege belongs to the husband and only the husband can waive the privilege. At the state level, it varies slightly, but still belongs to the husband with only minor exception.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

1. If the Penitent agrees that the Priest can call 911 and tell them that he killed his wife and that he has a gun and wants to kill himself, the the Priest is free to call 911 to tell them that under Pennsylvania law. The Penitent can consent to all of that or only a portion of it. If the Penitent does not consent to the Priest disclosing any of it, there is some question as to whether the Priest is allowed (by way of an exception) to disclose the suicide piece.

2. Some might argue that the Priest is not free to disclose any of this (except maybe the suicide piece) regardless of the Penitent's consent because the Priest is canonically bound to the secrecy of Confession. JSA is accusing the Church of dirty pool because the Church has asserted none of this was Confession.

Exactly. In this case, the Church is conveniently ignoring the directives in The Didache (among other Holy writings).

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

This seems reasonable, based on the law quoted above where consent may be granted by the penitent for the police to be notified. In which case, if the priest is being truthful that consent was granted for the police to be contacted, then I'm surprised the church isn't relying on this as their defense. That leads me to wonder if consent really was obtained. But priests never lie, do they?

I'd like to know who called and what Grazioli said while on the phone. Or what Polinek said if he made the call.

“He was a little distraught and, after a moment, he pretty much just said I need to tell you that I killed my wife and I am going to go home and kill myself,” the Rev. Michael Polinek said. “After a little while, I was able to convince him for the sake of the rest of his family and other people that it would be a good idea to call the police — 911.″

Polinek said his discussion with Grazioli, including the admission about the death of his wife, lasted about 20 minutes, with Grazioli on the phone with 911 much of the time.

---

"I think I've cracked the code. double letters are cheaters except for perfect squares (a, d, i, p and y). So Leddy isn't a cheater... "

If Grazioli was the one who called 911 and/or told the police he killed his wife, then why is the Church spending the effort to explain why it was "acceptable" for Father Polinek to disclose Grazioli's confession to him? Why doesn't the story end with Father Polinek convincing Grazioli to do the right thing and confess to the police? Or, why isn't the Church saying Grazioli gave permission to reveal the confession to the priest?

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

Fair enough. My point is that whether the Church considers this Confession or something less is irrelevant to the interpretation of Pennsylvania's statute and is hence immaterial to the admissibility.

Keep in mind that there remains a very large school of thought in the Catholic Church that only Catholics can participate in Confession. While this consideration has no bearing on the application of the Pennsylvania statute, it may very well guide the Church's position as to the propriety of the Priest's disclosures. I understand that you consider at least some of the "formalities" of Confession to have been waived or altered by at least some parishes. I don't share your disdain for those priests or parishes who might not be in the practice of waiving some or all of those formalities.

Do you know if he was Catholic? Do you know the Confession procedures at this Cathedral? Truly interested ... not being snarky.

It appears that Polinek may not have limited his comments to the police. If Polinek gave an interview or shared the story with others, I think the Church would rightly disapprove. Hence, their defense of "it was not Confession."

Do you agree that my addition above is pertinent?

Also, previously you said this case would impact "the law," and when questioned your answer referenced only this case. Back in the day when I studied and practiced law, there was a distinction between a case and the "law," in which "the law" was considered the general body of common and statutory law that are applicable to all cases. Do you see this specific case changing the general law of penitent privilege?

Want to take a bet as to whether anything related to this question ends up being appealed, decided by appellant court, published, and cited in other cases?

Chill and have a Zima.

---

________
It doesn't really matter what Phil is saying, the music of his voice is the appropriate soundtrack for a bicycle race. HTupolev

What caused you to get all riled up this afternoon???

If the Church wants to single out this one priest and one vicar, it can do so. I have not seen any attempts to do so.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

maybe the story has been updated since you posted?? The priest really didn't have anything to do with it.
"John Grazioli’s call to his ex-wife spurred the investigation that led to the body’s discovery and to his arrest, police said in arrest records.
The criminal complaint states that police at 2:44 p.m. on Thursday started the investigation after Grazioli’s ex-wife, whom he divorced in February 2016, called a police dispatcher and said her ex-husband “called her from his cell phone and just told her that he had killed his current wife Amanda. He also stated that she was at home in bed.”"


all the priest and the church is saying is that when the shooter came into talk, it wasn't for confession and it didn't meet the standards of hearing a confession. While it's not a lot of info on the how and why it wasn't, but if they are saying it wasn't a confession by the catholic church's canon's, then it wasn't.
This might be a poor analogy, but I'm in compliance so I'm talking with our legal staff quite a bit. The one thing they joke about often is that everyone thinks what ever they say to them is under privilege, when it's nowhere near that.
If a person you didn't know came up to you or another attorney and said I need to tell you something, then said he just killed his wife, then walked away. Could he claim privilege, and you were not allowed to say anything? Again it's not the best analogy, but hopefully you see the train of thought I'm trying to say.

Didn't have anything to do with what? The priest told the police about the confession. Whether that started the investigation or lead to his arrest is wholly irrelevant. The bottom line is - the priest told the police about the confession and the Church is now trying to justify the disclosure by the priest. Even if the husband was fleeing the police after they had obtained his confession, if, in fact, he confessed again to the priest, the confession to the priest is inadmissible in court and should not be disclosed by the priest.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

I think he is suggesting that just as the simple act of talking to an attorney does not establish a privilege neither does the simple act of talking to a priest.

Actually, in many case, it does. Just like the spousal privilege.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

You must be reading different statutes.

Cheers.

I'm not. CLEs warn about this all the time. If, for example, you advertise a call line for potential clients, when a client calls and starts talking, it is almost certainly privileged. Same as when a potential client stops by your office and you agree to meet with them. The second they start talking - privileged. There are entire courses regarding the attorney-client privilege attaching merely from speaking with a potential client. Lawyers have an affirmative duty to stop potential clients from intentionally or unintentionally establishing privilege if there is no intent to serve as counsel.

If I ask a priest to speak in private and then we do - privileged.

Damn near everything I say to wifie in the privacy of my own home - privileged.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

https://federalevidence.com/...mmunicant--privilege

Every analysis or statute I have read requires that the conversation be part of the priest’s professional or spiritual duties. A similar limitation is applicable to attorneys. It is insufficient for the privilege to simply demonstrate that one party to the conversation happened to be a priest or an attorney.

Which is wholly consistent with what I just said.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

Well sure. If you bump into a priest at the grocery store and ask him how his day is going or if he saw the football game on Monday night, that’s not privileged. If you show up at church and talk to the priest about something terrible in your life, that seems to me to be fully within his professional duties.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Hmm. If you say so.

I did say so. Multiple times now. I cannot tell whether you are reading too quickly, hitting only every 3rd or 4th word in my responses to you, or whether you are simply being obtuse.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

See post #73.

As an attorney, I am not bound by privilege if someone confesses to me out of the blue. Unless an attorney client relationship has been established or is in the initial consultation phase, my status as a lawyer is immaterial. Likewise, I have found no law that suggests someone can walk in off the street and confess to a priest and claim privilege without showing more than simply that.

See post 73.

The priest never told the police what happened in the confession because it never happened. the church is saying it wasn't a confession, they are pretty much the expert on that.. if it wasn't, then it wasn't. who are we to say that it actually was?
The Roman Catholic priest who spoke to Grazioli said he never asked for the sacrament of confession, but told the priest what he had done.
“He was a little distraught and, after a moment, he pretty much just said I need to tell you that I killed my wife and I am going to go home and kill myself,” the Rev. Michael Polinek said. “After a little while, I was able to convince him for the sake of the rest of his family and other people that it would be a good idea to call the police — 911.″
Most churches have a set time for reconciliation, obviously they will also do it if you call ahead to schedule it or ask for it while you are there. The shooter didn't ask for that, he just walked in and started talking. Then he said he was going to kill himself, and after talking with the priest consented to calling the police to come get him. I'm really not seeing where this violated the sacrament of confession. I'm trying to understand the point you are making but it seems you are reading a lot more into than there is.

A lawyer isn’t a priest. There is no formal priest/parishioner relationship establishment.

Not every conversation with a lawyer about the law falls within the scope of his professional responsibilities. Pretty much every conversation with a Priest about morality, life decisions, spirituality, etc falls within the scope of a priests job description.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Read this link: https://federalevidence.com/...mmunicant--privilege

While I tend to agree with your statement of a priest’s job description, the law appears to require more than simply identification as a priest before the privilege attaches. Otherwise, the case in the link above would not have been remanded.

do we know if this priest can do confessions?
not all priest do or are allowed to. also it's expected that a person wanting the sacraments of confession done would be a catholic. Was this person? While there are non catholics that do actually go to confession. It's supposedly for catholics only. However in the case of death an exception can be made, so if he was going to kill himself one could say that he would be able to have confession.
But it is an interesting discussion

Can. 970[/url] The faculty to hear confessions is not to be given except to priests whose suitability has been established, either by examination or by some other means.
Can. 844 §1. Catholic ministers administer the sacraments licitly to Catholic members of the Christian faithful alone, who likewise receive them licitly from Catholic ministers alone, without prejudice to the prescripts of §§2, 3, and 4 of this canon, and ⇒ can. 861, §2.

I wouldn’t get hung up on the specifics of Catholic confession. The law doesn’t only protect that specific yep of priest/parishioner communication.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Well the courts could find it privileged even if the church doesn't. In which case the confession would be inadmissible.

---

“Read the transcript.”

Please go back and edit your post and delete this part. JSA has got himself worked up over a completely different hypothetical where he doesn't like the way the Church has not responded to a situation that doesn't exist.

---

________
It doesn't really matter what Phil is saying, the music of his voice is the appropriate soundtrack for a bicycle race. HTupolev

Don't know if it will help further the discussion or not, but "church" is not the best translation here. The Greek word which is translated church is ekklesia, which refers to the assembly of people, not the building--especially in 70 AD (it later shifted meaning, but not really until after Constantine.) Didache 4:14 is not referring to people going to confess sin privately to a priest in the church building, but of making a public confession of sin before the assembled church congregation. This matches with what is said in Didache 14:1 (the word "after" isn't present in the Greek text--while the Greek participle here can be used temporally, "after" or "while," it could also just indicate that confession of sins is part of what takes place alongside the breaking of bread and giving thanks--"Gathering together, break bread and give thanks, confessing your transgressions..." is a little more literal translation.) Other early church fathers write of public confession--Irenaeus in 189 AD and Terrtullian in 203 AD--and there isn't really much in the writings of the church fathers about private confession to a priest until around 250 AD.

See Acts 19:18 and Ezra 9-10 for biblical examples of this kind of public confession of sin, and also possibly James 5:16 "Therefore, confess your sins to one another and pray for one another..."

Personally, as a protestant minister, I am not happy with how this law is written, given that Jesus requires Christians (and Christian clergy) to make things public in certain circumstances in no uncertain terms in Matthew 18: "If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church." (Incidentally, "church" is that same Greek word for congregation I discussed in response to JSA.) Bottom line, if there is no repentance, clergy have no biblical command to keep someone's sins secret. In fact, just the opposite.

If these laws flow out of "church canon" which I guess is specifically Roman Catholic canon, I have a hard time understanding how that isn't establishment of religion. MY church's canon (along with most protestant denominations) doesn't recognize confession to a priest as a valid sacrament, and the Roman Catholic rules surrounding the practice certainly don't apply. But the canon of my church does specifically require me to follow Matthew 18.

Notice the legal terminology in Matthew 18--Jesus refers specifically to trial, witnesses and evidence. He references here Deuteronomy 19:15 "A single witness shall not suffice against a person for any crime or for any wrong in connection with any offense that he has committed. Only on the evidence of two witnesses or of three witnesses shall a charge be established." The context in Deuteronomy here is a legal, civil proceeding. The same chapter deals with standards for what constitutes murder and administering property boundary disputes.

Maybe the state statute quoted above is intended to be restricted to civil legal proceedings and civil government units, or maybe even specifically state and local government. I don't know, maybe the terms "government" and "legal" are defined to exclude church government and church law... But it's worth keeping in mind that both the Roman Catholic church and most protestant denominations have codified rules for ecclesiastical government (including spelling out some "government units"), ecclesiastical courts and ecclesiastical trials. Even if not civil in nature, these are still "legal proceedings." My particular denomination and several others I am familiar with even have sections in our Book of Church Order on handling investigations prior to ecclesiastical trials. The state certainly has no business governing what is and is not admissible in a church trial, and that's probably not the intent, but the PA law seems a bit too broad here.

This privilege is meant to be an affirmation of the First Amendment's protection of religious practice. It doesn't protect only Christians or only Catholics. It protects the communications between parishioners and their religious clergy, whatever faith.

U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice, Warren Burger, said "The clergy privilege is rooted in the imperative need for confidence and trust. The... privilege recognizes the human need to disclose to a spiritual counselor, in total and absolute confidence, what are believed to be flawed acts or thoughts and to receive consolations and guidance in return."


It doesn't reflect or flow directly from, or aim to specifically recognize Catholic sacrament of confession.


Yes. State and Federal law is not intended to direct how internal church proceedings may be conducted. If the church wants to try you and excommunicate you based on the color of your shoes, they can do so. State and Federal Laws about privilege, evidence, and rules of criminal proceedings, etc don't apply to that sort of proceeding.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Have Catholics historically been that influential in US politics and policy?

---

________
It doesn't really matter what Phil is saying, the music of his voice is the appropriate soundtrack for a bicycle race. HTupolev

Certainly in some parts of the country.

Where? Pennsylvania?

How do the pastor/penitent laws from the historically Protestant and anti-Catholic states compare with those where Catholics had a stronger influence?

---

________
It doesn't really matter what Phil is saying, the music of his voice is the appropriate soundtrack for a bicycle race. HTupolev

Why does this topic get you so worked up? We were having a discussion until you suddenly got really pissy.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

Massachusetts, New York, ...

Here is a nice article that gives a good historical account:

https://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2005&context=lawreview


It looks like the privilege originated in England prior to the protestant reformation, but disappeared post-reformation as the Anglican church moved away from private confession.


In America, at least according to the article, the case of a particular Roman Catholic priest in New York prompted the writing of the first state law granting clergy/penitent privilege.

You seem to be missing my entire point. The Church seems to be stressing form over substance in this case. At the same time the Church is pointing out the lack of formality in this case, churches all over the US are removing the formality of Confession. Few churches still use a veil in the confessional. Many churches are doing Confession face-to-face.

But, at the end of the day, I find it disingenuous to claim form over substance. The Didache teaches that minor sins may be confessed to God individually, but mortal sins should be confessed in church. There is no mention of any formal process for this. Certainly, in this case, the Church is ignoring the spirit of Confession.

"Confess your sins in church, and do not go up to your prayer with an evil conscience. This is the way of life. . . . On the Lord’s Day gather together, break bread, and give thanks, after confessing your transgressions so that your sacrifice may be pure" (Didache 4:14, 14:1 [A.D. 70]).


BOTTOM LINE: This confession to the priest will not be admissible in court. It is a good thing the Law has your back, because, in this case, the Church sure does not.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

To what degree, if at all, would subsequent evidence collected by the police also be ruled inadmissible, if it is deemed that that evidence was discovered as a result of the priest violating the accused man's right to privilege? I.e. is there a fruit of the poisonous tree kind of thing that could happen?

For example, if I confess to my priest in confidence, and he tells the police, and they come pick me up and I confess to them, one could argue that I would never have confessed to the police if the priest hadn't violated that privilege, and therefore, my confession to the police should go away.

What does the law say on that kind of thing?

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Exactly. I do believe this helps further the discussion. This advances the position that Confession was not intended to be restricted to a certain set of words, actions, and settings. Rather, the spirit of confession is give our sins over to God. The Church resting on the lack of formality in this specific case, to me, is inapposite to these teachings.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

Agreed. In this case, it seems to be the Church arguing a technicality to cover for not meeting its moral and ethical obligations.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

You are spot on. In theory, this could be "fruit of the poisonous tree." Now, in this particular case, there was plenty of other evidence and, I believe, the police were aware of some of it.

But, let's look at your scenario. Let's assume you committed the perfect crime. You got rid of someone and covered all your tracks. You are not the target of any suspicion and you are not on the radar of law enforcement. But, your conscious is getting the best of you, so, you visit your local priest and confess. The priest tells the police. The police bring you in. In a state of shock, you confess to the police. Absolutely that second confession could be thrown out at fruit of the poisonous tree.

The test is - "but for" the disclosure by the priest, would you have been in the situation to confess to the police? If the answer is "no," then the second confession to the police could be thrown out.

There is an exception, referred to a "inevitable disclosure" (different term in different jurisdictions). If the prosecutor can show the police would have eventually come after you and/or eventually discovered the evidence used against you, then all the subsequent evidence may be admissible. It is a very fact-specific inquiry.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

I apologize. Bad posts.

I'm not worked up. I still believe that the facts are very murky in this case and I wouldn't draw any conclusions about anything (except that a man is in jail and his wife is dead).

If the man agreed with the Priest that they should call the police, and consented to the call, do you think it is wrong for the Priest to call the police?

Has there been a report of what specifically the Priest might have told the police?

As reported, the Criminal Complaint states that the investigation began when the ex-wife called to say the man had told her he killed his wife and police went and found her dead. Does the Criminal Complaint contain any reference to a statement from the Priest? If so what?

---

________
It doesn't really matter what Phil is saying, the music of his voice is the appropriate soundtrack for a bicycle race. HTupolev

I agree with you. But, I am merely going off of the Church's response to this. Since yesterday, I have poked around the interwebs and found other articles with other Church officials giving the same explanation. In every case, the spokesperson is relying on the "lack of formality" of the discussion, which does not seem to make sense if there are other facts that would explain why the priest did what he did.


The priest is supposed to encourage the man to turn himself in, so, no, it is not wrong for the priest to call the police. What is wrong is for the priest to reveal the confession. The priest should encourage the man to confess to the police, even going so far as to hand him the phone and encourage him to talk. But, the priest should not be the one revealing what was said to him.


There are two things I am seeing repeatedly. First, that the priest told the police the man confessed to killing his wife. Second, that the Church spokesperson has explained it was "ok" for the priest to tell the police the husband confessed to killing his wife. If have not seen the exact words printed anywhere. But, I have seen is different Church spokesperson explain why it was "ok" for the priest to disclose the confession. If the priest did anything other than specifically state the man admitted to killing his wife, I cannot fathom why the Church would not say so.


That I do not know. What I DO know is there is a ton of evidence against this guy and the confession to the priest is completely irrelevant to his conviction. The confession to the priest will be ruled inadmissible at trial, which will be a small moral victory for the defense, but will not turn the case. In THIS case, the priest is not responsible for this guy's conviction. But, that does not lessen what I see as a rather significant error by this priest and a questionable set of excuses by the Church.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

Some in the Catholic Church will argue that a priest may not disclose what was said in Confession ... full stop ... no exceptions. They argue that the priest has a sacred duty to keep that confidence even if the penitent consents. The priest's duty is to God, not the penitent. Thus, if the priest in this case disclosed what was said in Confession (even with consent), some would argue the priest was wrong to do so. This may explain why it is being suggested that the confession was not Confession.

I've re-read article in your OP and googled. Can't find that statement anywhere myself.


I cannot find that statement either.

Now, and this conflates things a bit, I did find a statement on the Diocese website that says the Priest told reporters that the man said he killed his wife. Seems bad decision IMO.

Note, in one article I see reported that Priest and man were sitting side by side when call was made to police. Also that the gun was found in man's coat in the rectory. Also man left note on wife's body saying he killed her and himself.

Assuming facts not know, but that are likely, the man was likely distraught and a real threat to kill himself or someone else. Priest did a good job getting him to agree to call the police.

Priest should not have spoken to reporter about what man said. Diocese response is sloppy.

My guess -- and it is a guess at this point -- is that after the man was taken into custody, the Priest and Diocese made some mistakes. Cannot be the first time such a mistake was made and cannot be the last either. I can't conclude there are any trickle down effects.


I appreciate you concern regarding a need for some kind of formal confession. My feeling is that this is not likely to be some kind of trend. There are thousands of confessions taking place each day.

---

________
It doesn't really matter what Phil is saying, the music of his voice is the appropriate soundtrack for a bicycle race. HTupolev