Re: When is a confession (to a priest) not a confession? [Leddy] [ In reply to ]

Mar 14, 18 10:37

Post #26 of 107 (762 views)

Leddy wrote:

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

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

Re: When is a confession (to a priest) not a confession? [H-] [ In reply to ]

Mar 14, 18 10:40

Post #27 of 107 (758 views)

H- wrote:

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.

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

Re: When is a confession (to a priest) not a confession? [JSA] [ In reply to ]

Mar 14, 18 11:04

Post #28 of 107 (744 views)

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.

Re: When is a confession (to a priest) not a confession? [JSA] [ In reply to ]

Mar 14, 18 11:08

Post #29 of 107 (741 views)

Quote:

[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. /quote]

Chill dude. We're not even sure of the facts. There is no evidence that this is any evidence of an epidemic requiring change to current practices. This is not precedent or binding authority on Priests.

As to to Church law on this, you ought to consult the Canon before you start proposing changes.

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

Re: When is a confession (to a priest) not a confession? [H-] [ In reply to ]

Mar 14, 18 11:15

Post #30 of 107 (733 views)

H- wrote:

Quote:

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.

Chill dude. We're not even sure of the facts. There is no evidence that this is any evidence of an epidemic requiring change to current practices. This is not precedent or binding authority on Priests.

As to to Church law on this, you ought to consult the Canon before you start proposing changes.

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

Re: When is a confession (to a priest) not a confession? [JSA] [ In reply to ]

Mar 14, 18 11:20

Post #31 of 107 (725 views)

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

Re: When is a confession (to a priest) not a confession? [Brick] [ In reply to ]

Mar 14, 18 11:25

Post #32 of 107 (721 views)

Brick wrote:

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

Re: When is a confession (to a priest) not a confession? [JSA] [ In reply to ]

Mar 14, 18 11:29

Post #33 of 107 (720 views)

JSA wrote:

H- wrote:

Quote:

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.

Chill dude. We're not even sure of the facts. There is no evidence that this is any evidence of an epidemic requiring change to current practices. This is not precedent or binding authority on Priests.

As to to Church law on this, you ought to consult the Canon before you start proposing changes.

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.

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...)

Re: When is a confession (to a priest) not a confession? [JSA] [ In reply to ]

Mar 14, 18 11:34

Post #34 of 107 (717 views)

JSA wrote:

Brick wrote:

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.

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... "

Re: When is a confession (to a priest) not a confession? [JSA] [ In reply to ]

Mar 14, 18 11:36

Post #35 of 107 (716 views)

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.

Last edited by: Brick: Mar 14, 18 11:38

Re: When is a confession (to a priest) not a confession? [Leddy] [ In reply to ]

Mar 14, 18 11:38

Post #36 of 107 (710 views)

Leddy wrote:

JSA wrote:

Brick wrote:

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.

Whose law are we talking about ?

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

Re: When is a confession (to a priest) not a confession? [JSA] [ In reply to ]

Mar 14, 18 11:39

Post #37 of 107 (707 views)

Quote:

This may not be binding on priests, but it certainly will impact the law.

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

Re: When is a confession (to a priest) not a confession? [slowguy] [ In reply to ]

Mar 14, 18 11:42

Post #38 of 107 (703 views)

slowguy wrote:

JSA wrote:

H- wrote:

Quote:

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.

Chill dude. We're not even sure of the facts. There is no evidence that this is any evidence of an epidemic requiring change to current practices. This is not precedent or binding authority on Priests.

As to to Church law on this, you ought to consult the Canon before you start proposing changes.

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.

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.

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

Re: When is a confession (to a priest) not a confession? [H-] [ In reply to ]

Mar 14, 18 11:42

Post #39 of 107 (700 views)

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.

Re: When is a confession (to a priest) not a confession? [Brick] [ In reply to ]

Mar 14, 18 11:44

Post #40 of 107 (698 views)

Brick wrote:

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.

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

Re: When is a confession (to a priest) not a confession? [H-] [ In reply to ]

Mar 14, 18 11:48

Post #41 of 107 (693 views)

H- wrote:

Quote:

This may not be binding on priests, but it certainly will impact the law.

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?

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.

H- wrote:

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

That's already being done.

H- wrote:

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

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

Re: When is a confession (to a priest) not a confession? [JSA] [ In reply to ]

Mar 14, 18 11:50

Post #42 of 107 (691 views)

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.

Re: When is a confession (to a priest) not a confession? [JSA] [ In reply to ]

Mar 14, 18 11:52

Post #43 of 107 (688 views)

JSA wrote:

Brick wrote:

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.

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.

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

Re: When is a confession (to a priest) not a confession? [Brick] [ In reply to ]

Mar 14, 18 11:56

Post #44 of 107 (684 views)

Brick wrote:

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 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

Re: When is a confession (to a priest) not a confession? [Brick] [ In reply to ]

Mar 14, 18 11:58

Post #45 of 107 (681 views)

Brick wrote:

JSA wrote:

Brick wrote:

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.

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.

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

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

Re: When is a confession (to a priest) not a confession? [JSA] [ In reply to ]

Mar 14, 18 12:06

Post #46 of 107 (672 views)

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

Re: When is a confession (to a priest) not a confession? [Brick] [ In reply to ]

Mar 14, 18 12:08

Post #47 of 107 (669 views)

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

Re: When is a confession (to a priest) not a confession? [JSA] [ In reply to ]

Mar 14, 18 12:11

Post #48 of 107 (665 views)

Sorry. Where am I off the rails?

Re: When is a confession (to a priest) not a confession? [JSA] [ In reply to ]

Mar 14, 18 12:12

Post #49 of 107 (665 views)

JSA wrote:

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

"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... "

Re: When is a confession (to a priest) not a confession? [JSA] [ In reply to ]

Mar 14, 18 12:22

Post #50 of 107 (651 views)

JSA wrote:

H- wrote:

Quote:

This may not be binding on priests, but it certainly will impact the law.

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?

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.

H- wrote:

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

That's already being done.

H- wrote:

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

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

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.

Our Partners

transition-DOT-area-AT-slowtwitch-DOT-com

Advertise with us

©1999-2024 Slowtwitch, Inc., and Slowtwitch.com
Reproduction of material from any Slowtwitch.com page
without written permission is strictly prohibited.