Should confidentiality between priest and confessor be allowed anymore?

Question

If a murderer walks into a church and confesses what he has done to a priest, it is confidential and cannot be used in a court of law. If a child molester confesses, that too is confidential and not allowed to be used in a court of law.

How do you religious types feel about the fact that you are protecting murders and people who rape children from being prosecuted? Does that make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside?

Do you not see how wrong this is? Do you not see that if this priest were to tell someone about what he had heard and goes to the police that he could possibly save someones, or some childs life? Does that not bother you at all?

I am really interested in knowing what kind of insane excuses you guys are going to come up with for this one. Please, flame away, you're just as good at it as I am :)

BTW, here is a link that shows 2 archbishops supporting confessional confidentiality.

So please, don't come back at me with "This isn't how it works"...

http://www.cathnews.com/news/309/121.php

I can't really say I am surprised, but usually when someone asks something positive about god on here, there are 20 - 40 answers in the first 5 minutes. I ask this question, I get one guy who just wants 2 points, and someone who agree's with me. Nothing from the opposition. How come?

It is not ludicris, it is fact. As in the examples I used above, those are both true. Priests cannot report these people. I have not lied at all in here, nor am I wrong.

I did not say that no other entities do this, did I?

Furthermor, you are wrong. Psychologists are in fact required to report past crimes. Crime does not count in doctor/patient confidentiality.

If you do not believe me, check here:

http://www.psychologyandlaw.com/Dixon%20&%20Dixon%202005%20%20Atty-Client%20Privilege%20&%20Mandatory%20Reporting.pdf#search=%22can%20psychologists%20report%20crimes%3F%22

So, john B, what you are saying is that it is up to the criminal to turn themselves in to the police and not the priest. In other words, nothing at all will be done about it, because as you and I both know, these people are not going to do that.

Mafiaprincess, so you are saying that yes, it is ok to protect the murderers and rapists. Ok, thanks. Just wanted to make sure I understood you correctly.

And then you go to church on Sunday or whenever and learn about loving everyone, yet you wouldn't change the fact that people are hurt and priests do nothing about it.

As to the other answerer, even if the priests were inclinded to do the right thing and go to the cops, the courts would throw out the testimony because of the confidentiality. So it would do no good anyhow. Not only do the minds of these religious people need to be changed, but the laws as well.

Answer 1

It doesn't matter what I think as when you asked this thinly disguised question you were merely trawling for someone to attack. You don't believe in God but have self appointed yourself to that position. You are an arrogant American capitalist. You edit your posts many times to attack the people answering whom you know generally won't check back to reply. You don't understand sarcasm. I know you'll check through my short history here and find out that sometimes I am a complete clown. Sometimes I am very serious. Big Whoop. You have posted that only serious people should be allowed and welcome here. I have Bipolar, I am nuts, but that doesn't make me stupid. In fact I'm quite the opposite. How boring would the world be if we all had your attitude. Lighten up, get a hobby, but for goodness sake try smiling and stop being a bitter twisted moron or you'll be just another heart attack statistic. I will be checking back. Look forward to your response.

dragstarking

Answer 2

between you and I , I don't see how a lawyer , shrink or priest could withhold info regarding such a serious intolerable crime, maybe they don't (maybe they drop an anonymous dime )but the point of confidentiality is that , it can't have a boundary decided by each person, it either is or it isn't, no in between and a person accused by the courts is supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. They must have ways of dealing with those circumstances that we aren't aware of.but we allow murder, don't we,? we have the death penalty and we send people to war, it's still murder.when we go about our little lives oblivious to the injustices all over the world or choose to ignore it because it's inconvenient to our daily routine and our monumental problems. We make guns to kill people with, so it must be ok. as far as pedophiles and rapists go, if these offenders where made eunichs (penis's removed) it would mean there would never be a repeat performance and we wouldnt have to support him in jail, and if that isn't a deterent then there is no deterent because a man's worst nightmare would be to not have a penis.

when we ignore (allow) these injustices to happen anywhere in the world , then we are also guilty and an accomplis to the crimes, because we turn our heads the other way, its the same as tolerating it, it's actually worse then the acts itself, to know its there but to pretend its not or not to care.why do people have this assumption that the religious or the church is good and kind and decent and just? since when?For all the recent exposures of priests who commit the sex crimes of young boys, how many have not been exposed?preists are men who have been severley deprived of man's natural desire. no wonder they are deviant, because religion is unnatural and is not in harmony with mans place in the world, which is why it doesn't work..

Answer 3

First of all, your accusation that religion is protecting criminals is ludicrous. The same exact confidentiality exists in both the patient-doctor relationship, and the attorney-client relationship.

Now that your error has been addressed, I fully feel that priests should not harbor secrets regarding crimes--they should report them to police.

EDIT: well, since there certainly exists a lot more secret-harboring in the attorney-client relationship, perhaps you should be addressing that. Keep in mind that I agree with you--I think that priests should be responsible to inform authorities, not hide violent crimes. All I'm saying is that your attack seems to be motivated by a predisposition against Catholicism (and I am not catholic, so I don't much care). Anyhow, subject-advisor priviledge across the board is a general principle of civil rights--good luck changing it, whether it be confessor-priest, or attorney-client.

Answer 4

DougLawrence has hit the nail on the head.
If a priest tells about
a confession not only would criminals avoid the confession, but also
the priest is under oath not to use confessionals as witch hunt.
disclosure would be a grievous sin and may even lead to disciplinary
action from the bishop or Pope.

Answer 5

100 years ago there was no such thing as a Psychiatrists, Psychologists or Social workers that you could go and talk your problems out with. All you had was the Priest who advised you in Gods name.

Part of the repentance was to go the Authorities and own up to a serious crime. That was part of Gods condition of forgiveness. You had to make reparation for the sin. But it was up to the person that committed the crime.

Answer 6

The seal of the confessional is absolute. The priest can not demonstrate something that became informed to him. extra beneficial than affected person/scientific expert confidentiality, the priest is useful by God's regulation and nonetheless he would be subpoenaed to tell like a physician would be compelled to tell below specific situations, he shouldn't tell. besides the undeniable fact that, and that's the no longer common section, the priest want no longer supply absolution to a confessed sinner. As circumstance of his forgiveness, the priest can require the guy to admit a criminal offense to the police, or bypass to the government on his very own. Penance does not in basic terms mean some Our Fathers and few Hail Marys whispered in church. it could mean restitution for a theft, time in penal complex, and so on. frequently, besides the undeniable fact that, human beings do no longer tell clergymen stuff they p.c. to cover from--- they are no longer stupid sufficient to declare sorry and assume the priest to absolve them of -say - serial killing - with out stiff penalty which includes going to the police. What may be the factor? yet, if he became placed on the rack, say, and tortured to tell the call of the sinner and the sin confessed, the priest is accountability guaranteed to die in the previous breaking the seal.

Answer 7

This is much like the attorney client privilege, only much more fundamental.

Some things are so fundamental that they shouldn't be changed.

The government and the church agrees that this is one of them.

No one would confess anything if they suspected, or if there was the slightest chance that someone else would ever find out about it.

Why not start your own church and make your own rules. Then you could turn people in any time you wanted to, and for any good purpose.

Answer 8

Yes, confessions should remain confidential. Theoretically, a confession is between a confessor and God, with a priest acting as a mediator.

Some priests have broken the confidentiality rules when an individual confessed such crimes as the ones you described.

Answer 9

no,and its not to a certain degree....in those cases when someone else is hurt i agree it shouldnt be allowed to be kept a secret....in most cases today most will go to the proper authorities ....there r those however who dont want to go thru the drama that occurs......but if a child r someone is raped r killed most people would do the right thing.....we hope.......if not they r just as sick as the 1 that done the offense...

Answer 10

I don't think confidentiality should be used to cover for a crime. But I think it shouldn't be broken if it isn't to catch a criminal.