Now, you may know that in Roman Catholicism a Priest who has heard confession can not under any circumstances repeat what he has heard to anyone other than the confessor.
However, consider this situation.
A man is being accused of murder but he is innocent- a local priest knows the trial is going on and the real murder came to him in confession and admitted to the crime. Should the Priest go forward to the Court?
Is it right that US Law allows for Priest's not to reveal things they have learned in confession?
It should be noted that a Priest who breaks the Seal of Confession incurs automatic excommunication from the Church.
The priest should inform the Court. Unless he has very good reason to believe the person will not kill again (the basic assumption of Confession probably isn't enough) there is a greater responsibility to protect the innocent.
US law should allow for subpoenas to acquire things learned in Confession if needed but, given the penalty, should have some sort of threshold.
__________________
Graffiti outside Latin class.
Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
A juvenal prank.
I assume that the defendant would need a witness to clear his name.
But on the question, no the priest should never break the seal of confession. It is far holier for a man to suffer through injustice, for his reward in heaven would be greater than the latter, in which a soul is cast out of salvation. In such cases, God's will be done.
That should be the real murderer came to the Priest in Confession. The defendant is being falsely accused and the Priest knows this- but should he intervene?
Then there is no rational reason for a priest to be granted some freedom from obligation under the laws of the United States. To do otherwise represents an obvious and blatant consideration of a religion's validity, and thus can be interpreted as a subscription to its validity under some measure of inherent patiality. Fortunately for many dishonest catholics, their priests bend knee to a Pope over their own nation's governement. (coupled with the idea that by saying aloud the wrongs of which you're guilty will some how free from their reality) I suppose, there should not legally be a reasonable excuse to explain away a priests obligation to report the offense. But, as the catholic church often exhibits in it's appalling submission to the laws of Rome and the feeble image of the Roman Catholic Church, over the laws of actual morals and justice as set forth by the excessivly rational laws of the men who had the foresight to cast off the burden of the lazy, self-imposed ideology of organized religion, such things do not matter.
__________________ "If I were you"
"If you were me, you'd know the safest place to hide...is in sanity!
I believe it's similar with lawyers who gain knowledge through a client confidentiality act,and can not reveal what they know, less they be disbarred. If that is relevant to this topic.
I think it would be a more of a sin for a priest to both let a known innocent suffer and potentially risk the lives of other people. If Jesus-God is forgiving, he would excuse they priest, no?
Reminds me of the 1994 movie Priest, where a homosexual; priest who secretly indulges in gay sex, decides to not speak out against a father who is raping his young daughter on a regular basis because she confessed it to him.
I'm still on the fence if you're just another religious ranting sock. Regardless though, it's scary that there are people who actually believe what you just stated and they have the right to vote and dictate laws of the land.
Might as well go back to to burning supposed witches on the mindset that if they're truly innocent, God will interject and the fire won't burn them.
Innocents and lawyers are not my point. The legal consideration of a lawyer is much more valid to the idea that a man is innocent before and during judgment than is the idea that a priest is allowed to enjoy a similar position based on religion. I also understand the consideration is based on the idea that the confessor is confiding in a personality of trust. But, I still consider it to example an official consideration of religion, especially when coupled with the apparent reality that a mental health official is not expected to opperate under the same mandate.
__________________ "If I were you"
"If you were me, you'd know the safest place to hide...is in sanity!
God's will has no place in a nation constructed by and for men, regardless of those men's freedom to consider A, The or An god in their personal lives.
__________________ "If I were you"
"If you were me, you'd know the safest place to hide...is in sanity!
Not in most states (including AZ). They couldn't, because it would be considered a violation of the 4th as well as patient confidentiality. And the shrink would be stripped of their license and never be able to practise again.
Sorry homes, but you got it all backwards.
Chris Meloni, Marisa Hartigay, Ice-T, B.D. Wong and Adam Beach > all those suckers.
KMC Community Forums
Jun 5th, 2008 10:09 PM
