Should A Priest Be Able To Reveal Details Of A Persons Confession?

[infinitelord1]

Heres one of those debates that may be a lil controversial. Lets say that a serial killer confessed his murders to a priest. Now lets say that the serial killer kept killing even though he was confessing his sins he shows no sign of stopping. Wouldnt you think it would be the duty of the priest to go tell the proper authority to stop the madness? What are your thoughts?

[ardillacid]

No.

[MissyP89]

In a situation like that, I'd say yes. If it were me in the confessional though, I don't know. I certainly wouldn't blame my confessor for turning me in if I were, you know, killing people.

It would have to be a prayerful decision, regardless.

[Groo the Wanderer]

No. No. No.



The confessional is about mercy, not justice. Think about it.

[thessalonian]

It may be the duty of the priest not to give him absolution unless he agrees to go to the police. But confessions MUST NOT be revealed.

Church law says the preist is automatically excommunicated if he does and so he may choose this but he has to face the consequences.

Edited November 28, 2007 by thessalonian

[Starets]

Wasn't the Alfred Hitchcock film "I Confess" based on this sort of premise?

[premed_jakey]

I agree with everyone else on the board...The Priest should never, NEVER, reveal the contents of a confession.

[Autumn Dusk]

A smart priest could probably get someone mentally incapacitated by age or mental defect to speak outside of confession.

However, at the same time, I do feel that a child's confession in which they reveal that they have been abused should not be held under the no revelation clause because it isn't their sin.

Priests, in general, should truly receive better training in psychology and the understanding of that side of crime and sin.

[cmotherofpirl]

Criminals who bother to go to confession want to be absolved. So the priest can withhold absolution until the criminal confesses.

[PopeClementI(MorClemis)]

If I were the priest, I'd refuse to absolve the man until he turned himself in. I would not tell anyone the confession.
Since we're doing hypotheticals here, what if the guy is a serial killer, but kills only "bad guys" - still murder, but.. tough call..

[quote name='infinitelord1' post='1426162' date='Nov 28 2007, 06:59 AM']Heres one of those debates that may be a lil controversial. Lets say that a serial killer confessed his murders to a priest. Now lets say that the serial killer kept killing even though he was confessing his sins he shows no sign of stopping. Wouldnt you think it would be the duty of the priest to go tell the proper authority to stop the madness? What are your thoughts?[/quote]

[Jaime]

from Newadvent

[quote]In the "Decretum" of the Gratian who compiled the edicts of previous councils and the principles of Church law which he published about 1151, we find (secunda pars, dist. VI, c. II) the following declaration of the law as to the seal of confession: "Deponatur sacerdos qui peccata p nitentis publicare præsumit", i.e., "Let the priest who dares to make known the sins of his penitent be deposed", and he goes on to say that the violator of this law should be made a life-long, ignominious wanderer. Canon 21 of the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), binding on the whole Church, lays down the obligation of secrecy in the following words: "Let the priest absolutely beware that he does not by word or sign or by any manner whatever in any way betray the sinner: but if he should happen to need wiser counsel let him cautiously seek the same without any mention of person. For whoever shall dare to reveal a sin disclosed to him in the tribunal of penance we decree that he shall be not only deposed from the priestly office but that he shall also be sent into the confinement of a monastery to do perpetual penance" (see Hefele-Leclercq, "Hist. des Conciles" at the year 1215; also Mansi or Harduin, "Coll. conciliorum"). It is to be noted that neither this canon nor the law of the "Decretum" purports to enact for the first time the secrecy of confession. In a context cited further on the great fifteenth-century English canonist, Lyndwood, speaks of two reasons why a priest is bound to keep secret a confession, the first being on account of the sacrament because it is almost (quasi) of the essence of the sacrament to keep secret the confession. (Cf. also Jos. Mascardus, "De probationibus",[/quote]

So the answer is no

[praying4carmel]

No.

[Lil Red]

[quote name='Autumn Dusk' post='1426206' date='Nov 28 2007, 08:39 AM']Priests, in general, should truly receive better training in psychology and the understanding of that side of crime and sin.[/quote]

i definitely think all priests should receive some training in psychology or counseling.

[Lil Red]

and the answer is no, btw.

[rkwright]

While I agree with the above no, it is interesting to note that the law does not always agree. Priests can be held civilly liable and possibly criminally for the knowledge gained in confessions.

The same goes for doctor\patient privilege, attorney\client (though this is narrower than the other two).