Should priests be exempt from testifying or disclosing incriminating information?

Clergy are categorized with psychologists in this way. I think the idea is that more harm can be mitigated if people talk to someone. They might not commit the crime. Whereas if clergy report what they hear, people won’t talk to them and will commit more crime. Thus, more people will be hurt.

It’s a trade-off. Do you want fewer crimes and fewer people hurt, but to have some people go free who could have been brought to justice, or do you want more crimes, but get all the criminals into jail? If you don’t believe that talk can stop people from committing crimes, then you don’t protect clergy in this way. If you think the clergy could prevent crimes, then you probably want to allow them to keep their conversations private.

If clergy were forced to tell secrets, then no one would tell them secrets. This, in turn, would begin to erode some of the reason why religions have clergy in the first place. In essence, confession (and private discussions with members) is part of what keeps clergy employed.

So by getting rid of the exemption, clergy would be laid off, eventually congregations would close, and unemployment (of laid off clergy) would rise.

Is that a good thing or a bad thing?

(Forget about the parishoners – the church/synagogue/mosque industry is big in the US – lots of real estate, lots of bank accounts, lots of employment. Doing something like you suggest has a major economic impact. The god industry accounts for billions every year. Do you want to change that economic engine?

It’s always about money.]

@wundayatta I believe that clergy actually have more legal protections than mental health professionals. Mental health professionals can, in some cases, be forced to testify and/or provide records to the court.

I’m actually all in favor of this. I’m an atheist, and yet I’d have no problem talking to a priest if I needed some seriously confidential help (it’s not like they only help good-enough Catholics…). I like the idea that, if I ever needed that, it’d be there, and I like the idea that it’s there for others. Plus, help from clergy is free, whereas mental health professionals and lawyers aren’t.

I think anyone that is privy to confessions that involve criminal dealings, or that have the potential for serious harm to self or others should speak up.
This goes for clergy, the mental health community and on a personal level as well.
Everyone I know, no matter how close we are, knows that I will never lie or conceal damaging behaviors or actions on behalf of a “relationship.”
If someone confesses to a priest that they are fighting impulses to murder someone, molest kids, whatever, well…..as “they” say, if you aren’t part of the solution you are part of the problem.

To look away and allow innocent people to potentially be victimized and to do nothing is every bit as harmful as the actual deeds of disturbed people.
Within the law this is known as aiding and abetting.

Privacy rights are rendered defunct IMO if a crime has been or may be committed.

They must be or the promise of confidentiality in the confessional has no meaning.

The value of the seal of the confessional is pretty strong in helping people discuss issues, including crimes. The purpose of the confessional is reconciliation with God, and thus also with the community.

Part of the reconciliation is the assignment of penance to complete the reconciliation. Roman Catholic priests who hear of crimes usually require the criminal to turn himself in to complete the penance.

But I would counter that a confession with the clergy is an extension of the fifth amendment right against self incrimination. It has as equal a privilege as that with an attorney.

They must be or the promise of confidentiality in the confessional has no meaning.

Is that in society’s best interests?

@Charles
I don;t think so, but….

@Charles Yes, it is in society’s best interest. It is as valuable as attorney client privilege.

@Coloma If someone confesses to a priest that they are fighting impulses to murder someone, molest kids, whatever, well…..as “they” say, if you aren’t part of the solution you are part of the problem. To look away and allow innocent people to potentially be victimized and to do nothing is every bit as harmful as the actual deeds of disturbed people. Within the law this is known as aiding and abetting.

What you’re discussing above is potential crime, not actual crime. The thought of a crime is not a crime, we (Americans) don’t (well, before 2001 we didn’t) imprison people for their thoughts.

Yes, yes they should. Anything to protect our first amendment rights is a good thing.

It is as valuable as attorney client privilege.

Another one I’m a little uncomfortble with. If lawyers didn’t have this privledge then a lot of defendents wouldn’t admit their crimes and that might put the lawyer in a weakened position as discussed on this thread;

Do offenders admit their crimes to their lawyers?

@zenvelo
I understand, just saying that I feel that their should be limits to what is concealed in these situations. Protecting an individual over dozens of potential innocent victims is not an act of confidentiality. I agree that thinking about something is not on the same continuum as acting it out, but still….there is confidentiality and then there is with holding potentially relevant information and cover ups. Big dif. ;-)

@Charles The atty/client privilege isn’t just about confessing crimes. It’s also about saying, ok, I totally have an alibi, but it’s where I was with the person I’m cheating on my spouse with, so I’d really rather that not come out. Or, I have an alibi, I was buying an ounce of pot. Or, just anything else that clients don’t want to admit. I’ve had to use it a couple times, and it was for stupid civil cases…

IIRC, the act of admitting that you have undesirable urges is one of the biggest preventer of acting upon those urges. Like, being able to confess how you kinda want to violently kill your soon-to-be-ex-spouse (which, let’s face it, pretty much everyone going through a divorce feels at some point or another) is not a big thing; not being able to admit that you have what is actually a really normal urge means you bottle it up, and then are actually more likely to act upon it. Basically, our current system of saying that everyone has to be all nice and not angry and not even have impulses all the time means people are more likely to act on those impulses than if we just let people say that they have some ugly impulses and only frowned upon the actual acting upon said impulses.

If the confessor speaks of past crimes or ideations of future crimes then the moral duty of the clergyman would be to counsel the person to turn himself in or not commit the crime, as applicable. From a legal standpoint, the “public policy” argument is what has already been stated. We want to encourage people to confide in their clergy, so protections are needed.

However, if a person confesses a specific plan to commit crime then the clergyman has a moral duty to report the event. In some states it is even mandatory and the clergyman could face prosecution himself for not reporting.

Replace priest with “Football coaches” and get back to me.

Yes, when the crime already happened. No, when a crime which involves seriously hurting or killing people is being planned and about to be carried out. A psychotherapist also has the duty to report this.