Priest-penitent Privilege?

Post Reply New Topic

What do you think of Priest-penitent Privilege?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priest%E2 ... _privilege

I'm naturally against the idea of one rule for some another rule for others.

I guess this comes down to what freedom of religion means. I follow a simple principle of rights which is one person's right cannot supersede another's. We have a legal duty to report crimes, so not legal exceptions should be made purely based on vocation.

I disagree, for instance, that freedom of the press is a special case on things like public interest defense. Freedom of the press is an extension of freedom of expression and information. Once we ascribe special statuses to groups, these are not longer rights, becuase they aren't applied universally without contraindication. "The press" is not a special group.

If someone confesses to a crime regardless of if they are contrite a priest should have the same obligations as any other citizen.

Interestingly my grandfather who was a stanch Catholic rejected the idea that Penance was a sacrament.

We place various professions on pedestals, priest and doctor are often seen as good sources of references of good character. It is illogical to give these people such power based on little more than vocation or career.

Great topic.

I'm trying to gather my thoughts on this one. It's late, I'm tired, forgive me.

On the one hand, despite my own absence of belief, I fully support the rights of others to believe whatever they want regarding deities, mystic energies, etc. On the other, I treat the special privilege of confession in criminal cases as being tantamount to a subversion of law. I no more support it than I would Sharia in the UK.

I'll say three Hail Mary's and endeavour to post something more substantial after I've slept.

The press are a special group, whether you like to acknowledge it or not. Technology has changed the underlying reality and the ease with which people can digitally publish compared to the days when you actually needed a press to be "press" has obscured the role of the press.

Perhaps it would be better to call it the Fourth Estate and recognize the essential role that curated information about current events plays in a democracy.

The issue with priest-penitent privilege is different.
1) it's hearsay, automatically
2) Some people who really believe they are serving God and his flock will be prepared to die for their duty.

It has a different place in the West than Sharia and other alien beliefs because of more than a thousand years of tradition.
It's OK to acknowledge history.

Your grandfather was right. Repentance was mistranslated as penitent in the Vulgate Latin biblical translation back in the Middle Ages. Hence, penance being elevated to a sacrament.

I think you are missing the point you if the public interest defense is to apply you cannot have one rule for one group and a different rule for another.

If the press are free then that is becuase they haven't been formally defined by the state.



A direct confession is not legally hearsay. They are a legal witness. hearsay is indirect and unsubstantiated rumor. It is not for the priest to determine legal guilt, but he has a duty to report someone confessing to a crime such as murder. If anyone else failed to do that they could go to jail and quite rightly.

Suicide bombers die for what they believe, that still doesn't make it legal. If we have principles then we can't make exceptions like this.

Such a privilege is an anarchism that has no place in secular society.



I'm more interested in the 1000 years of legal development and principle not anachronisms like that.

Traditions are there to be built on, nobody sets out to create traditional ideas or arts. They come up with ideas in the prensent and may develop some principles along the way.

Traditions and other things can be protected through expression not through privileged.

I go right back to the principle of rights:

1. One persons right cannot superseded or trump another's
2. Fundamental rights satisfy 1. which are atomic and universal
3. There are few fundamental rights for this reason
4. There are two other kinds: Derivative and Pseudo rights (privileges, special statuses).

Priest-penitent Privilege is neither a fundamental right nor a derivative right. Interestingly neither is legal marriage which more of a legal recognition by the state but not necessary to have fundamental rights like expression which cover cultural marriage.

OK, go convince all the legislators with Catholic voters and you should be good to go on that.

In simplest terms, I believe people have a right to at least a certain of amount of privacy.

Yes, I believe in priest-penitent privilege.

The original post is ass-backward. Society allows the same privilege for you conversations with shrinks, doctors, and lawyers. So it would be inconsistent if the legal system did not also allow it for confessions to a priest.