Privileged communications

[struggle4progress]

Poll question: Privileged communications

Cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos has been in the news for a letter he wrote Bishop Pierre Pican on the handling of sexual abuse by priest René Bissey. Pican was given a three month suspended sentence and fined one franc for not denouncing Bissey to the civil authorities; his claim is that to do so would have violated the seal of the confessional, and Castrillon says his letter to Pican was intended to support Pican's attitude towards the inviolability of confessions. Bissey has been imprisoned for eighteen years

It is not uncommon for the law to recognize certain communications as privileged: in the US, these include spousal conversations and discussions with doctors and lawyers

[melm00se]

1. the seal of the confessional

like conversations with doctors and lawyers and certain spousal communications should be treated as sacrosanct

[elocs]

2. As far as religious "confessions" go, skip the middleman and go directly to God

because some churches, even theChurch, seem to want not only your money but to know your secrets and dirty laundry as well. Deprive them of that pleasure at least.

[struggle4progress]

3. That view, of course, is part of the Protestant reformation -- but the ancient Catholic idea

has enough merit that it continues to reappear in new guises, such as the psychoanalytic "talking cure." Being a Protestant, I've never gone to a confessional booth, but the old bromide that "confession is good for the soul" may have some real content -- even if one has no religious convictions and doesn't believe in an "eternal soul," ancient personal little dirty secrets might sometimes be corrosive, and one might perhaps get some relief by expressing them to a sympathetic listener

[elocs]

4. Ultimately a secret may only be kept by 2 people if one of them is dead.

Knowledge is power and churches like everyone else use it as such.

[Jim__]

5. Remember when Ken Starr forced Monica Lewinsky's mother to testify against her daughter.

At the time, I thought that was wrong. Legal, but still wrong. To interfere in intimate relationships: familial, religious, legal, or medical, without an overwhelming need, should not be tolerated. The questions asked are by nature about private conversations; and, I fear (not being a lawyer I don't know the limitations) any such inquiries into these conversations are fishing expeditions across communications whose privacy should be respected.

I think conversations with a spiritual advisor, lawyer, doctor, spouse should be privileged. Conversations with other family members should be highly protected and only open to inquiry under the most dire circumstances.

People need to communicate openly; if any conversation is open to the imposition of the state, communications are stultified.

[rug]

6. One dismaying consequence of the abuse news is

the alacrity with which purported liberals would jettison basic protections such as the statute of limitations and evidentiary privilege.

[ZombieHorde]

7. Recommended. I have not voted yet, I need to think about this one. nt

[darkstar3]

8. Privileged communications fall under certain rules.

Namely, if you tell ANYONE but your lawyer that you have committed or intend to commit a crime, they are required by law to notify the proper authorities. Failure to do so can lead to their prosecution.

[struggle4progress]

9. Actually, what is privileged varies and depends on the state law

... if Buttolph told Piazza in private and while they were married that he murdered Gosline, Piazza would not be able to testify about this confidential communication during the course of the marriage ... http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/evidenceprof/2009/01/pa-spousal-http.html

[darkstar3]

10. Spousal communication is one thing, because it varies rather widely state-by-state,

but patient-doctor confidentiality is VERY specific. No doctor may divulge MEDICAL information about any patients, including mental health information. But doctors are required by law to divulge information about crimes committed or intended. Doctors have to ride a very fine line, where they must tell law enforcement officials that Johnny's gonna off his boss, but they can't tell him it's because Johnny's been hearing voices lately.

My point, since it may be lost in here somewhere, is that priests should be subject to the same rules as doctors. Some people (certainly not myself) consider priests to be mental health professionals*, after a fashion, and therefore priests should be held to the exact same standard as REAL mental health professionals.

No bullshit here. I was actually told by a pastor that in divinity school they told him "you're not just a pastor, you're a mental health professional".

[kwassa]

11. Clergy are required by most state laws to report child abuse.

http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/clergypriest-privilege.html

Often, problems with the clergy privilege arise in cases dealing with child abuse. Every state in the U.S. has laws requiring certain categories of professional people to report child abuse. There are 35 states which either require clergy specifically to report any child abuse learned in confession, or else require all people to report any child abuse discovered by any means (including clergy). In these states, the clergy privilege will NOT apply in such cases (and in many states, in cases of child neglect as well). The remaining 15 states do not include clergy in the list of people mandated to report child abuse, so presumably the clergy privilege remains intact there.

However, many religious bodies (the Catholic Church being the most prominent example), do not recognize any constraint on the privilege, so there are many clergy who may refuse to testify about privileged conversations even if it IS required by law.

There is also a question of applicability when the clergy in question is a trained psychologist or secularly licensed counselor, whom often have certain duties to report crimes by state law. In such cases, the relevant question is whether the confession was made to the clergy in his religious capacity.