According to the Associated Press:
A judge has ruled that a monsignor in the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Los Angeles must submit to deposition questions in the far-reaching clergy abuse case.
In his order, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Haley Fromholz writes that Monsignor Michael Lenihan cannot assert "clergy privilege" to avoid revealing whether he heard confessions of a deacon accused of sexual abuse.
Fromholz writes that "the penitential privilege protects ‘a communication made in confidence"’ but "does not prohibit the disclosure of the fact that the communication occurred."
What Ed Peters wants to know is: Why does the court want to establish whether or not Msgr. Lenihan heard the deacon’s confession. As long as the seal of confession is respected, one cannot legitimately infer anything about what the person may or may not have confessed.
Ed even gives a list of things that CAN’T legitimately be inferred from the fact a person confessed. (A very interesting list, that I suggest you read.)
The problem is that not everyone recognizes just how little can be inferred from the fact that somebody has been to confession. This means that the fact-finders in the case might assume too much regarding the implications of the fact that the deacon did or did not go to confession.
By trying to force the priest to say whether or not he heard the deacon’s confession, the judge is doing something that may skew the verdict of the case.
Further, the judge is seemingly needlessly provoking a Church-State conflict, because canon law may plausibly be read as requiring the priest NOT to admit whether or not he heard the deacon’s confession (that’s a topic for another post). If canon law requires this of the priest then the First Amendment of the U.S. Consitution would protect the priest’s right NOT to disclose this information in court.
The judge in the case has thus put the court on a collision course with the First Amendment for seemingly no purpose, given how little can be inferred from whether or not somebody went to confession.
We’ll have to see what happens in this case, but in the meantime
and
Though it doesn’t say, I’d think that if the confession was of the more “old-style”, curtain drawn, etc… that the Priest may think he knows the deacon, but without seeing him, could he say with 100% fact that it was the deacon?
Interestingly, just last night a question concerning the seal of confession came up while reading Peace of Soul by Bishop Fulton J. Sheen – and, lo, this post on Jimmy’s site. The Lord works in mysterious ways.
My question is derived from a quote in his chapter on Psychoanalysis and Confession: “Every priest is bound by the sigillum, or seal, which forbids him, under penalty of death, to reveal a person’s confession in even the most general way.” (my emphasis)
Who would impose such a death penalty? This seems like a pretty severe penalty.
Additionally, Bishop Sheen writes that a priest “is not permitted to say that a particular person has been to him in confession, if by doing so he might suggest that the penitent was in need of confession as the result of a grievous sin.”
I don’t know much about this, but I might guess that the word is referring to excommunication and spiritual death.
Actually there is a perfectly legitimate reason for wanting to know if a confession occured. It allows the coppers to establish a time line. Time lines are useful even after the fact.
Don’t see how. What if the Bishop went to someone else two weeks before? Do we know every priest the Bishop went to?
It could show a break in normal behavor.
1.) Fellow A drinks a pop on the corner of Bower and First every day.
2.) Fellow A drinks a pop on the corner of Jones and Greedle the day of a bank heist.
3.) Jones and Greedle was one block closer to the bank heist.
4.) Other evidence points to Fellow A. Fellow A is now closer to the crime.
-OR-
Replacing 2-3
2.) Fellow A drinks a pop on the corner of Jones and Greedle two years after a bank heist.
3.) Jones and Greedle was one block closer to a weapon found that was used in the previous heist.
Circumstantial? Yes. Useful? Yes. It allows me to develop a theory about Fellow A’s behavior and build on that theory. This may lead to me finding more clues.
I’m no canon or civil lawyer, but the plain sense of the story strikes me that the judge is trying to help the police do an illegitimate end run around what should be secret in all respects and has no basic respect for the sacrament of reconciliation (confession).
Deacon John, as a police officer, I agree with you. An “end run” is exactly what it is. Demanding that one particular priest reveal whether or not he heard the confession of one particular penitent is irrelevent to establishing any time line, as the penitent may have made many confessions to the same priest, as well as to many other priests. This has the words “Civil Rights Violation” written all over it.
While not commenting to the substance of the story, because I’m in general agreement, I believe that this has been a long time coming. My understanding is the LA diocese has been asserting privelege all over the place and has been ruled against. Specifically I recall a debate over priest personel files being of a confessional nature. Most likely this is an exagerrated response to an exagerrated action.
I hear Pope John Paul II went to Reconciliation every day. If that’s true, we can make all kinds of theories about him. Someone call Dan Brown.
Perhaps the priest has the duty in conscience not to comply, order or no order.
Shane,
My first thought, too, was that Bishop Sheen was implying a spiritual death. However, he is fairly explicit in his explanations throughout the book. If he meant a spiritual death, I think that he probably would have written it that way.
If anyone has anything definite about the penalty of death mentioned here, I would appreciate the insight.