Anyone know anything about this?

D

Derius_T

New member
My wife told me today that she saw on news, or heard on radio (I forget)
that the government is trying to pass a law making it mandatory for clergymen to devulge the private information told to them by their congregation. So anything told to your priest or minister that is supposed to be in confidence, the government is trying to make it so the priest HAS to share that info with them. If this is true, that is TOTAL CRAP.....
 
A Google news search with various combinations of the terms clergy, confidentiality, privilege, parishoner, and law turned up nothing regarding pending legislation on this subject.

If your wife just heard it today, it will probably be tomorrow before it shows up online.
 
I'll tell you why......

As a psychotherapist, I am bound to report any suicidal or homicidal statement. I am also bound to report suspected child abuse of any kind.......

It's called "madated reporting". Therapist, teachers, child care workers, etc......we are all bound by this same ethic.

The only people exempt from this are.......clergy. People are getting hurt because of it. It only applies to these types of situations. It's a good thing.
 
Separation from Church and State anyone?

People wanna keep the ten commandments out of court, so keep the clergy out of it too.
 
When the clergy know about a man who plans to rape your wife, you don't want it reported to her?.....as is, they don't have to....and often don't.
 
Many countries have recognized the need for privileged communications between certain parties in their laws, including between clergy and their parishiners; husbands & wives; doctors and patients; lawyers and clients.

To the best of my knowledge, any testimony or conviction based upon coercion of a priviliged party to divulge priviliged communications is null and void. And it's grounds for indictment against the involved government officials as a violation of a person's U.S.C. rights.

Today there are exceptions to some of the rules for doctors and lawyers; such as prior knowledge of a crime to be committed against another person. Yet these exemptions often permit "cloaking" of the identity of the privileged communications holder --i.e. defendant, client, patient, etc.

However if the government wants to deny the sanctity of a church confessional I think any privileged communications will quickly follow.

If they were to select me for a jury which had to decide if a priest, rabbi, muslim cleric, etc. should be in jail for not revealing something heard as confessional, not only would I vote not guilty, but I'd push the jury to find the law "an abomination" under our constitution.
 
BillCA, IANAL, but I believe the Priest-Penitent privilege, as it is commonly known, is not a constitutional issue, but is rather a tradition of common law that is recognized by most states. While I do agree that it would be a grave error to remove this protection, I don't see anywhere in the constitution that it is specifically protected.

Link for any interested, Existing Limits on Priest-Penitent Confidentiality:
http://www.cnsnews.com/facts/2003/facts20030303.asp
 
"I don't see anywhere in the constitution that it is specifically protected."

I think it's a logical fallout of the right to free speech. If you have the right to say anything you want, then you surely also have the right not to say anything.

Tim
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top