Of course, yet another blow to the church. And the war on Christianity in America continues……

As our bill of rights just fades away

Religion ruins everything.

The perp wasn’t participating in the Sacrament of Confession (capital ‘c’) when he made his ‘confession’ (small ‘c’). His ‘confession’ had nothing to do with religion. A girl came to the pastor and told him that the perp had raped her. The perp admitted it to the pastor when asked.

it is necessary that religious fanatics and those others who believe the rule of God or statute supercedes the rule of man be brought to the heel.

this is a necessarily unpleasant thing, many will perish… few will care a wit, but wills agree that all punished were well desserving of whatever punishment for whatever crime… as defined by whatever man whenever moment presents oppertune.

I think that when you confide with a member of the clergy you have a reasonable expectation of privacy. This is why in many states spouses cannot testify against one another.

[...] no priest or pastor shall be required to disclose confessions made in their professional capacity. read more ———————————- Should confessions to clergy be considered safe? [...]

Amen!

Not to minimize the severity of the case (of which we know almost nothing) but sentencing a 15 year old (at the time) to a 25 year sentence for any crime seems a little harsh

religion should have nothing to do with politics. this however should be treated the same as doctor or lawyer/client privilege. As tasteless as this guy is if guilty the prosecution needs to have something else to hinge this on.

Thankfully God gave us his son instead.

What’s next? Attorney/client privilege? Oh, wait, that’ll never happen. Judges ARE attorneys.

So, he faces a MINIMUM mandatory of 25 years for something he allegedly did when he was FIFTEEN? So, just IMAGINE how long John Corzine would go to jail … if America were not so corrupt that ex-Senators / ex-Governors are immune from the law. And IMAGINE how long ex-Senator John Edwards would go to jail … if the judge would ever make HIS case go to trial. I guess there’s only room in the jails for commoners.

The timing does seem very “convenient”… Religious and spiritual confidentiality are important to protect; but at the expense of a child’s well-being? Sorry black and white-ers, this is a genuine dilemma; as opposed to the obviously manufactured ones. Maybe this had help ending up in the news today, but this is a *real* question…..

What did the defendant think? That his Baptist preacher is a Catholic Priest?

The government’s intrusion into freedom of religious expression continues unabated.

And the anti-religious loons all bray their approval of the destruction of the US Constitution.

Why? Because they hate God/religion more than they love freedom.

Welcome to the jungle baby.

Read the law as it is quoted in the article James but your point is well taken, I think Rev. John Vaprezsan needs to turn in his collar for caving to the prosecution.

Correct, but if people want to live by biblical standards or any other, then they still have to right to vote to make that a reality. For the most part though, God wouldn’t force us to follow his rules anyway. He proved to us that we would fail. The old testament proves that.

The only laws that should come from the bible are those that involve one person affecting another against their will like murder, theft, slander. But many others individual decision matters should never become law such as sexuality or drug use(unless youre a parent).

Laws should protect people from other people but not from themselves. Some things a person has to learn on their own and it cannot be forced. God is more liberal than most people think. He gave us free will after all.

Pastor’s should not be “complled” to testify, but if they “choose” to do so, too bad.

It appears that the laws cited in the story may make this a privileged communication. The facts surrounding how this communication was made is not clear. The judge will have to sort through the facts and determine whether it is admissible.

If the statement was made in the traditional way of a “confession” it is privileged no matter how heinous the crime. If one does not like the Michigan law, lobby to get it changed but do not blame it on religion. We are not a lawless society except for those who choose not to follow or enforce the law.

There is a difference between confession (like a counseling session with an expectation of privacy) and simply saying something to a clergy person. If my husband is walking down the hall and someone tells him something, that is not a confession and that person should not expect total privacy. My husband would go to jail to protect the seal of the confessional- it is like a journalist protecting a source (but more serious in my opinion)— google my name for my blog if you are wondering how a catholic priest can be married

This goes way beyond the birth control mandate. What is going on?? Who is behind this-BHO, Soros, the Ayatolla??

If you are aware of a crime, you have a duty to report it. That you represent an imaginary supernatural fairy or orc or whatever in outer space shouldn’t shield you from that obligation. Don’t be an idiot.

What in God’s name are you talkimg about?

But your god says that yoru god’s son is also god.

Judges and attorneys actually exist.

yes- as far as I know, only Catholics (and most Orthodox) believe in the SACRAMENT of confession with the SEAL of the confessional. other clergy would see it as a counseling session- but still being privledged conversation

Like I said, if they “choose” to then the congregation gets what they pay for. He or she should be tossed out unceremoniously at the first possible opportunity.

Confessing a crime of any magnitude is part of your “religious expression”. Man, you religious nuts really can use your bible to find an excuse for EVERYTHING, can’t you? You’re all KILL EM! HANG ‘EM! STONE ‘EM! LET GOD SORT ‘EM OUT!… until they’ve spouted off to some dude in a frock and then suddenly you change your mind. You’re all a bunch of idiots and I can’t wait until you all off yourselves.

Obama is REALLY after the Catholic church, isn’t he? First with enforcement of contraceptives in Catholic institutions and now forcing the church to turn in its parishioners…. more to come, I’m sure!

You will see ruin when I become your lord ruler.

God forgives… mine grant no sanction or compunction for any reason.

we are legion, and your lot is our power.

All of the above w/the atheistic Left cheerleading the whole freedom annihilating agenda.

so what’s your excuse?

Christy,

Attorney/Client privilege is delineated in the sixth amendment, as described as Assistance of Counsel. Nowhere is the physician/patient privilege or clergy/parishioner privilege guaranteed in the Constitution. There are many cases where physicians as well as clergy are both expected and bound by law to disclose information obtained in a confidential manner. As this case stands, it is a Michigan statute which is coming into question, and not any federal law or right.

More attacks on the church. Just the beginning. Wait for the end of church donations as tax deductable. Count on it.

Mark 8:38 If anyone is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will be ashamed of him when he comes in his Father’s glory with the holy angels.”

Let me guess. Your husband was a Lutheran Minister or Episcopal priest before he converted to Catholicism.

Euewillseesoonenoughdaisy.

Why does it bother you so much that others believe in God. It doen’t bother me at all that you don’t!

Not true, no. If a lawyer or priest is aware of a crime that will harm another person (that other person being in danger) the client is about to commit is a different thing–that must be reported.

NOT anything said of a crime already committed.

If you are an American Catholic and are still voting for Democrats, you are either suicidal or mentally deranged. Stop voting for your own persecution and destruction. Time to wake up.

You are the idiot if you think God is a fairy!

The NAZI party wanted the populace unarmed.
The NAZI party wanted the populace under government controlled health care.
The NAZI party wanted the populace to be secular and attacked religion.
The NAZI party wanted the populace to hate the successful.
The NAZI party wanted the populace to have only propaganda from the government.

No similarity to the current democrat party whatsoever.

Long before the inception of the Democratic Party; long before America was even a thought in the minds of it’s founders; the Catholic Church has had the Sacraments. Confession as a Roman Catholic Sacrament is sacrosanct! The state must not be allowed to chip away at religious freedoms.

The same lwith your attorney. He cannot estify about your culpib ility whether he is your counsel now or later. Ain’t God wonderful

The answer is no.
So the judge of course will find that they can.
Slaves have only the privileges our masters give us.
Bring back our Republic.

Illogical Gibberish.

Yeow. That’s a no win either way for the Church or the Law

I understand that the Papal seal on confessions is held sacred, but at some point, if a law is broken regarding sexual abuse or violent crimes, there has to be some level that needs to be taken into account.

All that being said, the law – as stated in this article – seems pretty clear that the confession is inadmissible in this case.

… unless it is one’s own daughter that has been raped!

Obviously, the clergy is not keeping the sacrament of confession intact, and all the church members should find another parish.

“Confession” to a Baptist minister, which is not a sacrament in the Baptist church, is not protected speech. The preacher, unlike a Catholic priest in the sacrament of confession, is obligated to report this admission to the authorities.

I am a Baptist minister, and there is NO belief in the sacrement of confession in our faith. If you confess to me (“confess” as in “admit that I did it”) that you committed a crime, especially this type of crime, I am bound by my duty to God, society, my own children and myself to report that crime. I do not set myself up as a substitute for Jesus, as a catholic priest does, and thus claim no privilidge place above the law. God is a God of love, yes, but he is also a God of justice and righteousness, and “ministers” that hide crime only aid in it’s perpetuation, and know knowthing about the reality of the balanced character of God.

The split second that one calls those who don’t agree with him, “Nuts” and “Idiots”… one has lost his/her credability, my friend.

Attack,attack,attack on anything decent in our country from the socialist regime.
WAKE UP AMERICA !

I am not wondering at all. My son is a celibate Catholic priest and I understand prelatures. It does bring more of an assault from the uninformed against celibate priests though.

OMG are you KIDDING ME. This country is headed straight down the tubes. No privacy no morals no culture. Prepare for the apocalypse, thank me later.
http://www.postapocalypticsurvival.com/2012/01/post-apocalyptic-survival-gear-list.html

Seems that separation of church and state goes out the window when the coin is turned…

No matter what this kangaroo court decides, a Catholic priest will never reveal what was told to him in the sacrament of confession (reconciliation). What will this current administration and its affiliates try next? Appointing bishops and cardinals?

Fortunately, the 9th Amendment means it doesn’t need to be spelled out.

who gives a damn who or which priest/preacher/pastor it was?? there is no difference in a priest or preacher!!! they are both mortals in the eyes of God!! one is no better than the other, and i would probably trust a preacher before i would a priest seeing how a load of priests have been convicted of child abuse!..

Welcome to OmeriKa.

——— http://911essentials.com

Of course you don’t forgive sins. You are not a priest, ordained by bishops who are in the line of the apostles to whom Jesus said: “Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven. Whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.”

I realize this is about non-sacramental confessions, but it’s still simple. The answer is “No.” Just because some Judge decides they can invade the confessional or violate the implied privilege of confession doesn’t mean they have the right to do so. Just because a judge says gays can marry doesn’t mean they’re able to do so. It’s simply outside the judges authority, and even the governments for that matter.

In any event, think about it… if you lock up preachers for not telling the government about each crime, then you’ve removed a very helpful part of the process by which criminals can reform themselves. The preacher is gone so the criminal is left without anyone to persuade him to stop his activity. Lose – lose. The pastor can always warn people about danger without revealing the source when others are at risk due to the criminal’s behavior.

Genesis 3:14
And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:

Yep. That’s what China does. Why not here?

Do you feel the same if a psychiatrist or lawyer “chooses” to breach a communication that a client or patient believed was confidential.

Catholic priests do not “set themselves up as a substitute for Jesus.” As the Catechism of the Catholic Church quite clearly states, “The priest is the sign and the instrument of God’s merciful love for the sinner. The confessor is not the master of God’s forgiveness, but its servant.
“

Yes, but the prosecution has a point. Spousal privilege is waived when the communication occurs in front of others (ie- a man makes a statement to his wife in front of the kids, who hear the statement). The defendant made the statements in front of his mother, so they were not confidential, therefore there is no privilege.

I’m sorry, did you not just read •MCL 600.2156 Michigan Law above, says any denomination minister. Not the Church’s choice…state law. And whether he was verifying the truth or just listening to a confession, the boy presumed him to be in his official capacity as a minister. Should be protected, even though as a father of two girls, I would want him to go to jail with a sign on his back saying, “fresh meat” and see how he likes it.

This is ridiculous. Our government is becoming more fascist every day. Clergy should make a stand and just refuse to make any comment. Refuse to use lawyers. Refuse to bow in any way that violates their rules of church privacy.

But they are not alone. They go after reporters who refuse to go along and not cover a story:

.”They will tell you that I’m the only reporter–as they told me–that is not reasonable… They say the Washington Post is reasonable, the LA Times is reasonable, the New York Times is reasonable, I’m the only one who thinks this is a story, and they think I’m unfair and biased by pursuing it.” CBS reporter Sharyl Attkisson who described comments being made to her by Federal spokesmen concerning her reports on “Operation Fast and Furious”, the disastrous ATF program that handed military-style murder weapons to Mexican drug cartels.

The assaults on the Constitution keep coming. These “justices” know they are safe because Catholic Priests will not reveal what they know from a confession. Good priests are ready to die and be martyrs rather than violate the seal. The threat of prison is no threat at all.

A lot of people call themselves Catholic… Nancy “The Gestapo” Pelosi, for one. She is about as far away from being Catholic as anyone could be.

When the person was going to confess, if the Pastor was not going to honour his Priest penetint privilege that a person expects, he should have told him so. That Pastor will never be able to council with anyone about anything again. After receiving his confession of guilt (his mothers presence has nothing to do with it) he should have counciled with him about personal accountability in the repentance process and encourage him to do the right thing. Those who don’t feel they can honour the priest penitent privilige should as sdnoel let their position be known ahead of time. Then they can find a minister who will keep this trust.

Amen. Stop voting for the party of (D)eath. The party of (D)eath’s agenda and actions get more anti-Catholic with every passing day. Josef Stalin would be proud of today’s Democrats.

So, to all you catholic hispanics who voted so much for Obama, you are coming to a big choice again. Do you continue to vote for a man that is tearing down the pillars of your religion (forcing abortion and contraceptives on church health facilities, allowing gay marriage in state after state because of his liberal judges, now attacking the rights of privileged communications with a priest); or do you stand up for your beliefs and your church. Which God do you select, God almighty or the golden idol, self-proclaimed god Barak? Choose wisely.

Are we really more worried that a criminal will not feel free to get counseling? Instead we should be worried about putting a felon away so that 1, they can serve due punishment, 2, they can get rehabilitation, and 3, so future crimes can hopefully be prevented.

Kayris, the law is there to enable those with problems (physical, mental, spiritual, legal) to seek counseling and hopefully not hurt anyone (including themselves) again. Which crimes should be reported, traffic tickets? Failed suicide attempt? Hit and Run? Drunk Driving? Spouse abuse? Receiving spouse abuse? Petty larceny (I stole a candy bar, I stole a car)? Would it be left to the minister to choose? If they report, people stop going and they may not get the help they need. I’d rather a few escape as sad as that seems, than the tens of thousands not get the help they need to maybe prevent further self, public damage.

I’m really getting tired of the mean-spirited, pseudo-intellectual ‘trekkies’ who have to make pointed remarks to people of faith.I’ve got news for you, son, there’s more of us than there are of you and yours.

For all the chatter about how enlightened the atheists are, tolerance, kindness, etc, it’s amazing how you utilize your skills in dialogue to be purposefully hateful.
Remember, you’re grossly outnumbered, no matter how superior you think you are

the problem is preachers and priests lie. And one lie is too much for any man of the cloth. So taking their word on the stand is worthless.
And it is a sad day when we no longer can trust our spiritual leaders.

based upon your logic, does that mean that when someone’s personal behavior puts others at potential risk, we do nothing?

As I try to instill in my sons that our behaviors have ripple effects. the behavior byproducts are far more reaching than some might like to acknowledge.

Along with the Obama administration’s dictate to the Catholic church to hand out contraceptives which would have a devastating effect on the Hispanic community now the legal system is trying to step into another Catholic practice, that of the confessional. An eons old practice where the confessor has believed in the privacy between the confessor and the priest. This will be a double blow against the Catholic church and since it is occurring under the Obama administration, Obama will take the heat from the Catholic and Christian vote.

Next to go will be Doctor/Patient confidentiality…..and then Lawyer/Client confidentiality.
First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out—
because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—
because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for the fat people, and I did not speak out-
because I am not fat;
Then they came for the smokers, and I did not speak out—
because I am not a smoker;
Then they came for me—
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

SO…does God!

YES YES YES YES YES I LOVE YOU

Observation from a nondenominational Deist not connected with the Deist sect: Continued secularist assault on religion. Are we about to repeat the Inquisition, the St. Bartholemew’s Day massacre or the 30 Years’ War? Looks like that’s where we’re headed. Why the hell can’t secularists honor the First Amendment and simply live and let live? Stir this hornet’s nest enough and the faithful will eventually rise up and smite the ungodly, hip and thigh.

***
no

If you are aware of a crime, you have a duty to report it. That you represent an imaginary supernatural fairy or orc or whatever in outer space shouldn’t shield you from that obligation. Don’t be an idiot.

****

YES YES YES YES YES I LOVE YOU

And you feel the same about doctor/patient privilege also I am sure.
The question here is not your arbitrary belief or disabelief in God and your innane theory that your belief should decide legal precedent, but the problem with confidental relationships, whether they are spiritual, mental, or physical.

Do not let your overwhelming insecurity about God cause you to make foolish decisions

Yes – and no one in the media says a word…quiet as little mice! The fourth estate has definitely moved beyond foreclosure!

Junkin
The NAZI party took a beggared Germany and made it into an economic powerhouse. It also made her military the most advanced for that time easily rivaling Britain. The Nazi party through “lebensraum” expanded the territory of Germany. Many times during that war NAZI Germany could have won it and if not for the entrance of the US Germany would have won it. NAZI Germany were the fist to develop missile technology and was ahead in developing the nuclear bomb. In comparison the Obama government has failed on all the above issues

put down the Satanic bible junior. you’ll shoot your eye out.

“irishsmile: Why does it bother you so much that others believe in God. It doen’t bother me at all that you don’t!”
That’s great I love it…
My wife is Catholic and I am a sometime Christian I have learned a lot about Catholic beleifs… As I understand it if you confess your sins to God or Jesus and not a mortal man this wouldn’t be a problem but however it might work out for the good. IF you do something against the will or laws of God… trust me you will get it in the end and it’s gonna be a lot worse than what man can do….

So basically, anyone who comes to you with a private or confidential matter might want to think twice, considering whether you might find their information more useful to the state .

Lawyers are next.

[...] 2:44 pm EST, February 8th, 2012 — Are Church Confessions Safe? Court To Hear Arguments [...]

Junkin
I do agree with you that the NAZI party and the present day Obama administration DD HAVE IN COMMON: ANTI JEW AND PRO MUSLIM also forced birth control on specific groups The Nazis did attack the conservatives, which were one of first to be attacked.

@ “No”

You seem to have smug responses here… but remain ignorant of the issue.

If you actually READ the statutes cited in the article, it should be obvious that the precedent may be set to nullify attorney/client and patient/doctor privilege.

Then, by extension, journalists can be compelled to reveal sources.

This is NOT about religion you idiot, it is about America becoming the USSR.

There is no such thing as private sins.

Its a good thing the U.S. joined the war then

This is NOW in 2012 going to judges? I thought this was “settled law” centuries ago. Then again Obama and his comrades have stated their intent to remake this country. This is but one more example of the agenda by the terrorist in the WH.

While Doctors, Lawyers and the some clergy have long believed that their conversations are priveleged, in the insane lib world, everyone is equal but some are more equal. I really doubt that in the lib Obama environment lawyers will lose their privacy. I am Catholic so I do not know the rules that other religions live by. However, this looks like another example of the leftist anti-Catholic anti-Christian agenda in action. Obama and his lib comrades continue to take every opportunity to not only destroy relationships with religious citizens and with long time international alies, they daily continue their intentional destruction of this country. To libs Greece and other European countries are the model they believe we should emulate. Libs are on record with their belief that the US Constitution is not a model countries should emulate. Libs by definition are globalists and hate everything American.

It’s PASTOR not REVEREND.

By all means vote democrat if you want more of this one world order garbage and you will get what you deserve. Too bad that those of us with some critical thinking skills will suffer for your greed-yes greed- and lunacy.

You, Hitler and Stalin are in complete agreement.

“useful to the state”? No. Useful to the protection of your daughter, or sister, or wife from a predator? Yes. I will help and counsel anyone who comes for help regarding a wrong they have done. But if that wrong constitutes a serious crime, part of my help will be helping them go forward and make the wrong right, including paying their debt to society. I will let them know right up front how things work, there will be no secret betrayal of them. I have dealt with this already. I have four daughters and three sisters. How can a minister ever get the idea he has an obligation to protect the secrets of one wrong-doer if that protection is a danger to everyone else? Am I to be a minister to one to the harm of others? Did we learn nothing from the failings of Rome and her priests the last several years? I will help you do what is right, but I will not enable you.

This should not even be an issue. Where is the ACLU?? The leftist, progressive judges who rule from the bench, and those who scream “Separation of Church and State” when it comes to putting up a Christmas tree in the market place are now ohh soo interested in “just maybe” the state knowing what was told to a minister. Never mind fairness, or consistency. You either have separation of church and state or you don’t, except if you are a leftist loon, then the rules are what they say they are.

This “Pastor” violated the basic principle that a confession is an inviolable trust. If he is still a Pastor, why? It would seem to me that his denomination would defrock him for this.

No such thing as a “sometime Christian”. One is either saved through repentance towards God and faith in Jesus Christ or they are not. (Acts 20:21)

“He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God” – John 3:18

“He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.” – John 3:36

Salvation is the free gift of God, it cannot be earned by good works as the Catholic church teaches.

Please read in your King James bible Ephesians 2:8-9

I hope this 3 judge panel had prepared for this case by actually consulting the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

I think the Catholic priests have had a bulls-eye on them a lot longer than the Baptists ministers have, that’s the only reason that your perception is as it is. I would not go looking for a Baptist minister to look for counseling or to make a confession if I were you though.

Which of the first 10 amendments are you referring to? You have no clue. This has nothing to do with the Bill of Rights. The issue is whether a statement made to a pastor in front of another person is privileged or not under the state’s statute.

If you confess a crime to your spouse, they can’t be compelled to testify against you because you are protected by spousal privilege.

if you confess a crime to your lawyer, he can’t be compelled to testify against you because you are protected by attorney-client privilege.

Since the founding of this country the same has applied to the relationship between a person and his or her priest.

If this long standing privilege falls, it will be much easier to kill the other two.

No, Catholic confessions will not be heard in court, because no Catholic priest will do it. It’s part of their oath. They will suffer persecution before exposing confessions. Oh sure, the communist “priests” will blather, but were a priest to do it, he would lose his congregation. Tyranny or no, no solid Catholic priest will do it. Has the left never heard of “Separation of Church and State?”

Now is the time of persecution of the Church, now is the time of martyrs, now is the time of saints.

WHAT IF POLICE USE LISTENING DEVICES TO HEAR A CONFESSION?

My Catholic Church is next to a police station and the Confession room window faces the police building. If the police used detection devices to listen in on what is being said in the confession room would that be legal?

When did the USA become the USSR?

we are legion

You are of the devil- he also calls himself ‘legion’

In other words; you hate freedom of your religion.
Filth

God was not ‘liberal’ w/ Sodom and Gomorrah

“I heard a disturbing story about you from [redacted]”
“Pastor John, what should I do?”
“Son, you should tell the truth”

Just because the answer didn’t involve “Hail Mary’s” doesn’t mean it wasn’t Confession

A psychologist is allowed to break confidentiality when he believes his patient is going to commit another crime. The same should be true of confession – from a legal perspective, anyway. You shouldn’t be able to -force- a priest to give evidence, but if the priest feels he is morally obligated to give evidence, then the evidence should be admissible. Whether that means he gets defrocked should be left up to the Church.

The confession is not made to man, but to God. When in the confessional, you are not talking to the priest, you are talking to Jesus. I don’t know where you learned your hatred of the Church, but you were ill served. Why not find a Catholic priest and ask him to explain it. Try not to interupt, but keep your ears open.

I think that the guy is guilty but when you start requiring that communications between the clergy and an individual must occur in a certain way, you are destroying the spiritual aspect of religion. If an individual thinks that they are talking to a member of the clergy it is priviledged period.

I went to a member of the clergy with my ex-wife for counseling and then the pastor turned around and tried to testify against me in divorce court based on lies that my ex had told him. I now refuse to speak with clergy and I have left the church. I pretty much believe that based on the evidence that I had gathered, the SOB was having an affair with my ex.

God punished the pastor shortly thereafter because within the year after him doing that he was struck with brain cancer and died.

They always use these types of cases to break the barriers down, to wiggle their way in. This isn’t the country I grew up in. I don’t know where that country went. But its gone. I loved that country. This one?

Whoooaaa….Slick WIllie better hope they have a ‘grandfather clause’ because we ALL KNOW he was burning up the lines upstairs with his delusional lies through the nearest confessionals when the Lewinsky scandal was simmering, while he lied to the American people in a deposition as well (and on television to wag that dog and finger) which is what he was impeached for btw, PERJURY.

Not ‘sex’ ….like the left loves to propagate. You know, as in Propaganda.

You obviously do not understand the sacredness of confession to a Catholic priest. They will die before they expose a confession, if they know their duty, and they should. Revealing confessions would undermine the sacrement, not only of confession, but the Mass itself, since partaking of the Body and Blood would be compromised as well. I guess this is a time of persecution for the Church. Give thanks to God that He finds His Church worthy enough for persecution. (I am also thinking of Obama laughable attempt to force the Church to participate in aiding in contraceptive/abortion “health” insurance.)

The priest seems to be way off base here. For centuries the rule of silence has prevailed in most places and by agreeing to testify, that one priest is putting in jeopardy a Catholic’s right to discuss any sinful situation he has gotten himself into. It is not the role of the priest to testify against anyone who was seeking counseling by bringing up what is in essence a confesson.

I realize it must be so diffficult for a priest to carry around this sort of information but it is was he who elected to do this work as a calling. And if he felt that he could not hear the young man through without putting him in legal jeopardy, he had to say that right up front and loud and clear and advise the boy to shut up. A Miranda of sorts.

The Church seems to be moving further and further away from the people – juast as government is.

Religious organizations will be considered companies under a 2nd Obama term. Of course, he’ll withhold the privileges extended to corporations because I mean churches don’t want to become evil corporations too, right?

they can’t be forced to but can do so if they wish

Oh God! Here we go again!! When will judges learn that a Catholic’s confession is a matter between him and God and not even the priest who hears the confession is permitted to reveal what is confessed. If a crime has been committed the priest has the obligation to counsel the person making the confession to go to the authorities. Just as it is with some reporter’s sources, the priest will go to jail before he breaks the “seal of confession.” Leave our priests alone and go find something else to bash.

Can we expect Obamadinejad to announce his “final solution” for the “Catholic problem” within the next couple of weeks? This is just unreal…

amen irish smile, amen…these liberal d-heads always come to the defense of the criminal and ignore the victims. they disgust me!

Isn’t it really for God to decide and not this lower court judge. lol

Really? It is “religion”? Or an individual’s personal interpretation of it that ruins things. You need to read, with and open mind what Jesus said, did and taught before you reject “religion”. I don’t know about extremists in any “religion” who did not abuse the teaching of their founders. But a person who is truly seeking peace, justice and the reason for his/her existence shouldn’t be so closed minded.

For the time has come for judgment, and it must begin with God’s household. And if judgment begins with us, what terrible fate awaits those who have never obeyed God’s Good News?

I’m with you. Confusing comment.

It would be the 5th Ammendment under the US Constitution where a defendant has the right against self-incrimination, (including absolute privacy of speech in front of his attorney, pastor, psychiatrist, or physician) which is an absolute right. His Mother’s presence, however, nullifies the right. Yes, JOE, it has to do with the Bill of Rights!!! Where did you learn your social studies from??? Russia???

@natemann133

It sure does. Just ask the nearly hundred million victims of Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao Zedong, etc, etc, etc…

The amusing thing about humanists and atheists is that when they control the corridors of power, they commit atrocities far more vile than any pope, priest, imam or theocrat could ever dream of. All in the name of equality, mind you.

You have forgotten that Jesus gave the Church the privelege of forgiving sins. Remember when he handed it to the apostles? It is sacred. This is what Catholic priests are doing. When one goes to confess to a priest, one is actually confessing to Jesus himself through the priest. A priest would be martyred first before revealing the confession. Who is higher, God or man’s government. I am more worried of God’s judgement, not man’s. It is not a sacrement to you, because you are not part of the unbroken chain of the laying on on hands to pass on the priesthood. (Did you not pick that up in Genesis?) The Catholic Church’s priests are in the unbroken chain, it is a sacrement handed down from the first priest, to Jesus, to the Pope to the priest.

In some States Clergy are required to report sexual abuse against children.

A Catholic priest CANNOT discuss what is said in a confession outside of that confession with anyone. Not even the Pope. The same goes for any of the older Orthodox denominations. A confession is a part of the Rite of Reconciliation, it’s a revered Holy Sacrament, and a crucial function of a priest and of the life of the Church. Protestants, who disavow it as a Holy Sacrament, may not realize how crucial it is. There is no way the Catholic Church or any Orthodox Church will give in to legal demand for evidence from confessions no matter what the Prostestants may do. They are bound otherwise; they can’t.

Yes, you understand too. When the believers of the Early Church were persecuted, they went back and gave thanks to God that He considered them worthy enough to be persecuted. We have come back to that stage. When I was a child, no one thought we, the people of this country, would ever come down to this. I grew up at a time when people feared God, but the socialists have no such fear; they think they are the giver of rights. It matters not, because we win in the end.

Hate to put a damper on your little fantasy, but most of us who support religious liberty are willing to defend it to the death. Not our deaths, mind you. See, we know how to use firearms, and how to defend ourselves, unlike most sniveling firearm-phobic progressives.

Do not blame the many for the actions of a few.

This is why the Church is the true Church.

it said the pastor was from a Baptist Church – not a Catholic Church, Did I misread somethjing?

@mmercier

This is Dr. Crowley. It’s time to take your clozapine.

The priest-pennitent privilege arises from the First Amendment

@ManOnPoint You are mistaken. ONLY the spousal exclusion and the attorney exclusion are Fifth Amendment protections. There are no other exclusions under the Fifth Amendment. This is a statutory exclusion. Please check the law. Every US State recognizes the confessional privilege (very broadly defined, and not just for the Roman Church or for Christians in general), but it is NOT a right, and it is NOT ABSOLUTE. It differs from one jurisdiction to another.

If it ever existed in the Federal case law, it would be a Ninth Amendment protection, because it came from Roman Law via the Common Law, and Amendment IX protected Common Law privileges.

No liberal tenancies here Michael. I’m just saying your imagination is getting away with you. So lets imagine its your 15 year old son we are talking about.

That is an unreasonable search and is protected under the Fourth Amendment.

It was not just a pastor, it was his pastor. Why was his pastor avingthis discussionwith the perp? Because it his job to minister to his congregation.

This has nothing to do with the Bill of Rights. It has to do with centuries of legal tradition, but there is no “right” in the Constitution to the “sanctity of the confessional”, contrary to popular belief. And most states already have a “must report” law pertaining to such matters. Clergy CANNOT keep such secrets any longer.

What would be the purpose in doing so?

Hey maxtor – ever read a book?

@sdnoel, I can imagine you have no credibility when it comes to counseling your flock then. What do you do in the case of infidelity? How about sins of omission (my husband beats the kids)? The list goes on and on and apparently you have decided you make a good judge.

@no

Statistically speaking, progressives are far more likely to find themselves on the receiving end of a Darwin award than are conservatives. And since, statistically speaking (once again), those of a religious persuasion are more likely to be conservative, it is far more likely that we will end up watching you off yourself.

If you’d like to speed the process along, might I recommend a solution of equal parts Dihydrogen Oxide and Sodium Hydroxide, taken orally.

You are wrong.

First: The spousal exclusion and the attorney/client exclusion are Fifth Amendment protections against self-incrimination. Reasonable expectation of privacy does not apply to them. [That is a Fourth Amendment issue.]

Second: The States have nothing to say about it since the Fifth Amendment was Incorporated against the States by Amendment XIV. There is no “most States,” for the Bill of Rights.

This is a doctor/patient and confessional/penitent issue, and that is statutory; ALL States protect it by law, but NONE are obligated to.

Yea in OmeriKa you better get prepared because the ship is sinking fast. Lock and load be prepared!

http://www.postapocalypticsurvival.com/2012/01/how-do-you-start-preparing-for.html

But this isn’t about a Catholic priest being forced to testify about what somebody said in confession. This is about another denomination where the priest seems to have volunteered the information, and it isn’t clear that it was in a confessional situation. Now the statute is written to require that priest NEVER testify, even with the consent of the person who made the confession. I fully support the confidentiality of the confessional if it is a doctrinal issue for the religious organization. But I don’t think it ought to be imposed on every religious organization by the state either.

According to a study she did of abuse complaints against Catholic priests over a five decade period she concluded that “…the physical sexual abuse of students in public schools is likely more than 100 times the abuse by priests.” (Hofstra University Professor Carole Shakeshaft)

The war against Christianity continues in America. Guess what, if this ends up being applied to Christianity, then it should apply to ALL religions.

Yeah it’s amazing to me how many people think the doctor/patient and confessional/penitent exclusions are the same thing as spousal and attorney/client exclusion. There is even one guy a little further down on this thread who thinks these kinds of private conversations are protected by “reasonable expectation of privacy” [If there were such a thing, there could be no law against criminal conspiracy.] apparently unaware of the fact that [the lack of] reasonable expectation of privacy is a Fourth Amendment question which has nothing to do with this.

On Jan 20, 2008.

That would require a warrant.

There is not and has never been a constitutional guarantee of the “sanctity of the confessional.” That is a centuries old tradition that dates from the time when the Catholic Church was the supreme authority. It is an anachronism.

Most states already have laws which require clergy to report child abuse. Have had for years. The world will continue o turn on its axis.

If the clergy are exempt, why not football coaches? Why not ANYBODY? Aren’t we all equal under the law?

Might be a good time to find out whether or not your chruch is a 501c3

Ignorance of the law on this thread is appalling.

Spousal and legal exclusions of evidence are FIFTH AMENDMENT ISSUES.

Doctor/Patent, Confessional, Counselor/Client, Journalist/Source and other kinds of exclusions ARE NOT CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS! They are statutory. Every State protects these confidences to varying degrees, but NO State is obligated to. In many States, just for example, a Counselor can become an accessory if he has a reasonable expectation that a specific crime has, or is about to be committed and does nothing.

Yep, 0bama has all of the bad and none of what little good there was in the National SOCIALISTS Party.

Fun Fact: Hitler was a devout communist before turning to a nationalist. The biggest canard of Liberals is that conservatives that want smaller government, more personal liberty, and individuality are fascists when fascism is just a different flavor of collectivism.

Fred, it is you who are mistaken. Many states already have laws on the books requiring that clergy report child abuse. Have had for years.

There is not and has never been a Constitutional guarantee of the “sanctity of the confessional”. It is a legal tradition, but is not a guaranteed “right.”

The Seal of the Confessional is specifically a Roman Catholic tradition, and was certainly “law” back when the Church was the supreme legal authority in most European countries, but this is the United States and this is the 21st century. To grant Catholic priests such an exemption would be to establish a specific religion as the law of the land, and that is expressly forbidden by the 1st Amendment, even without resorting to bogus “separation of church and state” arguments so beloved of liberals.

Satan sure has hold of Amerika/USSA. You know this will be allowed…they’er only Catholics. Now if this was being ruled on/over/about/concerning ANOTHER religion we all know of…well, I doubt it would have gone this far.

NOT UNDER OATH, NO WITNESS TO HE SAID, SHE SAID, PROFESSIONAL PRIVILEGE OF INFO, CONFESSION WAS A LIE….ON AND ON.

NO WAY ANY INTELLIGENT LAWYER OR JUDGE WOULD TOUCH THIS ONE.

HERE IS A “PROFESSION” FILLED WITH PERVERSION AND SEX CRIMINALS KEPT SECRET BY THEIR OWN ORDER….AND THEYARE GOING TO TESTIFY AS SOMEKIND OF PROFESSIONAL MORALIST??

@Llama: the right of a spouse to invoke the Fifth Amendment is NOT waived if the act or conversation happens in front of others.

That is NOT the issue here. This does NOT involve a Constitutional Right.

Priests and Pastors do NOT have a Constitutional Right to withhold information about a crime. They are NOT protected by the Constitution. They are protected by STATUTE: that is, by State laws. Every State offers some protections for different kinds of special private conversations. They differ in different jurisdictions. This is merely a question about the application of a specific law in MI.

The 5th Amendment does NOT apply. You cannot be compelled to testify against yourself in court, but that does NOT mean other people cannot bear witness to what you said to them in confidence. If it worked that way then “criminal conspiracy” could not be illegal.

There is not and has never been any provision in the Constitution that guarantees any sort of “sanctity of the confession.”

Many states already require clergy, including Catholic priests, to report confessions of child abuse. Such laws have been upheld by Federal courts.

Has it occurred to anyone that this “privilege” thing has already been used by the Catholic Church to hide cases of PRIESTS abusing children? Haven’t we learned our lesson?

The Catholic church is not the supreme law of the law in our country, or indeed in ANY country except for Vatican City.

As much as I hate it when people willingly throw away their own rights, it’s equally troublesome when they invent bogus “rights” from the clear blue sky and support their arguments with ignorant conjecture and outright falsehoods.

IT WAS A JOKE!!!!! GEEZ…the reply nazis are out.

[...] Are Church Confessions Safe? Court To Hear Arguments « CBS Detroit. [...]

It doesn’t matter how Priests see it as opposed to how Pastors or Ministers or Imams see it. It’s a legal question. The so-called “Seal of the Confessional” is not a temporal concern, it is a matter of Ecclesiastical Law, which has nothing to do with this. No person of any religious order is excluded from giving testimony in a criminal trial by the Constitution.

They are protected by Statute from doing so in all States to varying degrees. But they have no Constitutional Protection as a lawyer or a spouse has under Amendment V. NEVER HAVE, NEVER WILL. This is a very narrow issue about a specific law in a specific state.

The sanctity of the confessional has historically been secure, but so have the Constitution of the United States and our other safeguards of liberty. If the courts are permitted to violate this essential rule, they can do anything. When they can do anything, they will do anything, and the courts will fall as low as the congress and t he executive branch. If these nut cases keep pushing the people, there will be a revolution in this country and it will not be pretty..

Back in the 1960s when I was 8 years old a 15 year old cousin exposed his genitals to me and asked me to touch them. He also started to touch my genitals. I immediately said that I din’t like what was going on. He took a minute to think about it, but stopped and then left the room.

I wasn’t traumatised by the whole thing, because I wasn’t really sure about sex in those days. However, it did seem unusual, so I told my mother about it, and she said that I had done the right thing by refusing to do anything sexual with my cousin and in telling her. She told me later that she had not said anything to anyone about, but would have if my cousin tried anyhting like that again. He didn’t. And we became quite good friends. He is now happily married with children and grand children.

We were all mild Anglicans who went to church about 4 or 5 times a year.

This took place in Sydney, Australia.

From what I can see in the US, my mother would have been expected to tell the authorities and my cousin could have been banged up in gaol for 25 years. What a travesty of justice.

I suspect in this case, we are not talking about a bit of ineffectual groping, but it is not clear from the story what ttok place. In Australia sexual assault can include anything from touching to full-blown rape, I assume it is the same in the US. There is no way that an underage offender should be spending 25 years in prison. That is not going to help the girl or the boy. That is not to say that some punishment should not be meted out. But it should be more appropriate.

Don’t you guys have a Constituional ban on overly harsh punishment?

[...] http://detroit.cbslocal.com/2012/02/08/court-to-hear-arguments-about-pastors-testimony/ [...]

Actually, I have tremendous credibility with my congregation. Cheating on a spouse is not a crime, and not a confidence I would betray. Why would you even compare this to molesting a child? Can one not tell the differance between moral sin and a predatory crime? My congregation is very secure in the knowledge that I love them, will counsel them, will be trustworthy in confidence, but that I will NOT harbor a predator among them. They trust that. The church truly is a sanctuary for those wanting to do right. There is a novel concept these days. And, in the same spirit, knowing that I preach and teach the differance between right and wrong, personal responsibility for ones actions and answering to a higher power, both government and God, one of them would not come and “confess” their wrongs to me thinking I would simply protect them from their own culpability.

@Eric. No, you are mistaken. The Ninth Amendment was intended to protect the Common Law (among other things) please read what Madison actually said about it.

Note that I said: “IF IT EVER EXISTED in the Case Law,” etc, I did not say it existed (and quite clearly imply that it never did.) But IF IT HAD, a Federal Judge would have had to find justification for it in the Ninth Amendment; there is certainly NO justification for it in Amendment V. And this is what the poster whom I was answering claimed.

[...] [...]

From a legal perspective, you are quite wrong. There is no difference between a sacramental confession heard by a priest and a confession heard by a Pastor or Minister as far as the law is concerned. In neither case is there ANY Constitutional Protection; there simply isn’t.

In MI, (as in all States) confessions (generically speaking) are protected to varying degrees. That has nothing to do with the Seal of The Confessional which is the ecclesiastical law of some specific denominations. Under the MI law, a priest walking down the hall listening to a confidential conversation considered “confessional” would be excluded from testifying against the witness, even though he would see ecclesiastical law would be broken by doing so.

This is a very narrow question on the question of when a specific law applies. That’s all.

May I gently say that the verses refered to do not say what the catholic church teaches they say? By the very definition of forgiveness, I cannot forgive someone for the wrong done to someone else. A priest, who is a man, can not forgive another man for a wrong done to a third individual, who in this casewould also include God.That is not forgiveness. Forgiveness comes directly from the wronged, or it is not forgiveness, it is a legislated pardon.

Had enough yet ?

Priests and Pastors DON’T have a Constitutional right to the sanctity of the confessional. They aren’t like lawyers and spouses, who are excluded under the Fifth Amendment.

It’s NOT basic right, and IT NEVER HAS BEEN.

Why do you think MI (and 49 other States) felt the need to pass a law protecting clergy in confidential conversations? In case you still don’t get it: they had to pass a law offering the protection BECAUSE THE CONSTITUTION DOESN’T.

Thought it was separation of church and state.
Not sure why ever aspect of the economy / business is now getting regulated.
Its wow for sure

http://www.dailyjobcuts.com

gimme L I B E R T Y
gimme F R E E D O M
gimme J U S T I C E
gimme R I G H T S
please lemme into Canada, if it wouldn’t be too much trouble

My friends, the “state” has the right to know everything about everybody, everywhere, at any time …. welcome to the new USSR. I personally am very very concerned that our once-great American way of life is slowing fading into memory. I pray the Lord comes before it’s too late.

A guy is guilty of forcing himself on a nine year old child. He and his mom are willing to perjure themselves to avoid the consequence of his horrible disgusting actions to an innocent child. The paster sought out the truth from the criminal and gives an honest statement. So the truth is bad, perjury is “normal behavior”, and as usual, the victim has all the suffering and NO JUSTICE. And even worse, a sick predator offender is still on the street to harm others. If he walks we all lose. Make him an example of proper justice, not finding the exception to free him when he is guilty. Simple. Did the crime, do the time. Maybe someone should explain to his mom about “tough love” while were at it.

Just when I thought it couldn’t get any worse.

This administration needs to go.

[...] [...]

Snitch system, where everyone in society is suspect and snitching on everyone else. This is how East Germany operated with the Stasi Government.
Remember, if you see something, tell Big Sis to shove it.

It’s an admission to God, not man (person). Next our prayers will be used against us.

From the bills that have passed into law lately (behind closed doors)… I doubt if there will be any need for lawyers in the future.

I didn’t state whether or not a priest should maintain confidentiality or not, and I would applaud any priest who chose to go to prison rather than violate that oath. What I did express is that there is NO constitutional protection of confidentiality within any profession other than an attorney meeting with his client. The minister in question here appears to have been, at most, a councilor.

Stella..I’m an Atheist, but agree with you completely. I prefer to judge people based on their character, humanist, and values. I think if we all went blind for awhile, and made friends with those we chose to, then could regain our vision, we’d be surprised by all the people we liked were a cross section from ALL groups. There are good and bad in all. On this case, I don’t think the priest’s confession should be allowed. It’s a violation of trust, same as a doctor, or lawyer that is taken. I believe it can sway a jury.

[...] Are Church Confessions Safe? Court To Hear Arguments « CBS Detroit. Tags: Michigan Court of Appeals, 34th District Court, Metro Baptist Church, Samuel Bragg [...]

I am a Roman Catholic and I will stand against you.

This is an excellent argument for becoming Catholic. If a Catholic priest or bishop (deacons do not hear confessions since they do not have the faculties) then they would be deposed, excommunicated and never permitted to act as a clergyman in the Church. Unless they have family to support them financially, they lose their financial support. When you go to a priest, ask for the seal of the confession before dumping your worst on him.

The confessor is named “Bragg”? LOL!

Roberta Jasina, you are a moron! How could a Michigan appeals court set precedent for the rest of the country? Every state has its own law on the admissibility of confidential communications between priest and a member of his congregation. Whatever the Michigan court of appeals decides, it will have absolutely no binding effect on any state besides Michigan. Roberta Jasina, do some research; ask a lawyer before the next time you make a sweeping generalization about the law which is flat out wrong. Time to go back to journalism school, miss.

A Michigan appeals court ruling has no binding precedent on any other state whatsoever. The first sentence of this story is patently wrong. Try doing some research next time.

‘we?’

what, you and your little brother?

‘we?’ – LOL….you type this as you sit in mommy’s basement.

Elliot, you are right that if we had blinders on we might get along with each other a lot better than we do when we can see and judge others.

VulpesRex, it is very hard to draw people to you when you attack what they believe. Why not just state what you believe and let them be them think about it and draw their own conclusions. The Truth will stand on its own. Those who have eyes to see and ears to hear will accept it. Those who don’t will reject it. Such is free will. As for those you name as killing millions of victims in the name of their desire for power, they too will have to stand before Truth.

Not really.– it would be wonderful to have priests rat out politicians, congressmen, judges, police, etc.

Praise not yourself nor the Lord in public, like the Pharisees, who say “Thank you Lord, for not making me like other men!” Worship quietly and humbly, and give confession to the Lord, when only the two of you are present. And let him who hears the private confession of another, bear the burden of silence lest later no persons dare confess. Let him who hears the confession of another be the servant of the Lord, for only the Lord knows what what shall be forgiven and what shall not;

And Peter received the keys to Heaven, that what he should forgive on earth should be forgiven in Heaven, and what he would retain, should be retained.

If there is any religious freedom, let it be protected here!

What kind os $hit is this??? Are we in Stalinist Russia now? What is wrong with this country? The Judeo-Atheists have taken over!!!

The Judeo – Atheists have taken over!

The answer is yes, Phillip, but not just the Catholic Church. The Obama administration was already shot down by the Supreme Court 9-0 in their efforts to force the Lutheran Church to rehire a Lutheran minister who was fired for ecclesiastical misdeeds. Holder’s Justice Department pursued the case under labor statutes and civil rights protections. The Supremes spanked Obama and Holder with a powerful unanimous opinion, authored by Chief Justice Roberts.

OK… I’ll imagine *my* 15-year-old son, and I’ll imagine *your* 9-year-old daughter. Then, I’ll imagine what the euphemism “child sexual assault” means in the context of a 15-year-old male vs a 9-year-old female. Then, after I’m done kicking my son’s a**, I’ll turn him over to the courts to serve his time.

It is simple. The workings of the churches shall not be interfered with. PERIOD!

The receiving of confession is a burden onto the priest receiving such, and he is responsible for keeping the same, much as a physician keeps medical records private. From the penitent, to the priest, to God. And no one must interfere. Not the Bishop, nor the ArchBishop, can command the disclosure of the confessional. Once a priest, always a priest. The moral responsibility cannot be lifted. Ecce, ego sacerdotum in aeternam.

The right to practice religion shall not be messed with, Bubba, Just like the Constitution does not gives Jews the “right” to read the Torah aloud. Nor Catholics the “right” to receive communion. These “rights” are all encompassed in the words about “free exercise of religion”!

IF you do no know this, you do not understand the founding of this nation.

It’s all hearsay evidence.

You must be joking? Murdering over religion has been going on since the beginning and continues today.

Like it or not the laws printed above make it impossible to have “men of the cloth” testify in court.

Sound to me the fact that he was a minor when this occured would also come to play with case. 25 years for a minor? I think we are not hearing the whole story.

Tell that to Hitler, Mao, Lenin, Pol Pot, and the mullahs.

Only in America.

Of course they’re gonna allow church confessions to be used in court. They already have told Catholic hospitals they must hand out morning after pills. So much for separation of church and state that the left is always whining about…

Forgive me, but allowing a religion to manage its own affairs is Not establishing a religion. There is no commandment that citizens join this church, not yet to pay for its support, nor do the members of this church enjoy special privileges under common law, nor are they permitted to exist at the detriment of other faiths.

They are simply permitted to retain confidences, as ordained by their sacred laws, to see to the salvation of the souls of the penitents. Your allusion to secular “laws” requiring reporting of certain crimes is troublesome, as it interferes with the very nature of confession. Who would confess to God, when Caesar would proclaim it from the housetop? Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s, and unto God that which is God’s.

[...] [...]

With respect to a priest who personally violates the confidentiality of the confessional, I believe that is a mortal sin and (?) automatic excommunication. That’s a church thing. That testimony would be allowed by the courts because it was given voluntarily. I see no protection for the testimony of a priest violating his own oaths, in a secular court. IT is not for the state to enforce Canon Law.

So what about attorney and doctor patient privileges? Do doctors and lawyers ruin everything? It is not the belief that is ruinous but the use of force of the believer onto the unbelieving. Kid of like when Obama trashes the Constitution using the force of the government. It is not government that is evil but the manipulator.

As far as this particular case is concerned, why is this testimony not disallowed as “hearsay”? Certainly, the “witness” did not witness the planning, nor yet the commission of the crime, so how then is he a witness? The only precedent I can think of is undercover officers of the court testifying to “confessions” of suspects while they are incarcerated. To me, this is dubious as best. Seems to be a strained construction of “witness after the fact”. You need a confession, I know just the guy who will give you the testimony you need. He’s great on the stand; he used to be a priest!

Yes you are right religion is just a tax free business lying to get your money.

God is real and loves you but he wouldn’t go into any church other than to toss out the money changers.

This may be true in some ways but what about the priest who never get married but drink wind and go to Brazil on vacation?
What about Billie Grayham if he was lying why has he never been sued by the baptists who he makes fun of all the time.

If I am a consultant to the defense team, and I think the guy is guilty, do I have a DUTY to report this to the prosecution? I don’t think so. Whether attorney/client attaches or not, I have a duty to follow the law, and I have the gollywobbles thinking about laws that call upon citizens to denounce other citizens, under penalty of prosecution.

Therein lies madness and chaos.

Good one Jewess:

There is nothing about organized religion that I know of that IS FREE.
What they do best is pass a colllection plate for the fools and poor to fill.

Yes Jon But if YOU wish upon a star your dream Can Come True.

nope. your parents ruined you

Read MCL 767.5a(2)

It’s extremely broad, much more than just sacramental confessions. It obviously covers this counseling session.

I feel that a Pastor who hears such a confession has a real problem on his hands. This was an incident that had occurred, the young man admitted to him he had done this, but, I would think it would be better to council the young man and attempt to convince him to turn himself in to the police. HE went to the Pastor seeking absolution and that is not possible without penitents, which in this case would be answering for his crime. In some States Pastors, teachers or anyone in a position to council children or adults are required to report incidences of child molestation or abuse. Requiring, or even allowing, them to give testimony would be going too far as it would have a definite effect on a Jury.

[...] by COLONEL on February 9, 2012 Welcome to PolitiColonel! If you like this article, you might want to subscribe to the RSS feed for updates on this topic.Powered by WP Greet Box WordPress PluginSource [...]

I believe in the God of Abraham and am a follower of Christ you go ahead and be a believer in religion there is quite a bit of difference in the two.That’s what I’m seeing here in the comments a belief in religion well religion has little to do with the actual teachings of Christ…it was He who only went to the local temples of worship to castigate them for their hypocrisy and greed.That is why I say I’ll follow Christ you go ahead at your peril and follow religion.

[...] more at Are Church Confessions Safe? Court To Hear Arguments. Share this:TwitterFacebookLike this:LikeBe the first to like this [...]

Yup I’m sure you and all the other relative moralists know best.

In a story about a court case, it was reported that the defense lawyer didn’t have to reveal what he knew because of “lawyer-client privilege.” Confessor-Penitent privilege is where that privilege came from.

[...] 8, 2012 10:30 AM detroit.cbslocal DETROIT (WWJ/AP) – In a case that could set national precedent, the three-judge Michigan [...]

…and now we start the ‘you’re not as much a Christian as me” conversation. And people wonder why all the Christian bashing?” My, Lord (pun intended)
Give it a rest.

The Catholic Church does not allow priests to tell anyone what is told to them in the confessional. This is not the case. Its astonishing how many people are upset that this pastor is willing to testify in a statutory rape case! Since when is your testimony not allowed because your a Christian pastor?! Its amazing the hate these Democrats have for all things Christian! Obama the facist is definately their candidate.

[...] Delicious/christianheadlines/courts Posted in Courts Tags: arguments, Church, Confessions, Court, hear, Safe « A step closer to legalizing 'gay marriage' You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site. [...]

Ray Cassar should not even be practicing law, he has NO respect for attorney client privilege whatsover. he’s one of the lowest bottom feeding lawyers on earth, anything for a buck. fact

[...] UPDATE: ‘People fired’ over tales of air marshal sexism, suicide, bigotry…  Judges To Decide Whether Church Confessions Can Be Used In Court…      INTERNET CENSORSHIP: Twitter CEO defends new censorship policy  FEDS SPY ON PERSONAL [...]

A preast cannot tell what he heard in confeession, I beleive.. so must he be supeoned ((spelling???)

The reasin that defense attorneys don’t have to reveal that they know that their client is guilty is that their client is protected by the same “imaginary fairy” as priest’s penitents are.

wonderful points altogether, you just gained a logo new reader. What would you suggest in regards to your put up that you simply made a few days ago? Any certain?

Does this mean that the courts are going to repeal the lawyer-client privilidge in murder cases? After all, that’s a more terrible crime.