It’s still in the Catechism, which is official church policy.
https://www.catholiccrossreference.online/catechism/#!/search/1467
Religious Liberty Backgrounder: The Seal of Confession.
But what happens when a priest hearing a confession learns information that would be useful to civil authorities in resolving a crime?
The Code of Canon Law forbids priests from divulging information received in confession. The penalty for a priest who directly violates the seal of confession is excommunication.
Suppose a thief repented of his sin and confessed his robbery to his priest. Ought the priest be required to testify in court against the thief? Indeed, this very situation gave rise to an important religious liberty case in 1813, People v. Philips, during the early days of the American republic.
For most of us, if we had knowledge related to a crime, we would be obligated to share that information with the proper authorities. If you are called upon to serve as a witness in a trial, you must speak forthrightly about what you know of the crime.
In New York, Fr. Anthony Kohlmann learned in the confessional the identity of two people who had stolen jewelry. After the penitents handed the stolen goods over to him, Fr. Kohlmann returned the jewelry to its rightful owner, and the robbery victim offered to withdraw his complaint. However, the thieves were later apprehended on other evidence, and as part of the trial, Fr. Kohlmann was called as a witness to share how he knew where the jewelry was. Fr. Kohlmann refused to share this information, because he would not betray his priestly duty to maintain the seal of confession. While he would gladly testify had he come by the knowledge in some other way, to reveal a penitent’s confession would be to violate his faith. He asked for an exemption.
Considered to be possibly the first court case on the right to free exercise of religion in America, People v. Philips presented issues that continue to arise today. For example, it was claimed that exempting Fr. Kohlmann from a general civic duty would be tantamount to giving Catholicism special privileges. In other words, some people claimed an exemption seemed to favor one religion. Also, then, as now, there was concern that granting religious exemptions could be detrimental to public order. Ultimately, though, the court recognized that the constitutionally protected free exercise of religion must mean that Fr. Kohlmann was exempt from the normal requirement to provide information gained in the confessional. It was a victory both for respect for the seal of confession and for religious exemptions.
This case hinged specifically on the question of exemptions to generally applicable laws. Since the Philips case, clergy-penitent privilege has become recognized as a basic right. Today, protecting clergy-penitent privilege is still important. The privilege is recognized as not only protecting the seal of confession for Catholics, but as protecting analogous practices for other faith groups. Essentially, it recognizes that the relationship between a penitent and his or her confessor is sacred, and the civil authorities ought not to intrude upon this sacred space.
Different states may protect the clergy-penitent privilege in different ways, depending on who is understood to hold the privilege. In many cases, both clergy and penitent hold the privilege, and so clergy cannot be compelled to testify even when the penitent waives the privilege.
1 Like
Most recent one (if you read the link) happened in the 1930s, where a priest is killed for refusing to reveal confession information.
This is about as likely to change as the Catholic believing that Mary has other sons or daughters or that Jesus is not one of the trinity.
1 Like
It’s not like they’re magic and lose their magic powers.
That feeling should be reciprocal. It’s right up there with tax free churches kind of stupid.
2 Likes
Take that up with the Pope, but seeing how sacred it is, that’s like telling the Pope that the immaculate conception of Mary is dumb and should be changed. Well, not exactly THAT serious but it’s definitely up there.
But if you think priests will just violate confession seals, then your doctor or lawyer could violate their confidentiality. The consequence is basically the same anyways.
If you are in jail for murder, and the authorities have no real evidence, and you told your lawyer that you did it and where all the evidence/body is, he won’t reveal that to prosecution either, so why would a priest?
1 Like
I’d rather take it up with my state Senator. Why would I go to the Pope? I’m not catholic or christian for that matter, and I’m not a resident of the Vatican City.
I think the rate priests a bit too high in the scheme of things.
A lawyer went to law school, passed the Bar Exam and has been practicing law in front of other lawyers and judges, one would assume.
A priest, what, maybe studies at divinity school and what, practices religion and business management, with minimal oversight and supervision?
They’re not equal at all, the way I see it.
Still not sure what all this has to do with the thread. Has anyone suggested they go to a priest in Taiwan to confess a crime? Or is this yet another rabbit hole of pointlessness that I also, I confess, refuse to remove myself from?
Well you don’t actually have to have gone to law school to pass the Bar exam. Catholic priests have to be very well learned more so than priests of most other Christian churches.
Churches are tax free true as are most religions ,so just make more things tax free than making more things taxable.
Isn’t it actually a benign thing that there is a person in this case a priest that anyone cal talk to in absolute confidence ?
The tax free thing bothers me less than the “I know this guy committed a crime that hurt someone but I won’t report it” thing.
Then that person who knows, who is in a position like a teacher as a mandated reporter who discovers abuse, faces no consequences? Wtf is that even based on?
It’s some antiquated cultural nonsense that should be thrown out.
1 Like
Well, they can report it. They’ll just be excommunicated, maybe.
My problem with that is that they should be required by state or federal laws to report any crime against children and any crime that resulted in harm.
That they lose their magical status in the church is irrelevant.
2 Likes
It’s almost like the Catholic Church is pro child molestation. It protects priests caught sodomizing choirboys, moves them on to fresh pastures and then refuses to report confessions of the same. Makes you wonder why anyone would send their children to their schools.
1 Like
The priest I talk to is incredibly educated and knowledgeable. They know their history and more. I wish I could say the same of most evangelical ministers. It’s basically PhD level education.
1 Like
Because if they start making exceptions on the altar of child molestation, as the US has done to constitutional protections, it undermines the entire system. If priests are required by the state to report certain things, nobody will be truthful in confessions and it will lose its meaning.
And priests are technically (but probably not legally) ambassadors for Vatican city, so they have diplomatic immunity. It doesn’t matter what the state require. Confession cannot under any circumstances be revealed.
Good.
You what? 
Priests have diplomatic immunity? You might want to check that.
Nonsense. Is this another of your fantasy made up facts again.
So you think it’s good that someone can be jailed or have his reputation ruined because some kid claimed “he touched me” because kids never lie? Without any due process other than a kangaroo court?
What on earth does that have to do with the topic or what I wrote? 
1 Like
We’re talking about confidentiality. Someone seems to think there ought to be exceptions.
Doctor and lawyer confidentiality exists for very good reasons. They can’t help you if you don’t tell them the truth. The only way to ensure that you will tell them the truth is a legal guarantee that it will never be used against you no matter what. Exceptions undermine that. Nobody tells the truth to the police because anything you say to them can and will be used against you in the court of law.
Priests is the same way. If they can report you based on your confession, no one will do it at all. It destroys the purpose confessions are for. It’s why there are harsh penalties in these professions for violating them (disbarrment, excommunication).
Attorney client privilege exists to protect the rights of the accused. Without that there is no justice.
So what you’re saying is that priests don’t have diplomatic immunity and you made it up?