Confession And The Confessional Seal In The Mormon Church

[MiserereNobis]

In the Catholic Church, priests are under the most strict rules to not divulge anything they hear in the confessional without the penitents consent.  This is so strict that even the threat of death does not exempt the priest.  Any priest who breaks this seal is automatically and immediately excommunicated (which means that no sentence needs to be pronounced -- it just happens).  The excommunication can only be lifted by the Pope.  Yes, it's that serious.

 

I've spoken with priests who say that sometimes this is difficult because they will hear serious confessions with legal ramifications, such as child abuse.  One priest says he does his best to get this people to turn themselves in or to give him permission to turn them in, but without their permission there is nothing he can do.

 

This seal is upheld under law, too, much like the lawyer-client privilege.

 

Is there such a seal with confession in Mormonism?  Are there rules for when confessed sins can be reported?  This also brings up the question -- what sins are required for confession?

 

Thanks!

 

[thesometimesaint]

Lots depends on the state in which you live. Generally speaking the confessional is sacrosanct, except in the case of serious criminal acts.

[mfbukowski]

In the Catholic Church, priests are under the most strict rules to not divulge anything they hear in the confessional without the penitents consent.  This is so strict that even the threat of death does not exempt the priest.  Any priest who breaks this seal is automatically and immediately excommunicated (which means that no sentence needs to be pronounced -- it just happens).  The excommunication can only be lifted by the Pope.  Yes, it's that serious.

 

I've spoken with priests who say that sometimes this is difficult because they will hear serious confessions with legal ramifications, such as child abuse.  One priest says he does his best to get this people to turn themselves in or to give him permission to turn them in, but without their permission there is nothing he can do.

 

This seal is upheld under law, too, much like the lawyer-client privilege.

 

Is there such a seal with confession in Mormonism?  Are there rules for when confessed sins can be reported?  This also brings up the question -- what sins are required for confession?

 

Thanks!

On a kindle so only a short answer for now.

Bishops are considered as judges to judge such matters.

Only sins which would require a possible change in membership status need be confessed- what you might call serious mortal sins.

Confidentially is complete, but bishops may seek council from their stake president in difficult cases or where legal issues may enter in

[jaxenro]

And you are not completely accurate on thd legal issues in the US. Most confessional communications are priveledged but not all legally. I am fairly sure if someone confesses to ongoing child abuse I don't think it is covered

[Buzzard]

And you are not completely accurate on thd legal issues in the US. Most confessional communications are priveledged but not all legally. I am fairly sure if someone confesses to ongoing child abuse I don't think it is covered

That is a tricky thing. IIRC, if a bishop hears a confession of child abuse, he is to contact a church hotline set up specifically for that purpose. In most cases, the "seal of confessional" is absolute, but in some jurisdictions, even confidential confessions that are not reported to authorities can put the bishop and the church in hot legal water. Presumably, that would apply to other denominations as well.

I do remember our bishop saying that in Utah, a direct confession to him is not required to be reported, though the perpetrator going to the police and turning himself in would certainly be a condition of repentance, but that any report made by another party-like a wife reporting her husband or son-did have to be reported to the police.

As far as I know, child abuse is the main crime where this is an issue. Other than that, bishops are to hold confessions in total confidentiality. Of course, when the sin leads to a disciplinary hearing, then at least a few others will find out.  But the old practice of announcing discipline in priesthood meeting is long gone.

Edited March 19, 2014 by Buzzard

[ksfisher]

And you are not completely accurate on thd legal issues in the US. Most confessional communications are priveledged but not all legally. I am fairly sure if someone confesses to ongoing child abuse I don't think it is covered

If the perpetrator confesses to the bishop it would be considered priveledged communication.  The bishop would, however, encourgage that person to turn themselves in to the police.  If the bishop is told of a crime, say by the victim or another with knowledge of the crime, the bishop would have an obligation to report it to the authorities.  In either case, I believe, the bishop is instructed to call the church hot line first to insure that everything is done properly.

[jaxenro]

If the perpetrator confesses to the bishop it would be considered priveledged communication. The bishop would, however, encourgage that person to turn themselves in to the police. If the bishop is told of a crime, say by the victim or another with knowledge of the crime, the bishop would have an obligation to report it to the authorities. In either case, I believe, the bishop is instructed to call the church hot line first to insure that everything is done properly.

Sorry I was speaking generally about the practice not LDS in particular. There are 51 different statutes on the US governing this (50 states and DC) and they offer differing levels of protection. It is similar to attorney-client priveledge but not as absolute. I remember when Massachusetts changed theirs about child abuse a few years back

[ksfisher]

Sorry I was speaking generally about the practice not LDS in particular. There are 51 different statutes on the US governing this (50 states and DC) and they offer differing levels of protection. It is similar to attorney-client priveledge but not as absolute. I remember when Massachusetts changed theirs about child abuse a few years back

What is the law in Massachusetts?

[daz2]

The scriptures say nothing about the confidentiality of confession to priesthood leaders--they say very little at all on the mechanics of confession.  Over time, however, the policy has developed that confession of serious sins (including most if not all sexual ones) are to be made to a bishop who keeps them absolutely confidential, as a policy matter.  But this can be overridden by law.  Ed Kimball has an excellent article about how the policy of private confession to priesthood leaders developed in the church over the last 180 years.  https://byustudies.byu.edu/showtitle.aspx?title=6400

[jaxenro]

What is the law in Massachusetts?

I would need to look it up I just remember the uproar when they changed. It was similar in intent to teachers and doctors being required to report abuse

[LoudmouthMormon]

In the Catholic Church, priests are under the most strict rules to not divulge anything they hear in the confessional without the penitents consent.  This is so strict that even the threat of death does not exempt the priest.  Any priest who breaks this seal is automatically and immediately excommunicated (which means that no sentence needs to be pronounced -- it just happens).  The excommunication can only be lifted by the Pope.  Yes, it's that serious.

 

I've spoken with priests who say that sometimes this is difficult because they will hear serious confessions with legal ramifications, such as child abuse.  One priest says he does his best to get this people to turn themselves in or to give him permission to turn them in, but without their permission there is nothing he can do.

 

According to Childwelfare.gov:

 

 

Every State, the District of Columbia, American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands have statutes that identify persons who are required to report child maltreatment under specific circumstances. Approximately 27 States and Guam currently include members of the clergy among those professionals specifically mandated by law to report known or suspected instances of child abuse or neglect.

 

Are you honestly claiming, MiserereNobis, that Catholic priests must choose between following state law or their membership in the Catholic church?  And are you further claiming that Catholic priests are out there willfully violating state law by intentionally and knowingly protecting child molesters?

 

Because if that's what you're claiming, I have a response for you.  But I'd like to make sure that's what you're claiming first.  Regardless, would you be willing to name this priest who told you "without their permission there is nothing he can do"?  I know some child rights groups who might be very interested in knowing the name and location of that priest, depending on which state he calls home.

Edited March 19, 2014 by LoudmouthMormon

[MiserereNobis]

As far as Catholicism goes, any statements made during the Sacrament of Confession are privileged.  Interestingly enough, if a government passed a law removing the privilege, the priest would still have to keep the seal.  In other words, the threat or actual punishment of jail does not supersede Canon Law, which declares that under no circumstance can the priest break the seal without the penitent's permission.

 

A few years back Ireland was going to pass legislation removing privilege in the case of child sexual abuse.  Irish Catholic priests said that they would go to jail rather than break the seal.  The legislation did not pass.

[jaxenro]

As far as Catholicism goes, any statements made during the Sacrament of Confession are privileged. Interestingly enough, if a government passed a law removing the privilege, the priest would still have to keep the seal. In other words, the threat or actual punishment of jail does not supersede Canon Law, which declares that under no circumstance can the priest break the seal without the penitent's permission.

A few years back Ireland was going to pass legislation removing privilege in the case of child sexual abuse. Irish Catholic priests said that they would go to jail rather than break the seal. The legislation did not pass.

Pretty much what the argument was in Massachusetts was Catholic priests who would break the law instead of breaking confessional.

For such a secular state the Catholic Church is fairly powerful in Boston

[Duncan]

In some sense confession to your leader isn't all that private when it comes to any disciplinary action. because if there is now others know about. When I was 16 I couldn't take the sacrament for 2 months because I passed out at a dance. Well, my Mum found out, my YM Pres. knew about it all the other priests and stuff found out. Even though I was hardhearted and wouldn't repent for blacking out, people knew. I couldn't though imagine any legit sins. Like having to tell your spouse you are a Calgary Flames Supporter or whatever

[LoudmouthMormon]

Interestingly enough, if a government passed a law removing the privilege, the priest would still have to keep the seal.  In other words, the threat or actual punishment of jail does not supersede Canon Law, which declares that under no circumstance can the priest break the seal without the penitent's permission.

Could you comment on this 2012 article in the Catholic News Service: Bishop Finn convicted on one charge of failure to report abuse

"I will pledge, both personally and in my capacity as bishop, to take every reasonable step to protect children from any abuse or misconduct perpetrated by clergy, diocesan employees or volunteers," Bishop Finn said in a statement after the verdict. "I regret and am sorry for the hurt that these events have caused."

...

[From Bishop Finn's 9-page stipulation of testimony]"The diocesan process and procedures as previously existed failed to adequately identify the necessity for informing the (state) children's division of Shawn Ratigan's behavior in a more timely manner," the lawyers said. "For this the bishop is truly sorry."

...

Jack Smith, interim director of communications for the diocese, said Bishop Finn "looks forward to continuing to perform his duties, including carrying out the important obligations placed on him by the court."

[MiserereNobis]

According to Childwelfare.gov:

 

 

 

Are you honestly claiming, MiserereNobis, that Catholic priests must choose between following state law or their membership in the Catholic church?  And are you further claiming that Catholic priests are out there willfully violating state law by intentionally and knowingly protecting child molesters?

 

Because if that's what you're claiming, I have a response for you.  But I'd like to make sure that's what you're claiming first.  Regardless, would you be willing to name this priest who told you "without their permission there is nothing he can do"?  I know some child rights groups who might be very interested in knowing the name and location of that priest, depending on which state he calls home.

 

You are a loud-mouth, aren't you

 

Yes, priests cannot break the confessional seal without the penitent's permission.  This is a religious practice that goes back over 1000 years.  It does not matter what civil law has to say about it.

 

Here is a good article dealing with the relevant facts:  Seal of Confessions and Child Abuse by Fr. William Saunders

 

The Code of Canon Law states:

Can.  983 §1. The sacramental seal is inviolable; therefore it is absolutely forbidden for a confessor to betray in any way a penitent in words or in any manner and for any reason.

Can. 1388 §1. A confessor who directly violates the sacramental seal incurs a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See [that's the Pope]; one who does so only indirectly is to be punished according to the gravity of the delict.

 

As far as Catholic priests "willfully" violating law, the source you gave does not show that the confessional (which is separate from normal clergy/parishioner interactions) is not protected.  But even if it were not in some state here or there, a priest would be following rules set down by his religion a millennium before the law was passed.

 

Your statement about me giving you a priest's name is ridiculous and should be retracted.

[MiserereNobis]

Could you comment on this 2012 article in the Catholic News Service: Bishop Finn convicted on one charge of failure to report abuse

 

Certainly.  From the article:

The case began in December 2010, after a computer technician discovered child pornography on a computer used by Father Shawn Ratigan and turned it over to diocesan authorities.

 

No confession there, so no confessional seal.  Bishop Finn should have reported it under both civil and ecclesiastical law.

[MiserereNobis]

I'll add that we should not confuse normal clergy-penitent interactions with the confessional.  Any communication outside of the Sacrament of Penance (confession) is not under the confessional seal.  If I walked into my priest's office and told him the story of how I abused a child, there would be no seal.  The Sacrament of Penance is a ritual and so has a very distinct beginning ("Father, bless me for I have sinned") and end (the priest gives absolution).  THAT is where the confessional seal is, nowhere else.

 

So, finding child porn on a computer and turning it over to diocesan authorities has nothing whatsoever to do with the seal of the confessional.

[MiserereNobis]

I'll further add that in traditional confession, there is an actual confessional that has a screen so that the priest cannot even see the penitent.  In recent years there has been a move towards face to face confession, but the tradition still has the screen.

 

I have the same confessor so he knows my voice, but I could confess in a confessional with a screen to a priest that doesn't know me and he wouldn't have a clue who I am.

 

I prefer to keep the same confessor because he offers me spiritual direction based on my previous confessions.  He knows my weaknesses and sins and helps me work through them.

[LoudmouthMormon]

Thanks for the valid clarification.  

 

I'm heading over to the Catholic Forums to pursue this matter further.  Y'all protect confessing child molesters from the law, and y'all are defending that state of affairs as good practices for a church?  I gotta hear that from some more people before I'm willing to believe it.  Maybe I'm about to be schooled in the history of reality, maybe I'm getting the wrong impression.  I hope it's the latter.  We'll see.

 

Anyway, to the point of the thread, no, I don't think we have anything like that in LDS confession.  I mean, we used to, back before the culture started grappling with the reality of child sex abuse.  But stuff started changing in the mid 1980's.  These days, when a bishop gets a confession of child abuse, there's a 1-800 number to call to get educated on the laws in his area, which the bishops then follow to the best of their ability.

[pogi]

Yes, priests cannot break the confessional seal without the penitent's permission.  This is a religious practice that goes back over 1000 years.  It does not matter what civil law has to say about it.

 

Is the penitent required to turn himself over to the authorities for penitence to be complete?  Are there any disciplinary actions taken?  Is any measure taken at all to protect the child?

[LoudmouthMormon]

You are a loud-mouth, aren't you

 

[...]

 

Your statement about me giving you a priest's name is ridiculous and should be retracted.

Wouldn't be the first time.  Anyway, I'll head off to Catholic forums.  If I experience a change of heart, I'll come back here and retract whatever is appropriate to retract.  

 

Thanks again for the clear, direct, helpful answers.

[jaxenro]

I'll further add that in traditional confession, there is an actual confessional that has a screen so that the priest cannot even see the penitent. In recent years there has been a move towards face to face confession, but the tradition still has the screen.

I have the same confessor so he knows my voice, but I could confess in a confessional with a screen to a priest that doesn't know me and he wouldn't have a clue who I am.

I prefer to keep the same confessor because he offers me spiritual direction based on my previous confessions. He knows my weaknesses and sins and helps me work through them.

I understand the confessional and how parts of it aren't protected unde US law. And yes I think some priests would choose their faith and paths over following the law.

[MiserereNobis]

Thanks for the valid clarification. 

 

You're welcome.  And I called you a loudmouth in good jest

 

 

I'm heading over to the Catholic Forums to pursue this matter further.

 

Most Catholics that would be posting are aware of this, but remember, people may have their own opinions that don't match the Church's.  I'd recommend going for source material, too.

 

ETA:  A quick search on CAF brought up this thread:  http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=450038

 

Y'all protect confessing child molesters from the law, and y'all are defending that state of affairs as good practices for a church?

 

Well, that's one way of looking at it, but obviously that way does not respect what the Sacrament of Penance is and how long this has been a rule in the Catholic Church.  The Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 made the confessional seal inviolable, and we cannot go against solemnly declared dogma.  Freedom of religion should recognize this, but even if it doesn't, the priest's obligation is to God.  Nazis and Communists tortured priests to break the seal.  We shouldn't place them in jail, either.

 

 

maybe I'm getting the wrong impression.  I hope it's the latter.  We'll see.

 

I assure you that what I am saying is true.  I don't know your impression, because that is in you, but the fact that a priest cannot break the seal for ANY reason (jail, threat of death to priest, threat of death to others, on and on) is absolute Church teaching.

 

 

Anyway, to the point of the thread, no, I don't think we have anything like that in LDS confession.  I mean, we used to, back before the culture started grappling with the reality of child sex abuse.  But stuff started changing in the mid 1980's.  These days, when a bishop gets a confession of child abuse, there's a 1-800 number to call to get educated on the laws in his area, which the bishops then follow to the best of their ability.

 

I think that's probably because we might have different ideas of what confession is.  For us it is one of the Seven Sacraments.  It is not a judicial affair, or a disciplinary affair, or a bureaucratic affair.  It is not a policy.  It is a Sacrament.  It is core to our religion and at the heart (along with the other Sacraments) of our sanctity.  A civil authority ordering the breaking of the seal would be similar to a civil authority ordering the LDS church to change the temple ceremony.  I'm sure you wouldn't go along with it.

Edited March 19, 2014 by MiserereNobis

[pogi]

Any priest who breaks this seal is automatically and immediately excommunicated (which means that no sentence needs to be pronounced -- it just happens).  The excommunication can only be lifted by the Pope.  Yes, it's that serious.

 

This is hard for me.  Can you help me understand why a catholic priest would not be excommunicated for molesting a child, but would be excommunicated for turning in a child molester?  Why is the protection of this seal more sacred than a child?

 

One more question out of curiosity.  What if a child abuser confessed to molesting a child on Monday, and then the child comes in on Tuesday and reports that he has been molested by this man.  Could the priest then report the molestation to the authorities using the child's accusations instead of the man's confession?