Clergy-penitent privilege (page 2)

undercover

Blondie,

Thanks for that link. Handy to have...

I personally don't believe in clergy-penitent privilege AT ALL. The state and its judicial system have every right to this information, IMO, and I would gladly vote for any candidate who would appoint judges that agree with me.

PublishingCult

I personally don't believe in clergy-penitent privilege AT ALL. The state and its judicial system have every right to this information, IMO, and I would gladly vote for any candidate who would appoint judges that agree with me.

As far as I am concerned, if you confess to abusing a child, you don't get clergy-penitent privelege. The child will need help and counseling and the child will not get it as long as the abuser gets to keep his anonymity. The cleric should think ONLY of the child and direct the abuser to turn himself in and confess to the authorities. If the abuser does not do so, the cleric should go, and IS required to go to the authorities with what he knows. All cases of child abuse must be reported to the authorities, period.

blondie

Check what the laws in your state are and if they do except clergy for reporting, call your legislators and let them know how you think. Check with www.snapnetwork.org and see what they have in place already to get the law changed.

Justitia Themis

As a doctrine of some faiths, clergy must maintain the confidentiality of pastoral communications

This is what lost them their claim in CA. The appellate judge adroitly determined that the communications in that case were not "pastoral" in nature, but judicial because they were seeking to determine what congregational actions to take.

Band on the Run

Mandated reporting is one thing and privilege is another. Privilege existed at common law. I think the key component is what the parties expectation was concerning privacy and confidentiality. If no confidentiality existed, there is no reason for the privilege. It puts you on guard to watch your match with certain people and freely unburden yourself with others.

I'm curious just how the Witnesses' process differs from Roman Catholic and Protestant churches. The Witness claim isn't so crazy to me but I don't know the behind the scenes maneuvering. The elders would be the very last people my family would ever consult. I suppose another factor is why one isn't enough. Sometimes you can pile on translators or parents but it is difficult.

My entire life I was interested in Catholic confession. A few weeks ago I was in the cathedral in the nearest city. The confessional booth was there and no one was around so I opened it and snooped some. No hocus pocus. It just seemed extremely uncomfortable.

I agree that it is audacious to claim there is no clergy class and then claim the privilege. If I were a judge, I would note that. Also, others here have written about vicarious liability problems b/c the WTBTS assumes no responsibility for the workings of KH. They don't have a coherent legal theory. It is mish mash.

kurtbethel

What the WT says about the clergy:

38 However, it is not to be forgotten that the “man of lawlessness” is not a single individual religious leader like the pope of Rome or the Greek Orthodox patriarch of Athens, the Greek Orthodox patriarch of Constantinople (Istanbul) or other religious patriarch. The foretold “lawless” one is a composite “man,” the whole religious clergy of the professed “Christian” church. Of course, what one prominent member of this clerical “man” does attaches blame to all the other members of the clergy class for their agreeing with what is done or not protesting against it or for acquiescing in it and remaining with the clergy organization. They all share a community responsibility and culpability for what a member of the clergy class does in a representative way as when speaking or acting for the whole group. It is what the clergy class as a whole does or joins in doing through the centuries of time that fulfills the prophecy concerning the “man of lawlessness.” – God’s Kingdom of a Thousand Years Has Approached!, pp. 380-381, par. 38, “Bringing the ‘Man of Lawlessness’ to Nothing”

"Following the model of first-century Christianity, Jehovah’s Witnesses have no clergy-laity division."
http://www.jw-media.org/aboutjw/article41.htm

Going to court and claiming to have a clergy when it is to their benefit is dishonest doublespeak.

Clergy-penitent privilege