FLA Appeals Court Upholds Priest's Objections To Testifying About Statements Made In Confessional

Religion Clause ^ | 6/16/18

[marshmallow]

In Ronchi v. State of Florida, (FL App., June 15, 2018), a Florida state appellate court held that it would violate Florida's Religious Freedom Restoration Act to require a Catholic priest, Fr. Vincenzo Ronchi, to testify about a sex abuse victim's statements made during a confession, even though the victim had waived the priest-penitent privilege. The alleged abuse occurred when the victim was 7 and 13. She was 18 when the trial of her abuser was to take place. In quashing the trial court's order that the priest testify, the appellate court said in part:

.. [I]f Ronchi complies with the State’s demand that he testify as to his communications with the alleged victim during the Sacrament of Reconciliation, Ronchi would be forced to engage in conduct that is prohibited by the Catholic Church (and, indeed, would subject him to possible excommunication from the Church). Thus, the trial court’s order can only be upheld if the State establishes that coercing Ronchi’s testimony furthers a compelling governmental interest and is the least restrictive means to further that interest.

Here, it is undisputed that the State has a compelling governmental interest in prosecuting sex offenses perpetrated against children....

[CondorFlight]

Australia might examine this case for precedents.

[BykrBayb]

...even though the victim had waived the priest-penitent privilege.

Is the priest still bound to secrecy, even if she waives it? Could he really be excommunicated under that circumstance?

[Campion]

Yes. The penitent can of course talk about her confession, but the priest cannot.

[Ransomed]

The priest can’t even confirm that a particular confession ever took place, much less what was in it.

Freegards

[Marchmain]

Absolutely. Confession is not a legal contract or therapy session; it’s a sacrament.

[BykrBayb]

Thank you for the replies. Especially the ones that answered my question. I wasn’t asking if confession is a sacrement, but if that’s what you want to talk about, go ahead.

I just wanted to know if secrecy could be waived, and if excommunication would be the Church’s response to a priest who spoke of what was said in confession, even if the person confessing waived privacy.

I’m pinging Mrs. Don-o, hoping she can explain this to me, because she’s done a good job in the past of clearing things up for me. And I think she knows me well enough to know that I’m not being argumentative. I’m just curious, and really want to know.

Mrs. Don-o, please read the article, so you know the context of my questions. Thank you.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Hi Bykr Babe,

The others who jumped in to answer you were correct.

The penitent is always free to reveal what was said in a confession, but neither the penitent, the police, the Pope, nor anyone else, can authorize the priest to reveal anything. This is because this isn't "ordinary" confidentiality (as between a therapist and a client) but a sacramental bond. In no way can the priest say or even hint anything, not even by nodding his head. In fact, he can neither reveal nor deny that he even heard this person's confession.

The Code of Canon Law (#1388.1) states, "A confessor who directly violates the seal of confession incurs an automatic excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See." That means nobody can ever lift the excommunication for this priest, except the Pope, or, I suppose, someone individually delegated by the Pope to do this.

I'm going to bring Arthur McGowan into the discussion, if he's around. He's a priest and knows much better than I do exactly what is in Canon Law, and the theological reasons for it.

[BykrBayb]

Thank you, Mrs. Don-o. That makes it a little more clear.

I already had a general understanding of the importance of secrecy in the confessional. I didn’t realize a violation of the bond of secrecy carried an automatic excommunication. I thought each case would be examined on an individual basis, with some discretion.

I still don’t understand why it would be a violation of the bond of secrecy, if the person who confessed waives the secrecy. Especially in a case where they actually request the priest testify to what was said. It seems to me, that would not be a violation of the bond of secrecy. It seems there would no longer be a bond of secrecy, if both parties were to waive it.

Is the bond of secrecy an agreement between the priest and the person confessing, an agreement between the priest and God, or something else?

It seems to me, that if it’s an agreement between the priest and the person confessing, then that person could release the priest from the bond of secrecy.

So I’m guessing this is an agreement between God and the priest, or some similar situation. Am I close?

Thanks for helping me grasp this.

[Mrs. Don-o]

As I said before, I am not an expert in Canon Law. As far as I know, the Seal of Confession is not regarded as an agreement or bond between the priest and the penitent, but between the priest and God. Therefore even after the penitent dies, the priest cannot say what was told him in confession.

If I remember correctly, not only are the actual words in confession to be held in absolute secrecy, but even information that would be circumstantial evidence that the person even went to confession. For instance, 'Fr. Jones' could not testify, "I had an appointment with 'Mr. Smith'. I saw him drive up in his car at 8:15, park at the far end of the parking lot, and enter the back of the church..." if in fact Fr. Jones had then heard Mr. Smith's confession.

Priests have been willing to die for this. Offhand, I remember there were a number of them who died during the Spanish Civil War, and also St. John of Nepomuk (Bohemia).

[BykrBayb]

Thank you for taking the time to help me understand. It makes sense to me now.

Have a blessed day, FRiend.

[Mrs. Don-o]

You are welcome -— always.