mcjathan wrote:The priest-penitent privilege is ALWAYS intended to protect the penitent, and NEVER the priest, NEVER the church. Attorney-client privilege, therapist-client privilege, doctor-client privilege, etc are ALL intended to protect client -- NOT the advisor. If, in any of these relationships, the priest, attorney, therapist, doctor, etc have something they need to keep confidential to protect themselves, there is something terribly wrong with that relationship.
The church is implying the sanctity of priest-penitent privilege while turning the concept on it's head and using it as a mechanism of abuse, control, and avoidance of accountability. The church's ethical duty is to protect the privacy of the person on trial. Period. The decision to record a church court is entirely up the person on trial. Period.
Despicable. God's church my a$$.
I agree with this.
1. It is always the penitent's privilege. If a penitent is on trial and the prosecutor calls the priest to testify as to what the penitent confessed, the penitent may claim the privilege so as to not allow the priest to testify.
If the priest is on trial and the penitent is called to testify to saucy comments made by the priest during the confessional, the priest may not claim the privilege.
2. The privilege exists only so long as the communication is private and privileged. If there is another person in the room during such confession, there is no privilege. The communication itself must be given in such a way as to bear the hallmarks of confidentiality in the first instance, or there is no privilege. The Catholic confessional is the classic instance of this.
But where Bill is in a room with numerous others, which he will be, the communication is not confidential at its outset, and therefore there is no privilege.
3. Bill is not confessing anything! This is not about using anything Bill confesses to against him! There is no privilege.
4. Finally, the "contract" Bill is required to sign in order to attend his own disciplinary council is not binding because Bill is not being given anything in exchange for his signature. NDA's are enforceable as a legally binding contract because money is changing hands; there is a settlement given in exchange for the signature on the NDA.
If Bill is receiving no money, or anything else of benefit in exchange for signing what is effectively an NDA, it is void and legally unenforceable.
And I would love to see the church argue that Bill received something of benefit by being allowed entrance into the room where he is being excommunicated.
Just my two cents.