http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0%2C8599%2C168915%2C00.html

[url]http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0%2C8599%2C168915%2C00.html[/url]

I second that motion.

On the other hand, the murderer's confession was obtained only because he trusted the priest enough to confess.  Breaching that trust might have meant that others in similar situations would not come forward.  So, instead of one man spending 13 years in the pokey - and remember he was convicted fair and square - you might have a dozen or a hundred instead... just my $0.02.

Convicted fair and square; sure, but he was innocent! He was convicted fair and square because the priest did not come forward. Had the priest come forward the charges would have been dropped "fair and square."

People confess to trusted ones, outside of the church, all the time. When it comes to crimes where innocent people are being prosecuted, I see no reason for the clergy to remain silent. The peace of mind of the guilty cannot be judged against the suffering of innocent people.

The Confession is supposed to absolve part of the sin, and provide ways to repent. How can this be done if the sin is continued by allowing an innocent person to be punished?

It was better than a Non-Interesting gun article.

Skullworks, you've pretty much just stated the contradictions the country runs into believing in God's laws and having to judge ourselves in secular ways. I thought it was interesting in that the priest came out after the guy died. he pretty much violated the sanctity of the Catholic confession. I'm not very religious so I think priests - and psychologists - should report these sorts of confessions to the cops. I understand the religious aspect, though psychologists are shaky to me, but to me it is much better than letting that innocent guy go 10+ years in prison. To be consistent with his faith, that priest should have kept his mouth shut and find a faithful way to deal with his God. Just one opinion/

Well, there is a separation of church and state, so I guess (in my layman's interpretation) that the priest could have been charged with obstruction of justice. But I guess there are prejudicates preventing such action.

Also I think I pointed out some weaknesses in the argument of sanctity of confession.


Well, I don't know if the priest violated any Catholic regulations by speaking up after the perp was dead. If not that might have been his intention all along, to tell once he was free from his obligation towards the confessing party. Hell, what do I know?