Confidentiality of a murder confession to minister?

[Jon Bemis]

I had a parishioner ask me last night (based on a book she's reading):

"If someone came to you and confessed a murder, would you keep it confidential or would you report it.?"

Her question is based on a case several decades ago where a young man confessed a murder to a Baptist minister who didn't report it until many years later. Thoughts?

[Ryan Scott]

I'm not sure what I'd do. I hope I don't ever face this situation. I do think it's best to have the party involved resolve the issue rather than having an outside party do it.

[Dave McClung]

I had a parishioner ask me last night (based on a book she's reading):

"If someone came to you and confessed a murder, would you keep it confidential or would you report it.?"

Her question is based on a case several decades ago where a young man confessed a murder to a Baptist minister who didn't report it until many years later. Thoughts?

If you are a member of the clergy and it was a parishioner who confessed, you are bound not to report it. A member of the clergy in the Church of the Nazarene who reveals confidential information would be subject to discipline.

The law recognizes that it benefits society for one who has committed a crime to be able to seek counsel from a minister, a medical doctor or a lawyer without having to fear being outed. Confidential communications to those professions are "privileged."

The official position of the Church of the Nazarene is:

435.14.

It shall be the duty of every minister of the
Church of the Nazarene to hold in trust and confidence any
communication of a confidential nature given him or her by
a counselee of the congregation while he or she is acting in
his or her professional character as a licensed or ordained
minister of the Church of the Nazarene. The public dissemination
of such communication without the express written
consent of the declarant is expressly condemned. Any Nazarene
minister who violates the above regulation subjects
himself or herself to the disciplinary sanctions set forth in

paragraphs 505-507.2 of this Manual.

The provision probably needs to be clarified to prevent clergy from getting in trouble:
1) The law requires clergy to take appropriate action to prevent future crimes. If a counselee tells a member of the clergy of his or her intention to commit a future crime, the minister has an obligation to take reasonable action to prevent the crime. Otherwise, the minister becomes an accomplice.
2) Most states now have laws that require clergy to report child abuse. Such laws override the privilege.
3) One could argue that a confession of "serial crimes" is enough to overcome the privilege because such a confession is an indication of future crime.

[Bud Pugh]

Our district's lawyer has said that pastors are by law "required to report" some things and "required to keep confidential" other things. I doubt that helps in this situation. I think what does help is a pre-confession disclaimer (if the pastor can get one in) - something along the lines of not promising confidentiality in all situations, like required-to-report activities (sexual abuse, etc.), probable harm to the individual or to someone else, or something illegal. This is an awkward thing to say in a counseling situation but probably advisable if a pastor can see it coming and maybe as a general rule.

Barring a pre-confession disclaimer (which may limit the number of confessions a pastor has to deal with ), I would also push the individual to confess to legal authorities.

Another issue that may need to involved in our thinking is what the reason was that the person confessed. Was it to receive forgiveness of sins and receive salvation (as in Catholic confession) or simply to get something off of one's chest. In our tradition I would think that reporting a murder after hearing about it in a confession during counseling would be legally defensible. At least I guess I would hope it would be. Chuck Wilkes, where are you?

Edited to add, after reading Dave's above post: the Manual may not allow for non-confidentiality disclaimers, nor would reporting be legally defensible (without permission in writing).

I guess I am back to abiding by the Manual in matters of confidentiality but I would sure do everything I could to get the person to take care of it him- or herself.

[Paul DeBaufer]

If you are a member of the clergy and it was a parishioner who confessed, you are bound not to report it. A member of the clergy in the Church of the Nazarene who reveals confidential information would be subject to discipline.

The law recognizes that it benefits society for one who has committed a crime to be able to seek counsel from a minister, a medical doctor or a lawyer without having to fear being outed. Confidential communications to those professions are "privileged."

The official position of the Church of the Nazarene is:

435.14.

It shall be the duty of every minister of the
Church of the Nazarene to hold in trust and confidence any
communication of a confidential nature given him or her by
a counselee of the congregation while he or she is acting in
his or her professional character as a licensed or ordained
minister of the Church of the Nazarene. The public dissemination
of such communication without the express written
consent of the declarant is expressly condemned. Any Nazarene
minister who violates the above regulation subjects
himself or herself to the disciplinary sanctions set forth in

paragraphs 505-507.2 of this Manual.

The provision probably needs to be clarified to prevent clergy from getting in trouble:
1) The law requires clergy to take appropriate action to prevent future crimes. If a counselee tells a member of the clergy of his or her intention to commit a future crime, the minister has an obligation to take reasonable action to prevent the crime. Otherwise, the minister becomes an accomplice.
2) Most states now have laws that require clergy to report child abuse. Such laws override the privilege.
3) One could argue that a confession of "serial crimes" is enough to overcome the privilege because such a confession is an indication of future crime.

Here in California I believe that clergy are mandatory reporters of child abuse. I know that therapists are required to report threats to self, others, and even property presumably to guard the safety of the victim. But in the instance of confessing a murder that had already been committed, well not much reporting can do to protect that victim now. So, would reporting murder be required legally?

I agree with Bud, i would encourage the person to go confess to the authorities, but really don't think I could do it for him/her.

[Chuck Wilkes]

Dave's answer is accurate...and the provision needs to be clarified (as I've argued before here on NazNet). As currently drafted, it would not allow for a waiver of confidentiality by a parishioner; however, I don't think any discipline would be taken against a clergyperson for obtaining such a waiver. The provision needs work...maybe I'll tackle that with Dave.

[Dale Cozby]

In prison ministry, we are bound as clergy to remain confidential about ANY crime or sin a person confesses.

It is made clear to them, that if they are planning a NEW crime not as of yet committed we are bound to report such for the good of those to be harmed and to prevent further evil from being done.

I believe in most states this is the law on both counts.

[Peggy Gray]

Wow. So if a person confessed to, say, murdering a teenage girl and hiding her body ten years ago, the minister would keep the confidentiality even though a family would continue to grieve and wonder?

[Chuck Wilkes]

Wow. So if a person confessed to, say, murdering a teenage girl and hiding her body ten years ago, the minister would keep the confidentiality even though a family would continue to grieve and wonder?

Yes, that is correct.

[Jon Bemis]

Wow. So if a person confessed to, say, murdering a teenage girl and hiding her body ten years ago, the minister would keep the confidentiality even though a family would continue to grieve and wonder?

I know that it sounds absolutely horrible - and I am trying to make sense of the manual's stand on it. To say the least, my parishioner's question really got me thinking. In every state I have lived ministers are required to report the sexual abuse of children. Considering the risk that such people pose, that makes sense and needs to be done. But to not report a murder . . . . ?

[Chuck Wilkes]

There is a very long history underlying this principle. It has applications in a number of professions, primarily in law and ministry. Principally, the public policy consideration is that: 1) attorneys and clergy should not be subject to becoming instruments of law enforcement by being forced to disclose what they are told in confidence; 2) there are sound public policy reasons for attorneys and clergy to be a source of confidential communication with their clients or parishioners (the primary policy is that most attorneys and most clergy have options available to them to convince their clients/parishioners to do the right thing/make amends for "bad" conduct).

It's really much more complex that I can cover in a post, but believe me when I say these scenarios (and much more difficult ones) have been dealt with, thought of, and wrestled with for many, many years.

[Dave McClung]

Dave's answer is accurate...and the provision needs to be clarified (as I've argued before here on NazNet). As currently drafted, it would not allow for a waiver of confidentiality by a parishioner; however, I don't think any discipline would be taken against a clergyperson for obtaining such a waiver. The provision needs work...maybe I'll tackle that with Dave.

It is ok for me to criticize the current Manual provision becasue I wrote it. There is history. Back in the 70's, a minister in Texas was jailed because he refused to testify against a defendant concerning confessions made during counseling. The Judge said that the church that provided his professional credential didn't have a clear policy concerning confidentiallity.

I drafted the current Manual provision to make sure that no Nazarene clergy faced that same issue. As far as I know, no Nazarene clergy have been disciplined for breaking the provision.

Our church faced the issue. Our pastor confessed to the youth pastor that he had molested his own daughter. The youth pastor was obligated by Washington Law to report the confession immediately.

[Chuck Wilkes]

It is ok for me to criticize the current Manual provision becasue I wrote it. There is history. Back in the 70's, a minister in Texas was jailed because he refused to testify against a defendant concerning confessions made during counseling. The Judge said that the church that provided his professional credential didn't have a clear policy concerning confidentiality.





I drafted the current Manual provision to make sure that no Nazarene clergy faced that same issue. As far as I know, no Nazarene clergy have been disciplined for breaking the provision.

Our church faced the issue. Our pastor confessed to the youth pastor that he had molested his own daughter. The youth pastor was obligated by Washington Law to report the confession immediately.

Dave: Would it help the current language (which has served us well over the years) to add a proviso to the effect that compliance with reporting requirements will operate as either 1) an affirmative defense to any church discipline; or 2) will relieve a clergy person from the duty of compliance with the MANUAL provision?

[Dave McClung]

Bud

I believe the Manual provision does allow a waiver of the privilege as long as it is in writing. Hypothetically, if a member of the clergy had his parisioners sign a waiver of the privilege it would be valid. I question if that is wise. The law is the way it is because society believes clergy may be able to encourage people to do the right thing. Asking them to sign a waiver of privilege may prevent the minister from having the positive influence expected.

I certianly have never asked a client to waive the attorney/client privilege.

Dave McClung

[Belinda Edwards]

I have had many questions for the last several years that have confused me on many levels. The questions have been regarding how and why the Church at large has responded as it has to the wrongs that they knew existed within its clergy. This thread has answered my questions in a very clear way. Now, I understand the protection of the *brotherhood* that can be tight within the clergy walls.

Advantages and Disadvantages.

Thank you for all the responses. Now, I understand.

[Katelynn Scott]

Report, report, report. I have seen first hand how reporting incidents can significantly help the process of justice for the perpetrator and speed healing for the victim as well. Also, reporting left undone causes the legal process to move so slowly that families and communities are unnecessarily negatively affected. I would not hesitate to report.

[Dave McClung]

Dave: Would it help the current language (which has served us well over the years) to add a proviso to the effect that compliance with reporting requirements will operate as either 1) an affirmative defense to any church discipline; or 2) will relieve a clergy person from the duty of compliance with the MANUAL provision?

Yes, but it probably needs a full rewrite for globalization. It was written to reflect U.S. law, but may not reflect the law in other countries. We should not place Nazarene clergy in the position of having to choose between the Manual and the law of their country.

[Belinda Edwards]

Wow. So if a person confessed to, say, murdering a teenage girl and hiding her body ten years ago, the minister would keep the confidentiality even though a family would continue to grieve and wonder?

This includes - that should a minister confess to his ministerial prayer group. Very interesting. And yes, almost monthly I see articles of crimes that pastors do to their families and communities.

[Paul DeBaufer]

Wow. So if a person confessed to, say, murdering a teenage girl and hiding her body ten years ago, the minister would keep the confidentiality even though a family would continue to grieve and wonder?

I would. But I would try and persuade the person to make things right: confess to the authorities or at the very least let the girl's parents know.

[Dave McClung]

I have had many questions for the last several years that have confused me on many levels. The questions have been regarding how and why the Church at large has responded as it has to the wrongs that they knew existed within its clergy. This thread has answered my questions in a very clear way. Now, I understand the protection of the *brotherhood* that can be tight within the clergy walls.

Advantages and Disadvantages.

Thank you for all the responses. Now, I understand.

Belinda, welcome back. We have missed you on Naznet.

Confidentiality only answers part of your question. The truth is that clergy have been slow to report wrongdoing by other clergy even when their knowledge came from sources that were not confidential. The reasons are complex.

I would also say that the problem isn't limited to clergy. It happens in all kinds of organizations.

Probably the most difficult issue is theological. Our bleif in "conversion" often causes us to overlook past misconduct. If a person appears to "repent", we tend to believe that misconduct is a thing of the past.

In my life, I have seen a number of people who have repented and become new creatures. Their conduct after conversion has been radically different from before. I have also seem a lot of people who claimed to repent who quickly returned to their past forms of misconduct. Still, as a Christian, I tend to give people a second chance. In retrospect, I have sometimes given people another chance when I had many reasons not to.

[Belinda Edwards]

Belinda, welcome back. We have missed you on Naznet.

Thank you sincerely and kindly.

Confidentiality only answers part of your question. The truth is that clergy have been slow to report wrongdoing by other clergy even when their knowledge came from sources that were not confidential. The reasons are complex.

Thank you for these statements of acknowledgement. Yes, I agree that the reasons are complexed. So complexed that the families themselves spin within the culture of expected protection: as an individual within the Church apart from the union of the pastorate; their own theological war of belief for answered prayers; forgiveness; restoration; reconciliation that would result in safety emotionally, physically and most of all spiritually. Isolation and judgement, rather than accountability that could result in healing, seem to be companions for the ones that may mention a wrong doing.
I would also say that the problem isn't limited to clergy. It happens in all kinds of organizations.
Again, thank you - sincerely - for acknowledging this element within our culture. It is many organizations. I do agree.

Probably the most difficult issue is theological. Our bleif in "conversion" often causes us to overlook past misconduct. If a person appears to "repent", we tend to believe that misconduct is a thing of the past.
Again, I agree with your thought that perhaps the most difficult issue is theology. I think that you have mentioned one aspect of our theology that hinders the acknowledgement that wrong has occurred. I think there are several reasons beneath the theology unbrella. Another could be that pastors often have the gift of persuasion. They know how to present their case and cause ones to buy it. Each time they are in the pulpit, their style of delivery will either draw the crowd to them or repulse the crowd. If the speaker, pastor, has a crowd that is in awe of him - then, he could convince the crowd for any motive that would be needed. I think another issue is that we, as a nation, hunger to be able to trust our leaders. We want to trust our doctors; it frustrates us when we learn we can't. We want to trust our lawyers; it frustrates us when we can't. We want to trust our pastors - because we desparately need to trust the God they reflect and represent. If we can't trust our pastors - who can we trust???? The foundational stones that hold the character and morals of who we are as people before God - command us to trust our pastors and follow our leader. We can't build the church as we are tearing it down.



In my life, I have seen a number of people who have repented and become new creatures. Their conduct after conversion has been radically different from before. I have also seem a lot of people who claimed to repent who quickly returned to their past forms of misconduct. Still, as a Christian, I tend to give people a second chance. In retrospect, I have sometimes given people another chance when I had many reasons not to.

I believe in forgiveness. I believe in second chances. I don't want to ever get to the point in my life where these two concepts aren't important elements of my interactions to those around me; within and without the church culture. I believe that one shouldn't have to have a reason to give a second chance - other than the fact that God Himself gave *me* a second chance when He died on Calvary and with that I will give others the same mercy and grace. However, there are some wrong doings that (in my opinion) render not just repentance but should also have accountability and the reconciliation process embedded within the restoration process. One can forgive someone a thousand times but that doesn't wash the person clean of motives that caused the deed in the first place. Our forgiveness does not one thing for the person who did the wrong. It does a whole lot for US but not for them. For some reason, it seems that we have thought that if we forgive someone that we are cleansing them. That person is solely responsible for how they respond to the process of righting the wrong.

One proverb that has meant a lot to me is the Indian one about the snake. If you step on the snake one time - snake fault. You step on the snake second time - Indian fault.

One may not be able to prevent the first wrong doing, but if protective safe guards aren't put in place the wrong will happen a second time. For example: the child wants to go into the street. If the parent just calls to the child or even ignores the child - the child will go in to the street. If traffic isn't around, it is no big deal. (or is it?)

Again - thank you for engaging dialogue.

[Jon Twitchell]

Well... General Assembly is only two years away...

Are some of our resident lawyers going to take a crack at rewriting this?

[Pete Vecchi]

1) The law requires clergy to take appropriate action to prevent future crimes. If a counselee tells a member of the clergy of his or her intention to commit a future crime, the minister has an obligation to take reasonable action to prevent the crime. Otherwise, the minister becomes an accomplice.
2) Most states now have laws that require clergy to report child abuse. Such laws override the privilege.
3) One could argue that a confession of "serial crimes" is enough to overcome the privilege because such a confession is an indication of future crime.

Several years ago I knew an ordained minister who came across a situation where an adult came to the minister seeking confidentiality in counseling, and in the midst of the counseling was told of non-specific "abuse" incurred by the counselee decades earlier by someone still living, but at the time an octagenarian (whom I found out has since passed away). The minister wanted to know what obligation there was in confidentiality and/or needing to pass that info along. I didn't know how to answer that question. Any thoughts on this?

Just an aside, does it strike anyone else as strange that if a person commits pre-meditated murder a pastor has to keep it confidential, but that the same pastor would be required to report "child abuse" to the authorities--especially in light of how some people define "child abuse"? I once heard a U.S. Congressman on the floor of the House of Representatives say that it was "child abuse" (his words) for schools to make students have lunch as early as 10:30a.m.

[Chuck Wilkes]

I may give it a try, with Dave's help. It's important, but it's complicated. I think I may be back to being the only Senior Pastor/attorney in the COTN, so maybe Dave and I are the ones to tackle it.

[Craig Laughlin]

The legal question is important but the larger one for clergy is the ethical/moral question. The rule of thumb I was taught long ago was "who does the information belong to?" If a confession includes reasonable belief that someone is currently or will in the future harm someone then that information belongs to the person being harmed not the person confessing. Therefore, even if it meant discipline I would reveal the information. Pastors are constrained and compelled by ethics and morality as well as the law, even if it means a bit of civil disobedience... wait that's another thread.

Even the reporting law is difficult ethically. In my last parish we saw lots of really bad things with children. Unfortunately when we "Reported" it to the authorities, without exception, there was a brief investigation followed by zero action. The parents always figured out who it was that had reported them and cut off that relationship. (removing the one redemptive relationship in the child's life) The plight of the child was (in the cases I was involved with) always worse than before. - Hard stuff. I knew some folks that avoided telling me things because they knew I was a required reporter and they were not willing to Hot Line anyone until there was iron clad evidence.

[Jon Twitchell]

Here's the problem I have...

In many states, the mandatory reporter law doesn't provide an exception for confidential communication to clergy. In those cases, the clergy-person is stuck between a state law that says to report... and a Manual provision that says not to report. So the minister seeks legal counsel, or makes the best ethical/moral decision... and is willing to suffer the consequences. In those states, the Manual provision may provide some protection to the minister who feels morally obligated to NOT report...

However, in Maine, the mandatory reporter law provides an exception to clergy for "confidential communication." At that point, both the state law and the Manual are erring on the side of clergy confidentiality... and a case could be made that the Manual is legally binding--preventing the minister from reporting, even if s/he feels morally obligated to do so. The unintended consequence of protecting the clergy-confidence in the state that doesn't provide an exception is that the Manual statement is too strong for the pastor serving in a state that does provide an exception.

At least... that's how it looks from where I'm sitting!

[Jon Twitchell]

For those who are interested, a reduction of the Maine mandatory reporting statute says:

The following adult persons shall immediately report or cause a report to be made to the department when the person knows or has reasonable cause to suspect that a child has been or is likely to be abused or neglected:

• When acting in a professional capacity:

• clergy members acquiring the information as a result of clerical professional work, except for information received during confidential communications.

Consequently, in a clearly defined confidential counseling session, (as I read the law), I am not a mandatory reporter of child abuse.... and lacking better direction from the Manual, it would appear as though confidentiality would trump the child's safety... leaving me open to legal action or church discipline if I reported.

If I lived in a state that didn't provide that exception, then I'm stuck between the state law and the Manual, and could make a good faith decision (probably to report), and risk suffering the consequences of potential discipline.

[Houston Thomas]

If I lived in a state that didn't provide that exception, then I'm stuck between the state law and the Manual, and could make a good faith decision (probably to report), and risk suffering the consequences of potential discipline.

Not to derail the conversation but where do you find information about each State's mandatory reporting statute's?

[Billie Goodson]

Not to derail the conversation but where do you find information about each State's mandatory reporting statute's?

You can start here: http://www.childwelfare.gov/systemwi...gymandated.pdf

Or here: http://www.childwelfare.gov/systemwi...olicies/state/

[Jon Twitchell]

My state has a website that lists all of our laws: http://www.mainelegislature.org/legis/statutes/
I assume that most states have something similar.

In addition, I found a nice summary document here: http://www.childwelfare.gov/systemwi...gymandated.cfm

[Pete Vecchi]

Even the reporting law is difficult ethically. In my last parish we saw lots of really bad things with children. Unfortunately when we "Reported" it to the authorities, without exception, there was a brief investigation followed by zero action. The parents always figured out who it was that had reported them and cut off that relationship. (removing the one redemptive relationship in the child's life) The plight of the child was (in the cases I was involved with) always worse than before. - Hard stuff. I knew some folks that avoided telling me things because they knew I was a required reporter and they were not willing to Hot Line anyone until there was iron clad evidence.

This is exactly the kind of difficult situation I was talking about--when the church ends up as the "bad guy" when it is the only good influence in the child's life.

The other question which still hasn't been answered is, whose definition of "child abuse" is someone supposed to take? If a child receives a swat on the behind by a parent, some people would consider that to be child abuse (I would NOT consider that child abuse). Some children live in homes that are filthy with cockroaches, or animal urine and feces. Some live in homes where there is only one ingress/egress to the floor where they sleep (I actually had a relative who was wanting to provide temporary care for relatives be told by children's services from another state that the only way the state would allow it was to ensure that none of the children slept in the basement, because there was only one exit out of there).

where does a member of the clergy one draw the line as to just what constitutes child abuse?

[Dave McClung]

Here's the problem I have...

In many states, the mandatory reporter law doesn't provide an exception for confidential communication to clergy. In those cases, the clergy-person is stuck between a state law that says to report... and a Manual provision that says not to report. So the minister seeks legal counsel, or makes the best ethical/moral decision... and is willing to suffer the consequences. In those states, the Manual provision may provide some protection to the minister who feels morally obligated to NOT report...

However, in Maine, the mandatory reporter law provides an exception to clergy for "confidential communication." At that point, both the state law and the Manual are erring on the side of clergy confidentiality... and a case could be made that the Manual is legally binding--preventing the minister from reporting, even if s/he feels morally obligated to do so. The unintended consequence of protecting the clergy-confidence in the state that doesn't provide an exception is that the Manual statement is too strong for the pastor serving in a state that does provide an exception.

At least... that's how it looks from where I'm sitting!

I think I understand where you are coming from, but I have a problem with "feels morally obligated...." A "feeling" isn't enough to override a legal and moral obligation. If you substitute "reasonably believes" for "feels" then I could agree tha a pastor should ignore the Manual provision.

While I agree that the current Manual provision needs to be updated, I doubt that any provision can be written that will totally take clergy off the hook for making a tough decision.

[Jon Bemis]

In my last parish we saw lots of really bad things with children. Unfortunately when we "Reported" it to the authorities, without exception, there was a brief investigation followed by zero action. The parents always figured out who it was that had reported them and cut off that relationship. (removing the one redemptive relationship in the child's life)

Sounds like the response of law enforcement where I now live.

[Cynthia Prentice]

Texas is a mandatory reporting state, not only for child abuse but also for neglect.

[Dennis M. Scott]

The saddest part of all of this is that most commonly it isn't the welfare of the child that is the greatest concern, but the legal liability of those who are aware of abuse or neglect. The primary advantage of that is that it leans toward eliminating what is sometimes blinding subjectivity. We often operate in the arena of subjectivity, however. At the end of the day, I'm not comfortable saying, "Well, I followed required procedures, and it's not my fault if things turned out bad because someone else messed up. The situation for the child is still the same, but I'm off the hook." No, I'm not sure I'm off the hook. I still care way more than that.

[Bob Carabbio]

IN the AoG, a confession to a Licensed Minister would typically be reported to the Authorities IMMEDIATELY.

In fact MY present AoG pastor told me that if he "heard" that my granddaughter was having sex with her boyfriend (who was under 18) - he'd HAVE TO turn her in for statutory rape.

Since the Catholics have a convenient "Sacramental" magic spin on what they do, they wouldn't.

[Bill Evans]

Several thoughts here. I know that my comments do not relate to the original question of the thread--the confession of a murder. However, the bigger question is limits of confidentiality and not the specific offense of murder.

I am an ordained elder in the CotN and a Licensed professional counselor. While serving as a [astpr, my wife and I became aware of a teen-aged girl in our congregayion being molested by her father who was not a member of the congregation. We concluded the safety of the daughter took precedence over anything else. We called the authorities for them to launch an investigation and allow them to make the legal determination regarding the veracity of the girl's story. While the investigator interviewed the girl on a Sunday afteroon at the church, she was removed from the school on Monday. We were simply the reporters.

During the course of my internship prior to licensure as a counselor, I served at a faith=based counseling service which was a ministry of the church where it was located. All counselors were identified as being employees of the church. All clients signed a statement indicating their understanding of the limits of confidentiality. I believe many agencies have similar statements based on a case in California identified as the Tarasoff law. Those limits involved the counselor's "duty to warn" if there was even a statement of intent to do harm to self and to others. Personally, I don't see why clergy should be held to a diffrerent standard than any therapist.

To compare this to the sacrament of confession in the Catholic Church seems a little incongruous. Could it be the priestly confidentiality has served to exacerbate the effects of the misconduct by clergy sex abuse?

[Ian Gentles]

As a Railway/British Transport Police Chaplain, I had to report anything that might touch on public safety. Only once did i blow the whistle as person was emotionally not able to take a train out. As to question, i wouldn't hesitate to report a murderer to police.

[David Graham]

In my denomination, the only crimes I am obliged to report are those committed against children..... i.e. serious physical/emotional assault or abuse, and any form of sexual assault.

Regarding all other types of "serious" crime, I am able to act according to my conscience, with the full backing of the church.

In regard to a heinous crime such as murder I would have no hesitation in referring such a matter to the police. I think we have to balance the need for justice against the need for assisting the "penitent" perpetrator of the crime to receive God's mercy. It's not enough to offer the person absolution so that they can simply sleep better at nights. Part of the process of repentence is help them whenever possible to make restitution; at the very least this might mean to say "sorry" to the victim or their family.

Of course, I then have an obligation to "walk" with the person through the process of the arrest, the trial and if necessary the final trip to the gallows, or at least in my country through a process or regular visits and contact with the prisoner until such a time as their sentence is served (if ever they are released).

[Jimmy Patrick]

I had a conversation with a catholic priest once, and asked him this exact question. His response was, in the case of a murder, or similar circumstances, he is required by the catholic rules and law to not report it to the police. Although the point of confession is to atone for sins, so the priest said that in this situation he would do everything he could to convince the confessor to turn himself in. If the confessor has enough regret to confess to the murder, then there's a good chance he will turn himself in.