Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The clergy–penitent privilege, clergy privilege, confessional privilege, priest–penitent privilege, pastor–penitent privilege, clergyman–communicant privilege, or ecclesiastical privilege, is a rule of evidence that forbids judicial inquiry into certain communications (spoken or otherwise) between clergy and members of their congregation. [1]
Prior to the adoption of statutory protections, there was some protection under common law. New York: In People v. Phillips (1 Southwest L. J., 90), in the year 1813, the Court of General Sessions in New York recognized the privilege as in a decision rendered by De Witt Clinton, recognized the privilege as applying to Rev. Anthony Kohlmann, S.J., who refused to reveal in court information ...
In the canon law of the Catholic Church, ecclesiastical privileges are the privileges enjoyed by the clergy. Their scope varied over time. [1] The main privileges are: [1] Privilegium canonis, regarding personal inviolability against malicious injury; Privilegium fori, regarding a special tribunal in civil and criminal causes before an ...
During the course of its investigation the AP revealed that a retired Utah legislator, an attorney with the law firm of Kirton McConkie, advised Bishop John Herrod not to report Adams’ abuse to ...
Papal privileges resembled dispensations, since both involved exceptions to the ordinary operations of the law. But whereas "dispensations exempt[ed] some person or group from legal obligations binding on the rest of the population or class to which they belong," [ 1 ] "[p]rivileges bestowed a positive favour not generally enjoyed by most people."
In English law, the benefit of clergy (Law Latin: privilegium clericale) was originally a provision by which clergymen accused of a crime could claim that they were outside the jurisdiction of the secular courts and be tried instead in an ecclesiastical court under canon law. The ecclesiastical courts were generally seen as being more lenient ...
In 1828, the case of Broad v Pitt 3 C&P 518, where the privilege of communications to an attorney was under discussion, Best CJ said: The privilege does not apply to clergymen since the decision the other day in the case of Gilham [supra]. I, for one, will never compel a clergyman to disclose communications made to him by a prisoner: but if he ...
The Catholic Encyclopedia contends that it is not quite clear from his comment, but it seems likely, that Coke has interpreted the concluding caution to the confessors as a recognition of the seal of confession, and, if so, it would seem that he has wrongly interpreted it, because the translation of the word informare as "to inform against" would appear to be incorrect.