Earlier this week, I received a phone call from the religion editor of the Detroit Free Press. He told me that he was assisting another reporter on a local news story and had a few questions for me. Niraj described the case to me.
In 2009, a young girl reported to police that two years earlier, when she was 9-years-old, she was raped by a 15-year-old male cousin at a sleepover at her home. The boy's pastor was informed of the allegation and he summoned the boy and his mother to the Metro Baptist Church in Belleville, Mich., to be questioned about the incident. The boy confessed to his pastor about the rape and then they prayed. The pastor, Rev. John Vaprezsan, went to the authorities and has since testified about the confession. Is that legal? Is that ethical?
It's a horrible situation, but it also presents a host of interesting legal and ethical questions about what is known as pastor-penitent privilege. This privilege varies from state to state, but in Michigan it is protected in the same way as attorney-client privilege. In the Detroit Free Press article I explained that I honor the confidentiality of people who confess to me, but "if information that is confided in me would lead to serious harm of another human being, I would feel compelled to tell the authorities. That would include situations of abuse."
It is important that people have a safe space to speak in confidence with their religious leader in addition to their attorney. Judaism does not place the same emphasis on confession as the Catholic faith does, but we do want people to feel comfortable speaking with their rabbi while they're in the process of repentance.
Last night I appeared on Detroit's Fox News affiliate to discuss this topic along with Ray Cassar, the defense attorney for the boy accused of rape. It was a very interesting discussion in which I fully agreed that in this case the pastor's testimony about the accused's confession should not be admissible in court. It is very important to protect the confidential discussions between clergy and congregant (or pastor and parishioner in this case). However, if I ever felt that confidential information I was given by a congregant could prevent a tragic act from taking place, I would feel compelled to break that confidentiality. In that case, the Jewish concept of pikuach nefesh (saving a life) would dictate my decision.
Here is the video of last night's episode of "Let It Rip" on Fox2 Detroit:
Follow Rabbi Jason Miller on Twitter: www.twitter.com/rabbijason
police is totally unfounded .Witholding evidence is itself a crimnal offense for others so
why not for clergy.By not giving confessions of crimes to police they become a part of the
problem.A person is a serial killer,rapist or whatever can confess and be forgiven and go out
and continue to do these things over and over.How can these so called religious leaders care
more for the criminals than the victims and their families.The bible plainly teaches that no one
has the power to forgive sin except God.How can a Priest or whoever forgive someone for what
they did to me simply because they confess to their crime.I can forgive them but ultimately all
sin is against God.I can forgive them but that in noway excuses them from being punished for
their crimes.These people play God and they too will answer to G od for their crimes for they are
as guilty as those they seek to protect.Why is it that I can be charged with obstruction of justice
if I have knowledge of a crime and refuse to cooperate with the police.This is a double standard
that has no validity at all.It's very sad that doctors and lawyers can pratice this.Innocent people
and society as a whole suffers because of this foolishness...Herbert....warren,Ar
Christianity has a strong bias against mixing business and religion. Other religions tend not to have this bias. Judaism in particular has historically valued moneymaking as a sign of God's approval.
No, it's not Christian, but no one ever claimed it was.
BTW, a Catholic who breaks the seal of the confessional incurs automatic excommunication. This applies to priests. It also applies to anyone who might overhear a confession. Removing the legal protection would place every Catholic in danger of prosecution and imprisonment.
The moral of that story is, invest in CXW. They are the largest prison company. They will make huge profits if we decide to throw 20% of the population in prison.
A Priest or Rabbi or any religious guide shielding a crime of any nature esp of a sexual nature shares in the crime. There is a line and clearly rape is a line that sd not be "protected" by any declared confidential agreement that you believe is that of an attorney/client nature.
Considering the long history of sexual abuse and cover ups in the church, this situation actually reflects an individual doing the right thing, the ethical and morally right decision. By covering up this information he would put at risk other children and in turn allow a young rapist to turn into an adult rapist. This Pastor has served the community at large by bringing this rapist to justice. I would hope that if you are ever in such a position that you would do the right thing and not cover up a rape which is what you are advocating.
Pastors, Priests, and Rabbis are just men and as men you have a responsibility to the law and believing that you religious position allows you to circumnavigate that responsibility is unjust and it is un-G_dly. It is very disturbing to hear anyone from the religious community advocate such a position.
The post was not about jay walking but rape.
And no the Rabbis conversation with the rapist sd not be thrown out.
This is very much about the victim being the nine year old girl and any future victims that 15 year old may have already and to prevent future victims.
You assertions are vile.