Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Talkback Live

Murder Confession: When Is a Secret Sacred?

Aired July 25, 2001 - 15:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is a case where we clearly established that those two were innocent and that they were wrongfully convicted.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BOBBIE BATTISTA, HOST: Jose Morales and Ruben Montalvo spent 12 years in prison for a murder a priest says they didn't commit. Father Joseph Towle told authorities another man, Jesus Fornes, confessed the crime to him 12 years ago.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REV. JOSEPH TOWLE, CATHOLIC PRIEST: I did not consider this to fall under that precise seal of confession because he had not come to me explicitly seeking absolution.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BATTISTA: Towle says he encouraged Fornes to confess to authorities, which he did, but prosecutors didn't believe the teenager. Fornes has since died. Did Towle have an obligation to come forward sooner? Or was his obligation to Fornes to keep the confession a secret?

Good afternoon, everyone and welcome to TALKBACK LIVE.

How sacred are Catholic confessions? New York law recognizes their secret nature and does not usually allow them to be used in court. But should a priest keep quiet when confession involves a crime, especially murder?

We'll talk ethics with a priest, a Muslim leader and a seminarian in just a minute. First, here are more details about the Morales- Montalvo cases from New York.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

TAINA HERNANDEZ, NY1 CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): For more than a decade, Father Joseph Towle lived with the knowledge, two teens were wrongfully convicted of murder.

TOWLE: From beginning to end, the situation is a tragedy. HERNANDEZ: But after a federal appeals court hearing Tuesday, family and friends of one of those teens rejoiced. Jose Morales imprisoned 12 years for murder was released on his own recognizance. And the judge indicated his conviction will soon be overturned.

RANDA MAHER, MORALES' ATTORNEY: They have not proceeded as they should have back in 1987 and '88 when they were aware that other people were involved in this crime, and they didn't fully investigate it.

HERNANDEZ: But lawyers for the D.A. thought to keep Morales in jail Tuesday, even though 13 years ago, before Morales was sentenced, another teen, Jose Fornes, admitted that he did it, after confessing to Father Towle.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I gave him absolution. I said go to the court and tell him everything that you told me. That's exactly what he did. He made a public declaration of everything he had said to me.

HERNANDEZ: But when the D.A. and the original judge refused to acknowledge Fornes' confession, he was sent to prison along with an alleged accomplice. Now also expected to be free, pending an appeal, though the victims' daughter continues to believe the right men were jailed.

WANDA RIVERA, VICTIMS' DAUGHTER: They are guilty. Truly guilty.

HERNANDEZ: As for Morales' plans...

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I know that he is looking forward to finally spending time with his son.

HERNANDEZ: Who was born around the time Morales was sentenced. According to his lawyer, it's premature to say if they will pursue a lawsuit against the district attorney's office but the D.A. stands by its case, arguing the original eyewitness stands by her story.

Taina Hernandez, New York 1.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BATTISTA: All right. The attorneys for Jose Morales and Ruben Montalvo have been in court trying to secure Montalvo's release. Randa Maher is going to join us soon. Is she there? No, she's not. All right.

We will move on and bring in Father Brian Jordan. He is with Saint Francis Church in New York.

And Father Jordan, I have to ask you this first, because the archdiocese of New York approved Father Towle coming forward on this, because they basically ruled that this discussion that he had with this teenager at the time was not really a confession. So that poses the question: what constitutes a confession in the Catholic church?

REV. BRIAN JORDAN, FRANCISCAN PRIEST: According to the teachings in the Roman Catholic Church, the penitent first comes to the priest, blessed themselves, says the last time they have been to the confession and it gives the integrity of confession. If he's truly repentant, truly contrite for his sins and makes them known to the priest.

The priest, in turn, gives spiritual council to give comfort, repentance and sorrow, and gives challenge, effective challenge, if the penitent seems to be on the slippery slope of his own moral conscience. After there is satisfaction of this particular integrity of confession, the priest offers to the penitent, to do a penitence. Past to be given through prayers, or through acts of charity.

Afterwards, the penitent is asked to make an act of contrition to solidify his own contrite spirit to God, to church, to the priest, of his sinfulness and promise not to do this no more.

Afterwards, the priest then parts the prayer of absolution to bring Christ to the penitent, to bring healing to the penitent, and forgiveness of that sin.

BATTISTA: Well, basically, that's what took place here in -- in a bedroom in Jesus' house. When he called the father to come and talk with him about this crime that he admitted to doing. And Father Towle gave him absolution.

JORDAN: I don't believe that that's true. I get a differing accounts from the media. All I know about this case is from the media. One particular newspaper says, there was the prayer of absolution. Another newspaper says, there was not.

BATTISTA: Well, the father -- the father just said a few moments ago in that package that we just ran, that he did give him absolution.

JORDAN: Well, I am not sure about that. Like I said I get varying accounts in that particular matter. Since Father Towle went to the archdiocese, what I understand from the media, he must have sought spiritual counsel from the archdiocese on the matter of conscience. And no one can ever manifest anyone's conscience. You can guide their conscience and help form their conscience, but you cannot manifest their conscience.

So I assume Father Towle, from the reports from the media, spoke with the archdiocese on this. And it's my understanding that he did not break the seal of confession.

BATTISTA: So, basically, what you are saying, is that if a priest hears a confession that involves a crime, even if it's as heinous as murder, he is not under any moral obligation to come forward to the authorities with that because of the seal of the sacrament, correct?

JORDAN: Not true.

BATTISTA: OK?

JORDAN: If the penitent is truly repentant and truly contrite in the eyes and in the heart of the priest who tried to bring Christ to the penitent, then they have to stay with the seal of confession. But if the penitent comes to the priest and confessed what he did, but is not repentant, is not contrite, is not sorry for what he or she did, the priest might be morally bound, but is not sacramentally bound to hold that under the seal of confession.

Therefore, the priest under careful consideration and reflection may decide, although be morally bound, can bring it to the attention of the proper authorities. Because the penitent was not repentant, and therefore, it was not a real genuine, sincere confession.

BATTISTA: What happens when the penitent dies, as was in this case? Jesus Fornes died, which seems to be what prompted Father Towle to come forward or to start pursuing the idea of coming forward. Does that change things?

JORDAN: The priest is under the seal of confession, the penitent is not under the seal of confession. When the penitent dies, I can't go into matter what happened in this particular case, because I don't have all of the facts and details, associated with this particular matter.

However, this would allow a priest to seek counsel from his ordinary under the advice of the matter of conscience, as I mentioned before.

BATTISTA: All right. Let me bring a couple more voices into the conversation. Al-Haaj Ghazi Khankan is a Muslim cleric and executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations in New York.

Also here in Atlanta is Ian Punnett, a seminarian and frequent talk show host on WGST Radio in Atlanta and he is heard weekly on coast-to-coast AM.

I see that puzzled look in your face, Ian. Do you approach this differently from an ethical point of view or a religious point of view?

IAN PUNNETT, SEMINARIAN: I support both the brother there in the technicalities of this issue and the difficult nuances of how to maintain integrity in the relationship between the priest and the -- and the confessee in this case and it's hard to always know exactly what to do outside of one's own religious tradition.

In this case, he followed the letter of the law of the church, exactly, and I think, although the priest may have been very conflicted about it at the time, I think the priest did the right thing. I think the person who confessed did the right thing. I think the authorities are doing the right thing now in reconsidering the whole case.

BATTISTA: But 12 years have gone by, and these guys have been in prison for something they didn't do, reportedly.

PUNNETT: You have big picture issues, and you have to maintain integrity, and you can't just throw away something that is as sacred as a sacrament as confession is in the Catholic church, just because it seems wrong in this particular case. There is the issue in the Catholic tradition of the souls of all of the believers and the risk that somebody won't come and confess their sins for fear that the priest is going to turn around and act on those confessions.

BATTISTA: Al-Haaj, let me ask you to tell us how Islamic law views the concept of confession.

AL-HAAJ GHAZI KHANKAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, COUNCIL ON AMERICAN- ISLAMIC RELATIONS: Thank God, we have no confession to any human beings. We confess directly to God almighty, whose Arabic name is Allah. Therefore, the ultimate of this issue, of this case, is justice. From an Islamic perspective, was justice put to practice? When the priest received the news that the person who killed is really out of prison, and the innocent is the imprisoned, I believe that it is the duty of the priest to let the authorities know, because 12 years have passed, a person who is innocent has been guilty for no reason whatsoever.

Justice must be the issue, and a person that commits a crime and charges an innocent person has committed one of the biggest sins. And we are told as people, when you speak, be just, even if it is against yourselves or your parents or your relatives -- and in this case, I believe the priest should have informed authorities, and the guilty should have been put jail, and not the innocent.

BATTISTA: I do have a take a quick commercial break, but there's lots to discuss in the audience, who want to get in on this as well. We'll also talk with Roger Cossack and the lawyers representing Morales and Montalvo. We will take a break and continue right after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BATTISTA: The Catholic code of canon law says the seal of confession is inviolable. It is a crime for a confessor to betray a penitent by word or for any other reason. The seal of confession applies to confessions from Catholics and baptized non-Catholics.

We're back with some audience reaction. Jim in North Carolina says, "I am a devout Mormon. If I confess my sins to my bishop, I expect him to keep the matter private between me, him, and God. I believe the priest did the wrong thing. This could only lead to fewer followers of Catholicism, to actually discuss our confess sins that they have committed with their priest.

Carol in Levittown says shame on any religion that allows innocent people to go to jail. Shame on a religion that says it's OK to protect the guilty.

Karen is a Catholic -- and you are struggling with this a little bit.

KAREN: I am very torn on this. I think that any time they life can be saved, every effort has to be made to save those lives, to keep the innocent out of jail, to protect those people who might potentially be injured in a subsequent attack.

On the other hand, I believe that any faith ought to be able to have its rules and regulations and traditions and customs, and that they need to be respected. And Catholics feel very strongly about the sacred sacrament of confession, and that need to be held true. I am torn, very torn.

BATTISTA: And over across the room to Verna.

VERNA: I think that it was more up to the justice system to prove the innocence of the man who are putting in prison rather than the priest. The priest was carrying out his belief, and it is the belief of the Catholic church. It was too bad that the two had to stay in prison for 12 years before the truth came out. Somehow, I think it's up to the lawyers to prove that the two men were innocent.

BATTISTA: We are going to talk to some lawyers in just a couple of moments about that, as a matter of fact -- Ian.

PUNNETT: Well you know, I think we keep kind of going around some of these issues, and I just want to make sure we keep them straight. The priest did exactly what he would have been told to do, what he would have told anybody that he was training to do, and that was the to tell the penitent, now that you've confessed, I give you absolution, but now go make this right.

I am not sure what the accusation is beyond that that keeps coming back to the priest did something wrong. And I think we have to be very careful about saying that the church -- any church -- should always be dancing to the tune of society. Part of being in church, and part of being involved in the clergy is, to some degree, to separate yourself out from the culture at large, and not to become, say, another level of police authority within the community.

BATTISTA: You know, Father Bryant, let me ask you just a few more questions, for our own understanding. If, for example -- because I know you guys do about 1,500 confessions a week there, up at St. Francis, I know you do a lot...

JORDAN: More than that.

BATTISTA: More than that? Wow! If someone is in the confessional, and they tell you about a crime that they are going to commit, or a crime that they are actively committing, like child abuse, or something, what is the obligation there, if any?

JORDAN: I guess I mentioned before, it depends upon the integrity of the confession. If the penitent is truly contrite and repentant and I as a priest of spiritual counsel challenge him not to engage in action, not to do that type of harmful action, then I am doing my job. If the penitent is not contrite, is not repentant, and is not listening to my spiritual counsel, then I am not sacramentally bound, because this is not a real bona fide confession. Therefore, I am morally bound, but in order to protect the greater good of society, and for the gift of human life, I am compelled to report that to the proper authorities. BATTISTA: I have a question for you. Nina in Washington e-mails us and asks would he have broken the confessional sacrament by informing the police that someone has confessed, without revealing his name?

JORDAN: That's a good point. One cannot associate a particular person with the particular sin. Not in public, not to another person. That is the bona fide way.

But it's my understanding in this particular case, there seems to be a lot of criticism that's going on with Father Towle. A lawyer and other persons were also made aware of this by the one who committed the act of homicide. It was brought to the attention of the proper authorities. They, for their own reasons, good or bad, decided not to continue on what they heard from the other persons other than the priest.

So I think the priest did his job. My question is: The other people do their job?

BATTISTA: You know what, let me bring in Roger Cossack as a matter of fact here, because he can help us weigh through the legal side of all of this. Roger, what about that point?

ROGER COSSACK, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Well, with all due respect to the father, the lawyers have the same obligations, perhaps not grounded in the same reasons, that the priest does. There is a right against Fifth Amendment that anyone has to be a witness not against himself, and when in fact this man did confess to a lawyer, one of the things that the lawyer told him was that he should invoke the Fifth Amendment and that he -- and explained to him what would happen to him if he didn't invoke the Fifth Amendment. And the person then, the murderer, eventually went to court and refused to go ahead and tell the court what he had told the lawyer and what he had told the priest.

Obviously, there's a policy reason here that is in some way similar to the same policy reason that the priest has or that the psychiatrist has or that other people have, which is they want people to feel free to be able to speak with their lawyer and not to have to worry that the lawyer's going to turn around and reveal those kinds of things that they say -- they say to the lawyer.

Look, there's a husband and wife privilege that is in some ways grounded on that same theory, too.

BATTISTA: I know. I think it's just hard for a lot of people because they can't get over the feeling that -- that they understand all of that. But at the same time, it feels like you're helping the criminal and not protecting the innocent.

COSSACK: Well, you are. Look, this is a bad situation. No one should be able to raise their head up here and say: I may have done the right thing, and therefore, I am -- my hands are clean. And I say that with due respect to the father. I say that with due respect to the lawyers. And I say that with everyone who knew about what happened here. Yes, there was a reason not to come forward. And I think each of us have to -- whether you're a lawyer or anyone else, I think you have to take into consideration what it is that you chose to do in this situation.

BATTISTA: Tracy in the audience, go ahead.

TRACY: Well, I just totally disagree with everything that has been said so far. I'm not a religious person, and I find it appalling that you use religion to excuse what you did. We're talking about murder. And nothing else that I know of, I mean, if you confess a murder to somebody, only because it's a Catholic priest, it almost gives Catholics the right to commit murder as long as they confess, and that is something I have a big problem with.

PUNNETT: I don't think you're reading that right. And as a nonreligious person, let me just try to interpret that a little bit for you. Even your use of the word "excuse" comes down to a perspective that you have. Nobody's talking about excusing a behavior. Nobody's saying that you aren't going to be held responsible for a behavior. The question is what point -- and let's go with what Roger said -- there are many different people in society that you could tell something to that would not be obligated to, by law, to tell the police about.

If you're married, you have that exemption there as well. And so it really isn't just a religious situation, and it certainly isn't a matter of giving Catholics a license to kill.

TRACY: But it is, because it is an excuse. I mean...

PUNNETT: How?

TRACY: What happened to this gentleman who committed murder? Nothing. I mean, two innocent people were in prison for a very long time because they didn't want to allow this confession, and to me that's just as wrong.

PUNNETT: Well, that's not true. Actually, what the complaint here -- and you're going to say what happened to him. The guy dies is what happened to him. So there isn't -- if you want to look at this maybe not as a religious person, you won't accept this cosmically, but maybe in fact he does end up dying as a result of his own actions.

COSSACK: Well, but yeah, he died a free man, though.

PUNNETT: Well...

COSSACK: The other two men were in prison.

PUNNETT: ... that's fine.

COSSACK: I absolutely understand what happened here. I'm just saying that there -- I don't think you can -- I don't think any of us -- lawyers, priests, anyone who may have known about this -- can feel particularly good about what happened or rationalize what happened by saying, well, the fellow died, so perhaps he was punished in the long run. I don't buy into that at all.

I think a terrible event happened here, and what happened is a conflict between two guiding principles. And there was two innocent men that just ended up going to prison because of it.

BATTISTA: I've got to take a quick break here. We'll continue in a moment. The attorneys for Jose Morales and Ruben Montalvo have been in court trying to secure Montalvo's release. Next, we'll talk to Randa Maher in our New York bureau. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BATTISTA: Welcome back. Randa Maher joins us now. She is the attorney for Jose Morales and Ruben Montalvo, and we appreciate you coming in, Randa. I know you're very busy. You've been filing the appeal for Ruben as I understand it. Is that correct? He is not out of jail yet.

RANDA MAHER, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: No, he is not. We're making a motion to reopen his case. His case was before a different judge, and we're making a motion to reopen that case and have it transferred to Judge Chin. And that's what we're hoping will happen.

BATTISTA: And how is Jose Morales, what was it like for him to get out of jail after 12 years?

MAHER: Well, I think it came as a surprise that it actually happened. I know that he's had optimistic moments in the past when he thought that he would be free, and it just didn't happen. So he didn't want to get his hopes up. So it came as a wonderful surprise to him.

BATTISTA: We do have to read a statement, I think, from the D.A.'s office on this from Robert Johnson, the Bronx district attorney, who said: "We must be mindful of the testimony of an eyewitness. She was and remains absolutely certain that Morales is the person who participated in the fatal beating and stabbing of her husband, nor can we ignore the inconsistencies between the confession and the medical and the other evidence."

Why are you so sure, why do you feel so confident about the priest's confession of the confession, if you will, over the eyewitness testimony?

MAHER: Well, I think it needs to be clear that it's not just the priest's account of what Fornes told him that is why everyone is convinced at this point that Morales and Montalvo are innocent. Mr. Fornes had made almost identical statements -- in fact, in more detail -- 13 years ago to Mr. Morales' former attorney, Anthony Sorvino, and he made it at a time after the conviction but before the sentence.

So it would have been at a time when these men did not have to go to jail. And while he did take the Fifth Amendment and did not testify, Mr. Sorvino did give explicit statements to the court at that time, and the court rejected them as not being an acceptable exception to the hearsay rule. And in addition to the statements Mr. Fornes made to Sorvino and to Father Towle, he also repeated this information to Mrs. Montalvo, who -- who clearly would have not been somebody he would have wanted to go to if he thought that this would remain a secret. And then again, we all that he told this to his attorney, and his attorney came forward in court as well.

BATTISTA: I think -- I think what's confusing people here, though, is that if he -- if he was confessing to this crime and he knew that his two friends were about to go to jail for this -- he did go to the authorities and confessed to them -- why did he plead the Fifth? Why didn't he pursue justice?

MAHER: Well, it became clear to Mr. Fornes, as we have learned during the hearing, that by pressing the fact that these two, Morales and Montalvo, hadn't done it and that he had done it, it wasn't going to be clear that the district attorney's office was going to drop the case against Morales and Montalvo. The only thing that was clear was that Mr. Fornes most likely would get arrested and thrown in jail with him.

And in fact, we can see from what's been happening now...

BATTISTA: But if he did it, why would he object to that?

MAHER: Well, he wasn't trying to make a human sacrifice out of himself just for that purpose. He wanted to -- to offer himself up with the hope that he would be freeing his two friends. And if he wasn't going to get that result, there was no point to his going forward.

BATTISTA: So are you guys looking for a retrial of the case for your two clients or a total dismissal of the charges or what?

MAHER: We believe that there should be a total dismissal of the charges, and based on the opinion that Judge Chin issued yesterday, it's clear that this is a case where there were extraordinary circumstances, factually as well as procedurally. And based on the extraordinary circumstances and the length of time Mr. Morales and Mr. Montalvo have been in jail and the weakness of the people's case then -- which is even weaker now that we have testimony by the -- the attorney for Mr. Fornes as well as Father Towle, we believe that there would be no basis, no reasonable jury would ever convict Mr. Morales and Mr. Montalvo. And for those reasons, the indictment should be dismissed at this point.

BATTISTA: And this is -- this is, we should say, an extraordinary case. It isn't often that a federal court intervenes in a state court decision, correct?

MAHER: Well, normally there are -- and I don't remember the exact number -- but a great deal of these petitions are filed every year, thousands of them, and it's very unusual for one to be granted. And it's even more unusual to have an indictment actually dismissed. I mean, usually what will happen is the person will be conditionally released, and there will be some period of time within which he needs to be retried. and if he's not retried within that time, the indictment gets dismissed.

BATTISTA: All right. Randa Maher, thank you very much for rushing in. I appreciate it.

MAHER: Sure, my pleasure.

BATTISTA: We have to take another break here, and we'll continue with our panel right after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BATTISTA: Welcome back. You know, as far as we know, Father Bryant and Ian, I think Catholic confessions are the only ones known to be privileged in -- under most Protestant religions, right, in this country?

PUNNETT: No. I think actually you are not -- you can't compel a minister to tell what somebody has told to them. So I guess it depends on how you define privilege. But I think this is evidence that, especially what Randa Maher said there, is this is much more about the complexities of criminal law than it is the complexities of cannon law, I think.

Al-Haaj, I know you're still there.

KHANKAN: Yes.

BATTISTA: Are there any laws that you know of that are deferential to Muslims?

KHANKAN: The holy book (UNINTELLIGIBLE) says: "Do not conceal evidence, for whoever conceals it, his heart is tainted with sin, and God knows all that you do." So no one has the privilege or the right to conceal such evidence, which eventually turned out to be a misjudgment and prison for these two guys innocent. That is really unjust.

I understand also from the father that the lawyer and members of the community knew what the murderer said and confessed. And therefore, I believe the lawyer or the district attorney are also responsible for these two innocent guys who were imprisoned wrongfully.

COSSACK: Well, I think I should add that the lawyer did come forward at the time of sentencing and attempt to tell the judge what he was told by the real killer. He was not allowed to testify because of nothing to do with privileges, but because of the hearsay rule.

This was -- the hearsay basically is defined as an out-of-court statement offered for the truth of that statement. And in this case -- in this case, it was hearsay, and the court found that there was not an exception to the hearsay rule. And that prevented the lawyer from being able to testify in court.

KHANKAN: Couldn't they have brought this case back and made the person speak in a court of law so that these two innocent would not be put in prison for 12, 13 years? That's really unjust.

COSSACK: It is unjust, but there's also under our Constitution the Fifth Amendment, which prevents people from being forced to testify against themselves.

Our legal system, like any legal system, is imperfect, and we try to make it as perfect as we can by having safeguards to protect those who are accused. But we see often enough, particularly with DNA, where we see people who have been sentenced to death, on death row, being released, and we see people like this being released.

Because it is an imperfect system, because it is a system that is put together by humans who are imperfect, from time to time, horrible mistakes will be made. All we can do is hope that through shows like this and through greater, you know, greater examination, these kinds of events rarely, if ever, happen.

KHANKAN: The laws of God always remain just, and the laws of men are changed to fit the politically correct situation. And therefore, I urge that we always be -- state our cases and base it on the teachings of God almighty and not on the teaching of man.

BATTISTA: There's a good question on the screen. Is there ever a reason for a priest to break the sacrament of confession?

JORDAN: I would probably rephrase the question: is there a reason for a priest to break the seal of confession? If the sacrament indicates true repentance, true contrition and the person is willing to make a radical conversion in his or her life and the person is willing to do amends for his or her sins and they give an absolution, no, the priest cannot break the seal of confession.

We have been entrusted with this to bring Christ to the people. We have been doing for 2,000 years and will be doing it for 2,000 more years. Again, I repeat, if there is not a sacrament -- which implies there is no repentance, no contrition, no intention to change one's life for the goodness of humanity, the sacred of human life -- then, I morally bound but I feel my conscience I am to report this person to proper authorities if necessary on a case-by-case basis. I will never break the seal of confession.

BATTISTA: Of course, none of us were there that day when Mr. Morales was speaking with Father Towle, so we don't know. Francesca, comment?

FRANCESCA: Yes, what I brought to light is that the priest kept the rule of God intact. That is what the Muslim authorities said. I agree, because that is completely separate. And that the priest is dealing with how God will judge this man. I think that's completely separate from the law which may be I think is such a greater fault, because they are dealing only with justice. They are only dealing with who goes to jail and who becomes, you know, free or incarcerated, and that is where I think all the fault lies. It's not a really religious issue at all.

BATTISTA: All right. We will take a break. Father Brian Jordan and Al-Haaj Ghazi Khankan, thanks for joining us.

KHANKAN: Thank you.

BATTISTA: In a moment, how safe are the secrets you tell your lawyer or your therapist. We will talk to a therapist and Roger will stay with us and Ian as well. You, too.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BATTISTA: Darrell from Eagle Point, Oregon says: "Regardless of one's occupation it is reprehensible to withhold evidence that could free someone from prison."

Joining us from Chicago is forensic psychiatrist Helen Morrison. Now, Helen, nice to see you.

It's almost impossible to talk about the privilege between psychiatrist and client without thinking of "The Sopranos," if you will. Dr. (UNINTELLIGIBLE) not want to hear about Tony's crimes week after week, because, you know, would she be legally and morally obligated to report them?

HELEN MORRISON, FORENSIC PSYCHIATRIST: Legally, no. There is a very strong psychiatrist-patient privilege in this country that was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in 1996. However, we are also faced with some very major difficulties, more recently many insurance companies have said they will not pay for therapeutic sessions unless they can review the notes that the therapist has written in order to see services were provided. That goes also for Medicare and Medicaid cases.

So, it's a constant battle between giving someone the chance to trust the therapist they are seeing to tell them what they are thinking versus not being able to get therapy because your insurance company is saying, I'm not going to pay for this unless I can read what you are thinking.

BATTISTA: What sort of privileges do medical doctors operate under? What are they obligated to report or not report?

MORRISON: Basically, there are laws that say physicians for example have to report certain types of communal diseases but they don't have to give the name of the patient except in certain cases. So doctors and patient privilege and confidentiality is very strong.

Now, a court can order a physician to testify but that physician is not obligated to testify, knowing of course, that they will have a court sanction against them. And again, it can go to appeals court and the physician may be ordered to testify, regardless of what he believes or she believes is confidential.

PUNNETT: I just want to address parts of that, I just want to go back to point about somehow, this priest was giving Catholics a license to kill. And pointing out all of the different aspect of our society to depend on that kind of confidentiality, nobody ever says that about a psychiatrist. The psychiatrist giving somebody the license to kill. Or that doctor is giving that person the license to go out and spread this communicable disease.

And I think there is a certain amount of anti-religious bias that's coming out in this story in weird ways, that really aren't justified by the priest's actions, which I think were very thoughtful. Not careless at all.

PUNNETT: But I would disagree with you. Psychiatrists and therapists have been ordered by the courts if patient threatens to hurt someone and gives the name of that patient, the psychiatrist- therapist must go to the authorities...

PUNNETT: That's what the priest said, too. That's just exactly what the priest said, too. And so I think that's also important to point out we are not talking about confessing a sin that has already happened, but the priests also has an obligation to stop something that is upcoming, just as you would too. And I think that those are identical.

But nobody talks about psychiatrists that way, or for that matter, even a spouse or other people that would enjoy a similar privilege but somehow, I think there's a lot of Catholic bashing coming out on this, which I believe is unfounded.

COSSACK: Well, let me just say, I would say this: I don't think it's necessarily Catholic bashing. I hope what I'm about to say doesn't sound like it, because I don't mean it that way, but the difference is, of course, that when you go to a lawyer or a psychiatrist or other people with privileges, you are not looking for forgiveness. And I think the argument is, if it's being stated correctly, is that the priest has the ability under the beliefs to give forgiveness or to give absolution for this. I think that's where the difference is.

PUNNETT: But forgiveness doesn't mean that justice can't be pursued. There is -- unless you live in a different country than I do, and I don't think we do, somebody who has committed a crime and has confessed to their priest is not exempt from being prosecuted for that crime. And it's just the difference between...

COSSACK: No, but we're talking about who is required to come forward and say something about it.

BATTISTA: In a way, we're talking about obstruction of justice, even though I grant you that's outside the laws of the church and those are the secular laws, but in a way, that is what the priest is doing.

PUNNETT: Well, what did the lawyer say to him? The lawyer said to him, plead the Fifth. I mean, his lawyer said plead the Fifth. And I'm going to guess here, not being a lawyer but Roger being one, that that falls perfectly within his purview as a lawyer to do that. And it was perfectly within the priest's purview. But we're not hearing a lot of lawyer bashing.

COSSACK: For a change.

(LAUGHTER)

PUNNETT: For a change, perhaps. But maybe that's where some of this is coming out on.

BATTISTA: Let me get the audience back in here. Up to Francis, you are a psychologist also?

FRANCIS: Yes, I was going to reiterate what the psychiatrist said. Confidentiality would extend if someone told me they had committed a crime, retrospectively. However, if they told me going forward, I will hurt someone, the Tarnower (ph) decision I think in the '70s makes it absolutely clear that I must inform the possible victim and the authorities. So it's a difference, being retrospective and prospective confessions.

BATTISTA: So in other words -- I'm trying to get clear here on the medical -- well, let me ask Roger this first. Is there ever an instance where you would break the attorney-client privilege? Like, would you ever knowingly let a client lie on the stand, or...

Well, that's an easy one. I would never knowingly let a client lie on the stand, and the reason for that is I would be guilty of subordinating perjury, even perhaps conspiring to commit perjury if I knowingly and willingly said to a client get up there and you're going to lie, it's OK to lie. That simple.

The hard parts are the ones that we've been talking about in this situation today, when a client comes in and tells me something, or perhaps tells me that he may do something prospectively, what am I supposed to do? Obviously, the attorney-client privilege is almost a sacred privilege, in a sense, that...

PUNNETT: Watch the word!

COSSACK: I use that word guardedly, but...

PUNNETT: You should. Or not use it at all in your case.

COSSACK: Well, I can only say the difference between you and me is I don't forgive them when they come in. But nevertheless...

PUNNETT: Well, the act has already been committed.

COSSACK: But it's -- listen, it's not my job as an attorney to come in there and to go to the authorities. My job, as articulated by the Constitution of the United States, is to defend, if I can, someone who comes to me. That is my job. If I can't do that, then I shouldn't be an attorney.

All I am saying is, is that when someone comes to me, I have to keep quiet what they say. Now, there are some exceptions to that. There is something called the crime fraud exception. That is, if the client comes in to me and talks to me about a crime, and in some ways I am involved in that crime, I can't then hide behind the attorney- client privilege because the crime fraud exception comes into place. There is also an argument that could be made that when someone says to me, I am prospectively going to commit a crime, that that isn't part of the attorney-client discussion and that therefore I wouldn't be bound and I could conceivable go out and say what happened because that really wasn't part of the attorney-client privilege. So there's all kinds of exceptions to the attorney-client privilege, but generally the attorney-client privilege is not supposed to be broken.

BATTISTA: I've got to take one more quick break. We'll be back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BATTISTA: Let me go to Helen real quickly for another comment on doctor-patient privileges. Go ahead.

MORRISON: Well, basically, what you have to understand is doctors will keep a privilege, but it's not an absolute privilege. Many therapists have gotten to the point where they do not write down everything that a patient says because of the intrusiveness of insurance companies and government review boards. But that privilege and confidentiality is really the cornerstone of any type of medical treatment.

BATTISTA: We could go a whole other hour on this. I mean, there's a lot of audience people that want to get in on this, but we've got to go. Helen Morrison, Roger Cossack, Ian Punnett,thank you all very much for joining us.

MORRISON: Thank you.

BATTISTA: And we'll see you again tomorrow for more TALKBACK LIVE.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com