Posted on 01/27/2006 8:26:48 AM PST by NYer
A bill under consideration by New Hampshire legislators would require Catholic priests and other religious figures to divulge any information they hear regarding child abuse, even if told to them by parishioners in the private act of "confession."
According to the Concord Monitor newspaper, the Granite State currently has a statute requiring anyone in the state who suspects child abuse to report it to authorities. The Child Protection Act, enacted in 1979, also places a mandatory reporting requirement on clergy.
However, the paper said, a separate statute exempts clergymen and women from having to provide court testimony regarding anything told to them in confidence during an act of confession.
The current legislation under consideration would amend state law and require religious figures to provide unqualified reporting of any abuse divulged to them, under any circumstances. It is the second time since 2004 New Hampshire lawmakers have attempted to pass such a measure.
Confession is a sacrament most commonly associated with Catholics, in which the faithful are required to periodically confess sins – generally violations of the Ten Commandments – to priests, who then absolve them of those sins before God. For it to be valid, it must be held in the strictest of confidence, Catholic officials told the paper.
Church hierarchy in New Hampshire, though mindful of the seriousness of child abuse, nevertheless criticized any effort to force clergy to reveal information passed along during confession.
Diane Quinlan, chancellor of the Diocese of Manchester, said that while "there's no question that child abuse is a terrible crime," allowing a "limited exception" for confession was necessary for the uninhibited practice of Catholicism.
"That's how serious this is in our belief," she told the Monitor.
Local police officials – some who are practicing Catholics as well as leaders in the church – still argued for passage of the law.
"We feel it's important that there be no exemptions from the mandatory reporting statute," Northfield Police Chief Scott Hilliard, representing the New Hampshire Association of Chiefs of Police, said.
Some lawmakers said Catholic priests had told them they would go to prison before divulging any information told them in confession.
Such defiance could make the law moot, some argued.
Others said they were worried about whether such an ordinance would pass constitutional muster. But both sides – pro and con – presented Supreme Court opinions supporting their positions.
Of course there is but I guess you don't accept it.
Where does it stop? If the "state" (US Supreme Court) would upholds such a law you can kiss the Free Exercise Clause goodbye.
So you think it consistent with the Bible to inform the authorities where the Underground Railroad slaves were being hidden, or to turn in Anne Frank's family?
SD
But we are talking about two separate spheres of authority and justice. If we demand that a priest simply becomes a civil authority reporting agency, all the avenues to rectify a situation without civil authority are gone, and the safety and peace of the confessional is gone. The laws of man are not the same as the laws of God.
SD
Kind of off topic, but before WWII and even into the first few years of fighting such things were very popular themes of discussion in theological circles. Many theologians (and not a few were Catholic) said that in order to not violate the commandment "Thou shall not lie" it was not permissible to lie in any and all instances. It didn't mean you had to reveal all though. There was a deep feeling that you could not lie, even to protect the innocent.
What is interesting, is many of the young at the time theologians changed as the war progressed. Bonhoeffer for instance, who was in many ways more radical, went from a 100% pacifist to working against the Nazi's. It troubled his conscience a lot that he had made common cause with those who would kill, but he realized that to do nothing would only support those who would do far greater evil. The old "just war" from Augustine again.
"You can read the Catholic Encyclopedia entry on the topic. It outlines very nicely the Catholic teaching on the topic, which is, as usual, based in Scripture. "
I had read the entry on the Sacrament of Confession, and on the Seal of the Confessional before I wrote. In the article on the Seal, there is no biblical justification offered, only canon law and tradition. The Sacrament itself is vaguely supported in John and Matthew, but not specifically.
As you may know, most Protestant churches do not use the Sacrament of Confession as normal practice. The Lutheran church still offers it to its congregants, but it is rarely used. Most other Protestant churches reject it as unbiblical.
You assume that I have not done my research. That is almost always an invalid assumption.
"Thank you, MineralMan, I think your position is reasonabe and well-stated. However, as I'm sure you know, from the Catholic point of view, every point of doctrine does not have to be explicitly supported by the Bible, because the Bible implicitly gives support to all the doctrines of the Church by giving the Church authority on earth. "Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, whatever you loose on earth wil be loosed in heaven." And "Whoever hears you hears Me, and hears the One Who sent Me. This is what the Catholic Church firmly understands and teaches; understandably, it's a point of view not widespread amongst non-Catholics. :o)"
Thanks. Yes, I know what the basis of the doctrine is. Roman Catholics follow that doctrine. Other denominations of Christianity do not. There it is. It's an academic thing for me, really.
And, for me, the 1st Amendment prevents the government from trespassing on this RCC doctrine. The Constitution is my guide in these things, not the dogma of any church.
So, I'm opposed to any such law, on Constitutional grounds. I do enjoy discussions of religious doctrine, though. I find them fascinating.
This part of the Catholic faith is etched in stone and no priest would ever violate it.
However, religion is not the issue between a lawyer and his client. How about we get all defense attorneys to 'fess up?
Ahhh. Thank you for posting about the latest assault on the Catholic churches.
I'm curious as to what the legislator proposing this is actually trying to accomplish. If the law is passed, no priest who wants to remain a priest is going to obey it. In addition, I would think it likely that anyone who commits an act of child abuse would be careful to refrain from discussing it. So the net practical result of the law will be, well, zero. And that's assuming that the law will pass constitutional muster, which I doubt.
However, there *is* of course the cheap shot to be scored by attacking Catholics and the sanctity of the confessional.
So who is sponsoring this bill in the NH legislature, and where can I contribute to his or her opponent?
So you think it consistent with the Bible to inform the authorities where the Underground Railroad slaves were being hidden, or to turn in Anne Frank's family?
So you think comparing child molestors to runaway slaves is a fair comparison?
I was just wondering if you meant what you said "that it's hard to find Biblical basis for keeping quiet about a violation of law, man OR God's."
Obviously it is possible to find such a basis when man's law is in opposition to God's law. Since we seem to agree with the principle here, I shan't go further.
So, in summary: I think the "free exercise" clause absolves priests of the need to violate the "seal of the confessional". However, from my religious perspective, this represents MAN'S law (free exercise) and MAN'S flawed interpretation (confessional seal) trumping GOD's law (protecting the innocent). You will disagree, and I understand all the reasons why. I'm not saying it to offend you, just to identify the point of our divergence.
Fair enough. You don't need to agree with our "free exercise," but your support for the freedom is appreciated.
In all honesty, this is largely a hypothetical question.
SD
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.