Catholic Confessions and the Law
In the Catholic Church, the Seal of Confession (Seal of the Confessional) is the absolute duty of priests not to disclose anything that they learn from the penitents during the course of the Sacrament of the Penance, also known as confession. Confessions and confidences made by an individual to the clergyman or other minister cannot be used as evidence. The very most a priest may do is require the penitent to surrender to authorities and may withhold absolution if the penitent refuses to do so. A priest cannot reveal the contents of confession either directly by repeating the substance of what has been said or even indirectly by some sign, suggestion, or action. Dedicated priests are all bound to their oath, and never seem to break this promise. But what if someone were to confess something that was against the law? Murder, rape, the list goes on. In some cases the offenders may confess their wrongdoing to a priest under the Sacrament of Penance and the priest must still abide by these laws of oath and is forbidden to disclose any information. This has been a major problem with priests committing sexual misconduct with children, it has been a topic that is largely discussed in regards to this clergy. There has been a series of several lawsuits, criminal prosecutions, and scandals. Father Theodore McCarrick, Washington DC's former archbishop allegedly committed sexual harassment and abuse against junior seminarians under his authority, as well as two minors. Ultimately when the Catholic church gets faced with accusations of sexual harassment they privately settle and pay plaintiffs off to stay quiet, stopping any possible ruining of the Catholic reputation. The Catholic Church has paid over $3 billion to victims across the United States, as a result 19 dioceses and religious orders have filed for bankruptcy. Also, the Seal of Confession has played a large role in this as priests are able to confess and receive forgiveness, the priests hearing the confessions cannot disclose the information, and it becomes a never ending cycle. The law of jurisdictions in general requires people under certain circumstances to testify about facts known to them. In many cases the rule of evidence of confessional privilege forbids judicial inquiry into communications made under the seal of confession. If a priest was to ever be compelled to testify about what was told in confessional regarding a sexual abuse case, the priest would immediately be at risk of excommunication (official exclusion from participation in the church). If a priest refuses to testify should he be placed in jail? Or would this interfere with the establishment clause of the first amendment?
I think that this is an issue not only for the safety of others, but also for the ethical obligation that one faces. I think the biggest problem that arises out of this situation is what exactly is ethically correct? For all people who are not of Catholic faith or more specifically a priest, the ethical thing to do would be to go tell authority when a person confesses to a crime, yet in this case what we may see as ethically correct, a priest may see as quite the opposite. If they have devoted their lives to the church and have taken an oath, what they see as ethically correct is the keep everything they hear confidential. In a case, one is not necessarily punished if they don’t come forth with evidence as seen with David Cash, the man who didn’t intervene when his friend, Jeremy Strohmeyer, raped and murdered a girl, and therefore the same should apply to priests. The question that then arises: is this morally acceptable in the minds of people? For me personally, it’s not, but this is the major issue this article touches upon which has no simple answer.
ReplyDeleteThis is a moral dilemma. What comes first, church or state? People involved in the church, and high up in Catholic rankings, might argue that church comes before state. While a person who, say, fought for their country in a war might say that state is always what matters most. I agree that it is important for the priest to be able to turn someone in who has murdered. But what if you drank under age, would the priest have to turn you in for that too?
DeleteAmerica is built on the idea of religious freedom. As long as you're minding your own business, you should be free to practice whatever and however you want. However there has to be a line. To over exaggerate a bit, if a religion started up tomorrow that payed their respects to their God by kicking dogs, we'd all be pretty quick to put an end to that. Singing choir songs and reading a bible doesn't hurt anyone, so why should anyone put a stop to that? But in the case of actively keeping information about someone's dangerous behavior, there has to be a line drawn. It's a tricky subject, but ultimately safety is one of the most important things. Especially in respects to children or sexual abuse, religious freedom should not encompass the ability to shield pedophiles.
ReplyDelete