Over the course of history, the
Catholic faith has gone through many changes. From minor changes such as trying
to use words that fit the original Latin tradition better, to big changes
started by some man who posted, meaning actually nailed them, “The 95 Theses” to
the Wittenberg Castle door. If you are unaware, that man was Martin Luther. The main issue that these 95 points highlighted was the
practice of indulgences that Luther believed were completely incorrect, and not
true to theme of the Bible. In simplicity, indulgences were ways for people who
have sinned to basically buy their ticket to Heaven. Although the Church did
not expressly state to the public that they were basically selling themselves
out to the highest bidder, Luther was able to witness this firsthand as a monk.
95-Theses-672x372.jpg |
So how does
the Protestant Reformation that occurred in 1517 come into play today? It is
through the idea of Reconciliation within the Catholic faith. Reconciliation,
defined as restoring friendly relations, in the Catholic church is known as the
ability to confess your sins to a priest in the hopes of being absolved for
your sins. In the times of Martin Luther, the penance, the name of the tasks
the priest required you to do to be forgiven, was commonly to donate a set sum
of money to the Church. However, in current times, and as a result of the
Reformation, a typical penance can consist of anything from apologizing to your
parents for not listening to saying ten of a certain prayer. Although how it is
performed has changed, Reconciliation has always been an important facet of the
Catholic faith. A perfect example of its importance to the Catholic faith is
that up until recently, it used to be, and some still believe, that you are
unable to fully participate in the faith service unless you have been absolved
of your sins, which would require Reconciliation.
Although all
of this information seems extremely pointless in a Freedom of Religion
discussion, it comes into play when considering a new
decision issued by a judge in Louisiana who struck down a statute that
required clergy members, in this case a priest, to report suspected child abuse
even if it is in a confidential confession. In a ruling that the defense claims
“upheld Religious Freedom”, the judge found the priest to be not guilty. An
important note to recognize in this case is that the act also included one
crucial statement saying “notwithstanding any claim of privileged information”.
On these issues, the case rests, and I hope to clarify.
Bringing this
issue back to the whole history of Reconciliation that I previously established
in the opening paragraphs, is how this law could clearly impact, and infringe
upon the rights to practice religion freely. Although this may seem like a
stretch, the following points should help to expand upon why. As we
established, Reconciliation has been a practice of the Catholic faith for
longer than United States of America has even existed. Although I have traced
how Reconciliation has changed throughout the ages, there is one thing that has
been uniform throughout, the Seal of the Confessional, sometimes referred to as
priest-penitent privilege. This privilege, or right as many Catholics view it, simply
means that anything confessed during Reconciliation, which occurs in a
confessional, is confidential information. This Seal helps to enforce the idea
that Reconciliation is a conversation between the penitent and God, who is
present through the priest. Many view this Confidential Seal as one that can
not be broken as undermining it would result in loss of trust for priests and
therefore force the idea of Reconciliation, a time when you can admit your sins
in the hopes of being absolved, to crumble as no penitents will feel
comfortable in admitting any sins. Therefore, to establish a law that required
priests to face excommunication from their faith, the result of breaking the
Seal, or to be in violation of the law, I believe is a failure to recognize the
religious freedom we are granted under the First Amendment.
confessional.png |
Although I do
hold this stand, I do not believe the law, as it is written is an attack on
religious freedom; however, to protect religious freedom, we must discuss the
issue of confidentiality that the statute refers to. As previously stated, the
statute refers to the fact that the information exempt from being reported if
it is not “notwithstanding any claim of privileged information”. Therefore, this
issue hinged on whether the information stated in the confessional is
confidential, in the eyes of the law. As previously established, the Seal of
the Confessional is a clear establishment that what is told to the priest in
Reconciliation, where he is only operating as a way for the penitent to speak
to God according to their faith, is confidential, and therefore privileged
information, and violating this seal would result in excommunication from the
Church and the undermining of a key Catholic sacrament. Moreover, the clash of
politics and the Church of Reconciliation is not new; but rather, there is actually
a Catholic Martyr
of the Confessional who was put to death by a King when the priest refused
to say what was told in confession. Through this, I believe that there is clear
evidence that to force a group of faith to change their history is to force
citizens to give up their religion and be unable to practice.
Even with my
stance on the issue of confidentiality within the confessional, there is one
key issue that needs to be addressed with this case. In reading, if you
actually read about it, the Seal of the Confessional, you may notice that there
is not an explicit mention of what can be said during Reconciliation. Therefore,
I do not believe that it would be a violation if the priest used the time in
Reconciliation to offer the child contact information for someone who is able
to deal with the situation and would be willing and able to help. I believe
that if the priest is willing and provides this information, that they are
doing their best, within their abilities to provide the child with the right
tools to handle the situation accordingly. Furthermore, the Seal of the
Confessional does not apply to times when Reconciliation has not formally
started, meaning the opening prayer has not yet been stated. This information
means that if the priest is the only person that the child has trust in, the
child can approach the priest outside of Reconciliation and ask for help.
Within all of these statements, I am firmly aware that if the alleged comments
that the priest told the minor to “sweep the issue under the rug” were actually
said, that the minor was faced with a difficult decision, and the priest did
not act as I would have hoped; however, that is an issue that can only be fixed
within the Catholic faith in its selection of priests. However, we now know how
to change the Catholic faith, simply break out the quill and scroll and begin
crafting your own 95 theses.
5 comments:
After reading the original post, I have a mixed opinion on the all the actions that the Louisiana statute should uphold.
I believe that the Louisiana pastors should confess details they learn about a person in a confessional if there is a crime involved. Without the proper authorities knowing what has happened about the child abuse case, the law of the land cannot be faithfully executed. The child abuse case can have traumatic social and medical effects on the victims if they are left in isolation. In my opinion, this is enough evidence to establish a compelling state interest in the case and to allow for the state to supersede the protection of private speech that is guaranteed in the 1st Amendment. Despite my argument for the government to perform their duties on a seemingly religious practice, the determination of when to supersede a person's private protections should be first consented between the priest and the visitor rather than have the government act as an independent authority.
The next piece is to analyze the particular method of healing, the Reconciliation by the Catholic Church. While the Reconciliation ritual symbolizes a connection between God and the parishioner, the healing process of finding an individual to let people express their opinions should not be considered by the government as supporting a particular sect. The only promotion of religion that this ritual has is to establish a mutual understanding between the people within the booth. This does not skew national, state, or local opinions of faith. However, the parishioner inside the booth is impressionable to the questions that the preacher asks. The treatment of this person by the pastor is similar to the way schoolchildren look towards their teachers for educational guidance. Their voluntary participation in Reconciliation allows for a private forum to be established and viewpoints to be expressed on the difficulties that a victim may face, even if the transgressions do not appear to be breaking any laws.
Finally, the absolution of the sins associated with a crime does not fully absolve a person of potential wrongdoing that occurred. Since the sexual abuse was a crime against another person, the abuser in the eyes of the law would still face federal punishment for breaking a secular law. By having the pastor tell law enforcement authorities the details they learn in the confessional, they allow for those that performed the wrong action to be properly brought to trial (5th and 6th Amendments) and to have their 8th Amendment rights protected (no cruel or unusual punishments).
I agree with Matthew's final point that the pastor should try to provide contact information of groups of individuals that victims can reach out to, whether they are in the church or have secular importance. This closed forum inside the confessional allows for speech to be more genuine and approach victims from either a secular or a religious point of view.
This is a very complete and accurate presentation of this sacrament. The Reconciliation sacrament is indeed supposed to be a conversation with God, and it is also correct that destroying the privacy of this conversation would be an infringement to the Free Exercise clause. However, it seems very improbable that a young child would be able to get him or herself out of an abusive situation with just pieces of advice. Furthermore, what would prove that the priests are actually providing abused kids with practical information? We have seen during the course that the Supreme Court Justices often said that the Free Exercise clause protected beliefs but not necessarily practices, and we have also read about several cases in which they did exceptions based on attacks against the well-being of kids, particularly concerning physical integrity. I think this case should be granted such an exception.
Asking a priest to report a crime like child abuse would be undermining an extremely important Sacrament in Catholicism. If priests were forced to report crimes that were confessed to in the confessional, two major things could happen. First, many Catholics would be too afraid, possibly, to go to Confession for fear of being reported. This in theory would place a huge strain on their believed relationship with god, and could have many negative affects regarding fear of damnation or going to purgatory for not confessing to sins. Second, priests who break the Seal of Confession, as Matthew said, would face damnation. And thus forcing them to report crimes in the confessional would make them choose between the law and their faith. While this is an extremely hard case because the health and safety of children are at stake, I believe that the establishment clauses' freedom of practice should allow priests to practice as they always have. The Seal of Confession has been around for hundreds of years, and so putting that at stake would have major consequences and would be unconstitutional.
I understand that the Sacrament of Confession is extremely important to the relationship between Catholics and God. However, I believe that priests should either notify the appropriate parties (should it be the parents or authorities, etc.) about crimes that are confessed. Currently, if a child comes to a priest and says that they are being abused, the priest would not be able to really help them. If a person came and told the priest they were part of a terrorist group and were going to attack another major city, then he wouldn't be allowed to tell anyone. There is a compelling state interest to protect the lives of Americans and not subject them to dangers confessed by those to priests. I will admit that I am probably biased, particularly to this, because I have three little siblings (6, 5, and 4 years old) and I would be absolutely horrified if something like this were to happen and no one did anything about it. I am also Catholic so I understand that it really goes against the religion for a priest to tell others what has been said in confession. However, there are bigger things at stake, such as the welfare of individuals.
That is never going to happen, ever. Period. If a priest breaks the seal they face immediate excommunication only can be lifted by the Pope and even then they are stripped of all diocesan duties and put in seclusion there to do penance the rest of their lives.
Post a Comment