A California state lawmaker introduced a proposal on Wednesday that would require clergy to report child abuse or neglect disclosed during confession. [\u2026]\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\u201cSB 360 is about the safety and protection of children,\u201d said Sen. Jerry Hill (D-San Mateo), who introduced the proposal. \u201cThe law should apply equally to all professionals who have been designated as mandated reporters of these crimes \u2014 with no exceptions, period. The exemption for clergy only protects the abuser and places children at further risk.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

Clergy, doctors, psychologists, marriage and family therapists and social workers are among some 46 categories of professionals required to report any suspicion of abuse or neglect to law enforcement.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

But state law offers an exemption for any clergy member \u201cwho acquires knowledge or a reasonable suspicion of child abuse or neglect during a penitential communication,\u201d defined as a sacramental confession or other communication made in confidence.<\/p>\n

\u201cInserting government into the Confessional does nothing to protect children and everything to erode the fundamental constitutional rights and liberties we enjoy as Americans,\u201d said Steve Pehanich, director of communications and advocacy for the California Catholic Conference.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Interestingly, they aren\u2019t asking attorneys to break attorney-client privilege.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

The Seal of the Confessional<\/h2>\n
We as Catholics know that in the confessional the priest is acting\u00a0in the person of Christ<\/em> so is not acting on his own.<\/p>\n
Canon Law gives us the minimum standard:\u00a0\u201cThe sacramental seal is inviolable; therefore it is absolutely forbidden for a confessor to betray in any way a penitent in words or in any manner and for any reason.\u201d (983.1) Catholic Straight Answers<\/a> explains further:<\/p>\n
The standard of secrecy protecting a confession outweighs any form of professional confidentiality or secrecy.\u00a0 When a person unburdens his soul and confesses his sins to a priest in the Sacrament of Penance, a very sacred trust is formed.\u00a0 While the priest is the minister of the sacrament, Christ is forgiving the sins, and the priest must not reveal to anyone else what has been really confessed to the Lord.\u00a0 Moreover, what sins are forgiven are now in one\u2019s past not to be carried into the present via some communication.\u00a0 Therefore, the priest must maintain absolute secrecy about anything that a person confesses.\u00a0 For this reason, confessionals were developed with screens to protect the anonymity of the penitent and to alleviate the possibility of the priest remembering a \u201cface\u201d with a confession.\u00a0 This secrecy is called \u201cthe sacramental seal,\u201d \u201cthe seal of the confessional,\u201d or \u201cthe seal of confession.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Martyrs of the Confessional<\/h4>\n
Several priests have died to maintain the seal. The most well known is St. John Nepomucene<\/a> (pictured above):<\/p>\n
One day, about 1393, the king asked him to tell what the queen had said in confession. When Father\u00a0John\u00a0refused, he was thrown into prison. A second time, he was asked to reveal the queen\u2019s confession. \u201cIf you do not tell me,\u201d said the king, \u201cyou shall die. But if you obey my commands, riches and honor\u00a0will\u00a0be yours.\u201d Again Father\u00a0John\u00a0refused. He was tortured. The king ordered to be thrown into the river. Where he drowned, a strange brightness appeared upon the water.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
If you want a more recent example, St. Mateo Correa Magallanes<\/a> was martyred over this under 100 years ago in Mexico.<\/p>\n
As a\u00a0parish\u00a0priest, Father Mateo Correa Magallanes, of Tepechitlan, Mexico, administered First\u00a0Holy Communion\u00a0to a youth who years later was to become a martyr, Blessed Miguel Pro. As it happened, Father Correa himself was to die for the\u00a0faith in the same year as his communicant. In 1927, during the Mexican government\u2019s continuing\u00a0persecution\u00a0of the\u00a0Catholic Church, Father Correa was arrested by soldiers as he was bringing\u00a0Viaticum\u00a0to an invalid. Immediately the\u00a0priest\u00a0consumed the\u00a0Host\u00a0he was carrying to save it from desecration. After spending several days in custody, Father Correa was asked by a military officer, General Eulogio Ortiz, to hear the confessions of some imprisoned members of an insurgency movement, the Cristeros. The devoted\u00a0priest\u00a0did not decline this opportunity to administer the sacrament. But afterward, General Ortiz demanded of Father Correa, under pain of death, that he reveal the contents of the confessions. Father Correa refused, answering, \u201cBut don\u2019t you know, general, that a\u00a0priest\u00a0must guard the\u00a0secret\u00a0of confession? I am ready to die.\u201d He was shot to death on February 6, 1927.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
US Legal Precedent<\/h2>\n
In 1813, the Court of General Sessions in New York<\/a> ruled protecting the confessional seal.<\/p>\n
The question then is, whether a Roman catholic priest shall be compelled to disclose what he has received in confession \u2013 in violation of his conscience, of his clerical engagements, and of the canons of his church, and with a certainty of being stripped of his sacred functions, and cut off from religious communion and social intercourse with the denomination to which he belongs. [\u2026]\n<\/p>
After carefully examining this subject, we are of opinion that such a witness [a priest who heard the accused\u2019s confession] ought not to be compelled to answer.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
A more recent brief by the Christian Legal Society<\/a> stated:<\/p>\n
Although modern courts do not recognize it, the clergyman-communicant privilege is best understood as grounded in church autonomy principles. The church autonomy doctrine recognizes that the church, with respect to ecclesiastical matters, possesses a sphere of authority into which the state may not intrude. [\u2026 cites above case]\n<\/p>
More recently, the U.S. Supreme Court stated in dicta that the evidentiary privileges protecting private communications between a \u201cpriest and penitent, attorney and client, and physician and patient . . . are rooted in the imperative need for confidence and trust.\u201d In particular, \u201c[t]he priest-penitent privilege recognizes the human need to disclose to a spiritual counselor, in total and absolute confidence, what are believed to be flawed acts or thoughts and to receive priestly consolation and guidance in return.\u201d Although true, the jurisprudential basis for the privilege is anchored more deeply in the First Amendment. [\u2026]\n<\/p>
Thomas Jefferson made similar observations:<\/p>\n
I consider the government of the U.S. as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, and exercise. Certainly no power to prescribe any religious exercise, or to assume authority in religious discipline, has been delegated to the general government.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n
The Confessional Is a Hill I\u2019m willing to Die on<\/h2>\n
Protecting the seal is not about protecting abusers but about protecting the inviolability of each person\u2019s conscience. If one person who goes in can\u2019t be sure their secret remains between them and God, others will doubt it too. On top of that, if an abuser knows its secret, he might go and the priest might convince them to turn themselves in \u2013 but if it isn\u2019t secret, that opportunity is lost. Honestly, I think many abusers don\u2019t and won\u2019t go as they\u2019ve twisted their minds to think it is OK.<\/p>\n
Even bad priests have kept the seal. We priests will stand up absolutely and submit to death and imprisonment first.<\/p>\n
There are two possible likely of trying to enforce this law. First, innocent priests are put in jail. Second, it is overturned by the Supreme Court or a US Circuit Court. The civil authorities won\u2019t be extracting information out of this power move over the Church.<\/p>\n
I\u2019ve said before that religious leaders should stay out of partisan political discussions. Now I say political leaders should stay out of the right of people to unburden their conscience religiously.<\/p>\n
Note: Writing things like this pays little, so I appreciate your support. Thank you!\u00a0 Become a Patron!<\/a>

New California Law<\/h2>\nThe LA Times reports<\/a>:<\/p>\n\n\n\nA California state lawmaker introduced a proposal on Wednesday that would require clergy to report child abuse or neglect disclosed during confession. [\u2026]\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/div>\n