The following comes from a Feb. 21 story by Catholic News Agency.
Sacramento— Senator Jerry Hill of California introduced Bill 360 on Feb. 20, which would seek to force priests to violate the sacramental seal of confession in suspected cases of child abuse or neglect.
Clergy are already mandatory reporters in the state of California, but there is a legal exemption for material disclosed in the confessional.
“Individuals who harm children or are suspected of harming children must be reported so a timely investigation by law enforcement can occur,” Hill said in a statement announcing the bill.
More than 40 professions, including clergy, are already covered by state law requiring them to notify civil authorities in cases of suspected abuse or neglect of children. The current legislation provides an exemption for “penitential communications” between an individual and their minister if the requirement of confidentiality is rooted in church doctrine.
The Code of Canon Law states that “The 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.” A priest who intentionally violates the seal incurs an automatic excommunication.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that “every priest who hears confessions is bound under severe penalties to keep absolute secrecy regarding the sins that his penitents have confessed to him,” due to the “delicacy and greatness of this ministry and the respect due to persons.”
Hill insisted that there should be no recognition of the privileged nature of confession in the law.
“The law should apply equally to all professionals who have been designated as mandated reporters of these crimes — with no exceptions, period. The exemption for clergy only protects the abuser and places children at further risk,” Hill said.
A spokesman for the California Catholic Conference told local media that the bill clearly targeted essential religious freedoms.
“Getting the government in the confessional has nothing to do with protecting children and has everything to do with eroding the basic rights and liberties we have as Americans,” said Steve Pehanich in a statement for the conference reported by local news outlets.
The current SCOTUS will knock this to Hell in an eye-blink, and I’d be surprised if any federal court would let it stand. Hill is (a) grand-standing and (b) letting follow-traveler progressives know where he wants to go.
California State Senator Jerry Hill’s mind seems to be lost in the fog of San Francisco
Such a law is unenforceable
If it were so… Would father say? Some unknown person speaking in what seemed like a voice of a male adult said that he had sex with a minor aged person.
My take is that Senator Hill is anti religion. Christian in general and Catholic in particular.
I agree the current SCOTUS would likely protect the ‘confessional seal’ However, the Catholic Church has a HUGE optics problem here. Bishops protected offending priests — for other reasons– for decades. Now they’re saying offending penitents deserve protection. I just pray the secular authorities get necessary information from other sources.
mike m said: “Bishops protected offending priests — for other reasons– for decades. Now they’re saying offending penitents deserve protection.”
I don’t believe there is any equivalency there at all. The vast majority of these bishops became aware of the offenders outside of the confessional. Not remotely the same as saying the seal of confession is sacrosanct. It is true that this is a no chance in hell, narcissistic grandstand by an ambitious politician. A Priest cannot even say if a particular individual sought the sacrament at all, let alone what he said and I’ll bet that fact isn’t even in the so called bill. Where would the authorities even know where to begin looking?
Seems to me that is the right take, Chardin. It is one thing to defend the seal of the confessional, which I I assume all of us would fight to defend, versus personnel questions which, while normatively priveledged communication, don’t permit the employer to cover for (past) criminal behavior on the part of the employee, especially where mandatory reporter laws are in place. And I’m sure we all agree that the confessional seal doesn’t apply in cases in which a criminal confesses a FUTURE or ongoing crime. These cannot be absolved, and they must be reported. Neither Canon Law nor civil law can protect a priest who fails to report ongoing criminal activity, whether in the confessional or at his parish desk.
A priest cannot divulge anything in the confessional. Period.
The public schools would have a far bigger optics problem if the press was half as concerned about public employees abusing kids as it is about priests. This is about power and it will fail. Hill should stop trying to play Joe Stalin.
Priests will often give only conditional absolution where the sin is forgiven only if the penitent turns him or herself in for the crime.
The California Supreme Court and the US Supreme Court will find this proposed law unconstitutional if it is ever approved by the legislature (highly unlikely) and signed by the Governor (also highly unlikely). This is anti- Catholic Christian political grandstanding by its proponent.
A crime is a very serious thing, for a penitent to confess to a priest! Not a normal confession! I used to hear, when very young– that priests who heard confessions in which a crime was revealed, would instruct the penitent to make an appointment to see the priest personally, ASAP– after their confession– and also- to turn themselves over to police, ASAP! And apologize and make restitution to the victim of their crime! Etc. With a stiff penance! At the penitent’s subsequent appointment with the priest– I had thought the priest would have a big, serious talk with the penitent/criminal– and next, get on the phone, and call the police– and get justice done! Any fears of Hell– in today’s penitent/criminals??
Have you ever heard of the Mafia?
If priests are compelled to report what they hear in the confessional, then lawyers and psychiatrists should have to as well.
This bill is not the solution. And then there’s the hipocracy … politicians who rally behind this bill in the name of protecting children are likely the same ones who support abortion. Concur with William Robert, this is anti-Catholic political grandstanding by its proponent.
I see the catholic church is still looking out for the best interests of pedophiles. In case you people forgot Jesus hated child molestors. Matthew 18:6 “If anyone causes one of these little ones–those who believe in me–to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea
” What a tangled web we weave—“, etc. etc. etc.
A pedophile going to confession? Most unlikely!
Have you ever heard of the Mafia?
Sandy: In California, Psychiatrists, Psychologists and other mental health professionals are mandated reporters and required to report child abuse to the appropriate local authorities. Additionally, these same professionals are required to report the possibility of certain crimes to potential victims if they are knowledgeable of these activities prior to their occurrence.
Yep; LOVE it (When Hell Freezes-over). BE Careful the Battles you Choose, Some you Can’t Win.
This is an attack on the Catholic church!!
Do they, DEMOCRATS, think they OWN and can CONTROL the BODY and SOUL of CALIFORNIANS ? We are not CHINA or IRAN yet.
[…] said Steve Pehanich in a statement for the conference reported by local news outlets. (source, […]