EIGHT years ago, the US State of Maryland considered passing a law
that would have required priests to break the seal of confession if the
sin of child abuse was made known to them via the sacrament of
confession.
During the previous year, 2002, the Catholic Church in
America had been convulsed by the child-abuse scandals in much the same
way that the church here has repeatedly been convulsed.
This set
the scene for politicians in a number of states (New Hampshire and
Connecticut were two others) to demand the passage of a law requiring
the breaking of the seal of confession -- its absolute guarantee of
privacy.
Our Government has embarked on a similar course, to very
little opposition so far, although this may change when the relevant
bill is published in the next few months and the issue comes to a head.
As
in those American states, the background is the clerical-abuse
scandals.
But the Government should note what happened in Maryland and
New Hampshire and Connecticut.
In each case, the bid to attack the
seal of confession was defeated, partly because of a backlash by
thousands of Catholic voters, who were urged on by their bishops.
A
few days ago, Cardinal Sean Brady delivered a talk in which he
described the attack on the seal of confession as an attack on freedom
of religion.
He said: "Freedom to participate in worship and to
enjoy the long-established rites of the church is so fundamental that
any intrusion upon it is a challenge to the very basis of a free
society.
"For example, the inviolability of the seal of confession
is so fundamental to the very nature of the sacrament that any proposal
that undermines that inviolability is a challenge to the right of every
Catholic to freedom of religion and conscience."
Unlike his US
counterparts, he did not ask Irish Catholics to write to their
politicians in protest, but that he raised the issue at all was too much
for the 'Irish Times', which attacked his remarks in a leader.
It seems that Catholics are not even allowed to defend their
own sacraments.
It's hard to know how many Catholics would have
responded if Cardinal Brady had issued a call to arms, but if he and his
fellow bishops and clergy did it often enough, clearly enough and
loudly enough, then there would be a response and politicians might then
have to sit up and pay attention.
However, it was not muscle
power alone that caused legislators in the aforementioned American
states to back down in the end; it was also because wiser heads
prevailed.
For a start, the proposal is -- as Sean Brady has said
-- an attack on religious freedom, because for Catholics, access to the
sacraments is an absolutely vital and integral part of their faith.
Catholics
believe that they have a divinely ordained right to confess their sins
via the sacrament of confession under an absolute assurance of privacy.
They believe that the State cannot and must not interfere with this
right under any circumstances.
Of course, a lot of people will
dismiss this as so much mumbo jumbo.
But if we can dismiss other
people's most sacred beliefs and practices so contemptuously and ride
roughshod over them, then religious freedom really is in peril.
There
is another reason why the Government should reconsider its proposal -- a
strictly practical and utilitarian one.
It will do no good and may do
harm because no child abuser, knowing that a priest is legally obliged
to pass on his crime to the police, will go to confession in the first
place.
THIS is why it was completely nonsensical of the 'Irish
Times' in its leader to raise the case of Michael Joseph
McArdle, a former Catholic priest in Australia who says he confessed
child abuse on numerous occasions to numerous priests over 25 years.
Can
anyone seriously believe he would have gone near a confessional if he
thought that his confessor might then go to the police?
But by
effectively barring a child abuser from attending confession, the State
will rob confessors of the opportunity to persuade offenders to hand
themselves over to the civil authorities.
This is just one reason why the proposed law is far more likely to do harm than good.
Indeed,
it is extremely doubtful whether a single crime has ever been prevented
by laws requiring the breaking of the seal of confession.
This
partially explains why such laws are so rare around the world.
It
is also why, historically speaking, laws of this sort have been found
almost exclusively in extremely anti-Catholic countries, such as Britain
during penal times, or in totalitarian states, which is to say, in
states motivated by a wish to put Catholics in their place.
Does the Government really wish to add Ireland to that list?
Hopefully, as in New Hampshire, Maryland and Connecticut, wiser heads will prevail here in the end.