Wasn't Aquinas' argument that the priest, as his own person, is never told anything in Confession anyway?
Not that that would hold up in a court of law, of course...
Source: Summa theologica, supplement to the third part, q. 11, art. 1, answer to objection 3: "A man is not called upon to witness except as a man, wherefore without wronging his conscience he can swear that he knows not, what he knows only as God knows it." Not technically Aquinas since it's in the supplement.
Yeah, the caveat about this being derivative rather than clearly from Thomas is, for me, confirmed by a larger selection of this Respondeo:
'I answer that, There are three opinions about this question. For some say that a man can by no means tell another what he has heard in confession, even if he knew it from some other source either before or after the confession: while others assert that the confession debars him from speaking of what he knew already, but not from saying what he knew afterwards and in another way. Now both these opinions, by exaggerating the seal of confession, are prejudicial to the truth and to the safeguarding of justice. For a man might be more inclined to sin, if he had no fear of being accused by his confessor supposing that he repeated the sin in his presence: and furthermore it would be most prejudicial to justice if a man could not bear witness to a deed which he has seen committed again after being confessed to him. Nor does it matter that, as some say, he ought to declare that he cannot keep it secret, for he cannot make such a declaration until the sin has already been confessed to him, and then every priest could, if he wished, divulge a sin, by making such a declaration, if this made him free to divulge it. Consequently there is a third and truer opinion, viz. that what a man knows through another source either before or after confession, he is not bound to keep secret, in so far as he knows it as a man, for he can say: "I know so end so since I saw it." But he is bound to keep it secret in so far as he knows it as God knows it, for he cannot say: "I heard so and so in confession." Nevertheless, on account of the scandal he should refrain from speaking of it unless there is an urgent reason.'
I think Reginald et al can be most charitably read here (and we may be laboring in translation, as well) as making a distinction of the cause of the knowledge rather than a metaphysical distinction about the nature of the knowing, here. To know a thing in a natural and humanly justiciable way is really different than to know it in a gracious and sacramental way, insofar as the causes, auspices, and governing authorities are different.
But I am convinced that further consideration established that any direct denial that was otherwise a lie would not be justified by this language or an exactly similar reservation.
However, it would seem to be no lie to say "I have no personal knowledge" or "I can give no direct evidence," as his indirect information would be little more than hearsay in most cases and he is not an interrogator or investigator in the confessional.
Will the governor's Jesuit priest uncle (who he cited as being part of the inspiration or impetus for him signing this law) be named as a witness on behalf of the State in this lawsuit?
To my knowledge, the Jesuit uncle or his province hasn't come out publicly against this government compelled breaking the seal of the confessional...
My understanding is that his Jesuit uncle died long ago. He was not an "inspiration" for the law, just something the governor used (in his mind) to tout his Catholic bona fides.
Eternal rest grant unto him O Lord and let perpetual light shine upon him; may his soul and the souls of all the faithful departed through the mercy of God rest in peace, and please let all of them have a word in the ear of this governor if it isn't too much to ask (but I suppose it is.)
The Apostles fast begins the Monday after all Saints Sunday in the Byzantine Rite. This is the Monday after Trinity Sunday in the West. So the fast starts on June 16th this year.
Good on these bishops. I hope this goes all the way to the supreme court and we get a definitive constitutional ruling that applies nationwide. Other states have toyed with this idea and though such legislative efforts have failed so far, that could easily change.
Clarity at a national level would also help the administration lean a bit on other so-called "advanced" countries where religious freedom is not upheld.
The “Except for members of the clergy…” portion of the statute was added to ensure it would be found unconstitutional. Now the anti-Catholic interest groups and other Church enemies can “declare victory” and feign outrage when the law is struck down because its plain text targets members of the clergy, which means because of their clerical status. It would be different and more difficult (but not impossible) to challenge a law that simply abrogated and replaced the referenced privilege statute(s) to say, “Regarding the obligations of a ‘mandatory reporter’ under the statute, the State recognizes only the following privileges to exempt a ‘mandatory reporter’ from such obligations: …..”. Then list the attorney-client privilege or whatever privileges they have but leave out any reference to clergy. Then the face of the law would not by its express terms target the clergy. This is all gamesmanship because they want to talk about protecting kids, but then blame priests just because these people want to target an inviolable aspect of the priest who is entrusted with the faculty to hear confessions.
I don’t know if people are playing this much 3D chess. Most people, including politicians, don’t understand legal nuances and they wanted it clear that they intended to target clergy because of the headlines- they wanted credit for it.
that's exactly right. when behavior (particularly by state level politicians) could be explained either as malicious or incompetent, the latter is 99.999% of the time the correct one.
I see both sides of this argument. However, don't forget that these state legislators receive plenty of help from interest groups in drafting legislation. It'd be naive to deny that some on the Left want to destroy the Church; it's the "Main Enemy", to borrow Soviet parlance.
Bingo. It's a lose-lose because at this point, any changes to mandatory reporter statutes tend to be superfluous (A large portion of the population is already a mandatory reporter in at least some capacity), and so any proposed changes that may or may not affect Catholic clergy are nothing more than anti-Catholic attacks. These are meant to be lose-lose for Catholics by design: either the law passes and stands, and the Catholics are forced to violate either ecclesial mandate or civil statute, or the bill is amended by Catholic voices or is struck down upon review after Catholics file a suit - which allows the secular enemies to paint us as either defending potential child abusers or opposing the protection of children.
I almost would have preferred the bishops NOT sue and say, "The seal of the confession is inviolable. Period. Full stop. No earthly power or unjust law can change that. If the State of Washington wants to waste its time and taxpayer funds investigating what goes on in the confessional they can save some money--the sacrament is free of charge; the price for forgiveness of sins has already been paid."
I’m tempted to agree, but the legal system is, nominally, about justice. This is an unjust law, regardless of what the opponents of the Church think, and ought be challenged on those grounds alone.
And should we really care about what they think anyway? To paraphrase, “I’ve seen what makes them cheer”.
It's a great opportunity for clergy to educate their congregations on the beauty and power of sacramental confession and the inviolability of the seal.
It's also a great opportunity for unification of the clergy across political/liturgical/whatever lines.
I'm not afraid of the Church suing the pants off Washington state for this or for it to turn into a national news story.
It is just over two weeks since we (including me) were arguing this point of principle in response to UK Government proposals to pierce the seal of Confession.
As some cruel commenters noted, the UK Government visibly does not give a **** about raped children. The Muslim rape gangs around the country got away with mass abuse for years and local authorities and the police were terrified of being accused of Islamophobia. This attempt to violate sacramental secrecy is yet another futile gesture to show that the authorities are doing something.
I haven't looked at the Washington law, but the Colorado law allows for privileged communications to pretty much anyone who is acting in a counselor role (including prison guards) with the exception of priests.
They really don't care about the kids. They just hate Catholics.
The Becket Fund does amazing work defending religious freedom! So glad to see they are among the firms representing the Catholic bishops and the other plaintiffs in this case.
I’m cautiously optimistic that there would be at least 5 justices that would vote to overturn the Washington law, but we need to pray hard and fast.
I didn't realize until reading up on this that there are already multiple states that don't protect confession for mandatory reporting of suspected child abuse (New Hampshire, West Virginia, Texas, et al). I have been unable to find out if these were challenged constitutionally, or how far any challenges went. My sense is that Washington's statue is a little different because it explicitly allows protections to "non-clergy" in the text, while other laws I looked up don't carve out clergy explicitly. My impression is also that there have never been any charges made against priests in those states for not complying in the context of confession.
It's hard to Google for information on these other cases with Washington in the news at this moment. Anyone else know more about statutes like this in other parts of the country? I was naively under the impression that confession was pretty much universally protected.
This seems like a case that’ll go all the way to the Supreme Court if they can’t settle it locally.
Praying for the legislators, the priests and the laity in Washington!
Wasn't Aquinas' argument that the priest, as his own person, is never told anything in Confession anyway?
Not that that would hold up in a court of law, of course...
Source: Summa theologica, supplement to the third part, q. 11, art. 1, answer to objection 3: "A man is not called upon to witness except as a man, wherefore without wronging his conscience he can swear that he knows not, what he knows only as God knows it." Not technically Aquinas since it's in the supplement.
Without knowing more, I'd have some issue with that. Our theology of orders has the priest as an actual causal participant in sacramental ministry.
Yeah, the caveat about this being derivative rather than clearly from Thomas is, for me, confirmed by a larger selection of this Respondeo:
'I answer that, There are three opinions about this question. For some say that a man can by no means tell another what he has heard in confession, even if he knew it from some other source either before or after the confession: while others assert that the confession debars him from speaking of what he knew already, but not from saying what he knew afterwards and in another way. Now both these opinions, by exaggerating the seal of confession, are prejudicial to the truth and to the safeguarding of justice. For a man might be more inclined to sin, if he had no fear of being accused by his confessor supposing that he repeated the sin in his presence: and furthermore it would be most prejudicial to justice if a man could not bear witness to a deed which he has seen committed again after being confessed to him. Nor does it matter that, as some say, he ought to declare that he cannot keep it secret, for he cannot make such a declaration until the sin has already been confessed to him, and then every priest could, if he wished, divulge a sin, by making such a declaration, if this made him free to divulge it. Consequently there is a third and truer opinion, viz. that what a man knows through another source either before or after confession, he is not bound to keep secret, in so far as he knows it as a man, for he can say: "I know so end so since I saw it." But he is bound to keep it secret in so far as he knows it as God knows it, for he cannot say: "I heard so and so in confession." Nevertheless, on account of the scandal he should refrain from speaking of it unless there is an urgent reason.'
https://www.newadvent.org/summa/5011.htm#article5
I think Reginald et al can be most charitably read here (and we may be laboring in translation, as well) as making a distinction of the cause of the knowledge rather than a metaphysical distinction about the nature of the knowing, here. To know a thing in a natural and humanly justiciable way is really different than to know it in a gracious and sacramental way, insofar as the causes, auspices, and governing authorities are different.
But I am convinced that further consideration established that any direct denial that was otherwise a lie would not be justified by this language or an exactly similar reservation.
However, it would seem to be no lie to say "I have no personal knowledge" or "I can give no direct evidence," as his indirect information would be little more than hearsay in most cases and he is not an interrogator or investigator in the confessional.
Will the governor's Jesuit priest uncle (who he cited as being part of the inspiration or impetus for him signing this law) be named as a witness on behalf of the State in this lawsuit?
To my knowledge, the Jesuit uncle or his province hasn't come out publicly against this government compelled breaking the seal of the confessional...
My understanding is that his Jesuit uncle died long ago. He was not an "inspiration" for the law, just something the governor used (in his mind) to tout his Catholic bona fides.
Eternal rest grant unto him O Lord and let perpetual light shine upon him; may his soul and the souls of all the faithful departed through the mercy of God rest in peace, and please let all of them have a word in the ear of this governor if it isn't too much to ask (but I suppose it is.)
He didn’t just go to Catholic school, he had a Jesuit uncle, so he’s clearly an expert on all things Catholic. /s
Offer the Apostles' Fast for Washington state
Too bad it’s only six days long in Washington state…
The Apostles' Fast is from the Monday after Pentecost to June 29th. It's a bit
This is why I love Pillar readers. Thank you for the education. I assumed you meant what ought to be the novena between today and Pentecost.
Oooh. We can do that too!
The Novena to the Holy Spirit is a solid idea.
The Apostles fast begins the Monday after all Saints Sunday in the Byzantine Rite. This is the Monday after Trinity Sunday in the West. So the fast starts on June 16th this year.
True! The Monday after Pentecost start is Oriental not Byzantine.
Good on these bishops. I hope this goes all the way to the supreme court and we get a definitive constitutional ruling that applies nationwide. Other states have toyed with this idea and though such legislative efforts have failed so far, that could easily change.
Clarity at a national level would also help the administration lean a bit on other so-called "advanced" countries where religious freedom is not upheld.
The “Except for members of the clergy…” portion of the statute was added to ensure it would be found unconstitutional. Now the anti-Catholic interest groups and other Church enemies can “declare victory” and feign outrage when the law is struck down because its plain text targets members of the clergy, which means because of their clerical status. It would be different and more difficult (but not impossible) to challenge a law that simply abrogated and replaced the referenced privilege statute(s) to say, “Regarding the obligations of a ‘mandatory reporter’ under the statute, the State recognizes only the following privileges to exempt a ‘mandatory reporter’ from such obligations: …..”. Then list the attorney-client privilege or whatever privileges they have but leave out any reference to clergy. Then the face of the law would not by its express terms target the clergy. This is all gamesmanship because they want to talk about protecting kids, but then blame priests just because these people want to target an inviolable aspect of the priest who is entrusted with the faculty to hear confessions.
I don’t know if people are playing this much 3D chess. Most people, including politicians, don’t understand legal nuances and they wanted it clear that they intended to target clergy because of the headlines- they wanted credit for it.
that's exactly right. when behavior (particularly by state level politicians) could be explained either as malicious or incompetent, the latter is 99.999% of the time the correct one.
I see both sides of this argument. However, don't forget that these state legislators receive plenty of help from interest groups in drafting legislation. It'd be naive to deny that some on the Left want to destroy the Church; it's the "Main Enemy", to borrow Soviet parlance.
Bingo. It's a lose-lose because at this point, any changes to mandatory reporter statutes tend to be superfluous (A large portion of the population is already a mandatory reporter in at least some capacity), and so any proposed changes that may or may not affect Catholic clergy are nothing more than anti-Catholic attacks. These are meant to be lose-lose for Catholics by design: either the law passes and stands, and the Catholics are forced to violate either ecclesial mandate or civil statute, or the bill is amended by Catholic voices or is struck down upon review after Catholics file a suit - which allows the secular enemies to paint us as either defending potential child abusers or opposing the protection of children.
I almost would have preferred the bishops NOT sue and say, "The seal of the confession is inviolable. Period. Full stop. No earthly power or unjust law can change that. If the State of Washington wants to waste its time and taxpayer funds investigating what goes on in the confessional they can save some money--the sacrament is free of charge; the price for forgiveness of sins has already been paid."
I’m tempted to agree, but the legal system is, nominally, about justice. This is an unjust law, regardless of what the opponents of the Church think, and ought be challenged on those grounds alone.
And should we really care about what they think anyway? To paraphrase, “I’ve seen what makes them cheer”.
It's a great opportunity for clergy to educate their congregations on the beauty and power of sacramental confession and the inviolability of the seal.
It's also a great opportunity for unification of the clergy across political/liturgical/whatever lines.
I'm not afraid of the Church suing the pants off Washington state for this or for it to turn into a national news story.
It is just over two weeks since we (including me) were arguing this point of principle in response to UK Government proposals to pierce the seal of Confession.
As some cruel commenters noted, the UK Government visibly does not give a **** about raped children. The Muslim rape gangs around the country got away with mass abuse for years and local authorities and the police were terrified of being accused of Islamophobia. This attempt to violate sacramental secrecy is yet another futile gesture to show that the authorities are doing something.
https://open.substack.com/pub/thepillar/p/uk-government-mandatory-reporting?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=9bqtm
I haven't looked at the Washington law, but the Colorado law allows for privileged communications to pretty much anyone who is acting in a counselor role (including prison guards) with the exception of priests.
They really don't care about the kids. They just hate Catholics.
You can be arrested in the UK for praying silently (ie. in your head). Like, just standing, thinking a prayer. Literal wrongthink.
The UK has fallen.
The Becket Fund does amazing work defending religious freedom! So glad to see they are among the firms representing the Catholic bishops and the other plaintiffs in this case.
I’m cautiously optimistic that there would be at least 5 justices that would vote to overturn the Washington law, but we need to pray hard and fast.
Zero priests will accept the law, but there also will never be a case that brings it to Court.
I didn't realize until reading up on this that there are already multiple states that don't protect confession for mandatory reporting of suspected child abuse (New Hampshire, West Virginia, Texas, et al). I have been unable to find out if these were challenged constitutionally, or how far any challenges went. My sense is that Washington's statue is a little different because it explicitly allows protections to "non-clergy" in the text, while other laws I looked up don't carve out clergy explicitly. My impression is also that there have never been any charges made against priests in those states for not complying in the context of confession.
It's hard to Google for information on these other cases with Washington in the news at this moment. Anyone else know more about statutes like this in other parts of the country? I was naively under the impression that confession was pretty much universally protected.