Friday, May 16, 2025

Not privileged. . .

When Washington state Gov. Mike Ferguson signed a controversial bill into law last week making reporting of child abuse mandatory, it went one step further than ever before.  Now, "mandatory" leaves no room for clergy and the seal of the confessional.  The state has required reporting of child abuse leaving no exemptions even for information disclosed during private confession. Confessions had been considered privileged and therefore exempt from the requirement and still are nearly everywhere else.  Confession, like attorney client privilege, has always been carved out an exception to such reporting requirements.  Now that exception has been closed.  Though this is certainly an issue for Roman Catholic clergy, it is no less an issue for Lutherans.  We have always observed and honored the seal of the confessional and the governments reach has always stopped at this point -- deeming it as encroaching up the separation of church and state.  One of the consequences of the breaching of the wall is not simply the influence of religion upon government but government upon religion.  This will undoubtedly be overturned by the Supreme Court of the nation as a violation of the constitutional restriction against laws that infringe upon religious freedom but the signal is pretty clear.  In a world in which there is no respect left for religion, there will be no popular support of the rights of religious against the backdrop of the heinous crimes of child abuse.  In this case, no one wins.  While some may point to the $5,000 fine for not abiding by this intrusion, the money is the smaller issue here.

Some years ago the local county jail instituted video visits -- even for lawyers meeting their incarcerated clients.  I was asked by a member to come to the jail and was given a small closet and a screen but I quickly surmised that this was in no way going to be a visit in which any confidence could be guaranteed.  I warned the member upfront of this and suggested that others might be listening.  After the visit, I waited to be let out and could hear lawyers in their closets talking with clients and knew that walls had ears -- even if they were intended to be soundproof.  It effectively prevent much of any meaningful conversation and pastoral care.  Later I asked other lawyers and clergy about their experience and they shrugged their shoulders.  "It is what it is," they said.  The guarantees of our liberty are only as solid as the ways in which that liberty is exercised or prevented.  In this case, it did not amount to much.

Surely we all get it.  We live in an age in which Dateline and Snapped teach us that things are not what they seem and of cop and courtroom dramas in which the guilty too often are able to beat the system.  Then we watch the news of egregious crimes committed on video for the world to see but the media carefully calling the guilty the "accused" -- as if we could unsee what we saw.  The world begs for justice in a system that will render a verdict after too many years have passed that probably will not have much to do with actual guilt or innocence, and a punishment assigned that will be set aside because jails and prisons are crowded and the enlightened have decided that everyone deserves another chance.  So we are gravely tempted to forego the provisions which provide a small modicum of privacy and privilege to such seemingly irrelevant things as religion.  But in our haste we find ourselves in grave peril.  The world which no longer has respect for privacy for religious purpose will no longer respect any privacy and in that world religion will suffer but so will freedom.  I am a nobody with a relatively transparent life but it still makes me uneasy to think that my life is an open book for anyone with a screen.  If we are not ready to honor the confidentiality of the confessional, we should not complain when all the details of our lives are published in social media and sourced for scammers who are working to profit at our expense.  

Washington's governor and legislature may be well-intentioned but they are wrong.  The sooner we realize that such protections are not infringements upon our freedom but the pure exercise of liberty the sooner we may get some semblance of order back for us and all our institutions.  Governments are not our masters but our servants.

3 comments:

Carl Vehse said...

Pastors may need to carry portable sound-masking machines that generate white noise. The white noise blocks conversations in a thin-walled room from being heard outside that room.

John Flanagan said...

Exactly where, in scripture, does it say that the confessional is sacrosanct, and that the seal of the confessional cannot be violated? I say this merely to play devil’s advocate for the sake of the argument. Similar to the ethical treatment of the psychologist or psychiatrist who learns a client is a guilt ridden serial sex abuser or pedophile, or has murdered his or her neighbor and buried the body in the backyard. Is the priest or psychiatrist required to remain silent? What about justice for abused wives or children victimized by a perpetrator of grievous conduct? One can understand the guarding of privacy over some sins and crimes, but never for things which are horrific, or that may continue because the actor is not truly repentant, nor willing or able to change. Over the past years it has come to light that a significant number of priests in the Roman church abused children, often their own altar boys, and seminarians, and did this often. If they confessed their sins to another priest in the confessional, was it the duty of the priest hearing the confession to withhold the facts from the authorities? I cannot answer that myself, but it was noted that many times the church covered the crimes and the guilty priests were just transferred from parish to parish, where the abuses continued. The sanctity of the confessional is not or should not be a cause for immunity in all situations. When I once worked part time in the evenings for the IRS, looking at tax forms, we were told that indeed there is a sea of rules and more rules, exemptions and non-exemptions, and one supervisor quirked, “There is an exception to every exception.” In my view, this applies to the confessional as well. Soli Deo Gloria

V said...

I’m just a young layman, and have only been significant study on this matter quite recently (largely in light of this law and similar laws), but here are my thoughts and questions on the confessional seal:

Christ gives the apostles the Keys in Matthew 16:19
“I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
And John 20:23
“If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you withhold forgiveness from any, it is withheld.”

it appears to me that forgiveness of sins is part of the apostolic office.

Further, Article XII of the Augsburg Confession states that our churches reject those “who do not teach that remission of sins comes through faith but command us to merit grace through satisfactions of our own.”

Further, in Article XIII, we say that the sacraments (does that include absolution? I think it does) are “signs and testimonies of the will of God toward us.”

Further, in the Apology Melanchthon says about some of those who oppose the Augsburg Confession: “[they] dream that by the power of the keys guilt is not remitted, but that eternal punishments are changed into temporal.” and he further describes the idea that satisfactions must be made in addition to repentance and confession as “doctrines of devils.”

Finally, in Isaiah 43:25, God says:
“I am he who blots out your transgressions for my own sake, and I will not remember your sins.“

Now I think it’s clear both from the Scriptures, the tradition of the church up until now (and I think in this matter it’s actually probably the closest we get to unanimity I’ve seen in the Fathers, with Even Aquinas boldly stating that even the Pope couldn’t reveal or have another reveal the sins confessed), and the Confessions, and the Lutheran tradition thereafter (Luther seems to take a very harsh stance against loose lips on the part of confessors), that those who hear confessions and absolve sin do so in place of God and in line with the will of God, and God declares that it is his will that our sins be blotted out and hidden. Further, in what way does it teach the gospel and the forgiveness of sins when somebody absolves with one breath and accuses with the next?

I do not deny that the State May and ought to punish criminals, even those absolved, but I don’t see how it can be justified as scriptural, confessional, traditional, or name-your-metric, to do what has been unprecedented in the church in order to satisfy our own ideas of justice. So I don’t deny the State’s authority and obligation, but I do question the Church’s authority and obligation to hold the absolved accountable. How can one teach the Two Kingdoms, and have the confession & absolution be administered by somebody who hears in both a civil and spiritual capacity?

Respectfully, and with expectation that something I’ve said can be demonstrated as wrong.