Posted on 05/08/2009 9:53:40 PM PDT by chase19
The Seal: A Priest's story, recalls the true story of an outrageous violation of religious liberty which created an unprecedented rift between the powers of Church and State. The story explores uncharted legal territory in this first impression case involving a priest, a penitent, a district attorney and the Catholic Church. Supported with a compelling Foreword written by Francis Cardinal George, Archbishop of Chicago, Fr. Mockaitis relates in both a very personal and public style the first time a violation of the seal of confession was alleged in a capital case in the United States, and the first time an attempt was made in court to define a violation of the seal of the confessional as a First Amendment violation.
May 8, 2009
Today’s Practical Problem
By Brian A. Graebe
In a recently published memoir, The Seal: A Priest’s Story, Fr. Timothy Mockaitis recounts his central role in an unprecedented legal drama. On a fairly routine visit to Oregon’s Lane County Jail, Mockaitis heard the confession of an inmate accused of multiple homicide. Unbeknownst to this priest, he was not the only one hearing the confession. The district attorney, aware of the inmate’s request for the sacrament, had secretly wiretapped the visitors area to obtain that exchange, and planned to submit the tape as evidence in court. When a local reporter tipped Mockaitis off, a dramatic showdown ensued, threatening the precarious balance of church–state relations.
In the wake of a public outcry, the district attorney’s initial defense maintained that his skullduggery simply represented the most efficient means to the conviction of an accused murderer. Surely, the conventions of privacy privileges must cede to the pressing demand for justice. The legal battle that followed, ultimately vindicating the Catholic Church, shed a rare and welcome light upon the principle of intrinsic moral norms. In the objective order, there are certain actions which are wrong always and everywhere, without exceptions. No matter how good a desired end may be, it can never, under any circumstances, warrant recourse to a wrong or evil action as a means of obtaining that end.
Such evils stand alone in their absoluteness; there are no absolute goods, things which always and everywhere must be done. One’s duty to attend a religious service, for example, may be outweighed by the more pressing duty to care for a sick child. But while there is no upper limit on moral goodness, there is a bottom line. The seal of confession stands as a good example of this principle: A priest may never divulge anything heard in the sacrament of confession. Even knowledge that could prevent great harm (such as an imminent terrorist attack) must remain forever under that seal. Were the priest to act in any way upon that information (tipping off the FBI, telling his parents to flee the city), he would automatically incur the severest ecclesial penalties. In this way, the seal acts as a fitting touchstone against a pervasive practicality.
Those outraged by the district attorney’s actions understood a larger principle at work: One can never do evil for the sake of good, or, to put it more commonly, the ends never justify the means. John Paul II reaffirmed this principle, writing in Veritatis Splendor: “These are the acts which, in the Church’s moral tradition, have been termed ‘intrinsically evil’; they are such always and per se, in other words, on account of their very object, and apart from the ulterior intentions of the one acting and the circumstances.”
The faithful, and many of no faith, seemed to sense a violation of this principle in the district attorney’s actions. Catholics most especially were shocked and angered. In the end, the appellate court and the court of public opinion rendered their verdict against this utilitarian abuse of intrinsic evils. But in the absence of so blatant and personal a case, how universally is this principle applied in the public square today?
For many, the idea of intrinsic evils has been entirely lost or is entirely disregarded. A recent New York Times headline read, “Interrogations’ Effectiveness May Prove Elusive.” The debate over torture on Capitol Hill has centered on whether or not various methods yielded practical results, such as extracting intelligence. Hardly any regard is given to whether or not these methods are morally permissible in themselves; rather, everything is reduced to a cost-benefit analysis. In this equation, ethical discourse itself becomes impoverished.
contin:
http://www.firstthings.com/
I am reading Fr. Tim’s book right now. BTW, he is a priest in my vicariate and the chaplain for our Serra Club Chapter! Know him personally. He came to our parish and talked about his ordeal and writing the book.
 |
Please notify me via FReepmail if you would like to be added to or taken off the Oregon Ping List.
Oregon FReepers, do you remember when this happened? An inmate's Confession was recorded and the DA tried to use it as evidence at his trial. The Seal of Confession was NOT broken.
I’ve been meaning to get it and just ordered a copy today when I was reminded by the article in First Things. :) I’ve heard it’s a great book and easy to read. What’s he like?
“In the wake of a public outcry, the district attorney’s initial defense maintained that his skullduggery simply represented the most efficient means to the conviction of an accused murderer. Surely, the conventions of privacy privileges must cede to the pressing demand for justice.”
One can never do evil for the sake of good...?
Very friendly, but a little on the quiet side. I think he likes to have fun — go golfing, etc. Has the “rich” part of town for a parish, but my parish on the “poor” end of town does more reaching out to the community. We fed over 1000 people at Thanksgiving last year, mostly in take-out meals.
At Christ we had over 1000 come for a sit-down meal. We also have A Coat Closet and bears and balls for the children at Christmas. It’s a big production!
The Seal of Confession was NOT broken. That’s a way for a priest to automatically lose his priesthood!
I think there was one other case as referenced by Father Tim on this subject. I’m not very far into it, but it certainly is a captivating read.
Certainly the government should never have recorded the confession, but as evidence useful to the defense are they not entitled to it? A tough question with no right answer IMO.
** but as evidence useful to the defense are they not entitled to it? A tough question with no right answer IMO.**
Yes, a tough question for the secular world but not for the Catholic world.
A priest’s Seal of Confession can NEVER be broken.
Or, to put it a little closer to the bone: lets say the prisoner seeking confession was a terrorist and he likely new about the imminent atrocity his fellow terrorists were planning. He confesses to this. Is it immoral to violate his personal religious beliefs (sanctity of confession) for the sake of saving innocent lives?
A priest’s Seal of Confession can NEVER be broken.
Well now we get into the sticky issue of to what extent should our secular government of civil laws bend to accommodate religious teachings of different groups. Rastafarian's say smoking dope is sacred. American Indians like to eat mushrooms and peyote. Mormons like polygamy and child marriage. How to determine when the state agrees to honor minority practices and when to over-rule them.
Order this from your local Catholic Book Store. Amazon supports Planned Parenthood.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.