Latest Breaking News

But that is not exactly the issue.

What interest of society is served by permitting religion at all? Or, if we can't find one in specific, let's ask if any (vague) interest of society is served by permitting religion? If the answer is "yes," then an entire bag of worms is opened. If the answer is "no," then you're declaring war on most of humanity, and will meet with a considerable amount of opposition in pursuit of ideological purity.

In any event, the people who founded the US and wrote its Constitution decided that some interest of society was served by permitting religion, to the point where they specifically guaranteed the right to free exercise of it (within certain broad parameters). It may be a guarantee honored more in the breach than we'd prefer, but it has worked about as well as could be expected. Having stipulated that, we cannot then decide we didn't mean it, and legislate restrictions to the free practice of a religion because we don't like one of it's tenets (a tenet that we knew right from the start, and that antedates the formation of the US by a good few centuries). At least, not unless we go through the stipulated process of amending the Constitution (and we'd run into some interesting problems about prejudicial practice in the process).

Lawyers have rules of confidentiality. Doctors have rules of confidentiality. Both of these, though, are purely social constructs. A lawyer could practice law if his records were not privileged (although it would surely cramp his style). A doctor even more easily could practice medicine without keeping a patient's health records privileged. There is nothing in either profession that requires confidentiality to function.

A priest is in a different position, and the confidentiality of the confessional is more than a social convenience. If we undermine that confidentiality, we undermine the very profession (well, vocation) of the priest. We undermine one of the pillars of the Catholic Church. This may not be something we want to do, and perhaps does not better serve the interests of society than does honoring their privilege. In any event, it is much more serious an action than it seems, looked at out of context. It's intriguing to me how so many people appear to think that attacking the sanctity of the confessional is not a big deal, or even some worthy thing that eliminates some unjust loophole that protects wrong-doers. Nobody is going to confess a crime if he knows it will be reported, so eliminating the confidentiality of the confessional will do exactly nothing, except undermine the authority and position of the priesthood, which I don't think is the intended result (although frankly, I can't understand what result *is* intended by this legislation). One thing is clear to me, if not to some others around here: the legislation under discussion will not reduce crime one percent.

-- Mal