Perhaps you’ve heard of the former Massachusetts judge who ,
shortly before retiring, awarded guardianship of a 31-year-old schizophrenic
woman to the parents, who had intended to use that authority to legally force
her to have an abortion. The judge, Christina
Harms, also ordered the woman be sterilized.
Harms
based her decision on the fact that being pregnant requires the unnamed woman
to stop taking her anti-psychotic medications, which makes her incompetent and
creates a danger for her safety and that of others. Harms believes that, if the woman was of
sound mind, she would abort the fetus.
Furthermore, the woman has been pregnant twice before. One pregnancy was aborted, while the other
child is being raised by the woman’s parents.
In an attempt to prevent more unplanned pregnancies and “serial
abortions,” Harms ordered sterilization as well.
The woman is fighting Harms’ decision, claiming she is a
devout Catholic. Her parents, however,
say that isn’t true. This is the aspect
of the story that most interests me.
This judge had the authority to mandate that someone do something that
goes against their religious principle.
Granted, the decision was over turned, but the initial ruling may help
lay some very early foundations for changes in the law regarding certain
religious practices. Specifically, the
Seal of the Confessional.
I’m not saying that the government ought to be able restrict
religious practices at will (or forcibly sterilize people), but respect for
religion ought to be secondary to the effectiveness of the criminal justice
system if the two come into conflict.
Why is it that one citizen can be subpoenaed and forced to testify, but
another, who happens to be a priest, cannot?
Because some guy said so 1,500 years ago?
Anyway. The Seal of
the Confessional, or priest-penitent privilege, requires that a clergy member
who, as part of an official religious ritual, hears a confession must keep that
confession absolutely secret. For some
reason, this holds up in the courts of secular countries (although an Irish Member of Parliament is attempting to change that in his own country).
It’s no wonder that priests got away with raping boys for so
long.
Proponents of the Seal argue that legally requiring priests
to report confessions would violate their religious freedom. However, the Supreme Court has previously ruled
that government can restrict certain religious practices if there is a
“compelling interest” to do so. For
example, even the most ardent follower of the Aztec religion would not be
allowed to make a human sacrifice. I
find it downright disturbing that our (secular) government allows priests to
keep secret the confessions of murders and rapists. Maybe they’re
OK with waiting until the afterlife for justice to be served, but I sure as
hell am not. More importantly, our
government shouldn’t, either. One of the
most critical means for governments to protect their citizens is through an
effective criminal justice system, and allowing this irresponsible practice to
continue seriously undermines that system.
And why do so many people assume that religious tolerance
means catering to every religious (or at least Christian) belief out
there? Some religious beliefs are simply
incompatible with the values of a secular society. You know, the kind that America is supposed
to be. When such practices begin to
threaten the safety and rights of other citizens, they ought to be
curtailed. The Church can make whatever
rules it wants to, but America isn’t subject to a single one of them.
The best part is that the Christians themselves could easily
resolve this whole thing. After hearing
a confession, priests give the confessor what is called a penance, which is
some task to perform that will finalize the forgiveness of your sins. Typically, a penance is a set number of
prayers to say. Even when I was a
Catholic, I wondered why the priests didn’t simply require murderers to confess
to the authorities as their penance.
I assume the official response would be something to the
effect of, “If we did that, the poor rapists and murderers wouldn’t confess
their sins and they’d be damned for all eternity.” Gays burn in Hell, but murderers are cool as
long as they tell a priest they’re sorry.
The religious won’t like it, but this isn’t supposed to be a
theocracy. Everyone likes to rail
against all those oppressive Islamic societies that run their countries according
to the tenets of the Quran, but apparently it’s OK if you use the Bible.
