When secular law is contrary to religious law

  • Thread starter Thread starter meltzerboy2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

meltzerboy2

Guest
Picking up on the topic of the Seal of Confession being sacrosanct even if something is revealed by the penitent to their priest that would be a danger to others or society in general (something I support), what do you think of the following situation?

In Jewish law, it is forbidden to embalm the body of the deceased; only washing is performed according to strict religious guidelines. I found a case on a Jewish Forum in which a Jewish individual died on a trip to the Middle East (not in Israel) and his family wanted his body flown back home to the U.S. as soon as possible because burial within a 24-hour period is required according to Jewish law. The family was Conservative, leaning toward Orthodox but not Orthodox. Still, they followed halachic law concerning no embalming. However, airlines in general REQUIRE embalming of a transported body for sanitary and safety reasons. The result in this case was that the family relented and embalming was done. How would or could an Orthodox Jewish family deal with such a situation? Likewise, in cases of autopsy, which is also forbidden under Jewish law, the state has priority.

What are your thoughts about such issues in which state or federal law contradicts religious law? Does the government have the right to intervene in matters of public welfare? And, if so, would this also apply to the Sacrament of Reconciliation?
 
Last edited:
meltzerboy2 said:
What are your thoughts about such issues in which state or federal law contradicts religious law? Does the government have the right to intervene in matters of public welfare?
Click to expand...
This is hard as a Protestant as most of us lack rituals where a conflict with the state would occur. The vast majority of us don’t have the Seal of Confession.

If the state tries to ban public assembly or dictate that we can’t deny communion to people for a variety of reasons or excommunicate, the Church just goes underground as seen throughout history and in some countries today. But this has nothing to do with public welfare.

Another conflict I can think of would be participation in society. Bakers and florists. Facilitating abortions and euthanasia. We’re not talking about withholding needs like shelter or medical treatment so we can get that out of the way. If business owners or professionals are coerced by the state, which is ridiculous if it claims to be free, then they’ll have to leave or violate their consciences. No one said being Christian would be easy. Public welfare is barely relevant here.
 
Last edited:
I tend to lean heavily on religious freedom and believe it should only be curtailed in exceptionally rare cases. “Matters of public welfare” can be far too broadly defined. In your example of embalming, I believe that there should be a religious exemption with proper public health precautions taken under the circumstances.

Religious freedom is really important stuff. When exercised properly, it protects all individuals, including atheists and agnostics.
 
There are clear benefits from public health and sanitation laws regarding dead bodies.

Taking off my Catholic hat and putting on my lawyer hat, there are NO clear benefits from trying to erode privilege laws including but not limited to the one pertaining to conversations between a priest and penitent (the law does not only apply to that situation but the Catholic confession gets the most attention because priests are not supposed to violate the seal and in fact have been martyred for refusing to do so). And eroding privilege law runs the risk of undermining the criminal justice reforms of the Warren Court and putting us on the path to a police state. Again with no clear benefit, as it is highly unlikely that abusers are even confessing their acts, and even if they did, the priest’s report would be worthless if he can’t see who is talking to him.

What would actually happen if the privilege for confession went away is that the state would start bugging confessionals and surveilling who goes in and out. This isn’t about Father reporting a bad guy. It’s about police state privacy intrusions. And I say that even though I am not big on privacy law.

It’s highly likely that Father would abide by his requirements and not disclose what was said to him in confession. Jailing Father for this would result in the same situation as when a journalist gets jailed for refusing to reveal a source. The jailed journalist or priest doesn’t talk and ends up a public martyr for a cause while the institution behind the jailed person (the press or the Church) raises an outcry and no practical result is obtained.

Coming back to the dead body situation, it is likely that when Jewish law was made, the situation of transporting a body by plane was not anticipated. Perhaps an alternative could be created in much the same way as the Catholic Church now allows cremation for practical reasons, when it was formerly forbidden for centuries on religious grounds.
 
Last edited:
ATraveller said:
This is hard as a Protestant as most of us lack rituals where a conflict with the state would occur.
Click to expand...
You do know that privilege laws can apply equally to conversations between a Protestant and his minister, a Jewish person and his rabbi, etc? The minister or rabbi would not be compelled to report what was said to him with the expectation of confidentiality by a person seeking spiritual guidance. If the minister was counseling Joe Schmoe over some sensitive issue, the minister could freely choose to not report Joe to the police and not suffer any penalty for failure to report. Nor could the minister be made to testify about his conversation with Joe. Privilege isn’t just for Catholic priests.

The only difference is that it’s the individual minister making the decision. He doesn’t have a hierarchy imposing a seal of confession on him.
 
Last edited:
Tis_Bearself said:
Again with no clear benefit, as it is highly unlikely that abusers are even confessing their acts, and even if they did, the priest’s report would be worthless if he can’t see who is talking to him.
Click to expand...
I don’t think much thought was given to how abusers are discovered. It’s almost always victims coming forward or someone else wanting to test their suspicions and they happen to discover it.

Perpetrators reoffend and often have multiple victims is one reason for the laws in Australia and California. But it assumes abusers would confess immediately, which is improbable.

What Australia and California lawmakers are doing is trying to look like they’re doing something but not actually doing things that will help victims to report as early as the can. I’m not sure what can be done here because fear isn’t something you can legislate on easily. It’s more about attitudes and things done at the organizational level.
 
Last edited:
It’s about politicians wanting to look like they are doing sensitive helpful things.
Also, non-Catholics often have a weird idea that Catholics confess everything and then go on their merry way, and that priests refusing to disclose confessions is just more of them covering up for each other.
 
meltzerboy2 said:
What are your thoughts about such issues in which state or federal law contradicts religious law? Does the government have the right to intervene in matters of public welfare? And, if so, would this also apply to the Sacrament of Reconciliation?
Click to expand...
There are several differences between those cases.

First, in “airline” case there is no direct contradiction. It would be at least theoretically possible to follow both laws by burying the body in the same country or by hiring a plane for a special flight.

Second, in both “your” cases the “secular law” was not created specifically to interfere with “religious law”.

Third, in “autopsy” case the state does not demand the ones following “religious law” to do anything. Presumably, the representatives of the state are going to come and do the autopsy themselves.

If you want a similar case where the Jewish law was opposed to “secular law”, take 7th chapter of 2 Maccabees (2 Maccabees 7 DRA - It came to pass also, that seven - Bible Gateway). It starts with: “It came to pass also, that seven brethren, together with their mother, were apprehended, and compelled by the king to eat swine’s flesh against the law, for which end they were tormented with whips and scourges.”.
 
ftron said:
A prime example of this is Northern Ireland where there has actually been priests who have been found to in some manner been collaberating and supporting the IRA; and using their status as clergy and the seal of confession to claim immunity to investigation.
Click to expand...
The impetus for the current law push is not priests involved with revolutionary groups. It’s sexual abuse, period.

And given the history of priests being accused, often falsely, of crimes against the state by anti-Catholic regimes in places like Communist countries and Mexico during the Cristero War and of course all over the UK, that’s THE worst rationale for breaking the seal of confession EVER. Sure am glad my ancestors escaped Ireland when they did and came to a country that has some respect for religion and for civil liberty. I’m muting now before I say a few more things that might get me banned.
 
Had it been me, I would have likely simply flown to where my deceased family member was and buried him there according to my faith.
 
In i.e., the case of breaking the seal of confession, I am sympathetic to the law, but being Catholic oppose it vehemently. Just like martyrs, it is better to die than to deny the Faith or a tenet of it.
 
With regard to autopsy, I realize the state representatives are going to arrange the autopsy; however, autopsy is FORBIDDEN by Jewish law because the body is not permitted to be tampered with. It must remain integral upon burial (unless of course if there are missing limbs and so on during wartime).

Insofar as burial of the body in the country of visitation, in this case that would mean burial in a country in which there is much anti-Jewish sentiment. Another suggestion (on the Jewish Forum) was burial in Israel, which might have been arranged without embalmment being necessary. It was also proposed to use a different method of preserving the body involving dried ice instead of embalming fluid; however, that method is also considered somewhat unsafe.
 
I hope it never comes to the point of priests’ martyrdom in defense of the Seal of Confession. Religious exemption should apply here as befits the Constitution of the U.S., which guarantees religious freedom of expression.
 
Last edited:
It may not have been so easy to find a Jewish cemetery in the Middle Eastern country where he had died. OTOH it may have worked as the best possible solution.
 
Last edited:
But clergy ARE held to a similar standard, but instead of the State dictating that standard, their religion does.
 
For many yeas the Catholic Church forbade cremation for its members. However an exception was made in Japan.
 
ATraveller said:
What Australia and California lawmakers are doing
Click to expand...
There is a recommendation from a Royal Commission of Inquiry in Australia. I have not heard that anyone has brought forwards a bill that would impact on current privilege.
 
I believe that where secular law and religious law conflict there needs to be a distinction made. If the law is a doctrinal one found in divine or natural law that must be upheld. A very simple example of this relates to divorce. The secular state declares itself capable of dissolving a valid marriage. This is contrary to divine law and is not accepted or followed by Catholics.

If the clash is one between a disciplinary ecclesiastical law and the civil law of the state I think the matter should be judged on a case by case basis. There are examples where the Church bows to secular law because the secular law is different only from a law made by the Church rather than a divine or natural law. For example, Church law would allow you to marry at any time of the day or night. In English law you can only marry between 8 am and 6 pm. Here in England the Church accepts this because it in no way interferes with doctrine.

I pray, hope and believe that in those jurisdictions where laws are being introduced to make priests reveal what they have heard in confession that priest will simply refuse to comply.
 
Why is religious freedom privileged above other forms of freedom?

And where do you draw the line? Suppose a serial killer confesses to having kidnapped and murdered children, for instance. In my opinion, it would be gravely immoral of the priest NOT not to report what he heard in confession to the police, and he would be partly responsible should the serial killer kill again, when he could have prevented it by breaking the seal of confession.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top