say the least.
Cardinal Brady described Government proposals which would require Catholic priests to break the seal where child abuse is confessed as an attack on religious freedom.
He said that the inviolability of the seal of confession was “so fundamental to the very nature of the sacrament that any proposal that undermines that inviolability is a challenge to the right of every Catholic to freedom of religion and conscience”.
This should be obvious. Confession is a central part of the Catholic faith, and the inviolability of the seal of confession is a core of that sacrament. By attacking the seal, the Government is attacking the very roots of the faith of the majority of people in this country.
It is hard to imagine what the content of religious freedom is, if it doesn’t include the ability of believers to practice their faith in its fullness, particularly when the practice in question is of extremely long standing and is recognised to this day by nearly every country in the world.
However, according to the Irish Times, for Cardinal Brady to suggest that the Government’s attack on the seal is an attack on religious freedom is “unfair and disproportionate,” .
Freedom of religion for the Irish Times doesn’t include the right of the Catholic Church to decide all matters concerning sacraments it believes have been given to it by Christ.
Nor does it seem to include the right of religious leaders to so much as defend said sacraments.
The inviolability of the seal of confession is an essential part of the sacrament of confession as it developed over the centuries. Who would confess in private if they believed their confession could be made public?
The editorial says that other jurisdictions “deal with the issue of priest-penitent privilege in various ways”, but neglects to tell us which they are.
In the US, the states of New Hampshire and Maryland, among others, examined proposals to introduce similar legislation a few years ago, but the proposals were dropped in both cases.
“Freedom of religion is an important principle in a pluralist society,” the editorial adds. But does it really believe this?
The paper did not support proposals to create a religious freedom exemption in the Civil Partnership Act. It has certainly not been to the forefront in calling for the retention of Section 37 of the Employment Equality Act, which allows denominational institutions to hire people in accordance with their ethos.
Nor has it come out in favour of the right of pharmacists to refuse to stock contraception, or of fertility doctors to limit their practice to married people in accordance with their religious faith.
Perhaps the paper confuses freedom of religion with freedom of worship only. But even this is to be circumscribed, since confession and its inviolability is a central part of faithful Catholic worship.
It turns out that there is very little substance to this “important principle in a pluralist society”.