Gold Hill daily news. [volume] (Gold Hill, N.T. [Nev.]) 1863-1882, 1868-06-27
CLERICAL PRIVILEGES.

A curious poiut, involving the quss-
tion of ecclesiastical lprivileges has arisen
in a Kentucky Court. A mob, largely
composed of Irish Catholics, besieged a
Jail in Frankfort, for the purpose of
taking out q negro man and hanging
him. The Rev. Lambert Young, n Ger
man Catholic clergyman, was appealed
to by the authorities to 60 among the
mob and endeavor to dissuade them from
their purpose. He did so, and though he
did not succeed in preventing them from
killing the negro man who, it was
afterward discovered was innocent), he
did succeed in bringing of the jailor
who would otherwise have been killed.
Mr.. Young was called before the Grand
Jury, who were investigating the mat
ter, and questioned as to what he saw
and heard, while with the mob, but de-
clined to answer, alleging that be was
personally unknown to the rioters, and
that it was only his character as a
priest which enabled him to penetrate
among them, aud reason and struggle
with them with impunity, that he did
not 60 Of his own wish or for his own
purposes, but at the request Of the au-
thorities and for tho purpose Of saving
life, and that for him to give information
which he obtained in his capacity Of a
priest, and could not have obtained had
he not been acting in that capacity,
would be to do violence to his con-
science, to degrade his Office, and to
lessen the ability of priests Of his
Church to save life or restrain mob
violence in such cases in future.
The Court, however, ruled that thecom-
m%unications were not privileged, and that
he must answer the questions, and Mr..
Young still refusing, he was committed
to Jail.
The San Francisco Times, in comment
ing on this novel case, justiies Mr..
Young, and thinks that he should not
have been required to answer. W. can
not concur in this opinion. There must
be some limit to clerical as we'll as other
privileges. Revelations made at the
confessional, or to a spiritual adviser, as
such, Immediately before or in antici-
patton of death, are very properly held
invioably sacred. But the reason
that even these are so regarded is found
ed on the idea that the revelations are
made by penitents, and that therefore
those who make them are, according to
the precepts of the Christian religion,
no longer criminals. 1t is the peni-
teuce of the person who makes the reve-
~lation, and no garb or function Of him
to whom it is made, that forms the
foundation of the principle. Lot US,
by way Of illustration, imagine an i'm
probable if not IN impossible case. Sup
pose that a person intent upon the COM
mission of a great crime should visit
the confessional and reveal his inten-
ton. It will surely not be claimed that
good morals or good citizenship would
justify his confessor in Withholding in
formation of the fact. If Mr.. Young's
knowledge ofthe identity ofthe Frankfort
rioters had been derived solely at the con-
fessional or in the course Of ministerial
intercourse his privilege would not be
questioned. But we assume that he
was q good citizen as well as a good
priest, and that bis impulses as a citi-
zen, no less than his Christian DISPOSE
ton, impelled him to aid in the suppress
sion Of the Kentucky riot. The infer
ence is quite natural that bis priestly
Office inspired the rioters with q respect
for him which greatly aided him in the
efforts which it was proper that he, in
common with all other good citizens,
should exert. But it is not q necessary
inference that they were penitent, or
that they consulted him in connection
with any Of his usual functions.
With some mobs, membership of the
Grand Army of the Republic, freedoms
Defenders, the Union League, the
Knights of the Golden Circle, the Ma
sonic or Odd Fellows Order, or similar
associations, might give u good citizen
similar influence. Will it be claimed
that in all such cases the demands Of
justice on the knowledge Of the citizen
can be thwarted by q claim Of privilege
such as that set up in the Frankfort
case? II not, why not?