The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1892-02-09

. COllSluCTuUlc Interest. fH.| ... ....I... ~.
Replying to letter containing qucs-
ton on the subject Cardinal Gibbons
wrote:
CARDINAL GIBBONS VIEWS.
CARDINALS RESIDENCE,
BALTIMORE, Jan. -, 1872.
My DEAR sIR:-In reply to your, esteemed
favor OF yesterday / beg leave 10 say TINT DO
not know OF any Instance under my own obser
walton, nor OF any recorded In ecclesiastical his
tory, where the seal OF tho confessional Yves ever
violated. This fact can b. affirmed not only OF
those priests who have remained faithful 10 their
z sacred calling. buteven OF those also who from
time to time have proved uufaithiul
This inviOnbiity may without presumption
! be regarded as M additional proof, not only of
tho divine institution OF the sacrament OF Per-
ancc, but nlso OF the special protection OF Cod
over those who are charged with the important
duty OF hearing confessions.
Faithfully yours, J. CARD. GIBBONS
1t is interesting to note that the first
case in which the principle OF inviola-
bility Of tho confessional was legally
recognized in this country occurred in
this city way back in 1872, when the
Rev. Anthony kohlmann refused to
reveal information impaired to him by
+ q pcnitent. Pending the trial OF Il man
and his wife rs receivers OF stolen goods
tho property was returned to its right
full owner by Father Kohlmann, and
when the case was tried IN effort was
made to learn the name OF the. thief
through the priest. When called to the
stand Father kohlman said that he
must decline to give any information Of
what had been confded to him in his
character as q priest in the confessional,
and as in his private capacity he knew
nothing about tho case, he was there
fore unable to give the court any infor-
nation. .,..y
The question was argued at great
length by the lawyers in attendance.
De Witt Clinton was the presiding
magistrate, and i'll his decision, uphold
ing the position taken by the priest, he
said:
Although we differ from the witness
and his friends in our religious creed,
yet thcrc is no reason to question the
purity OF their motives. They are pro-
tccted by the laws and the constitution
OF this country in the full and free eycr-
else OF their religion, and this court can
never countenance nor authorize the
application OF IN insult to their faith
or of torture to their conscicnces."
Father kohlmann was at this time ad.
ministrator OF the diocese OF New York.
lie was Il Jesuit at the time when that
society was suppressed and became adj
ministrator upon the death OF Bishop
q Connolly. He was rector OF st. Peters
church. He it was who with his assist
ant, Father Fenwick, late Bishop OF
Boston, called upon "Tom" Paine to ex-
tend spiritual succor before the latter's
death. Paine declined their good
offices.
TIE PRINCIPLE INVOLVED.
Thus was the secrecy Of the confession
al legally established in this country in
conformity with the custom in England
France and other civilized countries in
!. which 1t is still maintained. The prin-
c!ple involved is that the priest in the
confessional loses his individuality and
assumes q representative character as
the servant Of God, to whom tho con-
LESSONS are made.
Yet at this time it was held that So
crets impaired to clergyman in his
professional character, though not in
confessional, were at the disposal of the
courts OF justice, as, at that time, were
the secrets OF patient in tho possession
OF a physician. ~.
1t is u curious lac. that under the old
common law lawyers were the only
class OF professional men in whom eli
ents were free, with safety, to confide.
When in their professional capacity
they had received information from eli
ents they could not be compelled to re-
peat it in court. This being the case il
& seems somewhat strange that it took 4
statute to close tho mouths OF phvsi.
clans and clergymcn. Many contests
marked the proceedings of the legal ira
ternity previous to the enactment OF tho
statute, which occurred during the Thir-
ties. The section relating to the priyiI.
eyes OF clcrgymen was, OF course, retain
ed in the Code and is No. S33. It will
y DO observed that its provisions arc man.
datory. 1t reads: q.
nation shal not be allowed to disclose conf.
denccs made to him In his professional charan,
) ter In tho course OF dlciplinu Cnjoiucd by Tho
rules Of practice OF tho religious body to Which
& he belongs. : Il -,
This statute covers all confessions
which may come to clergyman under
the seal OF secrecy, whether such clergy
man be acting in the confessional or
y otherwise. tits Of course neccssaryfor
him to be acting professionally, as would
aphysician attending upon patient or
q lawyer obtaining Information from his
\ client. )
Indeed SO long has this principle
B. been recognized in the legal world that
several lawyers to whom applied were
at tho outset unable to say whether it
was aprinciple OF tho common law, or
Z enacted into the statutes later. As in
{ the case OF Cardinal Gibbons, none OF
them could recall single instance in
which u priest had betrayed the seal OF
the confessional.
,sf. JUDGE N ADAM on THE LAW.
Perhaps q consensus OF views upon
tho subject is expressed in the opinion
4! and words OF Judge David McAdam, OF
tho superior court, with whom talked
II about It. lie pointed out to mo the
laws affecting the question and in the
course OF his remarks said: &
According to the law y priest is not