The Irish standard., 1908-05-02

Last week Chicago attorneys were
discussing the question whether i'll
Illinois a priest could be asked in
court to receal facts that he learned
through the confessional. Father
Walsh Of the Paulist Fathers returned
a diamond ring that had been stolen
to it's owner some time ago. The own.
er had the supposed thief arrested and
to prove his innocence the accused had
Father Walsh summoned to testify
as to the identity Of the person who
gave him the ring to restore to the
owner. Father Walsh was in court
after a subpoena had been asked.
Under no circumstances-even in
case of life or death-can Catholic
priest divulge facts given to him in
the confessional said Father Walsh.
1.-THE Church law on this subject is
specific and inflexible. Therefore un-
less confessor be given the express
permission of the penitent to repeat,
on the witness stand or elsewhere,
any part of the confession, he is bound
to remain silent.
Rather than violate the confidence
reposed in him and violate the ironclad
rule OF the Church, any priest
would rather go to Jail. For my part,
1 would willingly go to the peniten-
tiary rather than repeat that which l
heard as confessor."
Finally the issue was not raised and
no decision was given by the court
Mr.. w. j. Onallan, writing III the Rec
ord Herald, recalls case similar in
character which arose in the city of
New York in the year 1918 and was
formally tried before the court of gem
eral sessions in that city, presided
over by De Witt Clinton. mayor, and
Josiah Ogden Hoffman, recorder
The case had its origin in a trivial
occasion. One Phillips, together with
his wife, was indicted for a 1nisde-
meanor in receiving stolen goods. the
property of James Heating. The police
discovered that, after lodging his in
formation before the authorities as to
the loss of the goods, lie had received
restitution. Accordingly they brought
him into court as to the circumstances
of the recovery Of the property. He
showed so much unwillingness to an
swer that he was threatened with a
commitment to Bridewell.
He was admonished that it was his
duty OH his oath to reveal the whole
truth, and the duty of the magistrate
to insist on his revealing it and en-
force obedience to the law. He then
declared that he had received restitu-
tion of his effects from the hands of
his pastor, Rev. Father Kohlman, rec
tor of st. Peters Church.
A summons was thereupon issued
to the priest to appear at the police
Office, with which he promptly COM
piled.
But, upon being questioned touching
upon the persons from whom he re-
ceived restitution, he excused himself
from making such disclosures on the
ground that his knowledge on the sub
iect was gained under the seal Of con-
fession.
The case was then sent to the grand
fury, when Father Kahlman was re-
quired to appear before that body and
make answer to like interrogations.
Before this body the priest, in re-
spectful terms, declined answering.
Upon other testimony formal in
dictment was drawn against Charles
Bradley and Benjamin Brinkerhoff,
both colored men, as principals. and
against Phillips and wife as receivers.
The case being called Rev. Anthony
Kohlman was cited as witness, and
when in court was asked some ques-
tions touching the return of the prop
erty in question.
He entreated to be excused from