The Irish standard. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn. ;) 1886-1920, 1909-10-09

the faith of their fathers for the pur-
pose of getting positions through Ma
sonic influences. That there are such
Catholic Irishmen we do not deny, but
we do not believe for a moment that
James Shields was one of them. Count
Onahan, in our opinion, is better
authority on the subject than IL tho
editoria. sianderer at Washington. We
again call upon him TO produce proof
or make retraction and apology for
his attack on brave soldier, the only
Union general who ever defeated
Stonewall Jackson.
SECRECY OF THE CONFESSIONAL
A great deal OF sensational writing
has appeared in the daily press con-
corning a woman in New Bedford,
Mass, who voluntarily went on the
witness stand to testify to what Il
Catholic priest told her in the confes-
sional about leaving her husband, to
whom she was married by justice Of
the peace. Judge Mil.iken, who pra-
sided. ordered her to repeat what the
priest had advised her to do Her
attorney objected on the ground that
the matter was privileged, but the
judge declared that there is no law
on the statute books Of Massachusetts,
that makes any conversation privileged
except between husband and wife or \
client and his attorney.
The judge was legally right. and the
woman swore that the priest had told
her she was not married in the eyes
of the Church; that her husband could
leave her and marry another, so far
as the Church was concerned, and
that she should try to get the husband
to marry her according to the rules of
the Church, or leave him. The hus-
band refused to marry her and she left
him. He then brought an action against
the priest, claiming $1,000 damages.
Whether he recovered a single cent
does not appear. The reporters thought
1t more spicy to write about the Sc
crecy that has surrounded the Roman
Catholic confessional for ages bel NJ
violated"
OF course, nothing of the sort was
done. The woman was at liberty to
tell what transpired in the confessional
and disclose her sins to the who:e
world If she felt so inclined. 1t is dif-
ferent, however, with the priest. lie
Is not at liberty to revea! what is told
him at confession and the laws Of
Massachusetts could not compel him,
no matter what the penalty might be.
There IL no case on record where a
priest ever divulsed anything told him
In the confessional He would suffer
imprisonment, and even death itself.
before he would reveal the secrets con-
fded to him in the sacred tribunal Of
penance. This 10 universally unde:-
stood. AS the Minneapolis Tribune
says:
Whatever the precise terms of the
law. we doubt if the privacy Of the
confessional ever has been violated in
practice to the injury of any person or
institution. If one can imagine a
court trying to compel a priest to make
this revelation, one can hardly Imagine
its succeeding. We never heard 1t con-
tended that the rule of secrecy in the
confessional applied to anybody but
the priest He alone is under vows to
keep inviolate what is said to him and
what he said in return"
Our esteemed contemporary is cor
rect In the case at New Bedford the
priest was not asked to reveal any
secret, and had Judge Milliken COM
manded him, the priest would ha,
absolutely refused to obey him at the
risk Of being fined or imprisoned for
contempt of court. Father Young Of
Frankfort, KY. suffered imprisonment
for long period because he would
not testify to what was told him con-
tidentially outside the confessional. in
the lives Of the saints it is recorded
that John Nepomucene, the confes.
sor of the Queen of Bohemia in the
Middle Ages, was put to death by King
Winceslaus for refusing to reveal what
his royal spouse had told him in the
confessional.
AS this may be strange news to read
ers of profane literature, we will add
few particulars. The priest was born
near Prague in 1880. The name of the
Empress was Jane or Joanna. The cpl
taph of the saint is still extant and
reads as follows:
Under this stone lies the body of
the most venerable and most glorious
Thaumaturgus, John Nepomucene, doc