Folia Theologica et Canonica 11. 33/25 (2022)
Ius canonicum
128 GORAN JOVICIC sidered to be the basis of such a privilege.4 In People v. Phillips (N.Y. 1813), a New York court defended the priest-penitent privilege on constitutional grounds, citing free exercise rights and refused to force a priest to testify to infonnation he had learned in the confessional about stolen jewelry.5 The defense in the case argued that requiring the priest to testify violated religious liberty.6 Lately, with the adoption of mandatory reporting laws in some US states (North Carolina, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, and Texas) “any person” is considered to be mandatory reporter; in others the clergy are listed explicitly as mandatory reporters,7 whereas in still others - for example, in Washington State - clergy are not listed and the clergy-penitent privilege is affirmed within the reporting laws.8 Despite the existence of mandatory reporting laws in the United States, the clergy-penitent privilege seems to be more protected there than in other countries using British common law. As we observed in the previous article, the clergy-penitent privilege appears to be under greater threat in the British common law realm—in countries such as the UK,9 Australia,10 Ire4 Ville, J. R., Priest-penitent Privilege, in The First Amendment Encyclopedia: https://www . mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/922/priest-penitent-privilege (consulted: 1/23/2023). 5 Ville, J. R., Priest-penitent Privilege, in The First Amendment Encyclopedia: https://www . mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/922/priest-penitent-privilege and Ville, J. R., People ra. Phillips (1813), in The First Amendment Encyclopedia: https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/ article/746/people-v-phillips (consulted: 1/23/2023). 6 Ville, J. R., People vs. Phillips (1813), in The First Amendment Encyclopedia: https://mtsu . edu/first-amendment/article/746/people-v-phillips (consulted: 1/23/2023). 7 The clergy-penitent privilege is granted but limited to pastoral communications: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Vermont, Virginia, Wisconsin. See the Charter: The Clergy as Mandated Reporters of Child Abuse and Neglect: https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubpdfs/ clergymandated.pdf (consulted: 1/23/2023). 8 See Jovicic, G., Mandatory Reporting Legislation and the Seal of Confession, 71-86 and see the Clergy as Mandatory Reporters of Child Abuse and Neglect: https://www.childwelfare.gov/ pubpdfs/clergymandated.pdf (consulted: 11/6/2021). 9 The UK Government Inquiry into Sexual Abuse recommended recently that the mandatory reporting obligation “should not be subject to exceptions based on relationships of confidentiality, religious or otherwise,” which puts the seal of confession in jeopardy. See UK Inquiry Calls for Mandatory Reporting of Child Abuse with No Exceptions for Sacramental Confession: https:// cruxnow.com/church-in-uk-and-ireland/2022/10/uk-inquiry-calls-for-mandatory-reporting-ofchild-abuse-with-no-exceptions-for-sacramental-confession (consulted: 1/23/2023). 10 See New Australian Law Requires Priests to Break Confessional Seal: https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/42242/new-australian-law-requires-priests-to-break-confessional-seal (consulted: 11.16.2021); cf. Jovicic, G., Mandatory Reporting Legislation and the Seal of Confession, 81-84.
