Priests* are exempt from Maryland's child abuse reporting requirement as to confidential confessors make by the perpetrator, victim, or anyone else with knowledge.

Now, my friend thought that this meant something somewhat more rational, like they were exempt from registering as a sex offender. But as terrible as that would be (and untrue as it is, at least if Law and Order: Special Victims Unit is any judge), the truth is worse and more bizarre. To give an example of what that particular rule of privledge means...

If someone confesses to a priest that they molested a kid, the priest doesn't have to report it. If a child tells their priest that they've been molested, the priest doesn't have to report it.

This news may not come as a surprise to you (it didn't to Charity), but it certainly bugged me. I mentioned it to a friend, who wondered, can priests/preachers report suspicions of molestation? Notwithstanding whether or not their religious oaths give them permission, does the law?

In evidence law, for privilege, it matters who holds the privilege.

For instance, spousal privilege. Depending on the type (yes, there is more than one - some apply to ex-spouses, some to current, etc. but I don't want to get into that here) and the state where the trial is taking place, a husband may be able to waive spousal privilege and choose to testify against his wife, or the defendant may refuse to allow their spouse to testify. See the difference?

So for priests; is it that the confessor is the one being protected against having their secrets spilled, or the priest being protected against losing the confidence of their flock?

Apparently, the case law is unclear. It's not something that comes up often, really--most lawyers are smart enough not to start a giant sh!tstorm with the Church, which has some seriously powerful lobbies. In Maryland, it seems that the closest case is one in which the confessor was dead, and the priest wanted to testify, and if memory serves, he was allowed to.

Md. Cts. & Jud. Proc. Code Ann. (9-111) provides: "A minister of the gospel, clergyman, or priest of an established church of any denomination may not be compelled to testify on any matter in relation to any confession or communication made to him in confidence by a person seeking his spiritual advice or consolation."

And the language of the statute implies that it's the priests who hold the privilege, not the people confessing. This probably has a lot to do with politics; as I mentioned, the Catholic Church is a powerful lobby, and even though the US is largely Protestant, it's not like Protestants don't have powerful lobbies too, and legislators are incredibly leery of ticking off the religious powers.

From a practical standpoint, they probably should be--look how much power the religious sector has on things that are purely intellectual-debate issues. How much worse would it be if legislators actually tried to take a central tenant of a faith (the sanctity of the confessional) and take it away?

That doesn't mean it's OK for child molesters to get away with abusing kids.

I'm glad I'm taking Evidence Law Reform next semester.

_{*Maryland was founded by Catholics, so "Priests" is the preferred term, but it refers to preachers and the "confessor" type people of the other religious denominations, and not just priests in formal confession circumstances.}