THE SECRECY OF THE CONFESSIONAL.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume XIII, Issue 178, 27 August 1878, Page 4

THE SECRECY OF THE CONFESSIONAL.

The American papers report a decision of the Suprema Court of the State of Massachusetts, on the Bth of May, of considerable interest to the cleray and laity of <he Rocnau Catholic Church. Rehecea Cooper sued Peter MeKenna and others for damagea for assault and battery. McKenua, a Roman Catholic prießt and n resident of Mnrlborough, Middlesex county, was endeavouring to administer the Baernment of pononco to a Roman Catholic woman named Hogan, an inmate of the altushouse. Mrs Cooper's husband T?as keeper of thß alrashouse, and Mrs Cooper refused to leave tha room in which the sick woman was when requested by the priest to retire. Father McKenna thereupon used a sufficient amount of force to compel her to go. On the trial the defendants pleaded justification, and asked the Judge to charge that, if the jury were satisfied that the defendant McEeana went to the altnehouse at Hogan'a request to administer to her the sacraments of her

Church, and violated no rule of the bouse, either written or otherwise, and did not interfere with the proper discipline of the house in obtaining access to her, then, if the sacrament of pnnance to bfl administered, ns understood by McKenna and Hogon, required secrecy botovepn the parties, and if the plaintiff persistently remained in the room niter beinpr requested to retire, and for the purpose of interfering, then a fltiffieienfc and proper amount of force might be used to -remove the plaintiff from the room where the sick person was while the sacrament was being administered. The Court refused to so charge, a verdict was rendered for the plaintiff, and the ease went up on exceptions to the Supremo Court, That tribunal overrules exceptions, and holds the supposed justification insufficient, Judse Ames, the author of the opinion, saying : "It appears from the bill of exceptions that the plaintiff's husband was the keeper of the almshouse, and that she was in charge of it at the time of the difficulty. She was rightfully in the room at the time it happened, "and the defendant was a mere visitor. Whether it would have been reasonable aud proper, under the circumstances, for the plaintiff to have left the room on beiug requested, is a question not for us to decide, and upon which we need^ express no opinion. There was nothing, however in the priestly character of the defendant, or in the offices of the religion which he was about to perform, that gave him the control of the room, or any legal authority to exclude or remove from it by force any person lawfully there. The case presented to us raises uo question except as to the strict legal rights ot the parties, and we are bound to sav that the facts relied upon by the defendant in justiScation of his conduct do not as a matter of law furnish any defence."