Are you a clergyperson?
Discuss with other religious professionals the ethical dilemmas you have struggled with in our Clergy Corner.
Rev. Paul Raushenbush, Baptist minister and chaplain at Columbia University:
"The boy [Jesus Fornes] called the clergyperson because of his overwhelming feelings of guilt. The only way for the boy to relieve himself of this guilt was to confess and repent of it to God in the presence of another human being. In a similar situation, I would talk of the promise of forgiveness of sins. I would emphasize the importance of acknowledging sin in the process of forgiveness. I would inform him of my intention to tell the police that the people they had locked up were innocent. I would urge him to come with me and turn himself in, and state my willingness to stick with him through whatever might come if he was willing to go with me. If he would not, I think the appropriate action would be to go to the police but not reveal the identity of the person who confessed.
I was once approached by a clergyperson who was an acquaintance of mine asking for confidential advice. The subject was a relationship this person was beginning with a married person in the congregation. I did respect the confidentiality of that discussion. I also expressed my negative view on the relationship and laid out specific consequences of such actions. I followed up over the weeks to see what had become of the situation, which fortunately ended before it had gone anywhere.
Rabbi Joseph Telushkin, the Synagogue for the Performing Arts in Los Angeles, and author of "The Book of Jewish Values":
I would not feel that my primary responsibility was to safeguard the secret of the murderer, particularly in an instance in which there would now be additional innocent victims. How many lives is such a person entitled to destroy?
I believe that it would be better if a clergyman in this unfortunate situation informed the police of the information that had been confided to him. I would not suggest that the clergyman feel bound to inform the killer that he would do this, since given the man's violent nature one has a right to be afraid of what the killer will do to protect his secret. The biblical verse that would guide me in such a situation is Leviticus 19:16, "Do not stand by while your neighbor's blood is shed," which Jewish law understands as mandating that we not withhold help or information that can be of life-and-death significance to another person. If you have information that can free innocent men from prison, I believe that qualifies as being in the category of life-and-death significance.
Imam Sa'dullah Khan of the Islamic Center of Southern California:
In Islam there is no concept of confession because nobody can absolve you of your sins. Nobody can pardon you on behalf of God. In Islam, only God can forgive you. Each and every person is held accountable for his or her deeds. When you sin, you have to repent, and you have to make restitution to the person you have harmed. You cannot only ask for forgiveness--justice has to be served.
As an imam, I find that many people confide their "secrets" to me. This is permissible. You can keep the secret and you can give that person advice. In fact, the Qur'an advises us not to publicize our shortcomings. (Chapter 4, Verse 148)
But Muslims have a religious duty to ensure that justice prevails. When something wrong is done towards someone else, and someone comes to you and confides to you, you cannot keep quiet. This is made very clear in the Qur'an: "Justice and goodness under all circumstances." (Chapter 16, Verse 90)
If my silence leads to injustice for other people, and my silence allows injustice to be done--as in this case, two innocent people went to jail--then I become an accomplice to the injustice. I have a religious obligation to make sure that justice is carried out. Part of the major mission of prophets has been the establishment of justice (Chapter 57, Verse 25) and it is our duty to continue that mission.
Dr. Uma Mysorekar, president of the Hindu Temple Society of North America:
In Hinduism, there is no concept of confession. With any kind of wrongdoing we pay for it either in this life or in our next life. This is the doctrine of karma, which then also comes back to reincarnation. In fact, in Hinduism nowhere would a priest take upon himself to just forgive someone who commits a heinous crime. He can counsel him and tell him how he can shape himself up and purify himself in this life. But then to say, "I'll let you start free because I forgive you"--that is not acceptable in Hinduism.
People do go to seers and saints for such problems and tell them, "Look, I've done this and I'm regretting it. What can I do?" Then the saint will explain to him how best to purify himself through regret. The term is paschatapa, which means regret and expressing remorse and doing the best to be the best I can. It is not total forgiveness, but it is a rehabilitation process.
If a Hindu priest or guru were faced with this situation, the priest would tell the man to report to the law. Hinduism does not interfere with the laws of the land. Second, he would ask him, "What made you do this?" If the authorities came to the priest and said, "We know he came to talk to you," the priest would tell the truth to the authorities. But he would not voluntarily go and say, "This man has committed this."
Rabbi David Wolpe of Sinai Temple in Los Angeles:
The conflict between maintaining trust and serving justice is real and acute. To violate a promise of secrecy should tear at the heart of any therapist, counselor, or clergy. Nonetheless, to witness a gross injustice without seeking to correct it is to put one's own commitments above another's life. The priest's reticence has stolen years from an innocent human being. We should not envy his dilemma, but we cannot condone his silence.