New International Criminal Court May Revoke Priest-Penitent Privilege

By Austin Ruse

     (NEW YORK – C-FAM)  The Canadian government has proposed that the new International Criminal Court revoke the centuries-old legal tradition that a Catholic priest may not be compelled to reveal what he hears in the confessional. This revocation would apply to the private religious counseling of all faiths.

     The International Criminal Court statute was passed in Rome last summer but will not go into effect until 60 governments ratify it. In the mean time, governments have been meeting to refine unfinished aspects of the statute. The ICC preparatory commission has been meeting over the past two weeks at UN headquarters in New York City to determine the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, and the Elements of Crime.

     The Rules of Procedure and Evidence being debated this week were drafted by a working group that met in Paris last April. The working group consisted mostly of NGOs rather than governmental officials.  Kathryn Balmforth, a Utah-based civil rights attorney who follows the ICC for Brigham Young University Law School, said, "The group that met in Paris was a group of ideological NGOs promoting their own interests in controlling and manipulating proceedings within the court. The fix is in. This will not be a fair court but a left-leaning ideological one."

     David Gregory, a law professor from St. John's University, is concerned about the make-up of the court. Gregory believes that radical judges are even now being groomed for positions on the nascent ICC. "They are placing judges of a particular radical world view on the Yugoslav Tribunal so that when the ICC comes around, they can claim unique experience to serve on the ICC." Gabrielle McDonald, president of the Yugoslav Tribunal, made a plea to delegates last week for even more power for judges in determining the rules for the ICC.

     Pro-family attorneys and law professors are concerned about a whole host of issues related to the current ICC meetings. Chief among their concerns is the proposal of the Paris group to include victims as full and separate participants in the ICC proceedings. Western legal tradition allows victims to sue in civil actions that are separate from the criminal procedures. The current proposal would allow NGOs to stand in for the victims as well, and this is what worries pro-family attorneys the most. "This proposal would force the defendant to answer charges from many quarters all at once," said Balmforth. "This would turn the proceedings into a kangaroo court."

     The question of "forced pregnancy" has also resurfaced at this meeting which ends next week. Against the wishes of radical feminists in Rome last year, UN delegates insisted that "forced pregnancy" could in no way refer to a woman's inability to get an abortion. The new proposal refers to the illegality of "keeping a woman pregnant" against her wishes. Some believe this is a back-door to an international right to abortion.

     Only Senegal, Trinidad and Tobago, Italy, and Sao Tome and Principe have ratified the ICC.

Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter