The Massachusetts Catholic Conference announced Tuesday its support of legislation which adds clergy to the list of individuals required to report suspected child abuse to state authorities.

The Catholic conference’s press release which made the announcement also mentioned as a priority "preserving the sanctity of the Sacrament of Penance as well as the confidentiality of spiritual counseling."

News reports Wednesday said the Church had reversed its position on the bill. Massachusetts Catholic Conference executive director Gerald D’Avolio said that the Catholic conference did not change its position on the issue, but withdrew its objections to the legislation when cleared up language in the bill made it something they could work with. The conference is the official public policy voice of the Massachusetts Roman Catholic Church and its bishops.

Mr. D’Avolio and associate director for public policy Daniel Avila explained the situation to The Catholic Free Press as follows.

The conference wanted to maintain the privileged communications clergy presently have under Massachusetts General Law chapter 233, section 20A, which exempts them from reporting what they learn in confession or counseling, Mr. D’Avolio said. The Catholic Church’s Code of Canon Law prohibits priests from telling anyone what they learn in confession.

The new bill does not mention the privilege section of the law one way or the other. Mr. Avila said courts could interpret that to mean that the legislature intended clergy to keep the privilege, or that, by not mentioning it, the legislature intended to eliminate privilege.

Mass. General Law, chapter 119, section 51A says if anyone in a number of professions, including teachers and medical personnel, "in his professional capacity shall have reasonable cause to believe that a child under the age of eighteen years is suffering physical or emotional injury resulting from abuse" he shall immediately report it. Failure to do so is punishable by a fine of up to $1,000.

The new bill amends section 51A by adding to the list of mandated reporters priests, rabbis, ministers of other churches or religious groups, anyone acting in the capacity of a religious leader and "any layperson performing functions and roles associated with any church" or other religious group.

Sen. James P. Jajuga, D-Methuen, filed a bill of his own and one by request of a person who is not a legislator, according to a spokeswoman in his office. Mr. Avila said Sen. Jajuga’s bill expressly mentioned preserving privilege.

But the joint House-Senate Human Services and Elderly Affairs Committee took out the part about preserving privilege and added a "Section 2" which would have eliminated it, Mr. Avila said. But on one draft the words, "Strike S. 2" appeared. Mr. Avila said the Catholic conference questioned whether that meant to delete Section 2 about eliminating privilege. It was unclear, and in addition a harsh summary had been added, he said. So the Catholic conference did not support that version of the bill.

But as the bill now stands the conference has agreed to support it. The conference’s press release said the conference has asked Mr. D’Avolio to "work with members of the Massachusetts General Court to achieve this priority during this current legislative session." Mr. Avila indicated that they hope to make sure privilege is respected.

Father F. Stephen Pedone, vicar for canonical affairs for the Diocese of Worcester, said he thinks priests can be of service as mandated reporters, but mentioned some concerns about the bill.

If the bill would force priests to divulge what they learn in sacramental confession, it would place them in direct opposition to Canon Law, he said.

Canon law penalizes with automatic excommunication priests who directly violate the seal of confession – naming a person and the sin he or she revealed in sacramental confession – he said. Indirect violation, to be punished in accord with the seriousness of the offence, is more difficult to discern, and could be a problem if priests become mandated reporters, he said.

The priest, but not the penitent, is bound by the seal forever, Father Pedone said. The priest cannot reveal what he learns in confession even if the penitent says he may or mentions it outside of confession as well, he said. Even after the penitent dies, the priest is still bound by the seal.

Even though Canon Law does not penalize priests for divulging what they learn outside of confession, priests are morally and professionally obliged to respect the confidentiality of a counseling situation, Father Pedone said.

In trying to discern what they would be mandated to report under the new bill, priests might be uncertain about what they learned in confession and what they learned elsewhere, and which of those other situations was confidential.

The priest is in a singular position in that both abusers and abused need to be able to trust him in order to seek help for their problems, he said.

Knowing the priest is a mandated reporter might discourage them from seeking his help.

Father Pedone said he thinks that if a person starts to mention in confession some abuse he or she has received or committed, the priest should suggest they talk about it outside of confession instead, so he can better help and not break the seal.

Father Pedone also expressed concern about lay church workers being mandated reporters, and questioned if that includes even people such as Eucharistic ministers, greeters and janitors.

Mr. Avila said that mandate raises a new set of questions that will probably attract the attention of people beyond the religious community.

Mr. D’Avolio said he has worked for the Massachusetts Catholic Conference for 27 years and has never heard of a case in the commonwealth where a priest was ordered to reveal what was told to him in confession.

"The privilege remains," said José Vincenty, chief of staff for the Human Services Committee, said in reference to the new bill. "The privilege was not modified in any fashion or form," he said.

The committee gave the bill a favorable report July 31, Mr. Vincenty said. The bill then went to the Senate Clerk’s office, which will review it and decide where it should go next.

A spokesman in the Senate Clerk’s office said the bill was renumbered as S 2099.

"I believe that the legislature has a responsibility to balance the needs of children at risk with the traditional privacy guarantees given to members of the clergy," Sen. Jajuga, said in a July 31 press release.

"Sen. Jajuga filed this bill in response to a number of well-publicized cases of child abuse by members of the clergy," the press release said. It said he has filed this legislation for the past five years. He was on vacation and unavailable for comment, his staff said Wednesday.

"Sen. Jajuga’s original legislation was expanded by the (Human Services) committee to include members of churches acting on their behalf as well as laypersons performing church functions," the press release said.