Most countries in the world, including some that are not democratic, protect the secret of confession. Catholic priests and clergy of other religions cannot be compelled to disclose what they have learned from a penitent during a confession. It is a basic principle of religious liberty that has been honored for centuries, and one that acknowledges the special nature of confession in the Catholic and other religious traditions.
This principle is now threatened in Hong Kong by the proposed new security law, known as “Article 23.” The implication for confession of the new law were announced by Hong Kong’s Secretary for Justice Paul Lam Ting-kwok, when he stated that a person could be punished with up to 14 years in prison for knowing that another person has committed “treason” and not reporting the “traitor” to the authorities.
There are no exceptions for religious confession, meaning that priests and pastors will have the alternative of either breach the most sacred principles of their religion or go to jail.
Last week, international experts led by Benedict Rogers, co-founder and Chief-Executive of Hong Kong Watch, signed a statement protesting the proposed violation of the confessional privilege and of freedom of religion or belief. They also noted that the Article 23 law in general makes the already bad National Security Law in force in Hong Kong worse and creates other problems for human rights.
On March 15, the Catholic Church in Hong Kong expressed its confidence that the new law would not affect confessions. However, it is unclear on what exactly is this confidence based. As local media noted, the authorities’ opinion expressed so far is different
We reproduce below the full text of the statement.
**
STATEMENT ON THE RELIGIOUS FREEDOM IMPLICATIONS OF ARTICLE 23 LEGISLATION
As individuals and organizations dedicated to the values of human rights, the rule of law and especially freedom of religion or belief, as set out in Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, we express our profound and grave concerns about the implications for the practice of freedom of religion or belief in Hong Kong of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) Government’s proposed new domestic security law, known as “Article 23” legislation, which was published last week.
We are especially profoundly alarmed by the suggestion made in remarks by Hong Kong’s Secretary for Justice Paul Lam Ting-kwok last week that, under the new security law, the crime of “failing to disclose the commission of treason by others” means that if a person knows that another person has committed “treason” but fails to disclose the knowledge to the authorities within a reasonable time, that person is guilty of a crime punishable by up to 14 years in prison.
For many religious traditions, and especially for the Catholic Church, the practice of what is known as the Sacrament of Penance (otherwise known as the Sacrament of Reconciliation or “Confession”) is a religious act of absolutely pivotal, sacrosanct importance.
At the heart of the Sacrament of Penance is the absolutely vital principle of confidentiality.
A confession is made by an individual, before a priest, in front of God and what is said in that conversation stays completely confidential between only three beings: the person making their confession, the priest hearing that confession, and God.
For the Catholic Church, what is known as the “Seal of Confession” is exactly that. While a priest might encourage a penitent who has committed a serious crime to confess that crime to the authorities, the priest cannot report it himself and must never be held criminally liable for having heard that confession.
To force a priest to reveal what has been said in Confession, against his will and conscience and in total violation of the privacy of the individual confessing, is a total violation of Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and as such is completely unacceptable and must be condemned by people of conscience of all faiths and none throughout the world.
More broadly, the proposed new security law, being introduced on top of the National Security Law imposed on Hong Kong by the National People’s Congress in Beijing on 1 July, 2020, carries with it very serious implications for basic human rights, fundamental freedoms, the rule of law and Hong Kong’s autonomy.
In particular, vague provisions within the law stretch “national security” concepts to breaking point and open the potential for politically-motivated prosecutions under illegitimate “national security” grounds.
The legislation lacks safeguards found in other common-law jurisdictions, such as a periodic review of the need for continued detention, and it undermines due process and the right to a fair trial, specifically through the proposal that “eliminating certain procedures” to “speed up” national security trials, and also the provision for extending police detention without charge, preventing contact between arrestees and lawyers of their choice, and denying those convicted under national security offences eligibility for up to a one-third reduction in their sentences for good behavior.
The proposed legislation criminalizes as “sedition” any attempt to advocate for legislative changes or criticize the People’s Republic of China and, where these activities are conducted by foreign NGOs, “external interference.”
The trial of Apple Daily founder, Jimmy Lai, has already demonstrated how innocuous text exchanges with foreign journalists can count as evidence of courting “foreign interference” in Hong Kong.
Given the extraterritoriality clause of the proposed legislation, advocating for democracy and the restoration of civil liberties in Hong Kong, anywhere in the world, could now constitute a crime and result in the cancellation of one’s Hong Kong passport.
Two significant reports on the state of freedom of religion or belief have been published in recent months, first by Hong Kong Watch titled “Sell Out My Soul”: The Impending Threats to Freedom of Religion or Belief in Hong Kong, in November 2023, and then by the Committee for Freedom in Hong Kong Foundation, titled Hostile Takeover: The CCP and Hong Kong’s Religious Communities, in January 2024.
The international community, especially the United Nations Special Rapporteur for freedom of religion or belief, the United States Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious Freedom and the Office of International Religious Freedom, the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom, the European Union’s Special Envoy on freedom of religion or belief outside the European Union, the United Kingdom Prime Minister’s Special Envoy on freedom of religion or belief, and all members of the International Religious Freedom or Belief Alliance (IRFBA) must co-ordinate and speak out urgently on Hong Kong’s Article 23 legislation and its religious freedom implications.
Furthermore, we call on Pope Francis and the Vatican, the Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby, and all other global religious leaders to speak out and to use their good offices to ensure that this new security legislation in Hong Kong does not result in further violations of freedom of religion or belief, freedom of expression or increased repression for practitioners of all faiths in Hong Kong.
We call for immediate, urgent and collective international action to defend freedom of religion or belief in Hong Kong.
Benedict Rogers, Co-founder and Chief Executive, Hong Kong Watch
Frances Hui, Policy and Advocacy Coordinator, The Committee for Freedom in Hong Kong Foundation
Scot Bower, Chief Executive, CSW
Bob Fu, Founder and President, China Aid
Lauren B. Homer, President, Law and Liberty Trust
Andrew Khoo, Advocate and Solicitor, High Court of Malaya, Malaysia.
Nadine Maenza, President of the International Religious Freedom Secretariat
Paul Marshall, Wilson Professor, Baylor University, and Senior Fellow, Religious Freedom Institute
Nina Shea, Director, Hudson Institute’s Center for Religious Freedom
Dr. Nguyen Dinh Thang, PhD, Recipient of the 2011 Asia Democracy and Human Rights Award
Mervyn Thomas CMG, Chair of the UK Freedom of Religion or Belief (FoRB) Forum
David K. Trimble, Interim President, Religious Freedom Institute
George Weigel,Distinguished Senior Fellow and William E. Simon Chair in Catholic Studies, Ethics and Public Policy Center
Freedom House
Boat People SOS (BPSOS)
Uyghur Human Rights Project
