'Hong Kong’s ‘Article 23’ is an implicit threat to the Sacrament of Penance', Benedict Rogers

The Seal of Confession is non-negotiable and the Church must take a clear, unambiguous stand immediately

Hong Kong is on the verge of enacting a new domestic security law which is even more repressive than the National Security Law imposed by Beijing in 2020 — and may well strike at the very heart of the Church’s conscience, with a potential assault on the confidentiality of the Sacrament of Penance.

One of the most dangerous, insidious, and outrageous aspects of the new security law is the proposal, made on March 7 by Hong Kong’s Secretary for Justice Lam Ting-kwok, regarding the crime of “failing to disclose the commission of treason by others.”

It means 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 and could face 14 years in jail.

There is increasing concern that this poses an implicit threat to the Sacrament of Penance (or Reconciliation or “Confession”) in the Catholic Church and other Christian traditions – and Lam said nothing to reassure the Church to the contrary.

For Catholics, Confession is a spiritual act of pivotal importance. It is something we are encouraged to take up regularly, especially during the holy seasons of Lent and Advent.

Yet at the heart of Confession is its absolute confidentiality. The Church’s “Seal of Confession” is exactly that. What is confessed by a penitent, before a priest, in front of God stays solely between those three beings.

If a serious crime under law is confessed, a priest might advise a penitent to confess to the authorities — but he can never report it himself, and certainly should never be held criminally liable for having heard that confession.

Forcing a priest to reveal something said in Confession is an assault on the very integrity of the Church and a grave violation of freedom of conscience. People of conscience — of all faiths and none — throughout the world must condemn this unequivocally.

When I became a Catholic, 11 years ago, in Myanmar, one of the most formidable hurdles to overcome was “Confession.” While I fell in love with the Church, its teachings on social justice, its history and mystery, the apostolic succession and the inheritance from the saints throughout the ages, and the drama of the Mass, confessing my sins to another person — a priest (rather than in the privacy of my soul) — was a new and humbling concept for me.

But it was one I embraced, as someone with toothache accepts going to the dentist — on the basis that we know we need it, even if we might not like it.

However, my acceptance of it was comforted by the understanding of the “Seal of the Confessional,” as well as by the fact that it is often known as the “Sacrament of Reconciliation.”

It is about reconciliation with a God I love but often fail, rather than a punishment from a tyrant. The parable of the Prodigal Son in the Bible is the most analogous — it is about returning to the embrace of a loving father.

The promise that in this Sacrament, there are only three people involved — the person confessing, the priest hearing the confession, and God — reassured me.

I have never committed criminal acts (except under Hong Kong’s draconian laws, extraterritorially), but like all of us I sin, and while some of my flaws are already known to friends and colleagues, what I say in Confession I would not broadcast to the world.

Of course, the new security law about to be enacted in Hong Kong has much wider ramifications too.

Published by the Hong Kong government on March 8, it was immediately considered by the pro-Beijing puppet Legislative Council in an unusual Saturday session and could well be enacted as early as this week.

Given that the Legislative Council is entirely packed with government stooges and quislings, eager to do Beijing’s bidding, and is untroubled by any dissent, legislative scrutiny is unlikely to involve prolonged debate or many amendments.

So, the bill will be expedited and rubber-stamped at alarming speed. Any legislative process is simply “going through the motions.”

Known colloquially as the Article 23 law, after the section of Hong Kong’s mini-constitution, the Basic Law, that requires the implementation of legislation to prohibit treason, secession, sedition, subversion, theft of state secrets and to prohibit foreign political organizations from conducting political activities in the territory or establishing ties with groups in Hong Kong, it is officially-named the Safeguarding National Security Bill.

When the National Security Law was imposed in 2020, the assumption of many was that it was in place of a domestic security law. The general interpretation was that because the Hong Kong government itself had failed to implement Article 23 in the two decades or more since the handover, having abandoned its attempt in 2003, Beijing was imposing this law upon Hong Kong.

And given the effect of the National Security Law, resulting in the almost complete dismantling of freedom of expression, assembly, and association, the shutdown of independent media, the closure of much of civil society, and the removal of the pro-democracy camp from both the Legislative Council and the District Councils, one would have thought that was enough.

Most pro-democracy politicians are either in jail, in exile or have been silenced by the threat of arrest.

Over 47 pro-democracy politicians and activists have been in prison awaiting trial and denied bail for over three years, simply for holding a primary election in 2020 to choose candidates for what should have been the Legislative Council elections.

Jimmy Lai, Hong Kong’s most prominent and influential media entrepreneur — and a devout Catholic — is on trial and, despite being a British citizen, is likely to spend the rest of his life behind bars.

Yet despite this, the Hong Kong government — backed by their masters in Beijing — still feels insecure. So much so that they have designed a new law that will sweep up any last remaining tiny slivers of liberty, hammering the final nails in the coffin of Hong Kong’s past as one of Asia’s most open cities and cementing the city’s transition into one of the region’s most repressive police states.

Under the new law, anyone convicted of offenses with seditious intention could face up to seven years in jail. Someone found to have colluded with an external force could be jailed for 10 years. A person possessing a publication that has seditious intentions is liable for three years imprisonment. Other alleged sedition-related offenses could face up to 10 years imprisonment, and the bill designates four new crimes punishable by life imprisonment.

Detainees could be denied access to a lawyer of their choice and police powers to detain people without charge will be extended to up to seven days. Like the National Security Law, the new domestic security law in Hong Kong can — in theory — be applied extraterritorially, with more severe penalties for activists abroad. Indeed, all offenses will apply to “anyone” outside of Hong Kong. 

By virtue of the work I do, I will be in breach of both the National Security Law and this new domestic security law every single day of my life.

This past weekend alone I committed multiple offenses, by attending a Hong Kong diaspora community event in London on March 9, speaking at the 65th anniversary of the Tibetan National Uprising Day on March 10, and writing two op-eds about the Article 23 legislation.

Having been denied entry to Hong Kong in 2017 and threatened with a prison sentence by the Hong Kong Police Force for violating the National Security Law in 2022 due to my advocacy for Hong Kong around the world, and having been named a “collaborator” in Jimmy Lai’s trial, I would not be surprised if the new law is applied to me soon.

Indeed, the organization I co-founded, Hong Kong Watch, has been condemned multiple times in recent weeks by the Hong Kong government for having had the temerity to submit to its “public consultation” charade.

Hong Kong’s Security Secretary Chris Tang described a statement that we led, signed by over 85 civil society organizations, including some of the world’s largest — Human Rights Watch, Freedom House, and Index on Censorship — as “gangster tactics” aimed at intimidating, harassing and interfering with Hong Kong affairs. 

Such ridiculous hyperbole by Beijing’s quislings in Hong Kong would be comical, were it not for the grave consequences for ordinary Hong Kongers, in the city and the diaspora.

The threats to me are not pleasant, and of course, I am sad that I cannot return to the city where I began my working life, and which was for five years my home.

But I do not have a bounty on my head, as 13 exiled Hong Kong activists do. I do not have relatives in Hong Kong hauled in for questioning, as many exiled Hong Kong activists do.

I do not face a realistic threat of imprisonment — as long as I am wise about where I travel and avoid countries that might pose a risk of extradition. Hong Kongers in exile face increased concerns about their loved ones, and Hong Kongers in Hong Kong face now an even more serious risk of jail, for doing the things we in the free world take for granted.

Coming back to the sanctity of Confession: no state has any right to interfere with that principle. And so, the Church must take a clear, unambiguous stand immediately: the Seal of Confession is non-negotiable.

Pope Francis and the Vatican must speak out urgently, and other worldwide religious leaders must join them. Governments around the world that claim to defend freedom of religion or belief must condemn any suggestion that the Sacrament of Penance could be compromised in the ways suggested by the Hong Kong government.

The US Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious Freedom, the US Commission for International Religious Freedom, the UK Prime Minister’s Special Envoy for Freedom of Religion or Belief, the EU’s Special Envoy for Freedom of Religion or Belief, the UN Special Rapporteur for freedom of religion or belief and all governments who have envoys on this human right must make urgent representations about Hong Kong’s Article 23 legislation and implications for freedom of religion or belief before it is too late.

Pope Francis, and Hong Kong’s Cardinal Stephen Chow, must also give a clear lead to Hong Kong’s clergy. They must unequivocally reassert the Church’s teaching on the Sacrament of Penance and the Seal of Confession.

They may be willing to compromise and negotiate on some things and stay silent on others. But this is not one on which they can be silent. For Catholics, the sanctity and confidentiality of Confession must never be compromised and should be defended at all costs.

Failure to do so means allowing a brutal, tyrannical regime to assault the very soul of the Church.

This article was published in UCA News on 11 Mar 2024.