Untitled

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume I, Issue 190, 13 October 1866, Page 2

To tlie Editor of the Evening Mail. Sir — In your leader of Thursday last you published that you were authorised to state that '* no obstacles were thrown in the way of Kelly's communicating with a minister of his own communion." But I beg to refer you to my letter, which will appear Tuesday next in the Nelson Examiner _ you will be able to judge from facts whether this is correct or not. The rule whicli you quote to justify the conduct of the governor of the gaol indeed provides 'that "no prisoner is allowed to hold intercourse with a clergyman of a different denomination." Bnt as it contains the following restriction, " unless extraordinary circumstances should require it, such as the immediate prospect of death," it follows that the governor of tbe gaol himself was breaking this rule b} r preventing a Catholic priest from seeing Kelly; for there was for him " the immediate prospect of death." You said that Kelly **at the. last moment abjured, if he ever possessed it, his ancient faith/' But you had said from the beginning that he was a Roman Catholic {in liis early days, and this is the correct account of it; for he himself told me that since many years he had gone indifferently to Protestant and Catholic churches, that is, that he had ceased to be a Catholic: he felt he could not lead such a wicked life and practise the Catholic religion, and therefore he left it, and at last he gave himself as a Protestant. You could not *' see how the ends of justice would have been furthered had .Kelly been: induced to make a true confession to the minister of religion whose faith he professed in early life." I beg here to differ with you, for you said that you " understood that the essence of confession as made to the Roman Catholic minister is secrecy." Yery true. But here I may give you some explanation upon the nature of the Obligations of the confessor and his penitent. Should my penitent come to confess that he stole your purse, I would compel him to return it to you, otherwise his sin could not be forgiven. Should he confess that he unjustly and -wrongfully accused you before the public of having robbed the safe, for which a reward of £200 will be awarded to the informant, I will compel him, if he wishes to be forgiven, to apologise and acknowledge publicly the nature of liis falsehood. Should Kelly have confessed to a Catholic priest that he was guilty of the murders of which- he accused Sullivan, he would haye been compelled by that priest, if he wished to be forgiven,, to clear Sullivan by a public confession of the crimes which he himself had committed. Undoubtedly you will see the propriety of such a proceeding, by which a confessor without, on his part, violating the secrecy of the confession, will further the ends of justice by compelling his penitent to restore the property or the character of the injured party. From the above I hope you will understand the difference there is between this case and tho one to -which you referred in your artiole, where the confessor himself was asked if Stack" had confessed his crime to him. You may say then, why did he not compel him to make a public confession of it ? Because he did not implicate any body else in his case. I am, &c, A. M. Garix, ' Catholic Priest, Nelson, October IS, 1866, •;-_