Child abuse and the seal of Confession

[Camikaze]

So a Royal Commission was announced the other day in Australia to look into child sexual abuse. Although the Catholic Church is not the specific focus of the inquiry, the impetus for it was growing concern over concealment of abuse by the Church.

Anyway, one of the issues that has come up is whether priests should be forced to break the seal of Confession when another priest confesses to child sex abuse.

From SMH:

Prime Minister Julia Gillard says using the seal of the Catholic confessional to cover up child abuse is a ‘‘sin of omission’’ because all adults have a duty of care towards children.

[...]

When asked if the commission should examine the Catholic Church’s seal of the confessional, the prime minister agreed that it wasn’t good enough that some adults had been ‘‘averting their eyes’’ from the problem of child abuse.

‘‘Adults have got a duty of care towards children,’’ Ms Gillard said.‘‘It’s not good enough for people to engage in sin of omission and not act when a child is at risk.’’

Senior federal Liberal frontbencher Christopher Pyne has declared that priests should report child sex abuse crimes revealed in the confessional to police.

On Wednesday, Mr Pyne - who is a practising Catholic - said that as a member of Parliament, it would be wrong of him to advise citizens not to report crimes, particularly something as serious as child abuse.

''If a priest, or anyone else, is aware of the sexual abuse of children that is going on, I think there is an obligation on them to report it to the appropriate authorities,'' he told ABC Radio.

On Tuesday, in the wake of Prime Minister Julia Gillard's announcement of a royal commission on child abuse, Cardinal George Pell said that the seal of confession was ''inviolable''.

Cardinal Pell said that if a priest knew what would be confessed prior to the confession, then they should refuse to hear it.

Attorney-General Nicola Roxon said ... "I think the whole community finds that idea [that priests would not report abuse] really abhorrent and we've been through these debates for mandatory reporting for doctors, teachers, for others that [are] meant to be in close relationships and nevertheless have been required to make reports, so I think we really need to look carefully, there aren't a different set of rules that apply."

[...]

Opposition Leader Tony Abbott said that everyone has to obey the law when it comes to reporting child sex abuse, including priests.

[...]

In Australia, mandatory reporting requirements differ between states and territories. For example, in South Australia, the confessional is exempt from mandatory reporting. In the Northern Territory, "any person with reasonable grounds" must report.

Under the NSW Crimes Act, a person must disclose knowledge of a sexual assault or risk being charged with concealing a serious indictable offence, but priests are one of a small class of occupations that cannot be prosecuted unless the Attorney-General consents.

[...]

Cabinet Minister Bill Shorten has said the royal commission must address the controversial issue of whether priests should be legally compelled to report evidence of abuse they hear in the confessional.

Mr Shorten, who strongly urges a general system of mandatory reporting, said: ''What immunity can you claim when it comes to the safety and protection of little children?

''When it comes to the abuse of children, that privilege, if it ever had validity, is well and truly exhausted.''

For most of us, this is probably a no-brainer, and even the notoriously hardline Catholic Tony Abbott seems to be supporting a change. But I'm interested to see if there's anyone who doesn't think there should be an obligation on priests to report what they are told under the seal of Confession, and if so, why?

 

[Borachio]

<nvm definitely>

 

[warpus]

For most of us, this is probably a no-brainer, and even the notoriously hardline Catholic Tony Abbott seems to be supporting a change. But I'm interested to see if there's anyone who doesn't think there should be an obligation on priests to report what they are told under the seal of Confession, and if so, why?

I used to be catholic, so I sort of understand the justification behind it.

Confession is one of the 7 sacraments, and as such the catholic church treats it very seriously

For Catholic priests, the confidentiality of all statements made by penitents during the course of confession is absolute. This strict confidentiality is known as the Seal of the Confessional. According to the Code of Canon Law, 983 §1, "The sacramental seal is inviolable; therefore it is absolutely forbidden for a confessor to betray in any way a penitent in words or in any manner and for any reason." Priests, and anyone who witnesses or overhears the confession (say, an interpreter, caregiver, or aide of a person with a disability), may not reveal what they have learned during confession to anyone, even under the threat of their own death or that of others. This is unique to the Seal of the Confessional.

Now, I don't know much about canon law, but if the official church position is: "DON'T DO THIS, EVEN IF PEOPLE START DYING" then you gotta think that they take it rather seriously. And if they don't care about people dying, why would they care abut a couple kids getting molested? Legal implications usually don't overrule "EVEN IF PEOPLE START DYING". If somebody who you trust, respect, and follow tells you that, you don't do it. That's some pretty heavy crap.

So.. yeah.. obviously there's problems here.

How are confidentiality agreements between doctors and patients handled, by the way? Surely as far as the law is concerned, both situations (priest/confessor, doctor/patient) should be handled in exactly the same way.

 

[Borachio]

<nvm complete waste>

 

[Camikaze]

How are confidentiality agreements between doctors and patients handled, by the way? Surely as far as the law is concerned, both situations (priest/confessor, doctor/patient) should be handled in exactly the same way.

So I looked this up, and it appears the relevant law in NSW is as follows:

Crimes Act 1900 s 316:

(1) If a person has committed a serious indictable offence and another person who knows or believes that the offence has been committed and that he or she has information which might be of material assistance in securing the apprehension of the offender or the prosecution or conviction of the offender for it fails without reasonable excuse to bring that information to the attention of a member of the Police Force or other appropriate authority, that other person is liable to imprisonment for 2 years.
[...]
(4) A prosecution for an offence against subsection (1) is not to be commenced against a person without the approval of the Attorney General if the knowledge or belief that an offence has been committed was formed or the information referred to in the subsection was obtained by the person in the course of practising or following a profession, calling or vocation prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this subsection.
(5) The regulations may prescribe a profession, calling or vocation as referred to in subsection (4).

A 'serious indictable offence' is any offence punishable by 5 or more years imprisonment.

And then, the Crimes Regulation 2010 cl 4:

For the purposes of section 316 (5) of the Act, the following professions, callings or vocations are prescribed:
[...]
(b) a medical practitioner,
[...]
(f) a member of the clergy of any church or religious denomination,
[...]

Which means that doctors and priests are treated the same legislatively, but that the Attorney-General (who, owing to his Catholicism, has apparently handed the responsibility over to the Director of Public Prosecutions) must approve any prosecution against either. So that essentially means any decision to prosecute is policy based, and it's a matter of whether the A-G (or DPP) decides to continue protecting priests on the basis of the seal of Confession.

Though as the OP article suggests, other states differ, with SA, for example, giving clergy a special exemption that does not extend to other professions.

 

[Borachio]

<nvm complete waste of time>

 

[warpus]

Which means that doctors and priests are treated the same legislatively, but that the Attorney-General (who, owing to his Catholicism, has apparently handed the responsibility over to the Director of Public Prosecutions) must approve any prosecution against either. So that essentially means any decision to prosecute is policy based, and it's a matter of whether the A-G (or DPP) decides to continue protecting priests on the basis of the seal of Confession.

Though as the OP article suggests, other states differ, with SA, for example, giving clergy a special exemption that does not extend to other professions.

Ahh, political institutions. Always so convoluted.

 

[civ_king]

So a Royal Commission was announced the other day in Australia to look into child sexual abuse. Although the Catholic Church is not the specific focus of the inquiry, the impetus for it was growing concern over concealment of abuse by the Church.

Anyway, one of the issues that has come up is whether priests should be forced to break the seal of Confession when another priest confesses to child sex abuse.

From SMH:


For most of us, this is probably a no-brainer, and even the notoriously hardline Catholic Tony Abbott seems to be supporting a change. But I'm interested to see if there's anyone who doesn't think there should be an obligation on priests to report what they are told under the seal of Confession, and if so, why?

I don't think they realise how the seal of confession is understood, priests are supposed to die rather than break the seal of confession. If they pass a law mandating violating the seal for any reason this is going to go over incredibly badly with the Catholic Church.

 

[Camikaze]

I don't think they realise how the seal of confession is understood, priests are supposed to die rather than break the seal of confession. If they pass a law mandating violating the seal for any reason this is going to go over incredibly badly with the Catholic Church.

Such a law (or an enforcement of the current one) would undoubtedly be unpopular within the Catholic Church, but that's not really the question. The question is whether there should be a requirement to report regardless. That the Catholic Church would not like it is not a reason in itself to continue conferring special treatment.

As said, Tony Abbott is a notoriously hardline Catholic, and even he seems to be supporting a requirement to report, so the issue would not be a lack of understanding, but a balancing of the freedom of the Church to conduct their religion as they please against the public interest.

 

[Arwon]

This isn't just a Catholic seal of confession issue, which Camikaze has already gotten to the law of.

According to Archbishop Pell, the dissembling arse-coverer himself, priests are supposed to grant confession only if they're convinced the person is repentant, and should refuse to hear confession in cases of serious crimes that haven't been revealed to the authorities. He said he wouldn't hear confession from a priest if he thought that priest was going to confess to child abuse. That's a damn near unworkable standard but it does show Catholic recognition that confession is not a blanket automatic right for Catholics.

Moving away from the Catholic Church, a related issue is the secrecy agreements tied to compensation payouts that Anglican institutions have paid out:

Families of the survivors are angry that an Anglican organisation is demanding the young victims remain forever silent as a condition of settlement, not just on the amount of compensation to be paid to the victims, but also silent forever on the crimes committed against them.

It is secrecy which, more than anything, has finally led to the need for a national royal commission into the abuse of children. Australia needs to hear clearly and openly from survivors about what has happened to them.

Calls for a royal commission began in earnest 10 years ago when national media coverage exposed how Anglican church officials covered up the abuse of up to 20 children named in a suicide note written by a p-edophile boarding master in a prestigious primary boarding school in regional Queensland. One of the victims, who had been repeatedly s-xually assaulted by the school's senior boarding master Kevin Guy in 1990, sued the Corporation of the Synod of the Diocese of Brisbane for failing in its duty of care.

During a civil trial in 2001, evidence emerged that the then Anglican archbishop of Brisbane Peter Hollingworth, who was by then governor-general of Australia, had refused even to telephone the family of the girl.

An inquiry like a Royal Commission is needed, more than anything, to break open the secrecy around powerful institutions and shed light on them. Since this isn't a criminal trial, the focus isn't identifying abusers but rather institutional responses. Even if priests aren't compelled to reveal names of individuals who confessed to abuse, they can and should be compelled to give evidence on cover-ups and subversions of justice by institutions like the Catholic and Anglican dioceses.

 

[GhostWriter16]

I don't think anyone should ever be legally required to report anything so I agree with the Catholic Church's legal right here.

Morally, however, I think every non-Catholic should exert social pressure to whatever extent necessary to get as many priests as possible to abandon this insane rule.

Yes, I'm advocating that priests break the seal. I'm not a Catholic so my morality isn't influenced in any way by their outdated rules that protect child rapists.

However, I do not think legal force should be used to make someone confess something to the government. Nobody should ever be forced to incriminate anyone.

 

[civ_king]

Such a law (or an enforcement of the current one) would undoubtedly be unpopular within the Catholic Church, but that's not really the question. The question is whether there should be a requirement to report regardless. That the Catholic Church would not like it is not a reason in itself to continue conferring special treatment.

As said, Tony Abbott is a notoriously hardline Catholic, and even he seems to be supporting a requirement to report, so the issue would not be a lack of understanding, but a balancing of the freedom of the Church to conduct their religion as they please against the public interest.

I don't think he realizes what exactly the seal of confession entails, priests are not under any circumstance ever allowed to divulge what they have heard in the confessional.

This isn't just a Catholic seal of confession issue, which Camikaze has already gotten to the law of.

According to Archbishop Pell, the dissembling arse-coverer himself, priests are supposed to grant confession only if they're convinced the person is repentant, and should refuse to hear confession in cases of serious crimes that haven't been revealed to the authorities. He said he wouldn't hear confession from a priest if he thought that priest was going to confess to child abuse. That's a damn near unworkable standard but it does show Catholic recognition that confession is not a blanket automatic right for Catholics.

Moving away from the Catholic Church, a related issue is the secrecy agreements tied to compensation payouts that Anglican institutions have paid out:



An inquiry like a Royal Commission is needed, more than anything, to break open the secrecy around powerful institutions and shed light on them. Since this isn't a criminal trial, the focus isn't identifying abusers but rather institutional responses. Even if priests aren't compelled to reveal names of individuals who confessed to abuse, they can and should be compelled to give evidence on cover-ups and subversions of justice by institutions like the Catholic and Anglican dioceses.

The Church has no problem sharing information received from outside the confessional.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Just a note: I don't actually think Catholics should be given a special privlege here. I just don't think its right to ever FORCE someone to confess.

This is a battle I'd advocate for a lot of social pressure for.

 

[Arwon]

The Church has no problem sharing information received from outside the confessional.

Which is of course why they're about to get thoroughly investigated for cover-ups, protecting abusive clergy from scrutiny and the obstruction of police investigations.

However, I do not think legal force should be used to make someone confess something to the government. Nobody should ever be forced to incriminate anyone.

Except of course, this actually why we have Royal Commissions and other public inquiries. To compel the giving of evidence and get to the bottom of secret and hidden things within institutions. How do you propose that, say, police corruption get exposed if people aren't compelled to give evidence?

 

[innonimatu]

Such a law (or an enforcement of the current one) would undoubtedly be unpopular within the Catholic Church, but that's not really the question. The question is whether there should be a requirement to report regardless.

What's the point of an unenforceable law? Ridiculous.

Those catholic confessions involve two persons. One you assume absolutely not going to say anything about it, no matter what you hang over him. There are no witnesses nor recordings. How do you prove that the confessor heard something he had a "requirement to report"? Take the word of a criminal (the only other party to the meeting) with no further support evidence as enough to prosecute? Or require a black box in every confessional?

That requirement is obviously unenforceable! Might as well legislate the preventive arrest of all priests if Australia is going to pass stupid laws.

 

[civ_king]

Which is of course why they're about to get thoroughly investigated for cover-ups, protecting abusive clergy from scrutiny and the obstruction of police investigations.



Except of course, this actually why we have Royal Commissions and other public inquiries. To compel the giving of evidence and get to the bottom of secret and hidden things within institutions. How do you propose that, say, police corruption get exposed if people aren't compelled to give evidence?

Jehoshua is probably far more informed about the situation in Australia. The bishop is the highest administrative level for virtually everything, for example during the Great Depression many members of the Church including people within the Vatican wanted Father Coughlin gaged, but the bishop refused to do so to which the Church could do nothing.

 

[Jehoshua]

I addressed the matter of confession on the ask a theologian thread (on the other off topic thread) quite recently actually so I won't go through the whole issue of confession, canon law and so forth here.

As to the royal commission I naturally support it, there has undeniably been a problem in the Church and in other institutions in the area of child sex abuse, and it needs to be addressed. That said the seal is inviolate and the chances of that changing for the Church are precisely nil.

 

[BvBPL]

I addressed the matter of confession on the ask a theologian thread (on the other off topic thread) quite recently actually so I won't go through the whole issue of confession, canon law and so forth here.

I haven't seen that thread. I'm curious if the Catholic obligation to report one's sins to another is unique. I know that other religions have a duty to enumerate their sins, but it doesn't always include reporting them to another person. I'm thinking in particular of Yom Kippur which, while a practices of repentance, doesn't oblige a person to tell another of their personal sins directly (at least as far as I know).

 

[Camikaze]

I addressed the matter of confession on the ask a theologian thread (on the other off topic thread) quite recently actually so I won't go through the whole issue of confession, canon law and so forth here.

As to the royal commission I naturally support it, there has undeniably been a problem in the Church and in other institutions in the area of child sex abuse, and it needs to be addressed. That said the seal is inviolate and the chances of that changing for the Church are precisely nil.

Let's be clear; in the case of NSW at least, Catholic priests who do not report abuse that is confessed to them are currently breaching s 361 - they are already breaking the law. But they are not being prosecuted for that breach. So what is really happening is that Catholic priests are getting some special exemption that is not afforded to other members of society, in circumstances in which such priests have often failed to take action against said abuse, when the purpose of the law is to prevent this very sort of behaviour. Why should Catholic priests be above the law, or be allowed to break it?

What do you think would happen if there was no longer any special treatment for Catholicism?

 

[civ_king]

Let's be clear; in the case of NSW at least, Catholic priests who do not report abuse that is confessed to them are currently breaching s 361 - they are already breaking the law. But they are not being prosecuted for that breach. So what is really happening is that Catholic priests are getting some special exemption that is not afforded to other members of society, in circumstances in which such priests have often failed to take action against said abuse, when the purpose of the law is to prevent this very sort of behaviour. Why should Catholic priests be above the law, or be allowed to break it?

What do you think would happen if there was no longer any special treatment for Catholicism?

If they start prosecuting priests for not breaking the seal of confession the Church would go underground and the time there would separate the wheat from the chaff.