Child abuse and the seal of Confession

[Jehoshua]

Does this mean that a priest should refuse absolution if the person does not confess to the police as well?

yes a priest should refuse absolution if that person does not give himself in to the police. It is a priests right to refuse absolution if he sees fit to deny it.

My understanding of the seal of Confession is that a priest cannot break it through words or any other means; they cannot get around it by playing charades. Wouldn't it be in violation of inviolability to perform any act informed by knowledge gained within the confessional?

A priest cannot betray the penitent by any means. If the penitent gives him permission to inform the police he can do so. Ergo a priest can urge a penitent to hand himself in to the police (although he cannot drag a man there, which I doubt is what occured at any rate in your case) but if that penitent refuses permission he can do nothing except as I mentioned deny absolution until the penitent gives himself in to the police.

...They will instead be more likely to come forward and face justice, as the remaining avenue of repentance.

Not really, since for those few who would confess in confession on this matter would likely not see criminal incarceration as equivalent to going to confession. Ergo a sign of penitence it may be, but divine forgiveness it does not give. The sacrament imparts divine mercy, the police do not. If anything attacking the seal, will simply result in less offenders going to confession, them simply not confessing on this matter alltogether, or they will just go to a fellow offender who they are certain would not report them. In short in addition to being problematic on a civil liberties ground as mentioned by others, it would likely be entirely innefective at its stated goal.

 

[GhostWriter16]

I don't know about Australia but in America civilian arrests are technically legal. Would that be an option for the priest in question?

 

[Jehoshua]

I don't know about Australia but in America civilian arrests are technically legal. Would that be an option for the priest in question?

No since the priest cannot betray the penitent in any way whatsoever, no exceptions. He can only deny absolution until he hands himself up and urge the penitent to go to the police. If he breaks the seal the priest is automatically excommunicated.

 

[innonimatu]

The state would not be able to act forcefully to attempt to acquire knowledge a priest gained in the confessional; it would just mean that if it transpired that such knowledge was gained, the priest would be liable for the legal consequences of their inaction, as any other member of society would.

And how exactly would such a thing transpire? A secret known only by two people. One, the priest, is forbidden to tell of it and would cease to be a priest if he told anyway. The other would presumably be a criminal and probably someone unreliable to provide the only evidence, as testimony, of a crime by the priest. He says "I told the priest", the priest says "I can't even comment on that". How do you convict?

At best it's a pointless, stupid law in this specific case.

 

[GhostWriter16]

No since the priest cannot betray the penitent in any way whatsoever, no exceptions. He can only deny absolution until he hands himself up and urge the penitent to go to the police. If he breaks the seal the priest is automatically excommunicated.

Apparently Catholicism cares more about covering up for criminals (Who are presumably going to Hell anyway if the priest is doing his job and NOT absolving him) than it does about justice. And its not even helping the person's soul in the slightest according to your faith. Silly.

It is, ironically enough, the very libertartian spirit that you despise that makes me take your faith's side here. Legally, that is. But its a moral flaw.

 

[Jehoshua]

Apparently Catholicism cares more about covering up for criminals (Who are presumably going to Hell anyway if the priest is doing his job and NOT absolving him) than it does about justice. And its not even helping the person's soul in the slightest according to your faith. Silly.

Apparently persons such as yourself have precisely no understanding of the nature of the sacrament itself, and thus are incapable of understanding the reason as to why the seal is inviolate. That or its just your evangelical bias coming to the surface again.

For the record the Church does care about justice, which is why priests should for such serious crimes require before they grant absolution that the person hand themselves in to the legitimate authorities. But that concern for justice does not extend to desecrating the sacraments of the Church.

 

[classical_hero]

The thing is only God can forgive sins, not man. So the whole point is pointless since all that is happening is words being exchanged. I certainly agree with the thoughts of GW that the confessional is allowing people to get away with crimes You have a group of paedophile priests just absolving each others "sins" and they just continue on with what they are doing.

 

[Jehoshua]

The thing is only God can forgive sins, not man. So the whole point is pointless since all that is happening is words being exchanged.

John 20:22-23 would be where Christs gives the power to absolve sins as his instruments to his apostles and their successors: Ergo God is the one who forgives sins in confession, the priest merely serves as the instrument of Christs absolution acting in persona christi.

I certainly agree with the thoughts of GW that the confessional is allowing people to get away with crimes You have a group of paedophile priests just absolving each others "sins" and they just continue on with what they are doing.

Which would make calls to remove the protections in law granted to the confessor-penitent relationship meaningless, since the problem clerics in question would just confess to their ring of criminals and traitors to holy orders anyway. Furthermore your point here presuming its universality points more to the problem of rings of criminals in the Church itself, than to any problem with the sacrament more broadly.

Ergo this problem in the Church and in other institutions is best resolved through addressing the problem itself rather than through attempts to desacralise the sacrament of confession.

 

[Dachs]

What happened to 'time immemorial'?

I dunno about that, but everything I've ever read about common law states that Henry II was the first English ruler to institute it, although certain elements of the common law concept had earlier antecedents.

 

[Kaitzilla]

From what I understand about Catholic Confessionals, the priest acts as a conduit to God. Therefore, to break the seal of the confessional is akin to forcing a person to testify against themselves, a violation of the 5th Amendment of the American Constitution.

Does that chain of logic work? Regardless, I don't think the seal of confession should be broken under any circumstances.

 

[NovaKart]

Something I'm curious about, was the Vatican's previous policy of covering up child abuse different from other crimes, like if a priest/nun/monk was having an affair with an adult, embezzling money, etc. Did they also cover that up?

 

[Arakhor]

The Catholic Church has a lot more to answer for than 'simply' absolving unrepentant criminals. Indirectly encouraging the spread of the AIDS epidemic in Africa, systemic unaccountability for paedophile priests and other such crimes distress me far more than the seal of the confessional, which would seem to distress the priest in question more than anyone else.

If someone attempts to confess to a serious crime in the confessional and the priest refuses to absolve him, is the priest then required to report him to the police?

If someone confesses to a serious crime and is absolved through seeming sincerity, is the priest then forbidden from even hinting that such a crime has taken place to the police (without mentioning any names)?

 

[Jehoshua]

Something I'm curious about, was the Vatican's previous policy of covering up child abuse different from other crimes, like if a priest/nun/monk was having an affair with an adult, embezzling money, etc. Did they also cover that up?

The Holy See never had a policy of covering up crimes, and to say it did bespeaks of an ignorance of how the Church actually works. The coverups occured due to the failure of local bishops and national hierarchies, since the Holy See itself has no power over clergy at a local level. (the Church is not as monolithic as people make it out to be)

-

@ Arakhor

On aids in africa I would argue that what your implying is not only based on your own moral views on contraception, but also is patently false. Contraceptives in Africa have had little demonstrative effect, and indeed several experts have come out (Edward C. Green, director of the AIDS Prevention Research Project at the Harvard Center for Population and Development Studies comes to mind) and agreed with the Popes comments that widespread contraceptive availability excacerbates the problem due to increased promiscuity.

On problem clerics, the Church has improved on this over the last few decades so it would be erroneous to say there is a universal systematic unnaccountability for clerical crimes when they are uncovered at present. That said there are still outposts of resistance to reform in some areas and regions of the world and in certain dioceses the problem persists (maitland-newcastle in my own country comes to mind) primarily due to bishops who are less than good at their jobs (in more than one way I would add, thats another topic though).

-

As to the seal of confession though, it is inviolate in all cases in every circumstance. No exceptions and that is even if he refuses to absolve the penitent. The only time it can be even in part unveiled is if the penitent himself gives permission to do so.

 

[NovaKart]

Regardless of whether or not it was an official policy, that's what happened all over the world, and so my question is if this was limited to child abuse or if it was done for other crimes as well.

 

[downtown]

I understand the point of having ecclesiastical confidentiality...it's certainly important to not report all, or even most of what happens during those conversations, even if they are confessions of pretty foul things. My church has a similar policy regarding confessions, but makes exceptions for two crimes: Abuse of a child, and murder. Anybody who has information that could prevent or solve one of those two events has a responsibility to do that in my opinion. For somebody who is molesting a kid, it's hard for me to imagine a situation where you could consider them having repented without still evading the law anyway.

It is probably unenforceable, as innonimatu says, but refusing to share that information smacks of a warped moral compass to me. So much for protecting the innocent!

 

[Patroklos]

Again, why do enshrine doctor-patient, lawyer-client, and husband-wife confidentiality then?

Cam brought up the the lawyer client confidentiality is necessary for a system to work. Got ya, and the same arguement works for the doctor patient/husband-wife/clergy-follower.

 

[downtown]

I believe doctors would have to disclose child abuse actually. I know public school personnel, even school counselors who are specifically told NOT to disclose confessions or most content, must tell authorities about suspected child abuse under penalty of law. This was absolutely beaten into my head.

Regardless of what the law says, a spouse who willingly withholds information that could lead to the further abuse of a child is without morals.

 

[Patroklos]

I believe doctors would have to disclose child abuse actually. I know public school personnel, even school counselors who are specifically told NOT to disclose confessions or most content, must tell authorities about suspected child abuse under penalty of law. This was absolutely beaten into my head.

I honestly don't know the scope of the privilege for doctors, I would have to look it up. I do believe it is limited to knowledge directly related to medical needs, so you can't just unload your life to a doctor and claim it is all privileged (psychologists might be different).

The same goes for military commander-commanded relationships as well, also one that maintains a tradition of confidentiality. It is not legally protected though (just like teacher-student) and also has the duty to report egregious crimes, so I don't think it should be considered equivalent.

Regardless of what the law says, a spouse who willingly withholds information that could lead to the further abuse of a child is without morals.

But it remains protected. Would you support maintaining such protection?

 

[Farm Boy]

Again, why do enshrine doctor-patient, lawyer-client, and husband-wife confidentiality then?

Cam brought up the the lawyer client confidentiality is necessary for a system to work. Got ya, and the same arguement works for the doctor patient/husband-wife/clergy-follower.

Dingdingding. Unenforceable law undermines the credibility of law. This is a witch hunt(or pedophile hunt I guess). I can't be forced to testify against my wife. Why? Not because of an interest in catching criminals but because the system is designed smartly enough to realize I am going to lie my ass off or clam up to protect her before I give half a **** about anyone else on this earth. Lawyer-client for the same reason, you need the confidentiality for the system to work. Presumably, a priest is not going to say - "oh that's fine that you killed somebody for money, say 10 decades of the Rosary and you are fine" - but that's really rather beside the point. At best attempting to force a breach of this confidentiality causes the confession to cease to happen, more realistically you just cause people to lie about it or clam up. I guess you could start bugging all the churches, but at this point I'm just going to swear at you can call you bad person if you think this warrants serious consideration.

 

[Arakhor]

What happens if a priest is a witness in a case? Is he required to hear someone's confession?