Child abuse and the seal of Confession

[civ_king]

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.

Probably more like turn yourself in to the police and 50 rosaries.

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

I believe priests can refuse to hear a confession.

 

[downtown]

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

I don't know, I think you might be able to talk me into it.

 

[Jehoshua]

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

No he is not "required" to hear someons confession if he doesn't want too. Cardinal Pell (archbishop of Sydney) even said that he wouldn't hear a confession of a priest if he suspected they were an abuser and iirc said priests should do the same. (and he doesn;t hear his own priests confessions in case it could hinder his role as Archbishop as personal standard I add).

If a priest is a witness in criminal case again the seal is inviolate, so he either says he does not know, or that he cannot answer that. Human law is of an inferior order to the sacred order that binds confession within the sacramental seal, thus the higher order must be followed.

 

[BvBPL]

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

I'm not sure if this is two separate questions or not.

In any case, as I understand it the sanctity of the confessional only comes into play when a person approaches the priests with the intent of confessing and seeking absolution for his sins. If a priest witnesses, say, a murder, then he can testify against the murderer. However, if the murderer comes in and confesses to the priest then the priest will not testify even if the priest witnessed the crime. (This of course assumes that the priest accepts the confession in the first place as we've seen a priest may refuse to hear a confession, but just because the priest witnessed a crime that might be not be an adequate reason to refuse a confession.)

It is also worth noting that the priest-penitent privilege only extends when the priest hears a confession within the confines of a confessional atmosphere. If a priest overhears a person bragging about a crime to another or if a statement about a crime is made to a priest at a cocktail party then the privilege would not generally extend to protect the priest from testimony or reporting.

Furthermore, folks should be aware that laws which create mandated reporters, as they are called in the states, impose a higher duty to those reporters. If you hear about, say, child abuse and are not a mandated reporter you probably do not have a duty to report that to law enforcement or anyone else. Laws which require limited classes of people to report some crimes impose an additional duty upon those people that are not impose upon the general public. From this angle, it may be fair to ask priests to report child abuse that they witness outside of the confessional, but it also seems fair that we should acknowledge and moderate that duty by recognizing the vocational duty the priest has to his faith.

Also, also folks may be interested to know that in the US the priest-penitent privileged is broader, legally, that what is recognized by the Catholic Church as the sacrament of confession (which can be broadly interpreted in itself).

 

[Jehoshua]

I'm not sure if this is two separate questions or not.

In any case, as I understand it the sanctity of the confessional only comes into play when a person approaches the priests with the intent of confessing and seeking absolution for his sins. If a priest witnesses, say, a murder, then he can testify against the murderer. However, if the murderer comes in and confesses to the priest then the priest will not testify even if the priest witnessed the crime. (This of course assumes that the priest accepts the confession in the first place as we've seen a priest may refuse to hear a confession, but just because the priest witnessed a crime that might be not be an adequate reason to refuse a confession.)

I believe from my knowledge of the reasons behind the seal itself, although I may be wrong, that the priest if he witnessed the crime personally can report that. This being since the priest knows of it from his own experience as a man rather than through the the sacrament where he is acting in persona Christi, and thus that knowledge which is known from outside the confessional is not as such bound by the sacramental seal.

I would have to find a canon lawyer though to confirm that, although its more of a hypothetical since a right thinking priest presumably would refuse to hear the confession of a crime he witnessed personally at least until after he had already reported the crime to the appropriate authorities.

 

[Camikaze]

Privacy in the confessional in a fundamental tenant of Catholicism. Take that away and Catholics cannot practice their faith. That's a human rights and civil rights issue.

That would explain why that most anti-Catholic of Catholics, Tony Abbott, and that most anti-Catholic of Catholic nations, Ireland, are in support of mandatory reporting laws.

That they support laws isn't an argument in itself, but it beggars belief that Tony Abbott and Ireland would be in favour of committing a gross human rights violation against themselves.

More to the point, whether it's a fundamental tenant or not would be irrelevant if institutionalised concealment is contributing to the harm of children. It is really only taking away that privacy to the extent that such privacy is harming children. Catholics would still be able to practice their faith perfectly well, just so long as it did not contribute to the harming of children (as concealment of knowledge of sexual abuse does).

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.

So let's say a priest hears the confession of another priest, who works with children. This confessing priest admits to sexual abuse. The priest hearing the confession would be breaking the inviolable seal if they took any action informed by that knowledge, so they would be bound to take no action against the priest in question, or to tip anyone off in any manner whatsoever that there may be a problem. They would be bound to stand idly by whilst children were put into danger, threatened by the Church with excommunication should they dare take any action.

Firstly, do you not think that is an utterly reprehensible practice?

Secondly, how is this not an institutional problem?

Thirdly, do you think society should support the continuance of such utterly reprehensible behaviour (that is, whilst the Catholic Church may wish to continue such a practice, can you see how it'd be reasonable for society not to provide special protection for such behaviour)?

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.

This is a problem that plagues all private communications, not a problem restricted to this particular type of communication. It may actually be the case that, if a priest is compelled to give evidence and they refuse to do so, they are punished on the basis of that refusal, rather than on what they did or did not hear (which, given the refusal, cannot be determined). However, adducing such evidence would only be allowable under certain circumstances, so it'd only be in such circumstances that a priest would be liable to punishment.

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.

Henry II had permanent judges that were sent out to various towns at regular intervals. Before law reporting, professional judges were necessary for there to be any sort of precedent. He also established permanent judicial administration and stuff like trial by jury (though juries took an investigative role).

Though 1066 was important too in that it marked the introduction of feudal pyramid-structured manorial justice system. It's not like the common law one day just sprang out of the ground, so 1066 might be as good a date as any if you had to give it one.

The common law, later on, was said by common lawyers (that is, common law lawyers, as opposed to natural law lawyers) to have originated from 'time immemorial', meaning that it carried with it the wisdom of ages, and was thus superior to the royal prerogative.

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.

There is no explicit doctor-patient privilege in Australia. As far as I can tell, there is a professional privilege that the doctor-patient relationship would fall under, but it is not an absolute privilege. Doctors, for instance, are explicitly subject to mandatory reporting of child abuse.

Likewise, whilst the common law allowed for a spousal privilege, spouses are under certain circumstances compellable witnesses. They do not have an absolute privilege.

You would think the privilege of a Catholic priest could fall under the general professional privilege, but instead it gets special treatment, and is an absolute privilege. The only similar privilege is legal client privilege, and as said, that's a whole different beast. So it's really not the case that the confessional privilege is just like other privileges.

 

[Jehoshua]

That would explain why that most anti-Catholic of Catholics, Tony Abbott, and that most anti-Catholic of Catholic nations, Ireland, are in support of mandatory reporting laws.

Tony Abbott I quite doubt is a fully orthodox Catholic as some of his opinions are opposed to the doctrine of the Church (im sure he's faithful, but he's got some erroneous opinions on say contraception...). That and he has political expediency to consider.

Ireland also is in the throes of an anti-Catholic backlash, its hardly the bastion of faithfulness people think it is.

Catholics would still be able to practice their faith perfectly well

No they would not, you would in effect by forcing open the seal of confession be prohibiting the Catholic faith.

So let's say a priest hears the confession of another priest...

Since confession was implemented, ordered, by Christ himself, and the priest in the sacrament itself is acting in persona christi, in the person of Christ. This sacramental nature, implemented by a power that is altogether sacred, transcends the normal order of natural justice and the order of human law precisely because God ordered that this avenue of his mercy be utilised by the faithful and because the penitent confesses ut deo, as if to God. Ergo the virtue of religion, that is giving God what is His rightful due, transcends the order of natural justice. Justice also is itself to a lesser degree than the obligation of religion actually one of the motives of preserving the seal, since confession is a contract between both parties as the penitent by virtue of entering the confessional expects the seal to be upheld to begin with. To remove the seal or to betray the penitent is to obliterate the sacred contract between priest and penitent and effectively prohibit and desacralise the sacrament altogether, thus prohibiting as I said above the Catholic religion or in the case of the action itself by the priest, to commit a most grave sacrilege.

Now as I have said repeatedly, a priest can refuse absolution or refuse to hear a priests confession if he confesses and do every means other than breaking the seal to get the penitent to repent and hand himself in to the police. He can also take measures if its within his capacity to protect children without breaking the seal. He can report instantly if he knows about what was confessed from outside the confessional. But the sanctity of the seal is of a higher order and no faithful priest, in his right mind, would even contemplate breaking it for an instant for any reason whatsoever, period.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

Where did Christ himself order confessions to a priest acting "in persona Christi?"

The scriptures clearly orders that we confess our sins "to one another," but I know of no verses that demand sealed, one-to-one confessions. In fact, in the early church confession tended to be a public matter, done in front of the whole congregation.

 

[GhostWriter16]

He'll say it doesn't matter because he's arguing based on Catholic tradition.

 

[Arakhor]

It takes one zealot to know another, eh?

 

[Camikaze]

@Jehoshua - that's all nice and flowery, but you seem to have dodged the questions. In the given situation, the priest could not take any action to protect children without intimating in some manner knowledge that has been gained under the seal of Confession, and not only does the Church sanction this, it demands it. Why is this not utterly reprehensible, but I suppose the more important question is, how is it reasonable to expect society to not only sanction it, but extend special privileges to protect it?

Moreover, it would not in any way be prohibiting the Catholic faith. It would not impact on your practice one iota. It would only impact on the Catholic faith to the extent that the Church is complicit in criminal concealment and endangering children.

 

[GhostWriter16]

It would still affect the priests who would otherwise not tell the police and who now will likely still not tell and get locked up.

I'm sorry, I agree with you that the Catholic Church's view on this is downright idiotic. But its still an infringement on their religious freedom, freedom of speech (Being forced to testify is an infringement on freedom of speech, for whatever reason one may want to say silent) and isn't going to actually work.

Use social pressure. Try to persuade them they should change their view (Yes, I know supposedly the Catholic Church is God's Church and so can't do so. To a Protestant this objection is irrelevant) Protest their actions. Inform people that they are covering things up, using their religion as an excuse (Do NOT try to use government, that is both ineffective AND immoral). Try to get less serious Catholics to see this as wrong. Try to persuade individual priests to ignore the Church's directive. Exc.

 

[Arakhor]

Have you ever changed your view on something that is demanded in your denomination?

 

[GhostWriter16]

I don't care about what anyone demands except scripture alone

 

[JollyRoger]

But its still an infringement on their religious freedom,

Screw that. There is no justifiable religious freedom to cover up knowledge of child abuse.

 

[Arakhor]

There's a phrase about truer words and jests, you know, GW.

I completely agree, JR, but presumably martyring conformist priests isn't the way to go about it.

 

[Camikaze]

I completely agree, JR, but presumably martyring conformist priests isn't the way to go about it.

If it was actually martyring them, yes. But all it actually is, is taking away special treatment and making priests subject to the law as everyone else is.

 

[Arakhor]

I'm not disagreeing, but if their religion demands death or excommunication, there aren't exactly many options within the church.

 

[JollyRoger]

I completely agree, JR, but presumably martyring conformist priests isn't the way to go about it.

I'm suggesting prison, no crucifiction.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Screw that. There is no justifiable religious freedom to cover up knowledge of child abuse.

There is a freedom to stay silent, or to say nothing.

I'd agree with you and just about everyone else other than the resident Catholics that if a priest actually swears to tell the truth and then says they know nothing, they should be prosecutable. I don't give a crap if their church says that "They were really acting in the name of Christ, so he's really telling the truth" or whatever, he really did lie which if done after a sworn oath would be perjury.

That stated, I don't believe anyone should be forced to testify against anyone, so saying nothing at all should be an option.