Nightmare scenario: a ‘Penitent’ sent by the state comes in to confess abusing a child, knowing full well Fr. X is the priest for that day, and records his confession. If Fr. X says nothing to the authorities … here come the cops.How would anyone know a person told a priest something?
A couple thoughts:Since Confession is anonymous, how is the priest supposed to tie such information to a specific individual?
It could be a sting operation.A penitent sent by the state? No one can make someone go to confession.
If you’re a mandated reporter, you have to report any sign of abuse, including a statement by the person claiming to have been abused. I remember in college professors often mentioning that they were one and to not report sexual abuse to them if the intent was to keep it private with someone the person trusted.And by the way, in that case as you described it, the girl confessed that she was abused.
The thing is, if the priest were to find any evidence of it outside the seal of confession, he is no longer obligated to remain silent. Sure, he can’t go into the details of the confession, but he can certainly speak as much as he feels like on what he found outside confession, even if it covers all said in confession.Incidentally, I have also heard it said, although no one can say for sure, that some priests guilty of sexual liaisons have deliberately confessed to their pastors face to face in order to ensure that the pastor cannot report them to the bishop without breaking the seal of confession, with no intent to end the sex.
We pray that’s the caseNo chance that will survive a constitutional challenge.
As I have been reading thru the volumes of the Early Church Fathers, I have learned that anonymity was not a requirement in the first centuries. If it was established in later centuries, and not made mandatory to boot, one would think that it certainly could be removed. Personally, I don’t see that happening, and if it were to happen, I believe we would see confession numbers drop even lower than they are now.On the slightly less desirable side, isn’t it possible for the Church to lift the anonymity requirement
It could be an entrapment thing, kind of like they send cops undercover to buy drugs. Just send an undercover cop to confession, have him confess child abuse, and then arrest the priest if he doesn’t report it.A penitent sent by the state? No one can make someone go to confession.
This would be very questionable. The priest could do nothing to investigate a confession in order to obtain evidence. The confessional seal is absolute, a priest cannot even let a confession affect his behavior towards a penitent.The thing is, if the priest were to find any evidence of it outside the seal of confession, he is no longer obligated to remain silent. Sure, he can’t go into the details of the confession, but he can certainly speak as much as he feels like on what he found outside confession, even if it covers all said in confession.
No, a priest cannot do this. Again the seal is absolute. A priest can make a general statement like “I often hear these types of sins in confession”. A priest can make no reference to any individual confession. Simply leaving out the name is not enough.The priest could provide general details like time and place. That would at least help start an investigation, and if the parish has cameras could require them to turn them over.
We’re talking about a state that tried to require crisis pregnancy centers to advertise abortion services. It didn’t care then, it won’t care now. It’s a state that is openly hostile to religious freedom.That is quite clearly entrapment, and not even California’s courts would be able to uphold that ruling without becoming the laughing stock of the nation… I mean, moreso than they already are…