Australia, attack on seal of confession: government official pressures archbishop to have his priests tell police about crimes revealed in confession

  • Thread starter Thread starter mdgspencer
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

mdgspencer

Guest
https://www.catholicweekly.com.au/perth-archbishop-slams-confession-seal-slur/

“If you are indeed aware of my position, the archbishop said, which is the [position of the Catholic Church, you will know that to call on me to ‘make that statement…’ is in fact to call on me to make a statement which would immediately result in my suspension from the office of Archbishop of Perth and to have my faculties (permission) to function as priest withdrawn.

“Any priest who followed my advice…would also be immediately suspended.”
…
In February alaw came into effect in his Australian province where priests now face a penalty of up to three years in prison if they do not disclose information about child abuse gained during the sacrament of confession.
 
Last edited:
Interesting.

I’m not familiar with how the court system in Australia works. How would this law be enforced, in practice?

In the U.S., at least in principle, they’re not supposed to be able to put someone in prison unless they can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person actually did the thing they are accused of. (Granted, innocent people are jailed or imprisoned all the time, but that’s a different discussion.)

Does Australia have a laxer standard of proof? How do you go about establishing that someone actually revealed that sort of information in confession? The only two witnesses to the conversation are the confessor and the confessee, and neither one of them have a particularly good incentive to turn themselves in to the authorities.

That’s doubly true if the confessionals are designed in such a way that neither the priest nor the confessee know who the other one is. (There was a discussion of this over on another thread.)

Don’t mistake my point here. I think this is a terrible law. But it might be unenforceable in practice, in which case it would be moot.
 
Last edited:
Are they going to make the Protestants break their seal of confession? Oh wait, they can’t. It’s discriminatory, because it only targets groups that use Confesdion
so that would be Catholic and Orthodox (a few other groups do, but those are the most well-known.) What about the atheist child abuser? I highly doubt they’re going to go to confession. Very unlikely you’re going to find a southern baptist there.
 
adamhovey1988 said:
Are they going to make the Protestants break their seal of confession? Oh wait, they can’t.
Click to expand...
While we don’t have a seal of confession, pastors are strictly bound by (professional) secrecy, and, in Switzerland at least, I could go to prison for breaking it. (And, by the way, the fact that my church does unfortunately not have the sacrament of penance does not mean I never hear confessions.)

There is a (rather complex) procedure for being released from secrecy, but it can only be initiated if the minister asks for it freely and their reasons are grave. In practice, nobody uses it.

I don’t know how Australian law protects professional secrecy, though.
 
As well known Priest Fr Frank Brennan told the Royal Commission in 2016, this issue is just a red herring.

I am convinced the seal of the confessional is a red herring when it comes to protecting vulnerable children. I have been a priest for 31 years. I help out in a Canberra parish where mass attendance is still high. But I can count on the fingers of two hands the number of parishioners who present for confession on any Saturday evening before mass. In 31 years, I have not had one single person confess to pedophilia, whether in an institution or within their own family. Pedophiles tend to be secretive and manipulative. They don’t come to confession. I am not aware of the royal commission having heard evidence of pedophiles regularly confessing their egregious sins and being left undetected.

If the law were changed to mandate reporting of pedophilia confessed to a priest in the sacrament, the only effect would be to ensure that no pedophile ever approached the confessional. The suggested legal change would be counter-productive.
 
Last edited:
Emeraldlady said:
If the law were changed to mandate reporting of pedophilia confessed to a priest in the sacrament, the only effect would be to ensure that no pedophile ever approached the confessional. The suggested legal change would be counter-productive.
Click to expand...
This hits the nail on the head.
 
What could happen is that some government official goes to confession, lies to the priest that he abused a child, and then when the priest fails to report it, brings charges against him.

The archbishop is to be admired.

Pax
 
For what it’s worth, as an atheist I’m totally and 100% against it.

But a question: If someone confessed to a crime, could the priest make it part of the penance that the person had to hand himself in to the authorities?
 
No, as that would make the penance be that he break the seal of confession. However, absolution is given only to those who repent of their sin. The idea of an unbreakable seal of confession is to have an avenue where a sinner (in this case a pedophile), could have a way to gain forgiveness and gain distance from that sin. Without that anonymity, obviously no one would confess to the priest, and one avenue of change would be closed to him.

So the question I wonder from those who advocate to remove the legal protection of the seal of confession is this - is the priority to stop child abuse’ even if it means some go unpunished; or to punish child abusers, even if it means there is more child abuse.
 
fredystairs said:
What could happen is that some government official goes to confession, lies to the priest that he abused a child, and then when the priest fails to report it, brings charges against him.
Click to expand...
I don’t know about Australian law, but in American law, wouldn’t that be entrapment?
 
I would imagine that such a case that such a case would have to be thrown out, but you never know.
 
Freddy said:
If someone confessed to a crime, could the priest make it part of the penance that the person had to hand himself in to the authorities?
Click to expand...
As @pnewton said: no. It would violate the seal of confession. A penitent can reveal his own sins outside of the confessional, but he cannot be compelled to by the priest. Of course, it would be good if they did hand themselves in, but that cannot be a condition of forgiveness. But, the priest can certainly encourage them to turn themselves in or at least seek help.

And of course, the same is true for other serious crimes such as murder, for example.
 
.
This actually happened in Louisiana in the United States.
A girl told a priest in confession someone was sexually abusing her. Then the family sued the abuser. The family told the court that the girl told the priest in confession about the abuse. Then the judge ordered the priest to say what he was told in confession. The priest however couldn’t even say the confession occurred.
(This case went through the courts in Louisiana, however, and finally the priest was relieved of the order to say what he was told in confession.)
 
Last edited:
It’s funny how they never seem to want to outlaw attorney/client confidentiality for the same crimes.
 
Funnily enough I just did a speech on the seal of confession and the implications of these laws in my high school English class yesterday (I’m Australian). Surprisingly my very liberal secular teacher and classmates didn;t mind xD
 
(I’m Australian.)

Another Australian state, Victoria, enacted similar legislation last year. The Victorian government in explaining the motivation for the legislation cited an example of one priest who confessed child sex abuse to 30 different priests over 25 years.

I’m honestly not sure how they’re going to police it. There was concern that police would mount a sting operation to test the adherence of priests to the new legislation, but that’s extraordinarily unlikely given that they’ve never done so for other professions. Victoria has never prosecuted anyone for a failure to report abuse under its mandatory reporting legislation since it was first enacted 25 years ago.
 
I am unconcerned about such a bill in the U.S. It is straight up unconstitutional. This person is just trying to be sensational. One quote from the bill struck me as odd.
“Right now, we are protecting the predator,” he added, “not the child.”
Click to expand...
Do these politicians understand nothing? Such a bill would do zip to protect even one child. There is no priest anywhere that will report a confession, law or no law, and all that such legislation will do is to persecute Catholic clergy and close one small avenue that a pedophile might use to seek redemption and an end to his behavior.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top