Bishop says "I will go to jail before I will obey," as California proposes law requiring priests to report to police what they heard in confession

[adf417]

Priests absolve; God forgives.

Agreed!!!

 

[Zaccheus]

It is intended to get at the problem of priests covering up for other priests.

It is intended to give the state the power to force Catholic priests to violate the seal of the confessional.

 

[njlisa]

@Jimbo

I fail to see how this bill will capture more abusers.

I agree. The Catholic Church complies with laws to report child abuse. Outside the confessional, everyone working for a Catholic school, parish, and/or other program is required to report abuse. These laws apply to priests as well. If a child (outside of confession) tells a priest she/her is being abused, he should immediately report the situation. I think 99.9 percent of priests would do so.

I am the first one to speak out against child abuse of any kind. I know of a case where a girl went to public school and a Protestant church. No teacher or religious ed worker asked why she was black and blue.

We’re all responsible to look out for one another.

And if I were a priest, I would go to jail rather than break the seal of confession.

 

[CRV]

It is my understanding the absolution of sins within the Sacrament of Penance is separate to the obligation of the penitent to make reparation/restitution.

CCC #2412

Restitution

An article by Jimmy Akin Can A Priest Force You To Break The Seal On Yourself?

And another article by Jimmy Akin Should Abusers Be Encouraged To Report Themselves?

 

[tafan2]

You are naive. The most cursory look at the facts shows this would have little/no effect on protecting kids.

And the abuse of minors by priests has largely been solved for 17 years. Just yesterday I read about 5 priests in Detroit being indicted. One had to read really deep to learn they were all pre-2002. Same thing with the Pennsylvania Grand Jury Report, all but 3 or 4 cases were pre-2002. Same the lists of priests being released by various diocese.

 

[Lion_IRC]

The priest cannot tell the penitent to violate the sea

He isn’t.
The penitent is voluntarily going to the police and confessing to them.
If I voluntarily tell my wife something I confessed to a priest, I’m not ‘violating’ the seal of confession.

 

[Lion_IRC]

How would a priest telling someone go to the police as part of their penance prevent that priest granting absolution and completing the sacrament as normal?

Nope. Can’t do that, either. You’re still making self-incrimination part of the sacrament, and that’s not permitted.

Except what the penitent tells the police is their choice and self-incrimination is exactly what confession IS.

How is that any different from some other act of contrition which the priest might suggest ?

Because any other penance wouldn’t include the requirement to incriminate oneself publicly.

There is no requirement.
Going to confession is entirely voluntary.
Going to the police is entirely voluntary.

how is it ok for a priest to tell me to say 10 Hail Marys as an act of contrition as if my absolution were conditional unless I did so?

Absolution isn’t conditional on penance. However, it is required when assigned and agreed to by the penitent. So, yeah – a priest does “mandate” when he sets the penance. Therefore, he cannot mandate – even in penance – that one turns oneself in to the authorities. Ever.

For the 17th time!!! There is no mandatory penance. It’s entirely voluntary.
I don’t know why you think I believe a penitent is compelled to do what a priest says they should do.

Is there a priest in the house to best explain to this guy why he’s wrong?

If he refuses to believe it when Church law is quoted to him by many people, I somehow doubt that having an internet poster who presents himself as a priest is gonna change his mind.

‘he’ doesn’t refuse to believe Church law. I accept it completely.
Absolution from God can be achieved via confession to a priest irrespective of whether a penitent does what the priest advises a (supposedly) contrite pedophile to do.

 

[TMC]

You are naive. The most cursory look at the facts shows this would have little/no effect on protecting kids.

I did not say the law would work, I merely explained what it says for those that have perhaps not taken the time to read it.

And the abuse of minors by priests has largely been solved for 17 years. Just yesterday I read about 5 priests in Detroit being indicted. One had to read really deep to learn they were all pre-2002. Same thing with the Pennsylvania Grand Jury Report, all but 3 or 4 cases were pre-2002. Same the lists of priests being released by various diocese.

And you think I am naïve? The problem is far from “solved.”

 

[tafan2]

Well, I look at the available evidence. The problem seems to have moved from the abuse of minors to the abuse of young adults, such as seminarians. Again, the Pennsylvania Grand Jury Report was responsible for much of the increased news spotlight, but if one pages through the details, one finds very few occurances since the 2002 policy if zero tolerance was adopted by the US bishops. This is, admittedly, not reported, and certainly downplayed in the report itself. But the details bear it out. Recently the diocese of Texas released lists of credibly accused priests. Again, very few cases post 2002.

I am not claiming it has been solved, I should not have used that term, but I do believe the Church has been quite effective in the last 17 years of dealing with the problem, at least in the US.

 

[TMC]

Well, I look at the available evidence. The problem seems to have moved from the abuse of minors to the abuse of young adults, such as seminarians. Again, the Pennsylvania Grand Jury Report was responsible for much of the increased news spotlight, but if one pages through the details, one finds very few occurances since the 2002 policy if zero tolerance was adopted by the US bishops. This is, admittedly, not reported, and certainly downplayed in the report itself. But the details bear it out. Recently the diocese of Texas released lists of credibly accused priests. Again, very few cases post 2002.

I am not claiming it has been solved, I should not have used that term, but I do believe the Church has been quite effective in the last 17 years of dealing with the problem, at least in the US.

I wish you were correct, but I reach the opposite conclusion. Reports of abuse of minors typically lag for years, and often are never public. The recent cases, including the high profile cases involving bishops and cardinals, suggest to me that the changes of the last 17 years have been mostly cosmetic. I think we are at the beginning of the resolution of this issue, and not nearing the end.

 

[goout]

The CC put model procedures in place in 2002.
Those procedures have a zero tolerance and reporting requirements as a first priority.

The Pennsylvania and Michigan legal initiatives are addressing the old Church. All abusers should be reported and prosecuted.
That includes teachers especially. Any given child is 100 times more likely to be abused by a teacher than a priest.

Why do the schools hide and promote abusers?

 

[Sbee0]

On a purely secular note, this is likely a violation of the First Amendment.

Yep. Absolutely unconstitutional.

 

[PatK63]

The priest can require you to make restitution but that is all.

 

[Gorgias]

It is possible for a believer to turn himself in for a crime he’s committed and also be un-remorseful for it. Seems to me like it would be highly unlikely though, no?

He might be concerned that he’s gonna get caught. He might be concerned for his safety (angry dad of abused daughter, right?). It’s not highly likely, I’ll agree – but possible!

It seems to me that if I then don’t confess to breaking the law, I’ve compounded my problem, no?

It’s a good question. It’s tempting to be anachronistic and claim “you have the right not to incriminate yourself!”, but that’s a more recent civil ‘right’.

I would, however, suggest that, in the time and place that these passages were written, the argument was somewhat different. It wasn’t “do I need to turn myself in?”, but rather, “does civil authority have any authority over me, as a child of God and a follower of Christ?” What I see in those passages is an assertion that, yes, if they come after you, you do have an obligation to obey them!

If priests could require submission to authorities in return for absolution, it would likely put a damper on confession.

‘Likely’? Likely? No… it would kill it completely. And, it would have a chilling effect everywhere – people in other areas would start to ask themselves “hey – if they can do this there, can’t they do it here? if they can force it for today’s confession, can they compel them to report my past confessions?” It’d quash the practice of the faith in terms of reconciliation.

What about a hypothetical situation in which the penitent knows that someone else is in prison for a crime he committed? Wouldn’t he have a moral obligation to do what he could to correct this injustice?

He’d have an obligation for satisfaction. However, that wouldn’t imply that he’d have to turn himself in and take the guy’s place.

I call baloney.

It’s a power grab from the government.

(I’m still going with “they know it’ll fail, so it’s merely a circus act, intended to get positive attention for themselves.”)

 

[Loud-living-dogma]

Doesn’t the seal of the confessional apply only to the priest, not the penitent? It’s not like the penitent can never speak of his sins after confession, right?
It seems to me that if someone was truly remorseful, say for murder, wouldn’t that person go turn himself in? Could a priest ask “have you turned yourself in”? Could he say “if you haven’t gone to civil authority yet, then there is still harm being done (police resources being used to look for the killer, the penitent lying to some degree, innocent people potentially being accused of the crime, etc).” I don’t understand why a priest couldn’t say “come back after you have talked to the police, then I can hear your confession”.

 

[tafan2]

Perhaps the years before abuse is reported is true, but that is also not what the evidence suggests. Yes, there are times of adults coming forward now and claiming abuse when they were minors. But it appears in the majority of the cases, even those decades ago, the family complained to the bishops. Hence all the stories of cover ups and shuffling predator priests. Also, the societal stigma attached to being a victim has largely gone away, which makes it more likely there are fewer delays in reporting abuse.

Furthermore, a objective look at policies that were put in place in 2002 would indicate they are effective. Zero tolerance is a deterrent. But even more so, priests, outside the confessional, are never alone with one, or even a few, kids. Most parishes have installed side windows next to office doors so one is never hidden with another person. Kids in Catholic schools are taught to report improper touching. It strains the credibility that these, and other policies, would have no effect.

The cases you mention, indeed the McCarrick situation, supports my conclusion. He abused children prior to 2002, after that he moved on to seminarians.

 

[ioannes_pius]

Thanks be to God!

 

[AHapka]

I hope at least some!

 

[HeDa]

The confessor would more likely say something like this: “When you have gone to the police to turn yourself in, you will need someone to talk to. My name is Father NN and I am a priest in parish St A. If you don’t want to talk with me, then there are X number of priests in the diocese who are assigned to be prison chaplains and there are also other parish priests nearby that the prison staff can call. Please ask the prison staff to contact one of us.”

 

[Gorgias]

The confessor would more likely say something like this: “When you have gone to the police to turn yourself in, you will need someone to talk to. My name is Father NN and I am a priest in parish St A. If you don’t want to talk with me, then there are X number of priests in the diocese who are assigned to be prison chaplains and there are also other parish priests nearby that the prison staff can call. Please ask the prison staff to contact one of us.”

Wait – you think that “you’re going to prison, buddy” is going to convince someone to turn themselves in???