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

[Zaccheus]

How can absolution be given to someone who is not sorry enough to accept punishment for the wrong that he or she has done?

Someone may be genuinely remorseful, genuinely determined to never repeat the sin, and genuinely terrified of the temporal punishment he will suffer if he turns himself in. These things are not mutually exclusive.

 

[TheLittleLady]

Because God’s mercy is so much greater than our human minds can grasp. Christ taught us in parables like the Prodigal son and the workmen hired at different times of the day warning us of “elder brother syndrome”. God forgives. We do not need to worry that someone else is getting away with sin or that they “get off easy”. We keep our eyes on our own paper spiritually and let God and His Church deal with others.

 

[TheLittleLady]

Think of things you have confessed.

I have recently been struggling with hatred toward a coworker. I have taken it to Confession.

Now, what good would it do for me to go to this coworker and say “I hate your bleeding guts, I have been to confession and I am working on it, but, you need to be aware of how deeply I have despised you.”

This could result in serious work disruption, one of us could end up losing our jobs, being unable to support ourselves, we could become destitute.

The idea of airing all of your sins in public is just not a good idea. Better for me that I pray for the person, do kind things for them, work on healing myself.

 

[regression]

I have heard a response to this being a violation of the first amendment I am not sure how to respond to. Having more than one wife is against the law. Does this violate Mormon’s rights? Admittedly I am not well versed on what Mormon’s believe, so I am not sure how much of a parallel this is to Catholic confession.

 

[tafan2]

We are drifting way afield of the thread topic, but in short…

I agree, so I will give a brief response to each and then let you have any last say on this drift.

The Church should increase transparency at all levels.

Beyond a doubt, this is the biggest problem that was not addressed in the US in 2002, and it certainly has been an ongoing problem. I will say that it appears the Bishops of the US are taking steps to address this as rapidly as possible. Unfortunately, it does not appear to be the case in the Vatican at this time.

The Church should give the laity a real and substantial role in Church governance, particularly at the parish level. (I do not mean theological control, I mean personnel and finances.)

I already pointed out the canon on finance councils. But in general, at the parish and Diocesan level this was don a long time ago. Indeed, I believe we have gone overboard. Having worked aroudnm parishes and schools quite a
bit in the past, I find way too much authority placed in some of the lay personnel, and they quickly become rigid and inflexible. Because the last say is technically with the pastor, they tend to brown-nose to a large extent to maintain their authority. I have seen multiple times our staff and lay leaders behave as if the pastor is a walking saint on earth and then the pastor gets replaced and they immediately start gossiping and talking about all of the problems associated with him. I have seen this close up, not as just a member of the parish, but working in parish offices. I have a hard time imagining these people taking initiative to investigate their current pastor. Lay review boards with regards to abuse are a very good thing. They should be filled with people who have zero connection to the diocese or parish beyond being faithful Catholics.

The Church should actually hold both transgressors and their enablers responsible. (The first two will help enable this.)

Certainly the evidence appears that with regards to priests and abuse of minors this has been taking place since 2002. Perhaps not always perfect, but certainly have made great strides.

The Church likely needs to reform priestly formation significantly. I think this should begin with a serious study of the current process and how it has gone wrong. That study should include both clergy and lay professionals in both education and psychology.

Always more to do here. But the absurd priestly formation problems of the 60s and 70s and 80s, which in my opinion did greatly contribute to the problem, have been largely done away with. Great strides have been made. And around here it is easy to see with the younger priests coming out of the seminaries. Phenomenal priests, to a man. But of course more to be done always.

 

[JoeShlabotnik]

I was referring to someone who has committed a crime like child abuse or murder.

 

[TheLittleLady]

Grave sin is grave sin. God’s mercy covers even my sins, even those of the worst person.

If the Church requires public pronouncement of your sins for one sin, they would require it for all of them.

 

[tafan2]

Back to the original topic of the proposed law. Here is how I am afraid of it turning out. Bad press with regards to the Church’s handling of abuse crises will lead to more and more people supporting these laws, and more and more politicians and judges. This can happen really fast. We saw it with the issue of gay marriages. In no time it went from being relatively unpopular, with most politicans supporting civil unions at most, to being supported by the mainstream and politicians jumping on the bandwagon left and right. It went to the courts and the courts fell in line with the sweeping trend and created the constitutional right.

So I have no confidence in the courts and the 1st amendment coming to our rescue. None. So these laws will be proposed, they will initially fail. But the press and supporters will make more and more headway. Then the east coast states and the west coast states will, in a few years, start passing these laws like dominoes. They will be immediately challenged. The first few will be struck down, but in a very limited way, the courts effectively giving “guidance” to what legislatures can get away with. And then its off to the races. At that point legal challenges will start to fail. Eventually there will be one land-mark case in the supreme court where a law will be upheld and constitutional restrictions to free religion will be codified in a court opinion.

Unfortunately, as popular opinion is swinging and more and more people consider the exceptions to religious freedom acceptable, some priests and bishops will be on board and say the Church can certainly live with it and will support it. Of course many priests and Bishops will be very outspoken in opposition, and this opposition will be very steadfast and unbending.

Once the laws are in place, they will have very little effect, to the frustration of liberal prosecutors.

Then the sting operations will start. A undercover cop will go into confession of a priest known to be in opposition and confess molesting an abuse crime, perhaps pretending to be a priest. Entrapment laws will not come into play, because they only limit sting operations from enticing an individual from committing a crime he would not normally commit. But the priests targeted will be on record saying they will go to jail rather than comply. Priests will start going to jail.

Hope I am wrong, but it seems like a very likely scenario.

 

[JoeShlabotnik]

I respectfully disagree with what you are saying, Little Lady.
Though all sins are not good. And many sins are mortal sins. I just do not see how a priest could absolve a child abuser or a murder, or someone else who has committed a horrible offense, without that person being willing to admit to the offense to the authorities and to be punished accordingly.

 

[TheLittleLady]

My advice would be to pray about it. Tell God “I cannot understand how you can forgive these sins?”

Read the parables I mentioned, meditate on them. Ask God to open your heart.

 

[AnnRob11]

I fail to see how this law would capture child abusers. Some might not confess this particular sin. The law is violating church vs state laws. So if the law wants to protect people why not include rapists, spousal abuse and other things of the sort. My next fear is that this would become a trickle effect and require more things to be reported; and when would we say enough is enough. Priests are mandated reporters and are required to report things of such with confession excluded (please correct me if wrong neophyte here). I have heard already that younger Catholics in California are becoming hesitant to go to confession after hearing about this law trying to be passed. I do give this bishop props about making a stand.

 

[JoeShlabotnik]

I have never accepted those slippery slope justifications

 

[Jimbo]

Those inclined to confess this will leave the state to do so.

I’m thinking they don’t move; but rather go to a Church in Nevada to confess.

I’ve read of people going on shopping sprees in Nevada to escape California State taxes; so it’s not out of the ordinary. They’d likely come back.

 

[Loud-living-dogma]

Grave sin is grave sin. God’s mercy covers even my sins, even those of the worst person.

If the Church requires public pronouncement of your sins for one sin, they would require it for all of them.

No one said sins required public pronouncement. Some sins are crimes, crimes that cause big problems and law enforcement has to investigate and try to catch the perp. Is law enforcement out looking for the person who hates your coworker? I doubt it. Is law enforcement out looking for people who committed murder? Yep. Is law enforcement investigating child abuse? Yep. Do you see how some crimes and sins have a cover-up element, and some don’t?

 

[TheLittleLady]

It violates the seal of confession to force a person to publicly declare their sin to anyone, plain and simple. God’s mercy covers the vilest sin.

To honor the seal is in no manner a “cover up”. A priest is not going to advise a penitent on the best place to bury a body. He is going to hear the sin, grant absolution and pray for all involved. The priest is going to humbly accept civil punishment if that is the price of keeping the seal intact.

While it is a drama, I would suggest Hitchcock’s “I Confess” film.

 

[Loud-living-dogma]

So you don’t think that a killer covering up murder is a sin? If the police are investigating a murder and the killer lies by commission or omission, you don’t think that’s a sin?

 

[TheLittleLady]

Any lie is a sin.

I’ve not said otherwise, in fact, there is no such thing as a “white lie”.

If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to lead us to everlasting life.

 

[whatistrue]

I just do not see how a priest could absolve a child abuser or a murder, or someone else who has committed a horrible offense, without that person being willing to admit to the offense to the authorities and to be punished accordingly.

It has been stated before that the priest is forbidden by canon law from making confession to civil law enforcement or anyone else a condition of absolution. Why is that so hard to understand?

 

[Loud-living-dogma]

Can you quote from the CCC that the seal of confession applies to the penitent? From what I see it only applies to the priest?

 

[TheLittleLady]

A penitent may say whatever he wishes wrt his sins.

The priest is forbidden to REQUIRE the penitent to announce his sins:

Can. 983 §1. The sacramental seal is inviolable; therefore it is absolutely forbidden for a confessor to betray in any way a penitent in words or in any manner and for any reason.

§2. The interpreter, if there is one, and all others who in any way have knowledge of sins from confession are also obliged to observe secrecy.

Can. 984 §1. A confessor is prohibited completely from using knowledge acquired from confession to the detriment of the penitent even when any danger of revelation is excluded.

§2. A person who has been placed in authority cannot use in any manner for external governance the knowledge about sins which he has received in confession at any time.