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

  • Thread starter Thread starter mdgspencer
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
JoeShlabotnik said:
would also say that anyone priest heading the confession of a person who admits to abusing a child should not give absolution to that person, unless that person confesses the crime and accepts punishment for that crime.
Click to expand...
I guess my only question is how would the Preist even know if the person did go to the authorities. If the person did, more than likely he would be setting in jail or prison at that moment therefore would not be able to be in the confessional booth.

When I was incarcerated, for a totally different thing-did not abuse anyone, it was a long while before I was able to see a Priest. I am talking at least 3 or 4 months. Anything could of happened between those points where I could of lost my life and not been able to go to confession.

Just a thought. 😉
 
Canon law actually requires each parish to have a finance council.
Canon 537
Each parish is to have a finance council which is regulated by universal law as well as by norms issued by the diocesan bishop; in this council the Christian faithful, selected according to the same norms, aid the pastor in the administration of parish goods with due regard for the prescription of canon 532 .”
Click to expand...
But often those on the council are not aware enough in financial matters to recognize a major problem. Such was the case in my childhood parish several years ago when the administrator, who was Pastor of one parish and administrator of three others, managed to embezzle well over $100,000 by “lending” money from one parish to another. He also managed to convince a parishioner to hand over her life savings to “help” him. He apparently had a gambling addiction.
 
Even among thieves, there has to be some honor.
Anyone who would lie about going to the authorities to turn himself or herself in for a heinous crime would be a hypocrite and not be forgiven by God.
 
Thieves exist. One of Christ’s own disciples was stealing money. Does not excuse them, however, it does not mean that the majority of parish volunteers are ignorant.

In our Diocese, a full audit is required on a regular basis.
 
What does that statement have to do with the crime fraud exceptions to attorney client privilege?
 
Last edited:
It is self-evident that attorney client privilege is limited to a narrow range of legally protected communication - two people planning a crime aren’t covered by legal privilege just because one of them is a lawyer.

Likewise, the well-defined seal of the confessional doesn’t (and wouldn’t) protect anything said by any pedophile anywhere at anytime …just because a priest happened to be present at the time it was said.

So I’m not sure where your earlier non-sequitur was aimed.
 
Last edited:
The Crime Fraud exceptions are just that. Exceptions to what otherwise would be protected communications. Priests have no such exception currently in the context of the confessional relationship.
 
With all do respect I would not even try to venture as to whom God will forgive and not forgive. That is not for me to judge. 😉

Of course the person needs to confess the crime, that is why they are in the confessional booth. My point was, at least from what I interpreted from your comment and sorry if I misinterpreted it, was that the person had to accept the punishment. Well if they abused a child and accepted the punishment more than likely they would be incarcerated. Therefore they could not be in the confessional making the confession. So while the person needs to turn him or herself in, and accept their punishment, the absolution should not be determined on that but for other reasons.
 
Last edited:
TMC said:
40.png
CTBcin:
Meh. I’m currently studying in seminary and I’d say that seminary formation is fine, at least in my seminary (can’t speak for every seminary though.)

Pre-Vatican II seminary formation had many faults and often wasn’t set up to properly form men in matters of sexuality and celibacy. Add to this the fact that seminaries were often de facto cloisters, and you have priests getting ordained who were often sexually stunted in one way or another.

Post V-2, the pendulum swung dramatically the other way, leading to seminaries full of open sexual immorality. Also not good.

Over the past 20-30 years, things have slowly been coming to a healthy balance. A big step was John Paul II’s letter Pastores Dabo Vobis , which significantly reformed seminary formation. Current seminaries, in my experience, are seriously committed to forming healthy, balanced men.
Click to expand...
I am glad to hear you are happy with your seminary experience. Regardless, I think that a system that has resulted in the situation at hand needs serious review. If the seminary system is fine, great. But that would mean we have to look elsewhere to find the source of the problem.
Click to expand...
The problem isn’t Vatican II neither seminary or anything other than the widespread culture in general which allowing sexual immorality is seen as normal entertainment. It’s okay to watch other human-being being exploited for the sake of minutes of selfish desire. If the church ever guilty of anything in the past, I think it’s the fact that she followed the current instead of speak up outloud.

Now the root of the problem is to stop any source of sexual immorality to enter the seminary’s Wi-fi and seminarians phones, and not only seminary but also the whole church wi-fi and clergy’s phones. I don’t believe adult men (and women) can handle any porn. I set my phone as a 14year-old since long time ago I have been set free. Now my whole house is free from porn, even if my phone no longer restricted, no porn can enter my heart anymore.

Abuse cases would not stop if the church still allow permissive entertainment to enter the church gates (i mean wi-fi), because the bad spirits enter the church in this manner and steal and kill the sheeps one by one. Besides how do the church forbid immorality when inside the church immorality is tolerated. No-porn policy should become the important part of church discipline.
 
Last edited:
0Scarlett_nidiyilii said:
I mean, does anybody really think that pedophiles are rushing to the confessionals by the truckloads?
Click to expand...
In the cases of church abuse priests, I do believe they do confessionals (and confessed their horrible deeds regularly) before offering Mass. I mean, how do you offer Mass, hold the Body and Blood of Christ with such a heavy conscience? They knew their confessors would not break the seal anyway.

Which make my next point: those accusations towards the bishops “the bishops knew and covered it up” may very well be the oversimplification version of a much much more complicated situation.
 
Last edited:
Following the trail of the money would be more prudent than to make a case whether the bishops knew, because if that knowledge came from confessionals, then the next logical move is to unnecessarily break the seal of confession for investigation purposes. The trail of money and papers shows whether they knew, there is no need to break the seal of confession.

I also think that it’s unnecessary to relate the crime with whether an abuser is a traditonalist or whether the believe system comes from progressive movement, or even Vatican II, because it’s just creating a mask for the real crime: as if it’s a theological or even church politic issue, when the truth is, it’s just a crude greed and sex crime.

It’s a very messy sad situation for the church and the victims.
 
It seems unrealistic to me that someone who has committed sexual abuse would go to confession knowing a priest has to report it. Whether or not the priest will break the seal and report it is one thing but why would someone who committed a crime risk being caught?

So doesn’t all this law do is prevent some people from accessing mercy while at the same time not helping to lessen the issue of abuse?
 
If an abuser confess, the confessor has to keep the secrecy of that confession. Probably a lay person, who doesn’t know this confessor duty, would be affraid to confess the abuse.

However, a priest is different than a lay person. First, a priest need to offer mass daily. The Body & Blood of Christ is very powerful and would convict this priest everytime he offer Mass. Sooner or later he would confess. Besides a priest knows full well that the confessor has a duty to keep his secret to the grave.

So to make a case that “the bishop knew” he probably in between his duty as a confessor and spiritual director of this priest, as well as the need to untangle the sticky situation and duty to avoid scandal and weaken the faith of the people. Not to mention short of priests as another factor pressure the bishops.

Moreover if there is organized homosexual activism who exploit the seal of confession: they know the church try hard not to cause scandal, so they see it as a weapon to push their agenda towards these bishops: they have two-edged sword that cut both ways. they get rid of the bishops they don’t like (by causing scandals), and replace them with whoever they want.

Therefore the best way to uproot their organized activity is to focus on their crime: the abuser and the money for their double life is misappropriation of donation. The later can be prevented by more prudent financial audit which is more transparent and able to say no to activities forbidden by catholic values & the bible

As for the abuse itself, I have a feeling that it wont stop even if we send to prison all the bishops. Because the root of the problem is permissive culture that allow self-gratification by exploiting others. The church need to expell the mentioned spirit from within her walls.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top