Breaking the Seal of Confession: Australia

  • Thread starter Thread starter Margaret_Ann
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
BadgerHoney said:
By the way, the freedom of religion is a totally secular concept. It has nothing to do with theology. In the US it rests on the first amendment.
Click to expand...
Which is why I said that you could not base your argument in favor of breaking the confession seal on a theological argument that people do not need to confess their sins to a priest
.
 
FiveLinden said:
I don’t want to derail the thread but the US constitution is responsible for the absurd levels of gun ownership and consequent misuse is in the US. Happy to take part in another thread if you start one.
Click to expand...
Wow. Just wow. Thanks for spreading misinformation through one liners that can’t be rebuttaled without going off topic.

Gun ownership in the US has saved hundreds of thousands, if not millions, through defensive use and as a check and balance against the government. And the lack of gun ownership has lead to the deaths of millions across the world.
 
Last edited:
Given the context of the thread, I was most likely referring to the 1st amendment not the 2nd
 
Right, as any normal person would, but FiveLinden made an egregious comment stating that the US Constitution kills people. I felt like that had to be called out.

I totally agree with you that it’s a shame the rest of the world has not adopted free speech as an ultimate law. It’s why people are being fined or jailed for speech that is being considered hateful (but isn’t a call to action), including the Church’s stance on homosexuality.
 
Last edited:
I would prefer to hear a priests comments on this thread,perhaps we talk to our own about it.
 
After seeing a newly ordained priest step out of the confessional efter hearing confessions for two hours straight and then giving a lecture I can say that a lot of his braincells were well fried.
 
BadgerHoney said:
So is this just a tempest in a teapot? An irrelevant law about something that never happens? Why the uproar in that case?
Click to expand...
Probably, yes. Aside from confessions behind a screen, even when I hear confessions face to face I often don’t actually know the person’s name - this is particularly true in larger parishes or during Rite II. Part of the problem in Australia was that the bishops there weren’t clear about what is and isn’t covered by the seal when they appeared before the Royal Commission - is it strictly limited to matters of sin (and the identity of the penitent) or does it go further than that? In other words, if a child should tell a priest in confession that they’ve been abused can the priest disclose that?
 
This is the Code of Canon Law re confession:

Can. 982 A person who confesses to having falsely denounced to ecclesiastical authority a confessor innocent of the crime of solicitation to a sin against the sixth commandment of the Decalogue, is not to be absolved unless that person has first formally withdrawn the false denunciation and is prepared to make good whatever harm may have been done.

Can. 983 §1 The sacramental seal is inviolable. Accordingly, it is absolutely wrong for a confessor in any way to betray the penitent, for any reason whatsoever, whether by word or in any other fashion.

§2 An interpreter, if there is one, is also obliged to observe this secret, as are all others who in any way whatever have come to a knowledge of sins from a confession.

Can. 984 §1 The confessor is wholly forbidden to use knowledge acquired in confession to the detriment of the penitent, even when all danger of disclosure is excluded.

§2 A person who is in authority may not in any way, for the purpose of external governance, use knowledge about sins which has at any time come to him from the hearing of confession.

Cont’d
 
And 2) Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches:

Canon 733
  1. The sacramental seal is inviolable; therefore the confessor must diligently refrain either by word, sign or any other manner from betraying the penitent for any reason.
  2. The obligation of observing secrecy also binds an interpreter if one is present, and also all others, to whom knowledge of the sins from confession comes in any way.
 
“JimG said:
If such a law were passed, pastors should post a prominent warning sign in every confessional or reconciliation room: “Warning: Anything you say here can and will be held against you in a court of law.” Priests should give a similar warning before every conversation or counseling session.
Click to expand...
What a terrible idea.
 
Last edited:
The exemption runs out on March 31st, for Canberra. Mandatory reporting for all adults begins in April.
South Australia already has mandatory reporting, that includes the confessional scenario, as does Tasmania I believe, or the Tasmanian bill could still be before the parliament.
 
Last edited:
That is news to me. I am more familiar with the major population states where there is no such law. If you could point to some references to the existence of laws binding on priests in the confessional, I’d appreciate that.
 
Please define major population states in an Australian context.
The ACT includes Canberra, the Capital of Australia. The seat of government.
Rau, this has been widely reported and debated. South Australia is a major population state.

All you need do is google. You will find this under mandatory reporting.
 
This is not a question of religion and secular. If someone confesses a crime that has been done or that they are planning to do it is the responsibility of said person hearing it to report it immediately for the safety of the community. No ifs ands or buts.
 
How can it be reported if the person hearing the confession does not know who has confessed, and has not seen his face or recognized his voice?
 
There will simply be Priests and Bishops in jail - far from the first time (or last) that has happened.
 
Personally, I doubt that anyone has confessed or will confess this crime. They certainly won’t if such a reporting mandate is put in place.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top