R
RolandThompsonGunner
Guest
Christ became incarnate and died for the soul of that child molester penitent. His soul is of paramount importance.
Can the seal of the confessional be defended on pragmatic grounds?
- Status
V
VanitasVanitatum
Guest
There would be no reason for them to unless they were actually repentant and would stop what they are doing.
V
VanitasVanitatum
Guest
Any sensible person would go to the police or therapy.
G
Gorgias
Guest
We do appreciate “competing interests”. However, in the context of the Sacrament of Reconciliation, we see the highest interest as the reconciliation of God and human. By that standard, reconciliation with God – which is both perfect and which has eternal effects – is of higher priority than human justice (which is imperfect and has merely temporal effects).
“I’m planning to commit a sin in the future” is not something that’s part of a confession of sin; what is confessed is something that a person has already done. Nevertheless, it may indicate a lack of commitment to avoid sin, which would lead to a lack of absolution of sin (which, technically speaking, wasn’t part of your question). Still, a priest would likely advise such a person to seek help, and might even offer to be part of the support system for that person in seeking help. Nevertheless, in his role as confessor, a priest is not a part of the criminal justice system, and does not participate as such.
That’s not a confession either.
Think about the slippery slope you’ve just created. Does the “common good” of society take priority over your soul? After all, if you confess “I cheated on my taxes” or “I committed murder” likewise deal in dynamics of “innocent(s) are being harmed by my actions”. Where do you draw the line, then? And, why does your line become the standard by which all must abide?
The thing is… he doesn’t know that. Keep in mind that absolution has two prerequisites: sorrow for sins that have already been committed, and a commitment to avoid these sins in the future. By your very words, then, there is no conflict here – the priest gives absolution because he doesn’t “know that the child molester will continue to abuse children.”
And, if you come up with a definition of this that isn’t purely subjective, I’d be amazed. If you put ten people in a room, “do no harm” would likely result in eleven different definitions.
I
InThePew
Guest
I have had someone confess thoughts of self-harm to me before. I told them that I wanted to make sure that got the help they needed but for that to happen needed them to come and talk to me after I’d finished hearing confessions which they did. the same would apply equally to someone wanting to harm another person (be it sexaully of physcially). If they’re confessing it then it’s a safe bet that they’re wanting help. Yes a priest should do something - and that is what they can do but I can’t help someone unless they’re willing to allow themselves to be helped. Trust is both precious and fragile - it’s difficult to gain but only too easy to lose - and is essential if we want people to come to confession.
L
Leek
Guest
Seems like a huge conflict of interest for a priest to confess to another priest/bishop and then they can’t act on a known abuser in the diocese.
E
EmilyAlexandra
Guest
I am rather surprised that priests do not hear people confessing to sexual abuse of children and vulnerable adults or sexual harassment. I guess I must be wrong, but I had always assumed that at least some of the many priests and religious who committed these sorts of crimes must have mentioned them in confession. I guess they may be so depraved that they have not sense of guilt for it or so delusional that they don’t realise that they are sins. As for victims, I have definitely read about victims describing abuse in the context of confession.
Thank you. That is a very good answer to my original question. Those are good practical reasons why, pragmatically, the seal of the confessional may be a good thing, despite the arguments on the other side. It may well be that it does provide a context in which people can discuss their feelings in complete confidence, and this quite possibly does aid people in avoiding harm to themselves or others. Certainly I sometimes find it difficult to get the sort of help I would like from a doctor or other medical professional because I know that although they claim to respect patient confidentiality, there are actually so many exceptions, and the threshold for those exceptions is set so low, that I just assume that anything I tell a doctor or similar professional is public information. If I were a Catholic, I can see that I would perhaps benefit sometimes from knowing that I can tell a priest anything and he won’t reveal it under any circumstances.
Potentially, secular society would say that they are wrong. It depends whether the benefits outweigh the costs. The benefit could be that a paedophile confesses his sins and is encouraged to seek help to stop re-offending. Without the seal of the confessional, he would never have sought help and would have continued offending. The cost could be that the paedophile makes a superficial show of remorse, gets his absolution, and continues offending, and the priest is never able to raise his concerns with the authorities.
E
EmilyAlexandra
Guest
@OddBird The situation in Switzerland certainly sounds very complicated, and there is an interesting rationale behind it. I certainly can see the argument that, since people only share this information with you because you are an ordained minister, it follows that ordained ministers should be allowed to respect that confidence absolutely. It would follow that if you were not an ordained minister, the information simply would not exist.
I am interested that you say that this rule also applies to “other professions where secrecy is necessary”. In the UK, the only profession in which confidentiality is generally speaking respected absolutely is the law, although there are exceptions even to this. In medicine and similar professions, there are really very few safeguards regarding disclosure of confidential information.
It is good to know that there is a way of ministers alerting the authorities to cases of child abuse. However, I suppose what this does show is that in Switzerland, the secular authorities have decided that the seal of the confessional is not completely inviolable. They may only have made one single exception, but it is nonetheless an exception which shows that, pragmatically, the authorities have decided that the seal of the confessional is not absolute, that there is one instance in which it should be broken.
I am interested that you say that this rule also applies to “other professions where secrecy is necessary”. In the UK, the only profession in which confidentiality is generally speaking respected absolutely is the law, although there are exceptions even to this. In medicine and similar professions, there are really very few safeguards regarding disclosure of confidential information.
It is good to know that there is a way of ministers alerting the authorities to cases of child abuse. However, I suppose what this does show is that in Switzerland, the secular authorities have decided that the seal of the confessional is not completely inviolable. They may only have made one single exception, but it is nonetheless an exception which shows that, pragmatically, the authorities have decided that the seal of the confessional is not absolute, that there is one instance in which it should be broken.
Last edited:
E
EmilyAlexandra
Guest
You would say that because from the tone of you reply I would assume that you are very strong in your Catholic faith. People who are not Catholics would probably say that there are higher priorities than salvation of souls. For example, protecting children from abuse. As a non-Catholic, I would say that saving even one child from being abused is more important than saving the souls of every person in the world. Thus, this is not a theological question; it is a practical question. That is why I say, are there pragmatic grounds for the seal of the confessional. In practical terms, are more children likely to be saved from abuse by maintaining the seal of the confessional or by violating it?
But it could come up in the course of the confession.
The part of “absolute” that is not clear is that part about which I am seeking clarification.
You believe that everyone who goes to confession is genuinely contrite? I once spoke to a priest who told me that not everyone who goes to confession is genuinely contrite. He gave the example of someone who goes to confession every Saturday evening just before the vigil Mass to confess that he has been having sex with his girlfriend all week. He said eventually it became clear that the chap had no intention of not sinning and just wanted to get absolved so that he could receive Holy Communion each week.
I guess because it doesn’t make sense to those of us who are not Catholics.
I would agree, but then I see that you are a Protestant, so perhaps it is not wholly surprising that your position on this is closer to mine than it is to the Catholic position. I would note, however, that Anglicans are also Protestants, and they also have the seal of the confessional.
It is not completely inviolable for those of us ministers who are not bound by the seal the way a Catholic priest is. For a priest, the seal would indeed be absolute with no exceptions.
That said, most ministers I know would seriously hesitate before asking to be freed from their obligation to secrecy, because keeping absolute secrecy is one of the solemn promises made during pastoral consecration.
The relevant law article names, in that order :
Clergy, lawyers, court defenders, notaries, patent advisors, supervisors and auditors, medical doctors, dentists, chiropractors, pharmacists, midwives, psychologists, nurses, physiotherapists, occupational therapists, dieticians, optometrists, osteopaths, and their auxiliaries.
I
InThePew
Guest
I’m not saying it never happens but it’s rare. While attitudes were different in the past (in society generally and not just in the Church) these days anyone - not just a priest or religious - who confessed this would run into the difficulty of not being able to get what they were seeking - i.e. absolution - without having to agree to seek treatment from a counsellor or psychologist who would then of course report them! While absolution can’t be conditional an unwillingness to accept the need for help does go to contrition and the genuineness of their purpose of amendment.
As for victims, I have definitely read about victims describing abuse in the context of confession.
[/quote]
E
EmilyAlexandra
Guest
Interesting. Come to think of it, one of the things Switzerland is best known for outside Switzerland is its strict adherence to confidentiality in banking, so I suppose it should not surprise me too much that it has similar rules for medicine and similar professions. This is very laudable, and I wish that Britain had a similar law. In Britain, as I say, you basically have to assume that anything that you say to a doctor etc may one day be made public knowledge. For this reason, I definitely would not say anything to a doctor that I would wish to remain confidential. It is really not very difficult for a judge to issue a warrant for records to be seized or for a witness to attend court.
I actually know a psychotherapist who keeps two sets of notes. He has his official notes, which contain a minimum level of information, which are kept at the hospital, and he has his private notes, which are more extensive, which he keeps at home. I don’t know whether this is strictly legal, but he does it to protect his clients’ confidentiality in the event that a court issues a warrant requiring him to surrender his records.
That is obviously a praiseworthy development. However, perhaps I am just very cynical, but my experience of sex offenders (admittedly limited to just a few examples) is that they generally: (1) are highly manipulative, (2) lack empathy for their victims, (3) lack genuine feelings of remorse, (4) have the ability to rationalise their behaviour to make their behaviour seem normal and/or portray themselves as the real victims.
I crossed paths once or twice with Dom Bernard Green. As a schoolmaster at Ampleforth, he sexually abused a boy. He admitted his guilt, professed to be repentant, and was moved on to Oxford. At Oxford, he continued his sexual abuse, although this time his victim was a young man. Again, he apologised, and he was allowed to keep his job. Then more allegations surfaced of more recent abuse. One must wonder about the sincerity of his admissions of guilt, his apologies, his promises to mend his ways. If somebody sexually abuses boys and young men over a period of at least 15 years, one must suspect that his contrition may have been less than genuine.
E
EmilyAlexandra
Guest
@FiveLinden Thank you. That was basically my question. I think that some others on this thread seem to be trying to answer a question that I did not ask. That is to say, they are simply reiterating official church teaching (of which I am already perfectly well aware) and making theological points. However, you are quite right that my question was, setting aside doctrine and canon law, are there also reasons grounded in a pragmatic perspective which would justify the principle of the seal of the confessional?
Of the pragmatic reasons suggested, the one which seems to me to be most persuasive is this:
But I do agree that this could be a strong argument in favour of the seal of the confessional: that it provides a setting in which somebody may be able to seek help for a problem, or be directed to seek help for a problem, for which they would not otherwise have received any professional treatment. Of course, the logical extension of this argument would be that such confidentiality should be extended not only to clergy but also to medical professionals, who are, after all, the people most likely to be approached for professional help or the people most likely to recommend professional help. And yet conversations between doctors and patients are not privileged in the same way as conversations between clergy and parishioners are privileged. It does seem odd to me that the clergy are thus placed on a higher level than the healthcare professions when it comes to upholding the confidentiality of people who come to them seeking help.
Of the pragmatic reasons suggested, the one which seems to me to be most persuasive is this:
Of course, we do not need to confine ourselves to the question of sexual abuse in the Catholic Church: that has merely become one of the most contentious aspects of this debate due to the scale of sexual abuse in the Catholic Church and the perception, rightly or wrongly, that the seal of the confessional may have contributed to the problem. People discussing feelings of wishing to self-harm or commit suicide would also be relevant in this context.
But I do agree that this could be a strong argument in favour of the seal of the confessional: that it provides a setting in which somebody may be able to seek help for a problem, or be directed to seek help for a problem, for which they would not otherwise have received any professional treatment. Of course, the logical extension of this argument would be that such confidentiality should be extended not only to clergy but also to medical professionals, who are, after all, the people most likely to be approached for professional help or the people most likely to recommend professional help. And yet conversations between doctors and patients are not privileged in the same way as conversations between clergy and parishioners are privileged. It does seem odd to me that the clergy are thus placed on a higher level than the healthcare professions when it comes to upholding the confidentiality of people who come to them seeking help.
Apologies. Perhaps I could have worded the question better. I understand the theological basis for the seal of the confessional. However, I am also aware that it has come under attack over recent years from secular authorities. E.g., an actual law in Victoria and proposed laws in other Australian states and territories, and proposed laws in Ireland, California, and Utah. What I am wondering is whether there are non-theological grounds for resisting such laws. That is to say, can one defend the seal of the confessional against secular attacks by appealing to pragmatic arguments rather than just reiterating Catholic teachings?
Actually… the banking secrecy was done with ten years ago (and it was never absolute to begin with)
Bankers do not feature in that law text (Swiss penal code, art. 321).
In the good ol’ days, the only case where a Swiss banker would have given information about a client was if there was strong presumption of them having committed a crime punishable by penal law.
But after the 2008 financial crisis, the pressure - first and foremost the American pressure - to have them transmit information about people who hide their money from their government became so strong, and the (economical) stakes so high, that the Swiss federal government complied and put an end to secrecy.
Now banks are bound to transmit informations about suspected fraudsters to any authority who asks for it.
Last edited:
E
EmilyAlexandra
Guest
To be honest, I suspect that that is a little naive. How many paedophiles have there been among Catholic clergy and religious? A few estimates pulled from the internet suggest 4,392 in the US between 1950 and 2002, 1,670 in Germany between 1946 and 2014, more than 1,300 in Ireland, and at least 1,880 in Australia between 1980 and 2015. Worldwide, the number of abusers must be in the tens of thousands at least. You don’t think that any of those people ever mentioned their paedophilia in the confessional? And if they did, do you honestly believe that they all did so in a spirit of genuine repentance and never offended again?
Note that I also mentioned victims. There have definitely been victims who have used the confessional to talk about having been abused, and the priest has used the seal of the confessional as an excuse for not doing anything about it.
Again, this seems naive. People in desperate situations are often the least likely to know how to access the help that they need.
I can see that that may be the view of somebody who is a very committed Catholic. Outside the Catholic Church, I think most people would consider that safeguarding children and vulnerable adults here and now is more important than reconciling people with God. Hence why in my original question I asked for pragmatic reasons, rather than theological ones.
S
stpurl
Guest
Pragmatism is all very well, “But we preach Christ crucified, which is a stumbling block to the Jews, and foolishness to the Gentiles.”
What it comes down to is natural versus supernatural.
Natural wisdom gives us pragmatism; an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, all is subordinated to the state/society to protect the physical wellbeing of the state/society.
NOT to protect individuals, you see. Pragmatically if the United States (the government acting for the inhabitants) is in danger, what will be protected will not be each and every person, but whatever and whomever are deemed to be required and necessary for the benefit of the country—which benefit is determined by those ‘in charge’ based on their opinion.
Anything which is considered not essential is not ‘pragmatic’.
God, of course, has somewhat different requirements of us beyond ‘pragmatism’.
What it comes down to is natural versus supernatural.
Natural wisdom gives us pragmatism; an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, all is subordinated to the state/society to protect the physical wellbeing of the state/society.
NOT to protect individuals, you see. Pragmatically if the United States (the government acting for the inhabitants) is in danger, what will be protected will not be each and every person, but whatever and whomever are deemed to be required and necessary for the benefit of the country—which benefit is determined by those ‘in charge’ based on their opinion.
Anything which is considered not essential is not ‘pragmatic’.
God, of course, has somewhat different requirements of us beyond ‘pragmatism’.
V
vsedriver
Guest
that’s why we have HIPAA laws in the USA. It’s very, very hard to get someone’s medical records. Sometimes you can’t even get your own records moved from one doctor to another!
P
phil19034
Guest
First: doctor-patient confidentiality, attorney-client privilege, etc are all based on the Seal of Confession.
Second: historically, attorney-client privilege cannot be broken either. If the FBI or police (for example) pressures an attorney with jail time to break attorney-client privilege, that attorney can be disbarred for giving into law enforcement. The current exceptions to attorney-client privilege are relatively new. However, the important thing is that any attorney-client privilege exceptions that exist are created by the government that granted the attorney-client privilege in the first place.
Now to the practical advantages for the Seal of Confession for the govt. When people confess their sins, they are typically sorry for them. It’s usually only in the movies that someone confesses to keep from getting trouble.
When a sorry person confesses their sins to a priest, the priest is usually going to urge the person to make restitution for their sin (esp if a crime). Restitution could mean turning oneself in, or quietly returning a stolen item, or making a financial contribution to make up for the crime, etc.
The point is, people who go to confession are trying to become better people. So going to confession can help criminals turn their life around to help them stop committing crimes.
One of the reasons for prisons is to prevent the criminal from committing a crime. Well, if confession gets the person to stop committing a crime, then it’s done the public a service.
If you take away the Seal of Confession, you prevent criminals from confessing their crimes, and any benefit society receives from criminals going to confession is eliminated.
My point: how many criminals are going to be arrested if priests are forced to break the Seal of Confession? ZERO - because the criminal won’t confess them.
So in practice, forcing priests to break the Seal of Confession does NOTHING to make the public safer.
It simply an attack on the Catholic Church, and NOTHING more.
God Bless
Second: historically, attorney-client privilege cannot be broken either. If the FBI or police (for example) pressures an attorney with jail time to break attorney-client privilege, that attorney can be disbarred for giving into law enforcement. The current exceptions to attorney-client privilege are relatively new. However, the important thing is that any attorney-client privilege exceptions that exist are created by the government that granted the attorney-client privilege in the first place.
Now to the practical advantages for the Seal of Confession for the govt. When people confess their sins, they are typically sorry for them. It’s usually only in the movies that someone confesses to keep from getting trouble.
When a sorry person confesses their sins to a priest, the priest is usually going to urge the person to make restitution for their sin (esp if a crime). Restitution could mean turning oneself in, or quietly returning a stolen item, or making a financial contribution to make up for the crime, etc.
The point is, people who go to confession are trying to become better people. So going to confession can help criminals turn their life around to help them stop committing crimes.
One of the reasons for prisons is to prevent the criminal from committing a crime. Well, if confession gets the person to stop committing a crime, then it’s done the public a service.
If you take away the Seal of Confession, you prevent criminals from confessing their crimes, and any benefit society receives from criminals going to confession is eliminated.
My point: how many criminals are going to be arrested if priests are forced to break the Seal of Confession? ZERO - because the criminal won’t confess them.
So in practice, forcing priests to break the Seal of Confession does NOTHING to make the public safer.
It simply an attack on the Catholic Church, and NOTHING more.
God Bless
E
EmilyAlexandra
Guest
Thanks, this is interesting:
I believe our rules are broadly similar. Medical records and evidence of medical professionals can be compelled by courts and by other institutions established on a similar basis, such as statutory inquiries. A judge has the power to issue a warrant or summons, which can be executed if necessary by the police. In criminal investigations, for example, I believe that medical records are covered by Schedule 1 to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, which provides for orders to be made by district judges, circuit judges, and judge advocates. In the case of statutory inquiries, the inquiry chairman or the minister of the Crown applies for a request to be enforced by the High Court or the Court of Session. In reality, of course, people often voluntarily sign away their rights to confidentiality on the grounds that it’s actually less invasive of one’s privacy to agree to records being handed over etc than it is to have them forcibly seized (which is generally speaking a foregone conclusion) following a court hearing.
J
JanR
Guest
The seal of the confessional is sacred and inviolate, no matter what. It is absolute, and it must remain so. It involves a sacred trust not only between the priest and the penitent, but God, as well. This must never be broken, under any circumstances.
When I was attending Catechism classes as a kid, the sister who taught us related the following story: After the queen had made her confession, the king went to the priest and demanded to know what the queen had told him. The priest refused. He said he couldn’t violate the sacred seal of the confessional, even if it meant his life. it did. The king had him bound hands and feet and thrown into the river, where he drowned.
That’s how precious and important that seal is.
When I was attending Catechism classes as a kid, the sister who taught us related the following story: After the queen had made her confession, the king went to the priest and demanded to know what the queen had told him. The priest refused. He said he couldn’t violate the sacred seal of the confessional, even if it meant his life. it did. The king had him bound hands and feet and thrown into the river, where he drowned.
That’s how precious and important that seal is.
- Status