O
Otar_Mendes
Guest
Were these institutions found to have been covering a massive child abuse practice by their members that lasted for XX years?
Child Abuse Royal Commission Calls for Dozens of Law Changes
- Status
D
DarkLight
Guest
I think a lot of it comes down to disbelief. Keep in mind the vast majority of child abusers are known to the family. And children often don’t have the words to express exactly what happened. So parents often end up thinking “There’s no way so-and-so could be an abuser. The kid must just be repeating something he heard on TV.” Or they miss it entirely because the child doesn’t have the words to explain what’s going on.Parents who don’t report child sexual abuse to the police should be prosecuted.
…one can only speculate as to the real reason why a parent would NOT want their sexually abused child talking to trained police psychologists about where the bad man touched them.
L
Lion_IRC
Guest
I think there is a more sinister explanation.
“Most adults who were abused as children were harmed by those in their immediate family rather than by those in religious, educational or health institutions, new research shows.”
smh.com.au/national/most-child-abuse-happens-at-home-data-on-adults-shows-20130728-2qsnv.html
“Most adults who were abused as children were harmed by those in their immediate family rather than by those in religious, educational or health institutions, new research shows.”
smh.com.au/national/most-child-abuse-happens-at-home-data-on-adults-shows-20130728-2qsnv.html
G
gus
Guest
That is just stupid and vindictive and has the potential to foster child abuse rather than prevent it.
The confessional may be the only place an abuser comes to grips with the reality of the crime. The priest has the power to grant or withhold absolution. If the abuser didn’t recognize they did. Something wrong they wouldn’t be there in the first place. That’s a rare opportunity to have that absolution contingent upon turning yourself in. Making restitution is a long held penitential requirement. Obviously restitution can take many forms.
Removing the seal iliminitates one potential deterrent to future acts. Of course the state really doesn’t care about decreasing the crime. As their public policies promote it.
The confessional may be the only place an abuser comes to grips with the reality of the crime. The priest has the power to grant or withhold absolution. If the abuser didn’t recognize they did. Something wrong they wouldn’t be there in the first place. That’s a rare opportunity to have that absolution contingent upon turning yourself in. Making restitution is a long held penitential requirement. Obviously restitution can take many forms.
Removing the seal iliminitates one potential deterrent to future acts. Of course the state really doesn’t care about decreasing the crime. As their public policies promote it.
F
FirstFiveEighth
Guest
Certain lawyers work every single day to get people who have confessed crimes to them off the hook completely or the lightest sentence possible.
Doctors or psychologists are of course a little different. Their patient confidentiality revolves more around preventing adverse treatment of individuals based on some condition.
The point is, confidentiality is a recognized and necessary institution in certain fields of life in our society. Singling out the confessional as some hub of criminal enabling is just ignorant.
C
Catholic_Opinion
Guest
http://wdtprs.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/seal-of-confession.jpgFrom a reader…
QUAERITUR:
EWTN is reporting that the Australian government is trying to make priests mandatory reporters for child abuse, by requiring them to report what they hear in confession. While this is, obviously, a direct assault on the sacrament, it’s the next part of the report that puzzles me…
In the statement, Francis Sullivan, CEO council, said that while the Catholic Church and the council itself “have consistently argued that these reporting provisions should not apply to the confessional, the Royal Commission has now made a different determination based on information and evidence it has heard over the past four years.”
“The whole concept of confession in the Catholic Church is built on repentance, forgiveness and penance,” Sullivan said, adding that “if a child sex-abuser is genuinely seeking forgiveness through the sacrament of confession they will need to be prepared to do what it takes to demonstrate their repentance.”
Part of this, he said, especially in cases of sexual abuse, “would normally require they turn themselves in to the police. In fact the priest can insist that this is done before dispensing absolution.” *?!?]
Is this part true?
Well… NO!*it isn’t.
And, sort of, yes it is. *We have to make distinctions.
First, NO! The priest cannot make absolution conditional upon a criminal turning herself in. *To wit: “I won’t give you absolution unless you turn yourself in.”
However, a priest can withhold absolution if he does not believe, on a firm grounding, that the penitent is truly sorry.
Hence, a priest can strongly urge, firmly counsel, warmly encourage a penitent to “do the right thing”, that is, conform her amended life to the dictates of justice. *However, if he has a moral certainty that the penitent is penitent and intends to amend her life, he should not withhold absolution.
When we commit a sin, we violate others, God and neighbor. Justice is the virtue which governs how we give to others that which is due to them. *If we hurt another person, we have to make some kind of restitution. *Often perfect or full restitution is incomplete and arbitrary. *In the case of God, we limited mortals cannot do anything proportioned to God’s infinite goodness. All the penances we get in the confessional are arbitrary in that sense. Also, how do we trulymake things up to people, or society, whom we have harmed? We have to do**something, of course, in justice. *Things will get sorted out in our Particular and, especially, General Judgment at the end of things.
So, upon hearing about some serious crime or other, one that means a lot more than speeding or unpaid parking tickets, the priest has to advise the penitent to do the right thing. *He can urge the person to turn herself in, but he can’t impose that as a condition of being absolved.
Part of the reason for that is found implictly also in the canons in the Code of Canon Law covering the Seal.
Can.* 983 §1: The sacramental seal is inviolable;therefore it is absolutely forbidden for a confessor to betray in any way apenitent in words or in any manner and for any reason.
Can.* 984 §1. A confessor is prohibited completelyfrom using knowledge acquired from confession to the detriment of the penitenteven when any danger of revelation is excluded.
Can. 983 doesn’t explicitly deal with the issue at hand, that is, requiring a penitent to turn herself in in order to receive absolution. *However, the Seal would be *implicitly**violated, because the direction of the priest to go to authorities would indirectly result in his causing the contents of the confession to be revealed to third parties. Priests cannot act on the information they receive“in any manner”, which includes constraining a criminal to (as his proxy instrument of the revelation of information)*reveal herself as such even if the crime was a really serious one.
Moreover,can. 984 clearly states thataconfessor may not usewhat he hears during a*confession “to the detriment of a penitent”. *One possible detriment would be that, by so directing, the priest could undermine the penitent’s trust and attachment and future use of the Sacrament of Penance, not to mention other detriments.
Furthermore, the validity of the absolution imparted by the priest does not depend on the completion of a penance assigned.
So, NO, priests cannot “force” penitents to turn themselves in as a condition for absolution.
It is possible, however, that the priest, having heard several times the confession of the same criminal who hasn’t done anything yet to “do the right thing”, might begin to wonder whether or not the penitent has the intention to amend her life. *That, of course, is another tale.
The moderation queue is ON.
Full entry…
QUAERITUR:
EWTN is reporting that the Australian government is trying to make priests mandatory reporters for child abuse, by requiring them to report what they hear in confession. While this is, obviously, a direct assault on the sacrament, it’s the next part of the report that puzzles me…
In the statement, Francis Sullivan, CEO council, said that while the Catholic Church and the council itself “have consistently argued that these reporting provisions should not apply to the confessional, the Royal Commission has now made a different determination based on information and evidence it has heard over the past four years.”
“The whole concept of confession in the Catholic Church is built on repentance, forgiveness and penance,” Sullivan said, adding that “if a child sex-abuser is genuinely seeking forgiveness through the sacrament of confession they will need to be prepared to do what it takes to demonstrate their repentance.”
Part of this, he said, especially in cases of sexual abuse, “would normally require they turn themselves in to the police. In fact the priest can insist that this is done before dispensing absolution.” *?!?]
Is this part true?
Well… NO!*it isn’t.
And, sort of, yes it is. *We have to make distinctions.
First, NO! The priest cannot make absolution conditional upon a criminal turning herself in. *To wit: “I won’t give you absolution unless you turn yourself in.”
However, a priest can withhold absolution if he does not believe, on a firm grounding, that the penitent is truly sorry.
Hence, a priest can strongly urge, firmly counsel, warmly encourage a penitent to “do the right thing”, that is, conform her amended life to the dictates of justice. *However, if he has a moral certainty that the penitent is penitent and intends to amend her life, he should not withhold absolution.
When we commit a sin, we violate others, God and neighbor. Justice is the virtue which governs how we give to others that which is due to them. *If we hurt another person, we have to make some kind of restitution. *Often perfect or full restitution is incomplete and arbitrary. *In the case of God, we limited mortals cannot do anything proportioned to God’s infinite goodness. All the penances we get in the confessional are arbitrary in that sense. Also, how do we trulymake things up to people, or society, whom we have harmed? We have to do**something, of course, in justice. *Things will get sorted out in our Particular and, especially, General Judgment at the end of things.
So, upon hearing about some serious crime or other, one that means a lot more than speeding or unpaid parking tickets, the priest has to advise the penitent to do the right thing. *He can urge the person to turn herself in, but he can’t impose that as a condition of being absolved.
Part of the reason for that is found implictly also in the canons in the Code of Canon Law covering the Seal.
Can.* 983 §1: The sacramental seal is inviolable;therefore it is absolutely forbidden for a confessor to betray in any way apenitent in words or in any manner and for any reason.
Can.* 984 §1. A confessor is prohibited completelyfrom using knowledge acquired from confession to the detriment of the penitenteven when any danger of revelation is excluded.
Can. 983 doesn’t explicitly deal with the issue at hand, that is, requiring a penitent to turn herself in in order to receive absolution. *However, the Seal would be *implicitly**violated, because the direction of the priest to go to authorities would indirectly result in his causing the contents of the confession to be revealed to third parties. Priests cannot act on the information they receive“in any manner”, which includes constraining a criminal to (as his proxy instrument of the revelation of information)*reveal herself as such even if the crime was a really serious one.
Moreover,can. 984 clearly states thataconfessor may not usewhat he hears during a*confession “to the detriment of a penitent”. *One possible detriment would be that, by so directing, the priest could undermine the penitent’s trust and attachment and future use of the Sacrament of Penance, not to mention other detriments.
Furthermore, the validity of the absolution imparted by the priest does not depend on the completion of a penance assigned.
So, NO, priests cannot “force” penitents to turn themselves in as a condition for absolution.
It is possible, however, that the priest, having heard several times the confession of the same criminal who hasn’t done anything yet to “do the right thing”, might begin to wonder whether or not the penitent has the intention to amend her life. *That, of course, is another tale.
The moderation queue is ON.
Full entry…
L
Lion_IRC
Guest
It would never be “to the detriment” of a pedophile (or their potential future victim) to report the matter to civil authorities as a prerequisite act of contrition.
So pleased to hear Archbishop Dennis Hart yesterday on the record as saying that he would withhold absolution if he felt such contrition was not forthcoming.
He also elaborated that such penitents might be asked/expected to discuss that very same
sin/crime with him after confession and that such a discussion would not be covered by the seal of confession.
Lastly, it was also very refreshing to hear such a high authority in the Church rebutting the false dilemma (canard) that we need to force priests to break the seal of confession or else some pedophiles might avoid capture and conviction. Hearsay evidence from a priest claiming that they heard person ‘x’ anonymously admit that they supposedly did ‘y’ to some third person whose real name/age may or may not have been provided, is worthless. Since when does this secular society place such high credibility on the ancient sacraments and rites of the Catholic Church as a valid source of truth? If a priest said God told them person ‘x’ was innocent/guilty would the police take any notice?
Ironically, the so-called ‘Royal’ commission heard reports about alleged pedophile confessions to priests from sources who apparently didn’t need anyone’s permission to talk about what was said in the confessional.
So pleased to hear Archbishop Dennis Hart yesterday on the record as saying that he would withhold absolution if he felt such contrition was not forthcoming.
He also elaborated that such penitents might be asked/expected to discuss that very same
sin/crime with him after confession and that such a discussion would not be covered by the seal of confession.
Lastly, it was also very refreshing to hear such a high authority in the Church rebutting the false dilemma (canard) that we need to force priests to break the seal of confession or else some pedophiles might avoid capture and conviction. Hearsay evidence from a priest claiming that they heard person ‘x’ anonymously admit that they supposedly did ‘y’ to some third person whose real name/age may or may not have been provided, is worthless. Since when does this secular society place such high credibility on the ancient sacraments and rites of the Catholic Church as a valid source of truth? If a priest said God told them person ‘x’ was innocent/guilty would the police take any notice?
Ironically, the so-called ‘Royal’ commission heard reports about alleged pedophile confessions to priests from sources who apparently didn’t need anyone’s permission to talk about what was said in the confessional.
S
shockerfan
Guest
I can’t speak to the scope of the abuse in Australia, but in the US, at its peak, the estimated number of abusive priests was similar to that in general society (around 4%). After the USCCB made reforms the number of credible allegations against priests is less than 0.02%. While any number of credible allegations greater than zero is too much, you will have a hard time (in the US) finding an institution with less of a problem than the Catholic Church.
P
pnewton
Guest
There is no “institution” of doctors or lawyers, so you do not know they or worse, better, or the same as Catholic clergy. And lawyers, most definitely cover up by not reporting their clients statements. That is their job.
J
JimG
Guest
The whole issue of confession “reporting” would be moot if all parishes would insist on use of confessionals which ensure privacy and anonymity. A priest in those confessionals can not even know who the penitent is.
J
JimG
Guest
But it should also be recalled that in some notorious U.S. child sex abuse cases in the 1980’s, parents were told by prosecutors and “experts” that their children were abused when in fact they were not. This resulted in numerous false convictions and unjust imprisonments.Parents who don’t report child sexual abuse to the police should be prosecuted.
…one can only speculate as to the real reason why a parent would NOT want their sexually abused child talking to trained police psychologists about where the bad man touched them.
R
Rau
Guest
The penitent could be the victim. A question arises what might the law expect the priest to do in this situation?
R
Rau
Guest
He is right, but he did not say they would in fact abide by the law, or that the Church would promulgate new rules that priests shall break the seal in the relevant circumstances. It simply means that priests would indeed be subject to the law, and be punished by the law if they break it.Catholic Church spokesperson Francis Sullivan from the Truth Justice and Healing Council agrees with the government ‘Royal’ Commission that, yes, priests would have to abide by new mandatory reporting laws.
Yep. That’s what he said.
R
Roseeurekacross
Guest
Please understand a good % of the child sexual abuse occurred in the old fashioned confessionals you describe, which is why the confessionals are now open.
R
Rau
Guest
The discussion also addressed the matter of when the perpetrator is the penitent. There are a number of ways in which a priest, in confession, might learn of child sexual abuse, including:
- from the perpetrator penitent;
- from the victim penitent;
R
Rau
Guest
Are you referring to verbal abuse, or do you mean the priest exited his cubicle, then entered the room where the penitent is located (passing through the Church to do this). Or invited the victim to exit their cubicle and enter the priest’s? Or are you envisaging a different room structure?
P
pepipop
Guest
Quite true. So let’s ‘assume’ the victim did not wish to pursue it with the police - do they too, have to be reported to the police and then be forced to name their abuser and go through harrowing legal proceedings.
I would presume, however, it is confessions’ of abusers that the police are solely interested in. If not, that will be another group of penitents that will not confess, or look for solace from this sin/crime, in confession.
D
DarkLight
Guest
Even outside of the confessional, it’s difficult with child abuse victims (adults too, but especially children). Victims often don’t realize they are victims. It would not surprise me for a child to confess their “sin” of being an abuse victim. That’s often how abusers keep their victim from telling - by manipulating the child into believing that they are the ones responsible and they will be punished if found out. So often they don’t want to pursue because they believe they are guilty, or that they will be unfairly targeting an abuser by pursuing charges.
I would hope the first thing a priest would do would be to encourage the child to understand that they are not guilty and that they should tell a trusted adult outside the confessional.
J
JimG
Guest
I guess I don’t understand. In the confessionals I am speaking of (and the kind we have in my parish), the priest would have to somehow physically remove the grille and crawl through an impossibly small space, to have physical access to the penitent. Either that, or exit the priest’s station and open the door to the penitent’s station, and everyone would see him do that. In any case, I’m glad we don’t have glass doors and windows; I like my privacy.
- Status