'Confession' of child abuse no longer secret?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Rosalinda
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Ortho, it boils down to two points.
  1. Revealing in any fashion anything that the penitent said in the confessional is a gravely, intrinsically evil act.
If there were any moral manner in which the priest could save the girl in your example, he would be required to do so. However, there is no way for the priest in your example to stop the child rapist or the poisoner without violating the seal of the confessional, other than prayer. If you would claim otherwise, state how!
  1. Evil is evil. The ends do not justify the means.
Thus, one cannot justify committing an evil action (breaking the seal of the confessional) in the pursuit of a good cause (ending child abuse).

As for point two, this is not merely a Catholic perspective, but a general philosophical point. For instance, if I told you that a particular 7 year old girl happens to be a perfect match for several individuals needing organs (1 heart, 2 kidneys, etc.), would you be in favor of killing the girl in order to save 10 lives? By saying no, you recognize that even the great good of saving 10 lives cannot justify the evil of taking one life.

There cannot exist any argument about point one. The Church has declared violating the Seal of the Confessional grounds for automatic excommunication, clear indication of how evil the Catholic Church considers this action. While others may not agree with the Catholic Church, that is irrelevant to this case. To force Catholic priests to act in a fashion inconsistent with such fundamental Catholic Church teachings would constitute governmental suppression of the Catholic Church.
 
40.png
Ortho:
Sounds to me like you don’t understand murder. Serving poisoned wine to folks is mass murder.
Click to expand...
The person who poisoned the wine is the murderer. The priest was “standing in” for Christ during the confession processor so that the person confessing their sins had someone to interface with. Therefore, NONE of what the priest learned during the confession could be used outside of the confession even if it were to save his own life or that of others because the information that he obtained was not given to him but given to him in his role of representing Christ.

Again, you are thinking according to your own moral code of what is right and wrong but as I already said, scripture tells us that God’s ways are not our ways and as high as the heavens are above the earth, so too are God’s ways above our ways – Isaiah 55:8-9.
 
40.png
Ortho:
Does he have any requirement to save the 7-year-old rape victim?
Click to expand...
If he can do so without breaking the seal of confession, absolutely. However, he can not commit a wrongful act even if it is for a good reason because that wrongful act would still be wrongful.
 
40.png
kaymart:
I WILL SAY IT LOUDER —THE PRIEST TOOK SACARED VOWS HE CAN NOT BREAK THEM. NOT EVEN TO SAVE THE 7 YEAR OLD. THE PRIEST IS NOT HELD UP TO SECULAR LAW IN THIS CASE, ONLY GOD’S-----DO YOU GET IT?
Click to expand...
This has nothing to do with secular law. Doesn’t God’s law cover preventing the rape of a 7-yar-old girl?
 
40.png
urbana:
Ortho, it boils down to two points.
  1. Revealing in any fashion anything that the penitent said in the confessional is a gravely, intrinsically evil act.
If there were any moral manner in which the priest could save the girl in your example, he would be required to do so. However, there is no way for the priest in your example to stop the child rapist or the poisoner without violating the seal of the confessional, other than prayer. If you would claim otherwise, state how!
  1. Evil is evil. The ends do not justify the means.
Thus, one cannot justify committing an evil action (breaking the seal of the confessional) in the pursuit of a good cause (ending child abuse).

As for point two, this is not merely a Catholic perspective, but a general philosophical point. For instance, if I told you that a particular 7 year old girl happens to be a perfect match for several individuals needing organs (1 heart, 2 kidneys, etc.), would you be in favor of killing the girl in order to save 10 lives? By saying no, you recognize that even the great good of saving 10 lives cannot justify the evil of taking one life.

There cannot exist any argument about point one. The Church has declared violating the Seal of the Confessional grounds for automatic excommunication, clear indication of how evil the Catholic Church considers this action. While others may not agree with the Catholic Church, that is irrelevant to this case. To force Catholic priests to act in a fashion inconsistent with such fundamental Catholic Church teachings would constitute governmental suppression of the Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
Why is preventing the rape of a 7-year=old girl using info from confession an intrinsically evil act? It sounds like a rule the church made.
 
Sir Knight:
The person who poisoned the wine is the murderer. The priest was “standing in” for Christ during the confession processor so that the person confessing their sins had someone to interface with. Therefore, NONE of what the priest learned during the confession could be used outside of the confession even if it were to save his own life or that of others because the information that he obtained was not given to him but given to him in his role of representing Christ.

Again, you are thinking according to your own moral code of what is right and wrong but as I already said, scripture tells us that God’s ways are not our ways and as high as the heavens are above the earth, so too are God’s ways above our ways – Isaiah 55:8-9.
Click to expand...
The priest isn’t standing in for anyone when he serves the poisoned wine. He is the murderer. What is the problem with getting new wine?
 
Sir Knight:
If he can do so without breaking the seal of confession, absolutely. However, he can not commit a wrongful act even if it is for a good reason because that wrongful act would still be wrongful.
Click to expand...
Is it a wrongful act to allow the continued rape of a 7-year-old?
 
40.png
Ortho:
Non-issue? I disagree. A 7-year-old is repeatedly being raped. What is the responsible thing for the priest to do?
Click to expand...
Pray for the soul of the person who told him, deny him absolution after continued offenses, try to encourage feelings of true remorse in him, and pray for his soul, and say nothing about it to anybody- even if asked. The seal of confession may not be violated for any reason- even under the threat of torture or death, the priest is bound, under pain of mortal sin- and automatic excommunication (which only the pope can lift), not to reveal what he has heard to anyone.
 
40.png
Ortho:
So, this priest is faced with saving a 7-year-old girl from repeated rape, or keeping quiet about what he learned in confession. Why is it responsible to do nothing to help the little girl? (Remember, the case says the priest can’t help the girl without revealing what he learned in confession.)
Click to expand...
The priest has to answer to God and he can not tell.
 
40.png
Ortho:
The priest isn’t standing in for anyone when he serves the poisoned wine. He is the murderer. What is the problem with getting new wine?
Click to expand...
The priest would be using information that isn’t his to use. He would be using information that was intended for God alone. It is for this reason that a lot of priests pray before and after hearing confession asking God to erase from their memory all that they have heard – from the tinyest little sin that nobody would even think twice about to the most horrible sin in the world … because none of that was intended for the priest’s ears but were told to him in his role of standing in for Christ.
40.png
Ortho:
Is it a wrongful act to allow the continued rape of a 7-year-old?
Click to expand...
Yes.

But breaking the seal of confession is also a wrongful act and you can’t perform a wrongful act in order to prevent another wrongful act – this is a basic philosophical point which applies to all things and not just this particular subject that we are discussing.
 
Considering how few Catholics go to confession, isn’t this whole debate sort of moot?

Nohome
 
40.png
Ortho:
The 7-year-old rape victim is in a very secular situation. Secular society tries to protect her from being raped, and most of us cooperate in that protection. Some do not.
Click to expand...
I don’t know if anyone has pointed this out, as I have not gotten through all of this thread. The first person to drink the wine would be the priest, so he would drop dead first, therby warning his congregation.

As far as the seven year old girl…if the priest refused to give the man absolution then why would the rapist return week after week to confess. If the man believed that strongly then wouldn’t he listen to the priest’s advice to turn himself in?

Just a curious question…I know the priest can’t say what was told to him in a confession booth, but could he tell the authorities that they needed to speak with the little girl but not tell them why? I mean could he point them in the right direction.

A twist on the hypothetical situation…couldn’t the priest get to know the little girl, gain her trust and maybe encourage her to tell him what happened. At this point, as he was told outside of a confession, then he could tell the police?
 
The fact that information shared in the confessional is covered by the seal of confession leads people to trust the sacrament and to actually go to confession. If they thought the priest was going to report them they would not go in the first place. By going to confession, there is some hope that God’s grace and the advice from the priest could help the penitent change his or her life and even turn themselves in. If they do not go for fear of being turned in this opportunity is missed.

In the Air Force, communications of this type are confidential when they take place between an individual and a chaplain. I know of a senior chaplain at a base who indicated he would break that confidentiality in situations that might cause a person to be taken away from duty. The number of people seeking counseling at the chapel dropped. Instead of being able to work with them and lead them to report themselves to others who could help, the problems just festered internally until they were much worse problems. They would not seek help from a reporting source without some counsel to do so. They would not seek counsel from the chaplain for fear of being reported.

If priests were to break the seal of confession, even fewer people would seek to recieve the sacrament. Priests would not be able to lead people to true repentance. They would not be able to convince people to turn themselves in. There may not be an immediate reporting of the “crime”, but God, working on the conscience in the sacrament, might lead the person to turn themselves in much soon than if there were no seal and they did not hear the advice of the priest because they kept it to themselves.

While this may not be a quick escape for that particular 7 year old, there may be many other 7 year olds who get help quicker because the penitent heeds the advice recieved in confession and turns themselves in to the authorities. No seal → no confession → no advice → no repentence → no turning self in → continuation of the crime until it really explodes. The seal of the confessional can lead to the breaking of the habit sooner in many cases than reporting the abuse.

I hope this helps you see the true value of the seal of confession.
 
Thank you, Father McDowell.

I think we should look at this differently – it is not unusual for heinous criminals to go free in this country because the police questioned them without reading them their rights, conducted a search without a warrant or made some other mistake.

We don’t like it when that happens, but we understand it – if the Constitution is to be preserved, the state cannot profit by violating it.

Similarly, if the Sacrement of Penance is to be preserved, the seal of the confessional must be absolute.

I note in my diocese, the policy for protecting children includes a refusal to hear sacremental confession from a person suspected of child abuse while there is an investigation in progress.
 
40.png
Ortho:
This has nothing to do with secular law. Doesn’t God’s law cover preventing the rape of a 7-yar-old girl?
Click to expand...
Yes, Ortho, it does. But you were speaking of Confession, not rape, and God’s law requires confidentiality not be violated. If the priest is told outside of confession, then he must report the abuse.But what is said in Confession, stays there. The confessional may not be used as a secular instrument to clean up society, anymore than the Eucharist may be used to direct politics.
 
Thank you, Fr. Leo, for your analysis.

Has anyone thought about where this would lead? If a priest suddenly can be forced to reveal things told to him in confession–what’s next to go? Lawyer/client privilege–I mean, defense lawyers must hear things all the time, why not force them to reveal that information? Spousal privilege? Also, isn’t this a huge violation of the First Amendment? The State getting involved in Church afffairs is just wrong.
 
Lisa4Catholics said:
The priest has to answer to God and he can not tell.
Click to expand...

What would God recommend in the situation?

If the priest answered God that he went to the girl’s house that night with ice cream so the father didn’t have the opportunity, would God give him a ration?
 
vern humphrey:
I note in my diocese, the policy for protecting children includes a refusal to hear sacremental confession from a person suspected of child abuse while there is an investigation in progress.
Click to expand...
I thought that people have a right to go to confession. Is this policy against Canon Law?
 
Sir Knight:
The priest would be using information that isn’t his to use. He would be using information that was intended for God alone. It is for this reason that a lot of priests pray before and after hearing confession asking God to erase from their memory all that they have heard – from the tinyest little sin that nobody would even think twice about to the most horrible sin in the world … because none of that was intended for the priest’s ears but were told to him in his role of standing in for Christ.

Yes.

But breaking the seal of confession is also a wrongful act and you can’t perform a wrongful act in order to prevent another wrongful act – this is a basic philosophical point which applies to all things and not just this particular subject that we are discussing.
Click to expand...
I’d suggest failing to act to save a 7-year-old girl from rape is a wrongful act. Therefore, in doing nothing one is doing a wrongful act.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top