'Confession' of child abuse no longer secret?

[Ortho]

deb1:

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?

I have no idea why the guy would return week after week. But the point of developing a case is to make things as hard as posisble to encourage thought.

 

[ISTPQ]

this is a strange issue. the confessional has always been the sacred refuge of the desperate and the broken in spirit, and to attempt to violate that ancient boundary opens up a whole new can of worms with relation to the relationship between the church and the state. in all honesty, i doubt this law will be passed, and if it is, it probably won’t be obeyed.

 

[Ortho]

aurora77:

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.

Lawyer/client conidentiality does not apply when the lawyer knows a client is going to commit a crime.

Spousal privilege is not a first amendment issue. It’s is enacted by the legislature.

The state has always had the right to become involved in church affairs. The question has always been about the degee of such involvement.

 

[Ortho]

frleo:

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.

When was the rule about confidentiality enacted? Was there a time when people got up in front of the congregation and confessed? When were they first required to tell a priest?

Note that lawyers can’t withhold info about a crime they know is about to be committed. People still come back to lawyers.

 

[rightbehind]

Ortho:

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.

Error. The purpose of the Confessional is not to save a 7-year old girl from rape. The purpose of the confessional is to confess sins, crimes included, repent, and correct one’s life. The purpose is not to save 7 year olds from rape, or gangbangers from gangbanging, or alcoholics from drinking, or murdereres from murdering. The Confessional is a sacrament, not a social services agency. There is no wrongdoing when the Confessional is approached properly.

 

[Ortho]

rightbehind:

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.

Note that the priest going to the authorities is different than the authorities compelling the priest.

 

[aurora77]

Ortho:

Lawyer/client conidentiality does not apply when the lawyer knows a client is going to commit a crime.

Spousal privilege is not a first amendment issue. It’s is enacted by the legislature.

I know that–I should have broken that into another paragraph. The state dictating Church policy is a 1st amendment violation.

 

[rightbehind]

Ortho:

Note that the priest going to the authorities is different than the authorities compelling the priest.

Of course it is. The priest goes to the authorities with that which is required to report- that which he became aware of outside the confessional. At this time, the law still upholds the sacred seal of confidentiality of the Confessional. If it ever does otherwise- several Constitutional amendments will be violated and one of the founding principles of this country negated. Not only that, but in order for a state to force the violation of confidentiality which they would not be able to do amyway without the priest’s cooperation, many Supreme Court cases also would have to be overturned. The legal protection of seal of confidentiality upheld by the law of the land is one of the major items saving us from a fascist or communist government. In order to make breaking that seal by the state legal, one simply would have to overturn major parts of the constitution.

 

[Ortho]

aurora77:

I know that–I should have broken that into another paragraph. The state dictating Church policy is a 1st amendment violation.

The state can’t dictate Church policy, but it can act to stop the implementation of some church policy. It can also force the church to do things that are not within church policy, or are contrary to church policy.

 

[Ortho]

rightbehind:

Yes. And your point?

The legislative proposal that sparked this thread would compel priests to divulge infrmation. In that, one could say the confession was being used as a secular instrument.

Lacking such legislation, a priest volunteering information to the police would not necessarily be using the confession as a secular instrument.

 

[Ortho]

rightbehind:

Of course it is. The priest goes to the authorities with that which is required to report- that which he became aware of outside the confessional. At this time, the law still upholds the sacred seal of confidentiality of the Confessional. If it ever does otherwise- several Constitutional amendments will be violated and one of the founding principles of this country negated. Not only that, but in order for a state to force the violation of confidentiality which they would not be able to do amyway without the priest’s cooperation, many Supreme Court cases also would have to be overturned. The legal protection of seal of confidentiality upheld by the law of the land is one of the major items saving us from a fascist or communist government. In order to make breaking that seal by the state legal, one simply would have to overturn major parts of the constitution.

Which major part?

 

[WanderAimlessly]

Ortho:

The state can’t dictate Church policy, but it can act to stop the implementation of some church policy. It can also force the church to do things that are not within church policy, or are contrary to church policy.

I think we need a civics lession here. Here is the First Admendment of the US Constitution:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

What you are saying is the state does have control. It does not.

PF

 

[rightbehind]

Ortho:

Which major part?

The First Amendment

 

[WanderAimlessly]

rightbehind:

The First Amendment

Amendment I:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

PF

 

[Rosalinda]

Originally posted by Ortho.

A man confesses to a priest that he has been raping his 7-year-old daughter. Every week the man confesses the same thing.

Today’s post by Ortho.

Lawyer/client confidentiality does not apply when the lawyer knows a client is going to commit a crime.

You are changing the parameters of your own original hypothesis suggesting the priest now has the powers of a fortuneteller and knows the future. Furthermore, you make three big false assumptions.

#1. You assume the priest knows the identity of the penitent.
#2. You assume the penitent gave the identity of his victim.
#3. You assume the sacrament of reconciliation cannot heal sinners and strengthen them: build up virtue and reduce the inclination towards vice.

It is time for you to do some serious thinking as the probability of someone ever bothering to go to confession, every week no less, when he obviously has no firm purpose of amendment is about as likely as opening the church door and finding an elephant dancing with a polar bear! Your example is fanciful thinking: out-of-touch with reality. A child molester is more likely to be in denial that any sin was ever perpetrated against the child rather than admit he has done wrong. Many pedophiles believe they are loving individuals bestowing love and attention on their victims. Hence, they are more likely to present themselves in the communion line than to seek forgiveness in a confessional.

Furthermore, do you think a insincere rapist would have dared to present himself to St. Padre Pio who had a reputation for a short temper and had the power to read souls? No. He would have been booted out until such time as he was prepared to make a good confession which means a radical change in lifestyle. What you have suggested is a sacrilegious abuse and perpetrates the stereotype of Catholics sinning during the week with the presumption of seeking God’s mercy in the sacrament of reconciliation on Saturday.

Consider the prayer sinners recite after confessing, "Oh, my God I am heartily sorry for having offended Thee ; I detest all my sins, not only because I dread the loss of heaven and the pains of Hell but because Thou art all good and worthy of all my love. I firmly resolve with the help of Thy grace to sin no more and to avoid the near occasion of sin."

 

[vern_humphrey]

GoLatin:

I thought that people have a right to go to confession. Is this policy against Canon Law?

Not that I know of. The policy is plain – in fact, if a complaint is lodged against a priest, the Bishop’s main assistant is charged with reminding the Bishop not to hear that priest’s confession.

 

[Ortho]

**Amendment I:**PF

That’s what the amendment says, but the state does interfere in the exercise of religion. As interpreted through the years, the state stays away from legitimate and reasonable exercise of religion. But legitimate and reasonable are standards that can change.

 

[Ortho]

Rosalinda:

Originally posted by Ortho.

Today’s post by Ortho.

You are changing the parameters of your own original hypothesis suggesting the priest now has the powers of a fortuneteller and knows the future. Furthermore, you make three big false assumptions.

#1. You assume the priest knows the identity of the penitent.
#2. You assume the penitent gave the identity of his victim.
#3. You assume the sacrament of reconciliation cannot heal sinners and strengthen them: build up virtue and reduce the inclination towards vice.

It is time for you to do some serious thinking as the probability of someone ever bothering to go to confession, every week no less, when he obviously has no firm purpose of amendment is about as likely as opening the church door and finding an elephant dancing with a polar bear! Your example is fanciful thinking: out-of-touch with reality. A child molester is more likely to be in denial that any sin was ever perpetrated against the child rather than admit he has done wrong. Many pedophiles believe they are loving individuals bestowing love and attention on their victims. Hence, they are more likely to present themselves in the communion line than to seek forgiveness in a confessional.

Furthermore, do you think a insincere rapist would have dared to present himself to St. Padre Pio who had a reputation for a short temper and had the power to read souls? No. He would have been booted out until such time as he was prepared to make a good confession which means a radical change in lifestyle. What you have suggested is a sacrilegious abuse and perpetrates the stereotype of Catholics sinning during the week with the presumption of seeking God’s mercy in the sacrament of reconciliation on Saturday.

Consider the prayer sinners recite after confessing, "Oh, my God I am heartily sorry for having offended Thee ; I detest all my sins, not only because I dread the loss of heaven and the pains of Hell but because Thou art all good and worthy of all my love. I firmly resolve with the help of Thy grace to sin no more and to avoid the near occasion of sin."

Since I dreamed up the case, I get to define it.

Your items #1 and #2 are definitely in my case. Without them the case wouldn’t be much fun. I didn’t put anything about item #3 in the case, but simply said this happened every week.

Cases are used to test the validity and rationale for proposed action in the sterile confines of a discussion. As such, my case has been a smashing success here.

Padre Pio is not featured in the case.

 

[Ortho]

vern humphrey:

Not that I know of. The policy is plain – in fact, if a complaint is lodged against a priest, the Bishop’s main assistant is charged with reminding the Bishop not to hear that priest’s confession.

What is the reason for this policy?

 

[vern_humphrey]

Ortho:

What is the reason for this policy?

I suggest you address that question to the Right Reverend J. Peter Sartain, the Bishop of Little Rock.