'Confession' of child abuse no longer secret?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Rosalinda
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
Ortho:
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.
Click to expand...
Except that, with the seal of confession, we have precedent. a precedent set and in place at the time of the writing if the Constitution itself. It is a precedent that has been challenged and tested in court in the past. Grounds for legally forcing a priest to reveal confessional material have never been found. The attempts have always legally failed. It is almost as hard to provide legal grounds for doctor’s to violate confidentiality, but grounds can be found for that. One of the reasons the Supreme Court has not had to hear petitions for this type of thing is the utter futility of trying to make a priest talk out of turn. One can make law that insists it is legal to break the seal and provides penalties such as contempt of court. Most priests would be happy to languish in jail rather than break the seal of confession. A gentler sort of martyrdom, actually. I think most law schools realize it would be a futile waste of time to create a change in that law.
 
40.png
deb1:
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?
Click to expand...
No. Because the priest can not use ANY information obtained in any way. Getting back to the poison wine. If only the priest and the penitent know about the poison wine, then the priest could FAKE an accident and cause the wine to spill and nobody would know about it – except God and the priest. And there lies the point … God would know that the priest spilled the wine on purpose and broke the seal of confession – breaking the vow he made to God.
40.png
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.
Click to expand...
You just don’t get it, do you? The seal of confession is absolute. No “if’s”, “and’s” or “but’s” – a priest takes a vow to almighty God that he will not use any information obtained during a confession in any way, shape or form even if it were to cost him his own life. That vow takes presidents over everything else because it is a promise to almighty God.
 
vern humphrey:
I suggest you address that question to the Right Reverend J. Peter Sartain, the Bishop of Little Rock.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure if there is some significance to Sartain. If so, I don’t know what it is.

Does anyone know why a bishop can’t hear a confession from a priest under investigation for child abuse?
 
40.png
rightbehind:
Except that, with the seal of confession, we have precedent. a precedent set and in place at the time of the writing if the Constitution itself. It is a precedent that has been challenged and tested in court in the past. Grounds for legally forcing a priest to reveal confessional material have never been found. The attempts have always legally failed. It is almost as hard to provide legal grounds for doctor’s to violate confidentiality, but grounds can be found for that. One of the reasons the Supreme Court has not had to hear petitions for this type of thing is the utter futility of trying to make a priest talk out of turn. One can make law that insists it is legal to break the seal and provides penalties such as contempt of court. Most priests would be happy to languish in jail rather than break the seal of confession. A gentler sort of martyrdom, actually. I think most law schools realize it would be a futile waste of time to create a change in that law.
Click to expand...
What precedent was set in place at the time of the witing of the Constitution? Who set it? Where?

A doctor is legally bound to tell police of suspected child abuse.

It used to be futile to get Mafia guys to talk. Now Omerta no longer rules.

I suspect one of the reasons legislation like this is being considered is because many people think the bishops betrayed them in the priest sex abuse fiasco. They trusted the bishops, and the bishops kept quiet at the expense of the kids. Many folks don’t want to let the Church functionaries do that again. The bishops lost trust built up over many years. It will be very hard to get it back again.
 
Sir Knight:
No. Because the priest can not use ANY information obtained in any way. Getting back to the poison wine. If only the priest and the penitent know about the poison wine, then the priest could FAKE an accident and cause the wine to spill and nobody would know about it – except God and the priest. And there lies the point … God would know that the priest spilled the wine on purpose and broke the seal of confession – breaking the vow he made to God.

You just don’t get it, do you? The seal of confession is absolute. No “if’s”, “and’s” or “but’s” – a priest takes a vow to almighty God that he will not use any information obtained during a confession in any way, shape or form even if it were to cost him his own life. That vow takes presidents over everything else because it is a promise to almighty God.
Click to expand...
Neglecting to save a 7-year-old from rape should be wrong in and of itself. What happened to that objective morality I hear so much about.

I think you might be on firmer ground if you said neglecting to save the 7-year-old from rape is wrong, and breaking a vow is wrong. Then the situation becomes one of a very difficult decision.

But insisting there is nothing wrong in neglecting to save a 7-year-old from rape is not a winner.
 
40.png
Rosalinda:
What do you think? Would this not be a disturbing violation of religious rights?

worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48522
Click to expand...
The Seal is absolute. Period. End of discussion.

I’ve heard all kinds of “exceptions” etc., but what it all boils down to is this: Either the Seal is ABSOLUTE or it is worthless. It is a matter of objective value.

If you bend even a little – you destroy the entire thing.

The Seal is absolute. Period.

Blessings,
 
40.png
Ortho:
Neglecting to save a 7-year-old from rape should be wrong in and of itself. What happened to that objective morality I hear so much about.

I think you might be on firmer ground if you said neglecting to save the 7-year-old from rape is wrong, and breaking a vow is wrong. Then the situation becomes one of a very difficult decision.

But insisting there is nothing wrong in neglecting to save a 7-year-old from rape is not a winner.
Click to expand...
Jesus gave absolute authority to His church saying that whatever they bind on earth will be bound in heaven and whatever they loosen on earth will be loosened in heaven. Jesus didn’t place any restrictions on this authority saying that it only applies to this or that. The authority was absolute and it was given to the church by God, Himself. Therefore, when the church binds a priest from in no way using anything that he has heard during a confession, that bound is honored in heaven by God. To break that seal of confession would be to go against something that God, Himself, said that He would support.
 
Mike Dye:
I havn’t read all the previous posts but it’s pretty much a mute question. Regardless of what secular laws are passed , no priest is going to violate the “seal” of confession!
Click to expand...
I think you mean “moot”, like I pointed out back in post #51. A mute question would be one that can’t be heard. (which may be your point, but I don’t think the RCC has the authority to mute a question)

I think it is unrealistic to say “no priest is going to violate the seal of confession”. Priests are just people, nothing more. They fail, make mistakes, abuse drugs/alcohol and are subject to myriad other downfalls like the rest of us. I think it is safe to say that the “seal” of confession already has been broken countless times.

Nohome
 
Sir Knight:
Jesus gave absolute authority to His church saying that whatever they bind on earth will be bound in heaven and whatever they loosen on earth will be loosened in heaven. Jesus didn’t place any restrictions on this authority saying that it only applies to this or that. The authority was absolute and it was given to the church by God, Himself. Therefore, when the church binds a priest from in no way using anything that he has heard during a confession, that bound is honored in heaven by God. To break that seal of confession would be to go against something that God, Himself, said that He would support.
Click to expand...
OK. Then the Church can change the rule?
 
In some ways this reminds me of the priest abuse fiasco.

The bishops chose to save the image of the Church rather than the abused kids.

In the confession discussion, people say it is more important to save the image of a church institution rather than save the 7-year-old rape victim.

In both cases Church image trumps suffering people.
 
Originally posted by Nohome
I think it is unrealistic to say “no priest is going to violate the seal of confession”. Priests are just people, nothing more. They fail, make mistakes, abuse drugs/alcohol and are subject to myriad other downfalls like the rest of us. I think it is safe to say that the “seal” of confession already has been broken countless times
Click to expand...
You have proof to back up your statement? To the contrary, Catholic priests have preferred death to breaking the seal of confession and they have been declared martyrs for the faith.
 
The state would do better to enforce its’ own laws requiring all health care workers to inform them in cases of suspected rape of children. The reality is Planned Parenthood abortion “clinics” routinely destroy the evidence of child abuse every time they abort a baby conceived as a result of incest and the like. By refusing to call the police even when underage victims tell them what happened they aid and abet these sexual predators. Witness the injunction brought against Kansas attorney general Phil Kline in 2003 by the abortion mill Aid for Women which was recently overturned. Time to stop “dreaming up” unrealistic scenarios and face the reality which is witnessed daily by pro-lifers keeping vigil on the sidewalks outside abortuaries.
 
40.png
Ortho:
In some ways this reminds me of the priest abuse fiasco.

The bishops chose to save the image of the Church rather than the abused kids.

In the confession discussion, people say it is more important to save the image of a church institution rather than save the 7-year-old rape victim.

In both cases Church image trumps suffering people.
Click to expand...
Perhaps you are confusing an institution which exists for the worship of God with a social services agency. The Church has several social services agencies- Catholic Charities for instance. It is not the role of the Church proper to police people.
 
40.png
Ortho:
In some ways this reminds me of the priest abuse fiasco.

The bishops chose to save the image of the Church rather than the abused kids.

In the confession discussion, people say it is more important to save the image of a church institution rather than save the 7-year-old rape victim.

In both cases Church image trumps suffering people.
Click to expand...
:banghead: :banghead: :banghead: The Church is not all about “saving its image” haven’t you read a single word posted here?
 
Nohome, your link was outdated and failed to open the video.

Originally posted by Ortho.
OK. Then the Church can change the rule?
Click to expand...
Ortho, read this quote from St. John Chrysostom because you don’t understand what the power of binding and loosing means. The Church cannot change this sacrament as it was originally instituted by Christ and handed down by the apostles; therefore, it is not something concocted or created by men. The seal of confession is not a minor exterior detail which can be altered in different cultures like giving the penitent the option to kneel or sit down when he confesses. Without the seal it would no longer be a valid sacrament and the faithful aren’t stupid automans who are going to pop into state run traps to confess their most private, shameful failings and wrongdoings. China has state run Catholic Churches and there are millions of underground Chinese Catholics. Is that your vision for America?
“Priests have received a power which God has given neither to angels nor to archangels. It was said to them: ‘Whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose, shall be loosed.’ Temporal rulers have indeed the power of binding; but they can only bind the body. Priests, in contrast, can bind with a bond which pertains to the soul itself and transcends the very heavens. Did [God] not give them all the powers of heaven? ‘Whose sins you shall forgive,’ he says, ‘they are forgiven them; whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.’ What greater power is there than this? The Father has given all judgment to the Son. And now I see the Son placing all this power in the hands of men [Matt. 10:40; John 20:21–23]. They are raised to this dignity as if they were already gathered up to heaven” (The Priesthood 3:5 [A.D. 387]).
Click to expand...
 
This concerns the hypothetical dilemma of a priest who regularly hears the confession of a man who seeks absolution for the repeated rape of his 7 year old daughter. Either the penitent tells the priest he can’t stop and will probably do it again or it’s the inescapable inference because the priest hears the same penitent confess the same sin (crime) repeatedly.

Here’s my take:
  1. The hypothetical presumes the priest knows who the penitent is. This may or not be the case, but I’ll assume the priest knows him.
  2. The priest can condition absolution on the penitent turning himself into the police or obtaining psychological/psychiatric help.
  3. The priest can alert family members or the police on an anonymous basis that the child may be a victim of abuse without being more specific than that. It’s a question of a general warning without naming the penitent, but which should suffice to steer the appropriate people in the right direction.
  4. The question is between past sins and indication of the intention (or inability to avoid) the crime/sin in the future. It seems that when the penitent tells a priest about his intent to commit a crime of violence or sexual predation IN THE FUTURE, the priest has a moral duty to do all he can to prevent the crime without breaking the seal of the confessional. I think this can be done on an anonymous basis without naming the penitent or indicating the origin of the information. This is not evidence in the strict sense but it could well prevent the commission of the crime. I think that’s the best the priest can do and still maintain his vow of secrecy.
 
40.png
Rosalinda:
The Church cannot change this sacrament as it was originally instituted by Christ and handed down by the apostles; therefore, it is not something concocted or created by men. The seal of confession is not a minor exterior detail which can be altered in different cultures like giving the penitent the option to kneel or sit down when he confesses. Without the seal it would no longer be a valid sacrament and the faithful aren’t stupid automans who are going to pop into state run traps to confess their most private, shameful failings and wrongdoings
If we can not change the sacrament, then we should all be confessing publically in church. IIRC, private confessions were invented by Irish monks in the 6th Century.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top