Irish priests say they will disobey new confession box law on child abuse

[RICKY_RASPER]

I don’t really see what this has to do with the issue at hand. If you want to change the way the Catholic Church does confession, go right ahead. Become a priest, then a Bishop, then a Cardinal, then get elected Pope and proclaim ex cathedra the way you believe Confession should be done.

However, until that time, we must consider the way the Sacrament is currently. Right now, as it stands, the priest has no authority to either publicly expose someone’s sins or to require someone to turn themselves into the civil authorities for punishment. Your opinion on how the Sacrament ought to be has little bearing on how it is now. Please, argue about how it is now, not how you think it should be.

It’s has everything to do with the issue at hand. A repentant paedophile at the time of Saint Peter would have received absolution then brought before the courts for prosecution and punishment. His soul would escape hell but his body would be subject to the rigours of earthly law and punishment. Constantine banned Congregationalist confession after two of his bishops confessed to a crime that implicated him! Lastly it has nothing to do with how I think it should be I’m telling you how it was and how a politically motivated pope eradicated 700 years of church tradition to conceal a personal crime.:tsktsk:

 

[JReducation]

It’s a brave Christian who speaks the mind of God! Good luck with that one!

It has nothing to do with bravery. It’s all about knowledge and love. I know my God and I know how much he loves us and how much he desires to show us his mercy. I have no doubt about this, because I have been a beneficiary of his mercy in the confessional many many times.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[LilyM]

It’s has everything to do with the issue at hand. A repentant paedophile at the time of Saint Peter would have received absolution then brought before the courts for prosecution and punishment. His soul would escape hell but his body would be subject to the rigours of earthly law and punishment. Constantine banned Congregationalist confession after two of his bishops confessed to a crime that implicated him! Lastly it has nothing to do with how I think it should be I’m telling you how it was and how a politically motivated pope eradicated 700 years of church tradition to conceal a personal crime.:tsktsk:

Constantine was a secular Emperor with no office or authority whatsoever in the Church - one who was not even received into the Church until on his deathbed! He certainly was not ever Pope, so I hope you weren’t suggesting that he was. And he committed and was chastised by clerics for plenty of publicly known sins, including the murder of his wife and son. What could anyone confess about him that could be worse than what he himself acknowledged?

He could no more dictate how confession was to be done than you as a non-Catholic can today. Those bishops were no more Constantine’s than today’s bishops are yours.

And by your logic there was not a single Christian sinner for three hundred years who ever caused a ruckus by naming someone important - say a bishop or Pope - as an accomplice? Spare me!

 

[JReducation]

It’s a brave Christian who speaks the mind of God! Good luck with that one!

It’s has everything to do with the issue at hand. A repentant paedophile at the time of Saint Peter would have received absolution then brought before the courts for prosecution and punishment. His soul would escape hell but his body would be subject to the rigours of earthly law and punishment. Constantine banned Congregationalist confession after two of his bishops confessed to a crime that implicated him! Lastly it has nothing to do with how I think it should be I’m telling you how it was and how a politically motivated pope eradicated 700 years of church tradition to conceal a personal crime.:tsktsk:

The key word here is “pope”. St. Clement of Rome, successor of St. Peter, wrote to the Corinthians declaring that the pope has the authority to govern, make laws, teach, and define for the universal Church.

The sacrament of reconciliation was not changed. What changed was the format. In St. Clement’s own words in his letter, the pope has the authority to define, even a different format for the sacrament, as long as he does not redefine the sacrament itself. Whether the pope is saint or sinner, is irrelevant. The fact that he is pope, says St. Clement, makes all the difference in the world.

The successor of St. Peter said, “In particular, the Bishop of Rome recalls that the Lord himself has fixed by his own supreme will where and by whom he desires these thinhgs to be done. For his own peculiar services are assigned to the high priest, and their own proper place is prescribed to the priests, and their own special ministries devolve on the Levites. The layman is bound by the laws that pertain to laymen.” St. Clement established that the Church was not a place of confusion and anarchy where each can do as he pleases, but a place of order where each has a state in life and duties that correspond to that state. The right to teach, define, decree, and govern fall by primacy on the Bishop of Rome, who is always the successor of St. Peter.

It is not up to us to decide how the sacrament of penance is to be celebrated, but to the Bishop of Rome who has received the rite of succession from St. Peter. And it was St. Peter who received the sacrament of penance. Christ did not give Peter the format. That would have made Peter simply a caretaker, not a rock. He gave Peter the sacrament to protect and to administer as the Spirit guided him to do. And so his first successor before the year 100 clarifies the difference between the Bishop of Rome and other clergy and the difference between the clergy and the laity. It is to the Bishop of Rome alone that is given the power of governance. Therefore, he can define the format of the sacrament as the Spirit guides him, as long as he does not change the sacrament in which the priest absolves in Persona Christi.

Clement never said that the Bishop of Rome had to be a saint. The argument that he was a politicians was of no importance to the Fathers of the Church. That is, if he was truly a politician. What was of importance to the Fathers of the Church was that the surest way to receive forgiveness was through the words of absolution, which only the priest could say.

Let’s drop the usual Protestant arguments to justify their existence and undermine the Catholic Church. Man was not created to live justifying his existence and undermining others. He was created to live in communion with others. As the Trinity lives in communion.

Now let’s get back to the issue at hand, which is the fact that this law will never be obeyed by any Catholic or Orthodox priest.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[Elizabeth502]

Do you really believe Christ intended confession to be a sanctuary for these beasts?

A spiritual sanctuary, yes. Christ is the font of mercy for all of us, um, beasts.

The justice being meted out is spiritual justice, not criminal justice. The sacraments are not the location for criminal justice.

 

[onmyknees]

The priest may keep his “mouth shut” to the Child Protection Services of Ireland ( how brave of him ) but he will not be able to keep his “mouth shut” when he has to give an account of his actions to Christ!

John 20: 21-23 In this scripture Jesus was talking to the his apostles, Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.” And when He said this, He breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. **** If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”****

 

[NeedImprovement]

so if a person confesses child abuse to his lawyer do you feel that lawyer must then report it to the authorities?

Why stop at child abuse? Why not demand the reporting of all serious crimes, especially murder? Isn’t it more important to stop a murderer than a child abuser?

… Excellent points !

so if a person confesses child abuse to his lawyer do you feel that lawyer must then report it to the authorities? . . .

Indeed , that law (proposed by the justice minister) would seem to threaten the very justice system itself : Judging by the government’s standards , a lawyer would certainly appear to be bound at least by conscience (yes - despite all the hoopla, some criminal lawyers are still purported to have consciences) to dismiss himself or herself from defending any client who had anteriorly confessed to committing child abuse to them ; otherwise, a successful defense might well contribute to further abuses being committed by that same person.

. . . Why stop at child abuse? Why not demand the reporting of all serious crimes, especially murder? Isn’t it more important to stop a murderer than a child abuser?

Nice to see someone using a little more foresight than those who proposed this law in the first place. And of course, abortion is murder .

Going back to child abuse a moment , Ireland also has laws in place against incest, but these laws, as in most countries, are rather complicated to interpret and not much less complicated to apply. There is even such a thing as consensual incest. One would be hard pressed to actually set forth in writing, good solid defining lines for the proposed law which would not encroach upon freedom of religion.

A good article from a trustworthy source : CNA ; Pope Says Renewal Requires ‘Christ-like’ Response to Abuse

 

[BenedictFTW]

This originates from the Association of Catholic Priests - these are renegade priests who defy the Vatican on every issue - abortion, divorce, female priests, homosexuality etc - I would not believe a word of this unless someone can show me the report from a reputable site, ie a Catholic website.

That Fr McDonagh is a total heretic. Beware!

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

Indeed , that law (proposed by the justice minister) would seem to threaten the very justice system itself : Judging by the government’s standards , a lawyer would certainly appear to be bound at least by conscience (yes - despite all the hoopla, some criminal lawyers are still purported to have consciences) to dismiss himself or herself from defending any client who had anteriorly confessed to committing child abuse to them ; otherwise, a successful defense might well contribute to further abuses being committed by that same person.

If an attorney wishes to withdraw from a client, he or she needs not specify why. That way, there should be no connection between what was told in confidence and the reason for withdrawal. He or she may, however, in good conscience, continue as the defendant’s counsel.

Yes, a successful defense might contribute to further abuses, but that is not the purpose of criminal defenses.

 

[NeedImprovement]

If an attorney wishes to withdraw from a client, he or she needs not specify why. That way, there should be no connection between what was told in confidence and the reason for withdrawal. He or she may, however, in good conscience, continue as the defendant’s counsel.

Yes, a successful defense might contribute to further abuses, but that is not the purpose of criminal defenses.

Understood , and thankyou for the clarification.

What I mean to suggest, what I’m getting at, is that it is highly doubtful justice minister Shatter would have equally (in his forthcoming “legislation”) had the intestinal fortitude to oblige lawyers under the threat of 10 years imprisonment to abandon their Attorney Client privilege for the same reasons . Having such an extensive background in law himself, he surely realizes that this wouldn’t just be metaphorically speaking, *shooting himself in the foot *- he’d actually (metaphorically) be blowing his foot right off.

So if that is how his dismally inept concept progresses - obliging priests to break the seal of Confession under threat of 10 years imprisonment , but not similarly obliging lawyers to break their attorney client privilege under threat of 10 years imprisonment, to realize the same objective, what it amounts to, instead of the much misquoted, maligned principle of separation of Church and state , is invasion of Church by the state or persecution of the Church by the state , combined with separation of state from state , since lawyers and their child molester clients would remain immune to that particular law.

. . . Very carefully thought out . . . :dts: ( . . . . . . I wonder if Justice Minister Shatter believes in leprechauns too) .

---

Yesterday, I’d mentioned to the Roman Catholic chaplain I serve under in my long-term/palliative care apostolate, that I was following this particular story . . . gave him a few sparse details. He is Congolese . I only mentioned it in passing during conversation, but when I did, he paused, looked me in the eye, then told me (in French) : " I would die before I would break the seal of Confession ! "

… Kind of got a lump in my throat after that. He’d reminded me (after several acerbic posts found their way onto this thread) just how sacred this sacrament and each sacramental confession is to the priest and to God.

 

[GraceSofia]

… he paused, looked me in the eye, then told me (in French) : " I would die before I would break the seal of Confession ! "

And some have.

St. John Nepomuc (1345-1393) was tortured and killed by the order of King Wenceslaus when he refused to reveal what the queen had confessed to him.

 

[GraceSofia]

Good post.

 

[meltzerboy]

This law is about the safety of the general public. I’ve always liked the idea of confession but it should not be allowed to serve as a safety net for sex offenders at the expense of innocent children.

Confession is a spiritual safety net for all Catholics, no matter what sin they may have committed. Once a particular sin is excluded, others will be as well. This law is a terrible infringement on religious liberty.

 

[Rence]

There is no comparison between the IRN, INLA and other banned groups and the molestation of children. I really can’t understand one the one hand, being demanded to be pro-life in all cases without exception even to the health of the woman’s life, and then on the other hand saying that chilren aren’t important enough to protect in order to protect a person (even a priest) who has molested them. Honestly, I don’t get it at all.

 

[JimG]

Confession is a sacrament for the forgiveness of sins.
It requires:

Repentance–sorrrow for the sin.
Confession of the sin to a priest.
A firm purpose of amendment–not to commit the sin again.

The priest is obligated never to disclose what any penitent has confessed, even under pain of death.

Does anyone really think that any child molester would go to confession non-anonymously, knowing that the priest was obligated by law to disclose his sins? Obviously not.

NO ONE would go to confession if they thought that the priest could under any circumstances disclose their sins, let alone report them to the authorities.

But it is really a non-issue–since every parish is obligated by canon law to provide for anonymous confession.

 

[jmcrae]

There is no comparison between the IRN, INLA and other banned groups and the molestation of children.

What about murder? Priests are not allowed to report murderers to the authorities, either.

I really can’t understand one the one hand, being demanded to be pro-life in all cases without exception even to the health of the woman’s life, and then on the other hand saying that chilren aren’t important enough to protect in order to protect a person (even a priest) who has molested them. Honestly, I don’t get it at all.

There is no relationship between the Confessional and the justice system. The priest is not, and should not ever become, an agent of the state.

 

[Farsight001]

There is no comparison between the IRN, INLA and other banned groups and the molestation of children. I really can’t understand one the one hand, being demanded to be pro-life in all cases without exception even to the health of the woman’s life, and then on the other hand saying that chilren aren’t important enough to protect in order to protect a person (even a priest) who has molested them. Honestly, I don’t get it at all.

In what world would this protect children? If a child molester knew that the priest he wanted to confess to might rat him out to the police, what do you think he would do? Stop molesting children, or stop confessing to the priest? You’re naive to think he would stop molesting in such a situation.

In contrast, verbally using the words - to actually admit guilt - especially in the presence of another person is a wonderfully effective deterrent. Keeping confession sacred and confidential does protect children.

 

[gus]

If you really want to protect children wouldn’t training priests to consul penitents. On giving themselves up a the first step in absolution. Unless the person confessing gives themselves up how can there be absolution.

 

[Farsight001]

If you really want to protect children wouldn’t training priests to consul penitents. On giving themselves up a the first step in absolution. Unless the person confessing gives themselves up how can there be absolution.

Absolution is forgiveness. It’s something that comes from the priest and is dependent only on the sincerity of the confessor. How can there NOT be absolution?

 

[JReducation]

If you really want to protect children wouldn’t training priests to consul penitents. On giving themselves up a the first step in absolution. Unless the person confessing gives themselves up how can there be absolution.

Canon Law does not allow this. You cannot put such a condition on absolution. The person who is being reconciled, is being reconciled to God and the Church, not to the State. The confessional is not to be used for the benefit of the State. Also, in moral theology, it is morally wrong for the confessor to require that the penitent do anything that will get him into trouble.

For example, if someone steals, he can be required to return the stolen goods. He is not required to turn himself in to the police or to return the goods in a way that can identify him. In other words, the priest can require that he return the stolen goods as long as he can remain anonymous. If returning the good requires self-disclosure, the priest cannot require that.

There can be total absolution without self-disclosure. It is not necessary for someone to turn themselves in to the police to be forgiven by God and the Church. We give to Caesar what is his and to God what is His. Christ is there to absolve the repentant sinner, not to collect a debt.

This leads me to a question that I have been thinking about since this thread popped up. Why would any Catholic in his right mind even entertain the possibility of a priest in the confessional doing work for the State, much less revealing what he has heard?

The idea violates everything that the Catholic Church has taught about confession and absolution for 2,000 years. Christ never put conditions on people when he forgave their sins, much less did he turn them over to the authorities. “Go your sins are forgiven.” That was it, end of discussion.

Why would any well educated Catholic entertain the idea of doing it any differently from the way that Christ did it? Only Christ knew what he was absolving, no one else. That has been the practice to this day. Only Christ knows what he is absolving, no one else.

I am stunned that any Catholic would consider the possibility.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV