Melbourne archbishop says he'd rather go to jail than report child abuse heard in confession

  • Thread starter Thread starter anhphan
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
He did not call pedophillia anything of the sort. But he did say he would not break the seal of the confessional. In my view that is fine. But absolution should be denied pedophiles until they report themselves. Someone who makes a false claim of sexual solicitation against a priest is denied absolution until they tell everyone they told it was untrue. Children’s need for protection is greater. The Church should act now to apply the same rules to pedophiles.
 
I’m a lawyer. If a client admits pedophilia to me I can’t report them except in linited circumstances - eg they reveal that they have definite plans to offend again in future. Why should lawyer-client confidentiality be more important and valued than that between a priest and penitent?
 
Last edited:
I think you totally misquoted and misinterpreted the article and your headline is very misleading as I cannot find the quote in the article. I am going to flag your post for a title change.

This article is about whether priests have to break the seal of confession to report persons who confessed to committing pedophilia.

The seal of confession has been a generally established legal principle for a very long time. Priests are not supposed to disclose what is said in confession, and the laws have respected that and not compelled priests to disclose. If a person confesses he just committed a multiple murder or any heinous crime, the priest cannot disclose that to the police, unless the person confessing gives permission. The priest would therefore try to talk the person confessing into letting him call the police. But if the person said “no” then the priest would have to keep the confession a secret, even from the police.

Legal authorities obviously don’t like the seal of confession because it gets in the way of them collecting evidence. In the case of pedophilia, government authorities in some countries are trying to get the law changed so that priests must report any pedo sins that a person might confess.

This archbishop is saying that he feels that compelling priests to disclose is wrong because when you are in the confessional, you are supposed to be able to speak with God in the person of the priest without having to worry that others will find out what you say, and also that compelling priests to disclose confessions will discourage people from going to confession. Seems reasonable to me.
 
Tis_Bearself said:
in some countries are trying to get the law changed so that priests must report any pedo sins that a person might confess.
Click to expand...
I don’t know why people are so short sighted. If the law is changed so that a priest must report then no one will confess this. So from the legal authority point of view you’re not going to collect more evidence. The only difference is to lose that last opportunity by the priest to convince the person to turn themselves in to the authorities.
 
LilyM said:
I’m a lawyer. If a client admits pedophilia to me I can’t report them except in linited circumstances - eg they reveal that they have definite plans to offend again in future. Why should lawyer-client confidentiality be more important and valued than that between a priest and penitent
Click to expand...
To make children safer. Lawyer-client confidentiality should also have its limits. Can you report a person planning a mass shooting? Why not people who abuse children?
 
Last edited:
The archbishop pointed that out in his article.

I believe there may be an attitude among some non-Catholics that the priests’ secrecy in maintaining the seal of confession is somehow part of a big pedo cover-up. I strongly doubt that most of the child sex abusers are even bothering to confess it.
 
LilyM said:
Why should lawyer-client confidentiality be more important and valued than that between a priest and penitent?
Click to expand...
This is an excellent point. However, it should be noted that there are a lot of people, including some lawyers, who would like to find some way around lawyer-client confidentiality in the case of heinous crimes. The topic is a perennial favorite of legal ethics courses because of the divided opinion on the matter.
 
Thanks for changing that title

On the jail statement:
Denis Hart was responding to one of the recommendations the Royal Commission into institutional Historic Sex Abuse , that the seal of confession be broken and the priest report this to police, if someone confesses to being a paedophile.
It is proposed if a priest does not report this, he will go to jail.
However, under Canon Law a Priest can not break the seal of confession
 
Last edited:
That’s really inappropriate. Glad you deleted it
 
Last edited:
Confession isn’t the problem. The problem were all those who knew outside of confession and did nothing. Those are to blame, not confession. A total non-issue. The evidence produced by the Royal Commission indicates people within the church were aware through the victims of what was happening outside of confession.

If you want to debate about the seal of confession, you should first prove that in some cases NO ONE KNEW OUTSIDE OF CONFESSION - and the seal of confession would have been the deciding factor. And that is obviously not the case!!

Plenty of people knew outside of confession and did nothing, THAT IS THE PROBLEM - This is what I’d have bishops commenting on.

But hey, the latest banking scandals showed how you can commit public fraud and make billions of dollars disappear without anybody asking questions (in the XXI century) so that much for public accountability, right?!
 
Last edited:
My sister is a lawyer here in the United States. I think she said there is a hot-line for lawyers to call anonymously if they have questions such as these.
 
Reported that. It was beyond the pale and very slanderous. Thank yo for pointing it out.

Also, it is totally wrong, that is, these privileges exist to help all people, including children, in the long run. If ministering to pedophiles became illegal, or treating them medically or psychologically, there would be no opportunity to reduce child abuse through the addressing of the problem. All that would remain would be punishment and deterrent. It is stupid to suggest we cut out half of our tools used to stop child predators. Only those more focused on revenge than actual child protection would suggest such a thing.
 
Last edited:
I have also reported it. And I changed the title.
 
Last edited:
adgloriam said:
Confession isn’t the problem. The problem were all those who knew outside of confession and did nothing. Those are to blame, not confession. A total non-issue. The evidence produced by the Royal Commission indicates people within the church were aware through the victims of what was happening outside of confession.

If you want to debate about the seal of confession, you should first prove that in some cases NO ONE KNEW OUTSIDE OF CONFESSION - and the seal of confession would have been the deciding factor. And that is obviously not the case!!
Click to expand...
While you are right in the first place, it is a problem, the second is untrue. It is not up to a priest or bishop to prove that which is a logical impossibility. One cannot prove he knew nothing outside of confession. Think of how absurd that wold be. It is the responsibility of the prosecution to prove a case, that something was known outside of confession. In these incidents, prosecution is needed, though I should point out that one can only prosecute based on the laws in effect at that time.
adgloriam said:
Plenty of people knew outside of confession and did nothing, THAT IS THE PROBLEM - This is what I’d have bishops commenting on.
Click to expand...
Yes, plenty of people knew, not just clergy. I haven’t heard of too many family, friends, or neighbors being prosecuted though. Strange.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top