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

[alphawoman]

That you concede that violent crime is observable in both its individual and cumulative effects, whether by aggregate crime rates or individual reported cases, is sufficient to support acceptance of my argument.

 

[Arkansan]

No. I’m expressly denying that one criminal going free makes much of a difference to anything (assuming he’s ceased committing crimes, which is the premise here).

 

[alphawoman]

Just as one person buying subprime credit was irrelevant to the financial viability of the housing market? Or as one marginal vote for Hilary Clinton in public opinion polls in the week prior previous federal US election didn’t influence the outcome of the election?

No, individual behaviours matter considerably, and they are observable and influential, even without our noticing their having that effect.

To your point about individual crimes not being influential in the media, I’ll ask if you live in the United States. My experience with American friends has indicated that US media are inundated with horror stories, and they can become desensitized to them.

But, as a further argument, I’ll suggest that the way individuals inclined to violence digest news of crime differs from the approach used by law-abiding citizens. Non-criminals typically have an aversive reaction to it and have a cognitive bias to aggregate the stories to minimize rumination on disturbing cases. Violent offenders are less aversive and more emotionally detatched, so they are more able to perceive individual fluctuations.

Individual unsolved/unpunished crimes also contribute to aggregate crime statistics, irrespective of whether the criminal continues to offend.

 

[Arkansan]

Just as one person buying subprime credit was irrelevant to the financial viability of the housing market? Or as one marginal vote for Hilary Clinton in public opinion polls in the week prior previous federal US election didn’t influence the outcome of the election?

An individual person voting for Hillary could be justified if doing otherwise would lead to imprisonment, yes.

 

[alphawoman]

I’ve chosen to interpret your latest reply from both political perspectives and am now grinning from ear to ear. In all sincerity, thanks for that fun joke, which I assume was intentional!

 

[alphawoman]

Thanks for the enjoyable discussion, all! I’m off for the night, but please do feel free to reach out if you want to rekindle the discussion. I appreciate that we were able to keep the discussion polite and on-topic despite differences of opinion, which is something that can’t be said for many online forums.

 

[deMontfort]

alphawoman:

The priest can also step out of the confessional and directly observe the individual, record a licence plate on a vehicle, or call the police.

I am amazed that you even suggested such a thing. The first time that happened would be the last time that priest would be hearing confessions.

Essentially, it’s asking the priest to commit an act that will damn him to hell if absolution would not be forthcoming.

 

[LilyM]

Maybe you can justify why you think commission of a civil crime without accepting its consequences represents true contrition, it is legally defensible from a civil perspective.

Kindly do so in a civil manner.

Civil consequences are not always in alignment with, and sometimes flatly contradict, both natural and moral law. Look, for example, at Middle Eastern countries where homosexual acts are not only criminal but punishable by particularly gruesome forms of death penalty. Why should a Christian in those countries be compelled to deliver themselves up to the mercies of the civil law?

A public admission of the sin of pedophilia in many countries can have unexpected, and unexpectedly far-reaching and devastating, consequences, including registration for life on an offenders register and permanent disbarment from employment even remotely connected with children. For those who commit such sins when young and relatively reformable, it can truly be a punishment which may not fit the crime.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

A law requiring a priest to report hearsay confessions to authorities would result in NO crimes being prosecuted. All that would happen would be that police departments would send fake penitents to make fake confessions and then arrest priests for failing to report the fake confessions. Maybe this is what Australian authorities really have in mind.

And yet, historic sexual abuse is being prosecuted.
Why is Cardinal Pell in a Commital Hearing?

And none of this addresses the fact that according to Church law, every penitent has the option to confess anonymously behind a screen.

And again, no solid screens and private rooms in my Diocese anymore, by order of our Bishop.
The option is face to face or behind a see through curtain, in a see through room.

Haven’t I already said this. Hmm

 

[Roseeurekacross]

If this becomes law, Canon Law will change to reflect it. Or the letter of the law down to the last loophole will be identified.

As Jesus said to Peter, what you do here will be done in Heaven.
Pope Francis has that mandate to protect his Priests.

 

[pnewton]

Which is of greater value, life or eternal life? Which is a worse fate, molestation, or eternal damnation?

The seal of confession is only an outward practice with a foundation in theology. The importance of the primacy of the soul and salvation reflects the infinite mercy of God. If a person prays to God, then that prayer is between him and God. The priest, when he delivers reconciliation and when he is at the altar during Mass, is in the person of Christ. This is the theological reason behind this seal.

 

[KindredSoul]

Civil consequences are not always in alignment with, and sometimes flatly contradict, both natural and moral law. Look, for example, at Middle Eastern countries where homosexual acts are not only criminal but punishable by particularly gruesome forms of death penalty. Why should a Christian in those countries be compelled to deliver themselves up to the mercies of the civil law?

Though I bowed out a couple of days ago, I want to chime in to emphasize my agreement with this.

If part of being truly sorry is turning yourself in to Civil Authorities if your sin is a crime, that logically means that Christians in one country or era have to turn themselves in and, for certain crimes, face terrifying consequences above and beyond mere justice (whether some people think some sinners “deserve” it or not is irrelevant to the mitigating influence of fear), while Christians in another country or era don’t. In other words, God is effectively telling the first group of Christians, “You’re not really sorry unless you prove that you’re willing to face public hatred, imprisonment, maybe violence and death,” but the second group is evidently really sorry even if they’re not facing thos consequences. That’s illogical, and makes no sense whatsoever. Sorry is sorry. If a sexually active gay man is contrite enough for absolution in America even without turning himself over to prison, public wrath, and maybe death, then the active gay man is contrite enough for absolution in the Middle East too, without all that. If someone we would today (rightly) call an abuser in Ancient Greece would have been contrite enough to receive absolution without subjecting himself to those things, so too would someone in the modern West. Sorry is sorry. Contrition is Contrition. God doesn’t change up the threshold of what it means to be sincerely sorry based on geography or man-made laws. Period.

But “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s!!!” Well, a human being, a human being’s fate, a human being’s forgiveness, NEVER belongs to Caesar. A human is God’s. And so are the terms of his absolution. If God has mercy without Caesar’s wrath, then neither God nor the penitent are obligated to hand the penitent over to Caesar. There is no comparison between a human being and a tax.

 

[KindredSoul]

A public admission of the sin of pedophilia in many countries can have unexpected, and unexpectedly far-reaching and devastating, consequences, including registration for life on an offenders register and permanent disbarment from employment even remotely connected with children. For those who commit such sins when young and relatively reformable, it can truly be a punishment which may not fit the crime.

Also very true. Man is sinful. We hold grudges. We hate people. We consider ourselves better than other sinners, whose dignity we often pretend is forfeit compared to our own if their sins are “serious enough.” The exposure of certain sins is inviting a lifetime of such (sinfully) judgmental wrath, above and beyond Justice, at the hands of one’s fellow man. A contrite sinner is not obligated to subject himself, willingly, to the misguided wrath of fellow sinners. In a better world, where people hated only the sin but clearly loved the sinner and treated him with dignity and compassion even as they justifiably held him accountable, there would be a better case for saying a sinner is obligated to turn himself in before absolution–though it would still be incorrect and illogical, as per the above paragraphs–but the reality is such that it is doubly problematic to believe a sinner has some absolute obligation to turn himself in, when much of the “justice” with which he knows he will be met (both inside prison at the hands of hypocritical fellow inmates, and outside at the hands of neighbors) is the vindictive wrath of other sinners that will have more to do with vengeance than justice.

 

[JimG]

And again, no solid screens and private rooms in my Diocese anymore, by order of our Bishop.

The option is face to face or behind a see through curtain, in a see through room.

Haven’t I already said this. Hmm

Yes, you have said this before. It seems to me that failure to institute the use of traditional private confessinals is a mistake. Architects are not incapable of building confessionals which are private, anonymous, and in which the priest and penitent have no access to each other.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

es, you have said this before. It seems to me that failure to institute the use of traditional private confessinals is a mistake. Architects are not incapable of building confessionals which are private, anonymous, and in which the priest and penitent have no access to each other.

You are right in that there was a failure. There was a failure in protecting children. That’s being addressed now. Those children are either now dead via suicide or addiction , or living breathing active and hidden men and women within the Diocese.

You could put the two confessionals in two different rooms sure. Priest goes in one room, person seeking Reconcilliation goes in through the other room. Sure. But Jim, I think you might be stuck on thinking this occurred during public confession times. Private boxes just mean somewhere private to hide to commit a crime for certain individuals.
And if you think that’s the worst of it, you’d be wrong.

A bishop who is steering the ship back out of these waters, has made some decisions, valid decisions based on history. It’s a history the perps have pleaded guilty to and admitted to.
It’s also a history that survivors and families can be extremely traumatised when faced with reminders.
We have a loud fence. (Google it). There are survivors who cannot drive past it, because of what it represents.

Part of Catholic Charity is never to insult or offend, and to right wrongs.
Our desire to protect children, and for the healing process is greater then our desire for anonymous
reconcilliation. And your Priest is going to know your voice anyway. So it’s not anonymous.

 

[pnewton]

Our desire to protect children, and for the healing process is greater then our desire for anonymous

reconcilliation.

I asked earlier

Which is of greater value, life or eternal life? Which is a worse fate, molestation, or eternal damnation?

Regardless of your desire or any law Australia passes, no priest is going to be a reporter from the confessional. This law will accomplish nothing. To quote Peter, “We must obey God rather than men."

 

[Roseeurekacross]

I asked earlier

Which is of greater value, life or eternal life? Which is a worse fate, molestation, or eternal damnation?

Regardless of your desire or any law Australia passes, no priest is going to be a reporter from the confessional. This law will accomplish nothing. To quote Peter, “We must obey God rather than men."

That’s kind of inappropriate to question which is worse, being raped as a child or being one of the damned. There really is not, and should be no comparison either. It also negates the severity and impact of that crime on that child. A raped child is not eternally damned, nor ever responsible for what was done to him or her.
Children and vulnerable adults have the right to safety. We , the adults , are charged with providing it.

Again, this being about the third time I have said this… Pope Francis, the Holy See, mandated by Jesus to loose or bind , has the ability to change Canon Law to protect his Priests and he will. No doubt, to use a political term, there will be a few busy back channels working at the moment. On just this topic. Did you read my links?

 

[pnewton]

That’s kind of inappropriate to question which is worse, being raped as a child or being one of the damned.

You say my question was inappropriate, yet it is an issue the Church must weigh. The job of the Church is the salvation of souls, not law enforcement. Yes, canon law might be changed to accommodate public confessions, or even once a life time confessions, but limiting the mercy of God is not the job of the Church. I know there is little sympathy for predators. Our reaction to these acts is quite reasonable, guttural, and human. It is the same visceral call for justice that engenders anger at victims, who could have come forward quicker to put a stop to predation that occurs subsequent to their victimization. Yet we have to balance that anger with mercy and sympathy that for many, it is not psychologically possible to come forward sometimes for decades.

Any action taken cannot engender a greater evil, so these difficult question must be asked.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

There is no talk of limiting God’s Mercy, how could there be, that is for God.
Victims came forward and were not believed. That’s part of the problem.
You won’t find mercy and sympathy for the perps outside the Church, and there is little within the Church either.

Healing is going to be a long slow process. People are still out for blood. It’s very raw here. And the Pell Hearing just adds to it.
The general non practising catholic and non religious public has to be invested in the process before it can have any impact, in this Diocese.
But time is our friend.

I will say, it was and is the job of the church to enforce law, especially when it comes to issues like this, within its walls, that were known.

 

[JimG]

If the seal of confession is abrogated by the Church in any way, then the Sacrament of Reconciliation is dead and buried, and so would be the Church, because it will have been shown to be a fraud. I think that would make many in the secular world quite happy.