R
Roseeurekacross
Guest
What is the Sacrament of Reconcilliation about?
Melbourne archbishop says he'd rather go to jail than report child abuse heard in confession
- Status
P
pnewton
Guest
The Sacrament of Reconciliation used to be public. The seal of confession is old, but still only about half as old as the Church. So Canon Law could change. I would be a large sum that it will not changed.
However, let us say this did change. Would this change protect children? Of course not. If one is unwilling to report to the authorities now, why does anyone think such a one will mention this to a priest knowing it is the same as reporting to the authorities? The law, like any change in canon law, will do zilch to protect children. It is sentiment of logic to think it will.
Rather, what could help children? For one, very few children can come forward. I have to ask whether their might be some way to make this easier, as that would protect the most children.
J
JimG
Guest
It’s about reconciling sinners to God through the ministry of the Church instituted by Jesus.
It’s not about the criminal justice system. When Jesus forgave the woman caught in adultery, he did not instruct her to turn herself over to the authorities for stoning before he could give absolution.
K
KindredSoul
Guest
The following sentence sums up my thoughts: When it comes to what should be necessary for salvation/absolution, place no burden on another sinner you wouldn’t want placed on yourself for your own sins, nor (if pride induces you to think you’d be up to it) on your loved ones for theirs.
If you would scarcely, if at all, be able to willingly expose your own sins IF they would subject you or loved ones to public hatred, lifelong exile, and time in a hostile environment where violent criminals hypocritically thought themselves heroes if they killed you, then do no think God expects some other sinner to be able to muster up the courage you yourself do not know you could for your sins.
God does not see as man sees. He likely sees heinous crimes as even infinitely worse than we do, but He also sees OUR sins as SO much vastly, infinitely worse than we can possibly imagine. It’s not that the sins of the abusers are less grave than we imagine, but our own sins are infinitely far MORE grave than we imagine, such that from the perspective of eternity, the difference between one mortal sin and another is so irrelevant that BOTH merit eternal Hell. How utterly DISGUSTING must our own sins be if the God of Love would find them worthy of eternal pain and agony, and could, in good conscience, condemn us there if we are never absolved?! If we had the humility to grasp that, we would not dare have the audacity to suggest other contrite sinners should have to bear a (far) greater burden before they could be absolved (and thus a greater likelihood of not mustering the ability/courage and thus going to Hell) than we should.
Even the salvation of (from a limited human perspective) the “worst” person on the face of the Earth, in all of history, is precious to God. If he wants to return to the fold, we must not as a prerequisite put “heavy burdens on others” that we wouldn’t (and wouldn’t expect our loved ones guilty of “lesser” sins to) “lift with one finger.” To do so is pride that fails to acknowledge the absolute, despicable, disgusting horror of our own sins and those of the people we actually care about.
Even for the profoundly noble purpose of protecting the innocent, the salvation/absolution of any penitent is not a pawn nor bargaining chip to be exploited as a means to an end. No person on Earth, certainly no one who is not himself sinless in every way, has the right to treat it as such.
If you would scarcely, if at all, be able to willingly expose your own sins IF they would subject you or loved ones to public hatred, lifelong exile, and time in a hostile environment where violent criminals hypocritically thought themselves heroes if they killed you, then do no think God expects some other sinner to be able to muster up the courage you yourself do not know you could for your sins.
God does not see as man sees. He likely sees heinous crimes as even infinitely worse than we do, but He also sees OUR sins as SO much vastly, infinitely worse than we can possibly imagine. It’s not that the sins of the abusers are less grave than we imagine, but our own sins are infinitely far MORE grave than we imagine, such that from the perspective of eternity, the difference between one mortal sin and another is so irrelevant that BOTH merit eternal Hell. How utterly DISGUSTING must our own sins be if the God of Love would find them worthy of eternal pain and agony, and could, in good conscience, condemn us there if we are never absolved?! If we had the humility to grasp that, we would not dare have the audacity to suggest other contrite sinners should have to bear a (far) greater burden before they could be absolved (and thus a greater likelihood of not mustering the ability/courage and thus going to Hell) than we should.
Even the salvation of (from a limited human perspective) the “worst” person on the face of the Earth, in all of history, is precious to God. If he wants to return to the fold, we must not as a prerequisite put “heavy burdens on others” that we wouldn’t (and wouldn’t expect our loved ones guilty of “lesser” sins to) “lift with one finger.” To do so is pride that fails to acknowledge the absolute, despicable, disgusting horror of our own sins and those of the people we actually care about.
Even for the profoundly noble purpose of protecting the innocent, the salvation/absolution of any penitent is not a pawn nor bargaining chip to be exploited as a means to an end. No person on Earth, certainly no one who is not himself sinless in every way, has the right to treat it as such.
Last edited:
K
KindredSoul
Guest
Exactly. The only change will be that then there may be contrite but deeply flawed people who would be hellbound. So the same number of victims would remain (perhaps even increase, since the superbly rare perpetrator who may have eventually been able to stop without state/psychiatric intervention, by God’s Grace, likely remain just as deep in his vice or even worse, since thinking he is Hellbound anyway would surely be a debilitating discouragement), only now the number of souls headed for Hell would increase.
I have this creepy notion, and I pray it’s not true, that (at least some) proponents of this change–even if only subconsciously–know it won’t save victims, because they know it will just result in nobody ever, ever confessing to such crimes, but, that the proponents take some sort of pleasure in knowing “Then at least the offenders will go to Hell if they don’t report themselves.” That’s not saving kids, that’s looking for the most twisted revenge imaginable to vent the frustration of knowing you couldn’t save all children. It may be human to be that vindictive, but it’s also deeply flawed.
And for a Catholic, it’s not only horrifying that someone should want another to go to Hell, it’s also unnecessary: We believe in Purgatory and other temporal punishments even aside from mankind’s justice. If an offender did his crime with enough freedom of will and knowledge to be fully culpable, he WILL pay a penitential price for his sins (as, I soberly remind us, we all here shall for our own) at some point, even if in Purgatory. There is no need to force someone into a “Prison or Hell” ultimatum so that “at least then ‘Justice’ will be served.” Justice will be served even upon the heads of the redeemed, including each one of us here in this thread. Of course, the unapologetically hungrier we are to see it exacted on others for their sins, the more of it may be meted out upon us for our own.
S
SuperLuigi
Guest
GOOD. I’m always happy to see our people of the cloth take a moral stand against reckless empathizers.
J
jjje1995
Guest
I am a law student and even here in historically anti-Catholic England, the seal of confession is protected by precedent.
It goes without saying that paedophilia is a horrific crime which should not go unpunished.
With all due respect, those who have said the priest can or should withhold absolution until the penitent has turned himself in are wrong. I do not know if anyone else mentioned it but, as Jimmy Akin once wrote, this would constitute an indirect betrayal of the penitent contrary to Can. 983 §1. This is effectively forcing the penitent to choose between going to the authorities and eternal suffering. Fear of the former may prevent the penitent from ever receiving absolution. I am not making excuses for those who do appalling things but we must remember that God’s mercy is greater than any sin. Ultimately, the eternal salvation of sinners outweighs any other considerations.
It goes without saying that paedophilia is a horrific crime which should not go unpunished.
With all due respect, those who have said the priest can or should withhold absolution until the penitent has turned himself in are wrong. I do not know if anyone else mentioned it but, as Jimmy Akin once wrote, this would constitute an indirect betrayal of the penitent contrary to Can. 983 §1. This is effectively forcing the penitent to choose between going to the authorities and eternal suffering. Fear of the former may prevent the penitent from ever receiving absolution. I am not making excuses for those who do appalling things but we must remember that God’s mercy is greater than any sin. Ultimately, the eternal salvation of sinners outweighs any other considerations.
Last edited:
R
Roseeurekacross
Guest
Yes I agree.
The culture of silence allowed the situation to go on for decades. How do you stop predators. Those who fool adults. Those the community trusts.
Jim the withholding of absolution is not part of the Australian discourse. That’s a rabbit hole that is not on the table for discussion.
The culture of silence allowed the situation to go on for decades. How do you stop predators. Those who fool adults. Those the community trusts.
Jim the withholding of absolution is not part of the Australian discourse. That’s a rabbit hole that is not on the table for discussion.
A
Arkansan
Guest
“Pope Leo the Great (440-61), who is often credited with the institution of confession, refers to it as an “Apostolic rule”. Writing to the bishops of Campania he forbids as an abuse “contrary to the Apostolic rule” (contra apostolicam regulam) the reading out in public of a written statement of their sins drawn up by the faithful, because, he declares, “it suffices that the guilt of conscience be manifested to priests alone in secret confession” (Ep. clxviii in P.L., LIV, 1210).”JimG:
The Sacrament of Reconciliation used to be public. The seal of confession is old, but still only about half as old as the Church.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11618c.htm
R
Roseeurekacross
Guest
This is proposed as law to be in line with all other mandatory reporting here. Nothing more. Nothing less.
Because Clergy knew what was going on and protected perps rather then holding them accountable. Mandatory reporting in or out of a confessional stops that.
The secular government is concerned with justice, not concerned with the state of the soul.
It won’t be perps reporting themselves under the proposed change, it will be the Priest.
A
Arkansan
Guest
As has already been explained, if this law is passed, its only effect will be to put priests at risk of being imprisoned (there was a bishop in France who went to jail for the same reason). No priest who violates the seal will ever have another chance to.
R
Roseeurekacross
Guest
As I said before, if the law goes through, so will changes from the Magisterium so Priests are protected.
A
Arkansan
Guest
No, as has happened before in both recent and distant history, priests will continue upholding the seal and will be persecuted for it.
R
Roseeurekacross
Guest
Except, there is a difference here.
we have a crucial statement from Pope Francis almost immediately after the Royal Commission findings were handed down, and its recommendations were published.
www.vaticannews.va
“The Vatican statement acknowledges the “thorough efforts” of the commission and says the report “deserves to be studied seriously.” It reiterates the commitment of the Holy See to being close to the Church in Australia as it responds to the sex abuse crisis. The statement also noted recent remarks of Pope Francis to the Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors. The pontiff said "the Church is called to be a place of compassion, especially for those who have suffered, and reaffirmed that the Church is committed to safe environments for the protection of all children and vulnerable adults.”
we have a crucial statement from Pope Francis almost immediately after the Royal Commission findings were handed down, and its recommendations were published.
Catholic leaders respond to final report of Australian Royal Commission - Vatican News
A report on how institutions in Australia have historically addressed sexual abuse of minors has prompted responses from Church leaders at the ...
www.vaticannews.va
“The Vatican statement acknowledges the “thorough efforts” of the commission and says the report “deserves to be studied seriously.” It reiterates the commitment of the Holy See to being close to the Church in Australia as it responds to the sex abuse crisis. The statement also noted recent remarks of Pope Francis to the Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors. The pontiff said "the Church is called to be a place of compassion, especially for those who have suffered, and reaffirmed that the Church is committed to safe environments for the protection of all children and vulnerable adults.”
A
Arkansan
Guest
You can believe whatever you want, but this isn’t going to change.
Watch and see.
Watch and see.
R
Roseeurekacross
Guest
It’s not my belief that is important here , it’s the statements from those with a vested interest in this that are important.
You and I don’t have a dog in this fight.
We humbly submit to the Holy See.
You and I don’t have a dog in this fight.
We humbly submit to the Holy See.
K
KindredSoul
Guest
This is a Catholic board, so we speak from a Catholic perspective, of course, and that’s the whole discussion here. And from a Catholic perspective, regardless of what Australia thinks, it is far more than what you say: Because all the other mandatory reporting does not make the difference in people’s eternal salvation by way of effectively barring them from confession unless they can muster up a courage most people couldn’t dream of mustering.
Out of confessional? One can make a case for that being helpful, certainly, although in some contexts it would still have the same “Perpetrators just won’t ever trust anybody in the first place” effect, but even so, one could make a case. In the confessional, though? See above. Whole different story.
When I said what you quoted from me, I was referring to any Catholic–who actually believes in the efficacy and necessity of sacramental absolution–who would support this notion, not to the government itself.
Which is irrelevant to what I said, because perpetrators will quickly catch word of this, and none of them will go to confession. I repeat: These abusers will not be caught, because they won’t confess. It was better for their victims that the abusers (who won’t be caught either way, from this law, so toss that out the window immediately) have a lifeline and an outside encouragement and urging to amend their ways, than to have them stew in complete secrecy. But stew they will, and that’s all this law, if the Church caves to it, will change in the long term.
The Australian government doing this is not surprising; they “know not what they do,” being unbelieving, secularist, and ignorant of eternal perspective. If the Church complies, they won’t have that excuse. Again: No one is going to confess that crime if they know it will be reported, and the public at large WILL learn that, VERY quickly.
So let’s review the outcome: 1. Possibly damning souls that were contrite even if EXTREMELY disordered in their sins, and who will likely simply not be brave enough to confess once they know it will be reported. 2. Making life even worse for the victims of those souls, who surely would only become more eaten up by their crimes as compared to if they at least had that outside lifeline.
If anyone sees that outcome (which notably lacks the saving of victims as a stable and long term outcome) as a good one–and even the secular Australian government should care about #2, which you need only know basic human nature to predict, not religious savvy–then I can’t understand this person’s definition of “good” at all.
K
KindredSoul
Guest
There is nothing in that statement which remotely suggests subverting an ancient seal which, alone, ensures that the sacrament of confession does not get exploited for secular ends, however well-intentioned. Only through a filter which has already preconceived, for example, that commitment to “the protection of all children,” should inherently require that the Church would put that goal even above the sacred duty of saving souls (all of whom were children themselves at one point, and the perpetrators of tomorrow are some of the children of today) would someone read this statement as anything resembling a hint of concession to the Australian government’s move to cheapen the sacrament by turning it into an investigative tool when it’s supposed to be exclusively about God’s Grace for sinners, including the very sinners they’re hoping to turn it against, like a weapon.
PLEASE anyone reading this, do NOT think the Catholic Church is seriously considering caving to this sacrilege. It really concerns me, and disturbs me, that anyone would even suggest it, because it could make lots of people lose respect for the sacrament if they think it’s even remotely plausible that the Church will cheapen it when Caesar comes knocking. Yeah, some people would applaud the decision, people (Catholic and otherwise) who already lacked enough respect for the sacrament to think it was okay to exploit it, but those of us who truly take the sacrament seriously as something sacred, as something inviolable, as something primarily between God and the sinner, with the priest “in persona Christi,” we would be scandalized beyond belief if the Church caved to the demands of Caesar to use the sacrament as a weapon against the very sinners whose tainted souls need it the most.
So PLEASE read that statement in that link carefully, anyone who is rightly unsettled by the mockery the sacrament would become; read it, and realize that the implication that the Church intends to seriously consider cheapening Reconciliation by making it a glorified sting tool is nothing but a false alarm. The link, and the statement, suggest nothing of the sort.
K
KindredSoul
Guest
Not sure why that made me reply to you @Arkansan.
R
Roseeurekacross
Guest
No one is barring anyone from the sacrament of Reconcilliation. This is not about eternal salvation.
It’s about mandatory reporting.
Are you familiar with our story? If not read the Royal Commission report. It will bring you up to speed.
It’s the children that we are concerned about trusting someone, not rapists and Paedophiles, they do the crime, they do the time.
It’s the children we require to be safe from this type of predation.
This law is not about catching these perps. It’s about not staying silent. It’s about speaking up. It’s about reporting.
It’s about creating an environment of listening.
And you know what, until most of these perps were caught, they continued committing these crimes.
Your argument of salvation and eternal damnation falls flat in the face of experience.
I can count 5 clergy and religious in my Diocese who continued this crime for decades, until the children became adults decades later and spoke up. They were never going to stop until Old age intervened. They , as with many paedophiles don’t stop until the law intervenes. And yes, I know of 2 non catholic perps who did the same for decades until their victims spoke up.
Listen to the Holy See. Now what exactly has the Australian Bishops Council asked Pope Francis to determine? Read my links and find out. Because no one here in the Clergy is responding the way many suggest they should, including yourself.
Last edited:
- Status