K
KindredSoul
Guest
(Still working on this post but accidently hit the button too early)
Last edited:
Melbourne archbishop says he'd rather go to jail than report child abuse heard in confession
- Status
P
pnewton
Guest
That is confession, not the seal of confession. The current practice was established in 1215 at the Fourth Lateran Council. The seal of confession is not a doctrine. It could be changed. Do I think it will? Of course I don’t. It exists for a reason, mercy and salvation of the eternal soul. Even though it is only a millennium old, if you read the history of confession @Arkansan linked above, it is clear that the idea has been evolving and developing since the beginning of the Church.
Last edited:
R
Roseeurekacross
Guest
No worries. I am about done discussing it for the moment though. I will come back to it after we see where it all heads with Cardinal Pell. And after my Bishop makes any public announcements. Two seperate issues.
We are guided by those who govern us both in the secular and religious worlds.
This coming week and it’s outcome are at the forefront of our concern atm.
And you will see the date on the ops article predates both the handing down of the findings of the Royal Commission and its recommendations and most importantly,
The response by the Holy See.
And no statements regarding this topic have been made by anyone in a leadership or governing position since the Pope responded to the findings and recommendations of the Royal Commission.
And no doubt it’s a wait and see on the response firstly of the Holy See to the Australian Bishops questions, and to what becomes secular law.
I will say , paedophiles don’t rehab, they don’t suddenly think it’s time to stop, and stop being attracted to children. It doesn’t work that way. So a confession to a Priest May be their cry for help.
It takes expert professionals to deal with it.
And removal of the perp away from any predatory stomping grounds.
We must pray this never happens again.Ever.
We are guided by those who govern us both in the secular and religious worlds.
This coming week and it’s outcome are at the forefront of our concern atm.
And you will see the date on the ops article predates both the handing down of the findings of the Royal Commission and its recommendations and most importantly,
The response by the Holy See.
And no statements regarding this topic have been made by anyone in a leadership or governing position since the Pope responded to the findings and recommendations of the Royal Commission.
And no doubt it’s a wait and see on the response firstly of the Holy See to the Australian Bishops questions, and to what becomes secular law.
I will say , paedophiles don’t rehab, they don’t suddenly think it’s time to stop, and stop being attracted to children. It doesn’t work that way. So a confession to a Priest May be their cry for help.
It takes expert professionals to deal with it.
And removal of the perp away from any predatory stomping grounds.
We must pray this never happens again.Ever.
Last edited:
K
KindredSoul
Guest
It’s the same difference, though. I repeat: Perpetrators who are contrite (big difference from if they actually permanently stop, as I’ll address later) who would otherwise confession will be too afraid to if they knew the priest will report it, effectively barring them.
That’s good and well, but as Catholics we must treat both with human dignity, and be concerned about both. Concern is not a zero sum affair.
Yes, at the expense of violating a sacred trust that was intended for everyone, even the “perps” whom you think seem to think shouldn’t have it.
But if this law passes, there will be no one to listen to. Again, perps won’t CONFESS if the Church caves. Have you allowed that to sink in? No one who thinks this will help victims has acknowledged that little monkey wrench in the plan.
What does that prove? Most sinners I know, for ANY type of sin, go to confession, truly meaning to change, then fall again sometime later. Many of them fall very soon, and are in and out of the confessional frequently. I’ve no doubt this is because of the addictive power of their sins, not because they’re not contrite. If they die after a good confession but before their next sin, they’ll go to Heaven.
In light of what I just said, no it doesn’t. Abuse is a HORRIBLE sin, but there’s no reason to believe it would be any different from other sins insofar as it would be possible for a sinner to be habituated to it despite having sincere enough contrition that, if he can get to confession, he will be absolved, even though he may continue to struggle.
Continued Below…
K
KindredSoul
Guest
…continued from above.
Going back to habitual/addictive sins in general, many people who never “stop” forever (we’re talking about sin in general, now, of which this is only one quite serious type) still do BETTER at times, with the help and encouragement of the sacrament. Many who, without the sacrament, would be consumed with the conviction of being hell bound and, lacking that support and encouragement and grace, be even worse than they are. To YOU, perhaps, it makes no difference, short of totally stopping forever, if a “perp” commits his crime more regularly or (by Grace and his own efforts) less regularly, but to the victim to whom he had access on a day when he was trying to do better, it can make all the difference in the world. And because–I repeat–he most certainly just won’t GO to confession if he knows it will be reported, he will be far more likely to just be more consumed by his crime than ever.
It’s not just what any Clergy say, but what the Pope would actually allow. I think the problem lies in what you think is realistically conceivable. You see, if you think relaxing the seal is viable, good, and fair, then when you read statements like (for example) “We will do whatever we can to protect children” you’ll read IN to it that of course that suggests they’ll relax the seal. But WE will read no such thing into it, anymore than we’d read into it that maybe the Pope will fly to Venus to collect the magical “Pedophilia Be Gone” Fairy dust to cure the perps. It’s just not realistic, so it doesn’t even occur to us that this would be what the Pope means. But nothing he has said, unless you take for granted that it’s realistic to relax the seal, suggests he will.
I do agree that this is overwhelmingly true, most likely. However I believe it’s still not workable to say that’s universally true. Logically speaking, the sample of Pedophiles from which we “know” that are of course the ones who never did stop, since those are far and above the ones who typically are going to be exposed eventually due to the sheer numbers and persistence of their crimes. Any past abuser who did stop would never, ever tell anyone besides a priest, because he would be reported then treated just as if he had never stopped and was still a ticking time bomb. So I submit that we just can’t logically know that abusers NEVER stop, EVER. And that’s even aside from what I’ve said earlier about how even those who don’t stop still may mitigate their deeds, if they’ve access to the sacrament, while they just won’t confess at all (and thus not be caught at all, at least not due to the relaxing of the seal) and will lose one powerful mitigating influence if the seal is relaxed.
Last edited:
K
KindredSoul
Guest
Do let me say this: The molestation of a child is a horrible, horrible, HORRIBLE crime. I want it to stop too. I pray it never, ever happens.
I simply believe, and was raised to believe, that even people who aren’t two-dimensional monsters can still do horrible things, and that we must never lack compassion for criminals because our real enemy is a spiritual one, and sin itself. That doesn’t mean not holding them accountable when we do catch them, but it does mean not depriving them of the same basic, vital lifelines we all need. We wouldn’t deprive them of air, nor would we say “Well, you can breathe, but I’ll torture you if you take a breath.” Well, likewise, we wouldn’t deprive them of the sacrament of reconciliation, nor would we say “Well, you can confess, but we’ll turn you over to prison and the hatred of the public if you do.” Reconciliation is even more important than breathing, from a Catholic perspective, for the lack of one kills the body, the lack of the other kills the soul, an eternal, agonizing death.
So yes, I absolutely am horrified at the crime and effects of molestation. But I refuse, refuse, refuse to fail to recognize the humanity of the perpetrators. They need help, but forcing them to choose between Hell or Prison plus a lifetime of being an object of scorn, hate, and suspicion (which IS what relaxing the seal would do) isn’t the help they need. Because the odds are they’ll reject Prison because it’s the more immediate, “in your face” fear, meaning they’ll fail to go to confession, quite possibly go to Hell, and not get the help they needed anyway.
And I firmly believe, too, that not every perpetrator is a calculating crocodile who feels no remorse or conflict for the ongoing crimes. In Christian charity, I have to think some of them are tormented similarly, but FAR worse, to (for example) a Catholic who can’t seem to stop fornicating or committing adultery. If they recognize their wrong enough to go to confession, that is exponentially more likely. It may be that none of the “famous” ones have seemed that way, but again, we can’t extrapolate from this that it’s not out there. We just can’t.
As I said in my last post: Concern isn’t a zero sum game. Nor is empathy. It may be hard to balance empathy and compassion for victims with empathy and compassion for victimizers, so most may take the “easy way out” and just give it all to the victims and none or extremely little to the abuser, even the contrite abuser. But I don’t believe “the easy way out” is the Christian way. There are plenty of ways to try to exercise empathy, compassion, and aid (yes, concrete attempts to catch their abusers and stop the abuse) to victims without violating, of all things, the seal of Catholic Confession. It’s not as if anyone here is suggesting doing NOTHING to catch perpetrators. It’s just that relaxing the seal is one thing, ONE THING, we must not do.
I pray, yes. I pray for everyone involved. And I hope that one day this crime will disappear, for both the victims who suffer the effects, and the abusers who would have this terrible sin burdening their souls.
I simply believe, and was raised to believe, that even people who aren’t two-dimensional monsters can still do horrible things, and that we must never lack compassion for criminals because our real enemy is a spiritual one, and sin itself. That doesn’t mean not holding them accountable when we do catch them, but it does mean not depriving them of the same basic, vital lifelines we all need. We wouldn’t deprive them of air, nor would we say “Well, you can breathe, but I’ll torture you if you take a breath.” Well, likewise, we wouldn’t deprive them of the sacrament of reconciliation, nor would we say “Well, you can confess, but we’ll turn you over to prison and the hatred of the public if you do.” Reconciliation is even more important than breathing, from a Catholic perspective, for the lack of one kills the body, the lack of the other kills the soul, an eternal, agonizing death.
So yes, I absolutely am horrified at the crime and effects of molestation. But I refuse, refuse, refuse to fail to recognize the humanity of the perpetrators. They need help, but forcing them to choose between Hell or Prison plus a lifetime of being an object of scorn, hate, and suspicion (which IS what relaxing the seal would do) isn’t the help they need. Because the odds are they’ll reject Prison because it’s the more immediate, “in your face” fear, meaning they’ll fail to go to confession, quite possibly go to Hell, and not get the help they needed anyway.
And I firmly believe, too, that not every perpetrator is a calculating crocodile who feels no remorse or conflict for the ongoing crimes. In Christian charity, I have to think some of them are tormented similarly, but FAR worse, to (for example) a Catholic who can’t seem to stop fornicating or committing adultery. If they recognize their wrong enough to go to confession, that is exponentially more likely. It may be that none of the “famous” ones have seemed that way, but again, we can’t extrapolate from this that it’s not out there. We just can’t.
As I said in my last post: Concern isn’t a zero sum game. Nor is empathy. It may be hard to balance empathy and compassion for victims with empathy and compassion for victimizers, so most may take the “easy way out” and just give it all to the victims and none or extremely little to the abuser, even the contrite abuser. But I don’t believe “the easy way out” is the Christian way. There are plenty of ways to try to exercise empathy, compassion, and aid (yes, concrete attempts to catch their abusers and stop the abuse) to victims without violating, of all things, the seal of Catholic Confession. It’s not as if anyone here is suggesting doing NOTHING to catch perpetrators. It’s just that relaxing the seal is one thing, ONE THING, we must not do.
I pray, yes. I pray for everyone involved. And I hope that one day this crime will disappear, for both the victims who suffer the effects, and the abusers who would have this terrible sin burdening their souls.
Last edited:
M
Mintaka
Guest
There is no way to “relax” the seal. The seal of confession existed before there was any canon law making it explicit. Priests died as martyrs to preserve the seal before there was any such thing as a canon law about it! And it would be ridiculous to change canon law to “protect” priests, because it is their ordinary duty to die before exposing people who confess.
Secret Confession originated in Ireland, in the practice of non-sacramental mutual spiritual direction among monastic laypeople. This relationship was called “soul-friend” (anam-chara, or amicus animae). To break the seal of confession was to break the obligations of friendship.
(One of the first records of this practice was in St. Patrick’s autobiographical letter explaining his history and mission practices – a letter called his “Confessio.” In the letter, he complains that when he was going to be named a bishop and sent to Ireland for missionary work, an old friend to whom he had confessed a youthful sin had brought this old sin up and told all the priests and bishops they knew, and that this old sin was constantly thrown in his face whenever he had trouble with the mission. Tradition says that it was a sin of idolatry, back when St. Patrick was a godless hellraising kid back in post-Roman Britain; but obviously we don’t know for sure.)
When some monastic male soul-friends became priests, bishops, or abbots, they began to bring the practice of private, secret spiritual direction into the practice of the sacrament of Confession. It spread rapidly across the world as Irish missionaries did.
It was wildly successful, but it also led to tons of priest martyrs, right off the bat. Pagans, political leaders, jealous husbands, suspicious fathers, Protestants, Communists, what have you. They all hate the idea that Jesus can have a personal relationship with a sinner, and that the state can’t get into it.
Secret Confession originated in Ireland, in the practice of non-sacramental mutual spiritual direction among monastic laypeople. This relationship was called “soul-friend” (anam-chara, or amicus animae). To break the seal of confession was to break the obligations of friendship.
(One of the first records of this practice was in St. Patrick’s autobiographical letter explaining his history and mission practices – a letter called his “Confessio.” In the letter, he complains that when he was going to be named a bishop and sent to Ireland for missionary work, an old friend to whom he had confessed a youthful sin had brought this old sin up and told all the priests and bishops they knew, and that this old sin was constantly thrown in his face whenever he had trouble with the mission. Tradition says that it was a sin of idolatry, back when St. Patrick was a godless hellraising kid back in post-Roman Britain; but obviously we don’t know for sure.)
When some monastic male soul-friends became priests, bishops, or abbots, they began to bring the practice of private, secret spiritual direction into the practice of the sacrament of Confession. It spread rapidly across the world as Irish missionaries did.
It was wildly successful, but it also led to tons of priest martyrs, right off the bat. Pagans, political leaders, jealous husbands, suspicious fathers, Protestants, Communists, what have you. They all hate the idea that Jesus can have a personal relationship with a sinner, and that the state can’t get into it.
K
KindredSoul
Guest
Preaching to the choir here, @Mintaka . I despise the notion of violating or “relaxing” the seal, for any purpose. And I agree, no matter how noble the purpose, this is all just the government trying to step in and intrude on something sacred and private: The confession of a sinner to his Lord.
Last edited:
M
Mintaka
Guest
I know -you- agree! 
But it is just like marriage rules. People think that “things are different nowadays,” when the Church fought for centuries against things like divorce and remarriage, or girlfriends on the side. And there were martyrs for it.
Nowadays is exactly like things were back then, except that it is Bob down the street instead of a half-heathen king of a European tribe.
But it is just like marriage rules. People think that “things are different nowadays,” when the Church fought for centuries against things like divorce and remarriage, or girlfriends on the side. And there were martyrs for it.
Nowadays is exactly like things were back then, except that it is Bob down the street instead of a half-heathen king of a European tribe.
Last edited:
A
Arkansan
Guest
You omitted the est of the quote. Pope Leo the Great declared it “contrary to the Apostolic rule" to require public confession of private sins, so while Fourth Lateran may have been the fist ecumenical council to address the issue, the Church’s practice is ancient in origin.
P
pnewton
Guest
The article was several pages long. I omitted a whole bunch of stuff. There was 700 years from saying that confession cannot be required to be public to the saying it was a sin for a priest to reveal anything said in confession. The first universal rule seems to be the Fourth Lateran Council, though it obviously had to be pretty universal by then. The private confession as we know it seems to have started a hundred years or so in Ireland after Pope Leo the Great. But the whole history is in that link you gave.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11618c.htm
Last edited:
A
Arkansan
Guest
Pope Leo referred to secret confession for secret sins as already being the norm (he calls it an “Apostolic rule”) in his own time.
P
pnewton
Guest
I am confused because I think you are switching topics. The seal of confession is not the same as private confession. I agree that one was the forerunner to the latter, but I can find nothing else that speaks of this seal.
A
Arkansan
Guest
The point is that the seal of confession is derived from divine law, and thus the Church cannot change it. Obviously, if requiring public confession for private sins is “contrary to the Apostolic rule”, then a priest publicizing confessed private sins would also at least implicitly be forbidden.
The Decretum Gratian also spoke of the seal.
The Decretum Gratian also spoke of the seal.
K
KindredSoul
Guest
It is arguable, however, that the seal is something sacred that was always there, but simply not explicitly. Similar to development of Doctrine, it is quite plausible that the Holy Spirit protected penitents by quietly inspiring their confessors and–when confession was before the whole “parish”, all the other parishioners–to tell no one, even before anyone could articulate that this was conscious or deliberate. Because even parish-wide confession doesn’t preclude the seal: Today, even, IF a priest for some reason had to allow the entire parish to sit in on a confession, they would be canonically bound by the seal, demonstrating that even the ancient “public confessions” do not inherently prove that the seal of confession was not present, even if at that time it was organic and not formally stated.
In fact, it is quite striking that, to my knowledge, there is no evidence that anyone, in all history, has ever repeated what specific penitents confessed to anyone who wasn’t present at the confession. This is especially striking because at one time there WAS public confession, and yet not one account exists, to my knowledge, of a sinner, by name, having his sins exposed by one of the parishioners to the outside world. The seal may not have existed formally, and perhaps not identical to its current “virtually have to act as if the confession never even happened” form, but it seems peculiar, and encouraging, that something was always at work to ensure a sinner’s confession was not used against him by outsiders to the confession.
None of this is hard evidence, but it does inspire me to suspect the seal is in fact the will of God, that it is something that could one day be made into infallibly binding timeless moral dogma which would, like all infallible dogma, mean it had been true all along even before it was pronounced.
It does make sense, because it is consistent with what the sacrament claims to be about: Christ’s Grace and not temporal/political power. Protestants, for example, often posit that confession to a priest is a temporal power grab by a corrupt Church wanting more control over its members, however early said corruption may have taken place. As long as the seal is remained, this suspicion is ridiculous, since thanks to the seal there is NO circumstance where the penitent’s confession can be used against him any more than another religion’s private interior confession could be used against him.
As a convert, however, I have to admit I’d be inclined to agree with my ex co-religionists if I saw Catholic clergy were permitted to repeat confessions for any reason, AND the Faithful were “conveniently” taught that they had to confess to priests or be damned. Then it would look like exactly the power grab some of the Church’s enemies believe it to be. So if the Church ever let it be exploited that way, no matter how good the intentions or how noble the cause, I have a MUCH harder time believing it was Jesus’ plan for the Church. Not saying I’d jump ship, but I’d have to at least give the Protestant protest about confession being a power play notably more consideration than I ever have, even in my Protestant days.
In fact, it is quite striking that, to my knowledge, there is no evidence that anyone, in all history, has ever repeated what specific penitents confessed to anyone who wasn’t present at the confession. This is especially striking because at one time there WAS public confession, and yet not one account exists, to my knowledge, of a sinner, by name, having his sins exposed by one of the parishioners to the outside world. The seal may not have existed formally, and perhaps not identical to its current “virtually have to act as if the confession never even happened” form, but it seems peculiar, and encouraging, that something was always at work to ensure a sinner’s confession was not used against him by outsiders to the confession.
None of this is hard evidence, but it does inspire me to suspect the seal is in fact the will of God, that it is something that could one day be made into infallibly binding timeless moral dogma which would, like all infallible dogma, mean it had been true all along even before it was pronounced.
It does make sense, because it is consistent with what the sacrament claims to be about: Christ’s Grace and not temporal/political power. Protestants, for example, often posit that confession to a priest is a temporal power grab by a corrupt Church wanting more control over its members, however early said corruption may have taken place. As long as the seal is remained, this suspicion is ridiculous, since thanks to the seal there is NO circumstance where the penitent’s confession can be used against him any more than another religion’s private interior confession could be used against him.
As a convert, however, I have to admit I’d be inclined to agree with my ex co-religionists if I saw Catholic clergy were permitted to repeat confessions for any reason, AND the Faithful were “conveniently” taught that they had to confess to priests or be damned. Then it would look like exactly the power grab some of the Church’s enemies believe it to be. So if the Church ever let it be exploited that way, no matter how good the intentions or how noble the cause, I have a MUCH harder time believing it was Jesus’ plan for the Church. Not saying I’d jump ship, but I’d have to at least give the Protestant protest about confession being a power play notably more consideration than I ever have, even in my Protestant days.
P
pnewton
Guest
This is not something the Church has ever said.
While I do not think this will happen, if it does, I think it will be soon, driven by disdain for religion, in particular, Catholic priest.
In any case, I do not see the practice changing. While I still do not view it as doctrine, the seal of confession is a practice based in doctrine, that of the limitless mercy of God and the priest as persona Christi.
Last edited:
F
FiveLinden
Guest
Given what other things have happened this seems most unlikely. Were it to be demonstrated as fact I think it would be the first time I have had to actually think something must be an actual miracle. But a give-away is that there does not seem to be any claim of this by the Church, suggesting there have been cases. I have another thread looking for information, but so far none has appeared.
K
KindredSoul
Guest
Oh I do agree it’s not hard evidence. And I’m not sure there can ever be any way of knowing for a fact that it has definitely never happened. Universal negative and all that. It’s just striking to me that there are no known cases before the seal was formalized. Which is another important thing to note: I don’t necessarily believe there has never, ever been a case after the seal was officially implemented. I’m saying that the fact that, during the time before the seal was official or even ever formally conceived of by anyone, it’s striking that during that time period,there is not ample (nor any at all that I know of) evidence or examples of people repeating confessions outside of those who were party to the confession when it was made. No examples, during a time when no one had ever mentioned a seal protecting the contents of confession, that someone’s confession was routinely (or even commonly enough) exploited or betrayed to outsiders. This is especially striking specifically because the Church hadn’t, at that time, officially forbidden such repetition, nor (in the days when confession was public to the local parish, I repeat) was it even ever formally conceived of until centuries later. Yet we still have no concrete examples of its being betrayed, even though formally no one was ever taught not to.
So see, my main point isn’t “The seal must be irrevocable, because no one has ever, ever, ever broken it, ever,” because by that logic I’d have to be implying that a moral case depends on no one ever violating it. Rather, my aim with that post was addressing the implication that, since the Church did not always officially have the seal, it is a mark that the seal could be formally declared non-binding one day: My point was that it’s almost as if, even before the seal was ever formally declared, people were quietly guided by the Holy Spirit to observe it. Perhaps not perfectly (though to my knowledge NO examples exist) but still with amazing consistency in a time when it was true both that confessions were public to everyone in the local church (and therefore there should have been all KINDS of people to hear it) and when the seal was not formally instituted (so that all of those people, if not for something quietly guiding them, would not have had any binding reason NOT to repeat sins).
It just seems to me, personally, that it’s striking (not conclusive, but striking) that we don’t have more evidence that during that period, of all times, there were notable cases of people repeating the sins of those who had confessed before entire crowds who, after all, had no formal seal to bind them to silence. This is not enough to make an atheist admit to a miracle, and it could just be an amazing, amazing coincidence, but it’s enough that, as a believer, I find it very interesting and, again, striking.
Last edited:
F
FiveLinden
Guest
Isn’t the most likely explanation that breaches are kept secret?
K
KindredSoul
Guest
That it’s one potential explanation I’ll grant, but I don’t really find it all that likely. For one thing, the Church has no motive to do so. That the seal is Divine Law, not merely required by (rightful but changeable) Church Law, is my own theory, and I do believe it is the only thing compatible with the sacrament’s dignity, but the Church doesn’t proclaim this as dogma as yet. Even if the Church did, breaches wouldn’t DISprove it, so especially given that the Church as yet does not, there’s simply no realistic motive for the Church to have gone to the trouble required for such an extensive cover-up.
Last edited:
- Status