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

[FiveLinden]

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

I don’t think it is claimed by the Church that the seal has never been broken. And there is clear evidence that to avoid scandal until recent years the Church in many, many places was willing to transfer pedophiles into work that brought them again into contact with children. Hiding instances of breach of the seal of confession would be as nothing to someone who thought that was right.

 

[KindredSoul]

I don’t think it is claimed by the Church that the seal has never been broken. And there is clear evidence that to avoid scandal until recent years the Church in many, many places was willing to transfer pedophiles into work that brought them again into contact with children. Hiding instances of breach of the seal of confession would be as nothing to someone who thought that was right.

1. That’s a generalization, since the clergy and hierarchy alive at that time are not simply representative of all clergy and hierarchy ever, and the hiding of which you speak would have to have been taking place for centuries upon centuries.
2. That misses the point anyway, because the point is the Church would have no motive. The child abuse cover-ups show that, IF properly motivated, the particular clergy who covered that up would cover something up, but even there, the motives (though they don’t justify it) are clear and obvious. For reasons I said in my last post, there was no motive for hiding breaches in the seal of confession. The Church has had nothing to lose by people discovering breaches (especially breaches that occurred before the seal was even formally demanded, which is precisely the period I find so striking), and nothing to gain by hiding them. To assume they hid them would just be conspiracy theory for the sake of conspiracy theory, at this point.
3. Your pointing out the Church doesn’t claim the seal has never been broken only further demonstrates #2, that the Church has no motive to hide when it has been.
4. My own claim is based not on the Church claiming what I am, but on the striking lack of evidence that, BEFORE one-on-one confession, BEFORE the formal seal, there was ever any repeating of what people confessed, despite that they were confessing in front of the whole parish, and that the Church was not at that time even formally forbidding such repeating. To me, that’s striking. And, as I’ve said here, there is no reason to think it DID happen as often as one would expect but the Church just covered it up.

 

[FiveLinden]

To assume they hid them would just be conspiracy theory for the sake of conspiracy theory, at this point

Are you saying the Church does not have a track record of covering this up to avoid ‘scandal’? Because it does. And that would be the motive.

 

[KindredSoul]

Are you saying the Church does not have a track record of covering this up to avoid ‘scandal’? Because it does. And that would be the motive.

What scandal, though, in this case? The Church has nothing to lose, at this point, and never yet has had (and never really would, since breaches of a moral claim don’t disprove the validity of the claim, merely that people aren’t perfect) anything to lose, by people finding out people repeated confessions when there wasn’t even formally a seal yet.

 

[pnewton]

To me, that’s striking. And, as I’ve said here, there is no reason to think it DID happen as often as one would expect but the Church just covered it up.

Why is it striking? History does not track conversations as a rule. It is to be expected there is no record of whether people talked about the events surrounding a public confession after the penance.

In any case, whether or not seal of confession is a doctrine, that is, it cannot be changed, is a good question. For this question, whether there is any record of the Church defining it as such should be expected. If this cannot be shown, I am still inclined to believe it is a discipline, though one that will not be changed.

 

[KindredSoul]

In any case, whether or not seal of confession is a doctrine, that is, it cannot be changed, is a good question. For this question, whether there is any record of the Church defining it as such should be expected. If this cannot be shown, I am still inclined to believe it is a discipline, though one that will not be changed.

Well, I’m not saying that it is a proclaimed Dogma. Rather, I believe it is something implicitly true, given the nature of Grace, and the fact that for Catholics Grace is bound up in the sacrament, and basically I can’t imagine God would want that to be exploited for ends, no matter how well intentioned, outside the purpose of His Grace and forgiveness. But I believe it’s at the current moment arguably like the Assumption was for centuries. For centuries, individual Catholics were free to disagree on whether the Assumption was true, because it had not been formally proclaimed is dogma, but obviously it’s formal Proclamation means that it was true all along. And that the church could never have proclaimed it otherwise, it’s just that no one could know that until the church DID formally proclaim it as Dogma. That is what I theorize the immorality of repeating a penitence confession is like. It is something that, much like the assumption, one can argue makes a good deal of sense in line with existing Dogma, and which one personally may think is strongly implicit from the nature of other dogmas, but which has not at the moment ever been proclaimed as Dogma itself.

 

[pnewton]

Well, I’m not saying that it is a proclaimed Dogma.

I know it is not dogma. My question is why is it considered doctrine? Reconciliation is a Sacrament. If this is a doctrine, surely it is taught as doctrine, not just discipline, somewhere. Argument from absence is valid in this case, as doctrine, but definition, is that which is taught.

 

[KindredSoul]

I know it is not dogma. My question is why is it considered doctrine?

A misunderstanding: I was not saying that it was either Dogma or doctrine, in any formal capacity. Due to the way that development of Doctrine works, something could be true for a long time before it was ever formalized in any form. In fact, it could be true even though no one in any official capacity ever formally recognized it is true, as long as other dogmas and doctrines were recognized which, potentially, might have implied it all along. Obviously, there can be disagreement in the meantime as to whether or not it is in fact implied, but the main point is that, as per development of doctrine, something can be true even during a time period where there is no formal doctrine or dogma. It’s just that disagreeing on it and falling on the wrong side (whichever that may be) isn’t heretical until/unless it is ever made doctrine/dogma, since no one had any way to know for sure.

 

[KindredSoul]

To put my claim another way, I’m not saying it is Dogma or doctrine, I’m saying I personally believe it is true, and anything that is true can potentially be proclaimed as Dogma or doctrine one day. Since after all, dogma and Doctrine are simply codification of what was already true, and not the invention of it. Dogma and Doctrine don’t make the truth, in other words, they simply formally recognize it and make it binding upon the faithful to recognize it from then on. Obviously, if I’m wrong and this is false, it could never be doctrine or dogma. But if it’s true, as I personally believe very strongly it is, it could be doctrine/dogma, someday. It won’t necessarily be, but it could be.

Edit: For the record, I don’t think what I’m saying is unique to this topic at all. On ANY topic where there is room for theological disagreement, only one view among several contradictions can be true. Whichever happens to be true could potentially be dogma/doctrine someday, as long as it was even possible that it was implied by pre-existing doctrines/dogmas (since the seeds had to have been there all along, since the Faith was “once and for all” delivered to the apostles/early Church). So anytime you believe something is true, in our religion, and if your belief is inspired by already existing dogma and not plucked out of thin air, it means that if you’re right it could one day be dogma/doctrine.

 

[anhphan]

Thanks, everyone.