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

[KindredSoul]

I also notice something about the Canon about retracting a lie: It is specifically about lying about something that happened in confession. It’s not about any other context. It’s not just a lie about a priest in general, but lying about a “confessor.” That word is very deliberate, and indicates that the context of the accusation is that he did it in the confessor/penitent context. That is sacrilege AND it is using the seal of confession to TRAP a priest, so that he has no conceivable defense against your lie, since the seal literally means he can’t say ANYTHING. In theory, even just admitting it didn’t happen IN CONFESSION (or any context protected by the seal) would thus technically satisfy the Canon, as then the priest himself could defend himself without having the sacrament itself condemn him. This is the only, only sort of context, with adult OR child, where you would be harming someone directly by USING the seal of confessional so that they couldn’t even defend themselves without being damned. It would be like if you were abusing someone in a context (which does not exist, thank God) where, if they told anyone, or if they even made any effort to get away from the situation, they would be damned, and you had deliberately or carelessly set it up that way, turning a sacrament into a malicious and direct weapon not merely to keep your sin secret, but to actively enhance and aid the sin, since if not for the sacrament at least your victim themselves could try to escape.

That is sacrilege, and realistically speaking, lying about a priest doing something in confession is the ONLY place where that sort of sacrilege is possible, where the Church’s sacred sacrament can be weaponized so that it not merely helps conceal your sin (its intended function), but is the very tool you USED to sin (to trap someone in a position where he himself could not defend himself). The Canon you quoted, therefore, isn’t even merely about protecting the priest, which you understandably posit is surely a bit less important than protecting abuse victims: It’s about the highly sacrilegious practice of using the seal of confession ITSELF to DIRECTLY hurt someone (since it’s the seal ITSELF limiting him, and it’s not merely keeping him from saying what YOU did, it’s keeping him from saying what HE did NOT do), and as long as you don’t do something yourself to retract that, he has no hope of defense at all. Not one iota, not even the tiny, dying hopes an abused child may have, objectively speaking, of escaping, because anything he could possibly do to clear his name would violate the seal, incur his own Excommunication, and put him in danger of Hell.

In accordance with my first reply to this Canon, if you have put a priest in such an impossible position, you are actively, constantly, and unrepentantly keeping him there until you at least retract enough (namely, that it happened in confession) that he can push back and defend himself. So in a sense, until you recant at least that much, even at the very moment you confess you’re still doing this highly unique and sacrilegious sin.

 

[Melodeonist]

Pedophilia is beyond hideous and purely evil, but the seal of Confession must never be broken EVER, even if it means that the said priest gets punished for doing so.

 

[Arkansan]

In order to validly receive absolution, one must, at minimum, not intend to continue committing mortal sin. It is an undisputed principle of moral theology that one who has committed calumny is bound to retract it even at the cost of his own reputation (though as others have mentioned, one could licitly pretend to be mistaken if that were possible). Assuming the original calumny concerned grave matter, this obligation will be grave. Thus a person cannot receive absolution for grave calumny without at least intending to retract it.

OTOH, there is no moral obligation to turn oneself in for a crime committed in general. Thus that cannot be required as a condition of absolution. Since these principles are not a matter of human law, they are unchangeable.

 

[FiveLinden]

In order to validly receive absolution, one must, at minimum, not intend to continue committing mortal sin. It is an undisputed principle of moral theology that one who has committed calumny is bound to retract it even at the cost of his own reputation (though as others have mentioned, one could licitly pretend to be mistaken if that were possible). Assuming the original calumny concerned grave matter, this obligation will be grave. Thus a person cannot receive absolution for grave calumny without at least intending to retract it.

‘Moral theology’ should protect children.

 

[Arkansan]

Obviously, the Church’s moral theology forbids child molestation. And one who intended to continue committing it could not receive absolution.

 

[KindredSoul]

‘Moral theology’ DOES protect children, in that it expressly forbids child abuse and would dictate that an unrepentant child abuser, who willfully and knowingly had no intention of stopping, cannot be absolved and would thus go to Hell if he doesn’t ever muster up enough Contrition to validly confess and, while confessing, truly mean to not do it anymore. You can’t fake truly meaning it, and you can’t deliberately turn it on while plotting to do it again later, or else you didn’t truly mean it. So yes, moral theology strongly condemns the act of abuse and demands on pain of eternal condemnation that those who commit it have sincere intent to cease, and if if they ever succeed in this sincere intent that they MUST muster in order for any confession to be valid, that WILL protect children.

But moral theology should NOT cheapen reconciliation by turning it into a tool to catch criminals, nor cheapen absolution (Christ’s Grace for Heaven’s sake!) by using it as a bargaining chip to blackmail contrite offenders into turning themselves in, on pain of eternal hellfire if they don’t. Grace isn’t a cheap bargaining chip. Not even for a noble cause. A cause which, as several have said and which you have not recognized, wouldnt even be achieved because most offenders probably wouldn’t be able to force themselves to comply no matter how sincerely contrite they were.

It’s just so short-sighted, and would HURT so many kids whose abusers would lose one of the major morally moderating forces in their lives, I can’t fathom it. Your proposal, if logically scrutinized, requires one to believe abusers are either amoral, unrepentant reprobates (since that alone justifies dooming them to Hell if they can’t work up extreme courage, while the rest of us are entitled to keep our sins private without being damned for it), OR else have the courage of super virtuous, heroic saints who of COURSE would still go to confession even if they knew it meant either they or the priest had to turn them in (because only if they still went, KNOWING they’d get turned in or have to do it themselves would your proposal succeed). Only if ALL abusers were one or the other of these extremes would your proposal be just (in the former case) or effective at protecting kids (in the latter case). The truth is somewhere in between these contradictions: They’re people. People guilty of a HORRIBLE sin, but people. They can be as sincerely contrite as you or I are over our own far more “normal” sins, and yet still be just as scared as WE would be to willfully hand ourselves over to mob vitriol and the possibility of hostile prisons. So, whether you realize it or not, rules like you propose WOULD result in truly contrite offenders, who were striving on some level to stop, simply ceasing to go to confession, which is a vital part of any Catholic’s journey to fight his sins. And if cutting a contrite abuser off from one of the most powerful outside moderating forces he has against his sins, his Faith, helps the abuser’s victim and potential victims, I’m stumped as to how.

 

[guanophore]

Canon Law has to change.

The State cannot force Canon law to change, and it does not have to “change” to conform to modern legal standards in any case. Priests and the Church answer to a higher authority than the State. The State may punish Catholics for practicing their faith (though we hope and pray it will not come to that) but that does not mean we should conform the doctrines of the faith or canon law to conform to society.

 

[Spyridon]

Good for him and God bless him.

If someone came to Confession and confessed “I just released a series of nuclear and biological weapons which will kill hundreds of millions of people” I would want the Priest to remain silent and keep the seal.

That is how seriously I take the seal of Confession.

If I was a Priest, I would pray the Holy Ghost would strengthen me so that you’d literally have to torture me to death and I would still refuse to break the seal. Some things are more important than anything on this planet or this temporal life - the seal of Confession is one of those things.

To the faithless this logic is pure madness,
To the faithful this logic is self evident.

 

[Spyridon]

One harsh reality here was children were abused in the confessional. So we do not have anonymous confession nowadays. There is no hiding in a big confessional and the priest having no idea who walks in or out.

How is that possible?

A literal wall separates the priest and penitent, and here in some Churches the screen is not even see through.

It makes me so mad to think of a Priest abusing a child during a Sacramental Rite.

I think if it could be proven that a Priest did such a thing, the appropriate punishment would be for him to be defrocked, then physically castrated publicly with no anesthetic, then thrown into solitary confinement in a max security prison for life with no chance of parole.

Sexual abuse of a child during a Sacramental Rite has got to be one of the most heinous crimes imaginable.

I’m actually an advocate for castration in many pedophile cases. Depending on the circumstances either chemical or physical castration would be appropriate, IMO.

 

[FiveLinden]

But moral theology should NOT cheapen reconciliation by turning it into a tool to catch criminals, nor cheapen absolution (Christ’s Grace for Heaven’s sake!) by using it as a bargaining chip to blackmail contrite offenders into turning themselves in, on pain of eternal hellfire if they don’t.

So how do you explain the canon I have quoted which does exactly this?

 

[Spyridon]

So how do you explain the canon I have quoted which does exactly this?

You are not even a laymen, let alone a canon lawyer or Bishop.

Your interpretation of our canons means less than nothing to a Catholic.

 

[FiveLinden]

And if cutting a contrite abuser off from the one moderating force he has against his sins, his Faith, helps the abuser’s victim and potential victims, I’m stumped as to how

There is not only one moderating force. Compassion, empathy and seeking good for others are frequently in those of other, or no faith.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

Please don’t take my words out of context. If this becomes Australian law, that Priests are required to report paedophilia in those who confess in confession, then Canon Law will have to change to ensure Priests are protected. Otherwise you are basically giving someone with a few issues, a loaded gun in the confessional. How to get rid of the Priests.
And this is what the powers that be, from the Vatican down are looking into.
Time will dictate the course of action.

 

[mythbuster1]

It follows then that the same would apply to a case where a murderer confesses that an innocent man is about to be put to death for a murder the penitent committed. Would the priest have the right, in that instance, to withhold absolution or make absolution contingent on the penitent turning himself in to save the innocent man, because otherwise he would be culpable for another murder: that of the man he knew was innocent yet wrongly convicted?

 

[Spyridon]

. If this becomes Australian law, that Priests are required to report paedophilia in those who confess in confession, then Canon Law will have to change to ensure Priests are prot

That makes no sense whatsoever.

By that logic, the Church should have made a concession allowing laity to burn incense to the Emperor.

The Church DOES NOT and SHOULD NOT be moved by the sinful world.

The Church should embrace persecution and look forward to having New Martyrs, not cowardly cave in to atheistic governments.

 

[benjamin1973]

This law would just cause people to stop confessing. It would add nothing to attempts to protect children.

 

[JimG]

If Australia passes a law which requires priests to report pedophiles, how would it expect the law to work? How could a priest report a pedophile who confesses anonymously? Will the state require face to face confession??

 

[KindredSoul]

So how do you explain the canon I have quoted which does exactly this?

I’ve explained it already, several times. Perhaps you missed my replies, so I invite you to give them a look. Even if you disagree, I’ve still addressed the question with what I believe to be true.

There is not only one moderating force. Compassion, empathy and seeking good for others are frequently in those of other, or no faith.

In context, I thought it clear I meant an outside source, outside support. You’re turning the abuser into a lone ranger as he fights the battle against the sin he wants to conquer or else he wouldn’t have been inclined to go to confession. If isolating him like that, by rendering confession either dangerous or futile, is supposed to be good for the victims, again, I fail to see how.

 

[KindredSoul]

It follows then that the same would apply to a case where a murderer confesses that an innocent man is about to be put to death for a murder the penitent committed. Would the priest have the right, in that instance, to withhold absolution or make absolution contingent on the penitent turning himself in to save the innocent man, because otherwise he would be culpable for another murder: that of the man he knew was innocent yet wrongly convicted?

Possibly so, but the murderer would have to be the one who framed the man, because the sin for which the priest would be withholding the absolution would NOT be the murder (which was in the past) but the framing which, by nature of the framed man’s plight, was still an ongoing sin. So technically, the murderer would have NO obligation to turn himself in, only to say that the man did not commit the murder. He is not obligated to directly incriminate himself, by any standard, merely to recant that the innocent man had done so, IF he had deliberately framed that man. But even aside from that, my first post on this matter is in conjunction with a later post about the fact that, in that Canon Law saying the person MUST retract what they said about the priest, it’s not only a matter of saving the priest but of stopping the person from continually using the sacramental seal as a weapon against the very same priest. So if there is a difference, it’s that: The logical way to make the two equivalent, in that case, would be if the person you had framed was a priest, and the way you had framed him was by saying he’d admitted the murder to you while you confessed to him, so that he couldn’t defend himself. To use the seal against him in that way is sacrilegious, and makes it impossible for him to defend himself or even TRY, and that sacrilege, combined with the rest, is what makes the “false accusation against a priest in confession” so unique. A priest who was alleged to do something DURING a confession can’t even try to defend himself, not even a futile attempt. And it’s the seal itself, something good and holy, being used to force him into that helplessness. So it’s a bit of a different animal than almost anything else I can imagine.

 

[Arkansan]

If someone had framed another (whether or not he had committed the original crime himself), he would have a grave obligation in justice to rescue the innocent person, even if that could only be done by admitting what he did. Someone who refused to do this could rightly be denied absolution.

OTOH, if the murderer did not take any step to actively frame the innocent person, then he would not have any duty in justice towards that person, and (outside the rare case of extreme spiritual necessity) charity does not bind under grave inconvenience. Thus the murderer would have no strict obligation to rescue the person and could not be denied absolution for refusing to do so (though of course the priest could counsel him to do so).