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

[FiveLinden]

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

I have a passing acquaintance with the meaning of words.

 

[Spyridon]

have a passing acquaintance with the meaning of words.

It takes more than that to interpret and implement the Canons of the Church.

If you’re not a Canon Lawyer or a Bishop, you have zero business even reading those Canons, let alone trying to teach Catholics how they ought to be implemented or how to interpret them.

Do you have an in depth understanding of the entire Code of Canon Law, the Documents of VII, the Catechism and the Bible? Because those are all prerequisites to understanding Canon Law. Oh and are you also fluent in Ecclesial Latin?

 

[FiveLinden]

So while I do understand why it would look like Canon Law is saying there is an exception, where even a sincerely repentant penitent can be denied absolution if it’s serious enough, when more closely examined this is a case where the penitent doesn’t even have the ability to stop in the very act of this specific ongoing instance of sin.

OK. Here’s why I disagree with you. You have posited the concept of two types of confessed sins: ones that are in the past and cause no on-going harm to others, and ones which are continuing to cause harm. Pedophilia continues to cause harm to the victims. Involving the authorities including experts redresses that continuing harm, just like publicly stating that you had spoken falsely about a priest. Why is a priest’s reputation of greater importance than the healing of a molested child? (And I don’t mean to say that reputation is of no importance - but other things are too).

 

[Roseeurekacross]

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.

Spyridon, I don’t know the details, don’t want to know the details, it’s disturbing enough to know a lot of what went on here, but if the response of the Bishop of my Diocese is get rid of that type of confession and have the physical environment we have now, that’s really all I want to know.

We are all trying to move on, to heal, to support those who were abused, and families of those who did not survive.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

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.

Would you have Priests all end up in jail, so we have no Priests left. Where does that leave the flock? There is no going to Mass in prison, or Reconcilliation.
No Sacraments at all. Jesus said give Ceaser what is due to Caesar and God what is due to God.

I am sure the vested parties will have this all worked out so children are protected.
The Magisterium is well aware of the goings on here.

 

[Arkansan]

A criminal going to jail doesn’t actually redress the harm done to their victim. It’s a means of redressing the disorder inflicted upon society.

 

[FiveLinden]

A criminal going to jail doesn’t actually redress the harm done to their victim. It’s a means of redressing the disorder inflicted upon society.

There should also be active support for victims. Reporting oneself should trigger that. It is also good for victims to have evidence so they will be believed if they wish to discuss it.

 

[Arkansan]

Victims can obtain support by reporting the incident themselves. I find it hard to imagine a support system for victims automatically disbelieving one.

Though even if that were the case, the abuser would not be the cause of them not being believed, and thus would not have a duty in justice to correct that.

 

[MaryT777]

This would seem to obviously lead to people not confessing the sin of pedophilia in any manner. I remember a priest at a retreat saying that he had been a priest 30 years and could count on ONE hand the number of people that confessed to such a sin. It’s obviously rarely confessed for whatever reason.

I think these perpetrators deep down inside don’t think they are doing any wrong and it is the fault of someone else; parents’ for not watching their children more carefully, even the childrem themselves for acting or dressing provocatively in their sick minds; they ‘wanted to or liked it.’

These people are incredibly sick and it seems that nothing can take away their desire for children. They make model prisoners when they are put in prison which rarely happens statistically in comparison to the number of people who commit such crimes… They can ‘play the game’ so to speak and do what it takes to get released.

Most parents don’t want to have their children testify due to trauma issues. Reliable testimony from children is hard to obtain. Thus, these cases are “plead down” to lesser charges and the pedophiles gets off with little or no consequences.

I have based this on what I learned in pursuing my degree in Nursing at a major University in the 80’s and what I learned at this time. That is AGES ago. This issue touched my family so I still read quite a bit about it.

Let us pray fhat the confessional remains a place to confess sins without worrying about being reported to authorities for those that might have such issue to confess. Once this is accomplished forcing priests to report info from confessions then who knows where this forced reporting will go next.

That said the Church will prevail until the end of the age. Christ promised us that.

It is a slippery slope. Just a few random thoughts on the issue.

 

[FiveLinden]

Victims can obtain support by reporting the incident themselves. I find it hard to imagine a support system for victims automatically disbelieving one.

You should read the results of the numerous investigations into institutions that did this repeatedly. They were meant to be supportive of the children in their care.

 

[KindredSoul]

OK. Here’s why I disagree with you. […the rest snipped out for character space…]

Yes, but at a certain point, you can say any sin continues to cause harm if it’s of the secondary “psychological trauma” variety. So clearly it can’t just be the effects of the sin which linger and cause harm, and if that’s what you thought I was saying, there has been a misunderstanding. I was not saying it must be the harm of the sin that is ongoing, but that it must be the sin itself that continues, constantly, without ever ceasing even for a moment, even long enough to confess it while plausibly intending to stop. In other words, not a sin that the sinner does repeatedly, arguably genuinely feeling repentant each time in between, but it would be one ongoing instance of sin. Again, the sin itself–that particular instance being confessed–is what’s ongoing, not only it’s harms.

That’s the case with the priest who is falsely accused of impropriety in the confessional. It isn’t “The priest has been maligned, and now he’s dealing with awful consequences.” The false accusation is itself ongoing, at this very moment, for as long as the false accusation stands without being retracted. That is why the sin is ongoing, not because the consequences linger, but because literally that very sin–falsely accusing the priest–is still actively, constantly, every single instant of the day, happening until it is retracted. That’s the nature of an accusation: When you make an accusation, it’s a “standing” action, that is, the action stands until retracted. As long as it stands, it’s ongoing. Again, the only equivalent, abuse-wise, is that the abuse, the actual particular act of abuse being confessed, never ended and is still ongoing (as gross and perverse as that would be) even while the penitent is confessing: As in, he is confessing abusing someone an hour ago, and the incident of abuse has actually lasted over an hour so he’s still doing it even at this very instant. As weird and perverse as that scenario may be, it’s the only thing that would be the same as what I’m saying, where the very sin being confessed was still at this very moment ongoing. Combining that with the later post I made about how this canon is about falsely accusing a priest of doing something in confession (it doesn’t even apply to such accusations against priests in general, ONLY against priests whom the accuser says did it in CONFESSION, which, as I pointed out in my post, is sacrilege and turns the sacrament into an ongoing weapon where the priest being accused can’t even try to defend himself), it’s certainly a totally different kind of situation than the “The sin may be over, but it’s consequences and harms still linger” scenario.

 

[KindredSoul]

As to redressing the wrong, one is indeed obligated to redress wrongs insofar as one can without having to reveal one’s sins to anyone. Again, the Canon about false accusations about priests is not primarily about redressing the wrongs, though, it’s about ceasing one’s ongoing, standing sin against the priest, which–due to the nature of a false accusation–simply will redress the wrong and harms done, since the moment the accusation is recanted (which, as has been pointed out before, does not necessarily even mean the accuser has to admit to lying, as there are other ways to recant, unlike what you propose for abusers who would by nature HAVE to be revealing their sins) the consequences of it would begin to be redressed. Most sin isn’t like that. Including abuse: Merely stopping the sin unfortunately doesn’t automatically “redress” the consequences, but nor is the sinner obligated to redress those consequences if doing so means disclosing his own sins to parties who will use it against him.

I know you want to help victims, and that’s very noble, but confession and absolution are sacred, not tools to be exploited for ANY purpose other than strictly the absolution and salvation of the sinner who is confessing. Even incredibly noble goals, if they are outside of that specific category, are simply not the arena of confession and absolution, and to “use” them to achieve any goal beyond that is therefore, in itself, twisting them. That’s simply therefore not the way TO help victims. And it can’t be. Helping victims is the right thing, but you’re just going to have to turn to other methods. Violating the sanctity of confession by turning it into a tool to exploit for either betraying the trust of or blackmailing the very people it’s supposed to help (sinners, even those you may or may not think are horrible people and don’t deserve any help) is just not the way. Period.

 

[FiveLinden]

it’s certainly a totally different kind of situation than the “The sin may be over, but it’s consequences and harms still linger” scenario.

I don’t see that extent of difference. The defence of the reputation of the sacrament may indeed be the principle motivation of the canon but that does not change my position which is that if absolution can be deferred pending a penitent’s action in any case at all, for whatever reason, it should be done in the case of child abusers. It is clear from the Australian Royal Commission that priests and religious who abused did confess and then abuse again.

 

[Arkansan]

if absolution can be deferred pending a penitent’s action in any case at all, for whatever reason, it should be done in the case of child abusers

The canon you quoted requires absolution to be deferred until after the penitent does something that he is already obligated to do. What you are proposing is to arbitrarily deny absolution if certain conditions are not met, not simply postpone it.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

I think these perpetrators deep down inside don’t think they are doing any wrong

I think in many cases you are right. A lot of these perpetrators think that their young victims don’t mind or even actually invite the sexual contact, and that the world simply doesn’t understand these types of “relationships”.

There is probably another group of pedophiles who are quite aware that they are doing wrong, but would not confess it either because they find it too embarrassing or dangerous to ever, ever talk about and/or they perceive that telling anyone, even a priest in the confessional, to be too much of a risk and/or they feel they can’t or don’t want to stop the behavior and they know the confessor would tell them they have to stop, so they just don’t bring it up.

 

[KindredSoul]

if absolution can be deferred pending a penitent’s action in any case at all, for whatever reason, it should be done in the case of child abusers. It is clear from the Australian Royal Commission that priests and religious who abused did confess and then abuse again.

That’s precisely why the difference is so important though: Absolution for a sin that has actually been repented of, that is not being committed at this very moment, can’t be deferred pending a penitent’s action. Ever. The Canon you mention concerns a sin which, by nature, has NOT been repented of, as it is indeed being committed at the very moment it’s confessed. As long as the false accusation hasn’t been retracted, the priest is STILL being falsely accused. It’s not even that the penitent is probably going to falsely accuse him again and again and again (between each time, the penitent might have sincerely been contrite): The penitent IS still falsely accusing him, right now, until he recants.

And again, the action required of the penitent even THEN is not that he tells his sins to anyone. That, therefore, is NEVER explicitly required, not anywhere in any canon ever. So even then, your implication fails: There are any number of ways a penitent could retract his accusation without ever admitting he lied. There is no POSSIBLE way an abuser could turn himself in without ever admitting HIS sin. It’s apples to oranges. One is literally asking a sinner to cease himself from the ongoing commission of the specific instance of the exact sin he’s confessing, which may or may not cause people to know he sinned, but he’s still not being explicitly required to reveal that. What you are proposing IS that the sinner be explicitly required to incriminate himself for the sin he is confessing, which as I just said and explained, is not even what the Canon you propose is requiring, even if it may seem like it at first glance.

So if your argument rests on this Canon being some special exception where a sinner IS explicitly and specifically required to “tell on himself” for his sins, you’re simply mistaken. There is NO exception to the right of a penitent to not incriminate himself outside of confession. The Canon you’ve mentioned is no exception to that either. Telling someone he has to stop lying and take his lie back is subtly, but vitally, different from saying he must admit that he lied. You can tell a sinner to stop sinning, even if the mere act of stopping may incriminate him. That’s what that Canon is asking of the sinner, since retracting the false accusation is a necessary aspect of ceasing to maintain the false accusation. But you can’t tell a sinner to reveal his sins beyond what might just automatically happen if he stops.

 

[FiveLinden]

The canon you quoted requires absolution to be deferred until after the penitent does something that he is already obligated to do. What you are proposing is to arbitrarily deny absolution if certain conditions are not met, not simply postpone it.

Yes but but this is just saying there is a difference between calumny and child abuse. I am not saying they are the same, I am saying that this canon shows that absolution can be withheld until redress is done. And in the case of a penitent child abuser appropriate redress begins with reporting yourself.

 

[SerraSemper]

The Archbishop is simply following Divine Law. The Seal is part of the NATURE of the Sacrament founded by Jesus Christ. There is no wiggle room. If the Australian government chooses to make Catholicism illegal, then it so chooses. And we will have martyrs and confessors. BTW, there are priests who died protecting the Seal of Confession.

 

[KindredSoul]

Yes but but this is just saying there is a difference between calumny and child abuse. I am not saying they are the same, I am saying that this canon shows that absolution can be withheld until redress is done. And in the case of a penitent child abuser appropriate redress begins with reporting yourself.

Yes, but you have to show far more than what you think you are showing: The complaint many of us have given you is that telling a sinner to TELL on himself is a backdoor way of violating the seal. And as many of us have pointed out, the “redress” demanded by the Canon you’ve quoted does not, actually, require that the sinner tell anyone he sinned, only that the priest did NOT do the thing he said, for which there could be any number of other explanations than “I lied” meaning that the Canon’s requirement does not, in fact, command him to tell anyone about his actual sin. So you’ve not proven, at all, that there is any instance where a sinner can be required to disclose his sins outside of the confessional. Therefore you have not quelled the reasonable concern that forcing a sinner to disclose his own sins–with that explicitly being part of the requirement, such that if you don’t disclose your sins you’ve failed to comply–is just a “loophole,” and an illicit one, for violating the seal. Until you’ve shown that, you’ve dodged the important issue at hand: The sanctity of the seal, and the sanctity of confession as a place where one can turn for healing and absolution without fear or the “condition” that the information will fall into the hands of those who would use it against you. Again, even your Canon quote does NOT compel the direct and explicit disclosure of one’s sins to anyone, so your reasoning of “If they can do it to protect priests, they can do it to protect children” doesn’t hold, because they’re NOT doing it to protect priests: They’re not doing it–“it” being the explicit and unavoidable requirement to admit, outside of confession, that you did the sin you mentioned in confession–at all, ever, for any reason. That’s simply not the explicit and unavoidable requirement of that Canon, or any other.

 

[Arkansan]

It’s a generally agreed upon principle of moral theology that one is not obliged to betray one’s own reputation unless this is both necessary and efficacious to repair specific damage that one has caused.

There is a world of difference between canon law requiring absolution to be deferred until redress required by the natural law is made, versus requiring something in addition to be done before absolution is granted.