F
FiveLinden
Guest
No, I am not saying that the offender has to say that he or she sinned, just that they abused a child. Doesn’t have to mention confession or the Church at all.
Melbourne archbishop says he'd rather go to jail than report child abuse heard in confession
- Status
A
Arkansan
Guest
F
FiveLinden
Guest
I have never understood natural law and the huge number of things claimed to derive from it but why would natural law not require a person responsible for the sexual abuse of a child to report themselves?
K
KindredSoul
Guest
“that they abused a child” IS the sin, so in saying they should be required to tell anyone that IS to say they should be required to disclose their sins. What you just said was pure semantics, completely dodging the point, and I have to think you KNOW it.
A
Arkansan
Guest
Why would it? Such does not actually repair the damage (which is impossible), so it is not required as restitution, so on what grounds would it be required?
F
FiveLinden
Guest
The semantics of canon law do not seem to indicate what you say. There is no prohibition on requiring an action of a penitent. It is the priest who is restrained. There is another canon requiring absolution not to be delayed, but 982 conflicts with that, so it can be done.
Can. 982 Whoever confesses to have denounced falsely an innocent confessor to ecclesiastical authority concerning the crime of solicitation to sin against the sixth commandment of the Decalogue is not to be absolved unless the person has first formally retracted the false denunciation and is prepared to repair damages if there are any.
Can. 983 §1. The sacramental seal is inviolable; therefore it is absolutely forbidden for a confessor to betray in any way a penitent in words or in any manner and for any reason.
§2. The interpreter, if there is one, and all others who in any way have knowledge of sins from confession are also obliged to observe secrecy.
Can. 984 §1. A confessor is prohibited completely from using knowledge acquired from confession to the detriment of the penitent even when any danger of revelation is excluded.
F
FiveLinden
Guest
It lessens the probability of reoffending, would be especially effective in the case of priests and religious who offend, and would support the healing of victims.
K
KindredSoul
Guest
To force a penitent to reveal his own sins simply IS to violate the secrecy. It is to use the sinner himself as your mouthpiece. If you can’t see that, then we’re at an impasse. Maybe you don’t understand just what a restrictive prospect “Reveal your sins to someone outside of confession or go to Hell” IS for the sinner, so you don’t understand just how forceful such an ultimatum IS. I see that you’re not Catholic, so it’s quite conceivable you somehow think the “technical” freedom the sinner has to refuse to obey the priest means the priest isn’t blatantly violating the spirit of Canon Law, and isn’t “forcing” the sinner to do anything. But it may as well be holding a gun to his head and saying “Tell somebody or else.” But instead of firing bullets, the gun fires Hell. Just because the sinner may opt to be shot hardly makes it any freer a choice. But unless you truly, sincerely, earnestly believe in Hell AND believe Catholic absolution is a necessary element in being saved from it, this won’t hit you with its full weight. You’ll still not see just WHY so many of us here know, without a doubt, that for a priest to withhold absolution unless a sinner reveals himself outside the safety of confession IS the same as forcing that sinner (with the threat of Hell being used as the weapon of choice) to be the priest’s mouthpiece in revealing his sin.
But if you want to see how Canon supports me, you’ve just said it, and I’ve added emphasis to show you where: “Can. 983 §1. The sacramental seal is inviolable; therefore it is absolutely forbidden for a confessor to betray in any way a penitent in words or in ANY manner and for any reason.”
To strong arm a penitent or blackmail him into revealing his own sins IS a “manner” of betraying the penitent. To deny this, you may as well say the priest would not be betraying him by holding a gun to his head and saying “Tell somebody or I’ll shoot.”
Last edited:
F
FiveLinden
Guest
I get that confessional secrecy supports the sacrament’s popularity. But I still don’t see that the priest would be breaking the seal. He would be withholding absolution. The seal would remain. Would you have the same objection to the priest requiring an apology to the victim along with an acknowledgement that what he did was wrong and unlawful?
Last edited:
K
KindredSoul
Guest
100% out of the question, and a GROSS violation of the priest’s duty to respect the seal. A priest isn’t going to violate the spirit of the seal and then get away with it because he says “Technically I didn’t tell anyone, I just held a gun to his head and made HIM do it.” You clearly, as a non-Catholic, don’t think the seal is that important and inviolable, but can you at least see, important or not, how the “gun to the head” thing would be violating it, and how the priest’s “technically it wasn’t ME who said it?” would be a LAUGHABLE attempt at a technical defense? I mean, by that logic, a rapist who gets a woman to have sex with him by holding a gun to her head can say “I didn’t technically force her to have sex. She was willing to when I said I’d shoot.” Well, by the logic you’ve been arguing all along, that same rapist, if the woman believed he had the power, could say “Have sex with me or I’ll condemn you to Hell”–a FAR worse fate than being shot, for anyone who BELIEVES in Hell–and it would logically mean he hadn’t really “forced” her. When clearly, for anyone who truly believes in Hell, he had a far worse weapon than a gun trained on her.KindredSoul:
I suppose that would be out of the question?
Last edited:
A
Arkansan
Guest
One is only obligated to avoid proximate occasions of sin which can be avoided easily, and not occasions which could only be avoided with great difficulty (e.g. by having oneself imprisoned). In the latter case, a penitent could only be required to make use of the appropriate means for minimizing the danger (e.g. avoiding being alone with children).Arkansan:
It lessens the probability of reoffending, would be especially effective in the case of priests and religious who offend, and would support the healing of victims.
That would be unobjectionable, since the victim already knows (though obviously whether such was appropriate would be situationally dependent, if the victim and the abuser were no longer in regular contact then it might be reasonable to presume that the victim would not want to be approached by the abuser.
Last edited:
K
KindredSoul
Guest
The victim already knows about the sin, so IF that was required (I’m not at all confident it can be utterly required, though it can and should be strongly encouraged, and the priest may have logical grounds for concluding a flat refusal to do so–if it isn’t born out of some powerful mitigating factor like fear, for instance if the victim hadn’t been victimized in years and the abuser wasn’t sure if bringing it up wouldn’t cause more pain than it helped–indicates a lack of contrition which IS valid grounds for refusal of absolution) it of course wouldn’t be a violation of the seal, because the penitent is not being required to reveal his sins to anyone. Again, it’s apples to oranges: One requirement is specifically aimed toward informing people (through the sinner himself as a mouthpiece) outside of the confessional about the sinner’s deeds, the protection from which is the very purpose of the seal, and the other requirement is about an apology to someone who already knew. Again, I’m not at all confident even requiring that, and absolutely refusing him absolution if he didn’t, is licit, if the sinner arguably has any other remotely conceivable and reasonable motive for refusing to do so besides a lack of contrition, but even aside from this lack of confidence on my part, it’s simply not in the same realm of trying to find a “loophole” to force the sinner to reveal his sins to people who don’t know it–which is (obviously and clearly)–in violation of the very purpose of the seal in the first place.
Last edited:
S
SerraSemper
Guest
Why would this be acceptable? A confessor can’t require acknowledgement/apology to a victim as condition for absolution or assign it as a penance. It is still jeopardizing the penitent. The victim may or may not have a restraining order. The victim may or may not record such a “confession”. The victim may not even want to see the perp’s face. A written apology would serve to incriminate the penitent.
F
FiveLinden
Guest
Sorry I thought I had overwritten and deleted that rather flippant question.
A
Arkansan
Guest
That’s another reason why it would be situationally dependent. Obviously if there’s reason to suspect that it will be recorded, or if it could reasonably be presumed to be unwanted, then such could not be required.
K
KindredSoul
Guest
Thanks, @SerraSemper. That does make sense to me. I just wasn’t immediately as sure of that as I am of the obvious violation it would be to require the penitent to outright turn himself in. But what you say makes sense. Again, the priest could suggest it and counsel it, but to require it could indeed carry those implications you mention. Indeed, when I’ve snapped at someone out of anger, or hurt someone’s feelings by saying something wrong, and I’ve confessed those losses of temper, priests have counseled me to apologize, but never have they threatened to withhold absolution if I didn’t. So how much less would they do that, under pain of withholding absolution, with an actual criminal whose apology could actually be far more likely to jeopardize the secrecy which the seal is designed to protect, depending on the circumstance? The priest could certainly encourage it, if the penitent himself felt it wouldn’t put him in legal jeopardy, but the priest can even encourage turning oneself in, which is markedly different from requiring it.
K
KindredSoul
Guest
It’s okay. I had already posted by that time, originally, but I do definitely appreciate the sentiment of your deleting it. I felt my response was still good for fleshing out my point, so something good came of it anyhow. Thanks, again.
A
Arkansan
Guest
I haven’t considered the matter much, but I don’t see any reason in principle why a priest could not require an apology to be made (to someone who was already aware of the sin) as part of a penance. Obviously such would be out of the question if it could expose the penitent to danger.
Especially given that reparation can be due on account of contumely.
Especially given that reparation can be due on account of contumely.
B
Brendan
Guest
That is what I would see happening; that every priest, to protect himself, would use screens.
T
tweedlealice
Guest
Blessings
He can’t let anything come out of confessional or he’ll go to Purgatory or Hell. It is not cool.
Some try and get involved, themselves, in the situation.
He can point out to a teacher to watch for child abuse in her students. He’s probably going to do something. Can’t reveal Confession.
In Christ’s Love
Tweedlealice
He can’t let anything come out of confessional or he’ll go to Purgatory or Hell. It is not cool.
Some try and get involved, themselves, in the situation.
He can point out to a teacher to watch for child abuse in her students. He’s probably going to do something. Can’t reveal Confession.
In Christ’s Love
Tweedlealice
- Status