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

  • Thread starter Thread starter anhphan
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
FiveLinden said:
40.png
KindredSoul:
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.
Click to expand...
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).
Click to expand...
Lots of sins have ongoing consequences. If I cheated on my spouse ten years ago, our marriage may suffer ongoing issues because of it today. That doesn’t mean that, if confessed today that I cheated but have stopped the cheating ten years ago and have no intentions of cheating in future, I would then be required even to tell my spouse, let alone publicly admit to the adultery.
 
Well, all, I’m going to have to try to bow out here. I’ve almost literally been in this thread all day, and it’s a fairly intense thread so that means I’ve been glued to the phone or computer almost constantly at times, when I had other things I should have been doing. That’s a habit of mine in debates, sometimes. I’m not sure there’s anything I can say that I haven’t already said, or that wouldn’t just be clarifying or rephrasing or explaining things I’ve already said. That’s not anybody’s fault, it’s just the way debates often go, and if I stick around, I’ll probably be just as glued to this one tomorrow, since it’s both lengthy and the responses are pretty frequent. Thanks, all, for the thoughtful discussion!
 
Last edited:
I think I may have to drag myself also from the field of battle. Thank you everyone for your courtesy and patience.🙂
 
If you want to watch the press conference of His Grace, Archbishop Hart, concerning the Royal Commission findings you can do so here:

http://mediasite.cam.org.au/Mediasite/Play/ff647270104e472ab64e5de93fc7bd841d

The above link comes from the Archdiocese’s online magazine, and the whole article can be viewed here:

https://melbournecatholic.org.au/Re...ishop-denis-hart-addresses-media-in-melbourne

In the video, which is around 30 minutes, the Archbishop does have a Q&A and I am pretty sure he does get asked about not being able to disclose what goes on in confession. Unsure of his response but it is worthwhile watching.
 
Last edited:
www.theguardian.com

Vatican says royal commission findings deserve to 'be studied seriously’

Holy see says it will support Australian church as it listens to and accompanies victims and survivors ‘in an effort to bring about healing and justice’
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com

It will be up to the Pope and his advisers to consider many of the inquiry’s far-reaching recommendations, including changes to canon law and voluntary celibacy for its priests.

But he said Australia’s bishops have asked the Holy See to clarify the extent of the seal and what it includes, after questions about whether it applies to a child revealing their abuse.
 
Last edited:
Many of us are having trouble wrapping our heads around what has occurred. Your reaction is shared by many
 
Fauken said:
I could be wrong, but in the United States, it’s my understanding that the seal of confession would be protected by the Constitution. It was protected by the Supreme Court of Louisiana:
Click to expand...
The same type of law in other states will likely be stricken down as well a priest is ever charged. However, this is only a factor in the United States where freedom of religion is protected.
 
Last edited:
FiveLinden said:
‘Moral theology’ should protect children.
Click to expand...
Just to be clear, theology, and the mission of the Church, is the salvation of souls. All social justice issues, from the poor to criminal justice, is for the purpose of salvation.

The first protector of children should be their own parents. Yet parents can, with impunity, protect their own child by not reporting abuse to avoid trauma for their child. Priest, along with teachers, coaches and others that interact with children, are not one component of protecting children, and as less of a factor than the parents are the justice system. They are, however, an easy scapegoat.
 
Attorney-client privilege in Canada provides for exemptions in cases where a crime is being premeditated, is ongoing, or counsel is being sought for post-act concealment. Why should standards be different for the confessional? What authority does the Church have to be the arbiter of civil justice, when Jesus himself asked to render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s, and when civil law is so clearly aligned with natural law?

If a person who has committed a crime is truly repentant (assuming the discloser is the offender), that individual will self-report to civil authorities and reap the civil consequences. Else, to confess and not self-report to police is an act of concealment, to which the priest is now party.

If the discloser is a witness or victim of a crime, so much the stronger is the compulsion to act quickly in protection of the victim.

This just boggles my mind. A necessary condition of absolution in confession is repentance. Concealment of a crime is, by definition, a lack of acceptance of responsibility of the natural consequences of a criminal act. How is this even an issue, from either a sacramental perspective or a civil reporting one?!
 
Just put a sign outside the confessional: “Any reportable sin that you confess can and will be reported to the proper authorities. Your confession can and will be used against you in a court of law.”

I might add another sign: “You have the right to an anonymous confession.”
 
alphawoman said:
If a person who has committed a crime is truly repentant (assuming the discloser is the offender), that individual will self-report to civil authorities and reap the civil consequences.
Click to expand...
Why?

(10 characters)
 
That would certainly let everyone know where the confessor is going . . .
 
That’s like putting out a sign on your front gate,

Beware of the dog, or beware of the bull. Not sure what it’s like in the states but here it’s admitting liability if you animal bites or charges.
It’s advised not to do this. 🦏
If this does become law, no one will need a sign.
 
Last edited:
True repentance requires admission of culpability and acceptance of its attendant consequences.

Participation in the civil state requires adherence to civil law. To not assume civil responsibility for one’s crime is to deny the objective reality of the crime committed- and its negative effects on victims- and to actively engage in the crime’s concealment.

Anything less is an avoidance of one’s responsibility to civil society (that which is Cesar’s). Christ advocated civil obedience in matters where civil law is in accord with moral law, and failure to self-report is a further offence against respect for civil law—hence, a continued cooperation in the same sin.
 
alphawoman said:
True repentance requires . . . acceptance of its attendant consequences.
Click to expand...
Why does repentance entail reporting one’s crimes to civil authority?
Participation in the civil state requires adherence to civil law. To not assume civil responsibility for one’s crime is to deny the objective reality of the crime committed- and its negative effects on victims- and to actively engage in the crime’s concealment.
Click to expand...
There is no law requiring self-reporting, nor is not talking about something equivalent to denying it, nor is the crime of concealment committed by purely passive actions.

You should not throw around legal jargon that you don’t understand.
 
Maybe you can justify why you think commission of a civil crime without accepting its consequences represents true contrition, it is legally defensible from a civil perspective.

Kindly do so in a civil manner.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top