P
pnewton
Guest
Salvation of souls is not the responsibility of Caesar. Nor is enforcement of law the responsibility of the Church. This Scripture is exactly why the state must state away from the Sacraments.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Melbourne archbishop says he'd rather go to jail than report child abuse heard in confession
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
A
Arkansan
Guest
Contrition means that one detests one’s sins and has a firm purpose not to commit them again. Contrition can be perfect (motivated by the offense given to God by sin) or imperfect (motivated by fear of Hell). Either is sufficient in confession, but neither implies any willingness to make one’s sins known unnecessarily to the public.Maybe you can justify why you think commission of a civil crime without accepting its consequences represents true contrition
Because there is no law requiring self-reporting.*and why it is legally defensible from a civil perspective
Last edited:
P
pnewton
Guest
Easy. God’s mercy does not require perfect contrition in the context of the confessional.Maybe you can justify why you think commission of a civil crime without accepting its consequences represents true contrition
The is hardly the first time priests have faced persecution from the world. If this issue is tried, it will either be overturned, or priests will go to jail. There will not be one child predator stopped by this stupid idea. That is what happens when you try and fight one evil with another evil.
Last edited:
A
alphawoman
Guest
Yet you advocate the concealment of crimes and avoidance of civil punishment for them. A detestation of a sin and resolution not to sin again necessarily requires a rejection of the original offense. In the confessional, spiritual absolution is granted through penance, but civil restitution is not enacted. Failure to report crimes—imminent or realized—is an act of only partial rejection of the offense and a total rejection of the civil institutions enacted to prevent crimes through failure to adhere to them.
You are right about the respective roles of Church and state. But, part of that which is Cesar’s is the ability of government to institute and enforce civil law. Where natural and civil law align, and where a known crime has gone unreported, the ability of the state to enact its justice is thwarted. Cesar is not getting his due.
You are right about the respective roles of Church and state. But, part of that which is Cesar’s is the ability of government to institute and enforce civil law. Where natural and civil law align, and where a known crime has gone unreported, the ability of the state to enact its justice is thwarted. Cesar is not getting his due.
A
Arkansan
Guest
You understand that civil law does not require people to self-report their crimes, right? That’s a notion you’ve made up.
A
alphawoman
Guest
Laws protecting defendants from self-incrimination do not recuse civil offenders of their responsibility to accept civil punishment for their crimes. They are merely rules that prevent an imbalance of power that favours the state in the administration of justice.
That the state expects offenders to confess their crimes is implicit to the structure of criminal procedure, and doesn’t require an explicit positive requirement of the defendant. Jurisprudence provides ranges of criminal sanctions and options for lenienc which take into account the remorse of the defendant, one factor of which is confession.
That the state expects offenders to confess their crimes is implicit to the structure of criminal procedure, and doesn’t require an explicit positive requirement of the defendant. Jurisprudence provides ranges of criminal sanctions and options for lenienc which take into account the remorse of the defendant, one factor of which is confession.
A
Arkansan
Guest
Do you have any basis, at all, for making this claim?That the state expects offenders to confess their crimes is implicit to the structure of criminal procedure
I don’t mean to offend (seriously, that is not my intention), but you don’t seem to understand either the law or sacramental theology.
Last edited:
A
alphawoman
Guest
This isn’t “just” about child predators, though predation of children is a terrible tragedy.
This is a larger issue of citizens (who happen to be priests) having knowledge of crimes, or criminal intent with highly likely commission, and not being able to disclose that information civilly. There are checks and balances in restrictions of privacy restrictions in different settings—and for excellent reasons. Lawyers face stringent standards in breaching attorney-client privilege in acknowledgement of the fact that prevention of some crimes are more important than institutions designed to equalize legal power across parties.
In no way need criminals seeking confession be prevented from accessing reconciliation. Through inmate ministries, they may access the sacraments whether they are free or incarcerated. But ecclesiastical absolution should not be a “get-out-of-jail” conscience cleanse, as it can be in a situation where no civil consequence has been borne for one’s misdeeds.
This is a larger issue of citizens (who happen to be priests) having knowledge of crimes, or criminal intent with highly likely commission, and not being able to disclose that information civilly. There are checks and balances in restrictions of privacy restrictions in different settings—and for excellent reasons. Lawyers face stringent standards in breaching attorney-client privilege in acknowledgement of the fact that prevention of some crimes are more important than institutions designed to equalize legal power across parties.
In no way need criminals seeking confession be prevented from accessing reconciliation. Through inmate ministries, they may access the sacraments whether they are free or incarcerated. But ecclesiastical absolution should not be a “get-out-of-jail” conscience cleanse, as it can be in a situation where no civil consequence has been borne for one’s misdeeds.
P
pnewton
Guest
They do not align. The issue is not the concealment of a crime that one has witnessed. The only issue arises when a person gives information as part of confessing sins, that is hearsay. It is a very narrow exception. Even the justice system can conceal a confession if it was not made with proper notification of one’s rights.Where natural and civil law align,
The bigger question is whether or not we will allow free exercise of religion, or if the government will start controlling what religion is and is not. Australia seems to be on the road that China is on of controlling Christianity. I will not be surprised to see the United States follow suit some day. It will take longer because of the First Amendment.
I take it you are not Catholic. If you have any other religious beliefs, it may be you one day facing prison for Christianity, Islam, or whatever.
Last edited:
A
alphawoman
Guest
I’m not quite sure how to respond to your question. I take you at face value that you intend no offense, but I fail to see what was unclear in my previous statement, or how that last question guides the discussion more clearly.
Criminal sentencing includes ranges of punishments for specific classes of crimes. Judges are granted discretion, within the confines of legislation and existing case law, to select appropriate sanctions. Among the discretionary factors that they can consider is criminal confession when adjusting the severity of punishments, with confessions generally resulting in more lenient penalties.
Is this what you were driving at?
Criminal sentencing includes ranges of punishments for specific classes of crimes. Judges are granted discretion, within the confines of legislation and existing case law, to select appropriate sanctions. Among the discretionary factors that they can consider is criminal confession when adjusting the severity of punishments, with confessions generally resulting in more lenient penalties.
Is this what you were driving at?
A
Arkansan
Guest
Attorney-client privilege can only be broken if a client is going to commit a serious crime, not because a client has committed one previously (even one where re-offense is likely).
In any case though, the sacramental seal is absolute and inviolable by divine institution, even in cases where the natural law would allow other professional secrets to be violated.
In any case though, the sacramental seal is absolute and inviolable by divine institution, even in cases where the natural law would allow other professional secrets to be violated.
A
Arkansan
Guest
All that shows is that the state encourages already charged criminals to plead guilty. There is no such thing as an “implicit” obligation of positive law. Obedience to the state requires that one obey the laws, not that one anticipate the state’s wishes.Criminal sentencing includes ranges of punishments for specific classes of crimes. Judges are granted discretion, within the confines of legislation and existing case law, to select appropriate sanctions. Among the discretionary factors that they can consider is criminal confession when adjusting the severity of punishments, with confessions generally resulting in more lenient penalties.
Is this what you were driving at?
A
alphawoman
Guest
Correct.
That canon law requires preservation of the confessional seal in all circumstances isn’t up for debate; that is canon law.
I respectfully suggest that canon law is wrong.
That canon law requires preservation of the confessional seal in all circumstances isn’t up for debate; that is canon law.
I respectfully suggest that canon law is wrong.
A
Arkansan
Guest
That law is derived from divine law, which mandates confession of all sins, and consequently requires absolute secrecy when they are confessed, since any other practice would place obstacles to salvation.
Last edited:
A
alphawoman
Guest
You are incorrect. I am Catholic.
Frankly, I am ashamed that our Church insists on maintaining the seal of confession, even in situations where in so doing, serious violent crimes (such as murder or rape) with a high likelihood of occurring are not reported.
I do not see my right to access private confession in all circumstances as more important than the protection of innocent life or individuals from violent crimes, and granting a priest the right to an exemption to the seal to assist in preventing violent crimes for which he has information is a worthy concession for my free practice of Catholicism.
That is my opinion. The Church aligns with you, and I respect your adherence to Canon law on this matter, because protection of religious freedoms is merotorious. But, in this case, I see it as the lesser good of two.
Frankly, I am ashamed that our Church insists on maintaining the seal of confession, even in situations where in so doing, serious violent crimes (such as murder or rape) with a high likelihood of occurring are not reported.
I do not see my right to access private confession in all circumstances as more important than the protection of innocent life or individuals from violent crimes, and granting a priest the right to an exemption to the seal to assist in preventing violent crimes for which he has information is a worthy concession for my free practice of Catholicism.
That is my opinion. The Church aligns with you, and I respect your adherence to Canon law on this matter, because protection of religious freedoms is merotorious. But, in this case, I see it as the lesser good of two.
A
alphawoman
Guest
Obedience of the laws implies not contravening these laws. Once the crime is committed, what is the naturally ordered consequence of the action by the state?
If capture, sanction.
If no capture, no sanction.
What is the benefit to the Catholic of not accepting civil punishment, from a moral perspective? How is avoidance of just punishment responsible or ethical behaviour?
If capture, sanction.
If no capture, no sanction.
What is the benefit to the Catholic of not accepting civil punishment, from a moral perspective? How is avoidance of just punishment responsible or ethical behaviour?
A
Arkansan
Guest
Prosecution by state officials.Obedience of the laws implies not contravening these laws. Once the crime is committed, what is the naturally ordered consequence of the action by the state?
Not going to jail.What is the benefit to the Catholic of not accepting civil punishment
Last edited:
J
JimG
Guest
I cannot fathom how anyone can believe that there are large or small or even minuscule numbers of penitents who routinely confess civil crimes in the confessional. I would guess that most priests would say that it simply does not happen.
In any case, anything that a priest hears in the confessional is simply hearsay. He takes the penitent at face value. The penitent may be confessing real sins, made up sins, or imagined sins. The priest has no way to evaluate whether the penitent is being truthful.
A penitent might even identify himself as someone else just to get another person reported to the authorities.
A law requiring a priest to report hearsay confessions to authorities would result in NO crimes being prosecuted. All that would happen would be that police departments would send fake penitents to make fake confessions and then arrest priests for failing to report the fake confessions. Maybe this is what Australian authorities really have in mind.
And none of this addresses the fact that according to Church law, every penitent has the option to confess anonymously behind a screen. They don’t have to identify themselves.
So what’s the point? The Church is not an agent of the police, nor should it be.
(I recall reading about an incident wherein one of the kings of France suspected his wife of adultery. He demanded her confessor tell him what she had confessed. The priest, of course, refused to say anything at all about the confession, and was put to death. The wife, incidentally, had always been faithful. Sounds like this may be where Australia is headed.)
In any case, anything that a priest hears in the confessional is simply hearsay. He takes the penitent at face value. The penitent may be confessing real sins, made up sins, or imagined sins. The priest has no way to evaluate whether the penitent is being truthful.
A penitent might even identify himself as someone else just to get another person reported to the authorities.
A law requiring a priest to report hearsay confessions to authorities would result in NO crimes being prosecuted. All that would happen would be that police departments would send fake penitents to make fake confessions and then arrest priests for failing to report the fake confessions. Maybe this is what Australian authorities really have in mind.
And none of this addresses the fact that according to Church law, every penitent has the option to confess anonymously behind a screen. They don’t have to identify themselves.
So what’s the point? The Church is not an agent of the police, nor should it be.
(I recall reading about an incident wherein one of the kings of France suspected his wife of adultery. He demanded her confessor tell him what she had confessed. The priest, of course, refused to say anything at all about the confession, and was put to death. The wife, incidentally, had always been faithful. Sounds like this may be where Australia is headed.)
A
alphawoman
Guest
Not going to jail is a practical outcome. What is the moral outcome? How does avoidance of jail or other criminal sanctions for a crime committed positively form the character and behaviour of the criminal offender?
Why is the value of a human life, in the case of an individual planning murder, less valuable than the criminal’s desired right to confess without receiving a civil sanction? The Church is not the party regulating access to the sacrament of reconciliation, the offender is by his or her choice to avoid civil punishment. The offender has the equal ability to access absolution after being incarcerated.
I appreciate that penance can restore the value of a soul, which is infinite, and of greater value than a human life. But the Church, in its canon law on the inviolability of the confessional seal, is creating a perverse incentive system which lowers the effective cost of crime. If a criminal wants to be “forgiven” in the eternal sense, and all that is required is confession, the practically lived cost of crime—even heinous crime— approaches zero.
That is truly problematic.
Why is the value of a human life, in the case of an individual planning murder, less valuable than the criminal’s desired right to confess without receiving a civil sanction? The Church is not the party regulating access to the sacrament of reconciliation, the offender is by his or her choice to avoid civil punishment. The offender has the equal ability to access absolution after being incarcerated.
I appreciate that penance can restore the value of a soul, which is infinite, and of greater value than a human life. But the Church, in its canon law on the inviolability of the confessional seal, is creating a perverse incentive system which lowers the effective cost of crime. If a criminal wants to be “forgiven” in the eternal sense, and all that is required is confession, the practically lived cost of crime—even heinous crime— approaches zero.
That is truly problematic.
A
alphawoman
Guest
I’m sorry, it’s not heresay to bring a minor victim of crime to police for protection because the child has revealed he/she has been hurt. Outside the confessional, a priest receiving similar information is a mandatory reporter. Likewise, he has a moral obligation to report probable crimes outside the confessional. Those pieces of information would be actionable for police.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.