New Australian Law Requires Priests to Break Seal of Confession to Report Admissions of Child Abuse

[Spyridon]

So what happens here when the Church inevitably refuses to comply with the government’s orders

Unjust laws can be ignored wholesale.

Let the persecution commence. The blood of martyrs is the seed of the Church. The Church has faced many much more formidable opponents than a secular Australian government. The Church will crush the godless “authorities.”

 

[mVitus]

Good point. I suppose then to me it would also come down to the victim. If you made peace with your mother, with the assistance of an unbiased party, and they forgive you as well then I wouldn’t see a reason to go to the authority. If on the other hand you went to a priest and said you planned on shouting at your mother, something which can be incredibly terrible (shouting is really quite scary at times), I would support the priest alerting the authori6ty; I see this as akin to anyone warning the police about domestic violence.

But in cases where the victim is dead you can’t really get their forgiveness. And I also think a child is not able to consent to forgiving crimes against them in an applicable manner.

I hope that makes sense?

Making peace with those you have hurt is a good practice. And I would not want to discourage it. But Confession is about asking God for His forgiveness. And I think that’s where a disconnect may be happening. What you’re saying is all good stuff, but in a different context. Kind of (I’m trying to find a good analogy) like how the Rosary is a good prayer, but doesn’t have a place at Mass. So too is making earthly amends good, but it’s not the point of Confession. And in the light of making peace with God, the earthly matters are but a grain of sand to a mountain.

In regards to your point of saying a priest who breaks The Seal is brave, let’s remember what sends a soul to hell. Rejection of God. A rejection of His love, His goodness, Christ’s sacrifice that was done for you. So if what one’s doing is a rejection of that, and that’s what a priest does in breaking The Seal, it cannot be good. Because it rejects all that is good.

 

[JimG]

This whole idea is such nonsense. Pedophiles who abuse children do not confess to a priest nor to the police.

Secondly, how can mandatory reporting even work unless the person hearing the confession knows who is confessing? Anonymous confessions are allowed, and no penitent in a confessional is required to identify himself to the priest.

In my parish and every parish I have been in, nearly 100% of confesions are heard anonymously. The average confession takes about 2 minutes and the line moves quickly.

Will the government forbid the practice of anonymous confessions in conjunction with mandatory reporting? Even if it did, the results will be exactly zero.

 

[neophyte]

Much like how people may go to a psychiatrist

Apples and oranges. To be a psychiatrist is a very different thing than to be a priest. What you propose will not and cannot attain the end you have in mind, and would be extremely harmful to society and to souls. But you seem to be convinced otherwise against the teaching of the Church, so I see no point in continuing. Fortunately, as I said earlier, the Church has enough sense to not comply with such laws.

 

[mVitus]

Presumably entrapment of that kind has been outlawed in Australia as it has been in other countries.

I’m not sure on Australian law, but a quote from this article from a criminal law firm in Florida ( http://www.andrewdstine.com/what-is-the-difference-between-a-sting-operation-and-entrapment/ ) may prove useful.

Three criteria have to have been met in order for it to be called entrapment:
1: The idea for the crime must have originated from the government agents and not from the accused person.
2: Government agents persuaded the person into committing the crime, as opposed to just giving him or her the opportunity to do so.
3: The person was not ready or willing to commit the crime before speaking to the government agents.

Using those criteria, not breaking The Seal would most definitely have originated with the priest. An undercover cop wouldn’t be encouraging, just giving an opportunity. And the priest would most certainly have been willing to keep The Seal beforehand.

 

[BroIgnatius]

So what happens here when the Church inevitably refuses to comply with the government’s orders?

Easiest of answers, at least to a Catholic. A Priest may never break the confessional seal. If he does he is automatically excommunicated. The Confessional seal cannot be broken for any reason, even if a penitent confesses murder, rape, child molesting, or anything else.

Those not really Catholic may disagree with that, but the peanut gallery does not determine Church teaching.

For those priests in Australia, they cannot break the seal. God’s law trumps man’s law, even if that means some priest will have to go to prison. So be it. No authority on earth can compel a priest to break the seal.

 

[BroIgnatius]

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.

Can. 1388 §1. A confessor who directly violates the sacramental seal incurs a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See; one who does so only indirectly is to be punished according to the gravity of the delict.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

This Archbishop is not facing martyrdom. He was convicted of a crime that occurred outside the Sacrament of Confession.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

Police Entrapment as a Defence in Criminal Law Australia

Entrapment is when a police officer or law enforcement agent has improperly induced a person to commit a crime. Read more online now.

www.gotocourt.com.au

“What does this mean for entrapment in Australia?

The result of the Ridgeway case is that entrapment does not provide a full defence. However, it operates to the extent that the integrity of the administration of justice will be preserved. The courts will not condone illegal and improper acts of law enforcement agents and will use their discretion to not admit evidence if the case requires.

It must be noted, though, that the purpose of entrapment as a defence is not to eliminate or entirely excuse the criminal liability of the accused. Criminal justice requires that the person be held accountable for their actions unless there truly was no other option available to them.”

There are quite a few scenarios here.

 

[Cruciferi]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[Cruciferi]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Let the persecution commence.

 

[guanophore]

Actually the idea that concupiscence is lust is what I learned here…

I fear there has been a misunderstanding.

Concupiscence

Concupiscence in its widest acceptation is any yearning of the soul for good; in its strict and specific acceptation, a desire of the lower appetite contrary t...

www.catholic.com

I think I’ve been pretty straight forward in this thread as to what I believe? If someone admits to a priest during confession that they plan to commit murder, rape or torture. Or to kill themself for that matter. The priest should be allowed to alert the authorities.

Well, you are not in charge of the Church, or the confessional, Alex, and despite your personal opinions, all these would constitute a grave sin.

I’d be more likely to believe that will happen if the police had conducted such stings on psychiatrists too. They haven’t so I retain my scepticism.

You are attempting to apply secular values to a spiritual event/sacrament.
[/quote]

This is an anti-Catholic position.

Not inviolable

argument, as I mentioned, speaks to “If you loved God, you would do X.”

It is a perfect example because it demonstrates how a secular law can contradict the sensibilities of the faithful, not to mention the doctrines of the faith.

I don’t think when it was first introduced they did stings either.

There was no need. Most mental health professionals are happy to report in order to protect the community. Up to that time, it had been illegal for them to do so.

If on the other hand you went to a priest and said you planned on shouting at your mother, something which can be incredibly terrible (shouting is really quite scary at times), I would support the priest alerting the authori6ty; I see this as akin to anyone warning the police about domestic violence.

This is not logical. A priest cannot offer absolution unless the penitent has a firm purpose of amendment, so confessing a sin one plans to commit is not a valid confession.

If everyone “warned the police about domestic violence” they would get nothing done! The job of the police is not to prevent potential domestic violence!

 

[guanophore]

I don’t think a person is much of a vehicle of grace if they let people be murdered, raped or tortured.

This is another anti-Catholic position, Alex337. If you read about St. Peter and St. Paul in the book of Acts, you will be able to easily see how God can use a person who has done bad things as vehicles of grace.

God’s grace is not hindered by the sinfulness of man. And the efficacy of the Sacraments is not dependent upon the holiness of the priest.

I think a priest should alert the authorities if a person is going to harm themself or others.

The ability of the priest to do this depends upon the circumstances. The laws of mandated reporting do not apply to the Sacrament of Confession. Outside of that, a priest can take measures.

If a priest would allow a person to carry on with their stated intent then that is letting them do so and I do not think they are a vehicle of grace.

You have a warped perception about the nature of the Sacramental flow of grace.

Hey friend, there’s no need to assume ignorance. I’ve been to confession plenty of times. And part of confession with at least one of the priests I speak to has included thoughts on how to avoid future sin.

Spiritual direction may be provided to the penitent, but it is not a required part of the sacrament.

If, on the other hand, they do then the priest will be able to do something about it.

You are making an erroneous conclusion based on several erroneous assumptions.

 

[guanophore]

If a person would be willing to risk hell to save a child then I have every respect for them in the world.

This is not sound thinking. We all have a responsibility to bring souls to heaven, starting with our OWN!!!

There is no guarantee, even if a priest did commit the grievous sin of breaking the seal of confession, that they could “save a child” anyway! People report child abuse all the time and it doe not necessarily help.

And you seem not to have noticed the many, many times where I explained that I think a priest should alert authorities to a person’s intent to commit a crime; not to past crimes.

This could only be done if the disclosure happened outside the seal of the confessional.

Sorry for the frustration, but, this is taught to every little child before they make their first Confession. Every Catholic learned this right along with learning the Eucharist is the Body of Christ. It is taught to little kids or those in the first stages of conversion. It is a basic Catholic thing.

Take a deep breath, LittleLady, it seems quite clear that this poster does not have basic catechesis.

Yes, and for the forty first time; I think that is wrong.

You are free to your opinion, of course. There are as many opinions as there are belly buttons. Catholics are obligated through the obedience of faith to submit to the teachings of the Church, even if we disagree.

But I’m talking about stopping people who intend to do harm to themself or others.

No one person has the power to do this, not you, not the priest, not the police. The only way to stop this is for the perpetrator to come to Christ, who will cleanse such evil from his heart.

You are following a false premise that reporting potential harm will prevent harm. It is a practical impossibility.

That’s not judging by the consequences; whether the person seeking to stop them succeeds or fails I still believe they did the right thing, it is not reliant on the consequences.

You left out a part of your consequential reasoning, Alex. You are suggesting that the grave sin of breaking the confessional should occur as a 'right thing".

You cannot prove someone wrong by saying that they are appealing to consequences.

The wrongness of this reasoning is in defending a grave sin in an attempt to prevent some other potential grave sin.

consequentialism requiring the actual consequences to define whether an action were good or bad. If not then the act of confession itself, an action which is meant to bring good, is a form of consequentialist philosophy.

No, because proper confection of the Sacrament is always good. There is no case in which a valid confession does not bring good.

 

[guanophore]

That’s cool, in this scenario to me it would seem that the consequence is sinful either way.

It is not sinful to maintain the seal of confession.

And I see no reason for the seal of confession to cover future acts.

The seal of confession cannot “cover future acts” because they have not yet occurred. A priest also cannot report something that has not occurred, even if it may occur, if it is revealed under the seal.

If it’s saving a person from being murdered, raped or tortured I feel I can safely agree with it.

There is no guarantee that such a disclosure would prevent any of these things.

 

[grotto]

No - its not wrong. Jesus told the apostles, who’s sins you shall forgive shall be forgiven, who’s sins you shall retain shall be retained. The other applicable teaching Our Lord said, Render unto Caeser the things that are Caeser’s and unto God the things that are Gods. The priest business is forgive or retain. Caeser’s business is to find and punish offenders. They both do not work at the same place.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

The wrongness of this reasoning is in defending a grave sin in an attempt to prevent some other potential grave sin.

I never disagreed with that. However, Alex is clearly claiming that the former grave sin is not a sin at all. This is contrary to Catholic teaching, but we may listen to his arguments.

 

[LilyM]

I’m a lawyer. Lawyers obviously get information from clients that they are bound to keep confidential.

In my jursdiction lawyers are permitted to break confidence if we get information, for example, about an imminent risk to somebodys safety.

However, we are not mandatory reporters. And for good reason - we need clients to trust us enough to be honest with us at all times regardless of the criminality or illegality of their behaviour. And lawyers as part of their profession necessarily deal oftentimes with people who have committed crimes or civil wrongs, so the level of trust needs to be very high.

I see a priest in the confessional as in the same boat - they certainly, at times, deal with people who have done all manner of illegal as well as immoral behaviour. And need to have that high level of trust with the penitent to do their job effectively.

It would be a sad day indeed if I as a lawyer ended up.having that sort of luxury and privilege in cases where a priest, acting as a minister of God, did not.

Let us not conflate God’s justice or right with community standards. Jesus extended His mercy to the woman caught in adultery, for example, without requiring her to submit to the secular punishment for her behaviour.

 

[Alex337]

I suppose I can’t see how someone can be penitent without desiring to make amends with the person they have wronged.

And if a priest would be willing to risk hell to save a person from being murdered, raped or tortured that still seems like a brave deed. All of those things could easily lead another person to hell, if a priest were to stop it at the cost of themself that’s brave. Of course at this point I also don’t believe God would send such a man to Hell, but I recognise that’s heresy.

 

[Alex337]

Cool, then nothing will come of this law and everyone on the thread can chill.