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

[Alex337]

Alex337:

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.

Cool. How would knowing a priest will report intentions to harm yourself or others in the future harm people? Why would it stop anyone confessing?

 

[Alex337]

This was a long post

Alex337:

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.

Not really as, again, the death penalty isn’t at play here.

Alex337:

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.

That’s an assumption. It still seems like they would have done stings if they were to. I doubt the Aus police will bother.

Alex337:

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!

I know? That’s what I’ve been saying?
Also, the job of the police is to prevent domestic violence.

 

[JimG]

Not my call, but if I were a bishop in Australia, I would mandate that priests of my diocese only hear confessions anonymously.

 

[mVitus]

That would be horrible for the scrupulous.

 

[Alex337]

Alex337:

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.

Cool. I think I disagree with the Church on this. I cannot rectify not helping to save someone from rape, murder or torture as being godly. This has been a very helpful discussion.

TheLittleLady:

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.

Disagreeing is different to ignorance, friend.

Alex337:

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.

I also think we should phone the fire department if we see smoke rather than just praying. Reporting potential harm does a lot more than doing nothing.

 

[Edmundus1581]

A child telling a Priest they have been abused is not breaking a seal of confession because that child is not confessing any sin or crime . And an ArchBishop won’t be making a statement like that in public, if it were incorrect. And especially when the Magisterium is looking over his shoulder on this issue in this country.

I see what you are saying. There may be some cases where mandatory reporting can apply, without breaking the Seal. It is quite right for the Church to examine the issues and attempt to comply, as well as she can. It is in the hands of the Church.

If the Church can been seen to respond to this and be involved in the legislation, then it is a win-win.

I am quite sure that our Bishops know the Canon law and dogma, and will not compromise on that.

 

[Alex337]

Alex337:

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.

I know that; I just disagree with it.

Alex337:

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.

Nothing in life is guaranteed. And that’d okay, it’s still better to try.

 

[JimG]

That would be horrible for the scrupulous.

Why? It would prevent them from overly obsessing about minor matters, although one can probably obsess in an anonymous confessional as well as face to face. It might improve their practice, though.

 

[Alex337]

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.

Cool. We disagree I think both groups work everywhere.

 

[Alex337]

guanophore:

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.

I also think that even if it is a sin (and I do know that thinking it isn’t goes against Catholic teaching) that it is worth it to save another.

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

Please tell me you don’t recieve communion.

 

[mVitus]

Why? It would prevent them from overly obsessing about minor matters, although one can probably obsess in an anonymous confessional as well as face to face. It might improve their practice, though.

Probably a topic for another thread, but from reading the experiences of some CAF’s more successful scrupulous posters, anonymous would make it horribly worse. But that’s for another thread. If you create a topic, mention me and I’m willing to discuss further.

@alex337 I feel like we may be talking past each other in a way. I’m not really sure how to remedy it. But would I be correct to assume that you at least understand why breaking The Seal in unthinkable within the logic of those of us opposed to the Austtalian law?

 

[Alex337]

Quite possibly, I’m sorry and I certainly didn’t mean to speak past you. I understand on an academic level why people could oppose it. But only an academic level, and I understood that coming into this.

 

[Monica83]

I’m thinking of all the people with POCD which makes them believe they are sinning by having normal contact with their kids(wiping them, bathing them, changing diapers, putting them in a car seat). These people are not pedophiles but feel guilty because normal actions in parenting sometimes give them intrusive thoughts. They could be investigated by police if they confess(which is terrifying and humiliating enough for those with POCD without the risk of the police interviewing everyone they know) so they would probably not go to confession at all.

 

[Alex337]

I’m thinking of all the people with POCD which makes them believe they are sinning by having normal contact with their kids(wiping them, bathing them, changing diapers, putting them in a car seat). These people are not pedophiles but feel guilty because normal actions in parenting sometimes give them intrusive thoughts. They could be investigated by police if they confess(which is terrifying and humiliating enough for those with POCD without the risk of the police interviewing everyone they know) so they would probably not go to confession at all.

I imagine the priest would ask what they meant. As would the police. If someone has this kind of problem they should likely seek help.

 

[LilyM]

The point of sin, especially serious sin, is that the evil it does is eternal - far more important than most of the temporary earthly.good we imagine we are doing.

We, of course, frequently talk ourselves into sin by minimizing its ill effects and exaggerating the good we suppose that we are doing by sinning.

It is emphatically NOT usually worth it, and that is why the Church teaches that for the most part we cannot do an evil.to achieve a good end.

 

[Alex337]

The point of sin, especially serious sin, is that the evil it does is eternal - far more important than most of the temporary earthly.good we imagine we are doing.

We, of course, frequently talk ourselves into sin by minimizing its ill effects and exaggerating the good we suppose that we are doing by sinning.

It is emphatically NOT usually worth it, and that is why the Church teaches that for the most part we cannot do an evil.to achieve a good end.

From all I’ve seen murder has the risk of dooming two people to Hell, the person murdered and the murderer, potentially more. Rape and torture, especially when a priest could have stopped it, often drives people from the church and has the potential to doom souls also.

Even in theory I can’t see it being okay to allow such things to happen to save ones own soul.

I understand academically where the reasoning comes from. But I can’t agree with it. But thank you for the discussion, it has helped me come to a decision on my faith and it’s much appreciated.

 

[Spyridon]

Cool. We disagree I think both groups work everywhere.

You should probably step away from this thread.

Your passive aggressive snarkiness is palpable. Nobody thinks you’re clever (or correct) - it should tell you something when about a dozen different posters have all attempted to correct you of your errors.

 

[Alex337]

Alex337:

Cool. We disagree I think both groups work everywhere.

You should probably step away from this thread.

Your passive aggressive snarkiness is palpable. Nobody thinks you’re clever (or correct) - it should tell you something when about a dozen different posters have all attempted to correct you of your errors.

I’m sorry you took it that way? I don’t think there’s anything wrong with folks disagreeing with each other; it makes for a fine discussion.

 

[Spyridon]

don’t think there’s anything wrong with folks disagreeing with each other;

Well, you’re not just disagreeing with individual posters.

You’re pushing something which is in direct contradiction to what the Church teaches.

You’re on a forum filled with devout orthodox faithful Catholics, and you’re trying to push something which is essentially heretical. You don’t see the futility in that?