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

[Alex337]

Alex337:

I still think any priest who turns an abuser in is making a very fine sacrifice

You realize that the priest risks hell for that, don’t you?

To save a child. Good man.

 

[JoyToTheWhirled]

My priest taught me that he cannot give a penance which would in any way reveal the sin confessed. So, if I steal £100 from work, he cannot require me to return the money because that would reveal that I had stolen it in the first place. He would, however, expect me to make a generous, say, £100, donation to a worthy charity.

I will certainly pray for courage for all priests as this sort of thing heats up. It is ill thought-through law and a direct attack on an extremely important sacrament. Pure anti-Catholicism dressed up in pretty ‘won’t somebody think of the children?!’ clothes.

 

[Alex337]

Alex337:

I know when I confessed my priest told me to make amends to my parents to show actual contrition. Seems the same thing.

It’s not the same thing at all. A priest can ENCOURAGE the person to turn himself in, but he cannot make turning oneself into the police the penance.

It’s basically the same reason why the priest cannot break the seal of confession

I think you may not have seen my future posts where I came down on the idea that a priest should have the same amount of privilege as a psychiatrist; if they believe the penitent is a risk to them self or others they should be able to speak.

 

[phil19034]

yankeesouth:

So what other confessions should a priest break the seal for?

Well my priest always tells me to seek contrition with the wronged party. I’ve not broken the law but I suspect they would tell me to confess to that as well as part of my contrition. Otherwise I’m not contrite.

How old are you? I’ve read a few posts about what your Priest has said, and that sounds like something he would tell a child.

Telling your family and friends that you are sorry for a sin you committed against them is EXTREALY different than a priest holding absolution for hostage only if you turn yourself into jail. When people go to prision, it doesn’t just affect the criminal, it also affects the family.

If a priest was allowed to hold absolution over someone’s head, it would be abused (though most likely unintentionally)

 

[Alex337]

Alex337:

yankeesouth:

So what other confessions should a priest break the seal for?

Well my priest always tells me to seek contrition with the wronged party. I’ve not broken the law but I suspect they would tell me to confess to that as well as part of my contrition. Otherwise I’m not contrite.

How old are you? I’ve read a few posts about what your Priest has said, and that sounds like something he would tell a child.

Telling your family and friends that you are sorry for a sin you committed against them is EXTREALY different than a priest holding absolution for hostage only if you turn yourself into jail. When people go to prision, it doesn’t just affect the criminal, it also affects the family.

If a priest was allowed to hold absolution over someone’s head, it would be abused (though most likely unintentionally)

That would likely be because I’m recounting my conversations from when I was young. Since then I don’t often commit sins that would harm others. And when I do I try to be honest without encouragement from clergy.

 

[hmikell7]

That is not for you to decide. It is not up to you to make the determination on what a person has to be willing to do to be considered penitent. That is a definition for the Church to set. Period.

A person can be penitent without having to turn themselves into the authorities, at least that is the definition the Church seems to have been using for hundreds of years. They should apologize to the victims of their sins, yes. Civil authorities are not the victim, they were in no way wronged by the sin, therefore there is no reason to reconcile yourself to them.

And from what I can recall, priests aren’t allowed to require you to do anything which would reveal your sin to the world as your penance. There’s another comment just above mine that gives a good example of this.

 

[Alex337]

How is someone able to repent if they intend to commit the sin again?

 

[hmikell7]

Sorry seems I misunderstood what you wrote. People shouldn’t be avoiding confession for any other reason than not feeling sorry for their sins. If they’re avoiding for fear of civil authorities then something has gone horribly wrong with the Church.

But let’s say a priest has to report EVERY confession of sexual abuse, for instance. No matter how penitent the confessor is, he is reported to civil authorities. THAT is wrong, in my opinion. Would you agree with my statement that this is wrong?

 

[Alex337]

Sorry seems I misunderstood what you wrote. People shouldn’t be avoiding confession for any other reason than not feeling sorry for their sins. If they’re avoiding for fear of civil authorities then something has gone horribly wrong with the Church.

But let’s say a priest has to report EVERY confession of sexual abuse, for instance. No matter how penitent the confessor is, he is reported to civil authorities. THAT is wrong, in my opinion. Would you agree with my statement that this is wrong?

I think you may have missed the part where I said I thought a priest should have the same privilege a psychiatrist has; they need to report it if harm is going to happen again.

 

[JoyToTheWhirled]

I’m fascinated by the focus on sexual abuse, too. Why would a priest only be bound to reveal that kind of law breaking? Why not robbery? Or murder? Have I mis-understood an emphasis somewhere?

 

[hmikell7]

I mean a disagree with that position as well, I was really just offering the hypothetical because I was curious where you drew the line and hadn’t seen your clarification earlier. Like I said, to me it’s all or nothing. Either it all gets reported, penitent or not, or none of it does

 

[Alex337]

Cool. Did it clarify?

So if someone comes to a priest to confess and along the way explains they are going to murder/rape/torture someone the priest should still do nothing?

 

[Alex337]

Absolutely the priest should do nothing. To do otherwise would be to fall away from the faith. Canon law is very clear on what he can and cannot do. And he can’t do that.

Cool. I’ll always support the man who stops the murderer, rapist, torturer or paedophile more than the one who lets them do it though.

 

[Edmundus1581]

I’m fascinated by the focus on sexual abuse, too. Why would a priest only be bound to reveal that kind of law breaking? Why not robbery? Or murder? Have I mis-understood an emphasis somewhere?

No, you haven’t misunderstood. This has been a sub-theme of this thread.

The focus on sexual abuse is just a product of the times.

Even the argument that this is about protecting children doesn’t hold water because there are other sins and crimes which damage children, which aren’t receiving a similar treatment. eg. drug taking, adultery (not now a crime, but has been in the past), pornography (ditto), parental neglect, perjury.

Many crimes can have a devestating effect on children. eg. white collar crimes which lead to poverty and unemployment, or permanent injury to children (thalidomide); perjury, where a parent ends up in jail.

As one poster mentioned, the left (and, I’m afraid this is from the left) only become precious about children when it suits their purpoises.

Most of our sins hurt other people in some way.

 

[Alex337]

JoyToTheWhirled:

I’m fascinated by the focus on sexual abuse, too. Why would a priest only be bound to reveal that kind of law breaking? Why not robbery? Or murder? Have I mis-understood an emphasis somewhere?

No, you haven’t misunderstood. This has been a sub-theme of this thread.

The focus on sexual abuse is just a product of the times.

Even the argument that this is about protecting children doesn’t hold water because there are other sins and crimes which damage children, which aren’t receiving a similar treatment. eg. drug taking, adultery (not now a crime, but has been in the past), pornography (ditto), parental neglect, perjury.

Many crimes can have a devestating effect on children. eg. white collar crimes which lead to poverty and unemployment, or permanent injury to children (thalidomide); perjury, where a parent ends up in jail.

As one poster mentioned, the left (and, I’m afraid this is from the left) only become precious about children when it suits there purpoises.

Most of our sins hurt other people in some way.

Do you really think the right only brings up children when it doesn’t suit their purposes?

 

[Alex337]

Actually going with how by you laid out the scenario, I think a penitent who asks for absolution for a crime that hasn’t yet been committed allows the priest to do something, because it’s not a valid confession.

Could be wrong though.

I honestly think that’s part of what I’ve been saying? I said earlier that if someone intends to sin then they’re not penitent.

 

[Annie]

The Seal holds whether or not absolution is given.

 

[Annie]

If someone intends to commit or continue in sin and the priest knows this, the priest ought not absolve the sin. However, the Seal still holds.

 

[Alex337]

If someone intends to commit or continue in sin and the priest knows this, the priest ought not absolve the sin. However, the Seal still holds.

Cool. I disagree. They should totally try to save the person who would be murdered, tortured, raped, etc.

 

[Annie]

Cool, I think we all totally get that you disagree with Church teaching on this.