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

  • Thread starter Thread starter hmikell7
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
what should a priest do out someone admits to being suicidal in confession? Can they alert authorities and medical professionals?
Click to expand...
No they can’t. It’s against canon law, and goes well beyond your or my place to question
 
Last edited:
Code: 
 There was an incident of this exact same thing in the United States, when a priest in
Louisiana was required to tell what happened during a confession, since it was claimed that he was told there about sexual abuse. A woman said when she was a minor she went to a priest and told him about being sexually abused. Then later this ended in court, and the court ordered the priest to say what happened in the confessional then. But the priest could not so much as say that such a confession occurred. This then went from court to court in Louisiana and finally it was decided he didn’t have to say what he was told in confession, if there was such a confession, after all.
If such a law exists in Australia, it could well occur that priests would face a legal requirement to say what they were told in confession in such a case.
 
Last edited:
Alex337 said:
I think priests should hold to the same rules as psychiatrists and report of someone has expressed that they will harm themselves or others. What that means should be determined by legal experts.
Click to expand...
Unlike doctors in general and psychiatrists specifically, priests are not qualified to make this determination. Priests are only qualified to determine if someone is sufficiently contrite to be absolved of their sin. Unless you’re arguing for sin to be a consideration of secular government priests have no business being mandatory reporters.
 
Last edited:
I think I already explained that I think it should work the same as a psychiatrist. Are you going to answer my question?
 
AlbertDerGrosse said:
40.png
Alex337:
I think priests should hold to the same rules as psychiatrists and report of someone has expressed that they will harm themselves or others. What that means should be determined by legal experts.
Click to expand...
Unlike doctors in general and psychiatrists specifically, priests are not qualified to make this determination. Priests are only qualified to determine if someone is sufficiently contrite to be absolved of their sin. Unless you’re arguing for sin to be a consideration of secular government priests have no business being mandatory reporters.
Click to expand...
I’d think that intending to commit the sin again wound be not being contrite.
 
Alex337 said:
I’d think that intending to commit the sin again wound be not being contrite.
Click to expand...
I know of no priests outside of the legends of St. Padre Pio who claim to have the ability to read people’s minds as such!
 
I found this response by a priest on another thread, quoted and linked below…
40.png
Can a priest require you turn yourself into the police as penance ? Ask an Apologist
I read in a book that a priest may not make a person, say who confesses to murder, turn himself into the police as his penance. This book was spiritual in nature, non-fiction, and was written by a Catholic priest. However, a couple years ago I was in an RCIA meeting with a person I was sponsoring and our parish priest was asked if if he could require a murderer to turn himself in as his act of penance. The priest told us he could, When I tried to ask him to elaborate he shut me down. So, what …
Click to expand...
To require that someone turn himself in to the police would be to require him to reveal his confession to a third party. While the sinner is free to do so if he chooses, to require it would appear to be the equivalent of the priest revealing the contents of the confession via a secondary source. In light of canon 984, the priest only knows who the murderer is based on the confession. To require the penitent to turn himself in to the police would be to use that information to the detriment of the penitent. And if the absolution is essentially conditional upon this requirement it would seem to also violate canon 980. If someone is not sufficiently contrite the confessor can simply withhold absolution. If the penitent is sufficiently contrite the priest can most certainly encourage him to turn himself in to the police but to require someone to reveal their confession to another would violate canon law.
Click to expand...
Can. 980 If the confessor is in no doubt about the penitent’s disposition and the penitent asks for absolution, it is not to be denied or delayed.

Can. 983 §1 The sacramental seal is inviolable. Accordingly, it is absolutely wrong for a confessor in any way to betray the penitent, for any reason whatsoever, whether by word or in any other fashion.

Can. 984 §1. A confessor is prohibited completely from using knowledge acquired from confession to the detriment of the penitent even when any danger of revelation is excluded.
 
Last edited:
That’s actually really helpful! Thank you. I might just have to change my mind.
 
Obviously anyone who is ready and willing to go out and commit a sin again as they’re sitting in confession is going to be willing to lie about being penitent.

So how is the fact that your priest asks about it relevant in determining whether they are truly penitent or not?
 
Last edited:
hmikell7 said:
Obviously anyone who is ready and willing to go out and commit a sin again as they’re sitting in confession is going to be willing to lie about being penitent.

So how is the fact that your priest asks about it relevant in determining whether they are truly penitent or not?
Click to expand...
Perhaps. And yet we have this rule for psychiatrists who are also not psychic.

If someone does state such to a priest they should be able to step in. Just as a psychiatrist can. It would also protect suicidal confessions.
 
The way I see it this is a lose-lose-lose scenario. If the Church doesn’t report Confessions of abuse, criminals could potentially get away with very serious crimes. If the Church is forced to report confessions then it’s a load of religious freedom. If the Church willingly reports confessions then you’ll have a populace which is much less willing to confess certain sins, thereby invalidating any confessions they do receive so long as they withhold, and would lead to some stopping going to confession or church at all.

There is no win scenario here.

It’s in times like this, when every angle is a loss in some way, that I tend to side with the Church on what should be done. And Church law says confessions should be under seal in the interest of reconciling souls to God. That is more important than ANY amount of earthly justice.
 
Last edited:
The ACT is a small capital territory which is heavily Left wing being the seat of government. I believe the Federal Government has the right to overturn laws of the territories as it did in the Northern Territory when it brought in Euthanasia.

I am not sure if it has the power to do this for the states.
 
Last edited:
hmikell7 said:
The way I see it this is a lose-lose-lose scenario. If the Church doesn’t report Confessions of abuse, criminals could potentially get away with very serious crimes. If the Church is forced to report confessions then it’s a load of religious freedom. If the Church willingly reports confessions then you’ll have a populace which is much less willing to confess certain sins, thereby invalidating any confessions they do receive so long as they withhold, and would lead to some stopping going to confession or church at all.

There is no win scenario here.

It’s in times like this, when every angle is a loss in some way, that I tend to side with the Church on what should be done. And Church law says confessions should be under seal in the interest of reconciling souls to God. That is more important than ANY amount of earthly justice.
Click to expand...
If people stop confessing of they plan to commit that sin again and thus be reported for it then I don’t think they were contrite. So no loss there.
 
If people stop confessing of they plan to commit that sin again and thus be reported for it then I don’t think they were contrite. So no loss there.
Click to expand...
There is no reliable way to decide whether a person plans to commit a sin again. So it’s either all or nothing. Either all confessions of child abuse get reported, or none of them do, you can’t have your cake and eat it too.

So again, I’m going to side with the Church on this one. It is backed by nearly two millennia of people much more intelligent and well-read than myself theorizing about exactly this kind of thing. And I have faith that they came to the conclusions that they did (indeed on this very subject) for a reason, through the grace and leadership of the Holy Spirit.

It’s also not up to you determine what is and is not a loss for the Church. That’s something for the Magisterium and the Pope and ecumenical councils to decide.
 
Last edited:
Alex337 said:
I know when I confessed my priest told me to make amends to my parents to show actual contrition. Seems the same thing.
Click to expand...
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
 
hmikell7 said:
If people stop confessing of they plan to commit that sin again and thus be reported for it then I don’t think they were contrite. So no loss there.
Click to expand...
If the person going to confession knows they will be asked if they plan to do it again, and believes they would answer yes and thus avoids confession out of fear of the law, that’s a solid sign. And if they lie and say no? That’s on them, they obviously weren’t repentant.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top