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

[guanophore]

I don’t think it’s an immoral act.

If that is the case, then you have an inadequate understanding of the Sacrament, the Seal, and the nature of Holy Orders.

Cool, I disagree. I think perhaps if the penitent had no inclination to do it again it could work like a psychologist.

No human can know this, and in fact, the opposite should be assumed. The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. Absolution is based upon a firm purpose of amendment, not the absence of “inclination”. Human beings suffer from concupiscence, which is an inclination to sin.

Medical and Mental Health professionals, at least in the US, are mandatory reporters. Motives or “inclinations” notwithstanding.

This will be tested not when the abuser confesses, but when a child in the course of confession mentions their abuse at the hands of another. A civil suit against the church will be made if the abuse is not reported, even though the information was revealed under the confessional seal.

I suspect it is primarily aimed at clergy.

 

[Alex337]

If a person tells a priest that they plan to harm themself or others in the future that’s a solid indicator.

 

[mVitus]

If my next confession was that I had murdered, raped or tortured someone I would be immensely inclined to go. I’d want the chance to confess in my own church before handing myself in.

But remember, I think priests should break the seal only to stop future crimes. If a penitent admits that they are planning to harm themself or others they should be able to speak up. I don’t see how this wouldn’t stop people confessing.

As a note on mandatory reporting in the USA. Therapists are required to report if they suspect a specific minor is in danger of being sexually abused or has been sexually abused. So even if it’s a past event with little chance of repeat, US law would require the reporting. Mandatory reporting of child abuse and neglect | Child Family Community Australia is a useful source which shows it seems to be the same in Australia. So normal mandatory reporting would include past offenses, not just belief of a future offense.

Now as to what you said, you first mentioned that you’d want to confess before handing yourself in. Now to bring up one point, it is perfectly permissible for a priest to strongly recommend such a course of action. Getting handed in is another matter. And while it may seem ideal that a person would want to hand themself in, we’re broken. But we also have other life things in the way. Imagine, with your murder example, that the person is the breadwinner of their family. So if they go away, their family is now in danger of financial hardships. The kids also miss a parent as they grow up. Now it’s not just the penitent who is affected, but people they love for. Earlier you said you’d applaud the priest that went to hell to report child sexual abuse. Would you similarly laud the man that did so for his family to have means? (I’m trying to see this from your side and apologies if I get it wrong.)

And coming from my perspective, again the greatest goal is to get souls to Heaven. So if the Church has a way to offer God’s forgiveness to people so that they may be relieved of their sins, is it not right to do so? And in doing so, is it not best to make receiving God’s grace and His eternal gift as, probably a bad word choice here but it seems to fit, easy as possible? To put obstacles between a person and Christ that don’t need to exist is to deny them of God’s love. To deny them of everlasting life.
Part of what you’re saying, if I understand correctly, is that a person coming to Confession should be so wanting to be forgiven that civil penalties should not concern them. But that, to me, speaks to an “If you love God, wouldn’t you do X?” where ‘X’ is an increasing devotion.
Put in to every day usage, an example would be: You love God, so why are you listening to music instead of praying? Okay, now you’re praying, but why are you spending other free time reading that fun book instead of The Bible? Okay, now you’re using all your free time in prayer and Bible reading, but why not trim back on your sleep so you can do that more?
It is a burden between a person and Christ. And to put a burden like that, with the stakes at play, is a cruel thing to do.

 

[Alex337]

Also I thought concupiscence was a sexual lust, not just any old sin?

 

[guanophore]

If a person tells a priest that they plan to harm themself or others in the future that’s a solid indicator.

indicator of what? The priest has a very different role than medical and mental health providers.

Also I thought concupiscence was a sexual lust, not just any old sin?

You are in the right place, Alex337, because you have a lot to learn.

 

[YoungApologist3]

Cool. I disagree. Saving people is a very fine thing to do and I support their decision to do so.

“Saving people” is an end. Violating the Seal is its means. Ergo, this reasoning is consequentialism. Unless you are saying that the Seal is not inviolable. If you are saying that, then this is a whole different issue. Are you saying that?

 

[Alex337]

If I were willing to go to confession I’d be willing to serve the time. Dodging gaol seems disingenuous to me.

I would take the chance to arrange a carer for the children, perhaps even make it part of my plea deal and certainly something I would speak with the priest about during my confession. But frankly I feel it would be worse for the children to be raised by someone who is constantly in fear of being found out by the authorities.

I would prefer children to grow up without me than with the innate danger my presence would pose. It would also be a teachable moment; I wouldn’t expect my children to hide their wrong doings.

I don’t think that absolution for such a grave crime should be easy. You’ve ruined a person’s life, possibly deprived them of it. If you’re not willing to go to gaol then you don’t seem penitent to me.

 

[Alex337]

Alex337:

If a person tells a priest that they plan to harm themself or others in the future that’s a solid indicator.

indicator of what? The priest has a very different role than medical and mental health providers.

Also I thought concupiscence was a sexual lust, not just any old sin?

You are in the right place, Alex337, because you have a lot to learn.

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

 

[mVitus]

And, Alex, another point I want to make is that a mandatory reporting law in this regard would lead to an assault on freedom of religion. It’s been noted that the Church is not going to change her position on the matter. So what happens next when law enforcement starts testing priests* is that either the priest informs, in which case they’re excommunicated and likely laicized or gets imprisoned. Both of those cases mean that the Catholic community no longer has that priest to administer the sacraments. And with more cases, The CC would effectively be illegal as the priesthood is a very important part in our Catholic faith. We need priests to celebrate the Mass, anoint our sick, hear our confessions. And such a law attacks all that.

*Someone mentioned that it would be a case of entrapment to do such a thing. In US law, entrapment means an officer you know is an officer tells you something is okay and then arrests you. But a sting operation, undercover cops, ect. Those aren’t entrapment. No cop is saying it’s okay to do them, they just are there for when you do. I’d imagine Australia is similar.

 

[Alex337]

Alex337:

Cool. I disagree. Saving people is a very fine thing to do and I support their decision to do so.

“Saving people” is an end. Violating the Seal is its means. Ergo, this reasoning is consequentialism. Unless you are saying that the Seal is not inviolable. If you are saying that, then this is a whole different issue. Are you saying that?

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.

 

[Alex337]

And, Alex, another point I want to make is that a mandatory reporting law in this regard would lead to an assault on freedom of religion. It’s been noted that the Church is not going to change her position on the matter. So what happens next when law enforcement starts testing priests* is that either the priest informs, in which case they’re excommunicated and likely laicized or gets imprisoned. Both of those cases mean that the Catholic community no longer has that priest to administer the sacraments. And with more cases, The CC would effectively be illegal as the priesthood is a very important part in our Catholic faith. We need priests to celebrate the Mass, anoint our sick, hear our confessions. And such a law attacks all that.

*Someone mentioned that it would be a case of entrapment to do such a thing. In US law, entrapment means an officer you know is an officer tells you something is okay and then arrests you. But a sting operation, undercover cops, ect. Those aren’t entrapment. No cop is saying it’s okay to do them, they just are there for when you do. I’d imagine Australia is similar.

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.

 

[YoungApologist3]

I understand that you believe that. However, in order to be logically consistent, either you must subscribe to consequentialism, or you must believe that the Seal is not inviolable. Which is it?

 

[Alex337]

I understand that you believe that. However, in order to be logically consistent, either you must subscribe to consequentialism, or you must believe that the Seal is not inviolable. Which is it?

Not inviolable

 

[mVitus]

Contrition in Confession involves being sorry to God for your sins. Secular authority is not God. There are also other ways to make amends. Penances, for starters, I understand are a bit more in these situations than penances for your usual sins. And again, with secular authority, let’s say that yelling at your mother was punishable by death. Would you say that a person can’t really be contrite for yelling at their mother if they’re not willing to be executed? I would assume no. The “if you’re not willing to be punished by secular authority” argument, as I mentioned, speaks to “If you loved God, you would do X.”

 

[Tigre]

The priest will be a named party, but we all know who writes the checks.

 

[mVitus]

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.

Well, psychiatrists have already had to report for a long time. Their expectations are already known. Priests would be new to the law and, if I were looking at how to try making them follow it, would think it quite reasonable to do so.

 

[Alex337]

Contrition in Confession involves being sorry to God for your sins. Secular authority is not God. There are also other ways to make amends. Penances, for starters, I understand are a bit more in these situations than penances for your usual sins. And again, with secular authority, let’s say that yelling at your mother was punishable by death. Would you say that a person can’t really be contrite for yelling at their mother if they’re not willing to be executed? I would assume no. The “if you’re not willing to be punished by secular authority” argument, as I mentioned, speaks to “If you loved God, you would do X.”

I think that’s a bit of a false example given I am also against the death penalty. I suppose I’m just against murder? So in the instance you suggest I’d suggest avoiding murder.

EDIT: In this case it would be avoiding someone else needing to commit murder by executing you.

 

[Alex337]

Alex337:

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.

Well, psychiatrists have already had to report for a long time. Their expectations are already known. Priests would be new to the law and, if I were looking at how to try making them follow it, would think it quite reasonable to do so.

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

 

[mVitus]

I think that’s a bit of a false example given I am also against the death penalty. I suppose I’m just against murder? So in the instance you suggest I’d suggest avoiding murder.

EDIT: In this case it would be avoiding someone else needing to commit murder by executing you.

How about if we replace death penalty with a five year prison sentence. Main point I want to demonstrate is how one can be contrite to God without necessarily facing the civil penalties.

 

[phil19034]

I think you may have missed the part where I said intentions to harm others, or themself, in the future it what should be reported. If people refuse to go too confession because they know a priest will alert authorities to them planning to murder, rape or torture someone in the future then they aren’t exactly penitent.

People who are PLANNING to murder, rape, torture, etc typically don’t go to confession anyway.

And the FEW instances it happens is the price we must pay so sinners feel safe going to a priest to tell him things they’ve told no one else.