S
Susan_Mary
Guest
People in confession are there because they are repentant. Who knows what the Holy Spirit will inspire.
- Status
T
twopekinguys
Guest
It appears that you don’t completely understand what happens during the sacrament of reconcilliation, or more commonly known as confession.
Your question comes up quite often in RCIA classes.
First, anything that is discovered during confession, cannot be disclosed by the priest. It is described as being “Under the seal of the confessional”. Keep in mind that this does not apply only to Catholic priests. Information obtained in confidential conversations between any minister(acting in his capacity as spiritual advisor/leader) and a member of his congregation is protected. Just like attorney-client priveledge. Do a google search on clergy privilege.
Second. It is highly unlikely that a person who would commit one of the crimes you suggest would actually seek out a priest for confession. But, If a person who did commit a crime like what you described actually goes to a priest and wants to go to confession, the priest would do his best to council the person into turning themselves in. It would be reasonable to assume that if a person that committed the crime was remorseful enough to go to confession that they would be willing to go that extra step with the support of the priest.
Edit. Even if a priest or minister were to break the seal of the confessional, the information would not be able to be used in court.
"What is the Clergy Privilege?
The clergy privilege (also known as the priest/penitent privilege) is one of the recognized forms of privileged communication that protects the contents of conversations between religious advisers (priests, rabbis, minsters, etc…) and an advisee. This means that any conversation you have with your clergy (assuming they are acting in their religious capacity) cannot be brought into court.
For example, anything said to a catholic priest during a confessional cannot be used against you, or even mentioned, in any legal matter."
legalmatch.com/law-library/article/clergypriest-privilege.html
T
TriuneUnity
Guest
If priests have to start telling the police about sins that are confessed, no one would ever go to confession again. I agree that what is discussed in a confessional should be sacrosanct.
However, I am not sure it has any bearing on the case of molesting priests. I would imagine that this evidence wasn’t uncovered by church officials through confession. Some of it may have been, but I doubt it. If they did learn about it that way, the confessors should have mandated that the penitents turn themselves in to law enforcement.
S
shawn38
Guest
An abuse hotline set up by the Catholic Church in Germany melted down on its first day of operation as more than 4,000 alleged victims of paedophile and violent priests called in to seek counselling and advice.
The numbers were far more than the handful of therapists assigned to deal with them could cope with.
In the end only 162 out of 4,459 callers were given advice before the system was shut down.
Andreas Zimmer, head of the project in the Bishopric of Trier, admitted that he wasn’t prepared for "that kind of an onslaught’.
bishop-accountability.org/news2010/03_04/2010_04_02_Hall_AbuseHotline.htm
The numbers were far more than the handful of therapists assigned to deal with them could cope with.
In the end only 162 out of 4,459 callers were given advice before the system was shut down.
Andreas Zimmer, head of the project in the Bishopric of Trier, admitted that he wasn’t prepared for "that kind of an onslaught’.
bishop-accountability.org/news2010/03_04/2010_04_02_Hall_AbuseHotline.htm
S
shawn38
Guest
Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League, has emerged as one of the most vigorous defenders of Pope Benedict XVI, formerly Cardinal Ratzinger, as the Catholic Church reels from revelations that Ratzinger was made aware of a priest who molested more than 200 deaf boys in Wisconsin, and yet declined to punish him.
Donohue’s method has been to attack the source of the story, the New York Times, accusing the paper of waging a concerted campaign to discredit the Vatican’s authority.
Perhaps Donohue’s most controversial claim is that this is not a pedophilia crisis but a homosexual crisis; since most victims of molestation were “post-pubescent”," that means the priests were not child molesters but some kind of gay predators. Donohue wrote in a full page ad in the New York Times:
"The Times continues to editorialize about the “pedophilia crisis,: when all along it’s been a homosexual crisis. Eighty percent of the victims of priestly sexual abuse are male and most of them are post-pubescent. While homosexuality does not cause predatory behavior, and most gay priests are not molesters, most of the molesters have been gay.”
It’s unclear where Donohue is getting his statistics, but this is sure to increase the belief among critics that the church is more interested in protecting its own interests and reputation than innocent children. In a heart-wrenching Times follow-up story, it was revealed that the deaf boys tried for decades to report the sexually abusive priest, but no one would listen.
huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/31/bill-donohue-catholic-sex_n_520187.html
Donohue’s method has been to attack the source of the story, the New York Times, accusing the paper of waging a concerted campaign to discredit the Vatican’s authority.
Perhaps Donohue’s most controversial claim is that this is not a pedophilia crisis but a homosexual crisis; since most victims of molestation were “post-pubescent”," that means the priests were not child molesters but some kind of gay predators. Donohue wrote in a full page ad in the New York Times:
"The Times continues to editorialize about the “pedophilia crisis,: when all along it’s been a homosexual crisis. Eighty percent of the victims of priestly sexual abuse are male and most of them are post-pubescent. While homosexuality does not cause predatory behavior, and most gay priests are not molesters, most of the molesters have been gay.”
It’s unclear where Donohue is getting his statistics, but this is sure to increase the belief among critics that the church is more interested in protecting its own interests and reputation than innocent children. In a heart-wrenching Times follow-up story, it was revealed that the deaf boys tried for decades to report the sexually abusive priest, but no one would listen.
huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/31/bill-donohue-catholic-sex_n_520187.html
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
Well I wouldn’t trust one thing I see on the Huffington Post, Shawn. That’s about as reliable as the Rush Limbaugh “news” for conservatives. Donohue is a hard-core, no-holds-barred zealot who often goes off the deep-end. He’s an angry guy and is over the top for me.
A
anode
Guest
(excerpt)… Instead I’ll talk about The allegation against Fr. Murphy of St. John’s School for the Deaf in Milwaukee. Father Murphy’s time there spanned 20 years, from 1955-1974, according to The Times’s article. The Vatican was informed of the problem in 1996, over 40 YEARS after the first allegations were made and over 20 years since the last abuse was reported. On page 15 of the New York Times the NYT admit that the Milwaukee Police Department opted not to pursue charges against Fr. Murphy. What does that tell you about the case? During the time of the actual abuse, the local dioceses did not discipline the priest, which was their total prerogative, nor did they inform the Vatican during this time. It was normal for these matters to be handled by the Archdiocese of the area where misconduct occurred. That didn’t change until 2001. It was not until then did Cardinal Ratzinger became aware of the extent of sexual misconduct. That was when Cardinal Ratzinger, in Italian, spoke of the need to get rid of the filth in the Church during his Good Friday mediation. Shortly afterward Cardinal Ratzinger became Pope Benedict XVI. One of the first acts the new pope did was to reopen sex abuses cases. That’s when the media started calling him “God’s Rottweiler” because he was so ferocious in his pursuit of justice in these cases. Now the media (and you) are saying he was part of the problem. You can’t have it both ways!
Ratzinger’s Congregation was informed about Murphy in Milwaukee in 1996 when Archbishop Weakland wrote him about the case in July of that year. Months later, there had been no reply. Murphy was old, the case was old, criminally mishandled by the Milwaukee archdiocese and the local police. Finally, Milwaukee contacted the Papal Nuncio in Washington, who contacted *another *prelate at the Vatican, who brought the case to Bertone’s, attention–in 1997. Bertone was Ratzinger’s secretary and is now Secretary of State under Benedict–a trusted servant, probably. Bertone counseled ‘pastoral measures’ in personal meetings with bishops Fliss of Milwaukee, and Sklba, of Superior, where Murphy was now living. Both, especially Sklba, rejected this, because of the effect on the already alienated deaf community. The Vatican finally decided to proceed with the trial. Murphy begged Ratzinger to reconsider. Ratzinger ‘abated’ the trial. Murphy died and was buried as a priest. Milwaukee bears 90% of the responsibility in this case, the Congregation 10%, but if it had handled the case promptly, Murphy might have received some justice during his lifetime, and at least not been buried as a priest.
In 1997, nine former seminarians of the Legion of Christ (‘Legionaries’) submitted testimony to Cardinal Ratzinger regarding Maciel’s abuse of them in the seminary. In 2004, Macial knelt before JPII for his blessing. Later in 2004, a few months before JPII died, Ratzinger told Maciel to retire to a life of “prayer and penance”.
The delay between the seminarians’ testimony, which surely must have carried some weight, and Maciel’s forced retirement was seven years–a long time, considering that Maciel was still the active head of his congregation, whom many considered a living saint, bold enough to kneel before the ailing JPII for a blessing.
In the Munich case, I give Ratzinger the benefit of a doubt in assuming that he neither knew that the priest was an abuser nor that he was lost to followup. He should have known, of course.
The pattern behind these episodes is a distinct dragging of the feet, so pronounced to invite allegations of cover-ups. Once Ratzinger decided to move, he did so with vigor, but it was too late.
Ratzinger’s Congregation was informed about Murphy in Milwaukee in 1996 when Archbishop Weakland wrote him about the case in July of that year. Months later, there had been no reply. Murphy was old, the case was old, criminally mishandled by the Milwaukee archdiocese and the local police. Finally, Milwaukee contacted the Papal Nuncio in Washington, who contacted *another *prelate at the Vatican, who brought the case to Bertone’s, attention–in 1997. Bertone was Ratzinger’s secretary and is now Secretary of State under Benedict–a trusted servant, probably. Bertone counseled ‘pastoral measures’ in personal meetings with bishops Fliss of Milwaukee, and Sklba, of Superior, where Murphy was now living. Both, especially Sklba, rejected this, because of the effect on the already alienated deaf community. The Vatican finally decided to proceed with the trial. Murphy begged Ratzinger to reconsider. Ratzinger ‘abated’ the trial. Murphy died and was buried as a priest. Milwaukee bears 90% of the responsibility in this case, the Congregation 10%, but if it had handled the case promptly, Murphy might have received some justice during his lifetime, and at least not been buried as a priest.
In 1997, nine former seminarians of the Legion of Christ (‘Legionaries’) submitted testimony to Cardinal Ratzinger regarding Maciel’s abuse of them in the seminary. In 2004, Macial knelt before JPII for his blessing. Later in 2004, a few months before JPII died, Ratzinger told Maciel to retire to a life of “prayer and penance”.
The delay between the seminarians’ testimony, which surely must have carried some weight, and Maciel’s forced retirement was seven years–a long time, considering that Maciel was still the active head of his congregation, whom many considered a living saint, bold enough to kneel before the ailing JPII for a blessing.
In the Munich case, I give Ratzinger the benefit of a doubt in assuming that he neither knew that the priest was an abuser nor that he was lost to followup. He should have known, of course.
The pattern behind these episodes is a distinct dragging of the feet, so pronounced to invite allegations of cover-ups. Once Ratzinger decided to move, he did so with vigor, but it was too late.
J
josie_L
Guest
Cases of pedophile priests prior to 2001 were handled by local bishops not the Vatican (the transfer of all cases to the Congregation of the Doctrine of Faith only happened in 2001).
R
Roy5
Guest
A few observations
Code:
1. Hope you read the article on the sex scandal within Catholicism in the current Newsweek. It tries to acheive balance. A second piece, by George Weigel, also in the current Newsweek, does its best to defend the church, as Weigel always does.
2. There is no doubt that sexual exploitation and/or misconduct is and has been a problem within Protestantism, also. Remember these differences, however. a) Most such problems have involved consenting adults - ministers with adult parishioners, often who came for counseling which led to a relationship. Such ministers, when exposed, usually have been tossed out immediately; b) in this area, at least, the worst cases seem to arise among 'ministers' who are not really ministers in that they have never been ordained by recognized denominations, have little formal education, set up shop in storefronts, and hide various forms of exploitation behind religion - hardly to be included among legitimate Protestant ministers; c) I know of no cases in which denominational officials have reassigned or recommended ministers who have behaved badly as sexual predators to other churches; d) in general Protestant churches are much more democratic, smaller congregations, and closely knit, providing sexual predators less opportunity to exploit and get away with it; and e) while denied by Weigel and others, I strongly believe that married clergy are less likely to exploit children and teenage boys.
3. Catholicism seems to have attracted a high percentage of gay clergy, which helps account for the exploitation of teen boys. Why? a) The Catholic priesthood attracts gays because no one will ask them why they're not married. b) Many gay priests believe and sincerely hope that being a priest will safeguard them from acting upon their sexual impulses. c) Many gay priests are attracted to an all-male fraternity, even when they fully intend to remain totally celibate. d) There are things in Catholicism - such as the vestments, the refined liturgy, etc. - that have a special appeal to gays, many of whom are appealed to by theatre, fashion, and such.
Christians should be loving one another and not engaged in the sort of 'gotcha' dialogue that goes on and on here at CAF. "All have sinned...." and we need to let God be the ultimate judge. Meanwhile, if someone, priest or layman, violates the civil law, then we have other judges here on earth for that. The Catholic church's failure as a worldwide church lies with a hierarchy which has shown more interest in protecting the 'good name' of the church rather than show concern for the victims. Threatening victims, or even secretly paying them off, is outrageous. Protestantism does not have such a hierarchy, and offending clergy, therefore, have been provided no such protection. The notion that the issue in Catholicism is like that in Protestantism is false, though there is guilty to go around.
God bless the whole world - no exceptions.
R
rev_kevin
Guest
We believe in confession in a different way. We go directly to God and ask for forgiveness. We don’t need a middle man to do it for us, and then tell us to say 10 Hail Mary’s, 10 Our Father’s and say the Rosery 5 times. Then your sins are forgiven.
If they don’t tell the authorities
npatrol: about murder, rape, they are just as quilty as the one who done it. You would allow that person to do it to someone eles. :tsktsk:
T
twopekinguys
Guest
You obviously missed, or ignored this information (bolding mine):We believe in confession in a different way. We go directly to God and ask for forgiveness. We don’t need a middle man to do it for us, and then tell us to say 10 Hail Mary’s, 10 Our Father’s and say the Rosery 5 times. Then your sins are forgiven.
If they don’t tell the authorities
The clergy privilege (also known as the priest/penitent privilege) is one of the recognized forms of privileged communication that protects the contents of conversations between religious advisers (priests, rabbis, minsters, etc…) and an advisee. This means that any conversation you have with your clergy (assuming they are acting in their religious capacity) cannot be brought into court.
For example, anything said to a catholic priest during a confessional **cannot be used **against you, or even mentioned, in any legal matter."
legalmatch.com/law-librar…privilege.html
So, you see, even if it is disclosed, it cannot be used.
A
anode
Guest
Good show, Roy, and a good article.
H
Hiskid1973
Guest
I’ll second that…
S
Susan_Mary
Guest
The truth is starting to come out folks.
The Wall Street Journal just put out a great article giving important facts the New York Times omitted on purpose.
The article is called:
"The Pope and the New York Times"
“The man who is now pope reopened cases that had been closed; did more than anyone to process cases and hold abusers accountable; and became the first pope to meet with victims.”
Read the article here: online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052702304017404575165792228341212.html
The Wall Street Journal just put out a great article giving important facts the New York Times omitted on purpose.
The article is called:
"The Pope and the New York Times"
“The man who is now pope reopened cases that had been closed; did more than anyone to process cases and hold abusers accountable; and became the first pope to meet with victims.”
Read the article here: online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052702304017404575165792228341212.html
S
Susan_Mary
Guest
God’s laws are above mans laws.We believe in confession in a different way. We go directly to God and ask for forgiveness. We don’t need a middle man to do it for us, and then tell us to say 10 Hail Mary’s, 10 Our Father’s and say the Rosery 5 times. Then your sins are forgiven.
If they don’t tell the authorities
I’m glad you ask God for the forgiveness of your sins. We Catholics do that too we call it an Act of Contrition.
The difference between doing an act of contrition and going to confession is this: If you limit yourself just to asking for forgiveness, then knowing you are forgiven is subjective. Going to confession is objective so you know your sins are forgiven with certainty.
R
rev_kevin
Guest
How do you know for sure your sins are forgiven with certainty? Because a priest says so?
If you ask for forgiveness of your sins to God and it comes from the heart, and you really mean it, then God will forgive you and you don’t have to worry that he won’t. God is a forgiving God. What can a priest do that God can’t?
R
rev_kevin
Guest
Got ya
C
ConfusedTim
Guest
Thanks Susan mary for posting the article from the Wall Street Journal. This paragarph highlights the efforts made by the Pope to erradicate abuse:
A few years later, when the CDF assumed authority over all abuse cases, Cardinal Ratzinger implemented changes that allowed for direct administrative action instead of trials that often took years. Roughly 60% of priests accused of sexual abuse were handled this way. The man who is now pope reopened cases that had been closed; did more than anyone to process cases and hold abusers accountable; and became the first pope to meet with victims. Isn’t the more reasonable interpretation of all these events that Cardinal Ratzinger’s experience with cases like Murphy’s helped lead him to promote reforms that gave the church more effective tools for handling priestly abuse?
online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052702304017404575165792228341212.html
A few years later, when the CDF assumed authority over all abuse cases, Cardinal Ratzinger implemented changes that allowed for direct administrative action instead of trials that often took years. Roughly 60% of priests accused of sexual abuse were handled this way. The man who is now pope reopened cases that had been closed; did more than anyone to process cases and hold abusers accountable; and became the first pope to meet with victims. Isn’t the more reasonable interpretation of all these events that Cardinal Ratzinger’s experience with cases like Murphy’s helped lead him to promote reforms that gave the church more effective tools for handling priestly abuse?
online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052702304017404575165792228341212.html
C
ConfusedTim
Guest
if you are “saved” why do you even worry about the method that you ask for forgiveness? If you follow the ridiculous doctrine of "once saved always saved’ you could dance on the bible and it still would not have any negative effect on your salvation.We believe in confession in a different way. We go directly to God and ask for forgiveness. We don’t need a middle man to do it for us, and then tell us to say 10 Hail Mary’s, 10 Our Father’s and say the Rosery 5 times. Then your sins are forgiven.
If they don’t tell the authorities
T
TEPO
Guest
Where does it say that in the bible…? I think you’ll find alot of things in the bible, even things that God did to be illegal according to American standards.If they don’t tell the authorities
Actually, to be forgiven for your sins, you must promise not to do it again.
- Status