Vatican official says "keep abuse confidential"

[LtTony]

Quote:
Originally Posted by dnu forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
*“A priest cannot reveal anything confessed to him in the sacrament of reconciliation.”

Well, to repeat what I said, he can share the prison cell for obstruction of justice if that is the case.

He is bound by civil law, if he does not report it, he is just as guilty as the perpetrator.

A criminal act is a criminal act, no exceptions.*

I’m no canon lawyer, and I’m not a civil lawyer either. The thought of breaking the “seal of confession” is repulsive to me-but I somewhat agree with you.

The alternative is to let more priests sexually assault more children.

I’m with you guys.

 

[Rascalking]

So just so that we are clear, Father “A” confesses to Father “B” he molested children. Father “B” recognizes the voice and can do nothing about it. Father “A” continues to ruin more lives and molest more children.

I am asking this-not starting a fight, or meaning any disrespect. I just want to be clear.

 

[dnu]

Jim,

“Or if someone confessed child abuse, is he to jump out of the confessional to identify and nab them?”

Yes, it is called civic duty.

We must fear evil men, but we must fear more the indifference of good men.

 

[dnu]

So just so that we are clear, Father “A” confesses to Father “B” he molested children. Father “B” recognizes the voice and can do nothing about it. Father “A” continues to ruin more lives and molest more children.

I am asking this-not starting a fight, or meaning any disrespect. I just want to be clear.

That seems to be the “gist” of what happened the last few decades.

“Well, you confessed, have a good day, tell Timmy I said ‘hi’.”

 

[HappyHazel]

Absolution is never conditional. Before the penetent leaves the confessional he is either absolved or he isn’t. The only way a priest witholds absolution is if the penetent is not repentant or is unwilling to seek to resolve his life.

Is the confessor allowed to guide the offending priest on his resolve. I would not want to be the priest hearing the confession as he has a duty to keep youth from corruption and a duty to keep confession private. The church would be well served to offer counceling for priests that abuse if they do not currently offering it.

How does the church handle those that break vows?

 

[JimG]

So just so that we are clear, Father “A” confesses to Father “B” he molested children. Father “B” recognizes the voice and can do nothing about it. Father “A” continues to ruin more lives and molest more children.

I am asking this-not starting a fight, or meaning any disrespect. I just want to be clear.

The sacrament requires a purpose of amendment. Fr. B asks, “are you going to continue doing this?” Fr. A: “probably so.” Fr. B: Then I cannot give you absolution. If you are serious about repenting, then go to the bishop and tell him–non-sacramentally–what you did."

The problem is not with child molesters who confess. It is with those who don’t. And I can’t imagine that Fr. A. would continue child molesting on a weekly basis, and keep confessing the same sin every week.

But let’s say, Fr. B. goes to the police. “Fr. A is molesting children,” he says. Police: “And you know this how?” Fr. B: “He told me in the sacrament of confession.” Police. “OK, but if he denies it to me, then all we have is your word against his. Plus, the defense will get his testimony disqualified.”

Violating the seal of the sacrament is the worst thing imaginable. To quote a legal axiom. Hard cases make bad law.

 

[Rascalking]

The sacrament requires a purpose of amendment. Fr. B asks, “are you going to continue doing this?” Fr. A: “probably so.” Fr. B: Then I cannot give you absolution. If you are serious about repenting, then go to the bishop and tell him–non-sacramentally–what you did."

The problem is not with child molesters who confess. It is with those who don’t. And I can’t imagine that Fr. A. would continue child molesting on a weekly basis, and keep confessing the same sin every week.

But let’s say, Fr. B. goes to the police. “Fr. A is molesting children,” he says. Police: “And you know this how?” Fr. B: “He told me in the sacrament of confession.” Police. “OK, but if he denies it to me, then all we have is your word against his. Plus, the defense will get his testimony disqualified.”

Violating the seal of the sacrament is the worst thing imaginable. To quote a legal axiom. Hard cases make bad law.

Thank you for the explanation.

So, basically, Father B can do nothing, and Father A goes on ruining lives. There is something deeply, deeply wrong here.

Something needs to be done. 95 percent of our priests (Yes, I just just pulled the number out of the sky, the actual percentage could be higher or lower) are good men who would die for a stranger-like many of us. They are being slandered by these nightmarish monsters who should be executed.

 

[curlycool89]

I think that you should discuss this with a priest in your rcia class.The seal of confession is absolute.This is recognized in civil law almost universally.A priest must be willing to be martyred before breaking the confessional seal.If the confessor discusses the situation with the perpetrator outside of the Sacrament he is fully free and morally bound to report the abuser.The seal of confession is sacrosanct and among Catholics there may be no disagreement on this matter.I urge you to speak to your priest or bishop without delay.

Now that is deserving of a

The seal is absolute. As long as absolution is given, nothing can ever be repeated. Ever. This is a matter of Canon Law and at least ‘little t’ tradition, and is not up for debate. The highest canonical penalty possible is attached to the violation of the seal. It’s equivalent to the penalty for procuring/participating in an abortion. That alone should tell you how serious it is.

 

[LtTony]

I’m no canon lawyer, and I’m not a civil lawyer either. The thought of breaking the “seal of confession” is repulsive to me-but I somewhat agree with you.

The alternative is to let more priests sexually assault more children.

Absolution is never conditional. Before the penetent leaves the confessional he is either absolved or he isn’t. The only way a priest witholds absolution is if the penetent is not repentant or is unwilling to seek to resolve his life.

That has always been my understanding. Forgiveness requires repentance. I believe on this very website repentance is defined to require “making things right.” In this case, that would entail turning oneself in to law enforcement. Each sin has a victim, someone who is harmed. That person needs to be made whole again by an apology and the sinner taking responsibility for the act.
It is no different is someone stole money, confessed it, and wasn’t sorry enough to undertake reparation.
I’ve never known a church doctrine to violate what is morally right. If a confessor has the slightest hint the perp will harm again, the confessor has a moral obligation to do everything he can to protect future victims. Although I’ve never been in that position, I suspect that can be accomplished within the bounds of canon law. It would start by requesting a counseling session with the penitent; this just isn’t a sin forgiven willy-nilly.
If a person doesn’t want to do that, withold absolution and pursue all remedies to protect potential victims while keeping the spirit of the church laws affecting the sacrament.
We have serial abusers whose sins are keeping people from Christ’s Church, in addition to victims who need healing.

 

[JimG]

Thank you for the explanation.

So, basically, Father B can do nothing, and Father A goes on ruining lives. There is something deeply, deeply wrong here.

Something needs to be done. 95 percent of our priests (Yes, I just just pulled the number out of the sky, the actual percentage could be higher or lower) are good men who would die for a stranger-like many of us. They are being slandered by these nightmarish monsters who should be executed.

If I really thought that child molesters were frequenting the sacrament of confession, I might worry. But they’re not.

The same applies to any of us. If I go in and confess a murder, must the priest report me? No. If I confess blowing up a building, can he report me? No. But why would I seek reconciliation with no purpose of amendment? Confession is for penitents.

If we started to turn the sacrament into a police sting operation, where would it end?
What makes anyone think that molesters are confessing their crimes in the confessional, for pete’s sake?

 

[Rascalking]

If I really thought that child molesters were frequenting the sacrament of confession, I might worry. But they’re not.

The same applies to any of us. If I go in and confess a murder, must the priest report me? No. If I confess blowing up a building, can he report me? No. But why would I seek reconciliation with no purpose of amendment? Confession is for penitents.

If we started to turn the sacrament into a police sting operation, where would it end?
What makes anyone think that molesters are confessing their crimes in the confessional, for pete’s sake?

Sir,

I do worry about the black eye that it is giving a church I love so dearly.

And, I worry about the children as well.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Is the absolute secrecy of the confession something instituted by Christ, or is it a church discipline invented in the middle ages? I seem to recall that in the early church confession was always public.

 

[dnu]

Is the absolute secrecy of the confession something instituted by Christ, or is it a church discipline invented in the middle ages? I seem to recall that in the early church confession was always public.

If I recall my history correctly, you are correct. In the beginning, the Churches were very small, sometimes meeting in someones home. The person who needed to confess stood up among the group and confessed before everyone. The one-on-one-in-a-closet style confession of today is a relatively recent invention.

 

[JimG]

Sir,

I do worry about the black eye that it is giving a church I love so dearly.

And, I worry about the children as well.

Well, of course. So do I. But vitiating the sacrament of reconciliation will do nothing to help.

Also, read the John Jay Report. With respect to the sexual abuse cases in the U.S., we are talking about cases which went back 20, 30, 40 years, but which all hit the media in one year! Not only that, but the data reveals that the abuse was perpetrated in large part by some priests of ordination classes of particular years. It wasn’t evenly spread over time, and there was a period when some of our seminaries were quite homosexual friendly–and most of the abuse cases were homosexual in nature.

Sexual abuse by priests is a horrendous abuse of power by those in a position of trust. So is abuse of children by teachers, which is becoming more prevalent. The sex saturated culture has something to do with it, but that does not excuse anyone.

 

[curlycool89]

Is the absolute secrecy of the confession something instituted by Christ, or is it a church discipline invented in the middle ages? I seem to recall that in the early church confession was always public.

I believe I have heard that about the early Church too, but according to what I read at wikipedia, the seal dates back to at least the mid-12th century, and probably before. So it’s not exactly new.

 

[tweetymom]

Abuse is sick, abusers sick, cover ups are sick. If you think for one minute these abusers and the ones who cover up are going to go to confession, it is almost laughable, if it wasn’t so sick.I realize other churches and people on the outside of the church committ these sick deeds. do you think this would be such a big deal if it wasn’t hid under the carpet for years? YOU NEVER ADMIT ANYTHING UNTIL YOU ARE CAUGHT WITH YOUR PANTS DOWN.

I have been molested and it was covered up for years. so I know where I speak. Clean house Church and start at the top and work on down.

 

[Adeodatus]

Ethical Consequentialism is in fact a doctrine contrary to the Catholic Faith. If you hold that it is possible to commit an absolute moral evil so that some good may come out of it, you are in contradiction to the Catholic Faith, which is pretty serious if you’re intending to be a Catholic.

Let’s turn it around, just to make it absolutely clear. A giant meteor is going to hit the Earth and kill everybody. The devil offers to divert the meteor, and his price is that you rape a child. Do you do it? For some pagans that’s a tough one. For a Catholic this moral dilemma is easy: it is better for everybody on planet Earth to die than for you to rape one child, utter one blasphemy, or commit adultery. Yes, I know people commit adultery every day… it would still be better that 6+ billion people die than for that sin to be done only one more time.

Are there all sorts of benefits we could get if we turned priests into police informers? Sure. It would even help the economy. However, it is a sin against the Sacrament. The devil, the mastermind behind child abuse, would love it if we absolutely tore the Church apart because of child abuse. Child abuse, as horrific as it is, is merely a means to the end of destroying Christ’s Church. So the devil scores points when children are abused, and he scores more points when God’s own faithful are willing to wreck the Church on account of it.

Even the benighted civil law of our land considers statements made in confession inadmissable. If you want to make them admissable, then you should also make statements to spouses and defense attorneys admissable. Then we should start loading all the undesirables up onto cattle cars and start shipping them to camps.

 

[Govan78]

"VATICAN CITY – A priest who confesses sexual abuse in the sacrament of penance should be absolved and should generally not be encouraged by the confessor to disclose his acts publicly or to his superiors, a Vatican official said.

Likewise, the confessor should not make the contents of such a confession public, said Bishop Gianfranco Girotti, regent of the Apostolic Penitentiary, a Vatican court that handles issues related to the sacrament of penance."

I understand the 2nd part, but not the 1st. Why shouldn’t a confessor encourage the priest who is confessing to disclose his acts publicly or his superiors?

If I stole something and confessed it to my priest, he would (or should) encourage me to make restitution to the person I stole from. If I don’t take his advice, then that’s on my conscience, not his. Isn’t making restitution to those you stole from in the Catechism?
This statement from the Vatican official is hard for me to comprehend, morally.

I don’t think praying some mysteries of the Rosary and vowing to try to never to do it again is an adequate way to be sorry. Deciding to face the music for your crimes is an adequate way to be sorry.
The former is fine for sins against yourself and God that no one but God really cares about, but when it comes to serious wrongs against others, the sinner should be encouraged by their priest to trust God enough to…face the music. Otherwise, judging by this statement from the Vatican Official, the sacrament of reconciliation comes off as little more than superstition. I find it hard to believe that God would be pleased with this Vatican Official for encouraging confessors to be enablers of cowardice.

 

[Soutane]

Ethical Consequentialism is in fact a doctrine contrary to the Catholic Faith. If you hold that it is possible to commit an absolute moral evil so that some good may come out of it, you are in contradiction to the Catholic Faith, which is pretty serious if you’re intending to be a Catholic.

Let’s turn it around, just to make it absolutely clear. A giant meteor is going to hit the Earth and kill everybody. The devil offers to divert the meteor, and his price is that you rape a child. Do you do it? For some pagans that’s a tough one. For a Catholic this moral dilemma is easy: it is better for everybody on planet Earth to die than for you to rape one child, utter one blasphemy, or commit adultery. Yes, I know people commit adultery every day… it would still be better that 6+ billion people die than for that sin to be done only one more time.

Are there all sorts of benefits we could get if we turned priests into police informers? Sure. It would even help the economy. However, it is a sin against the Sacrament. The devil, the mastermind behind child abuse, would love it if we absolutely tore the Church apart because of child abuse. Child abuse, as horrific as it is, is merely a means to the end of destroying Christ’s Church. So the devil scores points when children are abused, and he scores more points when God’s own faithful are willing to wreck the Church on account of it.

Even the benighted civil law of our land considers statements made in confession inadmissable. If you want to make them admissable, then you should also make statements to spouses and defense attorneys admissable. Then we should start loading all the undesirables up onto cattle cars and start shipping them to camps.

You are absolutely correct and made your point with a wonderful analogy.99.9999% of these homosexual assaults upon adolescents NOT babies or toddlers occured in the 40’s,50’s/60’s and 70’s-80’s.I’ll bet a dollar to a doughnut that few if any happen today.Number one the Bishops realize they are complicit if they cover it up,number two parishoners are quite observant of priestly demeanor,Number three what parent is going to leave a child aLone with ANY adult they know casually,number four,most if not all priests refuse to be alone with a child(just like school teachers)for fear of being falsely accused.
Children themselves are much more educated in what is not permissable and what to do if molestation is attempted.When my Parish Priest(a saintly man)has a meeting with the altarboys he ALWAYS has another adult present-usually me.

And finally i know of several boys molested by their hockey coaches and one boy who was RAPED by his Karate coach,and one successful business owner and a pillar of the community who raped his four daughters.And I live in a small town of 18,000people.Parents are the absolute worst offenders of all.I’m not saying this to defend those Judas priests but put things into perspective timewise.If it happens today that a Bishop protects a priest instead of calling the cops as they’re instructed in Canada,chuck the bishop in jail too.The Sacrament of Reconciliation is a Sacrament instituted by Christ Himself and handed down through Apostolic succession and is sacrosanct and would mean automatic excommunication of the most severe sort.

When i was a kid my Parish priest had a man confess murder to him.the priest asked him after confession to come to the office where they discussed the crime extra-sacramentally,got him to admit again what he had done and the details and immediately phoned the cops.The priest told us this without telling us the person’s name.

 

[Soutane]

Abuse is sick, abusers sick, cover ups are sick. If you think for one minute these abusers and the ones who cover up are going to go to confession, it is almost laughable, if it wasn’t so sick.I realize other churches and people on the outside of the church committ these sick deeds. do you think this would be such a big deal if it wasn’t hid under the carpet for years? YOU NEVER ADMIT ANYTHING UNTIL YOU ARE CAUGHT WITH YOUR PANTS DOWN.

I have been molested and it was covered up for years. so I know where I speak. Clean house Church and start at the top and work on down.

What do you think is happening NOW for God’s sake?.The hysteria of the Catholic hating media notwithstanding.