• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Australia abuse, Archbishop rejects call to report confessions.

Grandliseur

Well-Known Member
A religion that would allow child abuse to continue, and threaten those who would move to stop it with excommunication, are deserving of extinction.
I am not defending that church. But, I don't think it will be destroyed until it is time for the end to begin, and, that, I think will be soon. They are just laying the groundwork for the attack the Bible tells us shall happen upon religion, how much of religion shall be involved is the question. We are told this attack will happen suddenly and will devastate religion.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
This I find discussting, how many children have continued to suffer because of this and how many paedophiles have been to confession and abused again.
If there is no confidentiality in the confession process, then people will simply not go to confession, including abusers.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Whether the church survives or not I don't really give a crap, my concern are the victims of these monsters.
This can be handled a different way, namely the priest telling legal authorities that a person may be suffering from abuse without naming who may be doing it though his/her confession. However, even that can be tricky because the authorities may want to use the priest as a witness.
 

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
However, since the confessional is such an integrated part of that church, you would destroy the church if they had to report confessions of illegal activities.
Nonsense.
I am a cradle Catholic. I know the church really well. I have a lot more faith in Mother Church than that. This would be a tiny bump in the road compared to other run ins with the modern world.

One thing I can tell you is that, in the aftermath of the last decades of uncovering horrible abuses, Catholic attitudes towards church authority has taken a sea change. Especially on the subject of child abuse. Lots, probably most, would strongly support measures to combat such abuse within their communities.

I would predict that if the bishop excommunicated a priest, for reporting such abuse appropriately, the back lash from the rest of the church would be huge and do vastly more damage than requiring reports.

Keep in mind, this legislation doesn't cover all illegal activities, just child abuse.

The question then is - do lawyers have this kind of confessional like protection from the law? If the church shouldn't enjoy it, neither should lawyers.
Defense lawyers are required to oppose the government. Nothing like priests and confessions.

Tom
 

PureX

Veteran Member
This I find discussting, how many children have continued to suffer because of this and how many paedophiles have been to confession and abused again.
You don't know. Which is something you should keep in mind before you get yourself all up in a froth of righteous indignation. It's easy to be outraged over crimes you only need imagine someone is committing, or enabling.

I don't believe that a religious confessional booth should be a sanctuary from the rule of law. Nor a psychiatrist's office. Nor a lawyer's office. However, they cannot become the "ears of the secret police", either. Some sort of protections are necessary for these healing endeavors to function. But I think a reasonable set of rules could be generated that would apply to such situations that would enable a significant degree of privacy and still allow for an ability to stop violent criminal behavior.
 

SomeRandom

Still learning to be wise
Staff member
Premium Member
Screw that Arch Bishop. I am not condemning the Church or indeed Catholics. But it's a bit rich when they opposed SSM in this country and then someone in the higher ups representing them says this publicly. It personally sickens me to the core. And they ought to be ashamed. Suffer not the little children indeed.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Now, stop and think about this for a minute. In the next situation, a man goes to confession, confesses that he abused someone, but now the priest becomes legally obligated to report this to the police and has to identify the person and exactly what he said. He may be even forced to be called on the witness stand. OK, once it is know known that the priest is obligated to, not only report said crime, but he also that he may be called on the witness stand to testify what was told him.

Question: Why would a person who's committed such a crime go to confession to begin with if (s)he know this would be reported to the authorities with the priest forming at least part of state's witness?

So, what we are left with is simply not one legal advantage for such an approach. But it's actually even worse than that.

If said person goes to confession, there must be a reason for that. The priest is not a washing machine whereas the person automatically walks out of the confessional brand-spanking new. Catholics are well aware of the fact that the church teaches that if (s)he is not truly contrite and/or has no intention of changing their ways, there simply is no absolution since the priest is merely the conduit, not the ultimate forgiver, according to Catholic theology.

Therefore, if the person goes to confession, something is clearly bothering them, and now the priest is in a position of giving advice, which may be to turn themselves in. Or maybe the person needs advice as to how to turn themselves around so they don't do what they did again. Etc.

The bottom line: There is simply no long-term advantage to forcing the priests to betray what has been confessed to them, plus there can be a long-term disadvantage because the priest is no longer in a position to help out anyone in that position of betraying confidentiality.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
If there is no confidentiality in the confession process, then people will simply not go to confession, including abusers.
If a priest took a confession from some perv who claimed
continued rape of a child, you'd oppose reporting the rapist?

If priests remain silent when knowing of crimes,
then they serve no useful purpose anyway.
But they could give a Miranda Warning before
each confession.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
But, I don't think it will be destroyed until it is time for the end to begin, and, that, I think will be soon.
People have been saying the end is near throughout Christianty's existence, starting with Jesus who said those things to pass would happen while some of the Apostles still lived (Matthew 16:27-28). But the end, obviously, has never come.
If there is no confidentiality in the confession process, then people will simply not go to confession, including abusers.
The first step in any recovery is admitting you have a problem, and realizes there are consequences for your actions. And, indeed, some people will even confess to their case managers, therapists, and other types who are legally obligated and mandated to report.
I would predict that if the bishop excommunicated a priest, for reporting such abuse appropriately, the back lash from the rest of the church would be huge and do vastly more damage than requiring reports.
Probably. I doubt the majority of Catholics would be opposed to it, especially in the wake of the monumental damage to their image and reputation the revealing of the sex abuse has caused. For many, it would probably be a step towards redeeming their image and a necessary effort to address the grievous sins of so many Catholic officials.
 

Jumi

Well-Known Member
Now, stop and think about this for a minute. In the next situation, a man goes to confession, confesses that he abused someone, but now the priest becomes legally obligated to report this to the police and has to identify the person and exactly what he said. He may be even forced to be called on the witness stand. OK, once it is know known that the priest is obligated to, not only report said crime, but he also that he may be called on the witness stand to testify what was told him.
Here's another situation:

An employee of the church is out sexually abusing his congregation. The priest starts to investigate, leading the the employee confessing to the priest. Now the priest has his hands tied. The victims suffer and report the crime when they are older and understand more of what went on. Now the priest has to deny having any knowledge of it or even starts to lie to save them, saving the perpetrator and placing the victims in a bad place.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Here's another situation:

An employee of the church is out sexually abusing his congregation. The priest starts to investigate, leading the the employee confessing to the priest. Now the priest has his hands tied. The victims suffer and report the crime when they are older and understand more of what went on. Now the priest has to deny having any knowledge of it or even starts to lie to save them, saving the perpetrator and placing the victims in a bad place.
No, it would be wrong for the priest to lie, and the sanctity of confession only applies to that done within the sacrament itself.

The best resort for a priest to do under those circumstances, at least imo, would be to go to a Catholic police officer, tell him/her someone has been compromised and may be at further risk (and they could point to that person who is at risk), and then tell the officer that he cannot violate the sanctity of sacrament. If the officer is able to garnish enough information about the suspect, then he might find enough for an arrest.
 

England my lionheart

Rockerjahili Rebel
Premium Member
Since they provide a safe space for people to open up about their misdeeds and provide a pathway for spiritual or psychological transformation that maybe helps them become better people moving forward. The state's job is to extend justice, while a church's job is to extend psychological and spiritual sustenance, while a doctor's job is to keep people physically healthy. The ability to have confidential discourse with priests is an important part of its proper function, I feel.

Yes a safe place where people can share their misdeeds and get away with them, what's more important, the life of a child or the spiritual wellbeing of a pervert,no brained.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
The first step in any recovery is admitting you have a problem, and realizes there are consequences for your actions. And, indeed, some people will even confess to their case managers, therapists, and other types who are legally obligated and mandated to report.
But that really is not the same thing as this would be exclusively up to the person who committed the crime. OTOH, the sanctity of the confessional involves a third party whom is sworn not to pass information on to others, and this is done for reasons already covered.
 

England my lionheart

Rockerjahili Rebel
Premium Member
You don't know. Which is something you should keep in mind before you get yourself all up in a froth of righteous indignation. It's easy to be outraged over crimes you only need imagine someone is committing, or enabling.

I don't believe that a religious confessional booth should be a sanctuary from the rule of law. Nor a psychiatrist's office. Nor a lawyer's office. However, they cannot become the "ears of the secret police", either. Some sort of protections are necessary for these healing endeavors to function. But I think a reasonable set of rules could be generated that would apply to such situations that would enable a significant degree of privacy and still allow for an ability to stop violent criminal behavior.

Think about this,the abuse committed by priests is well known, even priests use the confession, it's also well known that some of these priests have been doing it for years, go figure.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
If there is no confidentiality in the confession process, then people will simply not go to confession, including abusers.
I don't think that's true at all. I think what would happen is that people who are inclined toward confession would keep on confessing more or less as they've always done, and the Church and priests will mostly behave as they've always done, but when it comes to light that a priest violated mandatory report rules, society would be able to have recourse.

I think it's eminently reasonable to have mandatory reporting rules that have no exemption for confession. I also don't think for a moment that the Catholic Church would abide by those rules. I think the real effect would be one of two things:

- abuse - and confessions of abuse - continue, but the law cracks down on complicit priests as well as the bishops whose orders they were following. Complicit priests and dioceses pay heavy fines. Occasionally, priests go to jail. The Australian Catholic Church struggles under this financial weight along with the weight of all the civil suits that go along with these breaches of the duty of care... or,

- the Catholic Church decides to be proactive and gets its own house in order. They seek out every possible abuse allegation and air them all publicly before they can ever be mentioned under the seal of confession. Going forward, they put measures in place so stringent that they eliminate - as much as possible - the sort of abuse that might be brought up in a confessional. By eliminating as much abuse as they can, they virtually eliminate cases where a priest would have to choose between following the law or following Church rules.

Either of these outcomes is fine by me. Neither one justifies watering down a mandatory reporting rule.
 

djhwoodwerks

Well-Known Member
Churches do what they do. If they claim to be able to forgive the sin, confessionals becomes a must. I am not defending their conduct, their confessionals, and systems.
I am just pointing out that forcing them to provide information will just stop the people from trusting their confessors and stop the confessions. Nothing will change.
Perhaps people will start confessing to the new priesthood, the lawyers instead. :):)

There is a very big difference between, 'I cussed out a person who cut me off on the freeway yesterday' then, 'I had sex with an 11 year old the other day'. So a member of the Catholic church can molest a child, go to confession, be forgiven and all is well for the molester, but what about the victim?
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
But that really is not the same thing as this would be exclusively up to the person who committed the crime.
That's pretty much every person, in any situation. Whether it is to family, friends, a priest or police, it's always up to the person who committed the crime to confess. Even before a judge, they can still admit they did a crime or deny it.
 
Top