|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Hell: Enlighten me, leo
|
Dark Knight
Super Zero
# 9415
|
Posted
From the preventing sexual abuse thread in Purg:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Also stated in our policy is that the seal of sacramental confession will not cover an admission of child abuse since the priest is legally obliged to report it. (I find this quite disturbing since I believe that Samaritans and priests should be trusted with confidences, albeit urging that people get treatment but people more expert than I believe that to keep the confidence is tantamount to letting the abuse continue.)
Why need someone be "more expert than you" to understand that when an abuser confesses to abuse that is current, not reporting it is facilitating the continuation of the same? Its common fucking sense.
Its sad that you find this disturbing. Some of us find sexual abuse of children disturbing. Prevention of sexual abuse is a priority that should override any confidentiality, including the confessional seal.
[ 07. May 2006, 18:00: Message edited by: RooK ]
--------------------
So don't ever call me lucky
You don't know what I done, what it was, who I lost, or what it cost me - A B Original: I C U
----
Love is as strong as death (Song of Solomon 8:6).
Posts: 2958 | From: Beyond the Yellow Brick Road | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by DarkKnight:
Prevention of sexual abuse is a priority that should override any confidentiality, including the confessional seal.
Absolute rubbish.
If the penitent is not told that his confessor will break a confidence, then it is a gross and inexcuseable betrayal.
If he is told (as in the case Leo cites) then he almost certainly will not confess to that sin. And any chance of help, exhortation and call to amendment of life that he might have been given is lost. That doesn't help anyone.
A belief that there is an advantage to ANYONE being able to confess any sin to their priest without fear of disclosure is a perfectly reasonable and sensible one to hold. It does not mean that child abuse is taken any less seriously, or that the person who believes confession should be confidential considers the abuse to be one whit less vile or disturbing than you do. To imply the opposite is either dim or disingenuous.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
craigb
Shipmate
# 11318
|
Posted
Confession and confidentiality is an interesting topic that we were talking about recently at college. At the moment it appears Australian law allows ministers ands priests to keep true confessions confidential.
However if the confession is said to gain absolution, the priest or minister can withhold absolution untill true repentance is shown.
In the case of abuse, it could be of going to the Authorities themselves.
In our dioscee it was mentioned that many abuses are being perpetuated by children as young as 10 - 12 years of age. And that even if a child did do this they would never be able to hold a position of trust within the Dioscee, such as minister etc.
I don't know where the act of forgiveness and repentance comes into this, especially if the person then becomes a Christian as a adult and feels called to ministry, and was guilty of the event only the once.
Blessings craig b
--------------------
Amazing grace! How sweet the sound
That saved a wretch like me!I once was lost, but now am found; Was blind, but now I see... The Lord has promised good to me,His word my hope secures;He will my shield and portion be,As long as life endures.
Posts: 993 | From: Tahmoor | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sinistærial
Ship's Lefty
# 5834
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by craigb:
8< the priest or minister can withhold absolution untill [sic] true repentance is shown. >8
WHAT?? Craig - I don't know about you but I would not want to explain to the Almighty why I ever withheld grace from anybody. If someone has the guts to even confess a sin like sexual abuse, surely they are repentent enough to receive the non-means tested forgiveness of God.
--------------------
People laugh at me because I am different.
I laugh at other people because they are all the same.
æ = æ
Posts: 894 | From: The Holy City - Adelaide | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dark Knight
Super Zero
# 9415
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
quote:
Originally posted by DarkKnight:
Prevention of sexual abuse is a priority that should override any confidentiality, including the confessional seal.
Absolute rubbish.
If the penitent is not told that his confessor will break a confidence, then it is a gross and inexcuseable betrayal.
What utter horseshit!
What you seem unable to understand, dickhead, is that child abuse is a much more gross and inexcusable betrayal. Children have no power in an abusive relationship. The adult has all the power, and allowing knowledge of current sexual abuse to continue is to facilitate that power imbalance.
Betray the abuser, or betray the child. Obvious which is correct. The first is not a betrayal at all, it is an act of mercy toward the child/ren suffering.
quote:
If he is told (as in the case Leo cites) then he almost certainly will not confess to that sin. And any chance of help, exhortation and call to amendment of life that he might have been given is lost. That doesn't help anyone.
First of all, nice job perpetuating the fallacy that it is only men who are abusers. And before you tell me you didn't mean anything by your use of pronouns, let me just say that ignorant dumb arses never do mean anything by it.
Second, it is perfectly reasonable to practice protective interrupting. Or indicating prior to a session that certain facts cannot be kept in confidence. Clearly you are not speaking from vast (or at least reflective) experience when you say that this will necessarily mean no confession of abuse is made. Further, a sexual abuser does not need exhortation, they need incarceration. Or rather, society needs them to be incarcerated.
BTW, my home state (W.A) is the only one in Australia that does not mandate reporting of child sexual abuse. And I am not in favour of mandatory reporting. But only when the victim does not wish reporting to take place. You see to many cases of kids being dragged through the legal system and coming out the other side with nothing to show for it, and a lot more further damage done. However, current perpetrators should have no rights in regard to their actions being reported, they are a menace to society and keeping silent only allows abuse to continue.
quote:
A belief that there is an advantage to ANYONE being able to confess any sin to their priest without fear of disclosure is a perfectly reasonable and sensible one to hold. It does not mean that child abuse is taken any less seriously, or that the person who believes confession should be confidential considers the abuse to be one whit less vile or disturbing than you do. To imply the opposite is either dim or disingenuous.
You say "perfectly reasonable". I say "utterly immoral".
--------------------
So don't ever call me lucky
You don't know what I done, what it was, who I lost, or what it cost me - A B Original: I C U
----
Love is as strong as death (Song of Solomon 8:6).
Posts: 2958 | From: Beyond the Yellow Brick Road | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
craigb
Shipmate
# 11318
|
Posted
G'day Sinisterial
What I said about absolution has been practiced in the church for many centuries if not 1000 years or more.
Go and say 3 hail marys, or give some money to the poor, come back and recieve absolution, or the person prays through the prayers while the priest hears the confession.
Same with stealing, often repentance means returning the stolen goods, or saying an apolgy to the person you harmed.
BLessings craig b
--------------------
Amazing grace! How sweet the sound
That saved a wretch like me!I once was lost, but now am found; Was blind, but now I see... The Lord has promised good to me,His word my hope secures;He will my shield and portion be,As long as life endures.
Posts: 993 | From: Tahmoor | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
Dark Knight, the sacramental seal of confession is inviolable. There is a very simple reason for this: the priest acts in the person of Christ in all sacraments, so here. As we can trust God to keep secret our worst sins and to forgive them if we truly repent, just so we must be able to trust the priest - if he's going to be Christ to us in this matter. The priest is not acting here as himself.
The priest will be automatically excommunicated if he breaks the seal, and historically several priests have gone through torture to their deaths rather than to break it. If secular laws come into being which would force priests to report confessions, then hopefully you will see every challenged priest go to jail rather than to obey.
What a priest can do in this sort of situation is to withold absolution until the criminal has given himself up to the civil authorities. This makes sense, since it concerns the contrition required for absolution. That may work, since the criminal apparently takes absolution serious enough to seek it in the first place. Or it may not work. But the priest cannot ever report the criminal, he cannot even provide vague hints to the authorities which would lead to the discovery of the crime and capture of the criminal.
The seal of confession must be invioable. Otherwise confession would become a strange form of psychotherapy, a merely human activity. I appreciate that this may seem nonsensical without faith, but that's how it is.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amos
Shipmate
# 44
|
Posted
Thanks, IngoB. That's it exactly. craigb (any relation?) has said the same thing less elegantly. I agree. I would sooner go to prison than violate the seal of the confessional. It's worth adding that if the law requires that the confession of one kind of sin be reported by confessors, sooner or later (undoubtedly sooner) it will require the reporting of other kinds of sin.
[ 01. May 2006, 07:58: Message edited by: Amos ]
--------------------
At the end of the day we face our Maker alongside Jesus--ken
Posts: 7667 | From: Summerisle | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Triple Distilled
Shipmate
# 11157
|
Posted
Everyone is missing the point the "people", and I use that term very loosley, who do these things dont deserve anything other than to burn in the hottest part of hell. No forgiveness no rehab, just death and torment is all they deserve. ![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
--------------------
Formerly known as Butler
I propose an Anglican compromise. We torture her, but infinitesimally slowly, so that everyone ends up confused.(Thanks Anna B)
Posts: 299 | From: adelaide australia | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
PhilA
shipocaster
# 8792
|
Posted
Personally, I would rather risk excommunication than know that child abuse was going on and who was doing it and knowing that I failed to stop it.
In fact, I would say that someone who refuses to act in stopping child abuse ought to be excommunicated on those grounds alone. How the hell can the church be a place where the lost and lonely and hurting can come if it explicitly promises to protect the abusers of those people? Surely the church has an obligation to seek that all the people get the help that they deserve. Both the abuser and the abused need looking after and the best place for the abuser to be looked after is away from people he can abuse - that means the state must be brought into play because it is the state that provides such places (known as prisons) where people receive the rehabilitation they need in order to 'go and sin no more'. (Yes, I know this is an idealistic view of prisons.)
--------------------
To err is human. To arr takes a pirate.
Posts: 3121 | From: Sofa | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by DarkKnight:
What you seem unable to understand, dickhead, is that child abuse is a much more gross and inexcusable betrayal.
Thanks for making explicit what your previous post implied. People who disagree with you about the role of confidentiality in confession are obviously more accepting of child abuse than you are.
The only think you haven’t made clear is whether you reach that conclusion by being (i) ignorant, (ii) dishonest, or (iii) uncharitable. Or, indeed, all three.
quote:
Betray the abuser, or betray the child. Obvious which is correct. The first is not a betrayal at all
The English language has obviously changed while I slept.
What word is now correct to describe the action of obtaining information in a relationship of trust and then disclosing it? I’m sorry to learn that I can’t use ‘betrayal’ for that anymore, it seemed a pretty good word for the purpose. Still, I’m sure you’ll enlighten me.
quote:
First of all, nice job perpetuating the fallacy that it is only men who are abusers. And before you tell me you didn't mean anything by your use of pronouns, let me just say that ignorant dumb arses never do mean anything by it.
You really are desperate to take offence at something, aren’t you?
quote:
Second, it is perfectly reasonable to practice protective interrupting. Or indicating prior to a session that certain facts cannot be kept in confidence.
I don’t disagree. In many cases, that is clearly the right and appropriate thing to do. Outside of a professional context, it’s what I’d do myself.
There is, however, a proper place for conversations in which confidentiality is absolute, and of these, the confessional is (IMO) one.
quote:
Clearly you are not speaking from vast (or at least reflective) experience when you say that this will necessarily mean no confession of abuse is made.
Clearly.
I have no experience of the matter at all. How clever of you to tell that from an eleven line post.
You could be right. People might even be more likely to confess to something when the result is that they might go to prison than they are when they can do so safely. Please allow me to doubt it.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dark Knight
Super Zero
# 9415
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PhilA:
Personally, I would rather risk excommunication than know that child abuse was going on and who was doing it and knowing that I failed to stop it.
In fact, I would say that someone who refuses to act in stopping child abuse ought to be excommunicated on those grounds alone. How the hell can the church be a place where the lost and lonely and hurting can come if it explicitly promises to protect the abusers of those people? Surely the church has an obligation to seek that all the people get the help that they deserve. Both the abuser and the abused need looking after and the best place for the abuser to be looked after is away from people he can abuse - that means the state must be brought into play because it is the state that provides such places (known as prisons) where people receive the rehabilitation they need in order to 'go and sin no more'. (Yes, I know this is an idealistic view of prisons.)
Damn, Phil. That is perfect ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
Ingo, while I appreciate your explanation (and I do hope you don't mean to imply that I am faithless) and I empathise with Amos' concern, I don't accept them. Responsible adults who know that a child is being hurt in this way must act, regardless of the consequences, in the child's best interests. And just because the breach of confession is permitted in this, very extreme, scenario does not automatically mean that all confessions can be violated.
I often wonder how God can allow child abuse to go on in the world and still be good. So for me, the fact that God can hear confession without acting to stop the perpetrator does not excuse a priest acting in the same way. It simply throws up an excruciating theodicy for me. How can a priest be justified in acting the way that God does if it is not clear that the way God acts himself in this regard is justifiable?
--------------------
So don't ever call me lucky
You don't know what I done, what it was, who I lost, or what it cost me - A B Original: I C U
----
Love is as strong as death (Song of Solomon 8:6).
Posts: 2958 | From: Beyond the Yellow Brick Road | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Exiled Youth
Shipmate
# 8744
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by butler:
Everyone is missing the point the "people", and I use that term very loosley, who do these things dont deserve anything other than to burn in the hottest part of hell. No forgiveness no rehab, just death and torment is all they deserve.
Fortunately, none of us gets what we deserve. Have you ever read a Bible? None are righteous, etc. Ringing any bells?
If I knew I was going to get what I deserved after I died, I'd probably be pretty miserable.
Posts: 411 | From: Home Sweet Home | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tubifex Maximus
Shipmate
# 4874
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
What a priest can do in this sort of situation is to withold absolution until the criminal has given himself up to the civil authorities. This makes sense, since it concerns the contrition required for absolution. That may work, since the criminal apparently takes absolution serious enough to seek it in the first place. Or it may not work. But the priest cannot ever report the criminal, he cannot even provide vague hints to the authorities which would lead to the discovery of the crime and capture of the criminal.
The seal of confession must be invioable. Otherwise confession would become a strange form of psychotherapy, a merely human activity. I appreciate that this may seem nonsensical without faith, but that's how it is.
OK, IngoB, Thank you for that, it does seem to be a reasonable position. Can I ask you what a priest should do if the criminal confesses and the priest tells him to give himself up and the criminal then does not do so. The priest now knows that there is an active pederast in his parish. If the priest won't report the confession to the police does he not have some obligation to see that the crime ceases and the suffering it causes is ameliorated? How would he achieve this within the framework you have just described?
--------------------
Sit down, Oh sit down, sit down next to me.
Posts: 400 | From: Manchester | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
craigb
Shipmate
# 11318
|
Posted
I guess the priest could always be forgiven for manslaughter ![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
Blessings craig b
--------------------
Amazing grace! How sweet the sound
That saved a wretch like me!I once was lost, but now am found; Was blind, but now I see... The Lord has promised good to me,His word my hope secures;He will my shield and portion be,As long as life endures.
Posts: 993 | From: Tahmoor | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zwingli
Shipmate
# 4438
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by butler:
Everyone is missing the point the "people", and I use that term very loosley, who do these things dont deserve anything other than to burn in the hottest part of hell. No forgiveness no rehab, just death and torment is all they deserve.
Good to see you've decided what sins the blood of Christ can and cannot cover. I can see you standing at the gates of Heaven, saying to someone, "well, we would let you in, with all the others for whom the Son of God died, but it seems you sexually abused children, and His sacrifice doesn't cover that, it's in the small print at the back of the Covenant of Grace which we agreed to. Seems God's grace isn't that gracious after all. Sorry."
Posts: 4283 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zwingli
Shipmate
# 4438
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tubifex Maximus:
OK, IngoB, Thank you for that, it does seem to be a reasonable position. Can I ask you what a priest should do if the criminal confesses and the priest tells him to give himself up and the criminal then does not do so. The priest now knows that there is an active pederast in his parish. If the priest won't report the confession to the police does he not have some obligation to see that the crime ceases and the suffering it causes is ameliorated? How would he achieve this within the framework you have just described?
Thanks also to IngoB, for a consistent, logical explanation of why the RC church holds the views that it does. Would excommunication be an appropriate response to one who confessed to a heinous crime in confession and refused to demonstrate repentance? Or would it be breaking confession to do this? I certainly think it would be the appropriate response.
Posts: 4283 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amos
Shipmate
# 44
|
Posted
Heinous crime, nothing: if you confess any mortal sin and do not repent of it (and confession without repentance looks a lot like bragging), you're excommunicate.
--------------------
At the end of the day we face our Maker alongside Jesus--ken
Posts: 7667 | From: Summerisle | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zorro
Shipmate
# 9156
|
Posted
IngoB made it very clear what the catholic viewpoint may be on the subject, and while I respect that view, it's not one I find easy to agree with-I'm not catholic btw.
I think that if I were a priest, and someone came to me and said "I am abusing children, but I'm here to confess," I'm not sure how big a step that is, while the case is, at present at least, that the priest isn't allowed to tell anyone else. You're confiding in 1 person, and that person is bound not to tell anyone else.
If you've been abusing children, a bigger step to my mind would be walking into a police station with a list of names of the kid's who you've abused, and turning yourself in.
To me, showing up and confessing doesn't count for much. And I'd be extremely worried about anyone who was told about child abuse and didn't report it to the authorities ASAP.
In saying this, I realise the importance of the sanctity of confession in catholocism, and realise that it can't be an easy thing to overlook, but I think that when you take into account the fact that paedophiles are notorious for their high re-offending rate, it's just not ok to say that they've confessed, and that it's decent of them to do that.
Paedophile's are known to think that they've done nothing wrong. How is it possible for a priest to know that they really are repenting, and that they're not going to go on to abuse others?
--------------------
It is so hard to believe, because it is so hard to obey. Soren Kierkegaard
Well, churches really should be like sluts; take everyone no matter who they are or whether they can pay. Spiffy da wondersheep
Posts: 2568 | From: Baja California (actually the UK but that's where my fans know me from) | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zorro:
Paedophile's are known to think that they've done nothing wrong. How is it possible for a priest to know that they really are repenting, and that they're not going to go on to abuse others?
It isn't possible but then it isn't for any other sin, so nobody can declare God's forgiveness on that basis.
But there's a gaping hole in your logic. If a paedophiles believe they've done nothing wrong, why the feck would they be seeking absolution?
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
musician
Ship's grin without a cat
# 4873
|
Posted
quote:
In our dioscee it was mentioned that many abuses are being perpetuated by children as young as 10 - 12 years of age. And that even if a child did do this they would never be able to hold a position of trust within the Dioscee, such as minister etc.
and that's a problem because?????
If a child by the age of 10-12 hasn't yet figured out that abusing another is wrong, then I'd have serious concerns about their development. It's unlikely that they'd be able to hold any position of such responsibility.
Posts: 1569 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zorro:
To me, showing up and confessing doesn't count for much.
I'll go ten steps further and say it counts for absolutely nothing. If someone confesses to a priest but not to, you know, anyone who can actually do something about it, then the best possible spin you can put on it is that they're trying to ease their own guilty conscience. And, as is typical of abusers, they couldn't possibly care any less about their victims.
God can forgive anyone for anything, including shitbags like child abusers. Doesn't mean they shouldn't rot under the jail in the meantime.
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
Surely if the Church required / allowed the seal of confession to be breached in the case of child abuse, then no child abusers would confess unless they were already resigned to giving themselves up anyway, so no abuse would actually be prevented?
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nightlamp
Shipmate
# 266
|
Posted
Sometimes there higher loyalties that than one that is owed to a person and a churches tradition. A loyalty to God the victims and future victims of an evil person is one such case. I would have no qualms about breaking any promises if I thought it was for a higher good.
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
If the penitent is not told that his confessor will break a confidence, then it is a gross and inexcuseable betrayal.
I think the greater betrayal would be to the victims of abuse and in my opinion a Priest that didn't tell the police should be prosecuted.
--------------------
I don't know what you are talking about so it couldn't have been that important- Nightlamp
Posts: 8442 | From: Midlands | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
Also, if a priest went to the local police and told them that Parishioner X had confessed to child abuse, how much would his testimony be worth in law anyway? (Assuming "seal of the confessional" has no legal status in itself.) AIUI there are fairly stringent criteria that a confession has to fulfil before it can count as admissible evidence in court.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nightlamp
Shipmate
# 266
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Surely if the Church required / allowed the seal of confession to be breached in the case of child abuse, then no child abusers would confess unless they were already resigned to giving themselves up anyway, so no abuse would actually be prevented?
Abusers can use the confession as a means of salving their conscience without facing up to the consequences. I think not telling people that seal of the confession could be broached would be a good way of capturing a few of them.
--------------------
I don't know what you are talking about so it couldn't have been that important- Nightlamp
Posts: 8442 | From: Midlands | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dark Knight
Super Zero
# 9415
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
quote:
Originally posted by DarkKnight:
Clearly you are not speaking from vast (or at least reflective) experience when you say that this will necessarily mean no confession of abuse is made.
Clearly.
I have no experience of the matter at all. How clever of you to tell that from an eleven line post.
I'm going to wear that and apologise. It was a stupid thing to say, and I regret it. As you indicated, it was a presumptious thing to say based on your post.
I stand by the rest of my post, however.
And what Erin said. And Zorro.
[ 01. May 2006, 11:37: Message edited by: DarkKnight ]
Posts: 2958 | From: Beyond the Yellow Brick Road | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nightlamp:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Surely if the Church required / allowed the seal of confession to be breached in the case of child abuse, then no child abusers would confess unless they were already resigned to giving themselves up anyway, so no abuse would actually be prevented?
Abusers can use the confession as a means of salving their conscience without facing up to the consequences. I think not telling people that seal of the confession could be broached would be a good way of capturing a few of them.
And how are you going to "not tell people" when it all comes to court and is made public, as is the function of courts?
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zorro
Shipmate
# 9156
|
Posted
I can't believe I'm doing this, but what Erin said here
quote:
If someone confesses to a priest but not to, you know, anyone who can actually do something about it, then the best possible spin you can put on it is that they're trying to ease their own guilty conscience.
Was what I was trying to say, allbeit in a less assertive manner. That's what I'd answer to GreyFace's post, but I'm aware I didn't make it very clear. If you are serious about confessing what you've done, then you've got to go to someone who can actually bring justice about-i.e the police. If you don't, then it's really just superficial to go and "confess," to someone who you know can't do anything about it.
--------------------
It is so hard to believe, because it is so hard to obey. Soren Kierkegaard
Well, churches really should be like sluts; take everyone no matter who they are or whether they can pay. Spiffy da wondersheep
Posts: 2568 | From: Baja California (actually the UK but that's where my fans know me from) | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
I'm going to be sorry I said this, but there ARE (ahem) WAYS of taking action without breaking the seal. Such as removing the offender from any post in the church, excommunication (if the person refuses to meet the conditions for absolution, such as turning himself in), and even, um, threatening to break the offender's arms, legs, or all of the above, if he doesn't immediately place himself in a position where he can do no further harm (ex. out of the home, etc.) Understand that I'm not RECOMMENDING this, but simply noting that in a few rare cases, it may be the only semi-effective thing to do. Even the authorities fall down on the job--frequently, in my experience.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Triple Distilled
Shipmate
# 11157
|
Posted
The people that hide these CRIMES are almost as bad as the perpetrators themselves. Why hide something that is so destuctive to others?? If someone had confessed before the fact of 911 to a priest, that they had been involved in planning and that, that was going to happen would you not of wanted the priest to say something ??
--------------------
Formerly known as Butler
I propose an Anglican compromise. We torture her, but infinitesimally slowly, so that everyone ends up confused.(Thanks Anna B)
Posts: 299 | From: adelaide australia | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Joan_of_Quark
Anchoress of St Expedite
# 9887
|
Posted
Is child sex abuse the ONLY reason the confession can be reported elsewhere (in those places where it can/must)? It seems to me there are other crimes with direct victims a person might confess and then carry on with -- drug dealers who deal to 12yr olds, people-traffickers, people battering their spouses, even parents physically abusing their children, who in this case are also both fairly powerless and generally trapped in the 'home' all the time with the perp.
Would the right response to some of these be: "OK, you've confessed this twice now. Clearly you need more help extricating yourself from this criminal drug gang - if you're serious about mending your ways at all. Which is it?"
The child abusers I knew best were low-church CofE, and individual confession was never mentioned in their milieu. If they had been born instead into RC families they would almost certainly have gone along to confession and other RC sacraments without a scrap of spiritual understanding just as they did to the CofE. I cannot imagine them confessing what they actually did - the pretence would be that all the abuse came under the heading of discipline and was therefore a good and biblically prescribed thing, yet at the same time they knew to keep some of it a secret from prying eyes (never bruise the face, tell the child which bits are to be kept secret). For this reason, as well as the oft-repeated statistic that child sex abusers are one of the most in-denial groups about their crimes, I'm wondering - Do priests who hear individual confessions get a lot of confessions of abuse?
--------------------
"I want to be an artist when I grow up." "Well you can't do both!"
further quarkiness
Posts: 1025 | From: The Book Depository | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nightlamp
Shipmate
# 266
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
And how are you going to "not tell people" when it all comes to court and is made public, as is the function of courts?
The chances of the priest who tipped off the police coming to court is remote since the evidence they have have would be minimal. The police would investigate the allegation and look for more concrete evidence.
The prosecution wouldn't bring a priest to court because the evidence wouldn't be worth very much and the defence aren't likely to call a priest who is going to say he confessed his guilt to me.
--------------------
I don't know what you are talking about so it couldn't have been that important- Nightlamp
Posts: 8442 | From: Midlands | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
I respect the RC position on this, though I am not a Roman Catholic. I would expect that turning oneself into the authorities would be a minimum penance before absolution. And I would expect the priest to remove such a person from all positions of responsibility within the church.
However, I can not accept that a priest should pronounce absolution without requiring this penance.
----
I would point out re the children abusing at age 10/11 - there is a good chance these children have learnt this behaviour from somewhere, they are not adults and probably are in need of specialist intervention.
That might include the involvement of the criminal justice system but it should also involve finding out how the behaviour evolved. Because that way, you may find adults in their immediate vicinity who are abusing a number of children.
I also think it is inappropriate to treat children as adults, you don't think these children are old enough to choose to leave school, marry, drink alcohol, drive, consent to sex etc. So if you can't hold them responsible for these acts I would argue it is unrealistic to take the level of responsibility for their anti-social behaviour that you expect of adults. Their brains have not even completed their physical development, some of them are not yet capable of full abstract thought.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
craigb
Shipmate
# 11318
|
Posted
G'day Double Think,
I agree that children should be treated differently, though the actions are vile.
I think the point was that some existing peodephiles started at that age, and so the rule was put into place, yet I would imagine for some children it could be a one off offense.
BLessings craig b
--------------------
Amazing grace! How sweet the sound
That saved a wretch like me!I once was lost, but now am found; Was blind, but now I see... The Lord has promised good to me,His word my hope secures;He will my shield and portion be,As long as life endures.
Posts: 993 | From: Tahmoor | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
musician
Ship's grin without a cat
# 4873
|
Posted
quote:
So if you can't hold them responsible for these acts I would argue it is unrealistic to take the level of responsibility for their anti-social behaviour that you expect of adults. Their brains have not even completed their physical development, some of them are not yet capable of full abstract thought.
Maybe not Doublethink.
However, the effect on their victims will be the same, so there is no place for "aw the pet, (s)he just didn't know it was wrong, (s)he's only learning.
Sorry, that doesn't wash. Any child aged 11/12 that I've met (I've been a teacher of primary aged kids since dinosuars roamed the earth) has a pretty clear idea of right and wrong. If they haven't got that, then in most (if not all) cases, they have had additional support needs of one kind or another. It goes without saying that it's absolutely not OK to imply/suggest that these kids are abusers per se - not that I'm suggesting for a moment that you did.
I
Posts: 1569 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
musician
Ship's grin without a cat
# 4873
|
Posted
quote:
yet I would imagine for some children it could be a one off offense.
On what evidence? Abusers seem to have an unbreakable belief that they are doing no wrong, so there is a high prevalence of re-opffending.
Posts: 1569 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
musician
Ship's grin without a cat
# 4873
|
Posted
![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
I do apologise. In the reply to Doublet, there should be " after "(s)he's only learning.
The "I" at the end is another goof.
Posts: 1569 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Joan_of_Quark
Anchoress of St Expedite
# 9887
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by musician:
quote:
So if you can't hold them responsible for these acts I would argue it is unrealistic to take the level of responsibility for their anti-social behaviour that you expect of adults. Their brains have not even completed their physical development, some of them are not yet capable of full abstract thought.
Maybe not Doublethink.
However, the effect on their victims will be the same, so there is no place for "aw the pet, (s)he just didn't know it was wrong, (s)he's only learning.
Sorry, that doesn't wash. Any child aged 11/12 that I've met (I've been a teacher of primary aged kids since dinosuars roamed the earth) has a pretty clear idea of right and wrong. If they haven't got that, then in most (if not all) cases, they have had additional support needs of one kind or another. It goes without saying that it's absolutely not OK to imply/suggest that these kids are abusers per se - not that I'm suggesting for a moment that you did.
I
Not my area of expertise (I just have some unwanted personal experience) but I am sure I've seen arguments that a lot of abusers start quite young, and that seriousness of offences escalates. Something about abuse (sexual or brutal) of animals being a major red flag for going on to abuse other children, and continue as an adult too.
I think we're right in saying it's more than likely there's an abusing adult or two in the vicinity that they are copying, and we need to find those people's other victims. Not, of course, that all children who are abused go on to do the same or similar things. Nor that some children don't occasionally come up with some extremely vile behaviours all by themselves.
--------------------
"I want to be an artist when I grow up." "Well you can't do both!"
further quarkiness
Posts: 1025 | From: The Book Depository | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
musician
Ship's grin without a cat
# 4873
|
Posted
quote:
but I am sure I've seen arguments that a lot of abusers start quite young, and that seriousness of offences escalates.
Hi Joan,
that's my point , it's in answer to this
quote:
In our dioscee it was mentioned that many abuses are being perpetuated by children as young as 10 - 12 years of age. And that even if a child did do this they would never be able to hold a position of trust within the Dioscee, such as minister etc.
from craigb.
I took his post to mean that abuse by a child should be ignored. I don't think it should for the reasons given.
Posts: 1569 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
I am not suggesting children don't know right from wrong, but I also know that one of the effects of abuse is that a small minority of children learn the behaviour and start to do it themselves - it behoves us to remember this. At what age do you feel a child behaving in a sexually inappropriate way becomes responsible and then fully responsible ?
At one time, the police in the UK used to treat children under 16 selling their bodies as criminals, and prosecuted for prostitution. Now they have recognised that these children are usually enticed into prostitution by an adult, and then makes money by exloiting them. Now they are treated as victims of crime and sexual abuse.
These children probably *know* that what they are doing is "wrong", in the sense that they know it is against the law, and their parents would be angry. But in my view, their cupability for prostitution is very different than that of an adult.
Is there any meaningful way of explaining to a 10 year old why masturbating a nine-year old is worse than punching them ? And you know how many children fight. A child growing up in a household where adults around them do either or both may know these things are wrong in a simple sense, as in against the rules, but they are unlikely to understand the full consequences of their behaviour for the victim or why this particular form of behaviour is more wrong than some other behavioru that is against the rules.
We expect adults to have a much more sophisticated understanding, and that would be why we give them more responsibility and hold them more accountable.
Personally, I believe the age of criminal responsibility in the UK (which is 10 or 14 depending on the crime) is too low.
[ 01. May 2006, 14:01: Message edited by: Doublethink ]
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
First, I think Ricardus make a valuable point: it's not actually clear whether a breakable seal of confession would lead to less abuse. I know we all can't really do that, but nevertheless, try to think what it must be like for a child abuser. You can't talk to anybody about this. Every single person in the world - except other child abusers, who are no help - is against you to the extent that they would happily see you drop dead. Certainly they will call the police as soon as they understand what you are saying. Except - for the priest. A person who is utterly bound to secrecy, who cannot do what every reasonable person must do. That's then somebody to talk to for a person who has become part of the darkest of hells. Now, I don't know how many child abusers are actually able to see their own depravity. Perhaps only a few. But I think those who actually seek absolution can still see what they are. Giving a point of contact that cannot hurt them may actually end up saving more of them - and thereby more children. Or maybe not, I don't know this, it's mere speculation. But it is a valid point to consider.
Second, I think I recall that Dark Knight is personally concerned by these matters. I'm not. But I've got a beautiful boy who just turned one year old. And it's quite clear that I will need to rely on childcare a lot. So, for the next 15 years or so, I will be praying and begging for what I'm worth that my beautiful son may not become the victim of one of these despicable predators. That, I'm sure, is not the same as having suffered already. But I'm saying what I say in at least theoretical comprehension that one day it might be the person who has raped my son - my son! - who is protected by the seal of confession. I'm fairly sure from experience that I can kill, and I'm sure I would want to kill then. But still, the position I've explained makes sense to me. There's something greater here than me, than my son, than all suffering of the world. There's God. And in the person of Christ, God is there for every man - every man, even if it's a man I wish to kill.
Third, the question whether a priest could not do this or that is taking the wrong approach. If a priest could do this or that, then he should send that piece of shit to jail. The point is precisely that he can't. Think of it as a prayer to God, just realized in the person of the priest. That's what confession is. The priest is nothing. The priest as human being can't hear and forgive sins. God hears and forgives sins. And revenge is God's prerogative. If you've always thought of priests as authority figures lording over the faithful, think of this. Priests are hereby required to frankly empty themselves of their very humanity, they must take this shit, and their hands are bound - they must be as Christ to all comers. Boy am I glad I don't have that job... The only thing a priest can impose here is what God asks for: true contrition. But you cannot break the seal even if the child abuser does not give himself up, is not really repentant. For you are in the position of God, and God waits with infinite patience for everybody's repentance. That's the deal. Not even God could pull this one off, if He hadn't actually been tortured, crucified, killed for this outrageous attitude. The only God that makes sense for this humanity is the one nailed to the cross. And sometimes I wonder if that was brutal enough...
Every time I think of things like these, one of my favorite pictures of Christ by Blessed Fra Angelico comes to mind. ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Joan_of_Quark
Anchoress of St Expedite
# 9887
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by musician:
that's my point
I was trying to agree with and develop. Sorry if that didn't come across right. I am dumbfounded by the idea that anyone would think this behaviour by a child might be harmless experimentation or some other one-off - like you said, how is that gonna feel different for the kid on the receiving end? I'd be pretty astonished if such a child (the perpetrator) ended up making a great priest, ESPECIALLY without some fairly strenuous intervention from the caring professions.
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
I am not suggesting children don't know right from wrong, but I also know that one of the effects of abuse is that a small minority of children learn the behaviour and start to do it themselves - it behoves us to remember this. At what age do you feel a child behaving in a sexually inappropriate way becomes responsible and then fully responsible ?
It's a tough one. I think at a minimum we can (almost) all agree that this behaviour is a signal that there is a SERIOUS problem here which needs attention immediately. I don't know if I agree with you about raising the age of criminal responsibility and all that - my own experience was that some kids are just Nasty Little Shits from the age of, oh, three or so - and I don't have much idea what to do about that. Some idea about the courts having some latitude to take an individual's circumstances and development into account - which I'd assume they already have - and that's about as far as I've got.
--------------------
"I want to be an artist when I grow up." "Well you can't do both!"
further quarkiness
Posts: 1025 | From: The Book Depository | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Oh I agree about the serious problem.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Joan_of_Quark
Anchoress of St Expedite
# 9887
|
Posted
IngoB, thankyou for posting pretty much the only explanation I can think of which would make it possible for me to understand the maintenance of secrecy here. However (I bet you knew there was going to be a however, right?) does the RC not keep some kind of non-identifying statistics or something so that we can tell how often this is going on? Is it just seen as not the point, since no matter how many paedophiles, or what percentage, go for absolution, the response has been deemed correct?
--------------------
"I want to be an artist when I grow up." "Well you can't do both!"
further quarkiness
Posts: 1025 | From: The Book Depository | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ReginaShoe
Shipmate
# 4076
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Is there any meaningful way of explaining to a 10 year old why masturbating a nine-year old is worse than punching them ? And you know how many children fight.
A bit of a tangent, but yes there is. My four-year-old son and seven-year-old daughter are very familiar with the variants of the phrase, "Her body belongs to her." (Substitute "his" or "my" as needed.) This in response to any unwanted or inappropriate physical attention. So they are both aware of the basic principle that each person should have ultimate say over what goes on with their body, and that some kinds of attention (even with what may seem like consent) are just not respectful of the other person's body.
Not that I am in total disagreement with your point, but it certainly is possible to teach young children about this in a meaningful way.
By the way, as I mentioned on a similar Purgatory thread and Lamb Chopped implied, are there ways of both protecting the child *and* the integrity of confession? Certainly in the ways the Lamb Chopped mentioned, but also perhaps a word in the ear of a non-offending parent or friend of the victim to get the victim to a counselor pronto? Without identifying the perpetrator or the specifics of the crime?
--------------------
"If you have any poo, fling it now." - Mason the chimp
Posts: 598 | From: Colorado | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
I accept that, but I imagine that theoretical child I described would not have the benefit of that kind of moral education.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Joan_of_Quark:
However (I bet you knew there was going to be a however, right?) does the RC not keep some kind of non-identifying statistics or something so that we can tell how often this is going on?
Frankly, I have no idea. I would be amazed though if there was anything official like that - not only for the reason you give, but also because it's hard to scramble this sort of information enough to make it not traceable at all. However, I speculate that there's some form of shared knowledge between priests about confessions. They need to deal with this, they need coping strategies. Perhaps a priest feels like answering?
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Paul.
Shipmate
# 37
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
the sacramental seal of confession is
inviolable. There is a very simple reason for this: the priest acts in the person of Christ in all sacraments, so here. As we can trust God to keep secret our worst sins and to forgive them if we truly repent, just so we must be able to trust the priest - if he's going to be Christ to us in this matter.
...
I appreciate that this may seem nonsensical without faith, but that's how it is.
I have to say, with all the respect I can muster for those who I know have a sincere faith, that I don't understand how one can place so much confidence in something which is a matter of faith, and therefore could be wrong, as to override that which one knows to be true. I'd have to be really sure that the priest really was acting as God in the sacrament to think it was ok for him not to aid the capture and incarceration of a dangerous criminal. How can one ever be that sure?
Posts: 3689 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gwai
Shipmate
# 11076
|
Posted
I agree t hat it's dangerous to be sure.
I think we just have to also remember that we wish to help save people as well as to rebuke them. Presumably, no one here would deny the need of doing both. I think we should remember we're mainly debating which order we do them in. I've not seen anyone here saying that they want a child abuser to go uncaught. But if priests Are policemen or just extensions thereof then I think that's too much.
I would say that if a priest hears such a thing, s/he should as mentioned above encourage the person to turn themself in. If they really refuse to do it then they are not trying to save themselves and the priest should turn the perpetrator in.
--------------------
A master of men was the Goodly Fere,
A mate of the wind and sea.
If they think they ha’ slain our Goodly Fere
They are fools eternally.
Posts: 11914 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Thread closed
Printer-friendly view
